PDA

View Full Version : Why Matt Walsh Won't Talk Publicly



MR NFLFAN
02-20-2008, 07:35 PM
Interesting read.


Why Matt Walsh Won't Talk Publicly: Explaining the Indemnification Contract



http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/19/why-matt-walsh-wont-talk-publicly-explaining-the-indemnificati/ (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/19/why-matt-walsh-wont-talk-publicly-explaining-the-indemnificati/)

HaRdKoReXXX
02-20-2008, 08:26 PM
I dont blame Walsh at all. What does he get for spilling the beans about the Cheatriots? Nothing (except for mad props on this board) and in return if the NFL thinks he lied he's gonna be payin out the ***!

Pretty high-risk, low-reward situation if you ask me.

MR NFLFAN
02-20-2008, 08:35 PM
I dont blame Walsh at all. What does he get for spilling the beans about the Cheatriots? Nothing (except for mad props on this board) and in return if the NFL thinks he lied he's gonna be payin out the ***!

Pretty high-risk, low-reward situation if you ask me.

I don't blame the NFL either. They could get stuck with any law suits brought on even by third a third party not connected to either the league or the pats. Even ESPN was smart enough to stay away from this and I don't think the goverment is going to want to pick up the tab either.

Frankly I don't see him ever testifying or turning over a thing.

HaRdKoReXXX
02-20-2008, 08:44 PM
Uh huh...or maybe it could be the NFL can only hurt themselves by allowing Walsh to testity with complete indemnity... And of course ESPN wouldnt offer it, they dont wanna have to pay for that, would you if it were your business? Not to mention they've been completely stuck up the Pats *** for the last 7 years...

cnc66
02-20-2008, 08:55 PM
I don't blame the NFL either. They could get stuck with any law suits brought on even by third a third party not connected to either the league or the pats. Even ESPN was smart enough to stay away from this and I don't think the goverment is going to want to pick up the tab either.

Frankly I don't see him ever testifying or turning over a thing.

well, if he is given a subpoena and comes before the Senate, he will answer their questions or be held in contempt and jailed. He really would have no good options.

MR NFLFAN
02-20-2008, 09:27 PM
well, if he is given a subpoena and comes before the Senate, he will answer their questions or be held in contempt and jailed. He really would have no good options.

Well he could take the 5th. I don't know if you read the Q&A after the article but here was her answer to a similar question.


"My guessing that Specter could pressure Walsh to testify without any protections. Walsh could decide to plead the 5th. The protection that Congress typically gives to witnesses only protects them from federal prosecution. It doesn't protect them from civil liability against all the people who might want to sue Walsh.

Specter can also pressure the NFL to make arrangements with Walsh, but that's not going to happen with the terms Walsh's lawyer currently wants.

Walsh wants zero liability if he talks, and he's not going to get that from anyone because who wants to take on Walsh's potential unknown legal liabilities? It would be insane."

adamprez2003
02-21-2008, 12:25 AM
I dont think the NFL has a choice in the matter. Its very integrity is at stake. How do you allow evidence to go unheard just because you refuse to grant immunity? This is just playing hardball right now but Walsh holds all the cards. The NFL has no choice but to give in

MR NFLFAN
02-21-2008, 08:29 AM
I dont think the NFL has a choice in the matter. Its very integrity is at stake. How do you allow evidence to go unheard just because you refuse to grant immunity? This is just playing hardball right now but Walsh holds all the cards. The NFL has no choice but to give in

As fans we try to make this a cut and dry decision but its far from that.
There is a big difference between immunity and indemnity. Indemnification doesn't mean Walsh can't be sued it just means that the league would be responsible for all cost to defend a suit and any fees involved.
With that said the leagues offer to indemnify Walsh was to cover the NFL and the Patriots period. Who ever else wants to sue Walsh because of his actions besides those two parties would not be covered and the kicker is he doesn't even have to tell the truth.
Having an open door for suits against the league would be every weasel lawyer in the countries dream come true.
From the commisioners point of view to offer a kitchen sink indemnification to Walsh would be suicide not to mention out right stupid.

