|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32059
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | I'm not going to get into an extraneous states rights argument (since each owner and each player agrees to the powers of the league when they sign up), but I with say the other owners have a right to have their parts of the brand protected too.
The Kobe thing is also not a good example, since Kobe was accused but we did not know who was correct. If there was a video of Kobe forcing himself on the lady, he'd not only be in prison, he would have been suspended or booted immediately.
This is why commissioners have and use latitude. Part of the job is assessing and coming to the proper response. |
David Stern had the full right to veto that CP3 trade. So you support his right to do so, right? If I search back, I won't see posts from you suggesting an opposition to it?
The Kobe thing is a GREAT example. Because he was never convicted but there was enough evidence for an indictment. Had the league suspended Kobe before allowing due process (which the NFL did with Ben Roethlisberger, a move I was also opposed to), I would have been opposed to that. If you're going to go by the letter of the CBA law, then you would have had to support such a move.
I agree with your last point though. But with all that CBA messaging, how do you feel the NFL has handled these recent cases and the situations preceding them? Terribly right? Exactly. |
Equating Kobe's situation with Rice's is dumb. One was a he said she said situation, the other has video evidence of what happened. Stern was also within his rights to veto the trade as defacto owner of the team, which is the same as what you, in a previous post, said you supported the owner of the Ravens for doing, taking action for the betterment of the team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mhan00 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | I'm not going to get into an extraneous states rights argument (since each owner and each player agrees to the powers of the league when they sign up), but I with say the other owners have a right to have their parts of the brand protected too.
The Kobe thing is also not a good example, since Kobe was accused but we did not know who was correct. If there was a video of Kobe forcing himself on the lady, he'd not only be in prison, he would have been suspended or booted immediately.
This is why commissioners have and use latitude. Part of the job is assessing and coming to the proper response. |
David Stern had the full right to veto that CP3 trade. So you support his right to do so, right? If I search back, I won't see posts from you suggesting an opposition to it?
The Kobe thing is a GREAT example. Because he was never convicted but there was enough evidence for an indictment. Had the league suspended Kobe before allowing due process (which the NFL did with Ben Roethlisberger, a move I was also opposed to), I would have been opposed to that. If you're going to go by the letter of the CBA law, then you would have had to support such a move.
I agree with your last point though. But with all that CBA messaging, how do you feel the NFL has handled these recent cases and the situations preceding them? Terribly right? Exactly. |
Equating Kobe's situation with Rice's is dumb. One was a he said she said situation, the other has video evidence of what happened. Stern was also within his rights to veto the trade as defacto owner of the team, which is the same as what you, in a previous post, said you supported the owner of the Ravens for doing, taking action for the betterment of the team. |
I wasn't equating Kobe's situation to Rice's.
I was saying that if one's stance is to say that a league, by CBA, has the right to "protect their brand" by whatever means THEY deem necessary ... then should they have chosen to suspend Kobe, you would have had to support that. So is that something you would have supported or not? I am going on record saying no, at least not until due process is served.
My opinion and your opinion about any players guilt or innocence means nothing because we are not privy to ALL of the available information that the courts and even the leagues are in criminal matters.
I mean it's funny. I'll say, I think the courts should decide Rice's fate and the league should wait until that happens, and people are saying the league has the right to protect its brand by whatever means within the CBA they feel is necessary. But then the same people are saying the punishment on Rice is too harsh. HUH? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stern's veto also came with a conflict of interest. He appointed a fiduciary to oversee the team because stern could not functionally act on behalf of one team while also wielding authority over and on behalf of the other 29.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ And yet nothing that Stern did was a violation of the CBA or any federal or state law.
I mean, I understand your point, I just don't think saying "well, the CBA doesn't say you can't" is a good argument because we don't always agree with everything the leagues/commissioners do even if they aren't prohibited by CBA guidelines.
It's a slippery slope for the NFL in the Adrian Peterson case. It's possible he will be suspended by the league under the domestic violence policy, even if he didn't actually commit any act of domestic violence as defined by the legal system. (Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment).
Meanwhile, you have players who have been convicted of domestic violence (Greg Hardy of the Panthers) that the NFL would have allowed to play had the team not stepped in and deactivated him.
