Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[HaroldSeattle]

Not the ones who understand how the Browns structure new, large extensions.

Or are they helping out Garrett, Teller, Ward, Njoku, et all?

Your about the only one that denies it's a ploy to help with the suspension period and it's not because you have some special insight, it's because your hard headed.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Goodell is an asshat.

the judge ruled. let it stand. why make this difficult???

It was a arbiter not a judge that ruled and the NFL needed a suspension that is in line with being a serial sex abuser.

 

[PIBuckeye]

It was a arbiter not a judge that ruled and the NFL needed a suspension that is in line with being a serial sex abuser.

nothing has been proven.

I've been hearing judge. whatever. it should stand. it was a ruling.

NFL will lose a shit ton of money tonight if Watson doesn't play. or they can make a shit ton.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

nothing has been proven.

I've been hearing judge. whatever. it should stand. it was a ruling.

NFL will lose a shit ton of money tonight if Watson doesn't play. or they can make a shit ton.

No it shouldn't stand. The owners of a business should be able to decide things like who to hire, who to fire, who to suspend. The NFL will not lose a copper penny if Watson never plays again, but could lose some sponsors if Watson is allowed to slide with a soft suspension.

 

[PIBuckeye]

No it shouldn't stand. The owners of a business should be able to decide things like who to hire, who to fire, who to suspend. The NFL will not lose a copper penny if Watson never plays again, but could lose some sponsors if Watson is allowed to slide with a soft suspension.

The owners are the Cleveland Browns.

if that POS does pull a Karen, it just looks like he's out to fuck the browns...........

and yes, if watson doesn't play tonight ratings will plummett. guaranteed. and money will be lost. common sense.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The owners are the Cleveland Browns.

if that POS does pull a Karen, it just looks like he's out to fuck the browns...........

and yes, if watson doesn't play tonight ratings will plummett. guaranteed. and money will be lost. common sense.

Watson didn't play last year and didn't hurt the NFL one bit. There are 32 owners and they run things under the umbrella of the NFL and hired a commissioner to be their mouth piece, the Browns are like one branch of a corporation, they still needed to abide by what the NFL as a whole decides. Watson is the POS here, it would probably be best if he was simply fired for good, but don't think that's going to happen, which is unfortunate.

 

[PDay8810]

Holy Shit
Now Watson is going to cost the NFL millions?

PE1 has to feel better about his opinions reading some of the stuff posted now.

 

[dtgold88]

Your about the only one that denies it's a ploy to help with the suspension period and it's not because you have some special insight, it's because your hard headed.

It's because I don't make things up to suit some agenda. Want to cry about the correct thing and say they helped him out with his signing bonus in case of suspension? Yep...they did.


Browns beat reporter tries to educate, as well. Not in this article but he does say if you want to go after the browns do it the right way and mention the signing bonus they will help him with...

Browns Reporter Shuts Down National Deshaun Watson Narrative

As it stands, the Cleveland Browns won't have Deshaun Watson for the first six games of the 2022 NFL season. That's the recommendation from former

www.brownsnation.com

 

[dtgold88]

nothing has been proven.

I've been hearing judge. whatever. it should stand. it was a ruling.

NFL will lose a shit ton of money tonight if Watson doesn't play. or they can make a shit ton.

NFL might be a little out of line (but legal) but not sure how NFL will lose money that matters on a local TV telecast. I'd watch either way.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

It's because I don't make things up to suit some agenda. Want to cry about the correct thing and say they helped him out with his signing bonus in case of suspension? Yep...they did.


Browns beat reporter tries to educate, as well. Not in this article but he does say if you want to go after the browns do it the right way and mention the signing bonus they will help him with...

Browns Reporter Shuts Down National Deshaun Watson Narrative

As it stands, the Cleveland Browns won't have Deshaun Watson for the first six games of the 2022 NFL season. That's the recommendation from former

www.brownsnation.com

well you know this is complete bullshit right?
His contract is absolutely designed to avoid loss of money for a suspension per his contract.

You keep on bring up Garretts contract. So I looked at it.
Sure a lot of big contracts have a small 1st year, to help with the huge signing bonus & cap relief. But if they have cap room they wont go with the lowest possible #. But in this case lets roll with your point.
Garret had a minimal 1st year of a 5 yr 125 mil deal. Which will make the end of his deal a huge cap hit. But a lot of times this is what we call play money as it is unlikely this contract reaches the 5th year. So paying so little in the 1st year isnt as big of a deal. There could be a good chance over 60 mil of this contract never sees the light of day. That is nearly half of his huge contract.

Now lets go to Watson.
minimal 1st year of contract. (which is your point)
Typically teams will go after bonuses if the player doesnt play. His contract is 100% guaranteed.
That means he will get paid his full 230 mil over 5 years. That means your typical cap relief for the team will not be there, as they will not be able to void latter part of a contract. Which is a benefit of a team & their cap, using such a small 1st year & voiding the final years. So Garrett (& all the other names you mentioned) contract is no where the same as Watsons. So comparing them is asinine. Then lets keep in mind the conversation is the contract is designed for him to take as small of a hit for suspension as possible. 99.8 pct. of people know this to be true. The .2 pct. of you claim it is not. Yet.

• Language exists that will not forfeit signing bonus or void future guarantees upon suspension

Why would this language be in the contract if the contract wasnt designed to completely minimize cost from the suspension?

So you can completely get rid of the idea that the 1st year is for the Browns benefit, because in the length of this contract it hurts the Browns.
The Browns werent hurting for cap now, which would help the Browns long term, by not making the 1st year as low as possible. So lets put it to rest that this was done for the Browns benefit.

Then actually in the contract it tells you it is avoiding forfeiture of monies due to suspensions.

So lets put this to bed.
The contract is absolutely written with the idea he was gonna be suspended & to avoid losing as little as possible for that suspension.
So now everyone can move on from this.

Literally everything in this contract screams the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Manster7588]

Not the ones who understand how the Browns structure new, large extensions.

Or are they helping out Garrett, Teller, Ward, Njoku, et all?

Funny, all of them got the vet minimum salary for year one of thier deals, Watson base salary is nearly 1/2 of the league minimum.

So the bonus guarantee protects 8.99M, they then under payed him year one protecting another 300.000+

 

[NWPATSFAN]

well you know this is complete bullshit right?
His contract is absolutely designed to avoid loss of money for a suspension per his contract.

You keep on bring up Garretts contract. So I looked at it.
Sure a lot of big contracts have a small 1st year, to help with the huge signing bonus & cap relief. But if they have cap room they wont go with the lowest possible #. But in this case lets roll with your point.
Garret had a minimal 1st year of a 5 yr 125 mil deal. Which will make the end of his deal a huge cap hit. But a lot of times this is what we call play money as it is unlikely this contract reaches the 5th year. So paying so little in the 1st year isnt as big of a deal. There could be a good chance over 60 mil of this contract never sees the light of day. That is nearly half of his huge contract.

Now lets go to Watson.
minimal 1st year of contract. (which is your point)
Typically teams will go after bonuses if the player doesnt play. His contract is 100% guaranteed.
That means he will get paid his full 230 mil over 5 years. That means your typical cap relief for the team will not be there, as they will not be able to void latter part of a contract. Which is a benefit of a team & their cap, using such a small 1st year & voiding the final years. So Garrett (& all the other names you mentioned) contract is no where the same as Watsons. So comparing them is asinine. Then lets keep in mind the conversation is the contract is designed for him to take as small of a hit for suspension as possible. 99.8 pct. of people know this to be true. The .2 pct. of you claim it is not. Yet.

• Language exists that will not forfeit signing bonus or void future guarantees upon suspension

Why would this language be in the contract if the contract wasnt designed to completely minimize cost from the suspension?

So you can completely get rid of the idea that the 1st year is for the Browns benefit, because in the length of this contract it hurts the Browns.
The Browns werent hurting for cap now, which would help the Browns long term, by not making the 1st year as low as possible. So lets put it to rest that this was done for the Browns benefit.

Then actually in the contract it tells you it is avoiding forfeiture of monies due to suspensions.

So lets put this to bed.
The contract is absolutely written with the idea he was gonna be suspended & to avoid losing as little as possible for that suspension.
So now everyone can move on from this.

Literally everything in this contract screams the opposite of what you claim.

Can we say dt needs to quit lying now?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Funny, all of them got the vet minimum salary for year one of thier deals, Watson base salary is nearly 1/2 of the league minimum.

So the bonus guarantee protects 8.99M, they then under payed him year one protecting another 300.000+

Wow I didn't realize how much of a liar dt has become.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Can we say dt needs to quit lying now?

well he definitely needs to wake up

 

[NWPATSFAN]

well he definitely needs to wake up

I'm pretty sure he's WOKE

 

[dtgold88]

well you know this is complete bullshit right?
His contract is absolutely designed to avoid loss of money for a suspension per his contract.

You keep on bring up Garretts contract. So I looked at it.
Sure a lot of big contracts have a small 1st year, to help with the huge signing bonus & cap relief. But if they have cap room they wont go with the lowest possible #. But in this case lets roll with your point.
Garret had a minimal 1st year of a 5 yr 125 mil deal. Which will make the end of his deal a huge cap hit. But a lot of times this is what we call play money as it is unlikely this contract reaches the 5th year. So paying so little in the 1st year isnt as big of a deal. There could be a good chance over 60 mil of this contract never sees the light of day. That is nearly half of his huge contract.

Now lets go to Watson.
minimal 1st year of contract. (which is your point)
Typically teams will go after bonuses if the player doesnt play. His contract is 100% guaranteed.
That means he will get paid his full 230 mil over 5 years. That means your typical cap relief for the team will not be there, as they will not be able to void latter part of a contract. Which is a benefit of a team & their cap, using such a small 1st year & voiding the final years. So Garrett (& all the other names you mentioned) contract is no where the same as Watsons. So comparing them is asinine. Then lets keep in mind the conversation is the contract is designed for him to take as small of a hit for suspension as possible. 99.8 pct. of people know this to be true. The .2 pct. of you claim it is not. Yet.

• Language exists that will not forfeit signing bonus or void future guarantees upon suspension

Why would this language be in the contract if the contract wasnt designed to completely minimize cost from the suspension?

So you can completely get rid of the idea that the 1st year is for the Browns benefit, because in the length of this contract it hurts the Browns.
The Browns werent hurting for cap now, which would help the Browns long term, by not making the 1st year as low as possible. So lets put it to rest that this was done for the Browns benefit.

Then actually in the contract it tells you it is avoiding forfeiture of monies due to suspensions.

So lets put this to bed.
The contract is absolutely written with the idea he was gonna be suspended & to avoid losing as little as possible for that suspension.
So now everyone can move on from this.

Literally everything in this contract screams the opposite of what you claim.

Thanks for proving my point. First year base most cry about was not to help out watson......but help with the signing bonus does, in fact, help out Watson. which I've been saying all along. Browns aided him but fans and media are crying about the wrong thing.

well done.

 

[dtgold88]

Funny, all of them got the vet minimum salary for year one of thier deals, Watson base salary is nearly 1/2 of the league minimum.

So the bonus guarantee protects 8.99M, they then under payed him year one protecting another 300.000+

It's actually more than half the league minimum. Closer to 70% than half. If you cannot figure out why let me help......the 6 games he has to miss as of now is taken out.

Nice try though.

 

[dtgold88]

Funny, all of them got the vet minimum salary for year one of thier deals, Watson base salary is nearly 1/2 of the league minimum.

So the bonus guarantee protects 8.99M, they then under payed him year one protecting another 300.000+

It's actually not funny if you think a little. Watson's deal was the same as theirs when signed but is now less. Though not half the league minimum. More like 66.7%. If you cannot understand why, let me help. Because the 6 games he is forced to miss as of now has been removed from his original deal.

Only question will anyone who thinks I lied own up to their mistake? My guess is no one will but we'll see.

 

[dtgold88]

well he definitely needs to wake up

I do, huh? when his deal was signed it was the same as the others. It has been reduced to 66.7% of that amount.

Can you figure out why? I'll give you a hint.....as of now he is only being paid for 12 of 18 weeks.

 

[Manster7588]

It's actually not funny if you think a little. Watson's deal was the same as theirs when signed but is now less. Though not half the league minimum. More like 66.7%. If you cannot understand why, let me help. Because the 6 games he is forced to miss as of now has been removed from his original deal.

Only question will anyone who thinks I lied own up to their mistake? My guess is no one will but we'll see.

It's funny how you keep lying about Watson contract being just like the others, when clearly it isn’t.