A home for those who love almost everything about The Ticket (1310 AM, 96.7 FM, Dallas-Fort Worth), and who would like to discuss -- respectfully and fondly -- their thoughts on how (and whether) to eliminate the "almost."
"I don't care f_____-all about what bag of Jones DNA operates the Dallas Cowboys, but don't you dare touch that cute ginger football team manager man."
This will be the third time I've run this piece. Sorry if you remember it from 2013 or 2015. Of the hundreds of articles I've composed, I think this one was the most fun on my end. Suffice it to say it did not gain any traction, or really much notice, on either occasion but it makes me smile to think about it so I'm going to flog the long-suffering Confessor one more time with it, as George's recent oration has brought its topic to the forefront in a way we haven't seen in these parts for awhile.
I have updated it in only two respects: (1) I have linked to the video of the Monty Python Brontosaurus Theory sketch, which has nothing whatever to do with this topic and which you may usefully skip, and (2) I've noted one additional fact in support, which appears in brackets.
My analysis of Cowboys mediocrity is somewhat out of date, but was laser-accurate and MTC-hot as of 2013.
I hope you enjoy it (again, for those of you who have been with me for awhile). Feel free to share on the electric computer system of the world of Social Mediums.
And Thank You for Shopping at My Ticket Confession.
The Time Has Come to Reveal My
Far-Fetched but Deeply-Held Belief on Solving the Problem of Perpetual
Cowboys Mediocrity; or, The Brontosaurus Theory
Confessors,
with a title like that, I deem that you have been given fair warning
that this is one of those blessedly rare Plainsman sportsy posts,
wherein I demonstrate rather small knowledge about sports. I suppose
that's what comes of listening to The Ticket.
But,
in honor of the entrepreneurial spirit embodied in Danny Balis (there's
your Ticket connection for this post), let me ask you to put aside
preconceived notions and use your imagination. You can probably come up
with some variations of what follows that may make more sense.
The
conventional wisdom – and this view is held not only by me and many of
you, but by an acquaintance of mine who might in fact be the No. 1
Cowboys fan in DFW, I kid you not – is that the Cowboys will not return
to greatness as long as they are owned by Jerry Jones. That the Cowboys
will, in fact, get worse as his ego continues to eat away at judgment
with the passing years. Because Jerry Jones will not give up control as
he struggles to cast off the shadow Jimmy and win a title for which he
can claim principal credit. And because Jerry Jones will not sell the
Cowboys, their averageness-or-worse will soil that beastly stadium out
there for years to come.
I grant that this is a very likely scenario. But it is not the only possible scenario. Let me toss out a few concepts.
Jerry Is a Very, Very Bad General Manager and Owner. I
won't spend much time on this, we all know it. His latest
machinations, castrating Jason Garrett, loading up the coaching staff
with people he selects, is a recipe for failure. It is widely accepted
that 2013 is make-or-break for Garrett – but what earthly sense does it
make to (1) reduce his responsibility for the offense and (2) stick him
with personnel not of his choosing and then to increase his
accountability? I happen to think Garrett bears a large share of the
blame for fielding offenses that apparently don't know the plays after
two-plus years and that can't get them called before a half-second
remains on the play clock. Maybe Jerry has selected players of
incorrigible stupidity, but more likely is that they're not prepared, or
the plays require calls that are not appropriate for the hurly-burly of
the gridiron, or Tony doesn't transmit the playcalls efficiently. But
if that's the way you as GM feel about the guy, fire him, don't play
games for another season that do nothing more than establish the head
coach's lack of authority and your own poor judgment, begging yet the
further question: What accomplished, self-respecting coach would play
for the meddlesome savant-wannabe caricature that is Jerry Jones?
And
he's a bad owner because he refuses to hire experienced professional
football management, or listen to the people in his organization who fit
that description.
Since we all pretty much believe that Jerry is incompetent, why do I even bother to mention it? Because:
Jerry Jones Is SoIncompetent,
That in the Process of Manufacturing Year After Year of Mediocrity and
Worse, Jerry Jones Is Also Managing to Embarrass Texas in General, and,
in Particular, the Wealthy of Texas. Jones is pathologically
incapable of keeping his piehole zipped. And in its unzipped state, it
emits torrents of disconnected phrases, 180-degree contradictions within
a single breath, and downright nonsense. It would be tolerable and
possibly even charming if he'd shown a molecule of talent for running a
football team, but since he hasn't, he looks like the kind of Texan,
especially the kind of rich Texan, that non-Texans like to sneer at –
ignorant, arrogant, incoherent. (Although he was born in Los Angeles and
raised in Arkansas.) The kind who thinks it's classy to hang the
world's biggest video screen in his stadium, so big it renders the live
contest irrelevant, and to feature caged go-go dancers. You can't tell
me that his pals in whatever the Rich Guy Club is in these parts (um, I
don't belong) don't cringe when they see his latest high-wire act before
any nearby open mic and hear everyone, even media types who might be
expected to curry his favor, shaking their heads in disbelief that this
well-meaning but thoroughly deluded soul is helming the destruction of
the most valuable sports franchise in the country.
There Are Lots of Really, Really Rich People in Texas. And
when you put a few of them together, a billion here, a billion there,
pretty soon you're talking about real money. And maybe they'd rather
people think of them more like J.R. Ewing, and not J.W. Jones.
Everything Has Its Price.
Including Jerry.
Ah, but you say, Jerry does not have
his price. His pride would never let him sell the team while it's
down, before it does something really terrific, at least get to a Super
Bowl if not win it.
I
agree that Jerry will never accept market value for the team, however
that may be measured (although every year there are organizations
purporting to do it, including one that reported today).
So
the first step is for a bunch of these rich guys who have had enough
losing and ridicule to get together and offer Jerry crazy money. I
don't know how crazy it would have to be to let Jerry claim that as
his ultimate victory. Maybe he wouldn't take it. Maybe the crazy
money would have to be so crazy that not even a consortium of the
extremely wealthy would consider offering it. I would, however, ask you
to remember the difference between the price Nolan Ryan's group agreed
to pay for the Rangers at the outset, and what they eventually paid
after Mark Cuban got the bidding way up there.
Then what?
Creativity.
Find
some way to let Jerry save face. Make him Chairman Emeritus. Name the
stadium after him and pay him for the right to use his name. A
permanent suite at the stadium. (With parking!) Perhaps work something
where he keeps the stadium or some piece of it. There are all kinds of
ways to compensate selling business owners. Insist that they pay him
personally millions not to take his incomparable football management
skills to any other NFL team. Give him a consulting deal and actually
have meetings and let him have his say.
OK, let's say that none of this moves the old Razorback.
There's always:
Leverage.
How do you get leverage over an ego?
Include Stephen and Jerry Jr. in the Consortium. Is
Stephen Jones the Prince Charles of DFW or what? Waiting for His
Majesty to abdicate or die. Perhaps it would be meaningful to Jerry (in
addition to the crazy money, let's not forget) to know that his beloved
offspring would have some kind of management and ownership role, and
that he'd still have his son's ear on matters Cowboys, even if he would
have no authority. I can imagine that the boys (!) would have some
reluctance to show up with a group offering to buy the team – I'm sure
they love and feel loyalty toward their Pop and might fear a family
falling-out if appearing to want to oust him. Still, there may be
creative ways to involve them in a subtle and diplomatic approach that
would not offend Jerry.
The Brontosaurus Theory. But
here's my gee-whiz solution, and I'm sure that there are NFL-savvy
readers out there who will tell me that this could never, ever happen in
a squillion years.
But,
like Anne Elk (John Cleese) who offers her theory on the brontosaurus on Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is my theory, and it
is mine, and belongs to me, and what it is, too. The next thing you
will read is my theory:
This
rich-guy consortium goes to Jerry – again, with their crazy money,
maybe really crazy in light of this (my) theory and the thinking they
want to inspire in Jerry, and they say this:
Jerry,
we have crazy money for you. You know as sure as you're sitting there
that this is easily a 30% premium over the highest valuation that any
so-called expert places on this team. You take that and walk away and
you can hold your head high, laughing at your critics, knowing that win
or lose, you, by the sheer force of your personality and will and balls
in getting that stadium built, and, yes, winning three Super Bowls,
created immense, incredible value, made this the second most valuable
franchise in the world, second only to Manchester United. Incredible
accomplishment, Jerry.
You take
this crazy money, Jerry. You take it. We'll put your name on that
stadium. Take a look at this term sheet, there's a bunch of other
goodies in there, and looky here, Jerry, we're going to give Stephen and
Jerry Jr. and Charlotte the opportunity to invest at a very high level and give them
significant management responsibility. You can be Chairman Emeritus.
Take
this crazy money, Jerry, and all the rest, because if you don't take
this crazy money, we're going to keep an appointment that we made some
months ago with Roger Goodell to discuss with him our strong commitment
to putting an NFL team in Fort Worth, Texas. As you can see, it will
be hugely well-financed, with a stadium – oh, Jerry, it will not be a
stadium like yours – it will be a big stadium, for sure, but it will be
one that people will love, a real Texas stadium, like Fort Worth is a
real Texas city, like people love the Ballpark at Arlington, like people
love Sundance Square that was also bought with crazy Fort Worth money.
In fact, that stadium, it'll be
right near downtown -- those city fathers know how to work with
businessmen. Maybe we'll swipe Jacksonville or some other lame
franchise – maybe we'll argue for expansion. And Roger Goodell will
listen, and all the other owners we've made appointments with will
listen, because Texas is a football state, and DFW is a gigantic market
with lots and lots of people who have given up their Cowboy season
tickets and lost all faith in you, and because major and lesser markets
have fielded two NFL teams at once: New York, Bay Area. [And since this was written, Los Angeles.] Crazy money,
Jerry. You
think your fellow owners would never allow it? Think again. Crazy.
And when we get that franchise -- don't you doubt us, Jerry, you know
who we are -- we are going to treat our fans like royalty and we're
going to get the best football people in the country and we're going to
have a fracking party every week over in crazy Fort
Worth over this team we're going to put together, Jerry. Ground floor
fans who don't give a bag of dirt about what your franchise did 20 years
ago. And we'll grab your fans, we'll grab your concession dollars,
we'll grab your capital appreciation, we'll grab all of it and we will
keep grabbing. Because that is how we got this crazy money in the first place. It won't be hard. Crazy money, Jerry. We got it. We can get more.
Because we're winners.
Sign here.
* * *
A bit melodramatic, perhaps. And with a number of strategic difficulties. But God, that was fun.
Here's
my point – we shouldn't assume that no circumstances exist under which
Jerry would consider selling the team. You won't know until you
try. Until you try, and let it leak that you're trying. And I'm
serious about a Fort Worth team.
So
here's the plan, Confessors. Send the link to this post to all of your
billionaire friends. Let's see, do I know any billionaires, let me
think . . .
I recall a discussion on The Musers about Tony Romo.
Junior said words to the following effect: "I don't know if the Cowboys will trade Tony Romo or release him. But I do know that whatever they decide to do, it will be wrong." Not an exact quote, but you get the comedy point he was making.
I must be one of the few Cowboys observers in town who has no affection at all for Jerry Jones. I don't think he's a nice man. His "executive of the year" award was a joke. Hall of Fame? Yeah, they gave Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize, too.
I'm not one of those who thinks the Cowboys "owe" Tony Romo something, or vice versa. And I never imputed that sentiment to the Jones family. I never thought for a minute that any decision the Joneses would make about Romo would have the slightest whiff of altruism about it. Nor would I expect it to. All this "family" talk -- hs.
Once again, events seem to be bearing out the Wisdom of the Joonz.
"You can cage me anytime, TC."
* * *
BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING -- Comment thread remarks on the on-air blowup by Mike Sirois against Justin Montemayor, and it's all over Ticket-related social media.
Justin has tweeted this photograph illustrating that all is well, for public consumption at least. And it looks sincere to me:
One of the nice things about having one's own site is that one can blow it out with some loony tunes theories and advice and speculation. It helps if one is self-aware enough to understand when something is crazy, and this is. But I like thinking about it, I don't have anything much new here during Drydock, so I'm trotting it out again -- not all that dated -- from 2013:
The Time Has Come to Reveal My
Far-Fetched but Deeply-Held Belief on Solving the Problem of Perpetual
Cowboys Mediocrity; or, The Brontosaurus Theory
Confessors,
with a title like that, I deem that you have been given fair warning
that this is one of those blessedly rare Plainsman sportsy posts,
wherein I demonstrate rather small knowledge about sports. I suppose
that's what comes of listening to The Ticket.
But,
in honor of the entrepreneurial spirit embodied in Danny Balis (there's
your Ticket connection for this post), let me ask you to put aside
preconceived notions and use your imagination. You can probably come up
with some variations of what follows that may make more sense.
The
conventional wisdom – and this view is held not only by me and many of
you, but by an acquaintance of mine who might in fact be the No. 1
Cowboys fan in DFW, I kid you not – is that the Cowboys will not return
to greatness as long as they are owned by Jerry Jones. That the Cowboys
will, in fact, get worse as his ego continues to eat away at judgment
with the passing years. Because Jerry Jones will not give up control as
he struggles to cast off the shadow Jimmy and win a title for which he
can claim principal credit. And because Jerry Jones will not sell the
Cowboys, their averageness-or-worse will soil that beastly stadium out
there for years to come.
I grant that this is a very likely scenario. But it is not the only possible scenario. Let me toss out a few concepts.
Jerry Is a Very, Very Bad General Manager and Owner. I
won't spend much time on this, we all know it. His latest
machinations, castrating Jason Garrett, loading up the coaching staff
with people he selects, is a recipe for failure. It is widely accepted
that 2013 is make-or-break for Garrett – but what earthly sense does it
make to (1) reduce his responsibility for the offense and (2) stick him
with personnel not of his choosing and then to increase his
accountability? I happen to think Garrett bears a large share of the
blame for fielding offenses that apparently don't know the plays after
two-plus years and that can't get them called before a half-second
remains on the play clock. Maybe Jerry has selected players of
incorrigible stupidity, but more likely is that they're not prepared, or
the plays require calls that are not appropriate for the hurly-burly of
the gridiron, or Tony doesn't transmit the playcalls efficiently. But
if that's the way you as GM feel about the guy, fire him, don't play
games for another season that do nothing more than establish the head
coach's lack of authority and your own poor judgment, begging yet the
further question: What accomplished, self-respecting coach would play
for the meddlesome savant-wannabe caricature that is Jerry Jones?
And
he's a bad owner because he refuses to hire experienced professional
football management, or listen to the people in his organization who fit
that description.
Since we all pretty much believe that Jerry is incompetent, why do I even bother to mention it? Because:
Jerry Jones Is SoIncompetent,
That in the Process of Manufacturing Year After Year of Mediocrity and
Worse, Jerry Jones Is Also Managing to Embarrass Texas in General, and,
in Particular, the Wealthy of Texas. Jones is pathologically
incapable of keeping his piehole zipped. And in its unzipped state, it
emits torrents of disconnected phrases, 180-degree contradictions within
a single breath, and downright nonsense. It would be tolerable and
possibly even charming if he'd shown a molecule of talent for running a
football team, but since he hasn't, he looks like the kind of Texan,
especially the kind of rich Texan, that non-Texans like to sneer at –
ignorant, arrogant, incoherent. (Although he was born in Los Angeles and
raised in Arkansas.) The kind who thinks it's classy to hang the
world's biggest video screen in his stadium, so big it renders the live
contest irrelevant, and to feature caged go-go dancers. You can't tell
me that his pals in whatever the Rich Guy Club is in these parts (um, I
don't belong) don't cringe when they see his latest high-wire act before
any nearby open mic and hear everyone, even media types who might be
expected to curry his favor, shaking their heads in disbelief that this
well-meaning but thoroughly deluded soul is helming the destruction of
the most valuable sports franchise in the country.
There Are Lots of Really, Really Rich People in Texas. And
when you put a few of them together, a billion here, a billion there,
pretty soon you're talking about real money. And maybe they'd rather
people think of them more like J.R. Ewing, and not J.W. Jones.
Everything Has Its Price.
Including Jerry.
Ah, but you say, Jerry does not have
his price. His pride would never let him sell the team while it's
down, before it does something really terrific, at least get to a Super
Bowl if not win it.
I
agree that Jerry will never accept market value for the team, however
that may be measured (although every year there are organizations
purporting to do it, including one that reported today).
So
the first step is for a bunch of these rich guys who have had enough
losing and ridicule to get together and offer Jerry crazy money. I
don't know how crazy it would have to be to let Jerry claim that as
his ultimate victory. Maybe he wouldn't take it. Maybe the crazy
money would have to be so crazy that not even a consortium of the
extremely wealthy would consider offering it. I would, however, ask you
to remember the difference between the price Nolan Ryan's group agreed
to pay for the Rangers at the outset, and what they eventually paid
after Mark Cuban got the bidding way up there.
Then what?
Creativity.
Find
some way to let Jerry save face. Make him Chairman Emeritus. Name the
stadium after him and pay him for the right to use his name. A
permanent suite at the stadium. (With parking!) Perhaps work something
where he keeps the stadium or some piece of it. There are all kinds of
ways to compensate selling business owners. Insist that they pay him
personally millions not to take his incomparable football management
skills to any other NFL team. Give him a consulting deal and actually
have meetings and let him have his say.
OK, let's say that none of this moves the old Razorback.
There's always:
Leverage.
How do you get leverage over an ego?
Include Stephen and Jerry Jr. in the Consortium. Is
Stephen Jones the Prince Charles of DFW or what? Waiting for His
Majesty to abdicate or die. Perhaps it would be meaningful to Jerry (in
addition to the crazy money, let's not forget) to know that his beloved
offspring would have some kind of management and ownership role, and
that he'd still have his son's ear on matters Cowboys, even if he would
have no authority. I can imagine that the boys (!) would have some
reluctance to show up with a group offering to buy the team – I'm sure
they love and feel loyalty toward their Pop and might fear a family
falling-out if appearing to want to oust him. Still, there may be
creative ways to involve them in a subtle and diplomatic approach that
would not offend Jerry.
The Brontosaurus Theory. But
here's my gee-whiz solution, and I'm sure that there are NFL-savvy
readers out there who will tell me that this could never, ever happen in
a squillion years.
But,
like Anne Elk (John Cleese) who offers her theory on the brontosaurus
on Episode 31 of Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is my theory, and it
is mine, and belongs to me, and what it is, too. The next thing you
will read is my theory:
This
rich-guy consortium goes to Jerry – again, with their crazy money,
maybe really crazy in light of this (my) theory and the thinking they
want to inspire in Jerry, and they say this:
Jerry,
we have crazy money for you. You know as sure as you're sitting there
that this is easily a 30% premium over the highest valuation that any
so-called expert places on this team. You take that and walk away and
you can hold your head high, laughing at your critics, knowing that win
or lose, you, by the sheer force of your personality and will and balls
in getting that stadium built, and, yes, winning three Super Bowls,
created immense, incredible value, made this the second most valuable
franchise in the world, second only to Manchester United. Incredible
accomplishment, Jerry.
You take
this crazy money, Jerry. You take it. We'll put your name on that
stadium. Take a look at this term sheet, there's a bunch of other
goodies in there, and looky here, Jerry, we're going to give Stephen and
Jerry Jr. the opportunity to invest at a very high level and give them
significant management responsibility. You can be Chairman Emeritus.
Take
this crazy money, Jerry, and all the rest, because if you don't take
this crazy money, we're going to keep an appointment that we made some
months ago with Roger Goodell to discuss with him our strong commitment
to putting an NFL team in Fort Worth, Texas. As you can see, it will
be hugely well-financed, with a stadium – oh, Jerry, it will not be a
stadium like yours – it will be a big stadium, for sure, but it will be
one that people will love, a real Texas stadium, like Fort Worth is a
real Texas city, like people love the Ballpark at Arlington, like people love Sundance Square that was also bought with crazy Fort Worth money. In fact, that stadium, it'll be
right near downtown -- those city fathers know how to work with
businessmen. Maybe we'll swipe Jacksonville or some other lame
franchise – maybe we'll argue for expansion. And Roger Goodell will
listen, and all the other owners we've made appointments with will listen, because Texas is a football state, and DFW is a gigantic market
with lots and lots of people who have given up their Cowboy season
tickets and lost all faith in you, and because major and lesser markets
have fielded two NFL teams at once: New York, Bay Area. Crazy money,
Jerry. You
think your fellow owners would never allow it? Think again. Crazy.
And when we get that franchise -- don't you doubt us, Jerry, you know
who we are -- we are going to treat our fans like royalty and we're
going to get the best football people in the country and we're going to
have a fracking party every week over in crazy Fort
Worth over this team we're going to put together, Jerry. Ground floor
fans who don't give a bag of dirt about what your franchise did 20 years
ago. And we'll grab your fans, we'll grab your concession dollars,
we'll grab your capital appreciation, we'll grab all of it and we will
keep grabbing. Because that is how we got this crazy money in the first place. It won't be hard. Crazy money, Jerry. We got it. We can get more.
Because we're winners.
Sign here.
* * *
A bit melodramatic, perhaps. And with a number of strategic difficulties. But God, that was fun.
Here's
my point – we shouldn't assume that no circumstances exist under which
Jerry would consider selling the team. You won't know until you
try. Until you try, and let it leak that you're trying. And I'm
serious about a Fort Worth team.
So
here's the plan, Confessors. Send the link to this post to all of your
billionaire friends. Let's see, do I know any billionaires, let me
think . . .
We now have a couple of reports on today's hearing. Very interesting. A few observations: (1) Defendants' attorneys repeatedly condemned the lawsuit as "lies." Of course, a defendant who denies the truth of a pleading is going to take that position. But as I've noted, the court is not going to assess the truth of the complaint at this point so that isn't going to get the Cowboys/Jones anywhere. And it sounds like it didn't get defendants anywhere today. (2) Weckerly's lawyer made the argument that the statute of limitations should have been stopped during any period that the defendant is out of the state, as he alleged in the original complaint. Defendants' lawyer argued that the law didn't apply because Jerry is very well-known and could have been found at any time, in or out of the state, to be served. The judge was skeptical of this argument, suggesting that Jerry was arguing that he should be treated differently from any other defendant. Score one for Weckerly. However, I don't see how this overcomes the Cowboys' statute of limitations argument. The corporate "person" of the Cowboys never left the state. (3) This site suggested in an earlier post that a better argument for stopping the statute of limitations involved the concept of "duress," illustrated by the allegations that Weckerly was subjected to a variety of pressures from defendants to keep quiet, which would prevent her from taking advantage of the court system while the statute was running.
Judge, it's like Dirty Harry said in Magnum Force: "A man has got to know his limitations."
Now, Weckerly has explicitly made that argument. From the account in the Observer: "Weckerly, Bowers said, accepted the money, which she didn't want, under duress and without a lawyer. 'Having just been a victim of sexual assault, she was coerced by forced payments and threats,' Bowers said. 'We've got a mountain of intimidation and threats.'"
(4) Weckerly's lawyer has also added conspiracy allegations. I don't know too much about this. I don't think Jerry can conspire with the Cowboys, which is why Weckerly has now added the Cowboys' lawyer as a defendant. (I'm not sure whether a lawyer can be held liable for conspiracy for actions in the course of representing his client. Maybe, under particularly outrageous circumstances. No idea on this one.) The point of the conspiracy allegations is to allow Weckerly to argue that the statute is extended for an additional period measured from the last act of conspiracy -- in this case, the alleged forced payments.
Another hearing is set for October 16. The judge said that the parties could argue the facts at that time. It sounds like it may be an actual mini-trial limited to the limitations issue, where sworn testimony will be presented. This seems a bit premature -- I would have thought that the parties would have been given the opportunity for discovery on the limitations issue, but sworn testimony is sworn testimony, I guess. Might also be presented via affidavit. Again, no idea on this one, although I would think that the pretty short hearing date might marginally favor Jerry.
It's hard to say, and we'll see what Weckerly can prove or credibly testify to on October 16. On balance, I'd say this round went to her. The judge could have ruled that even if Weckerly proved her allegations the statute would still have run out and he would have dismissed the case. But it appears to my unschooled eye that the judge thinks that Weckerly's legal theories on the limitations issue are correct, and that if she proves what she's claiming factually -- the case will proceed.
We learn today that Jana Weckerly has amended her complaint to allege that -- well, we're not entirely sure how it's amended because the Court has sealed the new complaint and imposed a gag order on the parties and counsel.
But the reports are that the amendment alleges that she was "coerced" not to disclose the events giving rise to the pathetic Jerry photographs by the forced deposit of money into her account.
Thots:
(1) While the Musers thought that if the Cowboys' payment to Weckerly could be proven through bank records it would be bad for Jerry's case -- with which I agree -- I'm guessing that this may have more to do with attempting to beat back Jerry's statute of limitations defense. Remember my account of this from the prior post. She's got statute of limitations problems with her case unless she can show that she was somehow "unnaturally" prevented from acting -- subjected to "duress" -- during a time that the statute was running (or, as she alleged, Jerry was out of the state during a long-enough period of time that would get added to the end of the limitations period). This would account for the odd locution that the money was "forced" on her to buy her silence.
.
(2) There's something else that no one is focusing on, which is that the first complaint alleged that the Cowboys forced her to sign a document, not described in her original complaint. What was it? Was it a document where she agreed either not to disclose the events, or possibly even not to file a claim, in return for the payments (i.e., a release)? If so, that's bad news for a "duress" defense against the statute of limitations argument, unless, as her first complaint alleged, she was also unnaturally pressured to sign the agreement, which would be hard to prove if she accepted handsome cash for it.
One way or the other, she has got to get around the Cowboys' facially appealing statute of limitations argument, although she doesn't need to show an extremely long period of time either of "duress" or Jerry being out of the state, in order to extend it past a period that would postdate the filing of her lawsuit.
If that document was a release, then it also could be a good defense by the Cowboys/Jerry to the substantive claim of assault and the other torts alleged. But if it was only a nondisclosure agreement, then it would not preclude the civil liability claim (although the claim itself might breach a promise of nondisclosure -- will be interesting to see if the Cowboys file a counterclaim for breach of either a release or nondisclosure agreement).
(3) What effect will the sealing of this amended complaint and the gag order have on Roger Goodell's no-doubt energetic and fearless investigation of Jerry's misconduct? Will he say to the Cowboys, "uh, what about these payments and the records she says she has?" And will the Cowboys say to him, "Geez, sorry Rog, court says we can't talk about it"? And would that be a good argument for stonewalling an NFL investigation? I don't know how far a gag order extends, but I don't think it would trump an independent obligation of an NFL owner to cooperate with an internal investigation. Don't know.
(4) OK, Roger Goodell, you pusillanimous pretender. You're probably going see evidence pretty soon that Jerry paid off a stripper/hooker either to keep her quiet about something worth keeping quiet, possibly even the sexual assault of a drunken or drugged woman. Wachoo gonna do about it?
(5) OK, Gene Jones, you laughingstock to some and object of pity and derision to most of the rest of us, wachoo gonna do about it?
"I read me some MTC 'cause I loooove me some redheads."
(6) OK, Dallas sports and news media (finally, an MTC connection), wachoo gonna do about it? Gag order doesn't extend to investigative reporting. Who will be the first to understand the potential dynamite this case represents and investigate and report it accordingly -- starting, perhaps, with what reporters "know" about similar Jerry behavior with other women?
Who will be the first to ask Roger Goodell how he is investigating the sexual assault claim against one of his biggest supporters?
Who will be the first to ask the new "consultant group" of women whether they've been asked to consult on the Jerry Jones charges?
Who will be the first news organization to petition the court to unseal the record, and to appeal it if it is denied? (Picture the Dallas and Fort Worth papers and every local TV and radio outlet and ESPN seeking this, and what effect this might have on how the judge -- who is elected -- rules on it.)
And who will be the first to ask -- even if only theoretically at this point -- whether an ongoing drumbeat of unsavory details of Jerry's underground activities could affect the management or ownership of the Cowboys?
Waiting for the next pictures, the next hooker, the next lawsuit.
Or, more likely, the next payoff and interment of another sordid Niffle scandal.
Was it a week ago? I think so. I was listening to the Tuesday 6:40 replay of the Monday 8:40 Fake Jerry interview.
Gordon started the bit not with his Cartoon Jerry foghorn voice, the one he always uses, but instead his Actual Jerry genuwine impersonation that he brings out once in awhile, but only rarely and briefly. He only got through a phrase -- possibly even less than a sentence -- when he decided it wasn't happening the way he wanted, and he made a very brief reference to it not working and then shifted back into Cartoon Jerry for the balance of the bit.
But not this week. He did the whole interview, for the first time I can recall, in his Actual Jerry voice. Which, for my money, may be even more brilliant than Cartoon Jerry.
Gordon, you're getting me all . . . confused.
Wondering why, not that I care. Both Jerrys are very funny. I wondered briefly if Gordon might be thinking that Actual Jerry might be more amusing -- the shock of recognition -- to a national audience that might pick up one of the bits during a time that the Cowboys are more in the national spotlight.
Nah. Nah. Anyway, it was excellent.
* * *
NOTE: Earlier versions of this post made erroneous reference to a "5:50 replay."
A couple of posts back I threw out the thought that those photos could, under certain circumstances, affect the ownership, control, or management of the Cowboys. Or, at the very least, this possibility should be considered by the commentariat (other than Your Plainsman). It did not get much traction. I would now like to revisit that topic in view of Weckerly v. Jones, et al., Civ. No. 14-10061, District Court for Dallas County, Texas. Just some random thoughts upon reading the complaint. Bearing in mind that your simple Man of the Plains is no expert in sexual assault lawsuits, statutes of limitations, and the like. But I think there are some things an observer can take away from this with a little effort. (Since I haven't heard these thoughts elsewhere, it tends to suggest to me that, um, I may be missing something.) First, it's interesting that this was filed in Texas state court. If Weckerly is presently a resident of Oklahoma, she could have filed it in U.S. District Court here. Maybe she no longer lives in the Ardmore metro and has moved to Texas. But if she does still live in OK and she could have filed in federal court, I wonder how her lawyer decided to file in state court. One possibility is that a state court judge would be more likely to be sympathetic to the local team. But the local team ain't making too many locals happy lately, so maybe the calculation is t'other way around -- a state court judge would be inclined to hammer Jerry to please his restless constituents. Also, if it gets to trial, a state court jury might be more plaintiff-oriented. The law the two courts would apply would be the same -- state law, because they are state law claims. But, fairly or not, the bar widely believes that the federal bench (unelected) is more learned and more likely to apply the law somewhat more expertly than a state court judge (elected). Would that favor one side or the other? DNK. (Also, some state-court plaintiff practitioners are less comfortable with the federal procedural rules.) Don't have a strong conclusion on this -- just an interesting strategy move. Second, I just heard Intentional Grounding read from some motions filed by Jerry's team earlier today, asking for a temporary restraining order and dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit is unbelievable and scandalous and a money grab. In the absence of any factual record whatsoever, and in the presence (in the judge's mind, if not the record) of those pathetic photographs, the dismissal ploy is unlikely to work. (I thought Texas didn't have a strict motion to dismiss, but rather an archaic form of pleading called "special exceptions." I need to track down those filings.) Third, at present it does appear that the technical issue is going to be the statute of limitations. The lawsuit has several claims, each a tort: (1) Sexual Assault; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; and (4) Conspiracy to Cover Up Sexual Assault. The complaint alleges criminal conduct, but violation of the Criminal Code does not give rise to a civil claim beyond the torts described by the alleged conduct (I think; not sure about that). The statute of limitations for tort claims in Texas for personal injuries caused by torts is two years UNLESS the conduct involves violation of the Penal Code in certain respects, in which case it is five years. I understand that the encounter in question took place more than five years from the filing of the suit. But, if the conduct took place in 2009, not a whole lot longer than five years. Hold that thought.
So, is Weckerly sunk?
Her lawyer has thought about this, and alleges that the statute has been "suspended" pursuant to "TCPRC sec. 16.063." (That's "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.") Well, let's Google that and take a look. It states: "The absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence." In other words, the limitations clock stops while the defendant is out of the state, starts up again when he gets back. Well, that would not work against the Cowboys, the other defendant, which hasn't left the state as a corporate entity. But Jerry? The incident was alleged to have taken place in "May or June of 2009," so the deficiency is not going to be more than about four months. Could she show that Jerry was out of the state in the aggregate longer than that since the incident? A month per year? Dunno. But if I were the court I think I might at least let her proceed with discovery on Jerry's whereabouts at all times between the assault and the filing of suit. Maybe there are some technical interpretations of that statute that make this all more complicated than I'm making it seem, but they haven't jumped out at me in my Internet reading. So -- maybe not a bad argument for Weckerly. Maybe.
But there's something else that really, really intrigues me that I haven't heard mentioned anywhere, at least as far as this limitations issue is concerned:
-- Paragraph 26 states that Jerry and the Cowboys "threatened Plaintiff so that she would not tell the police."
-- Paragraph 27 states that they "intimidated Plaintiff and told her to keep quiet and not tell anyone else 'or else.'"
-- Paragraph 28 states that they "bullied Plaintiff into believing that she would somehow be in trouble if she told anyone about the sexual assault."
-- And most intriguingly, she drops this nugget: Paragraph 29 states that they "intimidated her into signing documents against her will, without giving her a copies (sic) or access to legal counsel." -- Finally, she concludes in Paragraph 30 that those actions "placed Plaintiff in imminent fear of her life, safety and well being."
I only know what I read in Google search results. But I am pretty sure that statutes of limitations clock gets stopped or delayed, or "tolled," as it is called, if the plaintiff has been subject to "duress" during that period that tends to discourage her from filing suit within the proper period of time.
These four paragraphs describe situations where plaintiff was pressured not to take legal action, and may have been pressured under threat or fraud to sign a release (guessing at what the "legal documents" might have been, if they exist at all), all of which would have served artificially to have caused her to refrain from filing suit while the statute was ticking away.
However -- Weckerly has not alleged duress as a ground for delaying the operation of the statute of limitations. An oversight? Or something that her attorney thinks he cannot prove? I think I might say more about that "document," if there was one, even if she doesn't have a copy. DNK. But if he's smart, he'll find some other ground for tolling the statute, and based on what he's alleged, that ground should be duress. Which is something that itself would be subject to "discovery" before a court would rule on whether it were a factually supportable theory for beating back the limitations defense. At the every least, I would think it would serve to keep the lawsuit alive.
The point I wish to make is that no matter what you think of Weckerly, her motives, or her truthfulness, the wisdom of Google suggests that there may well be enough in this complaint to survive the initial technical challenges. Again, the complaint is very, very unlikely to be dismissed just because it seems crazy, as seems to be Jerry's initial legal position. (Really -- does it seem all that crazy? Or, in light of those photos, does it ring highly possible?)
Fourth: What if it doesn't go away? The suit could go on and depositions would be taken and it would devolve into the classic he said-she said, and maybe these "legal documents" surface, and maybe more pictures, and lurid accounts of Jerry's misconduct. Maybe it gets settled; maybe the court grants summary judgment against Weckerly based on the discovery in the case (i.e., her case turns out to be factually deficient based on the sworn record in discovery); or maybe it goes to trial.
A whole lot more interesting is what Roger Goodell -- or his successor -- will do. If Jerry is accused of sexually assaulting a drunken young woman, with photographic evidence that something happened, and that case lingers with her allegations potentially subject to a jury's decision, his hand may be forced. Irsay. Rice. Rampant NFL thuggery. A tsunami of disgust over the Niffle's handling of criminal conduct of its constituents has got to have them running scared in the executive suite.
All kinds of other things could happen aside from NFL discipline (or worse). Gene cannot be happy that a jury will be asked to decide if her husband f-f'd a young woman and got fellated while requiring -- or even inviting -- Weckerly to admire the performance. What's her level of tolerance for thoroughgoing mortification? Fans could vote with their season tickets (as they're already starting to do).
"So, set 'em up, Joe . . . . "
Again, my sports-radio-related point in suggesting that the complaint may not be as cartoonish as it seems is that at some level this is a sports story because, now more than ever, it could impact the operation, if not the ownership, of the Cowboys. That it happened five years ago is irrelevant. The Niffle consumer (and his spouse) are in an ugly mood, and Jerry looks, acts, and sounds like the corrupt face of big-time American sports -- and incompetent in the bargain. He'll probably survive, but if this story turns out to be her word against his -- that is, if this case not thrown out on limitations or other technical grounds and is headed to trial, whether it gets settled or not -- it's hard to see how Jerry can continue to be the ubiquitous public face of his team and influential in the inner sanctum of the NFL. And that would be a big change for the Cowboys even if he doesn't sell the team or move out of management.
And, finally -- what if this isn't the only time something like this has happened?
Even that insufferable jocksniff Papa John might stop calling.
