Brutus_buckeye

I think the higher up you go on the food chain the more you see this. The larger the race, the larger the dollars, the more likely you have these games going on. I do not think party politics played a role here. It is very similar to the Householder case. To your point, the fact that PG was ambitious and looking to raise money so that he could influence the conversation and agenda on a state and national level was why he was targeted. It had nothing to do with ideology. what Seelbach said struck me. Saying that all politicians need to engage in that activity and it is moral and ethical is what I found troubling. I think there are a lot of politicians, especially those who have risen to high levels in both parties who engage in this behavior. Some of it goes right up to the line while others behavior crosses it. Many will never be caught or held accountable, mostly because there are not the resources to hold them accountable. It is a sorry state that our politics are like this. to your point, I do feel PG was targeted because he was a rising star. Get a high profile big fish and maybe it deters the next guy some. Getting some schlepp in Butler county does not have the same effect

Not exactly. This is what the defense tried to frame it as. PG was playing in a very gray area and dangerously close to the line. He crossed over it. Very slightly, but he crossed it. He may not have taken direct payments like Dennard, but his crime is much more akin to Larry Householder. Whether he may have been sloppy in his language, the fact of the matter is that there was sufficient evidence to show that despite the fact he said no quid pro quo, he acted in a way that essentially required developers to "pay to play" Just because he did not say the magic "quid pro Quo" words, or was smart enough not to take money directly through his PAC, his actions were such that a reasonable person would know that if I do not donate to his PAC, my project is dead. Furthermore, his actions contradicted his words. Just saying "no quid pro quo" does not necessarily make it so. Meeting in a Columbus hotel room to collect a $20k check and then saying I can deliver the votes essentially implies the bribe. And believe me, I feel horrible for PG. When he was indicted, I said I found the case flimsy and it would be easy to understand that he could explain what actually happened. After hearing the evidence, (Based on the reports) it is not too difficult to understand how it fit the elements of the crimes charged. When Larry Householder goes to trial, it is going to be much of the same thing.

I think the elements of the case were pretty clear. As sorry as I feel for PG, it was pretty cut and dry on the elements of the law.

and I walked the stagflation comment back if you read through the posts. Regardless of inflation vs recession, neither are great

You do not understand what that means. The fact is, certain areas of the economy are doing well. There is job growth, wage growth etc. The fact is that there is also record high inflation that erodes the benefits of those positives. People are less confident in spending and it creates struggles at home. You are seeing shortages (not a good thing) on the supply side. So while you may make trite comments about "facts not caring about feelings" that is not the case here. Factually, public perception matters. When people are not happy because of inflation, eventually it leads to a crash. There is currently too much cash chasing too few goods in the marketplace thus inflating the value of everything. That is creating a bubble that will eventually need to be deflated. Unfortunately, all you hear from the administration is that we need to put more cash in people's pockets through cutting the gas tax, or child tax rebates, etc. which is the completely wrong prescription to dealing with the inflation problem.

It is almost as bad as a recession. Would you rather have stagflation or a recession, they are both pretty painful. As to @Gramarye point, he is right, we are not at stagflation levels yet and more just in an inflationary economy. Good job growth and high employment may be a good thing from one point of view but is offset when earning power is diminished by inflationary pressure. Point being, let's not celebrate the awesomeness of the jobs report when in the grand scheme of things there are significant problems with the economy (as consumers are expressing in their consumer sentiment surveys). This is not a political thing. Too often, we are seeing the administration cherry picking a couple positive reports and pointing to how great things are when it is completely contrary to how the general public feels.

metrics like the CPI should be updated to possibly account for some of these businesses. The one issue with measuring these items is that the CPI is supposed to measure essentials such as food/electric/etc. Items necessary to live. Much of these services, while a significant part of the economy are not necessary "vital" in the sense that most people would consider them vital, but at the same time, many would consider them significant and important enough to quality of life and in one sense "vital" to their own personal mental health.

