WALSH DEAL IS IN PLACE
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2008, 12:43 p.m.
The NFL has issued a statement regarding the status of negotiations with former Patriots employee Matt Walsh.
Basically, the negotiations are over, because a deal has been reached.
An agreement has been completed between the NFL and Matt Walsh that will allow Mr. Walsh, a former videotape operator with the New England Patriots, to share with the NFL information about activities occurring during his employment with the club from 1997-2003,” the statement reads.
Commissioner Roger Goodell will meet with Walsh in the league office on May 13.
The interview with Mr. Walsh will seek to determine whether he has any new information about that videotaping practice or other possible violations of league rules,” the NFL said. Under the agreement, Walsh must return any tapes or other items in his possession that belong to the team. The league and the Patriots have promised not to sue him. And the league and the Patriots “will indemnify him for any expenses, including legal fees that he incurs in connection with the interview.”
It’s unclear how far this commitment to indemnify Walsh goes; if he’s sued by, for example, Bill Belichick as a result of what Walsh tells Goodell, will the NFL and the Patriots cover Walsh financially?
After the May 13 meeting, there will be a news media briefing, which will be attended by Goodell.
The open question in all of this is whether Walsh will also have the ability to speak to the media or to Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). If the deal contemplates that Walsh will only speak to the league, then there are two potential explanations. First, Walsh is confident that he has enough information to prompt Goodell to take swift and stern action against the Patriots. Second, Walsh really doesn’t have anything and prefers not to be exposed as not having anything to a national television audience.
WE’VE GOT THE WALSH AGREEMENT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2008, 1:18 p.m.
Already, we have received a copy of the Matt Walsh agreement from two separate sources. Though we won’t be posting the full agreement (which is chock full of indecipherable mumbo-jumbo), we’ll be posting a stream of items that break down specific aspects of the deal.
For those of you (us included) with a touch of adult ADD, it’s the only way to make sense of it all.
So keep checking back for more nuggets about what the deal says — and more importantly what it means.
WALSH GETS ONGOING ACCESS TO HIS MATERIALS
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2008, 1:27 p.m.
One of the first things we noticed (and, after reading the language seven times, began to understand) regarding the Matt Walsh agreement is that, after Walsh surrenders to the league whatever tangible evidence that he has in his possession, he’ll still have access to it.
Under paragraph 1(b) of the agreement, Walsh’s lawyer may keep one copy of each “document” that is given to the league. Also, Walsh and his lawyer have the ability to inpect on request any “tangible property” that is surrendered to the NFL.
In other words, the suspicion held by some that the league will harvest Walsh’s documents and/or videotapes and/or any other hard evidence only to destroy the materials is erroneous. Walsh will be able to keep a copy of certain things, and he will be able to retrieve and inspect certain other things that he turns over.
That’s all for this entry. I’ve already got a headache from trying to figure out the agreement. And I’m only in paragraph 1.
Permalink | Comments Back to Top
WALSH WINS THE “TRUTH” SKIRMISH
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2008, 1:47 p.m.
During much of the legal impasse between the NFL and Matt Walsh, the sticking point was whether Walsh would be required to “tell the truth” in order to achieve and maintain protection against possible civil claims from the Patriots or any third party.
Walsh’s lawyer, Michael Levy, wisely pointed out that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If the Patriots were to disagree with the substance of Walsh’s account regarding, for example, whether the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI was videotaped or otherwise spied upon, the Pats could claim that he’s lying, and that he therefore isn’t entitled to any protections.
But Walsh could both be wrong and truthful. Indeed, ten people can witness a car accident, and then give ten different versions of what occurred. Each would be technically telling the truth, and yet each could be wrong about some aspect of what they remember seeing or hearing.
On this specific point, Walsh has prevailed; still, it was very prudent for the NFL to yield. The league’s prior position was unrealistic, and put Walsh unnecessarily at risk for a game of “gotcha.”
In paragraph 2 of the agreement, Walsh is required ”to provide the NFL full, complete and accurate information, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge.”
The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness.”
In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth.
Though it sounds Costanza-esque, this dynamic accounts for many of the disputes in witness testimony that arise every day in courts throughout the country. Sure, some of the witnesses are committing perjury. More often than not, however, the witnesses who provide incorrect testimony think they’re telling the truth, but simply are misinformed about what the truth really is.
: