Deshaun Watson admits under oath that Ashley Solis cried at the end of the massage

[machine gun kelly]

22 minutes ago, maddenboy said:

I think the fact that this is a New CBA changes the Big Ben angle

 

Both sides have reason to argue that the old ways do not count.  Including that both sides had the Big Ben situation in mind when they were negotiating the current provision, so the new provision is designed to avoid the Big Ben result.  That this is an issue of first-impression without any precedent under this specific set of rules.  ON Purpose.  Because both sides agreed to dump the old system under which Big Ben got 6 games.  Based on whatever motivations the sides had to negotiate and end up with this new system.

 

Also, both sides want a global settlement, Watson much moreso, and Watson will want any settlement to include future complaints for this same type of behavior during the same time period.

 

i think that, behind doors, the NFL will be justifying the arguments that it made in the Big Ben case, about conduct detrimental to the entire league.  Both sides gambled when they decided to scrap the old rules , in favor of the new CBA.  

 

Basically, NFL says "yes, Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league, so that is why we get to punish him.  But we agree that the amount of punishment under that old system is irrelevant.  We think the punishment under this new system should be x,y.z."

 

I want editorializing, just stating what the supposition is going to happen.  Personally, I’d like if you’re asking my opinion to see a full year out with a clause by Goodell pending for indefinite if more settlements come to fruition.

 

There is no justification for his behavior!

[YoloinOhio]

2 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

 

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

The owners can remove Snyder if they want to but he’s not subject to the same process as players. The panthers owner was removed. Suspending and fining owners is meaningless so not sure what’s left other than removal which is by the owners 

Edited June 30, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[HappyDays]

 

[Saxum]

30 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The owners can remove Snyder if they want to but he’s not subject to the same process as players. The panthers owner was removed. Suspending and fining owners is meaningless so not sure what’s left other than removal which is by the owners 

 

Since he was withholding share of money I'd like to have racketeering charges pursued. 

18 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

In this case nothing involuntary was charged.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[BarleyNY]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

That definitely tracks to Watson skating.  I can’t imagine how the league could justify an unprecedented penalty for a violation that did not include charges being brought against the player, much less a conviction.

 

Previously I laid out the case that the neutral arbiter finding in favor of Watson was the best case scenario for the NFL.  TL:DR on that is: the league gets to continue to feign outrage but has their hands tied.  The Watson saga is over (save the lawsuit against the Texans).  Incidentally, it would also be better for McNair and the Texans since a suspension by the NFL could be used against them in court. 

[HappyDays]

12 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

That definitely tracks to Watson skating.  I can’t imagine how the league could justify an unprecedented penalty for a violation that did not include charges being brought against the player, much less a conviction.

 

I'm guessing Florio's source is someone in the NFLPA considering the slant of those points. Those are the points the NFLPA will use to try and argue for no punishment, but it's up to the arbiter to agree with those points or not.

 

I'd be pretty shocked if there was no suspension handed out. The NFL just has to prove that Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league's image. They don't have to prove that he broke any laws. The letter of the policy states:

 

Quote

 

All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.' ... While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful.

 

 

I don't see how the NFL can lose their argument given the broad scope they have to find violations of that policy.

[Albanybillsbacker]

57 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

That definitely tracks to Watson skating.  I can’t imagine how the league could justify an unprecedented penalty for a violation that did not include charges being brought against the player, much less a conviction.

 

Previously I laid out the case that the neutral arbiter finding in favor of Watson was the best case scenario for the NFL.  TL:DR on that is: the league gets to continue to feign outrage but has their hands tied.  The Watson saga is over (save the lawsuit against the Texans).  Incidentally, it would also be better for McNair and the Texans since a suspension by the NFL could be used against them in court. 

I mean Bauer is out of the MLB without any charges being filed. 

 

The NFL is a joke.  This guy should never play another down. 

[The Wiz]

31 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I'm guessing Florio's source is someone in the NFLPA considering the slant of those points. Those are the points the NFLPA will use to try and argue for no punishment, but it's up to the arbiter to agree with those points or not.

 

I'd be pretty shocked if there was no suspension handed out. The NFL just has to prove that Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league's image. They don't have to prove that he broke any laws. The letter of the policy states:

 

 

I don't see how the NFL can lose their argument given the broad scope they have to find violations of that policy.

That's the thing I feel like people are missing.  Doesn't matter if he wasn't convicted or tried.  Doesn't matter if the person appointed to oversee was a former Judge. 

 

This isn't about federal or state laws being broken but it's up to her to determine if what he did was detrimental to the league and is policies.  I don't see how anyone would could be convinced he hasn't. 

[JoPoy88]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No “coercion” huh? That’s exactly what he was doing in pretty much all these cases - trying to coerce these women into touching him in ways they did not want or agree to.

 

 

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

That definitely tracks to Watson skating.  I can’t imagine how the league could justify an unprecedented penalty for a violation that did not include charges being brought against the player, much less a conviction.

 

Previously I laid out the case that the neutral arbiter finding in favor of Watson was the best case scenario for the NFL.  TL:DR on that is: the league gets to continue to feign outrage but has their hands tied.  The Watson saga is over (save the lawsuit against the Texans).  Incidentally, it would also be better for McNair and the Texans since a suspension by the NFL could be used against them in court. 

 

no coercion, or force, and no punishment for the closest comparable while he sat out a year already…

 

The nfl may have tanked this hearing so the judge wouldn’t punish and then the league wouldn’t have to take on responsibility for the decision 

[Augie]

11 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

no coercion, or force, and no punishment for the closest comparable while he sat out a year already…

 

The nfl may have tanked this hearing so the judge wouldn’t punish and then the league wouldn’t have to take on responsibility for the decision 

 

No threat or force, but I think it was ALL about the coercion. We’ll never know, so I won’t argue it.

 

I posted to say you raise an interesting point: this was a very convenient way for the league to be absolved of any backlash.  

 

 

.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Augie

[NoSaint]

14 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

No “coercion” huh? That’s exactly what he was doing in pretty much all these cases - trying to coerce these women into touching him in ways they did not want or agree to.

 

 

I don’t mean to be a jerk, but genuinely encourage you to check the definition out. I think you’d feel differently about saying he coerced all of them.

 

he was sketchy, and a jerk but he didn’t have much in the way of allegations of threatening behavior. I didn’t catch any consequences that would be levied for declining the offers. 
 

that’s not to say I approve of him at all but you’ve levied a specific accusation with the word 

[BarleyNY]

56 minutes ago, Albanybillsbacker said:

I mean Bauer is out of the MLB without any charges being filed. 

 

The NFL is a joke.  This guy should never play another down. 

I think the NFL made its bed when they chose to do nothing to three owners who clearly violated the PCP.  Snyder’s transgression became an issue again because it transpired that he was stealing from other owners, but before then he had no real consequences for things far worse than Watson has been accused of.

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

No threat or force, but I think it was ALL about the coercion. We’ll never know, so I won’t argue it.

 

I posted to say you raise in interesting point: this was a very convenient way for the league to be absolved of any backlash.  

indeed. It’s an easy out for them right? In a lose-lose situation letting someone else be the face has some appeal, right? Not my fault both sides are upset! It could be a chess move to protect the shield. 

 

that said, to the first part… was he gross in his methods of persuasion? Sure thing.

Was this descriptive of his actions though:

The statutory definition of coercion is fairly uniform among the states: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone to do something they have a legal right to do (or not to do). Charges typically are enhanced if physical force was used or threatened.

Edited July 1, 2022 by NoSaint

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

indeed. It’s an easy out for them right? In a lose-lose situation letting someone else be the face has some appeal, right? Not my fault both sides are upset! It could be a chess move to protect the shield. 

 

that said, to the first part… was he gross in his methods of persuasion? Sure thing.

Was this descriptive of his actions though:

The statutory definition of coercion is fairly uniform among the states: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone to do something they have a legal right to do (or not to do). Charges typically are enhanced if physical force was used or threatened.

 

That will not sell me that the rich professional athlete did not exert some form of coercion. 

 

We might never agree on this, so I won’t go down that wormhole. 

 

But yes, the NFL may have pulled a Jags here and tanked. At the very least it seems they played it smart and covered themselves. Highest profile case ever where they don’t want to be the face of it. Ray Rice was simple compared to this mess! 

[BarleyNY]

15 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

no coercion, or force, and no punishment for the closest comparable while he sat out a year already…

 

The nfl may have tanked this hearing so the judge wouldn’t punish and then the league wouldn’t have to take on responsibility for the decision 

Yup.  It is the easiest outcome for the league.  On thing I’ll say as far as coercion goes, I have seen no evidence to support those claims.  Even the testimony has not pointed to coercion.  It’s been stuff like “he’s a big guy” and “he said he could help my business”.   That’s not the same as threatening violence or loss of income.  Also the text exchange between masseuses that was released didn’t show any concern for anyone’s safety. It wasn’t “you’re in danger”.  It was “Watson is getting a reputation”.

 

And don’t get me wrong, the things I think he’s done do deserve punishment.  I think he’s getting that in the form of being drug through the mud in front of the country as well as some serious financial penalties.  IMO he deserves a little unpaid time off at work too.  But I don’t have any sympathy for the league if he skates.  Their written agreement with the NFLPA was that they had to keep their house in order.  In return they retained the right to overrule punishments.  And their house has been a mess since. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You clearly stated that "they probably felt like it was a non-starter in their negotiations" so you even believe something was preventing them.

 

Yes, they clearly would mind.  You're trying to argue that they are okay with paying more and it doesn't matter.  What the Browns offered potentially forces teams with QB contracts coming up to pay more.  To argue that the Chargers (or any team with QB coming up in a contract year) don't care they have pay Herbert north of $230,000 million fully guaranteed when under the normal scale $160 million or so would have been the market rate...is insane. 

 

That's like saying people that are paying $50,000 over listing to get the house they want, don't care that they had to because they paid it anyway.

Come on.

 

Eventually someone would have gotten $230,000 million but you're talking like 10 years from now.  

 

 

lol..10 years??!.  The NFL total revenue in 2009 was 8 billion.  It doubled in 10 years.   

 

 

For most owners, yeah, it's still a nonstarter---it doesn't "force teams" to do anything.  How good is your memory?  It was only 4 years ago that Kirk Cousins singed the first NFL "fully guaranteed contract".  How many fully backed contracts were demanded after him?  And Herbert will command at least 50 million a year.  They will want to lock him up for 6-7 years, at least.  Josh and Rodgers had 2/3 of their money guaranteed.  That's 200+ million the Chargers will have to escrow---without a fully guaranteed contract.....

 

Anyway, back to the original point:  to suggest that the owners are pissed off and want to punish the Browns over this is really ridiculous.  There is so much money coming in they aren't losing sleep over this.  

5 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Natural progression, yes. What they did was not natural progression in signing a player that hasn't played for a year and very well may not play for another year to a fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Rodgers is getting 150m guaranteed with his extension. 

 

So a barely .500 qb is getting 80m more guaranteed money than a 4x MVP and SuperBowl champion. 

 

 

 

 

 

What they did was stupid, not trend setting.  They also singed and kept Hue Jackson...

[NoSaint]

9 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

That will not sell me that the rich professional athlete did not exert some form of coercion. 

 

We might never agree on this, so I won’t go down that wormhole. 

 

But yes, the NFL may have pulled a Jags here and tanked. At the very least it seems they played it smart and covered themselves. Highest profile case ever where they don’t want to be the face of it. Ray Rice was simple compared to this mess! 

We don’t have to walk down the path but I am admittedly curious if our split is on what we think he did or what we think the word means. I suspect in either case we aren’t far removed on overall take.

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

I'm guessing Florio's source is someone in the NFLPA considering the slant of those points. Those are the points the NFLPA will use to try and argue for no punishment, but it's up to the arbiter to agree with those points or not.

 

I'd be pretty shocked if there was no suspension handed out. The NFL just has to prove that Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league's image. They don't have to prove that he broke any laws. The letter of the policy states:

 

 

I don't see how the NFL can lose their argument given the broad scope they have to find violations of that policy.

I don’t know the process involved here so I can’t say for sure where this will go.  How much does precedent factor into the decision?  If it factors heavily and it has been set by the league’s inaction against owners who’s violations seem worse, then Watson will win this.  But maybe that’s not how this will work.  It’s a nebulous part of the PCP:

 

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

 

Thats pretty broad and open to interpretation, but I’d think it would be easy to say that Watson violated that - unless precedent is considered.  I dunno.  It depends on a process that hasn’t been spelled out.