Rush's failed bid for the Rams

[stevew]

He's out. Poll forthcoming

[Sun Tzu]

Damn NFL owner elitists.

[ISiddiqui]

He's a huge football fan. I think it was 100% sincere.

[ColtCrazy]

He pulled out way too soon for it to be totally sincere. I've only seen one owner, Irsay, really say anything out against him. Irsay wouldn't have the clout to scare him away.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

He pulled out way too soon for it to be totally sincere. I've only seen one owner, Irsay, really say anything out against him. Irsay wouldn't have the clout to scare him away.

I think the writing was on the wall. The NFL is a real conservative league that doesn't like any controversy. They've taken heat for some racial issues in the past (lack of black coaches/executives) and I can't fathom the NFL wants to deal with the headache that his racial views may have on it.

With that said, I think his bid was sincere. From what I've read, he's a huge football fan and doesn't come across as the type who needs cheap publicity stunts like this anymore.

[Swaggs]

I think it was probably sincere, as I think he is a big sports fan and, let's be honest, being an NFL owner, with all of the guaranteed media revenue, is a pretty good investment.

I don't like the man, but I wouldn't really have had a problem with him buying into a team. That said, I think that he has been such a polarizing figure that a team probably has more mass appeal to fans if he is not involved.

[SirFozzie]

I think it's Checketts going "Oh fuck, Limbaugh's going to destroy the whole thing", and dropping him.

This is what El Rushbo had to say about it:

"A Limbaugh spokesman told ESPN that Limbaugh would have no comment on Wednesday. Earlier, on his syndicated radio show, Limbaugh was defiant, holding on to hope that he still could be part of the ownership group that buys the Rams.

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.

"Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

He pulled out way too soon for it to be totally sincere. I've only seen one owner, Irsay, really say anything out against him. Irsay wouldn't have the clout to scare him away.

I had a long 4 hour drive today listened to ESPN Radio and Rome....he had one of the guys from ProFootball Talk on and the guy was at the Owners meetings this week and the consensus was they didn't like Rush due to the fact he is divisive in his speech and not his political views that they did not like...something about the fan base and not rocking the boat in the current economy....I think he is writing on it tomorrow...not 100% sure.

[Radii]

I voted for some combo of both. I think he sincerely would like to be in a part ownership situation, but knew the odds were long but that he'd get some good material out of it if it didn't work out. Dragging Sharpton out of the woodwork has to be gold for him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.

"Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

I have no problem with him buying the team and even said in another thread it would make things interesting. But this martyr act and pretending that it's all about the left and the destruction of conservatism is laughable.

He won't be accepted by the NFL because he's a race baiter. That doesn't fly in a league where the overwhelming majority of players are black.

[albionmoonlight]

I think he saw it as a win/win. He either got to own an NFL team or he got some free publicity out of the fact that he was too controversial to own an NFL team.

Since he has more money and publicity than he will ever need, I am sure that he would have liked to own the team--given his druthers--but I don't think that he's all broken hearted.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think it's Checketts going "Oh fuck, Limbaugh's going to destroy the whole thing", and dropping him.

This is what El Rushbo had to say about it:

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.

"Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

This is exactly why it was a publicity stunt. I'm sure he'd have been more than happy to buy in, but it's going to be another talking point for him going into the midterm elections, and that's exactly what he wanted. Something else he could rile his listener base up about to get them to vote Republican next year. "The Democrat Party won't let me buy into the NFL! Wahhh! Socialism!"

[albionmoonlight]

dola: or, what Radii said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just pissed that Irsay managed to screw up my ability to hope Peyton gets another SB win. And the Colts have been the only damned team in the league I actively root for in years, far more than the Falcons where my interest in largely in passing.

Thanks for nothing ya putz.

[Passacaglia]

It's one thing to 'be conservative' or whatever, but Rush has already made news appearing completely racist to NFL fans. I bet it was a no-brainer for most owners to vote against him.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm just pissed that Irsay managed to screw up my ability to hope Peyton gets another SB win. And the Colts have been the only damned team in the league I actively root for in years, far more than the Falcons where my interest in largely in passing.

Thanks for nothing ya putz.

How'd he do that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How'd he do that?

Much as I like Peyton, Irsay's obvious distaste for some pretty obvious truths about the state of the NFL makes it pretty much impossible for me to wish that anything he's connected to have any success whatsoever.

[stevew]

I'd say he wanted to buy the team. But figured it was win win either way.

And it is kind of crazy the NBA is content with a forner self proclaimed crack kingpin(JayZ) as a minor owner. But the NFL shies away from Rush

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Much as I like Peyton, Irsay's obvious distaste for some pretty obvious truths about the state of the NFL makes it pretty much impossible for me to wish that anything he's connected to have any success whatsoever.

What state of the NFL? That they are the most succesful sports league in the world?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What state of the NFL? That they are the most succesful sports league in the world?

Which says a lot more about the state of the world than it does about the NFL or Rush.

[RainMaker]

What complaints do you have about the NFL?

[JPhillips]

There's only downside risk to having someone like Rush as an owner. The NFL has made quite a living off of limiting their exposure to downside risk.

Rush has to learn that you can't have everything in life. You can rant and rave on the radio or you can be an NFL owner, but nobody with his intelligence should be surprised that you can't have both.

[Crapshoot]

Meh, The pill-popping hypocritical blowhard didn't need another outlet for his martyrdom. The correlation between dittoheads and intelligence has never been high to begin with; they're free to vote their pocketbooks on the NFL if they feel strongly about it.

That being said, he has every right to buy a team (whatever idiots like Jackson and Sharpton may "think") , and the NFL has every right to reject him. In the end, I don't think players would turn down the Rams just because of him; it may be a motivating factor, but I'd bet it comes down to dollars.

[RedKingGold]

Rush is the king of free publicity.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What complaints do you have about the NFL?

Yeah, this vague hinting stuff is getting old, Jon

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What complaints do you have about the NFL?

At the moment, for starters, that they seem to take issue with people who state some pretty clear truths being owners.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the moment, for starters, that they seem to take issue with people who state some pretty clear truths being owners.

If Jesus wanted an NFL team, I think ownership would let him in.

Muhammed on the other hand, well, he'd have more problems.

[Young Drachma]

I voted 1, but I meant it's probably a combo of 1 and 2.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd say he wanted to buy the team. But figured it was win win either way.

And it is kind of crazy the NBA is content with a forner self proclaimed crack kingpin(JayZ) as a minor owner. But the NFL shies away from Rush

Because he says it in his music. Most informed folks thinks he's never done anything of the sort, that the real drug dealers are in jail or dead, the musicians are just that.

But even still, said person was CEO of a major record label and his stake in the Nets is not even 1%, it never is in those deals. Owners of those teams throw those stakes around as ways to generate publicity. Rush would've been a major stakeholder in the Rams. I didn't see a problem with him wanting in and I think the NFL owners might be hypocrites, but I doubt anyone is really all that surprised by this. And he probably sincerely wanted a chance to keep his hometown team where it is, being around when the Cards were there, but he surely knew they'd do this and so for him, it was a win-win in terms of publicity, as it allows him to comment on the state of affairs publicly in this country.

And he's not really all that wrong about it, either.

[albionmoonlight]

A league that fines players for wearing socks with the wrong color stripes was never going to have Rush Limbaugh own a team.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

And it is kind of crazy the NBA is content with a forner self proclaimed crack kingpin(JayZ) as a minor owner. But the NFL shies away from Rush

But that's why the NFL is miles ahead of the NBA business wise. The NBA is personality driven and completely dependent on individuals. The NFL is the complete opposite. You watch the NBA for Kobe and Lebron, you watch the NFL for the Steelers and Packers.

Personalities like Jay-Z take away from the teams. That's why the NFL cares so much about any kind of individuality. It might not seem right, but it's helped them build an empire.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the moment, for starters, that they seem to take issue with people who state some pretty clear truths being owners.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with him. I'd wager many of the NFL owners are Republicans. But this is about business, and he is bad for business.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But that's why the NFL is miles ahead of the NBA business wise. The NBA is personality driven and completely dependent on individuals. The NFL is the complete opposite. You watch the NBA for Kobe and Lebron, you watch the NFL for the Steelers and Packers.

Personalities like Jay-Z take away from the teams. That's why the NFL cares so much about any kind of individuality. It might not seem right, but it's helped them build an empire.

I agree 100%. Now, do you think that there may become a point when the NFL gets too sanitized and corporate? I could see some world 20 years from now where the combination of fancy stadiums that take the focus away from the field and price out the "common" fan coupled with a league obsessed with minimizing individuals who stand out ends up making a league with which fans end up having a superficial relationship.

Say what you want about Al Davis (and we all have) but the NFL will be less entertaining when (if) he dies.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

He should have known that with the reaction to his comments about McNabb that his even attending a NFL gave would garner attention. His name associated with an ownership group would elicit a response like he got.

I was all for his getting a legit shot. What the hell, it would be a reason to hate the Rams!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't like the man, but I wouldn't really have had a problem with him buying into a team. That said, I think that he has been such a polarizing figure that a team probably has more mass appeal to fans if he is not involved.

I don't mean to pick on Swaggs for stating the conventional wisdom, and I understand why the NFL owners wouldn't want to take any risk, but does anyone think the popularity of an NFL team depends at all on its owner(s)? Around here, we have one who is a pretty ruthless businessman (Robert Kraft - ask Lungs) beloved by all, one who owned another team before buying ours (John Henry) treated as a beloved son because he brought a World Series here, and one who was hated by all 2 years ago (Jeremy Jacobs) completely forgiven because the team started winning again. I like to think I'm a principled person, and I hate Jeremy Jacobs as much as anyone - but if my friends wanted to go to a game next weekend, I'd probably be down. Politically I hate(d) Kerry, but I never gave up Heinz ketchup. People may attribute down attendance to hatred towards the owner, but really the teams performance is all that matters.

[Sgran]

Ah shoot, there goes my dream of seeing the Rams try to put together an all-white football team. Someone should take over the Rams in FOF and put together an all-honkey team. We could then try to guess the over/under on wins. At most positions you could do okay with the few Wes Welkers and Jared Allens of the league, but who the hell are you going to fill your secondary with?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't mean to pick on Swaggs for stating the conventional wisdom, and I understand why the NFL owners wouldn't want to take any risk, but does anyone think the popularity of an NFL team depends at all on its owner(s)? Around here, we have one who is a pretty ruthless businessman (Robert Kraft - ask Lungs) beloved by all, one who owned another team before buying ours (John Henry) treated as a beloved son because he brought a World Series here, and one who was hated by all 2 years ago (Jeremy Jacobs) completely forgiven because the team started winning again. I like to think I'm a principled person, and I hate Jeremy Jacobs as much as anyone - but if my friends wanted to go to a game next weekend, I'd probably be down. Politically I hate(d) Kerry, but I never gave up Heinz ketchup. People may attribute down attendance to hatred towards the owner, but really the teams performance is all that matters.

I don't think the issue is the team, but the NFL. Roger Goodell doesn't want to answer one question about race or have o explain how the NFL is going to handle a potential boycott amongst its players.

And given the coming labor catastrophe, the NFL really doesn't need anything else on its plate.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

He should have known that with the reaction to his comments about McNabb that his even attending a NFL gave would garner attention. His name associated with an ownership group would elicit a response like he got.

And the problem was the reaction to what he said about McNabb, you can't have an open and honest discussion these days, rather the race card is played by the left almost immediately.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And the problem was the reaction to what he said about McNabb, you can't have an open and honest discussion these days, rather the race card is played by the left almost immediately.

Oh poor Rush. He wasn't looking to have an open and honest discussion about race. He was trying to stir the pot and any backlash was likely expected.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Oh poor Rush. He wasn't looking to have an open and honest discussion about race. He was trying to stir the pot and any backlash was likely expected.

Or simply pointing out the idiocy of the far left and how they'll scream "race" at anything. There wasn't any immediate reaction from any of the folks on the show, it all came afterward once the media got hold of the comments.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think it's Checketts going "Oh fuck, Limbaugh's going to destroy the whole thing", and dropping him.

This is what El Rushbo had to say about it:

"A Limbaugh spokesman told ESPN that Limbaugh would have no comment on Wednesday. Earlier, on his syndicated radio show, Limbaugh was defiant, holding on to hope that he still could be part of the ownership group that buys the Rams.

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.

"Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

LOL - so now because Rush can't buy into the Rams it's a mass conspiracy by the left to prevent the mainstreaming of conservatism?

that's so fucking batshit insane i don't even know where to start!! the other NFL owners are hardly "left of center." they're all rich old white guys and i'd argue (without knowing any statistics) that they most likely tend to hew conservative.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Much as I like Peyton, Irsay's obvious distaste for some pretty obvious truths about the state of the NFL makes it pretty much impossible for me to wish that anything he's connected to have any success whatsoever.

i shouldn't be surprised, but i guess i am. put on your "economics" and "public relations" hat rather than your "liberal conspiracy" hat for a minute Jon

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or simply pointing out the idiocy of the far left and how they'll scream "race" at anything. There wasn't any immediate reaction from any of the folks on the show, it all came afterward once the media got hold of the comments.

You can't have an open and honest discussion about race and limit it to, black people get all the breaks. If he had wanted to really discuss race in the NFL he had fifteen hours of radio time the next week to do so. He was hired to be provocative and was, but he didn't realize that the things he can say to his largely homogeneous radio audience may not work with the more diverse national sports audience.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

but he didn't realize that the things he can say to his largely homogeneous radio audience may not work with the more diverse national sports audience.

Yup. He's spent decades talking to and with a very narrow group of folks. I can see why he seems out of his element when he tries to go outside of that bubble.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There wasn't any immediate reaction from any of the folks on the show, it all came afterward once the media got hold of the comments.

Maybe because they realized what he'd said was a landmind that they weren't about to traverse.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't have an open and honest discussion about race and limit it to, black people get all the breaks.

You also can't have an open and honest discussion about race when Limbaugh gets villified for what he said but Sharpton, Jackson, etc are allowed to spew their hate unmolested.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You also can't have an open and honest discussion about race when Limbaugh gets villified for what he said but Sharpton, Jackson, etc are allowed to spew their hate unmolested.

I happen to agree. well - maybe not with the "unmolested" part, but there's definately a double-standard.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I happen to agree. well - maybe not with the "unmolested" part, but there's definately a double-standard.

The truly sad thing in all this is that this country has made great strides, mostly thanks to generational changes with more and more tolerant younger generations moving into power and diverting the hate more and more to the fringes on both sides. But the fringes get all the air time in this day and age and makes the problem look much worse than it truly is. Yes, I know the problem still exists, I just think it's not as bad as it appears, and that it is constantly getting better, and would be getting better even quicker if not for the spew.

[DaddyTorgo]

i agree. what we need is a mass die-off of people over the age of say...40? 50?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You also can't have an open and honest discussion about race when Limbaugh gets villified for what he said but Sharpton, Jackson, etc are allowed to spew their hate unmolested.

But just because Sharpton and Jackson don't want an open and honest discussion doesn't mean that Rush does. If they were interested I'd be very surprised if they didn't face great difficulty in being a part of an ownership group for an NFL franchise.