Belicheat* vs. Ramirez on Boston radio

[MattM]

Wow, you need to get out of NH, brother.

 

So all of the owners accepted that Super Bowls were stolen by the Pats. In addition, they willigly participated in the Commish's coverup. And despite knowing that all "intelligent fans" thought this was an outrage and compromised the very sanctitiy of the league, they did it anyway because it would be...........better for the league's reputation?

 

Are you for real? Does that seem logical to you?

 

And the press went along? Because that's what they do for the NFL--because "hey, there's no story there"? Boy, the press must really hate MLB, becuase they are continuously trying to destroy that league's reputation with all these endless reports of the best players (all players?) on the juice.

 

And the example you give is the political system in the US--how both parties tow line to keep the people faithful to the ol USA?

 

Maybe you didn't read about it or see it on TV, but there was a major change in the political leadership over the past 2-3 years brought on by many factors but won mainly by one party's incessant bashing of the other party's blunders.

 

Man, you asbolutely could not have picked a worse example than American politics to describe an organization all working together.

 

Actually, there were a number of stories during Spygate that stated or implied that players and coaches at least were pretty much told to say nothing negative about Spygate in terms of what they really felt. One I recall in particular was written by someone on SI.com (either King or Z) at the combine that year and was quoting folks in attendance (mainly coaches, but some players) anonymously and "off the record" for that reason and guess what, those folks were ripschitt mad at Belicheat and the Pats*, but were pretty much told to gag it officially. Folks closing ranks for their overall long-term mutual benefit happens all the time, even when some individuals in the group find it very distasteful to do so. Why do you find that so hard to believe, especially when applied to the NFL, which is run notoriously well (read disciplined) among sports leagues. Why, just look at the united front the owners are putting up in their dealings over the CBA recently, for example. I'm sure that there are differing opinions there (must be, since some, like your owner were among the architects of the original deal they're now trying to break--funny how "business geniuses" like Kraft and Jones seem to get let off the hook for that one, yet guys like Wilson and Brown who voted against it were so chastised as dottering old fools at the time), but we don't really see them, least of all in the press.

[Mr. WEO]

Actually, there were a number of stories during Spygate that stated or implied that players and coaches at least were pretty much told to say nothing negative about Spygate in terms of what they really felt. One I recall in particular was written by someone on SI.com (either King or Z) at the combine that year and was quoting folks in attendance (mainly coaches, but some players) anonymously and "off the record" for that reason and guess what, those folks were ripschitt mad at Belicheat and the Pats*, but were pretty much told to gag it officially. Folks closing ranks for their overall long-term mutual benefit happens all the time, even when some individuals in the group find it very distasteful to do so. Why do you find that so hard to believe, especially when applied to the NFL, which is run notoriously well (read disciplined) among sports leagues. Why, just look at the united front the owners are putting up in their dealings over the CBA recently, for example. I'm sure that there are differing opinions there (must be, since some, like your owner were among the architects of the original deal they're now trying to break--funny how "business geniuses" like Kraft and Jones seem to get let off the hook for that one, yet guys like Wilson and Brown who voted against it were so chastised as dottering old fools at the time), but we don't really see them, least of all in the press.

I would be inclined to lend these conspiracy nuts some credibility if someone could explain why it would make sense for owners to go along with a plan to make the league look like it's run by crooks and a Commissioner who blatantly favors one team over the rest. That makes sense to you, too?

 

I have no doubt some coaches and players were pissed off, but they didn't have the financial stakes the cheated owners have. A SB loss takes a lot more money out of an owners pocket than players and coaches. Why wouldn't the owners demand that BB be suspended---you know, for the good of the League's reputation? Why would sweeping under the rug "look" better for everyone? What is the "long-term mutual benefit"?

 

It just isn't plausible. It is just as likely that they were aware of the history of video taping and just didn't consider it a capital offense. Perhaps they didn't want the video taping investigation to dig any deeper...

 

As for the CBA, these guys made a deal, secured TV contracts, play continued and they are now opting out for a different deal. Upshaw's dead. The players and their union will huff and puff until they stop getting game checks and start seeing the Joe Montanas of the league crossing the picket lines. 30 of 32 owners know this.

[Flbillsfan#1]

I would be inclined to lend these conspiracy nuts some credibility if someone could explain why it would make sense for owners to go along with a plan to make the league look like it's run by crooks and a Commissioner who blatantly favors one team over the rest. That makes sense to you, too?

 

I have no doubt some coaches and players were pissed off, but they didn't have the financial stakes the cheated owners have. A SB loss takes a lot more money out of an owners pocket than players and coaches. Why wouldn't the owners demand that BB be suspended---you know, for the good of the League's reputation? Why would sweeping under the rug "look" better for everyone? What is the "long-term mutual benefit"?

 

It just isn't plausible. It is just as likely that they were aware of the history of video taping and just didn't consider it a capital offense. Perhaps they didn't want the video taping investigation to dig any deeper...

 

As for the CBA, these guys made a deal, secured TV contracts, play continued and they are now opting out for a different deal. Upshaw's dead. The players and their union will huff and puff until they stop getting game checks and start seeing the Joe Montanas of the league crossing the picket lines. 30 of 32 owners know this.

I saw an interview with Mike Martz on NFL Network a while back & he was mad as hell about Belichick* cheating in that game, and said so.

[MattM]

I would be inclined to lend these conspiracy nuts some credibility if someone could explain why it would make sense for owners to go along with a plan to make the league look like it's run by crooks and a Commissioner who blatantly favors one team over the rest. That makes sense to you, too?

 

I have no doubt some coaches and players were pissed off, but they didn't have the financial stakes the cheated owners have. A SB loss takes a lot more money out of an owners pocket than players and coaches. Why wouldn't the owners demand that BB be suspended---you know, for the good of the League's reputation? Why would sweeping under the rug "look" better for everyone? What is the "long-term mutual benefit"?

 

It just isn't plausible. It is just as likely that they were aware of the history of video taping and just didn't consider it a capital offense. Perhaps they didn't want the video taping investigation to dig any deeper...

 

As for the CBA, these guys made a deal, secured TV contracts, play continued and they are now opting out for a different deal. Upshaw's dead. The players and their union will huff and puff until they stop getting game checks and start seeing the Joe Montanas of the league crossing the picket lines. 30 of 32 owners know this.

 

Yeah, it does actually. What they all did was downplay the seriousness of the offense "for the good of the League", which doesn't mean that they all approved of what the Pats* and Belicheat did, of course. Remember, they are all owners of the "NFL Franchise" and any tarnishing of the franchise hurts all of them in the pocketbook. If it were to come out that one of the most successful teams in the League had been cheating for years, wouldn't that undermine the legitimacy of the entire League and turn off fans? To turn one back on you, how else do you explain things like the NFL initially implying that the cheating was a recent development when announcing the punishment in the fall (and after they'd destroyed what they thought was all the evidence), but only when faced with additional evidence in the form of Walsh that February admitted that it had gone back several years? What they tried to do, and were largely successful at doing, was sweep all of this under the rug and try to get back to business as usual before the fans realized how deep the cheating went.

 

On the CBA, what I personally suspect is that certain owners really didn't want a salary cap and thought that this option might be a way to get rid of it. I also suspect that some of those same owners (read Kraft and Jones, among others) may be rethinking that in light of the current economic situation, which has shown that sports don't have the pricing power with fans that they based a lot of their projections on. They're watching an empty Yankee Stadium with horror, no doubt, and are also following the Jets and Giants difficulties with PSLs, both in the richest city in the country (albeit one where the financial sector is very large.) When you're levered 3 or 4 to one (and that's a conservative estimate) on some of these stadium (like "Jerry Jones" stadium) and real estate deals (like Patriot* Place) and your cost of funding goes up 2-3 % (again, being conservative, considering how much spreads have blown out in the last two years) from your projections, that can really hurt. Some simple math here--for a billion dollar stadium at 4-1, that's $800 million--paying 2% more for that money means you've got $16 million less per year than your original projections. That's a big chunk of change for teams that have net income of $30-40 million in total (and those are the high earners in the League if they're to be believed, like the 'Pokes at $30 million and the Pats* at $40m).

 

Good thing the Pats* have the highest ticket prices in the League to service that debt, since I thought I'd read that neither they nor the 'Pokes have secured long-term financing on those palaces, meaning they're subject to the debt markets' vagaries described above. Wonder how Krafts' other business is doing? Paper must be a really lucrative business in the new media age, right?

[Flbillsfan#1]

Yeah, another great "argument".

 

Maybe he didn't say anything because he didn't want to get caught doing something he thought was beneficial to him. Besides, how would he prove they were doing it?

You can try to justify the Pats* cheating all you want, the same way an abused woman trys to justify being abused. At the end of the day, fans of EVERY other team in the NFL know the Pats* cheated, the same way that womans family & friends know she is abused, therefore the Pats* have NO respect around the league.

[VOR]

I would be inclined to lend these conspiracy nuts some credibility if someone could explain why it would make sense for owners to go along with a plan to make the league look like it's run by crooks and a Commissioner who blatantly favors one team over the rest. That makes sense to you, too?

 

I have no doubt some coaches and players were pissed off, but they didn't have the financial stakes the cheated owners have. A SB loss takes a lot more money out of an owners pocket than players and coaches. Why wouldn't the owners demand that BB be suspended---you know, for the good of the League's reputation? Why would sweeping under the rug "look" better for everyone? What is the "long-term mutual benefit"?

 

It just isn't plausible. It is just as likely that they were aware of the history of video taping and just didn't consider it a capital offense. Perhaps they didn't want the video taping investigation to dig any deeper...

Yes, the owners didn't feel it was a capital offense, but they allowed Sir Roger to mete-out the harshest punishment that he could deliver to Belichick. Because nailing the 3-time SB champs for cheating, and thus tarnishing their accomplishment and thus the league, if FAR better than merely coming-out and admitting that everyone does it, making it truly not "a capital offense."

 

And Belichick mostly-silently took it, offering the lamest of lame excuses as to why he did it ("I didn't understand the rules [because everyone knows I'm dumb]"). But you were right when you said that he didn't point a finger at anyone else, because he had no proof.

As for the CBA, these guys made a deal, secured TV contracts, play continued and they are now opting out for a different deal. Upshaw's dead. The players and their union will huff and puff until they stop getting game checks and start seeing the Joe Montanas of the league crossing the picket lines. 30 of 32 owners know this.

They do? When did they stumble upon this revelation? After Upshaw died? Because he was too formidable an opponent and they now see their opportunity? Did they predict 3 years ago that his death would occur soon after they opted-out of the CBA (then again, maybe opting-out set in motion the series of events that caused his death!)? Wow! And it only took 3 years over sorely overpaying the players, amid "labor peace," and a looming lockout.

 

What a joke you are. But a funny joke that is worth retelling.

[Whites Bay]

It's already started. It started with the Giants beating the "unbeatable" Pats in the SB. The following year they lose their best CB in Samuel, Brady goes down with the knee injury, and Maroney the shoulder. The whole team is getting old and Bruschi is talking retirement. Vrabel and Harrison are also now gone. True they have Mayo, Warren, Seymour, and Wilfork, but for how much longer? They have ALOT of FA's coming up at the end of the year. You have Kevin Faulk, Ben Watson, OT's - Nick Kaczur_Ryan O'Callaghan_Wesley Britt, OG's - Stephen Neal_Russ Hochstein, C Al Johnson, DE's Richard Seymour_Jarvis Green, Vince Wilfork, LB's - Pierre Woods_Tully Banta-Cain_Tedy Bruschi, Leigh Bodden, Tank Williams, and Stephen Gostkowski all FA's when it starts in March 2010. The team that hits the field in the 2010 season opener could very well be a team that's in "rebuilding mode", especially on the defensive side of the ball. What a glorious day that would be

 

Damn. That's a lot of potential turnover. They'll retain some, and their drafting has always been pretty good, but...damn. That's going to leave a mark.

 

My guess is that Gostkowski and Kaczur are back. My guess - an uninformed one at that - is that they don't want to cave to Wilfork. They probably have to, and it's going to be pricey.

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

Wow, you need to get out of NH, brother.

 

So all of the owners accepted that Super Bowls were stolen by the Pats. In addition, they willigly participated in the Commish's coverup. And despite knowing that all "intelligent fans" thought this was an outrage and compromised the very sanctitiy of the league, they did it anyway because it would be...........better for the league's reputation?

 

Are you for real? Does that seem logical to you?

 

And the press went along? Because that's what they do for the NFL--because "hey, there's no story there"? Boy, the press must really hate MLB, becuase they are continuously trying to destroy that league's reputation with all these endless reports of the best players (all players?) on the juice.

 

And the example you give is the political system in the US--how both parties tow line to keep the people faithful to the ol USA?

 

Maybe you didn't read about it or see it on TV, but there was a major change in the political leadership over the past 2-3 years brought on by many factors but won mainly by one party's incessant bashing of the other party's blunders.

