NFL Thread

[FuriousStyles]

I knew that something had happened at Tennessee, but I really didn't know the details.  Reading what happened, and then the subsequent cover-up (including the suggestion that they blame the "incident" on a black athlete...their punctuation not mine), and trashing of the victim was Lance Armstrong levels of disgusting.  Another player on the team was blackballed from playing again because he wouldn't corroborate Peyton's "version" of events.   I can't believe they were able to pretty much keep this hush hush.

Edited February 13, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[Jx223]

The Peyton Manning stuff does sound pretty awful. I read that article. Yikes. From the sounds of it not only did he sexually assault Dr. Naughright, he poked fun of the incident in public in front of other players and caused serious damage to her career. It looks like him and Archie had a hand in her losing two jobs that she seemed to really cared about. Not to mention he lied under oath about things she falsely said/did (that were refuted by witnesses/other people). Then on top of that he insinuated that she was sleeping around with black athletes on the campus and tried to blame the original incident on a black athlete. That is terrible. It seems like he basically got away with all that, including the lying under oath part.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Jx223

[Crs97]

Just be careful- Those are court documents in that the plaintiff's attorney filed them with the court. I believe we are reading allegations, not adjudicated facts. No doubt something bad happened, but we might need to take some of that report with a grain of salt.

[ganesh]

Sure there's no A or B level Hall of Fame...but "1st ballot Hall of Famer" has a certain ring to it that those players who were voted in on the first try are proud to say so.

 

This is another thing that is always a thing for no reason though. I get the point, but you're still an HOFer. Are you losing endorsements because you weren't first ballot?

So, essentially, Ray Lewis (whom we assume is first ballot) has more credibility than TO. Or Favre. Ok. That tells me what I need to know. 

One would think that a player who doesn't have an arrest record or legal problems would count for something. It clearly doesn't. We're talking about a league where you can drive drunk and kill someone and then drive drunk again and maybe drive drunk and kill someone but technically they were jaywalking, so nbd. But, the precise amount of pressure in the football is a capital crime.

[ganesh]

I'm so worried that all this Manning stuff is going to affect his HOF chances. TO didn't get in because he's such a bad, terrible awful person, and I know how much an emphasis they place on character. 

[mojoween]

Stephen A.'s handwringing about the original incident makes me laugh because *I* have known about it for YEARS and I have nothing to do with the Mannings, Tennessee or the NFL.

[xaxat]

After reading the Daily News article and court document, I was surprised at how sensitive Peyton's delicate flower ears were with respect to alleged profanity from his accuser.

 

Good thing he chose a career in football, where no one ever curses.

[Danny Franks]

I'm so worried that all this Manning stuff is going to affect his HOF chances. TO didn't get in because he's such a bad, terrible awful person, and I know how much an emphasis they place on character. 

 

Terrell Owens won't get in because he was a dick to too many people in the game. It's not that complicated.

 

So, essentially, Ray Lewis (whom we assume is first ballot) has more credibility than TO. Or Favre. Ok. That tells me what I need to know.

 

 

Again, Ray Lewis does have more credibility than either. He had better careers that either, has more Super Bowl rings than either, he's much more well liked by his team and by his peers in the game. He's recognised as one of the greatest defensive players to have played the game. He will go into the HoF on the first ballot, and he'll deserve it.

[ganesh]

Being 2nd in yards and TDs to the greatest player at your position doesn't count? Because TO was a dick. So, character counts, then. Or, how do they vote exactly? Because I'm confused. 

Lewis is obviously going to get in because of what he did on the field, which was very clearly a HOF-level career. TO also had a HOF-level career similarly based on his production in the game. So did Favre as we talked about even with all the INTs. So, they're better characters then, and got in/will get in because of that, in addition to HOF stats?

 

TO must has much worse character than those two guys in order not to be voted in. Arrest records? Gun charges? Domestic abuse? Sexual assault? A literal conviction of obstruction of justice? Getting in fights all the time with teammates? No? Oh, TO was a dick. The only HOF-worthy player ever in the history of professional sports to be a dick. So that keeps you out. 

 

Petty, disingenuous, and ridiculously stupid doesn't even cover it. And credibility doesn't factor into it because you don't compare across players. It's an individual accolade. I think I sprained my eye from rolling it so hard.

Edited February 15, 2016 by ganesh

[Danny Franks]

You're asking for an explanation as to why he won't get it. That's it. He's a dick, and too many of the people who decide this don't like him. He had no loyalty to anyone but himself, which is of course not unusual, but he didn't hide that, which is.

