Texans GM Nick Caserio: 'Zero interest' in trading Deshaun Watson

[Spartacus]

11 minutes ago, devnull said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34125535/attorney-tony-buzbee-says-20-24-lawsuits-filed-cleveland-browns-qb-deshaun-watson-settled

amounts likely much less than the 100k from before, as the need to settle to complete the trade has vanished.

so with confidential settlements, the public won't know how much Buzbee got out of his money grab

and how little the victims actually received

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Wow

 

Watson settled 20/24 cases

 

I guess he finally figured out that it's not going to fade away until the suits are over.   And as discussed above, the primary factor determining the length of suspension is how much this whole mess remains in the public eye. 

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

amounts likely much less than the 100k from before, as the need to settle to complete the trade has vanished.

so with confidential settlements, the public won't know how much Buzbee got out of his money grab

and how little the victims actually received

 

On the other side of the coin, Buzbee is probably getting antsy to see some cash.  Grandstanding for the media itself doesn't pay the bills.

[Spartacus]

3 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

On the other side of the coin, Buzbee is probably getting antsy to see some cash.  Grandstanding for the media itself doesn't pay the bills.

absolutely

his plan was to settle and get paid prior to a trade last year 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

8 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

On the other side of the coin, Buzbee is probably getting antsy to see some cash.  Grandstanding for the media itself doesn't pay the bills.

 

Not until you get the advance for the book deal.

[devnull]

12 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Grandstanding for the media itself doesn't pay the bills.

 

[Spartacus]

ttps://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1539332711038476291?s=20&t=73O79DsjMCsOCG4YtFpb5A

 

  Quote

 

From the article..

 

"It resides in Rule 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Watson can make an offer of settlement to each of the remaining four plaintiffs. In a nutshell, his lawyers would calculate an all-in number that covers the actual settlement of the claim, attorney fees, costs, and interest. If not accepted, and if the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer through the trial process, the plaintiff would then become responsible for all litigation costs incurred by Watson from the time the offer was rejected."

 

Edit: Important to add this snippet. Essentially they cant lose any of their own money from before the trial, but they would risk losing some or all of the money awarded.

 

"Although a provision added to Rule 167 in 2011 makes it impossible for the plaintiff to experience a net loss, the plaintiff could still lose the full amount of the verdict, if it lands (plus fees, costs, and interest) at less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer."

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, Spartacus said:

ttps://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1539332711038476291?s=20&t=73O79DsjMCsOCG4YtFpb5A

 

  Quote

 

From the article..

 

"It resides in Rule 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Watson can make an offer of settlement to each of the remaining four plaintiffs. In a nutshell, his lawyers would calculate an all-in number that covers the actual settlement of the claim, attorney fees, costs, and interest. If not accepted, and if the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer through the trial process, the plaintiff would then become responsible for all litigation costs incurred by Watson from the time the offer was rejected."

 

Edit: Important to add this snippet. Essentially they cant lose any of their own money from before the trial, but they would risk losing some or all of the money awarded.

 

"Although a provision added to Rule 167 in 2011 makes it impossible for the plaintiff to experience a net loss, the plaintiff could still lose the full amount of the verdict, if it lands (plus fees, costs, and interest) at less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer."

So if these 4 women are aware of the 80 percent mark yet still want to go to trial, does your “ money grubbing whores” theory hold up?  If so, how?

 

In the case of the other women, is it plausible that the 80 percent rule intimidated them a bit?  It seems likely Watson’s lawyers would have highlighted this rule.

[Spartacus]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

So if these 4 women are aware of the 80 percent mark yet still want to go to trial, does your “ money grubbing whores” theory hold up?  If so, how?

 

In the case of the other women, is it plausible that the 80 percent rule intimidated them a bit?  It seems likely Watson’s lawyers would have highlighted this rule.

there may actually be legitimately offended women.

the money grab is being run by the Buzbee, who orchestrated the whole thing and gets the most money out of this circus.

but you knew that

 

The Buzzbee scam actually severely hurt the legitimate complaints

 

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Spartacus said:

there may actually be legitimately offended women.

the money grab is being run by the Buzbee, who orchestrated the whole thing and gets the most money out of this circus.

but you knew that

 

The Buzzbee scam actually severely hurt the legitimate complaints

 

The tune seems to have changed a bit.

[Nanker]

6 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

there may actually be legitimately offended women.

the money grab is being run by the Buzbee, who orchestrated the whole thing and gets the most money out of this circus.

but you knew that

 

The Buzzbee scam actually severely hurt the legitimate complaints

 

So you’re saying there are legitimate complainants? I thought you believed they were all money-grabbing women (whatever that is) of ill repute and low morals. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Nanker

[Spartacus]

Just now, Nanker said:

So you’re saying there are legitimate complainants? I thought you believed they were all money-grabbing women (whatever that is) of ill repute and low morals. 

oh i'm sure there are women who believe they have claims.

 

they would have better served to have avoided Buzbee and his circus

[4merper4mer]

51 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

oh i'm sure there are women who believe they have claims.

 

they would have better served to have avoided Buzbee and his circus

[Ann]

Deshaun Watson suspension decision: NFLPA concerned NFL will discipline Browns QB indefinitely, per report
Some believe the league will try to suspend Watson for the entire 2022 season, if not longer

 

</snip>

[Spartacus]

10 minutes ago, Ann said:

Deshaun Watson suspension decision: NFLPA concerned NFL will discipline Browns QB indefinitely, per report
Some believe the league will try to suspend Watson for the entire 2022 season, if not longer

 

</snip>

others in the league office don't want to suspend him at all in 2022

the media being used to push a more severe sanction. 

[Ann]

3 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

others in the league office don't want to suspend him at all in 2022

 

You know this how? 

[Spartacus]

8 minutes ago, Ann said:

You know this how? 

saw it on another message board a while back

if I find it, I'll post it

 

it's the reason why his assumed suspension has not been levied

[KD in CA]

11 hours ago, Spartacus said:

others in the league office don't want to suspend him at all in 2022

the media being used to push a more severe sanction. 

Of course they don’t want to suspend him;  he’s one of the best players at the premier position in sports.  They will only do it to satisfy the mainstream media mob.

 

The official KDinCA line remains at 8 games.

[Spartacus]

5 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Of course they don’t want to suspend him;  he’s one of the best players at the premier position in sports.  They will only do it to satisfy the mainstream media mob.

 

The official KDinCA line remains at 8 games.

but not this year

 

20 cases settled, so that storyline has changed in his favor

maybe more before the season starts - with likely only the first case going to trial in 2023

excepting the woke mob, who changes its mind every second anyway, the league then has strong rationale to wait for a verdict in that case before imposing discipline (innocent until proven guilty and all that hoo-haa)

 

if he loses. suspending him in 2023 costs him huge amount of money versus a 2022 suspension and loss of $1m

 

if he wins that case, no suspension

by then, the woke mob will have lost interest in the 1 case

 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

but not this year

 

20 cases settled, so that storyline has changed in his favor

maybe more before the season starts - with likely only the first case going to trial in 2023

excepting the woke mob, who changes its mind every second anyway, the league then has strong rationale to wait for a verdict in that case before imposing discipline (innocent until proven guilty and all that hoo-haa)

 

if he loses. suspending him in 2023 costs him huge amount of money versus a 2022 suspension and loss of $1m

 

if he wins that case, no suspension

by then, the woke mob will have lost interest in the 1 case

 

If I’m not mistaken, his contract with Cleveland is fully guaranteed so suspensions cost him bupkus.  
 

As for the rest of what you wrote….it is all over the place but you seem to be inching back toward the money grubbing whore stuff you had been backing away from.  I’m confused.  Why not just wait for whatever happens then explain how you were right all along?