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

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

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.

 

Why didn't Aaron Rodgers or Josh Allen do it?  Why aren't any other franchise QB's on fully 100% guaranteed contracts?

 

Watson getting his with his baggage means it will turn the market.  Why would Burrow or Herbert accept "traditional contracts" if Watson didn't and got a fully guaranteed contract at the highest in NFL history?  Cincy or LA would risk losing their franchise QB's?

[YoloinOhio]

14 minutes ago, Awwufelloff said:

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

That was refuted 

[mannc]

37 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

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.

And more importantly, any "punishment" meted out to Watson, the Browns or Haslam will have zero impact on future contracts.

[Warcodered]

45 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

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.

They're free to ask for whatever the hell they want, that doesn't change how players deals effect each other.

[CSBill]

I have no doubt the NFL wants the Browns to hurt because of their brashness, arrogance, and stupidity. But can they? And if so, how? That will be the issue. Dishing out the hurt in the form of Watson’s punishment would kill two birds with one stone. But again, “will they be able to do that?” That is the question. 

[Mr. WEO]

52 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Why didn't Aaron Rodgers or Josh Allen do it?  Why aren't any other franchise QB's on fully 100% guaranteed contracts?

 

Watson getting his with his baggage means it will turn the market.  Why would Burrow or Herbert accept "traditional contracts" if Watson didn't and got a fully guaranteed contract at the highest in NFL history?  Cincy or LA would risk losing their franchise QB's?

 

They were free to.  You'd have to ask them.  They probably felt it would be a nonstarter in their negotiations and they weren't willing to hold out over that.  

 

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

They're free to ask for whatever the hell they want, that doesn't change how players deals effect each other.

 

Exactly.

 

7 minutes ago, CSBill said:

I have no doubt the NFL wants the Browns to hurt because of their brashness, arrogance, and stupidity. But can they? And if so, how? That will be the issue. Dishing out the hurt in the form of Watson’s punishment would kill two birds with one stone. But again, “will they be able to do that?” That is the question. 

 

If "the NFL" wanted to punish the Browns for their stupidity, they would have started to do so decades ago.  Plus, Haslam's poor decisions themselves perpetually "punish the Browns".

 

I think there is no chance the owners are telling Goddell to screw the Browns over a dumb contract.  Makes no sense.

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, Awwufelloff said:

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

 

The NFL needs to win the pr war on this one and give him two years even if games get taken off on appeal. They can at least say they tried.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Watson really wants last year to count in his suspension.

[Royale with Cheese]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

They were free to.  You'd have to ask them.  They probably felt it would be a nonstarter in their negotiations and they weren't willing to hold out over that.  

 

.

You think that maybe they didn't because no one else in this history of the NFL got a $200+ million guaranteed contract?  But now since there is one, that changes?

Do you think that the Bengals and Chargers would prefer paying Burrow/Herbert $160 million guaranteed or they actually want to go above $230 million?  

[RoyBatty is alive]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Watson really wants last year to count in his suspension.

Of course he does, why wouldn't he.

 

He was paid fo r his year of doing nothing and it was 100% his decision not to play.  No way they should count that as part of his suspension, if they do, they lose a lot of credibility.

[YoloinOhio]

28 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

Of course he does, why wouldn't he.

 

He was paid fo r his year of doing nothing and it was 100% his decision not to play.  No way they should count that as part of his suspension, if they do, they lose a lot of credibility.

The defense for Watson is grasping at straws because of what his lawyer and Watson have already admitted so they’ve turned to “whataboutisms” instead … what about the owners?? (who aren’t accused of the same thing and aren’t impacted by the same type of discipline anyway so it’s comparing apples and avocados) …what about last year?? (even though he refused to play because he wanted traded). People really think we are all stupid by throwing this stuff out there as some kind of defense. 

[Mr. WEO]

42 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Watson really wants last year to count in his suspension.

 

 

lol, why would they count a year where he refused to play?

 

come on

30 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

.

