FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Sign in if you feel the Patriots should be stripped of their titles. I am not sure how anyone can say their cheating did not help them at all. I feel bad for fans of the Rams, Eagles, and Panthers. You may or may not have won, but now you have to feel cheated as fans. All someone can ask for is a fair game. The Patriots actions disgust me. I have lost all respect for that organization.

Don't change your sig back to the way it was. TIA.J

 

[fatness]

Relevant content from NFL.com...

Matt Walsh's lawyer asks NFL to protect his client on Spygate tapes

Associated Press

(snip)

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

(snip)

You're a little late to the party with that article. It was posted earlier, as were the types of immunity offered by the NFL and the type of immunity sought by Walsh's lawyer. Neither side is talking about blanket immunity. The 2 different immunity clauses are on the right side of this page: ESPN articleA comparison of the 2 different immunity clauses was posted earlier in this thread from PFT, and is repeated below:

As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

In other words, Walsh's lawyer wants indemnification from telling the NFL what he knows, handing over any evidence he has, having the Patriots say "he's lying", and have the NFL say "the Patriots say you're lying so there's no protection for you." He's wisely trying to avoid being set up.

 

[fatness]

What Mr. Spector, and others, need to realize is that the Commissioner is the ultimate authority on all issues NFL.

You're kidding, right?

Okay, not all issues, but most. He obviously doesn't negotiate contracts with individuals, but he has the power to nulllify they if they don't meet the league standards. Obviously there are situations where owners are the authority. But, on issues such as this one, he's the man. Arlen Spector can pretend he has jurisdiction, and may even try to grandstand, but at the end of the day it's a private sector business, with a neutral commissioner as the ultimate arbiter of league rules.

That's not all of it. This is my understanding of how and why Congress can get involved. The NFL has a broadcast license which involves them conducting true athletic competitions. They have an antitrust exemption which allows the leagues as a whole to negotiate broadcasting contracts instead of each team doing it separately. Those things are not internal NFL matters. If there is cheating going on that affects the outcome of games, then they aren't true athletic contests, and they begin to fall into a different area of entertainment like professional rasslin', which isn't true sports (outcomes in rasslin' are predetermined; yes, really). The government may want to look at the NFL's broadcast license and antitrust exemption in this case, and they can do it.

 

[AB in DC]

A comparison of the 2 different immunity clauses was posted earlier in this thread from PFT, and is repeated below:

As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

In other words, Walsh's lawyer wants indemnification from telling the NFL what he knows, handing over any evidence he has, having the Patriots say "he's lying", and have the NFL say "the Patriots say you're lying so there's no protection for you." He's wisely trying to avoid being set up.

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

 

[PMENFAN]

What Mr. Spector, and others, need to realize is that the Commissioner is the ultimate authority on all issues NFL.

You're kidding, right?

Okay, not all issues, but most. He obviously doesn't negotiate contracts with individuals, but he has the power to nulllify they if they don't meet the league standards. Obviously there are situations where owners are the authority. But, on issues such as this one, he's the man. Arlen Spector can pretend he has jurisdiction, and may even try to grandstand, but at the end of the day it's a private sector business, with a neutral commissioner as the ultimate arbiter of league rules.

That's not all of it. This is my understanding of how and why Congress can get involved. The NFL has a broadcast license which involves them conducting true athletic competitions. They have an antitrust exemption which allows the leagues as a whole to negotiate broadcasting contracts instead of each team doing it separately. Those things are not internal NFL matters. If there is cheating going on that affects the outcome of games, then they aren't true athletic contests, and they begin to fall into a different area of entertainment like professional rasslin', which isn't true sports (outcomes in rasslin' are predetermined; yes, really). The government may want to look at the NFL's broadcast license and antitrust exemption in this case, and they can do it.

If there's cheating going on that effects the outcome of games, you would have a point. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the information the Patriots got from the sidelines can be gleaned from many places. the issue was where the camera was, and it was in direct violation of a memo sent a year prior. It wasn't used to fix games. To have this effect teh outcome of games, we have to now say scouting teams effects the outcome of games, because some teams are better at scouting the teams. Where does it end? Congress will not pull the antitrust exemption, and it's debatable if it's even needed. It forces them onto their own network, sooner than planned. That'll show 'em. NFL and NFL II. They'd be the most watched channels on TV from August until January.

 

[fatness]

If there's cheating going on that effects the outcome of games, you would have a point. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the information the Patriots got from the sidelines can be gleaned from many places. the issue was where the camera was, and it was in direct violation of a memo sent a year prior. It wasn't used to fix games.

