DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Browns being investigated for tanking

Now you all know why we passed on Watson.

I doubt anything damning will come out. I agree with you there. But I disagree with you on the rest. Somebody above pointed out the Colts and getting Luck. Was that tanking? Is this tanking we're speaking of rise to the level of needing a special investigation? Again, this is all stemming from the same guy that tried to trade for AJ McCarron, started Kizer and treated our QB room like a pitching order, etc.

I do think the line gets really thin at certain points along the timeline. IMO, in terms of the launching of investigations and stupid ex-coaches making national media tours, we're talking about stuff like throwing games, or paying for losses (like the Flores lawsuit alleges). I don't think what we did quite rises to that level, though our rebuild was very ...ummm... thorough.... so I can understand why, once we were dragged into it, the NFL feels the need to make a show.

It does smell like that doesn't it. When Hue was fired, he clearly had some sour grapes about it. If memory serves, sometime back, Hue made the comment about the Browns tanking.

j/c...

In completely unsurprising news....

As expected.

Go jump in a lake, Hue.

I wish the Browns would send Hue a bill to cover all the time and effort spent in defending against this false claim.

I guess nothing. It said in the article he was contacted for comment but declined.

Coach Booty Skins loses again.

So Hue jumps all over the TV screen with allegations that he's been trying to get the NFL to investigate "for years".

The investigation takes place and Huey decides to supply no evidence and declines meet with investigators.

Sounds about right. The NFL should send him a bill... and a free roll of duct tape. He can use some of Jimmy's bonus money or the cash he skims from his foundation to cover the bill.

How much money did they spend? I had no idea it went to court so no lawyers were paid. I thought it was independent NFL investigation?

I didn't expect them to find anything that gave them actual proof. I think in many cases where teams rebuild the natural occurring result is tanking whether it's by design or simply a part of that process due to totally insufficient talent which is created during that process. I'm pretty sure that having a terrible record and attaining high draft picks is baked into the decision to rebuild. So whether you feel tanking is a planned effect of rebuilding or not, it's certainly one of the key factors in making that decision. Proving that's the sole and intentional reason for rebuilding would be almost impossible to do unless you had emails and texts that were conclusive.

I don't think tanking is the sole reason for a rebuild. But that fact your record will tank and it will net you very high draft picks has to be something that helps weigh in the decision.

It didn't go to court. You know that. I also said time and effort in defending against the allegation. Jimmy Haslam had to be interviewed in this NFL probe.

You know the saying, time is money. Being a billionaire, I would suspect that if you broke Haslams earning down to a hourly basis he makes a pretty good hourly wage, don't you think? The time he spent dealing with this is time he could have been dealing with more important matters, Browns related or otherwise. You also have the time involved with other members of the Browns organization. I don't know what all the NFL might have wanted to look at but somebody on the payroll had to spend some time dealing with the matter.

j/c:

Anyone w/a brain know the Browns tanked. The deflecting of this truth is amusing. With that said, I'm glad the Browns will not be penalized. Oh, and I never thought they would and I don't think teams like Miami will be either. That would be a really bad look for the brand and I doubt they would ever allow that to happen.

So no evidence they actually spent any money. Just trying to show how some people's time seems more valuable than others and how you use the concept that since he's rich his time is worth more than us mere mortals. I've got news for you. Rich and poor alike all the time we have is what God allows us. And when we go we all turn to dirt. So in dollars and cents it cost him nothing.

OK, I will agree with you. It isn't about money. It is about precious time wasted. So in the end you agree with me. It was a big waste of time.

How do you pay that back?

I guess you would have to ask the NFL. They're who decided it had enough merit to investigate it and had the interview conducted. So in short I agree with you that once time is gone you can't get it back.

And yet, the investigators didn't get this info?

Hue Jackson’s tanking claim focused on a “4-year plan” that, in the first two years, did not incentivize winning


Posted by Mike Florio on May 3, 2022, 5:44 PM EDT
link

Former Browns coach Hue Jackson ultimately refused to cooperate with the investigation triggered by his public comments in reaction to former Dolphins coach Brian Flores’s claim that he was offered $100,000 per loss in 2019. But someone (maybe Jackson) is talking a blue streak to SI.com regarding allegations he initially made in a failed arbitration claim filed in the league’s in-house secret rigged kangaroo court.

Gary Gramling and Conor Orr of SI.com have written a lengthy article that delves into Jackson’s effort to take action against the Browns, a legal odyssey apparently motivated by Jackson’s desire to remove the cloud that a 3-36-1 record in Cleveland has put over his career.

The full article is worth a read. This is an effort to streamline and synthesize the broader points.

First, the Browns used a detailed system of incentives for Jackson and members of the personnel department. The incentives were documented in a “4-year plan,” which had different specific factors for each season from 2016 through 2019.

The “4-year plan” was detailed in a booklet that SI.com was unable to obtain. However, the article includes the incentive formula under the 4-year plan. And it definitely shows that winning was not prioritized — or rewarded — in 2016 or 2017.

For example, incentives were earned in 2016 if the team ranked in the bottom quarter of cash spent, and if at least 15 percent of the available cap space was carried over. Incentives were earned in 2016 and 2017 if the team was in the top half of the league in youngest players, via a metric called “snap-weighted age.”

By 2018, one of the factors on the incentive package became winning at least 10 games. For the first two years, there was no incentive tied to winning any number of games. That distinction alone could be used as proof that winning simply wasn’t a consideration for Cleveland in the first two years of Jackson’s tenure.

An unnamed coaching agent told SI.com after reviewing the incentive package, “If I got that sent to me, the first thing I’d think was ‘Holy [censored], this is, like, a tank bonus.”

Second, Jackson’s effort to basically clear his name via a legal claim (he sought compensation for breach of contract, fraud, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Browns, along with punitive damages) was derailed in the league’s arbitration process because he had signed a release of all claims in order to get his buyout. So, basically, he never really had much of a chance to even prove his case before the lawyer Commissioner Roger Goodell appointed to handle the arbitration.

Jackson’s case, if it has been heard, would have included arguments that the Browns misled him during the hiring process, “and that the team set out to intentionally lose games over a two-year span, set up Jackson as a dupe, and scapegoated and defamed him in public comments by prominent members of the organization.”

Per SI.com, Jackson actually was ready to file a lawsuit challenging the arbitration outcome, but decided not to, “due to financial considerations and the prospect of a trial in Cleveland.”

The report also explains that Jackson did indeed offer to cooperate with the recently-completed investigation, if the league presented to him the full scope of the investigation in writing, and if he would receive a waiver and release of claims, indemnity, reimbursement for legal fees and other costs. Mary Jo White, who led the investigation, explained that the league can’t disclose the details of an ongoing investigation to third parties, and that “the NFL does not release, indemnify or pay the legal fees of witnesses.” (Mary Jo, you should Google “Matt Walsh,” “NFL,” “Patriots,” “Spygate,” and “attorneys fees.”)

Even after his arbitration claim failed, Jackson persisted. Per the SI.com article, Jackson sent “multiple letters” to Goodell, requesting that an investigation into the Browns be commenced. The first such letter began with this line, in all caps: “I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!”

Jackson changed his tune once an investigation finally was opened. Regardless of whether his concerns that he’d face legal claims or other problems were founded, it was prudent to seek protections against the possibility of a billion-dollar business deciding that it has had enough, too, and that it was going to play scorched-earth hardball with him.

For now, here’s the biggest takeaway. The “4-year plan” definitely did not incentivize winning games in 2016 or 2017, and it contained factors that, if achieved, would be conducive to losing. Although Jackson’s arbitration claim was doomed by the fact that he signed a release in order to get his buyout, the league apparently had more than enough evidence to conclude, if it so desired, that Cleveland’s rebuilding sacrificed short-term competitive integrity for long-term objectives.

Whether the league is fine with that bargain is a different issue. Based on the information obtained by SI.com, however, it seems obvious that it was happening.

We had a plan to rebuild the team. Hue was like fertilizer for that plan. He didn't need any incentives to lose games, he proved himself quite capable of doing that all on his own.

j/c....

Fascinating in-depth read. Quite long. Too long to post in it's entirety.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/05/03/hue-jackson-browns-tanking-allegations-daily-cover

j/c

Browns, through outside counsel, told Hue Jackson to zip it over tanking allegations

Posted by Mike Florio on May 4, 2022, 11:00 AM EDT

On February 1, Browns coach Hue Jackson sent a strong message to the world, regarding his belief that the Browns tanked in 2016 and 2017. Five days later, the Browns sent a very specific message to Jackson.

In a letter sent by Bart H. Williams of the Proskauer law firm to Jackson, a copy of which PFT has obtained, Williams demanded that Jackson “immediately cease and desist from making any further comments suggesting that anyone involved with the Browns organization sought to lose games while you where the head coach.”

The letter warns Jackson that “[a]ny claim by you or others on your behalf that the Browns either wanted to lose or paid you to lose is defamation, for which you are liable.” The letter goes on to warn Jackson that the Browns “reserve all rights to seek relief against you,” if Jackson continues to commit alleged breaches of the release agreement that he signed after being fired in October 2018.

The letter goes on to accuse Jackson of “trying to opportunistically wedge your personal frustration with your tenure at the Browns into an important public dialogue about opportunities for African-Americans in leadership positions in the NFL.”

This letter helps explain Jackson’s decision to seek assurances from the league before cooperating with the NFL’s investigation into whether the Browns incentivized tanking. He was on notice that the Browns could pursue claims against him, and he was looking for protection against that outcome before saying whatever he would have said to Mary Jo White.

Ultimately, Jackson’ claims have never been fully developed and litigated. His arbitration proceeding was dismissed due to the fact that he signed a release agreement. The merits of his allegations were never fully developed and resolved. (Then again, the case would have unfolded in the NFL’s secret rigged kangaroo court, so the end result likely would have been the same.) While the comments that he made in the aftermath of the filing of the Brian Flores lawsuit seem to have been exaggerated, Cleveland’s approach to the 2016 and 2017 seasons was unconventional, to say the least. Although the team did not incentivize losing, it incentivized various factors that, if achieved, would not be conducive to winning in those two seasons.

Most significantly (in our view), the team’s four-year plan included incentives for winning a certain number of games in 2018 and 2019, but none whatsoever for winning a certain number of games in 2016 and 2017. The process of cross-examining the various Browns owners and executives regarding the decision to make winning a factor in 2018 and 2019 but not in 2016 and 2017 could have gone a long way toward allowing a fair assessment to be made as to whether the effort to rebuild crossed the line into an effort to tank. Alas, that never occurred. It likely never will.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...kson-to-zip-it-over-tanking-allegations/

Easy answer: It would have been unfair to expect a certain amount of wins with such a crappy roster, therefor the incentives the first two years were based on following a plan. The plan was, and the incentives were, based on cultivating young talent as the team saw that as the best scenario for winning in years three and four.

I have no idea of what was contained in the contract. But your explanation makes sense.

I think if you (anybody) actually digs in to the plan they will agree it was very well thought out and "performance bonuses" did nothing to promote tanking... It was a very realistic picture of where we were, and what it would take to improve the most in the shortest time frame.

Although Hue's bonuses weren't based on winning the first two years, his highest percentage of bonus money was based on "improving in aggregate rankings". If I were coach I would appreciated that -- you're not going to punish me for not winning with this roster, but you are going to reward me for improving.

Furthermore, Hue's contention that "acquiring draft capital and youth" is the same is tanking, and offering his bonuses as evidence, are basically bogus. Those "rewards" accounted for less than 15% of his possible bonus money.

I concur with this line of thought. Hue is spinning his best spin with that line. Honestly most teams try to get younger, players bodies break down as they age and older players can be more expensive. Draft capital helps with the youth movement.