UKBillFan

I wonder if they were going through steps to see if there was any way they could keep hiim on the team but remove him from the roster - administration lead, suspension, exempt list etc. As every avenue closed they came to the only conclusion. That doesn't explain what was an absolute mess of an original statement from the Bills or why they seemed to be prepared to play him on Friday until late on. McDermott did say that he had learned something in the prior 24 hours to the post Panthers press conference. They seem to be wanting to hold on to this as the reason why they made the decisions they did.

Think the score might be with Araiza's attorney rather than Araiza himself.

From memory they travelled to Carolina on Wednesday, which was before the civil lawsuit was issued. It could have been something in the lawsuit or reading the journal entries posted on Twitter, that's my feeling anyway when McDermott said, post Panthers game, that he had learned something he wasn't aware of in the past 24 hours. I think him playing then not playing on Friday was potentially down to discussions with the rest of the team and McDermott. Possibly because of how quickly and viciously the social media blow up occured. I think the cut may have been decided at that point too; Araiza was seen at the stadium in his street clothes rather than wearing anything with Bills branding. I don't think his locker has his name on it either; it was removed prior to kick off.

Because they had doubts about Araiza's holding and hang time, but didn't see a reason to bring in another punter whilst they were testing him out. I don't think we ever intended to go into the season with Haack as punter, but that's just my opinion.

Said it before, probably on another thread, but cynically have to wonder if we cut Haack when we did to see if the defense attorney did anything to cause an issue moving forward. We had over two weeks to sort this out when he did, compared to nine days if we waited until Tuesday.

Back injury, accordinfg to the sideline reporter.

Think they cut Haack because they had no intention of going into the season with him as punter either way. It was a case of Araiza or another.

Learned new information from the moment the civil lawsuit was released which they were not aware of previously.

They claim they did, so are you saying Beane and McDermott are lying?

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.

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

This is painful to watch from a QB point of view. Hope Taylor is ok.

Can you explain how they tried to sneak one under the bench?

Yes, I feel the whole thing was to get Araiza cut, but I'm not sure if it's the best for this client long term.

Yes, so logically you would not raise a civil case whilst a criminal charge is still possible.

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient. So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media. Some comments seem to contradict other things being said.

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

That's what the defense attorney says. But someone with knowledge and experience on here (with the best post on this thread bar none) suggested that issuing a civil claims means they have been advised that the DA will not criminally charge Araiza. If they were, then putting the alleged victim through a civil case before could open up too many questions and counter-claims which might leave it almost possible to get a verdict in criminal court. Further to this, rape cases in the US take an average of ten months to go from accusation to charge - we've only just got to that point, time wise, now.

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

I don't think they were investigating him at all. As said somewhere before, different teams have different sources - college coaches and coordinators who have links to franchises. When looking at SD players something may have been mentioned in passing to a trusted source which they quickly moved on from. All speculation, and I'm just trying to put two and two together of the back of Wawrow's report as that's what he said - two franchises knew of an incident but were not in the market for a punter.

Reportedly, in this case the execs in question were not in the market for a punter, so it was not of interest to them to investigate further.

Exactly. The way some are speaking it sounds like they've been proven.

But attorneys, with experience of the law, tend to guide clients what the goal should be. In this case, the advice probably is staying out of prison/being found not guilty is more important than staying on the Bills roster.

Any proof of any of this or are we jumping to conclusions... again?

He'll be placed on the practice squad and it's highly unlikely anyone will come in for him.