Rivera on Hardy

[Mol3m4n]

Yes.

You don't know....

No one does. :/

[Mr. Scot]

You don't know....

No one does. :/

 

Per the League's current stated policy, he's actually correct.

 

Whether or not they'd amend that?  Unknown.

 

[beastson]

He hasn't been playing cause his "guilty" conviction, so with that he needs to follow that 6 game rule. Idc if he's on an exemption list, suspended or wateva, he's not playing. His jury trial shouldn't mean poo either cause he already served his games

[thunderraiden]

He hasn't been playing cause his "guilty" conviction, so with that he needs to follow that 6 game rule. Idc if he's on an exemption list, suspended or wateva, he's not playing. His jury trial shouldn't mean poo either cause he already served his games

 

No, he is NOT guilty NOR does he have a conviction on his record. Misinformed people are exactly why we are in this situation right now. Also the NFL can't suspend him for it now since they didn't suspend him then. AND even if they did suspend him you don't think he is going to pay a boat load for his lawyers to sue once he starts losing $700,000 game checks by the week fraudulently, and purely because of media pressure? No.

[Kuhndog94]

Fug the NFL. If they give us the option, I hope we bring Hardy back. I hope he plays well, and I hope he lowers his price a little because of this incident. Then I would like to keep him. If he doesn't, we can't afford both Hardy and CJ.

[beastson]

No, he is NOT guilty NOR does he have a conviction on his record. Misinformed people are exactly why we are in this situation right now. Also the NFL can't suspend him for it now since they didn't suspend him then. AND even if they did suspend him you don't think he is going to pay a boat load for his lawyers to sue once he starts losing $700,000 game checks by the week fraudulently, and purely because of media pressure? No.

I know that, but that's the reason he isn't playing. Maybe the Panthers organization should have informed everybody the right information and we wouldn't be in the situation we're in

[thefuzz]

Personally, and I've been on this train for a while.

 

I would play him, and refuse to speak about it.

[MadHatter]

No, he is NOT guilty NOR does he have a conviction on his record. Misinformed people are exactly why we are in this situation right now. Also the NFL can't suspend him for it now since they didn't suspend him then. AND even if they did suspend him you don't think he is going to pay a boat load for his lawyers to sue once he starts losing $700,000 game checks by the week fraudulently, and purely because of media pressure? No.

 

You are both correct and wrong at the same time.

 

Yes, the appeal of his bench trial conviction does eliminate the conviction and sets a jury trial.

 

However, he WAS found guilty by a judge.....that is just a fact.

[Cpt slay a ho]

Basically owners are meeting to talk about it.

 

just quoted you to say i didn't think your profile picture couldn't get any better after snake...........you've prove me wrong with this dark souls one

[JawnyBlaze]

Some owners aren't very happy about the way the 'exempt list' is being used.  They believe it's essentially giving teams like the Panthers and Vikings an extra roster spot,  Whereas the Ravens, for example, had to cut Ray Rice.

 

If the owners do indeed force the commissioner to drop the exemptions for Peterson and Hardy, then technically either the League would have to suspend them or it would be left up to the teams what to do.

 

If it's option two, then I think yes, the Panthers do indeed bring Greg Hardy back.

 

Well that would be a stupid argument, if it's the case.  The Ravens didn't have to cut Ray Rice.  They chose to.  There was also indisputable evidence of his guilt.  Hardy and Peterson are still innocent until proven guilty.  The situations aren't comparable.

 

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

Just to restate:

No one actually cares if Hardy is innocent or guilty. No one in a decision making capacity, anyway.

[grateflday]

 

......perhaps this means he's back after 6 games?  Would satisfy the NFL penalty, and would make sense since he's

not been convicted.

 

 

At this point, this is how it should be.  No matter what, even if convicted Hardy would get six games.  You can't bring him back now or sooner  because then the story is "its because the Panthers need someone and don't care about......" ; whereas after six games Panthers can bring him back and leave it as "that is what he would be getting anyway.."

[Mr. Scot]

Well that would be a stupid argument, if it's the case.  The Ravens didn't have to cut Ray Rice.  They chose to.  There was also indisputable evidence of his guilt.  Hardy and Peterson are still innocent until proven guilty.  The situations aren't comparable.

 

 

I agree, but never put anything past NFL owners when it comes to competitive advantage.

 

[cbully]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

post this when he comes back....