 

I personally don't care whether he gets in or not, but I can see the reasons why he won't quite clearly.

[FuriousStyles]

T.O. will get in.  There's no doubt about it, that from some of the voters own mouths.  Them not voting T.O.in on the first ballot,  is the discussion.  T.O.'s numbers aren't one where he's on the bubble.  Where people are like "meh, maybe he'll get in maybe he won't".  His numbers scream H.OF.  and nothing about him being a dick, or not liked, or whatever should have been factored in to the decision making process....any more than the issues Ray Lewis, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning down the line, Lawrence Taylor before him and all of the other HOFs with questionable characters who got in.   If the voters are going to penalize T.O for character unbecoming then what does it matter if it was on the field or not?  They're being highly hypocritical here.   At the end of the day, T.O. will get in and I guess it'll be a moot point, but allowing the voters to decide that other things besides performance on the field is fair game is not a road I think people want to let them go down.

[Danny Franks]

T.O. will get in.  There's no doubt about it, that from some of the voters own mouths.  Them not voting T.O.in on the first ballot,  is the discussion.  T.O.'s numbers aren't one where he's on the bubble.  Where people are like "meh, maybe he'll get in maybe he won't".  His numbers scream H.OF.  and nothing about him being a dick, or not liked, or whatever should have been factored in to the decision making process....any more than the issues Ray Lewis, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning down the line, Lawrence Taylor before him and all of the other HOFs with questionable characters who got in.   If the voters are going to penalize T.O for character unbecoming then what does it matter if it was on the field or not?  They're being highly hypocritical here.   At the end of the day, T.O. will get in and I guess it'll be a moot point, but allowing the voters to decide that other things besides performance on the field is fair game is not a road I think people want to let them go down.

 

In that case, Darren Sharper should be going into the Hall of Fame as well. His career was absolutely worthy of it. The voters are always going to take off-field exploits and character into account.

 

There are wide receivers who have been waiting years to get in. The position is famously overlooked for HoF entrants, and Terrell Owens is going to be joining the back of that line. But of course, is he even eligible? He keeps tweeting about how he's available to play for one team or another, in some silly bid to get some publicity

[stealinghome]

The voters are always going to take off-field exploits and character into account.

If that's the case, Ray Lewis should not be a first-ballot HOFer.

[ganesh]

T.O. will get in.  There's no doubt about it, that from some of the voters own mouths.  Them not voting T.O.in on the first ballot,  is the discussion.  T.O.'s numbers aren't one where he's on the bubble.  Where people are like "meh, maybe he'll get in maybe he won't".  His numbers scream H.OF.  and nothing about him being a dick, or not liked, or whatever should have been factored in to the decision making process....any more than the issues Ray Lewis, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning down the line, Lawrence Taylor before him and all of the other HOFs with questionable characters who got in.   If the voters are going to penalize T.O for character unbecoming then what does it matter if it was on the field or not?  They're being highly hypocritical here.   At the end of the day, T.O. will get in and I guess it'll be a moot point, but allowing the voters to decide that other things besides performance on the field is fair game is not a road I think people want to let them go down.

 

That's basically what I was mocking. Character counts only if you don't really like the guy. TO shouldn't even be remotely at the back of that line though. He's second to Jerry Rice *still*. Not when he retired. And the league has gotten more pass oriented. The egregious thing for me is that he's got a zero arrest record. It's not like he was always in the media much outside of football for anything. On the field, he wasn't racking up fouls and fines, and wasn't linked to any PEDs or anything either. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by ganesh

[nowandlater]

Deadspin did a really good job with the Manning story.

 

http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435

[mojoween]

Personally I'm bored with Peyton's rectum, Murderin' Ray, Brett's penis and TO's naked sit-ups because for good or evil none of that changed what happened for sixty minutes every Sunday.

On other topics, it's been announced that the Colts and Pack will play in the HOF game and I don't see any problems with that, it makes sense with Favre, Dungy and Harrison's inductions that weekend.

The Redskins have apparently stopped contract talks with Kirk Cousins with no plans to resume. They would be foolish to let him go.

And Anquan Boldin, looking like a social studies teacher, and Von Miller's jacket made an appearance at The Grammys last night. I don't even remember what they presented but Miller's shiny shiny jacket made quite the splash on Twitter.

Edited February 16, 2016 by mojoween

[Carey]

Yeah, Cousins isn't going anywhere.  $20 Million is totally worth it, IMO, for Washington to tag him.  Especially with Philadelphia not solid at the QB position (no guarantee Foles gets back there and perseveres)

 

Von Miller has a rather substantial history when it comes to his appearances on television.

