piratesownninjas Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 What gets me is that Kraft by all accounts is supposed to be a great owner and a stand up good guy in the league but his name is getting dragged through the mud along with everyone else. Makes me wonder how long he will take his own character assassination. He'll allow it as long as he's winning. The Patriots are going to have to owe so much money, they won't be able to afford Moss. Are you serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I hope he gets tagged for bringing a frivolous lawsuit and has to pay the court fees. Ridiculous. Yep. Frivilous lawsuits suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 ...the destroying of the tapes and notes reminds me of a paper shreading event.... I agree very much. I think the NFL went into a protection mode right away. I think there is plenty more to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 (edited) The guy's nuts but according to the local news the money isn't all for him at all. It's the difference that all the 1999 players would have made had they won the superbowl and the cost of the super bowl rings current value if they were sold on ebay. All of this being distributed to each player. ETA: I'm not defending the guy but just so everyone knows he's not trying to keep the money for himself. Edited February 16, 2008 by twiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Hope this keeps going and they keep digging to the point, they find video of belichick in the shower You are one sick fruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The guy's nuts but according to the local news the money isn't all for him at all. It's the difference that all the 1999 players would have made had they won the superbowl and the cost of the super bowl rings current value if they were sold on ebay. All of this being distributed to each player. ETA: I'm not defending the guy but just so everyone knows he's not trying to keep the money for himself. Is that who the "others" are? Gray can't recover damages from someone else's injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Then why were they destroyed? and if useless then why did they tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 That's exactly what I was thinking. Let's get a class action suit together with all the other degenerate gamblers. Where do I sign up? Did I even bet that game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 and if useless then why did they tape exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Looks like they might have the tapes after all... NEW YORK (AP) -- The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action. Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won 20-17. "Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson. "The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly." NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. "No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday. "But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?" Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season. Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season. As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice. Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes. Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client. "Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said. Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said. Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh. Goodell said he could reopen the investigation. "If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said. But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms. "No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity." NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 and if useless then why did they tape This is actually a good point. Just because you're a really crappy burglar doesn't make you less guilty of burglary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rug Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I am getting really tired of people sweeping things under me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 You are one sick fruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Reminds me of the old lady that sued because she spilled hot coffee on herself.While I hate frivilious lawsuits or those that sue for fun and profit, Liebeck v. McDonalds has been distorted over the years. Liebeck originally asked McDonalds to cover her medical costs for the 3rd degree burns and skin grafts that resulted in the 180 degree coffee that was served to her. Her hospital stay after the burns lasted 7 or 8 days. The initial medical costs were around $11k and her original settlement offer was for $20k. McD's offered her $800. It wasn't until she retained an attorney that the settlement went up. Even then, the lawsuit that she won $160k in compensatory damages. The jury awarded punitive damages of 2 days worth of coffee sales, or $2.7m. This was reduced to 3x the compensatory damages. That award was appealed by both sides and ultimately things were settled out of court for less then $600k total. The jury admitted that it had originally awarded such a high punitive damage because they felt McDonalds willfully and knowingly served extremely hot coffee. McDonald's admitted that it served coffee at least 20 degrees higher then other restaurants, knew the risks, had over 700 other similar complaints about the temperature of the coffee, yet had absolutely no plans to lower the temperature or post any type of warnings. At 180-190 degrees, the coffee would cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Asking McDs to recover medical costs for serving something clearly too hot I don't think it rediculoous. One person suing the Pats for $100m because they cheated is a different matter. Now if it was a class action lawsuit brought on my all Rams, the team itself, and the City of St. Louis because of lost revenue...then that's a little different but still excessive IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 While I hate frivilious lawsuits or those that sue for fun and profit, Liebeck v. McDonalds has been distorted over the years. Liebeck originally asked McDonalds to cover her medical costs for the 3rd degree burns and skin grafts that resulted in the 180 degree coffee that was served to her. Her hospital stay after the burns lasted 7 or 8 days. The initial medical costs were around $11k and her original settlement offer was for $20k. McD's offered her $800. It wasn't until she retained an attorney that the settlement went up. Even then, the lawsuit that she won $160k in compensatory damages. The jury awarded punitive damages of 2 days worth of coffee sales, or $2.7m. This was reduced to 3x the compensatory damages. That award was appealed by both sides and ultimately things were settled out of court for less then $600k total. The jury admitted that it had originally awarded such a high punitive damage because they felt McDonalds willfully and knowingly served extremely hot coffee. McDonald's admitted that it served coffee at least 20 degrees higher then other restaurants, knew the risks, had over 700 other similar complaints about the temperature of the coffee, yet had absolutely no plans to lower the temperature or post any type of warnings. At 180-190 degrees, the coffee would cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Asking McDs to recover medical costs for serving something clearly too hot I don't think it rediculoous. Shame on you for bringing facts to the urban mythology table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rug Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Hellifiknow, maybe you should ask Roger Goodell since it was his decision. Conspiracy theories abound, pick one and run with it. There's no way to undestroy it though, so how are you ever going to be satisfied? I told Roger that those tapes wouldn't be safe under me. My best friend is a shredder and he said those tapes were damn tasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Asking McDs to recover medical costs for serving something clearly too hot I don't think it rediculoous. One person suing the Pats for $100m because they cheated is a different matter. Now if it was a class action lawsuit brought on my all Rams, the team itself, and the City of St. Louis because of lost revenue...then that's a little different but still excessive IMHO. Good points. I used to complain too. It was unreal how hot it was. I had to put a lot of ice in just to make it drinkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingfootball Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 While I hate frivilious lawsuits or those that sue for fun and profit, Liebeck v. McDonalds has been distorted over the years. Liebeck originally asked McDonalds to cover her medical costs for the 3rd degree burns and skin grafts that resulted in the 180 degree coffee that was served to her. Her hospital stay after the burns lasted 7 or 8 days. The initial medical costs were around $11k and her original settlement offer was for $20k. McD's offered her $800. It wasn't until she retained an attorney that the settlement went up. Even then, the lawsuit that she won $160k in compensatory damages. The jury awarded punitive damages of 2 days worth of coffee sales, or $2.7m. This was reduced to 3x the compensatory damages. That award was appealed by both sides and ultimately things were settled out of court for less then $600k total. The jury admitted that it had originally awarded such a high punitive damage because they felt McDonalds willfully and knowingly served extremely hot coffee. McDonald's admitted that it served coffee at least 20 degrees higher then other restaurants, knew the risks, had over 700 other similar complaints about the temperature of the coffee, yet had absolutely no plans to lower the temperature or post any type of warnings. At 180-190 degrees, the coffee would cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Asking McDs to recover medical costs for serving something clearly too hot I don't think it rediculoous. One person suing the Pats for $100m because they cheated is a different matter. Now if it was a class action lawsuit brought on my all Rams, the team itself, and the City of St. Louis because of lost revenue...then that's a little different but still excessive IMHO. Sorry, after about 9 years of owning an Irish Tavern BS and urban legend are likely all I know. But thanks thats interesting stuff I didnt know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Is that who the "others" are? Gray can't recover damages from someone else's injury. Correct Furd, but from my understanding, this guys attorney is attempting to set up a class. They have a couple of other players already I think in on this. Then if the court agrees to grant class status, they can then solicit the other players to join the class. If the players don't join, I don't know what happens to their portion if the class get enough members.....you, however, would probably know!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 How do they prove that they would have won the game. You can't go back in time and reply the game. Actually - That would be pretty cool if they had to play the game over with the same players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.