The upper management that runs the publicly-owned Green Bay Packers may have some explaining to do the next time it attends meetings with the owners of the NFL's 31 privately held franchises. That's because
Think about this. Many teams over the past 18 months have laid off dozens of low payroll employees. Those moves look heartless if it turns out those teams are still bringing in millions in profit, even if it is less than it had been in recent years. Telling an employee with three kids they no longer have health benefits because the owner still wants to rake in $30 million is just bad karma, even if it can be justified as good business.
The Packers have elected to be exceptionally frugal in recent years when it comes to player compensation.
A better strategy, knowing the CBA negotiations were looming, would have been to spend closer to the cap in 2008 and thus negate a lot of the revenue that was being generated. It may not have been ideal in the short term for the Packers but it sure could have strengthened the position and argument of the league going forward. In light of the Packers finances, the supposed plight of the owners' is much less convincing. I'm sure the NFL Players Association is taking notes.
From what I understand the league could step into a situation if it felt like it was for the betterment of the whole and deemed it absolutely necessary. The Raiders, despite protestations to the contrary, are nowhere near that point.
Making horrendous personnel decisions in recent years is hardly enough. And don't forget, the Raiders won five games last year, including the final two against a pair of decent teams, the Texans and Bucs. As much as they were ridiculed for their spending spree, the Raiders still finished with a better record than five other teams.
I am all in favor of a mandatory one-game suspension for a first-offense DUI. These guys should know better, and a mandatory suspension could only help. I have always been of the mindset that NFL players should be held to a higher standard.
The other players interviewed either declined to say anyone they didn't like or would only speak off the record. In the end, we decided not to publish anonymous quotes knocking announcers.
I completely agree, Rodger, and have made that argument myself a number of times. But the reality of this business is that the readers, or the most part, determine the content that is provided to them. More people click on and respond passionately to articles related to the issues surrounding
You're right, Major Nelson. I was overwhelmed by the amount of e-mail I received as a result of my brief response to Sgt. Patrick's assertion concerning the scarcity of domestic abuse issues in the military. I was sorry to read that more of the mail leaned toward the belief that it is a much more prevalent problem than he let on.
I don't really think it is my place to attempt to refute his premise as an outsider and I can assure you my response had absolutely nothing to do with the concept that the military "covers up" these incidents. Quite the contrary: my guess was that incidents of this kind involving military personnel are simply less likely to receive the national media coverage that an NFL player's arrest would. Nothing more, nothing less, and you seem to agree with me on that point.
Good point. I am sure Mora weighed the pros vs. the cons on that decision, but only time will tell how effective it is. My guess is some, if not all of that playbook will eventually end up on the Internet. If not anytime soon, maybe after final cuts by a disgruntled player who took the time to make some copies at the Kinko's in his hometown this summer.