OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 9 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said: When you sue the NFL home office you are in effect taking away from the other 31 teams (obviously subtract Dallas) ...and Jurry all of a sudden wants to be the Mark Cuban of the NFL........and Silver just fined Cuban $600 grand for "tank talk"......sure the TV contracts are guaranteed revenue, but you would think advertisers have some type of clause whereby their rate is reduced when ratings decline by "X" % (maybe not).....but where else are they going to spend tose dollars on Sundays, "I Love Lucy" reruns...the NFL is in a bad publicity mode right now...CTE, Kaep/kneeling, etc....last thing the owners want is one from their "fraternity" breaking ranks....The Zeke mess was a stain and ones made it worse with threats of legal action....attempting to derail the Compensation Committee's work headed up by "Mr. Home Depot (Arthur Blank)" was yet another stain....sometimes, children need to be put in their place..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, JohnC said: With respect to the highlighted segment that is lunatic talk from a bunch of arrogant and pompous rich people who are not used to being challenged. In your typical fashion you are not paying attention to what I have been saying. Of course I know how and why the rich brats responded. That's evident. That is what I am criticizing them and the commissioner for. This resorting to a legal response to a threat made by one of their obstreperous associates was a foolish act in and of itself. What they did was prolong the internal feud and possibly make it become a fueling factor in a later conflict. What is the need for publicly embarrassing the annoying Texas owner when every day he does it to himself in some way. The point that you can't grasp is just because you have an authority to do something doesn't make what you do the smart thing to do. This is a case where in the privacy of the boardroom the owners should have individually and collectively told the twanging owner to go F....ck himself. The forceful message would have resonated with the Texas oil field brawler. Let's get back to a couple of the original issues. Without a doubt there was merit to Jerry's positions. His claim that the commissioner's remuneration was too high is a legitimate issue. Whether you agree or not his position is very reasonable. And his position on the severity of Elliot's punishment was not unreasonable especially when there were conflicting stories as to what actually happened. I'm not saying that you have to agree with his position but I am saying they certainly weren't outlandish positions for him to take. So much wrong in this, again, John. No--there is no merit to Jones's position that Goodell is making too much money, because he only had a problem with it after Elliot was suspended. Before that, he voted along with every other owner that the compensation committee ALONE should have the final (and ONLY) say over Goodell's compensation. How can you sy Jones was being "very reasonable when you know why he suddenly had a problem with it? You're not making any sense. The owners didn't "resort to a legal response" (so, your really can't claim "of course I know how and why the brats responded"). They are telling him reimburse the "costs incurred by member clubs" due to Jones's poorly though out strategy to threaten his colleagues with a lawsuit. Look, Jones had no problem with the way Goodell's contract talks were going to be handled by the committee of his partners (in fact no owner had a problem with this)...until Goodell suspended his RB. He then embarked on a vendetta that would seek to derail Goodell's contract--he made this abundantly clear to the world that this was his motivation--it was NOT that he suddenly thought Goodell was making too much money. Jones was threatening to sue the 6 compensation committee members in particular. The rest of the owners told him to cease and desist with the legal action or he would be penalized. What on earth would you have the owners do when threatened by one of their own with legal action over his anger with the suspension of a single player?? Should they have just said "Oh Jerry, you rascal....you can't do that!!"? They are businessmen running a high profile business. They can't sit by and have one of their own go off on their public face/mouthpiece (Goodell) and launch legal action against them personally in order to screw the Commissioner. In what other business or industry would any group of owners lay down while one of their own lost his mind and came at them to settle a score (a score that EVERY US Federal court that heard it ultimately found had NO merit)? Tell us all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 28, 2018 Author Share Posted February 28, 2018 Commissioner has “final and binding” power to determine legal fees to be paid by Jerry Jones The effort to recover legal fees, reportedly in excess of $2 million, from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones does not arise under the rule that allows Commissioner Roger Goodell to impose punishment for conduct detrimental to the game. Instead, the authority comes from Resolution FC-6, adopted in 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: So much wrong in this, again, John. No--there is no merit to Jones's position that Goodell is making too much money, because he only had a problem with it after Elliot was suspended. Before that, he voted along with every other owner that the compensation committee ALONE should have the final (and ONLY) say over Goodell's compensation. How can you sy Jones was being "very reasonable when you know why he suddenly had a problem with it? You're not making any sense. The owners didn't "resort to a legal response" (so, your really can't claim "of course I know how and why the brats responded"). They are telling him reimburse the "costs incurred by member clubs" due to Jones's poorly though out strategy to threaten his colleagues with a lawsuit. Look, Jones had no problem with the way Goodell's contract talks were going to be handled by the committee of his partners (in fact no owner had a problem with this)...until Goodell suspended his RB. He then embarked on a vendetta that would seek to derail Goodell's contract--he made this abundantly clear to the world that this was his motivation--it was NOT that he suddenly thought Goodell was making too much money. Jones was threatening to sue the 6 compensation committee members in particular. The rest of the owners told him to cease and desist with the legal action or he would be penalized. What on earth would you have the owners do when threatened by one of their own with legal action over his anger with the suspension of a single player?? Should they have just said "Oh Jerry, you rascal....you can't do that!!"