Shaft

Roger Goodell gives up salary

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Most people hate Goodell and blame him for everything they don't like about the NFL, instead of blaming the owners (including the for their favorite team) that has put him in power. 

 

I find it to be pretty childish and have pointed it out many times, to the criticism of many.

I just love blanket, passive aggressive statements like this.

 

I've disliked Goodell for just about as long as he's been in his position for the decisions he's made, the attitude he has and his selective and inequitable punishments. Why would I blame the owners as a whole or specifically the owner of my team for decisions that Goodell has made and actions that he's taken simply because the owners as a whole voted to put him in that position? Do you think every single owner voted to put him there? Do you think every single owner agrees with every decision he makes?

 

As for this instance, I don't see anyone really criticizing him for giving up some of his salary. I just don't think a lot of us see it as big of a deal as it's made out to be, especially due to the fact that many of us think he makes way more than he should given the performance he's provided from a fan's perspective and, again, 5 from 40 million.

Edited by rajncajn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, irish said:

 

It really is!  Dude gave up 4 million dollars!  That's 1/10 of what he makes. I wouldn't want to give up 1/10 of what I make, even if, like him, I'd be fine compared to many others. It's my damn money!  I should be punished, mocked or criticized because of the job I have, which still pays me my full salary where others are unemployed or are taking % cuts?

This reminds me a lot of what an old boss told me once. I had gone several years without any pay increases other than the annual 2%ish increase everyone got every year. This despite me working a ton of straight time extra hours that year, a ton of travel time away from my family, me supervising a group of employees (some making much more than I) and not being paid as a supervisor or work lead, me setting up and running job sites on my own, them hiring guys to work under me who would be paid more or equal and most importantly gaining great recognition and more work for our group through the work I was providing. So when it came time for the annual increase and all I got was what the rest of the company got across the board (2%) I went to my boss and made a complaint. His response was to tell me that he got the same 2% that I did. The man made 6 figures + and had the nerve to tell me he got the same raise as I did when at the time I was at roughly around 40k.

 

10% or 5 million dollars is definitely a significant amount to most people, but in perspective it's insignificant to someone who makes $40 million a year. Is it going to keep him from paying his mortgage, paying his car notes on all his luxury vehicles, taking his family to whatever exotic locations they enjoy, is it really going to impact him in any way, shape or form? I seriously doubt it. In comparison some of the NFL employees are getting laid off or taking a 5-15% pay cut. Imagine taking a 10% pay cut out of a $100K salary. That would have a significantly higher impact on a person than giving up $5 million of $40 million.

Edited by rajncajn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

This reminds me a lot of what an old boss told me once. I had gone several years without any pay increases other than the annual 2%ish increase everyone got every year. This despite me working a ton of straight time extra hours that year, a ton of travel time away from my family, me supervising a group of employees and not being paid as a supervisor or work lead, me setting up and running job sites on my own and most importantly gaining great recognition and more work for our group through the work I was providing. So when it came time for the annual increase and all I got was what the rest of the company got across the board (2%) I went to my boss and made a complaint. His response was to tell me that he got the same 2% that I did. The man made 6 figures + and had the nerve to tell me he got the same raise as I did when at the time I was at roughly around 40k.

 

10% or 5 million dollars is definitely a significant amount to most people, but in perspective it's insignificant to someone who makes $40 million a year. Is it going to keep him from paying his mortgage, paying his car notes on all his luxury vehicles, taking his family to whatever exotic locations they enjoy, is it really going to impact him in any way, shape or form? I seriously doubt it. In comparison some of the NFL employees are getting laid off or taking a 5-15% pay cut. Imagine taking a 10% pay cut out of a $100K salary. That would have a significantly higher impact on a person than giving up $5 million of $40 million.

 

Exactly, He can afford to live ten times over with just the interest alone on what's in his portfolio. He could go 10, 20, 30 years, a lifetime without a paycheck and still be fine. It's WAY different than you or I missing a paycheck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 11:44 AM, rajncajn said:

This reminds me a lot of what an old boss told me once. I had gone several years without any pay increases other than the annual 2%ish increase everyone got every year. This despite me working a ton of straight time extra hours that year, a ton of travel time away from my family, me supervising a group of employees (some making much more than I) and not being paid as a supervisor or work lead, me setting up and running job sites on my own, them hiring guys to work under me who would be paid more or equal and most importantly gaining great recognition and more work for our group through the work I was providing. So when it came time for the annual increase and all I got was what the rest of the company got across the board (2%) I went to my boss and made a complaint. His response was to tell me that he got the same 2% that I did. The man made 6 figures + and had the nerve to tell me he got the same raise as I did when at the time I was at roughly around 40k.

 

10% or 5 million dollars is definitely a significant amount to most people, but in perspective it's insignificant to someone who makes $40 million a year. Is it going to keep him from paying his mortgage, paying his car notes on all his luxury vehicles, taking his family to whatever exotic locations they enjoy, is it really going to impact him in any way, shape or form? I seriously doubt it. In comparison some of the NFL employees are getting laid off or taking a 5-15% pay cut. Imagine taking a 10% pay cut out of a $100K salary. That would have a significantly higher impact on a person than giving up $5 million of $40 million.

Still his money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, irish said:

Still his money. 

Typical obtuse answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF he was better at what he does, it would be a gesture that MIGHT have some impact. As it is, it just seems like he should give a % (possibly high) back to players and the game as an apology for every mis-step since he took over. This is in no way a push on what he owes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 10:58 AM, rajncajn said:

I just love blanket, passive aggressive statements like this.

 

I've disliked Goodell for just about as long as he's been in his position for the decisions he's made, the attitude he has and his selective and inequitable punishments. Why would I blame the owners as a whole or specifically the owner of my team for decisions that Goodell has made and actions that he's taken simply because the owners as a whole voted to put him in that position? Do you think every single owner voted to put him there? Do you think every single owner agrees with every decision he makes?

 

As for this instance, I don't see anyone really criticizing him for giving up some of his salary. I just don't think a lot of us see it as big of a deal as it's made out to be, especially due to the fact that many of us think he makes way more than he should given the performance he's provided from a fan's perspective and, again, 5 from 40 million.

Not a surprising response, I know you still have issues with Goodell, your avatar reminds us all. You can be mad at him for his decisions, but you should also be mad at the owners for giving him the power. Do you know if Tom Benson voted for him or not? Would you have issue with Benson if he did? 

 

I see lots of bitching and whining because what he did isn't enough for a bunch of people who play a fantasy sport. Its the same I hear from many of the angry people in Cleveland area when LeBron does something "well he's rich, big deal that's like couch change."  Yep, and you did what? is my usual response. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boltnlava said:

IF he was better at what he does, it would be a gesture that MIGHT have some impact. As it is, it just seems like he should give a % (possibly high) back to players and the game as an apology for every mis-step since he took over. This is in no way a push on what he owes.

 

Oh boy, really?  He owes the players a large percentage of salary for what exactly?  Every misstep?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stevegrab said:

Not a surprising response, I know you still have issues with Goodell, your avatar reminds us all. You can be mad at him for his decisions, but you should also be mad at the owners for giving him the power. Do you know if Tom Benson voted for him or not? Would you have issue with Benson if he did? 

 

I see lots of bitching and whining because what he did isn't enough for a bunch of people who play a fantasy sport. Its the same I hear from many of the angry people in Cleveland area when LeBron does something "well he's rich, big deal that's like couch change."  Yep, and you did what? is my usual response. 

Should I also be mad at the whole of the country if I don't like the decisions the elected politicians make?

 

No, I wouldn't have issue with Benson if he voted for Goodell to be commissioner. Just because he voted (or didn't) for him doesn't mean he agrees with all of his decisions. But Goodell has made a lot of money for the owners, so I wouldn't blame Benson anyway if he agreed to keep Goodell in his position. Still doesn't mean it's Benson's fault for Goodell doing poorly from my perspective.

 

I never said what Goodell gave up wasn't enough. Though he certainly could have afforded give more, it's still a significant amount to many people. I just don't see it as a big deal for him. Like I said, it's not going to prevent him from paying his mortgage or his car note or taking his family on vacation or whatever, whereas someone on, say a $100k salary the same percentage pay cut would be significantly more impactful. Next time you ask someone "you did what" just hope they don't respond with "I did nothing, but "I gave up my home when I lost my job" or "I had to close my business and let go all of my employees" or "I'm a nurse/doctor working 14-16 hour shifts trying to keep people like you alive and healthy" or "I'm a social worker trying to make sure the poor, elderly, sick & homeless get the essentials that they need to survive" or "I'm a teacher spending countless hours trying to make sure your kids are still getting the quality education they need despite all the hurdles in our way" or "I'm a first responder risking my & my families health to ensure that you stay safe." Giving money is easy, especially when you have a ton of it. There's nothing wrong with giving, giving is great and absolutely necessary, but it pales in comparison to the personal sacrifices that so many others are giving and give on a day-to-day basis. Those people impress me incredibly more than Roger Goodell giving up $5 million of his $40 million salary. Sorry, it just doesn't move the needle much for me.

 

Seriously though, what the (the really bad word) do you care if I dislike Roger Goodell anyway...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 9:52 AM, rajncajn said:

Should I also be mad at the whole of the country if I don't like the decisions the elected politicians make?

 

No, I wouldn't have issue with Benson if he voted for Goodell to be commissioner. Just because he voted (or didn't) for him doesn't mean he agrees with all of his decisions. But Goodell has made a lot of money for the owners, so I wouldn't blame Benson anyway if he agreed to keep Goodell in his position. Still doesn't mean it's Benson's fault for Goodell doing poorly from my perspective.

 

I never said what Goodell gave up wasn't enough. Though he certainly could have afforded give more, it's still a significant amount to many people. I just don't see it as a big deal for him. Like I said, it's not going to prevent him from paying his mortgage or his car note or taking his family on vacation or whatever, whereas someone on, say a $100k salary the same percentage pay cut would be significantly more impactful. Next time you ask someone "you did what" just hope they don't respond with "I did nothing, but "I gave up my home when I lost my job" or "I had to close my business and let go all of my employees" or "I'm a nurse/doctor working 14-16 hour shifts trying to keep people like you alive and healthy" or "I'm a social worker trying to make sure the poor, elderly, sick & homeless get the essentials that they need to survive" or "I'm a teacher spending countless hours trying to make sure your kids are still getting the quality education they need despite all the hurdles in our way" or "I'm a first responder risking my & my families health to ensure that you stay safe." Giving money is easy, especially when you have a ton of it. There's nothing wrong with giving, giving is great and absolutely necessary, but it pales in comparison to the personal sacrifices that so many others are giving and give on a day-to-day basis. Those people impress me incredibly more than Roger Goodell giving up $5 million of his $40 million salary. Sorry, it just doesn't move the needle much for me.

 

Seriously though, what the (the really bad word) do you care if I dislike Roger Goodell anyway...

 

Go back and read your posts in this thread, you said it wasn't a noble gesture, he really didn't give up much, you and many others here just hate Goodell and would have ripped him regardless of what he did or gave up. I don't care whether you like Goodell or not, I just know that your views on him are tainted by your extreme hatred of him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Go back and read your posts in this thread, you said it wasn't a noble gesture, he really didn't give up much, you and many others here just hate Goodell and would have ripped him regardless of what he did or gave up. I don't care whether you like Goodell or not, I just know that your views on him are tainted by your extreme hatred of him. 

Maybe you should go back and read my posts. Maybe you don't understand what applauding the effort means or how I grade nobility in terms of what people sacrifice. Maybe you should not let my "extreme hatred" of Goodell taint your view.

Edited by rajncajn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, League_Champion said:

 

I don't know how reliable the Onion is but he's probably right. It would certainly help heal on some level, perhaps help unify to an extent. 

 

The Onion is extremely reliable.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 6:42 PM, michaelredd9 said:

 

Just reading the headline I knew that was The Onion

 

Not sure why the story is being made, I haven't heard Goodell or anybody else with the NFL clamoring to have fans at the games, they will play without fans if necessary all season, TV revenue alone can still generate a profit for the owners.  Also the 17 game season cannot start this season, and of course the 16 game schedule has already been released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Just reading the headline I knew that was The Onion

 

Not sure why the story is being made, I haven't heard Goodell or anybody else with the NFL clamoring to have fans at the games, they will play without fans if necessary all season, TV revenue alone can still generate a profit for the owners.  Also the 17 game season cannot start this season, and of course the 16 game schedule has already been released. 

 

If you can have protests with hundreds of thousands of people, you can play a dam football game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

If you can have protests with hundreds of thousands of people, you can play a dam football game. 

 

Yes because those things are so similar :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stevegrab said:

 

Yes because those things are so similar :rolleyes: 

 

Yes Steve. 70,000 people side by side protesting or in a stadium. WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, League_Champion said:

 

Yes Steve. 70,000 people side by side protesting or in a stadium. WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? 

 

If you cannot see the difference you are blind or stupid. The difference is in the ability to control their occurrence, not the ability of the virus to spread. You act like the cities gave our permits for crowds of thousands at the protests.

 

How do you stop 70K in a stadium? You don't sell tickets, or you sell fewer tickets.

 

How do you stop 70K protesting in the streets?  That could be a disaster in many cases. 

 

In Cleveland they had a curfew downtown, all day Sun-Mon-Tue-Wed, and nights (8P-6A) last night and again tonight. That worked, how many places can or will do that? And how much screaming will there be that their voices are being stifled? (In CLE an attorney sued in court trying to force the city to re-open.) How much rioting and looting would trying to end protests or limit crowds cause. 

 

BTW, what protest in what city recently had 70K people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

If you cannot see the difference you are blind or stupid.

Let's not do this to another thread, Ok? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

If you cannot see the difference you are blind or stupid. The difference is in the ability to control their occurrence, not the ability of the virus to spread. You act like the cities gave our permits for crowds of thousands at the protests.

 

How do you stop 70K in a stadium? You don't sell tickets, or you sell fewer tickets.

 

How do you stop 70K protesting in the streets?  That could be a disaster in many cases. 

 

In Cleveland they had a curfew downtown, all day Sun-Mon-Tue-Wed, and nights (8P-6A) last night and again tonight. That worked, how many places can or will do that? And how much screaming will there be that their voices are being stifled? (In CLE an attorney sued in court trying to force the city to re-open.) How much rioting and looting would trying to end protests or limit crowds cause. 

 

BTW, what protest in what city recently had 70K people?

 

If there isn't a mass Corona outbreak after these protests then let it eat. That would prove it was a solid hype job, correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.