NFL execs admit pressure from Trump a factor on anthem policy· Page 3

sschind
Senior Member

6 years ago

Where in any of my posts did I say “power of persuasion” or advertiser input wasn’t real? Again, you said things I never said. Is it possible Trump’s OPINION played into it? Sure, that’s possible. But the vote was unanimous! (Oh...except the 49er dude that abstained.....which is just an excuse to be able to say “I didn’t vote for it!”.....he didn’t vote against it, either)
And advertisers have a lot more influence. And if they had their say against the protest, THAT is what REALLY mattered to the NFL.
Again, to put ANY blame on Trump is a COP OUT. An excuse to make the NFL the “victim”.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Do you driver an automatic or a standard transmission. I'm just wondering how you switched gears so quickly on this.

First you said Trump he has NO power over them to change ANY of their rules. and He has NO power over what the NFL does. and finally Trump has NO power to force what he wants on the NFL. NO POWER. then you go on to say Is it possible Trump’s OPINION played into it? Sure, that’s possible. if his OPINION played into it that is influence and influence is power.

If 100 million people say they will no longer watch the NFL if they don't do this and the NFL does this in essence they made them change their rules.

You are right in that Trump can not actually change their rules and he can not make them change their rules but as President he certainly can influence their decision to change their rules. He can make life tough for the NFL and with the new gambling laws that may be set to take place I'm guessing the NFL does not want someone in charge of the government who has an axe to grind with them because they didn't side with him.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

#22

How do you know the numbers I went out of my way to share with everyone are "paid attendance" and not "asses in seat" attendance? Where are the numbers you found that discredit that?

I've read some say viewership and attendance is dropping in "mass quantities", yet, I can't get any numbers to support this. Why is that? I find the attendance of the NFL for a few seasons and someone spouts off against it, yet can't provide contrary numbers? I don't get it.

I am wanting to see the proof behind such statements, yet no one can step up?

What's that (paid attendance vs actual attendance) margin now compared to five years ago? Ten years ago? What's the margin with other leagues?

I've heard about fights in parking lots, in the stands, high concession costs, etc ... as to reasons why people don't wanna attend sporting events also coupled with High Definition and the economy contributing to people choosing to watch at home vs in the arena, stadium, etc.

How can someone say something so strongly without having anything to support it or validate it?

I don't much care about watching the games live anymore because I have NFL Game Pass. So if I miss it or something comes up, oh well, I can watch the game afterwards without all the commercials. I prefer that because I can watch it when I want, pause it when I want and don't feel a prisoner of the "LIVE" game. It also is only about 2 hours vs 3+ hours of my day being consumed.

I dunno people. I understand opinions are great and all that, but attendance is tallied. How is it you can speak so confidently, yet have no numbers to prove it?

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

#23

It's not "twisting" the numbers. It's "massaging" them and who doesn't love a good massage? 🤤

Originally Posted by: wpr

Depends on who's giving them, I'm not a huge fan of forcing people to touch me, even if that's what they get paid to do. Also what are the happy ending options 😂 (kidding)

Where in any of my posts did I say “power of persuasion” or advertiser input wasn’t real? Again, you said things I never said.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

What you said was "Trump has NO power"... which kinda gets implied as, "Trump has NO power"... And Power of persuasion and power to get on tv/advertiser are types of powers.

So does Trump have those powers or not? It seems like you're finally admitting that he does.

Is it possible Trump’s OPINION played into it? Sure, that’s possible.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Playing into a decision is power!

Originally Posted by: sschind

Exactly!

But the vote was unanimous! (Oh...except the 49er dude that abstained.....which is just an excuse to be able to say “I didn’t vote for it!”.....he didn’t vote against it, either)

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

WRONG! This is based off (NFL) lies! The NFL did NOT OFFICIAL vote! They used a raise your hand if you agree with this system method, which is why it was (bullshit) unanimous. Because either they counted you as a yes, or they refused to acknowledge you had a vote (claiming you abstained)

The NFL claimed that its owners unanimously voted to adopt a new anthem policy. And, as it turns out, the vote wasn’t unanimous. Also, there wasn’t a vote.

After ESPN’s Seth Wickersham reported that no actual vote was taken, the NFL admitted that, indeed, no formal vote was taken. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told ESPN that the league called for a show of hands to test support for the revised anthem policy.

“That was considered a vote,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. He added that this unofficial process is “often used.”

profootballtalk wrote:

So when ever the NFL has an unanimous vote, it might not be an official vote.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#24

You guys just proved me right!
The NFL got you to blame Trump instead of the NFL guys that actually control it.
So I guess it worked for them, the “poor victims” NFL owners.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#25

] The NFL did NOT OFFICIAL vote! They used a raise your hand if you agree with this system method, which is why it was (bullshit) unanimous.

Originally Posted by: beast

To the contrary, under the rules of parliamentary procedure, as long as a quorum has been obtained, a vote by show of hands most definitely is an official vote, just as a voice vote or even a vote by acclamation are official votes. Now it's true that a vote by show of hands may not be regarded with the same gravity as a roll-call vote, which are relatively rare and only used for the most important decisions -- when someone decides that they want everyone's names to be publicly attached to their votes -- but it's just as official, and it's just as binding.

If whoever presided over the vote declared it unanimous, then I see no reason to doubt that it was anything but.

wpr
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#26

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

Correct.
I am a member of the County board. The vast majority of our votes are vocal. (All in favor say "Aye". Those opposed, same sign.) Only when the minority vote has more than 3 or 4 votes do we take a roll call.

Kevin, if the teams only provide the total number of tickets sold an not the total number of butts in the seats how do you propose that I give you that total? Ease up a little. I am not criticizing your acumen. The number of tickets sold is roughly the same for the past 4 or 5 yrs.

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

#27

You guys just proved me right!

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

The NFL got you to blame Trump instead of the NFL guys that actually control it.
So I guess it worked for them, the “poor victims” NFL owners.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Now you're straight up lying, because you can't prove your flawed point.

I have not blamed anybody, because I don't care about the rule, so no reason to blame anybody.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

#28

Kevin, if the teams only provide the total number of tickets sold an not the total number of butts in the seats how do you propose that I give you that total? Ease up a little. I am not criticizing your acumen. The number of tickets sold is roughly the same for the past 4 or 5 yrs.

Originally Posted by: wpr

So, you're saying the teams don't provide the total number sold vs total who showed up, yet you are gonna say attendance is declining? You're willing to say attendance is decreasing, yet you aren't willing to find the turnstile numbers to support the statement when asked? Great discussion piece.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

#29

Wrong again! ... you stupidly claimed the most powerful man in the world, has no power. That's claim is still completely wrong and you can't see it... and hell, you even admitted he did have power, so you proved yourself wrong even. Thank you!

Now you're straight up lying, because you can't prove your flawed point.

I have not blamed anybody, because I don't care about the rule, so no reason to blame anybody.

Originally Posted by: beast

Let's climb down from the name calling mantle here please. That's as foul as telling someone to "ease up" when they're very much at ease and simply trying to learn something.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#30

Wrong again! ... you stupidly claimed the most powerful man in the world, has no power.

Originally Posted by: beast

Call him out for imprecision in choice of language if you like, but I think it's clear that what Alan is trying to say is that the president lacks statutory authority to command changes to NFL policy, and that is undeniably correct. Sure, the president has a platform from which to mold public perception and opinion, but no one is forced to think how the president thinks or act on his suggestions.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (15m) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (15m) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (15m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (24m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (44m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (1h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (1h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (3h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (4h) : Packers will get in

beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS