Patriots sued for Super Bowl XXXVI Loss / Walsh seeks Deal

[bazgnr]

Now that the season is officially over, it appears that the "spygate" ramifications are just starting to kick in.  The Steelers are dismissing Spector's notion that the videotaping had any effect on the (3) games in question vs. The Patriots and are supporting the NFL, but others are taking a very different approach:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-02-15-super-bowl-suit_N.htm

A member of the St. Louis Rams team that lost Super Bowl XXXVI to the New England Patriots is part of a group bringing a lawsuit accusing the Patriots of cheating in the game and asking for refunds.
New England and coach Bill Belichick illegally videotaped a Rams walk-though before the game to gain an unfair advantage, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, the host city of the game.

The Patriots upset the Rams 20-17 on a last-second field goal. Neither the team nor the NFL could immediately be reached for comment.

Willie Gary, who played on the Rams Super Bowl team, wants each member of the Rams' Super Bowl roster to receive $25,000 ? the difference between the bonuses paid to the losing team and the winning team.

A ticket broker, Kevin Hacker, who attended the Super Bowl, asked the federal court to grant 72,922 people who attended the game a full refund. At a face value of $400 per ticket, that would mean the NFL would have to return $29,168,800.

Gary, who now lives in Atlanta and plays arena football, also wants compensation for not receiving a Super Bowl XXXVI ring, which now sell for $125,000 on the Internet auction site eBay, according to the suit.

For 45 players, the difference in bonuses and the value of the rings would be $6,750,000.

The plaintiffs' attorneys ? Eric Deters and Hugh Campbell Jr. of Kentucky and John Young of New Orleans ? have asked that the suit be granted class-action status.

The three lawyers allege the Patriots committed numerous crimes including fraud, racketeering and breach of contract in addition to violating Louisiana's unfair trade practices and consumer protection act.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/patriots/2008-02-15-walsh-protection_N.htm

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.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"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."

[faldor]

This will go absolutely nowhere.  The owner of the Steelers came forward himself and said that the Patriots taping of their games had NO EFFECT on the outcome.  A Jets fan sued the Patriots earlier this year and that also went NOWHERE!  This could be one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever and will get thrown out in 2 seconds.  Even if it was found out they videotaped the walk through and anything else, it is impossible to say whether that had a clear impact on the game.  Kurt Warner threw for over 350 yards in that game.  You're telling me if they didn't videotape, he would've thrown for what?  500?  600 yards?  I find that hard to believe.

As for the Matt Walsh case.  Not sure why that's taken so long to resolve.  If the guys got the goods, lets see'em.  Give him full immunity, whatever it takes.  This could be taken care of much more swiftly.

[G2N2R]

As for the Matt Walsh case.  Not sure why that's taken so long to resolve.  If the guys got the goods, lets see'em.  Give him full immunity, whatever it takes.  This could be taken care of much more swiftly.

I have heard that the Patriots won't give him immunity, not because they are worried about what he has, but because they are afraid he'd only expose things they did. Walsh has tapes on other teams too, atleats this is what i've been hearing, and the Patriots think that he's only going to rat them out and make them look bad which isn't fair seeing as an unknown number of other teams have dirt on there hands as well. I don't know much about this, I just heard it on from some reporters last night, but it's interesting.. anyone know is Walsh worked for anyone else besides the Patriots as the video guy before and after he was let go by New England? I could probably google it but i'll leave it up to someone else 

[faldor]

I think Walsh only worked for New England.  He's a golf pro in Hawaii now, I don't know much about the guy though.  But doesn't the NFL outrank the Patriots?  I don't see how the Patriots could keep Walsh from coming forth with whatever evidence he has.  The NFL should supercede them and take a look at whatever he's got.  I've heard that it's the NFL that's sort of dragging their feet in this process, and haven't agreed to give him total immunity.

[G2N2R]

I think Walsh only worked for New England.  He's a golf pro in Hawaii now, I don't know much about the guy though.  But doesn't the NFL outrank the Patriots?  I don't see how the Patriots could keep Walsh from coming forth with whatever evidence he has.  The NFL should supercede them and take a look at whatever he's got.  I've heard that it's the NFL that's sort of dragging their feet in this process, and haven't agreed to give him total immunity.

Thats what I was trying to say, a lot of other teams are supposedly at risk of being exposed for doing some form of cheating, and it is being speculated that the NFL doesn't want this to come out because it looks bad for them as they have kind of been turning a blind eye to the whole stealing signs thing. I don't know if I buy that or not though, but it makes a bit of sense if they wanted to save face.

[bazgnr]

I find it interesting - and I'm paraphrasing here - that the NFL won't cut a deal with Walsh unless his testimony is "truthful."  Apparently, his lawyer is saying that he'll talk in exchange for immunity, but for some reason his testimony may or may not be the truth?!?  Craziness.  Then again, maybe I'm interpreting the article incorrectly...

[tim_m]

Ok even i think this is quite ridiculous.

[bazgnr]

This is the part I was referring to:

"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?"

[faldor]

This is the part I was referring to:

"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?"

Yeah that sounds a little weird.  The guy wants full immunity as long as he can lie about what he knows?  Okay.