Arthur Blank releases a statement (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

I figured there weren't enough Falcons posts going on today

Arthur Blank just released a statement, that's worded ultra-carefully:

We know you’re anxious to hear more from us regarding the indictment of Michael Vick

and its implications to the Falcons. Pleased be assured that we are working diligently on

exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation.

This is an emotionally charged and complicated matter. ere are a wide range of interests

and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to

respect the due process that Michael is entitled to. Also, this situation affects everyone – our

club, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community among

them – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t

make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this

club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility.

In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

I personally interpret this to mean..."We're looking into exercising our Out clause in Michael's contract but aren't sure if we have the legal right to do so before giving him his due process."What do you think?

 

[Edrondol]

I figured there weren't enough Falcons posts going on today

Arthur Blank just released a statement, that's worded ultra-carefully:

We know you’re anxious to hear more from us regarding the indictment of Michael Vick

and its implications to the Falcons. Pleased be assured that we are working diligently on

exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation.

This is an emotionally charged and complicated matter. ere are a wide range of interests

and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to

respect the due process that Michael is entitled to. Also, this situation affects everyone – our

club, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community among

them – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t

make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this

club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility.

In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

I personally interpret this to mean..."We're looking into exercising our Out clause in Michael's contract but aren't sure if we have the legal right to do so before giving him his due process."What do you think?

I think it's saying, "We want to keep our star as long as possible but don't want to take a PR hit keeping him."Everyone is saying that they're going to wait on the judicial system for him where if it were someone else of lesser ability I believe they would cut them loose.

-Dave

 

[trader jake]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

 

[Diabolic]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

You are 100% correct.

 

[domh]

New coach, uncertain ownership, perfect opportunity to ditch Vick with the minimum amount of fan impact (there will still be considerable impact but this is the best chance of minimising it). I think that they must be looking at it and asking their lawyers to give them an opinion on what their options are.

Given their current position in the league they have to decide on a new future for their team and that might not be with Vick even without this rather sorry business. If he was not a "superstar" sport stud but instead an ordinary player he would be dropped very quickly - Tank Johnson in Chicago is an example - the Bears could have waited for due process and not gotten rid of him and nobody would have critisised them (I know he already had a number of strikes but dog fighting takes you to the top of the criminal class in my book).

Bottom line for the Falcons is whether Vick is around in 2008 and 2009, whatever they decide for this season it is already a write off as Vick's trial will probably not happen until mid-season given the legal posturing that can take place. If he was not a certaintity before this all flared up then I reckon he will be gone pretty quick, it just depends on who decides to stand up first, the Falcons or the Commissioner

 

[mad sweeney]

This is the phrase that seems most important to me:

Also, this situation affects everyone – ourclub, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community amongthem – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions

Sponsors and customers. This to me makes it clear that this will be a business decision and if they get enough sponsors and customers calling for Vick's head then that's what he'll give them. Not what's best for the team, but what's best for those whose dollars support the team. There's very little in ths statement to make any conclusions, but this coupled with 'looking into the legal aspects' lead me to believe they are looking to get Vick's name away from the Falcons' name to minimize PR disasters. If Vick's actions cause defamation to the team, then that gives him cause to drop the hammer on Vick. Just my read. But the word 'customers' seemed very telling.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

Kind of a side topic - I heard on the radio today that 99% of Federal indictments wind up with a conviction. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Jason Wood]

Kind of a side topic - I heard on the radio today that 99% of Federal indictments wind up with a conviction. Any thoughts on that?

Jeff...you misheard that stat. It's 95% of federal indictments GO TO TRIAL. Big difference obviously.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Kind of a side topic - I heard on the radio today that 99% of Federal indictments wind up with a conviction. Any thoughts on that?

That's correct. Something like 95% are pled out, and of the other 5% they convict 4 out of 5 - hence 99%.

 

[Bri]

Blank is and has been extremely furious

Not sure what exactly "sent him over the edge", but there's a level of disgust and anger that is more than the general public has been saying about this whole ordeal. Some is natural or a normal reaction, Blank's...this is more, alot more anger and disappointment and all.

If punishment is necessary/conviction, I would not be surprised if Goodell doesn't know what to do by the time Blank's done with Vick. Really, he's THAT angry

 

[Jason Wood]

Kind of a side topic - I heard on the radio today that 99% of Federal indictments wind up with a conviction. Any thoughts on that?

That's correct. Something like 95% are pled out, and of the other 5% they convict 4 out of 5 - hence 99%.

These 95% and 98% numbers are being bandied about all over the internet and radio.According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the conviction rate is 90%; still REALLY high

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm#Prosecution

 

[phthalatemagic]

More of the same here, but I think he is saying "We are passing the buck and are going to allow the US Justice system determine if he is going to be playing football or not"

 

[joffer]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

You are 100% correct.

not a bad statement given the current circumstances

 

[Jason Wood]

More of the same here, but I think he is saying "We are passing the buck and are going to allow the US Justice system determine if he is going to be playing football or not"

I think that's absolutely not what it says...he could've said that matter-of-factly, much as Roger Goodell did.

 

[phthalatemagic]

More of the same here, but I think he is saying "We are passing the buck and are going to allow the US Justice system determine if he is going to be playing football or not"

I think that's absolutely not what it says...he could've said that matter-of-factly, much as Roger Goodell did.

When the guy talks about due process, that's how I'm adding it up. Just because he could be been blunt doesn't mean he meant something else becuase he wasn't.

 

[John Mamula]

I figured there weren't enough Falcons posts going on today

Arthur Blank just released a statement, that's worded ultra-carefully:

We know you’re anxious to hear more from us regarding the indictment of Michael Vick

and its implications to the Falcons. Pleased be assured that we are working diligently on

exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation.

This is an emotionally charged and complicated matter. ere are a wide range of interests

and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to

respect the due process that Michael is entitled to. Also, this situation affects everyone – our

club, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community among

them – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t

make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this

club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility.

In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

I personally interpret this to mean..."We're looking into exercising our Out clause in Michael's contract but aren't sure if we have the legal right to do so before giving him his due process."What do you think?

That is not standing behind Vick.

Vick

 

[David Yudkin]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

 

[Jason Wood]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

 

[John Mamula]

More of the same here, but I think he is saying "We are passing the buck and are going to allow the US Justice system determine if he is going to be playing football or not"

I think that's absolutely not what it says...he could've said that matter-of-factly, much as Roger Goodell did.

exactly. i agree with the other poster when he mentioned sponsors and all their customers. and rightfully so. there is going to be such a financial pushback by sponsors and season ticket holders that blank will have to dump vick.i hope he stays until week 1 as i would love to see vick go on the road and watch hilarity ensue.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I think he's saying 'This sucks, I'm annoyed to be in this position, I want to be fair, but my instinct is to his eject.'

Talking about the fans and community tells me he already knows the way this is going to likely go -- he is goingto take a PR (and financial) hit. He knows long term the fans are what will keep him and the franchise functioning. Fan support is clearly not going to stay if Vick is convicted.

It's not like this is a DUI or he got caught in a bar fight where nobody was seriously hurt - Fed indictment is pretty serious.

I think he's essentially asking for patience while he grapples with the best and fairest way to save the franchise's butt.

 

[az_prof]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I think you are on to something. This is not uncommon in the work force--police who are being investigated for wrong doing, for example. Blank would look good to the public and he would keep his options with Vick open. I just can't see Vick suiting up for any team until this is all concluded; it will be a PR nightmare and it will affect fan support for the team.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I think you are on to something. This is not uncommon in the work force--police who are being investigated for wrong doing, for example. Blank would look good to the public and he would keep his options with Vick open. I just can't see Vick suiting up for any team until this is all concluded; it will be a PR nightmare and it will affect fan support for the team.

I was just in an email discussion where I was saying this - the financial hit of Vick on a playing field could be devastating to ATL and even the league. If public outrage keeps building (and we are nearing an election year, right?) people will go to advertisers and pressure them to pull sponsorship. Vick may make the league alot of money, he could lose them as much very quickly. This has happened in TV more than once - the American dollar will neccesitate Vick being on the sideline at some point. Blank knows it.I can only assume Goodell does as well.

 

[David Yudkin]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

 

[Lash]

this was the part i thought most important ...

"...we are working diligently on exploring our options ..."

translation ... 'how can we drop this rat bastage yet still not be held liable for a signing bonus AND get the least cap penalty possible'

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

You hit the nail right between the eyes...

