Matt Araiza, The Punt God, Signs With Team in Mexico

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Is there a "statutory rape kit"?  Is that what was administered?

 

Anyway, the only reason he was not charged with statutory rape it that it is his good fortune to live in a state that allows for a "hey, she told me she was of age!!" defense.  For a guy with nothing to worry about, wouldn't his lawyer reach out for a settlement amount at the beginning of August?  If this was just a shakedown, why did this happen (from texts released by the plaintiff's lawyer)?

 

"Armstrong then says that Araiza’s parents had inquired about the monetary amount Gilleon's client wanted and warns that if Gilleon “keeps calling the Bills and he gets cut, there will be no money to get.”

 

"Statutory rape kit"?  Huh?

 

Anyway, the statutory rape laws weren't designed for people like your girl who, as high schoolers, go to college parties and claim they're 18 so they can get drunk and increase their "body count" with college guys.  At least California, one of just 10 states in the country with the age of consent as high as 18 (real luck), has the good sense to recognize it, probably because it happens so often.  So yeah, "hey, she told me she was of age!" and more importantly evidence to back it up was enough gor the DA to not press charges at least for that part.  I don't know what you're having trouble with here except your feelings and I can't do anything about them.

 

And there's a difference between nothing to worry about legally and in the court of public opinion.  If Gilleon hadn't gone public and the DA was allowed to finish his investigation, Araiza would still a Buffalo Bill because no charges were ever filed.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, StHustle said:

Dude what alternate reality do you live in??? You’re a college kid at a college party and a girl who looks like all the other college girls wants to have sex with you (and it was proven she was telling people she attended a nearby college)…WHO ASKS FOR PROOF??? I could see if she looked really young. Nobody felt the need to assume she was lying. You think he should be labeled a sexual predator and have to register as a sex offender for life because of this??? What is wrong with you man???

 

And because of people like YOU is exactly why people like to settle out of court and hush false accusers because they know if their false accusations go public then it ends up like exactly what happened to Araiza. Guilty or not. So to assume guilt cause they tried to settle shows how naive you are and have little grip on the real world and what being fair as possible means. 

 

 

Being "as fair as possible" is just concluding "she's a lying slut".  I get it...

[StHustle]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

"Statutory rape kit"?  Huh?

 

Anyway, the statutory rape laws weren't designed for people like your girl who, as high schoolers, go to college parties and claim they're 18 so they can get drunk and increase their "body count" with college guys.  At least California, one of just 10 states in the country with the age of consent as high as 18 (real luck), has the good sense to recognize it, probably because it happens so often.  So yeah, "hey, she told me she was of age!" and more importantly evidence to back it up was enough gor the DA to not press charges at least for that part.  I don't know what you're having trouble with here except your feelings and I can't do anything about them.

 

And there's a difference between nothing to worry about legally and in the court of public opinion.  If Gilleon hadn't gone public and the DA was allowed to finish his investigation, Araiza would still a Buffalo Bill because no charges were ever filed.

Some folks live in perfect people world where 21 year olds should be able to magically know the difference between a 18 year old and a 17 year old claiming to be 18. And a world where you are automatically guilty if you don’t want gals accusations to become public.

 

I see we are both the type who wants to hear some sort of solid evidence of a crime before we label the accused as guilty. When the accuser is proven to lack integrity and it’s a he said she said case then I don’t get how anyone can simply believe the accuser.

 

These type cases are especially sensitive cause court of public opinion aside, having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life over a false accusation is something I wouldn’t wish on my worse enemy.

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Being "as fair as possible" is just concluding "she's a lying slut".  I get it...

Dude she had sex with a guy she just met that day OUTSIDE and lied about her age and said she was in college. Yes she’s a lying slut. How am I wrong???

[Mr. WEO]

40 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

"Statutory rape kit"?  Huh?

 

Anyway, the statutory rape laws weren't designed for people like your girl who, as high schoolers, go to college parties and claim they're 18 so they can get drunk and increase their "body count" with college guys.  At least California, one of just 10 states in the country with the age of consent as high as 18 (real luck), has the good sense to recognize it, probably because it happens so often.  So yeah, "hey, she told me she was of age!" and more importantly evidence to back it up was enough gor the DA to not press charges at least for that part.  I don't know what you're having trouble with here except your feelings and I can't do anything about them.

 

And there's a difference between nothing to worry about legally and in the court of public opinion.  If Gilleon hadn't gone public and the DA was allowed to finish his investigation, Araiza would still a Buffalo Bill because no charges were ever filed.

 

Obviously, if Araiza had been honest, he would have alerted the Bills an allegation of sexual assault/gang rape (not just "statutory rape"--you keep forgetting this, crazy right?!) had been made against their draftee 6 months prior.  And he would have alerted them of a law suit filed against him after they drafted him---which they had to find out about after the plaintiff's lawyer called the Bills.

 

He hid all of this--for obvious reasons.  Maybe he was thinking the Bills would be cool with all of this, that he was such a great asset as a Punter, that they wouldn't mind catching the immense heat he absolutely had to know he was going to subject them to due to his choices.

 

A great man, to be sure.  

[Chaos]

23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Obviously, if Araiza had been honest, he would have alerted the Bills an allegation of sexual assault/gang rape (not just "statutory rape"--you keep forgetting this, crazy right?!) had been made against their draftee 6 months prior.  And he would have alerted them of a law suit filed against him after they drafted him---which they had to find out about after the plaintiff's lawyer called the Bills.

 

He hid all of this--for obvious reasons.  Maybe he was thinking the Bills would be cool with all of this, that he was such a great asset as a Punter, that they wouldn't mind catching the immense heat he absolutely had to know he was going to subject them to due to his choices.

 

A great man, to be sure.  

If he had no contractual obligation to disclose allegations then there is nothing dishonest about not disclosing those allegations or lawsuits.  

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, Chaos said:

If he had no contractual obligation to disclose allegations then there is nothing dishonest about not disclosing those allegations or lawsuits.  

there was no contract before he was signed.

 

True, it was his prerogative  to hide both of these facts, even after he signed.  Therefore he shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed at the consequences of those choices.  Unless he’s a complete moron, he had to know how this was doomed to end. 
 

if he had been honest with the team—at least AFTER they drafted him, there’s the slimmest chance they would have stashed him somehow until the DA decided on charges.  
 

But he didn’t.  In the end, he was too stupid to kept around and clearly not worth the embarrassment tye Bills endured over him.

[peterpan]

People just need to stop believing in un-believable things.  This story, from the beginning, was unbelievable.  And shock- there wasn’t evidence to support it, AND they found evidence to the contrary!!!!

 

I’m angry that the Bills didn’t keep him.  Just say “no comment” and be done with it.  the twitter mob is NOT real life and has the attention span of a goldfish.  2 days later no one even remembers this Matt guy except bills fans.
 

 

 

[Punching Bag]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:41 AM, Big Turk said:

 

Marvin Gaye sang a song about what he heard...perhaps the poster could do the same for us?

 

As Odysseus send put beeswax in your ears!

[John from Riverside]

Are we back on this again?
 

Every team in the NFL thought that Matt was a bad risk after what happened

 

It’s not like the bills did anything super controversial it would’ve been more controversial if they would’ve kept him

 

I’m not gonna speak on guilt or innocence on this because I absolutely don’t know. I do know that the bills were lucky because a quality punter came available for them at the time that all this happened and they should just resign the guy that has been productive for them.

 

With any kind of luck we won’t be punting much next year anyway

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Obviously, if Araiza had been honest, he would have alerted the Bills an allegation of sexual assault/gang rape (not just "statutory rape"--you keep forgetting this, crazy right?!) had been made against their draftee 6 months prior.  And he would have alerted them of a law suit filed against him after they drafted him---which they had to find out about after the plaintiff's lawyer called the Bills.

 

He hid all of this--for obvious reasons.  Maybe he was thinking the Bills would be cool with all of this, that he was such a great asset as a Punter, that they wouldn't mind catching the immense heat he absolutely had to know he was going to subject them to due to his choices.

 

A great man, to be sure.  

 

Araiza's lawyer said that Araiza didn't know of the allegations prior to the draft.  If he did, he should have told the Bills at the Combine, which was the only time he met with them.  But that doesn't mean at all that he did what was alleged so it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

BTW, apparently there is a cell phone video of the gang rape ().  How much do you want to bet Araiza is not in it?  And if he's not, what say you then? 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Araiza's lawyer said that Araiza didn't know of the allegations prior to the draft.  If he did, he should have told the Bills at the Combine, which was the only time he met with them.  But that doesn't mean at all that he did what was alleged so it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

BTW, apparently there is a cell phone video of the gang rape ().  How much do you want to bet Araiza is not in it?  And if he's not, what say you then? 

 

His lawyer has lied on multiple occasions: about Araiza having told the Bills about the suit and about the Araiza's having him contact the plaintiff's lawyer about how much  money she wanted to make it go away----before the suit was filed. 

 

Araiza's name came up within days of the party and the story was spread all over campus.  Soon after SDPD began their investigation. Maybe Araiza was the only one on campus who didn't know he was the person named, right?

 

If he's not in the video he's not in it.  I would think such a video would have led to charges for those in it however

[freddyjj]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

if he had been honest with the team—at least AFTER they drafted him, there’s the slimmest chance they would have stashed him somehow until the DA decided on charges.  
 

But he didn’t.  In the end, he was too stupid to kept around and clearly not worth the embarrassment tye Bills endured over him

This is why you don't draft a Californian, left-footed ranch dressing loving punter!!

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

His lawyer has lied on multiple occasions: about Araiza having told the Bills about the suit and about the Araiza's having him contact the plaintiff's lawyer about how much  money she wanted to make it go away----before the suit was filed. 

 

Araiza's name came up within days of the party and the story was spread all over campus.  Soon after SDPD began their investigation. Maybe Araiza was the only one on campus who didn't know he was the person named, right?

 

If he's not in the video he's not in it.  I would think such a video would have led to charges for those in it however

 

I'm not going to bother with who knew what and when and who really lied but I'll say that if Araiza did know about the allegations before the draft and told the Bills, they would have done the same thing they did: investigate them, find them to be as bogus as they sounded and still draft (keep) him.  Her lawyer is the one who caused all this by filing a civil suit before the criminal investigation was done, because he knew he had a weak case and was hoping for a quick settlement after Araiza made the team.

 

As for the bolded, yeah, you'd think.  What's the other conclusion?

Edited February 20, 2023 by Doc

[JoPoy88]

Appears he’s not signing there after all.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

Appears he’s not signing there after all.

Not surprised. But his civil trial is for October 20th so he probably won’t be joining a team before then.  

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I'm not going to bother with who knew what and when and who really lied but I'll say that if Araiza did know about the allegations before the draft and told the Bills, they would have done the same thing they did: investigate them, find them to be as bogus as they sounded and still draft (keep) him.  Her lawyer is the one who caused all this by filing a civil suit before the criminal investigation was done, because he knew he had a weak case and was hoping for a quick settlement after Araiza made the team.

 

As for the bolded, yeah, you'd think.  What's the other conclusion?

 

 

Don't need to, I just did.

 

Seeing as the DA didn't get the case for months after the Bills drafted the guy, there's little chance their crack detective squad would have "cleared" him before the draft. My guess is that the FO and at least Kim Pegula would have said.."for a Punter?, forget it".

 

The suit was filed because the SDPD wouldn't turn over the case to the DA.  Csse is filed and presto--DA gets the file.

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Not surprised. But his civil trial is for October 20th so he probably won’t be joining a team before then.  

 

 

Why not sign him now?  The allegations are bogus right?  

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Don't need to, I just did.

 

Seeing as the DA didn't get the case for months after the Bills drafted the guy, there's little chance their crack detective squad would have "cleared" him before the draft. My guess is that the FO and at least Kim Pegula would have said.."for a Punter?, forget it".

 

The suit was filed because the SDPD wouldn't turn over the case to the DA.  Csse is filed and presto--DA gets the file.

 

The Bills cleared him after learning about the allegations and they still kept him over Haack when they could easily have dumped him, being just a 6th rounder with a $216K signing bonus.  The pre-draft process would have been no different.  And guess what?  The "crack detective squad" was right about the allegations.  Imagine that?

 

And the suit was conveniently filed after Araiza won the punting job.  Gilleon could have forced the SDPD to turn over the case to the DA months prior.  It's not hard to figure out why he waited until that moment.

 

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why not sign him now?  The allegations are bogus right?  

 

Why?  The first mini-camps aren't for another 3 months.  And they looked bogus from the start.  Teams are waiting until the civil trial, for optics purposes.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The Bills cleared him after learning about the allegations and they still kept him over Haack when they could easily have dumped him, being just a 6th rounder with a $216K signing bonus.  The pre-draft process would have been no different.  And guess what?  The "crack detective squad" was right about the allegations.  Imagine that?

 

And the suit was conveniently filed after Araiza won the punting job.  Gilleon could have forced the SDPD to turn over the case to the DA months prior.  It's not hard to figure out why he waited until that moment.

 

 

Why?  The first mini-camps aren't for another 3 months.  And they looked bogus from the start.  Teams are waiting until the civil trial, for optics purposes.

 

The Bills knew about the allegations before Araiza won the job. The plaintiff's lawyer called them to give them the heads up.  They never got back to him.  Araiza's lawyer told them weeks before (because his client, who he told to inform the Bills himself 6 weeks prior, didn't do).

 

Their crack team of sleuths didn't even know about the allegations until the end of July...when the plaintiff's lawyer told the team counsel, yet 2 teams told the AP they knew of allegations back before the draft.  

 

It took the SPD something like 135 days to investigate and hand the case to the DA, yet the Bills did all that in, what, a week? No--they mainly relied on what Araiza's lawyers team reported.  But it sure didn't look like the detective squad did NOT prepare the Bills for what as in that lawsuit, or they wouldn't have cut him---why wouldn't they just ride out the storm?  They could just say, "yeah, our investigators had already informed of us of every detail in that suit and we don't believe any of it is true.  Matt is one of us, he stays, an innocent Punter?"

 

Optics?  You have declared him an innocent man, what's wrong with those optics?  How does a pending civil suit make him untouchable until after the suit is over?  Certainly a jury of your peers will reaffirm his innocence in all this, so why wait half a season to sign him?

[Sherlock Holmes]

11 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The Bills cleared him after learning about the allegations and they still kept him over Haack when they could easily have dumped him, being just a 6th rounder with a $216K signing bonus.  The pre-draft process would have been no different.  And guess what?  The "crack detective squad" was right about the allegations.  Imagine that?

 

And the suit was conveniently filed after Araiza won the punting job.  Gilleon could have forced the SDPD to turn over the case to the DA months prior.  It's not hard to figure out why he waited until that moment.

 

 

Why?  The first mini-camps aren't for another 3 months.  And they looked bogus from the start.  Teams are waiting until the civil trial, for optics purposes.

 

49 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The Bills knew about the allegations before Araiza won the job. The plaintiff's lawyer called them to give them the heads up.  They never got back to him.  Araiza's lawyer told them weeks before (because his client, who he told to inform the Bills himself 6 weeks prior, didn't do).

 

Their crack team of sleuths didn't even know about the allegations until the end of July...when the plaintiff's lawyer told the team counsel, yet 2 teams told the AP they knew of allegations back before the draft.  

 

It took the SPD something like 135 days to investigate and hand the case to the DA, yet the Bills did all that in, what, a week? No--they mainly relied on what Araiza's lawyers team reported.  But it sure didn't look like the detective squad did NOT prepare the Bills for what as in that lawsuit, or they wouldn't have cut him---why wouldn't they just ride out the storm?  They could just say, "yeah, our investigators had already informed of us of every detail in that suit and we don't believe any of it is true.  Matt is one of us, he stays, an innocent Punter?"

 

Optics?  You have declared him an innocent man, what's wrong with those optics?  How does a pending civil suit make him untouchable until after the suit is over?  Certainly a jury of your peers will reaffirm his innocence in all this, so why wait half a season to sign him?

You guys are both right...we should re-sign him right this instant!

[PrimeTime101]

5 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

 

You guys are both right...we should re-sign him right this instant!

then again maybe not. he did not sign with mexico 

 

Edited: I thought I read somewhere that he was done with football. cant find it now so obviously i was wrong 

Edited February 21, 2023 by PrimeTime101

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Bills knew about the allegations before Araiza won the job. The plaintiff's lawyer called them to give them the heads up.  They never got back to him.  Araiza's lawyer told them weeks before (because his client, who he told to inform the Bills himself 6 weeks prior, didn't do).

 

Their crack team of sleuths didn't even know about the allegations until the end of July...when the plaintiff's lawyer told the team counsel, yet 2 teams told the AP they knew of allegations back before the draft.  

 

It took the SPD something like 135 days to investigate and hand the case to the DA, yet the Bills did all that in, what, a week? No--they mainly relied on what Araiza's lawyers team reported.  But it sure didn't look like the detective squad did NOT prepare the Bills for what as in that lawsuit, or they wouldn't have cut him---why wouldn't they just ride out the storm?  They could just say, "yeah, our investigators had already informed of us of every detail in that suit and we don't believe any of it is true.  Matt is one of us, he stays, an innocent Punter?"

 

Optics?  You have declared him an innocent man, what's wrong with those optics?  How does a pending civil suit make him untouchable until after the suit is over?  Certainly a jury of your peers will reaffirm his innocence in all this, so why wait half a season to sign him?

 

Yes Gilleon called the Bills to give them a heads up, but waited until after Araiza made the team to file the civil suit.  What, was something like 120 days not long enough?  No he knew his case was a loser given the video of her floating around on the internet and that cell phone video of the ***** and he was obviously looking for a quick settlement from deeper pockets. 

 

And who knows/cares for how long the Bills investigated?  They got it right, didn't they?  There were no criminal charges filed, were there?  You think that happened by accident?  LOL!

 

And yes, optics.  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, teams will want him publicly cleared of any criminal and civil charges. 

 

3 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

then again maybe not. he did not sign with mexico and is not going to play football again

 

Huh?

Edited February 21, 2023 by Doc

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:

then again maybe not. he did not sign with mexico and is not going to play football again

If you believe Araiza’s agent, it’s the opposite actually - he did not sign with the Mexican league because they are hopeful he will get an NFL tryout. Whether that’s based on actual expressed interest from NFL team(s) or just wishful thinking I guess we’ll see.

[PrimeTime101]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes Gilleon called the Bills to give them a heads up, but waited until after he made the team to file the civil suit.  What, was something like 120 days not long enough?  No he knew his case was a loser given the video of her on the internet and that cell phone video of the ***** and he was obviously looking for a settlement from deeper pockets. 

 

And who knows/cares for how long the Bills investigated?  They got it right, didn't they?  There were no criminal charges filed, were there?  You think that happened by accident?  LOL!

 

And yes, optics.  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, teams will want him publicly cleared of any criminal or civil charges. 

 

 

Huh?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/02/21/matt-araiza-not-signing-with-mexican-team-after-all/

4 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

If you believe Araiza’s agent, it’s the opposite actually - he did not sign with the Mexican league because they are hopeful he will get an NFL tryout. Whether that’s based on actual expressed interest from NFL team(s) or just wishful thinking I guess we’ll see.

 

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/02/21/matt-araiza-not-signing-with-mexican-team-after-all/

 

 

Yeah, got the "not signing with the Mexican team part."  I was asking about "not going to play football again" which isn't true.

[C.Biscuit97]

Why do people even care about this punter? Any updates on moorman or John Kidd?

[PrimeTime101]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, got the "not signing with the Mexican team part."  I was asking about "not going to play football again" which isn't true.

I might of misread another article. My bad if i am wrong

[Mr. WEO]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yes Gilleon called the Bills to give them a heads up, but waited until after Araiza made the team to file the civil suit.  What, was something like 120 days not long enough?  No he knew his case was a loser given the video of her floating around on the internet and that cell phone video of the ***** and he was obviously looking for a quick settlement from deeper pockets. 

 

And who knows/cares for how long the Bills investigated?  They got it right, didn't they?  There were no criminal charges filed, were there?  You think that happened by accident?  LOL!

 

And yes, optics.  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, teams will want him publicly cleared of any criminal and civil charges. 

 

 

Huh?

 

Again, the Bills knew about the suit before, not after, Araiza won the job over Haack.  

 

If the Bills were satisfied that their team "got it right", and that all of the allegations were "false", as far as they were concerned, and they knew the suit was going to be filed.....why would they cut him?  They knew what the suit would detail.  Why come out and say that their investigators already determined he was innocent of all charges.  The Bills could have said so publicly and ended all this no?  They already knew what the "optics" would be once they heard of the suit.  They knew at that moment what was coming.  Did they not "get it right"?

 

So why didn't they stand by their man until the DA ruled?  Put him on the PS.  If they "knew" he was actually Innocent (pretend they could for your argument), why cut him?  Were they really not prepared for the fallout of their clearing him?   What was the point of the investigation if they were going to dump him anyway when the suit they were tipped off about dropped?

[BarleyNY]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yes Gilleon called the Bills to give them a heads up, but waited until after Araiza made the team to file the civil suit.  What, was something like 120 days not long enough?  No he knew his case was a loser given the video of her floating around on the internet and that cell phone video of the ***** and he was obviously looking for a quick settlement from deeper pockets. 

 

And who knows/cares for how long the Bills investigated?  They got it right, didn't they?  There were no criminal charges filed, were there?  You think that happened by accident?  LOL!

 

And yes, optics.  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, teams will want him publicly cleared of any criminal and civil charges. 

 

 

Huh?

The deep pockets thing is awfully weak. Araiza got a $216k signing bonus. Not really much to go after after taxes. And as for his salary, the allegations torpedoed that. Not to mention that teams knew about it before the draft and it could’ve kept him from being drafted (or even signed) at all. 
 

As for the Bills, drafting him obviously was a mistake. Not sure what they were thinking, but it was only a sixth round pick and a bad look by the team. It was not a huge misstep by any means, but a mistake nonetheless. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by BarleyNY

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Again, the Bills knew about the suit before, not after, Araiza won the job over Haack.  

 

If the Bills were satisfied that their team "got it right", and that all of the allegations were "false", as far as they were concerned, and they knew the suit was going to be filed.....why would they cut him?  They knew what the suit would detail.  Why come out and say that their investigators already determined he was innocent of all charges.  The Bills could have said so publicly and ended all this no?  They already knew what the "optics" would be once they heard of the suit.  They knew at that moment what was coming.  Did they not "get it right"?

 

So why didn't they stand by their man until the DA ruled?  Put him on the PS.  If they "knew" he was actually Innocent (pretend they could for your argument), why cut him?  Were they really not prepared for the fallout of their clearing him?   What was the point of the investigation if they were going to dump him anyway when the suit they were tipped off about dropped?

 

You know why they cut him.  The court of public opinion would have been slamming them all the way up to the DA announcing there were no charges, and many even after (sound familiar?).  Meanwhile they needed to get on with the season and find a new punter.  And what team has ever had a punter on the PS?  LOL!

 

I don't have to "pretend" WEO.  There were no charges.  In fact there's video of her lying about her age.  And zero proof Araiza was involved in the gang rape.  But keep hoping, as usual.

 

8 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

The deep pockets thing is awfully weak. Araiza got a $216k signing bonus. Not really much to go after after taxes. And as for his salary, the allegations torpedoed that. Not to mention that teams knew about it before the draft and it could’ve kept him from being drafted (or even signed) at all. 
 

As for the Bills, drafting him obviously was a mistake. Not sure what they were thinking, but it was only a sixth round pick and a bad look by the team. It was not a huge misstep by any means, but a mistake nonetheless. 

 

Deep pockets=Bills (who didn't even bother talking to Gilleon) and then Araiza after he made the team and would be getting an almost $4M contract.  There's a reason he waited until that point, when, again, he could have filed the civil suit at any point prior just to get the case to the DA (LOL!).

Edited February 22, 2023 by Doc

[BBills_88]

Would he be excepted back?

[BillsShredder83]

On 2/17/2023 at 3:48 PM, Blank Stare said:

Well that answers my question about whether he holds a grudge. I get being disappointed (even livid if you are truly innocent), but WTH did he expect the team to do? 

Unfortunately unless he sues and wins he wont get even a fraction of that rep back.

 

Sry bills, wth you do you expect MA to do?

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

You know why they cut him.  The court of public opinion would have been slamming them all the way up to the DA announcing there were no charges, and many even after (sound familiar?).  Meanwhile they needed to get on with the season and find a new punter.  And what team has ever had a punter on the PS?  LOL!

 

I don't have to "pretend" WEO.  There were no charges.  In fact there's video of her lying about her age.  And zero proof Araiza was involved in the gang rape.  But keep hoping, as usual.

 

 

Deep pockets=Bills (who didn't even bother talking to Gilleon) and then Araiza after he made the team and would be getting an almost $4M contract.  There's a reason he waited until that point, when, again, he could have filed the civil suit at any point prior just to get the case to the DA (LOL!).

 

 

So what?  They knew that as soon as they were made aware of the the suit (before the public and before he Haack was let go).

 

So....if the knew he was innocent, and they knew what the suit would allege and therefore knew what the fallout would be, why didn't they ride it out?  They absolutely knew what "the court of public opinion" would be once the suit dropped.  Why not just come out and say their investigators destroyed the entire suit, so Araiza stays. 

 

It makes zero sense to say they took the time to "investigate" to satisfy themselves he was clean, despite the salacious details......and then to cut him when the salacious details became public (which they knew was coming).  There's no logic to that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

You know why they cut him.  The court of public opinion would have been slamming them all the way up to the DA announcing there were no charges, and many even after (sound familiar?).  Meanwhile they needed to get on with the season and find a new punter.  And what team has ever had a punter on the PS?  LOL!

 

I don't have to "pretend" WEO.  There were no charges.  In fact there's video of her lying about her age.  And zero proof Araiza was involved in the gang rape.  But keep hoping, as usual.

 

 

Deep pockets=Bills (who didn't even bother talking to Gilleon) and then Araiza after he made the team and would be getting an almost $4M contract.  There's a reason he waited until that point, when, again, he could have filed the civil suit at any point prior just to get the case to the DA (LOL!).

 

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

So what?  They knew that as soon as they were made aware of the the suit (before the public and before he Haack was let go).

 

So....if the knew he was innocent, and they knew what the suit would allege and therefore knew what the fallout would be, why didn't they ride it out?  They absolutely knew what "the court of public opinion" would be once the suit dropped.  Why not just come out and say their investigators destroyed the entire suit, so Araiza stays. 

 

It makes zero sense to say they took the time to "investigate" to satisfy themselves he was clean, despite the salacious details......and then to cut him when the salacious details became public (which they knew was coming).  There's no logic to that.

Meowww...can we get together in person so I can just watch you two go at each other all day

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

So what?  They knew that as soon as they were made aware of the the suit (before the public and before he Haack was let go).

 

So....if the knew he was innocent, and they knew what the suit would allege and therefore knew what the fallout would be, why didn't they ride it out?  They absolutely knew what "the court of public opinion" would be once the suit dropped.  Why not just come out and say their investigators destroyed the entire suit, so Araiza stays. 

 

It makes zero sense to say they took the time to "investigate" to satisfy themselves he was clean, despite the salacious details......and then to cut him when the salacious details became public (which they knew was coming).  There's no logic to that.

So bad player management again right?

[Doc]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

So what?  They knew that as soon as they were made aware of the the suit (before the public and before he Haack was let go).

 

So....if the knew he was innocent, and they knew what the suit would allege and therefore knew what the fallout would be, why didn't they ride it out?  They absolutely knew what "the court of public opinion" would be once the suit dropped.  Why not just come out and say their investigators destroyed the entire suit, so Araiza stays. 

 

It makes zero sense to say they took the time to "investigate" to satisfy themselves he was clean, despite the salacious details......and then to cut him when the salacious details became public (which they knew was coming).  There's no logic to that.

 

Why would the Bills think/know that a civil suit was coming when their investigation determined that Araiza committed no crime, much less before criminal charges were filed that they knew weren't coming anyway?  Rarely is a civil case filed before criminal charges and usually only when the case is weak.  Not to mention he waited until after Araiza made the team to file them instead of a week or two before (that extra time could have pushed the DA to say "no charges" by the end of November...).

 

And you're living proof of how little "our investigators destroyed the suit" would have meant.  Here it is over 2-1/2 months since the DA declined to file charges, and you still think he's guilty.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Why would the Bills think/know that a civil suit was coming when their investigation determined that Araiza committed no crime, much less before criminal charges were filed that they knew weren't coming anyway?  Rarely is a civil case filed before criminal charges and usually only when the case is weak.  Not to mention he waited until after Araiza made the team to file them instead of a week or two before (that extra time could have pushed the DA to say "no charges" by the end of November...).

 

And you're living proof of how little "our investigators destroyed the suit" would have meant.  Here it is over 2-1/2 months since the DA declined to file charges, and you still think he's guilty.

 

I don't know if he did these deeds or not--how could I?.  You say you know he's innocent of any allegations.  That's a major difference.

 

You are confused again.  Some facts continue to elude you (or, more likely, you ignore):

 

The Bills didn't start their investigation until after they were made aware a suit was going to be filed by the plaintiff's attorney. The Bills were made aware by the plaintiff's attorney in late July of the allegations he was going to make public in a suit against Araiza....Araiza won the Punting job on August 22.  He gave the Assistant General Counsel Kathryn D'Angelo all the details.  He emailed her and then spoke to her directly.  (interestingly, the guy who was General Counsel would be put on leave of absence by the team after Araiza was cut---he was Russ Brandon's brother, btw, lol). 

 

And finally, there was no way for the Bills to know in August that no charges would be coming in December, when it was announced.  The DA had not even begun their own investigation yet.  So that is more fabrication on your part. 

 

The Bills steely resolve and confidence in the depth, breadth and quality of their "thorough investigation" lasted all of 2 days. 

 

 

 

Of course, you still haven't answered my question: if the the Bills "knew" he was innocent and no charges were coming and knew exactly the heat this would bring based on what the suit would claim, why not keep him? 

[4merper4mer]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

So what?  They knew that as soon as they were made aware of the the suit (before the public and before he Haack was let go).

 

So....if the knew he was innocent, and they knew what the suit would allege and therefore knew what the fallout would be, why didn't they ride it out?  They absolutely knew what "the court of public opinion" would be once the suit dropped.  Why not just come out and say their investigators destroyed the entire suit, so Araiza stays. 

 

It makes zero sense to say they took the time to "investigate" to satisfy themselves he was clean, despite the salacious details......and then to cut him when the salacious details became public (which they knew was coming).  There's no logic to that.

All of this was covered in the original thread and it is very clear that the Bills management did pretty well under the circumstances regarding Araiza.  Beane acted in the manner a professional would despite the trolling behavior and revisionist tactics of people like Tim Graham.  Now here you are months later making the assertion that Haack’s departure was a direct referendum on Araiza.  Haack’s departure was a referendum on Haack.  This was all reviewed ad infinitum in the original thread.

 

I guess the Bills winning the division three years in a row and your team arguably looking like the cellar dweller moving forward leaves you with this crap for “material”, but it’s not a good look dude.

[BarleyNY]

16 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Deep pockets=Bills (who didn't even bother talking to Gilleon) and then Araiza after he made the team and would be getting an almost $4M contract.  There's a reason he waited until that point, when, again, he could have filed the civil suit at any point prior just to get the case to the DA (LOL!).

 

That makes zero sense (but, hey, why start now?). No suit was filed against the Bills, nor would any attorney worth their salt think that was even a possibility. That is ridiculous. 

[Mr. WEO]

30 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

All of this was covered in the original thread and it is very clear that the Bills management did pretty well under the circumstances regarding Araiza.  Beane acted in the manner a professional would despite the trolling behavior and revisionist tactics of people like Tim Graham.  Now here you are months later making the assertion that Haack’s departure was a direct referendum on Araiza.  Haack’s departure was a referendum on Haack.  This was all reviewed ad infinitum in the original thread.

 

I guess the Bills winning the division three years in a row and your team arguably looking like the cellar dweller moving forward leaves you with this crap for “material”, but it’s not a good look dude.

 

Huh?  Araiza beat out Haack straight up.   I never said otherwise.  Go back to sleep.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Huh?  Araiza beat out Haack straight up.   I never said otherwise.  Go back to sleep.

Irrespective of whether Araiza involvement in any incident, if the Bills cut Haack all it it says is Araiza>Haack.  It says nothing about Araiza’s status other than he was a better option than Haack.  
 

The Bills could have thought everything was buttoned up, they could have thought it was probable to work itself out or they could have been waiting it out.  If they had unceremoniously dumped Araiza due to allegations, you’d have taken the opposite stance and told us all how unprofessional the Bills had acted.  In reality, Beane approached this entire saga in a highly professional manner up to and including the moment he said it was more important for Araiza to focus on his personal life than on football.  He did not absolve or blame Araiza in any way.  It was not his place.  Sure, goofs like Tim Graham, cited as direct quotes things that were not anything resembling a direct quote in an effort to make Beane look bad.  In the end, there was nothing there which is why this all went away from the standpoint of the Bills bearing some sort of blame.  Even Tim Graham has shut up about it….but Pats fans gonna Pats fan I guess.

 

Haack stunk.  That is clear.  It is very plausible, even likely, that the Bills knew he would not make their team under any circumstances whether Araiza was there or not and they gave him a chance to connect elsewhere……which is exactly what he did.  Stuff like that happens many times on just about every team every year, but THIS time it was proof that the Bills screwed up.  Gotcha.

[benderbender]

17 hours ago, BBills_88 said:

Would he be excepted back?

If he’s cleared of all the charges, but most importantly the STIs he’s admitted to having. I don’t want my team catching his infected spores in the showers.