PDA

View Full Version : Night Night Manziel



repos
08-08-2013, 03:11 PM
read this article and tell me in your honest opnion Manziel will be back this season.

Showers was legit too played with him in NC dubs but the dude transferred.

all hail TAMU new king Matt Joeckel
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1726952-johnny-manziel-reportedly-being-investigated-by-ncaa?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

FMCMuscle
08-08-2013, 03:15 PM
Strong username to thread

repos
08-08-2013, 06:18 PM
Strong username to threadque?

Mac_xX
08-08-2013, 06:28 PM
Uncle Nate or whatever the f*ck his name is will take a dive for the signings, Manziel is going to be fine.

tsbalr120
08-08-2013, 06:57 PM
No proof of money switching hands, no suspension


/thread

|progress|
08-08-2013, 08:51 PM
What rock have you been living under OP?

krogtaar
08-08-2013, 09:29 PM
No proof of money switching hands, no suspension


/thread
that's pretty much the same evidence they had on OSU players, the guy who paid them admitted it but they didn't have proof that they were paid or that the players didn't pay for the tats.

Tes45
08-08-2013, 09:34 PM
that's pretty much the same evidence they had on OSU players, the guy who paid them admitted it but they didn't have proof that they were paid or that the players didn't pay for the tats.

They had proof that the players/players families were sold vehicles at like half of fair market value. That was enough to count as improper benefits.


And that Tressel sat on the allegations when he found out about them instead of telling compliance.

repos
08-08-2013, 09:54 PM
They had proof that the players/players families were sold vehicles at like half of fair market value. That was enough to count as improper benefits.


And that Tressel sat on the allegations when he found out about them instead of telling compliance.if multiple people are saying the same story, does that constitute proof? Like a trial and you have multiple witness testimony of the shooting, and video recording of a guy saying he's going to kill the dude. but the dude cleverly hid the gun and they cant trace the bullet. Conviction of manslaughter?

lol. I went on a tangent

Phil9
08-08-2013, 09:57 PM
Manziel isn't going anywhere, especially not until after Alabama/Texas A&M, which will be one of the top viewed games of the college season [And the NCAA knows it].

Cannonsex
08-08-2013, 10:03 PM
If this was any other player people will all be like "Stupid NCAA just let the kids get some side cash. All they care about is themselves profiting of these innocent kids for hundreds of millions. But because it's Johnny Football he's some kind of war criminal akin to Adolph Hitler and Bin Laden for wanting some extra cash.

Tes45
08-08-2013, 10:36 PM
if multiple people are saying the same story, does that constitute proof? Like a trial and you have multiple witness testimony of the shooting, and video recording of a guy saying he's going to kill the dude. but the dude cleverly hid the gun and they cant trace the bullet. Conviction of manslaughter?

lol. I went on a tangent

Yea, it does, if they're eyewitnesses of the event.

There aren't any collaborating eyewitnesses of any of these brokers paying Manziel though.

Hell, the NCAA doesn't even have testimony from the brokers that they paid Manziel.

kyleTX
08-08-2013, 10:40 PM
Manziel is starting opening day, you fuking mad OP?


and ESPN is gonna get the everloving $HIT sued out of them by his family for fabricating malicious stories, then they'll see a real payday




http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8104460964_3b62597cdf_o.jpg

Tes45
08-08-2013, 10:46 PM
and ESPN is gonna get the everloving $HIT sued out of them by his family for fabricating malicious stories, then they'll see a real payday




[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8104460964_3b62597cdf_o.jpg[/im

No they aren't. The Manziel's aren't that stupid. All ESPN would have to do is give their sources to a Judge under the seal of the court to maintain their anonymity and the case would be immediately thrown out. Leaving the Manziel's to pay whatever ridiculous price ESPN puts on their legal fees.

|progress|
08-08-2013, 10:51 PM
No they aren't. The Manziel's aren't that stupid. All ESPN would have to do is give their sources to a Judge under the seal of the court to maintain their anonymity and the case would be immediately thrown out. Leaving the Manziel's to pay whatever ridiculous price ESPN puts on their legal fees.Not necissarly. Defamation of character, costing him draft spots. There could definitely be a suit in play .

kyleTX
08-08-2013, 10:53 PM
No they aren't. The Manziel's aren't that stupid. All ESPN would have to do is give their sources to a Judge under the seal of the court to maintain their anonymity and the case would be immediately thrown out. Leaving the Manziel's to pay whatever ridiculous price ESPN puts on their legal fees.

the sources that said that there was an investigation by the NCAA? OH what if those sources were internal. JACKPOT. There's so many opportunities to sue, and you're talking out of your ass right now.

