Add sexual assault to the Dan Snyder allegations

[Sgt Schultz]

2 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

The fact Goodell is going to testify to a toothless Congressional committee may portend Snyder's future, but it, in reality, is nothing more than a dog and pony show.

I'll wait and see how long after Congress wrings their hands and tells us all how terrible this is, before Goodell actually convenes the Executive Committee to hear the matter and take a vote.

Congress will do the second best thing it can do:  nothing.  It won't be because they determine they can't really do anything, it will be because they are busying trying to find something else to make themselves look more effective than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.....trying in vain, incidentally.

On the incidentally note, the worst thing the could do is something, because history tells us they would create three new problems for every one they tackle, and then eff up the one they tackle.

And, of course, if they wanted to do anything they would have to fend off the lobbying from the NSA.  In this case, it is the lobbying group of which Snyder is a member:  Narcissist's Society of America.  And we all know one of the myriad of things Congress can't do effectively is fend off lobbying.

So, there is all that.

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

The fact Goodell is going to testify in front of a toothless Congressional committee may portend Snyder's future, but it, in reality, is nothing more than a dog and pony show.

I'll wait and see how long after Congress wrings their hands and tells us all how terrible this is, before Goodell actually convenes the Executive Committee to hear the matter and take a vote.

I suspect Snyder will be gone more because he messed with the money than any of the other stuff.

But things like this are the kind of weapons the league can effectively use to help take him out.

[Anybodyhome]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I suspect Snyder will be gone more because he messed with the money than any of the other stuff.

But things like this are the kind of weapons the league can effectively use to help take him out.

So, 32 owners will convene at some point and 24 of them must vote to oust him. Are 24 owners willing to scapegoat him knowing their own closets are full of skeletons? 

I'll play the cynic and say the only way it happens is if the vote taken by the Executive Committee is made public- who voted yes or no.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Anybodyhome said:

So, 32 owners will convene at some point and 24 of them must vote to oust him. Are 24 owners willing to scapegoat him knowing their own closets are full of skeletons? 

I'll play the cynic and say the only way it happens is if the vote taken by the Executive Committee is made public- who voted yes or no.

They were ready to do it with Richardson but he fell on the sword (and later grumbled about it).

And I know a lot of people take the "mutually assured destruction" route when talking about NFL owners but I'm not convinced all these guys know everybody else's secrets.

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I dont think what Richardson did was enough to force him to sell the team.  

He technically wasn't, but kinda was.

When Richardson announced his "internal investigation", I think he firmly believed the league would have his back. After all, he'd been loyal to them the whole time.

They didn't, and that probably came as a huge shock to him, plus a major disappointment.

As the sale was winding down, Darin Gantt reported that Richardson was walking around, grumbling things like "I don't have to sell this team", but there was no way the league was going to let him back out at that point.

My guess is he knew that if he didn't cooperate, things could have been far worse.

[4Corners]

28 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

I signed one recently because the agency is researching a new technology (that does not work), they are coming to the conclusion that its performance is not up to what is required, but somebody in the hundreds associated with this mess has been running back to the vendor, who prefers to lobby Congress rather than improve their technology (and I am not sure they can improve their technology).  The NDA was designed to stop that blabbing.  Will it?  Probably not.

I'm sure employees and contractors that work in the Supreme Court are all under NDA's, too. 

The example you gave is the texbook example.  Closely guarded company "secrets" or research into new products and services are generally the target.  We hear more about NDAs associated with settlements of court cases (or avoidance of them), but those between employers and employees/contractors are far more common, I would think.  And in those cases, the company could actually point to harm by the disclosure, rather than "I could go to prison for something I probably should have gone to prison for, anyway."

Fair enough and I am willing to concede that there may be a few instances of when an NDA is ethical and necessary - but I am also an advocate of transparency and protecting workers. 
 

NDAs used by wealthy people/corps to protecting themselves stuffing money in someone’s mouth to cover up illegal, unethical, and shady activities need to 100% be illegal in this country. But everyone knows rich people play by a different set of rules. 

[Paa Langfart]

LOL - Pubs have some kook blaming the NFL fiascos on Joe Biden and the Democrats in the hearings.

[Paa Langfart]

Goodell up now was just sworn in

[Paa Langfart]

Lying his ass off now

[Anybodyhome]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

He technically wasn't, but kinda was.

When Richardson announced his "internal investigation", I think he firmly believed the league would have his back. After all, he'd been loyal to them the whole time.

They didn't, and that probably came as a huge shock to him, plus a major disappointment.

As the sale was winding down, Darin Gantt reported that Richardson was walking around, grumbling things like "I don't have to sell this team", but there was no way the league was going to let him back out at that point.

My guess is he knew that if he didn't cooperate, things could have been far worse.

But it would have been far more interesting to see an NFL ouster play out in the court system had Richardson not caved. Let's not forget the NFL has never had their hands forced. With JR, the league simply took him in a back room and twisted his arm a little- it never came to a formal convening of the Executive Committee for a vote.

As a matter of fact, the league went out of its way to issue a statement saying they were not forcing Richardson out.

[cookinbrak]

So, Robert Kraft, huh...

[Paa Langfart]

They are going to issue a subpoena for Snyder to testify.  If he does Goodell might go down with him.

 

Goodell saying now that Snyder was held accountable.  LMAO

[Anybodyhome]

Goodell is protecting and withholding the "internal investigation." 

 

[Tbe]

59 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Can you give me an example of how they are useful and important business functions? Like if someone knew the secret formula to coke they would have to sign one so they don’t rip them off and start selling it as someone else?

I had to sign a non compete for a previous job which the company justified as “they didn’t want to invest in training me to have me leave once it was done and go to competition” which is bullshit and goes against the free market 

Yes, the coke example is a good one. NDAs are also used a lot anytime sensitive financial info is shared (buy/sell a business, HR info like salaries, ect).

I sign them fairly regularly when working with clients. They don’t want me telling the world about certain competitive advantages they’ve created or learned.

Non-competes are a different thing and hard to enforce. They can’t keep you from making a living in your field.