Many Fans Don't Care About "Spygate". But They Should.

[Lucky Luciano]

I get it. Sorry about the misunderstanding but I thought you were being serious in this thread but you were just joking, thats a relief, I was hoping this wasnt for real. You had me going but then I realized there is no way a person that has at least figured out how to turn on a computer would actually try to compare this to Enron.

 

if you don't get the comparrison to enron i sure won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. ask your parents.

 

Theres especially no way anyone would say that congress has the right to interfere when federal laws are being broken and actually believe any federal laws were broken. Also, no reasonable human being would think that theres obstruction of justice going on here when there was no justice being exercised, because how can you obstruct something that doesnt exist.

 

are you using cryptology on this post? if so post the key so i can follow your train of thought.

 

Thats a relief, so unless I receive something in terms of a point that isnt so ridiculous that it would draw laughter from 99% of the population (1% for Arlen Specter) than I will continue to assume you accidentally forgot to post in green.

 

sorry, but you lost something in the translation from crayon to keyboard.

[selection7]

It could well be shortsighted thinking to say the NFL is doing fine the way it is. If the NFL is tarnished considerably, the economic impact could be huge (edit) compared to footing the bill for one investigation (granted, government usually finds a way to make these things cost 10 times more than they should).

 

I pretty much agree with BigDaddy's last post. I also echo that the NFL and fans know (edit: think) that it'd be better for the sport for this to go away. It'l likely that Goodell is scared that this could happen again and knows full well that the Pats cheating was FAR more serious and repeated than he has let on but he doesn't feel like he can really go after them for it because of the lax atmosphere he and Tagliabue have allowed. So now he needs to set some heavy-handed ground rules and hope the rest of the world doesn't make too big a deal of possible tarnished Super Bowl wins.

 

To the guy who's doing most of the counterpoint to the OP, what kind of a question is "what else are we possibly going to find" (paraphrased)? Most people seem to agree we've only just scratched the surface and there you are saying that...along with a bunch of other silly things (e.g. "if all the teams are doing it than it isnt really giving anyone a competitive edge" or "We can go on a witch hunt because Im sure there are tons of things shady going on in the league but where will it stop.").

[madlithuanian]

The cost you mention aren't comparable. If the NFL loses money because of a tarnished league...that particular business (owners) lose money due to decreased revenues. If the govt decides to investigate, all of us foot the bill and lose money. It doesn't cost the league much to be investigated other than potentially hiring legal analysts. But, I agree...if the govt were to go about doing it, the cost would be 10 times what it should be with every senetor grandstanding (ie. spending your tax money).

 

I kind of feel like Mort from ESPN said last weekend...he basically said that as much as would have liked harsher penalties on the Pats and Billicheat, what's done is done, and at least it was a substantial penalty. I just think coming down super harsh on the next violator is key. We all know the Pats will suffer more in the public counrt of opinion. There's not a fan I know that doesn't think less of the team and their accompilshments.

 

 

 

It could well be shortsighted thinking to say the NFL is doing fine the way it is. If the NFL is tarnished considerably, the economic impact could be huge (edit) compared to footing the bill for one investigation (granted, government usually finds a way to make these things cost 10 times more than they should).

 

I pretty much agree with BigDaddy's last post. I also echo that the NFL and fans know that it'd be better for the sport for this to go away. It'l likely that Goodell is scared that this could happen again and knows full well that the Pats cheating was FAR more serious and repeated than he has let on but he doesn't feel like he can really go after them for it because of the lax atmosphere he and Tagliabue have allowed. So now he needs to set some heavy-handed ground rules and hope the rest of the world doesn't make too big a deal of possible tarnished Super Bowl wins.

 

To the guy who's doing most of the counterpoint to the OP, what kind of a question is "what else are we possibly going to find" (paraphrased)? Most people seem to agree we've only just scratched the surface and there you are saying that...along with a bunch of other silly things (e.g. "if all the teams are doing it than it isnt really giving anyone a competitive edge" or "We can go on a witch hunt because Im sure there are tons of things shady going on in the league but where will it stop.").

[DrunkBomber]

if you don't get the comparrison to enron i sure won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. ask your parents.

 

 

are you using cryptology on this post? if so post the key so i can follow your train of thought.

 

 

 

sorry, but you lost something in the translation from crayon to keyboard.

First of all, I recommend not mentioning my family anymore. I would imagine you dont want to take the time to explain to me how filming an opponents sideline during a football game is like the Enron scandal. Youre basing your whole argument on speculation and what ifs and are assuming the worst possible outcome for every situation which just isnt reasonable. Is it possible there might be more going on? Sure. Is there enough proof that congress should get involved? No. There is actually no proof. The original tapes were destroyed so there isnt anything to find. It was fishy but theres nothing we can do about it now.

 

Our country is at war, theres poverty, oil prices are insane, theres problems with immigration, theres natural disasters every month, the real estate market is in the shitter and you want congress to waste time and money looking for tapes of the sidelines during football games JUST IN CASE theres more to it. Thats irresponsible and is a waste of time and the tax payers money. So as you look down your nose thinking you have all the answers realize nobody agrees with you and you are simply making the overreaction of the year. Youre not the voice of other peoples tax dollars and nobody else wants their money used on this. So if youre that concerned about it than you and Specter can play cops and robbers on your time and money.

[DrunkBomber]

It could well be shortsighted thinking to say the NFL is doing fine the way it is. If the NFL is tarnished considerably, the economic impact could be huge (edit) compared to footing the bill for one investigation (granted, government usually finds a way to make these things cost 10 times more than they should).

 

I pretty much agree with BigDaddy's last post. I also echo that the NFL and fans know (edit: think) that it'd be better for the sport for this to go away. It'l likely that Goodell is scared that this could happen again and knows full well that the Pats cheating was FAR more serious and repeated than he has let on but he doesn't feel like he can really go after them for it because of the lax atmosphere he and Tagliabue have allowed. So now he needs to set some heavy-handed ground rules and hope the rest of the world doesn't make too big a deal of possible tarnished Super Bowl wins.

 

To the guy who's doing most of the counterpoint to the OP, what kind of a question is "what else are we possibly going to find" (paraphrased)? Most people seem to agree we've only just scratched the surface and there you are saying that...along with a bunch of other silly things (e.g. "if all the teams are doing it than it isnt really giving anyone a competitive edge" or "We can go on a witch hunt because Im sure there are tons of things shady going on in the league but where will it stop.").

I didnt say they werent gonna find anything. I just dont think that they should go looking unless they are looking for something specifically. If they just go looking simply to look without even knowing what theyre hoping to find, that is a witch hunt. Then it comes down to an individual perception, "I" dont want my tax money wasted on something like this if theyre only looking just in case.

 

You want to talk about something that needs to be looked at more, look at whats going on in the NBA, now that ref is saying that there are a bunch of other crooked refs. Thats something that warrants an investigation more than this. The difference is, what the Patriots were doing wasnt anything like fixing games and it didnt have anything to do with gambling. They were doing something to give themselves a competitive edge. In a situation like this, the people who should be asking for the investigation more than anyone, other teams and coaches, arent.

 

I also like that Lucky says that congress has the right to intervene when federal laws are broken so they have the right now, but he didnt answer what laws were broken. Why? Because no laws were broken, especially federal laws. You keep dropping BS like that in your post and thats why its pointless to respond to every point because youre flat out lying or dont have any idea what youre talking about.

[selection7]

The cost you mention aren't comparable. If the NFL loses money because of a tarnished league...that particular business (owners) lose money due to decreased revenues. If the govt decides to investigate, all of us foot the bill and lose money. It doesn't cost the league much to be investigated other than potentially hiring legal analysts.

I think you're missing something important. It's not true that in one situation only owners lose money and in the other situation only the public loses money...to say the least. You know how city goverments (and/or states) often help finance a stadium? That's just one example showing that the public/government thinks the NFL economy is important to them too. Just off the top of my head is tourism and the hotel industry as specific examples of how. I remember when the Bengals were redoing their stadium (I lived in Cincy then), reading some staggering estimate of the economic impact the Cincinnati Bengals had on the city (I don't remember exact numbers).

[madlithuanian]

First off, city governments shouldn't be financing stadiums. That needs to stop. Whether the NFL is good for a city or not, it should not be a govt thing. The free market needs to determine the viability of such. All your examples are peripheral industries that do well due to the NFL being in a city, and while true that negative percetions could hurt those industries. Isn't that just how life is? Not everything is guaranteed? Busineese go belly up all the time. It's a risk. There are no guarantees.

 

I make no doubt that certain teams have enormous impacts on their cities financial success/woes. But it's no different than Starbucks. If they start making crummy coffee, stores close, people lose jobs...etc.

 

Our comversation is bordering on political...but overall...what you're saying as the public losing money has no right to that money. It is a priveledge. Wheraes our tax dollars, we can have a say in. Or at least in theory.

 

I think you're missing something important. It's not true that in one situation only owners lose money and in the other situation only the public loses money...to say the least. You know how city goverments (and/or states) often help finance a stadium? That's just one example showing that the public/government thinks the NFL economy is important to them too. Just off the top of my head is tourism and the hotel industry as specific examples of how. I remember when the Bengals were redoing their stadium (I lived in Cincy then), reading some staggering estimate of the economic impact the Cincinnati Bengals had on the city (I don't remember exact numbers).

[selection7]

Our comversation is bordering on political...but overall...what you're saying as the public losing money has no right to that money. It is a priveledge. Wheraes our tax dollars, we can have a say in. Or at least in theory.

OK. I don't have strong opinions on that specifically. But I will say that the government would consider such a view to be radical, for what it's worth, as they've got a long history of manipulating elements of the economy to keep it strong (tax breaks to attract industries is quite apples to apples with construction costs "breaks" aimed at attracting football teams.) You're right, it's getting political in that many further right-winged fiscal conservatives don't believe in government interference with domestic free economy while others think it's part of their duty as a government. I'm a fiscal moderate I guess.

 

Also, I think you mean "what I'm saying is". Because selection7 (me) never said that, and it does seem to be your point, not mine.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough.

 

I apologize if I mis-understood your points...or maybe messsed up min a bit. ...my comment was really meant to say :

 

 

"Our comversation is bordering on political...but overall...what you're saying (as the public losing money) has no right to that money. It is a priveledge. Wheraes our tax dollars, we can have a say in. Or at least in theory.

 

I only intended your point to be that of the generic idea of the public losing money. Not that you agreed with me that it is not a right. Sorry about any confusion!

 

 

OK. I don't have strong opinions on that specifically. But I will say that the government would consider such a view to be radical, for what it's worth, as they've got a long history of manipulating elements of the economy to keep it strong (tax breaks to attract industries is quite apples to apples with construction costs "breaks" aimed at attracting football teams.) You're right, it's getting political in that many further right-winged fiscal conservatives don't believe in government interference with domestic free economy while others think it's part of their duty as a government. I'm a fiscal moderate I guess.

 

Also, I think you mean "what I'm saying is". Because selection7 (me) never said that, and it does seem to be your point, not mine.

[nfoligno]

Well, I understand, but first and foremost, public funds should not be used to build these stadiums. It's really appaling in my opinion.

 

I totally disagree w/ this statement. The city benefits greatly from having a pro sports team, and I see no reason why the city should not help pay the tab.

 

Here in Dallas, this has been a big issue. When Jerry Jones was looking to build a new stadium, he wanted to build a new stadium in Dallas. It was a VERY heated debate, but the mayor at the time was against using public funds/bonds, taxes, to help pay. The Cowboys, and other supporters, provided loads of details on how a pro sports team generates tons of dollars for the city. Hotels, taxi, restaurants, night life, etc. Due to the mayor, Jerry took his team to Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play, and Dallas lost out of a ton of potential revenue.

 

To me, it is no different from everything a city does to attack any big business. When a major company says it is looking to relocate, cities will put together packages w/ loads of incentives and tax breaks to lure that business. Why would a pro sports team be any different?

[madlithuanian]

I do understand your point, and also know it goes on in numerous fashions, levels, etc regarding all kinds of businesses.

 

But, I'll just agre to disagree. My view stems from my philosophical view on what government should and shouldn't do for it's citizens. Best leave this discussion to a political board, and not a Bears one.

 

 

 

 

Well, I understand, but first and foremost, public funds should not be used to build these stadiums. It's really appaling in my opinion.

 

I totally disagree w/ this statement. The city benefits greatly from having a pro sports team, and I see no reason why the city should not help pay the tab.

 

Here in Dallas, this has been a big issue. When Jerry Jones was looking to build a new stadium, he wanted to build a new stadium in Dallas. It was a VERY heated debate, but the mayor at the time was against using public funds/bonds, taxes, to help pay. The Cowboys, and other supporters, provided loads of details on how a pro sports team generates tons of dollars for the city. Hotels, taxi, restaurants, night life, etc. Due to the mayor, Jerry took his team to Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play, and Dallas lost out of a ton of potential revenue.

 

To me, it is no different from everything a city does to attack any big business. When a major company says it is looking to relocate, cities will put together packages w/ loads of incentives and tax breaks to lure that business. Why would a pro sports team be any different?

[Lucky Luciano]

I also like that Lucky says that congress has the right to intervene when federal laws are broken so they have the right now, but he didnt answer what laws were broken. Why? Because no laws were broken, especially federal laws. You keep dropping BS like that in your post and thats why its pointless to respond to every point because youre flat out lying or dont have any idea what youre talking about.

 

do you even know what you are talking about? do you even know what the definition of "intervene" IS??

 

in·ter·vene - to become a third party to a legal proceeding begun by others for the protection of an alleged interest

 

first: what 'legal' proceeding are they becoming a part of? i must have missed the news flash that the NFL can practice and enforce U.S. criminal law.

 

second: in the U.S. they have investigations to DETERMINE if a law or statute has been broken. ever heard of a grand jury?

 

third: how can you determine if there has or has not been a criminal offense if you don't QUESTION the parties involved either under oath of congress or a grand jury if you have a 'reasonable' suspicion that a crime has been committed or at the very least, view the physical evidence as presented (oh thats right, it was destroyed)?

 

fourth: are you roger GOoDell? if not where are you getting this conclusive evidence that no federal laws were broken? a gut feeling on your part? it's true just because you say so? a qui ji board? transmissions from deep space? all of the above?

 

if not then POST your conclusive evidence and it's sources for us to read.

 

fifth: you say i won't answer what laws were broken? i'm not clairvoyant as you appear to be. to determine what, if ANY, laws were violated i (and i assume congress also) would have to ASK QUESTIONS to determine that. what violations 'could' there be?

 

off the top of my head there is a real possibility that the EEA laws were violated which involves corporate espionage statutes.

 

could there be gambling violations or racketeering laws at risk? who could possibly know without asking questions? like was anyone in the franchise or their family using information on this to place bets? was anyone that they told or knew of aware of it and did they place any bets?

 

could there be a multitude of others? YES!!!!!

 

here is a scenario for you... what if the cameraman or someone in the system evaluating this information was part of or friends with the gambino crime family in new york? would that be enough for you to ask questions?

 

sixth: show me ANYWHERE i was lying in any of my posts. show me ANYWHERE what i posted is BS. don't just yap about it, PROVE IT!!!!

 

can't? hmmmmm... now what does that make YOU?

[selection7]

I didnt say they werent gonna find anything. I just dont think that they should go looking unless they are looking for something specifically. If they just go looking simply to look without even knowing what theyre hoping to find, that is a witch hunt. Then it comes down to an individual perception, "I" dont want my tax money wasted on something like this if theyre only looking just in case.

They are specifically looking to see if the Patriots cheating goes beyond what's been revealed, if there were coverups by any involved parties, and the extent to which this cheating is being practiced by other teams. That's specific and so obvious that I really am quite confused why you keep saying there's nothing specific to look for.

 

BTW, just fyi, my initial reaction to hearing there was a federal investigation being called for was to roll my eyes, so I'm not actually on the other side on this issue. I just don't see it as black and white as you do. Unlike baseball and basketball's situations, my hunch is that this will all die down eventually if we just let Goodell do his magician's act. A big investigation may do more harm than good, and Goodell will probably lay the down the law to protect the NFL in the future. Maybe the Rams should have won that first Superbowl, but even if I'm a Rams fan, I have to realize that time has passed. You could hypothetically try to give them a retroactive Lombardi trophy, but years later, it would only be bittersweet. What's done is done and sometimes life isn't fair. They're still all rich guys getting paid to play a kid's game.

[DrunkBomber]

They are specifically looking to see if the Patriots cheating goes beyond what's been revealed, if there were coverups by any involved parties, and the extent to which this cheating is being practiced by other teams. That's specific and so obvious that I really am quite confused why you keep saying there's nothing specific to look for.

 

BTW, just fyi, my initial reaction to hearing there was a federal investigation being called for was to roll my eyes, so I'm not actually on the other side on this issue. I just don't see it as black and white as you do. Unlike baseball and basketball's situations, my hunch is that this will all die down eventually if we just let Goodell do his magician's act. A big investigation may do more harm than good, and Goodell will probably lay the down the law to protect the NFL in the future. Maybe the Rams should have won that first Superbowl, but even if I'm a Rams fan, I have to realize that time has passed. You could hypothetically try to give them a retroactive Lombardi trophy, but years later, it would only be bittersweet. What's done is done and sometimes life isn't fair. They're still all rich guys getting paid to play a kid's game.

Im not saying that there isnt a possibility of more stuff going on and that if there was it shouldnt be investigated. I just think that unless they are absolutely certain there is foul play that the government should stay out of it. I still think comparing this to enron is so ridiculous that it doesnt deserve a response anymore because that isnt in the realm of whats going on here, I know that wasnt you who said that by the way.

 

Im all for fairness, Im all for putting the hammer down on cheating. I dont even care if they keep digging for evidence. I just think until they have something solid as a lead the government should stay out of it. Now, if Goodell, or anyone else has more proof of wrong doing and they think its affecting things like gambling and there is a lot of shady business going on than I wouldnt be SO opposed to congress getting involved. There just isnt anything new that has come out since it all ended that is enough to spend tax dollars investigating. Its almost like everyone was ready to move on and then all of a sudden Arlen Specter decided he isnt happy. Nobody else is asking for this to continue and one person shouldnt have that kind of authority.

 

For the record, which you eluded to earlier when I said that if all the teams were doing it than there isnt an unfair advantage, that was more making fun of someone saying that cheating is so rampant in the NFL that all the teams could be doing this, to which I responded, if they were its not an unfair advantage, knowing damn well not all the teams are doing this.

[balta1701-A]

Ex Pats lineman says Patriots also broke the rules regarding practicing with players on IR.

[Boston Boxer]

Ex Pats lineman says Patriots also broke the rules regarding practicing with players on IR.

 

i am sure they are the only team that does that too!

[madlithuanian]

They were the only team that got caught...

 

Kind of like speeding. Everyone does not. Most tend not to flaunt it in front of the police. The Pats did, got cuaght, and now they are beeing tailed.

 

i am sure they are the only team that does that too!

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I personally have a lot more issues with the Patriots use of the IR than I do with spygate. Personally I believe there are more teams than just the Pats who have partaken in "SpyGate" like incidents, however, I think there are a lot less (in fact, probably none) who blatantly broke the IR rule.