A Dog Named Kelso
-
Posts
971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by A Dog Named Kelso
-
-
Golisano owns and runs Paychex. Is a philanthropist who has a foundation in his name that donates large sums of money to various causes and institutions. Is soon to be married and resides in Florida, not NY anymore. Where are you getting the information that he has all this free time?
I believe he retired from that a long time ago.
-
The rule is:
If you own an NFL team you may own a team in another league as long as a) it's in the same market as your NFL team, or b) The team is in a non-NFL market.
Jacobs can't own the Bills outright because he owns the Bruins and Boston has an NFL team. Paul Allen can own the Seahawks and the Portland Trailblazers because Portland is not an NFL market. And if Terry Pegula buys the Bills, it's cool because the Sabres are also in Buffalo.
I understand the rule but I wonder how such a rule would work in a bigger city like NY as they have multiple NFL teams. I am guessing the reason for the rule is to prevent some sort of Bias?
-
Hmm. I suppose the argument could be made. But, I would disagree. To me, a single shot of their helmut on the playing field illustrates the issue without any other context. It doesn't say anything about intent, history, attitude, or anything else. It doesn't mention, or allude to any individual, or individual action. How else can a commercial protest Washington's use of the name without somehow alluding to the team? And, how could that element be inserted into the commercial in any less of a confrontational way?
Just for the record I do not make that argument, I was just pointing out it could be made.
As for your questions I suppose, and I am no marketing expert by any means but, they could just make a statement sans the helmet requesting "others look inward an not use words that are derogatory" and perhaps list several names they find offensive. Of course one of which would be Redskin thus not directly associating their message with the Team but in a general sense be "respectful of us".
-
ive seen some well crafted arguments on both sides but the ones that seem to resonate best, in my opinion, are the "They can keep it, but its probably kind of a jerk move." such is life though - there are tons
There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light.
-
Let's not forget that this thread is about a television ad, placed in prime-time during the NBA finals, by the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred tribes throughout the United States including Alaska. This isn't some internet campaign, it is a very well-conceived, and expensive national spot, easily hitting seven figures, produced by Native Americans. Nor does it "slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization" in any way.
Intent is not everything in this case, because intent does not erase history.
The final shot, one could argue, does indeed attempt to demonize the Redskin organization for their continued use of the name.
-
I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans.
I agree with this premise, but, unfortunately the larger community at large(our society), find only one meaning for certain words and they become taboo. A word such as slavery has become such a work. If it is used outside of describing the condition of African Americans before the Civil War many feign outrage, which is sad.
That said, the community being noted by a given name should have the right to determine if such a name is or is not derogatory to them. It should not be another group to determine that regardless of historical precedent.
-
Which always brings us back to the same questions - things like what percentage do you cut it off at? Is being offensive to 49% acceptable?
Then who votes, what questions do you actually ask etc.... As methodology makes a difference.
I think ultimately Snyder has a choice, the 32 owners have one and sponsors have one - until one of those three radically shift their opinion, we will have the name. I think we are probably nearing a tipping point for one if not all three as the movement picks up national momentum in the last year or so. "The Washington football team won the Super Bowl" would be an incredibly uncomfortable headline for everyone involved and there are several writers/publications pledged to not put the word redskins in print any longer.
If you get the fans to contact the sponsors this will occur pretty quickly. It does not take a large percentage of them to make a lot of noise and noise(fear of bad publicity) is what moves sponsors. That is one of the reasons in an earlier post I suggested they may have selected the wrong venue to air their ad. I, for one, would not have known of its existence if not for this board.
-
This view makes a mistake of judging who is the decision maker here and what is the market this business is working to attract to make a profit.
As was recently demonstrated in the NBA, the true decision-maker is not the one billionaire but the multiple billionaires which comprise the other league owners.
The market that these multiple billionaires are trying to attract are the millions (potentially billions of eyeballs) that get the TV networks to ship billions of $ to the other owners.
The reality of this is (and should be) not what the local Redskins fans want, but instead what is most entertaining to the fans.
This is not some ultimately petty argument about what Snyder (or a Sterling) thinks in their own little world), the real answer is what is best for presenting the product. The product is football and not the distraction of whether the name is an honor or insulting to a specific group.
Defending Snyder's right to call his team what he wants is simply a distraction from football.
This commercial and the Senate vote are real world indicators that this distraction must go. The Deadskins are gone as a name, because it s creating too much of a distraction for selling the product.
I don't disagree; however, the fact is those billionaires(from the NFL) would have been far more embarrassed if that spot had run during their Draft then the NBA playoffs that may not or may not have the the same fans.
In reality if local fans disapprove of the name and voice that they do there is, perhaps, no reason to for Snyder to continue with its use.
Yes these other avenues are worth pursuing certainly but my point was two fold. First, local fans as they see themselves as stakeholders in the outcome(change their understanding and you hopefully sway their allegiance ) and second to ensure the correct audience sees your message. To my earlier statement, NFL fans(which include those billionaire owners) are not necessarily NBA fans and that is who they should be targeting.
-
If pegula bought the bills too he could literally do anything he wants in buffalo and would be a hero. He could stab someone with a trident and it wouldn't matter.
Come on that is ridiculous! Where is he going to get a trident?!
-
Perhaps this ad should have been run the first night of the NFL draft as to really provide context to those who are fans of the team. That is really who you need to sway. If/Once Washington's fans start requesting a change en masse is when their cause will really take off.
-
I really hope you are right.
But I remain concerned. This would be no different than the sonics breaking their lease and moving to OKC. They had similar anti-relocation provisions in their lease. It didn't stop the sale; the case eventually settled after less than a year, and Seattle was just paid a certain amount.
Did they begin to play in OKC before the case was settled?
-
Anyway, this has gotten too far off the rails for further comment.
GO BILLS!!!
Thanks for indulging me. I know it is all academic and really I was just testing the theory that if someone was unscrupulous how far could it really go.
-
The NFL is headquartered in NY City. They would be complicit and liable.
GO BILLS!!!
I had thought about that but was not sure if, each club is considered a separate business or not. (I.E. law suits by cheerleader against clubs and not the NFL proper)
-
I'm not sure what earlier question you're referring to.
The injunction will be easier to enforce as will the contempt charges to follow. The Bills either play at RWS or they don't play anywhere. Period.
GO BILLS!!!
How does a NY court enforce this, hypothetically, if the Bills choose to play in LA Coliseum and had already moved their personnel.
Usually when you are dealing with sophisticated parties, they don't violate court-ordered injunctions.
The interesting thing--which is purely academic-- is what a US court could do if someone were bold enough to violate an injunction. Say, a US court issues an injunction, preventing the Bills from re-locating or forcing them to abide by the lease. The Bills up and move to Canada. It would be more difficult to enforce the injunction up there; you would basically have to get a Canadian court to enforce the US court's order.
I am assuming it would not be a Federal court but a state court(that may not be a correct assumption).
-
Are you suggesting an NFL team can move without the use of moving vans? They leave everything there and just start anew somewhere else? Okay.
Even if this far-fetched scenario came true, it STILL wouldn't protect an owner if he violated an injunction prohibiting a move, even if it's "just personnel".
Not to mention that the NFL would be liable in that scenario as well.
GO BILLS!!!
Oh, I totally agree it is far fetched, I am just interested in the discussion. Any thought on my earlier question? Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no?
-
All the money in the world isn't going to buy your way out of a violation of a court injunction against moving, which would take all of 5 minutes to obtain. Moving vans wouldn't get past Abbott and Big Tree.
GO BILLS!!!
What moving vans? In the described scenario the Bills would pack up for their last away game and after said game announce they would not be returning. They would not need moving vans, they would have brought gear with them. Also, again moving vans assumes they want anything other than personnel.
-
If you think about they won't be able to get moving vans over the border. But really, if you are spending that much money leave all the old Bills gear and just buy new.
Well theoretically , they could play their last away game and say "We are not coming back"(while bringing their home and away gear), thus allowing them to have their gear.
-
it won't happen. gawd.
IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT.
the NFL won't have an opportunity to approve Rogers until after a court case over the non-relocation clause. any NFL approval would HAVE to become AFTER the court case.
it's NOT a buyout. it's a last-resource penalty.
jw
I think everyone understands its not a buyout. They believe a new owner(intent on moving the team) would move the team(break the lease/non-relocation by doing so, before a court case) and deal with the legal aftermath once a case was filed. While I believe it would not happen because the NFL would not approve any move, why would the NFL have to wait to approve a move? They could do it before the actual move took place(in reality they most like would not), correct?
Also the statement that the moving vans would be stopped makes the assumption a new owner wants to move anything other than personnel. Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no?
Again, not sure if any of this is realistic just curious.
-
The terms of the lease itself is stopping them from pulling an Irsay. They are contractually obligated to play their games at RWS until such time they can pay a $28.4m buyout after year six.
GO BILLS!!!
The whole point of the move would be to specifically to break the lease with them understanding what the consequences would be.
I am not at all saying I know if it is possible or not I am just asking questions. Because if someone doesn't care about 400 million dollars who knows what they might do about a contract signed by someone else. I believe its highly unlikely just really playing devil's advocate.
-
It's possible if a new owner attempts to move the team in violation of an injunction that prevents that. It's highly unlikely as a fine would be imposed, but jail time is possible is a new owner refuses to pay it.
GO BILLS!!!
I would think if they are willing to pay 400 million they would pay additional fines too.
-
See the stuff above. They cannot just pay the $400m. They have to go to court, WIN the unwinable case, and THEN are able to pay the $400 million to get out of the lease.
I understand what the appropriate course of events should be. My point if someone wanted to pull an Irsay and move in the middle of the night ... nothing is really stopping them outside of what May Day 10 has brought up. If you do not care if you are paying out 400 million you may not care about the way you moved the team looks.
Actually I guess the relocation NFL vote would prevent that ... unless that too was in secret(IDK if there would be federal laws preventing that).
-
Then they could go to jail.
Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.
-
I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
The radio guys are just flat wrong about the lease. You can't just pay the $400. You have to go to court.
Actually, I believe, they could just move the team thus breaking their Non-Relocation agreement and pay the 400 million dollars, couldn't they?
-
Orlando Florida is spending $200 million dollars to renovate the Citrus Bowl and they have no team that plays there week in and week out.
They do however host the Florida Classic, The State of Florida high school football championship (8 divisions), The Russell Athletic bowl, and The Capital One Bowl.
The University of Central Florida used to play there but now has its own 45,000 seat stadium on campus which they built for
65 million dollars in 2007.
Have prices gone up that much in 7 years that 25,000 more seats and a roof is almost 900 million more? Go figure.
I have seen pictures of this and it seems to me people should be looking and asking why wouldn't we do this with the money ... even at 50% more than the Citrus renovation it seems like a far better value then a brand new stadium. It seems like a company could even provide a route for a dome either with a retro or a future feature.
I am not advocating for either a new stadium or retrofit of The Ralph just that all avenues actually be looked at. I am not sure why the NFL needs a "new" stadium per se vs a retrofit that would provide the amenities similar to that of a new build.
Anti Redskins Ad Airing During Primetime
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I really do not think stereotypes created by Hollywood should dictate anyone's notion of anything. Nearly any villain in modern film has a British accent, as lampooned in the Jaguar commercial. I don't think anyone believes people for the Isle of Britannia are inherently evil. Nor do I think anyone now believes Native Americans behaved as they were suggested to have by Westerns from a by gone era.
That said, I do believe it would be a huge endeavor and certainly has the potential to backfire. However; while educating Native Americans would occur, I was actually suggesting that he educate everyone else. Even marketing and branding push that would portray the name is a better than favorable light and a more general connotation(outside that of the team) . This is,of course, only if he makes the decision to keep the name, which I am not suggesting he do.