Kraft to address the media

[Hawg73]

I still don't think that would have been invoked for reasons I specified elsewhere (the MAD principle). Davis took the NFL to court several times, was generally reviled by the other owners, and never once was this threat used.

This is very true, but Davis and his club were never arguably a threat to parity the way the Pats have been. Successful, sure, but not consistently so for almost 15 years in a row.

If you can't beat 'em, then force them to vacate.

It's true that the owner is only a small part of on-field success, but I could point out that such a move could potentially start the dominoes toppling.

All it would take is Belichick to not want to deal with a new owner and we are immediately back in the crab bucket.

I don't want to overrate the absurdity of the notion, but what other conclusions can be drawn from an ownership group that thinks the Goodell regime is just swell?

I mean.....how can they? It almost forces one to consider unlikely counter-explanations for how they can go along with such an incompetent demagogue.

 

[bideau]

This is very true, but Davis and his club were never arguably a threat to parity the way the Pats have been. Successful, sure, but not consistently so for almost 15 years in a row.

If you can't beat 'em, then force them to vacate.

It's true that the owner is only a small part of on-field success, but I could point out that such a move could potentially start the dominoes toppling.

All it would take is Belichick to not want to deal with a new owner and we are immediately back in the crab bucket.

I don't want to overrate the absurdity of the notion, but what other conclusions can be drawn from an ownership group that thinks the Goodell regime is just swell?

I mean.....how can they? It almost forces one to consider unlikely counter-explanations for how they can go along with such an incompetent demagogue.

The Raiders won 3 Super Bowls and were consistently knocking on the door for many years from the late 60's through the LA days. Those were the days when "Commitment to Excellence" actually meant something.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

This is very true, but Davis and his club were never arguably a threat to parity the way the Pats have been. Successful, sure, but not consistently so for almost 15 years in a row.

If you can't beat 'em, then force them to vacate.

It's true that the owner is only a small part of on-field success, but I could point out that such a move could potentially start the dominoes toppling.

All it would take is Belichick to not want to deal with a new owner and we are immediately back in the crab bucket.

I don't want to overrate the absurdity of the notion, but what other conclusions can be drawn from an ownership group that thinks the Goodell regime is just swell?

I mean.....how can they? It almost forces one to consider unlikely counter-explanations for how they can go along with such an incompetent demagogue.

I saw that article last night and sent it to a friend, who immediately said "BULLSHIT!!!" I agreed, but after thinking about it, this league has done everything to try to stop the Patriots train. They changed the rules several times when we don't break them but still win. They've manufactured infractions and docked us picks but still win. They've done everything they can to try to break the Patriots but they still win.

The owners hate the Patriots. As long as Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are around, they all have to fight an uphill battle to try to beat us. If anyone doesn't think for one second that every owner in this league would think they hit the lottery if they could get rid of the Patriots, you're all wrong.

24 votes to get rid of this franchise? Easy as pie.

 

[deec77]

I still don't think that would have been invoked for reasons I specified elsewhere (the MAD principle). Davis took the NFL to court several times, was generally reviled by the other owners, and never once was this threat used.

Davis use the anti trust avenue. His first suit against the NFL was filed in 1980 which he won. He then filed another against the NFL in 95. That suit spanned 6 years before he lost in 2001. Do you really want this to drag out 6 years. That was a long time ago. I'm pretty sure those loopholes have been closed. Al Davis hobby seemed to be filing lawsuits.

Raiders battled all the way to L.A. and back
-- 1980: The Los Angeles Coliseum Commission announces that owner Al Davis has agreed to move his Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles. The commission asks for a court order in an attempt to bypass objections raised by the NFL.
-- 1982: A federal court jury in Los Angeles, deciding an antitrust suit, finds for the Raiders and against the NFL and awards the team $49 million in damages.
-- 1987: The Coliseum Commission refuses the Raiders' demands to reconfigure the Los Angeles stadium, prompting Davis to sign a stadium agreement with Irwindale. The Coliseum Commission sues the Raiders, accusing the team of breach of contract.
-- 1988: The Raiders countersue the commission for $9.5 million.
-- 1989: The Irwindale deal flops over financial and site concerns.
-- 1990: The Coliseum Commission approves the concept of leveling the 67- year-old Memorial Coliseum and rebuilding it. Oakland gives the details of a $660 million offer to lure the team back. Davis accepts the offer but later decides to stay in Los Angeles.
-- 1995: The Raiders appear to be closing in on a deal for a new stadium next to the Hollywood Park racetrack. The NFL promises to hold two Super Bowls at the new stadium. But in July, Davis, upset that the league wants the Raiders to share the new stadium with another team, decides to return to an expanded Oakland Coliseum. The team later files a $1.2 billion lawsuit against the league, saying the NFL wrecked the stadium plan.
-- 1997: As Oakland stadium cost overruns and disappointing sales of fan seat contracts blister taxpayers, Oakland and Alameda County sue the Raiders for breach of contract and for allegedly threatening to break out of the stadium deal.
-- 1998: The Raiders countersue, contending that East Bay officials did not divulge sales data before the 1995 deal signing.
-- 2000: A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rules that the Raiders cannot dissolve their contract to play at the Coliseum, which expires in 2010. The judge also narrows the Raiders' damage claims against the city and county.
-- 2001: A Superior Court jury rejects Raiders' lawsuit against the NFL.
- Chronicle staff

~Dee~

 

[Beaglebay]

The Raiders won 3 Super Bowls and were consistently knocking on the door for many years from the late 60's through the LA days. Those were the days when "Commitment to Excellence" actually meant something.

That's a myth. Wherever people assemble, corruption is present.

 

[bideau]

I saw that article last night and sent it to a friend, who immediately said "BULLSHIT!!!" I agreed, but after thinking about it, this league has done everything to try to stop the Patriots train. They changed the rules several times when we don't break them but still win. They've manufactured infractions and docked us picks but still win. They've done everything they can to try to break the Patriots but they still win.

The owners hate the Patriots. As long as Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are around, they all have to fight an uphill battle to try to beat us. If anyone doesn't think for one second that every owner in this league would think they hit the lottery if they could get rid of the Patriots, you're all wrong.

24 votes to get rid of this franchise? Easy as pie.

With the exception of two teams (we see you, Johnson and Irsay) the owners don't hate the Patriots. Envy perhaps, but far from hate. The Pats are huge money makers for the league. Their games are consistently some of the highest rated, owner's stadiums are filled when the Pats visit, they get prime time games when they play the Pats. Every league needs a villain and the Pats are the perfect foil.

It would be impossible to find 24 owners who were willing to press the big red button and launch all out war against the Pats. They'd be lucky to get a handful of votes, never mind 24.

 

[Beaglebay]

I saw that article last night and sent it to a friend, who immediately said "BULLSHIT!!!" I agreed, but after thinking about it, this league has done everything to try to stop the Patriots train. They changed the rules several times when we don't break them but still win. They've manufactured infractions and docked us picks but still win. They've done everything they can to try to break the Patriots but they still win.

The owners hate the Patriots. As long as Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are around, they all have to fight an uphill battle to try to beat us. If anyone doesn't think for one second that every owner in this league would think they hit the lottery if they could get rid of the Patriots, you're all wrong.

24 votes to get rid of this franchise? Easy as pie.

Yup. It's the real life version of 'Survivor'.

 

[O.Z.O.]

I still don't think that would have been invoked for reasons I specified elsewhere (the MAD principle). Davis took the NFL to court several times, was generally reviled by the other owners, and never once was this threat used.

I agree. I think these guys are smart enough to know that is it happens to the Patriots it can happen to any one of them...well, you can probably exclude Irsay, Haslam and Woody Johnson from that list.

 

[bideau]

That's a myth. Wherever people assemble, corruption is present.

I'm not sure what you mean. The slogan was real back then. I'm not sure what that has to do with corruption. Being a Raider in that time period was looked at in the same way we look at being a Patriot today. They were filled with Hall of Fame players who pushed each other to be better. As much as I've hated them since '76, I also respected them.

 

[Hawg73]

I saw that article last night and sent it to a friend, who immediately said "BULLSHIT!!!" I agreed, but after thinking about it, this league has done everything to try to stop the Patriots train. They changed the rules several times when we don't break them but still win. They've manufactured infractions and docked us picks but still win. They've done everything they can to try to break the Patriots but they still win.

The owners hate the Patriots. As long as Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are around, they all have to fight an uphill battle to try to beat us. If anyone doesn't think for one second that every owner in this league would think they hit the lottery if they could get rid of the Patriots, you're all wrong.

24 votes to get rid of this franchise? Easy as pie.

It does kind of explain things in a different light, doesn't it?

As batshit crazy as believing such a scenario might really be true, I can't come up with a solution that really puts the puzzle pieces together any better.

The scary part is that, so far, the NFL hasn't made us irrelevant yet. A longshot, maybe, but what if we did it again?

What else is out there to try?

My head is spinning.

 

[Hawg73]

With the exception of two teams (we see you, Johnson and Irsay) the owners don't hate the Patriots. Envy perhaps, but far from hate. The Pats are huge money makers for the league. Their games are consistently some of the highest rated, owner's stadiums are filled when the Pats visit, they get prime time games when they play the Pats. Every league needs a villain and the Pats are the perfect foil.

Fascinatingly put, Bid and a little bit frightening to me that your view might actually be an optimistic one.

So we are now the Iron Sheik? america.....huck-PTOOEY!!!

So who is the league's Hulk Hogan?

It would be impossible to find 24 owners who were willing to press the big red button and launch all out war against the Pats. They'd be lucky to get a handful of votes, never mind 24.

Yes, on the surface it is insane, but like Sherlock Holmes is noted for saying-- when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

It does kind of explain things in a different light, doesn't it?

As batshit crazy as believing such a scenario might really be true, I can't come up with a solution that really puts the puzzle pieces together any better.

The scary part is that, so far, the NFL hasn't made us irrelevant yet. A longshot, maybe, but what if we did it again?

What else is out there to try?

My head is spinning.

They're trying it now. If we can't beat them, get rid of Tom Brady.

But Tom Brady is not going quietly into the night. Unlike his employer, he will fight this with everything he's got. He doesn't give a shit about his legacy, but he sure cares about his kids. And like I said earlier in the week, he never wants to answer the question from his kids about why other kids are saying their daddy is a liar and a cheat.

But if that isn't enough, he's going to fight because he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[EasyBigFella]

But if that isn't enough, he's going to fight because he didn't do anything wrong.

We'll see. I'm not aboard the "Brady is 100% innocent train". I think he was well aware of what was happening and he better hope there isn't more info that will come out when this gets appealed or goes to court.

 

[Beaglebay]

I'm not sure what you mean. The slogan was real back then. I'm not sure what that has to do with corruption. Being a Raider in that time period was looked at in the same way we look at being a Patriot today. They were filled with Hall of Fame players who pushed each other to be better. As much as I've hated them since '76, I also respected them.

The slogan was real, sure. But that doesn't make it truthful. It's a marketing tool, much like "Integrity of the Shield" is. We'd like to believe it's based on a real desire by the NFL to promote level playing fields, and honest competition, where all involved represent our own values, or our definitions of those values.

The corruption comes when honest people are forced to defend their honesty against the claims of the dishonest ones.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

We'll see. I'm not aboard the "Brady is 100% innocent train". I think he was well aware of what was happening and he better hope there isn't more info that will come out when this gets appealed or goes to court.

We've been back and forth and up and down this road, right? I believe that Tom Brady told these guys to get the balls where he likes them. End of story.

You believe he told them to get them down low, let some air out, I like them soft. Or something worse.

In my mind, there is not a chance in hell that Tom Brady told these guys to do anything that was an infraction of a rule. Nothing.

In any event, Mike & Mike show just said Brady is meeting with Goodell today. I'm not so sure I believe that, but Goodell is supposed to have a presser this afternoon, and maybe he'll have something to say. Who knows. I just don't believe anything that's on the media these days.

 

[KrustyTheClown]

He doesn't give a shit about his legacy, but he sure cares about his kids.

..........except for the one that was inside Bridget Moynahan when he left her high and dry.

 

[Hawg73]

They're trying it now. If we can't beat them, get rid of Tom Brady.

But Tom Brady is not going quietly into the night. Unlike his employer, he will fight this with everything he's got. He doesn't give a shit about his legacy, but he sure cares about his kids. And like I said earlier in the week, he never wants to answer the question from his kids about why other kids are saying their daddy is a liar and a cheat.

But if that isn't enough, he's going to fight because he didn't do anything wrong.

I'm not comfortable enough with your last sentence to go there personally. To each their own.

I imagined this scenario last night:

We find ourselves in a federal courtroom and it's Brady vs. the NFL.

The NFL calls to the stand as a material witness James McNally. And....under oath......he flips on Brady.

Fvcking Hindenburg right there and it's not beyond all reason that it could actually happen.

A negative view? Sure is, but I'm trying to imagine the worst while hoping for the best. It's a coping mechanism.

 

[deec77]

We've been back and forth and up and down this road, right? I believe that Tom Brady told these guys to get the balls where he likes them. End of story.

You believe he told them to get them down low, let some air out, I like them soft. Or something worse.

In my mind, there is not a chance in hell that Tom Brady told these guys to do anything that was an infraction of a rule. Nothing.

In any event, Mike & Mike show just said Brady is meeting with Goodell today. I'm not so sure I believe that, but Goodell is supposed to have a presser this afternoon, and maybe he'll have something to say. Who knows. I just don't believe anything that's on the media these days.

Isn't Goodell at the owners meeting in SF?

~Dee~

 

[PatsFanLisa]

Isn't Goodell at the owners meeting in SF?

~Dee~

Yup.

 

[spacecrime]

The corruption comes when honest people are forced to defend their honesty against the claims of the dishonest ones.

Well, they aren't forced to defend their honesty. They can forfeit their honesty by not defending it.