forums

Official Michael Irvin* Sues Marriott for $100 Million

Cryptical Envelopment said:
Come on mang. Little man can't read, lost it, stroked out, lied about what I wrote, lied about playmaker, called me names (I refrained from sinking to his level for the sake of the board and Maudes) and has replied to every post where I've asked him to back up his BS, but ducked the question he needs to answer. He won't back down and apologize or even admit his mistake. I am not one to suffer a fool like that who does that, nor will I never be.

The **** did I do, except cite evidence, back a Cane, and discuss what we're all discussing.
Click to expand...


One last time: Let it go.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
mike knows how to party, ask @SWFLHurricane once he gets out of jail for beating up @gordonsolie unbanddedd*. also ask @TheOriginalCane.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know Michael parties at times, but I also don't think he said what @JHallCanes says he said (not arguing, just trying to clarify). I don't think Michael said he was blackout drunk and has no memory, I think that he said he doesn't remember saying anything that could be taken so negatively. So I think he's citing an issue of "degree" of memory ("I don't think I said anything bad"), not all-or-nothing memory ("I have no clue of anything I said at that time").

Either way, and with no criticism to anyone, we have to look at the totality of the situation.

First, it was a crowded area with lots of eyewitnesses and people using cellphones. Setting aside all of the legal mumbo jumbo, there are going to be lots of hotel-owned videos (maybe not audio) and lots of eyewitness-owned videos (and possibly audio) that might give a fuller account.

Second, there does not appear to be any sort of indication that there was any sort of "negative reaction" at the time of the incident. No "recoiling". No "face slap". No "did you see what just happened?" response. Obviously, that doesn't mean that NOTHING problematic was said, it just means that maybe there is a differential between what happened and what someone FELT about it later.

Third, the real problem here, bigger than any other problem, involves how the Marriott dealt with the situation. I'm not even going to criticize the Marriott for "believing their own employee". That's fine. You'd still like to think that a hotel, that has a hotel bar, alcohol in rooms, **** on TV, etc. would have encountered a few situations in history and treated those situations with a bit of discretion. EVEN IF the room is being paid for by the network, there's no reason for the hotel to detail everything to the network. The Marriott could have gone with a boilerplate "we had a disagreement" or "there was a violation of hotel rules" without going into specifics, particularly when the "specifics" the Marriott had were simply one person's word (if the Marriott had a smoking gun video/audio, they would have provided that immediately).

I respect all parties in this matter. I am not saying I know what happened, nor am I saying that anyone did anything intentionally wrong. But there is a reason to not take action or give all the details within a few hours of an event. It is good practice, both practically and legally, to choose not to comment and divulge details right away, without more investigation and/or corroboration.

Generally speaking, and reserving the right to change my mind if more specific evidence arises, this is not looking so great for Marriott right now.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yeah, I know Michael parties at times, but I also don't think he said what @JHallCanes says he said (not arguing, just trying to clarify). I don't think Michael said he was blackout drunk and has no memory, I think that he said he doesn't remember saying anything that could be taken so negatively. So I think he's citing an issue of "degree" of memory ("I don't think I said anything bad"), not all-or-nothing memory ("I have no clue of anything I said at that time").

Either way, and with no criticism to anyone, we have to look at the totality of the situation.

First, it was a crowded area with lots of eyewitnesses and people using cellphones. Setting aside all of the legal mumbo jumbo, there are going to be lots of hotel-owned videos (maybe not audio) and lots of eyewitness-owned videos (and possibly audio) that might give a fuller account.

Second, there does not appear to be any sort of indication that there was any sort of "negative reaction" at the time of the incident. No "recoiling". No "face slap". No "did you see what just happened?" response. Obviously, that doesn't mean that NOTHING problematic was said, it just means that maybe there is a differential between what happened and what someone FELT about it later.

Third, the real problem here, bigger than any other problem, involves how the Marriott dealt with the situation. I'm not even going to criticize the Marriott for "believing their own employee". That's fine. You'd still like to think that a hotel, that has a hotel bar, alcohol in rooms, **** on TV, etc. would have encountered a few situations in history and treated those situations with a bit of discretion. EVEN IF the room is being paid for by the network, there's no reason for the hotel to detail everything to the network. The Marriott could have gone with a boilerplate "we had a disagreement" or "there was a violation of hotel rules" without going into specifics, particularly when the "specifics" the Marriott had were simply one person's word (if the Marriott had a smoking gun video/audio, they would have provided that immediately).

I respect all parties in this matter. I am not saying I know what happened, nor am I saying that anyone did anything intentionally wrong. But there is a reason to not take action or give all the details within a few hours of an event. It is good practice, both practically and legally, to choose not to comment and divulge details right away, without more investigation and/or corroboration.

Generally speaking, and reserving the right to change my mind if more specific evidence arises, this is not looking so great for Marriott right now.
Click to expand...
My man I’m not making anything up. I definitely never said he said he was blackout drunk.

In Michael’s first interview about this before it went all to **** he was kinda laughing and said “I don’t remember what I said to her, I had been drinking” and his whole entire tone and body language said it all

If someone wants to interpret it differently than I did then that’s fine, but I don’t give a **** about Mike and his personal life so I’m not gonna make up some nonsense

Take some advice from Shaq when he said “I never drink in public”

But beyond this whole thing, I also think the Marriot was bull**** as well. My point just being hey these guys are in tough spots, they’re targets, at some point just gotta not be in the position.
 
Last edited:
Torts was never in my wheelhouse but on the contracts side I wonder if Marriott’s agreement/relationship with NFL Network as the contracting party for the room, gives them the cover to talk to the renter of Irvin’s room - PRESUMABLY- the network, if they book and pay for these things???

Regardless, I don’t know how people here have such strong opinions about what happened. How does anyone here know one way or another what went on and if it did or didn’t cross a line???
 
I am a little baffled why someone who has been no stranger to controversy would care so much about what was said and had no repercussions other than a week off the air. How do you support a "$100M valuation" where the damage is . . . being off the air for a week? These folks that rail against "cancel culture" sure seem to equally catch a lot of feelings about words.
 
Advertisement
JHallCanes said:
My man I’m not making anything up. I definitely never said he said he was blackout drunk.

In Michael’s first interview about this before it went all to **** he was kinda laughing and said “I don’t remember what I said to her, I had been drinking” and his whole entire tone and body language said it all

If someone wants to interpret it differently than I did then that’s fine, but I don’t give a **** about Mike and his personal life so I’m not gonna make up some nonsense

Take some advice from Shaq when he said “I never drink in public”

But beyond this whole thing, I also think the Marriot was bull**** as well. My point just being hey these guys are in tough spots, they’re targets, at some point just gotta not be in the position.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you made anything up. I'm saying that the way it is being explained can be problematic, the way that it is being interpreted can be problematic. I have no issues with you at all, I think that they way posters argue on this board starts to turn gray-shaded statements into absolute statements.

And I'm definitely not mad at you over any feelings that you have about Michael drinking less and partying more infrequently.

All I'm saying is this. Hotels are walking a very fine line. They do a lot of things and sell a lot of things that make a certain type of behavior...not exactly unexpected. I'm not sure if you listen to the Howard Stern Show, but a couple of days ago, they recounted what happened when they put up Lenny Dykstra in a hotel room for a few days in order to record material for some bits they were doing for radio and/or video.

Long story short, Stern hired a professional reader to read the room service bill for the radio broadcast, and in between all the alcohol that the hotel charged (and it was a LOT) they listed some of the movie rentals, plus an "intimacy kit". So we have to acknowledge that a lot of these hotels are selling a lot of products that might very well lead to questionable statements and/or behavior by the hotel guests.

Now, I'm not blaming the Marriot per se. Irvin could have been drinking elsewhere.

