Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

NFL Random Thought of the Day

CloakNNNdagger said:
Justin Tucker’s 10-game suspension was the result of negotiations, not a legal ruling
Published June 26, 2025 04:11 PM

The 10-game suspension imposed on Ravens kicker Justin Tucker was not the result of a quasi-formal hearing followed by a quasi-legal ruling. Instead, the punishment flowed from negotiations between and among the NFL, the NFL Players Association, and Tucker’s representatives.

That’s the word from Mark Maske of the Washington Post, which also means that there will be no appeal from Tucker. The case is over, the suspension is final, and Tucker will miss 10 games without pay to begin the 2025 season.

On the surface, the willingness of Tucker to take a 10-game suspension contradicts his steadfast denial of wrongdoing, based on accusations from multiple individuals regarding misconduct during massage-therapy sessions. Tucker essentially pleaded guilty (or at a minimum no contest) and accepted a 10-game banishment.

Tucker may have done it in order to expedite the outcome of the case. No one has shown interest in him since he was cut by the Ravens. No one would have shown interest in him while the situation was unresolved.

Then there’s the possibility that the league planned to seek a longer punishment if/when the case went before Judge Sue L.

Robinson, the hearing officer for alleged violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. If the league planned to push for, say, a full-season suspension, 10 games would be a potential compromise.

Regardless, Tucker has accepted a 10-game suspension. And it’s hard to reconcile that with his claim that he did nothing to justify scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Cliff notes version, he did it!
 
If Commanders' owner would pay for the stadium, there would not be a delay..............

****************************

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is concerned Commanders’ stadium deal will collapse
Published July 1, 2025 04:28 PM

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser wants to bring the Commanders back to the site of RFK Stadium. She’s worried that’s not going to happen.

Appearing Tuesday on The Team 980, Bowser was asked by Kevin Sheehan to put a number on her level of concern regarding the deal, with 0 being “not concerned” and 5 being “very concerned.” She went with a 4.

The problem is that the D.C. Council isn’t moving quickly enough for her or the Commanders’ liking. The goal is to get approval in place so that the project can get started.

The deal between the Commanders and Bowser calls for D.C. Council to approve the stadium by July 15. The team recently said that even a small delay could keep the new facility from opening in 2030.

D.C. Council is clearly operating on its own timeline. Public hearings have been set for July 29 and 30, two weeks after the July 15 deadline comes and goes.
 
steelbtexan said:
Nope, this wasn't just about Derrick.

I dont like people who take advantage of others.

Fact is I knew this team was never going to win anything with the South Carolina trash on it. Derrick/Nuk/Clowney/Swearinger/Bennett. The only guy that had character and most importantly football was most important to them was Reader.
Click to expand...
Did you forget "Pay Me Rick"
 
Haslam doing everything he can to bypass approval by the citizens of Ohio.............

Most feel that the use of state unclaimed funds for Browns' stadium is not legal and will be heavily challenged.............

And what happens when the Bengals also expected to soon go for a new stadium in Ohio?....................

**********************

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn’t happy about the Browns’ relocation to Brook Park
Published July 2, 2025 12:28 AM

The Cleveland Browns got what they wanted from Ohio, in the form of $600 million in taxpayer money and a change to the law that would have otherwise kept them from leaving downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park.

And while the Browns are very happy about the outcome, Cleveland is not.

“We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio’s [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed,” Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said Tuesday, via WKYC.com. “Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment.”

The change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there’s little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature’s decision to change the law.

The planned use of unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million to the Browns may become a bigger impediment to the plan. A 2009 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court could provide the basis of a challenge to the plan to tap into the money for the purposes of funding the new stadium.

Put simply, “unclaimed funds” are not abandoned. They remain the property of those who have not claimed them. The argument would be that those funds cannot be redistributed by the state for the purposes of building a new football stadium.

And so, even as the Browns declare victory and rush forward to make plans for selling season tickets to their new stadium, there’s a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach.

The one approach that will never happen is to put the issue to the voters. When the voters have a chance to say whether their money will be used to subsidize the multibillionaire owners of sports teams, the response is usually, “Hell no.”

As it arguably should be. With the values of NFL teams skyrocketing, why shouldn’t NFL teams pay for their own stadiums? The habit of using public funds for such projects feels less like good governance and more like the misadventures of Dennis Moore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top