Originally Posted by DMaestro
Short of a canceled check with a memo line saying "For that sicknasty hit on Steve Smith", I don't see how evidence of money changing hands can be tied to a pay-to-injure scheme.
Let me go one further: it is logically impossible for there to exist any documentable evidence of money changing hands for a pay-to-injure scheme because...... we never injured anyone. So if presenting such evidence in such a fashion is Jolly Roger's Grand Strategy for reclaiming the moral high ground in this fiasco, he's gonna have to come up with something better.
Reminds me of that movie "A Few Good Men" where Tom Cruise's first client was about to be charged for smoking a dime bag of oregano.
Prosecutor: Your client thought it was marijuana.
Cruise: My client's a moron, that's not against the law.
That's pretty much what this amounts to.
Right. If they can prove that money changed hands, then that is proof that it was NOT a pay to injure program. Since no one was injured, and if money was paid out, it could not have been a pay for injure program. The money had to be paid out for something else.
Pay for performance is commonplace and NO team can deny that they had such a program.