|
|
Post by agcsbill on Apr 30, 2016 7:48:42 GMT -5
That's what it has all boiled down to at this point.
The ruling by the circuit court said nothing about the case against the Patriots and Brady being proved or correct. It was all about the power of the commissioner ( who used to work for a hated rival that continues to get spanked by the Patriots in the division) and what he can do per the CBA. At this juncture this is how the NFL will fight going forward. The NFL will no longer pursue it is correct in its conclusions regarding the PSI of the footballs (everyone and their uncle has shown their conclusion is wrong) and how they were manipulated by the team. Its stance is the commissioner has the "kingly" powers to do as he pleases as it pertains to the "integrity of the game". The more this drags on, the more news comes out it is all about Spygate, how the punishment in some owner's eyes was not enough and Deflategate was another shot at the Patriots. In other words, Spygate did not slow the Patriots down and the team kept on winning. Even after Deflategate, the team came within a missed extra point or so to get to the Super Bowl again! Oy, did that annoy some owners or what? The team HAS to be cheating somehow to keep winning in this parity era. The only reason the NFL wants to keep pursuing the suspension of Brady for 4 games is because some owners are pushing this agenda because they truly think this suspension will result in the Patriots missing the playoffs, potentially starting the season 0 - 4, and that is what they want more than anything.
The scheme is with the Colts in bed with the NFL not with Brady and the Patriots.
|
|
|
|
Post by philskiw on Apr 30, 2016 8:06:22 GMT -5
The whole deal has been fluid. I thought it was about the integrity of the game. Now it's sbout the union agreement. It's so Goodell can Neener Neener the Union, Kraft and BB. Brady was a vehicle for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on Apr 30, 2016 9:30:32 GMT -5
I think it's a bit inaccurate to weave this story together as if it was always about Spygate and Commissioner power.
Originally, it was simply about a potential scheme to flout the authority of the referees by deflating balls after the referees had approved them.
When the league determined that there was "more probably than not" an ongoing scheme to flout the authority of the referees by tampering with the balls after check in, the punishment of the team did take into account that the Patriots already had a history of defying the league's authority as demonstrated by Spygate; the punishment of Brady was simply what the Commissioner felt was proportionate to the violation and Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation.
Once Brady and the union challenged the Commissioner's punishment of Brady, it became about the Commissioner's (and the owners') power over the union and their employees.
So there's been an evolution, maybe, based on the events that have occurred. But to suggest Deflategate was from the beginning about Spygate and the Commissioner's powers is not really accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowfbiq on Apr 30, 2016 9:36:21 GMT -5
I think it's a bit inaccurate to weave this story together as if it was always about Spygate and Commissioner power. Originally, it was simply about a potential scheme to flout the authority of the referees by deflating balls after the referees had approved them. When the league determined that there was "more probably than not" an ongoing scheme to flout the authority of the referees by tampering with the balls after check in, the punishment of the team did take into account that the Patriots already had a history of defying the league's authority as demonstrated by Spygate; the punishment of Brady was simply what the Commissioner felt was proportionate to the violation and Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation. Once Brady and the union challenged the Commissioner's punishment of Brady, it became about the Commissioner's (and the owners') power over the union and their employees. So there's been an evolution, maybe, based on the events that have occurred. But to suggest Deflategate was from the beginning about Spygate and the Commissioner's powers is not really accurate. You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 30, 2016 12:52:23 GMT -5
The story about the owners getting back at Kraft and then Spygate didn't come from any Patriot
The NFL has facts but no proof
If the facts of this case were put in front of a jury it would be laughed out of Court. And even they admitted there is no direct proof. Just their hoakie narrative
The only thing that could change it is McNally and JJ
Someday they will be on 60 minutes or part of a defamation suit
For now the NFL is guilty
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 23:48:07 GMT -5
I think it's a bit inaccurate to weave this story together as if it was always about Spygate and Commissioner power. Originally, it was simply about a potential scheme to flout the authority of the referees by deflating balls after the referees had approved them. When the league determined that there was "more probably than not" an ongoing scheme to flout the authority of the referees by tampering with the balls after check in, the punishment of the team did take into account that the Patriots already had a history of defying the league's authority as demonstrated by Spygate; the punishment of Brady was simply what the Commissioner felt was proportionate to the violation and Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation. Once Brady and the union challenged the Commissioner's punishment of Brady, it became about the Commissioner's (and the owners') power over the union and their employees. So there's been an evolution, maybe, based on the events that have occurred. But to suggest Deflategate was from the beginning about Spygate and the Commissioner's powers is not really accurate. You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. Bam! |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 6:53:52 GMT -5