You think that maybe they didn't because no one else in this history of the NFL got a $200+ million guaranteed contract?  But now since there is one, that changes?

Do you think that the Bengals and Chargers would prefer paying Burrow/Herbert $160 million guaranteed or they actually want to go above $230 million?  

 

Again, there was nothing preventing them from being the first (someone was going to be, no?).

 

Doesn't mean it will open the floodgates for more---if it does, then clearly the owners don't mind.  They could all easily agree not to in the future, amongst themselves.

[The Wiz]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

lol, why would they count a year where he refused to play?

 

come on

 

Again, there was nothing preventing them from being the first (someone was going to be, no?).

 

Doesn't mean it will open the floodgates for more---if it does, then clearly the owners don't mind.  They could all easily agree not to in the future, amongst themselves.

And they already could have in the past which would make what Haslam did seem as a "me before we" act to the rest of the owners which in sure won't sit well. 

[Mr. WEO]

13 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

And they already could have in the past which would make what Haslam did seem as a "me before we" act to the rest of the owners which in sure won't sit well. 

 

 

Again, at some point, some owner was going to to it--it has to be the natural progression of how contracts are negotiated and how teams will compete with each other.  Why would the owners want to "punish" another for being the first?  

 

History shows us that NFL owners are very averse to "punishing" each other.  This would be maybe reason 100 on a list of 100 reasons owners would seek retribution.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Doesn't mean it will open the floodgates for more---if it does, then clearly the owners don't mind.  They could all easily agree not to in the future, amongst themselves.

 

You clearly stated that "they probably felt like it was a non-starter in their negotiations" so you even believe something was preventing them.

 

Yes, they clearly would mind.  You're trying to argue that they are okay with paying more and it doesn't matter.  What the Browns offered potentially forces teams with QB contracts coming up to pay more.  To argue that the Chargers (or any team with QB coming up in a contract year) don't care they have pay Herbert north of $230,000 million fully guaranteed when under the normal scale $160 million or so would have been the market rate...is insane. 

 

That's like saying people that are paying $50,000 over listing to get the house they want, don't care that they had to because they paid it anyway.

Come on.

 

Eventually someone would have gotten $230,000 million but you're talking like 10 years from now.  

[cle23]

4 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

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

 

The fact that people want the suspension to be longer not because of what allegedly happened, but because of a contract, is pretty messed up to start with.  What does the contract have to do with any of it?

[Augie]

33 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You clearly stated that "they probably felt like it was a non-starter in their negotiations" so you even believe something was preventing them.

 

Yes, they clearly would mind.  You're trying to argue that they are okay with paying more and it doesn't matter.  What the Browns offered potentially forces teams with QB contracts coming up to pay more.  To argue that the Chargers (or any team with QB coming up in a contract year) don't care they have pay Herbert north of $230,000 million fully guaranteed when under the normal scale $160 million or so would have been the market rate...is insane. 

 

That's like saying people that are paying $50,000 over listing to get the house they want, don't care that they had to because they paid it anyway.

Come on.

 

Eventually someone would have gotten $230,000 million but you're talking like 10 years from now.  

 

There is ZERO question that the contract was a terrible precedent to set and a very Brownsie thing to do, even by their standards. Stick to messing up the Browns and leave the rest of the league out of it! 

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

The fact that people want the suspension to be longer not because of what allegedly happened, but because of a contract, is pretty messed up to start with.  What does the contract have to do with any of it?

If we go by that instead I'd rather he not play again at all.

[The Wiz]

30 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Again, at some point, some owner was going to to it--it has to be the natural progression of how contracts are negotiated and how teams will compete with each other.  Why would the owners want to "punish" another for being the first?  

 

History shows us that NFL owners are very averse to "punishing" each other.  This would be maybe reason 100 on a list of 100 reasons owners would seek retribution.

 

 

Natural progression, yes. What they did was not natural progression in signing a player that hasn't played for a year and very well may not play for another year to a fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Rodgers is getting 150m guaranteed with his extension. 

