Seems like it's been a LONG time, since Joe Douglas has spoken to the NY media.

[bicketybam]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Why would they need to mandate something in writing if everyone's already doing it?

It's called the "Joe Douglas" rule. They made it just for him.

[ARodJetsFan]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Why would they need to mandate something in writing if everyone's already doing it?

 I thought that was self-explantory.

To reiterate to GM's that it's an NFL requirement to communicate with the public through NFL/Team media outlets & that it's not at the GM's discretion.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, ARodJetsFan said:

For the rebellious few.

To borrow your own argument, you have no evidence of that.

[ARodJetsFan]

14 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Why would they need to mandate something in writing if everyone's already doing it?

To borrow your own argument, you have no evidence of that.

 I really thought this was self-explantory.

To reiterate to GM's that it's an NFL/League requirement to communicate with the public through NFL/Team media outlets & that it's not at the GM's discretion.

By your logic, why do we have have laws that state you have to pay income taxes if everybody is already doing it?

The same reason we have written laws in our society, is the same reason the NFL has written rules & regulations in place - to ensure compliance.

Come on Sperm....

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

 I really thought that was self-explantory.

To reiterate to GM's that it's an NFL/League requirement to communicate with the public through NFL/Team media outlets & that it's not at the GM's discretion.

To ensure ompliance - there is no other plausible reason.

The same reason we have written laws in our society.

By your logic, why do we have have laws that state you have to pay taxes if eveybody is already doing it?

Come on Sperm....

I don't know where you get that idea from either.

If there was no law making it a requirement, of course a huge chunk of the population simply wouldn't even if they were subject to them. FFS there are laws that say you have to pay your taxes and there are still people that don't do it. There are even those who tried arguing that they don't actually have to - e.g. Wesley Snipes - so this is just a similarly incorrect take as well.

[Claymation]

16 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

 I really thought this was self-explantory.

To reiterate to GM's that it's an NFL/League requirement to communicate with the public through NFL/Team media outlets & that it's not at the GM's discretion.

By your logic, why do we have have laws that state you have to pay income taxes if everybody is already doing it?

The same reason we have written laws in our society, is the same reason the NFL has written rules & regulations in place - to ensure compliance.

Come on Sperm....

That's what my wife said when we were trying to have my daughter. 

[ARodJetsFan]

42 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't know where you get that idea from either.

If there was no law making it a requirement, of course a huge chunk of the population simply wouldn't even if they were subject to them. FFS there are laws that say you have to pay your taxes and there are still people that don't do it. There are even those who tried arguing that they don't actually have to - e.g. Wesley Snipes - so this is just a similarly incorrect take as well.

Thank you.

You keep trying to go around in circles, yet you managed to illustrate my point perfectly.

Wesley Snipes broke the law and was held accountable, he spent 3 or 4 years in prison as I recall for income tax evasion.

It's all about accountability.

In our society, people are held accountable for their actions - or lack thereof.

People are trying to argue that NFL GM's aren't public figures and they are not accountable to the fanbase/public.

I couldn't disagree more.

Sure, a team's GM isn't paid by the fans and the fans can't terminate his employment per say - but, he will inevitably have to answer questions, about the roster decisions he's made, when signing, drafting or cutting players, address contract hold-out situations, etc. to the fanbase, (albeit indirectly) through the media, hence the NFL's media access policy for GM's.

Does he have a public obligation & responsibility, to speak to the fanbase though the media?

Yes, he absolutely does - if he didn't, the NFL would not have a media access policy in place, specifically for GM's.

You asked why does the NFL have a written, media access policy in place if everybody is already doing it?

You know as well as I do, that some GM's will do far more than what's required of them, in terms of talking to the media, and there are other GM's that will do the bare minimum.

The rule is in place to make sure that all GM's speak to the media at least twice a year, plain & simple.

Has Joe Douglas done that? Yes he has. 

Could he speak to the media a little more often? Yes, he certainly could.

In the New York/New Jersey media market, he should be expected & encouraged, to go a little above & beyond, of course that's just my opinion.

[#27TheDominator]

In my experience the GMs that spend the most time speaking to the media are the ones most likely to have alcohol or substance abuse issues.

