Anonymous NFL Owner: Deflategate Has Been ‘Embarrassing To Our League’

fnordcircle said:

I'm going to buy a single share in the GB packers just so I can be an 'NFL Owner' and be quoted anonymously.

Click to expand...

Ha! I like it. Not that it would really matter, just say it now. It's highly unlikely any mediot would actually spend time to confirm a source.

TheBostonStraggler said:

I don't disagree outright. Yes, Bob and the other 31 have the vast, lion's share of the blame. Further, he and some of the other owners, IMHO, probably thought 'I don't necessarily like how it is going BUT this is how it is. The business/revenue is growing, that is what matters, don't rock the boat'.
However, isn't there room for nuance beyond that? Goodell is in fact untouchable even to powerful Bob, to a powerful group of 4 or 5 owners, by the media, or by fans. Short of committing theft, rape or murder I don't think Goodell can get fired. He has solified power to a degree that is pretty astonishing when you consider he reports to 32 billionaires. So if there isn't room for nuance, aren't loyal NFL watchers/users -- Us -- also to blame on a small level? We keep Goodell's numbers high enough to make him untouchable. Consider this, if just 3% of us turned off the TV, the networks would wail and Goodell would probably be replaced by end of season.

Someone here smartly said a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. This cluster F with Goodell at the head, this thing is much bigger than Bob and what Bob can do about him. Other sport's leagues have powerful commissioners yet this guy, Goodell, IMHO only, is a snake in the grass who snuck up on even the powerful like Bob.
With that said, I do not absolve Bob of blame but I semi disagree if we can't also look at circumstance.

Click to expand...

We heard all about how crucial Bob was to getting the CBA done. Bob did that after he already knew what Goodell was, and he did it with a CBA that handed Goodell even more power, when he could have helped to craft (not Kraft) one that went in the other direction. Bob also stood silent when the Cowboys and Redskins were (clearly) completely screwed over because they didn't go along with collusion in the uncapped year. And, then, after all of that, Bob threw his QB under the bus.

Bob he did all this because he wanted to stick it to the players, and because he wanted to make a few more bucks even though he's already he's already a billionaire, and those two things were more important to him than integrity and honor.

There's your circumstance.

Bob has nobody to blame but Bob.

Rob0729 said:

I am tired of the argument "the union agreed to this system" crap. Two arguments shoots down this whole thing:

• Even if the union agreed to let Goodell to be the sole arbitrator (or assign the arbitrator he chooses), they did not agree to let Goodell run a totally unfair process where he can make up violations based on no evidence and deny a player any semblance of a fair process whatsover. They did not crown Goodell emperor and let him make up the rules as he went along, they didn't get the clause in the CBA removed that allowed him to arbitrate cases.
• This power has been in the CBA since the 1960s and there was never an issue with this for like 4 decades until Goodell started to abuse the power about five years ago. Can anyone even point to an arbitration decision for disciplining a player by Pete Rozelle or Paul Tagliabue that the NFLPA even remotely questioned. There was never a need to get rid of Article 46. And hell, there wasn't even a need to get rid of Article 46 during the last CBA battle. Bountygate, Ray Rice, and Adrian Peterson came after the new CBA was signed.

People saying the NFLPA agreed to this process are just doing what anyone burying the Patriots in this whole thing has been doing all along. They are just taking overly simplified and misleading points and making them fit the argument. The NFLPA never agreed to a process where Roger Goodell could take very weak evidence of Brady being "more likely than not" "generally aware" of a scheme to deflate footballs in the AFCCG and turn it into Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards in support of a scheme by which, with Mr. Jastremski’s support, Mr. McNally tampered with the game balls" and then deny Brady access to witnesses and research materials in the appeals process and then lie about what Brady testified to when he thought the appeal transcripts were going to be sealed forever.

I read Article 46 when the NFL kept on hammering it and I don't remember seeing the players conceding powers like this to the commissioner.

Click to expand...

