'13 MO ATH Ezekiel Elliott (Ohio State Verbal)

[Woneone]

Whole. Lee. Shit.

Can you elaborate on how this is earth-shattering? I read the report, and when taken in context, I fail to see how it would elicit such a response.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Can you elaborate on how this is earth-shattering? I read the report, and when taken in context, I fail to see how it would elicit such a response.

Are you serious?

 

[IrishLax]

Can you elaborate on how this is earth-shattering? I read the report, and when taken in context, I fail to see how it would elicit such a response.

...

 

[Irishman77]

Game on! This is going to be the demise of Goodell or the NFL. Either way the NFLPA is not F'ing around here.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/201...orchestrated-conspiracy-senior-nfl-executives

Elliott alleges existence of a “conspiracy” to suspend him – ProFootballTalk

 

[GATTACA!]

Game on! This is going to be the demise of Goodell or the NFL. Either way the NFLPA is not F'ing around here.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/201...orchestrated-conspiracy-senior-nfl-executives

Elliott alleges existence of a “conspiracy” to suspend him – ProFootballTalk

 

[Blaise]

What I don't get is Zeke is claiming they went out of there way to suspend him and did everything they could to ensure that he is.

ummm What does the NFL get for suspending one of their top young stars? Pretty sure tv ratings are higher if Dallas is good. Makes no sense for them to do this unless they truly felt he was guilty

 

[Irishman77]

What I don't get is Zeke is claiming they went out of there way to suspend him and did everything they could to ensure that he is.

ummm What does the NFL get for suspending one of their top young stars? Pretty sure tv ratings are higher if Dallas is good. Makes no sense for them to do this unless they truly felt he was guilty

NFL doesn't care about any player. Players are guilty til proven innocent in goodell's kangaroo court. When you got all the money it becomes all about power.

 

[woolybug25]

I find it interesting that this board is so pro free market economy and pro business in the politics threads, etc. But here, when it comes to sports, you demand the hens chickens be in charge of the hen house.

Listen, I don't like the suspension, I like Zeke as a player and am not a fan of Goodell. But just because those are true, doesn't mean that I think players should be able to push around the NFL. The NFL should be able to suspend anyone they want for any reason lawfully acceptable. If I started posting bad pics on Instagram and my boss felt like it was bad for the brand of the bank, then he should be able to fire me.

But here we are talking about "precedent" and "conspiracy". I just feel like an employer should have the right to at-will employment ,and just because I'm a football fan, that doesn't give me an excuse to toss aside what is right.

 

[Irishman77]

I find it interesting that this board is so pro free market economy and pro business in the politics threads, etc. But here, when it comes to sports, you demand the hens chickens be in charge of the hen house.

Listen, I don't like the suspension, I like Zeke as a player and am not a fan of Goodell. But just because those are true, doesn't mean that I think players should be able to push around the NFL. The NFL should be able to suspend anyone they want for any reason lawfully acceptable. If I started posting bad pics on Instagram and my boss felt like it was bad for the brand of the bank, then he should be able to fire me.

But here we are talking about "precedent" and "conspiracy". I just feel like an employer should have the right to at-will employment ,and just because I'm a football fan, that doesn't give me an excuse to toss aside what is right.

There were zero criminal charges yet the NFL charges him with DV. Zeke is not pushing the NFL around...LOL. Zeke is defending his name and standing up to a corrupt commissioner

 

[woolybug25]

There were zero criminal charges yet the NFL charges him with DV. Zeke is not pushing the NFL around...LOL. Zeke is defending his name and standing up to a corrupt commissioner

The NFL is a private company. They don't need criminal charges to punish their employees. lol

 

[irishog77]

Can you elaborate on how this is earth-shattering? I read the report, and when taken in context, I fail to see how it would elicit such a response.

I'm with you, bud.

This is hardly some "where were you" moment. The original article was light on truly damning facts against RG.

And I'm on Team Wooly overall about the league and players.

 

[Irishman77]

The NFL is a private company. They don't need criminal charges to punish their employees. lol

So employers should be allowed to accuse employees of DV without proof and fire them? Yikes that's a twisted view.

 

[Bubbles]

lol...Wooly is trolling...good stuff. Or is it cross-trolling....not sure.

 

[woolybug25]

So employers should be allowed to accuse employees of DV without proof and fire them? Yikes that's a twisted view.

Sure can. If your boss thinks you're beating your wife. Do they not have the legal right to terminate you?

I'm pretty sure that private companies don't need a reason to fire you, as long as it's not discriminatory.

 

[woolybug25]

lol...Wooly is trolling...good stuff. Or is it cross-trolling....not sure.

How is this trolling?

Nobody is mad and I fully believe in what I said. It's also not even controversial.

 

[Bubbles]

I find it interesting that this board is so pro free market economy and pro business in the politics threads, etc. But here, when it comes to sports, you demand the hens chickens be in charge of the hen house.

