2 things I never realized.......

[Gore]

Originally Posted by GasBag

My question is "who cares?" What has he done for me lately? Stold and sold my team's reputation, villyfied my organizations leadersip, made up lies and truncated statements to suit his agenda? Dood -- major freakin' "f' that guy.

Well - Tom Benson cares. Benson is part of the compensation committee that approved Goodell's contract. I know that we all focus on the Saints because its our team. But if we want to judge Goodell in a fair way we have to look at the big picture not just the way he handled the current situation.

[GasBag]

Originally Posted by Gore

Well - Tom Benson cares. Benson is part of the compensation committee that approved Goodell's contract. I know that we all focus on the Saints because its our team. But if we want to judge Goodell in a fair way we have to look at the big picture not just the way he handled the current situation.

Whut? Really?? Big picture!?!? Character assination!? Franchise assination?!? No "just or due cause"?!? Know way. Benson has got to be churning out puppies from his ears about all of this. I have known that man (Benson) for over 30 years (from a distance) and there is no way he won't be among several owners that will vote for "no confidence" and remove RG from office next year.

[Gore]

Well, I dont want to speculate what happens in the future. But its weird to think that the owners would pay millions to a guy who did nothing for the league.

[GasBag]

Originally Posted by Gore

Well, I dont want to speculate what happens in the future. But its weird to think that the owners would pay millions to a guy who did nothing for the league.

They just made a BIG mistake. They will forgive themselves and hire a real commisioner. Not a myopic narcissit singleminded one-stop untouchable control freak nazi.

[parlorcitysaint]

Originally Posted by GasBag

Whut? Really?? Big picture!?!? Character assination!? Franchise assination?!? No "just or due cause"?!? Know way. Benson has got to be churning out puppies from his ears about all of this. I have known that man (Benson) for over 30 years (from a distance) and there is no way he won't be among several owners that will vote for "no confidence" and remove RG from office next year.

I'm not so sure that Benson's "churning out puppies", as you say. There hasn't been one peep out of the ownership about any of the miscarriages of this offseason. Why? If we ever find out, I doubt it'll be soon.

I have my own theory.

I think that the owners do want an 18 game season, and the owners are afraid of all the lawsuits coming down the pike. I think the events of this offseason are heavy handed tactics to "make the game safer", whether it actually works or not is immaterial. If the NFL "appears to have made the effort", then it takes the wind out of the argument that "players can't last for an 18 game season" or "we need to expand the roster if we're to outlast the injuries". It also reduces the chances that many of today's players will have that leg to stand on regarding future lawsuits. "The league has made efforts to ensure your safety in an inherently dangerous occupation". It wouldn't be reasonable to expect more, would it?

The question is: Why chose the Saints to slow roast? We're all aware that the majority of the teams in the league have had "pay for performance" programs in place during Goodell's time in office. Why us? It's quite simple, really. Loyalty. Our steadfast faith in our team, no matter how many Billy Joes were foisted off on us, no matter how many laughable seasons we had to endure, no matter how many times we all said, "Maybe next year", we believed. We stay true. I doubt that there's a more loyal fanbase than ours. Especially after bringing home a Lombardi of our own? Payton could bash seals, and many here would say "I bet he had a good reason" If this were dumped on any fanbase other than ours, the NFL would lose viewers. Would lose our revenue. We're too loyal for that.

I truly believe that Goodell isn't acting rashly, nor is he acting outside of the scope of the owner's intentions. The events of this offseason have been well thought out, if not well executed. The only thing that really has me stymied is "why mete it out in droplets" like Goodell has done? He's dripped his venom like some toxic honey to try to poison our franchise ailm thoroughly as he can. Why else wait until the week after the draft to announce Vilma's (ridiculous) suspension? Why impose Payton's suspension before the draft? It's all to deepen the wounds on the Saints.

God, but I hate that guy.

Of course, it could be that I'm exhausted from lack of sleep, and I'm seeing shadows in the trees that just aren't there.

[St. Pike]

Originally Posted by Gore

When Tagliabue left the NFL faced a lot of problems that Goodell had to clean up and no matter if Saints fans like it or not - he has done a good job. It all starts with the new CBA. The owners wanted more money for years but all that Tagliabue was able to get was an extension of a CBA that the owners didnt like. Goodell gave the owners what they wanted and he managed to get it without losing any regular season games.

Ok a little strange we are comparing RG to Tags. I do not believe the owners would settled on anything less than something more viable than the last CBA. If I am not mistaken, the players sought certain assurances as well. It remains to be seen whether or not this was a deal that is best for the viability of the game. It would appear that the Commissioner has to much independent powers that could be problematic in the very near future. If this proves to be correct, then I can see a more negative view on the CBA. I guess only time will tell if this (the CBA) was a good thing or a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Gore

Tagliabue couldnt fix the NFL Europe and he couldnt pull the plug on an experiment that cost the the owners millions either. Goodell did what had to be done and the game in London seems to work much better than the NFLE ever did.