I think it's a bit inaccurate to weave this story together as if it was always about Spygate and Commissioner power. Originally, it was simply about a potential scheme to flout the authority of the referees by deflating balls after the referees had approved them. When the league determined that there was "more probably than not" an ongoing scheme to flout the authority of the referees by tampering with the balls after check in, the punishment of the team did take into account that the Patriots already had a history of defying the league's authority as demonstrated by Spygate; the punishment of Brady was simply what the Commissioner felt was proportionate to the violation and Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation. Once Brady and the union challenged the Commissioner's punishment of Brady, it became about the Commissioner's (and the owners') power over the union and their employees. So there's been an evolution, maybe, based on the events that have occurred. But to suggest Deflategate was from the beginning about Spygate and the Commissioner's powers is not really accurate. You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 12:00:22 GMT -5
You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) All those people who have won "wrongful termination" lawsuits would disagree with you. An employee must prove an "employer's bad faith, retaliation or malice. Second, the former employee must prove that he or she was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn." Do you ever get sick of being wrong? See MacKenzie v. Linehan, 158 N.H. 476, 480 (2009). |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 12:07:32 GMT -5
Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) All those people who have won "wrongful termination" lawsuits would disagree with you. An employee must prove an "employer's bad faith, retaliation or malice. Second, the former employee must prove that he or she was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn." Do you ever get sick of being wrong? See MacKenzie v. Linehan, 158 N.H. 476, 480 (2009). Look up "employment at will." Wrongful termination is the exception not the rule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 12:35:20 GMT -5
All those people who have won "wrongful termination" lawsuits would disagree with you. An employee must prove an "employer's bad faith, retaliation or malice. Second, the former employee must prove that he or she was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn." Do you ever get sick of being wrong? See MacKenzie v. Linehan, 158 N.H. 476, 480 (2009). Look up "employment at will." Wrongful termination is the exception not the rule. If I had said it was the rule you might have a point. You portrayed it as the employer being able to terminate for any reason other than discrimination. I proved you wrong, again. |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 12:45:49 GMT -5
Look up "employment at will." Wrongful termination is the exception not the rule. If I had said it was the rule you might have a point. You portrayed it as the employer being able to terminate for any reason other than discrimination. I proved you wrong, again. Next, look up the meaning of the word "generally" . . . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 13:20:47 GMT -5
If I had said it was the rule you might have a point. You portrayed it as the employer being able to terminate for any reason other than discrimination. I proved you wrong, again. Next, look up the meaning of the word "generally" . . . But businesses aren't "generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all". There are innumerable reasons an employer can't use to justify firing an employee. So, your little liar's game of trying to make the US look bad regarding labor law has been thwarted. |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 13:25:28 GMT -5
Next, look up the meaning of the word "generally" . . . But businesses aren't "generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all". There are innumerable reasons an employer can't use to justify firing an employee. So, your little liar's game of trying to make the US look bad regarding labor law has been thwarted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 13:55:44 GMT -5
But businesses aren't "generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all". There are innumerable reasons an employer can't use to justify firing an employee. So, your little liar's game of trying to make the US look bad regarding labor law has been thwarted. I could care less about your supposed HR acumen. Your statement was BS and I called you on it. Employers can't just fire people simply on a whim and be confident about getting away with it. I suspect nearly everybody posting here has worked with many many fellow employees and the number that get fired is very small indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 13:57:51 GMT -5
I'm sure you know everything Babe and you've never been wrong in your life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:08:12 GMT -5
A LOT less wrong than YOU, prostate0sphinctoid. I just proved that to be the case right here.
