say he was suspended last year and that should count.. Umm, no, he was paid every bit of his salary and was made inactive for the entire season. He wasn't suspended and that fact alone is what gave him his full pay.
I think the NFL looks to do a year, impose counseling requirements and a heft fine.
he either did or didn't do this. if he did do it, he should be kicked out of the league. if he didn't there is no reason for a suspension. i don't know how the judge arrived at 6
RE: A former female retired judge made the decision
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
To a degree, this sort of sums it up - yes.
But this is what the NFLPA gets for agreeing to such an absurd process where - despite the addition of an independent body like Robinson to settle these matters - Goodell still ends up as the executioner.
Without the doubt, the NFLPA is the worst union in sports - easily.
Robinson is a former federal judge. As she mentioned multiple times on her report, she was following precedent. She gave all of these reasons why he should be suspended harshly, and then looked at how the NFL has previously punished "non-violent" sexual assault (the league's verbage, not mine). Given those standards, it was harsh.
But this is a type of precedent setting case for the league. It's much more serious and repeated than any other public case. Robinson essentially said she couldn't set new precedent and the league would have to intervene if they want a new precedent set. Clearly the league (rightfully in my view) thinks that this case should go above and beyond precedent because Watson's actions went above and beyond precedent
I am bound “by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated.”47 The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly-situated players. By ignoring past decisions because none involve “similar” conduct, however, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position.48 While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I 14 do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.
.......
Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct. At least in the former situation, the Policy was changed and applied proactively. Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy.
say he was suspended last year and that should count.. Umm, no, he was paid every bit of his salary and was made inactive for the entire season. He wasn't suspended and that fact alone is what gave him his full pay.
That's all true, but the financial aspect is largely the same with whatever suspension he gets given how his contract is structured. That's not to say last year should mitigate whatever suspension he gets, but unless it winds up stretching into next year, the worst case for him would still only be losing less than 0.5% of his total contract. That's worse for him than losing zero last year, but it's pretty nominal.
RE: A former female retired judge made the decision
Charles Robinson
@CharlesRobinson
·
12m
#NFL’s appeal of Deshaun Watson sanctions from multiple sources:
1 year indefinite suspension + treatment. No $ fine.
Or
IF suspension is less than 1 year, it will carry a significant $ fine + treatment. Unanswered questions: How many games & what is the corresponding fine?
RE: RE: RE: A former female retired judge made the decision
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
Stan is wrong? Noooooo!
Death
Taxes
Stan being wrong
However, Stan is right.
Quote:
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
To a degree, this sort of sums it up - yes.
But this is what the NFLPA gets for agreeing to such an absurd process where - despite the addition of an independent body like Robinson to settle these matters - Goodell still ends up as the executioner.
Without the doubt, the NFLPA is the worst union in sports - easily.
Want to try your luck on taxes and death? You might have better success.
is complete nonsense in my opinion, at least as applied.
Which of the prior NFL punishments involved upwards of 60 alleged violations of sexual assault according to some sources? Which involved direct testimony from at least four victims of sexual assault that were deemed credible by the trier of fact?
He failure to deal with those questions renders the rest of the analysis useless, imo.
In addition, I think he reliance on the fact that there is a mandatory baseline punishment for "violent" offenses to conclude that everything else is less significant or cannot be punished more severely is a leap. The lack of precedent or explicit policy allowing it certainly didn't stop her from saying Watson could never go to a private masseuse again. Don't know why it should stop her from saying what she herself called the most egregious pattern of conduct ever reviewed by the NFL deserved the most significant punishment.
the league offered him a 12 game suspension and a fine of between $8MM and $10MM (sources on twitter differ on the exact amount) which he rejected. So that gives a sense of the magnitude of fine the league may be looking for.
say he was suspended last year and that should count.. Umm, no, he was paid every bit of his salary and was made inactive for the entire season. He wasn't suspended and that fact alone is what gave him his full pay.
That's all true, but the financial aspect is largely the same with whatever suspension he gets given how his contract is structured. That's not to say last year should mitigate whatever suspension he gets, but unless it winds up stretching into next year, the worst case for him would still only be losing less than 0.5% of his total contract. That's worse for him than losing zero last year, but it's pretty nominal.
One other thing to consider here is if he’s suspended for a year, the 1st year low pay ( 1mil) on his deal doesn’t just go away. It gets suspended as well and that would be his pay for next season when he returns.
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.He won’t see any big bucks til 2024 and that should hurt him a bit as far as a league punishment goes.
And the take that they are horrible. This process went exactly as it was designed to and in most any other case the NFL would let the judgement stay as is. This is NOT any other situation and Watson clearly was doing stuff that at a minimum is creepy as all hell ( seeking out massage therapist through IG, Twitter etc.) And at worse shows a major predator type behavior. * There are rumors he had quite the setup at Clemson as well with private massage sessions..
The NFL has to stand by it's we are against sexual violence (physical and mental- power) and especially against women.
One other thing to consider here is if he’s suspended for a year, the 1st year low pay ( 1mil) on his deal doesn’t just go away. It gets suspended as well and that would be his pay for next season when he returns.
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.
Do you have a source for this - I haven't seen anything to suggest that a full year suspension simply pushes his contract back a year. I don't know why 16 games would cost him 16/17th's of his 2022 salary, with 2023 proceeding as contracted, but 17 games would somehow change his entire contract and basically re-set it so 2023 becomes what 2022 would have been.
multiple sources that claimed the NFL as part of their recommendation on punishment wanted a $10.5M fine (in addition to any 2022 games suspended), which the reports said was equal to his 2021 salary. which in effect would have made last year a 1-year suspension on top of any additional games he is suspended this year.
is complete nonsense in my opinion, at least as applied.
Which of the prior NFL punishments involved upwards of 60 alleged violations of sexual assault according to some sources? Which involved direct testimony from at least four victims of sexual assault that were deemed credible by the trier of fact?
He failure to deal with those questions renders the rest of the analysis useless, imo.
In addition, I think he reliance on the fact that there is a mandatory baseline punishment for "violent" offenses to conclude that everything else is less significant or cannot be punished more severely is a leap. The lack of precedent or explicit policy allowing it certainly didn't stop her from saying Watson could never go to a private masseuse again. Don't know why it should stop her from saying what she herself called the most egregious pattern of conduct ever reviewed by the NFL deserved the most significant punishment.
Terrible judge. There is difference between grand larceny and not so grand larceny.
Goodell/NFL and NFLPA is a joke, years ago maybe people would overlook this behavior but not today. Think of the memes people are readying!
Are going a bit overboard with complaints about the appeal process. Yes, it does go to Goodell. But the only thing he can review is the punishment. He cannot go back and rehear the facts. So basically, what the players and the NFL agreed is that an independent party is going to decide whether the player violated the policy. Goodell can decide whether the punishment given was correct (either making it harsher or reducing it). I don't think that's actually so crazy. It eliminates Goodell/NFL from the process of playing judge/jury and reserves to them only the right to review what should happen as a result of a violation. Ultimately, we are talking about an employer deciding what employees it wants representing it. From a PR standpoint, NFL may want to just remove itself entirely at this point, but I don't think it's crazy for them to want to retain that last bit of control.
In one lawsuit, thirty women accused the Houston Texans of turning a blind eye to allegations that Deshaun Watson was sexually assaulting and harassing women during massage sessions. According to attorney Tony Buzbee, this suit has been settled. Terms are confidential.
In separate lawsuits, 24 women accused Watson of exposing himself, touching them with his penis or kissing them against their will during massage appointments while he played for the Texans. One woman alleged Watson forced her to perform oral sex. Attorney Tony Buzbee announced that 20 of those 24 lawsuits have been settled.
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
One other thing to consider here is if he’s suspended for a year, the 1st year low pay ( 1mil) on his deal doesn’t just go away. It gets suspended as well and that would be his pay for next season when he returns.
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.
Do you have a source for this - I haven't seen anything to suggest that a full year suspension simply pushes his contract back a year. I don't know why 16 games would cost him 16/17th's of his 2022 salary, with 2023 proceeding as contracted, but 17 games would somehow change his entire contract and basically re-set it so 2023 becomes what 2022 would have been.
I read it in I believe an ESPN article a couple of weeks ago and I’ll try and find it.
The gist of it was if he gets suspended for the year his whole contract does too. The league wasn’t going to let him or the Browns get away with the way they structured his contract in anticipation of a possible year long suspension. If it was a five year deal, it starts the year he returns from suspension, and that first year he gets only 1 million.
That was all based on a whole year suspension and no idea how it would work if it’s less. I think this may be one of the reasons the league is appealing and is looking for a big fine. If he only gets six games he’ll only lose about $350K in game checks.
Here’s one confirmation from Pro Football Talk in his deal pausing
There is also an article on a Browns page from a while back talking about this as well. I haven’t found the article on ESPN yet about the league confirming this but it was an official statement from them that I read.
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
RE: Here’s one confirmation from Pro Football Talk in his deal pausing
There is also an article on a Browns page from a while back talking about this as well. I haven’t found the article on ESPN yet about the league confirming this but it was an official statement from them that I read.
Based on what they offered him before the ruling came out, a full year may not be likely, but if it is, that would probably work out a lot better for the Browns than, say, 10 games.
Based on what they offered him before the ruling came out, a full year may not be likely, but if it is, that would probably work out a lot better for the Browns than, say, 10 games.
Yes that’s one of the things they were saying on that Browns site. If he gets a full year they get cap relief this year and then some more next year when his salary would only be 1 mil. It in effect buys them two years of cap maneuverability to better absorb his big time pay years, while also still having him for five full years and not four.
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
If you think he's 100% right it will remain at 6 games.
If it moves to 8 games then was it really "unassailable"?
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
If you think he's 100% right it will remain at 6 games.
If it moves to 8 games then was it really "unassailable"?
I meant right about PR. If suspension gets increased NFL can say "we fought it and got it increased", this is like a prescripted story
What a country!
I think the NFL looks to do a year, impose counseling requirements and a heft fine.
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
exactly and if she had gone outside of the previous PC penalties and said 1 year you can bet the NFLPA would have appealed immediately.
Quote:
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
Stan is wrong? Noooooo!
Death
Taxes
Stan being wrong
Quote:
.
exactly and if she had gone outside of the previous PC penalties and said 1 year you can bet the NFLPA would have appealed immediately.
If the NFLPA had appealed, it still goes to the same place though, right? (Goodell)
Quote:
In comment 15771192 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
.
exactly and if she had gone outside of the previous PC penalties and said 1 year you can bet the NFLPA would have appealed immediately.
If the NFLPA had appealed, it still goes to the same place though, right? (Goodell)
:) Correct!
What a country!
To a degree, this sort of sums it up - yes.
But this is what the NFLPA gets for agreeing to such an absurd process where - despite the addition of an independent body like Robinson to settle these matters - Goodell still ends up as the executioner.
Without the doubt, the NFLPA is the worst union in sports - easily.
Punching the air out of footballs: 4 games
Punching the shit out of a woman: 6 games
30 sex harassment suits: 6 games.
But this is a type of precedent setting case for the league. It's much more serious and repeated than any other public case. Robinson essentially said she couldn't set new precedent and the league would have to intervene if they want a new precedent set. Clearly the league (rightfully in my view) thinks that this case should go above and beyond precedent because Watson's actions went above and beyond precedent
Uhh, no kidding?
I am bound “by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated.”47 The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly-situated players. By ignoring past decisions because none involve “similar” conduct, however, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position.48 While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I 14 do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.
.......
Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct. At least in the former situation, the Policy was changed and applied proactively. Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22124209-deshaun-watson-suspension-ruling?responsive=1&title=1
That's all true, but the financial aspect is largely the same with whatever suspension he gets given how his contract is structured. That's not to say last year should mitigate whatever suspension he gets, but unless it winds up stretching into next year, the worst case for him would still only be losing less than 0.5% of his total contract. That's worse for him than losing zero last year, but it's pretty nominal.
What a country!
A former female? Trans?
@Michael_Fabiano
·
3h
“The NFL is looking for an indefinite suspension,” per @AdamSchefter
on the Deshaun Watson situation.
@CharlesRobinson
·
12m
#NFL’s appeal of Deshaun Watson sanctions from multiple sources:
1 year indefinite suspension + treatment. No $ fine.
Or
IF suspension is less than 1 year, it will carry a significant $ fine + treatment. Unanswered questions: How many games & what is the corresponding fine?
Quote:
In comment 15771189 Stan in LA said:
Quote:
NFL didn't like it and will decide on its own what the punishment should be,
What a country!
You are actually wrong. The process is was it was settled and the NFL along with the NFLPA all had the right to appeal. The fact that the arbitrator said (in a round about way) that she doesn't believe Watson's testimony about no intention gave the NFL all it needed to ask for a bigger penalty.
Stan is wrong? Noooooo!
Death
Taxes
Stan being wrong
However, Stan is right.
What a country!
To a degree, this sort of sums it up - yes.
But this is what the NFLPA gets for agreeing to such an absurd process where - despite the addition of an independent body like Robinson to settle these matters - Goodell still ends up as the executioner.
Without the doubt, the NFLPA is the worst union in sports - easily.
Want to try your luck on taxes and death? You might have better success.
Which of the prior NFL punishments involved upwards of 60 alleged violations of sexual assault according to some sources? Which involved direct testimony from at least four victims of sexual assault that were deemed credible by the trier of fact?
He failure to deal with those questions renders the rest of the analysis useless, imo.
In addition, I think he reliance on the fact that there is a mandatory baseline punishment for "violent" offenses to conclude that everything else is less significant or cannot be punished more severely is a leap. The lack of precedent or explicit policy allowing it certainly didn't stop her from saying Watson could never go to a private masseuse again. Don't know why it should stop her from saying what she herself called the most egregious pattern of conduct ever reviewed by the NFL deserved the most significant punishment.
The NFLPA is a joke
Quote:
say he was suspended last year and that should count.. Umm, no, he was paid every bit of his salary and was made inactive for the entire season. He wasn't suspended and that fact alone is what gave him his full pay.
That's all true, but the financial aspect is largely the same with whatever suspension he gets given how his contract is structured. That's not to say last year should mitigate whatever suspension he gets, but unless it winds up stretching into next year, the worst case for him would still only be losing less than 0.5% of his total contract. That's worse for him than losing zero last year, but it's pretty nominal.
One other thing to consider here is if he’s suspended for a year, the 1st year low pay ( 1mil) on his deal doesn’t just go away. It gets suspended as well and that would be his pay for next season when he returns.
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.He won’t see any big bucks til 2024 and that should hurt him a bit as far as a league punishment goes.
The NFL has to stand by it's we are against sexual violence (physical and mental- power) and especially against women.
The NFL has to stand by it's we are against sexual violence (physical and mental- power) and especially against women.
They're not though. They only care about the brand
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.
Do you have a source for this - I haven't seen anything to suggest that a full year suspension simply pushes his contract back a year. I don't know why 16 games would cost him 16/17th's of his 2022 salary, with 2023 proceeding as contracted, but 17 games would somehow change his entire contract and basically re-set it so 2023 becomes what 2022 would have been.
Which of the prior NFL punishments involved upwards of 60 alleged violations of sexual assault according to some sources? Which involved direct testimony from at least four victims of sexual assault that were deemed credible by the trier of fact?
He failure to deal with those questions renders the rest of the analysis useless, imo.
In addition, I think he reliance on the fact that there is a mandatory baseline punishment for "violent" offenses to conclude that everything else is less significant or cannot be punished more severely is a leap. The lack of precedent or explicit policy allowing it certainly didn't stop her from saying Watson could never go to a private masseuse again. Don't know why it should stop her from saying what she herself called the most egregious pattern of conduct ever reviewed by the NFL deserved the most significant punishment.
Terrible judge. There is difference between grand larceny and not so grand larceny.
Goodell/NFL and NFLPA is a joke, years ago maybe people would overlook this behavior but not today. Think of the memes people are readying!
In separate lawsuits, 24 women accused Watson of exposing himself, touching them with his penis or kissing them against their will during massage appointments while he played for the Texans. One woman alleged Watson forced her to perform oral sex. Attorney Tony Buzbee announced that 20 of those 24 lawsuits have been settled.
Quote:
One other thing to consider here is if he’s suspended for a year, the 1st year low pay ( 1mil) on his deal doesn’t just go away. It gets suspended as well and that would be his pay for next season when he returns.
It’s not like he comes back and is paid his year two rate which is substantially higher.
Basically if it’s just six games this year (or even increased to 8-12) he doesn’t lose a hell of a lot and he will cash in next year. If he gets the whole year he gets nothing and then a small by NFL QB standards 1 mil salary next year.
Do you have a source for this - I haven't seen anything to suggest that a full year suspension simply pushes his contract back a year. I don't know why 16 games would cost him 16/17th's of his 2022 salary, with 2023 proceeding as contracted, but 17 games would somehow change his entire contract and basically re-set it so 2023 becomes what 2022 would have been.
I read it in I believe an ESPN article a couple of weeks ago and I’ll try and find it.
The gist of it was if he gets suspended for the year his whole contract does too. The league wasn’t going to let him or the Browns get away with the way they structured his contract in anticipation of a possible year long suspension. If it was a five year deal, it starts the year he returns from suspension, and that first year he gets only 1 million.
That was all based on a whole year suspension and no idea how it would work if it’s less. I think this may be one of the reasons the league is appealing and is looking for a big fine. If he only gets six games he’ll only lose about $350K in game checks.
There is also an article on a Browns page from a while back talking about this as well. I haven’t found the article on ESPN yet about the league confirming this but it was an official statement from them that I read.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
There is also an article on a Browns page from a while back talking about this as well. I haven’t found the article on ESPN yet about the league confirming this but it was an official statement from them that I read.
Link - ( New Window )
Yes that’s one of the things they were saying on that Browns site. If he gets a full year they get cap relief this year and then some more next year when his salary would only be 1 mil. It in effect buys them two years of cap maneuverability to better absorb his big time pay years, while also still having him for five full years and not four.
Quote:
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
If you think he's 100% right it will remain at 6 games.
If it moves to 8 games then was it really "unassailable"?
Quote:
In comment 15771773 regischarlotte said:
Quote:
This is just for optics/PR/damage control. Under clear-cut federal law the arbitration ruling is unassailable and the league and it’s legal team know it.
I think you are 100% right. I don't know the legal issues, but this is the NFL covering their butts. Maybe it gets moved to 8 game suspension, for optics.
If you think he's 100% right it will remain at 6 games.
If it moves to 8 games then was it really "unassailable"?
I meant right about PR. If suspension gets increased NFL can say "we fought it and got it increased", this is like a prescripted story