STL Fan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Sorry to start a new thread, but the old Rush thread has become, well, cumbersome. Anyway, Adam Schefter on ESPN just reported that Dave Checkets is re-forming his group that is bidding on the Rams and the new group will not include Rush. According to Schefter, the commissioner's comments on the possibility were apparently the final straw. So love him or hate him, he's apparently out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) That's too bad. Now that the NFL has suddenly got a case of morals, how many other unsavory owners do we need to eliminate from the NFL? Give me a break. Edited October 14, 2009 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I'm not a fan of Rush but if he has the $$ he should have the same right as anyone else to buy a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 They are ripping him apart on Jim Rome right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 yet they can't do anything about al davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 yet they can't do anything about al davis. exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 yet they can't do anything about al davis. He's one of the big reasons they don't want another owner who is a big distraction. Problem is, Al's a legacy. He's been there forever. It's harder to get rid of a guy than it is to keep a guy out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 yet they can't do anything about al davis. Davis impacted the game in ways most have forgotten about. Rush spews racist crap. BIG difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medal of Honor Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 That's too bad. Now that the NFL has suddenly got a case of morals, how many other unsavory owners do we need to eliminate from the NFL? Give me a break. ^ this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) Davis impacted the game in ways most have forgotten about. Rush spews racist crap. BIG difference. i agree he did do great things...but this isn't the '60's, 70's or even the 80's. i guess some people's money is just greener than others. Edited October 14, 2009 by buddahj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 That's too bad. Now that the NFL has suddenly got a case of morals, how many other unsavory owners do we need to eliminate from the NFL? Give me a break. I think this has less to do with morals and more to do with the NFL's rather consistent aversion to people drawing a ton of attention to themselves in non-football ways. More, I would imagine that the NFL wouldn't even kick dude out of the league for any of the things he's said but they'd just rather not let him in to begin with. I doubt Rush's political or social views are all that different from many of the other owners, they all just don't have mainstream media audiences to spout them. Mind you, I certainly don't think the NFL has a moral obligation to keep him out of the league at all. In fact, I really don't think football is anything so pure that there should be much if any moral standards (outside of the laws of this country) applied to who can participate. But I can see it as very much in line with how they conduct business. And if they did let him buy in, they'd better stop trying to shut everyone else up because that gig would be up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I think this has less to do with morals and more to do with the NFL's rather consistent aversion to people drawing a ton of attention to themselves in non-football ways. Bingo. It's almost certain that if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wanted to buy a team, the league would have the same "sudden case of the morals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Rush spews racist crap. Actually he doesn't, he's been accused of such by a liberal media and race hustlers like Al Sharpton, but the quotes attributed to him about slavery are false. Sharpton calling someone a racist is completely ridiculous in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 i agree he did do great things...but this isn't the '60's, 70's or even the 80's. i guess some people's money is just greener than others. Yeah, because Rush being disallowed from purchasing a franchise in a private organization is worse than stripping the ownership and management rights of an owner who has had at least a minority stake in a franchise for over 40 years. Some people's money and contracts are older than others. I weep for Rush, his millions, and this slight upon the inalienable right to NFL ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Bingo. It's almost certain that if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wanted to buy a team, the league would have the same "sudden case of the morals." With all due respect, BW, I don't agree with that. THAT scenario would be too much of a timebomb if the NFL would say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yeah, because Rush being disallowed from purchasing a franchise in a private organization is worse than stripping the ownership and management rights of an owner who has had at least a minority stake in a franchise for over 40 years. Some people's money and contracts are older than others. I weep for Rush, his millions, and this slight upon the inalienable right to NFL ownership. Hey! Wait a minute...are you being sarcastic? Or are you really weeping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I wonder if Rush will make a competing bid with his own group. He strikes me as being competitive enough to contemplate it at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Colin Cowherd has a real good bead on this subject in my opinion. NFL team ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. The NFL is a private club (like a country club) and they have the RIGHT to deny anybody entrance to the league that they feel would not be a suitable member for WHATEVER reason. And the assessment made previously in this thread was also discussed by Cowherd, that the NFL would have no part of Al Sharpton as an owner. Right wing wackos and left wing wackos do not represent the sentiments of a huge portion of the general public, and polarizing individuals such as that are obviously not good for any organization unless thier sole goal is publicity. Cowherd also went on to join in the speculation that this whole thing was just a cheap publicity ploy for Rush to gain attention before "sweeps weeks" in radio. If that is the case, it worked like a charm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Colin Cowherd has a real good bead on this subject in my opinion. NFL team ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. The NFL is a private club (like a country club) and they have the RIGHT to deny anybody entrance to the league that they feel would not be a suitable member for WHATEVER reason. And the assessment made previously in this thread was also discussed by Cowherd, that the NFL would have no part of Al Sharpton as an owner. Right wing wackos and left wing wackos do not represent the sentiments of a huge portion of the general public, and polarizing individuals such as that are obviously not good for any organization unless thier sole goal is publicity. Cowherd also went on to join in the speculation that this whole thing was just a cheap publicity ploy for Rush to gain attention before "sweeps weeks" in radio. If that is the case, it worked like a charm. While I do in general agree with the whole "private club" angle, in this case I am not sure it's as strong an argument as, say, in whether or not the owner of a private establishment can or can not allow smoking on his/her premises. Reason being: The NFL is a protected monopoly. By definition it does not gain all the same rights as other private groups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAITFISH11 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Like his views or not - he loves football and could only help the lamb rammers!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Just to set the record straight here. Neither the NFL nor the NFL owners, stopped Rush from owing a team. It was the Checketts business group, of which Rush was going to be a minority stakeholder, that jettisoned him & purely for business reasons. Specifically.... “Rush was to be a limited partner - as such, he would have had no say in the direction of the club or in any decisions regarding personnel or operations. This was a role he enthusiastically embraced. “However, it has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. “As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion." www.bloomberg.com Basically if Rush didn't wear his racist, political & ideological views on his sleeve so vehemently & publicly, I don't think he would have been an issue for the business group. But I think with todays wide spread media accessibility, we have reached an age of accountability. There was no way for Mr Limbaugh to hide his many rants which the majority of American citizens find to be highly offensive. He is far too much of a polarizing figure to be palatable to mainstream America and he is now reaping the fruits of his labors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 His reputation precedes him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Just to set the record straight here. Neither the NFL nor the NFL owners, stopped Rush from owing a team. It was the Checketts business group, of which Rush was going to be a minority stakeholder, that jettisoned him & purely for business reasons. Specifically....www.bloomberg.com Basically if Rush didn't wear his racist, political & ideological views on his sleeve so vehemently & publicly, I don't think he would have been an issue for the business group. But I think with todays wide spread media accessibility, we have reached an age of accountability. There was no way for Mr Limbaugh to hide his many rants which the majority of American citizens find to be highly offensive. He is far too much of a polarizing figure to be palatable to mainstream America and he is now reaping the fruits of his labors. good post, BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And the assessment made previously in this thread was also discussed by Cowherd, that the NFL would have no part of Al Sharpton as an owner. I should be writing for for ESPN instead of Cowherd In all seriousness, I heard or knew nothing of that specific analogy prior to repeating it in this post. I think it's a rather obvious and valid statement. Actually he doesn't, Sharpton isn't racist, he's been accused of such by liberal media right wing radio and race hustlers like Al Sharpton Rush Limbaugh, but the quotes attributed to him about slavery race baiting are false. Sharpton Limbaugh calling someone a racist is completely ridiculous in the first place. This opposite but equal statement sounds just as blasphemous as the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts