NFL Owners in disarray as Goodell is losing control of the league

[IllegalContact]

Yea that didn't make sense to me either.

Seems to me like Jerry is someone you don't want to mess with and Bob has shoe prints on his back.

I think Kraft was subjected to a major backstabbing he never saw coming.....Kraft may have gotten a little too comfortable with his perceived lofty status among owners and got knocked down a few pegs

over the long haul, though, I'd put my money on Kraft......people like to see Krafts patience as a weakness, but at the end of the day, he never loses in the big game........and no, draft picks are not big game.....just a minor setback

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think Kraft was subjected to a major backstabbing he never saw coming.....Kraft may have gotten a little too comfortable with his perceived lofty status among owners and got knocked down a few pegs

over the long haul, though, I'd put my money on Kraft......people like to see Krafts patience as a weakness, but at the end of the day, he never loses in the big game........and no, draft picks are not big game.....just a minor setback

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Bob is 74 and Jerruh is 73 and both show no signs of slowing down.

If history is a guide the "kids" start to take over in their early 60s . Both Jonathan and Stephen Jones are in their early 50's.

Art Rooney II is running things in Pitt and hes 62.

John Mara is 61.

It's been said that Jonathan has a little more fire than Bob and Stephen Jones is a little more measured than his dad but not the least bit passive and backs down to no one.

10 things to know about Cowboys VP Stephen Jones: The story of Martin over Manziel; pushing Jerry against a wall over Deion | SportsDay

 

[IllegalContact]

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Bob is 74 and Jerruh is 73 and both show no signs of slowing down.

If history is a guide the "kids" start to take over in their early 60s . Both Jonathan and Stephen Jones are in their early 50's.

Art Rooney II is running things in Pitt and hes 62.

John Mara is 61.

It's been said that Jonathan has a little more fire than Bob and Stephen Jones is a little more measured than his dad but not the least bit passive and backs down to no one.

10 things to know about Cowboys VP Stephen Jones: The story of Martin over Manziel; pushing Jerry against a wall over Deion | SportsDay

Jonathan is a more vocal pragmatist than his old man......they're calculating SOB's and going through how they dealt with people from buying the track to buying the stadium to buying the team proves these guys look further out than anyone.....which leaves you a little open for near term issues......I'm confident this ownership may not knock anyone out, but over 15 rounds, will take the blows and wind up ahead on points

 

[AzorianPats]

when it comes to the league, how is Kraft 'old money' and Jones 'new money'?

It had to do with their stance on the LA situation.

Many of the older owners (Kraft, Mara, Rooney etc) wanted the Carson project to hook up their buddy Spanos.

While Jones sided with the new big wig owner in Kroenke and the Inglewood project that also had support from Lurie, Snyder, etc.

I believe if that division never happened, deflategate gets swept under the rug.

 

[1960Pats]

Well now you're embarrassing yourself. If you go by what you have see on field in person, and you go to Patriots games, and you feel the overall quality is lower today than it was 40 years ago, good luck getting others to agree with that.
Nope. Sorry to disappoint.
You're proving the point I am making. There's no difference in gameplay, the only difference is now that there is literally hundreds of times more media taking note.

If we could magically grab 2 average NFL teams circa 1985 and bring them to the present day and watch them, you'd be saying "geez these guys suck.... they are nowhere near as good as teams were 30 years ago..."

I've witnessed all of the games your talking about, from the late 50's to now, and the biggest difference as far as enjoyment for me is the way the games are covered and the different way the players play.

Back in the old days the athleticism of each play was the story, not the way a player danced after a play, or how much money he made or how many records he was chasing. The players seemed to have more character too. You didn't see players using the football as a prop and taking a dump with it or simulating wiping their ass on a goalpost.

Players today also play a much dirtier game than in the past. Yesterday's players weren't necessarily any tougher but they were definitely cleaner. They also played with more sportsmanship back then. In the good old days if a player celebrated after a play the next play would be run right through him. It just didn't happen the way it does now.

 

[1960Pats]

Of all the interesting things in that article that impressed me, two things stood out.

One was the fact that someone representing the NYJFL took sides in the battle over LA, while claiming impartiality. There's that integrity thing again.

The other is the idea that some of the owners were worried that Kroenke would sue the NFL if they fought him.

But wait, it isn't possible for an owner to sue the NFL, so how could they have been worried about it?

 

[Jackson 2]

Of all the interesting things in that article that impressed me, two things stood out.

One was the fact that someone representing the NYJFL took sides in the battle over LA, while claiming impartiality. There's that integrity thing again.

The other is the idea that some of the owners were worried that Kroenke would sue the NFL if they fought him.

But wait, it isn't possible for an owner to sue the NFL, so how could they have been worried about it?

Owners sign a legal document agreeing not to sue. If an owner chooses too, he can violate that agreement and sue anyway. But, of course, you knew that already.

 

[1960Pats]

Owners sign a legal document agreeing not to sue. If an owner chooses too, he can violate that agreement and sue anyway. But, of course, you knew that already.

I actually didn't know that or really care. I still don't.

For the sake of discussion though, let's say it's true. Then why would owners be worried that Kroenke was going to sue?

 

[Hammer of Thor]

I actually didn't know that or really care. I still don't.

For the sake of discussion though, let's say it's true. Then why would owners be worried that Kroenke was going to sue?

I could sign a contract with my employer paying me less than minimum wage. Doesn't make it legal.

If someone agrees not to sue, but the other party does something that blazingly disregards the law or other aspects of the actual agreement itself, a lawsuit could still be filed and the court could disregard the not-suing agreement if it wants to based on the facts and circumstances.

 

[Jackson 2]

I actually didn't know that or really care. I still don't.

For the sake of discussion though, let's say it's true. Then why would owners be worried that Kroenke was going to sue?

Because if he sued he could win! Why TF did you think they'd be worried?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Owners sign a legal document agreeing not to sue. If an owner chooses too, he can violate that agreement and sue anyway. But, of course, you knew that already.

Suing on anti-trust issues is not waivable. Doesn't matter what he signed -- courts will rule that portion of the owners' agreement unenforceable. And suing about relocation is a classic anti-trust issue.

 

[Jackson 2]

Suing on anti-trust issues is not waivable. Doesn't matter what he signed -- courts will rule that portion of the owners' agreement unenforceable. And suing about relocation is a classic anti-trust issue.

I agree. My point is that signing any such agreement is largely symbolic. If a party believes it has been wronged, it can file suit. Whatever happens then depends upon the specifics of the situation.

 

[IllegalContact]

Suing on anti-trust issues is not waivable. Doesn't matter what he signed -- courts will rule that portion of the owners' agreement unenforceable. And suing about relocation is a classic anti-trust issue.

as for draft picks....please find a court case as precedence

 

[RayClay]

I think Kraft was subjected to a major backstabbing he never saw coming.....Kraft may have gotten a little too comfortable with his perceived lofty status among owners and got knocked down a few pegs

over the long haul, though, I'd put my money on Kraft......people like to see Krafts patience as a weakness, but at the end of the day, he never loses in the big game........and no, draft picks are not big game.....just a minor setback

Kraft was, according to the media, the most influential owner in all of sports.

The commisioner begged him to help out while he was in mourning, because Wodger ****ed up the CBA negotiations so bad, the league was headed for endless strike.

Krafty jumped in and saved the leagues ass, then negotiated the most lucrative TV contracts in the history of entertainment for the league.

Can you blame the man for thinking he was owed some thanks?

Can you blame him for thinking he and the team were owed an apology, only to find out in May that the fix was in, the knives were out and he was the opposite of a hero?

the guy is human.

 

[RayClay]

I've got tons of articles substantiating this, but I've posted them all over this site already.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Can you blame him for thinking he and the team were owed an apology, only to find out in May that the fix was in, the knives were out and he was the opposite of a hero?

Which puts the lie to the claims of how "influential" he was.

If your "influence" can't help you when you're being blatantly framed for something that didn't even happen, perhaps you're not quite as "influential" as your press clippings say.

 

[IllegalContact]

Kraft was, according to the media, the most influential owner in all of sports.

The commisioner begged him to help out while he was in mourning, because Wodger ****ed up the CBA negotiations so bad, the league was headed for endless strike.

Krafty jumped in and saved the leagues ass, then negotiated the most lucrative TV contracts in the history of entertainment for the league.

Can you blame the man for thinking he was owed some thanks?

Can you blame him for thinking he and the team were owed an apology, only to find out in May that the fix was in, the knives were out and he was the opposite of a hero?

the guy is human.

I just think that Kraft is not a grenade lobbing type of fighter ..... Never has been .... He may have even been played that way ..... I also don't think he's the executioner type .... Look at Parcells ..... Kraft never engaged in the mess .... Just not who he is .....

Both he and Brady misjudged how serious the league was about coming down on them.....

I would like to know the process for approving an expenditure such as the wells report.....does goodell have the leeway to drop that kind of money without anyone's approval? Doing that in a vacuum is odd

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Of all the interesting things in that article that impressed me, two things stood out.

One was the fact that someone representing the NYJFL took sides in the battle over LA, while claiming impartiality. There's that integrity thing again.

The other is the idea that some of the owners were worried that Kroenke would sue the NFL if they fought him.

But wait, it isn't possible for an owner to sue the NFL, so how could they have been worried about it?

I don't buy the 'he would sue so we have to give it to Stan' angle. There are 3 plausible reasons Stan won the LA battle: (1) His deal would make the league the most money and/or expose the league to smaller financial risk. (2) Politics and power. One group saw the opportunity to garner power -- possibly a you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back elements. (3)(and the least likely based upon how that snake pit works) Stan's deal was simply the better deal for the NFL.

But the owners gave up the LA deal based on fear of being sued? These ivory tower dwellers don't strike me as worried about going to court. To the contrary they strike me as wanting to show everyone they'll go to court at the drop of hat (thereby signalling court cannot be used to leverage/bully us).

 

[1960Pats]

I could sign a contract with my employer paying me less than minimum wage. Doesn't make it legal.

If someone agrees not to sue, but the other party does something that blazingly disregards the law or other aspects of the actual agreement itself, a lawsuit could still be filed and the court could disregard the not-suing agreement if it wants to based on the facts and circumstances.

So all of those fans here who were declaring that Kraft's hands were tied were wrong?

 

[1960Pats]

Because if he sued he could win! Why TF did you think they'd be worried?

If you can't have a civil conversation here then don't respond to my posts.