Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Sources say Brady suspension coming next week

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

It's reportedly not a question of "if" but "how many games".

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has reportedly decided to suspend Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, with an announcement coming next week and the only remaining question being how many games Brady will miss.

Gary Myers of the New York Daily News reports that several league sources say Goodell considers Brady’s role in Deflategate a serious violation. The question Goodell still needs to answer, according to this report, is how long Brady will be suspended, not if Brady will be suspended.

Goodell reportedly believes that he needs to discipline Brady for two different violations: First, for his involvement in having footballs under-inflated. And secondly, for his refusal to allow the Deflategate investigation to have access to his cell phone records.

Estimates of the length of the suspension have been all over the map, but a suspension of any length would make Brady the highest-profile player ever to receive such a punishment.

Report: Brady suspension will be announced next week

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjord Newbie

jjord

Posted
Posted

 

Goodell reportedly believes that he needs to discipline Brady for two different violations: First, for his involvement in having footballs under-inflated. And secondly, for his refusal to allow the Deflategate investigation to have access to his cell phone records.

 

 

 

Not to defend Brady too much in this, but that bolded part is a load of BS. Unless the league gave him that cell phone and pays for the service why should he be required to give up his personal records? This isn't a criminal investigation, no matter how much Goodell wants it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cuttinedge Rising Star

Cuttinedge

Posted
Posted

Because it's Brady and New England probably a 2-3 games. When he should get no less than 10.

Hey goodell if you're gonna have a no tolerance stance on everything else how about having one on all the cheating that has took place up in New England.

Goodells a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CelibatePimp Newbie

CelibatePimp

Posted
Posted

Not to defend Brady too much in this, but that bolded part is a load of BS. Unless the league gave him that cell phone and pays for the service why should he be required to give up his personal records? This isn't a criminal investigation, no matter how much Goodell wants it to be.

 

It wasn't "give us your phone and go home" kinda deal. They told him that the phone would be examined in the presence of him and his lawyers. They were most likely going to examine the texts between him and those dudes only in he and his lawyers presence. I don't see the big deal IF he has nothing to hide.

 

Thus the extent to which he refused to cooperate with the investigations coupled with the cheating should equal a harsh suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank Hollywood Newbie

Frank Hollywood

Posted
Posted

Hardy got a 10 game for not helping the NFL to suspend him. Anything less for Brady and its a joke.

Unlike Richardson, Kraft will make sure Brady only get one game though.

Hardy didn't get 10 games for not cooperating with the investigation. Also, domestic violence doesn't equate to releasing air out of a football. I hope Brady gets 10 games as well, but to use Hardy's situation as a measurement would be inaccurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mol3m4n Mentor

Mol3m4n

Posted
Posted

Hardy didn't get 10 games for not cooperating with the investigation. Also, domestic violence doesn't equate to releasing air out of a football. I hope Brady gets 10 games as well, but to use Hardy's situation as a measurement would be inaccurate.

Hardy's suspension actually was made longer for not cooperating.

So there's a resemblance in the nature of being dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjord Newbie

jjord

Posted
Posted

It wasn't "give us your phone and go home" kinda deal. They told him that the phone would be examined in the presence of him and his lawyers. They were most likely going to examine the texts between him and those dudes only in he and his lawyers presence. I don't see the big deal IF he has nothing to hide.

 

Thus the extent to which he refused to cooperate with the investigations coupled with the cheating should equal a harsh suspension.

 

Maybe I just value my privacy too much, but unless it's for a criminal investigation I'm not letting anybody view my personal records (phone or otherwise) unless I absolutely have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CelibatePimp Newbie

CelibatePimp

Posted
Posted

Maybe I just value my privacy too much, but unless it's for a criminal investigation I'm not letting anybody view my personal records (phone or otherwise) unless I absolutely have to.

 

According to the CBA, players are required to cooperate fully with investigations. I don't think they were asking too much considering they were only interested in texts between him and those two and they were going to do that in his presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...