gtb1943
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 6,350
- Reaction score
- 6,560
well since you clearly hate Irvin nothing you say is worth a bucket of warm spitMaybe they didn't tell her they would be coming back to see her?
well since you clearly hate Irvin nothing you say is worth a bucket of warm spitMaybe they didn't tell her they would be coming back to see her?
If it is a court at all, it is the court of public opinion and the NFL is uber sensitive to that. However, it is not a court, Irvin has filed his suit to go to court.ITs a kangaroo court but you will never admit that, right?
Never hold them to their own words and so called promises right to be fair and do the right thing?
Do you think that is any different than any big business in this country?The NFL is the ultimate do as I say not as I do institution.
Instead of holding the sponsors accountable for something questionable, they lay down.
ITS NOT LIKE THERE ARE NOT PLENTY OF OTHERS WHO WOULD LOVE TO BE AN NFL SPONSOR.
ITs not about money as it is about power and their love of using it
No, the NFL is a private, although exempt from anti-trust laws, enterprise so they can establish their own policies on behavior. Still, we can opine on their policies and, IMO, I think they are unfair in cases like this. But I understand why they want to err on the side of caution. They cannot make another mistake like they did with Ray Rice.Where image rules the land, there is no due process. And the NFL isn't a court of law.
Don't hate him, just don't like and never have. I hope they end up canning him.well since you clearly hate Irvin nothing you say is worth a bucket of warm spit
And Ray Rice did not involve a NFL sponsor. This complicates the entire situation and if sacrificing one employee to keep a sponsor happy is necessary, they will do that. And it's not like the sponsor did anything wrong, they are the defendant in this lawsuit.No, the NFL is a private, although exempt from anti-trust laws, enterprise so they can establish their own policies on behavior. Still, we can opine on their policies and, IMO, I think they are unfair in cases like this. But I understand why they want to err on the side of caution. They cannot make another mistake like they did with Ray Rice.
make no mistake, he is being paid... so as a result, they have technically done noting to Irvin. Think of this as the commissioners exempt list. Put you in the corner to avoid looking bad in the public. They could easily do this for however long his contract is, then when his contract expires, simply not renew it and the NFL network just lets the story fade away.The NFL has decided to keep Michael Irvin suspended based on "merit". Ok, so where is the concrete evidence against Irvin to keep him suspended?
except Stephen A came on the air almost crying in support of Irvin the person, who he called a brother. Smith has a schtick on TV and Irvin and him played it well together, but they are good friends.Conspiracy Theory......need to lighten this up some...
Stephen A. Smith set up Michael Irvin. Because he was tired of being schooled by Michael on TV.
This has no bearing on me and my life. Whatever happens, happens, and we all move on.
1 week we get to talk draft.
all about public appearances. They will keep him in the corner, the equivalent of the Commissioners exempt list for the remainder of his contract, let it expire and not renew it. This way they pay him, avoiding a suit by Irvin against them, and avoiding public backlash for putting him back on the air.I think the important news is that they have decided to not allow him back to cover the draft considering there was no police report filed and Irvin is the one who filed the lawsuit.
As always, I have no opinion on his innocence or guilt, but it seems strange they would keep him away from the draft when he is not the defendent against any charges or legal actions.
if he is getting paid, which I promise you he is, he is technically not suspended.Reversing the suspension could cause more harm to the nfl in regards to Irvings lawsuite. No way they can admit or elude to having wrongfully suspended Irving without putting that case in serious jeapardy.
5 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights deal with justice for individuals. It was not just a slogan to the authors of the constitution. It is unfortunate it has become so today.And Ray Rice did not involve a NFL sponsor. This complicates the entire situation and if sacrificing one employee to keep a sponsor happy is necessary, they will do that. And it's not like the sponsor did anything wrong, they are the defendant in this lawsuit.
Those so enraged by the injustice of it all, do you bother to take a look at the real problems with the application of the laws on all citizens? Is it really innocent until proven guilty? Or is that just a handy slogan?
Irvin has failed to provide proof that he did not do what the woman says he did. But have you considered how much of a subject this would not be had he just remained silent and out of view and let the NFLN handle this? I think this would all be in the rearview mirror and he would most likely be back on the air.
Without that call in and lawsuit, would we know anything about this? Marriott was done with this until he filed that suit.
The discussion I was having was about Willie McGinest. He assaulted a guy in a nightclub in Hollywood. There was a video of it that TMZ posted but it’s been removed off YouTube or at least I can’t find it. He was suspended from NFL Network and then fired. He posted an apology on Twitter after he turned himself in for the assault. If you go to Twitter you can see his apology. He hasn’t posted since.Fill me in. Was there another video? The only one I’ve seen of is her pursuing Irvin and them talking.
What did the other video show or what did I miss?
I’m sure that woman has had worse things said to her but not by famous people. If Michael Irvin was just a regular guy this wouldn’t be happening.Really? Thats what the video saw? Or is that nowadays you cant say anything without offending someone? I bet you dollars to donuts that woman has had 10 times worse things said to her being a bartender from drunken idiots but because they werent famous she kept her mouth shut.
Not to mention, Irvin has loose lips. It was his chiming in when no one was asking that got this whole ball rolling in the first place. I also think that if he had just kept quiet and accepted the moving of hotels, no one would have known about that incident and his job wouldn't be in question. When you have a sweet gig like that you have to protect it as much as you have the power to do so.its for their own reputation, business cant have you be one of the faces of the network with that kind of allegations until its 100% clear
in some cases