-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Deshaun Watson Off the Field Thread v3: 11 games, $5M
- Thread starter CBBI
- Start date
Expensive Jet
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,526
- Reaction score
- 3,105
- Points
- 113
So Goodell can still offer a settlement?
Nope.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 20,416
- Reaction score
- 33,212
- Points
- 148
bob2the2nd
member 32
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,010
- Reaction score
- 23,039
- Points
- 135
ive been expecting that money part since the structure of the contract was announced.
another poster said it but i could very well see Goodell ruling something like 8-12 games, but a very substantial fine (10 million+). Typically a player loses all game pay as a part of a suspension. As its set up right now even if he was suspended the full season Watson only loses 1 million. It would take some serious math on the leagues part to determine the average percentage of signing bonus versus salary, but I could see the league applying something that to determine a fine.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 17,627
- Reaction score
- 32,057
- Points
- 148
Part of the process is leaking disciplinary action to the media?
Are they going to inform Watson ahead of time when they make a decision or will he read about it on Twitter?
tristan+kyrie=$
Gold Star Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,376
- Reaction score
- 5,366
- Points
- 113
I kinda hope this gets super messy and nfl owners get their dirty laundry aired out in court even if it means Watson is suspended for the year
bob2the2nd
member 32
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,010
- Reaction score
- 23,039
- Points
- 135
Of course. but i doubt it happens.
I see the NFL asking for the year indefinite suspension, and goodell deciding on something less as "proof" to the NFLPA that he actually is willing to listen to both sides.
MirORich
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 32,280
- Reaction score
- 56,818
- Points
- 148
NFL will try to settle for the maximum number of games Watson can miss without his cap number this year transferring over to next year.
They don’t want the Browns having 80-90M in cap space next season.
I think the max he can miss without his contract rolling over is 11 games. So that’s what I expect them to settle for, 11 games and large fine and the NFL setting the terms and verbiage of some sort of apology letter
They don’t want the Browns having 80-90M in cap space next season.
I think the max he can miss without his contract rolling over is 11 games. So that’s what I expect them to settle for, 11 games and large fine and the NFL setting the terms and verbiage of some sort of apology letter
WorldFreeB
NBA Starter
- Joined
- May 30, 2012
- Messages
- 3,120
- Reaction score
- 3,044
- Points
- 113
11 games might as well be the whole freaking season at that point.
Erbium
Get your *** to Mars
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 1,866
- Points
- 113
Perhaps Goodell and the White owners can simply throw “lashings” on to the punishment as well?
With many willing to quit the Browns over Watson, feel it’s fair I simply quit the NFL after this charade….why are you even involved in this legal nonsense?
MLS season and playoffs upcoming
Euro soccer starts this weekend
Guardians hanging in there
NBA season start
Winter World Cup 2022
LOTS of competition for my eyeballs, and NFL games being predominantly in direct conflict with youth sports, makes this a pretty easy call. If it wasn’t fantasy with the bros, would have stopped paying attention ages ago…
With many willing to quit the Browns over Watson, feel it’s fair I simply quit the NFL after this charade….why are you even involved in this legal nonsense?
MLS season and playoffs upcoming
Euro soccer starts this weekend
Guardians hanging in there
NBA season start
Winter World Cup 2022
LOTS of competition for my eyeballs, and NFL games being predominantly in direct conflict with youth sports, makes this a pretty easy call. If it wasn’t fantasy with the bros, would have stopped paying attention ages ago…
southernflyer
Gold Star Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Points
- 113
If Goodell/ the NFL are issuing an indefinite suspension as their final decision, I don't see any reason from the NFLPA's side to negotiate it down. 6 games or fight in federal court. There has to be structured guidelines presented for games lost or fines from the NFL's side, or they should lose the appeal. Sue gave an obvious warning in her judgement. The terms can not be made post fact.
In my working between my company and the union employees/CBA, there are clear rules and steps. A is not allowed. It will be penalized by X, Y or Z depending on certain factors (alcohol/ drugs involved, willful negligence, employee injury/ company property damage, etc).
Justice Goodell can't legally say that he can't define what conduct detrimental to the league is, but he'll know it when he sees it. And DW, he saw it. Indefinite suspension, $10 million fine and off with your head!
In my working between my company and the union employees/CBA, there are clear rules and steps. A is not allowed. It will be penalized by X, Y or Z depending on certain factors (alcohol/ drugs involved, willful negligence, employee injury/ company property damage, etc).
Justice Goodell can't legally say that he can't define what conduct detrimental to the league is, but he'll know it when he sees it. And DW, he saw it. Indefinite suspension, $10 million fine and off with your head!
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 26,623
- Reaction score
- 55,547
- Points
- 151
I am going to address the folks treating the CBA as ironclad and that the NFLPA has no chance or that they have zero grounds or merit in a lawsuit, or are reading articles from lawyers saying the NFLPA has no chance:
As a matter of law that assumption is incorrect. CBAs are constantly challenged in court and lawsuits have been successful in the past and there is never "no chance." In particular discrimination lawsuits have been successful (though have a different legal test).
CBAs, and processes and outcomes coming from them, can absolutely be challenged.