Here we have a guy who is obviously a proven thief whom could already be open for a suit for breaking a confidentiality agreement that the league doesn't know what he has nor how he obtained it and no way to prove who ordered him to do it or that Belichick has even seen it and under the agreement wording of his lawyer doesn't even have to tell the truth. The fact that he wanted ESPN to indemnify him also suggest he was looking to sell what ever it is he has to the network. Does that sound like someone you'd want to hitch your finiancial wagon to?
I think the league certainly has a choice and that they've already made it. Whatever he has isn't worth the finiancal risk involved to find out.

adamprez2003
02-21-2008, 02:37 PM
As fans we try to make this a cut and dry decision but its far from that.
There is a big difference between immunity and indemnity. Indemnification doesn't mean Walsh can't be sued it just means that the league would be responsible for all cost to defend a suit and any fees involved.
With that said the leagues offer to indemnify Walsh was to cover the NFL and the Patriots period. Who ever else wants to sue Walsh because of his actions besides those two parties would not be covered and the kicker is he doesn't even have to tell the truth.
Having an open door for suits against the league would be every weasel lawyer in the countries dream come true.
From the commisioners point of view to offer a kitchen sink indemnification to Walsh would be suicide not to mention out right stupid.

Here we have a guy who is obviously a proven thief whom could already be open for a suit for breaking a confidentiality agreement that the league doesn't know what he has nor how he obtained it and no way to prove who ordered him to do it or that Belichick has even seen it and under the agreement wording of his lawyer doesn't even have to tell the truth. The fact that he wanted ESPN to indemnify him also suggest he was looking to sell what ever it is he has to the network. Does that sound like someone you'd want to hitch your finiancial wagon to?
I think the league certainly has a choice and that they've already made it. Whatever he has isn't worth the finiancal risk involved to find out.
Goodell has just announced to the media that progress has been made and he believes they're close to having a deal in place. The NFL, for PR purposes, can't have Matt Walsh never testify. They started from a hardline and as is inevitable in these situations are starting to come around to the idea that Walsh holds all the cards. A deal will be announced within one to two weeks to coincide with the start of free agency. The league will hope some of the attention is drawn away from the fans by free agency. They certainly dont want Walsh being the only story out there when he testifies

MR NFLFAN
02-21-2008, 10:47 PM
Goodell has just announced to the media that progress has been made and he believes they're close to having a deal in place. The NFL, for PR purposes, can't have Matt Walsh never testify. They started from a hardline and as is inevitable in these situations are starting to come around to the idea that Walsh holds all the cards. A deal will be announced within one to two weeks to coincide with the start of free agency. The league will hope some of the attention is drawn away from the fans by free agency. They certainly dont want Walsh being the only story out there when he testifies


I just read the reports and they use the words "hope to" alot. I'd still be surprised if the give him "kitchen sink indemnification" but who knows.

RonnieBrownTown
02-21-2008, 11:12 PM
He is probly sacared because Murcy Morris was getting death threats for just being on a undefeated team and Matt Walsh is calling the Patriots out I would be affriad to

late again
02-22-2008, 12:28 AM
I just read the reports and they use the words "hope to" alot. I'd still be surprised if the give him "kitchen sink indemnification" but who knows.

Like you, I would be shocked if Walsh was given the kind of exclusion that he's asking for. Nonetheless, one of the two sides will eventually blink, otherwise we'll never feel closure. Even if we were inclined to, the media sharks smell blood in the water and aren't going to let a good controversy go to waste.
Just wondering...have you heard anything of Sen. Leahy authorizing Senate Judiciary Committee funds for further investigation into Goodell's handling of those video tapes? A buddy of mine said that is what he had heard.

MR NFLFAN
02-22-2008, 01:53 AM
Like you, I would be shocked if Walsh was given the kind of exclusion that he's asking for. Nonetheless, one of the two sides will eventually blink, otherwise we'll never feel closure. Even if we were inclined to, the media sharks smell blood in the water and aren't going to let a good controversy go to waste.
Just wondering...have you heard anything of Sen. Leahy authorizing Senate Judiciary Committee funds for further investigation into Goodell's handling of those video tapes? A buddy of mine said that is what he had heard.

All I've read is this quote from an article dated feb 16th

Specter (R-Pa.) said that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate,"

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23133282/

nephinsfan
02-22-2008, 07:21 AM
There sure is a whole lot of research and chatter about this topic, especially a topic that pats fans are trying to convince everyone really is not a topic at all. Leads me to wonder.....who are they trying to convince?...I think maybe themselves.

late again
02-22-2008, 09:33 AM
All I've read is this quote from an article dated feb 16th

Specter (R-Pa.) said that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate,"

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23133282/

Thanks. I need to be careful because I don't want to hijack this thread, but the article reminds me of the millions of our tax dollars that are used on their comforts. For example, when I need to fly, I'm online looking for the cheapest tickets I can find. These guys either fly first class or else they have access to private air service (funded with tax dollars). Oh well......never mind. I just needed to get that out.