Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Any accepted settlement would be seeing as an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
He is already guilty in the court of public opinion. A settlement won't do anything about that other than make the story go away sooner.
for sure.... and the interesting thing will be to see how the NFL "sees" it....this isn't a one time type of situation where a player settles something with just one person or whatever.....this is a whole different animal and some pretty crappy stuff.....this isn't one you "settle" and it just goes away....this is something where you kind of wonder if the league wants this guy back on their fields representing the shield..."settling" 26 cases of pretty creepy/degrading stuff is a ton of "guilt" in the court of public opinion and IMO something where the NFL wouldn't mind completely washing their hands of and not having him play anymore....the league will survive without Watson....he doesn't move the needle that much.....
I really don't see it any different than where he stands in the court of public opinion today. I mean this thread is full of people already convicting him as a serial abuser and deviant and he hasn't even settled to "admit guilt".
Many cases are settled out of court where the payor wasn't guilty but it costs less to them to settle than to fight it. It happens every day. This may be a bit different in that the cost of settlement may be more damaging (which is hard to put a dollar value on) than some other cases that aren't as public. But I am sure at some point his lawyers have discussed the true money difference in fighting vs settling.
daveR
Footballguy
What he said about that was that it was when he was with HOU and the circumstances were different (his words). That is, the team wanted him to settle so that they could trade him (my words).
Dez
Footballguy
This would suck for Browns fans as all this does is add more time off the field. Do not want this to be a possibility at all. Need to have no suspension and wait it out or have the suspension. He already missed 1 year of football.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
They've almost certainly discussed it with him, but only he can decide to settle. He may be unwilling to settle because of the social and monetary repercussions. I've long since given up on saying somebody is definitely guilty or innocent after several high-profile surefire cases (Duke Lacrosse and UVA Frat Rape) were the result of believing fabulists, but that's a lot of smoke around for there not to be a fire. That's all I'd say about it. Doesn't look good.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
Goodell indicated the use of the Exempt List or not hinged on whether it was a criminal situation:
GregR
Footballguy
Come on man. Just look at the details!
It's clear this is all a money grab. There's a single lawyer trying all the cases! What else can it be?
Sure there are 2 women who filed criminal complaints but not civil suits so stand to gain nothing but negative repercussions. And other therapists who went on the record he harassed them for sex, but didn't sue. And women who sued but asked for the minimum award possible because they just want a court of law to set the record of events straight. And his own character witness that had sent texts warning away other massage therapists because his reputation was getting out.
But that doesn't matter because we see this ALL. THE. TIME. Money grubbers and gold diggers coming forward to get a piece. Just because someone has money! Show me the money!
I mean just count on your fingers all the times that 26 women have all come forward with the same complaint about the same sports figure to make a buck off him. This is at least, what, a yearly occurrence or something like that? We see this happen again and again, and yet we have the audacity to believe them?
dhockster
Footballguy
Goodell said about a month ago that he didn't think the exempt list would be used in this situation. Last week, when all the new information was coming out, Florio asked the commissioner's office if the commissioner still stood by that statement. He asked it in two different ways. Both answers were no comment. Florio took this as the exempt list is back as a possibility for Watson.
Since Watson restructured his contract to have a minimal salary this year ($1.035 Million) so that he would lose a minimum amount if he were suspended this season, the NFL using the exempt list on Watson for all of 2022 so he could resolve his lawsuits and then suspending him in 2023 (when his salary goes up to $46 Million) would be the ultimate FU to Watson.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
The Browns didn't structure his contract to game the NFL's suspension policy; they structured it this way to game the salary cap.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
wellCome on man. Just look at the details!
It's clear this is all a money grab. There's a single lawyer trying all the cases! What else can it be?
Sure there are 2 women who filed criminal complaints but not civil suits so stand to gain nothing but negative repercussions. And other therapists who went on the record he harassed them for sex, but didn't sue. And women who sued but asked for the minimum award possible because they just want a court of law to set the record of events straight. And his own character witness that had sent texts warning away other massage therapists because his reputation was getting out.
But that doesn't matter because we see this ALL. THE. TIME. Money grubbers and gold diggers coming forward to get a piece. Just because someone has money! Show me the money!
I mean just count on your fingers all the times that 26 women have all come forward with the same complaint about the same sports figure to make a buck off him. This is at least, what, a yearly occurrence or something like that? We see this happen again and again, and yet we have the audacity to believe them?
when you word it like that
you are right
sure looks like Buzbee is making a huge money grab for himself, using women victims as pawns
Just read another long article highlighting that Detectives testimony. It did not sit well with me. She keeps going on that by the simple fact that Watson is powerful and influential he can't have consensual sex. I mean WTH? Here is part of an exchange Hardin has with Baker.
Hardin: Wow. Then really, a person that you are suggesting should never take a chance on getting a massage, because if anybody wants to accuse him of something, he has no recourse. Right? If the woman accuses him of anything and he has those attributes, he has no defense because you’re going to believe the woman?
Baker: (Witness nods.)
Hardin: And then you’re going to say there can’t be consent because of — because of his status in the community. Or — right?
Baker: Yes.
I now see in plain sight why the grand jury did not indict, because they had nothing. Everyone who assumes Watson is guilty heard this detective say she thinks he committed crimes and probably nodded their heads in agreement but her entire reason seems to center on you just cant' say no, not on any evidence she obtained. Because it seems clear, as Hardin would keep saying in cross examination, that they found no evidence in their investigation that Watson forced or intimidated anyone to do anything other then fact he's just a powerful figure. All they ever turned up in their investigation it seems is that "you just can't say no" to someone so rich and powerful. How flimsy.
Watson lead detective deposition
Hardin: Wow. Then really, a person that you are suggesting should never take a chance on getting a massage, because if anybody wants to accuse him of something, he has no recourse. Right? If the woman accuses him of anything and he has those attributes, he has no defense because you’re going to believe the woman?
Baker: (Witness nods.)
Hardin: And then you’re going to say there can’t be consent because of — because of his status in the community. Or — right?
Baker: Yes.
I now see in plain sight why the grand jury did not indict, because they had nothing. Everyone who assumes Watson is guilty heard this detective say she thinks he committed crimes and probably nodded their heads in agreement but her entire reason seems to center on you just cant' say no, not on any evidence she obtained. Because it seems clear, as Hardin would keep saying in cross examination, that they found no evidence in their investigation that Watson forced or intimidated anyone to do anything other then fact he's just a powerful figure. All they ever turned up in their investigation it seems is that "you just can't say no" to someone so rich and powerful. How flimsy.
Watson lead detective deposition
Kiddnets
Footballguy
However this breaks out I am still absolutely shocked the Browns would trade the amount they did and give such a guaranteed contract without having finality with the situation - talk about a monster risk. Not even including the hit they take as a franchise for bringing in someone like this...maybe Baker wasnt the long term answer but I just dont get how they could sell their soul when they really were on the upswing as a franchise.
GregR
Footballguy
That doesn't disagree with (or even really, address) what he said. He was talking about Watson's motivation, not the Browns. Both are true.
Watson structured his contract to game the suspension policy.
The Browns structured the contract to game the salary cap.
The contract they mutually agreed to fulfills both of their motivations
Sidebar: From purely a financial standpoint, not an on-the-field success standpoint? The Browns are best off if any suspension happens in 2023 instead of 2022. It would result in more cap room for them and less money paid out of the team's coffers.
Last edited by a moderator:
DallasDMac
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
I'm not going to pretend to know this specific player's motivation, but I think it's fair to say that players generally prefer contracts with large bonuses because it nets them more money now and minimizes financial risk later. Yes, his whole contract is guaranteed, but the more money he nets via bonus the more leverage he has over the Browns to extend him (assuming he plays and performs as expected) because his cap number will eventually become unmanageable.
this may be a situation where they end up coming up with something that looks like, quacks like, and walks like an "exempt list"..... but they don't actually call it an "exempt list"....
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Now they're just going to invent policy for watson?
Listen, he's gonna get suspended. 6 games, 8, 10. But then it's over and no one will care again. That's life.
daveR
Footballguy
if it doesn't happen before week one......then what is his status week 1....?
you seem to think they will announce a suspension before the season.....?...I just don't see how they do that until ALL the dust settles....including the results of these civil cases...
Last edited by a moderator:
Kiddnets
Footballguy
After NBA and MLB have dropped hammer on these types of issues I can't see any way Goodell allows Watson to be on the field week 1. How thats done and if there is any type of finality I dont know - but it wouldnt shock me if he is put on the list all season until it finalizes then he gets suspended next year for whatever length. Goodell is not making another mistake with short arming a suspension with this all over the public eye.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
no one knows. for a while i thoguht he'd play the entire season this year and be suspended next, once everything is sorted. i still think that's possible, but now leaning towards 6/8 games this year and it's over.
IMO there is no way the league has all the information they need by week one to hand down an accurate/appropriate "suspension".....and they aren't going to want to hand down a half a$$ suspension along the lines of "8 games with the option to add more before week 9"..... thus "yes" there may indeed be a new special "policy" created for Watson and this particular situation....again, it may not be called the "exempt list".....but will most likely look very much like an exempt list....
feels that in order to hand down a suspension, they will have wanted to complete a full and thorough "investigation" leaving no stone unturned....and with Watson saying he will not settle these cases.....there will be stones that still need to be turned for possibly a year or more....they will want any and all information before doing as you say "X amount of games and then it is over and done once and for all"....
not sure how anybody can really think the league will be in a position to make a decision on anything by week one.....short of Watson deciding to settle all these by then (which he says he is not doing)....or it all magically going away and it was all fake and made up.....thus, some version of the exempt list will need to be implemented or agreement of some sort with the Browns that he is inactive until the league says, etc....no way he is allowed on the field with all this still pending....
Last edited by a moderator:
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
I wouldn't expect a speedy ruling.
----------------------------------------------------
So what is the NFL's policy on sexual assault? It's mentioned in its personal conduct policy shared by CBS News. Here's what the NFL says:
An individual is subject to discipline under the policy if the person is determined to be guilty of a criminal charge or if the NFL investigation demonstrates the person engaged in conduct prohibited by the policy. Depending on the nature of the violation and the person’s record, discipline may be a fine, suspension, community service, or a combination of the three.
The policy guide states, "Violations involving assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault will result in a baseline six-game suspension without pay, with more if aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a weapon or a crime against a child. A second offense will result in banishment from the NFL."
-------------------------------------------
As the new CBA states, the NFL and NFLPA must agree on a neutral arbitrator to review claims of a player violating the personal conduct policy.
“Fines or suspensions imposed upon players for violating the League’s Personal Conduct Policy, as well as whether a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy has been proven by the NFL, will be initially determined by a Disciplinary Officer jointly selected and appointed by the parties.”
2020 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement on discipline for players accused of violating Personal Conduct Policy
... the league and players’ union are expected to choose former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson to serve as the neutral arbitrator weighing in on the case.
The process for Watson to receive a suspension will be more extensive as a result. First, the NFL investigation will need to find evidence that he violated the personal conduct policy. Any of its findings must be strong enough to then make a case to the independent arbitrator.
Watson, or any player the NFL believes violated the personal conduct policy, can only be suspended if the independent arbitrator determines a violation of the policy occurred. After that, the judge can rule on a potential suspension length. Only after that ruling is made does Goodell have the authority to impose a different suspension if the league requests it through appeal.
----------------------------------------------------
So what is the NFL's policy on sexual assault? It's mentioned in its personal conduct policy shared by CBS News. Here's what the NFL says:
An individual is subject to discipline under the policy if the person is determined to be guilty of a criminal charge or if the NFL investigation demonstrates the person engaged in conduct prohibited by the policy. Depending on the nature of the violation and the person’s record, discipline may be a fine, suspension, community service, or a combination of the three.
The policy guide states, "Violations involving assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault will result in a baseline six-game suspension without pay, with more if aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a weapon or a crime against a child. A second offense will result in banishment from the NFL."
-------------------------------------------
As the new CBA states, the NFL and NFLPA must agree on a neutral arbitrator to review claims of a player violating the personal conduct policy.
“Fines or suspensions imposed upon players for violating the League’s Personal Conduct Policy, as well as whether a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy has been proven by the NFL, will be initially determined by a Disciplinary Officer jointly selected and appointed by the parties.”
2020 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement on discipline for players accused of violating Personal Conduct Policy
... the league and players’ union are expected to choose former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson to serve as the neutral arbitrator weighing in on the case.
The process for Watson to receive a suspension will be more extensive as a result. First, the NFL investigation will need to find evidence that he violated the personal conduct policy. Any of its findings must be strong enough to then make a case to the independent arbitrator.
Watson, or any player the NFL believes violated the personal conduct policy, can only be suspended if the independent arbitrator determines a violation of the policy occurred. After that, the judge can rule on a potential suspension length. Only after that ruling is made does Goodell have the authority to impose a different suspension if the league requests it through appeal.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I believe there is precedent where a player can be suspended for a season and then have to apply for re-instatement.
I have no idea if that is applicable in this case and I'm not suggesting or predicting that will happen. I am just pointing out the NFL has done it in the past.
I have no idea if that is applicable in this case and I'm not suggesting or predicting that will happen. I am just pointing out the NFL has done it in the past.
-OZ-
Footballguy
“ or if the NFL investigation demonstrates the person engaged in conduct prohibited by the policy” - we’re not even there yet. Zero chance this gets sorted before the season unless there’s a huge change from either side.
totally not the same thing, but the lengthy process is a reason the military doesn’t allow soldiers to move after an investigation has been initiated with them a subject. These things can take a looooong time
Anarchy99
Footballguy
We've already learned from Deflategate that the commissioner can do whatever he wants based on the verbiage in the CBA. He could place Watson on the exempt list for the entire 2022 season and then suspend him for the 2023 season . . . meaning that Watson (by then) could have gone three full seasons without playing. Even an indefinite suspension could be an option.
I have no idea what the league will do, but MLB suspended Trevor Bauer for two full seasons, and he also has not been charged with a crime. I get it, not the same situation, but I don't think the league will not be able to keep the status quo on Watson past opening day. If nothing is decided by then, they risk an uproar by fans and sponsors alike. If the league starts to look bad and there are financial ramifications, Goodell will be pressured to act.
We keep wondering what the league will do, but the Browns also have the ability to discipline Watson. There could be a quid pro quo with the Browns and the league that if Cleveland does something with Watson that the league will impose a lesser penalty down the road.
-OZ-
Footballguy
They’re in a no win situation here. If they impose discipline without the process, not only would the union cry foul, so would those of us who support due process. There’s definitely pressure to “do something”, But that should not overcome the rules we implement to give the player, and any victims, a fair process.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The league could impose some sort of penalty and not wrap everything into one disciplinary action. They are not investigating one incident. They are investigating multiple incidents (with more cases still coming out). Behind closed doors, all the league needs to do is threaten a one game suspension for each litigant and that should keep the union at bay temporarily.
Since there does not seem to be an end in sight anytime soon, they could impose a suspension with the caveat "based on what we have uncovered so far." Or they could hand down a longer suspension (maybe a year) and say Watson has to keep out of trouble or he could receive a bigger penalty. Most disciplinary action / suspensions have been handed out based on single (or low volume) incidents . . . not two dozen episodes.
If Watson were to be suspended a full season, people could still say "yeah, but Bauer got two years." I still think he will get 8 games (reduced to 6 games on appeal), but the fact there are more cases and they aren't any closer to resolving any of them makes things a giant mess for the league to have to deal with. The people that should be suspended are the owners and front office of the Browns, as they only added gasoline to the fire for the contract they handed out.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
We could go down the rabbit hole of how the NFL has created a self-inflicted mess with how they have acted / responded to incidents and what they have done / not done in terms of suspensions. Bottom line, they have no clear formula and track record for how they've done things.
I agree that in most cases the league should wait to act . . . but they've already waited a year and are literally further away from being able to make a decision now than when all this all started.
I disagree slightly in what the league can or should be able to do. Every contract has a conduct unbecoming and violating the CBA clause. Either one of those is enough to get Watson a timeout (and would be next to impossible to argue on appeal or in court). Goodell can act based simply on making the league look bad. (Not saying he should, but he could.)
A whole 'nother can of worms is the disaster that is the CBA. But the players association agreed to the terms and provisions of the CBA, so that gives the league more wiggle room than the average employer. Someday a player may go to court and prove that the CBA violates his constitutional rights, but as of now that hasn't happened. The players union will have to live with the language in the CBA and the powers that it grants the commissioner to make stuff up as he goes along.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They said it would be late June/early July, so the math checks out.menobrown said:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They interviewed Watson. They interviewed the women. They interviewed Watson again. More info came out indicating Watson wasn’t completely honest with the league during its investigation. That alone could be a violation of the PCP.Stinkin Ref said:
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the NFL spoke with the investigating officer(s) in the case as well.
IMO the league has plenty enough information to hand down a suspension for player conduct violations. The only question is how long the suspension will be, not whether there will be one.
bolded...not totally correct...
obviously going to be a suspension....but more importantly....and this is the rub....(no pun intended)...
"when do you have enough/all/thorough information" to implement said suspension.....?
because if they truly just want to make "one and one only announcement of a penalty and be done with it".....that is the issue...with 26 civil suits pending and at this point who knows how many else will show up....is that enough info to make a final decision on a "one and done" suspension....
and why talk of the exempt list being "off the table" seems curious...
if the league (and players union) etc., is cool with saying "you are suspended until further notice" ...then fine....lol....but that is basically....like I said, just a different version of the exempt list.....money stuff however factored in....paid/not paid...whatever...
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
At least the NFL did more than the Browns. If they’ve reached a point where they believe they can send it to a neutral arbiter, cool. I haven’t seen it reach that point, but I clearly haven’t seen everything.
allegations looming over the franchise.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I agree with those who’ve suggested they may suspend him conditionally, reserving the right to take further action as more information develops.
Shawnky
Footballguy
It very apparent he is a real ########. Being that warrants people not liking him. That doesn’t mean someone is a hater. But everything I see on this board shows that the majority of Browns fans don’t care about him being a terrible person.daveR said:
Last edited by a moderator:
candian fantasy guy
Footballguy
The talk of the Browns possibly looking for an "out" on his contract is interesting. What would happen in this case, contract gets voided and he becomes a FA?
