Are the Browns assisting Watson to

[Cincyfan78]

I can't find anything in the CBA that allows the NFL to discipline a multi-millionaire veteran QB differently to a broke-dikk UDFA rookie. Same length of time for suspensions and same amount of money in fines.

Sure, if the multi-million dollar guy is guilty of breaking the CBA by assaulting 1 or 2 women just like the broke UDFA rookie.

You go 75 in a 60 and you get a ticket.

You go 100 in a 60, and you are arrested and charged with criminal speeding.

Both sped. Both broke the same law. The context of how that law was broken has determined why one is considered more egregious than the other.

To keep stating that this case is like all others before it is to be completely blind to the facts of the case. What Watson has done is nothing like before - and should be treated as a precedent case in itself. Even if you believe that it should be treated like the cases before it, the average has been about 4/5 games per suspension of 1 victim/claim. If you just went with the 4 women the NFL introduced to the arbiter, and not the 24/26 as filed by civil law, it would still work out to be nearly a full year suspension.

As for the fine - clearly the contract was set up to avoid such a penalty for when he was suspended. The NFL has no say in how the contracts are constructed, but can decide to levy a fine to ensure that the punishment is felt - not just in missing games, but also in missing financials (which under normal contracts would occur with him being suspended, but since Watson/Cleveland decided to try and mitigate that - again, another example of why this entire thing is not your "normal" CBA/assault violation - NFL may also act in a way that is not normal).

 

[Cincyfan78]

And - NFL doesn't have to retro the fine - just place the amount. The fact that it may have been, or may not have been, the same amount as the year he sat out....well...that's just coincidence... lol

 

[dtgold88]

Sure, if the multi-million dollar guy is guilty of breaking the CBA by assaulting 1 or 2 women just like the broke UDFA rookie.

You go 75 in a 60 and you get a ticket.

You go 100 in a 60, and you are arrested and charged with criminal speeding.

Both sped. Both broke the same law. The context of how that law was broken has determined why one is considered more egregious than the other.

To keep stating that this case is like all others before it is to be completely blind to the facts of the case. What Watson has done is nothing like before - and should be treated as a precedent case in itself. Even if you believe that it should be treated like the cases before it, the average has been about 4/5 games per suspension of 1 victim/claim. If you just went with the 4 women the NFL introduced to the arbiter, and not the 24/26 as filed by civil law, it would still work out to be nearly a full year suspension.

As for the fine - clearly the contract was set up to avoid such a penalty for when he was suspended. The NFL has no say in how the contracts are constructed, but can decide to levy a fine to ensure that the punishment is felt - not just in missing games, but also in missing financials (which under normal contracts would occur with him being suspended, but since Watson/Cleveland decided to try and mitigate that - again, another example of why this entire thing is not your "normal" CBA/assault violation - NFL may also act in a way that is not normal).

Are the Browns and Bucs expecting Garrett, Ward, Teller, Brady, Evans, Barrett and others to be fined by the NFL, as well....along with all the other players with huge new deals where year 1 is for about a mil base salary?

Sneaky bastages.

 

[Southieinnc]

As for the fine - clearly the contract was set up to avoid such a penalty for when he was suspended. The NFL has no say in how the contracts are constructed, but can decide to levy a fine to ensure that the punishment is felt - not just in missing games, but also in missing financials (which under normal contracts would occur with him being suspended, but since Watson/Cleveland decided to try and mitigate that - again, another example of why this entire thing is not your "normal" CBA/assault violation - NFL may also act in a way that is not normal).

You were doing fine until that.
All contracts must be approved by the NFL.

 

[Cincyfan78]

You were doing fine until that.
All contracts must be approved by the NFL.

Fair enough - They screwed themselves on that - My question would be (and this is honest because I don't remember) how much of all of this did the NFL know about prior to the contract signing.

We all knew the rumblings, and the NFL had been involved to a point - but up until then - we are talking about the usual 'precedent' being set forth with a few games, a slap on the wrist, and everyone moves on.

If the NFL didn't know what everyone knows now - then, yeah some of that is still on them, but clearly didn't know the depth of which this was going to lead, and Watson knowing what he did - full on knew if something came out - he needed to protect himself.

If the NFL did know most, if not all, of what happened - then I think they screwed themselves allowing the contract and should not be allowed to fine him.

So - an amendment on the fine portion of my previous posts.

 

[dtgold88]

Fair enough - They screwed themselves on that - My question would be (and this is honest because I don't remember) how much of all of this did the NFL know about prior to the contract signing.

We all knew the rumblings, and the NFL had been involved to a point - but up until then - we are talking about the usual 'precedent' being set forth with a few games, a slap on the wrist, and everyone moves on.

If the NFL didn't know what everyone knows now - then, yeah some of that is still on them, but clearly didn't know the depth of which this was going to lead, and Watson knowing what he did - full on knew if something came out - he needed to protect himself.

If the NFL did know most, if not all, of what happened - then I think they screwed themselves allowing the contract and should not be allowed to fine him.

So - an amendment on the fine portion of my previous posts.

I also wondered what, if anything, the NFL knew about all this. I doubt only the Texans knew and no one in the NFL offices. Possible, but hard to believe.

 

[jarntt]

The difference between not seeing something and not admitting something are kind of obvious
At some point you just have to accept someone is in the latter group or unable to comprehend the obvious and ignore...

 

[fastforward]

...As for the fine - clearly the contract was set up to avoid such a penalty for when he was suspended. The NFL has no say in how the contracts are constructed, but can decide to levy a fine to ensure that the punishment is felt - not just in missing games, but also in missing financials (which under normal contracts would occur with him being suspended, but since Watson/Cleveland decided to try and mitigate that - again, another example of why this entire thing is not your "normal" CBA/assault violation - NFL may also act in a way that is not normal).

I don't believe a non-governmental organisation can legally decide it can act in a 'not normal' way based on who commits an offence. It's not about what the offence is. It's about an employer, with a disciplinary procedure agreed with a union, treating all union employees the same way. It can't punish 1 union member with a $10 fine and another union member with a $1,000,000 fine for the same offence.
Maybe my understanding of US law is wrong.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't believe a non-governmental organisation can legally decide it can act in a 'not normal' way based on who commits an offence. It's not about what the offence is. It's about an employer, with a disciplinary procedure agreed with a union, treating all union employees the same way. It can't punish 1 union member with a $10 fine and another union member with a $1,000,000 fine for the same offence.
Maybe my understanding of US law is wrong.

Again - you keep saying, though, this is the same offense, as if it is so similar to past cases.

Can you please point me in the direction where another player has had 24/26 civil suits filed against him for assault?

No?

Can you point me in the direction where the NFL introduced 4 complaint/victims of assault alleged against a player?

No?

Can you point me in the direction to the last player who's conduct was this encompassing in regards to both the amount of women involved and the length of time in which the offenses, and conduct, occured?

No?

Doesn't seem to me like the NFL would be comparing Watson's fine (potential) to anything remotely similar. So, yes - easily enough to point out why they would fine Watson and potentially others were left off the hook. They could also point to the contract, which clearly was structured to avoid missing payments in the case of a suspension - a contract, which, the NFL will likely argue was approved by them without full scope of the conduct of the defendent.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I don't believe a non-governmental organisation can legally decide it can act in a 'not normal' way based on who commits an offence. It's not about what the offence is. It's about an employer, with a disciplinary procedure agreed with a union, treating all union employees the same way. It can't punish 1 union member with a $10 fine and another union member with a $1,000,000 fine for the same offence.
Maybe my understanding of US law is wrong.

IDK......... where in US law does it say employers need to reward and punish employees the same? I ask because I don't believe US law says any such thing ( excluding bias due to race, age or religion). As for unions, well then it depends on the contract that is worked out and as far as I know the CBA doesn't say any thing like that. In any case I feel Watson case is unique.

 

[Southieinnc]

Fair enough - They screwed themselves on that - My question would be (and this is honest because I don't remember) how much of all of this did the NFL know about prior to the contract signing.

We all knew the rumblings, and the NFL had been involved to a point - but up until then - we are talking about the usual 'precedent' being set forth with a few games, a slap on the wrist, and everyone moves on.

If the NFL didn't know what everyone knows now - then, yeah some of that is still on them, but clearly didn't know the depth of which this was going to lead, and Watson knowing what he did - full on knew if something came out - he needed to protect himself.

If the NFL did know most, if not all, of what happened - then I think they screwed themselves allowing the contract and should not be allowed to fine him.

So - an amendment on the fine portion of my previous posts.

The Nfl being innocent would certainly be a precedent!
They have highly paid contracts administrators that know the ramifications of agreeing to said contract.
Perhaps they only want to look like they care?

 

[PDay8810]

Perhaps they only want to look like they care?

Plus 1

 

[dtgold88]

I don't believe a non-governmental organisation can legally decide it can act in a 'not normal' way based on who commits an offence. It's not about what the offence is. It's about an employer, with a disciplinary procedure agreed with a union, treating all union employees the same way. It can't punish 1 union member with a $10 fine and another union member with a $1,000,000 fine for the same offence.
Maybe my understanding of US law is wrong.

Can't they just make the punishment a game check, in which case each player could be different?

 

[fastforward]

Again - you keep saying, though, this is the same offense, as if it is so similar to past cases...

How many ways are there for me to say this? It's not about any other case. It's about punishment for this case and solely this case, not the person being punished.

 

[dtgold88]

How many ways are there for me to say this? It's not about any other case. It's about punishment for this case and solely this case, not the person being punished.

But are you saying he cannot be punished/fined based on his game checks/salary?

 

[Cincyfan78]

How many ways are there for me to say this? It's not about any other case. It's about punishment for this case and solely this case, not the person being punished.

Ok - then what is the issue with the NFL deciding to suspend him for a year with any possible fine?

The acts he committed certainly warrant a harsh penalty. He displayed extreme predatory behavior over a 17 month span, tried to use his influence to keep the women quiet, and has had 24/26 civil suits filed against him for such acts.

I fail to see the issue. The arbiter ruled, as per the CBA. The NFL appealed, as per the CBA. The next ruling is final. What is the issue?

 

[dtgold88]

Ok - then what is the issue with the NFL deciding to suspend him for a year with any possible fine?

The acts he committed certainly warrant a harsh penalty. He displayed extreme predatory behavior over a 17 month span, tried to use his influence to keep the women quiet, and has had 24/26 civil suits filed against him for such acts.

I fail to see the issue. The arbiter ruled, as per the CBA. The NFL appealed, as per the CBA. The next ruling is final. What is the issue?

do the 24-26 even matter in this since it's been said all that can be mentioned in the appeal is the penalty and the penalty was based on 4 cases?

 

[molsaniceman]

Can't they just make the punishment a game check, in which case each player could be different?

they already lose the game check when they get suspended the fine is on top of that
looks like browns attempt to save watson some money will back fire

 

[fastforward]

Ok - then what is the issue with the NFL deciding to suspend him for a year with any possible fine?

The acts he committed certainly warrant a harsh penalty. He displayed extreme predatory behavior over a 17 month span, tried to use his influence to keep the women quiet, and has had 24/26 civil suits filed against him for such acts.

I fail to see the issue. The arbiter ruled, as per the CBA. The NFL appealed, as per the CBA. The next ruling is final. What is the issue?

Punishments have to be even across the board. The punishment has to be the same for a multi-millionaire veteran QB as for a UDFA rookie with no money. By all means suspend him for as long as is legal, but you can't fine him $3M+. Any fine is going to backfire.

 

[molsaniceman]

Punishments have to be even across the board. The punishment has to be the same for a multi-millionaire veteran QB as for a UDFA rookie with no money. By all means suspend him for as long as is legal, but you can't fine him $3M+. Any fine is going to backfire.

goodell can do whatever the hell he wants lol