Tes45
08-08-2013, 11:02 PM
Not necissarly. Defamation of character, costing him draft spots. There could definitely be a suit in play .

No, there isn't if the reports that led to those repercussions came from a plausible source.

You think Cam Newton's money hungry father wouldn't have sued ESPN is there was even the remote possibility of a payday?


the sources that said that there was an investigation by the NCAA? OH what if those sources were internal. JACKPOT. There's so many opportunities to sue, and you're talking out of your ass right now.

Nah, I'm not. You've shown your complete lack of legal comprehension multiple times over the past few days.

Sure, if ESPN claimed there was an ongoing NCAA investigation with no plausible source, there could be a fringe chance at building a lawsuit, but they didn't.

However, lets assume they did. That piece of unsourced information didn't lead to any quantifiable negative repercussions for Manziel. The DETAILS of what allegedly took place did, and they have plenty of plausible sources to back their reporting of those details.

Reporting something that turns out to be false is not grounds for legal negligence. Reporting something without plausible cause is, but that didn't happen.

ESPN ain't getting sued over this ****, period.

kyleTX
08-08-2013, 11:26 PM
No, there isn't if the reports that led to those repercussions came from a plausible source.

You think Cam Newton's money hungry father wouldn't have sued ESPN is there was even the remote possibility of a payday?



Nah, I'm not. You've shown your complete lack of legal comprehension multiple times over the past few days.

Sure, if ESPN claimed there was an ongoing NCAA investigation with no plausible source, there could be a fringe chance at building a lawsuit, but they didn't.

However, lets assume they did. That piece of unsourced information didn't lead to any quantifiable negative repercussions for Manziel. The DETAILS of what allegedly took place did, and they have plenty of plausible sources to back their reporting of those details.

Reporting something that turns out to be false is not grounds for legal negligence. Reporting something without plausible cause is, but that didn't happen.

ESPN ain't getting sued over this ****, period.




it ALL depends on how ESPN chooses to handle this situation, if indeed Manziel is cleared on these allegations. If they don't retract false and harmful statements, in a manner deemed convincing to re-boost Johnny's reputation, can they not be sued for defamation?


Sure is quiet over there on espn.com, no stories about Manziel's attorney stating that the NCAA isn't even investigating, which contrasts everything ESPN has been headlining for the last 2 days. They got some explaining to do...

|progress|
08-08-2013, 11:49 PM
No, there isn't if the reports that led to those repercussions came from a plausible source.

You think Cam Newton's money hungry father wouldn't have sued ESPN is there was even the remote possibility of a payday?



Nah, I'm not. You've shown your complete lack of legal comprehension multiple times over the past few days.

Sure, if ESPN claimed there was an ongoing NCAA investigation with no plausible source, there could be a fringe chance at building a lawsuit, but they didn't.

However, lets assume they did. That piece of unsourced information didn't lead to any quantifiable negative repercussions for Manziel. The DETAILS of what allegedly took place did, and they have plenty of plausible sources to back their reporting of those details.

Reporting something that turns out to be false is not grounds for legal negligence. Reporting something without plausible cause is, but that didn't happen.

ESPN ain't getting sued over this ****, period.

Cam Newton's father is a completely different scenario. Basically he was a middle man. His dad would be the equivalent if Uncle Nate tried to sue for defamation, assuming he was actually taking money.

Amaso
08-08-2013, 11:49 PM
No, there isn't if the reports that led to those repercussions came from a plausible source.

