(12-11-2012 05:08 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  Sigh...Guido still fighting. Heres the breakdown:

3. Vilma did pledge 10k as evidence shows, but unsure of intent.

(12-11-2012 05:09 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  Tagliabue doesn't represent Goodell. He is of counsel at a law firm that represents Goodell and the NFL. That doesn't make Goodell "his client." I was in court this morning representing a client. That doesn't mean lawyers at my firm who have never met that client suddenly represent them. That's not how legal representation works.


You said he "stated as much." Sorry to hold you to your own words. Perhaps you should choose them more carefully.

(12-11-2012 05:14 PM)Peyton Wrote:  You should read what Tagliabue said very closely. It's very interesting.

(12-11-2012 05:12 PM)Peyton Wrote:  Wow, that is the most fascinating part of today's statement. Unbelievable considering all the information to the contrary the NFL has been trying to get out there.

(12-11-2012 05:11 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No, Tags said there was no evidence of bounties, but there was evidence of the performance pool which the league has renamed a bounty pool.

(12-11-2012 05:16 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  First of all, Tags is a partner in the firm representing Goodell ... alone ... the NFL is not a participant in that suit. As a partner in the firm wouldn't all clients represented by that firm, in turn, be his client as well?

Quote:Oh, and I see where we were crossed up on the "stated as such". I was referring to the lack of any evidence confirming the existence of bounties.

(12-11-2012 05:25 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  "I find there is more than enough evidence to support Commissioner Goodell's findings that Mr. Vilma offered such a bounty (on Brett Favre),"

You were saying?

(12-11-2012 05:08 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  You notice he said he found there is enough evidence to support Goodell's findings. He is not saying that he agrees with Goodell's finding in totality. That is why he stated the following saying the evidence does not convince him personally of an actual bounty being placed upon Favre.

"Adding to the complexity, there is little evidence of the tone of any talk about a bounty before the Vikings game. Was any bounty pledged serious? Was it inspirational only? Was it typical "trash talk" that occurs regularly before and during games? The parties presented no clear answers. No witness could confirm whether Vilma had any money in his hands as he spoke; no evidence was presented that $10,000 was available to him for purposes of paying a bounty or otherwise. There was no evidence that Vilma or anyone else paid any money to any player for any bounty-related hit on an opposing player in the Vikings game.

"I neither excuse nor condone the alleged offer of a bounty on Favre, whether offered by any player, coach, other Saints' employee or third party. Such conduct has no place in the game of professional football. I cannot, however, uphold a multi-game suspension where there is no evidence that a player's speech prior to a game was actually a factor causing misconduct on the playing field and that such misconduct was severe enough in itself to warrant a player suspension or a very substantial fine. Nor can I find justified a suspension where Williams and other Saints' personnel so carefully crafted an environment that would encourage and allow a player to make such an ill-advised and imprudent offer. I therefore vacate the suspension of Jonathan Vilma."

(12-11-2012 05:28 PM)papachaz Wrote:  ahh, so then Vilma as a grown man isn't held responsible for his actions, because where he thinks it's wrong or not, the environment crafted by the coaches made him do it......in other words, he could just say "but buckwheat said it was otay" and not be responsible for his own actions.

something else that strikes me as odd, is what your quote of PT says about intent.....I say intent, because of the 'was it serious, was it inspirational'....in other words He can't prove the intent.....because someones intent is only known to themselves. This is also why I don't believe Vilma wins the defamation suit, if Vilma was the only person singled out, then maybe it could be construed as 'goodell was out to get vilma' but since there are multiple people as well as the whole organization suspended/fined, I really don't see it. I know he specifically named Vilma, but based on what he had, which was enough to make PT say that there was MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to suggest that vilma offered the money....of course I've already read your spin on that.

I'm just tired of hearing the whole mess, I really wish it HAD blown over in a few weeks.

just curious, since I don't do twitter, do they have a thumbs up smiley they can use when all these players are tweeting each other about this?

(12-11-2012 05:39 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  This is exactly what I said before and Peyton and Guido basically said I was wrong. I will say it again from what you posted above and this statement below...

"I find there is more than enough evidence to support Commissioner Goodell's findings that Mr. Vilma offered such a bounty (on Brett Favre),"

Tags basically said:

1. Bounties happened

2. Players shouldn't be punished, the organization should

3. Evidence shows Vilma pledged 10k but unsure of intent