Should owners be fined heavily for improper conduct of thier players?

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Gastapo Goodell brought this into fruition last season but there has really not been much done with this new rule he imposed until now.

I hate the Steelers as much as anyone in here,if not more but I feel its an injustice to make the owners responsible of thier players wrongdoings other than maybe to require them to do some appropriate punishment internally which to me is more reasonable action.

Word out is that the Rooney's will be fined $200,000 for both Holmes and Roethlisbergers criminal acts - I think its ridiculous

We are talking about grown responsible players who should be the sole owner of a fine or penalty sanctioned by the league IMO

What is an owner supposed to do?,especially when a crime of one of thier players is done on the offseason?,Does Goodell expect the owners to hire babysitters or have private detectives watch over all of thier players throughout the year?

Because Ben couldn't keep his yoyo in his pants and Holmes can't party in a nightclub without clubbing a woman over the head should not come at the expense of Rooney or any owner in that situation.

If a few of the Patriots players had a run in with the law in the offseason,do you feel Kraft should be responsible and pay out of pocket for things he cannot control other than preaching his players to stay on the right side of the law?,No matter of how good of an owner you are you cannot hold the hand of every player once he leaves the facility.

Imagine if this new rule was in action more than a year ago,the Bengals fines to the owner would have well surpassed the tens of millions mark.

Should the owner of a team have to pay a large fine for misconduct if 2 or more players break the law? Thoughts?

 

[jmt57]

Wasn't the rule part of the original personal conduct policy from three years ago? I thought it was mostly a reaction to the Bengals from a few years back, when their players were making so much off-field news that Goodell instituted the player conduct policy.

I think if Goodell is going to fine owners or take away draft picks then he should have specific guidelines. For example, if x number of players on your roster are arrested in this period of time, or if players on your roster get x number of games suspended within a twelve-month period, then the fine is this.

To me two player incidents is not enough to go after an owner; if that's going to be the limit then plenty of owners are going to end up being fined. I can somewhat see the rule, as it is a statement to owners that they need to consider character when adding a player to the roster. But if it's going to be invoked I'd say two incidents is way too strict.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Wasn't the rule part of the original personal conduct policy from three years ago? I thought it was mostly a reaction to the Bengals from a few years back, when their players were making so much off-field news that Goodell instituted the player conduct policy.

I think if Goodell is going to fine owners or take away draft picks then he should have specific guidelines. For example, if x number of players on your roster are arrested in this period of time, or if players on your roster get x number of games suspended within a twelve-month period, then the fine is this.

To me two player incidents is not enough to go after an owner; if that's going to be the limit then plenty of owners are going to end up being fined. I can somewhat see the rule, as it is a statement to owners that they need to consider character when adding a player to the roster. But if it's going to be invoked I'd say two incidents is way too strict.

I checked when this new rule was orginated,I went back to an old article from November of 2008 that said this new rule was just in effect,so it appears in has been just a little over a year since this ******ed rule was implemented

 

[Joker]

meanwhile, Jackass Wrecks is running amok league wide like a corpulent pestilence yet Ratdell only fines him 50 K for his over the top disgusting,vile treatment of innocent fans and then sits and yuks it up with his best buddy Woody Johnson at the Indy playoff game.

Jetdell needs to be fired, indicted, tried and convicted then sentenced to federal prison for ten years

 

[capetide]

I understand that in most cases holding an owner responsible for the behavior of their players while not under the control and supervision of the team doesn't make alot of sense, I'm starting to believe that those owners, who sign or trade (generally at reduced prices) for players with well-known histories of bad behavior, should be fined for the players indiscretions.

 

[Tunescribe]

Jetdell needs to be fired, indicted, tried and convicted then sentenced to federal prison for ten years

Make that 10 years at hard labor.

 

[ausbacker]

All we need is for the commissioner to start throwing luxuries the Rams way and he really will be Roger Ramjet.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I understand that in most cases holding an owner responsible for the behavior of their players while not under the control and supervision of the team doesn't make alot of sense, I'm starting to believe that those owners, who sign or trade (generally at reduced prices) for players with well-known histories of bad behavior, should be fined for the players indiscretions.

I think it's all about accountability. I think fining is meaningless/largely symbolic given the net worth of most of these owners and the fact that the fines will be covered in most cases by the suspended players docked pay.

