PFT implies Watson punishment should be no more than Jerry, Kraft or Sydner

[CouchCoach]

thats why the contract was structured in a way that even if he is suspended for the entire season, the money he loses will be pocket change. His team did a GREAT job of protecting their client, GREAT JOB.

No doubt the league is fuming over that fact and will try like hell to counter that move.

Since this situation was pending while the trade and new contract were proceeding, the NFL may look at that as a set up to avoid disciplinary action from the league office.

 

[Reid1boys]

They could just levy a fine. But there would probably be legal ramifications by the NFLPA union if he played without pay.

Most likely what the league is considering is a historic Suspension including not only 1 year but several hoops he might have to go thru to return after that.

Remember that while he’s settled financially on 20 of 24 of these lawsuits there are still 4 pending which could go to trial. The league may want to wait and see how they turn out.

read the article i linked to a minute ago. The league is not in charge of his punishment, the arbitrator is.

 

[ESisback]

While it’s become more common to point out the accountability gap between the CEO/Owner and the employee/player, the majority seems to be more lip service to appease the militant SJW’s. Of course, the involvement of the name Jerry Jones invites more scrutiny, and intensifies the emotional need for “justice” in many.

It’s interesting to speculate—what would the media be saying if it was Dak instead of Watson? What would be said if Jerry Jones wasn’t in the group of owners escaping accountability?

 

[MyFairLady]

Watson deserves to be sent to the corner to think about what he has done.

 

[Reid1boys]

Since this situation was pending while the trade and new contract were proceeding, the NFL may look at that as a set up to avoid disciplinary action from the league office.

huh? that was confusing... the NFL may look at what as a way of ....what?

IM interested in your point, but I dont get what you just said.

 

[Reid1boys]

While it’s become more common to point out the accountability gap between the CEO/Owner and the employee/player, the majority seems to be more lip service to appease the militant SJW’s. Of course, the involvement of the name Jerry Jones invites more scrutiny, and intensifies the emotional need for “justice” in many.

It’s interesting to speculate—what would the media be saying if it was Dak instead of Watson? What would be said if Jerry Jones wasn’t in the group of owners escaping accountability?

Could you imagine if this were Dak? Am I wronf with my memory, but I swear Zeke's case had way more focus on it than Watson's. I mean, I swear they were talking about Zeke DAILY during his situation, and his wasnt close to the severity of Watson's.

 

[Diehardblues]

when a judge passes out a sentence to a convicted criminal, lets say a 6 month punishment, and the person spent 4 months in jail awaiting trial, the person would get credit for that time served.

If im Watson team, Im arguing that fact at this arbitration hearing. My client already missed 17 games last year due to these allegations. I dont think that is really debatable. All comes down to the language in the CBA and if that kind of unofficial punishment is NOT covered in the CBA, that should be the first thing the players union goes after.

Many years ago when I was in college, I worked for UPS which has a strong union. This kind of scenario would never apply, because a worker that was told to stay home for 3 months, yet paid their salary while waiting any hearing would love it. In the case of an nfl qb, not playing costs them money, even though they were paid their salary.

I fully understand time served . And I don’t see it as a good analogy being his suspension included pay and no punishment beyond not playing. But I get what you’re trying to say.

Houston basically averted a suspension last year by the league by not playing him and then providing themselves an out with trade.

Texans should be commended while they had to basically concede last season without Watson playing.

 

[Reid1boys]

Watson deserves to be sent to the corner to think about what he has done.

wasnt he sent to the corner last year?

 

[CouchCoach]

huh? that was confusing... the NFL may look at what as a way of ....what?

IM interested in your point, but I dont get what you just said.

They set up the 1st year of this contract to protect 45 of his 46M salary with only 1M at risk. That was done specially because of the pending ruling on his disciplinary action. They intentionally set up a circumvention of the discipline.

 

[Diehardblues]

read the article i linked to a minute ago. The league is not in charge of his punishment, the arbitrator is.

I know but the arbitration is under the leagues or Commish office guidance . I still consider it the league.

 

[Reid1boys]

I fully understand time served . And I don’t see it as a good analogy being his suspension included pay and no punishment beyond not playing. But I get what you’re trying to say.

Houston basically averted a suspension last year by the league by not playing him and then providing themselves an out with trade.

Texans should be commended while they had to basically concede last season without Watson playing.

more importantly, Id fight like hell to see if Watson not playing was done behind the scenes with team officials and the league. If thats the case, I could not imagine that would violate the CBA in some fashion. Ive stated many times in the past on issues like this, I dont really care about Watson. I dont really care what they do with Watson... I like the legal issues, I like the legal maneuvering. This is exactly why Im so interested in Jerry's civil suit. I dont care what way it goes, but Im fascinated by the legal process.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

They could just levy a fine. But there would probably be legal ramifications by the NFLPA union if he played without pay.

Most likely what the league is considering is a historic Suspension including not only 1 year but several hoops he might have to go thru to return after that.

Remember that while he’s settled financially on 20 of 24 of these lawsuits there are still 4 pending which could go to trial. The league may want to wait and see how they turn out.

I can see this happening.........just simply put him on the exempt list until ALL cases are settled. This would force him to settle those cases asap coz if they drag into the season (let's say Oct or Nov ) he risks a year of suspension allowing the league to reach his 2023 salary.

 

[McKDaddy]

so what exactly do you think is appropriate punishment for Watson?

As an outsider, I certainly don't see a year as unreasonable. Maybe more. I mean at the very least this is a lot of questionable conduct.

 

[Reid1boys]

They set up the 1st year of this contract to protect 45 of his 46M salary with only 1M at risk. That was done specially because of the pending ruling on his disciplinary action. They intentionally set up a circumvention of the discipline.

I know they did, and it was brilliant, and I dont think it is something the league had ever considered would happen. I cant imagine there is anything they can do about it.

 

[Diehardblues]

I know they did, and it was brilliant, and I dont think it is something the league had ever considered would happen. I cant imagine there is anything they can do about it.

They can’t do anything about the contract. But if they suspend him indefinitely he may not ever see it.

I really think we are going to see action in historic proportion.

 

[Reid1boys]

I can see this happening.........just simply put him on the exempt list until ALL cases are settled. This would force him to settle those cases asap coz if they drag into the season (let's say Oct or Nov ) he risks a year of suspension allowing the league to reach his 2023 salary.

I dont think so. The cases that have not been settled are just civil lawsuits. Those cases are already INCLUDED in the cases that are being looked at in regards to any CURRENT punishment.

Lets say he gets a 6 game suspension and then he later lost a 1 million judgement against those other cases that he didnt settle with.

That would have ZERO impact on any future punishment, because those same cases are wrapped up in what the arbitrator is dealing with starting tomorrow.
The only way I could see him getting punished again, is if some information the league was not aware of came out at those future cases.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

more importantly, Id fight like hell to see if Watson not playing was done behind the scenes with team officials and the league. If thats the case, I could not imagine that would violate the CBA in some fashion. Ive stated many times in the past on issues like this, I dont really care about Watson. I dont really care what they do with Watson... I like the legal issues, I like the legal maneuvering. This is exactly why Im so interested in Jerry's civil suit. I dont care what way it goes, but Im fascinated by the legal process.

Not sure you remember or know this but Watson REFUSED to play. The Texans actually tried to change his mind but he wanted no part of ever playing for them again. This isn't new, it was extensively reported......

 

[Reid1boys]

They can’t do anything about the contract. But if they suspend him indefinitely he may not ever see it.

I really think we are going to see action in historic proportion.

No way in hell is the arbitrator going to give him an indefinite suspension. I cant even imagine why an indefinite suspension would ever be allowed in the CBA. Could you imagine a bank robber being sentenced to an indefinite prison term. Hey, get back to us every year and well let you know if we think you should get out of prison..... seems pretty unamerican, no?

 

[Reid1boys]

Not sure you remember or know this but Watson REFUSED to play. The Texans actually tried to change his mind but he wanted no part of ever playing for them again. This isn't new, it was extensively reported......

I do not believe that is accurate. If Watson simply refused to play, why wasnt he then suspended? Why would Houston possibly pay a player that refused to play? Refusing to play would have given the Texans the out they wanted.

 

[Reid1boys]

Not sure you remember or know this but Watson REFUSED to play. The Texans actually tried to change his mind but he wanted no part of ever playing for them again. This isn't new, it was extensively reported......

this is just one article, but it does not say anything about Watson refusing to play. The TEXANS sat him to avoid the PR that would have followed, and Watson was fine with that. Refusing to play would have taken his money... he didnt do that. If you can find me an article that says the Texans intended on playing Watson and he refused, please show me.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...n-week-3-despite-tyrod-taylors-injury-says-hc