But first I want to say this: Any lawsuit that is appealing an increase the suspension from like six to eight, or ten games, is probably wasting their time unless it has definitive proof of something corrupt. However, if Goodell comes down with a year, or indefinite, that is completely different because Courts in the past have shown much deference to the decision of the Arbitrator. Much will turn on why Goodell changed Robinson's finding so drastically (if he does).
Generally speaking of employment law case law, a ruling from a CBA will prevail, and the Courts will defer to it, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the decision by the arbitrator, or the final appeal authority, was 1) Not properly followed, that is a meaningful defect in the decision-making process 2) The process was corrupt or fraudulent, that is to say it was pre-ordained or imposed for reasons outside the scope of the case, 3) Is outside the scope of basic principles of the law, or lies well outside the scope of the intent the parties agreed to in the CBA. 4) Is a punishment so outside the scope of the norm as to constitute an undue burden.
And I will add another, not based on case law, but a feature of the CBA itself because of the clause that the owners and players must receive equal treatment and held to the same standard 5) That the punishment is so onerous and unprecedented that it can be categorized separate treatment than that imposed on other players or owners in similar situations and violates the CBA.
Now it is interesting because Robinson's finding gives both the NFL and Watson something to stand on. The NFL can stand behind Robinson's finding, according to Law360:
Robinson found that despite Watson's denials, the league met its burden of showing that he intentionally made sexual contact with the women and that he knew it was unwanted. She said that fit the league's definition of sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact with another person," and that the NFL also carried its burden of showing he violated personal conduct policy prohibitions against conduct that threatens the safety of another person and that undermines the NFL.
However, within her ruling is also a kernel upon which the NFLPA can make a case, based on my point 5), and if they have evidence, Goodell in overruling Robinson is grounds for a determination based on the merits on points 2), 3) and 4).
However, Robinson noted that the NFL itself characterized its punishment of an indefinite suspension of at least a season as "unprecedented." She said players accused of violent acts have generally received six-game suspensions and that the allegations levied against Watson do not fall into that category.
Players accused of nonviolent acts have received at most three games, Robinson said, and that it would be unfair to dramatically increase the punishment for such conduct without warning. She said six games was appropriate given the egregious nature of the allegations and Watson's "lack of expressed remorse."
In a footnote, Robinson also cited the NFLPA's argument that it would be unfair to severely punish Watson for violating the personal conduct policy when team owners, who are also subject to the rules, have escaped punishment for "similar or worse conduct."
As a matter of law that assumption is incorrect. CBAs are constantly challenged in court and lawsuits have been successful in the past and there is never "no chance." In particular discrimination lawsuits have been successful (though have a different legal test).
CBAs, and processes and outcomes coming from them, can absolutely be challenged.
But first I want to say this: Any lawsuit that is appealing an increase the suspension from like six to eight, or ten games, is probably wasting their time unless it has definitive proof of something corrupt. However, if Goodell comes down with a year, or indefinite, that is completely different because Courts in the past have shown much deference to the decision of the Arbitrator. Much will turn on why Goodell changed Robinson's finding so drastically (if he does).
Generally speaking of employment law case law, a ruling from a CBA will prevail, and the Courts will defer to it, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the decision by the arbitrator, or the final appeal authority, was 1) Not properly followed, that is a meaningful defect in the decision-making process 2) The process was corrupt or fraudulent, that is to say it was pre-ordained or imposed for reasons outside the scope of the case, 3) Is outside the scope of basic principles of the law, or lies well outside the scope of the intent the parties agreed to in the CBA. 4) Is a punishment so outside the scope of the norm as to constitute an undue burden.
And I will add another, not based on case law, but a feature of the CBA itself because of the clause that the owners and players must receive equal treatment and held to the same standard 5) That the punishment is so onerous and unprecedented that it can be categorized separate treatment than that imposed on other players or owners in similar situations and violates the CBA.
Now it is interesting because Robinson's finding gives both the NFL and Watson something to stand on. The NFL can stand behind Robinson's finding, according to Law360:
Robinson found that despite Watson's denials, the league met its burden of showing that he intentionally made sexual contact with the women and that he knew it was unwanted. She said that fit the league's definition of sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact with another person," and that the NFL also carried its burden of showing he violated personal conduct policy prohibitions against conduct that threatens the safety of another person and that undermines the NFL.
However, within her ruling is also a kernel upon which the NFLPA can make a case, based on my point 5), and if they have evidence, Goodell in overruling Robinson is grounds for a determination based on the merits on points 2), 3) and 4).
However, Robinson noted that the NFL itself characterized its punishment of an indefinite suspension of at least a season as "unprecedented." She said players accused of violent acts have generally received six-game suspensions and that the allegations levied against Watson do not fall into that category.
Players accused of nonviolent acts have received at most three games, Robinson said, and that it would be unfair to dramatically increase the punishment for such conduct without warning. She said six games was appropriate given the egregious nature of the allegations and Watson's "lack of expressed remorse."
In a footnote, Robinson also cited the NFLPA's argument that it would be unfair to severely punish Watson for violating the personal conduct policy when team owners, who are also subject to the rules, have escaped punishment for "similar or worse conduct."