 

Man, you asbolutely could not have picked a worse example than American politics to describe an organization all working together.

 

1.) Keep in mind the franchises are worth close to a billion dollars each in the NFL. The reputation of the league is everything. The fact that some fans would be outraged by the light penalty could not be avoided. But even most of us are still following the league. Goodell in an interview by Fortune or Business Week magazine made it very clear that he considered the league one single franchise and it was his goal to enhance that franchise as much as possible.

 

2.) MLB would have liked to cover up the steroids scandal, but it was not possible because so much evidence came out about it. Law enforcement got involved in some cases (Barry Bonds) and the thing broke wide open. The press is torn by two conflicting sentiments. If they can break a negative story they may do it, but they also want access to the big coaches and glamorous teams in the league. Once it looked like the NFL was going to let off Belicheat* easy and the teams and players started to clam up about their experiences dealing with NE*, then almost all the media dropped covering the story because they did not want to damage their access to Belicheat* and NE* in what looked like a potentially perfect season.

 

3.) I'll drop the politics example because that is off topic except to say in politics the parties do insult each other like crazy and also try to win races against each other. But when push comes to shove they close ranks a lot to protect the image of America, etc. That is the analogy.

[TheChimp]

They're both dicks.

[MattM]

Yeah, it does actually. What they all did was downplay the seriousness of the offense "for the good of the League", which doesn't mean that they all approved of what the Pats* and Belicheat did, of course. Remember, they are all owners of the "NFL Franchise" and any tarnishing of the franchise hurts all of them in the pocketbook. If it were to come out that one of the most successful teams in the League had been cheating for years, wouldn't that undermine the legitimacy of the entire League and turn off fans? To turn one back on you, how else do you explain things like the NFL initially implying that the cheating was a recent development when announcing the punishment in the fall (and after they'd destroyed what they thought was all the evidence), but only when faced with additional evidence in the form of Walsh that February admitted that it had gone back several years? What they tried to do, and were largely successful at doing, was sweep all of this under the rug and try to get back to business as usual before the fans realized how deep the cheating went.

 

On the CBA, what I personally suspect is that certain owners really didn't want a salary cap and thought that this option might be a way to get rid of it. I also suspect that some of those same owners (read Kraft and Jones, among others) may be rethinking that in light of the current economic situation, which has shown that sports don't have the pricing power with fans that they based a lot of their projections on. They're watching an empty Yankee Stadium with horror, no doubt, and are also following the Jets and Giants difficulties with PSLs, both in the richest city in the country (albeit one where the financial sector is very large.) When you're levered 3 or 4 to one (and that's a conservative estimate) on some of these stadium (like "Jerry Jones" stadium) and real estate deals (like Patriot* Place) and your cost of funding goes up 2-3 % (again, being conservative, considering how much spreads have blown out in the last two years) from your projections, that can really hurt. Some simple math here--for a billion dollar stadium at 4-1, that's $800 million--paying 2% more for that money means you've got $16 million less per year than your original projections. That's a big chunk of change for teams that have net income of $30-40 million in total (and those are the high earners in the League if they're to be believed, like the 'Pokes at $30 million and the Pats* at $40m).

 

Good thing the Pats* have the highest ticket prices in the League to service that debt, since I thought I'd read that neither they nor the 'Pokes have secured long-term financing on those palaces, meaning they're subject to the debt markets' vagaries described above. Wonder how Krafts' other business is doing? Paper must be a really lucrative business in the new media age, right?

 

 

Here are some public company comparables, as they say in the biz, for pulp and paper companies:

 

Abitibibowater--went into bankruptcy in April

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aRwUKRRNEkI4

 

Weyerhauser--Lost over 60% of its value in the last two years:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=WY#char...ource=undefined

 

Kraft's company is private, so it doesn't need to publicly publish its results, but I'd take an educated guess that they're not doing too much (if any) better than their brethren. If you go onto their website, you'll see that the other parts of their business being touted are "real estate" and "private equity", neither of which is exactly burning it up right now, either. I point this out since some Pats* fans seem to think that Kraft if just made of money and the Pats* will be one of the teams that dominate if the League goes uncapped. I'd have thought that myself 12-18 months ago, but now I'm not so sure.

 

While it's obvious that many businesses are worth significantly less than they were a year ago, pulp, paper, real estate (especially commercial) and PE are all leading laggards as you might say, faring even more poorly than the average businesses it appears.....