New York Post: Make teams pay

[Hostile]

I usually agree with Hostile but not this time.

The answer, I think, is that punishing the team for the actions of their players is the same as suing the employer for the actions of their employees that they are responsible for. And like other employers, teams will rid themselves of employees that are likely to cause them to go bankrupt.

In the NFL a sad and losing season is bankruptcy.

If the team avoids hiring or keeping players that can put them into bankruptcy because of potential loss of picks, salary cap hits, etc. assessed by the commissioner, the NFL doesn't have to worry with the thugs. They are someone else's problem, not the NFL's.

Under such pressure, teams would learn that drafting, and especially keeping, thugs is a losing proposition, and the kids would learn that athletic ability will not get them a free pass in the NFL.

Okay, so basically you are telling me that you would be okay with the Chamber of Commerce of your town or city sanctioning you because of the actions of one of your employees away from work?

Seriously?

Please don't say that isn't what you are saying because it essentially is when you bring up suing your company for the actions of your employee. You just forgot to add away from work.

BTW, no one would ever hire anyone under this kind of umbrella.

 

[bbgun]

Okay, so basically you are telling me that you would be okay with the Chamber of Commerce of your town or city sanctioning you because of the actions of one of your employees away from work?

Seriously?

Please don't say that is what you are saying because it essentially is when you bring up suing your company for the actions of your employee. You just forgot to add away from work.

BTW, no one would ever hire anyone under this kind of umbrella.

Indeed. Why haven't any of Pacman's victims sued the Titans yet? Because they can't. And if they could, the court system would be a clogged-up nightmare--if it isn't already. Talk about a disincentive to hire.

 

[Clove]

When it comes down to it, franchises want to win, period. Money is more important than values (sorry, but that's life. I don't like it, but that's the way it is)

NFL ain't cleaning up something that's going to sell. They will talk **** all they want, but a franchise with a star CB on it, will have to think seriously hard about giving a head case every opportunity to succeed, if it means keeping their jobs.

It's wrong, but it's life in America. MONEY IS FIRST

 

[Hostile]

Indeed. Why haven't any of Pacman's victims sued the Titans yet? Because they can't. And if they could, the court system would be a clogged-up nightmare--if it isn't already. Talk about a disincentive to hire.

Leave it to the Chamber of Commerce analogies. They work every time.

:laugh2:

 

[Angus]

If the chamber of commerce hires you and gives you the means to perpetrate an outrage, knowing your propensity to do that, it might very well be sued for the damages done by its employee, when it was in its power to control it.

But the chamber of commerce analogy could be apposite even if you were merely a subscribing member and there were no employer/employee relationship giving it the right to control you. If it touted your non-existing expertise or faithfulness to one to whom it had a fiduciary obligation, knowing them to be deficient, it could be liable. At the very least it could strike you from membership for failing to observe its standards -- or allowing your employees to do so.

And one of its standards might very well be that subscribing members so control their employees that the chamber not suffer disrepute because of the actions of the member's employees.

If it is the contractual duty of each NFL player to well and faithfully represent the team and the NFL at all times, if the team has knowledge of the player's propensity to do otherwise and does not prevent it, it is no injustice to hold the team responsible for the player's actions. Respondeat superior is an old doctrine.

NFL players have a responsibility to the team and the league on and off the field. They are never completely "on a frolic of their own." The team and the NFL are with them because they are identified with them.

Recognition of an uncontrollable propensity for thuggery may not come immediately, but when it does, prevention is simple. Cut the player -- or suffer the consequences.

 

[Hostile]

If the chamber of commerce hires you and gives you the means to perpetrate an outrage, knowing your propensity to do that, it might very well be sued for the damages done by its employee, when it was in its power to control it.

But the chamber of commerce analogy could be apposite even if you were merely a subscribing member and there were no employer/employee relationship giving it the right to control you. If it touted your non-existing expertise or faithfulness to one to whom it had a fiduciary obligation, knowing them to be deficient, it could be liable. At the very least it could strike you from membership for failing to observe its standards -- or allowing your employees to do so.

And one of its standards might very well be that subscribing members so control their employees that the chamber not suffer disrepute because of the actions of the member's employees.

If it is the contractual duty of each NFL player to well and faithfully represent the team and the NFL at all times, if the team has knowledge of the player's propensity to do otherwise and does not prevent it, it is no injustice to hold the team responsible for the player's actions. Respondeat superior is an old doctrine.

NFL players have a responsibility to the team and the league on and off the field. They are never completely "on a frolic of their own." The team and the NFL are with them because they are identified with them.

Recognition of an uncontrollable propensity for thuggery may not come immediately, but when it does, prevention is simple. Cut the player -- or suffer the consequences.

In my analogy the Chamber of Commerce is analogous to the NFL. Your business and other businesses in your town are analogous to the franchises.

Now you mentioned that businesses need to police themselves to avoid being sued. I partially agree. If you own a Taxi service and one of your drivers is getting loaded before taking fares, it could be a nightmare for you if he hurts someone. However, if he is off duty and away from the job and drving his own car and hurts someone, your business is not on the hook.

Now he answers to the courts, the police, attorneys, etc.

This is essentially what the NFL and the Commissioner are doing now. These guys are screwing up away from their jobs as football players. Now, if you have an employee who screws up you can get rid of him, and so can the NFL teams. But no one should force you to make that choice. As a business owner how would you feel if the CoC was telling you who you had to fire, or else you would get CoC sanctions?

I think the current system is working and it does not need to get ramped up to where teams get punished by the NFL. Other teams will follow the Bengals and Bears lead and 86 players who are in constant trouble. I won't be surprised if Chris Henry or Adam Jones are sent packing. I won't even be surprised if the Falcons end up waiving Mike Vick at some point if the troubles for him continue to mount.

As I said earlier, teams have always done this even when felonies are not involved. Some teams do stay loyal to a player and try to work past it. I don't find anything wrong with that approach. Let them decide when enough is enough. Let the Commissioner do his job.

 

[Angus]

Hostile, your version of the Chamber of Commerce analogy is not very useful because the chamber has no right to control its members except by excluding them from membership. The NFL and its relationship to its teams is more like an intertwined business relationship, like a holding company and its affiliates with overlapping boards and stock ownership.

The power to control is much greater, including the authority to require standards of conduct for the employees of affiliates.

 

[Hostile]

Hostile, your version of the Chamber of Commerce analogy is not very useful because the chamber has no right to control its members except by excluding them from membership. The NFL and its relationship to its teams is more like an intertwined business relationship, like a holding company and its affiliates with overlapping boards and stock ownership.

The power to control is much greater, including the authority to require standards of conduct for the employees of affiliates.

No matter what analogy is used there will be a flaw found. I know that. My question to you is still the same.

You own a business and answer to the CoC in your town. If you have employees getting in trouble away from your business do you think it is right for the CoC to penalize YOU? Remember, in this case you answer to them.

If they get in trouble on your time that is one thing. But on their own time do YOU think YOU should be on the hook?

Basically that is what this writer for the NY Post thinks and is suggesting.

 

[Angus]

No matter what analogy is used there will be a flaw found. I know that. My question to you is still the same.

You own a business and answer to the CoC in your town. If you have employees getting in trouble away from your business do you think it is right for the CoC to penalize YOU? Remember, in this case you answer to them.

If they get in trouble on your time that is one thing. But on their own time do YOU think YOU should be on the hook?

Basically that is what this writer for the NY Post thinks and is suggesting.

Yes, if I knew of the trouble's liklihood and didn't do anything about it.

And the chamber should jettison me as a member if I insisted on using crooks, hellraisers, drunks,and deadbeats as employees.

 

[Hostile]

Yes, if I knew of the trouble's liklihood and didn't do anything about it.

And the chamber should jettison me as a member if I insisted on using crooks, hellraisers, drunks,and deadbeats as employees.

Unreal.

I have a feeling you're saying this because you aren't in a position to see where this could affect you so harshly.

Basically it is a form of a governing body having all control of your business. That is never a good thing. But hey if you're cool with it...

 

[Doomsday101]

Unreal.

I have a feeling you're saying this because you aren't in a position to see where this could affect you so harshly.

Basically it is a form of a governing body having all control of your business. That is never a good thing. But hey if you're cool with it...

I know people like to compare the NFL to any other job or business but I really don't see the comparison. Heck in the real world I guess you could consider a football player as a part time employee since they only work a few months out of the year. :laugh2:

 

[Angus]

Unreal.

I have a feeling you're saying this because you aren't in a position to see where this could affect you so harshly.

Basically it is a form of a governing body having all control of your business. That is never a good thing. But hey if you're cool with it...

No, neither the Chamber of Commerce or the NFL are equivalents of governmental agencies because they are private organizations to which no person has a right to be a member despite the organization's wishes.

No one is compelled to be a member of either of them, and joining them is a matter of choice and election -- on their terms or not at all.

If one doesn't want to conform to chamber standards, don't join, and if you don't want to abide by NFL standards don't buy an NFL team.

But if you do join or operate a team, you have submitted to their rules by your own choice and voluntarily allowed "interference" in your business.

If it cramps you too much, don't complain about it; just complete your contract and then resign.