NFL adopts new Anthem policy

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

At some point, everything is political. Even the NFL implementing thisAnthem policy trying to preserve their profits. Those teams found in violation will be fined by the NFL, not the offenders.  Players do not have to go to the locker room, they can continue to kneel as before. Teams, once fioned, can then fine offenders if they desire.  The NFLPA can try to defend, but NFL will trot out (at the minimum) the Conduct Detrimental to the League, and disrupting the public confidence; which is stated and agreed upon at the top of every NFL contract delivered to every player.

 

Point is, no matter the cause, there may well be consequences one must weigh before acting.  If one decides to participate in a strike with 10,999 other ATC's, then they all 11,000 people could all lose their jobs - permanently. And they did. Reagan fired and replaced them all and it had changed the power balance of labor. And the interesting fact is, PATCO actually supported the Reagan candidacy.

 

I do not know what will happen from here, who will kneel, who will not , who will stay in the  locker room, what teams found in violation will do, all of it. I just know the unfortunate thing that distresses me is that the message has been completely lost in this mess, and it looks just like yet another confrontation of power instead. 

Everything can be viewed as political if one wants it to be

    Choosing what TV News station you get you news from can be political if you want it

 

      Political does and should mean very different to everyone 

 

    As I said last night IMO the Anthem Protests have(will be) successful the moment someone learns about and/or tries to solve the problem at hand

 

       At least for me That has been the point of every historical protest or strike

[NFLfan]

11 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I think you told me to get a refund on my degree(personal attack).  And you do know me or my life

 

That was not right. I don't think he thought about it before posting it. As @Cynjin said yesterday, we should aim not to offend others when we post something or with our actions in general. Sometimes we all need to read what we write a few times before pressing "submit reply". 

[aaron11]

8 hours ago, Bshultz said:

 

Right, the NFL doesn't use police for security? They also don't take any taxpayer money to build stadiums? They weren't a tax exempt non profit for many years? If you're going to take all that taxpayer money, I'd say you have a moral obligation to advance the common good. So I ask again which is the bigger crime, kneeling or someone being killed?

im not going to answer that question because it is irrelevant.    they do not have an obligation to lose money over players that think they are above the system and should be able to protest at work.  people dont want to pay money to watch a protest.  the non profit status was a joke that had to change, and it did  

 

the nba has had an anthem policy for a long time now, there is nothing racist about it.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

As I said last night IMO the Anthem Protests have(will be) successful the moment someone learns about and/or tries to solve the problem at hand

 

Is this not already a good start?

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000933742/article/nfl-players-coalition-finalize-social-justice-partnership

 

http://www.nfl.com/letslistentogether

[PrincetonTiger]

@ColtsBlueFL

  if people had not stood up and protested for me(per say) I would not have been able to achieve what I have

 

   This is the biggest reason I will do my best to ensure everyone’s right Protest however they see fit

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Is this not already a good start?

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000933742/article/nfl-players-coalition-finalize-social-justice-partnership

 

http://www.nfl.com/letslistentogether

That is why I said they have been a successful 

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That was not right. I don't think he thought about it before posting it. As @Cynjin said yesterday, we should aim not to offend others when we post something or with our actions in general. Sometimes we all need to read what we write a few times before pressing "submit reply". 

Yeah I probably shouldn't have said that. My bad, apologies to @PrincetonTiger

 

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@ColtsBlueFL

  if people had not stood up and protested for me(per say) I would not have been able to achieve what I have

 

   This is the biggest reason I will do my best to ensure everyone’s right Protest however they see fit

One's right to protest does not trump a business's right to set policies and procedures that are legally allowed. 

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That was not right. I don't think he thought about it before posting it. As @Cynjin said yesterday, we should aim not to offend others when we post something or with our actions in general. Sometimes we all need to read what we write a few times before pressing "submit reply". 

So true

[Nadine]

10 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That was not right. I don't think he thought about it before posting it. As @Cynjin said yesterday, we should aim not to offend others when we post something or with our actions in general. Sometimes we all need to read what we write a few times before pressing "submit reply". 

What a well placed and appropriate reminder.  Thank you!

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@ColtsBlueFL

  if people had not stood up and protested for me(per say) I would not have been able to achieve what I have

 

   This is the biggest reason I will do my best to ensure everyone’s right Protest however they see fit

 

I have no issue there. But if it somehow breaks a rule/law, and unintended repercussions follow... well that's how the cookie crumbles. Hopefully the cause proves just and eventually positive change is effected because of it though.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Yeah I probably shouldn't have said that. My bad, apologies to @PrincetonTiger

 

One's right to protest does not trump a business's right to set policies and procedures that are legally allowed. 

Missed the point because if there hadn’t been protests my quality of life would have been terrible 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I have no issue there. But if it somehow breaks a rule/law, and unintended repercussions follow... well that's how the cookie crumbles. Hopefully the cause proves just and eventually positive change is effected because of it though.

I might be wrong but the NFL has been a step behind when handling the protests and there is my problem 

 

  

 

  

 

 

  

[csmopar]

9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Missed the point because if there hadn’t been protests my quality of life would have been terrible 

No, I got your point. But you're missing mine.  Businesses are allowed to set behavior policies for employees while on the clock. Everything from dress codes to cell phones.  Some companies ban the wear of open toe shoes, others ban cell phones inside certain parts of buildings due to security/idea theft issues. Others ban soft drinks from their workstations. Others ban participation in any partisan participation while on the clock(essentially what the NFL is doing here). Doesn't mean employees(players) can't still protest or strike, they can. It's their right.  It's also the right of the business to fire or suspend or otherwise punish those who violate that policy. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I might be wrong but the NFL has been a step behind when handling the protests and there is my problem 

 

 

Of course they are. They are an entertainment and business entity.  Thus they are a reactionary body to items outside their main core business. Witness how they have had to change their practice of handling misconduct and punishment for off the field behavior.  Behind at every step, and missteps along the way.  This is no different.  And protecting their interests (continued profits) will be a priority in any action taken to 'help the cause'. 

 

What I think is missed, so many people deal with all sorts of these items and distractions most every day.  So when they want to go lay down on the couch on a Sunday afternoon and get absorbed in some football games, the last thing they desire is more distractions prior and during those games.  Some of them will be confrontational just for that reason alone!

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Is this not already a good start?

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000933742/article/nfl-players-coalition-finalize-social-justice-partnership

 

http://www.nfl.com/letslistentogether

Right.  The end game is money.  Always has been. Its obvious.

 

Protesting is bullying.  Boycotting is bullying.  "Do what I want you to do, or I'll make life rough for you".

 

This announcement shows that the "social justice" movement is nothing different than sicking-up a liquor store, it uses politics and words instead of a knife or gun.

 

And you can bet the reciptients of the $90 million, their cousins, their posse, were the ones stoking the fire.

 

Saw this end game two years ago when folks jumped on the Kaep baby protest.  Made no sense, unless it was a scheme to bully the NFL into giving money to the right cause.

 

Community organizers should just show their true colors and stick up a liquor store like they used to before they had position and power.

[NFLfan]

42 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Of course they are. They are an entertainment and business entity.  Thus they are a reactionary body. Witness how they have had to change their practice of handling misconduct off the field.  Behind at every step, and missteps along the way.  This is no different.  And protecting their interests (continued profits) will be a priority in any action taken to 'help the cause'. 

 

You're right. 

 

(To what I put in bold) Do you think the NFL would force a team to sign Kaepernick or Eric Reid? There seems to be two sets of people upset about the kneeling. The new Anthem policy appeases one group. The other group of fans are those who say they will not support the NFL until Kaepernick is signed. We know that won't happen (meaning that he won't get signed). How does the NFL get those fans back?

[PrincetonTiger]

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Of course they are. They are an entertainment and business entity.  Thus they are a reactionary body to items outside their main core business. Witness how they have had to change their practice of handling misconduct and punishment for off the field behavior.  Behind at every step, and missteps along the way.  This is no different.  And protecting their interests (continued profits) will be a priority in any action taken to 'help the cause'. 

Agreed 

  This is kind of my problem with the NFL

     They need to be more proactive and remain current 

   

   The same way I do not expect my ‘ kids” at the GCYC to act like a goodie two shoe Teachers Kid

 

      When the program started it was tutoring sessions but has morphed into more of a mentoring program

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You're right. 

 

(To what I put in bold) Do you think the NFL would force a team to sign Kaepernick or Eric Reid? There seems to be two sets of people upset about the kneeling. The new Anthem policy appeases one group. The other group of fans are those who say they will not support the NFL until Kaepernick is signed. We know that won't happen. How does the NFL get those fans back?

By moving on from this and preventing the use of the game to promote individual social platforms DURING on field activities. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

By moving on from this and preventing the use of the game to promote individual social platforms DURING on field activities. 

That ship has sailed

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

That ship has sailed

Then what are we even debating?  Because that's exactly what the NFL is trying to do with this new policy, which is the entire basis for this thread?

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You're right. 

 

(To what I put in bold) Do you think the NFL would force a team to sign Kaepernick or Eric Reid? There seems to be two sets of people upset about the kneeling. The new Anthem policy appeases one group. The other group of fans are those who say they will not support the NFL until Kaepernick is signed. We know that won't happen. How does the NFL get those fans back?

Neither group will be back the way they were 

   The same way some fans do not follow MLB after the strike of 93(?) or the NFL after 87

 

   I see 3 groups instead of two

 

   

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Then what are we even debating?  Because that's exactly what the NFL is trying to do with this new policy, which is the entire basis for this thread?

By turning a blind eye to something doesn’t make it go away 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

By turning a blind eye to something doesn’t make it go away 

We've been down this road already.  They are not turning a blind eye to it. And trust me, its going to look even more noticeable of a protest when entire teams aren't on the field during the anthem... 

