LocimusPrime
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 34,091
- Reaction score
- 92,903
Zeke has the leverage. Exert as much pressure as you can on this.
Excellent post RealityIt comes down to this .. The wording included in the TRO ruling by the Judge has made it clear to the NFL that their assumption that the Brady ruling clearly defined their absolute power over player discipline without question was incorrect and more limited in scope than they expected.
The NFL now knows there is a chance that they not only lose this battle, more importantly, they also know they now risk having their Brady ruling limited all because they chose to fight a case that they grossly mishandled. If this had been a case they were more fair in their investigation and ruling procedures, they would not be as worried. However, because of the "unfair" aspect of their process, it has created a potential hole in the Brady ruling.
What this means is that the Brady ruling is strong, and in most cases, would hold up against anything a player or the NFLPA could throw at it. However, because judges are recognizing the NFL's process in this case was not handled fairly, it puts the Brady ruling at risk because this case could end up with a judge further defining and thereby limiting the scope of the Brady ruling against future cases, even ones where the NFL would have not had an issue beforehand. To be clear, this could happen even if the courts ultimately rule in the NFL's favor.
Think of it like this. Let's say your boss tells you that you are in charge of a project. If you don't ask your boss to define what "in charge" means, you can arbitrarily make decisions without hesitation and if questioned later, you can say, "You told me I was in charge!" However, if you ask your boss whether or not you can do something as part of being in charge and your boss says, "no", you have now limited your authority over the project.
This is obvious because the NFL immediately suspended Elliott after the Texas court filing was negated by the Appeals court, and now, after the new TRO ruling was announced along with the "unfair" process wording by the judge, suddenly the NFL is open to a settlement.
The smart move for the NFL is to offer to drop the 6-game suspension for domestic violence and and instead suspend him for 1 game for one of the other non-DV incidents such as the shirt-pulling incident. That way, the NFL gets their suspension and Elliott gets cleared of the DV both publicly and on his NFL record.
The smart move for Elliott would be to accept that deal because there is still a good chance he loses this case. Yes, it's not fair and yes, I know the case against Elliott for the other incidents is weak, but he knows he hasn't been perfect and has admitted as much, so accepting a 1-game suspension for something else other than DV would help put this whole ordeal behind him and get him closer to getting endorsements again at some point in the future.
That said, the smart move for the NFLPA is to encourage Elliott to decline any settlement offers by the NFL and fight this all the way through the courts. The reason is exactly why the NFL is likely concerned right now and that is they need to get that Brady ruling defined and tightly limited in scope, to help restrict the absolute power the NFL has and to help damage a key point of leverage the NFL has during the next CBA negotiations.
Should be zero games, but if a deal is made it should be:
1 game for his repeated poor judgement.
Completely cleared of DV charge and have that next time banned for life removed.
NFL admits to an unfair investigation process.
Lisa Friel gets fired.
Keep dreaming. NFL has 90% chance of winning in long run.
Keep dreaming. NFL has 90% chance of winning in long run.
It comes down to this .. The wording included in the TRO ruling by the Judge has made it clear to the NFL that their assumption that the Brady ruling clearly defined their absolute power over player discipline without question was incorrect and more limited in scope than they expected.
The NFL now knows there is a chance that they not only lose this battle, more importantly, they also know they now risk having their Brady ruling limited all because they chose to fight a case that they grossly mishandled. If this had been a case they were more fair in their investigation and ruling procedures, they would not be as worried. However, because of the "unfair" aspect of their process, it has created a potential hole in the Brady ruling.
What this means is that the Brady ruling is strong, and in most cases, would hold up against anything a player or the NFLPA could throw at it. However, because judges are recognizing the NFL's process in this case was not handled fairly, it puts the Brady ruling at risk because this case could end up with a judge further defining and thereby limiting the scope of the Brady ruling against future cases, even ones where the NFL would have not had an issue beforehand. To be clear, this could happen even if the courts ultimately rule in the NFL's favor.
Think of it like this. Let's say your boss tells you that you are in charge of a project. If you don't ask your boss to define what "in charge" means, you can arbitrarily make decisions without hesitation and if questioned later, you can say, "You told me I was in charge!" However, if you ask your boss whether or not you can do something as part of being in charge and your boss says, "no", you have now limited your authority over the project.
This is obvious because the NFL immediately suspended Elliott after the Texas court filing was negated by the Appeals court, and now, after the new TRO ruling was announced along with the "unfair" process wording by the judge, suddenly the NFL is open to a settlement.
The smart move for the NFL is to offer to drop the 6-game suspension for domestic violence and and instead suspend him for 1 game for one of the other non-DV incidents such as the shirt-pulling incident. That way, the NFL gets their suspension and Elliott gets cleared of the DV both publicly and on his NFL record.
The smart move for Elliott would be to accept that deal because there is still a good chance he loses this case. Yes, it's not fair and yes, I know the case against Elliott for the other incidents is weak, but he knows he hasn't been perfect and has admitted as much, so accepting a 1-game suspension for something else other than DV would help put this whole ordeal behind him and get him closer to getting endorsements again at some point in the future.
That said, the smart move for the NFLPA is to encourage Elliott to decline any settlement offers by the NFL and fight this all the way through the courts. The reason is exactly why the NFL is likely concerned right now and that is they need to get that Brady ruling defined and tightly limited in scope, to help restrict the absolute power the NFL has and to help damage a key point of leverage the NFL has during the next CBA negotiations.
My question is .does a deal effect his future promotional possibilitiesI would take the deal if it were this:
Two game suspension for conduct detrimental.
NFL MUST drop any mention of domestic violence. No counseling, or future possibilities of being banned for life.
Keep dreaming. NFL has 90% chance of winning in long run.
You bargain too softly.
If you go into this with a scorched earth mentality prior to taking it to the courts then the only reason to stop is if you will spare the enemy, but get everything you want.
As I mentioned about Goodell, he made a terrible mistake in that he backed his advisary into a corner. Always give your foe an out and see if they take it. If you back them into a corner then you're not likely to be able to handle what they are going to throw at you.
The same goes for EE. Don't back Goodell into a corner. Give him an out. But the out is that he doesn't have to take the stand and he can still be in the position to give punishment to other players.
So he should not have to serve a single second of a suspension.
Goodell should have to issue a public apology for the way this investigation was conducted.
In that apology Goodell should have to state that they no longer believe that EE abused TT nor did he violate the conduct policy towards females that a player has an intimate relationship with. This would include this issue and the St. Paddy's Day issue being wiped clean off his record and could not be used against him if there are any future violations.
Lisa Friel will be dismissed from her job.
The panel of Peter Harvey, Ken Houston, etc. will no longer be used by the NFL
A payment of each game check this season that EE was under the cloud of this crap will be awarded to EE (roughly 6 games).
And I'm being kind.
YR
Please cite your source on 90%.
When somebody has a 90% chance of winning in a court of law they don't start flirting with settlements.
(if these rumors about a settlement are true)
Nope. Zeke will win this if it goes all the way. What most of you are assuming is that is like the Brady investigation and it is not. NFL is squirming now because it is going from bad to worse as each day passes by.
His leverage is to get the NFL to work hard to put this behind them. Neither side will come out of this smelling like a rose. But the NFL has the greater leverage. I just don't think it neutralizes the bit Zeke has.