Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Womens group want sponsors cut ties with Peyton


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peyton's hand is going to be forced here. I would not be shocked if Peyton's lawyers are in touch with Naughright's lawyers and something is bound to happen, both of them might end up suing Shaun King for different reasons. If Naughright had a leg to stand on, she would not have settled and would have gone the distance. Are they trying to force Naughright to take it to a jury? 

 

I am not well versed with the legal system. Can cases that have been settled be re-tried again? This is like "double/triple jeopardy" scenario but then I repeat, I do not know how things work for cases settled outside the courts, if they can be brought up in court again.

 

However, "in light of emerging evidence" is what they have no leg to stand on. Regurgitation of a one-sided document is not bringing up new evidence. I guess the blind are leading a whole bunch of blind here, starting with Shaun King.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Wasn't the info from this case supposed to be private and not revealed? I thought that was the agreement. So hasn't a law been broken right there with the info that was displayed? I might be wrong.

 

It seems that Peyton was the one that broke that confidentiality agreement back when he wrote his book with his father and discussed it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dynasty13 said:

 

It seems that Peyton was the one that broke that confidentiality agreement back when he wrote his book with his father and discussed it...

 

I think that was the reason they settled, because he broke that confidentiality agreement. So, how should the Peyton and Naughright side legally treat this breach since neither of them caused it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I think that was the reason they settled, because he broke that confidentiality agreement. So, how should the Peyton and Naughright side legally treat this breach since neither of them caused it? 

 

Excellent question, and I don't know...but since Peyton's incident is being cited in this new lawsuit, I'm sure it will need to be rehashed and discussed, and that is why it's in the news again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

It seems that Peyton was the one that broke that confidentiality agreement back when he wrote his book with his father and discussed it...

And was sued for it.  How is that relevant to the current situation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

So mooning someone is sexual violence?  I should have been on death row in my teens then

That seems to be the spin that was put on this incident back then. If this gets opened up again because of the new lawsuit, you may be forced to rethink your understanding of what may have happened...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dynasty13 said:

That seems to be the spin that was put on this incident back then. If this gets opened up again because of the new lawsuit, you may be forced to rethink your understanding of what may have happened...

By her own words,  inappropriate showing of genitals is what happened.   The "sitting on her head" allegation didn't come out until 2003.  I would bet she doesn't want much digging into this situation either

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

By her own words,  inappropriate showing of genitals is what happened.   The "sitting on her head" allegation didn't come out until 2003.  I would bet she doesn't want much digging into this situation either

 

Listen I don't care about this one bit...I'm just playing devils advocate and saying that we know there were settlements, we know there was clearly spin coming from one side or another or both, and if the actual details of this incident need to come out due to this new lawsuit, we may have to change what we think we know about it. That's it...we all only know what we were told, whether it's totally true, only a little true, or not at all....we don't actually know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this seems to me to be nothing more than trying to discredit Peyton at the best time of his life because the golden boy Tom Brady got caught cheating, sucked in the playoffs this year and has the personality of a doorknob so the almighty powers that be have to make Peyton look bad. Well Peyton will be fine! He will go on to a fabulous career as either a color analyst, entertainer or coach, and Tom Brady will fade into oblivion with the personality of a doorknob and his tainted Super Bowl wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FanFromtheWasteland said:

All of this seems to me to be nothing more than trying to discredit Peyton at the best time of his life because the golden boy Tom Brady got caught cheating, sucked in the playoffs this year and has the personality of a doorknob so the almighty powers that be have to make Peyton look bad. Well Peyton will be fine! He will go on to a fabulous career as either a color analyst, entertainer or coach, and Tom Brady will fade into oblivion with the personality of a doorknob and his tainted Super Bowl wins.

 

Soooooo so salty.

 

I continue to be amazed that so many of you let Tom Brady effect you so deeply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

All of this seems to me to be nothing more than trying to discredit Peyton at the best time of his life because the golden boy Tom Brady got caught cheating, sucked in the playoffs this year and has the personality of a doorknob so the almighty powers that be have to make Peyton look bad. Well Peyton will be fine! He will go on to a fabulous career as either a color analyst, entertainer or coach, and Tom Brady will fade into oblivion with the personality of a doorknob and his tainted Super Bowl wins.

 

This has nothing to do with Tom Brady and everything to do with Shaun King and his agenda.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

Listen I don't care about this one bit...I'm just playing devils advocate and saying that we know there were settlements, we know there was clearly spin coming from one side or another or both, and if the actual details of this incident need to come out due to this new lawsuit, we may have to change what we think we know about it. That's it...we all only know what we were told, whether it's totally true, only a little true, or not at all....we don't actually know.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

Soooooo so salty.

 

I continue to be amazed that so many of you let Tom Brady effect you so deeply. 

I really don't give a crap about Tommy boy. If he dropped dead tommorow, I would not lose a seconds sleep over it. What I do get tired of is having the major sports media shoving him down our throats on a continual basis. I would not be surpriesd to find out that Kraft threw his Weight around and is a big part of this especially after his tasteless, butt hurt comments directed at the Mannings. Arrogant winner, * poor loser. Typical pats response. It is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

I really don't give a crap about Tommy boy. If he dropped dead tommorow, I would not lose a seconds sleep over it. What I do get tired of is having the major sports media shoving him down our throats on a continual basis. I would not be surpriesd to find out that Kraft threw his Weight around and is a big part of this especially after his tasteless, butt hurt comments directed at the Mannings. Arrogant winner, * poor loser. Typical pats response. It is what it is.

 

Whens the last time you heard Brady's name in the sports media? It's been all Von Miller and Denver everywhere you look...as it should be, they won the Superbowl. But seriously, you honestly would believe that Kraft is drudging up all this old stuff by what...convincing six women to sue Tennessee just so Peyton's incident can re-enter the public consciousness? 

 

Get help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

Whens the last time you heard Brady's name in the sports media? It's been all Von Miller and Denver everywhere you look...as it should be, they won the Superbowl. But seriously, you honestly would believe that Kraft is drudging up all this old stuff by what...convincing six women to sue Tennessee just so Peyton's incident can re-enter the public consciousness? 

 

Get help.

Do you really think that if Denver had lost the SB that this would have resurfaced? It would have been"Peyton chokes again" You know it and I know it. End of story

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FanFromtheWasteland said:

Do you really think that if Denver had lost the SB that this would have resurfaced? It would have been"Peyton chokes again" You know it and I know it. End of story

 

And Robert Kraft somehow controls the narrative depending on how the game went?

 

I'm a little perplexed at what your end game seems to be...it sounds like you're trying to make the case that Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots is A) responsible for six women suing the University of Tennesee and citing Peyton's incident, B) responsible for Shaun King's article bringing this incident back into the public eye, and C) responsible for what people would be saying about Peyton Manning if Denver lost the Superbowl. 

 

I don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

Do you really think that if Denver had lost the SB that this would have resurfaced? It would have been"Peyton chokes again" You know it and I know it. End of story

 

This all started because of Shaun King not because Kraft created some plan to bring down Manning because his QB lost and got booed at the Super Bowl.  I do not disagree that it probably would not have come up because Shaun King would have never wrote the article because Cam would have be gushed about if he had won.

 

This all comes down to Shaun feeling that Cam was treated unfairly for his behavior after the loss and him wanting to show Peyton for the person he thinks Peyton is.  Basically since his guy was raked through the mud he wanted to do the same to Peyton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thewholefnshow28 said:

 

This all started because of Shaun King not because Kraft created some plan to bring down Manning because his QB lost and got booed at the Super Bowl.  I do not disagree that it probably would not have come up because Shaun King would have never wrote the article because Cam would have be gushed about if he had won.

 

This all comes down to Shaun feeling that Cam was treated unfairly for his behavior after the loss and him wanting to show Peyton for the person he thinks Peyton is.  Basically since his guy was raked through the mud he wanted to do the same to Peyton.