 

Yeah, as mentioned, there is concern for Manning to get in (immediately after he's eligible) over what's been happening to him or what has happened to him.  Personally, right now it doesn't look good, but it's more probable than not that the ugliness of this story becomes less of a factor the closer we get to 2021.  Barring something outstanding (and if so, it's probably going to surface closer to 2016 as opposed to 2021).

 

The only way Ray doesn't get into Canton in 2018 is if it's due to other people that "have to get in" including another linebacker.  It's different with him and T.O. because Lewis was loved, as mentioned.  Also he was accomplished individually (several POY awards).  In addition, he was more accomplished as it relates to the overall result of his team, or his franchise (2 titles, several divisional titles, and a ton of playoff appearances, a lot coming toward the end of his career consecutively).

[Danny Franks]

The only way Ray doesn't get into Canton in 2018 is if it's due to other people that "have to get in" including another linebacker.  It's different with him and T.O. because Lewis was loved, as mentioned.  Also he was accomplished individually (several POY awards).  In addition, he was more accomplished as it relates to the overall result of his team, or his franchise (2 titles, several divisional titles, and a ton of playoff appearances, a lot coming toward the end of his career consecutively).

 

And, no matter what people think of what happened in 2000, what his role was, and whether he got away with anything, it's inarguable that the event caused him to reassess his life and make significant changes. He completely changed how he lived his life off the field, and that led to him having the long, successful career that he did. As an example of how troubled players can turn their lives around, there are few better.

 

Yeah, Cousins isn't going anywhere.  $20 Million is totally worth it, IMO, for Washington to tag him.  Especially with Philadelphia not solid at the QB position (no guarantee Foles gets back there and perseveres)

 

 

If the Redskins can afford the cap hit, it's totally worth it. Cousins did a good job and looks promising, but giving him a long term deal off the back of his current body of work would be risky as hell. Just ask the Rams and Nick Foles.

 

Personally, I'm hoping that all these QB hungry teams are ringing Ozzie Newsome in the lead up to draft day, because unless Jalen Ramsey is on the board at #6, I want the Ravens to trade back a few spots. I don't believe the hype about Bosa, and I'm terrified of drafting a 'finesse' Tackle like Ronnie Stanley.

[DrSpaceman73]

There is nothing that new in the Manning allegations. And the report is completely one sided from her lawyer's perspective, by definition. You won't see manning respond or say anything because he likely can't based on the legal agreement. It was settled 13 years ago. It happened 20 years ago. I am not defending what he did, it was stupid, and disgusting, but there is also absolutely nothing he has done in the 20 years sense to indicate this was more than a single incident. There was nothing being covered up or hush/hush about it, 95% of this I have heard before. He can't comment on it, it's part of the reason it being brought up again when he wrote about it in his book. For whatever reason, he did not seem to like her, no idea why, but there is no evidence this was a pattern of behavior by him over his career. IF we are going to judge everything by things they did at the age of 20, we are all going to look pretty poor.

There is zero chance that Manning does not get in the HOF on the first ballot just based on that incident. Or the Al Jazeera HGH stuff, which will go nowhere. Favre's "stuff" with the Jets did not keep him out the first year. Brady's defelategate stuff, even with the Spygate allegations he was not directly but indirectly involved with, as much as I hate him, still think he is guilty and think the whole team is lying the whole time, is not keeping him out on the first ballot.

[xaxat]

The Redskins have apparently stopped contract talks with Kirk Cousins with no plans to resume. They would be foolish to let him go.

 

Daniel Snyder? Foolish?

 

Never!

[Ohwell]

The local sportscaster tonight said the Redskins denied that contract talks with Cousins had stopped.  They're still hashing it out.

[merylinkid]

First the Skins took RGIII, then kicked him to the curb, so they went with Cousins.   Who did well enough considering the rest of the team.   Now they are playing head games with him.  Go ahead, push him and see if he'll walk.   Some other team will take him in a minute.   And no other player will trust the Skins to negotiate in good faith again.   Snyder may outthink himself on this one (quelle surprise).

 

As for Manning, unless this turns into a Bill Cosby with other women coming forward, I'm going with he was young and dumb.   Also based on the allegations this woman made about what other people allegedly did, I think she's one of those people who get offended and upset over everything.   Apparently, everyone was supposed to be on their best behavior because there was a female in the locker room.   But she didn't want to be treated differently because she was a woman doing a traditionally male job -- except when she did.   sounds like a situation that was ripe for young, arrogant boys to take things a tad too far.   But I don't think this is who Peyton really is.   Again, this is subject to revision.