Goods are more stable, but profit margins are much more sticky too. There is only so much a company can earn on a good because the cost to make the good, including labor accounts for so much of the price. With Services, the profit margin potential is much greater because you do not have the same overhead in many cases that you do with manufacturing a good, and services are much harder to commoditize (not in all cases) than goods. To your point, goods are more predictable but when the economy changes, can often be hit much harder. Services may come and go, but they are much less static and much more malleable. Using the escape room example from earlier, As tastes change, the escape room business may crater quicker, but the owners of those services can reinvent themselves much quicker with new concepts and better margins. Declines in goods are much easier to measure, which is part of the problem with the CPI and many of the other tools to measure the health of the economy today. Many of the items in the formula do not paint the most accurate picture of how the economy really is today because they are tied to many outdated data points that make up their formulas.

^ not recession but stagflation, which is almost worse.

you may be able to offer a little insight here. I keep coming back to the Watson contract structure and how he would only earn $1 million this year and it was done that way because of the risk of suspension. Given that the team is built to win in 2022, it did not necessarily make the most sense to the team to structure Watson's contract in the backloaded fashion. Just playing this out, even assuming Watson would get suspended by the league for all of 2022, it would still be in his best interest to take this to Federal Court, ala Tom Brady, to fight the suspension. At minimum, he would get a stay of the suspension for 2022 and allow him to play the 2022 year. yes, there would be a cloud over him during the season but he gets to play on a loaded team without a 1.5-2 year layoff. IMO, he would be better playing this year and challenging a suspension in court vs sitting out even 6-8 games and waiting for next year to make the full playoff push for the Browns. The team will be a year older next year and so will Watson. If I were him, I would be gaming to play in 2022 and challenging in Court, which is why it would have made more sense on the Browns to not have structured the contract the way they did.

Definitely agree the Browns panicked and mismanaged him. His is not Joe Flacco, but he is a capable NFL starter. With the talent they have around them, they are a serious contender. Like Tennessee with Tannenhill. Will he be the difference maker, no, but there are many different ways to skin a cat. I think Haslems showed continued impatience in their management style and they certainly created this mess. Watson is certainly better, but at what cost. Now, I am not privy to locker room conversations and if Baker was hated by his teammates, then that is a different story, but I have not necessarily heard that yet. Look at healthy Baker in 2020. He was practically a top 10 QB in the league that year. You do not need to discard him, just add more resources, which they did by beefing up the O line. It did not pay dividends in 2021 but could have in 2022. I also think Baker bears some of the blame into how this turned out though too. 1) he could have signed a long term deal after year 3 but he held out for top 5 money at the time. Even if the Browns chose to go another way in 2022 and traded for Watson, there would have been many more suitors for Baker because he would have a few years left on his contract at that point instead of a 1 and done year at top money (If he puts up big numbers, he demands a bigger deal after 1 year or he walks or if he falls flat, he sets the acquiring team back an extra year if they were banking on him for a playoff run). 2) Baker was initially refusing to compromise off his salary, which he ultimately did. That closed some potential doors for him earlier in the process. 3) Baker could have put on a better public face and tried to salvage something in Cleveland. If he would have presented himself as the person to step in if/When Watson is suspended, and he was performing really well, it is hard to make a switch mid season to Watson at that point. Baker wins because he leads the Browns to a successful season and gets big money from a team as the most coveted free agent in the offseason. Instead he chose to burn the bridge.

On paper, yes. He is a big upgrade. To your point, anything can happen. A healthy Watson is a top 5-10 QB. An injured Watson or suspended Watson of course is not. We do not know what will happen. Suspensions aside, Watson could blow his knee out anytime next year or the year after. Anything can happen of course, but the known fact is that it is highly likely that Watson will need to serve some type of suspension this year. I do not doubt that Watson after a 6-8 game suspension and sitting out last year will not have some rust to shake off. I think the Browns are hoping to get in the playoffs and then have him shine at that point in 2022.