At what point does "unfairly affecting the outcome of games" become worthy of action --- I think that's the question. We're not talking about fixing games in the sense where one side is given large amounts of cash to take a dive. We're talking, potentially, about one team violating rules to an extent that it gives them an unfair advantage, outside the league rules, over the other team.At what point is honesty to customers affected? At what point are they misled into thinking they're watching a fair athletic contest when in fact they're watching a contest with a stacked deck? There is a possiblity that those points have already been reached, at least in some games. Until we actually know what was done and how often and by whom, we're not going to know for sure. And if the information is handed over to the NFL and then buried, either completely or in part, it'll be tough to ever know. Personally I'm glad Congress is involved. As bad as they are, they're just about the only entity that can prevent the NFL from hiding anything.

 

[GregR_2]

A comparison of the 2 different immunity clauses was posted earlier in this thread from PFT, and is repeated below:

As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

In other words, Walsh's lawyer wants indemnification from telling the NFL what he knows, handing over any evidence he has, having the Patriots say "he's lying", and have the NFL say "the Patriots say you're lying so there's no protection for you." He's wisely trying to avoid being set up.

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

This post is confusing the meanings of "truth" and "lie". Something TRUTHFUL would be factually correct. Something that is UNTRUTHFUL is not necessarily a LIE though. A lie would be an INTENTIONAL untruth. But if someone makes an erroneous statement in good faith, it isn't a lie. The NFL's offer's wording only protects Walsh if everything he says is TRUTHFUL. If he says something he believes to be true, but there is a factual error in it, the NFL's offer would not protect him anymore, even though he didn't lie about it as he believed he said the truth. As PFT pointed out, they could sue him just by disagreeing as to his version of events. They would just have to prove that something he said was wrong to void the agreement they offered him... not that he lied when he made the mistake.

So if you think anyone going after Walsh should have to prove in court that he lied -- told an INTENTIONAL untruth -- in order to sue him, then you should be taking Walsh's side in the disagreement. He is asking that he be protected as long as what he offers is in good faith (i.e. that he honestly believes it is the truth), and is willing to give up his protection if he offers something in bad faith (i.e. he believed it to be incorrect, or in short, lied). The NFL's offer does not give him that protection -- or at least that is the claim.

 

[fatness]

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

That's not the case under the NFL's indemnity offer. Suppose Walsh says "so and so ordered me to tape that walk-through". And 8 officials with the Patriots say "no he did not." There's no proof there --- there's one guy's version, and the team's version uttered by multiple people. The NFL can choose to say "well, 8 people say you're lying so we're not protecting you" and bang, Walsh gets sued by the Patriots. Even if he's telling the truth.

 

[Road Warriors]

A comparison of the 2 different immunity clauses was posted earlier in this thread from PFT, and is repeated below:

As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

In other words, Walsh's lawyer wants indemnification from telling the NFL what he knows, handing over any evidence he has, having the Patriots say "he's lying", and have the NFL say "the Patriots say you're lying so there's no protection for you." He's wisely trying to avoid being set up.

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

This post is confusing the meanings of "truth" and "lie". Something TRUTHFUL would be factually correct. Something that is UNTRUTHFUL is not necessarily a LIE though. A lie would be an INTENTIONAL untruth. But if someone makes an erroneous statement in good faith, it isn't a lie. The NFL's offer's wording only protects Walsh if everything he says is TRUTHFUL. If he says something he believes to be true, but there is a factual error in it, the NFL's offer would not protect him anymore, even though he didn't lie about it as he believed he said the truth. As PFT pointed out, they could sue him just by disagreeing as to his version of events. They would just have to prove that something he said was wrong to void the agreement they offered him... not that he lied when he made the mistake.

So if you think anyone going after Walsh should have to prove in court that he lied -- told an INTENTIONAL untruth -- in order to sue him, then you should be taking Walsh's side in the disagreement. He is asking that he be protected as long as what he offers is in good faith (i.e. that he honestly believes it is the truth), and is willing to give up his protection if he offers something in bad faith (i.e. he believed it to be incorrect, or in short, lied). The NFL's offer does not give him that protection.

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side. If he is telling the truth, and can prove he's telling the truth ( and I certainly hope he has some proof for his story ) why does he fear reprisal under the NFL conditions?

 

[Road Warriors]

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

That's not the case under the NFL's indemnity offer. Suppose Walsh says "so and so ordered me to tape that walk-through". And 8 officials with the Patriots say "no he did not." There's no proof there --- there's one guy's version, and the team's version uttered by multiple people. The NFL can choose to say "well, 8 people say you're lying so we're not protecting you" and bang, Walsh gets sued by the Patriots. Even if he's telling the truth.

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

 

[fatness]

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side.