|
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 14:09:11 GMT -5
A LOT less wrong than YOU, prostate0sphinctoid. I just proved that to be the case right here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:13:35 GMT -5
A LOT less wrong than YOU, prostate0sphinctoid. I just proved that to be the case right here. And there you go; wrong again. I understand the law far better than you ever will. |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 14:53:17 GMT -5
Yeah, sure you do Babe.
|
|
|
|
Post by agcsbill on May 1, 2016 17:38:50 GMT -5
You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) WOW, Pro, have you crossed a BIG line with that statement!!!!! #1 - every time I look and read your replies in this forum, and elsewhere, regarding Deflategate, the more I would think you work for the NFL. Secondly, there are a lot of employees and court cases that make your second statement very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by PatsRule on May 1, 2016 17:55:53 GMT -5
The story about the owners getting back at Kraft and then Spygate didn't come from any Patriot The NFL has facts but no proof If the facts of this case were put in front of a jury it would be laughed out of Court. And even they admitted there is no direct proof. Just their hoakie narrative The only thing that could change it is McNally and JJ Someday they will be on 60 minutes or part of a defamation suit For now the NFL is guilty +zillions |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 18:32:15 GMT -5
Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) WOW, Pro, have you crossed a BIG line with that statement!!!!! #1 - every time I look and read your replies in this forum, and elsewhere, regarding Deflategate, the more I would think you work for the NFL. Secondly, there are a lot of employees and court cases that make your second statement very wrong. I suggest reading this Wikipedia entry. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment |
|
|
|
Post by agcsbill on May 1, 2016 18:47:25 GMT -5
WOW, Pro, have you crossed a BIG line with that statement!!!!! #1 - every time I look and read your replies in this forum, and elsewhere, regarding Deflategate, the more I would think you work for the NFL. Secondly, there are a lot of employees and court cases that make your second statement very wrong. I suggest reading this Wikipedia entry. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentUnderstand.. so that makes it right? |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 1, 2016 18:52:46 GMT -5
Understand.. so that makes it right? No, I think it's wrong. I've said many times that I think protections for labour in the US are far too light. I'm a Sanders kind of guy, you know. But I also know what the law is in the US . . . and it's not particularly labour-friendly. |
|
|
|
Post by pezz4pats on May 1, 2016 18:57:07 GMT -5
You are right there has been an evolution because there "HAD" to be. IF the NFL had the Pats dead to rights on what they proclaimed and lied about by jumping the gun with false information it would have never evolved. They would of had actual specific irrefutable proof that could not be challenged and proven wrong. No evolution required. Of course. But the NFL believes as a business it has a right under its CBA to discipline players and teams without 100% foolproof evidence of wrongdoing. Remember, in American labour law, businesses are generally allowed to fire employees for any reason at all (or for no reason at all) and at anytime, as long as they are not discriminating against particular classes of employees. It's hard to tell a business it can't punish an employee up to and including dismissal for whatever reason it wants, unless there is some kind of bargaining agreement or contract with the employee that prevents that. (In some states the law is a bit more protective of employees, but federal law really doesn't offer much protection.) Ugh The CBA is wrong. There has to be proof of wrongdoing in order to punish. The NFL has disregarded all the evidence to the contrary. Why would a fair and equitable process, not consider evidence? They know those GD balls loose pressure. Yet they ignore that as if it doesn't exist. They hid their own findings for chrissake. Goodell cannot be judge jury and executioner as moderation is supposed to be unbiased. Goodell made up shut, changed the goal post and was anything but unbiased as his authority was what was in question. Is this a third world organization, void of law and protocol? Employment at will is not a law, it's a doctrine adopted by employers because the employees are regarded as non contract workers. Even at will, there are laws and protocol to protect the employees. Management must follow specific protocol in order to terminate unless they want skyrocketing insurance and lawsuits. The NFL is not an at will employer. The employees are under contract and represented by the union. Still there is protocol and laws that need to be followed. In agreeing to the CBA, there was an assumption that Goodell wouldn't be a tyrant, running wild with power. That's their mistake and it will be corrected, if not now then in the next CBA. So, in this case 2 sets of judges differ in the legality of it. When Is absolute power, not absolute power? When it's abused. There has to be checks and balance,transparancy and fairness. Laws govern that. Too fckn bad for goody and his big stick.. He will lose and rightfully, so. |
|