[DougDew]

The NFL needs a new Commissioner.  One who has more power.  And one who has proper vision and fortitude.  First words out of his mouth should be.

 

 

"The NFL is through funding other people's causes.  No longer will the agitating tactics allow you access to the NFL coffers.  If you want access to our money, you'll have to use the old fashioned method of pulling a gun or a knife.  From this day forward, all persons wanting money for their cause-of-the-day should cease and desist using the visibility of our football product to carry their water.  Fund your cause with your own money, not ours.  The NFL piggybank is hereby closed."

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, DougDew said:

The NFL needs a new Commissioner.  One who has more power.  And one who has proper vision and fortitude.  First words out of his mouth should be.

 

 

"The NFL is through funding other people's causes.  No longer will the agitating tactics allow you access to the NFL coffers.  If you want access to our coffers, you'll have to use the old fashioned method of pulling a gun or a knife.  From this day forward, all persons wanting money for their cause-of-the-day should cease and desist using the visibility of our football product to carry their water.  Fund your cause with your own money, not ours.  The NFL piggybank is hereby closed."

And the NFL will go the way of the WFL, WHL, ABA, and USFL

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The NFL needs a new Commissioner.  One who has more power.  And one who has proper vision and fortitude.  First words out of his mouth should be.

 

 

"The NFL is through funding other people's causes.  No longer will the agitating tactics allow you access to the NFL coffers.  If you want access to our coffers, you'll have to use the old fashioned method of pulling a gun or a knife.  From this day forward, all persons wanting money for their cause-of-the-day should cease and desist using the visibility of our football product to carry their water.  Fund your cause with your own money, not ours.  The NFL piggybank is hereby closed."

 

The Nominees:

 

[krunk]

SMH DougDew. It pains me to understand your view of the world.

 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

And the NFL will go the way of the WFL, WHL, ABA, and USFL

You've got it backwards.  Giving money away out of fear of agitators will cause them....and is causing them...declining fanship (will be masked by fantasy football and now sports betting...same fans churning more dollars....but fewer fans).

[NFLfan]

14 minutes ago, csmopar said:

By moving on from this and preventing the use of the game to promote individual social platforms DURING on field activities. 

 

I was referring to those people who want to see Kaepernick signed.

 

The others who don't want to see protests will be back, I agree with that.

[NFLfan]

16 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

 I see 3 groups instead of two

 

Which is the 3rd group? The one that will support the NFL regardless of the protests?

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I was referring to those people who want to see Kaepernick signed.

 

The others who don't want to see protests will be back, I agree with that.

I doubt Kaepernick gets signed at all. Not until he drops his lawsuit against all 32 owners. Legally, they can't even contact him or his agent to even attempt to bring him in for a tryout

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You've got it backwards.  Giving money away out of fear of agitators will cause them....and is causing them...declining fanship (will be masked by fantasy football and now sports betting...same fans churning more dollars....but fewer fans).

Okay

   So you see Hungry Children, Cancer Patients, and Disabled Veterans et. al. as agitators 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

Which is the 3rd group? The one that will support the NFL regardless of the protests?

The 3rd Group is a hodgepodge coalition of people who fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum so yes

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Okay

   So you see Hungry Children, Cancer Patients, and Disabled Veterans et. al. as agitators 

 

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I doubt Kaepernick gets signed at all. Not until he drops his lawsuit against all 32 owners. Legally, they can't even contact him or his agent to even attempt to bring him in for a tryout

 

I know. That is what I tell folks who want him signed. He won't play again in the NFL. But my question remains: how does the NFL get those fans back? 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Thanks for the reminder but I had to since

     The Philanthropic actions of the NFL and other national organizations are so important to me

[NFLfan]

22 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

By turning a blind eye to something doesn’t make it go away 

 

What would you like to see them do? (Serious question.)

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Okay

   So you see Hungry Children, Cancer Patients, and Disabled Veterans et. al. as agitators 

What a weird statement.   Do you see them protesting something fake?

 

I wonder how much of my season ticket money, hot dog money, beer money, and parking fees is going to be part of that $90 million that goes to pay Malik Hooker's cousin to nag the fan base about a black cop killing a black criminal in Baltimore?  

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I know. That is what I tell folks who want him signed. He won't play again in the NFL. But my question remains: how does the NFL get those fans back? 

I think that's going to be the biggest question.  I think the option theyve chosen will be the best at the moment, it fully appeases no one and forces a compromise. I think this dies out and fans come back shortly

[2006Coltsbestever]

Any job I know of, if your boss tells you to stop doing something or do something different and you don't comply, you get fired. In the NFL even if someone still kneels they will only get fined. These guys make million of dollars to play a kids game so just stay in the locker room while the Anthem is playing. NFL Players have it made in life in reality. You lose your job in the real world if you don't comply with your bosses. Tomorrow if my boss told me to stop doing my paperwork the way I am doing it and do it differently, even if I hated the new way and disagreed with it I would get fired if I kept doing it the old way.