No, he's clearly not asking for protection if he tells an intentional lie. Quote repeated from above:

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

If what Walsh says can't be "proven" to be true, and what the Patriots say to rebut it (for example) can't be "proven" to be true, the question is whether he gets protected or not.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side.

No, he's clearly not asking for protection if he tells an intentional lie. Quote repeated from above:

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

If what Walsh says can't be "proven" to be true, and what the Patriots say to rebut it (for example) can't be "proven" to be true, the question is whether he gets protected or not.

I'm afraid your opinion is going to have to receive some corroboration from third party legal voices until I believe anything other than Walsh is asking for inordinant protection as a deliberate means to not having to put his cards on the table.

 

[GregR_2]

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side.

No, he's clearly not asking for protection if he tells an intentional lie. Quote repeated from above:

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

If what Walsh says can't be "proven" to be true, and what the Patriots say to rebut it (for example) can't be "proven" to be true, the question is whether he gets protected or not.

I'm afraid your opinion is going to have to receive some corroboration from third party legal voices until I believe anything other than Walsh is asking for inordinant protection as a deliberate means to not having to put his cards on the table.

His post was to quote a third party legal voice on the issue, and restate what that person said. What more corroboration from third party legal voices are you expecting?

 

[Tau837]

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side.

No, he's clearly not asking for protection if he tells an intentional lie. Quote repeated from above:

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

If what Walsh says can't be "proven" to be true, and what the Patriots say to rebut it (for example) can't be "proven" to be true, the question is whether he gets protected or not.

I'm afraid your opinion is going to have to receive some corroboration from third party legal voices until I believe anything other than Walsh is asking for inordinant protection as a deliberate means to not having to put his cards on the table.

His post was to quote a third party legal voice on the issue, and restate what that person said. What more corroboration from third party legal voices are you expecting?

I have no idea why some of you think you are going to change SeniorVBDStudent's stance on this until the facts are ultimately resolved. You might as well

 

[GregR_2]

If what he has to say can't be proven true, I'm already questioning it. While you talk about telling something untruthful that he believes is true, the opposite is also true... he is asking for protection from telling an intentional lie, because while proving something is not true may be possible, proving someone "believes it to be true" is not provable from either side.

No, he's clearly not asking for protection if he tells an intentional lie. Quote repeated from above:

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

If what Walsh says can't be "proven" to be true, and what the Patriots say to rebut it (for example) can't be "proven" to be true, the question is whether he gets protected or not.

I'm afraid your opinion is going to have to receive some corroboration from third party legal voices until I believe anything other than Walsh is asking for inordinant protection as a deliberate means to not having to put his cards on the table.

His post was to quote a third party legal voice on the issue, and restate what that person said. What more corroboration from third party legal voices are you expecting?

I have no idea why some of you think you are going to change SeniorVBDStudent's stance on this until the facts are ultimately resolved. You might as well

Oh, I don't think I'm going to change his stance. Just making sure other readers didn't buy the attempt to paint a third party lawyer's opinion on the matter as just fatness' opinion.

 

[fatness]

I'm afraid your opinion is going to have to receive some corroboration from third party legal voices until I believe anything other than Walsh is asking for inordinant protection as a deliberate means to not having to put his cards on the table.

The guy who wrote that text at PFT is a lawyer. So there you go.

 

[Filthy]

I have no idea why some of you think you are going to change SeniorVBDStudent's stance on this until the facts are ultimately resolved. You might as well

I'm beginning to see that if you had video of Bill Belichick video taping the 01 Rams walkthrough and Kraft adjusting the lighting, SeniorVBDStudent's response would be something along the lines of 'So, the didn't use it' or 'it couldn't have affected the outcome of the game'. IMO, same mentality that let O.J. get away with murder. Some people are just TOO loyal sometimes.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I have no idea why some of you think you are going to change SeniorVBDStudent's stance on this until the facts are ultimately resolved. You might as well

I'm beginning to see that if you had video of Bill Belichick video taping the 01 Rams walkthrough and Kraft adjusting the lighting, SeniorVBDStudent's response would be something along the lines of 'So, the didn't use it' or 'it couldn't have affected the outcome of the game'. IMO, same mentality that let O.J. get away with murder. Some people are just TOO loyal sometimes.

I'll give your camp credit; you consistently endeavor to draw comparisons with the essence of spygate with murder, mayhem, and the dark side of humanity.Reminds me of what happens to you when you chew bubblegum in Singapore.

 

[GregR_2]

Just heard an interesting perspective on another message board of some potential fall out from all of this, a perspective which I haven't seen anyone else mention yet:

I [the other poster] also think it would throw a very big wedge into the owners' plans on optingout of the current labor agreement. I simply cannot fathom the NFL goingthrough this potential scandal and then choosing to piggy back it with laborstrife. That would be almost suicide.

