Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

guy makes $50mil for playing a game criticizes $20mil/year to guy who helps it happen


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
63 replies to this topic

#51 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 15,597
  • Reputation: 1,635
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:48 PM

I have been in the corporate world and have benefited at times from high connections. It's my opinion that connections can get you in to the door. But if you do not perform on your job, and excel above others that have the same goals as you then people are not going to just give you new responsibilities, promotions, and titles just because you sat there and did nothing. I'm sure Roger was not the only person who could of had a connection to get him a start in the NFL, but he is the only one sitting as commissioner today while everyone else who may have a connection is not.


and yet the quality of this sport has been watered down every year since... good point.

Edited by bleys, 28 February 2012 - 02:50 PM.


#52 theyhateme45

theyhateme45

    360 GT = Shino45

  • Joined: 20-September 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,372
  • Reputation: 85
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:07 PM

and yet the quality of this sport has been watered down every year since... good point.


FYI- The point of that sentence was to emphasis that just because someone may have a connection to get in the door, it does not guarantee them a commissioner’s job. 32 owners are only going to go with the person who they believe does a good job in doing what they can to get them the $$$ they expect.

Saying the quality of the sport has been watered down is an opinion. Nothing wrong with having that opinion, but that is all it is. I’m sure you could make a list of valid points as to why you feel the way you do, and I can make points from a different perspective that lists valid points that supports the opposite.

For example I can say the NFL continues to generate top viewer interest, and command top dollars for their TV contracts. Got a deal with another 10 years of labor peace with no missed games. Also he reports and work for the owners of the NFL. It can be argued that all these rule changes and emphasis on safety is so that they can come back a few years down the road and add more regular season games meaning more $$$$ for all of the owners. So while people and players may not like him as a commissioner, the only people who matters in terms of his job performance are the owners and we need to look it from their perspective when evaluating him since that is the role of his position.

Personally, there are decisions regarding the game I disagree with, but that is from my personal perspective as a selfish fan wanting what I want the way I want it. But if I evaluate his decisions from a owners perspective then I tend to see the reasoning behind those decisions.

#53 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

the question was never about the lockout. the question was how did you expect Goodell to handle it?


I expected him to do it because he's incompetent.

Now how should he have done it?

First of all you need to divorce yourself from the notion he has to do what his bosses want. He's the commissioner and isn't a CEO. It's his job to listen to 31 owners and try to figure out what's best for all of them.

The second thing you need to realize is that not all owners wanted a lock out. Not even close. The owners aren't some single minded entity. they all exist in different financial and strategic realities. I don't want to belabor this point, so I'll just give a quick example. Bob Kraft has investments (awful ones quite frequently) that make more money than his NFL franchise. He can afford not to have a season. Compare that with the Glazers, for example, who literally have angry Manchester United fans at the gates, and who wouldn't be able to run their pet franchise without revenue sharing.

There is a serious split in the ownership group, or power blocs, as you'd imagine. This is shown by goodell originally only getting like 12 of 30 votes to be commissioner. there were three run off elections, with him finally buying enough votes to get the job.

Now, let's imagine for a second that he is actually justified in locking out the players. That

1. a lockout was the only option (it wasn't)
2. that it was unavoidable (it wasn't.)
3. that they hadn't planned it (they had. just look at the details of the last labor agreement, which was about a whole different issue related to the Maras specifically, that Ralph Wilson had refused to sign because it was bullpoo)

If you assume all those wrong things and accept that he was justified in doing it, then you plan how to do it.

First of all, you don't put yourself in a situation where the union can simply decertify and blow out your anti trust exemption, taking away any legal footing. This wasn't a surprise. In fact, I predicted it would happen months before it did, as many people here can probably attest. That of course happened.

Second of all, you don't claim financial hardship, then refuse to open your books. To bring this close to home, George Shinn tried to do this and was laughed out of the city.

third of all, you don't bank of television revenue that no one actually though they'd be allowed to keep. The owners for some reason thought they'd still get their TV money if the whole season was locked out, which predictably the courts declined.

fourth, you don't demand an 18 game schedule. Almost no fans are in favor of this for obvious reasons that I don't think I need to go into.

fifth, you recognize that DeMaurice Smith is a former fed who probably has a damn good idea how the proceedings are going to go.

He bungled it from the start, and after it immediately went south, the owners began to break up. This is just now starting to come out, but there are numerous stories about Jerry Jones making snide remarks at owners like Paul Brown, since what they wanted out of it was completely different than what say Paul Allen wanted.

One of the contentions by high-revenue teams, such as the Cowboys, was lower-revenue clubs like the Bengals don't work hard enough to create revenue. At one point during the often contentious negotiations, the Boston Globe reported, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones mockingly offered to buy the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium for $5 million. Jones said, "I can double that in about five minutes, Mike." Mike Brown, reportedly, did not respond.
-- Cincinnati Enquirer


He was the one that pushed for the lockout as the best means to move forward, unlike the last time the CBA was slated to expire, which was solved without denying players medical access.

The only real thing that happened, aside from some different practice scheduling (which honestly probably needed to happen) was the rookie salary cap, which the players union was tacitly in favor of anyway. He took a hard stance and got embarrassed.

Now maybe on some meta level he did it to keep the interest in the NFL during the offseason, as I've heard people mention, but I doubt that was true.

Edited by Fiz, 28 February 2012 - 08:25 PM.


