SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Which people? Start naming and maiming them!I thought we were clamping down on politics in here, but this thread is currently being dominated by the same ******** from the same people as always.
The OP was clear as day, Rapaport is proud of his hairless chihuahua look. Good on him.The OP, or Joker's response?
Here here, well said. what ever it was you were trying to say.and Social Justice Moron Nation goes wild with 26 gendered ecstasy...Bruce Jennifer was quoted saying "he's a disgusting toad of a man who should be castrated and hung by his ankles over a boiling hot steam vent" while the face that stopped a million clocks, Joyless "Manface" Behar called for a nationwide boycott and month long penitential march against "Manspeak!"....meanwhile, the HEAD of NFLN, Roger "Hi I'm severely re-tarded" Goondell continues on with his 14 year long organized criminal conspiracy. Yeah,Ian Rapoport..outrageous...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Remember, there’s a warning out about the brown acid. Might want to stay away from it.I feel like I need Google translate and a hit of acid to understand this statement.
Rappaport works for the league. No CBA. Gronk is contracted to a team, under the CBA. The league can control their employees, not so much players covered by the CBA.The OP was clear as day, Rapaport is proud of his hairless chihuahua look. Good on him.
As for the suspension, it seems there’s a policy with the NFL or NFLN and he failed to get clearance. At least one NFL player (Gronk) did a commercial for the gadget and didn’t get suspended, so clearly, it is or was allowed.
I personally find the suspension too long but I don’t have any information on Rapaport’s work history or how consistently this rule has been applied to other employees.
But the tight end of the Tampa bay bucs is in a manscaped commercial looking for his balls. Im confused why they would be against this.
I'm not sure my post said that.Oh you actually think the corrupt 32 and NYJFL* care about social justice?
Given his habits, I think Ian will be pretty "blue" after two weeks of not posting to social media...That’s pretty nuts. At least they didn’t sack him
But the tight end of the Tampa bay bucs is in a manscaped commercial looking for his balls. Im confused why they would be against this.
Totally agree that there is a clear difference. I do think that if this was some sort of “embarrassment to the brand” issue for the league, there is language in the CBA that could have been used to go after a player. But I don’t think that’s the motivation here.Rappaport works for the league. No CBA. Gronk is contracted to a team, under the CBA. The league can control their employees, not so much players covered by the CBA.
That would explain NFL's strong reaction, they want their "cut"!Logic suggests that there was an issue with Rapoport doing a deal directly with Manscaped without receiving all appropriate clearances and permissions from the league.
I see what he did there!While he may have violated business rules relating to when and how on-air talent can cut their own deals, it seems that there could be a remedy short of whacking him for two weeks.
I thought we were clamping down on politics in here, but this thread is currently being dominated by the same ******** from the same people as always.