Jump to content

John Schattner out at Papa John’s.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I agree with the part of details confusing the matter but one of the details is super funny.

 

He was in a role play so he could actually claim he didn't make a racial slur in a meaningful way.  I suppose it can be argued both ways.  His use involved claiming "Colonel Sanders used to call black people ******".

 

Funny part?: CNN called KFC for comment.  How on Earth is KFC supposed to comment on a possibly completely made up comment about a guy who has been dead for 2,500 yeas?

It's funny cause what do you expect KFC to say? " oh yeah, our company founder would use that term all the time, he always wore the white suit because it matched his pointy hood...."

 

And would anyone be shocked that an older southern man over 50 years ago would have used that term? I think the point is that we would hope that we as humans have evolved since then and realised that all races are equal and we are all humans so racism shouldn't exist in the modern world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Keukasmallies said:

I was in PJ's just once.  I ordered a thin crust pizza. The guy opened a drawer and took out what to me looked like a cardboard disc.  I walked out.

So they keep Totino's party pizzas in a drawer there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

I think the point Joe is making is that you can't B word and moan about Kaep and company being "blackballed" and at the same time celebrate that Schattner got canned without setting aside any sort of "free speech" argument in favor of "I like what he said but not what the other guy said."  Kaep was an employee of the San Francisco 49ers and no longer has a job.  Schattner was an employee of Papa John's shareholders and no longer has a job.  Both are presumably out of work because of things they did/said.  At its simplest, that's what it boils down to.  Details only confuse the matter.

I got no problem with NFL owners not wanting to hire Kaep..i 100% believe he had the right to protest and i support his cause..but i also 100% believe he accepts the consequences of his protests. 

 

I agree with you in other words...both are gone cause the owners of the business thought the businesses were better off without them.

 

You can call it a white thing, or a black thing..or PC...but what it really is is a green thing

Edited by plenzmd1
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Theres a difference between the 2, in one case, the person said something that was intended to be insulting or offensive to another just because.

 

The other one decided not to do something as part of a stance against a cause and some have decided to take offence to it because of they believe it to be for other reasons.

 

 

kaepernick-socks-pig-in-a-cops-hat.png

 

full-7848-80176-colin_kaepernick_castro_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I agree with the part of details confusing the matter but one of the details is super funny.

 

He was in a role play so he could actually claim he didn't make a racial slur in a meaningful way.  I suppose it can be argued both ways.  His use involved claiming "Colonel Sanders used to call black people ******".

 

Funny part?: CNN called KFC for comment.  How on Earth is KFC supposed to comment on a possibly completely made up comment about a guy who has been dead for 2,500 yeas?

Have Al Sharpton play the next iteration of Colonel Sanders in the next batch of commercials??

Edited by RaoulDuke79
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, joesixpack said:

So the man who, through his own blood sweat and tears, built a company from nothing to nationwide status is out of his own company after using an offensive word?

 

What a world we live in.

 

 

You know which way I lean.  But I will tell you that I believe this is complete and utter bull ****.

 

He should have known better than to use that word, regardless of context.  But the fact that the founder of a successful company has to step down - to me - is pure crap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

You know which way I lean.  But I will tell you that I believe this is complete and utter bull ****.

 

He should have known better than to use that word, regardless of context.  But the fact that the founder of a successful company has to step down - to me - is pure crap.

 

 

he didnt have to step down, he was fired any way you look at it. And it don't matter one iota he founded the company..

 

BTW, the stock is down around 50% since he started making excuses about Kaep being the reason is pizza sucks and sales were down cause no one watched the NFL anymore. This was prolly just the ammo board was looking for to can him.

Edited by plenzmd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

he didnt have to step down, he was fired any way you look at it. And it don't matter one iota he founded the company..

 

BTW, the stock is down around 50% since he started making excuses about Kaep being the reason is pizza sucks and sales were down cause no one watched the NFL anymore. This was prolly just the ammo board was looking for to can him.

He was most likely forced out by the board because they found his actions and comments may cost the company money because costumers may not want to spend money their because of him.

 

If he wanted to stay in charge of the company, he shouldn't have sold it as a corporation. He may have been the founder/creator, but he sold it as a corporation and therefore gave up control to a board who's main goal and focus is making their shareholders money. If he does something that may affect that, they can get rid of the problem.......

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, apuszczalowski said:

He was most likely forced out by the board because they found his actions and comments may cost the company money because costumers may not want to spend money their because of him.

 

If he wanted to stay in charge of the company, he shouldn't have sold it as a corporation. He may have been the founder/creator, but he sold it as a corporation and therefore gave up control to a board who's main goal and focus is making their shareholders money. If he does something that may affect that, they can get rid of the problem.......

Taking a company public is always a bad thing if it's built on quality and service.  Once shareholders get in the game, quality drops and service goes to pot.   It becomes all about the quarterly report.   

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

That’s cool that you can speak for everyone all of a sudden.  

Your right, all the media is ever talking about when the topic of Kaepernick comes up are the socks and shirt, they never mention anything about the anthem or kneeling. The league just implemented the new rules on proper sock and shirts that should be worn in public and practice. Trump cant stop tweeting about how offensive the socks and shirt are. 

 

Go ask 20 random people in public why people are offended by the NFL players and Kaepernick and I'm sure they will all say those socks he once wore or his shirt. I'm sure everyone has forgotten about that whole kneeling for the anthem thing......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...