Draft picks should be part of the equation at some point (number of offenses or offenders). Not like the first they docked us. That was ludicrous. But day 3 picks depending on the level of offense. In a case like this where the player hasn't actually been arrested or charged with a crime let alone convicted, the fine is sufficient. Ditto first offenses for misdemeanor crimes like DUI and possession (for first time offenders). If they are arrested repeatedly for drugs/DUI or guns or domestic/assault charges they should start to dock picks as well. It's kind of like the rookie contract cap situation where for the good of the league long term owners need someone to impose discipline on them because otherwise they can't seem to help themselves...

 

[Joker]

Make that 10 years at hard labor.

yeah...10 years as head rat catcher in Leavenworth

 

[jmt57]

I checked when this new rule was orginated,I went back to an old article from November of 2008 that said this new rule was just in effect,so it appears in has been just a little over a year since this ******ed rule was implemented

Okay, so we're in agreement that the rule was not simply put into place two days ago and possibly enforced one day later, correct?


Maybe the rule is ******ed, maybe it's not. I'll ask two questions:

Would you agree or disagree that players at that point in time were doing things off the field that were causing the general view of the public at large to view the NFL, its players, and pro football in a lower esteem, and possibly causing harm to the NFL as a business?

Would you agree or disagree that the players that were being discredited due to their negative publicity were primarily from a very small number of teams?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Okay, so we're in agreement that the rule was not simply put into place two days ago and possibly enforced one day later, correct?


Maybe the rule is ******ed, maybe it's not. I'll ask two questions:

Would you agree or disagree that players at that point in time were doing things off the field that were causing the general view of the public at large to view the NFL, its players, and pro football in a lower esteem, and possibly causing harm to the NFL as a business?

Would you agree or disagree that the players that were being discredited due to their negative publicity were primarily from a very small number of teams?

So far its been from a small number of teams which is specifically why I think the rule is dumb - I believe in cases of the Steelers,the Commissioner should require Rooney to set his own punishment internally but must meet the approval of the Commissioner which would deem it severe enough and leave it at that.

Every sport has had its share of controversial issues,from Steroids to personal crimes to even fixed horse racing and its an everyday thing these days.
Even in a quiet lipped sport like golf,Tiger Woods can turn it into a drama so in the case affecting the game of football,hardly?,infamous things have happened in every sport but really has never ruined any of them,there will always be fans..look at how baseball was on the brink of destruction when they had that strike decades ago,it has recovered its image,and if football gets ruined for a time because of a potentila lockout in 2011,it will recover its image too.

I kind of compare this idea of rule to a situation such as suppose you are the father of a 20 year old child and he lives at home with you,One day while you are at work he goes out and gets into trouble with the law by doing something to another person and the magistrate sends a letter to you a few days later saying you are just as responsible as your son so we are fining you a large amount for his misdeeds as well as fining your son - would you think this is the right thing to do?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So far its been from a small number of teams which is specifically why I think the rule is dumb - I believe in cases of the Steelers,the Commissioner should require Rooney to set his own punishment internally but must meet the approval of the Commissioner which would deem it severe enough and leave it at that.

Every sport has had its share of controversial issues,from Steroids to personal crimes to even fixed horse racing and its an everyday thing these days.
Even in a quiet lipped sport like golf,Tiger Woods can turn it into a drama so in the case affecting the game of football,hardly?,infamous things have happened in every sport but really has never ruined any of them,there will always be fans..look at how baseball was on the brink of destruction when they had that strike decades ago,it has recovered its image,and if football gets ruined for a time because of a potentila lockout in 2011,it will recover its image too.

I kind of compare this idea of rule to a situation such as suppose you are the father of a 20 year old child and he lives at home with you,One day while you are at work he goes out and gets into trouble with the law by doing something to another person and the magistrate sends a letter to you a few days later saying you are just as responsible as your son so we are fining you a large amount for his misdeeds as well as fining your son - would you think this is the right thing to do?

Do you know what an accessory before or after the fact is? If you knew your son was a risk to commit a crime and you provided him the means to then you damn well should be held accountable. Andy Reid probably could and possibly should have faced some sort of consequences for his repeat drug offending sons selling dope out of his house. He was obviously providing them the means and opportunity to. But it's a tough case to make in more ways than one even if you have proof that a parent knew what was going on.

Players aren't their owners sons, even if some mistakenly treat them as such. They are employees. If the SEC finds out your employee is involved in shady dealings even apart from his work for your firm, and your firm knew about it and kept him on the payroll because heck, he was making a lot of money for you with his technically legit deals, who do you think is gonna be the one facing the multi million dollar fine?? Ask Goldman Sachs.

Ben's got some history here, just like Santonio did, and it's not limited to the incidents that have become public. In that little matter Harry Manion eluded to last week, where another potential accuser ultimately decided not to persue the matter, it's rumored his client in conjunction with probing the allegation was the Rooney's. The Steelers are likely aware of most of those incidents, just as the Falcons should have been with Vick had they not systematically engaged in plausible denial, which Goodell is now putting teams on notice will not be a valid excuse. They all employ security staffs and even outside resources to maintain tabs on their employee assets. Their job is not to cover asses and sweep dirt under the rug. And in the case of the NFL, which operates as a collective, what your guy does reflects back on all 32 owners and the league. So it's not just a matter of taking your own calculated risk balanced against potential personal reward, you're risking the impact of scandal harming your partners reputation and bottom line absent them experiencing any potential reward.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

i find it ironic that the steelers organization is so worried about their image now. where they worried in the 70s when they steroided their way to 4 titles? i am sure the steelers ownership was aware of the steroid issue back then. now all of sudden they are trying to maintain a clean image.

 

[capetide]

I think it's all about accountability. I think fining is meaningless/largely symbolic given the net worth of most of these owners and the fact that the fines will be covered in most cases by the suspended players docked pay.

Draft picks should be part of the equation at some point (number of offenses or offenders). Not like the first they docked us. That was ludicrous. But day 3 picks depending on the level of offense. In a case like this where the player hasn't actually been arrested or charged with a crime let alone convicted, the fine is sufficient. Ditto first offenses for misdemeanor crimes like DUI and possession (for first time offenders). If they are arrested repeatedly for drugs/DUI or guns or domestic/assault charges they should start to dock picks as well. It's kind of like the rookie contract cap situation where for the good of the league long term owners need someone to impose discipline on them because otherwise they can't seem to help themselves...

Makes sense to me, Mbviusly, its tough to make owners culpable for the behavior of players who are 1st time offenders. But I would make the penalties more severe ((e.g. higher round draft picks) for teams who knowingly trade for or draft players with long histories of problems and who continue to show serious behavior issues and criminal behaviors. For example, the Jets are betting that certain players don't continue their history of irresponsible, immature, immoral, and/or criminal behaviors. They got their discounted price for the players so they should have to pay up (beyond the player suspensions and a sullied team reputation) if their gamble doesnt pay off. Fines and loss of higher level draft picks will make teams think twice before trying to take advantage of situations (and perhaps players think twice before re-offending if teams are less likely to bail then out by signiing or trading for them ). What ticks me off is how often the player benefits from these sitations with new contracts and more money.

 

[Real World]

It's a stupid rule. Players are adults. Teams can't possibly control what adutls do in their own free time. Should my boss get in trouble if I break the law tonight? In his effort to clean up a legit problem, Goodell has created a Gestapo-like Nanny-state league. How are the Rooney's supposed to know, stop, or control Rothlisberger molesting a 20 year old in the offseason? Punishing the team is assinine to say the least. I wouldn't pay if I were the owner.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

... I feel its an injustice to make the owners responsible of thier players wrongdoings other than maybe to require them to do some appropriate punishment internally which to me is more reasonable action.

Word out is that the Rooney's will be fined $200,000 for both Holmes and Roethlisbergers criminal acts - I think its ridiculous

We are talking about grown responsible players who should be the sole owner of a fine or penalty sanctioned by the league IMO

What is an owner supposed to do?,especially when a crime of one of thier players is done on the offseason?,Does Goodell expect the owners to hire babysitters or have private detectives watch over all of thier players throughout the year?

...

If a few of the Patriots players had a run in with the law in the offseason,do you feel Kraft should be responsible and pay out of pocket for things he cannot control other than preaching his players to stay on the right side of the law?,No matter of how good of an owner you are you cannot hold the hand of every player once he leaves the facility.

Imagine if this new rule was in action more than a year ago,the Bengals fines to the owner would have well surpassed the tens of millions mark.

Should the owner of a team have to pay a large fine for misconduct if 2 or more players break the law? Thoughts?

I don't think it's a "one size fits all" issue. But, to answer your question, yes, I think owners should be held accountable along some sort of sliding scale, formal or informal.

If a player with no College or NFL history of problems does something wrong or foolish, it's one thing. If a player with a history of problems is brought on board by a team, it's another. If there's a pattern on a team of players who get into trouble, it's another. (these, of course, can overlap)

Unexpected, first time offenders should give rise to a slap on the wrist and a warning to the owner.

If an owner has a player on the roster who becomes a repeat offender under the owner, then the owner should be penalized in some way.

If there is a pattern of players on a team getting into trouble, some of that has to be put at the feet of the owner.

If an owner knowingly brings a problem player on board and the player continues his pattern, I think the owner should be held to account for that.

I agree that $$$ fines probably won't get Owners' attention unless they are large, so I'd start them out in the $500,000 range; even a billionaire will be aware of that kind of money. But, ultimately these penalties will only have a real impact if they impact draft selections, as was done to the Pats for Spygate, so I agree with those who would include draft picks among the penalties.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's a stupid rule. Players are adults. Teams can't possibly control what adutls do in their own free time. Should my boss get in trouble if I break the law tonight? In his effort to clean up a legit problem, Goodell has created a Gestapo-like Nanny-state league. How are the Rooney's supposed to know, stop, or control Rothlisberger molesting a 20 year old in the offseason? Punishing the team is assinine to say the least. I wouldn't pay if I were the owner.

Your screen name is apparently an oxymoron. In the real world if you break the law tonight and your boss doesn't can you he's on the hook with his bosses if and when the **** hits the proverbial can. At that point - in the real world - his career is on the line alongside yours. Why do you think employers do background checks, for kicks?? God, some of you are so real world naive and so adverse to the simple concept of consequence.

The Rooney's were well aware of Ben's off field issues. Therefore it was incumbant on them to find a way to discipline or manage his so that they didn't manifest themselves in a manner that reflected negatively on an entire 32 team industry. They are being fined for not living up to that responsibility after handing that knucklehead the means to behave like an entitled pig. If he was working in some stinking factory and he pulled this crap he'd be unemployed if not incarcerated by now. And they will be subject to additional penalties as long as they retain this player and fail to reign him in. Maybe they, or someone else, decide at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter as long as he wins.

That's been the ownership mentality problem in this league for all too long. That's why the third or fourth stringer gets canned, he doesn't generally make them money or win them games. Jerry Jones doesn't take on the pac mans of the league because he's a do gooder who believes in unlimited chances. He takes them on because he believes they can win him games...Ditto the Mara's when they re-upped Plax. If they don't win owners quickly walk away from them and look for some other edge... Why did the Eagles take on Vick...not because Andy and Lerner believe in heartwarming second chances. Because they though he presented a risk reward scenario where they would make a killing of their own... They were wr...wr...wrong, but at least in this instance they managed the player in such a manner that he hasn't caused any more off field embarassment to the league...yet. But if he does they should be held accountable for taking that risk because of what it would expose the entire league to as a result. Actually, in that case the Commissioner who personally drove the rehab train to Philly should have to forfeit a nice chunk of his own earnings for not having the stones to just take that gift wrapped, poster boy for consequences player and the decision to again employ him out of ownerships hands.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Your screen name is apparently an oxymoron. In the real world if you break the law tonight and your boss doesn't can you he's on the hook with his bosses if and when the **** hits the proverbial can. At that point - in the real world - his career is on the line alongside yours. Why do you think employers do background checks, for kicks?? God, some of you are so real world naive and so adverse to the simple concept of consequence.

The Rooney's were well aware of Ben's off field issues. Therefore it was incumbant on them to find a way to discipline or manage his so that they didn't manifest themselves in a manner that reflected negatively on an entire 32 team industry. They are being fined for not living up to that responsibility after handing that knucklehead the means to behave like an entitled pig. If he was working in some stinking factory and he pulled this crap he'd be unemployed if not incarcerated by now. And they will be subject to additional penalties as long as they retain this player and fail to reign him in. Maybe they, or someone else, decide at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter as long as he wins.

That's been the ownership mentality problem in this league for all too long. That's why the third or fourth stringer gets canned, he doesn't generally make them money or win them games. Jerry Jones doesn't take on the pac mans of the league because he's a do gooder who believes in unlimited chances. He takes them on because he believes they can win him games...Ditto the Mara's when they re-upped Plax. If they don't win owners quickly walk away from them and look for some other edge... Why did the Eagles take on Vick...not because Andy and Lerner believe in heartwarming second chances. Because they though he presented a risk reward scenario where they would make a killing of their own... They were wr...wr...wrong, but at least in this instance they managed the player in such a manner that he hasn't caused any more off field embarassment to the league...yet. But if he does they should be held accountable for taking that risk because of what it would expose the entire league to as a result. Actually, in that case the Commissioner who personally drove the rehab train to Philly should have to forfeit a nice chunk of his own earnings for not having the stones to just take that gift wrapped, poster boy for consequences player and the decision to again employ him out of ownerships hands.

I think we would all be surprised and shocked to see what criminal backgrounds every NFL team has with players including the Pats

While most unlawful acts aren't major notable issues with issues as simply as shoplifting,domestic disputes that don't result in arrests or even DUI charges for example ,I would not be surprised to see every team with a good amount of players who had runs ins with the law but never surfaced because they stayed clean and away from bigger crimes which the media grabs ahold of.

If you think this Pats team is squeaky clean of guys that have never been involved in having thier name on a police report,no matter how minor the charge was...you're kidding yourself ,there are always skeletons in the closet.

I am confident that if Kraft had to pay huge bucks because two of his players were involved in unlawful manners you,like others who this this penalty is justified,would think differently.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Problem: A multibillion dollar enterprise that fundamentally depends on public perception for its revenue stream encounters incident after incident of really bad publicity because of its employees. It's clear that these actions rsk impacting the revenue stream.

Analysis: The owners are in the management/supervisory role. Like in any other business, a one of, isolated incident deserves a pass for the supervisor but with enhanced management awareness as a result. What the NFL has seen is several instances of patterns of REALLY bad behaviour where the ownership management repeatedly turned a blind eye and did nothing. Unaddressed, this risks impacting the value of the TV contracts, everything. The primary hit has to go on the offender but lax management facilitating the patterns of behaviour by neglect has to be addressed, so some impact on ownership/management such as fines or late draft picks needs to be instituted. The guidelines should be clear but broad enough for discretion by the Comissioner. Yes, even though bozo Goodell is the guy, the Commish needs to be able to exercize discretion within the guidelines.

 

[JMarr]

Your screen name is apparently an oxymoron. In the real world if you break the law tonight and your boss doesn't can you he's on the hook with his bosses if and when the **** hits the proverbial can. At that point - in the real world - his career is on the line alongside yours. Why do you think employers do background checks, for kicks?? God, some of you are so real world naive and so adverse to the simple concept of consequence.

The Rooney's were well aware of Ben's off field issues. Therefore it was incumbant on them to find a way to discipline or manage his so that they didn't manifest themselves in a manner that reflected negatively on an entire 32 team industry. They are being fined for not living up to that responsibility after handing that knucklehead the means to behave like an entitled pig. If he was working in some stinking factory and he pulled this crap he'd be unemployed if not incarcerated by now. And they will be subject to additional penalties as long as they retain this player and fail to reign him in. Maybe they, or someone else, decide at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter as long as he wins.

That's been the ownership mentality problem in this league for all too long. That's why the third or fourth stringer gets canned, he doesn't generally make them money or win them games. Jerry Jones doesn't take on the pac mans of the league because he's a do gooder who believes in unlimited chances. He takes them on because he believes they can win him games...Ditto the Mara's when they re-upped Plax. If they don't win owners quickly walk away from them and look for some other edge... Why did the Eagles take on Vick...not because Andy and Lerner believe in heartwarming second chances. Because they though he presented a risk reward scenario where they would make a killing of their own... They were wr...wr...wrong, but at least in this instance they managed the player in such a manner that he hasn't caused any more off field embarassment to the league...yet. But if he does they should be held accountable for taking that risk because of what it would expose the entire league to as a result. Actually, in that case the Commissioner who personally drove the rehab train to Philly should have to forfeit a nice chunk of his own earnings for not having the stones to just take that gift wrapped, poster boy for consequences player and the decision to again employ him out of ownerships hands.

Really? Apparentely you don't always live in the 'real world' either. An assembly line worker canned because of what Ben was accused of and was ultimately found meritless by the DA? It might not even have come to the attention of 'joe six pack's' employeer.

So while your employer/employee analogy is better than the parent/child one in this case, it is still flawed because the NFL is not a typical 'workplace'--for starters, most malcontent NFL players are much more valuable to their employers than an easily replaced malcontent office worker.

The idea of punishing NFL owners for their players offseason transgressions is just what's ludicrous, and arguing for it is silly and hypocritical at worst if you're someone who feels that Goodell already has gone too far in micromanaging behavior.

I can't think of any team, ever, who has shown a pattern of negligence in signing or not reigning in problem players so blatant as to warrant any action against the team.

Maybe we should admit that we're talking about this mainly because it's the Steelers and Jets in question. Never saw too many fans clamoring for the heads of Oakland or Cinncinati ownership before.