[Rick Kitchen]

Roger Goodell makes more money than even the highest-paid player.

 

Like somebody said, who were the owners bidding against to give him that much money?

[stealinghome]

Man, he gets paid a lot of money to fumble pretty much everything that crosses his desk. I mean, I know they like him because he's the fall guy and pliant, but surely they could pay someone a little...more competent and smarter...to have the same qualities.

[Danny Franks]

Man, he gets paid a lot of money to fumble pretty much everything that crosses his desk. I mean, I know they like him because he's the fall guy and pliant, but surely they could pay someone a little...more competent and smarter...to have the same qualities.

 

He's really good at making money for the league, which is why he's still in the job. Unless he does something that forces them to move against him, I imagine they'll keep him around for a while.

 

Oddly, I read that inside story of the L.A move on ESPN the other day, and they mentioned how, when Bob Iger of Disney was brought in to campaign for the Carson deal, he originally thought the NFL were sounding him out to replace Goodell as commissioner. That would get a lot of people in a flap. 'Oh no! Disney owns everything! Players will have to wear helmets with mouse ears now!'

[ganesh]

You know who would be really good at making money for the league at this point? Me. You. Him. Her. 

Seriously though, there's probably some people who could run the league and still make as much money and not botch every issue. 

 

Except, the league doesn't have to care about that because they keep raking in billions. They don't care about player safety or that the league is populated by criminals (just don't be a dick or you won't get into the HOF!) because they don't have to. 

[xaxat]

He's really good at making money for the league, which is why he's still in the job. Unless he does something that forces them to move against him, I imagine they'll keep him around for a while.

 

But is he really good at making money for them? Given how networks are lining up to throw vast amounts of money at the league for live content, I think a lot of people could have done just as well in that position. The only new thing he has done is sell rights to the Thursday Night games.

 

And if you look at the future of media, the internet and mobile, MLB is miles ahead of the NFL.

[Danny Franks]

Well the league's revenue has almost doubled since Goodell took over in 2006. Of course, it can be argued that TV companies wanted to throw money at them, and all Goodell had to do was agree, but we don't know the reality behind that. We don't know what negotiations took place to maximise the amount offered, or what deals Goodell made, or who came up with the best money-spinning ideas.

 

What the owners will look at is how many of them are richer than they were a decade ago, and how many more opportunities to make even more money (like the L.A. return and a possible London franchise) are on the horizon. And ultimately, if all Goodell is there for is to be the puppet for thirty two multi-millionaire owners, then they'll keep him doing that job until they have to find a new guy.

 

The amount Goodell gets paid is obscene, but it's probably not out of line with what other chief executives of big companies get paid. And in a lot of cases, the same arguments could be made about them making money regardless of the man in charge. He's one of the privileged untouchables who will always be rich, no matter what his job performance. There are no shortage of them either.

[Constantinople]

Man, he gets paid a lot of money to fumble pretty much everything that crosses his desk. I mean, I know they like him because he's the fall guy and pliant, but surely they could pay someone a little...more competent and smarter...to have the same qualities.

 

I agree, but if they replaced Goodell, the owners would implicitly be admitting that they screwed-up.  I don't think they want to do that.

[xaxat]

The amount Goodell gets paid is obscene, but it's probably not out of line with what other chief executives of big companies get paid. And in a lot of cases, the same arguments could be made about them making money regardless of the man in charge. He's one of the privileged untouchables who will always be rich, no matter what his job performance. There are no shortage of them either.

 

That's true. CEOs in general benefit from the Lake Wobegon Effect. Every board thinks their guy is better than average. And they get paid accordingly.

Edited February 17, 2016 by xaxat

[Rick Kitchen]

Montee Ball arrested for domestic violence.

[benteen]

A trained monkey could run the NFL and make it money.  It's a recession-proof business.

 

I will acknowledge though that as a multi-billion dollar, recession-proof business, Goodell is actually underpaid.

 

I think Peyton definitely did what he was accused of.  It was disgusting and wrong and he's very lucky that social media wasn't around in 1996 (and 1994 apparently).  The only reason this is an issue now though is because he decided to break a confidentiality agreement and run his mouth off about it in a book several years later.  That's why he got sued in 2003 and he got sued AGAIN in 2005 when he broke that agreement and talked about it on an ESPN documentary.  It takes supreme arrogance and stupidity to bring up something that someone with a brain would have never brought up again.  Both Peyton and Archie Manning look bad in this.

Edited February 17, 2016 by benteen

[FuriousStyles]

At what age does a man learn he cant plop his penis on a woman's face (without her permission)? It drives me insane whenever "young and dumb" is used to give someone a pass. And im still in my 20s myself so not a fuddy duddy by any means but sheesh can anyone under 25 ever take responsibility for their actions? Legally in some states a *13* year old can be held responsible for certain crimes.

What actually bothers me more than the act itself was the lengths to which Peyton and Archie 'allegedly' tried to cover it up. Wanting to blame the whole thing on another athlete, preferrably black. The insinuation being what? That it would be much easier for people to believe a thug (read: n*****) would do something so despicable but not pure as the white driven snow Peyton Manning. Them trying to disparage and discredit a woman who was highly accomplished. I dont think a woman who spent most of her adult career up to that point around college and Olympic professional athletes would exaggerate or out right fabricate this story. Are there other lawsuits she filed? Is she a serial suer? Why would she want her name and the reputation she obviously worked so hard to build to be associated with this crap?

Edited February 19, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[DrSpaceman73]

Yes, actually, she does appear to be a serial suer.

She made 33 complaints while at University of Tenn and they found evidence to back up 4 of them.

She had sued others since Manning as well.

http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/15/mannings-accuser-has-a-tendency-for-suing-famous-people/

Also reports now U of Tenn over the fall called the FBI over harassing phone calls she made last year.

Not exactly the model employee and citizen made out in the Shaun King article.

Edited February 19, 2016 by DrSpaceman73

[DrSpaceman73]

Also the report from U Tenn over the 33 incidents in questions stated she was not fully innocent herself in the claims they investigated

http://www.morningledger.com/peyton-manning-trouble-5-facts-accuser-jamie-nauright/1358522/

[merylinkid]

Somehow only the Manning allegation gets talked about not the 34 other allegations.   Now it is probably a case of "a pox on both your houses."   I am quite sure that there was a lot of not appropriate behavior in a major university sports program.   On the other hand, she's a serial suer who seems to look for ways to be offended.   Which makes me question her "I was a highly accomplished, well-respected woman and the Mannings destroyed my career and reputation" claim.   Some people are too busy DOING their careers to spend all that time that a court case takes.

[xaxat]

Ari Fleischer has really earned his paycheck the last couple of months.

[nowandlater]

Somehow only the Manning allegation gets talked about not the 34 other allegations.   Now it is probably a case of "a pox on both your houses."   I am quite sure that there was a lot of not appropriate behavior in a major university sports program.   On the other hand, she's a serial suer who seems to look for ways to be offended.   Which makes me question her "I was a highly accomplished, well-respected woman and the Mannings destroyed my career and reputation" claim.   Some people are too busy DOING their careers to spend all that time that a court case takes.

 

It makes sense to focus on Manning, who's actually famous, and not the other allegations -- except for in the coontext of it being a widespread problem.

 

If she's a "serial suer," who else has she sued besides the Mannings and University of Tennessee?

 

According to this Deadspin article, Dr. Naughright really was affected for years, especially when she lost her job in 2001.

 

http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435

[FuriousStyles]

Yes, actually, she does appear to be a serial suer.

She made 33 complaints while at University of Tenn and they found evidence to back up 4 of them.

She had sued others since Manning as well.

http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/15/mannings-accuser-has-a-tendency-for-suing-famous-people/

Also reports now U of Tenn over the fall called the FBI over harassing phone calls she made last year.

Not exactly the model employee and citizen made out in the Shaun King article.

Did she file 33 separate claims for each allegation or are the 33 allegations in one claim? I didnt get clarity on that from the link you provided.

And I dont really know what im supposed to gather from the University investigating itself. Like ok, the 4 claims they admitted were probably so egregious they had no choice.

Edited February 19, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[xaxat]

It's interesting that both articles cited used a photo emphasizing the figure of Dr. Naughright instead of her wearing professional attire.

 

Clearly no bias there.

 

(ETA, from the authors of the articles, not the posters here.)

