3 minutes ago, Infam said:

If that‘s all you care about it is legal in Europe.. 

I've seen Hostel plenty enough, you aren't going to trick me.

38 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Doesn’t look like Goodell’s testimony to Congress will be televised today.

If you are interested in reading his statement 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I can’t recall this many active players ever dying in one offseason. What a shame, too young. 

Way too young. A couple weeks ago he apparently arrived at OTAs in incredible shape and looked good and now he’s gone. Absolutely shocking to see it this morning.  

33 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

What's wrong with billboards? 

They tend to mislead.  Big truck adds throughout the south talk about fighting the insurer.  Most trucking firms for most cases involve self insurance (or small truckers carrying the minimum under the amendments of the Motor Carrier Act, $500,000 or $1 million depending on what the haul is). They billboard attorneys lie about insurers all the time.  There are laws about fair settlement practices.  And look at the violence.  They want to "fight”.  You can’t "fight” in court.  Ever see an insurance adjuster that wants to "fight”?  What nonsense. The goal is to protect the client.  The insurers don’t get sued, except in La. And Quebec.  It’s the customer that’s at risk and that is why they bought a policy, to protect their assets.  The bragging about settlements or verdicts is absurd.  They rarely say how much the plaintiff actually got after paying 33-40% and up for contingency fees plus overpaid "experts”.  Those big cases are coupled with debilitating and usually permanent injury.  Like amputation, paralysis or catastrophic brain injuries.  That’s a bit misleading to most injured parties.  The basis of most billboard firms is volume of small cases.  They never say that.  The defendants don’t factor in plaintiff litigation costs as part of their offers because under the American rule, they are not collectible in most cases.   Don’t get me wrong.  There are times that an injured party can benefit from representation by counsel.  I will point out that gathering medical and lost wage information is much faster when the carrier gets authorizations from the injured party rather than has to wait on the billboard firms.  Further, you have to question when suit is immediately brought in many cases because of contingency escalation clauses when cases go to litigation.   More important to the defense side is the sureness of a settlement so they are focused from day one on resolution.  The billboards never say that.  (The TV ads are worse.)  I know thousands of claim adjusters and claim executives.  Some of the most empathetic people I know.  

I went to Hawaii in May. They are very proud of their no billboards law.  They have that right. 

7 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

They tend to mislead.  Big truck adds throughout the south talk about fighting the insurer.  Most trucking firms for most cases involve self insurance (or small truckers carrying the minimum under the amendments of the Motor Carrier Act, $500,000 or $1 million depending on what the haul is). They billboard attorneys lie about insurers all the time.  There are laws about fair settlement practices.  And look at the violence.  They want to "fight”.  You can’t "fight” in court.  Ever see an insurance adjuster that wants to "fight”?  What nonsense. The goal is to protect the client.  The insurers don’t get sued, except in La. And Quebec.  It’s the customer that’s at risk and that is why they bought a policy, to protect their assets.  The bragging about settlements or verdicts is absurd.  They rarely say how much the plaintiff actually got after paying 33-40% and up for contingency fees plus overpaid "experts”.  Those big cases are coupled with debilitating and usually permanent injury.  Like amputation, paralysis or catastrophic brain injuries.  That’s a bit misleading to most injured parties.  The basis of most billboard firms is volume of small cases.  They never say that.  The defendants don’t factor in plaintiff litigation costs as part of their offers because under the American rule, they are not collectible in most cases.   Don’t get me wrong.  There are times that an injured party can benefit from representation by counsel.  I will point out that gathering medical and lost wage information is much faster when the carrier gets authorizations from the injured party rather than has to wait on the billboard firms.  Further, you have to question when suit is immediately brought in many cases because of contingency escalation clauses when cases go to litigation.   More important to the defense side is the sureness of a settlement so they are focused from day one on resolution.  The billboards never say that.  (The TV ads are worse.)  I know thousands of claim adjusters and claim executives.  Some of the most empathetic people I know.  

I went to Hawaii in May. They are very proud of their no billboards law.  They have that right. 

Nuisance claims. The bane of an adjusters existence, yet, in a weird juxtaposition, the main source of their work. I've gone now into commercial insurance adjusting, and I can't say I miss the ambulance chasers at all.

Edit: Our mindset was always, if you can actually prove damages and have supporting documentation for it, we're willing to pay. But your client can't just make vague complaints, have no interest in mitigating their injuries, then try and claim exaggerated awards (and usually threatening us with escalating legal fees for time, expert opinions, etc). 

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

If you are interested in reading his statement 

Ever heard of redaction, Roger?  BTW, the hearing is on CSpan.  Jim Jordan is on that committee.  Given the Ohio State 11 witnesses against him, I wonder how he will handle this.  

21 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I've seen Hostel plenty enough, you aren't going to trick me.

Just avoid Bratislava.....and all of Eastern Europe. You got this!

9 minutes ago, Iggles25 said:

Just avoid Bratislava.....and all of Eastern Europe. You got this!

36 minutes ago, Infam said:

If that‘s all you care about it is legal in Europe.. 

No good poutine in Europe though. 

38 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Easy. Because of the court they had no evidence. Because they have no evidence they need witness testimony, which they also didn't have. Could they have punished him? Sure. But this was all under the personal conduct policy, so it would go to a Disciplinary Officer and basically becomes almost a legal case where the league presents there evidence to the D.O. and pushes for what they want, but ultimately the D.O. decides the punishment. Once the D.O. finds there is no basis for punishment, the Commissioner is powerless in that situation. 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/with-his-prostitution-charge-dropped-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-decimated-the-nfls-personal-conduct-probe-032516738.html

Not for nothing but Charles Robinson isn't an attorney.  I think the argument is that the NFL doesn't have to follow any evidencary rules and operates with the consent of the owners by virtue of their membership in the League. It's not like it's a criminal prosecution or the owner has some absolute due process rights.   There should be an incentive for both sides to cooperate.  

 

40 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I've seen Hostel plenty enough, you aren't going to trick me.

That’s how I am for real. I’d love to travel the world, but those movies make me feel like there are folks out there that’d pay to torture and kill me. 

2 hours ago, Utebird said:

They declined not refused.

Declining to indict is not omission of guilt.

Grand jury's are held in secret without a judge usually with 20 jurors which need a slim majority of 11 votes to get an indictment.

In Watsons case there were 12 jurors and needed 9 votes?

Also the prosecutor for whatever reason only brought in like 4 witnesses and I think only 1 testified, so it's almost like the prosecutor wasnt even really trying.

Having said that in cases such as Watsons where evidence comes down to he said she said it's difficult to get an issue of guilt without a shadow of doubt of guilt.

 

 

I guess the prosecutors didn't feel Watson's conduct rose to the level of a criminal offense. Being a scumball must not be a criminal offense in Texas. I've never seen one of the ads posted by one of the 20 - or 24. The way the ad was written and any associated graphics would be an indicator to me if they were advertising a legitimate massage or if I could expect something more.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

Bring him back

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Not for nothing but Charles Robinson isn't an attorney.  I think the argument is that the NFL doesn't have to follow any evidencary rules and operates with the consent of the owners by virtue of their membership in the League. It's not like it's a criminal prosecution or the owner has some absolute due process rights.   There should be an incentive for both sides to cooperate.  

But if everything falls under one policy, why would they go outside of that policy that is in place to punish someone with no evidence? Seems like a mess. This is getting too deep for me but I doubt Kraft just puts up with a large fine or a suspension without putting up some kind of fight.

Either way, overall point was Watson is a completely different situation than what happened with Kraft. 

 

55 minutes ago, Infam said:

If that‘s all you care about it is legal in Europe.. 

Poutine is legal in Europe?

3 minutes ago, eglz1 said:

I guess the prosecutors didn't feel Watson's conduct rose to the level of a criminal offense. Being a scumball must not be a criminal offense in Texas. I've never seen one of the ads posted by one of the 20 - or 24. The way the ad was written and any associated graphics would be an indicator to me if they were advertising a legitimate massage or if I could expect something more.

There was never going to be sufficient evidence to warrant criminal prosecution.  None of the accusers were going to be able to produce any forensic evidence, the massages by nature are done in private between masseuse and client -- there could be no eyewitness corroboration.  I assume there are no cameras in the rooms to provide video evidence; even if there were, the video wouldn't be admissible as evidence in court.  All that remains is a 'he said-she said' 

That's why it was the only logical path for Watson to settle out of court from the beginning.  His failure to do so has dragged his name through the mud for more than a year now, with no end in sight. 

6 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

That's why it was the only logical path for Watson to settle out of court from the beginning.  His failure to do so has dragged his name through the mud for more than a year now, with no end in sight. 

And cost him how much in endorsements? Those will likely turn out to be some EXPENSIVE massages.

19 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Of course.  Nothing bigger going on in this country.  

blows my mind that this is what's taking a priority.  

22 minutes ago, eglz1 said:

And cost him how much in endorsements? Those will likely turn out to be some EXPENSIVE massages.

When you're making $46M per year it becomes easier not to worry about endorsement money, and instead wipe yourself with dollar bills.

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Nothing ever surprises me, when it comes to government, anymore.  

Especially during election season.

Just gonna leave this here. Would’ve went bednarik, white, dawkins and reid. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Just gonna leave this here. Would’ve went bednarik, white, dawkins and reid. 

Dawk, Reid, McNabb and ST Nick

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Nah.  McNabb belongs.  Definitely.  Howie doesn’t.  

Frankly bednarik and white i can’t take off. White might be the best defensive player in eagles (imo the best) history. I think bednarik gets overlooked because of the era he played in was before super bowl. It came down to dawk, reid and mcnabb. I see the case for mcnabb. I would think most take dawkins. So really down reid and  mcnabb. Imo if this was since super bowl began i have mcnabb, reid, dawk and white