? They are businessmen running a high profile business. They can't sit by and have one of their own go off on their public face/mouthpiece (Goodell) and launch legal action against them personally in order to screw the Commissioner. In what other business or industry would any group of owners lay down while one of their own lost his mind and came at them to settle a score (a score that EVERY US Federal court that heard it ultimately found had NO merit)? Tell us all..... I don't understand your position. What legal action did he take other than bluster? You might believe that boardrooms are places of placid behavior where only warm fellowship is demonstrated but that isn't always how it is. Sometimes there are strong disagreements and hard feelings. The temperature isn't always cool in the room. Diplomacy and etiquette are at times replaced with shouting and cursing. It may not happen in your fantasy world but in the real world it does exist. You keep missing my point that it doesn't matter whether Jerry was right or wrong. It doesn't matter whether he acted like a nasty fool. Sometimes in business it gets rough and tough with some bad behavior mixed in. You act as if his conduct was traitorous because he acted like a renegade. That's utter nonsense. Ultimately, he didn't get his way. So what was the point of keeping up the conflict with a bullshiiit invocation of an arcane clause that hasn't been enforced in over a generation. You keep making the mistake that just because there is an authority to take an action that it is right to take an action. The insufferable Goodell and the challenged bratty owners were outraged that the brash Texas owner was willing to challenge them. Their response was ego driven. It had absolutely nothing to do with adhering to an arcane rule that has never been invoked (at least to my knowledge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, JohnC said: I don't understand your position. What legal action did he take other than bluster? You might believe that boardrooms are places of placid behavior where only warm fellowship is demonstrated but that isn't always how it is. Sometimes there are strong disagreements and hard feelings. The temperature isn't always cool in the room. Diplomacy and etiquette are at times replaced with shouting and cursing. It may not happen in your fantasy world but in the real world it does exist. You keep missing my point that it doesn't matter whether Jerry was right or wrong. It doesn't matter whether he acted like a nasty fool. Sometimes in business it gets rough and tough with some bad behavior mixed in. You act as if his conduct was traitorous because he acted like a renegade. That's utter nonsense. Ultimately, he didn't get his way. So what was the point of keeping up the conflict with a bullshiiit invocation of an arcane clause that hasn't been enforced in over a generation. You keep making the mistake that just because there is an authority to take an action that it is right to take an action. The insufferable Goodell and the challenged bratty owners were outraged that the brash Texas owner was willing to challenge them. Their response was ego driven. It had absolutely nothing to do with adhering to an arcane rule that has never been invoked (at least to my knowledge). Holy cow. i mean...wow. Anyway, I have no way to make the point more simple or more obvious. Sorry, but I'm moving on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Holy cow. i mean...wow. Anyway, I have no way to make the point more simple or more obvious. Sorry, but I'm moving on. Good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 28, 2018 Author Share Posted February 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Good. Jerry is what is wrong with the NFL anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Yep I'd fine the crap of jerry Jones to ensure he never pulls such a stupid temper tantrum stunt again, and to set precedent for future owners who think they want to sue the league. If your going ot sue then you best have a legitimate case and win otherwise this kind of crap will split the league and eventually destory the league. Can't have rogue owners sueing the league just because thye didnt get a favorable decision, just like you can't have players calling out or abusing refs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 28, 2018 Author Share Posted February 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 7, 2018 Author Share Posted March 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: ......$2 mil?......probably what he charges for a six pack in the Jurrah Dome............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffAlone Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 This just pisses me off. And Im not a Jerry fan. But damn, gimme a break. Costs ya $2 mill to say I dont like this. Seems like the GODdell is the bully these days. Legal fees for this nonsense should not meet or exceed 2 million dollars! The league is handing down a penalty for disagreeing with the $40,000,000 man. And its BS!! Fighting fire with affordable fire. Disgusting! Whats worse is that the league/other owners consider this chump change and just a slap on the wrist. Outrage I tell ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts