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

[Mango]

23 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

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.

On one hand I get this. But on the other hand I don’t. So the NFL handled Snyder poorly, so therefore they are legally required to handle Watson and everybody else poorly for eternity as well?

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

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.  

From the guaranteed money stand point, the Browns increased it by 53% from the previous high.  So if owners really don’t care, I guess we should expect a 53% increase every year on contracts.  They’ll be cool with it.  So at that pace, we should expect a fully guaranteed billion dollar contract in what…4 years?
 

Or since they really don’t care about the money….everybody gets fully guaranteed contracts.

I also never said punish either.  You keep putting words in my mouth.

[BarleyNY]

4 minutes ago, Mango said:

On one hand I get this. But on the other hand I don’t. So the NFL handled Snyder poorly, so therefore they are legally required to handle Watson and everybody else poorly for eternity as well?

I think it’s more: We, the players, will let you, the league, retain final say over punishment for PCP violations if owners are held to at least the same standard.  The NFL agreed and then totally disregarded that agreement three times.  I guess I don’t understand people who get bent out of shape over Watson, but just shrug their shoulders at Snyder, Kraft and Jones.  Especially Snyder. 

[The Wiz]

45 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

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

That we can agree upon. 👍 

[CincyBillsFan]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

Agree, this is about conduct not criminal activity.  And Watson's conduct appears to have been detrimental to the NFL's image.  I can't imagine a rational argument that counters this. 

 

The NFL has made a herculean effort to increase the number of women who are fans.  On it's face Watson's conduct is very damaging to that effort.  I can't imagine that the judge and Goodell won't see it that way.  Anything less then a one season suspension makes a mockery of the NFL's outreach to women.

 

 

 

[Mike in Horseheads]

They will rule on this January 23 Then give him a year meaning really 3 years off and someone would still complain

[CSBill]

9 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

If "the NFL" wanted to punish the Browns for their stupidity, they would have started to do so decades ago.  Plus, Haslam's poor decisions themselves perpetually "punish the Browns".

 

I think there is no chance the owners are telling Goddell to screw the Browns over a dumb contract.  Makes no sense.

You are probably right, but I can hope. 

[maddenboy]

3 hours ago, The Wiz said:

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. 

causation, maybe.

 

If the 'fetish' thing is accurate, he could be said to just had more money to set himself up more times to get lucky.  Or whatever anybody does behind closed doors.  As long as not illegal.   It doesnt look like he had criminal intent,(no indictment signals not enuf proof of intent) no matter where he falls on a fan's moral spectrum.

 

If it had never gotten out as news, what would the detriment to the league be?  not the conduct itself.    So the point is "detrimental" which probably means 'make us less money' (no sarcasm.  that is how the league's value is determined).

 

So should he have known both that (1) it would get out, and also (2) that there would be detriment to the league? 

 

and if the answer is Yes to both (which must be true), then (3) he decided it was worth it to gamble.  Now the league is mad that he gambled and lost, and he is saying "yeah, i thought my risk was that the league might suffer X amount of damage" and the NFL is saying "no, stupid.  The risk was 5X.  you owe us for the damage And you are going to suffer for underestimating"

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by maddenboy

[JoPoy88]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

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 

not to be a jerk, but I own a dictionary. I also went to law school so I understand the legal principles behind “coercion” and based on what has already been “alleged” in the media YES he coerced at least a couple of these women. 

[Wayne Cubed]

11 hours 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. 

 

Not for nothing but Florio is a mouth for the NFLPA and this screams of a leak to piss on the NFL case, which is nothing new for Florio.

 

The AP has a much different account of what's happened and is still contends the NFL will seek an indefinate suspension of at least a year.

 

 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

not to be a jerk, but I own a dictionary. I also went to law school so I understand the legal principles behind “coercion” and based on what has already been “alleged” in the media YES he coerced at least a couple of these women. 

“Pretty much all” fading fast to “at least a couple” I think illustrates the point I was making.