Listen, I don't like the suspension, I like Zeke as a player and am not a fan of Goodell. But just because those are true, doesn't mean that I think players should be able to push around the NFL. The NFL should be able to suspend anyone they want for any reason lawfully acceptable. If I started posting bad pics on Instagram and my boss felt like it was bad for the brand of the bank, then he should be able to fire me.

But here we are talking about "precedent" and "conspiracy". I just feel like an employer should have the right to at-will employment ,and just because I'm a football fan, that doesn't give me an excuse to toss aside what is right.

c'mon man....its not even that subtle.

 

[woolybug25]

c'mon man....its not even that subtle.

I guess I'm not getting it. What exactly is contraversial or trolling about that comment? Is that not a true statement? I don't think anyone except you would disagree with that comment.

People can disagree with whether the NFL has the right to suspend him, but that first sentence is pretty inarguable.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I find it interesting that this board is so pro free market economy and pro business in the politics threads, etc. But here, when it comes to sports, you demand the hens chickens be in charge of the hen house.

Listen, I don't like the suspension, I like Zeke as a player and am not a fan of Goodell. But just because those are true, doesn't mean that I think players should be able to push around the NFL. The NFL should be able to suspend anyone they want for any reason lawfully acceptable. If I started posting bad pics on Instagram and my boss felt like it was bad for the brand of the bank, then he should be able to fire me.

But here we are talking about "precedent" and "conspiracy". I just feel like an employer should have the right to at-will employment ,and just because I'm a football fan, that doesn't give me an excuse to toss aside what is right.

Couple things:

1. I may not be your target audience for this post because while I'm generally a free market person, I do believe in some reasonable regulations including protecting workers rights. I don't believe protections should be extend to every imaginable scenario, but at minimum they should ensure procedural fairness and not allow for completely arbitrary treatment of employees. Free markets are premised on market efficiency and the belief that achieving such efficiency will be good for society as a whole. Tyrannical bosses aren't good for society as a whole, especially where the employee cannot freely take his services back into the marketplace in response.

2. Picking up where #1 left off, the NFL not a usual employer - really it is not the employer at all. Ezekiel Elliot's employer doesn't actually want him to be suspended here. The league office is essentially a trade association that was granted disciplinary authority partially because nobody would ever want to suspend their own players. But I think that strange dynamic has to be managed with an abundance of caution and measures should be taken to protect against abuses of power that can result from it. It would be different here if the concern was Jerry Jones saying "I don't care how good you are at football, your behavior embarrasses my company and it's bad for my business, so hit the road" and then Elliott could pursue opportunities with other employers. That isn't what is happening here.

 

[Bubbles]

I guess I'm not getting it. What exactly is contraversial or trolling about that comment? Is that not a true statement? I don't think anyone except you would disagree with that comment.

 

[woolybug25]

Cool story.

 

[Irishman77]

Sure can. If your boss thinks you're beating your wife. Do they not have the legal right to terminate you?

I'm pretty sure that private companies don't need a reason to fire you, as long as it's not discriminatory.

They went against all the evidence and their own investigator and ruled against the findings. Remember the panel gave a 160 page report that did not recommend anything, the lead investigator recommended nothing. Then Gooddell and these clowns met and decided something the opposite of the whole thing. They are guilty.

 

[woolybug25]

Couple things:

1. I may not be your target audience for this post because while I'm generally a free market person, I do believe in some reasonable regulations including protecting workers rights. I don't believe protections should be extend to every imaginable scenario, but at minimum they should ensure procedural fairness and not allow for completely arbitrary treatment of employees. Free markets are premised on market efficiency and the belief that achieving such efficiency will be good for society as a whole. Tyrannical bosses aren't good for society as a whole, especially where the employee cannot freely take his services back into the marketplace in response.

That's fair, but I disagree. I don't think the government should choose winners and losers in business. I think if a jerk of a boss wants to fire an employee because he doesn't like his personality. Then he should have the right to. The employee shouldn't be able to come back and argue they were fired without precedent and force the employer to give them a job. If bad bosses are bad for society as a whole, then let them be bad bosses and people wont give them business. If the market doesn't care if they are big meanies, then we shouldn't either. If someone doesn't like working for a big meanie boss, then they should go find a different boss.

2. Picking up where #1 left off, the NFL not a usual employer - really it is not the employer at all. Ezekiel Elliot's employer doesn't actually want him to be suspended here. The league office is essentially a trade association that was granted disciplinary authority partially because nobody would ever want to suspend their own players. But I think that strange dynamic has to managed with an abundance of caution and measures should be taken to protect against abuses of power that can result from it. It would be different here if the concern was Jerry Jones saying "I don't care how good you are at football, your behavior embarrasses my company and it's bad for my business, so hit the road" and then Elliott could pursue opportunities with other employers. That isn't what is happening here.

I disagree that they are different than any other private company. Private companies have union representation. Private companies disagree with their CEO's decisions. Private companies have bad managers too. So on a high level, I honestly don't see what aspect of their structure should demand LEGAL interference in their business practices. They aren't doing anything against the law, so I don't feel like the court systems should be involved.

 

[woolybug25]

They went against all the evidence and their own investigator and ruled against the findings. Remember the panel gave a 160 page report that did not recommend anything, the lead investigator recommended nothing. Then Gooddell and these clowns met and decided something the opposite of the whole thing. They are guilty.

They aren't a court. They are a private company. If the leader of the organization wants to punish him, what legal aspect demands that he choose the opinion of the "investigation" and not his own? Goodell, for better or worse, has the right to make the decision. A right I may add, was collectively bargained.

I think you keep comparing this to legal precedent. But this frankly isn't a legal matter in my opinion. Where do you draw the line. Should employees of small business force employers to keep them employed too?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I feel like I addressed both of your counter arguments in my original post, but let me restate:

The market answer to a capricious boss is generally the right one, but in a situation where the "boss" is actually not the company that employs you but the trade association representing the entirety of your industry it changes the dynamic. If Elliot was fired from the Cowboys that would be fine, because he could go work for the Packers or the Chiefs.

The NFL suspending a player is like the Bar Association suspending a lawyer. Nobody would argue that a law firm cannot fire a lawyer for any reason or no reason. But if the lawyer is prevented from practicing at all by the body that governs the industry, pretty much everyone agrees that due process and fundamental fairness must be observed.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

c'mon man....its not even that subtle.

I'm really confused. What did Wooly say that qualifies as trolling? I saw your bolded text but I'm still confused. Are you saying reasonable opinions that go against common public thought are acts of trolling?

 

[NDRock]

Sure can. If your boss thinks you're beating your wife. Do they not have the legal right to terminate you?

I'm pretty sure that private companies don't need a reason to fire you, as long as it's not discriminatory.

Should/Do they have the right to publicly announce they are firing you for beating your wife, even if they had no proof, thus making your ability to find employment in your field much more difficult?

 

[woolybug25]

I feel like I addressed both of your counter arguments in my original post, but let me restate:

The market answer to a capricious boss is generally the right one, but in a situation where the "boss" is actually not the company that employs you but the trade association representing the entirety of your industry it changes the dynamic. If Elliot was fired from the Cowboys that would be fine, because he could go work for the Packers or the Chiefs.

Not really. Let me give you an example. If I own a McD's and the corporate McD's tells me I need to suspend an employee because corporate saw an article where he was accused of domestic violence. Are you saying that the franchisee should be able to tell the corporate entity "no" and force their hand? If so, then we fundamentally disagree.

The NFL suspending a player is like the Bar Association suspending a lawyer. Nobody would argue that a law firm cannot fire a lawyer for any reason or no reason. But if the lawyer is prevented from practicing at all by the body that governs the industry, pretty much everyone agrees that due process and fundamental fairness must be observed.

Nobody is saying that Elliott can't play football. He would be welcome to tell the NFL to pound sand and take his talents to any other football league he pleases. Just because the NFL is the best and most popular league, doesn't mean he has some fundamental right to be employed under them. Furthermore, I don't really agree that the NFL (ie a private organization) is comparable to The Bar Association or really any trade group. They are a FOR PROFIT business.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Anyways, now that I'm thinking about this more, the point I'm arguing here isn't even what I want to say about this whole situation (although I do believe it's true, it isn't what my main interest is here).

What I really think is important about this situation is that Goodell should lose his job over all this shit. Whether he is within his legal rights to act like a complete asshole or not is not really the hill I want to die on. But the fact remains that he has repeatedly and unrepentantly acted like a complete asshole in his role in the NFL's disciplinary process. His actions - legal or illegal - are widely viewed by his company's core customers as arbitrary, logically inconsistent, ethically inconsistent, lacking fundamental fairness and naked (but horrifically unsuccessful) attempts to pander to the public. This undermines the credibility of the league and serves no useful business purpose other than making an insecure overgrown manchild feel like he is a big boy.

 

[woolybug25]

Should/Do they have the right to publicly announce they are firing you for beating your wife, even if they had no proof, thus making your ability to find employment in your field much more difficult?

If it is public knowledge, sure.

They also didn't make Zeke's ability to find employment in football more difficult. If he wanted to play in the CFL, every single team in the league would take him. Again, it seems like the NFL is "football as a whole", but they are not. They are just the best of football. If someone get's fired from Baker McKenzie, and they still have their license to practice law, then BM isn't deterring their employment.

Good convo, guys.

 

[NDRock]

Anyways, now that I'm thinking about this more, the point I'm arguing here isn't even what I want to say about this whole situation (although I do believe it's true, it isn't what my main interest is here).

What I really think is important about this situation is that Goodell should lose his job over all this shit. Whether he is within his legal rights to act like a complete asshole or not is not really the hill I want to die on. But the fact remains that he has repeatedly and unrepentantly acted like a complete asshole in his role in the NFL's disciplinary process. His actions - legal or illegal - are widely viewed by his company's core customers as arbitrary, logically inconsistent, ethically inconsistent, lacking fundamental fairness and naked (but horrifically unsuccessful) attempts to pander to the public. This undermines the credibility of the league and serves no useful business purpose other than making an insecure overgrown manchild feel like he is a big boy.

Agree, he's been a poor Commissioner.