8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Goodell will always get it right.  Best commissioner in major professional sports

I'm guessing he'll give it to some lackey to take the heat off changing the suspension

If he gets suspended for a season can we finally stop making the false comparison to Calvin Ridley?

40 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I play at least twice a week. 

Are you a member of  Pine Hollow? 

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'm guessing he'll give it to some lackey to take the heat of changing the suspension

That would be my play as Commissioner.  

A 6 game ban and no financial penality is a soft penalty but it will be interesting to see if the NFLPA take the NFL to court.  That will wash a lot of dirty linen in public

18 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yeah.  Short game and putting is worthless on those simulators.  Frisbee golf is the hacky sack of this generation.  Meaning, for tools.  

I mean it's less expensive than Golf and isn't as hard. I started playing it in HS which was long before there was any professional players.  

10 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'm guessing he'll give it to some lackey to take the heat off changing the suspension

I think he knows it's in his lap now regardless, so he'll rule on it.

He should also be asking for Robinson's resignation for defaming the NFL in the first statement in her conclusion, but he'll stop short of that.

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No.  But I have played there like twice.  I like it.  

 

Riverwood is the main one I play.  But my membership covers 4 courses.  

Golf - Fred Smith Company Sports Club (fscsportsclub.com)

 

That's actually fairly cheap.  I would avoid the Headingham course.  

 

Just now, Alphagrand said:

I think he knows it's in his lap now regardless, so he'll rule on it.

He should also be asking for Robinson's resignation for defaming the NFL in the first statement in her conclusion, but he'll stop short of that.

I was pretty sure Sue Robinson was jointly hired by the League and the NFLPA.  

 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I have played there once.  It's a ish hole and in a neighborhood so the houses and kids are right on top of you.    As a matter of fact, I have to play there this Sat because my normal course has a par 3 tourney on Sat.  I'm not happy about it.  

Headingham was a planned community that was started in the mid-90s.  There were also other developments out towards the East Raleigh and into Knightdale.  The community, however, started to go downhill after 08 and there have been some big crime issues.  I think it's kind of stabilized but the golf course and other amenities haven't really recovered.  

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

Is he playing WR for them? 

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I play at least twice a week. 

Where do you find time ?  you live here

16 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I was pretty sure Sue Robinson was jointly hired by the League and the NFLPA.  

She's the independent arbitrator - essentially the patsy for the NFL to use when needed to set the scene for a worse punishment.

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

I wouldn't take my post as agreeing with your points on this. There is a distinct difference between believing personally someone committed a criminal act and whether that person is a convicted criminal.  Watson hasn't been and will not be convicted of any crime related to the massages.  I am speculating about what was presented but I think it would be speculation to believe a criminal charge would have resulted in a criminal conviction. 

We also do not know what the claims settled for and it's possible they settled for something approaching a cost of defense of the claim which would indicate a lack of merit.  The fact that all of the claims resolved fairly quickly tells me that there was likely some compromise on the value of the claims such that each side had a framework for a fair value for their clients  This doesn't mean that Watson would have prevailed but it does mean that the claimants' attorney likely believed there was more than a small chance Watson would prevail.  Now, litigation is costly and when a firm is working on a contingency and not getting paid despite usually investing resources and money can create financial pressure to settle a claim.  Watson wanted to play this year and I doubt his status with the League would have been determined with the civil litigation pending.  I am sure the settlements also took into account Watson's potential liability at trial.  

I don't think he would have ever been convicted or found guilty in a court if law either.

These types of cases are really difficult and expensive to prosecute as well.

Having said that the outcome of the courts don't excuse  his culpability  suggesting so minimizes what the victims said he did.

I'm basing my opinion off of what the 25 victims said, court isn't about what a person did it's about what one can prove a person did.

At least that's what a few good men says😉

When I read the victim statements I see criminal Intent, suggesting that there was none because a court didn't make a ruling on whether or not they think there was or wasn't doesn't mean there wasn't criminal Intent.

If one doesn't think Watson had criminal Intent then dont use a courts non opinion on the matter to substantiate ones claims, just simply state you either dont believe the victims or you believe that what they say happened isn't that bad or worthy of criminal prosecution.

 

 

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yeah.  I don't have the time to troll another NFL team's message board though.  

Truth hurts  , you could always blame it on the supply chain . 

21 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I was pretty sure Sue Robinson was jointly hired by the League and the NFLPA.  

She was, but when someone can't (or won't) perform the essential function of the role it has to be recognized at some point.  Surely the NFL can't allow her to stay in place through 2030.

If she was going to rule based on a 6-game past precedent, she could have (and should have) done that immediately.  She should never have tried to kick the issue back to the two sides to reach a settlement, and she certainly shouldn't have had someone from her office leak the details of the judgement to the NFLPA before the announcement -- which was clearly done.

1 hour ago, TorontoEagle said:

All of this may be true, it's a very rational take. But the other poster insists that Watson is a criminal, which he unequivocally is not. 

Define criminal?

Lol 

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

 

I get it but it's like saying OJ murdered his wife. 

Yup

 

Indefinite suspension was my original prediction, so I'm rooting for that just for bragging rights. And the drama it'll cause will be entertaining from afar.

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

On this part I could actually come down on Watson's side.

The Browns should be the ones penalized for giving him that contract, and the NFL never should have allowed it to be structured in the first year how it was.  Don't they have to give a signoff on these deals to make it official?

Just now, Alphagrand said:

On this part I could actually come down on Watson's side.

The Browns should be the ones penalized for giving him that contract, and the NFL never should have allowed it to be structured in the first year how it was.  Don't they have to give a signoff on these deals to make it official?

Don't see how that would ever be possible. They just did the basic structure Howie and every other NFL team does when giving out mega deals. The optics are a bad look, but it is what it is. The Browns also have to carry his cap hit until he's suspended so it makes sense for them as an organization to minimize his cap number as much as possible. 

This changes everything

25 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Typical woman speaking out both sides of her mouth.

She called is disgusting, worse thing she saw ever, Vulgar, undisputed facts, and then gives him a slap on the wrist. 

 

You're right! Now that it's with Goodell, he is sure to handle it the right way.  He's never made a gaffe with any of these things.  

22 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I don't think he would have ever been convicted or found guilty in a court if law either.

These types of cases are really difficult and expensive to prosecute as well.

Having said that the outcome of the courts don't excuse  his culpability  suggesting so minimizes what the victims said he did.

I'm basing my opinion off of what the 25 victims said, court isn't about what a person did it's about what one can prove a person did.

At least that's what a few good men says😉

When I read the victim statements I see criminal Intent, suggesting that there was none because a court didn't make a ruling on whether or not they think there was or wasn't doesn't mean there wasn't criminal Intent.

If one doesn't think Watson had criminal Intent then dont use a courts non opinion on the matter to substantiate ones claims, just simply state you either dont believe the victims or you believe that what they say happened isn't that bad or worthy of criminal prosecution.

 

 

FWIW - the victims have accepted what they believe is reasonable compensation for his behavior.  It's not a minimization of what he did to say he's not a criminal. I think that's just a factual statement.   I understand also that you can say what he did was criminal or should be criminal but it doesn't change that someone else can point to the lack of a charge and conviction to say he isn't one.