By Ron Borges
Anybody still scratching their head as to why New England Patriots former assistant videographer/personnel department gofer Matt Walsh has been so insistent on receiving air-tight protection from being sued by his former employer before coming forward with whatever he knows or doesn’t know about Bill Belichick’s mastery of the surreptitious uses of film and audio in the NFL need only read Monday’s Boston Herald to clear up the confusion.
In the Herald’s business section is a story about how one of the richest organizations in professional sports is suing a former ticket holder for $54,000, the difference between what a lower court awarded it after Boston Finance Committee member Paul Minihane tried to get out of the 10-year-contract he signed in 2002 for two premium seats at Gillette Stadium.
According to the story, Minihan put down $7,500, one tenth of the $75,000 10-year cost, to buy two premium seats at $3,750 each per season. With them came priviledged parking spaces, the right to purchase Super Bowl tickets and year-round access to Gillette’s function rooms as well as other perks.
According to the Patriots, after one season Minihan stopped paying and they now are trying to collect the full amount, even though the tickets could be re-sold to the next name on what they have long claimed to be a waiting list of over 50,000 people. A lower court ruled that Minihan owed them $6,000 and allowed the Patriots to keep his $7,500 deposit, meaning they would have been paid for two seasons plus have received a $6000 vig for their trouble.
This did not satisfy them however so they are appealing to the state Supreme Judicial Court in a case that will be argued today. Minihan argued and a Superior Court judge agreed that the Patriots were not damaged to the tune of $75,000 and should just take the $13,500 award and sell Minihan’s tickets to someone else. With the size of their waiting list that would seem to have been far easier and cheaper than dragging this poor sap through the court of appeals trying to argue a technicality of contract law.
But, as Matt Walsh knows, the field is not the only place where the Patriots play hardball. This is the same team that charges $50 for a baby being carried into the stadium in one of those front loading baby sacks, the only professional team in Boston to charge for a child under three. Airlines, you might know, will never be confused with philanthropists but they too don’t charge for infants unless they occupy a seat either.
If the management of the Patriots is willing to drag an disgruntled former customer in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court over $54,000 which they could have easily gotten back from the next name on the list (assuming all that talk of a list is true) while also getting over two years of payments from Minihan for one season of tickets what would they be willing to try and do to a whistle blower threatening to hurt their reputation for real?
Matt Walsh doesn’t know but he doesn’t want to take a chance to find out. Paul Minihan probably fully understands why.
22 responses so far ↓
1 strazzerj // Apr 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Try to make ticket holders honor their contracts? Hardball!
Charge $50 to let people bring a baby to the game? Hardball!
Those Patriots sure are meanies. No wonder Matt Walsh is so afraid. If a team would be willing to persue their legal interests in the Mass. Supreme Court, why there’s no telling what they might do!
But if he is that scared, why did he speak up (to Tomase, presumably) at all? Why didn’t he just keep quiet?
Did he just recently realize how ruthless those Pats really are?
2 Sike Mando // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:00 am
A few years ago, Mr. Borges got all hot and bothered about the Patriots charging for children under three. Then he found out the the team was hardly alone, as about a dozen other teams did it. So now, its “the only team in Boston . . .” that does it.
One man’s “disgruntled former customer” is another’s “person who broke a contract.” Speaking of which, does anyone have any idea what the contract actually says? If the contract says, “you will pay the full amount if you break the contract,” then it is Minihan, whose position on the Boston Finance Committee suggests that he is at least marginally familiar with teh idea of “read before you sign,” who is trying to play hardball.”
Perhaps a little reporting of the facts might be in order.
3 Ron Borges // Apr 9, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Sike Mando,
They are the only team in Boston that does it. So what’s your problem there?
As for the contract, the Superior Court has already ruled that while the contract is legitimate, which I never said it was not, the Patriots have suffered no damages and hence in the court’s opinion cannot hold him to anything more than keeping the deposit, which was for a second season, plus an award of $6000.
As for chazrging $50 to bring a baby into a game, not even the airlines try to get away with that. Neither do the majority of NFL teams and none of the other Boston pro teams.
lastly, the larger point if you are Walsh is that if they’ll sue their customers when they could just as easily have sent a letter to the ex-customer asserting their rights while informing him they will keep his deposit and let him move on without the expense of a law suit is clear.
In addition, I believe both of you blowhards were among those saying Sen. Spector should have better things to do than look into the NFL. I’d say the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court should have weighter issues to decide than football ticket issues.
4 Sike Mando // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:41 am
Mr. Borges, you need a civics lesson. Whether the SJC “has better things to do” is irrelevant. There was a lawsuit, there was an appeal. The SJC is there to hear appeals. While that court can — and certainly will — say to someone , “you lose,” it can’t generally say, “go away, we’re not interested in your silly little problem.”
The US Senate, on the other hand, and Sen. Specter in particular, voluntarily chose to get involved in the NFL & video stuff. I assume you can now understand the difference between the two entities and their involvement.
The Herald story mentions “liquidated damages.” Do you know what “liquidated damges” are? Did you also notice that the case may have broader implications for contract law in Mass., which may make it important? Do you even care? Did you know that in Mass. damage provisions of many contracts are enforceable, regardless of the actual damages suffered? Perhaps the SJC will take the opportunity to better define when.
How do you know the team didn’t first send Minihan a letter, and then he told them to go stuff it?
Oh, and airlines DO charge for children between the age of 2 and 3.
5 strazzerj // Apr 10, 2008 at 6:19 am
“In addition, I believe both of you blowhards were among those saying Sen. Spector should have better things to do than look into the NFL. I’d say the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court should have weighter issues to decide than football ticket issues.”
Blowhard? How nice.
Did the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court jump in and decide on their own to pursue this case (as the honorable Senator Specter did)? Perhaps the judges have Patriots season tickets?
BTW - I agree that the court should have rejected the Pats’ appeal. And I would expect the Pats to lose, once the case is decided.
But as far as I can tell, your anger was directed at the Patriots, wasn’t it? You were basically trying to show how ruthless the Patriots are, rather than how stupid the court system is.
Perhaps Walsh has just recently come to realize not only how ruthless the Patriots can be, but how easily they can get the judicial system to do their bidding. Apparently, he didn’t realize that back in February - otherwise I expect he would have remained silent.
6 Ron Borges // Apr 11, 2008 at 6:25 am
Mr. Mando,
No, it is you who needs a civics lesson. both the Supreme court of the United States and the supreme judicial court of Mass. makes decisions every year what cases it will review and which it will not. It was under no obligation to hear this case, or any case. It does not have to accept any appeal and could have declined to hear it for any number of reasons.
As for sSn. Spector, as the ranking Republican on the committee that overseas question of anti-trust he was well within his rights to look into the issue of whether an entity with limited immunity from our anti-trust laws is conducted its business honestly.
As for “liquidated damages” I do understand the issue. In fact, that is the point of the customers argument which was upheld by the Superior court. That court ruled while the contract was valid the Patriots could not demonstrate having been damaged.
As for the letter, if the one I suggested was written he wouldn’t have had to say, as you put it, “go stuff it” as it would have let him out of the remainder of the contract, which was what he was seeking.
7 Ron Borges // Apr 11, 2008 at 6:28 am
dear Strazzer,
The only person angry seems to be Sike mando, the season ticket holder and the Patriots. Why is it whenever anyone points out anything abvout the Patriots not followed by “Hoorah” they have to be angry.
I couldn’t care less, since they’re not suing me. the point was that anyone in walsh’s position had best protect himself mightily because the team and the league have both shown their willingness to sue over far less important matters - as is the case here.
I also find it interesting that you agree they’ll lose and that the court shouldn’t have bothered with the case yet seek an argument any way. But then, I guess that’s what the internet is all about.
8 Ron Borges // Apr 11, 2008 at 6:29 am
Sike Mando,
As for the airlines and the patriots, we were talking about a baby several months old. Please tell me which airlines charges for a three-month old? You are the master of entering an argument about a pig and insisting that a giraffe is tall.
9 strazzerj // Apr 11, 2008 at 7:16 am
Ron,
I apologize for mis-interpreting your words as “anger”.
And I’m not looking for an argument, but rather an understanding of what has changed for Walsh since he reportedly indicated that he has a tape of the Patriots.
Certainly he understood back then how ruthless the Patriots and the NFL are in pursuing their legal rights in this and other circumstances?
This case of the season ticket holder couldn’t have added to his fear?
The only argument I might have is with attempting to equate Arlen Specter’s involvement with the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s. To me, they are not at all alike. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
10 strazzerj // Apr 11, 2008 at 7:19 am
“Please tell me which airlines charges for a three-month old? ”
On international flights, an infant must have a ticket, even if the infant sits on an adult’s lap.
11 Sike Mando // Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58 am
You wrote that the Patriots are:
“the only professional team in Boston to charge for a child under three. Airlines, you might know, will never be confused with philanthropists but they too don’t charge for infants unless they occupy a seat either.”
