_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
So I’m reading for the twentieth time the agreement signed on Wednesday by the NFL and Matt Walsh, and something hit me.
The agreement specifically provides indemnity for Walsh with respect to “any alleged audiotaping by Walsh of any of his superiors while employed by the Club.” And that’s surely a reference to the contention from Patriots V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli that Walsh was fired for secretly recording conversations between the two of them.
At the time, Walsh’s lawyer called the allegation a “complete fabrication.” So if it’s a complete fabrication, why would the indemnity agreement specifically include such activities? If it’s a “complete fabrication,” there’s no need to seek indemnity, is there?
April 24th, 2008 at 9:28 am
It actually makes complete sense to reference the recordings in the indemnity. Viewing this from Walsh’s side, you will note that the language reads “ALLEGED audiotaping” (my emphasis). If Walsh is taking the position that there was no taping, but the Patriots have alleged it occured, and moreover used that allegation as a basis for termination, Walsh and his lawyer could be concerned that the Patriots actually have physical evidence of such taping. In the event that such evidence exists, and assuming Walsh is not aware of it, he will need the indemnification to cover such evidence. But if you’re Walsh, you can’t: 1) leave the taping out of the agreement, because if it shows up he’s screwed and there’s suddenly a loophole in the indemnification, and 2) leave the modifying word “alleged” out of the agreement, because to do so would appear as a tacit admission that such audiotaping took place.
Sorry to get all lawyerly on y’all. Just my take on it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Robo769 (aka Pats are my God).
You incorrectly state that there is no way Walsh would turn over audio tapes made illegally because it would be his ticket to prison. That is false, he got indemnity from those allegations. Without anyone to bring them against him he has no ticket to prison.
I think spyboots is 100% correct. Walsh has more video tapes of more types of cheating, and he has audio tapes of him being directed to tape what he has video of. He got the audio tape because he knew he was being directed to cheat. He wouldn’t come forward without the indemnity because he knew he’d committed a crime in getting the audio tape.
It’s the only explaination that would make sence given the facts that Walsh disappeared after he was fired rather than coming forward (doesn’t fit a vindictive former employee… he’d have come forward right away). He had no way to bring what he had forward… he’d be sued.
Now that he can’t be sued for illegally taping the conversations where he was presumably told to video tape things against league rules he’s able to come forward both with his proof of cheating, and directives to do so.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“BTW, I do love the logic that Walsh is going to protect himself from the Patriots by publically handing over evidence that can send him to prison.”
What part of “indemnity” do you not get, Pats fan?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Oh, and Pats fan… good luck getting charges with no complainant.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:42 am
“The Patriots broke a rule by videotaping defensive signals in the first half of the Jets game last season. They were punished for it….severely.
Videotaping defensive signals was a league wide practice, done by EVERY NFL TEAM prior to 2007. That has been verified by almost every coach in the league.”
I’m gonna go ahead and call “shenanigans” on this one.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:43 am
“Lots of Pats h8ters here showing their IQ’s.”
Lots of Pats fans proving that they don’t care how their team wins so long as they win, too.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
“Last I checked, a lack of intelligence has never been a criticism of the Pats’ FO”
Except for, you know, the whole ignoring a league memo on cheating and getting caught doing the things that were reiterated as against the rules in said memo thing.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
To preludetosmack:
FINALLY. Somebody who can see what’s going on and spell it out in terms that even a caveman — I mean a Pats fan — I mean just about anyone with a functioning brain can understand.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am
“Lots of Pats fans proving that they don’t care how their team wins so long as they win, too.”
I think the Pats PROVED without any reasonable doubt that they can win without taping. I laugh at you sponges that all of a sudden consider a rules violation=cheating.
Was it cheating when Denver violated the cap? Ha!
Don’t hate me because Im a dynasty. LOL.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
@skaybaltimore: I love it how you have arrived at the facts prior to disclosure and have the nerve to insult those that are waiting for the facts. Genius!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
ROB,
Give it up dude. Don’t come over here adn peddle that nonsense. Stay over at Patsfans.com where people are actually gullible enough to buy into the crap you’re trying to sell. Just stop with the Jimmy Johnson thing. Even if if he did do it, there’s no evidence whatsoever indicating any other team was doing anything. Consider the source. JJ would never pass as a character witness in any context. He’s a scumbag and always has been. Here’s a piece from Time magazine where Marv Levy (same era) goes on record stating not only that he never did that kind of thing, but didn’t know of any other coach he had either. Enjoy.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1699865,00.html
Spybootz is likely the one most correct here. Walsh was likely simply covering himself because he was being asked to do something he shouldn’t have been.