 

So a barely .500 qb is getting 80m more guaranteed money than a 4x MVP and SuperBowl champion. 

 

 

 

[cle23]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

The defense for Watson is grasping at straws because of what his lawyer and Watson have already admitted so they’ve turned to “whataboutisms” instead … what about the owners?? (who aren’t accused of the same thing and aren’t impacted by the same type of discipline anyway so it’s comparing apples and avocados) …what about last year?? (even though he refused to play because he wanted traded). People really think we are all stupid by throwing this stuff out there as some kind of defense. 

 

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

 

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

[Royale with Cheese]

14 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Natural progression, yes. What they did was not natural progression in signing a player that hasn't played for a year and very well may not play for another year to a fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Rodgers is getting 150m guaranteed with his extension. 

 

So a barely .500 qb is getting 80m more guaranteed money than a 4x MVP and SuperBowl champion. 

 

 

 

 

It's a 53% increase from Rodgers contract.  10% is probably considered high.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Royale with Cheese

[Warcodered]

12 minutes ago, cle23 said:

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

Dan Snyder should be removed from the league, it's becoming increasingly awkward that they haven't done that. But what intermediate steps could they actually take with Snyder?

14 minutes ago, cle23 said:

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.

So, he was benched, happens to players on teams all the time.

[aristocrat]

16 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

 

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

snyder was removed from running the team for a season and huge fine . So he was “punished” technically. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

17 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

 

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

 

That is absolutely incorrect.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

20 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.

 

Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

Dan Snyder’s day is coming. Typically the NFL waits until the legal system plays out.

[Big Blitz]

44 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

The fact that people want the suspension to be longer not because of what allegedly happened, but because of a contract, is pretty messed up to start with.  What does the contract have to do with any of it?

 

 

Ask the Browns fan base - would you want your owner to dole out a contract like that to a player like this?  Let alone acquire him.  

 

The contract being set up to protect them in the event of a 1 year suspension is so freaking gross.  

Edited June 30, 2022 by Big Blitz

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Ask the Browns fan base - would you want your owner to dole out a contract like that to a player like this?  Let alone acquire him.  

 

The contract being set up to protect them in the event of a 1 year suspension is so freaking gross.  

 

100%

[BarleyNY]

10 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

The contract being set up to protect them in the event of a 1 year suspension is so freaking gross.  

 

8 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

100%

Again, the Watson contract is structured exactly the same way as almost all huge contracts are.  A large signing bonus and minimum first year salary is standard practice.  For example, Von Miller’s contract with the Bills has a large SB and a minimum Y1 salary.

Edited June 30, 2022 by BarleyNY

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Browns fans proving how scummy they are through this process, rooting for some bull 6 gamer.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

22 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Again, the Watson contract is structured exactly the same way as almost all huge contracts are.  A large signing bonus and minimum first year salary is standard practice.  For example, Von Miller’s contract with the Bills has a large SB and a minimum Y1 salary.

 

For QB's is it?

[cle23]

17 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Ask the Browns fan base - would you want your owner to dole out a contract like that to a player like this?  Let alone acquire him.  

 

The contract being set up to protect them in the event of a 1 year suspension is so freaking gross.  

 

Again, this has been discussed a hundred times, the Browns structured ALL of their recent contracts like that.  Most teams do.  Kick the can down the road.  Josh Allen's contract had a salary of $920,000 last year.  $4.1 million this year.  Mahomes was $820,000 and then $990,000.  

 

You can be upset/disgusted about the allegations, but stop trying to say that the contract was structed that was simply because of the accusations.

[cle23]

37 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

For QB's is it?

 

Yes, Allen and Mahomes contracts are structured the exact same way.

Edited June 30, 2022 by cle23

[BarleyNY]

27 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

For QB's is it?

Yes, pretty much any large contract has that basic structure.  Some are tweaked for various reasons, but it’s standard practice.  Oddly, Allen’s Y1 salary on his extension was $4.1M.  I’m not sure why they didn’t take it all the way down to the minimum, but that’s the exception (and it’s still a pretty low salary compared to the AAV).  here is a Spotrac link to the biggest contracts.

Edited June 30, 2022 by BarleyNY

[Royale with Cheese]

19 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Yes, Allen and Mahomes contracts are structured the exact same way.

For the same reasons?

31 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Again, this has been discussed a hundred times, the Browns structured ALL of their recent contracts like that.  Most teams do.  Kick the can down the road.  Josh Allen's contract had a salary of $920,000 last year.  $4.1 million this year.  Mahomes was $820,000 and then $990,000.  

 

You can be upset/disgusted about the allegations, but stop trying to say that the contract was structed that was simply because of the accusations.

How much would you be pulling for Watson to help the Browns win if one of the accusers was a family member?

[cle23]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

For the same reasons?

How much would you be pulling for Watson to help the Browns win if one of the accusers was a family member?

 

Go back to when the trade happened, or even before the trade happened.  I didn't want the Browns to trade for Watson.  Still wished they hadn't.  It sounds like he is a sick dude.

 

What does anything I said in the posts you quoted have to do with any of the victims? I have never defended Watson the person.

 

Cleveland structured the new big money contracts with Garrett, Ward, Teller, and others in the same way.  The Bills did it with Allen.  The Chiefs did it with Mahomes.  With the salary cap exploding, most teams are using low cap numbers now to push the cap hits down the road, where the number will presumably be much higher.

[Punching Bag]

22 hours 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!

 

They feel he is guilty but will ride it out with a Watson-friendly contract.   

A fully guaranteed contract is not team friendly when it is this much. 

Reminds me of Gruden's 10 year, $100 million fully guaranteed one.

[maddenboy]

21 hours 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.

 

I think the fact that this is a New CBA changes the Big Ben angle

 

Both sides have reason to argue that the old ways do not count.  Including that both sides had the Big Ben situation in mind when they were negotiating the current provision, so the new provision is designed to avoid the Big Ben result.  That this is an issue of first-impression without any precedent under this specific set of rules.  ON Purpose.  Because both sides agreed to dump the old system under which Big Ben got 6 games.  Based on whatever motivations the sides had to negotiate and end up with this new system.

 

Also, both sides want a global settlement, Watson much moreso, and Watson will want any settlement to include future complaints for this same type of behavior during the same time period.

 

i think that, behind doors, the NFL will be justifying the arguments that it made in the Big Ben case, about conduct detrimental to the entire league.  Both sides gambled when they decided to scrap the old rules , in favor of the new CBA.  

 

Basically, NFL says "yes, Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league, so that is why we get to punish him.  But we agree that the amount of punishment under that old system is irrelevant.  We think the punishment under this new system should be x,y.z."

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by maddenboy

[FLFan]

48 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Again, this has been discussed a hundred times, the Browns structured ALL of their recent contracts like that.  Most teams do.  Kick the can down the road.  Josh Allen's contract had a salary of $920,000 last year.  $4.1 million this year.  Mahomes was $820,000 and then $990,000.  

 

You can be upset/disgusted about the allegations, but stop trying to say that the contract was structed that was simply because of the accusations.

You are delusional if you believe this.  The Allen contract, for example, is a completely different situation.  It was an extension for starters, and yes they moved money down the road.  In the case of Watson, there could not have been a more flagrant overt attempt to mitigate the risk of suspension.  This was Watson minimizing his downside plain and simple, foregoing salary and bonus in year one for guarantees in later years.  There was nothing usual about that contract. Everyone else in the world sees this for what it is.  

[Punching Bag]

2 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

The fact that people want the suspension to be longer not because of what allegedly happened, but because of a contract, is pretty messed up to start with.  What does the contract have to do with any of it?

 

Is there a cle01 thru cle22 also making excuses for Cleveland Browns?

[ColoradoBills]

"Hey Emily, have you heard of any suspension deets"?