Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 by Royale with Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Big Blitz
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BarleyNY
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Disagree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

For QB's is it?

 

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

Edited by cle23
  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BarleyNY
  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by maddenboy
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...