Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Because the team and his legal team are making him 

🤮

If it's "The World vs. sex predators" then sorry Cleveland but I'm with the world on this one. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted (edited)
Quote

Appeals officer Peter Harvey continues to delay his decision in the Deshaun Watson case, apparently not because he’s undecided or procrastinating. Harvey is believed to be waiting to see whether the league and Watson can work out a deal.

The possibility of settlement remains viable, we’re told. Currently, it could go either way. As such things usually do. But this one truly falls into the toss-up category. We’ll wait and see if the NFL and Watson can find a middle ground.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/settlement-remains-very-possible-in-deshaun-watson-s-disciplinary-case/ar-AA10GVdV?cvid=764a4370654446aead67b7d0a1ce4a68

 

 

I keep hoping on the daily there will be some sort of resolution. as of now ZIPPO

Edited by muppy
Posted
2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

If it ends up a full year for Watson, his game has to suffer.

He won't have rust to knock off in 2023, it will be corrosion.

At the beginning of the 2023 season, he will be 32 months removed from competitive football.  He won’t be the same…probably ever

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 3:27 PM, hemma said:

Did they make the bonus contingent on being eligible in 2022?

Haslam is an idiot, so I’d be surprised if he folded that into the negotiations.

 

The entire contract was crafted so he would not be penalized even if suspended for the year.

He previously rejected previous attempts by Browns to sign him after his one year paid vacation and NFC South teams were negotiating for his services and then Browns threw in the fully guararenteed contract.

 

Fully guarenteed contracts have been used before but not for a player in hot water or for so large of a contract.

Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 4:03 PM, YoloinOhio said:

Because the team and his legal team are making him 

🤮

Rally about sexual abuse…as long as it’s “non violent”

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Bangarang said:

Anything less than being suspended the entire year will be a joke. 

The more I hear about this being settled the more I feel like that's what's going to happen.

Edited by Warcodered
Posted
9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

The more I hear about this being settled the more I feel like that's what's going to happen.

My best guess is that Watson will settle on a year and probably a 10 million dollar fine or something in that range.  The NFL definitely wants the full year for optics/PR purposes and also wants to make sure that the structuring of that contract gets punished a bit as well.  At this point, Watson probably just wants this behind him and seeing the kind of reception he received on Friday night, probably realizes it's in his best interest to allow this to simmer down over the next year.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said:

My best guess is that Watson will settle on a year and probably a 10 million dollar fine or something in that range.  The NFL definitely wants the full year for optics/PR purposes and also wants to make sure that the structuring of that contract gets punished a bit as well.  At this point, Watson probably just wants this behind him and seeing the kind of reception he received on Friday night, probably realizes it's in his best interest to allow this to simmer down over the next year.

 

A ten million dollar fine on a 250 million dollar contract, what a punishment... That'd be a joke even with a year suspension.  I realize that his salary and what he did are only tangentially connected, but this whole thing feels like such a miscarriage and failure of all the justice and ethics systems involved. 

 

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

 

A ten million dollar fine on a 250 million dollar contract, what a punishment... That'd be a joke even with a year suspension.  I realize that his salary and what he did are only tangentially connected, but this whole thing feels like such a miscarriage and failure of all the justice and ethics systems involved. 

 

 

I agree.  Not what I'd like to see happen, just a best guess based on where we started from (6 games) and Watson's/NFLPA's assertions that virtually zero punishment should be meted out.  In that sense, it can be argued that a year ban and comparatively nominal fine are a "win" for Goodell and the NFL in the court of public opinion.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

 

A ten million dollar fine on a 250 million dollar contract, what a punishment... That'd be a joke even with a year suspension.  I realize that his salary and what he did are only tangentially connected, but this whole thing feels like such a miscarriage and failure of all the justice and ethics systems involved. 

 

 

I agree that it’s a drop in the bucket, but from my understanding all of the fines go to NFL charities. $10 million directly to NFL charities would be a boon for the less fortunate. Especially in this day and age. Inflation is a killer.

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

Anything less than being suspended the entire year will be a joke. 

 

I don't understand why the NFL would open itself up to the criticism of anything less than a year. They are off the hook with a year and look like the rational people coming in and ensuring a proper punishment is assigned. I thought this was their master plan with an arbitrator.  Why even negotiate a "deal"?

 

If they turn it into 8 or 12 games or worse just a fine (that goes to charity) then they will be crucified again.

Edited by What a Tuel
Posted
1 hour ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I don't understand why the NFL would open itself up to the criticism of anything less than a year. They are off the hook with a year and look like the rational people coming in and ensuring a proper punishment is assigned. I thought this was their master plan with an arbitrator.  Why even negotiate a "deal"?

 

If they turn it into 8 or 12 games or worse just a fine (that goes to charity) then they will be crucified again.


Just guessing here, but it’s possible the suspension length aspect is settled (and I think the league is not budging on the year long duration of it, because, as you say, the NFL will be crucified all over again if it’s shortened to 8/10/12.)

 

What could still be at issue and what the two sides are still hammering out are things like the fine amount and mandatory counseling, things like that.

Posted

So lets say a settlement or decision is not announced by this weekend and DW plays again. What happens if he blows out an ACL? "Oh darn, guess you can go ahead and suspend me for 17 games, I am out 9-10 months anyway"? Is the only recourse at that point the fine and the fact he wouldn't get paid for that amount of game?

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, ytownblofan said:

So lets say a settlement or decision is not announced by this weekend and DW plays again. What happens if he blows out an ACL? "Oh darn, guess you can go ahead and suspend me for 17 games, I am out 9-10 months anyway"? Is the only recourse at that point the fine and the fact he wouldn't get paid for that amount of game?

Very interesting question but from what I have found.  It looks like players can be put on IR if they are suspended but no mention of the other way around.  This is likely so players can still receive treatment at the facilities while they are suspended as opposed to being away from the team while serving their suspension.

 

However, I would imagine that the suspension might supersede the IR designation for this very reason (especially when he is already under investigation) so any time served on IR would not count toward his suspension and would start after his return from IR (again, I'm just guessing that this might  be the case).

Edited by The Wiz
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...