NFL: Saints Bounty Thread - Printable Version
+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 10-30-2012 02:40 PM
(10-30-2012 01:55 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Yes, allegedly, just like the Saints. Still, what is your take on the email? Two years after being fired and forcefully removed by police from the Saints headquarters, Cerullo suddenly volunteers handwritten proof that he somehow still possessed two years later. It was during his removal from the premises that he supposedly yelled at Vitt that he would get even with him for this (firing him). And, don't forget that Vilma's defamation suit claims that the documents Cerullo offered up were created well after the fact. In addition, he intimates that he will not present the information if it would get him in trouble and lets on he wants to get a job anywhere in the league. Sounds like he wanted to make a deal.
1. Yelling that he's "going to get even with Vitt" does not mean he manufactured evidence. Vitt may have actually been an asshole to him and treated him crap and he very well could have collected the evidence before he was fired, knowing that he may need something to get back at this guy who treats him badly if he does get fired. In other words, it could just be a legitimate case of karma coming back to bite Vitt for being a prick.
2. Cerullo is also smart enough to know that even though this evidence would burn Vitt and satisfy his want for revenge, it would also surely get many players, other coaches, and the entire Saints organization in really huge trouble. Maybe he still had friends there and didn't want to burn them too. Maybe he held on to the evidence until it was his last card to play. Maybe he learned that after trying to get back into football, members of the Saints organization were black-balling him every time they got a call from the prospective employer Cerullo was trying to get hired by and that finally outweighed any reason to hold the evidence any longer.
3. This may also be why it sounds like Cerullo is bargaining his way back into the NFL. Or, maybe the Saints really are black-balling him and he really just does want to be a couch in the NFL again. Maybe that's his lifelong dream and he legitimately has evidence that might help him, but just maybe he doesn't want to use it if it gets others in trouble (something he may be very reluctant to do) and does nothing to help him.
4. Vilma's defamation suit has to be proven. He and his lawyers have to PROVE that Cerullo lied. Just because they filed the suit doesn't mean Cerullo is guilty of forging documents and lying. The burden is on Vilma, not Cerullo. And just maybe this suit is nothing more than a tactic that Vilma's lawyer came up with because he wants to give a shot and beating it. As any good attorney would do because he's getting paid to try.
But guess what, guilty people always claim everyone else is lying. And Vilma, not Cerullo, might just be the liar here.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-30-2012 02:43 PM
(10-30-2012 02:18 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I hope you enjoyed your vacation. You keep expounding on the same issues which have been discussed until we are sick. The supposed $10,000 was public knowledge and may have been a part of a Williams motivational ploy as we (minus you, of course) discussed days ago.
You def had some bottled up feelings towards Beef. Snarky remarks....anywho
The league approved this about 20 years ago right...lol. Goodell wasn't commish and Aiello is just a spokesman so I dont see how this has any bearing. Shouldn't you want Tags back because of this???
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-30-2012 02:45 PM
(10-30-2012 02:22 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Of course they don't. But the guy had spent the two previous years trying to get a job in the league and had supposedly even claimed that Payton and Vitt had black-balled him. He doesn't appear to be very bright.
But you said he was trying to bargain his way into a job...so can you acknowledge that that point is irrelevant?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-30-2012 02:47 PM
(10-30-2012 02:31 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I respect that. But, it only makes sense that I am going to believe the stories of some of the most respected players and coaches in the entire league over the stories of a known liar and a crazy ex-defensive coordinator (allegedly).
Whats the difference between a known liar and an unknown liar?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-30-2012 02:50 PM
(10-30-2012 02:45 PM)ATLBound Wrote: But you said he was trying to bargain his way into a job...so can you acknowledge that that point is irrelevant?
No, it is very relevant. It gives him even more motive to lie and present false information. The guy was delusional enough to even bring it up so he probably felt the NFL could get him a job even though we both know better. But, then again, what if the NFL strung him along in the email reply?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-30-2012 02:53 PM
Here"'s my thing...
Just because he may have cried wolf falsely twice before, it doesn't mean his cry for wolf the 3rd time is false. His character is shot definitely, but this aint Aesop's fables. If he goes to court and under oath tells the same story and everything matches up, then this whole thing is done.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-30-2012 02:53 PM
I would say the known liar has been caught lying, while the unknown liar has not been caught, to date. You can't tell the difference between a truthful person and an unknown liar, but a known liar has a past that will never go away.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-30-2012 02:56 PM
(10-30-2012 02:53 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Here"'s my thing...
True. But if he wasn't telling the truth a good lawyer could rip his story to pieces in court and I believe that will happen. And don't say that the NFL had good lawyers because they were not trying to rip his story apart. They wanted to believe him.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-30-2012 02:57 PM
(10-30-2012 02:50 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No, it is very relevant. It gives him even more motive to lie and present false information. The guy was delusional enough to even bring it up so he probably felt the NFL could get him a job even though we both know better. But, then again, what if the NFL strung him along in the email reply?
He's been in the circles of the NFL before. He damn well knows the NFL offices have nothing to do with that. The "deal" he was looking for is confidentiality.
Now the league probably realized that Cerullo had no way out and advised him it can't be promised but can be attempted because they knew he would give up the info anyway. The response probably shows a side of negotiation that Aiello doesn't want known but nothing shady I believe.
You can tell by Goodell's reluctance to give up any information when this thjng first started.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-30-2012 02:59 PM
(10-30-2012 02:43 PM)ATLBound Wrote: You def had some bottled up feelings towards Beef. Snarky remarks....anywho
It has enough bearing to be presented into evidence by the NFLPA and Ginsburg so despite our beliefs, they feel it has bearing.
Oh, and if you had been called some of the things that I have been called by Beef, you might be snarky, as well.