Browns QB Deshaun Watson Has New Charges Brought From Alleged Oct. 2020 Assault

[MKnight82]

My two cents. I think all involved here should be punished but it needs to be in a way that doesn't hurt the fans. Watson should be cut from the Browns and basically banned from football at this point. His punishment is that he's banned from the game of football in disgrace. Unfortunately, he has a signed contract with the Browns so he will likely get every penny of his contract. That's basically the Browns punishment, they have to pay all of that money to someone who doesn't even play for them. The Browns then are stuck in an impossible cap situation, so for the sake of the fans I think you have to let them wipe the cap of his contract off of their books. On top of this, after an investigation is made by the league I think you have to fine both the Browns and Texans for any involvement or protections they gave Watson, and give these fines as donations to some charitable cause that relates to women's sexual assault victims. 

[ET80]

38 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

Maybe it was to keep his trade value high?

Again, why do that for the team he wants to LEAVE?

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Getting NDA’s from a security staffer and hotel access by the organization is about as bad as it gets - and that’s also why I laid out a best and worst case for each. The Texans knew - of course they knew.

NDAs are used for a LOT of reasons - I'm waiting on three right now to send tech specs to a potential client. Brett Naccara knew of one situation going on via Instagram and provided his insight on using an NDA to protect Watson. How does that one instance make Naccara or the Texans culpable for everything that transpired afterwards? Furthermore, it's not like Naccara knew Watson would go out and make copies of it and use them indiscriminately. I'll say that Naccara was incompetent in this matter but far from outside boundaries.

Per testimony, Naccara left a single NDA in Watson's locker. Is it reasonable to hold him (or the organization) accountable that Watson found a copier and made copies? 

As far as the hotel - it's REALLY common for a team to put players up at a facility close to the stadium; Where do you think rookies and new FAs live when they first arrive? Watson didn't buy a house in Houston and The Houstonian is perhaps the nicest facility within a reasonable driving distance from NRG. I'm fairly positive Stefon Diggs and Joe Mixon stayed there upon arrival to Houston - did they molest a bunch of people on arrival?

These things look different in hindsight than they do in real time - people have a tendency to frame things to fit circumstances vs looking at each in a vacuum. In a vacuum, both of these actions are pretty standard. When looking at it with hindsight, it's easy to correlate - but if the correlation held water, why weren't the Texans or Brett Naccara held responsible in any way?

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, Phinsesq said:

You are correct per the settlement with the NFL when he agreed to 11 game suspension any other similar acts from 2019-2021 would not be subject to punishment by the NFL.  

Are you sure?   The language in the contract appears to say that Watson's guarantee applies to any and all incidents that Watson disclosed to the team.   It doesn't sound like this one was disclosed, and if that's the case then the contract's open to being voided.

The fact that the NFL is opening a new investigation, and not considering to put him on the Exempt list - really suggests that this a new unreported event, that is separate from the original batch of cases.   Otherwise, the NFL would be able to simply re-open that last case, and then there would be clear grounds to put Watson on the Exempt list, right?  The NFL's reply that they consider this a new, separate case is really crucial.

 

Here's the SI article link, but I'll copy/paste the relevant section:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/deshaun-watson-contract-default-guarantees

 

Quote

 

It also includes a potentially relevant clause where Watson can be considered in default if he is “reasonably believed by Club to have engaged in personal conduct that materially and adversely affects or reflects on Club or has his contract terminated for engaging in personal conduct that reasonably judged by Club to materially and adversely affect or reflect on Club.” 

This section of the contract also says: excluding the specific facts disclosed to Club in writing pursuant to Paragraph 42.

Here’s what paragraph 42 says, under a heading that says Representation and Warranty: 

“By executing the Contract, Player hereby represents and warrants (except as otherwise disclosed to club in writing), as of the date hereof, that (i) Player has not been charged with, indicted for, convicted of or pled nolo contendere to any felony and/or misdemeanor involving fraud or moral turpitude, (ii) Player has not engaged in conduct which could subject him to a charge, indictment or conviction of any such offense, and (iii) no circumstances exist that would prevent Player's continuing availability to the Club for the duration of this Contract.”