You think Cam Newton's money hungry father wouldn't have sued ESPN is there was even the remote possibility of a payday?




Is Cam Newton's family even rich?

The Manziel's can actually afford the legal expenses, while in all likelihood the Newton's wouldn't be able to afford it so the chances they come up empty handed isn't worth it(on the assumption they were just middle-class).

Tes45
08-09-2013, 12:13 AM
it ALL depends on how ESPN chooses to handle this situation, if indeed Manziel is cleared on these allegations. If they don't retract false and harmful statements, in a manner deemed convincing to re-boost Johnny's reputation, can they not be sued for defamation?


Sure is quiet over there on espn.com, no stories about Manziel's attorney stating that the NCAA isn't even investigating, which contrasts everything ESPN has been headlining for the last 2 days. They got some explaining to do...

Only statement they would have to retract is that there was an NCAA investigation, since that's the only thing they reported that was false. However, like I already went over, even if they didn't it would be incredibly hard to build a defamation case on that report alone; because it was the details of the allegations that caused Manziel's reputation damage, not the claim that there was an NCAA investigation.

They don't have to retract their reporting of allegations since they reported them as allegations, not facts. All they have to do is prove they had probable cause to report those allegations, and three separate autograph brokers as sources is more than enough to do that. They would have to submit those sources to the court, but it would be done under seal to maintain anonymity and that would be enough to suffice.



Cam Newton's father is a completely different scenario. Basically he was a middle man. His dad would be the equivalent if Uncle Nate tried to sue for defamation, assuming he was actually taking money.

Cam Newton's father suing is the exact same thing as Manziel's family suing.


Is Cam Newton's family even rich?

The Manziel's can actually afford the legal expenses, while in all likelihood the Newton's wouldn't be able to afford it so the chances they come up empty handed isn't worth it(on the assumption they were just middle-class).

You don't pay a lawyer in a civil case, they take a percentage of your winnings, typically 30%. If there had actually been a case to make, every top tier civil litigation firm in the country would have taken Cam or Cecil's case in a milisecond.

|progress|
08-09-2013, 12:43 AM
Manziel's family wouldn't be suing, Johnny Manziel would be.

Might want to learn the true background of Cam's situation if you want to use it as a comparison. Cam didn't get in trouble because his father was a middle man and there was no rule to pin on Cam or Auburn for his father's activities. Again, different scenario. Not even the same issues. One is a recruiting violation, one is in regards to ameraturism.

Tes45
08-09-2013, 01:39 AM
Manziel's family wouldn't be suing, Johnny Manziel would be.

Might want to learn the true background of Cam's situation if you want to use it as a comparison. Cam didn't get in trouble because his father was a middle man and there was no rule to pin on Cam or Auburn for his father's activities. Again, different scenario. Not even the same issues. One is a recruiting violation, one is in regards to ameraturism.

I'm more than familiar with Cam's situation. His father was the alleged middle man. It was also never proven that he was paid to secure cam's commitment. Not to mention the fact that Manziel's current situation looks to have been run through a middle man as well in Nate Finch.

Those points are completely irrelevant to the topic we've been discussing for the last few points though.

These two are carbon copies of each other in regards to taking civil litigation against ESPN for defamation of character resulting from the reporting of allegations that were never proven.

Assuming the allegations against Manziel aren't proven of course.

ShweezyBTFO
08-09-2013, 01:47 AM
Not necissarly. Defamation of character, costing him draft spots. There could definitely be a suit in play .

this looks like a case for MikeRoss24 and Harvey Specter.

PervedOut
08-09-2013, 05:29 AM
They had proof that the players/players families were sold vehicles at like half of fair market value. That was enough to count as improper benefits.


And that Tressel sat on the allegations when he found out about them instead of telling compliance.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/06/ohio-state-football-cars-impermissible-benefits/1

Except they didnt.


A review by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles brought some good news to Ohio State as part of the NCAA investigation into possible impermissible benefits received by football players.


