Article That Supports My POV

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Chester Pitts On Roger Goodell, commissioner: "I think he tends to be tone deaf. He doesn't understand players."

On the NFL owners: "Their main strategy is to delay as long as they can and hope we run out of money. They have no real interest in negotiating right now no matter what they say publicly."

On what he thinks the fight is all about: "If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

Then Pitts delivered this. You need to pay special attention, because his words, I think, represent the mindset of many NFL players:
"Most players are approaching this fight with the long term in mind," Pitts said. "This is a marathon, not a sprint. Most players feel this way. They're in this for the long fight. As long as it takes.
"There's this perception that the players should capitulate now. We're not suddenly going to start begging the owners. We understand what's at stake just like the owners do. Some of the owners underestimate us. There is far more resolve among the player base than the owners know.http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15179248/outspoken-pitts-players-in-this-for-the-long-fight

[peplaw06]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

[SaltwaterServr]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

Definitely not the other way around. ;)

[Hostile]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.He plays in Seattle.

[CooterBrown]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15179248/outspoken-pitts-players-in-this-for-the-long-fight

Despite what he claims is solidarity, I think he is mistaken.

The owners have history on their side. Previously,when the players went on strike they caved in because they had bills to pay and needed the money. They didn't all cross the picket line, and they didn't all cross at once, but one by one, player by player they did. Those who crossed the line got paid, those who didn't, didn't. Pretty simple strategy that worked for the owners. From the owners perspective: This situation is different because the players can't "cross the line", but when enough of them feel the pinch they will fragment and cave in.

[speedkilz88]

Pitts is/was the rep for Seattle. Of course I would expect the player reps to parrot the company line.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Despite what he claims is solidarity, I think he is mistaken.

The owners have history on their side. Previously,when the players went on strike they caved in because they had bills to pay and needed the money. They didn't all cross the picket line, and they didn't all cross at once, but one by one, player by player they did. Those who crossed the line got paid, those who didn't, didn't. Pretty simple strategy that worked for the owners. From the owners perspective: This situation is different because the players can't "cross the line", but when enough of them feel the pinch they will fragment and cave in.

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.

[GloryDaysRBack]

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.

[burmafrd]

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.


ditto

[Outlaw Heroes]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

Nope. He's looking out for the average American employee:

On what he thinks the fight is all about: "If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

It's remarkable that an obviously intelligent and articulate man could come up with such nonsense. Whatever this is about, it most certainly is not about protecting the interests of the average American employee.

[theogt]

Sarcasm, dude.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Sarcasm, dude.

pep was being sarcastic, for sure. As was I, in my response to him. But what of Pitts? Was he being sarcastic?

[Marktui]

I didn't read the article, just the quotes, but is he saying that he is fighting for the average worker as well??

He lost me when made that statement. Hey Chester, just keep it real dude, the average worker does not make the kind of wages the players in the NFL make. Most of corporate America does not work for any type of unions.

[DallasEast]

WkRqnOr3RZY

[CCBoy]

Sarcasm, dude.

You have such poignant barrister terms...

[CCBoy]

I didn't read the article, just the quotes, but is he saying that he is fighting for the average worker as well??

He lost me when made that statement. Hey Chester, just keep it real dude, the average worker does not make the kind of wages the players in the NFL make. Most of corporate America does not work for any type of unions.

:laugh2: The 'posturing' for negotiable advantage is dependent upon those very associated Union qualities. And now, voila, for personal gain, Smith is suggesting doing away with that class of judicial/legislative remedy as well. Posturing?

[sonnyboy]

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.


I hear what you're saying. You want football. Hell we all want football and I don't care who's right, wrong, wins or loses. I just want football.

Problem I see here is that the NFL has had a system, and is now trying to negotiate an extension of that system, that doesn't work. It's as if they're trying to fit two round pegs into both a round hole and square hole.


They want to share revenue with the players. You guys get this percentage of the total. That percentage is what is your salary floor/cap each team has to work with.

Problem is that total revenues the player comp is based on isn't shared equally amoung the teams. So the Cowboys get exactly the same cap/floor as the Jags, yet significantly more revenue.

And the NFL wants a sharing arrangement in place with the players that allows every team to make a profit.

There in lies the problem. In the current system, if the players get the % they want, teams will lose money, if the owners get the % they want, it's not really a fair split.

The best solution as I see it is a different system. 32 caps for 32 teams. Players get their fair share and no team has to run at a loss.

Competitive balance will take a little hit. But with so much revenue already shared between the teams, the disparity of highest to lowest cap will be nothing like what we have in baseball.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.

ditto


Maybe its just me but at that point you have won at life. Sit back, collect your checks, and be happy.

[Derinyar]

I hear what you're saying. You want football. Hell we all want football and I don't care who's right, wrong, wins or loses. I just want football.

Problem I see here is that the NFL has had a system, and is now trying to negotiate an extension of that system, that doesn't work. It's as if they're trying to fit two round pegs into both a round hole and square hole.


They want to share revenue with the players. You guys get this percentage of the total. That percentage is what is your salary floor/cap each team has to work with.

Problem is that total revenues the player comp is based on isn't shared equally amoung the teams. So the Cowboys get exactly the same cap/floor as the Jags, yet significantly more revenue.

And the NFL wants a sharing arrangement in place with the players that allows every team to make a profit.

There in lies the problem. In the current system, if the players get the % they want, teams will lose money, if the owners get the % they want, it's not really a fair split.

The best solution as I see it is a different system. 32 caps for 32 teams. Players get their fair share and no team has to run at a loss.

Competitive balance will take a little hit. But with so much revenue already shared between the teams, the disparity of highest to lowest cap will be nothing like what we have in baseball.

So you in essence want the baseball and current basketball system. Teams with enough money spend it. Teams without toil in mediocrity permanently, outside of one bright shining year every now and again.

I am all for free trade, except in my sports leagues where I want to see a competitive balance. I don't like having one team win because, primarily, of the market they are in affording them more money then the rest of the league.

[Sam I Am]

I say put them in a room and attach electrodes to their scrotums and shock them every 15 minutes until they have a new CBA.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I say put them in a room and attach electrodes to their scrotums and shock them every 15 minutes until they have a new CBA.

Let's keep your special alone time activities to yourself please.

[CowboysFaninDC]

Despite what he claims is solidarity, I think he is mistaken.

The owners have history on their side. Previously,when the players went on strike they caved in because they had bills to pay and needed the money. They didn't all cross the picket line, and they didn't all cross at once, but one by one, player by player they did. Those who crossed the line got paid, those who didn't, didn't. Pretty simple strategy that worked for the owners. From the owners perspective: This situation is different because the players can't "cross the line", but when enough of them feel the pinch they will fragment and cave in.


the problem is drew brees, manning and brady will survive not getting paychecks. but what about the bottom 20%. that has a short life span in the NFL. that's not making the millions and still has some of the same expenses.

and some of the others who may have stretched themselves.

manning will make commercial money and has tons of investment.

most of them don't.

they will crack.

and those really rich, top echelon players are controlling everything. there is already a dissention.

and if there is no union, why are they bargaining as a union?

and if there is no union. couldn't the owners, say, this is the new CBA. anyone interested stand in line and sign!!!

couldn't the players that are not happy with the non-existing union, just form their own coalition?

I think some of these players like brees, know there is dissention and they are just trying to fan the emotions of the players.

[CowboysFaninDC]

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.


when you are that rich. its not about just blessing and being happy. us poor folks say that.

the game is different for them.

they, through their smarts have built this thing from one of 4 major sports leagues to the best one.

the game has changed.

they see that there is a lot of investments coming down the pipe. replacing and financing stadiums that the players don't pay for.

the players just eye the TV money.

its the top 5% of the players that will see most of the benefit. mannings 120 mill potential contract is going to be 140. yet the bottom players with short life span will see 20,000. yes, still a lot of money. but nothing to retire on.

lets say the players formed their own league. had the same money. how would they divide up the money amongst themselves? how would they manage the rules? etc.

they just like the fact that somebody else sets the market for their services. they don't have to pay attention to the details. the top 5% get really rich.

the rest might be sacrificial lambs (or at least the bottom 20%).

I side with the owners. just because they are rich, doesn't mean they have to share everything. they will share when it business sense. they didn't get rich by being stupid.

and btw, communism died 20 years ago.

[CowboysFaninDC]

So you in essence want the baseball and current basketball system. Teams with enough money spend it. Teams without toil in mediocrity permanently, outside of one bright shining year every now and again.

I am all for free trade, except in my sports leagues where I want to see a competitive balance. I don't like having one team win because, primarily, of the market they are in affording them more money then the rest of the league.

I agree. what made NFL successful in the US is its comptitive balance. Baseball and Basketball are international games. they have a international market they appeal to. NFL has tried, but has failed to expand internationally. this is it for them. so they made it work for them.

going the way of baseball or basketball, is going to ruin football. there will be at most 10 great teams. 22 average teams. in 10 years, there will be 10 great teams and 18 average teams, as some will go under.

basketball has 41 home games to make up ticket revenue. baseball has 82 home games. football 8 games. they all make similar TV revenue.

yeah, the football stadiums are bigger. but not 10 times bigger.

[Doomsday101]

I think Owners realize the public financing of sports stadiums will be less and less as cities and states are having hard times to fund needed projects let alone sport stadiums. So more of the cost will fall to owners in terms of new stadiums built as well as renovation and up keep of existing stadiums.

[RCowboyFan]

Maybe its just me but at that point you have won at life. Sit back, collect your checks, and be happy.

Ever wonder you are not them then? Not trying to insult, i am pretty sure you never even tried to run a business.

On top of it, lots of NFL employees are suffering because of Player stances and Owner stances. I never went on strike when my pay check was reduced due to economy being down. I am pretty sure lot of people on this site have the same exp.

Unless one inherits the money, you don't get a lot of money by just collecting paychecks and being happy.

[adbutcher]

WkRqnOr3RZY

:laugh2:

[Everlastingxxx]

Chester Pitts On Roger Goodell, commissioner: "I think he tends to be tone deaf. He doesn't understand players."

On the NFL owners: "Their main strategy is to delay as long as they can and hope we run out of money. They have no real interest in negotiating right now no matter what they say publicly."

On what he thinks the fight is all about: "If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

He is completely correct. Why i root for those that fight the rich, greedy and mighty of America. The owners believe their deep pockets can win and by all means it should. But don’t underestimate the power of resolve in those less fortunate but talented. Why i have started to tell myself that there may not be NFL football this season.

[theogt]

He is completely correct.I think so too. I honestly don't think the owners had any intention of negotiating in good faith in March. I think they hemmed and hawed and made that last minute offer in order to "extend" negotiations without actually moving things forward. They knew at some point the players would get fed up and file a lawsuit. They just wanted to extend that as long as possible without actually doing any negotiations.

Once the players filed the lawsuit, the owners very well could have continued negotiations if they so chose. But they hid behind this public distrust of litigation and lawyers and claimed they weren't going to negotiate while the lawsuit was in place. They never really gave a reason why they wouldn't negotiate, but the public bought into it for some reason. It took a federal judge to force the owners to mediate. And after mediating, it took a federal judge again to force the owners to submit a knew offer. And what did they do? They reiterated the same offer from March, which they knew was unacceptable.

I think their entire goal is to delay as long as possible hoping that the players eventually bleed dry and give in.

[Eric_Boyer]

"If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

This attempt at solidarity between actual working people and millionaires is pathetic :lmao2:

[hutch1254]

That's all fine what Pitts said. However, despite the resolve of the players, not all players are going to have the same mindset. At some point the lower end guys are going to be like..."hey I can't financially keep this up." That's going to work against what Pitts said. There are only 32 owners and I don't see any of them saying "I need to get games going to make money." I would think most stadiums are used for other events and owners are still making cash through concerts and events. That may be pocket change for them but its still a source of income vs. what players may or may not be doing.

[DallasEast]

I think so too. I honestly don't think the owners had any intention of negotiating in good faith in March. I think they hemmed and hawed and made that last minute offer in order to "extend" negotiations without actually moving things forward. They knew at some point the players would get fed up and file a lawsuit. They just wanted to extend that as long as possible without actually doing any negotiations.

Once the players filed the lawsuit, the owners very well could have continued negotiations if they so chose. But they hid behind this public distrust of litigation and lawyers and claimed they weren't going to negotiate while the lawsuit was in place. They never really gave a reason why they wouldn't negotiate, but the public bought into it for some reason. It took a federal judge to force the owners to mediate. And after mediating, it took a federal judge again to force the owners to submit a knew offer. And what did they do? They reiterated the same offer from March, which they knew was unacceptable.

I think their entire goal is to delay as long as possible hoping that the players eventually bleed dry and give in.
It's still unclear why the trade association did not decertify on or before March 3rd and sued the owners immediately thereafter. Nothing extended or compromised to by the owners before that date since they opted out of the last CBA should have led the NFLPA* to believe in any conceivable fashion that there would have been a (radical) change in their methodology.

It's also unclear why one week of frustrating negotiations was the limit. Why not two weeks or a month before decertifying?

Perhaps the trade association should be very bitter with the owners for a very long time to come. There they were working under the impression that the owners were going to drag out negotiations indefinitely, forcing them to agree with a new CBA which might not meet their financial expectations.

The NFLPA* legal counsel's plan of decertifying and litigating was intended to summarily negate the owners' strategy of slowing the whole process to crawl, thus both seriously threatening the players' compensation and the 2011 season. Little did they know that the owners' lawyers had already conceived of a legal strategy (which may have been constructed as far back as May 2008) which would automatically nullify the trade association's plan in court and continue dragging out the process anyway.

Legion Of Doom, people. Fear them.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Ever wonder you are not them then? Not trying to insult, i am pretty sure you never even tried to run a business.

On top of it, lots of NFL employees are suffering because of Player stances and Owner stances. I never went on strike when my pay check was reduced due to economy being down. I am pretty sure lot of people on this site have the same exp.

Unless one inherits the money, you don't get a lot of money by just collecting paychecks and being happy.

Thats exactly what they do every year.

I never went on strike when my pay check was reduced due to economy being down.


Who is on strike? And business for the NFL has never been better.


Stop trying to starve the players out to feed your egos. You can play on this CBA no problem. And the proposal the players made was more than fair. Theres no need to play so dirty when things are going so well in every way.

Theyre making money, they arent getting brain damage every week. Just sign something and lets go.

[theogt]

It's still unclear why the trade association did not decertify on or before March 3rd and sued the owners immediately thereafter. Nothing extended or compromised to by the owners before that date since they opted out of the last CBA should have led the NFLPA* to believe in any conceivable fashion that there would have been a (radical) change in their methodology.

It's also unclear why one week of frustrating negotiations was the limit. Why not two weeks or a month before decertifying?

Perhaps the trade association should be very bitter with the owners for a very long time to come. There they were working under the impression that the owners were going to drag out negotiations indefinitely, forcing them to agree with a new CBA which might not meet their financial expectations.

The NFLPA* legal counsel's plan of decertifying and litigating was intended to summarily negate the owners' strategy of slowing the whole process to crawl, thus both seriously threatening the players' compensation and the 2011 season. Little did they know that the owners' lawyers had already conceived of a legal strategy (which may have been constructed as far back as May 2008) which would automatically nullify the trade association's plan in court and continue dragging out the process anyway.

Legion Of Doom, people. Fear them.I think it probably took a week extension to fully realize that the owners truly weren't planning to negotiate in good faith.

If the owners' legal strategy is to drag it out as long as possible in the court system, they really don't need much in the way of execution since the legal system moves so slowly as is. And if they happen to win a legal battle or two in the process, the better for them.

I honestly don't think they have any intention of signing a new deal for a good long while, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

[DallasEast]

I think it probably took a week extension to fully realize that the owners truly weren't planning to negotiate in good faith.

If the owners' legal strategy is to drag it out as long as possible in the court system, they really don't need much in the way of execution since the legal system moves so slowly as is. And if they happen to win a legal battle or two in the process, the better for them.

I honestly don't think they have any intention of signing a new deal for a good long while, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
It's just my opinion, but I highly doubt anyone at the head of the trade association was just that dumb to not realize the owners' intentions prior to March 3rd. Or completely oblivious. Or that incredibly naive. There were just too many instances of communication between both parties for nearly three years before that date to draw realistic conclusions from to project differently. Of course, I have been wrong before. And 'good faith' pertaining to every, single offer made by the owners is in the eye of the beholder.

[theogt]

It's just my opinion, but I highly doubt anyone at the head of the trade association was just that dumb to not realize the owners' intentions prior to March 3rd. Or completely oblivious. Or that incredibly naive. There were just too many instances of communication between both parties for nearly three years before that date to draw realistic conclusions from to project differently. Of course, I have been wrong before. And 'good faith' pertaining to every, single offer made by the owners is in the eye of the beholder.Full on negotiations hadn't even taken place until this offseason. Obviously they suspected the owners' intentions. As you point out, they'd be incredibly naive not to, but you can't just assume they're taking the worst case scenario position unless you see it for yourself and give negotiations a shot. The players were visibly becoming more frustrated as time went on.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Ive read that the tent poles of the structure of a CBA proposal could literally get done in an hour.

So what does it tell you when the owners never show up to meetings and throw a balled up piece of paper at the NLPA as they are going to the mailbox to file their de-certifying documents?

They dont need a deal and this is about ego. They need to feel a win. Theyll take some missed games if it means the players crack and public perception remains "Stopid players striking, I wish I culd get payed won million dollars a week to play a game"

[DallasEast]

Full on negotiations hadn't even taken place until this offseason. Obviously they suspected the owners' intentions. As you point out, they'd be incredibly naive not to, but you can't just assume they're taking the worst case scenario position unless you see it for yourself and give negotiations a shot. The players were visibly becoming more frustrated as time went on.An honest 'shot' would require any party to initially expect the worst offers and aggressively seek better ones from the opposing party through a reasonable give-and-take period. If they had already suspected that the worst would never (literally) improve going in, why agree upon the one-week extension only?

For me, the brevity of the mutually agreed upon negotiations themselves suggests that the NFLPA* already had a preconceived timeframe to initiate litigation. The seven day/cut bait-and-run tactic cements the notion that the trade association were more than eager to commence phase two of the Owners/Players War.

Regardless of intentions, taking the battle to the courts practically assured that the war would be a long and arduous one. Even as little as one additional week would not have significantly impacted any predicted timeline for successfully gaining negotiating leverage over the owners, but a greater show of patience would have removed much more doubt that an eventual CBA compromise was not forthcoming in the negotiations' immediate future.

Seven days equals a shot. May as well say zero days in my opinion.

[peplaw06]

An honest 'shot' would require any party to initially expect the worst offers and aggressively seek better ones from the opposing party through a reasonable give-and-take period. If they had already suspected that the worst would never (literally) improve going in, why agree upon the one-week extension only?

For me, the brevity of the mutually agreed upon negotiations themselves suggests that the NFLPA* already had a preconceived timeframe to initiate litigation. The seven day/cut bait-and-run tactic cements the notion that the trade association were more than eager to commence phase two of the Owners/Players War.

Regardless of intentions, taking the battle to the courts practically assured that the war would be a long and arduous one. Even as little as one additional week would not have significantly impacted any predicted timeline for successfully gaining negotiating leverage over the owners, but a greater show of patience would have removed much more doubt that an eventual CBA compromise was not forthcoming in the negotiations' immediate future.

Seven days equals a shot. May as well say zero days in my opinion.I would suspect there were a number of reasons to agree to an extension... including for PR purposes. They're getting hammered for not agreeing to the second extension in here. Can you imagine if they hadn't agreed to any extensions of negotiaions?

[DallasEast]

I would suspect there were a number of reasons to agree to an extension... including for PR purposes. They're getting hammered for not agreeing to the second extension in here. Can you imagine if they hadn't agreed to any extensions of negotiaions?
Public relations is the sole conclusion I have ever come up with for it. Cutting things so short is a gamble on their part for the same purpose in my opinion.

Many see the lockout as the huge obstacle for football this year. It casts a huge shadow over many observers' expectations then and even now. This was a hoped for side effect of the trade association's PR move in my opinion.

However, American impatience has grown notoriously short in recent decades. The longer this strategy drags out, the greater the possibility exists that the negative sentiment directed primarily at the owners will shift proportionally towards the NFLPA*. If that happens, the PR gamble will have failed.

If the trade association had never agreed to negotiations, it would have suffered PR damage initially. It could have mitigated fan reaction by reciting how dynamically opposed the owners were in discussions during previous weeks and months leading up to the March 3rd deadline.

By illustrating to the fans all the expected obstacles which would be presented during negotiations as they had already been publicly reported, the NFLPA* could have used that to its advantage. It could have stated that they were eliminating any negotiating red tape which the owners would have used to bog down the process in order to get the ball rolling in court ASAP--thus assuring that successful litigation would end the lockout that much sooner.

But no, it effectively wanted its cake and eat it too. The longer this drags out, the more likely the trade association will have wished it had gone ahead, allowed the fans to smack a pie in its face and gotten past the initially huge uproar.

Oh well.