The Jimmy Haslam Thread

[Soda]

In both cases with Zeke and Haslam the law didn't find any reason to bring charges. The NFL chose to investigate one further and not the other. They make up the rules as they go. No transparency.

This is all true; however, you're comparing a suspension to the forced sale of a team. Also, while it'd be optimal for owners and players to be held to the same standard, that is simply pie-in-the-sky utopia type expectations. I'd appreciate it, too, if my superiors' timecard was hawked upon like it should be, but it's just not that way.

 

[Soda]

Woof JLC is one of my least favorite human beings sports related. I would think that Stillers/ratbird/bungles fans would want to see Jimmy stay as owner because of how fucking terrible he is in the same way we want Mike Brown to keep owning the Bengals because he’s such a cheapskate

See, that sounds to me like desiring more and more sinking into the depths. Even if the end-game is the best case scenario, that's about 5-10 years of additional shit you're hoping for. I hope I'm with Browns fans out there in hoping Jimmy learns, rather than hoping for nuclear options.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

I hope I'm with Browns fans out there in hoping Jimmy learns,

This is obviously the preferable outcome. It’s also one I think is a long shot. I think he’s a fucking dope and I doubt he will ever get it

 

[Los216]

This is all true; however, you're comparing a suspension to the forced sale of a team. Also, while it'd be optimal for owners and players to be held to the same standard, that is simply pie-in-the-sky utopia type expectations. I'd appreciate it, too, if my superiors' timecard was hawked upon like it should be, but it's just not that way.

Thats not what I'm doing. You're getting ahead of yourself bringing up the suspension. The suspension was the result of the investigation. In both instances the law deemed each case not worthy of charges being brought on. No charges for Haslam and the NFL stated that because the law said there's nothing to see then we have nothing further to look at. No chargers for Zeke and the law said that there was nothing further to look at. The NFL "chose" to pursue further investigation into Zeke and not Haslam when the law told the NFL the same thing with both cases which was there's nothing that will come from this.

So why did the NFL not give the same statement for both? They are using what the law said to not punish Haslam but the law said the exact same thing for Zeke and they chose to pursue punishment. Why?

 

[Soda]

Thats not what I'm doing. You're getting ahead of yourself bringing up the suspension. The suspension was the result of the investigation. In both instances the law deemed each case not worthy of charges being brought on. No charges for Haslam and the NFL stated that because the law said there's nothing to see then we have nothing further to look at. No chargers for Zeke and the law said that there was nothing further to look at. The NFL "chose" to pursue further investigation into Zeke and not Haslam when the law told the NFL the same thing with both cases which was there's nothing that will come from this.

So why did the NFL not give the same statement for both? They are using what the law said to not punish Haslam but the law said the exact same thing for Zeke and they chose to pursue punishment. Why?

Because he's an owner and Zeke is a player.

Paycheck writer v. paycheck receiver. The owners want player accountability; they mandate that to Goodell. Basically, Goodell won't go after an owner unless it's a slam-dunk because any uncertainty is going to lose the league money, which rubs against what ownership wants from a Commissioner.

 

[Los216]

Because he's an owner and Zeke is a player.

Paycheck writer v. paycheck receiver. The owners want player accountability; they mandate that to Goodell. Basically, Goodell won't go after an owner unless it's a slam-dunk because any uncertainty is going to lose the league money, which rubs against what ownership wants from a Commissioner.

Jim Irsay kills your argument

 

[Soda]

Jim Irsay kills your argument

I don't think you understand the argument, then.

Jim Irsay was busted red-faced drunk and with pills & got in trouble for it. Can't squirm out of that. If you think Haslam and Irsay are the same level of guilty, you don't understand how the legal system works. If Haslam gets indicted, he'll get in trouble; it'll be a slam-dunk for Goodell and owners will agree.

Additionally, from a legal perspective, Goodell is in a much much more tenuous position when it comes to a relationship with players and the NFLPA. He's the "administration" side of the labor-management relationship and, thus, must exercise his power to set precedent with the current CBA. Goodell wants and needs the players to want a change in the discipline structure and that's why he's heavy handed with it... When the NFLPA demands a change in the next CBA negotiations, Goodell will have a reciprocal concession he wants in return. There is no such issue with Ownership.

 

[Los216]

I don't think you understand the argument, then.

Jim Irsay was busted red-faced drunk and with pills & got in trouble for it. Can't squirm out of that. If you think Haslam and Irsay are the same level of guilty, you don't understand how the legal system works. If Haslam gets indicted, he'll get in trouble; it'll be a slam-dunk for Goodell and owners will agree.

Additionally, from a legal perspective, Goodell is in a much much more tenuous position when it comes to a relationship with players and the NFLPA. He's the "administration" side of the labor-management relationship and, thus, must exercise his power to set precedent with the current CBA. Goodell wants and needs the players to want a change in the discipline structure and that's why he's heavy handed with it... When the NFLPA demands a change in the next CBA negotiations, Goodell will have a reciprocal concession he wants in return. There is no such issue with Ownership.

No. It's simple. The NFL stated the reason that they aren't considering taking action against Haslam is because the law didn't deem it necessary. Well the same league took action against Zeke after the law said the exact same thing. The NFL is trying to have it both ways. You cannot absolve one and punish the other in this case if you're whole basis of punishment or non-punishment was because of what the law says which is exactly what the NFL is doing here. They're flip flopping right in front of us.

 

[Soda]

No. It's simple. The NFL stated the reason that they aren't considering taking action against Haslam is because the law didn't deem it necessary. Well the same league took action against Zeke after the law said the exact same thing. The NFL is trying to have it both ways. You cannot absolve one and punish the other in this case if you're whole basis of punishment or non-punishment was because of what the law says which is exactly what the NFL is doing here. They're flip flopping right in front of us.

Watch them do exactly this. This is my whole point... THEY CAN AND WILL HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

The threshold of "guilt" in the eyes of the NFL never has been the same for owners as it is for players. Totally different employee-employer dynamic.

 

[Los216]

Watch them do exactly this. This is my whole point... THEY CAN AND WILL HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

The threshold of "guilt" in the eyes of the NFL never has been the same for owners as it is for players. Totally different employee-employer dynamic.

This is exactly what I was saying lol

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

I was abused by this man.

He made me rebate in front of him.

 

[The Oi]

I was abused by this man.

He made me rebate in front of him.

0/10 Rush Limbaugh type line. Do better.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

0/10 Rush Limbaugh type line. Do better.

#youtoo

 

[Phills14]

This is not an off topic /EAYOR thread. There is a line between ribbing another poster and personal attacks and the last few posts crossed it. I removed a couple posts that I objected to because they were personal in nature or off pudding in their response.

Keep the conversation to the topic of the thread please.

 

[CBBI]

off pudding

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b5OIIOcnVQ&feature=youtu.be