[Scott Dierking]

26 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

 

People are trying to argue that NFL GM's aren't public figure

and they are not accountable to the fanbase/public.

 

1) By whose rules? You seem to want to get technical here, so by the Supreme Courts own ruling, NFL GM's do not fit the definition of a public figure. It is a cloudy definition.

Another legal definition is: A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

2). When has a fan base or public actually fired a GM?The public does not have any input to team machinations, even in the case of the Green Bay Packers, where they are publicly owned.

 

[Rich Thornburgh]

16 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

1) By whose rules? You seem to want to get technical here, so by the Supreme Courts own ruling, NFL GM's do not fit the definition of a public figure. It is a cloudy definition.

Another legal definition is: A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

2). When has a fan base or public actually fired a GM?The public does not have any input to team machinations, even in the case of the Green Bay Packers, where they are publicly owned.

 

Can’t locate the NFL General Manager exemption in that Supreme Court definition.  Wierd.

[ARodJetsFan]

23 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

1) By whose rules? You seem to want to get technical here, so by the Supreme Courts own ruling, NFL GM's do not fit the definition of a public figure. It is a cloudy definition.

Another legal definition is: A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

 

If an NFL GM has "public facing responsibilities" that require you to speak to the team's fanbase (the team's fanbase is part of the general public, the last time I checked) through the media you are a public figure, in some capacity.

I'll take it a step further and say that any company/organizational executive that is mandated, or forced to speak to the media - whether it be by the organization that employs them, or some kind of occupational oversight (in this case the NFL) that person is absolutely a public figure on some level, otherwise they would not be required to do so.

 

[Rich Thornburgh]

25 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

In my experience the GMs that spend the most time speaking to the media are the ones most likely to have alcohol or substance abuse issues.

If JD had an alcohol or substance abuse issue he would probably not be 30 games under .500

[Rich Thornburgh]

Just now, ARodJetsFan said:

If an NFL GM has "public facing responsibilities" that require you to speak to the team's fanbase (the team's fanbase is part of the general public, the last time I checked) through the media you are a public figure, in some capacity.

 

Ofcourse.  The owner, head coach and players of a NFL team would all be considered public figures but not the GM?

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Thank you.

You keep trying to go around in circles, yet you managed to illustrate my point perfectly.

Wesley Snipes broke the law and was held accountable, he spent 3 or 4 years in prison as I recall for income tax evasion.

It's all about accountability.

In our society, people are held accountable for their actions - or lack thereof.

People are trying to argue that NFL GM's aren't public figures and they are not accountable to the fanbase/public.

I couldn't disagree more.

Sure, a team's GM isn't paid by the fans and the fans can't terminate his employment per say - but, he will inevitably have to answer questions, about the roster decisions he's made, when signing, drafting or cutting players, hold-outs etc. to the fanbase, (albeit indirectly) through the media, hence the NFL's media access policy for GM's.

Does he have a public obligation & responsibility, to speak to the fanbase though the media?

Yes, he absolutely does.

You asked why does the NFL have a written, media access policy in place if everybody is already doing it?

You know as well as I do, that some GM's will do far more than what's required of them, in terms of talking to the media, and there are other GM's that will do the bare minimum.

The rule is in place to make sure that all GM's speak to the media at least twice a year, plain & simple.

Has Joe Douglas done that? Yes he has. 

Could he speak to the media a little more often? Yes, he certainly could.

In the New York/New Jersey media market, he should be expected & encouraged, to go a little above & beyond.

No, your point was laws are made even when people would do it anyway. That's the opposite. Regardless, it's a bad analogy because there's no marketing angle to it; I was merely pointing out they do make laws/requirements to get behavior they want -- there aren't a whole lot of people who do more than what's mandated (if you owed $100K, you wouldn't write a check to Uncle Sam for $200K and say keep the change just to be a helluva guy). 

The league mandates it because they know if they didn't mandate it some/many/most wouldn't bother, and they feel this will keep the fans more engaged, and engaged fans watch more & spend more on things the NFL is selling.

Some GMs would do it on their own, as they feel they're marketing themselves individually (making a name for themselves for a future job or for endorsements or other non-football income); but the rest probably wouldn't (particularly those who aren't both HC and GM in actual name, or in effect if someone else is nominally the GM) and only do it because they have to, since there's nothing strategically gained by doing so.

