So let's summarize your argument:
Direct quote from /u/man2010:
Yes. Owners have the ability to appeal punishments on their teams from the league.
Direct quote from /u/man2010:
I'm not arguing whether it's likely or not that the appeal would have been successful.
Direct quote from /u/man2010:
Again, this is irrelevant to my point
Direct quote from /u/man2010:
And once again, this is irrelevant to my point
Okay, so we can strike points 2, 3, and 4 because, as you just said, they are irrelevant to your point. So forget everything you blathered about the last 20 comments, the only thing you're saying is that Kraft could have appealed.
Well great, except nobody gives a shit if he could have appealed, because anyone who's familiar with the way the NFL works knows that the commissioner of the NFL has the right to issue final judgement on any and all franchise disciplinary matters. What I and the other users whose time you've wasted explained was that Kraft appealing Goodell's decision would've ultimately been heard by Goodell, and would have been the equivalent of pissing in the wind.
But as you've made perfectly clear, you're not here to argue whether or not Kraft should have appealed or if was a good decision not to appeal--you just want to let everyone know that it was a possibility. Which is irrelevant. All that matters to Kraft and to Pats fans is what's practical, not what's possible. And with the commissioner saying what he did at the owner's meetings yesterday it confirms what Kraft and everyone else knew: that an appeal was futile and irrelevant to the cause.
Since you have no other points to argue and you've made it clear you're not here to discuss anything else, that means we're finished. I didn't accuse you of deflecting and addressed your comments with direct quotes, point by point, so I can't imagine what you could possibly have to whine about. Sounds like we'll through.