Bucks Cheerleader Sues the Bucks

[mu03eng]

Ummmm...we were discussing uniform code violations, not the domestic violence stuff. At least I was. The domestic violence stuff is an entirely different animal. Of course amidst all the feigned indignation, the money keeps flowing like water, so who is really the problem, the NFL, or those of us who fund it? I don't disagree with your assessment of the role they could play.

That said, I don't buy that we can file DV and deangleo Harris eye black both under the broad category of women's issues. Not saying you said that necessarily, I just don't believe one really has anything to do with the other.

William Gay was fined this week for wearing purple cleats to bring awareness to DV (in honor of his mother).  That's part of what I was referencing, not necessarily Harris.

[NavinRJohnson]

Weird, in that they previously announced they would not fine him.

Hmmmmmm...wonder why they may have felt it necessary to change their position on this (assuming above version is accurate). Could it possibly be because they had previously said no to someone elses request, and perhaps someone complained about it? Complete speculation on my part, but seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Of course given the last year or so, may just be that they don't want any mention/attention to DV that isn't on their terms or within their control. Equally logical conclusion.

[keefe]

expecting to be paid for her nails to be done

I don't know about this. Whenever I was cashing out at either Hugo Boss or Kent and Curwen I simply said to send the bill to GE in Fairfield, CT. The shareholders had every right to expect that GE Cap staff expressed their sartorial tastes eloquently.

[ChicosBailBonds]

-A gajillion domestic abuse cases (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc)
-Bad PR around their Pink campaign (proceeds go to breast cancer programs....roughly 8% after the NFL and it's vendors get their cut)
-William Gay is being fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for DV instead of pink (mother was killed in a domestic violence event)
-Multiple lawsuits from cheerleaders regarding their employment conditions (potentially exploitative)

The NFL appears to not care about women and women's issues.  Not a good look in the modern age....that's what it means to me.

With all due respect, women are following football as strong as ever.  I get where you are going with it, but I interpreted your statement as if it is causing women to not consume their brand, so on and so forth.  That is simply not the case.

In fact (not opinion), women are growing the NFL pie at a much faster rate than men (not surprising) and the upward trend continued last year and again this year.  The numbers aren't lying, I see them every week.

It is popular myth to suggest these issues with those incidents you state are impacting the NFL and female fans.  That is simply not the case in the numbers.  Honestly, it isn't close.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here!  Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."

Well done!

LOL.   You even put it in quotes as if someone said that...ever. 


Well done!


This just in, there are some women that want to meet a certain kind of man.  That may not fit your outlook on life, but it happens every day.  Guess what, there are some men like that too.  Again, you may not feel that way, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.   But to answer your question, long after she was interning for us one of the gals on our team asked her why she became a cheerleader.  Didn't she feel it was beneath her, etc?  The response was she liked sports, hoping it would land her a job, and it gave her access to men she could never have access to....because certain guys wanted to be able to say they were dating a cheerleader.

[keefe]

This just in, there are some women that want to meet a certain kind of man. 

Back in the day at Marquette we said she was working on her MRS Degree...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Look, the NFL is run by conservative old men.  They just got a Youtube channel in January.  Self-expression is frowned upon.  The uniform is the three-piece suit of their workplace. 

Is it really that incredible that they don't quite know how to handle the female demographic?

Except the marketing of the NFL is run by a woman, Dawn Hudson.  She knows her stuff.  As for the "conservative" old men.  Wow, could you paint things with a broader brush?  Some are quite liberal, some are not "old" but I guess that all depends on your definition of old.

At any rate, been in several conversations with Dawn, and she was quite concerned about the impact of these things on the NFL.  The numbers, have allayed her concerns.  Now, that doesn't mean the NFL is just saying no big deal, they certainly aren't.  They aren't stupid and will address them, but the predictions of doom and gloom about the NFL from concussions, to upsetting women (hey, let me try a broad statement here Sultan...most people "offended" by this are liberals, many of them liberal women who never watched the game to begin with), etc, and the numbers don't reflect it.  She's obviously keeping an eye on things as is the rest of the NFL office, but they are very happy campers right now.....which alienates a bunch of people

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yep.
Bengals cheerleaders got a $255K settlement.
Raiders cheerleaders got a $1.25 million settlement.
Bucs cheerleaders got a $855K settlement.
Cases against the Bills and Jets are pending.