I assumed you were talking about 3 year olds in both parts of the sentence. My mistake for not noticing the mid-sentence switch. (Or the international airlines’ policy).
As for the SJC. If the Herald story is correct, and the SJC seees the case as necessary to clear up lower court confusion on the issue of liquidated damages, then they should take the case, as that IS their role. Perhaps you could enlighten us with just one of the “any number of reasons” that the SJC should have relied upon to deline to hear the appeal? Please? Just one.
Your comment:
“In fact, that is the point of the customers argument which was upheld by the Superior court. That court ruled while the contract was valid the Patriots could not demonstrate having been damaged.”
demonstrates that you do NOT understand what liquidated damages are. Once again, a liquidated damages provision in a contract is unrelated to actual damages. if the Superior Court said it was, it may have been wrong. That the Superior Court ruled on it does not mean it got it right. That’s why there are appellate courts.
And for strazzerj and Mr. Borges….Just what “legal position” are the Patriots going to ruthlessly enforce against Walsh, if there is no confidentiality agreement. While there may be disagreement as to the damages due on the Minehan case, there is no dispte that a contract existed. Where’s the legal hook for the Patriots to go after Walsh?
12 baby armed assassin // Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 am
Waahhhh…
Babies are a distraction and a nuisance to the other ticketholders trying to enjoy they game. The Patriots are right to do everything possible to discourage parents from bringing them.
Borges on the law = dangerous.
13 strazzerj // Apr 13, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Sike,
“Just what “legal position” are the Patriots going to ruthlessly enforce against Walsh, if there is no confidentiality agreement. While there may be disagreement as to the damages due on the Minehan case, there is no dispte that a contract existed. Where’s the legal hook for the Patriots to go after Walsh?”
(shrug)
I’m sure an organization as mean as the Patriots will find some reason to get Walsh in court.
After all, they are so nasty to babies and poor defenseless Finance Committee members, it only stands to reason that they would pounce on a helpless little golf club worker.
Walsh should be very, very afraid (I guess).
14 Blueliner25 // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ron,
I like that you are an independent thinker, and do not drink the Patriots Koolaid. However, you come across as an angry man with your numerous negative posts about the team. Perhaps you are being even handed and I am misinterpreting your intent as a personal agenda.
15 Danny Boy® // Apr 20, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Krafty Bob will sell a seat to his own mother….unless, of course…theres a higher offer!
Having said that…the guy signed a contract, theres a sucker born every minute. Pay up, chump.
16 johnny1022 // Apr 27, 2008 at 9:21 am
Getting Ready for Matt Walsh:
This might be the real reason Walsh needs legal protection. Of course no one really knows, but it will be very interesting.
I’m copying a link to a very interesting Network World story about monitoring and controlling radio frequencies and including something from an earlier comment below.
After reading the article, you’ll see there was no way the NFL was able to stay on top of this effectively until now. Since Spygate they’ve been investing a lot of energy to close the “wifi” barn door, yet there’s been little publicity connecting this initiative to the Spygate transgressions. Instead, the focus has been on videotaping, perhaps as a smokescreen.
It’s my strong suspicion that Belichick/Ernie Adams realized this and were using alternative frequencies to communicate with Brady past the NFL’ imposed 15 second (prior to snap) cutoff. That’s why it was so helpful to steal the signals, moreso than for most other teams that observed the NFL imposed radio signal cutoff.
Here’s the link:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/012508-nfl-radio-cops.html
The most interesting quote in the story: “At a regular season game, we coordinate 400-500 frequencies,” Voss says. “But at the Super Bowl, that goes up to 2,000 frequencies, and over 10,000 RF devices.”
=========================
For context, here’s an excerpt from an earlier posting:
The possibility (unsubstantiated, but heavily rumored and traced to individuals close to the Patriot organization, including Doug Flutie) that the Patriots were communicating on another frequency (unavailable to the NFL) was key to the concealment of their scheme for stealing the other teams defensive signals AND communicating them to their QB.
The conspiracy of silence around this allegation, after it was reported several times (including Chris Mortensen of ESPN) raises suspicion that the NFL was covering up what was really happening. The NFL, by controlling the frequencies, was in a perfect position to substantiate and follow up on this potential violation of NFL rules in many games, yet it seems as if the Patriots use of their own frequency was dismissed as a technical snafu or misunderstanding. Also note that the NFL’s radio frequency was supposedly disabled 15 seconds prior to the the start of each play to prevent last second communications. Who knows if one of the reasons the Pats tampered with frequencies was to circumvent this limitation. After all, if defensive signals were intercepted, those last 15 seconds would be critical in order to react and complete the communications back to the QB.
Oh yeah, and why hasn’t their been any public comment on Dan LeBatard’s (Miami Herald) allegation that Doug Flutie expressed surprised to a number of friends that the radio transmissions to Brady with defensive sets and data continued on his own headset right up to the time the ball was snapped?
Of course, we don’t know that any of this really happened. So far a lot of smoke, but no fire. Yet the radio communication angle really needs to be explored much more deeply and TRANSPARENTLY. It makes the videotaping violations all the more egregious, since the electronics gave the coaches much greater leverage to benefit from their cheating. I have to smile when I see the naivete of many of the silly comments that “Everyone was taping or stealing signals”. Maybe everyone was stealing signals, but everyone wasn’t tampering with radio frequencies. It was exactly that violation that would have allowed the Patriots to benefit from the defensive signals in a unique and much more dishonest way.
The other interesting point in all of this involves the alleged problems with jammed radio frequencies in games involving the Patriots. I wouldn’t assume that the Patriots were so blatant in their cheating that they actually tried to interfere with the other team QB communications. Some of the radio problems were reported to affect the Patriots as well. However, what if the signal jamming was done to cover up the Patriots use of another frequency? What if they responded to any question of another frequency by saying THEIR OWN and the other teams radios were down and that is why they took it upon themselves to use another band? Perhaps the NFL prematurely dismissed the jamming allegations, which were raised far before the Spygate story ever broke, giving them another reason for their defensiveness and possible coverup.
Before anyone accuses me of dreaming up Spy vs. Spy scenarios, let’s also hear a little more about Bill’s prep school buddy Ernie Adams. Why doesn’t the Boston press, Belichick or Kraft ever really talk about the guy? Why do players smile, then say they don’t know what he does? If you read the extensive ESPN.com piece on him (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams ), you will see that surreptitious behavior has been part of the “Patriot Way” for years, and Ernie has been the embodiment of much of it.
17 Ron Borges // May 6, 2008 at 10:41 am
Strazzeri,
Last time I looked, the Patriots weren’t playing internationally. they were playing in the United States, a country where a child up to three flies for free. That would include my 2-year-old who just flew to LA for Free but would have had to pay
$50 to sit in my lap at a Patriot game. We can debate points and disagree on things and both have good points but your argument on charging for a child is a bit ridiculous. As is proven by citing “international flight rules.” why not cite the policies of the Red Sox, Celtics and Bruins? perhaps because they don’t charge for kids under 3? Is it more dangerous at Patriot games than the other team’s games? Are children under 3 more distracting to football fans than fans of other sports? or do you just not have a good answer?
18 Ron Borges // May 6, 2008 at 10:42 am
The issue you raise about audio frequencies and their possible use and abuse is an interesting one. Perhaps it will come down to that. If it does, and Walsh has some evidence of violations, I fear Goodell will bring the hammer down hard, which would be pretty sad.
19 strazzerj // May 7, 2008 at 6:50 am
Ron,
What does the Patriots not playing internationally have to do with the price of a ticket? Are you suggesting that if the Patriots have to play the Bills in Toronot, then it would be ok to charge $50?
If you had simply written “I think charging $50 for a child to sit in your lap is too much”, rather than your misguided attempt to compare the Patriots to those mean airlines, then we could have stayed on track in our discussion.
When you ask a question like “Please tell me which airlines charges for a three-month old? ” isn’t it reasonable for you to expect an answer?
When you write “your argument on charging for a child is a bit ridiculous”, I have to ask - what argument? As far as I can tell, I haven’t argued your point that charging $50 for a lap-sitter is a lot of money.
20 strazzerj // May 7, 2008 at 7:03 am
BTW,
“That would include my 2-year-old who just flew to LA for Free but would have had to pay
$50 to sit in my lap at a Patriot game.”
At http://www.nba.com/celtics/tickets/fleetcenter_info0001.html it says “Children under two do not need a ticket. ”
So presumably your two-year-old (not being under two) would have had to pay to sit in your lap at a Celtics game as well.
21 Sike Mando // May 9, 2008 at 11:43 am
“So presumably your two-year-old (not being under two) would have had to pay to sit in your lap at a Celtics game as well.”
Unless Dad tells them the kid isn’t two yet.
22 strazzerj // May 10, 2008 at 2:54 am
“Unless Dad tells them the kid isn’t two yet.”
Are you calling Dad a cheater?
You must log in to post a comment.