McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Airseven said:

Please unpin this my lord

I don’t think the lord has forum privileges to do that. 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Airseven said:

Please unpin this my lord

 

I'm not sure if He can help in this case.

[aristocrat]

So does he still get his contract paid out?

[TC in St. Louis]

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

So does he still get his contract paid out?

No. 

[aristocrat]

1 minute ago, TC in St. Louis said:

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

reminds me of Michael avenatti. I think this ends with him getting the pants sued off him by the victim and araiza 

[Coach Tuesday]

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

[UKBillFan]

Just now, TC in St. Louis said:

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

 

This is putting two and two together and I could well make five from this.

 

I think this is the case, for the defense attorney, which broke the camel's back. He has seemingly overseen more than one case where there have been alleged rape's and/or sexual assualts where Araiza's attorney has helped to get the defendants off; he referred to "two predators" in a previous tweet. Now there's a third, with one of the alleged perpetartors being plastered over the thread as "Punt God" and "Hold God". Araiza's attorney is presumably taking a similar approach which he took previously. The DA department has just received the material and is going through it but, based on the civil charge, there may already be an implication that Araiza, at least, will not be charged. He's had enough of what he sees sports people and/or men get off on crimes he believes they've committed, especially after having to deal with vulnerable alleged victims, who may be upset, blaming themselves, and under pressure from society who deem them as "not being able to keep their legs shut", a comment which has been posted on here today. It has tipped him over the edge and his emotion has taken over reason.

 

His intention might have been to hurt Araiza's career. In the long term I am concerned, by arguably letting his emotions run unchecked, he's hurt his client's case more.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

12 minutes ago, hemma said:

3). The Bills pay for 1 or more lawyers to help protect their interests and keep them from stumbling into legal quagmires.

Hell, even lawyers for the Bills have been booted for conduct unbecoming a team executive, coach, or player.

[hemma]

2 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Hell, even lawyers for the Bills have been booted for conduct unbecoming a team executive, coach, or player.

 

Now?

These lawyers?

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Heh.  I think if it's random - if you have 2 purple balls, and you remove at least 10 balls out of a basket initially holding 32 balls - your odds of not pulling a purple ball in 10 removals are something like 45%.  Check me on that.  It's a ratio of factorials.

 

It's probably not random - Beane probably has closer connections to some teams than others,

AP writer Rob Maadi, who I believe is Tampa-based, likewise probably has closer connections to some teams than others.

They may not be the same teams.

 

 

I've been talking about this with a guy who may know a guy.  And the best we can come up with, is a disconnect between the Bills legal department, PR departments, FO and coaching and a misunderstanding of what this was.

 

Kathryn D'Angelo's boss is....Gregg Brandon, brother of Russ Brandon.  So when she took the convo to her boss Brandon, his reaction may have been colored by "the way things were" (where people had more of a "players will be players, big deal" attitude).  And from that view, the first step was to contact Araiza and his attorney and get their take.  His attorney painted this publicly as a "cash grab" and may have been in settlement talks with the victim's attorney per the leaked texts.

 

If it was a "cash grab", actually filing the suit and publicizing the pictures is the nuclear option that would separate the cash cow from its lucrative grazing field. And apparently civil lawsuits are often nowhere near that specific and graphic if their intent is to be successful civil lawsuits, because that leaves the litigators more "wiggle room".

 

Believing it was a "cash grab" may have focused the Bills internal investigation (which I think they did conduct) on verifying Araiza's account of his involvement - reaching out independently to witnesses confirming the girl represented herself as in college, and that Araiza was not involved in the alleged rape -vs- actually trying to suss out the plaintiff's attorney's intentions and learn more about his intentions for the case, then conducting a broader review.

 

Also, it seems incredible to me, but I don't think the Bills actually had someone performing the due diligence of Googling LA Times articles and reading them.  Because if they did, it only takes the most rudimentary PR chops to plug Araiza's name into the details that were provided in the July 29th article and to see that the optics of "Civil suit filed against Bills punter Matt Araiza and others for gang rape which left 17 year old girl with bloody clothes, bleeding from her *****, and with bruises on her neck and legs" are gonna be Very Very Bad.

 

I think the Bills were honestly blindsided by the filing and the shitstorm which followed, and that McDermott was honestly horrified and distressed by the details in the lawsuit. He reacted like they were totally novel to him, and he had no idea Araiza might be linked to something like that.  But far from being "boulders" all those details were published in the press back in late July, just not linked to Araiza.

 

Clearly, we still only have allegations.  The lawsuit is only allegations.  Nothing likely changed in that regard between the lawyer's call, Monday when the Bills cut Haack, and Friday.

This is consistent with everything that I've hypothesized in smaller chunks here (save for GGGB blowing off D'Angelo).  I'll add that both of those corporate counsels are basically inexperienced litigators.  GGGB, to the best of my understanding, was a patent attorney and had a genetic advantage in getting the job.  How he survived his brother's BS is beyond me.  D'Angelo was a low-level ADA who later worked at a law firm that does some work the Bills, and then went in-house with the Bills.  My theory here is that scouting/player personnel didn't properly vet in the draft process, and that legal really screwed up when P's attorney got ahold of them.  Beck Water's friend is right.  The cash component of this case (which will be used to fund efforts to damage Araiza) now is part of the complaint against the landlord.  The goal of this case now is to destroy Araiza, to encourage the SD DA to act and, ultimately, to send Araiza a housewarming gift in prison.  That's the plan.  

 

The prior PR guy got clipped for Doug Whaley's "privy" press conference, which was embarrassing but a lot less humiliating than this fiasco.  The advice to D'Angelo here is to back up your emails, because GGGB is going to be pointing that finger directly at you.  The advice to GGGB is to start looking for a new job.  Someone is going to take the fall for this.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by SectionC3

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

Today?.. Our POS journalists like Fairburn and Skurski going after Beane and McDermott. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 minute ago, hemma said:

 

Now?

These lawyers?

A blast from the past, a real crowd pleaser, and a truly fine individual:

Just ask him.

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

I’m furious that I don’t have more places to vent my self righteous indignation. 

[Billsatlastin2018]

3 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Very disappointed in Sal M. and Jay Skurski this morning.

 

 

Uhhhh… no… not disappointed in the questioning at all!

 

The real answer is found in the Athletic this morning:

“On Friday, coach Sean McDermott said the Bills had learned new information about the case with the filing of the lawsuit. They did know about the allegations, at least, before cutting incumbent punter Matt Haack on Monday. “That’s a tough one. You can second-guess whether that was the right move,” Beane said about the decision to hold onto Araiza.”

 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, SCBills said:

They did the necessary thing, which is framed as “the right thing” for PR purposes. 
 

Nobody has any idea if Araiza did what he accused of doing.  You don’t, I don’t, and the Bills Front Office doesn’t. 
 

Im assuming they were aware that Matt Araiza had sex with an underage woman at a college party who was allegedly portraying herself as college age.  I have zero issue with them standing by him, and/or believing that would blow over.  
 

Also, the gang rape allegation dropped - which is the primary driver of the outrage - of which it doesn’t sound like anyone knows the level of his involvement (if any - victims lawyer included) aside from he’s alleged to have potentially set the stage for it and/maybe participated.  
 

Bills FO had the media and Twitter mob banging down their door and took their time to work through this situation.. coming to the conclusion they wanted, just not in the timeframe they demanded.  
 

With all due respect…**** the Twitter mob and **** the media.  Human beings are involved here and people who have the least access to the facts are the ones making the loudest judgments. 
 

Bills handled this about as well as they could after the clumsy initial statement.  They even took ownership of that mistake.  
 

Move on. 
 

Amen, but with no respect here, just ***** em. To the vast majority, they just don't matter.

[reddogblitz]

17 hours ago, Dick_Cheney said:

Undoubtedly, there will be a moment or two this season where something critically horrible happens because of a bad punt. Bills did the right thing here.

 

There's also no guarantee Matt wouldn't shanked off a couple himself being a rookie and all. We'll never know.

[JaCrispy]

4 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

Uhhhh… no… not disappointed in the questioning at all!

 

The real answer is found in the Athletic this morning:

“On Friday, coach Sean McDermott said the Bills had learned new information about the case with the filing of the lawsuit. They did know about the allegations, at least, before cutting incumbent punter Matt Haack on Monday. “That’s a tough one. You can second-guess whether that was the right move,” Beane said about the decision to hold onto Araiza.”

 

The move to release Haack, knowing of the allegations seems to be a moment of poor judgement, at best…if you are still in the stages of figuring out the truth, you would think you would want to retain Haack until you know for certain, just to protect yourself against things not working out…

 

I like McBeane a lot, and think they are  very upstanding men…But they are not infallible from making poor decisions from time to time- whether in-game or relating to personnel…

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You're correct that none of us know what the Bills knew or when.

 

All of us can see the 29 July LA Times article that was published, with graphic and specific details about Jane Doe's condition and mention of the lawyer by name and his intention to file a civil suit.  So the Bills knew, or could have known, all of those details then. 

 

Then they received a phone call and a follow up email from the lawyer on July 30/August 1.

 

I'm not going to second-guess the Bills on not talking to that attorney again or asking to talk to the victim - her lawyer's words were they didn't "ask for her statement", there is very very low likelihood that the Bills would have been allowed by her lawyer to interview the victim

 

But it is a point that by not circling back to the lawyer or asking to talk to the victim, the Bills left some sources of information untapped.

