mannc

So are you saying you think he was asking the Bills to pay to settle the case? That would be highly unusual, since the Bills certainly couldn’t be held liable for what happened when Araiza was at SDSU…

If the Bills learned new details in the past 24 hours, that’s their fault. They were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer and supposedly had a crack investigative team on the job. And if Araiza is innocent, he might not have known those “new details.”

But if Araiza is innocent, how would he know the full details of what her lawyer would allege in the complaint? I just don’t buy the “Araiza wasn’t honest with the team” argument. The Bills were in direct contact with the lawyer before they decided to cut Haack. Seems like a way for the Bills to pass the buck for what might turn out to be a really serious organizational failure.

It’s conceivable that the plaintiff’s lawyer only gave the Bills a hint of what was coming, but maybe Araiza didn’t know either, until the complaint was filed. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why was the plaintiff’s lawyer talking to the Bills? Was it as part of the Bills’ investigation or did plaintiff’s lawyer initiate those calls as part of his “settlement strategy”?

Well, the Bills were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer weeks ago, well before Haack was cut…so they had to have already known that the allegations were very serious…I don’t think the “Araiza misled the Bills” argument makes much sense.

Just curious, what do you think Araiza lied about to the Bills?

LOL. Someone always says this whenever Darnold’s name comes up. Why on Earth would the Bills ever consider that? Darnold is flat out garbage and will be OOF within a year or two

That's fair...right now, the Bills don't look too good, having acknowledged that they cut the other punter while being aware of this issue. It's possible that keeping their head down is the best thing to do. That's not the case for Team Araiza...the other side is already winning.

Wrong

Nope. The texts released by Gilleon show that there were negotiations that broke down...

No, but they needed to have a strong public relations strategy in place to counter the so-far unrebutted story put out there by Gilleon and his client. They should have had a strong counter-narrative ready, even if it wasn't much more than just denying the allegations. They've had months to come up with one and every hour that they don't rebut the Gilleon's story will make it more difficult to win hearts and minds, which is ultimately what this is about. That goes for the Bills, too.

Unfortunately, Araiza and his attorney (and the Bills, to some extent) have helped out Mr. Gilleon by seeming to be thoroughly unprepared for this assault. I'm not impressed...

Exactly. This has been public for less than 24 hours. What's happening on this board is exactly what Mr. Gilleon wanted to happen: Dump a seemingly overwhelming amount of information into the public sphere through social media, without any context or balance, and hope that as many people as possible make up their minds before hearing Araiza's side of the story, thereby putting pressure on Araiza and the Bills to capitulate. Lots of folks here taking the bait...

Why not just ignore it?

You are relying almost 100 percent on the allegations made by the plaintiff's attorney. Are you willing to give Araiza the opportunity to respond and defend himself? Can you think of any other well-known cases like this where the facts turned out to be other than as initially presented by the complainant and her lawyer?

Ok. It sounded like you were accepting the plaintiff's story just because it had not been expressly rebutted (yet) by Araiza...

What does the victim's diary say? (I'm trying to keep up, but this pesky job keeps getting in the way...)

You are reciting allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as if they are established facts because no one has expressly rebutted them in the 24 hours since the lawsuit was filed. That's just not the way it works. It's unfortunate that Araiza doesn't have more capable counsel, but you would do well not to take Mr. Gilleon's assertions (any of them) as facts.

Absolutely true. A lot of lawyers (especially defense lawyers) think it's always better to say nothing to the media...it's a common misconception and it could not be more wrong.

I don't believe he was ever put on the Commissioner's Exempt List. Houston just held him out.

I don't doubt that there's a tape, but I would put absolutely zero faith in what Mr. Gilleon tells me is or is not on said tape.

I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.

Watson's case was investigated for many months by the league and the authorities and involved at least 24 different accusers. And Watson never went on the exempt list.

True that they get released all the time, but they are nonetheless protected by a collective bargaining agreement. They are not employees at will.

Exactly. Many here are ready to throw this guy overboard based entirely on what a plaintiff's attorney is saying happened. Not very smart, or fair.