For those of you trying to say “every other team” did this stuff…..feel free to present your evidence. You have none, because there is none. We DO, however, have plenty of proof the Cheatriots have been doing it since 2000.
2000-2006 New England Patriots*
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.2 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
preludetosmack (or I should get my facts straight before I post),
You might want to look up indemnity and immunity. You clearly do not know the difference. If he made an illegal audiotape and it is made public, the State of Massachusetts can bring criminal charges whether the Patriots or League get involved or not. He does not have immunity from proscetution and the League and Patriots have absolutely no power to give him immunity from prosecution. He can use the “But I have indemnity” defense all the way to jail.
It is good to know you know exactly what Walsh has. Considering no one else does.
I will forgoe responding to the rest of your misinformation until you get a little more educated on the law.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Vox Veritas,
I get the part that indemnity is not immunity. Immunity from prosecution is something the league and the Patriots have no power to give.
Note to Mike Florio. Could you please give a lesson on the difference? Apparently, too many people don’t understand that indemnity only means that the league will pay his legal bills.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Oh, and Pats fan… good luck getting charges with no complainant.”
Yeah, if the smoking gun of the actual tape is broadcasted on Sportscenter every 10 minutes, no charges will be filed. Yeah, right. So if a video of someone killing someone is broadcast on the news and no one actually files a complaint, the murder can’t be charged with murder.
Also, indemnity does not mean the Pats won’t file charges anyway. Just that will pick up the legal bill.
You really need to learn the law.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am
CaptainFantastik,
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/index.php/2008/02/23/jimmy-johnson-thinks-spygate-is-overblown/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28969-2004Sep17.html
http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202000/Policysalarycappenalty.htm
Here are some examples of cheating.
As for Spyboot being correct, why would he cover his ass about something he won’t bring forward in a million years. Again Indemnity is not immunity from prosecution.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
skaybaltimore,
Not surprised that you would praise someone for spelling out to Pats fans that he doesn’t understand the law and the Pats fans do. Kudos to all you Patriots haters for setting yourselves up for a big let down on May 8th when Walsh doesn’t turn over a single audiotape of conversations with Pioli because his lawyer knows more than you guys that indemnity isn’t immunity.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
preludetosmack,
You might want to look up the difference between indemnity and immunity before you cast stones. The league has no power to grant the Walsh immunity from prosecution for violating laws of Massachusetts. Indemnity means that if Walsh is sued, the league will pick up his bills. The agreement also said that the Pats won’t file a lawsuit based on what he turns over. I don’t know if it says that he won’t press charges.
The Pats won’t even need to press charges if the audiotape is actually turned over to ESPN or another news outlet and played on the air. If Walsh or Goodell say publically that he turned it over, it is probably enough for prosecutor to investigate. Specter started his investigation with less.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Even better than Robo769 rating everyone that disagrees with him a 1, he rates himself a 5 every time.
what a tool.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Um… Everyone who disagrees with me rates me a one and everyone who agrees with me rates me a five. That is how this board works.
I don’t need to get into all these personal attacks, but a little sugguestion is you shouldn’t call someone a tool after you dressed them down about something he was completely right about and you were clueless on.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Rob,
I’m seeing the same thing out of you i’m seeing out of every single apologist Pats fan. You’re trying to grab onto any rules violation you possibly can and labeling it “cheating”. Salary cap violations are not under the jurisdiction of the Competition Comittee to the best of my knowledge. Why? Because it doesn’t affect the game as it’s played on the field. I suppose you’d consider uniform violations as “cheating” too? After all, they’re rule violations. I guess any rule violation is “cheating” too huh? You guys will say anything to avoid having to cop to the fact that your team has officially been cheating for the entirety of its dynasty* and that you can provide ZERO evidence that anybody else has been doing it. Sorry, Jimmy Johnson’s quotes don’t cut it.
And I notice you completely ignored my link to Marv Levy’s comments. Like I said, keep that stuff over at Patsfans.com. I know you’re a regular over there.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Actually, Homer Simpleton — I mean, Rob, is so predictable at this point it’s amusing. And while he did a good job differentiating the difference between indemnity and immunity, the key seems to be the public vs private disclosure aspect. At first, when I saw that everything was set up to keep all disclosures (with the exception of things that might be revealed in a legal proceeding, like the class action lawsuit already filed) private, I figured it was just to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.
