Being reinstated doesn’t mean he was innocent of inappropriate behavior.
Right.. my stance hasn’t wavered or changed throughout.
You're emotion is what is going around.
With all that said, Mariott settled.
Marriott was keeping him from his job? That's who he was suing, not the NFL. Again, look at the timing of this. First day of the full football slate this gets announced which is what Irvin does for a living. The urgency was on Irvin's side, was it not? When it's YOU that needs something more than the other side then YOU would tend to make more concessions to get there, right? Just logic. Am I right?
The urgency was on Irvin's side with the full season starting today and this being what he does for a living. Methinks it was Irvin's side who made enough movement that Marriott was like, "okay," again, not discounting that NFL could have passed through any finances that were to be exchanged. THEY were the party more at fault and whom Irvin should have targeted. Hard to do when you're still employed by them collecting money.
I know that most would rather settle out of court, than take their chances in court. I’m sure there were concessions on both sides to come to a settlement. It certainly wasn’t going to do Marriotts reputation any good to have this drag out in court. They do care about their reputation. What happened to Irvin could happen to anyone at Marriott. It would certainly keep me from wanting to stay there.
Listen MarcusRock, you stated that “you thought” Michael didn’t have a case, but professional experience people in the judicial system thought otherwise.
you are not understanding how any of this worked. Yes, it was essentially Marriott with its complain that was keeping him from his job. It was whatever they were telling the NFL that kept mike off the air. Why didnt Irvin include the NFL in his lawsuit against Marriott? He didnt want to bite the hand that feeds him. He sued Marriott for one reason only, to pressure them to retract whatever info they gave to the NFL so he could get his JOB back. Irvin would not have settled if he didnt get his job back. We dont know what was going on behind the scenes... but regardless of any settlement, ask yourself why all of the sudden he was back at work? Was the NFL in on the settlement? if not, how the hell did the settlement happen and within hours Mike had his job back? That settlemt was somehow 100% tied to Mike getting his job back. He had assurances from the NFL that he would go back on the air if the settlement happ[ened.
Emotion from me? All I ever did was parse the facts we knew about the case when they were out there. Because they weren't looking good for Irvin and couldn't be refuted, people got mad because they were in the tank for Irvin, which is understandable on a Cowboys board, but then don't get on a soapbox talking about "getting to the truth" and then ignore facts about the case that were out there that don't look good for what you hope for. So that's why you and others are mad at me for pointing those out, just like y'all do when I tell the truth about controversial calls that happen in Cowboys games and beyond. When you can't overcome, just character assassinate hoping it clouds the fact that you avoided the good points made. Not my first rodeo, bro. But do tell me what was "proven" here.
Terms of the settlement weren’t released . In March the hotel had filed a motion against Irvin as well.
You have absolutely no clue what’s going on inside his head. Common sense would tell you that what mattered to him was that Marriott was culpable for their actions which is why he sued them. This damaged his reputation and he’s lucky he got his job back. I’m sure there’s networks that wouldn’t touch him.
Lol. Marriott let this drag out all off-season. Remember, this incident happened during Super Bowl week. What would have been more damaging to reputation letting it go on further than the 7 months they let it already?
My post was in response to whether or not had a case, not whether he is absolved of wrong.
Fox hired him because of Bayless. Not everyone would hire him. NFL Network put thim back on because there was no proof he did anything wrong and the situation was settled.
I agree . NFLN ultimately wanted this to go away. Orchestrating the settlement meant reinstating which is all Irvin really ever wanted. Totally correct.
Lol. Now you know the steps that happened to make Marriott settle? The "evidence" we knew wasn't favorable to Irvin. My "not having a case" meant things seemed stacked against Irvin versus an establishment's right to refuse service to one they deemed to cause a disturbance they didn't like. Any case would have been better against the NFL.
Marriott let this drag out/......do you understand the courts set the timetable and not Marriott...lol
suspended means no pay... he was basically put on the commissioners exempt list.
