Jump to content

Kim Pegula seeks compromise with players on social protests


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, nucci said:

I agree also with how Kim P is handling it . I just don't get not watching a football game because players are kneeling during the anthem. If I'm not at the game I don't listen to the anthem on TV. 

Same here.

 

1 minute ago, White Linen said:

 

You're missing an important point though which is the actual problem from a business perspective only.  The significant amount of customers didn't like it and it cost the business money.  So it's much more than just performing job duties and owners being ok with it - heck they could even agree - but if it eventually effects what funds the business it has to be addressed.  

Exactly... Hence players need to be aware that they're potentially biting the hand that feeds them, and there could be consequences to those actions up to and including unemployment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, White Linen said:

 

You're missing an important point though which is the actual problem from a business perspective only.  The significant amount of customers didn't like it and it cost the business money.  So it's much more than just performing job duties and owners being ok with it - heck they could even agree - but if it eventually effects what funds the business it has to be addressed.  

 

Well, we're not missing that point — that's why Kim Pegula is doing outreach, to protect the business interests. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dan said:

Again..l'm in complete agreement.  I feel exactly the same.  Unfortunately, few corporations (and that's essentailly what the league is) agree with us.  So...we have to shut up and do as we're told. Or go find a new job.  The league is in a precarious position with the players, because they can't fire them all.   But, that doesn't change the point that the players are flirting with losing their job, just as Kaep may have.  Its the risk anyone takes that stands up to the man.  Fortunately, he has millions to fall back on.  I don't.  Lol. 

 

Exactly right. You and I definitely don't have the same platform as the NFL players do, and we have less leverage. But that's also why what the players are doing is important, from the labor perspective, and why I hope they stay unified, so that it's harder to single them out like they were able to do to Kaep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dan said:

 

 

Exactly... Hence players need to be aware that they're potentially biting the hand that feeds them, and there could be consequences to those actions up to and including unemployment. 

 

You're right.  For example,  I didn't really like seeing the protests,  it bothered me on some level but not to the point I stopped watching.  My brother, who's not as rabid of a Bills fan that I am,  stopped watching.  He just didn't want to watch and felt strong enough about it to find something else to do - and in fact called and said I'm not going to buy your sons anything Bills related this year for Christmas, which he normally does.  We live in Charlotte and he'll usually find something cool to get them. 

 

The players didn't feel the immediate financial impact because it didn't trickle down to them but the NFL did.  Kim answered the question beautifully.  Understand the impact you as players had on the business before it eventually effects you or effects you more.  

 

Obviously everyone has the right to say, I understand or don't care to understand the impact because either way I feel morally obligated to follow through.  Then in that scenario the person is willing to accept any consequences that come their way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, White Linen said:

 

You're missing an important point though which is the actual problem from a business perspective only.  The significant amount of customers didn't like it and it cost the business money.  So it's much more than just performing job duties and owners being ok with it - heck they could even agree - but if it eventually effects what funds the business it has to be addressed.  

I’m not necessarily doubting your info, but are there any hard studies on the negative economic impact of the player protests on NFL bottom lines? I doubt there was little if any at all. Sure, there are the spattering of fans burning NFL merchandise on YouTube along with some social media declarations of fans vowing never to watch a game again, but are they enough to offset the billions of dollars in revenue already guaranteed to the league? It would hav to be a grass roots movement in the millions to start having an impact. I just don’t see it. 

Edited by K-9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

Honestly , i have heard not one cogent response , other than the original premise for Kaep kneeling. IMHO, it went off the rails. otherwise

 

Here. Here are just a few of the articles I found with a quick google search on the subject.

Many In the players own words - 

 

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/05/themmqb-meaning-behind-anthem-protests-malcolm-jenkins-anquan-boldin-nfl-racial-inequality

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/26/anquan-boldin-why-nfl-players-protest

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/colin-kaepernick-football-protests.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/nfl-players-explain-why-they-protested

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/28/16376500/nfl-protests-2017-kneeling-national-anthem-why

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nfl-protest-players-explain-why-donald-trump_uk_59c8cbd5e4b0cdc773325005

 

I thought many gave clear, well thought out reasons but that's just me... 

 

Edited by BillsFan4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, we're not missing that point — that's why Kim Pegula is doing outreach, to protect the business interests. 

 

 

Exactly right. You and I definitely don't have the same platform as the NFL players do, and we have less leverage. But that's also why what the players are doing is important, from the labor perspective, and why I hope they stay unified, so that it's harder to single them out like they were able to do to Kaep. 

 

I'm not trying to pretend to know you're thoughts outside of what you post -  I just went off you posting  "All that should matter to the company is "is the work is getting done?" So if the football games are still being played, if the athletes are still performing on the field, my personal belief is that should be all that matters. IMO."

 

I just responded saying that's not all that matters - then you agreed.  I don't know why you said that's all that matters - when there's more that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dwight in philly said:

Thanks. i now have seen the light. 

 

 

There is absolutely no way that you could have even skimmed through all those links, let alone actually read or listened to what they had to say, in the less than 3 minutes between me posting it and you quoting me. 

 

I figured you werent actually asking what they were protesting.This just confirmed it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Batman1876 said:

I always trust people who insist they are the true authority on what others think. Btw I’m planning dinner what are my favorite foods, you obviously know them better than I do. 

ok.. i am thinking maybe lemon chicken.. (use a bit of the zest , its worth it ) . roasted potatos, maybe a side salad, and a green leafy vegatable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I’m not necessarily doubting your info, but are there any hard studies on the negative economic impact of the player protests on NFL bottom lines? I doubt there was little if any at all. Sure, there are the spattering of fans burning NFL merchandise on YouTube along with some social media declarations of fans vowing never to watch a game again, but are they enough to offset the billions of dollars in revenue already guaranteed to the league? It would hav to be a grass roots movement in the millions to start having an impact. I just don’t see it. 

 

Yeah, I don't know and I didn't do enough research to see if hard numbers had been studied.  I think the loss of viewership was real though and it appears attendance was down.  There had to have been some financial effect.  As you mention, did it necessarily rise to the level of significantly effecting the billionaire owners?  Probably not but it may have effected retailers and folks that own parking places, etc. Folks like that.  

 

I think it got to the level of at least - this isn't good and could potentially be a problem for real.  Kim is an owner and she feels like it's a conversation that needs to be had - so I guess there's that too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, White Linen said:

I'm not trying to pretend to know you're thoughts outside of what you post -  I just went off you posting  "All that should matter to the company is "is the work is getting done?" So if the football games are still being played, if the athletes are still performing on the field, my personal belief is that should be all that matters. IMO."

 

I just responded saying that's not all that matters - then you agreed.  I don't know why you said that's all that matters - when there's more that matters.

 

In the line quoted, I'm speaking about my opinion (IMO), about what should be, not what "is." You brought up the perspective of the business, right? Because you'd be right, there's more to the product that matters, in their opinion. If it's a confusion of semantics, I'll clarify.

 

In my opinion, the company should only be concerned with the product. The game is the product. The players themselves are not the product. The players playing the game is the product. From the NFL's perspective, the product includes the players, including players standing for the anthem. In my opinion, that definition is wrong.

 

An analogy: If a barista wears a "Blue Lives Matter" shirt, and then some customers decide to protest and stop going to the coffee shop, obviously the owners of the coffee shop will want to do whatever they can to get the customers back. But, in my opinion, if the barista is still performing their responsibilities & delivering the product, then that loss of revenue is not the fault of the employee — even if those lost customers are blaming the employee.

 

From the perspective of the coffee shop, any profit-driven company will always be "customer is always right." In my opinion, the customer is not always right. The employee is sometimes right. I don't like to see employees punished if they haven't done anything to prevent/hurt the product, just because of customers disagreeing with the individual employee on a non-product related issue. 

 

The NFL may view the players are the product, that they own them outside of when they're playing the game, that they can & should regulate their behavior outside of the game. I strongly disagree with that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, White Linen said:

 

Yeah, I don't know and I didn't do enough research to see if hard numbers had been studied.  I think the loss of viewership was real though and it appears attendance was down.  There had to have been some financial effect.  As you mention, did it necessarily rise to the level of significantly effecting the billionaire owners?  Probably not but it may have effected retailers and folks that own parking places, etc. Folks like that.  

 

I think it got to the level of at least - this isn't good and could potentially be a problem for real.  Kim is an owner and she feels like it's a conversation that needs to be had - so I guess there's that too.  

I agree. Anything that tarnishes the brand is a negative impact on the business. I'm just saying it's not always necessarily a financial impact and perhaps KP was alluding to that kind of damage? 

 

Good point about ratings, too .While the league won't lose any of the money already guaranteed under the current deal, it will be interesting to see if the networks and other media outlets leverage any ratings decline in the next negotiations. Personally, I think the biggest impact on ratings is the sheer staleness of the product to consumers. I know it is for me, anyway. "Oh look, the Patriots*** are in the Super Bowl again."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Yes, seriously. We all make a statement when we stand for the National Anthem. Does that not fit your narrative?

are you kidding? standing for the national anthem is a political statement? unless you are are in academia, you really have no excuse to say something like that

3 minutes ago, BillsFan2313 said:

 

I was tolerating this thread until Mr. Question Mark joined in. I don't think I can see another ? for the day. 

ok ok ok . im sorry! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RussellDopeland said:

Remember - this wasn't necessarily an "issue" until Cheeto Jesus chimed in, claiming the protests unpatriotic and effrontery to our troops (this coming from the 5-time draft deferment recipient- President Bone Spurs). Can't we just let this go and focus on football....please?

 

Actually, it wasn't much of an issue until he called them SOBs.    That lit the fuse and the massive increase in player solidarity.     Absent Trump's name-calling, there's no mass protest, no dilly dilly by the MAGA-noids, no hit on team revenue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

In the line quoted, I'm speaking about my opinion (IMO), about what should be, not what "is." You brought up the perspective of the business, right? Because you'd be right, there's more to the product that matters, in their opinion. If it's a confusion of semantics, I'll clarify.

 

In my opinion, the company should only be concerned with the product. The game is the product. The players themselves are not the product. The players playing the game is the product. From the NFL's perspective, the product includes the players, including players standing for the anthem. In my opinion, that definition is wrong.

 

An analogy: If a barista wears a "Blue Lives Matter" shirt, and then some customers decide to protest and stop going to the coffee shop, obviously the owners of the coffee shop will want to do whatever they can to get the customers back. But, in my opinion, if the barista is still performing their responsibilities & delivering the product, then that loss of revenue is not the fault of the employee — even if those lost customers are blaming the employee.

 

From the perspective of the coffee shop, any profit-driven company will always be "customer is always right." In my opinion, the customer is not always right. The employee is sometimes right. I don't like to see employees punished if they haven't done anything to prevent/hurt the product, just because of customers disagreeing with the individual employee on a non-product related issue. 

 

The NFL may view the players are the product, that they own them outside of when they're playing the game, that they can & should regulate their behavior outside of the game. I strongly disagree with that view.

 

You sound extremely sincere but I just can't get there with you.  You can't think a business could survive operating like that?  I mean, I get that you wish it could be, but you'd have no customers.  Let's say that Barista doesn't welcome the guests and wasn't friendly and they lost customers -  you'd be ok with keeping that person employed so long as they make a mean cup of joe and you'd expect the customers to either get over it or don't?

Edited by White Linen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Actually, it wasn't much of an issue until he called them SOBs.    That lit the fuse and the massive increase in player solidarity.     Absent Trump's name-calling, there's no mass protest, no dilly dilly by the MAGA-noids, no hit on team revenue...

:lol: seriously??

Edited by dwight in philly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

are you kidding? standing for the national anthem is a political statement? unless you are are in academia, you really have no excuse to say something like that

You added the word "political." But, of course standing for the National Anthem is a statement. Otherwise, what's the point? And, why would anyone care when someone didn't? If kneeling is a statement, then so is standing. Unless, of course, we, or the players are forced to stand. Then, it becomes meaningless.

 

Also, if posters on this board needed excuses to voice their opinions, you'd better have a whole lot of them!

Edited by Rocky Landing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, White Linen said:

 

You sound extremely sincere but I just can't get there with you.  You can't think a business could survive operating like that?  I mean, I get that you wish it could be, but you'd have no customers.  Let's say that Barista doesn't welcome the guestsand wasn't friendly -  you'd be ok with keeping that person employed so long as they make a mean cup of joe?

 

You wouldn't have no customers, you just wouldn't have those customers. Similarly, the NFL is fine without the fans upset by the protests. If the product is good, then you will have a business. 

 

If the barista is aggressive to customers while preparing or delivering the product, that's one thing; they're obstructing the product, and then should be disciplined or fired. Kneeling during the protests does not fit 'aggressive to customers,' imo. That would be, like, players on the sidelines saying to camera "Hey all the fans are stupid and we hate you." Like Sammy's thing with the little jobs IG post. That's more of a fit than the kneeling, which is more like 'customers don't like barista's face/shirt/social media/whatever they're doing besides making & handing them coffee' — in which case, those customers can go somewhere else. Ideally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...