 

[mad sweeney]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

That's the best way I see it as well. No matter what, he's a distraction to the team, on the field with his teammates and in the stands and kiosks. Blank said he can't keep everyone happy no matter what. So he folds to the pressure of geting him off the field without opening himself to any lawsuits and after a conviction can go back to get the money from Vick. It's as close to a win win situation as can happen in this circumstance. It seems like the most legally sensible thing to do. And he only has to point to the fact that he already will miss day 1 of TC because of this. Can't plaease everyone and if he gets convicted then those millions of dollars people are disgusted with him getting will fly right back out of his pocket faster than he gets fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

Exactly. I'm actually quite suprised this hasn't happened yet. This would calm the circus in the short term, and in the future they could deal with it more drastically once things get ironed out. I don't see any other way to handle this without a side being PO'd.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Translation:

I want the fans to know I am taking this matter seriously, but I need time to examine the facts, likely wait for the court date at the start of camp, and then make an informed decision instead of a rash emotional decision.

 

[LHUCKS]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

ditto

 

[amnesiac]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

this isn't nearly as satisfying as firing him, but this is likely how it needs to play out for everyone involved.

 

[suchislife]

I figured there weren't enough Falcons posts going on today

Arthur Blank just released a statement, that's worded ultra-carefully:

We know you’re anxious to hear more from us regarding the indictment of Michael Vick

and its implications to the Falcons. Pleased be assured that we are working diligently on

exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation.

This is an emotionally charged and complicated matter. ere are a wide range of interests

and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to

respect the due process that Michael is entitled to. Also, this situation affects everyone – our

club, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community among

them – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t

make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this

club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility.

In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

I personally interpret this to mean..."We're looking into exercising our Out clause in Michael's contract but aren't sure if we have the legal right to do so before giving him his due process."What do you think?

That is not standing behind Vick.

Vick

I agree. There's no mention about "standing behind Michael" or "we consider Michael innocent until proven guilty". Blank doesn't even wish him luck or offer support. I think that's very telling.

 

[Bri]

More of the same here, but I think he is saying "We are passing the buck and are going to allow the US Justice system determine if he is going to be playing football or not"

I think that's absolutely not what it says...he could've said that matter-of-factly, much as Roger Goodell did.

exactly. i agree with the other poster when he mentioned sponsors and all their customers. and rightfully so. there is going to be such a financial pushback by sponsors and season ticket holders that blank will have to dump vick.

Fans can be very forgiving once a player makes a great play. For example, NY had a time where there were alot of athletes that were arrested or tested positive or whatever and LT, Strawberry, and Gooden were (more or less) still very popular. While people wanted it to change, it really didn't much.

 

[Stealthycat]

Also, this situation affects everyone – ourclub, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community amongthem – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

translation IMO they want to make all the Falcons and NFL fans happy - and almost all of those people HATE Vick right nowVick will likely never take another snap in the NFL

 

[Bri]

Vick may make the league alot of money, he could lose them as much very quickly. This has happened in TV more than once - the American dollar will neccesitate Vick being on the sideline at some point. Blank knows it.I can only assume Goodell does as well.

Not necessarily. The public is always ready for the next big sports star. IF Vince Young is exciting and a winner in 07 it's more like a shift from Vick to Young. If Bush improves as expected, if Peterson is a superstud......you can go on and on, if there's a next big sports star in the NFL(and I think there is) then I doubt there's much $ changed.Ideally, it's an addition onto Vick's status but it's not a loss if another player's popularity/sales covers it and to me that seems very likely.

 

[Bri]

Vick will likely never take another snap in the NFL

Unless our justice system puts him away, yeah he will.

 

[Family Matters]

What strikes me is that Blank's blind love for Vick has left him in a "I just found out my wifes having an affair" like fog. Now before anyone suggests I'm comparing these events well please don't. Blank is such a huge fan of Vick that he'll take his word for whatever Vick says. I think he's beginning to realize that Vick lied to him and that he's in a whole lot of trouble.

I'm sure Blank being a good business owner thought about what he'd do if Vick failed to perform up to expectations. But I doubt he could of imagined this. I think that's why he's remained silent so long and has failed to say anything meaningful. He simply can't believe this is happening.

 

[Big Talker]

I figured there weren't enough Falcons posts going on today

Arthur Blank just released a statement, that's worded ultra-carefully:

We know you’re anxious to hear more from us regarding the indictment of Michael Vick

and its implications to the Falcons. Pleased be assured that we are working diligently on

exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation.