We do not know whether Watson disclosed the events outlined in the newly surfaced allegations to the Browns before the contract was signed. 

 

 

So, as the above is written - if Watson didn't tell the team (and thus the league) about this case - it's grounds to void the contract if he's found to have violated the Code of Personal Conduct (and again, the NFL gets to decide, not the courts, under the CBA).   And again, the NFL is treating this like a separate event.   Unless I'm missing something, this means this incident could very easily be grounds for voiding the remaining 145M Watson is due for 2025-26 & onwards.

 

It would be totally undeserved for the team IMO, because it's wild that they guaranteed it fully in the first place with this situation, but it seems like there's a clear out at play.   Frankly, both the league and team are likely rooting for this, as well (like when Jon Gruden's emails got the Raiders off the hook for his 100M contract for the remaining 7+ year balance <IIRC>).

Edited September 11 by Broncofan

[MWil23]

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

These things look different in hindsight than they do in real time - people have a tendency to frame things to fit circumstances vs looking at each in a vacuum. In a vacuum, both of these actions are pretty standard. When looking at it with hindsight, it's easy to correlate - but if the correlation held water, why weren't the Texans or Brett Naccara held responsible in any way?

For the same reason Watson hasn’t been held responsible in any way? Circumstancial evidence and everything having some sort of plausible deniability in a vacuum.

I don’t believe at all for a second that they didn’t know about it at best or enable him at worst.

But, what’s done is done. I’ll start caring about the NFL again when this turd is gone.

[ET80]

38 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

For the same reason Watson hasn’t been held responsible in any way? Circumstancial evidence and everything having some sort of plausible deniability in a vacuum.

But there's a STARK difference in circumstantial evidence and actual accusations - let alone the sheer number of accusations. Circumstantial evidence require a leap of faith in events, accusations take a leap of faith in the person making them, and the more people making the same accusation, the leap you have to make starts getting smaller and smaller.

41 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I don’t believe at all for a second that they didn’t know about it at best or enable him at worst.

Realistically... Jack Easterby knew. I never denied that.

Enabled him? That's a stretch. Everything done to enable him is standard operating procedure by just about every NFL team.

45 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

But, what’s done is done. I’ll start caring about the NFL again when this turd is gone.

I know you're an OSU fan - take a sabbatical and follow CJ Stroud this season. He's a good kid, quotes scripture and lives by that code, but he'll also be goofy and have fun... But gameday he gets dialed in and turns into a killer.

He's a breath of fresh air - it's worth it.

[notthatbluestuff]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I know you're an OSU fan - take a sabbatical and follow CJ Stroud this season. He's a good kid, quotes scripture and lives by that code, but he'll also be goofy and have fun... But gameday he gets dialed in and turns into a killer.

He's a breath of fresh air - it's worth it.

What’s remarkable about this situation is that I might have said the same thing about Watson once upon a time. He was honestly one of my favorite players circa 2020 before all this came out. I thought he was a great player and person; probably a lot of people thought the same. He fooled everyone.

And this is NOT to imply or suggest anything untoward about Stroud; he’s great and seems like a tremendous character. Just something that occurred to me while reading your post.

 

[Steelersfan43]

18 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

What’s remarkable about this situation is that I might have said the same thing about Watson once upon a time. He was honestly one of my favorite players circa 2020 before all this came out. I thought he was a great player and person; probably a lot of people thought the same. He fooled everyone.

And this is NOT to imply or suggest anything untoward about Stroud; he’s great and seems like a tremendous character. Just something that occurred to me while reading your post.

 

I also had no problem with Watson before 2020 but I lost respect for him the moment he asked for a trade in 2021, 5-6 months after signing a contract.

[Broncofan]

 

Note the phrasing.    The org is definitely going to go for the voiding of guarantees if there’s no paper trail on this alleged incident from Watson to the team.  

[Phinsesq]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Are you sure?   The language in the contract appears to say that Watson's guarantee applies to any and all incidents that Watson disclosed to the team.   It doesn't sound like this one was disclosed, and if that's the case then the contract's open to being voided.

The fact that the NFL is opening a new investigation, and not considering to put him on the Exempt list - really suggests that this a new unreported event, that is separate from the original batch of cases.   Otherwise, the NFL would be able to simply re-open that last case, and then there would be clear grounds to put Watson on the Exempt list, right?  The NFL's reply that they consider this a new, separate case is really crucial.

 

Here's the SI article link, but I'll copy/paste the relevant section:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/deshaun-watson-contract-default-guarantees

 

 

So, as the above is written - if Watson didn't tell the team (and thus the league) about this case - it's grounds to void the contract if he's found to have violated the Code of Personal Conduct (and again, the NFL gets to decide, not the courts, under the CBA).   And again, the NFL is treating this like a separate event.   Unless I'm missing something, this means this incident could very easily be grounds for voiding the remaining 145M Watson is due for 2025-26 & onwards.

 

It would be totally undeserved for the team IMO, because it's wild that they guaranteed it fully in the first place with this situation, but it seems like there's a clear out at play.   Frankly, both the league and team are likely rooting for this, as well (like when Jon Gruden's emails got the Raiders off the hook for his 100M contract for the remaining 7+ year balance <IIRC>).

I am only commenting on whether the NFL can impose discipline. i.e. suspensions. Based on the agreement Watson made with the NFL to accept an 11 game suspension after he was signed by the Browns. I believe this curtails the leagues ability to impose discipline based on the new 2020 allegation. I base this on the article from nfl.com

https://www.nfl.com/news/browns-qb-deshaun-watson-suspended-11-games-fined-5-million-following-settlement#:~:text=Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson,the league announced on Thursday.

 

Whether or not the contract is voidable by the Browns, based on the new allegation is different. 

[Soko]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Are you sure?   The language in the contract appears to say that Watson's guarantee applies to any and all incidents that Watson disclosed to the team.   It doesn't sound like this one was disclosed, and if that's the case then the contract's open to being voided.

The fact that the NFL is opening a new investigation, and not considering to put him on the Exempt list - really suggests that this a new unreported event, that is separate from the original batch of cases.   Otherwise, the NFL would be able to simply re-open that last case, and then there would be clear grounds to put Watson on the Exempt list, right?  The NFL's reply that they consider this a new, separate case is really crucial.

 

Here's the SI article link, but I'll copy/paste the relevant section:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/deshaun-watson-contract-default-guarantees

 

 

So, as the above is written - if Watson didn't tell the team (and thus the league) about this case - it's grounds to void the contract if he's found to have violated the Code of Personal Conduct (and again, the NFL gets to decide, not the courts, under the CBA).   And again, the NFL is treating this like a separate event.   Unless I'm missing something, this means this incident could very easily be grounds for voiding the remaining 145M Watson is due for 2025-26 & onwards.

 

It would be totally undeserved for the team IMO, because it's wild that they guaranteed it fully in the first place with this situation, but it seems like there's a clear out at play.   Frankly, both the league and team are likely rooting for this, as well (like when Jon Gruden's emails got the Raiders off the hook for his 100M contract for the remaining 7+ year balance <IIRC>).

My understanding is that Watson’s settlement protected him from future discipline (from the NFL) regarding similar events that happened between 2018-2021.

If that’s the case, he likely won’t miss anytime (at least, NFL enforced), and thus won’t violate Paragraph 42 in its entirety. If the Browns are able to suspend him for their own team policies, then it’s another story.

