Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Logic said:

I see the "12 games" guess thrown around a lot today, and it seems like a likely outcome. 

The sad thing is that even THAT is not enough.

Nothing less than a full season's suspension feels like enough.

The dude's actions and his violations of the personal conduct policy were pretty egregious.

 

Why? Goodell is judge, jury and executioner now and  see no logical reason the NFL doesn't impose the penalty they want, with the NFLPA having not a leg to stand on to challenge it in court.

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They would have to argue that based on the findings of the arbitrator the level of increase from Goodell is irrational and therefor not a good faith adherence to the terms of the CBA and therefore is essentially a breach of the employment contract.

 

One suspects the basis of the irrationality claim will be a comparison to the non punishment of owners accused of similar given that is what they used in argument to the arbitrator. 

 

It is an uphill climb but that is their route. I agree with others who has said that the court will start from a place where it is reluctant to intervene.

 

I think it would be hard to conclude based on the factual findings of the investigation that Goodell's behavior was irrational. Watson may never play another down in the NFL again.

Posted
Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

They would have to argue that based on the findings of the arbitrator the level of increase from Goodell is irrational and therefor not a good faith adherence to the terms of the CBA and therefore is essentially a breach of the employment contract.

 

One suspects the basis of the irrationality claim will be a comparison to the non punishment of owners accused of similar given that is what they used in argument to the arbitrator. 

 

It is an uphill climb but that is their route. I agree with others who has said that the court will start from a place where it is reluctant to intervene.

Didn't they accept the findings of the arbitrator, who happened to have thrown that particular argument about ownership out?

Posted

I understand that it is the union's job to protect its members. However, word is that the NFLPA is going to sue the NFL if/when they levy a heavier suspension/fine upon Watson. The union then comes across as condoning the individuals actions, thus setting a dangerous precedent...or does it? Do they just intend a show of force without real action so as to say "we tried"? What a calamity.

Posted
Just now, Warcodered said:

Didn't they accept the findings of the arbitrator, who happened to have thrown that particular argument about ownership out?

 

It's a good point. I haven't read exactly what she said on that point. She may have killed that avenue off for them. 

Posted
Just now, MiltonWaddams said:

I understand that it is the union's job to protect its members. However, word is that the NFLPA is going to sue the NFL if/when they levy a heavier suspension/fine upon Watson. The union then comes across as condoning the individuals actions, thus setting a dangerous precedent...or does it? Do they just intend a show of force without real action so as to say "we tried"? What a calamity.

 

And that will likely be thrown out of court rather quickly.  They have no real basis for challenging it based on the findings of the judge who concludes that Watson is a scumbag.

Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

 

Or to someone Goodell appoints...likely himself

Posted
Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

 

*whiny Florio voice*

 

RIGGED NFL KANGAROO COURT

 

Posted
Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

Nope. The arbitrator was a neutral party. They are appealing the neutral party's decision. New process this year to allow the NFL to look better than they really are...

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Why? Goodell is judge, jury and executioner now and  see no logical reason the NFL doesn't impose the penalty they want, with the NFLPA having not a leg to stand on to challenge it in court.

 

I think it would be hard to conclude based on the factual findings of the investigation that Goodell's behavior was irrational. Watson may never play another down in the NFL again.

Agree because the findings of her decisions are not being appealed and can’t be appealed.  She found him guilty of 3 infractions under the conduct policy.  Those are binding.

She recommended a Penalty -

The NFL is appealing the length of the PENALTY. Had she NOT found infractions, The NFL could not have appealed at all. Why the courts would feel a need to overrule the league is beyond me.

Posted
5 minutes ago, StHustle said:


only that’s not splitting the difference. The NFL wanted 17 games and the judge gave him 6. That’s a difference of a whopping 11 games. Splitting that would be 11-12 games

 

NFL said full season.  NFLPA said nothing.  Split would be 8-9 games.

Posted
Just now, MiltonWaddams said:

Nope. The arbitrator was a neutral party. They are appealing the neutral party's decision. New process this year to allow the NFL to look better than they really are...

Right. So there is no neutral party. At the end of the day the NFL makes whatever decision they want. 

 

I'm glad they are "appealing" by the way, personally don't think he should ever play again. Just laughing at how absurd the process is.

Posted
15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Isn’t the Snyder thing still going on? I didn’t think a decision was made on him yet. They did remove an owner not long ago for sexual harassment (in Carolina)

 

Who removed an owner?

 

A Sports Illustrated story was dropping, and Richardson announced he'd sell, but there was no formal process or vote, or even known pressure from the league. The other owners certainly werent going to call anyone else out considering the way most were behaving back then (and some still are today).

 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

NFL said full season.  NFLPA said nothing.  Split would be 8-9 games.

Goodell could have already settled for 8 games but didn’t . The report was he wouldn’t go below 12 and they wouldn’t go above 8.

So much for that sweet structure of the  browns contract ie the only reason he went there 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It's a good point. I haven't read exactly what she said on that point. She may have killed that avenue off for them. 

 

Yeah...I mean, I understand why all of the media right now is talking about how Watson could start W1 pending court action but the odds are realistically probably less than 1%.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

The NFLPA said they would argue that Watson already served a full year suspension because he didn't play last year but that is nonsense because it was HIM that refused to take the field and said he wouldn't play another snap for the Texans even after they bent over backwards to try and mend the fences with him, and he still got paid anyways, so that argument doesn't hold any water.  Their boat has a giant hole in the middle of it and they are trying to bail water but the ship is sinking fast.

 

Claiming Watson already served a full year suspension which makes no sense since he was the one who refused to ever suit up for Houston again, not the team imposing the suspension, and he still got paid.  They have no grounds. It's a bluff and one that will end badly for the NFLPA

 

You are also forgetting about the systemic ingrained culture of sexual harassment that was reported to be there, cheerleaders having pantie shots taken of them without their permission up their skirts and other pictures taken(from I believe changing rooms) that ended up in an internal calendar they made with them on it..again without their permission.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/26/redskins-cheerleaders-video-daniel-snyder-washington/

 

 

I think it's pretty easy to argue that Watson sitting out last year was a de facto suspension. If Watson had never received a massage or if these allegations never surfaced what are the odds he would've played last year? I'm putting it at 100% (it might not have been in Houston, but it would've been easy to trade him). An established franchise QB sitting out for an entire season would have been unprecedented. 

 

Sexual harassment = / = sexual assault

 

Both are scummy (not to mention illegal), but assault is more serious than harassment. What Snyder did is not a great comparison. Kraft and his 100% consensual rub and tug are not a great comparison either. 

  • Vomit 1
  • Disagree 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Goodell could have already settled for 8 games but didn’t . The report was he wouldn’t go below 12 and they wouldn’t go above 8.

So much for that sweet structure of the  browns contract ie the only reason he went there 

 

I just have a hard time believing any of these scumbags.  I feel like both sides have known what the end game will be and that they're going through all of these motions so both of them can claim to have done everything possible for their interested parties.  I think the retired judge exercise was a complete sham.  I think the NFLPA knows, and has known, damn well that this was going to be up to Goodell from day one.  And I think all of this crap that's happening now is pure optics.

 

I'll tell you one thing for certain ... I'm glad this has nothing to do with the Buffalo Bills!

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

 

I think it's pretty easy to argue that Watson sitting out last year was a de facto suspension. If Watson had never received a massage or if these allegations never surfaced what are the odds he would've played last year? I'm putting it at 100% (it might not have been in Houston, but it would've been easy to trade him). An established franchise QB sitting out for an entire season would have been unprecedented. 

 

Sexual harassment = / = sexual assault

 

Both are scummy (not to mention illegal), but assault is more serious than harassment. What Snyder did is not a great comparison. Kraft and his 100% consensual rub and tug are not a great comparison either. 


Watson was still paid for last season so it wouldn’t equal a full season suspension. Additionally he stated that he refused to play for the Texans so it’d be hard to argue it was a team imposed suspension 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...