This is an emotionally charged and complicated matter. ere are a wide range of interests

and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to

respect the due process that Michael is entitled to. Also, this situation affects everyone – our

club, our players and associates, our sponsors, our fans and the Atlanta community among

them – so we must consider all of our customers in making any decisions.

Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t

make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this

club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility.

In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

I personally interpret this to mean..."We're looking into exercising our Out clause in Michael's contract but aren't sure if we have the legal right to do so before giving him his due process."What do you think?

The last paragraph is also telling:In the meantime, know that I’m saddened and distressed about this – not for myself, but for

our fans and community who have been so loyal to us. We will do our very best to continue

to earn your support.

For whom is he saddened and distressed? Certainly not for Michael.

Unless Vick is completely exonerated (extremely unlikely), he has taken his last NFL snap. He'll never be able to live this down, and no sane NFL owner (okay, not Al Davis either) will ever allow this guy to become the face of his team.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Vick may make the league alot of money, he could lose them as much very quickly. This has happened in TV more than once - the American dollar will neccesitate Vick being on the sideline at some point. Blank knows it.I can only assume Goodell does as well.

Not necessarily. The public is always ready for the next big sports star. IF Vince Young is exciting and a winner in 07 it's more like a shift from Vick to Young. If Bush improves as expected, if Peterson is a superstud......you can go on and on, if there's a next big sports star in the NFL(and I think there is) then I doubt there's much $ changed.Ideally, it's an addition onto Vick's status but it's not a loss if another player's popularity/sales covers it and to me that seems very likely.

I should have been clearer -- I didn';t mean sidelines, playing -- I mean sidelines, as in not playing, a bystander.I guess I should have just said suspended rather than try to be clever.What I meant was - the money they might lose will necessitate him not being with the team any longer, whether suspended or let go or what have you. That they could lose more ad revenue having him playing than if they suspended him and then were wrong.Is that more clear? Words seem to be very difficult for me today. Me know understand why....

 

[Obie Wan]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

The Yudkin spin continues.Cutting Vick does not violate his rights. Cutting him does not deprive him of the ability to make a living. He can get a real job like most Americans. Too bad most employers won't hire him now because he is scum.The charges will not get less for Vick. The Feds have not even added the tax evasion, money laundering and RICO charges.The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

 

[BigRed]

He doesn't know what to do yet and needs more time and information before making a final decision. The exact same situation that the NFL finds itself in as well.

He had to say something even if it amounts to nothing...this was it.

Exactly - he didn't say a single thing in that statement.Woulda made a great gov't "manager"

 

[Doug Drinen]

The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

I hadn't thought of that. The court proceedings could get very ugly for Goodell here. After all, people don't give a crud about the fact that Vick broke the law; all they care about is that he harmed dogs. If he insinuates that other NFL players did the same --- and really, he must have seen some other players at these fights --- the NFL is going to have a big problem on its hands.

 

[jurb26]

The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

I hadn't thought of that. The court proceedings could get very ugly for Goodell here. After all, people don't give a crud about the fact that Vick broke the law; all they care about is that he harmed dogs. If he insinuates that other NFL players did the same --- and really, he must have seen some other players at these fights --- the NFL is going to have a big problem on its hands.

Why do I get the feeling that if other players where involved we would have heard something about it by now?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

The Yudkin spin continues.Cutting Vick does not violate his rights. Cutting him does not deprive him of the ability to make a living. He can get a real job like most Americans. Too bad most employers won't hire him now because he is scum.The charges will not get less for Vick. The Feds have not even added the tax evasion, money laundering and RICO charges.The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

The question isn't about cutting him - any player can get cut at any time without legal ramifications. The Chargers could cut Tomlinson tomorrow if they so chose. But simply cutting him costs the team the entire signing bonus he was given, not to mention the onerous cap charge they would have to take. Sure, they could suck it up, take the moral high ground, and "do what's right", but in doing so they would be doing the Falcons fans & sponsors a major disservice by crippling the team financially for the next 3-5 years.On the other hand, by suspending Vick with pay, it should satisfy the "Vick should never play again" crowd for the short term, and gives the team a chance to terminate the contract under detrimental rules and reclaim the prorated signing bonus and cap charges when/if a conviction/plea bargain comes down.

 

[Doug Drinen]

The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

I hadn't thought of that. The court proceedings could get very ugly for Goodell here. After all, people don't give a crud about the fact that Vick broke the law; all they care about is that he harmed dogs. If he insinuates that other NFL players did the same --- and really, he must have seen some other players at these fights --- the NFL is going to have a big problem on its hands.

Why do I get the feeling that if other players where involved we would have heard something about it by now?

Well, I'm sure they weren't involved at the level Vick was. But if Vick could rattle off a list of 20 names (which I bet he could) of NFL players who were there with him at the fights and maybe laying down a couple thousand dollars, that's very bad news for Goodell. Why haven't we heard about it yet? Because Vick hasn't yet felt motivated to go into "if I'm going down I'm taking everyone else down with me" mode.

 

[guderian]

I think Jason is 100% correct here.

"we are working diligently on exploring our options and getting the right people involved in this situation."

You don't need to explore options and get the right people involved if you are going to pursue the status quo. You do need to get people involved if you are going to try to get out of a contract and perhaps pursue other QBs.

"There are a wide range of interests and legal issues that need to be carefully considered as we move ahead, including our need to respect the due process that Michael is entitled to."

"Move ahead" and considering "legal issues" again implies they are pursuing a course of action that is legally sticky--which again implies getting out of Vick's contract. If they plan on keeping Vick, they don't have to "consider" legal issues, they just have to wait them out or try and predict them. Also note that he said that they need to respect his due process. They could have used a bunch of different words there, but went with "need".

"Given the differing perspectives and strong feelings around this issue, we probably won’t make everyone happy, but we are committed to doing the right thing. As the owner of this club that’s, ultimately, my responsibility."

He chose to use the phrase "doing the right thing" and noted that this is his ultimate responsibility. I don't see how sticking with Vick could be considered the right thing and satisfying his ultimate responsibility. However, getting rid of Vick would fit those phrases perfectly.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

I hadn't thought of that. The court proceedings could get very ugly for Goodell here. After all, people don't give a crud about the fact that Vick broke the law; all they care about is that he harmed dogs. If he insinuates that other NFL players did the same --- and really, he must have seen some other players at these fights --- the NFL is going to have a big problem on its hands.

Why do I get the feeling that if other players where involved we would have heard something about it by now?

Well, I'm sure they weren't involved at the level Vick was. But if Vick could rattle off a list of 20 names (which I bet he could) of NFL players who were there with him at the fights and maybe laying down a couple thousand dollars, that's very bad news for Goodell. Why haven't we heard about it yet? Because Vick hasn't yet felt motivated to go into "if I'm going down I'm taking everyone else down with me" mode.

You guys are crazy if you think Vick is the only NFL player involved in dog fighting. Maybe he's the "most" involved, but it could easily get embarrassing for the NFL if the number of players involved were made public. Look, high level, competitive athletes like to gamble. It keeps their competitive juices flowing when they're not on the field of play. From Paul Hornung to Pete Rose to Michael Jordan. And if you think Gretzky had nothing at all to do with that gambling ring, you're naive. Dog fighting is a form of gambling that, it seems, is popular with young, mostly black, athletes who have money and are very competitive. Think there are any people like that in the NFL?

 

[David Yudkin]

I've been suggesting the past two days that the best way to keep everyone happy (and legal) is for the Falcons to put Vick on a leaves of absence or team suspension with pay.

I'm not sure paying someone you are personally and professionally disgusted with millions of dollars despite getting no on-field return = keeping everyone happy.

Woodrow, Woodrow, Woodrow . . .You just don't get the way these things can work out.If the Falcons continue to pay Vick they cannot be assailed for failing to provide Vick with the right to make a living, not complying with his contract, or not meeting the terms of the CBA. It gets fans, sponsors, animal activists, etc. mostly what they want and gets the NFL and the Falcons some of what they want.When this goes to court and Vick pleads to a lesser charge and gets sentenced, the team can then use the conduct detrimental to the team clause to void his contract and sue for the money they paid him in salary and the prorated part of his signing bonus (80% of $37 million). And Vick's rights don't get violated at all and no one broke any rules.

