Quote:
Originally Posted by CultBrennan59
No, No, NO. Nowhere do I say that. I don't understand even where you get that implication. If you read through my post, you would have seen that I said that even though there are already retirement funds and the whole play 60 thing to help kids now learn how to play and hit properly, I'm saying more money can go into those programs, as an example. There are probably more places that salary of his could go.
|
Here is the problem. You are saying it as if Goodells salary is stopping the funding of those things (or stopping additional funding). The funds are in the NFL now to do those things. You dont need to cut Goodells salary for any of those.
As I explained in the last post, there are trillions of places that extra money COULD go. That doesnt mean that if its stripped from Goodell, thats where it WILL go. Stripping Goodell of money means none of that. You are tying the two together for some reason. Well, if you are tying Goodells salary to those causes, then the underfunding is a direct result of Goodells salary. I have no other way of reading that. If you honestly dont believe Goodells salary and those causes go hand in hand, then stop tying them together.