So, what were they supposed to do?   Believe me, I'm not arguing.   

 

Let's play out the scenario.  So, the Bills circle back five or seven days later and ask if there's anything new?   The Bills are told "no, we continue to work on our civil complaint."    Now what?   Bills ask if they can interview the woman, and the lawyer says either no or yes, but on the following condition: NOTHING she says in your interview can be used as part of your defense if she chooses to sue you.  At which point the Bills say, "whoa, you're thinking of suing US?  We're out of here, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers." 

 

And if they just get nothing when they circle back, what then?   Circle back in another week?  And the week after that?   How long do the Bills hang in limbo, wondering what to do?   Worst case, I suppose, is that with everything still in limbo in November her lawyer says, "Okay, we intend to commence the litigation in two weeks, unless Araiza settles right now."  Maybe they try to hold up Araiza - and the Bills - by threatening to make them the number story in their market.  I guess that would be a pretty bad outcome.    

 

We can create a lot of possible scenarios, but they wouldn't have been materially better.  Well, yes, a better one goes like this:  Suppose the Bills got serious corroborating evidence on, say, August 7 (there apparently was no such evidence available then, but just assume there was).  Bills waive him then.  They keep Haack.  There's a flurry of news coverage that is over by now.  That's the best possible outcome.  Not sure it really matters all that much.  Bills will have a Haack-equivalent punter into another few days, and it will be out of the news in a week.  

 

So, I think I just convinced myself.  Bills should have been more proactive after first learning of it in July.   They should have checked with her lawyer, and Araiza's lawyer, asking if there are any developments.  That way, at least, they might get advance notice of the filing of the suit.  Keep pursuing it in any way you can, just the way your scouts track down old coaches and other people.  Talk to the coaches at his college, talk his teammates.  Keep Haack on the team.  Then, when you get to this weekend, when final cuts are made, you make a decision.  Maybe you've learned enough to know that the whole thing is dying, or has settled quietly.   You keep Araiza.  Or, you've learned nothing new (where the Bills were a few days ago), and decide you don't want to risk a November scenario, so you cut him and keep Haack.   

 

Instead, the Bills waited for the episode either to die or come alive.  It came alive, and the Bills dealt with it.  Team will be way past it in a day or two, and the press will be, too.  Not the best possible outcome, but in no way is it devastating to the team. 

 

I also think you have to assume that their decision making was guided (not directed, but guided) by the League.  Beane did mention being in touch with the League, and you can be sure the league was over it.    All of the NFL's marketing has the Bills shown as a marquee name, and they don't want a sex scandal associated with that marketing.  It's a good bet that the Bills dug exactly as deep as the NFL suggested.  Beane didn't say, "the NFL made some suggestions, but we decided they weren't overkill."  The NFL was no doubt very clear about how they thought it should be handled, and I can't imagine that these managers - Beane and McDermott - would not do at least what the league suggested.  

 

One final thought, off the subject.   Where was Terry Pegula in this?  Did he tell Beane and McD to handle it and keep him out of it?  I might have thought he would have participated in a press conference, saying how important these issues are in the country, and how concerned Kim and Terry are about them.   Which leads to the bigger question:  Where's Kim?  Was there news that I missed one day?   We haven't heard a word, so far as I know, and now Terry is AWOL.   I wonder if Beane and McDermott have been left in charge of the place while Terry and Kim are dealing with some tough stuff.  Beane and McDermott probably are working under a lot of pressure.   That may explain why even Beane had trouble handling that press conference. 

 

 

[Beck Water]

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

They didn't ignore anything.

They clearly investigated it all.  

 

I mean, I believe (or hope) that they investigated and investigated hard and thoroughly... but that's my belief.

I can''t say "they clearly investigated it all", because if they did, and read the details in the 29 July LA Times article, why was McDermott so devastated?

 

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

People need to understand something that is sadly not going to matter because he's already a rapist.  Araiza's livelihood was literally in their hands - releasing him before their own investigation and before anything came to the surface would have cemented this kid as guilty 

 

If the Bills cut him some August 5th afternoon completely out of nowhere - they've just told the public he's guilty.  

 

I think this is a false dichotomy.  The Bills had the opportunity to quietly cut Araiza either with the initial roster cut-down to 85 almost 2 weeks ago or the second cut down to 80 on Tuesday.   All they had to do was release him and keep Haack and make a statement about both punting very well, but choosing the experienced holder and directional punter over the high-ceiling "boomer".

 

No one would have blinked, there would be no presumption of guilt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "he's already a rapist".  If you mean he's already convicted in the Court of Social Media, I sadly agree with you and think that's despicable.

 

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

The more I think about this the more convinced I am the Bills couldn't have handled it any better.   

 

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.