Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, scuba guy said:

Pat got a little litter in the pocket book

Kitty litter? 🤔

3 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

He probably made 10x that money just by saying fumblerooski.

He said he wouldn't say bundle-rooski 🤪

Edited by PromoTheRobot
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

Please tell me I’m living in bizarro world when a player gets fined FOR THAT?

 

And all time great to boot. The face of the league gets fined for something beyond comprehension.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Simon said:

Didn't I also see Josh Allen racking a scatter gun after a TD on Sunday?

 

 

Y'all thought I was nuts or just monkeying around.

Look at Allen at about 20 seconds into this video and tell me he isn't racking the shottie after the Samuel TD.

 

  • Agree 1
Posted

This should be allowed. Guns are cool. The entire nation has their panties in a knot about the dumbest things, sometimes. We need to go back to the 90s when nobody cared about anything! When comedy was funny. When you could make fun of anyone and they could make fun of you. Good times.

  • Agree 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Please tell me I’m living in bizarro world when a player gets fined FOR THAT?

 

And all time great to boot. The face of the league gets fined for something beyond comprehension.

 

With all the issues we've been having with mass shootings, a league that is attempting to make money marketing itself to women and children (and overseas) has no interest in seeing its players mimicking gun violence on television.

Nobody should ever be surprised when the NFL makes decisions based on its potential income.

  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

Was it for the "violent gesture" aspect of it, or was it because the NFL owners don't like their golden geese looking like giant tool bags thereby risking diminished ROI? 🤔

3 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

With all the issues we've been having with mass shootings, a league that is attempting to make money marketing itself to women and children (and overseas) has no interest in seeing its players mimicking gun violence on television.

Nobody should ever be surprised when the NFL makes decisions based on its potential income.

Great minds... :lol:

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, MJS said:

The entire nation has their panties in a knot

 

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not but this has nothing to do with the entire nation.

It's solely about a private business entity making decisions based on marketing and finance.

Posted

Boy oh boy!

 

That is really ***** lame. It wasn’t near any Bills players.

 

Remember Diggs going near the stands at the back of the End Zone and telling the fans there to Go ***** Yourselves!

 

I definitely want 17 to celebrate… HARD… a big TD, especially at Home! 

Posted

This is outlined in the CBA:

 

"The CBA says that 50% of all fines should go to the Players Assistance Trust, which is an NFLPA-run program to help retired players acclimate to life after football and provide supplemental health care benefits such as cognitive evaluations.

The other 50% is earmarked for “charitable organizations jointly determined by the NFL and the NFLPA.” Currently, the NFL’s official website lists the NFL Foundation as the preferred charity. The NFL Foundation is a non-profit with a stated mission to “support the health, safety and wellness of athletes, youth football, and the communities that support our game.”

Players have paid about $4 million in fines per season since 2011, according to the league."

 

They also have an inflation clause in the agreement, so the fines go up about 3% per year.  Next level thinking and planning!

Posted
4 hours ago, Simon said:

 

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not but this has nothing to do with the entire nation.

It's solely about a private business entity making decisions based on marketing and finance.

Another way to interpret what he said.  The NFL is policing its product because its primary client, the entire nation, has its panties in a knot.

 

In short, he’s referring not to the seller, but to the buyer, in that mutually dependent relationship.

 

Me?   I get why the NFL does it, but I lament the fact that I live in a  world where it believes it has to.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Neo said:

Another way to interpret what he said.  The NFL is policing its product because its primary client, the entire nation, has its panties in a knot.

 

In short, he’s referring not to the seller, but to the buyer, in that mutually dependent relationship.

 

Me?   I get why the NFL does it, but I lament the fact that I live in a  world where it believes it has to.

 

I absolutely considered that angle and then swept it under the rug so that it didn't devolve into an argument about gun violence. 0:)

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Simon said:

 

With all the issues we've been having with mass shootings, a league that is attempting to make money marketing itself to women and children (and overseas) has no interest in seeing its players mimicking gun violence on television.

Nobody should ever be surprised when the NFL makes decisions based on its potential income.

The NFL pays musicians and producers that glorify gun violence. 

 

That's not what is going on lol

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...