It’s a legal word that many of the general public unintentionally misuse to discuss almost any method of being persuasive or exerting pressure in any way. So i usually encourage folks to give it a google. 
 

 

if a woman did not go along, what consequence did they reasonably expect to face? It seems both sides agree that no form of threats of violence or physical consequence were levied. A huge number were not even professional massage providers to have career concerns (ie would he try to get them fired from an otherwise legit job with the texans). 
 

if the leaks are accurate that nfl lawyers did not accuse coercion, I think it’s fair to question why a message board poster is insisting “pretty much all” were subject to coercion. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

“Pretty much all” fading fast to “at least a couple” I think illustrates the point I was making.

It’s a legal word that many of the general public unintentionally misuse to discuss almost any method of being persuasive or exerting pressure in any way. So i usually encourage folks to give it a google. 
 

 

if a woman did not go along, what consequence did they reasonably expect to face? It seems both sides agree that no form of threats of violence or physical consequence were levied. A huge number were not even professional massage providers to have career concerns (ie would he try to get them fired from an otherwise legit job with the texans). 
 

if the leaks are accurate that nfl lawyers did not accuse coercion, I think it’s fair to question why a message board poster is insisting “pretty much all” were subject to coercion. 

 

I think the reality is the NFL is trying very hard here to get away from 'trying' the cases in a legal sense. They don't want to get embroiled in the level that the behaviour rose to - was it sufficient to constitute a crime? The criminal courts say there is not enough evidence to determine that; was it sufficient to constitute a tort? That is still to be determined by the civil courts. Based on the reports the NFL is trying hard to stay away from that and simply say there was behaviour here that meets the personal conduct policy threshold of "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League" and therefore discipline should be applied. 

 

The Rice litigation still makes an indefinite suspension a dicey prospect for the NFL in my view. It isn't exactly analogous, Rice was successful in overturning an increase to an indefinite suspension not the imposition of an initial indefinite suspension but the arbitration essentially held that the NFL needs a very strong reason for an indefinite suspension. Could the NFL argue that the outstanding civil suits constitute an exceptional reason? Sure. Does that have a chance to be successful? Yes. But it is by no means a given. I think there are pretty good arguments against that if you are Watson's legal team... not least that saying "a year now but maybe more if some really damaging stuff comes out during the trials" is tantamount to the approach with Rice where he was suspended and then suspended again once the video surfaced. Personally I'd have advised them to go for a longer determinate suspension - of say 2 years and see how far the judge in charge of the initial phase of the process is willing to lower that based on arguments from the Watson camp. The league office has not exactly got a stellar record in these high profile discipline cases of getting it right. 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

From the guaranteed money stand point, the Browns increased it by 53% from the previous high.  So if owners really don’t care, I guess we should expect a 53% increase every year on contracts.  They’ll be cool with it.  So at that pace, we should expect a fully guaranteed billion dollar contract in what…4 years?
 

Or since they really don’t care about the money….everybody gets fully guaranteed contracts.

I also never said punish either.  You keep putting words in my mouth.

 

 

Scroll up to see the post I was responding to.  It wasn't yours.

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about now: the fact that the whole contract was guaranteed or that the guarantee amount is 230 million.   If they offered him a 150 million a 50 million a year for 3 years all guaranteed, would that be a big deal?  If they offered him a 10 year contact at 500 million (Mahomes money) and 200 million guaranteed, would that be better?

 

What the owners "don't care about" is that the Browns are paying this one season wonder 230 million all up front.  It's not going to change how most of them enter negotiations with their franchise QBs. 

[eball]

48 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think the reality is the NFL is trying very hard here to get away from 'trying' the cases in a legal sense. They don't want to get embroiled in the level that the behaviour rose to - was it sufficient to constitute a crime? The criminal courts say there is not enough evidence to determine that; was it sufficient to constitute a tort? That is still to be determined by the civil courts. Based on the reports the NFL is trying hard to stay away from that and simply say there was behaviour here that meets the personal conduct policy threshold of "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League" and therefore discipline should be applied. 

 

The Rice litigation still makes an indefinite suspension a dicey prospect for the NFL in my view. It isn't exactly analogous, Rice was successful in overturning an increase to an indefinite suspension not the imposition of an initial indefinite suspension but the arbitration essentially held that the NFL needs a very strong reason for an indefinite suspension. Could the NFL argue that the outstanding civil suits constitute an exceptional reason? Sure. Does that have a chance to be successful? Yes. But it is by no means a given. I think there are pretty good arguments against that if you are Watson's legal team... not least that saying "a year now but maybe more if some really damaging stuff comes out during the trials" is tantamount to the approach with Rice where he was suspended and then suspended again once the video surfaced. Personally I'd have advised them to go for a longer determinate suspension - of say 2 years and see how far the judge in charge of the initial phase of the process is willing to lower that based on arguments from the Watson camp. The league office has not exactly got a stellar record in these high profile discipline cases of getting it right. 

 

No, but I do think that this time they want to be viewed as "in the right" in the public eye.  As others have noted, the NFL has worked tirelessly to attract women to their product.  If they don't push for an indefinite suspension much of that effort was wasted.

 

The only thing I believe weakens the NFL's case (for indefinite suspension) is their lack of discipline towards owners for some pretty significant indiscretions.  If I'm arguing for the NFL, however, I keep coming back to the literal mountain of complaints against Watson.  If a "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument was ever going to take the day, it's in this case.  The dude is a creep, and the NFL needs to do everything it can to keep him from being a face of a franchise.  Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, eball said:

 

No, but I do think that this time they want to be viewed as "in the right" in the public eye.  As others have noted, the NFL has worked tirelessly to attract women to their product.  If they don't push for an indefinite suspension much of that effort was wasted.

 

The only thing I believe weakens the NFL's case (for indefinite suspension) is their lack of discipline towards owners for some pretty significant indiscretions.  If I'm arguing for the NFL, however, I keep coming back to the literal mountain of complaints against Watson.  If a "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument was ever going to take the day, it's in this case.  The dude is a creep, and the NFL needs to do everything it can to keep him from being a face of a franchise.  Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

 

 

They wanted to be right in the public eye when they increased the penalty for Rice too. Personally I don't think an indefinite suspension is the way to go and I'm not sure I'd consider your argument is an exceptional one, certainly not to a judge. I think they should argue for a lengthy determinate suspension. That to me would be the better play. They might make the indefinite suspension stick, but I'm not sure they will.  

[eball]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They wanted to be right in the public eye when they increased the penalty for Rice too. Personally I don't think an indefinite suspension is the way to go and I'm not sure I'd consider your argument is an exceptional one, certainly not to a judge. I think they should argue for a lengthy determinate suspension. That to me would be the better play. They might make the indefinite suspension stick, but I'm not sure they will.  

 

The sheer number of complaints is, from a practical standpoint, impossible to overcome for Watson.

[wjag]

So final briefs not due until the week of 11 July.  So this isn’t being settled for a few weeks still. 

[GunnerBill]

41 minutes ago, eball said:

 

The sheer number of complaints is, from a practical standpoint, impossible to overcome for Watson.

 

Of course. And he is going to get suspended. I just don't know if arguing for the indefinite suspension is the best tactic for the NFL here. Much better to have a 2 year suspension that sticks than an indefinite suspension that results in further challenge and gets embroiled in further legal process. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by GunnerBill

[eball]

22 minutes ago, wjag said:

So final briefs not due until the week of 11 July.  So this isn’t being settled for a few weeks still. 

 

I'd expect the ruling to come down just as training camps open.

[BarleyNY]

54 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I'd expect the ruling to come down just as training camps open.

I agree. Just in time for whatever the ruling is to be drowned out by the opening of training camps.