Around the NFL Off - Season style.

[Skinzman]

Im just curious about something. A question to the people who thinks Roger Goodell deserves less money.

Where do you think that extra money will go?

Very simple answer... It gets split evenly by the owners and put into their pockets. You arent getting cheaper beer at a game if Roger takes a paycut. You arent getting cheaper tickets if Roger takes a paycut. Every last one of you would say the Commisioner of the NFL is underpaid... If it was your job.

As much as I am not a fan of the guy, the fact is, every owner looks at the bottom line. Im sure Dan Snyder doesnt like Goodell on Monday through Thursday, but when his paycheck gets deposited into his bank on Friday, im sure Dan agrees with the job that Goodell is doing.

CEO's, COO's, ect are paid based on how profitable a company/corporation is. Its based on whether the consumer will spend money on your product, not whether the consumers like the CEO's or COO's.

So if the goal is to make sure that the owners are the only people who get paid in the NFL, then so be it. If thats not the goal, then why complain when they pay someone else. I would rather the NFL give bonuses and extra money to the employees of the NFL over the 32 owners keeping it all.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Im just curious about something. A question to the people who thinks Roger Goodell deserves less money.

Where do you think that extra money will go?

Very simple answer... It gets split evenly by the owners and put into their pockets. You arent getting cheaper beer at a game if Roger takes a paycut. You arent getting cheaper tickets if Roger takes a paycut. Every last one of you would say the Commisioner of the NFL is underpaid... If it was your job.

As much as I am not a fan of the guy, the fact is, every owner looks at the bottom line. Im sure Dan Snyder doesnt like Goodell on Monday through Thursday, but when his paycheck gets deposited into his bank on Friday, im sure Dan agrees with the job that Goodell is doing.

CEO's, COO's, ect are paid based on how profitable a company/corporation is. Its based on whether the consumer will spend money on your product, not whether the consumers like the CEO's or COO's.

So if the goal is to make sure that the owners are the only people who get paid in the NFL, then so be it. If thats not the goal, then why complain when they pay someone else. I would rather the NFL give bonuses and extra money to the employees of the NFL over the 32 owners keeping it all.

I'll tell you where that money could be going. To the retired players. Especially the ones with major injuries and problems. Yes, I know there is already money going to retired players, but there can be more going to them and research towards some if these brain injuries and other major head trauma tests to find better ways and cures if you will towards playing football.

Also that money could be going to little leagues and high schools as part of the play 60 program (or whatever its called) to help the underprivileged kids get football equipment and help their schools get money for other football needs. There are tons and I mean tons, of football programs across the country that pop up in poor areas where the kids may have talent, but the parents and/or the program may not have the money for pads and other equipment.

I just gave you 2 major places where the NFL could put $20 million, instead of in Rogers pocket. He doesn't play and he was the highest paid person in the league last year. Where is his jersey?

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I'll tell you where that money could be going. To the retired players. Especially the ones with major injuries and problems. Yes, I know there is already money going to retired players, but there can be more going to them and research towards some if these brain injuries and other major head trauma tests to find better ways and cures if you will towards playing football.

Also that money could be going to little leagues and high schools as part of the play 60 program (or whatever its called) to help the underprivileged kids get football equipment and help their schools get money for other football needs. There are tons and I mean tons, of football programs across the country that pop up in poor areas where the kids may have talent, but the parents and/or the program may not have the money for pads and other equipment.

I just gave you 2 major places where the NFL could put $20 million, instead of in Rogers pocket. He doesn't play and he was the highest paid person in the league last year. Where is his jersey?

I agree. And the NFL was strong and popular long before RG came along. I think he benefited from the NFL much more than the other way around.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I'll tell you where that money could be going. To the retired players. Especially the ones with major injuries and problems. Yes, I know there is already money going to retired players, but there can be more going to them and research towards some if these brain injuries and other major head trauma tests to find better ways and cures if you will towards playing football.

Also that money could be going to little leagues and high schools as part of the play 60 program (or whatever its called) to help the underprivileged kids get football equipment and help their schools get money for other football needs. There are tons and I mean tons, of football programs across the country that pop up in poor areas where the kids may have talent, but the parents and/or the program may not have the money for pads and other equipment.

I just gave you 2 major places where the NFL could put $20 million, instead of in Rogers pocket. He doesn't play and he was the highest paid person in the league last year. Where is his jersey?

So your point is that it is 100% the fault of the Goodells salary as to why these things arent already being done? Your point is that there is absolutely no possible way there is any extra money in the NFL now to take care of these things without cutting Goodells salary?

I completely disagree with both of those contentions.

The salary of NFL employees has nothing to do with your semantics as to where some money could go. The owners could put 20 million to those causes, give Goodell a 20 mil per year raise on top of the already 30 mil he is getting now, and the owners are STILL raking in the money.

So while NFL owners could strip Goodell of 20 mil a year and donate it to either of those two causes, donate it to the homeless, donate it to cure cancer, or donate it to strippers anonymous, they wont.... They would put that 20 mil in their own pockets if they took it from Goodell

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

So your point is that it is 100% the fault of the Goodells salary as to why these things arent already being done? Your point is that there is absolutely no possible way there is any extra money in the NFL now to take care of these things without cutting Goodells salary?

I completely disagree with both of those contentions.

The salary of NFL employees has nothing to do with your semantics as to where some money could go. The owners could put 20 million to those causes, give Goodell a 20 mil per year raise on top of the already 30 mil he is getting now, and the owners are STILL raking in the money.

So while NFL owners could strip Goodell of 20 mil a year and donate it to either of those two causes, donate it to the homeless, donate it to cure cancer, or donate it to strippers anonymous, they wont.... They would put that 20 mil in their own pockets if they took it from Goodell

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

No, No, NO. Nowhere do I say that. I don't understand even where you get that implication. .

Post #229 you said ....

"First, the whole committee. As the head of the committee, which Roger is, you are there to take the whole blame or the whole appraise or half and half, whatever. So us saying its Rogers fault is still the correct thing to do. "
Roger is not the head of the committee...

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpres...ts-2-14-12.pdf

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Post #229 you said ....

"First, the whole committee. As the head of the committee, which Roger is, you are there to take the whole blame or the whole appraise or half and half, whatever. So us saying its Rogers fault is still the correct thing to do. "
Roger is not the head of the committee...

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpres...ts-2-14-12.pdf

by appraise I don't mean money, I mean praise; like; thanks;applause. Should have used a better word.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

by appraise I don't mean money, I mean praise; like; thanks;applause. Should have used a better word.

Noone thought money ,you blamed RG for all the problems in the NFL.

[Skinzman]

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.