Ray R
Club Member
Can there be references to "moral turpitude put in a contract with Tyreek?
I mentioned this in an earlier post, then I just saw this in an article about the Cleveland Browns and their QB Watson.
"On Monday, a new lawsuit was filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. For Browns fans who have concluded that Watson isn’t the answer, the question becomes whether the new allegations could allow the Browns to escape the balance of the five-year, fully-guaranteed deal.
The short answer is, “Maybe.”
The longer answer comes from Watson’s contract. PFT has obtained a copy of it. The key provision is paragraph 42.
Here’s the full language of paragraph 42: “Player hereby represents and warrants (except as otherwise disclosed to club in writing), as of the date hereof, that (1) Player has not been charged with, indicted for, convicted of or pled nolo contendre 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 duration of this Contract.”
Did Watson disclose this specific potential claim to the Browns in writing before he signed the contract? That’s the key question. If he did, the lawsuit can’t activate paragraph 42. If he didn’t, things get potentially complicated."
It is clear to me that this may become one of the conditions included with any new or extended contract that the Dolphins might give Mr. Hill.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, then I just saw this in an article about the Cleveland Browns and their QB Watson.
"On Monday, a new lawsuit was filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. For Browns fans who have concluded that Watson isn’t the answer, the question becomes whether the new allegations could allow the Browns to escape the balance of the five-year, fully-guaranteed deal.
The short answer is, “Maybe.”
The longer answer comes from Watson’s contract. PFT has obtained a copy of it. The key provision is paragraph 42.
Here’s the full language of paragraph 42: “Player hereby represents and warrants (except as otherwise disclosed to club in writing), as of the date hereof, that (1) Player has not been charged with, indicted for, convicted of or pled nolo contendre 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 duration of this Contract.”
Did Watson disclose this specific potential claim to the Browns in writing before he signed the contract? That’s the key question. If he did, the lawsuit can’t activate paragraph 42. If he didn’t, things get potentially complicated."
It is clear to me that this may become one of the conditions included with any new or extended contract that the Dolphins might give Mr. Hill.