Granted that is possible but I still say this goes deeper than defending a young pup being criticized for acting like a jerk because he lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How anyone can bring Tom Brady into this is just...desperately reaching.  Stop it.

 

As for sponsors...there is no chance in hell that Papa Johns will bail on him.  For one, he's a stakeholder in the company via ownership of several franchise locations.  Two, he and Papa John himself appear to be pretty tight, as evidenced by their embrace after the SB. 

 

Nationwide could be a different story.  There is no type of company more risk averse than an insurance company that mostly works in the property and casualty realm.  If they get enough threats over the issue, they'll dump him in a second.  But I doubt one complaint like this is enough for them to make a move.  It'll have to get worse before they make a change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

And Robert Kraft somehow controls the narrative depending on how the game went?

 

I'm a little perplexed at what your end game seems to be...it sounds like you're trying to make the case that Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots is A) responsible for six women suing the University of Tennesee and citing Peyton's incident, B) responsible for Shaun King's article bringing this incident back into the public eye, and C) responsible for what people would be saying about Peyton Manning if Denver lost the Superbowl. 

 

I don't get it.

Simple. Win and/or be "it" no matter how you have to do it. The pats motto

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

Simple. Win and/or be "it" no matter how you have to do it. The pats motto

I think that is every team's motto: win.

 

But I'm glad you cleared that up for me...that you actually believe Robert Kraft controls it all and that the Patriots are somehow involved in every single thing that happens in this world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

I think that is every team's motto: win.

 

But I'm glad you cleared that up for me...that you actually believe Robert Kraft controls it all and that the Patriots are somehow involved in every single thing that happens in this world.

 

Only the bad things . 

 

By the way regardless of the outcome mooning is not murder or murders not that I blame the Patriots I realize there not perfect .

 

The Giants showed me that .haha    

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

I think that is every team's motto: win.

 

But I'm glad you cleared that up for me...that you actually believe Robert Kraft controls it all and that the Patriots are somehow involved in every single thing that happens in this world.

Only the world of sports. And like I said in another post, who benefits most from the discrediting of Peyton. It sure isn't Cam

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Wasn't the info from this case supposed to be private and not revealed? I thought that was the agreement. So hasn't a law been broken right there with the info that was displayed? I might be wrong.

 

2 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

 

It seems that Peyton was the one that broke that confidentiality agreement back when he wrote his book with his father and discussed it...

 

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

I think that was the reason they settled, because he broke that confidentiality agreement. So, how should the Peyton and Naughright side legally treat this breach since neither of them caused it? 

 

yes so first setled with Tenn, then with Peyton after wrote book as he broke agreement, then something about an espn special hinting to it and think another settlement and agreenmentt  who can keep up

----------

if u didnt read it when posted - this is a good explanation of timeline

 

Read this chronology of events and reporter in question, admittingly from a Denver site

But seems pretty good ( as well as quite long citing many sources / opinions ) even notes where Peyton made mistajkes etc

http://www.milehighreport.com/2016/2/16/11015918/peyton-manning-scandal-shaun-king-tennessee-1996

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

 

Here is some more about what occurred at UT and afterwards.

Its long, about 20 minutes, but if its just only 25% true it paints Peyton and the University of Tenn. very badly. :yuk:

 

Go to the locked thread about this and read through it. Some of us pointed out the many flaws in the accusations against Peyton. Look up Mike Florio's articles on this too. There are many many problems with the accusations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

Granted that is possible but I still say this goes deeper than defending a young pup being criticized for acting like a jerk because he lost.

 

Google Shaun King and you will see why it makes sense that is why he wrote the piece.  He is a big civil rights activist and is well known for his work in the Black Lives Matter movement.  This is solely about him being upset that Cam was treated poorly and Manning is beloved. I am sure he assumes that Cam is being treated poorly not because he acted like a petulant child up there, but because he was black.  Peyton is treated well and with kid gloves because he is white and he wrote this piece to tear him down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook and twitter came along starting 2004 and 2006, and here we are rehashing everything.

However, no new evidence has emerged. If new evidence emerged, we have a case. Uninformed public and media judgement over no new evidence amounts to blind leading the blind, IMO. It is the same thing when Spygate keeps being brought up in so many different lame ways. If no new evidence has emerged, all that is being done is regurgitation with no new evidence or legs to stand on.

Like Spygate rehashing benefits Brady and Pats haters’ own agendas, rehashing this case with no new evidence benefits Peyton haters’ agendas. To me, it is as simple as that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Wasn't the info from this case supposed to be private and not revealed? I thought that was the agreement. So hasn't a law been broken right there with the info that was displayed? I might be wrong.

Thirteen years ago, USA Today obtained 74 pages of explosive court documents on Peyton Manning, Archie Manning

 Are you too lazy to read this or just can`t understand it?
 The settlement was private but he is reporting about what is the PUBLIC RECORD.
  Ya Boy!!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really don't understand is why all the backlash is coming out right now. This happened when he was in college, not today. 

 

Sure, if it happened Peyton should be reprimanded, but I cant shake the feeling that all this attention is happening because his team just won the Superbowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they want him to return all his sponsorship income too?  Or maybe he should just give it to them?

 

This is silly.  Demanding this because as it happens you just found out about it? This is bandwagon jumping and pretty vindictive bandwagon jumping at that.

 

Nothing more than an opportunity to be in the spotlight.

 

If you really care about sexual harassment, you don't go after something like this 20 years after it happened. You go after the 'no names' at UT that were part of allowing this culture which, actually sounds very real.

 

I don't think for a second that Peyton Manning was the problem at the UT.  A single act (whatever it was) does not make him a sexual harasser.  And they'll never really know what really happened because it's closed and settled and they know it.

 

He's a convenient, high profile target.  I hate the world sometimes. People are so nasty in pursuit of their own agenda.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nadine locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • There IS another possibility. Let’s say your scenario plays out just as suggested:  the Colts draft a LT who isn’t quite ready ( 2nd rounder ); Tevi opens the season as the starter; BUT, Tevi proves to be a turnstile. What to do? Big Q to the rescue. In a pinch, why not? You do it until your rookie is ready for the full time job and fill in at LG with one of the backups like Pinter. The opposition to moving Q to LT is far less convincing if Plan A has bombed. 
    • That is why he wants to leave, you are making it about something else.  You are the one out in left field here   The coaching situation is one small part of this, not the whole story by a long shot The coach they hired is black , it isn't about race
    • Well if you are going to use stats to make a point, yes it is important how they are measured. So now that you aren't using them I'm guessing my point on separation stat was true.   -My last post on the subject
    • I'm thinking the reason these Watson topics get locked is because the conversation starts veering into opinions about matters that are not relevant.  In this case, what Easterby is or isn't, and therefore by extension what HOU is or isn't by their employment of him.  Your opinion is determined by whatever lens you own, not proven facts.  Apparently, the locker room and NFL have a diverse set of lenses whereby some things are bigger deals to some players and not such a big deal to others.   It seems some support Watson holding out for a trade because their lens shows them that HOU is bad for the reasons of Easterby and McNair.    So they are supporting Watson holding out for a trade, but, its for different reason than Watson has expressed.   That's why I was wondering why irrelevant topics are being brought into a discussion about Watson and the reasons motivating a trade.  His reasons need to be understood because they would carry on to another owner.  Its not about the reasons we think he should want one, or the reasons why JJWatt thinks he should want one.    Watson's reasons are clearly about EB.  And if Watson is linking Bienemy to a violation of the Rooney Rule, the Rooney Rule has been around for about 15 years and the Texans have complied.  Its almost like he's taken a 3 minute look at the EB situation and expressed a public hot take conclusion without even knowing the Texans record of complying with the Rooney Rule.            
    • I agree what did most pundits say that we had the most complete roster in football last season.  Why, because Ballard built that through the draft for the most part and it hasn't put the team in salary cap hell like many other teams that don't even have the roster that we have so the credit goes to Ballard. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...