UKBillFan

In the lawsuit for the civil case?

Thank you - so there may be a way we can keep Johnson without having him as part of the 53?

Should have noticed that! I fear for Duke Johnson, though think I would prefer to drop Stevenson to the practice squad.

Not so sure - surely that suggests she was incapcitated which implies she could not give consent? Though they'll have to rely on witnesses and the rape kit to get to the bottom of what happened. And that could be why the alleged victim's attorney actions are suggesting that Araiza is not to be issued criminal charges. If both parties agree they had consensual sex earlier in the evening, and there are no witnesses placing him in the room (which is what the defence attorney claims) then they would possibly struggle to acquire enough evidence to charge. I will add that the DA office obviously has all the evidence, and the above is piecing social media comments with the excellent post from an attorney made yesterday on here, breaking down the case. So I may be well off.

Releasing Howard would cost us more than $2.6m in dead money, and is $1.945m salary is fully guaranteed. I think he's staying.

Diontae Johnson has picked up a shoulder injury during Lions @ Steelers, and is sitting out the rest of the game.

Rumours on the Titans forum suggest he's happy to come here if he does get cut.

And that's why they made the move they did; they did not rate Haack and wanted to move on. But Beane could hardly turn around and say "We were happy to release Haack despite the other guy in his slot being implicated in a gang rape"

Thanks. To me, Kern seems the most obvious option for us unless a free agent really stands out.

Would Kern drop to us?

Yes, if they had said 'continuing' investigation or that they were taking stock of ongoing events which would shape future decisions then it would have bought them a lot more time.

There has been a lot of back and forth on the 270+ page Araiza thread since Thursday about this. General agreement, from those who have looked in to Californian law, seem to be that, if Araiza has good reason to think she was 18 then that charge may not be placed, dependant on witness statements etc. Additionally, the age gap suggested that it could be treated as a misdmeanour rather than a felony as the alleged offender is 21 or under and the alleged victim is not 16 or under.

Regarding the person or persons to take the 'fall' for this - Beane specifically said that he and McDermott needed more help. Have to wonder who that was aimed at.

One night stands when drunk happen every evening. The question will be what age he thought she was, and what is believed.

Temporarily. No criminal charges, or found not guilty in criminal court, and either settling out of court or being found not guilty in civil court and he'll have the chance to return to the NFL.

Probably? If he has found not guilty in a criminal charge setting, or none are bought, and he settles out of court then he's back. Not sure how you can deem his behaviour as being 'typically' impulsive either, unless we're going down the guilty before being proven innocent route again.

Regarding Araiza not being issues criminal charges, it was a belief posted by a defence attorney on here on the basis that a civil case has been raised, as putting the alleged victim in front of a civil court raises the risk of testimony which undermines the criminal case.

Looks like Mims has picked up an injury.

Then go to a jeweller's.

Though I see where you're coming from, would the civil case have been raised had Araiza not become the clear punter for the team? It could be that they cut Haack as part of the final cuts and then the civil case was issued, leaving us nine days from opening night without a punter. I agree, keep Haack and cut Araiza would have been the more obvious situation. I get from that that Haack was never going to be our punter this season; they had at least decided that by last Tuesday.

Several team mates were criticial of him when he was released by the Raiders in 2018. Not sure how well he'll fit the dressing room culture or whether he may get under the skin of others.

I wonder if they were going through steps to see if there was any way they could keep hiim on the team but remove him from the roster - administration lead, suspension, exempt list etc. As every avenue closed they came to the only conclusion. That doesn't explain what was an absolute mess of an original statement from the Bills or why they seemed to be prepared to play him on Friday until late on. McDermott did say that he had learned something in the prior 24 hours to the post Panthers press conference. They seem to be wanting to hold on to this as the reason why they made the decisions they did.

Think the score might be with Araiza's attorney rather than Araiza himself.

From memory they travelled to Carolina on Wednesday, which was before the civil lawsuit was issued. It could have been something in the lawsuit or reading the journal entries posted on Twitter, that's my feeling anyway when McDermott said, post Panthers game, that he had learned something he wasn't aware of in the past 24 hours. I think him playing then not playing on Friday was potentially down to discussions with the rest of the team and McDermott. Possibly because of how quickly and viciously the social media blow up occured. I think the cut may have been decided at that point too; Araiza was seen at the stadium in his street clothes rather than wearing anything with Bills branding. I don't think his locker has his name on it either; it was removed prior to kick off.

Because they had doubts about Araiza's holding and hang time, but didn't see a reason to bring in another punter whilst they were testing him out. I don't think we ever intended to go into the season with Haack as punter, but that's just my opinion.