The entire comncept of NFL Europe (as it would later be known) was a bad one from the beginning. By the time it was officially disbanded, the league was losing money. It hardly took a forward thinking leader to see that a "ship" was sinking. Any commissioner who didn't previously committed to something like this would had come to the same obvious conclusion; it just wasn't working. The irony of the whole mess was the fact that the most successful clubs were in Germany, but, yet, its London that gets the honor of hosting a game each year. Oh well, blame it on Hitler! All kidding aside, I do not think this represents Goodell as a great or even good leader. It really says very little about his administrative leadership.

Originally Posted by Gore

When Tagliabue was in charge too many players got into trouble off the field ruining the NFL's reputation. It was the NFLPA that asked Goodell to do something about it. I've heard that the number off of the field incidents is down by 70% now (Id be glad if somebody could find some stats to prove or disprove that).

Are you honestly blaming Tags for players making bad choices in their personal life? What does that have to do with Tags or Goodell anyway? In any event, I would think teams will eventually learn to self- monitor themselves on making better choices about draft choices and the signing of troubled free agents. With this in mind, I have to asked how much of the 70% is teams actually making better choices? I do not know what study you are referring to in your response. See note below

Note:if you going to present a stat you need to provide a link to the study so that anyone can at least verify that you have the correct numbers. Your second problem is you never actually stated what RG did you accomplish this number (percentage), so how can anyone dispute it?

[Gore]

Originally Posted by parlorcitysaint

It also reduces the chances that many of today's players will have that leg to stand on regarding future lawsuits.

I totally agree. Just imagine what would have happened if Pamphilon would have released his tape 5 years from now and not this year. A retired Frank Gore would sue the NFL and no judge would accept the excuse "it`s just part of the culture in the NFL".

[Gore]

Originally Posted by St. Pike

Ok a little strange we are comparing RG to Tags. I do not believe the owners would settled on anything less than something more viable than the last CBA.

The owners wanted a new CBA for a long time but Tags just didnt get it done. Goodell did. We can discuss a few aspects of the CBA but money was they main issue and Goodell saved the owners a ton of money.

Originally Posted by St. Pike

The entire comncept of NFL Europe (as it would later be known) was a bad one from the beginning.

Well, I dont blame Tags for trying but fact is that the owners lost a lot of money since 1991. There wasnt a single franchise in the history of the league that ever made money. Tags didnt pull the plug even though the owners wanted to do that for years. Again Goodell did what Tags was afraid to do because it was his project and he wanted to avoid conflict with the NFLPA.

Originally Posted by St. Pike

Are you honestly blaming Tags for players making bad choices in their personal life?

Ofc not. But since Goodell took over the NFL is coming down much harder on players that tarnish the reputation of the NFL. Even the teams are now being held accountable for the actions of their players. Since Goodell did that there have been fewer off the field incidents and I dont think anybody can honestly say that this is just a concidence and the players simply got wiser the moment Goodell became the commish. They are afraid of getting suspended or paying huge fines.

[AARPSaint]

Just because the owners voted to hike Goodell's salary doesn't mean he's doing a good job. Boards of Directors have awarded plenty of CEOs massive salary increases and bonuses that were undeserved. To say that the owners voted to increase his salary is to say little about his performance as Commissioner except that the finances of the NFL are in good shape.

[Gore]

And just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize doesnt mean that he has done something great or important. But it means that the people who voted for him think that he has done a great job. It's the same with Goodell. It's not like nobody wants to be the commish and the owners simply had to take Goodell. He was the one the owners chose to succeed Tags, they retained him when they didnt have to, they let him negotiate the most important contract (CBA) and yes, they gave him a raise. So it's obvious the have a lot of confidence in him.

At that point we have to ask ourselves if Benson and the other owners aren't smart enough to realize that he is a bad comissioner. Well, I stand up for Benson and say that he is smart enough and I gave good reasons why Benson and the other owners wanted to keep him.

[AARPSaint]

Originally Posted by Gore

And just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize doesnt mean that he has done something great or important. But it means that the people who voted for him think that he has done a great job. It's the same with Goodell. It's not like nobody wants to be the commish and the owners simply had to take Goodell. He was the one the owners chose to succeed Tags, they retained him when they didnt have to, they let him negotiate the most important contract (CBA) and yes, they gave him a raise. So it's obvious the have a lot of confidence in him.

At that point we have to ask ourselves if Benson and the other owners aren't smart enough to realize that he is a bad comissioner. Well, I stand up for Benson and say that he is smart enough and I gave good reasons why Benson and the other owners wanted to keep him.

So the owners are infallible in their choices? Did they vote unanimously for Goodell as Commissioner? And even if they did, was there any discussion of alternative candidates? I wonder if Tom Benson is happy with his choice now. He just got fined $500k if I'm not mistaken.

Are Boards of Directors perfect in their choices of CEOs? Ask the BoD of Hewlett-Packard. The NFL owners are primarily business people. The last time I checked, that does not make them perfect. We don't need to go over all of the horrendous decisions business people made when they fostered the recent recession, which, admittedly, was also helped by myopic governmental policies.

The primacy of the financial health of the NFL seems to be the preponderant criterion for judging Goodell's performances as Commissioner. Unfortunately, his handling of the Saints' situation has been unfair, arrogant, vindictive (IMHO), a whitewash of similar programs of other teams, procedurally questionable at best, short-sighted just in case he's wrong, and generally just immature. By the way, I blame some of his behavior on his advisors. He can make all the money he can for the NFL so that the owners will love him. But I cannot countenance his outrageous behavior in the Saints' matter. That makes him a bad commissioner in my estimation--but then, I'm not in this to make money.

[St. Pike]

Originally Posted by Gore

The owners wanted a new CBA for a long time but Tags just didnt get it done. Goodell did. We can discuss a few aspects of the CBA but money was they main issue and Goodell saved the owners a ton of money.

Yes, the CBA was not viable. It was inevitable that this was going to happen. This has already been established. The owners had said as much. The CBA would had been an issue regardless who was actually the commissioner. It remains to be seen if this is something that will last.

Originally Posted by Gore

Well, I dont blame Tags for trying but fact is that the owners lost a lot of money since 1991. There wasnt a single franchise in the history of the league that ever made money. Tags didnt pull the plug even though the owners wanted to do that for years. Again Goodell did what Tags was afraid to do because it was his project and he wanted to avoid conflict with the NFLPA.

He made a common sense move. Great! This is little like giving Nixon credit for pulling out of Vietnam. The owners weren't happen either. I do love the irony of Nixon as an example here. We have cause to question Goodells integrity now. Let's hope (for your sake) that Goodells legacy of pulling out of NFL Europe isn't overshadowed by "bounty- gate."

Originally Posted by Gore

Ofc not. But since Goodell took over the NFL is coming down much harder on players that tarnish the reputation of the NFL. Even the teams are now being held accountable for the actions of their players. Since Goodell did that there have been fewer off the field incidents and I dont think anybody can honestly say that this is just a concidence and the players simply got wiser the moment Goodell became the commish. They are afraid of getting suspended or paying huge fines.

I am not sure why you are making a leap of faith here??? I find in general that teams are "shying" away from players with questionable character issues. I could make the argument that it isn't coincidence based on teams' individual behaviors, BUT I would be making the same error in evidence that you are making. You are presenting ZERO evidence to support your position. It seems like your conclusion may be based on "confirmation bias."


It seems this discussion as reached an end. You have mentioned the CBA. However the new CBA was inevitable. It was going to happen anyway. Owners had certain things they MUST have and they wanted it. The players had certain hard position as well. The fact the CBA was a corroborative effort on the parts of many people, not just the commissioner. Secondly, NFL Europe was failing. The League was primarily a German league anyway. It lost all viability. Perhaps Tags was blinded by this. In which case, any new commissioner would had opted to go in a different direction. Moreover, the league was most successful in Germany. A fact that RG continue to ignore. I have cause to question is vision. Lastly, you have no shown any evidence to support your position regarding player's self- discipline. There are a number of factors. However, you seem to focus on one possibility that conveniently consistent with your argument. Again, you provide now direct evidence that any changes was because of a league wide policy.


-----

[St. Pike]

Originally Posted by Gore

And just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize doesnt mean that he has done something great or important. But it means that the people who voted for him think that he has done a great job. .

This is just plain silly. The Nobel Prize is not some cheezy competition like American Idol or Project Runway. It recognizes great achievements in many different academic fields.

If you would like to know more visit the official website
www.nobelprize.org

Here is the direct league for the nomination process.
Nomination FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions about the Nomination and Selection of Nobel Laureates

Let's have a little more sense when we argue....


---

[AceTW]

Originally Posted by St. Pike

This is just plain silly. The Nobel Prize is not some cheezy competition like American Idol or Project Runway. It recognizes great achievements in many different academic fields.

Well, the whole "cheezy competition" thing is certainly debatable...

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - History

Al Gore - Biography

United Nations - History

Yasser Arafat - Biography

Amnesty International - History of Organization

Henry Kissinger - Biography

[Gore]

Originally Posted by St. Pike

This is just plain silly.

Its not silly. You are simply refusing to take AARPSaint valid argument seriously. Just because a group of people thinks that somebody is worth of big contract or an award does not make them right. Thats true for any group of people including the Noble Prize committee. I suggest you try to find out why there hasn't been an american Nobel Prize winner for literature in 20 years. Then you'll find dout how right AARPSaint really is.