Got to dig up this old thread of mine due to this statement in the deal between walsh and NFL.
The agreement specifically provides indemnity for Walsh with respect to “any alleged audiotaping by Walsh of any of his superiors while employed by the Club.†And that’s surely a reference to the contention from Patriots V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli that Walsh was fired for secretly recording conversations between the two of them.
At the time, Walsh’s lawyer called the allegation a “complete fabrication.†So if it’s a complete fabrication, why would the indemnity agreement specifically include such activities? If it’s a “complete fabrication,†there’s no need to seek idemnity, is there?
The agreement specifically provides indemnity for Walsh with respect to “any alleged audiotaping by Walsh of any of his superiors while employed by the Club.†And that’s surely a reference to the contention from Patriots V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli that Walsh was fired for secretly recording conversations between the two of them.
At the time, Walsh’s lawyer called the allegation a “complete fabrication.†So if it’s a complete fabrication, why would the indemnity agreement specifically include such activities? If it’s a “complete fabrication,†there’s no need to seek idemnity, is there?