The Yudkin spin continues.Cutting Vick does not violate his rights. Cutting him does not deprive him of the ability to make a living. He can get a real job like most Americans. Too bad most employers won't hire him now because he is scum.The charges will not get less for Vick. The Feds have not even added the tax evasion, money laundering and RICO charges.The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

What did I post that here that in any way, shape, or form gives Vick a free pass? I did not mention ANYWHERE about what would happen in the court side of things.Sure, the Falcons could release him and lose out on a $22 million cap hit and $30 million in real dollars for the loss of his signing bonus money. By continuing to pay him they can get all that money back later after he's convicted or cops a plea bargain.

 

[jurb26]

The only way Vick gets some lesser charge is if rats out a whole bunch of other his NFL high profile buddies, like Portis, who also gamble on dog fights.

I hadn't thought of that. The court proceedings could get very ugly for Goodell here. After all, people don't give a crud about the fact that Vick broke the law; all they care about is that he harmed dogs. If he insinuates that other NFL players did the same --- and really, he must have seen some other players at these fights --- the NFL is going to have a big problem on its hands.

Why do I get the feeling that if other players where involved we would have heard something about it by now?

Well, I'm sure they weren't involved at the level Vick was. But if Vick could rattle off a list of 20 names (which I bet he could) of NFL players who were there with him at the fights and maybe laying down a couple thousand dollars, that's very bad news for Goodell. Why haven't we heard about it yet? Because Vick hasn't yet felt motivated to go into "if I'm going down I'm taking everyone else down with me" mode.

You guys are crazy if you think Vick is the only NFL player involved in dog fighting. Maybe he's the "most" involved, but it could easily get embarrassing for the NFL if the number of players involved were made public. Look, high level, competitive athletes like to gamble. It keeps their competitive juices flowing when they're not on the field of play. From Paul Hornung to Pete Rose to Michael Jordan. And if you think Gretzky had nothing at all to do with that gambling ring, you're naive. Dog fighting is a form of gambling that, it seems, is popular with young, mostly black, athletes who have money and are very competitive. Think there are any people like that in the NFL?

I'm not saying that other players are not "involved." Only that there would have to be some sort of case made against them other than just Mike Vick, a proven liar already, saying so. The names of Vick's associates are clearly stated. I highly doubt the Feds are targeting NFL players for just being there. What good does that do them? Do you think they are looking to make an example of the NFL? That wouldn't make sense. They want the big players in this thing. Unless other NFL players are linked in that way, I don't see much else coming of it.

 

[Bri]

You guys are crazy if you think Vick is the only NFL player involved in dog fighting. Maybe he's the "most" involved, but it could easily get embarrassing for the NFL if the number of players involved were made public.

Maybe so but there's some event taking place that the general public may not know where it goes on, but knows it's going on. IE I know there's a poker game in my town on friday, no clue where but....Rooster(censor)fighting is illegal and goes on tooLaw and Order, The Shield, The Wire, NYPD Blue...ALOT of shows have had episodes that involved some form of dog fighting "ring". The other side to some of the Vick reactions is "cmon now." Not excusing it in any form whatsoever, but some of the utter shock is a bit much.Some of the local reaction of shock is akin to "wha? they were dealing that much drugs out of that house?" while cars and people go in and out all the time (wasted) at all hours." "I thought they were just scantilly clad females I didn't know they were hookers."Dog fighting is not quiet and often a prideful bragging thing. Much of the reactions on both sides have been unrealistic. As I said months ago-If someone wants reality watch or read about "Dealing with Dogs" the HBO Special and see just how much jail time+fines that SOB got for what he did to dogs. Then compare what he did to Vick. You WILL wind up thinking we do not have the laws in place to give Vick(if guilty) and his friends a strong enough punishment.

 

[Bri]

Vick may make the league alot of money, he could lose them as much very quickly. This has happened in TV more than once - the American dollar will neccesitate Vick being on the sideline at some point. Blank knows it.I can only assume Goodell does as well.

Not necessarily. The public is always ready for the next big sports star. IF Vince Young is exciting and a winner in 07 it's more like a shift from Vick to Young. If Bush improves as expected, if Peterson is a superstud......you can go on and on, if there's a next big sports star in the NFL(and I think there is) then I doubt there's much $ changed.Ideally, it's an addition onto Vick's status but it's not a loss if another player's popularity/sales covers it and to me that seems very likely.

I should have been clearer --

it was fine the first time man