I hadn't given any thought to this, but it does seem like an area of concern for the owners. If they get into a prolonged battle with the union that could turn into a strike or lockout, the league would want the public's good will for things like bringing in replacement players and putting pressure on the players to be reasonable / give in.If the league suffers a big black eye from the alleged SB taping, and a much bigger one than from Spygate, I can't imagine it would help their position. I'm sure the NFL is concerned about the league's image, but I wonder if they've thought of the ramifications this could have on the labor issue specifically.

 

[rascal]

Not a problem as long as you also strip the 70s Steelers, and 90s Cowboys dynasties of their titles. Since they were all cheaters also: steroids/illegal stealing of signals as Jimmy Johnson admitted.

and add the Bronco's and 49'ers(?) who lost draft pick(s) when they got caught cheating on the cap

You need to read some more on the Denver situation. It's been stated numerous times that their situation did not result in a competitive advantage.

You need to read some more on the New England situation. It's been stated numerous times that their situation did not result in a competitive advantage.

Can you please show where I said it did?

 

[switz]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

Teams don't change the PLAYBOOK, they change the code to get to the plays. Temas have explained that they have some sort of numbering system that changes from quarter to quarter and the defensive captain then looks on a cheat sheet on his wrist to decipher what play it is. So the plays are exactly the same, only the coding system makes it much more difficult to intercept and translate.

Exactly - so changing your code for all those plays would be mind boggling...

 

[switz]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?You do realize he's a golf pro who would materially benefit by increasing his name recognition?Why is it that it's OK to presume Belichick's motivations, but not Walsh's?Food for thought.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?You do realize he's a golf pro who would materially benefit by increasing his name recognition?Why is it that it's OK to presume Belichick's motivations, but not Walsh's?Food for thought.

 

[switz]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on...

You do realize he's a golf pro who would materially benefit by increasing his name recognition?

You do realize that as a golf pro he probably makes as much as he made as a videotape assistant, or scout for the Pats, don't you? And that him knowing stuff about the PAts says NOTHING about his golf ability, and won't have ANY positive impact in that environment. And that coming forward about the PAts basically eliminates any possible future opportunities in the NFL for him, right?

Why is it that it's OK to presume Belichick's motivations, but not Walsh's?

Presume Belichick's motivations? What do you mean? What possible 'innocent' motives could Belichick possess for taping his opponents? There's no presumption there... it's evident.Again, what realistic wrong motives could Walsh have? And you know what, even if his motives are bad, if he was working for the Pats and made the tape, back when he was in their good graces, his motives have nothing to do with the Pats cheating...

 

[Road Warriors]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA./speculation

 

[Road Warriors]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on was fired for cause...

Lets not be disingenuous about this part.

 

[switz]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on was fired for cause...

Lets not be disingenuous about this part.

Any evidence he was fired? I've heard conflicting reports.

 

[GregR_2]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA./speculation

If that were a concern it seems like the NFL and his attorneys could agree on a provision where he can use the tape to defend himself in a court of law, but not sell it, share it, leak it, etc. I haven't really seen any reasoning on behalf of either side that sounds like it isn't reasonable and that should be enough it would stop a deal from being able to get done.

 

[Road Warriors]

I understand your point, but there is a problem on the other side of the equation, too. Walsh could say exactly the same thing, be lying, and under the conditions he wants, walks away clean. And we're no closer to the truth.Thats the problem with this witness. Can he prove what he says? If he can't, what value does his story have?

Here's the rub... why on earth would he lie? He's not going to get money, because he can't use this info to blackmail the PAts. And even if that were his intentions, why wouldn't he have done it before now?I just don't see any motive for lying... it makes no sense.

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA./speculation

If that were a concern it seems like the NFL and his attorneys could agree on a provision where he can use the tape to defend himself in a court of law, but not sell it, share it, leak it, etc. I haven't really seen any reasoning on behalf of either side that sounds like it isn't reasonable and that should be enough it would stop a deal from being able to get done.

You would think so, but I haven't heard any real progress on negotiating the conditions under which Walsh will talk. All I've heard is both sides digging in their heels on the conditions that are acceptable to them.

 

[Road Warriors]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on was fired for cause...

Lets not be disingenuous about this part.

Any evidence he was fired? I've heard conflicting reports.

Any link to differing reports? I haven't seen any as yet.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on was fired for cause...

Lets not be disingenuous about this part.

Any evidence he was fired? I've heard conflicting reports.

Any link to differing reports? I haven't seen any as yet.

He may be referring to Walsh's attorney's denial that Walsh was terminated, in part, for unauthorized survellence activity (i.e. taping Pioli).

 

[fatness]

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***

Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.

Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.

Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.

So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA.

/speculation

I found the quote you mentioned. Boston.com article

The lawyer for Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee who has hinted he has tapes that could prove damaging to the team, including one of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002, said his client will turn over those tapes to the NFL if the league will agree to indemnify Walsh as long as he tells the truth.

"He's willing to provide the materials to the NFL, but I need the ability to keep a copy so that I can defend him against allegations that he didn't tell the truth," said Washington-based attorney Michael Levy.

Nothing there about selling anything.

 

[Road Warriors]

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***

Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.

Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.

Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.

So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA.

/speculation

I found the quote you mentioned. Boston.com article

The lawyer for Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee who has hinted he has tapes that could prove damaging to the team, including one of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002, said his client will turn over those tapes to the NFL if the league will agree to indemnify Walsh as long as he tells the truth.

"He's willing to provide the materials to the NFL, but I need the ability to keep a copy so that I can defend him against allegations that he didn't tell the truth," said Washington-based attorney Michael Levy.

Nothing there about selling anything.

Pretty sure that if the speculative scenario above was the plan of attack for Walsh, he wouldn't be advertising it to the press before he gets his immunity deal sealed.

 

[GregR_2]

*** Warning -- rampant speculation ***

Why would he lie? Here's a theory that jives with the current facts.

Walsh wants imdemnity if he acts in good faith, which many will agree means that if he lies and it can't be proven that he lied, he is covered. Before getting slammed, I also understand it means that under the offered NFL conditions, if he tells the truth and can't prove its the truth, he may be open to lawsuit. I get that.

Now, the other aspect of the conditions the NFL has set forth, returning all materials he may have obtained that are property of the club ( ie. any tapes he has ) has been widely ignored here. I saw a quote from Levy, the atty for Walsh, that was arguing that this condition was also unacceptable, his reason being that he would need the tape as evidence against any action against his client.

So the theory goes like this... Walsh plans to tell that he was commissioned to tape the walkthrough. He can't prove it was authorized, but the indemnity he wants covers him on that. Next, once this has full public attention, he sells the tape he was able to keep under the second condition he wants waived to a TMZ or other such scandal rag. He has already received his indemnity, and now gets to cash in. Prior to this Spygate, all he had was blackmail material that was squashed under an NDA.

/speculation

I found the quote you mentioned. Boston.com article

The lawyer for Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee who has hinted he has tapes that could prove damaging to the team, including one of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002, said his client will turn over those tapes to the NFL if the league will agree to indemnify Walsh as long as he tells the truth.

"He's willing to provide the materials to the NFL, but I need the ability to keep a copy so that I can defend him against allegations that he didn't tell the truth," said Washington-based attorney Michael Levy.

Nothing there about selling anything.

Thus the "speculation" part.

 

[fatness]

Pretty sure that if the speculative scenario above was the plan of attack for Walsh, he wouldn't be advertising it to the press before he gets his immunity deal sealed.

True. It's also pretty sure the NFL wouldn't agree to a loophole in the indemnity agreement that would allow Levy, Walsh, or anyone associated with them to sell anything.

 

[yabahos]

You do realize the person in question was terminated by the Patriots, don't you?

And? So what, he worked for them and moved on was fired for cause...

Lets not be disingenuous about this part.

Any evidence he was fired? I've heard conflicting reports.

from this ESPN Article In the winter of 2002-03, Walsh said he was fired by Patriots vice president for player personnel Scott Pioli, and then spent a year on the video staff of the Cologne Centurions in now-defunct NFL Europe. Walsh says he was frustrated with the monotony of the scouting job in New England -- he focused on the few football-playing colleges in western New York -- and that may have been a factor in his dismissal.

from the recent article with the idemnity clauses

"The National Football League and any and all of its affiliates (the "League"), on behalf of itself and the New England Patriots and any and all of its affiliates (the "Patriots"), agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Mr. Walsh harmless from and against all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, fines, expenses, deficiencies, taxes, and reasonable fees and expenses of counsel and agents, including but not limited to any costs incurred responding to any investigation, inquiry, or proceeding or in the course of enforcement of this agreement, which may be sustained by Mr. Walsh arising out of, related to or connected with, directly or indirectly, (i) the employment of Mr. Walsh by the Patriots and any actions undertaken by him in the course of his employment, (ii) the taking or retention by Mr. Walsh of any information, documents or other materials that may be deemed to belong to (or constitute or contain confidential information or trade secrets of) the League or the Patriots, or (iii) any disclosure by Mr. Walsh of any such information, documents or materials to any person or entity, including the alleged untruthfulness in that disclosure absent bad faith on the part of Mr. Walsh ("Claims"). The League and the Patriots also fully and finally release and forever discharge Mr. Walsh from any and all Claims that the League or the Patriots may now have, have ever had, or may have, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, related in any way to the matters described above. The League and the Patriots are aware that, under the law of certain jurisdictions, a release may not extend to certain claims that a person does not know or suspect exist at the time when the release is executed. To the greatest extent permissible, the League, on behalf of itself and the Patriots, expressly waives the benefit of those laws and acknowledges that it intends this release to extend to the full extent described. Neither the League nor the Patriots will institute, maintain, prosecute, or authorize to be commenced any action or other proceeding against Mr. Walsh either in law or equity based in whole or in part upon any of the foregoing."