Edited February 19, 2016 by xaxat

[nowandlater]

Interesting Manning story #1:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/02/19/the-mysterious-1994-incident-between-peyton-manning-and-a-tennessee-trainer/

 

Interesting Manning story #2:

http://thebiglead.com/2016/02/19/peyton-manning-malcolm-saxon-affidavit-jamie-naughton-whited-contradictions/

[hendersonrocks]

I am quite sure that there was a lot of not appropriate behavior in a major university sports program.   On the other hand, she's a serial suer who seems to look for ways to be offended.   Which makes me question her "I was a highly accomplished, well-respected woman and the Mannings destroyed my career and reputation" claim.   Some people are too busy DOING their careers to spend all that time that a court case takes.

 

Gross. If you're a woman in a predominately male-driven field, surrounded by male athletes used to doing whatever they want (at least at Tennessee, from the sounds of it), then what exactly do you want her to do? Keep putting up with it and sacrificing her own career because these dudes don't know how to behave? What evidence do you have that she was looking for ways to be offended, or that she was not actually DOING her career?

 

It's crap like this that makes women afraid to speak up and enables men to continue victimizing, harassing, pick your favorite hideous -ing.

[Crs97]

Did she really try to sue Donna Karan for recommending a therapist with whom she had a bad experience? If that is true, then I am side-eyeing her other allegations.

[DrSpaceman73]

Did she file 33 separate claims for each allegation or are the 33 allegations in one claim? I didnt get clarity on that from the link you provided.

And I dont really know what im supposed to gather from the University investigating itself. Like ok, the 4 claims they admitted were probably so egregious they had no choice.

I took it to mean 33 separate incidents she reported, based on how the story and they report of the allegations read

And schools and businesses self investigate things all the time. Its one of the main jobs of HR departments. You can't have an outside independent investigation for every single thing that employees bring up as problems.

Also in terms of her losing her job over what Manning put in his book in 2001 or so, do we actually know that is why she lost her job? That is what she claims, but I can't imagine someone being fired over that. In fact if she was fired over that issue, I would think she would be suing her employer at the time, not Manning. Firing someone over alleged incidents that happened long before she worked there seems unfair and quite possible illegal.

Edited February 21, 2016 by DrSpaceman73

[merylinkid]

This is my biggest problem.   Manning didn't mention her by name in the book.   Manning didn't notify her employer about the past or the book.   Someone anonymously sent a nasty letter to her.   And from there it gets fuzzy.   But somehow she lost her job and it's Manning's fault?   Umm, HOW?   Unless you can prove his active involvement in whatever happened in Florida, that's just a case of finding the biggest name with the deepest pockets to blame.

[FuriousStyles]

I wasnt aware of this back then, but for someone who was...was the Dr. pretty well known as the person involved with the "Manning incident" when it actually happened in 1996? Because if so, Peyton doesnt have to mention her by name in his book. Everybody is gonna know who he's talking about.

And yes I dont expect an organization to hire private investigators for every little thing. But when ONE employee brings up 30+ allegations, one of which is against your star player then yes I expect them to take THAT particular situation more seriously.

The same way I expect them to hire outside investigators because of the current lawsuit against them, especially with the media attention.

And we dont know what either Manning did or didnt do. Im not saying Peyton or Archie called up the Florida school and said hey, you need to fire this person or whatever. But I have no idea what they did behind closed doors.

What I do know is Peyton is the one who's violated the terms of the settlement. It sounds like that situation was dead and buried and HE chose to dredge it back up. For what?

[mojoween]

The hypocrisy of Gronk could not be more irritating to me. If ANYONE else did it, it would be the worst thing in the history of worst things. But because he's a giant drunken imbecile, it's perfectly ok.

I adore Dan LeBatard anyways, but him naming the boat the "S.S. TD" made me laugh and laugh. He likes Gronk, though, which I most assuredly do not.

[xaxat]

NFL Withheld Millions From Players

 

 

 

The National Football League has been ordered to return what its union calculates is more than $100 million to the pool of revenue that it shares with its players.

The ruling, handed down last week by arbitrator Stephen Burbank, found that the NFL owners had mischaracterized what Players Association officials say is roughly $120 million of ticket revenue during the past three years by creating an exemption that had the effect of keeping about $50 million in salary out of players’ pockets. The NFL Players Association, which discovered the discrepancy during an ongoing audit of league finances, filed a grievance on the matter in January.

 

The league is essentially calling it a clerical error. Yeah, right.

 

With stuff like this and Cowboy Goodell's enforcement of the Personal Conduct Policy, the next CBA negotiation is going to be a doozy!

Edited February 23, 2016 by xaxat

[stealinghome]

#integrity

Under Goodell the NFL really is starting to approach clown show status.

Edited February 23, 2016 by stealinghome

[merylinkid]

You keep using that word.   I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

 

Someone had to say it.