[ARodJetsFan]

23 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

2). When has a fan base or public actually fired a GM?The public does not have any input to team machinations, even in the case of the Green Bay Packers, where they are publicly owned.

 

Sure, a team's GM isn't paid by the fans and the fans can't terminate his employment per say - but, he will inevitably have to answer questions, about the roster decisions he's made, when signing, drafting or cutting players, address contract hold-out situations, etc. to the fanbase, (albeit indirectly) through the media, hence the NFL's media access policy for GM's.

Does he have a public obligation & responsibility, to speak to the fanbase though the media?

Yes, he absolutely does - if he didn't, the NFL would not have a media access policy in place, specifically for GM's.

[ARodJetsFan]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, your point was laws are made even when people would do it anyway.

Negative.

You were the one who asked why does it need to be in writing if everybody is already doing it.

The answer is 3 words.

Accountability for non-compliance.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Negative.

You were the one who asked why does it need to be in writing if everybody is already doing it.

We're just not going to agree. 

A league doesn't write up mandates to compel behavior they feel they'd universally get with or without the mandate.

Just like they mandate the HC and I think it's 2 players (1 at least) going to the podium to field questions, even after a loss. How many of them feel like fielding questions from the press after a humiliating loss? Probably zero.

They mandate it because they know it's behavior they wouldn't get - certainly not with the regularity they desire - absent the mandate. That is the very point. 

[ARodJetsFan]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We're just not going to agree. 

A league doesn't write up mandates to compel behavior they feel they'd universally get with or without the mandate.

Then I'll throw your question right back at you - then why put it in writing??

It's right here in black & white:

General Mangers/Secondary Football Executives – Through the club communications department and in response to the intense public interest in roster construction and development, club general managers and secondary football executives must each be available to the media at least twice on a yearly basis – once from the Scouting Combine through the week following the NFL Draft and a second time either during training camp or following the final roster reductions to 53 players. As per the Anti-Tampering Policy, a secondary football executive refers to an individual who has the title of assistant general manager and/or is next in line to the primary football executive, supervising the Player Personnel department, including college and pro scouting departments.

NFL Media Access Policy | PFWA (profootballwriters.org)

I already gave you my answer - To reiterate to GM's that it's an NFL/League requirement to communicate with the public through NFL/Team media outlets & that it's not at the GM's discretion.

You give me another answer - that actually makes sense.

 

[Scott Dierking]

13 minutes ago, Rich Thornburgh said:

Can’t locate the NFL General Manager exemption in that Supreme Court definition.  Wierd.

Can't root out posters that get banned and come back again in other form on message boards. Even more odd.

[Rich Thornburgh]

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

Can't root out posters that get banned and come back again in other form on message boards. Even more odd.

What a substantive argument 

[Scott Dierking]

14 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

  the last time I checked

 

 

Show your work.

[Rich Thornburgh]

8 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Sure, a team's GM isn't paid by the fans and the fans can't terminate his employment per say - but, he will inevitably have to answer questions, about the roster decisions he's made, when signing, drafting or cutting players, address contract hold-out situations, etc. to the fanbase, (albeit indirectly) through the media, hence the NFL's media access policy for GM's.

Does he have a public obligation & responsibility, to speak to the fanbase though the media?

Yes, he absolutely does - if he didn't, the NFL would not have a media access policy in place, specifically for GM's.

Sure the GM is paid by the fans.  It may be indirectly but the nfl isn’t a charity

[Matt39]

8 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Sure, a team's GM isn't paid by the fans and the fans can't terminate his employment per say - but, he will inevitably have to answer questions, about the roster decisions he's made, when signing, drafting or cutting players, address contract hold-out situations, etc. to the fanbase, (albeit indirectly) through the media, hence the NFL's media access policy for GM's.

Does he have a public obligation & responsibility, to speak to the fanbase though the media?

Yes, he absolutely does - if he didn't, the NFL would not have a media access policy in place, specifically for GM's.

Leon Rose has been getting away with it because the Knicks are suddenly good. But they have the same philosophy. Can’t say the Knicks are what you want to model however. 

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Then I'll throw your question right back at you - then why put it in writing??

Promotion of the league. 

[Matt39]

Just now, Rich Thornburgh said:

Sure the GM is paid by the fans.  It may be indirectly but the nfl isn’t a charity

The nfls tv contract is astronomical. The fans are the reason why. It’s why Joe Douglas gets paid so much money too. Of course it’s a public role

[bicketybam]

Reading through this thread is like:

[batman10023]

35 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

1) By whose rules? You seem to want to get technical here, so by the Supreme Courts own ruling, NFL GM's do not fit the definition of a public figure. It is a cloudy definition.

Another legal definition is: A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

2). When has a fan base or public actually fired a GM?The public does not have any input to team machinations, even in the case of the Green Bay Packers, where they are publicly owned.

 

do you not remember that airplane Banner?

[batman10023]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We're just not going to agree. 

A league doesn't write up mandates to compel behavior they feel they'd universally get with or without the mandate.

Just like they mandate the HC and I think it's 2 players (1 at least) going to the podium to field questions, even after a loss. How many of them feel like fielding questions from the press after a humiliating loss? Probably zero.

They mandate it because they know it's behavior they wouldn't get - certainly not with the regularity they desire - absent the mandate. That is the very point. 

the requirement is 2x a year to speak.

i don't know a single GM that only does media 2x a year.

if your last statement was correct, i would think at least a few GM would only do 2x a year media appearances.  

so i think your statement is incorrect.

[ARodJetsFan]

12 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Promotion of the league. 

Yes, through communication & interaction with the public/team fan bases.

Thank you.

Game, set, match.

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

The nfls tv contract is astronomical. The fans are the reason why. It’s why Joe Douglas gets paid so much money too. Of course it’s a public role

What you just stated there has no correlation from one link to the other. Yes, the NFL exists because of TV contracts and other revenue streams. Yes, fans are the reason for tv contracts (duh). 

TV contracts and and fans are NOT the reason the role of NFL GM exists. There is no rule in the NFL that an NFL team must have a GM.

You just created a mathematical equation of 1+1 and came up with the a wrong answer of 3. There is no linking.

[ARodJetsFan]

9 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

Reading through this thread is like:

Sorry buddy.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

the requirement is 2x a year to speak.

i don't know a single GM that only does media 2x a year.

if your last statement was correct, i would think at least a few GM would only do 2x a year media appearances.  

so i think your statement is incorrect.

A few, but certainly not all, and perhaps not even most. Not unless it was mandated, and if every GM already would do so then it would make no sense to create such a mandate.

Typically a GM would only do such media addresses at times of obvious or major team news: the signing of a major player; the hiring of a new HC; discussion following the draft; etc.

These requirements are for media appearances just for the sake of it. I don't think most would do so. Some who are obvious self-promoters would, and others are HC-GM combo guys who really are a different animal than GM-only types, but plenty don't see their jobs as PR for the NFL.

[ARodJetsFan]

30 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They mandate it because they know it's behavior they wouldn't get - certainly not with the regularity they desire - absent the mandate. That is the very point. 

Which is EXACTLY what I said.

The NFL media access policy states that GM's will communicate through the media at least twice per year in response to the intense public interest in roster construction and development.

It's mandatory and NOT at the GM's discretion.

Please note that it specifically states, "in response to the intense public interest".

My point has been made, that's all folks.

[Matt39]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

What you just stated there has no correlation from one link to the other. Yes, the NFL exists because of TV contracts and other revenue streams. Yes, fans are the reason for tv contracts (duh). 

TV contracts and and fans are NOT the reason the role of NFL GM exists. There is no rule in the NFL that an NFL team must have a GM.

You just created a mathematical equation of 1+1 and came up with the a wrong answer of 3. There is no linking.

If it weren’t for the fans the nfl wouldnt have general managers. The relationship between the fans (the customer) and the league and the franchise they support makes these high level roles like general manager public facing careers. I can’t believe this is a conversation. It’s the most oddest fan policing I’ve seen here. 

[Scott Dierking]

7 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Yes, through communication & interaction with the public/team fan bases.

Thank you.

Game, set, match.

You are confusing a "public figure" with someone who speaks to the public from time to time. From a legal perspective, there is a difference.

We are splitting hairs here.