Baker is still a good NFL QB. I would take Baker over Andy Dalton in his prime. Now, he is not Deshaun Watson, and the Browns have clearly upgraded the position, but Baker, if healthy is a top 15 QB

Baker had the opportunity to sign a reasonable extension after year 3 that would have given him options in the event that Cleveland moved on. He passed because he wanted top 5 money. His options were limited because he was locked into a 1 year guaranteed deal for big money. Teams would not take all that on without some assurances that Baker would not just be a one and done QB. If he did really well, he would command huge dollars, like Flacco did (and some of those teams did not want to take that risk. If he bombed, he was a very expensive mistake few teams who were on the cusp of the playoffs would want to take on. That is why he had few suitors but players who were past their prime like Matt Ryan were more in demand, or players like Trubisky or Lock had more interest than Mayfield (less risky from salary perspective)

So the Browns get a 5th round pick and offload half of Baker's salary? Probably the best deal you can expect at this point. I almost say the Browns got the better end of it. Baker goes to languish in Carolina with Darnold and Corral and a coach who will probably not make it through the season. Baker will likely not put up great numbers there and further diminish his potential to get a good opportunity somewhere else. I think he could be a better version of a Ryan Fitzpatrick but his ego gets in the way.

all the dominos have not fallen yet. There could be some other additions coming soon.

Been reading rumors about this for months now. After USC and UCLA leave, the question is if Oregon and Washington jump too in order to have the Big go to 18. That could have very good ramifications for the BIG 12 as you figure schools like Colorado, Az State, Stanford, etc would look to landing spots in the BIG 12 or ACC. Does that then destabilize the ACC and cause ND/Clem and other schools to look for new pastures?

It seems like it is quite disingenuous of colleges and universities here. It is easy to strip someone's name off a building and pat yourself on the back for doing it but at the same time, when it comes to the fruits of that individual's donation from the land, or construction of the building, etc, universities refuse to disavow those and continue to live off the benefits of the money (despite the fact the name of the donor has been removed). See Marge Schott stadium for another example.

Ok, that makes sense now. I love the 4th and Walnut Center and think the lobby was absolutely beautiful but it fits much better as apartments than a hotel. The Kimpton property fits well as a hotel because it can use the old CAC for banquet space and meeting space if needed even if they do not directly own it.

It is just a shame that academics cherry pick aspects of people's lives to be outraged by while at the same time acting as if they righted a "perceived" wrong by removing the guys name from campus YET still enjoying the benefits that his donation provided to the university. Pinto says that having his name on a building or other aspects of campus will cause UC to be a true welcoming place, yet at the same time has no problem having the entire campus on land that was donated by such "bad person" or "former slaveholder" In the effort to stamp out oppression on campus and make UC a welcoming institution, it does not change the fact that UC and the land the campus on will forever be built on the backs of former slaves and money generated from slavery. For those who buy into the "woke" BS and nonsense, every dollar in salary that professors earn at UC, and Neville Pinto's salary has a direct relation to slavery since the university would never have been possible at that location if it were not for slavery. This my friends is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

I thought this was going to be the Kimpton? Is that project not happening anymore? I thought I heard they got the tax credits they needed to make it work.

https://sports.yahoo.com/report-nfl-more-likely-accept-034755418.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall @YABO713 Thought of your prior comments when I saw this. This appears to be an interesting take on the situation.

How true this is.

That is quite interesting .Clearly the Kraft case parallels the Watson case pretty well. In the past the NFLPA has been a lot of bark and no bite. It will be interesting to see if this changes. Of course, again the NFL could be setting the public up for a hard line only to have the arbitrator rule on an 8 game suspension and act like that is their compromise on the matter. I dont know if the Rothlisberger suspension is going to be the standard going forward for this type of activity.

Interesting. I do not expect a full year as they are asking. I do think it will have to be more than 4 games. The paradigm has shifted. I would be shocked if it ends up being less than 1/2 season +/- . I think the NFL motivation has changed. The only thing about the Kraft and Snyder matters (not too familiar with the Jones matter) were that they occurred before the new CBA was implemented. Secondly, how much power does Goddell truly have to sanction Jones and Kraft and even Snyder since ultimately he reports to the owners not the other way around. Jones and Kraft are the 2 most powerful owners in the league. Sanctioning them is a lot different than say going after the Haslems or going after Richardson with Carolina a few years back.