But if immunity from prosecution would only be an issue if the alleged tapes became public, and Walsh wanted to make sure that what he revealed in private would not end up coming back on him via a law suit (hence, where the indemnity part), it all makes more sense now. He can reveal to the NFL in private whatever tapes he has without fear of being sued by the Patriots. Or, more correctly, that if he is sued by the Patriots, he’d receive legal counsel, etc. as a result of the indemnity clause.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Too many people play Madden to understand “real” football. The Pats broke a rule and have been punished. I’m not sure what got “swept” under the rug. It’s eight months later and this is still front page news. It’s not like the Patriots had the little screen on madden that broke down the play for what each of the 11 offensive players assinments where. They did have an archive of hand signals and that was against the rules.
This Walsh thing will not solve anything. The haters will hate and Pat fans will stay pat fans. I am sick and tired of the cheaters comments. There are players on every team that cheat.There is a clear cut rule against steroids. All teams do cheat. Any one that thinks all 53 players on your favorite team are clean or unjuiced are wrong. Sorry but every team has juiced players. ALL OF THEM. Yes haters even the Pats have Rodney Harrison. But I would be willing to bet my life that your favorite team has some cheaters on your rostor as well. So give it a rest.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
CaptainF*ckstik
“You guys will say anything to avoid having to cop to the fact that your team has officially been cheating for the entirety of its dynasty* and that you can provide ZERO evidence that anybody else has been doing it. Sorry, Jimmy Johnson’s quotes don’t cut it.”
So you are more credible that a two time Superbowl winning head coach? Clearly you are not a delussional jealous fan. And Pats fans are not saying we didn’t cheat. We did, and we where punished. You are the ones who won’t let it go. You want to belive that losing isn’t you fault.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
CaptainFantastik,
How is cheating the cap not affecting the game on the field? So you have a stronger roster because you cheated the cap, how does that not change the way the way it is on the field. As far as I am concerned, cheating is cheating no matter what committee it is covered under. If someone is fined and docked draft picks, it doesn’t mean it isn’t cheating. If the league didn’t think it affected the strength of the the team, they wouldn’t have punished them.
You don’t get it. I am not absolving the Patriots by saying everyone is doing it. I am pointing out that although you and other want to act like the Pats are the only ones who do things that are against the rules, it isn’t the case.
As for Jimmy Johnson, it is hypocritical to say that his opinion doesn’t count while Levy does. Especially since you brought up Johnson in the first place stating he never said anything about videotaping. Also, the fact that both former coaches have an agenda when it comes to Belichick since it is widely known that Johnson is a friend of Belichick and Levy is known to not like Belichick.
I never ignored Levy’s comments. What I am I going to say? He didn’t do it and to his knowledge no one else did. What does that really tell us? He was unaware that Johnson did it. Maybe he was unaware that anyone else did. Just because he didn’t know anyone else doing it doesn’t mean there weren’t.
You are splitting hairs to make your argument fit. Not surprising considering you are an obvious biased Patriots hater who thinks things like putting astericks next to dynasty means anything to me.
Maybe you should go to the Patsfan.com board since you are so obviously obsessed with the Patriots that you troll Patsfans.com. Last time I checked this is an open forum.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
skaybaltimore,
So the league won’t disclose that Walsh turned over the audio tapes but use them to punish the Patriots. He is going to suspend Belichick on evidence he can’t talk like illegally obtained audiotape about and then the Patriots are going to sit back and say “Oh well, it sucks for us. Belichick was suspended on evidence that would send Walsh to jail, but turning it over to the state of Massachusetts would be just mean.”
So you call me Homer Simpleton because I deal with reality and not the fantasy world you live in. Unless it is stated in the indemnity agreement that the Pats and the league won’t turn over any of the materials to anyone else including the authorities, then Walsh has no protection. No one has yet to produce writing in the agreement that states that. All he has is indemnity which means the court will cover legal fees if he is sue (and potentially criminally tried) for illegally audiotaping senior members of the Patriots staff. Anything else that you are talking about has not ever been mentioned anywhere.
So you are already setting it up as the league sweeping it under the rug because Walsh will turn over audiotapes indicting the Patriots, but the League won’t use them and Walsh won’t say anything publically because he opens himself to criminal actions. Isn’t that convenient.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated