Fezmid Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 You should go re-read Crayonz's posts again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnychemo Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd be willing to bet that personnel info (and that is what this basically is - an employer-employee relationship) would be exempt from sarbox reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 No. I don't think you know what you're talking about. "The legislation establishes new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management, and public accounting firms. It does not apply to privately held companies." I guess you missed this one... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?act=f...amp;pid=1169323 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I guess you missed this one...http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?act=f...amp;pid=1169323 No. I read that. Did you? It isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 This is a stupid argument really...What does it matter, the Bills did not get TG like I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionAMG Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I don't think Crayonz really cares about Sarbanes Oxley and is just playing devil's advocate with everything that anybody says. I know he's got a lot of posts, but he's playing the roll of troll in this discussion. It's best to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 No. I read that. Did you? It isn't true. You must have missed it, because due to the anti-trust exemption it is clear the NFL is a psuedo-public company (the Packers are further proof), and as a result Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all competitors of the Packers, which are the NFC teams. As a result, Roy Williams would be covered under Sarbanes-Oxley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 You must have missed it, because due to the anti-trust exemption it is clear the NFL is a psuedo-public company (the Packers are further proof), and as a result Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all competitors of the Packers, which are the NFC teams. As a result, Roy Williams would be covered under Sarbanes-Oxley. If you're being serious...you realize that you're saying to me that there is a law which abides to one conference in the NFL and not the other. Re-read that, realize how foolish it sounds, and get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 You must have missed it, because due to the anti-trust exemption it is clear the NFL is a psuedo-public company (the Packers are further proof), and as a result Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all competitors of the Packers, which are the NFC teams. As a result, Roy Williams would be covered under Sarbanes-Oxley. Preachin to the choir Longhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Preachin to the choir Longhorn. What are you saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 If you're being serious...you realize that you're saying to me that there is a law which abides to one conference in the NFL and not the other. Re-read that, realize how foolish it sounds, and get back to me. Where do you think the direct competitors to the Packers reside? Obviously not the AFC, because they can't make the AFC's playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 What are you saying? I'm saying some understand (they are the choir). Some don't (they slept in on Sunday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 You must have missed it, because due to the anti-trust exemption it is clear the NFL is a psuedo-public company (the Packers are further proof), and as a result Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all competitors of the Packers, which are the NFC teams. As a result, Roy Williams would be covered under Sarbanes-Oxley. The AFC are their competitors as well. Last time i checked the packers play AFC teams, and would play one if they made the super bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Both the Dallas trade for Roy Williams and the non-trade of Tony Gonzalez were reported almost exactly at 4. But I suppose this has nothing to do with Sarbanes Oxley right? It's got more to do with Sidney Glyck and The Five Ruptured Hawaiians than it does Sarbanes Oxley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The AFC are their competitors as well. Last time i checked the packers play AFC teams, and would play one if they made the super bowl. While that's true everyone knows that football teams make all their money off of home playoff games, especially because they don't make the playoffs at that point. As such, you can't have a home super bowl, and you aren't going to miss the playoffs to an NFC team if you play in the AFC. Thus, while they are competing on the football field on Sunday,t heya ren't really competing for profit, and thus aren't competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 While that's true everyone knows that football teams make all their money off of home playoff games, especially because they don't make the playoffs at that point. As such, you can't have a home super bowl, and you aren't going to miss the playoffs to an NFC team if you play in the AFC. Thus, while they are competing on the football field on Sunday,t heya ren't really competing for profit, and thus aren't competitors. NFL teams can only be considered profit competitors by the most liberal of interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 NFL teams don't compete with each other for profit. The ones in the AFC do because they all are trying to make the playoffs to have home playoff games, thats how they make their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The ones in the AFC do because they all are trying to make the playoffs to have home playoff games, thats how they make their money. Then the Colts and Packers should be considered competitors because they play next week. Therefore, the whole league would be competitors. However, i have read absolutely nothing that says: 1) The NFL is even considered publicly owned... since it isn't. 2) The NFL even falls under Oxley. It is a gigantic stretch to assume that it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 OK, I've been gone most of the day. Someone do me a solid and catch me up. From a brief glance at the wall, I see the Bills got Tony Gonzalez for McCargo. Very nice trade. Anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 OK, I've been gone most of the day. Someone do me a solid and catch me up. From a brief glance at the wall, I see the Bills got Tony Gonzalez for McCargo. Very nice trade. Anything else? Yeah, we also picked up Mike Williams from the Lions. I heard he is a helluva good tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts