Rev. Al writes NFL to block Limbaugh team purchase

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

I said 'in a way' (she never got busted for drugs)

If you believe schott should have not been allowed by the league to own a team but think limbaugh SHOULD, then you're a hypocrite.

Heh I really dont care either way. But apparently you do and think Schott should be allowed and Rush shouldnt. Thank you for displaying your hypocrisy for all to see.

Actually, i think NEITHER should have been allowed by their leagues. If i call you out for being a hypocrite for not allowing limbaugh in (who i oppose) while allowing schott, why on earth would i want schott in? You don't know how to read.

Also, you're a lying sack of shit if you say you don't 'care either way', you obviously cared enough to post in this thread.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

I said 'in a way' (she never got busted for drugs)

If you believe schott should have not been allowed by the league to own a team but think limbaugh SHOULD, then you're a hypocrite.

Heh I really dont care either way. But apparently you do and think Schott should be allowed and Rush shouldnt. Thank you for displaying your hypocrisy for all to see.

Actually, i think NEITHER should have been allowed by their leagues. If i call you out for being a hypocrite for not allowing limbaugh in (who i oppose) while allowing schott, why on earth would i want schott in? You don't know how to read.

Also, you're a lying sack of shit if you say you don't 'care either way', you obviously cared enough to post in this thread.

I cared enough because it is amusing to watch idiots like you and potentially the league try to use some moral high ground for not allowing Rush in but turning a blind eye to the employee's of the league.

btw answer my question about POTUS. Warm the brain a little more this time so you dont stumble on your own conflicted arguments again.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: waggy

so you guys would ban a guy from owning a team because of something he said? yeah fuck that.

If you don't like him boycut the team. easy as that. but to say he can't own the team because of a racist comment is kinda ironic.

Players/Fans are exercising their opinions, what's wrong with that? Is someone drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning the team?

The league/owners will vote on it, and if they block him from owning a team, will that go against some free market principle or something?

Basically this:

Consevatives: "WAAAAH, we don't want LIBERAL FANS and BLACK ATHLETES expressing their opinions on whether or not Limbaugh should own a team"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

I said 'in a way' (she never got busted for drugs)

If you believe schott should have not been allowed by the league to own a team but think limbaugh SHOULD, then you're a hypocrite.

Heh I really dont care either way. But apparently you do and think Schott should be allowed and Rush shouldnt. Thank you for displaying your hypocrisy for all to see.

Actually, i think NEITHER should have been allowed by their leagues. If i call you out for being a hypocrite for not allowing limbaugh in (who i oppose) while allowing schott, why on earth would i want schott in? You don't know how to read.

Also, you're a lying sack of shit if you say you don't 'care either way', you obviously cared enough to post in this thread.

Not sure about MLB, but the owners of the NFL vote to decide if a team sales goes through. AFAIK, there are no specific rules which would eliminate anyone from buying a team other than perhaps some financial guidelines, but I might be mistaken.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Of course not, i was making fun of you idiots.

Who exactly are you trying making fun of?

You were the one suggesting conservatives cheered a Nazi sympathizer owning a team, while also suggesting conservatives will cheer Limbaugh owning an NFL team.

As a conservative, I don't give a shit if Limbaugh owns the Rams or not. Do you have this crazy idea in your head that he will use the Rams as an outlet to spread his conservative "hate" speeches? :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

I said 'in a way' (she never got busted for drugs)

If you believe schott should have not been allowed by the league to own a team but think limbaugh SHOULD, then you're a hypocrite.

Heh I really dont care either way. But apparently you do and think Schott should be allowed and Rush shouldnt. Thank you for displaying your hypocrisy for all to see.

Actually, i think NEITHER should have been allowed by their leagues. If i call you out for being a hypocrite for not allowing limbaugh in (who i oppose) while allowing schott, why on earth would i want schott in? You don't know how to read.

Also, you're a lying sack of shit if you say you don't 'care either way', you obviously cared enough to post in this thread.

I cared enough because it is amusing to watch idiots like you and potentially the league try to use some moral high ground for not allowing Rush in but turning a blind eye to the employee's of the league.

btw answer my question about POTUS. Warm the brain a little more this time so you dont stumble on your own conflicted arguments again.

Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Of course not, i was making fun of you idiots.

Who exactly are you trying making fun of?

You were the one suggesting conservatives cheered a Nazi sympathizer owning a team, while also suggesting conservatives will cheer Limbaugh owning an NFL team.

As a conservative, I don't give a shit if Limbaugh owns the Rams or not. Do you have this crazy idea in your head that he will use the Rams as an outlet to spread his conservative "hate" speeches? :laugh:

Actually, no, i'm looking at this from an owner's perspective: what brings in the most dollars and what hurts the bottom line.

If fans and players voice their displeasure at a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh owning a team, that might affect the bottom line.

These owners are the ones who are ultimately going to decide whether someone can own an NFL team or not.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

Guess what, the league shares revenue, you moron. They don't call the owners 'socialist millionaires' for nothing

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

its funny how many have a such a strong opionion on something that will never effect them. or hell effect many if none.

him owning part of the rams is not going ot make a diffrence at all. If Limbuagh can afford it (did not know he had that much money) then great. If you don't like it don't support the team anymore. i know i wobn't buy any rams tickets or tshirts at all if he buys it (not that i would have anyway. the rams suck!).



but i have been thinking about P&N a little. seems that if you don't agree iwth some then you get called a racist. it is getting tireing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

I said 'in a way' (she never got busted for drugs)

If you believe schott should have not been allowed by the league to own a team but think limbaugh SHOULD, then you're a hypocrite.

Heh I really dont care either way. But apparently you do and think Schott should be allowed and Rush shouldnt. Thank you for displaying your hypocrisy for all to see.

Actually, i think NEITHER should have been allowed by their leagues. If i call you out for being a hypocrite for not allowing limbaugh in (who i oppose) while allowing schott, why on earth would i want schott in? You don't know how to read.

Also, you're a lying sack of shit if you say you don't 'care either way', you obviously cared enough to post in this thread.

I cared enough because it is amusing to watch idiots like you and potentially the league try to use some moral high ground for not allowing Rush in but turning a blind eye to the employee's of the league.

btw answer my question about POTUS. Warm the brain a little more this time so you dont stumble on your own conflicted arguments again.

Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

I see you are incapable of answering whether doing drugs is ok for being POTUS. Apparently it is a criteria in your book for being an NFL owner, I'd have to assume it is for a more powerful position?

btw nice strawman argument at the end. Nowhere have I stated the NFL owners cant make their own decision. My stance has been pretty steadfast on this.

 

[Phokus]

The key to the NFL's profitmaking prowess has long been its revenue sharing. About 80% of the NFL's revenues are shared, a distribution that allows each team to have the resources to be competitive. Team owners joke that they are socialist millionaires, a collective farm that distributes the harvest.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz...,9171,832220-2,00.html

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

Guess what, the league shares revenue, you moron. They don't call the owners 'socialist millionaires' for nothing

If I am not mistaken, revenue sharing only includes income from broadcast rights -- TV, satellite, etc.

 

[cubby1223]

Here is the bottom line, sports fans care about one thing, and one thing only:

Winning games

Very little else matters. Character only comes in to the discussion if the team loses games.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87




I see you are incapable of answering whether doing drugs is ok for being POTUS. Apparently it is a criteria in your book for being an NFL owner, I'd have to assume it is for a more powerful position?

btw nice strawman argument at the end. Nowhere have I stated the NFL owners cant make their own decision. My stance has been pretty steadfast on this.

That's up to the voters to decide, just like it is for the owners to decide. Obama tried that as a YOUTH and he was never forced to admit it, he volunteered that information. Limbaugh a) RAILED against drug use while b) BEING a drug user and c) GOT BUSTED as a drug user and d) as a MIDDLE AGED ADULT.

Huge fucking difference. And again, that's up for the OWNERS to decide whether or not that should be a criteria or not. Just like it was up to the voters, and they decided it wasn't a big deal (at least Obama was up front about it, unlike the past president).

The whole, race baiting thing IS a big deal though. Especially considering the employees who work for the teams and the fans.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Phokus: HUGE moron or HUGEST McMoron?

Fixed.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Here is the bottom line, sports fans care about one thing, and one thing only:

Winning games

Very little else matters. Character only comes in to the discussion if the team loses games.

Not if the players aren't willing to play for a turd like Limbaugh.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Here is the bottom line, sports fans care about one thing, and one thing only:

Winning games

Very little else matters. Character only comes in to the discussion if the team loses games.

Not if the players aren't willing to play for a turd like Limbaugh.

Have you seen the Rams recently? I am not sure I would call what they do "play."

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Limbaugh sucks and it's none of Sharptons or anyone elses business if he buys a sports team.

Sure it is. Rev. Al is calling Rush Limbaugh a bigot who doesn't deserve to be an owner.
For once I agree with Rev. Al.

Actions have consequences. If the NFL selects Rush as an owner, don't be suprised by a huge boycott of the NFL. The NFL doesn't like controversy, so I expect that they will reject Rush as an owner-too much baggage.

LOL.. Yeah.. Suuuure. The NFL lets murders, rapists, and dogfighters back in. But its OMG just so controversial to allow Rush to be an owner. Please.

lol yeah the NFL has zero legs to stand on this. Rpaists, Murderers, Drug dealers, Dog killers and they are suddenly afriad of the controversy Rush would bring?

And while Al can voice his opinion why the fuck should the NFL listen to him? Is he offering to buy a team? Or is it just more race baiting from old Al?

Goodell should say to him: "The team is for sale. If you can come up with $500 million to $1 billion, it is yours and the controversy is avoided. Otherwise, STFU."

I'll have to do some research, but I don't recall what Al was doing during the Mike Vick saga or when Leonard Little (who plays for the Rams) killed a lady while driving drunk.

Is it upto goodell to put a price on a team? If the owner and him come to an agreement Goodell imo should just shut his yap and not try to take some faux moral high ground over a conservative talk show host while he lets Vick back in.

The owners have to vote to approve the new ownership. If the new owners are going to create a distraction-and cost them money, it won't happen.

It would be hard to find a guy less-suited to be an NFL owner than Rush. Bigoted, loud-mouthed and prone to saying offensive things.

Like a lot of the players - seems like a good fit to me. Nothing like a Monday for folks to forget to MYOB.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

Guess what, the league shares revenue, you moron. They don't call the owners 'socialist millionaires' for nothing

If I am not mistaken, revenue sharing only includes income from broadcast rights -- TV, satellite, etc.

Which is most of the money:

Revenue sharing

About 2/3 of the NFL's money comes from the TV deal. The players get about 2/3 of team revenue. So, more or less, the TV contract goes to pay the players. These contracts are typically for about 5 years, and every time they are renegotiated the price goes up. So do player's salaries.

The money from the TV contract is share and share alike - the Redskins, Cowboys, Bills, and Packers get identical checks. This money is key to the success of the smaller franchises. Without the TV contract money, there is simply no way on earth that Green Bay could ever field a competitive team.

There are a lot of other sources for NFL money. NFL licensed jerseys, for example that Randy Moss jersey you put on your kid last Halloween when you dressed him up as a demon, result in license fees going to the NFL. This money is also equally shared.

When the teams play, there is a "gate," the money people pay for seats. This is in the neighborhood of about $2.5M per game. This money is split 60-40, with the visiting team getting 40% of the gate. Because of this teams like Jacksonville and Arizona just love it when the Packers or Cowboys come to play. These are the two or three games each year these teams can count on selling out, and the money they get is very welcome. Sometimes you will find that to buy a ticket to see the Packers on the road you have to buy a package of two or three tickets. This is nothing more or less than a device to get money from Packers fans into the pockets of the other teams owners.

They also share merchandise and the Visiting team also shares the gate money

 

[boomerang]

LOL at this whole thread. Limbaugh sure brings out the knee-jerk reactions. He's buying it with a group of investors. I hope to hell one of them is Palin and another is Glenn Beck. We'll have to put some here on life support.

The heart stopping trifecta.

 

[bfdd]

Phokus, you realize no one here is debating the fact that people can speak out against him. They are debating the fact with you that the NFL can't take any sort of "moral high ground" against him because of their past actions, ie letting murders and rapists play in their league. If the other owners don't want him owning a team, then so be it. But to say it's because he's "controversial" is retarded.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: bfdd
Phokus, you realize no one here is debating the fact that people can speak out against him. They are debating the fact with you that the NFL can't take any sort of "moral high ground" against him because of their past actions, ie letting murders and rapists play in their league. If the other owners don't want him owning a team, then so be it. But to say it's because he's "controversial" is retarded.

it's not even about a 'moral high ground', it's about hurting the bottom line because, *GASP* some fans and a lot of players mind find him to be a bigoted piece of shit.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Phokus
Actually, retard, it has nothing to do with 'moral high ground', it has everything to do with making a sound business decision. Should fans and players now not voice their displeasure at the thought of limbaugh owning a team? Nobody's drafting legislation to block limbaugh from owning a team, that's the decision of the owners. Maybe, just maybe, letting a race baiting douchebag like limbaugh would be bad for business.

All of a sudden, you idiot conservatives don't think a business should be allowed to make decisions on who can and can't own a franchise. THAT'S the amusing thing.

Okay, voice your opinion.

When Limbaugh is denied ownership, how many Rams tickets will you purchase for the 2010 season? How many Rams jerseys will you buy? Other merchandising?

You have a strong opinion on something that otherwise you don't give a shit about yourself

Guess what, the league shares revenue, you moron. They don't call the owners 'socialist millionaires' for nothing

You're still arguing something you don't really care about, for nothing other than your personal hatred of "righties".

This really is a funny position for you :laugh:

Here we have sports teams who "the left" would probably say make too much money anyways with their multi-million dollar contracts for doing nothing than providing entertainment to idiots.

And here we have Limbaugh who, according to your own fears, will do two things if he gains ownership:

(1) reduce revenues across the league
(2) weaken the Rams, thereby strengthening all the other teams in comparison

So you get your way, less money thrown away at millionaire entertainers, and a stronger local team that you follow.


Oh no, but you hate Limbaugh and must oppose him at every step!!!! :laugh:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
They also share merchandise and the Visiting team also shares the gate money

about the only thing NOT shared are boxed seats. wich is why you are seeing far more of them in stadiums.