Deshaun Watson admits under oath that Ashley Solis cried at the end of the massage

[Punching Bag]

AP sources: NFL insists on indefinite suspension for Watson

By ROB MAADDI an hour ago

https://apnews.com/article/cleveland-browns-nfl-politics-sports-lawsuits-09a3a4ddf3e184243bba8d608f034b7c

 

Quote

The NFL insisted on an indefinite suspension while Deshaun Watson’s legal team argued there’s no basis for that punishment as both sides presented their cases in front of a retired judge in Delaware on Tuesday, two people in attendance told The Associated Press.

 

The hearing will continue on Wednesday and Watson is scheduled to be there for the duration, according to one person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the hearing isn’t public. It’s expected to conclude Thursday but it’s not known when a ruling will be made.

 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, maddenboy said:

i might have missed this upthread, but what you are saying sounds like Watson is planning to sue the Texans. 

 

Otherwise, if i'm Watson, why would i admit anything like that?  how on earth would that benefit me?

 

and even if that was Watson's plan, he'd best wait until all of his own stuff is put to bed.  Then go after the Texans for some sort of contributory liability to the plaintiffs (ie: i had to pay them X, your team is 1/3 at fault, so you owe me reimbursement of 1/3x that i had to pay them but was really Your fault), but not for directly having wronged Watson, himself.  Or, maybe he would.  This is going a bit far afield for this thread, based on the current state of facts/knowledge we (I?) actually have.

 

 

 

He's not.  Someone upstream speculated that it was possible he could.

 

 

[Paul Costa]

The NFL only has one choice and that is an indefinite suspension. They need to look to the future and how this case will be a measurement towards other player wrongdoings 🤔

[ytownblofan]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He's not.  Someone upstream speculated that it was possible he could.

 

 

 

@maddenboy 

 

yes, that was me. It was posted with the intention of a joke/satirical. In the sense of "this has gotten so crazy that I wouldn't be surprised if XYZ". But I will definitely own bringing it up

[BarleyNY]

5 hours ago, Paul Costa said:

The NFL only has one choice and that is an indefinite suspension. They need to look to the future and how this case will be a measurement towards other player wrongdoings 🤔

You bring up an interesting question.  What does everyone think the arbiter’s verdict will be?  Clarification: I am looking for a specific number of games and how you think she will rule, not how you’d rule.  I say 6 games.

 

Bonus question: Will there be a challenge from either side?  No.  Both sides will accept that.

[mannc]

36 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You bring up an interesting question.  What does everyone think the arbiter’s verdict will be?  Clarification: I am looking for a specific number of games and how you think she will rule, not how you’d rule.  I say 6 games.

 

Bonus question: Will there be a challenge from either side?  No.  Both sides will accept that.

I don't really understand the NFL asking for an "indefinite suspension".  Why aren't they asking for a suspension for a specific amount of time?  Are they saying that their investigation is ongoing and they can't make a final disciplinary decision until all the facts are known? That's the only thing that makes sense. 

 

I have no clue what Sue Robinson will decide...she certainly appears to be smart and experienced, though. 

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don't really understand the NFL asking for an "indefinite suspension".  Why aren't they asking for a suspension for a specific amount of time?  Are they saying that their investigation is ongoing and they can't make a final disciplinary decision until all the facts are known? That's the only thing that makes sense. 

 

I have no clue what Sue Robinson will decide...she certainly appears to be smart and experienced, though. 

The idea is they want to be able to extend it if more things come out.

[billsrul120]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

You bring up an interesting question.  What does everyone think the arbiter’s verdict will be?  Clarification: I am looking for a specific number of games and how you think she will rule, not how you’d rule.  I say 6 games.

 

Bonus question: Will there be a challenge from either side?  No.  Both sides will accept that.

I don't think it matters that much what Robinson says unless she says no suspension at all.

 

The acceptance of the ruling handed down gets challenged by the league I would think.  As far as I can tell, unless Robinson says there should be no suspension, the league can appeal to Goodell and basically give whatever suspension they desire.  Goodell has final say in the appeals process so the league which is basically Goodell anyway is free to give any length of suspension unless the ruling from the judge is that there will be no suspension.

[BarleyNY]

58 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don't really understand the NFL asking for an "indefinite suspension".  Why aren't they asking for a suspension for a specific amount of time?  Are they saying that their investigation is ongoing and they can't make a final disciplinary decision until all the facts are known? That's the only thing that makes sense. 

 

I have no clue what Sue Robinson will decide...she certainly appears to be smart and experienced, though. 

The NFL calling for a indefinite suspension was mostly PR.  They are trying to show the public that they want to be extremely tough on players who behave as Watson is alleged to have.  I heard a tidbit regarding negotiations between the league and Watson’s team.  It was that they already turned down a negotiated suspension in the much lesser range that the NFL recently leaked.  That makes me think that 6-8 games is the worst case for Watson, with fewer or even 0 being possible. 

 

I do not know where it will land either, but some possibilities are much cleaner for the NFL than others.  They do not want to overrule the arbiter’s decision.  To do so on the very first case would be an awful look with the players and NFLPA - and it could lead to real court.  They just don’t want it to be so few that they have to overrule it and open up that can of worms.  One thing to remember is that if the arbiter finds in favor of Watson, then it’s over. The NFL can not overrule or modify that decision. 

[BarleyNY]

41 minutes ago, billsrul120 said:

I don't think it matters that much what Robinson says unless she says no suspension at all.

 

The acceptance of the ruling handed down gets challenged by the league I would think.  As far as I can tell, unless Robinson says there should be no suspension, the league can appeal to Goodell and basically give whatever suspension they desire.  Goodell has final say in the appeals process so the league which is basically Goodell anyway is free to give any length of suspension unless the ruling from the judge is that there will be no suspension.

That is correct, but the NFL does not want to overrule the first decision of this new process.  It would be a terrible look and could lead to the NFLPA taking the NFL to court.  I think that they will have to feel like they don’t have any other choice if they overrule the decision. 

[WotAGuy]

19 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

That is correct, but the NFL does not want to overrule the first decision of this new process.  It would be a terrible look and could lead to the NFLPA taking the NFL to court.  I think that they will have to feel like they don’t have any other choice if they overrule the decision. 

The NFL makes “a terrible look” normal operating procedure. 

[Chicken Boo]

On the heels of the R. Kelly verdict, me thinks Deshaun is headed for a minimum year long suspension. 

[Punching Bag]

40 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

The NFL makes “a terrible look” normal operating procedure. 

 

That is because their "partner" is of Amber Heard quality.

 

 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, WotAGuy said:

The NFL makes “a terrible look” normal operating procedure. 

That a fair point. 

[billsrul120]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

That is correct, but the NFL does not want to overrule the first decision of this new process.  It would be a terrible look and could lead to the NFLPA taking the NFL to court.  I think that they will have to feel like they don’t have any other choice if they overrule the decision. 

Is it a more terrible look than giving the go ahead on a suspension that the general public will look at and say "really that's it?"  

 

Idk the ins and outs of the entire process but the NFLPA agreed to use Roger Goodell as the arbitrator in the appeals process in the bargaining agreement so I'm not sure what their standing is to go to court if the process they agreed upon doesn't go their way.  

[BarleyNY]

6 minutes ago, billsrul120 said:

Is it a more terrible look than giving the go ahead on a suspension that the general public will look at and say "really that's it?"  

 

Idk the ins and outs of the entire process but the NFLPA agreed to use Roger Goodell as the arbitrator in the appeals process in the bargaining agreement so I'm not sure what their standing is to go to court if the process they agreed upon doesn't go their way.  

The arbiter who decides whether or not Watson violated the Personal Conduct Policy is former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson.   If she determines that he did not, the process is over.  If she determines that he did, then she also decides the penalty for the violation.  Goodell - or his appointee - can overrule that and issue a different punishment, however.

 

The terrible look is more about what the reaction of players and the NFLPA would be rather than what the general public thinks.  This new process is supposed to be much more impartial.  Goodell jumping in on the first one is a bad start to that - especially on a case with no criminal charges brought.  The threatened lawsuit by the NFLPA would contend that the NFL did not adhere to the PCP’s clause that requires owners to be penalized more severely than players for similar offenses.  The NFLPA obviously does not want to do that, but I think it’s in play if the league overrules the neutral arbiter with a much more severe penalty. 
 

As for the general public’s reaction, I’m sure that many won’t be happy with a result that is less than an indefinite ban.  There’s not much difference to many people if it’s 0, 4, 6 or 8 games.  All would fall well short of what they want.  And let’s face it, the decision will not impact ticket sales or viewership.  People will have their reactions and then keep right on watching the NFL.  Heck, a bunch of outraged people will probably tune in to Browns games just to root against Watson. 

[Returntoglory]

Anyone else feel that the contract he signed with the first year being 1 million plus a 9 million signing bonus is BS? 

 

This contract is tantamount to the Browns being complicit , IMHO. They are saying they feel he is guilty but will ride it out with a team-friendly contract. 

 

If the NFL does not lower the hammer on this POS....

 

He needs to be barred from the NFL...PERIOD!

[4merper4mer]

13 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

Anyone else feel that the contract he signed with the first year being 1 million plus a 9 million signing bonus is BS? 

 

This contract is tantamount to the Browns being complicit , IMHO. They are saying they feel he is guilty but will ride it out with a team-friendly contract. 

 

If the NFL does not lower the hammer on this POS....

 

He needs to be barred from the NFL...PERIOD!

I agree with your thoughts on how the browns did what they did.

[Augie]

55 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

Anyone else feel that the contract he signed with the first year being 1 million plus a 9 million signing bonus is BS? 

 

This contract is tantamount to the Browns being complicit , IMHO. They are saying they feel he is guilty but will ride it out with a team-friendly contract. 

 

If the NFL does not lower the hammer on this POS....

 

He needs to be barred from the NFL...PERIOD!

 

Nah, not with a fine citizen like Haslam In charge. He’s never do anything underhanded like that. 

 

 

Wait……what I meant was he’d never miss an opportunity to do something underhanded.  N/M

[machine gun kelly]

NFLR sources keep stating the scuttlebutt among other outlets 6-8 games is possible.  Big Ben wasn’t arrested or prosecuted and received 6 games.

 

Given the egregious nature of Watson’s civil suits, I’d think the full year would be possible.  If it goes to the appeal, I can see Goodell going to a full year as the owners would be airing on the side of caution.  Think about of four more people come out in a suit.  The last four will probably settle before the season, but I’m just saying what what if another four come out.

 

Just my two cents.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Returntoglory said:

Anyone else feel that the contract he signed with the first year being 1 million plus a 9 million signing bonus is BS? 

 

This contract is tantamount to the Browns being complicit , IMHO. They are saying they feel he is guilty but will ride it out with a team-friendly contract. 

 

If the NFL does not lower the hammer on this POS....

 

He needs to be barred from the NFL...PERIOD!

 

This is the risk of jumping into a thread at the 69th page...

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

47 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

NFLR sources keep stating the scuttlebutt among other outlets 6-8 games is possible.  Big Ben wasn’t arrested or prosecuted and received 6 games.

 

Given the egregious nature of Watson’s civil suits, I’d think the full year would be possible.  If it goes to the appeal, I can see Goodell going to a full year as the owners would be airing on the side of caution.  Think about of four more people come out in a suit.  The last four will probably settle before the season, but I’m just saying what what if another four come out.

 

Just my two cents.

i actually think the NFL will come down hard for no other reason than because of the owners’ irritation over the browns blowing up the market with Watson’s fully guaranteed deal. 

[WotAGuy]

46 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

This is the risk of jumping into a thread at the 69th page...

At least he picked an appropriate page number for the topic. Zzzingggg!

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

i actually think the NFL will come down hard for no other reason than because of the owners’ irritation over the browns blowing up the market with Watson’s fully guaranteed deal. 

so coming down hard on a serial molester will discourage other owners from offering fully guaranteed deals in the future?

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

[Doc]

Stupid Browns.  They deserve what's coming to them for that idiotic contract alone.

[wjag]

Knowing how Buzbee has incrementally released info, he is waiting until today/tomorrow to drop the purported 25th case.  That keeps the pressure on Sue Robinson to avoid leniency..  Hopefully she has July vacation plans and will rule tomorrow so we can get on to the next stage of this soap opera.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

so coming down hard on a serial molester will discourage other owners from offering fully guaranteed deals in the future?

 

He's talking about the massive $80 million dollar jump above Rodgers who was #2 in guaranteed money.  Rodgers got a little more than Allen and Allen got $9 million more than Mahomes.  Watson got $80 million more than Rodgers.

[YoloinOhio]

28 minutes ago, wjag said:

Knowing how Buzbee has incrementally released info, he is waiting until today/tomorrow to drop the purported 25th case.  That keeps the pressure on Sue Robinson to avoid leniency..  Hopefully she has July vacation plans and will rule tomorrow so we can get on to the next stage of this soap opera.

The assumption is it will be a “Friday before the holiday weekend news dump.” The nfl is off next week so they want this part over. 

[cle23]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Where the NFL is going to have issues, and where I'm sure Watson's attorneys will focus, is the lack of discipline that the NFL imposed on owners accused of the same or very similar things.  Granted Watson's accusation totals are higher, but Dan Snyder has several accusations as well and the NFL has done literally nothing.  Kraft had some issues.  And the NFL did absolutely nothing.  And NFL's own policy states that owner's should be held to a higher standard than even the players.

Edited June 30, 2022 by cle23

[Mr. WEO]

48 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

He's talking about the massive $80 million dollar jump above Rodgers who was #2 in guaranteed money.  Rodgers got a little more than Allen and Allen got $9 million more than Mahomes.  Watson got $80 million more than Rodgers.

correct.  
 

So how would a long suspension of Watson change the contract offerings of owners re:huge/fully guaranteed money?  I don’t get the connection..,

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

So that'd mean he could play when he's 34 on a new deal as I think his current one would have expired by then.

 

Pretty strong response if it's to the stories being put out of a 0 game suspension or the 6-8 one.

 

6 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Where the NFL is going to have issues, and where I'm sure Watson's attorneys will focus, is the lack of discipline that the NFL imposed on owners accused of the same or very similar things.  Granted Watson's accusation totals are higher, but Dan Snyder has several accusations as well and the NFL has done literally nothing.  Kraft had some issues.  And the NFL did absolutely nothing.  And NFL's own policy states that owner's should be held to a higher standard than even the players.

My issue with this is it feels like the NFL doesn't has a very comprehensive range of tools to punish owners. What do fines/suspensions mean to them? Then being forced to sell the team is cranking it all the way up to maximum. Taking draft picks seems more appropriate as a punishment for cheating for a competitive advantage than anything else.

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

correct.  
 

So how would a long suspension of Watson change the contract offerings of owners re:huge/fully guaranteed money?  I don’t get the connection..,

 

I don't think it would.  It's more of being a "karma" for the Browns for resetting the market stupidly.  Paid all that money and losing 3 first round picks and not getting any ROI from it.  

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I don't think it would.  It's more of being a "karma" for the Browns for resetting the market stupidly.  Paid all that money and losing 3 first round picks and not getting any ROI from it.  

 

 

It wouldn't make any sense at all to link any potential punishment for Watson to the contract the Browns offered him as far a way for the other owners to punish Haslam for the offer.  That's what the other poster was suggesting.  Owners don't care about dumb contracts by other owners---because all of them are getting "guaranteed money".

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

 

He's getting 2 Years minimum - the Browns need to pay a price in this for that ridiculous contract

Edited June 30, 2022 by Big Blitz

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It wouldn't make any sense at all to link any potential punishment for Watson to the contract the Browns offered him as far a way for the other owners to punish Haslam for the offer.  That's what the other poster was suggesting.  Owners don't care about dumb contracts by other owners---because all of them are getting "guaranteed money".

 

I disagree with that...especially if you have a contract coming up with a QB.  

[ytownblofan]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It wouldn't make any sense at all to link any potential punishment for Watson to the contract the Browns offered him as far a way for the other owners to punish Haslam for the offer.  That's what the other poster was suggesting.  Owners don't care about dumb contracts by other owners---because all of them are getting "guaranteed money".

Owners most definitely care about contracts that are being handed out. Herbert and Burrow just went from negotiating their contracts based on Josh's contract, to now negotiating based on DW's contract. Both will demand fully guaranteed money and both will demand more money than DW got. 

 

Per the CBA owners are required to fund any future guaranteed money above $15M into an escrow account. So now owners have to write huge checks into escrow accounts. Billionaire or not, writing a $230MM+ check to fund an escrow account hurts the cash flow. 

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, ytownblofan said:

Owners most definitely care about contracts that are being handed out. Herbert and Burrow just went from negotiating their contracts based on Josh's contract, to now negotiating based on DW's contract. Both will demand fully guaranteed money and both will demand more money than DW got. 

 

Per the CBA owners are required to fund any future guaranteed money above $15M into an escrow account. So now owners have to write huge checks into escrow accounts. Billionaire or not, writing a $230MM+ check to fund an escrow account hurts the cash flow. 

Yeah that’s the concern: that franchise QBs will now start demanding fully guaranteed contracts. And Herbert and Burrow don’t have the legal issues Watson does. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I disagree with that...especially if you have a contract coming up with a QB.  

 

52 minutes ago, ytownblofan said:

Owners most definitely care about contracts that are being handed out. Herbert and Burrow just went from negotiating their contracts based on Josh's contract, to now negotiating based on DW's contract. Both will demand fully guaranteed money and both will demand more money than DW got. 

 

Per the CBA owners are required to fund any future guaranteed money above $15M into an escrow account. So now owners have to write huge checks into escrow accounts. Billionaire or not, writing a $230MM+ check to fund an escrow account hurts the cash flow. 

 

39 minutes ago, Doc said:

Yeah that’s the concern: that franchise QBs will now start demanding fully guaranteed contracts. And Herbert and Burrow don’t have the legal issues Watson does. 

 

Players have always been free to demand fully guaranteed contracts.  Some owners (the ones who don't worry about putting money in escrow) will offer it (to keep a guy like, say, Herbert--who is worth more than Watson in any case), some won't (those who would rather not)--and they will make their traditional offer which the player can take or holdout, be franchised etc. 

 

Anyway, whatever the effect this contract may  have  on future contracts will have no impact on the  the NFL's ultimate decision of the length of the suspension of Watson.  It will have nothing to do with "punishing" the Browns or Haslam for the contract.

[Awwufelloff]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

He's getting 2 Years minimum - the Browns need to pay a price in this for that ridiculous contract

Won't they appeal? I heard the NFL wants to give 6-8 games so he doesn't appeal.