[Broncofan]

57 minutes ago, Phinsesq said:

I am only commenting on whether the NFL can impose discipline. i.e. suspensions. Based on the agreement Watson made with the NFL to accept an 11 game suspension after he was signed by the Browns. I believe this curtails the leagues ability to impose discipline based on the new 2020 allegation. I base this on the article from nfl.com

https://www.nfl.com/news/browns-qb-deshaun-watson-suspended-11-games-fined-5-million-following-settlement#:~:text=Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson,the league announced on Thursday.

 

Whether or not the contract is voidable by the Browns, based on the new allegation is different. 

 

45 minutes ago, Soko said:

My understanding is that Watson’s settlement protected him from future discipline (from the NFL) regarding similar events that happened between 2018-2021.

If that’s the case, he likely won’t miss anytime (at least, NFL enforced), and thus won’t violate Paragraph 42 in its entirety. If the Browns are able to suspend him for their own team policies, then it’s another story.

I'm pretty sure this incident won't necessarily will fall under the same umbrella - because it sounds a lot like ppl confused the contract terms where the $ is guaranteed for anything that was disclosed = full carte blanche.    In this case, the NFL stated it only would avoid discipline if it was similar in nature.  That's the key. 

From the link @Phinsesq provided:

Quote

Pelissero reported Friday that Thursday's settlement covers the four cases disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson ruled on in determining Watson's initial discipline, as well as any substantially similar violations before the date of the agreement (Aug. 18). That means that new allegations of the same conduct from 2019-2021 would not be subject to NFL investigation or discipline, per Pelissero. The NFL, however, could still investigate if new allegations arise against Watson that are different in nature.

This is where the accusation being of sexual assault makes a huge difference.   I'm not a legal expert, but I can easily see how both the NFL and Browns will say this is clearly different in nature. 

The NFL opening up an investigation means they certainly view it as separate.  Remember, he was accused of sexual misconduct (no violence, no threats) - which isn't a felony level offense.   He contended the other events were all consensual, and in all accounts, the plaintiffs never alleged actual physical violence or threats.    Basically, being a serial creep (massive creep, don't get me wrong).   

This is a different accusation, with far more serious accusations, that clearly appears to not have been disclosed.  As such, it wouldn't seem to fall under the umbrella of the 1st investigation.    And it certainly can be viewed as different in nature.    The league certainly isn't acting like Watson's automatically immune - if they felt that was the case, there's no reason to investigate. 

The CBA is set up pretty much that the NFL can pretty much impose whatever penalty it wants, once the investigation is complete.   Given that, it's difficult to envision a scenario where the league gave Watson a hall pass for anything that wasn't disclosed in the original investigation.  Then it comes down to whether or not ppl view massage hand/oral jobs with no violence/threats made, vs. this alleged incident, as different.  I can definitely see the NFL taking the stance this is different in nature.   

 

Edited September 12 by Broncofan

[MWil23]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

I know you're an OSU fan - take a sabbatical and follow CJ Stroud this season. He's a good kid, quotes scripture and lives by that code, but he'll also be goofy and have fun... But gameday he gets dialed in and turns into a killer.

He's a breath of fresh air - it's worth it.

I’m in full rage watching mode this year and will maybe regroup in 2025 tbh

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

 

Note the phrasing.    The org is definitely going to go for the voiding of guarantees if there’s no paper trail on this alleged incident from Watson to the team.  

It’s especially interesting because Stefanski typically plays his cards very close to the vest and rarely says anything of substance to the media. 
 

He doesn’t make many missteps or speak out of turn or emotionally with the media.  This seems purposeful to me as someone who’s heard him say absolutely nothing a million times previously.

Maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see, but it seems intentional.

[Mega Ron]

I really hope we can get rid of this clown and move on to the next. I'm not picky, but can the new clown be at least a tad less rapey?

[ET80]

8 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I’m in full rage watching mode this year and will maybe regroup in 2025 tbh

C'mon buddy... you and me, on the same side, taking folks down in Gen who besmirch CJ.

Eh?

Ehhhhh?