Well said and explained Rob.
Unfortunately we have a glib media and a gullible public. If the media says it with seeming authority and say it repeatedly, it becomes fact by inculcation if not by simple mental default. For a clear example of this just take a look at our favorite steaming pile of crap, the Wells Report. You, me, a whole lot of people pretty quickly started seeing, factually, how faulty if not rigged it was. Yet how did this faulty if not rigged POS become the authoritative document to accept as fact that Brady was a "cheater!"? Because of that glib media and gullible public.
Damn, it required so little question and thought to see the Wells Report's was VERY far from authoritative, yet almost zilch skepticism or thought from the media or masses. So for something even more complex like "the players agreed to/gave Goodell the right to be Idi Amin in the CBA!" we have to expect that potential BS like this simply will not be questioned except for those few rare individuals like Steph.
It just is what it is my friend....

Deus Irae said:

We heard all about how crucial Bob was to getting the CBA done. Bob did that after he already knew what Goodell was, and he did it with a CBA that handed Goodell even more power, when he could have helped to craft (not Kraft) one that went in the other direction. Bob also stood silent when the Cowboys and Redskins were (clearly) completely screwed over because they didn't go along with collusion in the uncapped year. And, then, after all of that, Bob threw his QB under the bus.

Bob he did all this because he wanted to stick it to the players, and because he wanted to make a few more bucks even though he's already he's already a billionaire, and those two things were more important to him than integrity and honor.

There's your circumstance.

Bob has nobody to blame but Bob.

Click to expand...

No doubt you have a fair argument DI. The 32, which includes Bob, are the most at fault here (with the noted exception of Goodell himself)? But there just isn't any gray area to that?
Let me pose this question, tell me what could Bob have done to change what now is? Specifically what would be different with the CBA as well as Goodell believing he is the chancellor of the reich? Put another way, if Bob publicly says "i'm not getting involved with this CBA thing. I'm just not comfortable with the direction it is going for the players", is anything different today except that Bob would have been in Goodell's doghouse a lot sooner? And if that is true it is reasonable to wonder exactly how would anything be different if it wasn't Bob at the helm. You or anyone, would there be a difference in outcome?

No this doesn't absolve Bob of blame but it does highlight that this thing was bigger than him, quite a bit bigger. He simply could not, likely, have changed the outcome even if he wanted to. If true than this crap with Goodell is, IMHO, something that is quite a bit more specific to Goodell than 32 billionaires who decided growing revenue and not rocking the boat was the best course of action.

A couple of side notes: (A) It has been reported that Bob favored another for commissioner/did not support Goodell to be commissioner. According to stories he was in the minority on that, unfortunately. (B) It is suggested that Bob getting involved with the CBA actually got it done in a way that otherwise may/could have made it a worse deal for the NFLPA. ((I don't know that as fact -- that is what I read -- take it with the grain of salt it deserves))

Tell me this...WTF do 32 bllionaires/near-billionaires care what any fan or fanbase thinks about ANYTHING.

They don't care. As long as we remain junkies in need of our football fix, they will continue to be our dealers...and if we make a stink...STRIKE!...replacement refs...CFL refugees..."Brett Favre returns!"

We are nothing more than ants in the NFL farm.

TheBostonStraggler said:

No doubt you have a fair argument DI. The 32, which includes Bob, are the most at fault here (with the noted exception of Goodell himself)? But there just isn't any gray area to that?

Click to expand...

Not even a tiny little bit.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Let me pose this question, tell me what could Bob have done to change what now is? Specifically what would be different with the CBA as well as Goodell believing he is the chancellor of the reich? Put another way, if Bob publicly says "i'm not getting involved with this CBA thing. I'm just not comfortable with the direction it is going for the players", is anything different today except that Bob would have been in Goodell's doghouse a lot sooner? And if that is true it is reasonable to wonder exactly how would anything be different if it wasn't Bob at the helm. You or anyone, would there be a difference in outcome?

Click to expand...

Bob could have said 'no' to the stronger Commissioner clauses. Bob could have said 'no' to the collusion. Both were really stupid ideas that the owners should have been opposing in the first place, and Kraft is supposed to be smart enough to both figure such things out and sway others to his position. Failing that, he could have threatened to expose the collusion, which would have completely stopped the Dallas/Redskins penalty, and he could have come out publicly against the CBA before it was ratified, saying that the discipline area needed to be overhauled. There's no way a CBA gets done if the guy who's essential to getting it done is, instead, opposing it.

This isn't tough stuff for anyone with the willingness to put principle ahead of pocket.

You can a agree to a segment of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, however when that segment is used egregiously you can also disagree.. that falls under the general heading of "unintended consequences". Kraft agreed to the process, however not sure this is what he had in mind.. the NFLPA agreed to this process, but not sure they envisioned such a brohhaha about an equipment violation based on crappy evidence.

The comparison to Rice, Peterson, Hardy and PED's is idiotic, as Brady did nothing.. and the process is flawed.. the biggest mistake was for Goodell and his lackeys was to make this bigger and different than it actually is..

Power hungry men who are threatened by mavericks(BB) go off the rails when they realize that there is continual marginal compliance with their egotistical demands.. BB does not kiss up to the power elite in the NFL and this is the consequence. I support BB and all he does...

now the owners are pissy ? f him and f them... the reason the nfl is being embarrassed is because the nfl is embarrassing itself and goodell is their pilot.

Deus Irae said:

Bob could have said 'no' to the stronger Commissioner clauses. Bob could have said 'no' to the collusion. Both were really stupid ideas that the owners should have been opposing in the first place, and Kraft is supposed to be smart enough to both figure such things out and sway others to his position. Failing that, he could have threatened to expose the collusion, which would have completely stopped the Dallas/Redskins penalty, and he could have come out publicly against the CBA before it was ratified, saying that the discipline area needed to be overhauled. There's no way a CBA gets done if the guy who's essential to getting it done is, instead, opposing it.

This isn't tough stuff for anyone with the willingness to put principle ahead of pocket.

Click to expand...

It's 20-20 hindsight on my part since I raised no such issue at the CBA signing, but I fault Kraft whom I believe knew the CBA details intimately, for not having proposed language restraining the Commissioner's powers because he had previously seen his own franchise abused by the Spygate decision. His continued public support of Goodell right through the Rice debacle and later at the sudden surrender to the 31 definitely shows how his misguided financial priorities overrode principle.

Mostly, you have to wonder if the author Freeman is credible. Recently caught lying about his degree, but held jobs at some of the leading papers before that. Also wrote an expose on ESPN, so that's good.

The reporting seems logical, that these owners are duplicitous scumbags, but have reservations about this process.

I do find it highly likely that no on goes on the record against the league, why would they stick their necks out? Support the league? Of course. Like they said, that's what they signed.

I'm pretty surprised with Mara's criticism of the process, to tell you the truth.

Deus Irae said:

We heard all about how crucial Bob was to getting the CBA done. Bob did that after he already knew what Goodell was, and he did it with a CBA that handed Goodell even more power, when he could have helped to craft (not Kraft) one that went in the other direction. Bob also stood silent when the Cowboys and Redskins were (clearly) completely screwed over because they didn't go along with collusion in the uncapped year. And, then, after all of that, Bob threw his QB under the bus.

Bob he did all this because he wanted to stick it to the players, and because he wanted to make a few more bucks even though he's already he's already a billionaire, and those two things were more important to him than integrity and honor.

There's your circumstance.

Bob has nobody to blame but Bob.

Click to expand...

So, he should have told Goodell he was going to help him by limiting his power...and you think Goodell, who was the commissioner, would have said "great idea Bob!"

RayClay said:

So, he should have told Goodell he was going to help him by limiting his power...and you think Goodell, who was the commissioner, would have said "great idea Bob!"

Click to expand...

By the way, about that power that "Kraft gave him"...I'm not a lawyer, but this guy is.

But the powers at issue in this case — the ability to safeguard the integrity of the game — has been around since the very first Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA in 1968. Which means that the first NFLPA president (John Mackey) and executive director (Ed Garvey) agreed to allow the Commissioner to impose the discipline and to designate the hearing officer (including himself) to handle any appeal regarding matters relating to conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football.

Click to expand...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...icle-46-has-been-present-since-the-first-cba/

Joker said:

Tell me this...WTF do 32 bllionaires/near-billionaires care what any fan or fanbase thinks about ANYTHING.

They don't care. As long as we remain junkies in need of our football fix, they will continue to be our dealers...and if we make a stink...STRIKE!...replacement refs...CFL refugees..."Brett Favre returns!"

We are nothing more than ants in the NFL farm.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that they have to step on us.

PatsWickedPissah said:

It's 20-20 hindsight on my part since I raised no such issue at the CBA signing, but I fault Kraft whom I believe knew the CBA details intimately, for not having proposed language restraining the Commissioner's powers because he had previously seen his own franchise abused by the Spygate decision. His continued public support of Goodell right through the Rice debacle and later at the sudden surrender to the 31 definitely shows how his misguided financial priorities overrode principle.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Goodell has played Kraft for a fool since 2007 and aside from Kraft's verbal Mea Culpa to the fans for PR purposes, I do not see any change in his supine posture. If he actually came out and did or said something against Goodell, he might have some credibility. Pointing the finger ambiguously towards the League office is a meaningless showboat.

primetime said:

Well, as an NFL owner myself (one share!), let me add the caveat that one unique franchise is a nonprofit corporation so its motivations are substantially different than those of franchises with a single owner. If every team was run like the Packers rather than as a cash cow for billionaires it would be a much better league.

Click to expand...

I don't know that a mob of fans calling for Brady's head is better. And Packers fans are just as happy about this as the other 31 team's fans.

PatsWickedPissah said:

It's 20-20 hindsight on my part since I raised no such issue at the CBA signing, but I fault Kraft whom I believe knew the CBA details intimately, for not having proposed language restraining the Commissioner's powers because he had previously seen his own franchise abused by the Spygate decision. His continued public support of Goodell right through the Rice debacle and later at the sudden surrender to the 31 definitely shows how his misguided financial priorities overrode principle.

Click to expand...

But that is just not what its about.
Kraft, and the other 31 have one enemy: The players.
They all work toward decisions, policies and negotiations that will keep the players down.
What Kraft was told in May was that objecting to the penalties given to his franchise would weaken the NFLs stranglehold on the players, so he must stand down, because its 32 vs the players, not the Patriots vs the NFL.

RayClay said:

So, he should have told Goodell he was going to help him by limiting his power...and you think Goodell, who was the commissioner, would have said "great idea Bob!"

Click to expand...

I think people misunderstand who is the employee and who is the employer in this relationship.

Ray you seem to feel that Kraft has done everything right. I find that hard to believe.

AndyJohnson said:

I think people misunderstand who is the employee and who is the employer in this relationship.

Ray you seem to feel that Kraft has done everything right. I find that hard to believe.

Click to expand...

32 people appointed Goodell and gave him unlimited power over them. Commissioners have had this power for decades.

No one who didn't find a way to fire Goodell before, assuming they were clairvoyant and knew he was going to go insane, was right. Nevertheless, it would take over 20 owners, not 1.

I think Kraft, after settling the CBA and negotiating all the media contracts, assumed Goodell was at least appreciative, if not in his control. I think Kraft was shocked at the initial charge and more shocked at the punishment, so was I. he's from the business world, when a powerful person relies on someone to do all he takes credit for, it's not logical to turn around and screw him.

AndyJohnson said:

I think people misunderstand who is the employee and who is the employer in this relationship.

Ray you seem to feel that Kraft has done everything right. I find that hard to believe.

Click to expand...

I recall arguing with you that goodell was out of control and it was pointless for an owner, with no backing, to appeal. You disagreed and felt that goodell would [might] give him a fair hearing.

After what Brady went through with union backing, have you changed your mind?

Changed back to would.

Had Kraft appealed, we would be sitting 0-2 on appeals now.