players win jobs based on merit but the other positions in the NFL are largely populated by nepotism and personal relationships.
I think that could be said about society as a whole.?ÿ Speaking for myself, the vast majority of the jobs I have had over the years haven't been landed through cold calling.?ÿ There wasn't anything nefarious about it, I think it was simply more efficient for employers to hire people who's work ethic, knowledge, and experience they are familiar with.
It's interesting to think if these emails were discovered 5 years ago, nothing would have happened to him, maybe a quick blurb on the news and then quickly forgotten.
@k-huerth If the man is the person that the emails are being used to accuse him of it's been known for years by those who hired him and the NFL management. When you point a finger at a person there are three pointing back to you.
Dirt is dirt.?ÿ Why does a specific type of dirt qualify as a reason for a person to lose their job?
If every extra-marital affair was announced by others to the public there might be fewer such affairs.?ÿ Or, the exact opposite could result because it would no longer seem to be uncommon, thus normal behavior.?ÿ The only US President who couldn't be accused of having an extra-marital affair was Buchanan.
Why does a specific type of dirt qualify as a reason for a person to lose their job?
Usually because it's something that is directly linked to a facet of their job, or affects their ability to perform that job to some standard. Not always, but usually.
The only US President who couldn't be accused of having an extra-marital affair was Buchanan.
Not Harrison? I wouldn't think he had enough time...
(too soon?)
Right.?ÿ Isn't it amusing how the recipients of these emails aren't being interrogated.?ÿ What are the chances they all replied to Gruden's emails with innocuous comments?
Usually because it's something that is directly linked to a facet of their job, or affects their ability to perform that job to some standard. Not always, but usually.
That's certainly the PC explanation.?ÿ The simple explanation is because there is some combination of money or influence to be gained.
Face it, he said something bad about Roger Goodell that was most likely true.?ÿ Goodell took it personally and sent the goons to ferret out some dirt, any thing that could be taken out of context even.?ÿ They had to go back 12 years and through 60,000 emails to find something, and that was when he didn't even work for the Raiders or the NFL.?ÿ Al Davis would have responded with a few choice words Goodell wouldn't have liked even today.?ÿ The son, Marc Davis caved to the wizards at the NFL office, and Goodell caved to the money interests.
@dave-lindell CNN reports that problematic emails were found over an 8 year period.?ÿAnother sports news site (which I can't find again) said they were dated between 2011 and 2018.?ÿ
@bstrand?ÿ
It's got nothing to do with PC. You screw up and make your bosses look bad, expect some consequences. I'm pretty open about problems within my own organization, including leadership decisions. Not everyone likes that, at times including my own supervisor. I could get fired at any time if someone decides that they don't like what I say. But if you stand by your views, it doesn't make a difference.
It's football. It's a game, it's entertainment, it's in the public eye, and it's subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion, because that's what makes money for the NFL, which has made it pretty clear that's all it cares about. If you're in the public eye, you better pay attention. Having a public following and supporters doesn't automatically make one right, nor should it automatically save you if you screw up. And let's not forget that it wasn't a single incident, but multiple incidents over the past decade. That's not exactly ancient history.
It's got nothing to do with PC.
Sure it does.?ÿ Gruden's boss will say he accepted the resignation because he doesn't want a sexist homophobe on the payroll but the real reason is because he (or the NFL) thinks they will lose money if Gruden stays.
I'm not disagreeing with the points you make, I just think the facade that businesses put up is laughable.
@dave-lindell I wonder if it stems back to the Raiders getting fined half a mil for not wearing NFL mandated face coverings as required. It never made much sense to me to allow spitting on each other on the field and then go to the sideline and put a face covering on.
It never made much sense to me to allow spitting on each other on the field and then go to the sideline and put a face covering on.
Well yeah that's just one example in a long line of examples of the clown show that the virus "crisis" has been.?ÿ ?????ÿ
Goodell took it personally and sent the goons to ferret out some dirt, any thing that could be taken out of context even
Gruden is just collateral damage in Dan Snyder's inept war against his former team president, Bruce Allen.?ÿ
The emails (in a redacted form) were part of a court pleading filed by Snyder's legal team back in June to try get Allen to be disposed about his role/knowledge in stories planted in the media tying Snyder to Jeffry Epstein. Snyder believe they were planted by one of his previous minority ownership partners to try and get full control of the team.
The first email was released by a WSJ reporter who had written a puff-piece on Snyder earlier this year. "Coincidently" the new Washington director of publicity is a former?ÿ WSJ employee.
Just like everything Dan Snyder touches, however, it backfired and turned to s**t