#54 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:17 PM

I'd really like to do a breakdown of all the NFL owners, how much the game has changed due to the influx of new money, and how the old football families (Rooney, Mara, Wilson, Adams) are hanging on by a thread, but man this isn't the forum for it.

#55 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:24 PM

Also I need to write a post about how the OUT OF CONTROL ROOKIE SALARIES was actually total bullshit but meh

#56 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:39 PM

Also, don't think of this in corporate terms. Goodell isn't' a CEO, and the owners aren't shareholders. They aren't a board. They're actively in competition with one another, and about ten or so of them completely resent that they have to prop up the rest.

It's not a comparable situation. Your exposure to the corporate world, whatever the fug that means to you, doesn't mean anything in the scope of the conversation.

#57 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,704
  • Reputation: 4,443
Administrators

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:44 PM

See when Fiz isn't being a snide little fug he makes cool posts.

#58 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:45 PM

i can do both

#59 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:02 PM

stevesmithowns face me

#60 SteveSmithOwns

SteveSmithOwns

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 387
  • Reputation: 93
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:54 PM

I expected him to do it because he's incompetent.

Now how should he have done it?

First of all you need to divorce yourself from the notion he has to do what his bosses want. He's the commissioner and isn't a CEO. It's his job to listen to 31 owners and try to figure out what's best for all of them.

The second thing you need to realize is that not all owners wanted a lock out. Not even close. The owners aren't some single minded entity. they all exist in different financial and strategic realities. I don't want to belabor this point, so I'll just give a quick example. Bob Kraft has investments (awful ones quite frequently) that make more money than his NFL franchise. He can afford not to have a season. Compare that with the Glazers, for example, who literally have angry Manchester United fans at the gates, and who wouldn't be able to run their pet franchise without revenue sharing.

There is a serious split in the ownership group, or power blocs, as you'd imagine. This is shown by goodell originally only getting like 12 of 30 votes to be commissioner. there were three run off elections, with him finally buying enough votes to get the job.

Now, let's imagine for a second that he is actually justified in locking out the players. That

1. a lockout was the only option (it wasn't)
2. that it was unavoidable (it wasn't.)
3. that they hadn't planned it (they had. just look at the details of the last labor agreement, which was about a whole different issue related to the Maras specifically, that Ralph Wilson had refused to sign because it was bullpoo)

If you assume all those wrong things and accept that he was justified in doing it, then you plan how to do it.

First of all, you don't put yourself in a situation where the union can simply decertify and blow out your anti trust exemption, taking away any legal footing. This wasn't a surprise. In fact, I predicted it would happen months before it did, as many people here can probably attest. That of course happened.

Second of all, you don't claim financial hardship, then refuse to open your books. To bring this close to home, George Shinn tried to do this and was laughed out of the city.

third of all, you don't bank of television revenue that no one actually though they'd be allowed to keep. The owners for some reason thought they'd still get their TV money if the whole season was locked out, which predictably the courts declined.

fourth, you don't demand an 18 game schedule. Almost no fans are in favor of this for obvious reasons that I don't think I need to go into.

fifth, you recognize that DeMaurice Smith is a former fed who probably has a damn good idea how the proceedings are going to go.

He bungled it from the start, and after it immediately went south, the owners began to break up. This is just now starting to come out, but there are numerous stories about Jerry Jones making snide remarks at owners like Paul Brown, since what they wanted out of it was completely different than what say Paul Allen wanted.



He was the one that pushed for the lockout as the best means to move forward, unlike the last time the CBA was slated to expire, which was solved without denying players medical access.

The only real thing that happened, aside from some different practice scheduling (which honestly probably needed to happen) was the rookie salary cap, which the players union was tacitly in favor of anyway. He took a hard stance and got embarrassed.

Now maybe on some meta level he did it to keep the interest in the NFL during the offseason, as I've heard people mention, but I doubt that was true.



1. For the first point, yeah he doesn't need to do what the owners want him to do, but if he doesn't, he won't get much support from him after the fact. This is evidenced by him getting a contract extension around four months after he signed the deal for a new CBA.
2. Agreed, not all the owners wanted a lockout. However, some could have lived with one if it had happened. So Goodell has to hear the owners who say "No lockout under any cirumstances" and others who say "Get us what we want". Now, I had previously said I don't think Goodell would have ever let it get to losing a season. He's too much of a businessman to do that, but he was trying to push for whatever leverage he could get.

In terms of your argument of him 'buying off' the election, I would think that it was more of the owners, including the Panthers own Jerry Richardson who were really the people who stepped up for him.

Now I agree with most of your points that the owners were not smart about the lockout. But I think they were betting that the players would fold before they would. Again, speculation, but that's what I think was happening behind the scenes. In terms of the 18 game season, I think that was pure leverage for the league to say 'we won't put a 18 game season into place, but you have to give us this issue'. I don't think this was ever going to be a true option. If it was, it was moronic.

If you noticed during the lockout, Goodell was very diplomatic to the fans in terms of trying to convince them that football was going to happen. Most of the stupid comments that were going across the media were from the owners, who should have shut up, and DeMaurice Smith, who also should have shut up. Unfortunately neither did, which widened the gap.

Even after this, though, no football was missed, so the entire lockout scenario is a moot point. Even if Goodell did handle it wrong, which I don't think is the case, as it was mostly a few of the owners who wanted more money, he still made sure that football was going to be played this season.

So besides the lockout situation, and the argument that football is softer under his regime, what are some of your other big problems with him? I had already said that I don't like a few of his rules, but I think alot of people are exaggerating the type of job he has done as a commissioner.