Having been involved in some contract negotations I'd be surprised if you would find a lawyer that would agree to this idemnity clause. Its very broad and opens the NFL and Pats up to protecting Walsh for a lot of stuff as long as Walsh can tie it back to his testimony some how. It would be really hard to accept given that presumably the NFL hasn't seen the tape. In fact, as I type this, I wouldn't be suprised if something isn't worked out between the parties where the NFL gets to see whatever it is that Walsh has. Maybe a few snipets to wet the whistle and find out if its the real deal.

About the only time I've seen something like this get accepted is when a small company wants to do business with a big company. Like a company that makes odometers trying to get its foot in the door with a company like Ford or GM. Basically the large company says these are terms accept them or we'll find someone that will. While the feds and Spectre are clearly on Walsh's side I don't think Walsh is the Ford or GM in this scenario.

 

[AB in DC]

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

This post is confusing the meanings of "truth" and "lie". Something TRUTHFUL would be factually correct. Something that is UNTRUTHFUL is not necessarily a LIE though. A lie would be an INTENTIONAL untruth. But if someone makes an erroneous statement in good faith, it isn't a lie. The NFL's offer's wording only protects Walsh if everything he says is TRUTHFUL. If he says something he believes to be true, but there is a factual error in it, the NFL's offer would not protect him anymore, even though he didn't lie about it as he believed he said the truth. As PFT pointed out, they could sue him just by disagreeing as to his version of events. They would just have to prove that something he said was wrong to void the agreement they offered him... not that he lied when he made the mistake.

You're splitting hairs. If Walsh honestly says "I believe X", he is still being truthful even if X didn't happen. The only way that the immunity is broken is if someone can prove that Walsh is not being honest when he says "I believe X" -- in other words, that he committed perjury.There is no practical difference between "being truthful" and "not lying".

 

[AB in DC]

Anyone going after Walsh would still have to prove that he was lying to Goodell to overcome the legal immunity. Immunity can't just be taken away like some cash on a string. If there's a signed agreement, it is binding unless it can be proven that it's been broken.

That's not the case under the NFL's indemnity offer. Suppose Walsh says "so and so ordered me to tape that walk-through". And 8 officials with the Patriots say "no he did not." There's no proof there --- there's one guy's version, and the team's version uttered by multiple people. The NFL can choose to say "well, 8 people say you're lying so we're not protecting you" and bang, Walsh gets sued by the Patriots. Even if he's telling the truth.

There's no "we". There's a signed agreement. It's not the NFL's decision whether to enforce a signed agreement or not -- it would be the court's decision, if there was any evidence of perjury.

 

[Thumper]

This is the single most overblown story in the history of sports.

Every team from Pop Warner to the NFL tries to steal signals. The Patriots were stupid about it and got caught, but I'd bet my life that every team in one way or the other does the same thing.

 

[fatness]

There's no "we". There's a signed agreement. It's not the NFL's decision whether to enforce a signed agreement or not -- it would be the court's decision, if there was any evidence of perjury.

If the NFL contends Walsh is lying, I don't think you're right. If the NFL or the Patriots contends that Walsh is lying, their proposed indemnity protection would not apply. The NFL's proposed indemnity protection for Walsh:

This will confirm that, subject only to the limited conditions set forth below, neither the National Football League, nor the New England Patriots, nor any of their affiliates will initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings against Mr. Walsh for the truthful disclosure to Senator Specter or his staff or to the League of facts of which Mr. Walsh may have become aware while employed by the Patriots. This commitment extends to the disclosure of factual information that might otherwise be deemed confidential or a trade secret. In return, you have confirmed that Mr. Walsh will share with the League office the same information that he shares with the Senator or his staff, and that he will do so at about the same time that he speaks with the Senator and/or his staff.

"The commitment is conditioned upon Mr. Walsh's promptly returning to the League Office, after he has been interviewed by Senator Specter or his staff, any and all documents or other items that he may have taken improperly from the Patriots during the period of his employment there, or which are otherwise the property of the Patriots, and his confirming, in writing, that all such documents or items have been returned. If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful, the commitment not to initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings referred to above shall extend to the improper removal of any items that are returned.

I don't see anything there at all preventing the NFL or Patriots from saying Walsh is lying and suing him. Even if Walsh would eventually prevail in court, it'll exhaust him financially to do so.

 

[Road Warriors]

There's no "we". There's a signed agreement. It's not the NFL's decision whether to enforce a signed agreement or not -- it would be the court's decision, if there was any evidence of perjury.

If the NFL contends Walsh is lying, I don't think you're right. If the NFL or the Patriots contends that Walsh is lying, their proposed indemnity protection would not apply. The NFL's proposed indemnity protection for Walsh:

This will confirm that, subject only to the limited conditions set forth below, neither the National Football League, nor the New England Patriots, nor any of their affiliates will initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings against Mr. Walsh for the truthful disclosure to Senator Specter or his staff or to the League of facts of which Mr. Walsh may have become aware while employed by the Patriots. This commitment extends to the disclosure of factual information that might otherwise be deemed confidential or a trade secret. In return, you have confirmed that Mr. Walsh will share with the League office the same information that he shares with the Senator or his staff, and that he will do so at about the same time that he speaks with the Senator and/or his staff.

"The commitment is conditioned upon Mr. Walsh's promptly returning to the League Office, after he has been interviewed by Senator Specter or his staff, any and all documents or other items that he may have taken improperly from the Patriots during the period of his employment there, or which are otherwise the property of the Patriots, and his confirming, in writing, that all such documents or items have been returned. If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful, the commitment not to initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings referred to above shall extend to the improper removal of any items that are returned.

I don't see anything there at all preventing the NFL or Patriots from saying Walsh is lying and suing him. Even if Walsh would eventually prevail in court, it'll exhaust him financially to do so.

Claiming something isn't truthful and proving it isn't truthful are different animals, IMO. The clause reads "If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful" For that clause to be invalidated, you would need proof that the disclosure was not truthful. So, the "in good faith" argument covers Walsh if he tells something that isn't true, but he believes it to be. Even if it can be proven as not true.

It would seem that Walsh is concerned that what he plans to say may be proven untrue.

If Walsh were to claim that Belichick authorized the tape, and Belichick signs an affidavit that he did not, would that be considered proof in a court, enough to invalidate the indemnity contract?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

There's no "we". There's a signed agreement. It's not the NFL's decision whether to enforce a signed agreement or not -- it would be the court's decision, if there was any evidence of perjury.

If the NFL contends Walsh is lying, I don't think you're right. If the NFL or the Patriots contends that Walsh is lying, their proposed indemnity protection would not apply. The NFL's proposed indemnity protection for Walsh:

This will confirm that, subject only to the limited conditions set forth below, neither the National Football League, nor the New England Patriots, nor any of their affiliates will initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings against Mr. Walsh for the truthful disclosure to Senator Specter or his staff or to the League of facts of which Mr. Walsh may have become aware while employed by the Patriots. This commitment extends to the disclosure of factual information that might otherwise be deemed confidential or a trade secret. In return, you have confirmed that Mr. Walsh will share with the League office the same information that he shares with the Senator or his staff, and that he will do so at about the same time that he speaks with the Senator and/or his staff.

"The commitment is conditioned upon Mr. Walsh's promptly returning to the League Office, after he has been interviewed by Senator Specter or his staff, any and all documents or other items that he may have taken improperly from the Patriots during the period of his employment there, or which are otherwise the property of the Patriots, and his confirming, in writing, that all such documents or items have been returned. If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful, the commitment not to initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings referred to above shall extend to the improper removal of any items that are returned.

I don't see anything there at all preventing the NFL or Patriots from saying Walsh is lying and suing him. Even if Walsh would eventually prevail in court, it'll exhaust him financially to do so.

Claiming something isn't truthful and proving it isn't truthful are different animals, IMO. The clause reads "If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful" For that clause to be invalidated, you would need proof that the disclosure was not truthful. So, the "in good faith" argument covers Walsh if he tells something that isn't true, but he believes it to be. Even if it can be proven as not true.

It would seem that Walsh is concerned that what he plans to say may be proven untrue.

If Walsh were to claim that Belichick authorized the tape, and Belichick signs an affidavit that he did not, would that be considered proof in a court, enough to invalidate the indemnity contract?

Exactly. Walsh vs BB is just he said, he said, but Pioli has already stated other employees will testify that Walsh was terminated in part for secretly taping a Pioli / Walsh conversation.

 

[fatness]

Claiming something isn't truthful and proving it isn't truthful are different animals, IMO. The clause reads "If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful" For that clause to be invalidated, you would need proof that the disclosure was not truthful.