But I'm saying that Marriott has to be more careful about what they say and repeat about their guests and the guest behavior until they have a lot more evidence beyond just what one person says. That is all.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I didn't say you made anything up. I'm saying that the way it is being explained can be problematic, the way that it is being interpreted can be problematic. I have no issues with you at all, I think that they way posters argue on this board starts to turn gray-shaded statements into absolute statements.

And I'm definitely not mad at you over any feelings that you have about Michael drinking less and partying more infrequently.

All I'm saying is this. Hotels are walking a very fine line. They do a lot of things and sell a lot of things that make a certain type of behavior...not exactly unexpected. I'm not sure if you listen to the Howard Stern Show, but a couple of days ago, they recounted what happened when they put up Lenny Dykstra in a hotel room for a few days in order to record material for some bits they were doing for radio and/or video.

Long story short, Stern hired a professional reader to read the room service bill for the radio broadcast, and in between all the alcohol that the hotel charged (and it was a LOT) they listed some of the movie rentals, plus an "intimacy kit". So we have to acknowledge that a lot of these hotels are selling a lot of products that might very well lead to questionable statements and/or behavior by the hotel guests.

Now, I'm not blaming the Marriot per se. Irvin could have been drinking elsewhere.

But I'm saying that Marriott has to be more careful about what they say and repeat about their guests and the guest behavior until they have a lot more evidence beyond just what one person says. That is all.
Click to expand...
I’m with you.

I think the disconnect is my comment was specifically about my opinion on how to not let something like this happen based on what I heard him say. What happened after that is a totally different conversation. And also realizing that it’s Mike, so holding one of our own, that’s had you would think enough of these issues in the past, accountable can be taboo since the media likes to **** on us in the first place.
 
Advertisement
ZoeCane97 said:
Click to expand...

Philly fan sticking up for and taking pics with a lifelong Dallas Cowboy???

Watch Out Nfl GIF
 
Last edited:
Mklein13 said:
Love Marriott....I'm a gold member. Everyone who stays at a Marriott hotel could use my account number so I get the points and nights. I'll get you free beer too.
Click to expand...
At first I thought you were offering for all of us to use your points. But upon closer inspection, I now see that you’re really just trying to get us all to get you more points.

1677169883055.gif
 
AlexCane said:
I am a little baffled why someone who has been no stranger to controversy would care so much about what was said and had no repercussions other than a week off the air. How do you support a "$100M valuation" where the damage is . . . being off the air for a week? These folks that rail against "cancel culture" sure seem to equally catch a lot of feelings about words.
Click to expand...
the $100 million is a shock and awe maneuver. damages in defamation cases are difficult, if not impossible, to determine. this will get settled after all the legal filings and publicity posturings.

irving is trying to protect his image and future earnings and is doing some retirement planning. if he get's a $10MM check from Marriott he can blow it on whores and coke retire early.
 
Advertisement
Cryptical Envelopment said:
Come on mang. Little man can't read, lost it, stroked out, lied about what I wrote, lied about playmaker, called me names (I refrained from sinking to his level for the sake of the board and Maudes) and has replied to every post where I've asked him to back up his BS, but ducked the question he needs to answer. He won't back down and apologize or even admit his mistake. I am not one to suffer a fool like that who does that, nor will I never be.

The **** did I do, except cite evidence, back a Cane, and discuss what we're all discussing.
Click to expand...
you have committed a cardinal sin. it is meng not mang. i have requested all the maudes to ban you for a week or at least to send you to purgatory til saturday

@Empirical Cane
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
Torts was never in my wheelhouse but on the contracts side I wonder if Marriott’s agreement/relationship with NFL Network as the contracting party for the room, gives them the cover to talk to the renter of Irvin’s room - PRESUMABLY- the network, if they book and pay for these things???

Regardless, I don’t know how people here have such strong opinions about what happened. How does anyone here know one way or another what went on and if it did or didn’t cross a line???
Click to expand...
I owned Oxman's Torts class. Pretty good for a 2.9 guy who was twice academically probated.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top