I just think it would be more prudent, as well as more consistent, if the NFL and other sports leagues levied sanctions only on those found guilty of specified laws as a result of due process. When they don't do that, they're walking down a dangerous path. They could be suspending a perfectly innocent player. Sure, the CBA allows for the suspension of perfectly innocent players but that doesn't mean I'm going to be on board with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
NJ legal community isn't pleased with how the Atlantic County Prosecutor handled this matter. Obviously a moot point now, but there seems to be more than meets the eye re: Rice's leniency here.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominator
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 8678
Location: Irvine
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | mhan00 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | I'm not going to get into an extraneous states rights argument (since each owner and each player agrees to the powers of the league when they sign up), but I with say the other owners have a right to have their parts of the brand protected too.
The Kobe thing is also not a good example, since Kobe was accused but we did not know who was correct. If there was a video of Kobe forcing himself on the lady, he'd not only be in prison, he would have been suspended or booted immediately.
This is why commissioners have and use latitude. Part of the job is assessing and coming to the proper response. |
David Stern had the full right to veto that CP3 trade. So you support his right to do so, right? If I search back, I won't see posts from you suggesting an opposition to it?
The Kobe thing is a GREAT example. Because he was never convicted but there was enough evidence for an indictment. Had the league suspended Kobe before allowing due process (which the NFL did with Ben Roethlisberger, a move I was also opposed to), I would have been opposed to that. If you're going to go by the letter of the CBA law, then you would have had to support such a move.
I agree with your last point though. But with all that CBA messaging, how do you feel the NFL has handled these recent cases and the situations preceding them? Terribly right? Exactly. |
Equating Kobe's situation with Rice's is dumb. One was a he said she said situation, the other has video evidence of what happened. Stern was also within his rights to veto the trade as defacto owner of the team, which is the same as what you, in a previous post, said you supported the owner of the Ravens for doing, taking action for the betterment of the team. |
I wasn't equating Kobe's situation to Rice's.
I was saying that if one's stance is to say that a league, by CBA, has the right to "protect their brand" by whatever means THEY deem necessary ... then should they have chosen to suspend Kobe, you would have had to support that. So is that something you would have supported or not? I am going on record saying no, at least not until due process is served.
My opinion and your opinion about any players guilt or innocence means nothing because we are not privy to ALL of the available information that the courts and even the leagues are in criminal matters.
I mean it's funny. I'll say, I think the courts should decide Rice's fate and the league should wait until that happens, and people are saying the league has the right to protect its brand by whatever means within the CBA they feel is necessary. But then the same people are saying the punishment on Rice is too harsh. HUH? |
It's still a terrible comparison. As mhan already pointed out, it was a he said/she said situation and Kobe denied any wrongdoing from the start. The league would have had no business suspending him when the validity of the accuser's claim was in doubt. Ray Rice admitted to knocking out his fiance the moment the first video became public, so there was absolutely no doubt regarding his guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is why the league and teams suspend before court decisions...
| Quote: | The Radisson hotel chain announced it is suspending its sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings because of star running back Adrian Peterson's indictment for child abuse in Texas.
"Radisson takes this matter very seriously, particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children," the company statement said. "We are closely following the situation and effective immediately, Radisson is suspending its limited sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings while we evaluate the facts and circumstances."
Radisson's logo normally appears on the backdrop at Vikings news conferences. |
| Quote: | On Tuesday, Nike stores at the Mall of America in Bloomington and at an outlet mall in Albertville pulled Peterson merchandise, the Associated Press reported.
Peterson's All Day Foundation also announced it would go "on hiatus" immediately, saying staff and Peterson's family needed time to assess the foundation's future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | This is why the league and teams suspend before court decisions...
| Quote: | The Radisson hotel chain announced it is suspending its sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings because of star running back Adrian Peterson's indictment for child abuse in Texas.
"Radisson takes this matter very seriously, particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children," the company statement said. "We are closely following the situation and effective immediately, Radisson is suspending its limited sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings while we evaluate the facts and circumstances."
Radisson's logo normally appears on the backdrop at Vikings news conferences. |
| Quote: | On Tuesday, Nike stores at the Mall of America in Bloomington and at an outlet mall in Albertville pulled Peterson merchandise, the Associated Press reported.
Peterson's All Day Foundation also announced it would go "on hiatus" immediately, saying staff and Peterson's family needed time to assess the foundation's future. |
|
That's not a reason to suspend a player.
If that was a reason to suspend a player, then Kobe should have been suspended. Don't be ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38776
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | This is why the league and teams suspend before court decisions...
| Quote: | The Radisson hotel chain announced it is suspending its sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings because of star running back Adrian Peterson's indictment for child abuse in Texas.
"Radisson takes this matter very seriously, particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children," the company statement said. "We are closely following the situation and effective immediately, Radisson is suspending its limited sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings while we evaluate the facts and circumstances."
Radisson's logo normally appears on the backdrop at Vikings news conferences. |
| Quote: | On Tuesday, Nike stores at the Mall of America in Bloomington and at an outlet mall in Albertville pulled Peterson merchandise, the Associated Press reported.
Peterson's All Day Foundation also announced it would go "on hiatus" immediately, saying staff and Peterson's family needed time to assess the foundation's future. |
|
Companies only care for themselves as they should....that being said, if the accusations are false, then if I'm an athlete, you know damn well I'm going to remember every sponsor that dropped me during the bad times. Who remembers all those companies that dropped Kobe when those accusations came up...then a couple years down the line when his name was redeemed and his career hit a peak companies were lining back up trying to get his endorsement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3477
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like the Vikings have re-shelved AP 
Money talks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | ^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
I agree with this.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
I've already answered these, but I'll do it again.
1. Both the league and the team, depending on type and severity of offense. The team has the right to protect their brand as does the league. Players have conduct clauses. The league nor the team need a judge to impose a penalty to detrimental conduct. As it should be.
2. Depends on the circumstances and the evidence. If we have video? I'd expect immediate action. |
See, that's just a cop out. The NFL has taken many, many hits over the past few years including criminal activity from many of it's players to it's own coverup of it's dirty handed dealings in player concussions. Yet, it's popularity has never been higher and it's pre-eminance as America's favorite sport is unquestioned. It is bullet proof and all of the grandstanding and outrage at ESPN isn't going to change that.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | This is why the league and teams suspend before court decisions...
| Quote: | The Radisson hotel chain announced it is suspending its sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings because of star running back Adrian Peterson's indictment for child abuse in Texas.
"Radisson takes this matter very seriously, particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children," the company statement said. "We are closely following the situation and effective immediately, Radisson is suspending its limited sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings while we evaluate the facts and circumstances."
Radisson's logo normally appears on the backdrop at Vikings news conferences. |
| Quote: | On Tuesday, Nike stores at the Mall of America in Bloomington and at an outlet mall in Albertville pulled Peterson merchandise, the Associated Press reported.
Peterson's All Day Foundation also announced it would go "on hiatus" immediately, saying staff and Peterson's family needed time to assess the foundation's future. |
|
That's not a reason to suspend a player.
If that was a reason to suspend a player, then Kobe should have been suspended. Don't be ridiculous. |
If a major Lakers sponsor pulled out because of Kobe's actions, then the Lakers may have suspended him, with pay, for that season.
Now Budweiser is making noise about their "disappointment" in how the NFL is handling all this. That's a company who spent $183 M on the Super Bowl alone. So, no, not ridiculous at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
I've already answered these, but I'll do it again.
1. Both the league and the team, depending on type and severity of offense. The team has the right to protect their brand as does the league. Players have conduct clauses. The league nor the team need a judge to impose a penalty to detrimental conduct. As it should be.
2. Depends on the circumstances and the evidence. If we have video? I'd expect immediate action. |
See, that's just a cop out. The NFL has taken many, many hits over the past few years including criminal activity from many of it's players to it's own coverup of it's dirty handed dealings in player concussions. Yet, it's popularity has never been higher and it's pre-eminance as America's favorite sport is unquestioned. It is bullet proof and all of the grandstanding and outrage at ESPN isn't going to change that. |
So your argument is that because past scandals have not destroyed the league, it can and should ignore current ones, and has no right, or need, to defend its brand?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3984
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | NJ legal community isn't pleased with how the Atlantic County Prosecutor handled this matter. Obviously a moot point now, but there seems to be more than meets the eye re: Rice's leniency here. |
Nothing new here. Top notch legal representation buys you a better deal than public defenders and other bottom feeders. It is the way of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
The league is allowing themselves to be manipulated by public opinion and cooperate sponsors.
Rice is suspended indefinitely because of PO and CS. Peterson is now exempt because of PO and CS. Greg Hardy is in the spotlight because of PO and CS, the list goes on.
There are players now under investigation for DV. If the league doesn't take a solid stance it's not going to look good to the public.
Take a stance, right or wrong, take a stance. The league has to be the barometer, not allow the public and sponsors be the thermometer.
EDIT: Geg Hardy is now on the exempt list. 1:45pm pst.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:58 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | ^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
I would add that Kobe's situation is similar to McDonald's, he said-she said. I would be disappointed if he were told to sit.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | ^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
From the law perspective I agree. From a business perspective the whelps and bruises are enough to take action. Protection of the brand is important, very important. Many lives depend on the brand.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
I've already answered these, but I'll do it again.
1. Both the league and the team, depending on type and severity of offense. The team has the right to protect their brand as does the league. Players have conduct clauses. The league nor the team need a judge to impose a penalty to detrimental conduct. As it should be.
2. Depends on the circumstances and the evidence. If we have video? I'd expect immediate action. |
See, that's just a cop out. The NFL has taken many, many hits over the past few years including criminal activity from many of it's players to it's own coverup of it's dirty handed dealings in player concussions. Yet, it's popularity has never been higher and it's pre-eminance as America's favorite sport is unquestioned. It is bullet proof and all of the grandstanding and outrage at ESPN isn't going to change that. |
So your argument is that because past scandals have not destroyed the league, it can and should ignore current ones, and has no right, or need, to defend its brand? |
I think you missed his point.
I'm not sure that there is any evidence to suggest that they NEED to defend their brand from poor player behavior. I'll admit it sounds sensible but his point is valid: Players have been behaving badly for decades and the NFL's popularity has only increased.
The reason for this is because the majority of the people that are really complaining about this, don't impact the NFL's bottom line. People watch the NFL to watch a superior sports product, not to get involved with social and political issues. It's an escape for people. So most reasonable people who are contributors to the league's bottom line understands that there are going to be a few bad apples but in the end, you just want to watch good football and that's the most important thing. No one who saw Brandon Marshall's amazing one-hand TD catch on SNF is turning to their friend and saying "Nice catch but what are your thoughts on Brandon Marshall and his history with domestic violence?" The NFL will be more negatively impacted by trotting out a lower quality product than they would if they single-handedly defeated domestic violence.
At the end of the day, people scream because they like to be heard, not because they genuinely believe in any of this. When Michael Vick got reinstated people whined and moaned and there were talk shows and social media and everyone was saying how he should not be allowed to play. They let him play anyway (the right move and this is coming from a big time dog lover) and within a few weeks, silence. And now, nothing. I hear nothing regarding Michael Vick and his reinstatement. The same will happen with Ray Rice. And Adrian Peterson. And Greg Hardy.
It doesn't surprise me at all that the NFL has failed miserably in their attempt at being a moral crusader. As I said before, it is a no-win game. When the day comes that they're ready to reinstate Rice or AP or Hardy or whoever, the shouting will come again about whether they should be reinstated. And the debates will ensue. And the TV show discussions and social media will explode with chatter. By dealing with it themselves, they are just bringing more undue attention on themselves. What a misstep.
They are best served ignoring the court of public opinion and instead focusing their efforts on their core competencies. Namely, delivering a superior on-field sports product. The social uproar storm will pass within a matter of weeks when some other big story comes up and those that don't even watch the NFL will move on to whine about some other issue in some other area/industry they don't have a vested interest in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
From the law perspective I agree. From a business perspective the whelps and bruises are enough to take action. Protection of the brand is important, very important. Many lives depend on the brand. |
No. From a business perspective, the NFL has gone about this completely the wrong way. Take it from someone in brand marketing. Sometimes, in a crisis, you have to be willing to lose the battle in an effort to win the war.
If I were advising them, I would have said, defer to the courts, allow THEM to be the bad guys because there is no right or wrong action here and any action you take, will be discussed ad nauseum about why it was the wrong action. The Vikings/NFL did what people were saying they wanted with AP and now they've switched gears again t. TV shows don't make money by talking about how right your decision was. Oh, and then, if and when you reverse your action at a later date (i.e. reinstate the suspended player) you're only going to create the storm for yourself AGAIN.
Everyone is operating out of emotion right now. I get why that is, but they just need relax, take a deep breath here and they need to regain control of the conversation. Sponsors are going to pull out because a) it's free publicity and b) you use this tragedy to your benefit by saying you're pulling out because you believe in whatever social issue is at play. And that's exactly what Radisson did to when they had to release a statement and add "...particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children...." Why not just pull sponsorship? Why the released statement? Publicity.
Defer legal matters to the legal field and focus on what you do best. Football. That's why people pony up the dough after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ It's not a terrible comparison because it isn't a comparison. Did you read when I said I wasn't equating their situations?
In any event, I thought it wasn't about guilt, but rather, whether one's conduct led to negative impact to the league's brand. If that's the case, whether a law was even broken is irrelevant, right?
Because only the courts can ultimately decide whether or not a person broke a law.
In the end, there are 3 unique cases at hand. You have Rice, where there is video evidence but no conviction. You have Kobe, where it's all basically testimony with only circumstantial evidence and no conviction, and you have Peterson, where there is some evidence but it remains to be seen if his actions are deemed illegal. I say that because the state of Texas allows for "reasonable" corporal punishment.
Only via due process can we know for certain whether or not his actions were within legal limits in his jurisdiction.
This is why I believe that leagues need to let due process play out. Don't succumb to public pressure. The public is not privy to ALL of the information that the courts and lawyers are. Let the legal system do the legal stuff, and if guilt is determined, then a punishment can be applied at that time.
Sure, if you go this path then sometimes situations like Rice will slip through the cracks but at least you won't have potentially punished someone that was never guilty of any crime to begin with. |
From the law perspective I agree. From a business perspective the whelps and bruises are enough to take action. Protection of the brand is important, very important. Many lives depend on the brand. |
No. From a business perspective, the NFL has gone about this completely the wrong way. Take it from someone in brand marketing. Sometimes, in a crisis, you have to be willing to lose the battle in an effort to win the war.
If I were advising them, I would have said, defer to the courts, allow THEM to be the bad guys because there is no right or wrong action here and any action you take, will be discussed ad nauseum about why it was the wrong action. The Vikings/NFL did what people were saying they wanted with AP and now they've switched gears again t. TV shows don't make money by talking about how right your decision was. Oh, and then, if and when you reverse your action at a later date (i.e. reinstate the suspended player) you're only going to create the storm for yourself AGAIN.
Everyone is operating out of emotion right now. I get why that is, but they just need relax, take a deep breath here and they need to regain control of the conversation. Sponsors are going to pull out because a) it's free publicity and b) you use this tragedy to your benefit by saying you're pulling out because you believe in whatever social issue is at play. And that's exactly what Radisson did to when they had to release a statement and add "...particularly in light of our long-standing commitment to the protection of children...." Why not just pull sponsorship? Why the released statement? Publicity.
Defer legal matters to the legal field and focus on what you do best. Football. That's why people pony up the dough after all. |
They weren't willing to lose the battle. IMO they should have suspended AP based on the physicality of the supposed discipline to protect the brand. I can't call what I see a spanking, a spanking I can abide with.
| Quote: | | From a business perspective the whelps and bruises are enough to take action |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17246
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gloria Allred is going to have a news conference in ATL this afternoon on a new domestic violence issue. (bleep) has officially gotten out of control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's Brandon Marshall.
Gotta suspend him now too.
Suspend them all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jonathan Dwyer now too. Arrested for DV.
Kick him out also. Maybe the NFL should just cease to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
