What kind of deal could they have made? Don't you think if he was looking to help his buddy he'd have tipped him off not to fuck with the balls?
but on the other hand you don't know either. I agree with the fact you are supposed to be unbiased. You should not have dinner with either team or anyone from a team other then in a group setting during the nfl season. It removes all accusations of being biased.
Sherman tested positive for Adderrall and an appeal was officially processed through the NFL; which Sherman won. Can we get a court reporter at the Commissioners dinners, with team owners leading up to the game, please?
No, it's just that they've only been the best team once (and they choked in the Super Bowl) ... so why would you expect them to have won championships?
I could see if Kraft hosted a dinner party for the Colts owner, the Roger and a few others, but not just the Roger. Even if nothing unethical happened, the appearance is there when something goes down, like what went down.
There is no issue with Goodell having dinner with Kraft the night before and nothing requiring a quid pro quo for dinner with Robert Irsay. That's just silly. Some owners are friendlier with other owners than some other owners. Goodell is friendlier with Kraft than other some other owners. It's human nature to have different relationships with different people. What if Goodell thinks Irsay is a coke snorting drunken a-hole from the luck sperm club? He's supposed to go to dinner at his house? What if Irsay hates Goodell for suspending him? He's supposed to invite him over for dinner? They cheated. Let's not minimalize it with this silliness. _
JetsVilma28, Your entire conspiracy theory depends on the idea that the rest of the nfl owners are complete idiots. I don't know how else you can explain them all passively standing to the side while the commissioner consistently displays clear favoritism toward one team. The Nfl executive committee (which is represented by all 32 teams) has the power to fire Goodell if they feel that he has done something improper. So either they feel he has acted fairly and equally in his duties as commissioner, or a bunch of savvy billionaire successful business owners have been duped into supporting a guy who has continuously worked against their interests... despite the whole ploy being obvious to a random internet forum poster such as yourself. Which do you really think it is? Maybe your bias is affecting your judgement on these issues?
Who is to say the owners have not? Regardless of what the owners have or have not done since these recent issues have come to light, moral compass alone notices conflict of interest when the Commissioner of the NFL has dinner at one teams home, but not the others; in the time directly leading up to a game between said teams. Kraft-Goodell dinner in the time leading up to the AFC Championship game was a poor judgement by the NFL commissioner, and the wrong action to take. Whether other owners are upset about it or not, is not known yet? Whether other owners even knew about the Kraft-Goodell dinner is not known yet? One NFL player has come forward and publicly announced their displeasure (Richard Sherman).
The other owners are being treated like idiot. If "fire Goodell if they feel that he has done something improper" is the proof you require, I have a feeling you'll have your proof sooner rather than later. That said, I don't think there's a direct "Roger, you gotta let this slide" collusion. I do however think that this relationship resulted in unheard of easy treatment of Pats by Goodell -- ex. burning of the tapes. This prolonged "investigation" with unprecedented involvement of law firm is another example.
Nobody has more at stake here than the owners, who have billions of dollars tied to the success of their teams. Also, it's safe to say that nobody else has a better feel for what Goodell's personal and professional relationships with the various owners around the league are like either. So if the owners haven't done anything to curb this supposed favoritism or collusion with the patriots, then the most likely explanation seems to be that it doesn't exist. And the idea that they have tried and failed doesn't make any sense. They have the power to remove him and appoint someone else, and have had plenty of opportunities where they could even explain it to the public as something else. And if what you say it's true, they would have every reason to use that power. They haven't. And I'm not just talking about this dinner. Judging by your posts, hardly a day goes by when Goodell doesn't do something reprehensible to give the pats an advantage. Yet supposedly these successful billionaires are too dumb to figure out what is best for themselves. They need JetsVilma28 to explain it to them.
You think Goodell will be fired soon? I don't even particularly like him, but I think you're wrong about that.
You know it's gone off the deep end when Jets fans are considering every conspiracy theory backed by the biggest attention whore on the west coast, Richard Sherman. lol I hope this thread goes to 500 pages. There are some gems in here.
Yes, I do, and for the reasons you're implying. Now ... What "soon" means is a question. Anyone knows how this process works, when commish can be replaced "peacefully", without big scandal?