Maybe those settlements were only for the women forced into cheerleading at gunpoint.

Funny you didn't mention the lawsuits that weren't won....must have slipped your mind.  That's why we have courts to go through this and decide. It's a good thing the Bengals are located in Wisconsin, same for the Raiders, Bucs, Bills and Jets.   

Awesome sauce.

That's a special kind of Pakuniesqe disingeniousness.....reminds me when 500 economists once said something....

[real chili 83]

Settlement or judgement?

Which ones were lost?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.

That's part of the uniform for that given month, just as wearing throwbacks may be the official uniform of a specific game.

So, quite frankly, you are just wrong...again.

Ultimately, the only folks that get to decide what is UNIFORM are those that say what the UNIFORM is.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Really it's not that hard.  The NBA allows personal messages on shoes.  Even touts it online.  They don't seem to have a problem.

The NBA can run their league how they want to run their league.  The NFL, which is vastly more popular and profitable, will run theirs how they see fit.

Really it's not that hard.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, if Chico's confirms that any of those women told him that she became an cheerleader to become a player's baby momma, I will withdraw my statement.

Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best.  Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense.  There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.

No need to withdraw your statement.  Instead WW should issue one of his own.....

[wadesworld]

Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best.  Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense.  There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.

No need to withdraw your statement.  Instead WW should issue one of his own.....

Wait, that's not possible.  According to you, I'm incapable of "original thought."  So what you're now saying by stating, "That was Wadesworld doing what he does best," is that I was taking your thought (a woman wants to sleep with a player, let's hire her!) and regurgitating it.

At least that's what I'm told I'm doing, I can't create "original thought" myself, so I have to have someone tell me what to write in here.

Not sure why you'd ask me to issue a statement of my own when you yourself told everyone it's not possible for me to issue my own statement.  I can't create "original thought."  Duh.

[wadesworld]

Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best.  Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense.  There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.

No need to withdraw your statement.  Instead WW should issue one of his own.....

PS What's your buddy hoopaloop up to nowadays? Made any SoCal visits lately? Did you ever ask him why he went into hiding around here the minute your ban was lifted? Was the breakup that ugly that he even had to avoid Scoop?

I'll hang up and listen.

[ChicosBailBonds]

PS What's your buddy hoopaloop up to nowadays? Made any SoCal visits lately? Did you ever ask him why he went into hiding around here the minute your ban was lifted? Was the breakup that ugly that he even had to avoid Scoop?

I'll hang up and listen.

Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait, that's not possible.  According to you, I'm incapable of "original thought."  So what you're now saying by stating, "That was Wadesworld doing what he does best," is that I was taking your thought (a woman wants to sleep with a player, let's hire her!) and regurgitating it.

At least that's what I'm told I'm doing, I can't create "original thought" myself, so I have to have someone tell me what to write in here.

Not sure why you'd ask me to issue a statement of my own when you yourself told everyone it's not possible for me to issue my own statement.  I can't create "original thought."  Duh.

Outstanding

[mu03eng]

With all due respect, women are following football as strong as ever.  I get where you are going with it, but I interpreted your statement as if it is causing women to not consume their brand, so on and so forth.  That is simply not the case.

In fact (not opinion), women are growing the NFL pie at a much faster rate than men (not surprising) and the upward trend continued last year and again this year.  The numbers aren't lying, I see them every week.

It is popular myth to suggest these issues with those incidents you state are impacting the NFL and female fans.  That is simply not the case in the numbers.  Honestly, it isn't close.

OK, got it.  Good for them and it's good to know that the NFL doesn't really have a moral compass.  That isn't an indictment per ce, just a statement of fact that they really don't care as long as their numbers continue to stay the same or go up.  That's fine, that's their prerogative as a private organization just don't expect me to be thoroughly disappointed and to bring it up as much as I can.

If they are assuming they can shrug off these types of things continually I think they are setting themselves long term for failure.

[wadesworld]

Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen

Wouldn't know. Have never claimed to have been personal friends with them, taken pictures at games with them, given them and their wives beer in my back yard, given them and their families Disney tickets for free, etc.

I'll take it as the breakup was that bad.

[GGGG]

The NBA can run their league how they want to run their league.  The NFL, which is vastly more popular and profitable, will run theirs how they see fit.

Really it's not that hard.

Once again you are arguing a different argument.  Shifting goalposts.

Stick to the topic at hand.  The question wasn't if the NFL shouldn't run itself how it wants to.  Of course it should.  The argument is *should* it run itself the way it does.  Navin seems to think that if you allow one personal statement, you wouldn't be able to figure out where to draw the line.  Yet I pointed out that another professional sports league doesn't have that problem.

And the popularity of the NFL v. the NBA has little to do with the personal messages the latter allows on its uniforms.  But you know this, but somehow think that popularity equals a trump card of some sort.  That just because it is more popular, it's judgement cannot be questioned.

[Pakuni]

Funny you didn't mention the lawsuits that weren't won....must have slipped your mind.  That's why we have courts to go through this and decide. It's a good thing the Bengals are located in Wisconsin, same for the Raiders, Bucs, Bills and Jets.   

Awesome sauce.

That's a special kind of Pakuniesqe disingeniousness.....reminds me when 500 economists once said something....

Which lawsuits weren't won? Which have I failed to mention?

[Pakuni]

That's part of the uniform for that given month, just as wearing throwbacks may be the official uniform of a specific game.

So, quite frankly, you are just wrong...again.

Ultimately, the only folks that get to decide what is UNIFORM are those that say what the UNIFORM is.

Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing  squads  are  permitted  to  wear  only  those  colors or  a  combination  of  those  colors  for  helmets, jerseys,  pants,  and  stockings;  provided  that  white  is  also  an  available  color  for  jerseys  and  mandatory color  for  the  lower  portion  of  stockings.

Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.

[MerrittsMustache]

Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing  squads  are  permitted  to  wear  only  those  colors or  a  combination  of  those  colors  for  helmets, jerseys,  pants,  and  stockings;  provided  that  white  is  also  an  available  color  for  jerseys  and  mandatory color  for  the  lower  portion  of  stockings.

Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.

"...players are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office."

Apparently the league office approved their own request in advance that the wearing of pink was allowed to convey a message.

[Pakuni]

"...players are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office."

Apparently the league office approved their own request in advance that the wearing of pink was allowed to convey a message.

So, wearing a different color doesn't fall under the "Team colors" subsection of the uniform code, but it does fall under the "Personal messages" subsection? Even though there's no mention of colors in the "Personal messages" subsection, which defines a personal message as a "writing or illustration," aka not a color? 
Despite the fact that there's nothing personal about wearing pink, in that they're required of all players?
Interesting theory. Not especially credible or likely, but interesting.

[MerrittsMustache]

So, wearing a different color doesn't fall under the "Team colors" subsection of the uniform code, but it does fall under the "Personal messages" subsection? Even though there's no mention of colors in the "Personal messages" subsection, which defines a personal message as a "writing or illustration," aka not a color? 
Despite the fact that there's nothing personal about wearing pink, in that they're required of all players?
Interesting theory. Not especially credible or likely, but interesting.

Wearing a specific color falls under the category of an illustration of a personal message.

[Pakuni]

Wearing a specific color falls under the category of an illustration of a personal message.

But it's not a personal message. It's a league requirement of all players. There's absolutely nothing personal about it.
And again, I find it highly unlikely the league would choose to address an issue regarding team colors under "personal messages" and not at all under "team colors."