Gainzo Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Watching these patsy fans try to spin this is bordering on absurd. Whatever. Specter faxed, then mailed his concerns to Goodell. If Specter was legit he would have called or emailed back in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Whatever. Specter faxed, then mailed his concerns to Goodell. If Specter was legit he would have called or emailed back in September. You really are a complete homer aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 You really are a complete homer aren't you? Can you read or do you let your homerism get the best of you? I'm no homer. I suggest you look in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Sepcter is using the Spygate situation to drive COMCAST's agenda. COMCAST who is in a fight w/the NFL was the second largest contributor to Specter. Specter's top contributor is a law firm that lobbies on the behalf of COMCAST. Specter is bought and paid for by COMCAST. LBS is right. Specter is not the one that should be driving this investigation. The cable companies cry that the .70 cent fee the cable company is charged by the NFL is excessive, but like COMCAST, they have no problem charging $5-6 and incoroporating it into their sports tier or making available on Pay-per view basis which probably requires a box like Charter does for my area. Within a year, you will no longer be able to use an antenna anyways. EM31 He might be a pariah for showing up owners by turning a joke of a franchise into a billion dollar property, but not for this. Specfter is a joke. His inquiry and lack of congressional support shows he has an agenda. He can rah rah all he wants about his home state teams, but the truth is he is COMCAST's bbbiiiaaatttcccchhh. Yup it's a massive conspiracy against the cheaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 You really are a complete homer aren't you? What else would you expect? They've GOT to try and spin this as best they can. Didn't you know that it's a massive conspiracy Mike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Yup it's a massive conspiracy against the cheaters. Says the man with the Bear Bryant sig. Good to see you have a guy who was a drunken racist as your hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't think Specter should even be looking into this. the Patriots broke NFL rules, not the law. but then again it's also Belichick and Kraft's fault it all came to this can of worms being opened up. they're too of the biggest arrogant ass holes on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Says the man with the Bear Bryant sig. Good to see you have a guy who was a drunken racist as your hero. You realize that changing the subject doesn't save you from a losing argument right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Can you read or do you let your homerism get the best of you? I'm no homer. I suggest you look in the mirror. Your spinning on this issue says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Says the man with the Bear Bryant sig. Good to see you have a guy who was a drunken racist as your hero. Just like a troll to change the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't think Specter should even be looking into this. the Patriots broke NFL rules, not the law. but then again it's also Belichick and Kraft's fault it all came to this can of worms being opened up. they're too of the biggest arrogant ass holes on this planet. WOW BP, DEAD ON !! Their arrogance is what started the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't think Specter should even be looking into this. the Patriots broke NFL rules, not the law. but then again it's also Belichick and Kraft's fault it all came to this can of worms being opened up. they're too of the biggest arrogant ass holes on this planet. The public deserves to know if a league they support to the tune of billions of dollars every year is on the level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Your spinning on this issue says otherwise. I think we scared the little troll away Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 The public deserves to know if a league they support to the tune of billions of dollars every year is on the level. Then they obviously have too much time on their hands if that's on their list of things to do in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Then they obviously have too much time on their hands if that's on their list of things to do in Washington. I have no problems BP with Congress looking into it. Christ you know Kraft's buddy Goodalls isn't going to do it. This is beginning to smell like 3 day old fish in a Bangkok market. I still can't believe about this Matt Walsh thing. Why can't they reach an agreement? Does he have tapes or not? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I also don't see a problem with this. The NFL is one if the largest companies in the country. If they don't like to be governed then give up the anti trust exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I also don't see a problem with this. The NFL is one if the largest companies in the country. If they don't like to be governed then give up the anti trust exemption. bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I also don't see a problem with this. The NFL is one if the largest companies in the country. If they don't like to be governed then give up the anti trust exemption. Yup !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't think Specter should even be looking into this. the Patriots broke NFL rules, not the law. but then again it's also Belichick and Kraft's fault it all came to this can of worms being opened up. they're too of the biggest arrogant ass holes on this planet. BP, the profanity filter is there for a reason. Please do not misspell words, add puncutation or spaces in an attempt to defeat it. Thank you. I also don't see a problem with this. The NFL is one if the largest companies in the country. If they don't like to be governed then give up the anti trust exemption. Pretty sure the NFL anti-trust exemption only relates to the television contracts. There is no blanket exemption like baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Ok, he faxed his letters to Goodell. I'm just sayin', Goodell should have responded to them. Sheesh! Yes, he should have. Its the best thing for everyone for all the facts to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Yes, he should have. Its the best thing for everyone for all the facts to come out. The truth shall set you free!! (except in come cases where it might send you to jail) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 ...Pretty sure the NFL anti-trust exemption only relates to the television contracts. There is no blanket exemption like baseball. It is indeed a narrower exemption than the one basball has to be sure but it does exist and it does put money into the NFL's pockets. Ergo the NFL is on the public titty and as such that means Arlen Specter gets to check the NFL's underpants for skid marks if he has a mind to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Pretty sure the NFL anti-trust exemption only relates to the television contracts. There is no blanket exemption like baseball. How much of a break they are getting is pointless. They are getting en exemption from the anti-trust laws in this country from the government. If they want the gonvernment to stop looking over their shoulder they should cut ties with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 It is indeed a narrower exemption than the one basball has to be sure but it does exist and it does put money into the NFL's pockets. Ergo the NFL is on the public titty and as such that means Arlen Specter gets to check the NFL's underpants for skid marks if he has a mind to do so. How much of a break they are getting is pointless. They are getting en exemption from the anti-trust laws in this country from the government. If they want the gonvernment to stop looking over their shoulder they should cut ties with them. It's nice that you guys think the greater good is so important that Congress should step in and verify a level playing field in the NFL, but maybe you should follow the money. Comcast is at war with the NFL network. They are also based out of Philadelphia. Like Arlen Specter. Like most "Congressional probes" this is a meaningless waste of time and taxpayer dollars and doesn't necessarily have to do with any "proof" they may or may not have against the Pats. There are plenty of more important issues than if that little douchebag taped signs or practice. Teams are supposed to have anti-spy measures in place anyway. If they don't, shame on them. IIRC, the purpose of the television exemption was just to allow all the teams to join together and make one NFL deal with the networks instead of each team making separate deals. It protects smaller market teams and lets them get the maximum value. These exmptions were granted for the public good, not to let the teams print money. The purpose of the baseball exemption was to keep teams from jumping from location to location willy-nilly. It's not to stop upstart leagues or harm competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Yes, he should have. Its the best thing for everyone for all the facts to come out. Finally a post of yours I can agree with . As a Pat fan, having all the facts about your SB victories become public is a must. Only then can the NFL lay this whole spygate thing to rest and move on. Right now there's still too many unanswered questions out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 It's nice that you guys think the greater good is so important that Congress should step in and verify a level playing field in the NFL, but maybe you should follow the money. Comcast is at war with the NFL network. They are also based out of Philadelphia. Like Arlen Specter. Like most "Congressional probes" this is a meaningless waste of time and taxpayer dollars and doesn't necessarily have to do with any "proof" they may or may not have against the Pats. There are plenty of more important issues than if that little douchebag taped signs or practice. Teams are supposed to have anti-spy measures in place anyway. If they don't, shame on them. IIRC, the purpose of the television exemption was just to allow all the teams to join together and make one NFL deal with the networks instead of each team making separate deals. It protects smaller market teams and lets them get the maximum value. These exmptions were granted for the public good, not to let the teams print money. The purpose of the baseball exemption was to keep teams from jumping from location to location willy-nilly. It's not to stop upstart leagues or harm competition. I could really care less what the Patriots did and how they cheated. What concerns me is how Roger Goodell handled the whole situation. If the penalty had been in line with his other penalties then I think nothing would of came out of this. Any impropriety from an authoritive figure is so much worse then that of the players so his should punishment should of been worse then any player. Do you not think Pacman would of rather of paid 500,000 and still been playing? ohh and in case you missed it the Pats circumvented the penalty by giving BB an extention with an undisclosed signing bonus right after the penalty was handed down so really BB didn't lose a cent. Right now the impropriety is coming from the commissioner. Who keeps him in check. iirc Specter didn't do anything until it looked like a coverup that went to the very top of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I could really care less what the Patriots did and how they cheated. What concerns me is how Roger Goodell handled the whole situation. If the penalty had been in line with his other penalties then I think nothing would of came out of this. Any impropriety from an authoritive figure is so much worse then that of the players so his should punishment should of been worse then any player. Do you not think Pacman would of rather of paid 500,000 and still been playing? ohh and in case you missed it the Pats circumvented the penalty by giving BB an extention with an undisclosed signing bonus right after the penalty was handed down so really BB didn't lose a cent. Right now the impropriety is coming from the commissioner. Who keeps him in check. iirc Specter didn't do anything until it looked like a coverup that went to the very top of the NFL. Specter didn't do anything until right before the Super Bowl. During the media frenzy. He supposedly sent a letter in October or something that the NFL supposedly "didn't respond to" he elected to make that public just prior to the Super Bowl and start this witch hunt. I think BB is a douche, I probably hate Goodell more than anybody on this site, but make no mistake Specter is no better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Specter didn't do anything until right before the Super Bowl. During the media frenzy. He supposedly sent a letter in October or something that the NFL supposedly "didn't respond to" he elected to make that public just prior to the Super Bowl and start this witch hunt. I think BB is a douche, I probably hate Goodell more than anybody on this site, but make no mistake Specter is no better. Are you implying that there was no letter? This think this whole congress thing started out with a lie from Specter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Are you implying that there was no letter? This think this whole congress thing started out with a lie from Specter? I'm not implying anything. I'm saying Specter is acting like a publicity whore and it's not because he wants to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure he did probably send a letter. If a member of congress contacts the commissioner and doesn't get a response isn't the proper course of action to either send another letter demanding you be contacted or have your intern call and get Goodell on the line? Specter did neither of those things, he sent "a letter" out and then waited over three months, until the most publicized event in the free world, to make public that the NFL was "stonewalling" him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 It's nice that you guys think the greater good is so important that Congress should step in and verify a level playing field in the NFL, but maybe you should follow the money. Comcast is at war with the NFL network. They are also based out of Philadelphia. Like Arlen Specter. Like most "Congressional probes" this is a meaningless waste of time and taxpayer dollars and doesn't necessarily have to do with any "proof" they may or may not have against the Pats. There are plenty of more important issues than if that little douchebag taped signs or practice. Teams are supposed to have anti-spy measures in place anyway. If they don't, shame on them. IIRC, the purpose of the television exemption was just to allow all the teams to join together and make one NFL deal with the networks instead of each team making separate deals. It protects smaller market teams and lets them get the maximum value. These exmptions were granted for the public good, not to let the teams print money. The purpose of the baseball exemption was to keep teams from jumping from location to location willy-nilly. It's not to stop upstart leagues or harm competition. Why are you conflating two different issues? The NFL has decided to split TV revenues equally. This is an agreement that is internal to the 32 franchises. It would be just a true with 32 regional TV contracts as it is with the 3 or 4 of the monpoly flavor that we have today. Why are you assuming that the end to national TV contracts would mean the end to the revenue sharing agreement? The antitrust exemption is an exemption from the laws that normally govern competetive market access in the broadcast business. Any time a monopoly is allowed to exist for a particular service, the customer almost always ends up paying more for that service if it is even available at all. This is true both in terms of the quality of service and certainly in terms of the cost. The NFL is on the public titty and we are all paying for it (one way or the other). The cost of the fatter contracts that the NFL are in a position to sign is most certainly passed on to the consumer. So yes, Congress has a perfect right to oversee how that special priviledge is being used (or abused). Congress has better things to do? That may well a valid point but unfortunately it is the same one that cops hear every day... "Hey officer why are you chasing after burgalars when there are murders to be solved?"... If this is a reach then the media and ultimately ther electorate are the ones appointed to be judge jury and executioner of Senator Specter. Not the guys whose hand may be in the cookie jar. I do remember back in the day that MSG (before the Dolans) were in the middle of a Jihad with Cablevision and both side were prepared to have the dispute continue as far as the eye could see into the hocky playoffs. It took politicians getting involved to remind BOTH companies that they enjoyed financial benefits from the taxpayer before we got an imposed solution to the playoff issue. I am fine with Specter digging around as much as he likes. If they decide to recind the antitrust exmption then all the betterr for us consumers and once again, none of that has anything to do with the clubs deciding to share revenues or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm not implying anything. I'm saying Specter is acting like a publicity whore and it's not because he wants to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure he did probably send a letter. If a member of congress contacts the commissioner and doesn't get a response isn't the proper course of action to either send another letter demanding you be contacted or have your intern call and get Goodell on the line? Specter did neither of those things, he sent "a letter" out and then waited over three months, until the most publicized event in the free world, to make public that the NFL was "stonewalling" him. Sure, there is a great chance that he has his own reasons for doing this. I do not know nor claim to know the proper procedures for a member of congress to contact a NFL commissioner. I don't remember the exact time line of everything coming to light. Did the Walsh thing come out before or after the Specter thing? Up until the Walsh thing came to surface I thoguht that the NFL did an investigation. After it came to light it seemed like this investigation involved Goodel asking Kraft what happened and nothing more. One of the ways I look at it is like this. If Congress was to ignore this would it make it harder for them to ever pull anyone elses exemption? (no clue how many companies have this) If they did not do this would it make it even harder for them to investigate another company without seeming biased? I know that when companies do not enforce their copyrights, even the ones that seem trivial. They run the risk of never being able to use the law to enforce the protection of their copyright do to them not being consistent with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm not implying anything. I'm saying Specter is acting like a publicity whore and it's not because he wants to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure he did probably send a letter. If a member of congress contacts the commissioner and doesn't get a response isn't the proper course of action to either send another letter demanding you be contacted or have your intern call and get Goodell on the line? Specter did neither of those things, he sent "a letter" out and then waited over three months, until the most publicized event in the free world, to make public that the NFL was "stonewalling" him. You make it sound like Specter was the only guy feeling "stonewalled" by the Commissioner's office on this issue. He was not. The Commissioner spent nearly those entire three months being unavaialbe to answer questions on this subject even while he knew that the media had lots of questions to ask. The media sought out Matt Walsh not the other way around. The bleeding of this Spygate issue into Superbowl week was because that was the first time the Commissioner made himself availlable to answer questions of any kind. Plus when the ranking Republican member of the Sentate Judiciary committee contacts your office you respond to the damned letter or you open yourself up to charges of stonewalling. Heck, if it wasn't stonewalling, how does it differ in any material aspect from real stonewalling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Why are you conflating two different issues? The NFL has decided to split TV revenues equally. This is an agreement that is internal to the 32 franchises. It would be just a true with 32 regional TV contracts as it is with the 3 or 4 of the monpoly flavor that we have today. Why are you assuming that the end to national TV contracts would mean the end to the revenue sharing agreement? The antitrust exemption is an exemption from the laws that normally govern competetive market access in the broadcast business. Any time a monopoly is allowed to exist for a particular service, the customer almost always ends up paying more for that service if it is even available at all. This is true both in terms of the quality of service and certainly in terms of the cost. The NFL is on the public titty and we are all paying for it (one way or the other). The cost of the fatter contracts that the NFL are in a position to sign is most certainly passed on to the consumer. So yes, Congress has a perfect right to oversee how that special priviledge is being used (or abused). Congress has better things to do? That may well a valid point but unfortunately it is the same one that cops hear every day... "Hey officer why are you chasing after burgalars when there are murders to be solved?"... If this is a reach then the media and ultimately ther electorate are the ones appointed to be judge jury and executioner of Senator Specter. Not the guys whose hand may be in the cookie jar. I do remember back in the day that MSG (before the Dolans) were in the middle of a Jihad with Cablevision and both side were prepared to have the dispute continue as far as the eye could see into the hocky playoffs. It took politicians getting involved to remind BOTH companies that they enjoyed financial benefits from the taxpayer before we got an imposed solution to the playoff issue. I am fine with Specter digging around as much as he likes. If they decide to recind the antitrust exmption then all the betterr for us consumers and once again, none of that has anything to do with the clubs deciding to share revenues or not. Sure, there is a great chance that he has his own reasons for doing this. I do not know nor claim to know the proper procedures for a member of congress to contact a NFL commissioner. I don't remember the exact time line of everything coming to light. Did the Walsh thing come out before or after the Specter thing? Up until the Walsh thing came to surface I thoguht that the NFL did an investigation. After it came to light it seemed like this investigation involved Goodel asking Kraft what happened and nothing more. One of the ways I look at it is like this. If Congress was to ignore this would it make it harder for them to ever pull anyone elses exemption? (no clue how many companies have this) If they did not do this would it make it even harder for them to investigate another company without seeming biased? I know that when companies do not enforce their copyrights, even the ones that seem trivial. They run the risk of never being able to use the law to enforce the protection of their copyright do to them not being consistent with it. You guys are missing my point. I don't necessarily disagree with either of you. I'm fine with Congress digging around. I think they do and should have more important things, but if they want to **** around with it, fine by me. I just think it's a waste of time and money. It's not like they can't waste time and money on other meaningless things so it doesn't matter. http://www.jetnation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50360&page=3&highlight=sherman The anti trust exemption that they have is solely in regard to broadcasting rights. Allowing the NFL to pool together and sell the broadcast rights as one entity. That's why I bring up the teams pooling together. This is what Specter is talking aobut revoking, but more than likely because it would be in favor of comcast, not the general public. I just want people to understand that this isn't some secret plot that has just been uncovered, it's a publicity seeking politician trying to back the huge company in his backyard. I don't expect anything at all to come from this "investigation" except a lot more bluster. I doubt there will be any substantial proof. What we will have is more bull**** hearings like the baseball steroids. BB will testify under oath that he didn't know it was against the rules and we will all know he is lying and it won't make a bit of difference. IMO if Walsh had tapes we'd have seen them already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 You guys are missing my point. I don't necessarily disagree with either of you. I'm fine with Congress digging around. I think they do and should have more important things, but if they want to **** around with it, fine by me. I just think it's a waste of time. I just want people to understand that this isn't some secret plot that has just been uncovered, it's a publicity seeking politician trying to back the huge company in his backyard. I don't expect anything at all to come from this "investigation" except a lot more bluster. I doubt there will be any substantial proof. What we will have is more bull**** hearings like the baseball steroids. BB will testify under oath that he didn't know it was against the rules and we will all know he is lying and it won't make a bit of difference. IMO if Walsh had tapes we'd have seen them already. The whole thing with Specter just trying to back cablevision might have merit but so far I have only read that in one article. The sports media world seems desperate these days for stories so one would think that more would of picked up on it. When this becomes a bigger story then I will give it some merit but until then it's really just one article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 The whole thing with Specter just trying to back cablevision might have merit but so far I have only read that in one article. The sports media world seems desperate these days for stories so one would think that more would of picked up on it. When this becomes a bigger story then I will give it some merit but until then it's really just one article. It's comcast, not cablevision. Whatever his reasons, his methods seem questionable. Either way, it's silly season. Beats another thread on McFadden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.