An general view of the Auto Direct sign where Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback Terrelle Pryor reportedly received many of his cars that he has driven over the years while playing football. According to the Associated Press, the 65-page report showed no evidence that Buckeyes players and family members received below-market deals for purchases at two Columbus dealerships. Such an arrangement would constitute an NCAA violation.

BFast55
08-09-2013, 06:02 AM
the sources that said that there was an investigation by the NCAA? OH what if those sources were internal. JACKPOT. There's so many opportunities to sue, and you're talking out of your ass right now.
LOL
Your posts have been getting angrier and angrier every day.

Manzel himself has done more to defame his own character than ESPN could ever do. LOL at possible "defamation" suit. There is a reason why Aggie Jokes are an entire sub-genre of joke telling, just like blond jokes and knock-knock jokes.

krogtaar
08-09-2013, 08:23 AM
espn always reports stuff as "according to a source close to Manziel" you can't build a legitimate case against a news agency for reporting what a source told them turning out to be false. maybe you could sue the source if you can prove they knowingly shared false information an you can prove the damages.

Tes45
08-09-2013, 09:09 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/06/ohio-state-football-cars-impermissible-benefits/1

Except they didnt.

Really?

$0 was fair market value for an '08 Chrysler 300 in 2009?

Who knew!

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/05/07/osu-to-investigate-players-car-deals.html?sid=101

PervedOut
08-09-2013, 09:15 AM
Really?

$0 was fair market value for an '08 Chrysler 300 in 2009?

Who knew!

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/05/07/osu-to-investigate-players-car-deals.html?sid=101

Hmmmm!

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/29227421

But go ahead and keep posting **** that was rumor and proven to be untrue if it makes you feel any better about yourself. Heres an article posted 4 days after that.


Thaddeus Gibson's car was not free
Posted on: May 11, 2011 2:43 pm
Edited on: May 11, 2011 2:44 pm
Posted by Tom Fornelli

When the latest news regarding Ohio State and a car salesman first broke over the weekend, there was a lot to take in. While there may be all sorts of reasonable excuses for why so many Ohio State players and family members were buying cars from one man, Aaron Kniffin, at two separate dealerships, perhaps the thing that stuck out the most was what Thaddeus Gibson paid for his car. Or more specifically, what he didn't pay. According to the original report, the title on Gibson's car listed the purchase price at zero. Which was news to Gibson who claimed he was still making payments on the car.

And, as it turns out, he likely is. In another story in the Columbus Dispatch on Wednesday, it turns out that Gibson paid quite a bit more than zero dollars for his Chrysler.

As Ohio State University and the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles continue separate investigations into athletes' automobile purchases, one mystery has been solved.
BMV records show that former linebacker Thaddeus Gibson paid $13,700 for a 2007 Chrysler 300C that he bought from former Jack Maxton salesman Aaron Kniffin in June 2007.

|progress|
08-09-2013, 09:16 AM
I'm more than familiar with Cam's situation. His father was the alleged middle man. It was also never proven that he was paid to secure cam's commitment. Not to mention the fact that Manziel's current situation looks to have been run through a middle man as well in Nate Finch.

Those points are completely irrelevant to the topic we've been discussing for the last few points though.

These two are carbon copies of each other in regards to taking civil litigation against ESPN for defamation of character resulting from the reporting of allegations that were never proven.

Assuming the allegations against Manziel aren't proven of course.It's not even close to a carbon copy. One was allegations against a university, the other is against an individual (Manziel).

Krunk Fu
08-09-2013, 09:19 AM
Uncle Nate or whatever the f*ck his name is will take a dive for the signings, Manziel is going to be fine.

Exactly, I said this before. The family 'employed' him in case something went down. It's pretty obvious.

Tes45
08-09-2013, 09:53 AM
It's not even close to a carbon copy. One was allegations against a university, the other is against an individual (Manziel).

You serious?

So the heart of the allegations weren't that the Newtons demanded $180k for a commitment and then took it?

News to me.

But sure, have it your (incorrect) way and replace the Newtons as potential plaintiffs with Auburn

You're right back to the exact same potential lawsuit, which has no remote chance of success, and was subsequently never filed.