UKBillFan

Ah, apologies for the misunderstanding if so. Odd how Wawrow apparently found these two teams but the Bills couldn't. Or perhaps did, and Beane answered the question very carefully. In other words, did the Bills expect it to be settled? Otherwise, surely the risk of it coming out was obvious.

Araiza went into the draft with doubts about his holding and hang time. On most mock drafts he was the third or fourth punter to be picked, and he went third. There is nothing to indicate whether the two who chose before us had a clue about any of the allegations or not.

Regarding Haack, if we wanted him we wouldn't have cut him in the first place.

Except he's basically doing the defense's job for them by posting contradictory statements and texts. Think it was pointed out that the journal (horrific as it was to read) even countered some points made in the lawsuit. Now he's saying that an apology and a donation to a rape charity would make all of this go away??? He's harming the alleged victim's case, not helping it.

Seems to be a lot of confusion about the defence of statutory rape in Californian law. Some assume witnesses claiming she was saying she 18 will be enough to mean charges won't be made (if substantial), others think it won't be enough.

McDemott mentioned Hyde in the press conference, indicating he had an input in this manner.

Exactly. The law should be carried out in court; not on social media.

From a business angle, cutting him was the obvious decision. From a legal standpoint, he's currently innocent until proven guilty, no matter what an attorney, who seems to be losing the plot, posts on Twitter.

The point is not to assume guilt before proven, just as aspersions should not be cast towards the victim either.

This is what I don't get. Why did the lawsuit then quote the alleged victim ask him "Did we actually have sex?". The lawsuit doesn't actually quote Araiza directly in agreeing they did, even consenually. It's very odd phrasing.

In brackets. ALLEGEDLY. 200+ posts on on the other thread, 25 pages on this thread and still it's a case of guilty before being proven innocent.

Then he'll probably be picked up by a team and play as punter.

Don't think we can be sure either way. It was an easy decision as he was a rookie and a punter.

Beane admitted that in the conference - stated it should have really said ‘continuing’.

Though, in turn, that will free up another punter. Knowing us, probably Haack.

He hasn’t played for three years. Still think the best option will be whoever the Titans cut. Bojorquez is with the Browns.

Agreed but not sure if we would have responded in the same way as we have Araiza. No, just that football is a business and no franchise is classier than any others. It’s all about money and winning at the end of the day. The solution with Araiza was easy because of the position he filled.

And if something came up from Josh’s college days, so the exempt list wasn’t an option?

I agree. Can’t believe how close he came to starting against the Panthers after the allegations were made public. But the constant changes of wishes and posts on Twitter which seem to counter what is being claimed, in terms of the civil case, makes me uncomfortable as well.

Oh please. We released Araiza because he was ‘only’ the punter. Do you honestly think we would have cut Josh in the same circumstances?

I’d want more than an apology and a donation to a rape charity. I’d be desperate for justice. And how can he try denying he wasn’t after money when he released texts on Twitter over the last couple of days indicating the opposite?

Just had a look at who we might be able to pick up on waivers on Tuesday and the only real option there is whoever is released between Kern and Stonehouse by the Titans. Otherwise it will be a case of picking up someone via free agency.

I don’t think they would have covered it; they would have gone down the route of “no comment” or “due to legal issues, we do not want to discuss background conversations”. In answering a further question, Beane even went out of his way to stress again that Araiza’s story hadn’t changed. That’s not to say which side is telling the truth, just that Araiza has been consistent with what he told the Bills.

Beane made clear Araiza’s story has not altered at any point. More may come out via a civil or criminal case which reveals he has but, for now, neither said they were lied to by him.

Cynically, did we cut Haack when we did to see if being named as the punter would result in a civil case against Araiza, giving us enough time to sort things out prior to the 53 man cut and additional players available via the waivers if need be?