I think you're still misunderstanding this.Walsh gives the NFL his information. He says it's true.The Patriots say it is untrue.He said/they said.The Patriots sue Walsh. Walsh incurs massive legal expenses.There's nothing preventing that in the indemnity agreement the NFL offers. It can happen whether he's telling the truth or not. If the Patriots contend he's not telling the truth, they contend the agreement does not cover him.It's a stacked deck. Which, unfortunately, some people want.

 

[fatness]

If Walsh were to claim that Belichick authorized the tape, and Belichick signs an affidavit that he did not, would that be considered proof in a court, enough to invalidate the indemnity contract?

My understanding is that the Patriots would not have to go to court to invalidate the agreement. They could just sue Walsh, saying he was not truthful (on the basis of Belichick's affadavit in the hypothetical situation you describe). Then he'd have to defend himself, and spend time and money to try to get the suit thrown out (since he would contend that he's truthful and is covered by the agreement). Neither Belichick's word oir Walsh's word would be "proof" in and of itself. But Belichick's word would be enough to allow the Patriots and/or NFL to sue him. And they have way more resources than he does to fight court battles.

 

[Road Warriors]

Claiming something isn't truthful and proving it isn't truthful are different animals, IMO. The clause reads "If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful" For that clause to be invalidated, you would need proof that the disclosure was not truthful.

I think you're still misunderstanding this.Walsh gives the NFL his information. He says it's true.The Patriots say it is untrue.He said/they said.The Patriots sue Walsh. Walsh incurs massive legal expenses.There's nothing preventing that in the indemnity agreement the NFL offers. It can happen whether he's telling the truth or not. If the Patriots contend he's not telling the truth, they contend the agreement does not cover him.It's a stacked deck. Which, unfortunately, some people want.

What I think you're saying is that they can bring him to to court over the validity of the indemnity agreement ( ie. did he violate that clause in the agreement ), not that they can take him to court on the confidentiality agreement from his termination. I can see that. But, I think, that would be true of Walsh's request, also. It would just be MUCH harder to be find he violated the indemnity agreement if the "in good faith" clause is in effect.

 

[Filthy]

I guess I'm a little confused how some people (seemingly those that are desperate to believe BB/Patriots aren't guilty) don't see the NFL's/Patriots actions for what they are; character assassination. Someone comes forward to offer proof and the PR machine steps up to say 'who? Oh you mean the guy that got fired for taping conversations?' While not as bad, it's like bringing up the sexual history of a rape victim. What's really laughable is that Bill Belichick of all people are in on the

character smear! Crassic.

That as well as Bill Belichick saying 'he couldn't pick him out of a lineup' when to listen to former NFL players checking on radio talk shows stating that practices are BASED around the camera's position. Also, that there's a close relationship to the camera guy (usually only 1 or 2 guys videotaping) and the players/coaches. These are NFL insiders who are calling BS on Belichick's assertion he doesn't know the guy and hardly film anything.

 

[AB in DC]

I think you're still misunderstanding this.Walsh gives the NFL his information. He says it's true.The Patriots say it is untrue.He said/they said.The Patriots sue Walsh. Walsh incurs massive legal expenses.There's nothing preventing that in the indemnity agreement the NFL offers. It can happen whether he's telling the truth or not.

Except that NO IMMUNITY AGREEMENT in the history of immunity agreements protects someone from lying as part of the "immune" testimony. That's not a stacked deck. That's a fact of life. Roger Goodell can scream "liar" till he's blue in the face, but unless he can prove it in court, the immunity still applies to anything covered under Walsh's testimony.

 

[AB in DC]

Here's the misunderstading, I think.

Immunity agreements cover any law (or contract) that may have been broken (past tense) based on evidence provided in the testimony

Immunity agreements DO NOT cover laws/contracts being broken (present tense) in the course of the testimony itself, aka perjury.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I guess I'm a little confused how some people (seemingly those that are desperate to believe BB/Patriots aren't guilty) don't see the NFL's/Patriots actions for what they are; character assassination. Someone comes forward to offer proof and the PR machine steps up to say 'who? Oh you mean the guy that got fired for taping conversations?' While not as bad, it's like bringing up the sexual history of a rape victim. What's really laughable is that Bill Belichick of all people are in on the

character smear! Crassic.

That as well as Bill Belichick saying 'he couldn't pick him out of a lineup' when to listen to former NFL players checking on radio talk shows stating that practices are BASED around the camera's position. Also, that there's a close relationship to the camera guy (usually only 1 or 2 guys videotaping) and the players/coaches. These are NFL insiders who are calling BS on Belichick's assertion he doesn't know the guy and hardly film anything.