|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 3, 2019 17:29:28 GMT -5
Our country is doomed.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 3, 2019 17:33:57 GMT -5
Holy mackerel! Next you're going to tell me no one "owns" Trump Tower! Oh, the humanity!
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Jun 3, 2019 19:02:01 GMT -5
Again, another example of why you can’t give one inch to the politically correct mob.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jun 3, 2019 19:36:56 GMT -5
Again, another example of why you can’t give one inch to the politically correct mob. Seriously why would you care? Always thought being "owners" was a bit strange
|
|
|
Post by gks on Jun 3, 2019 20:08:31 GMT -5
Again, another example of why you can’t give one inch to the politically correct mob. Seriously why would you care? Always thought being "owners" was a bit strange They own the team....what else would you call them?
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jun 3, 2019 20:13:49 GMT -5
Wait give me a second..how about Managing Partners?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 3, 2019 20:27:58 GMT -5
A sole proprietorship or partnership are owners as well as shareholders in a corporation and their employees are just that. The "owners" own the business, not the employees (if that is what is supposedly offensive). They may not like the term but the NBA players are employees.
This is ridiculous. Unless I am really missing something here.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 3, 2019 20:28:51 GMT -5
Stay woke.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 20:44:46 GMT -5
Before the turn of the century, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth with man, one person could have 100% financial investment and ownership in a team, i.e Yawkey, Halas, etc. Thus the term was correct regarding the owning the sports franchise.
After the dinosaurs disappeared, around AD 1960, a new paradigm for sports team control, came into being. It was an syndicated investment group, with no true owner, as one person did not have 100% control of the organizations
The term owner regarding sports team control is Antedeluvian. As before the Flood......Curt Flood. One must have some humor, as this is Crossports, not SI.
After the Flood (Curt Flood) Rule and amended Curt Flood Act, the franchise owner had control of the team non human assets, and the services of the players within the terms and time line of their contract. That the players were not human chattel that could be traded or sold down the river.
Change is difficult for some to accept, but a reality of life. As we have have seen, so many still cling to the past. Guess what, it is not coming back, and in most cases it was not as wonderful as some may portray.
The term owner is factually incorrect for most teams regarding financial control. Team President, Board Chair, Executive Officer, are terms that is appropriate in describing the function of a person who has majority financial interests in a team.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 21:00:02 GMT -5
I’m afraid some are missing the point regarding the term owner in relation to the control of human capital regarding the employment.
Franchise owner may be appropriate, regarding hard tangible assets of the corporate entity, but in relation to employees it is term that I find offensive. No company that I was employed “owned” me. I am sure that you and many of our colleagues feel the same way.
Using the term “I own you” on the playground is fighting words. It is a matter of cultural and historical perspective. If you have not experienced it, you would not understand.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 3, 2019 21:05:15 GMT -5
So, is it not okay to say that John Henry is the owner of the Red Sox?
The Celtics don't have one person who owns the team, but rather the Boston Basketball Partners do. Is it okay to say that this group "owns" the Celtics?
I don't know what the rules are these days, since they seemingly change by the day.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Jun 3, 2019 21:07:14 GMT -5
Again, another example of why you can’t give one inch to the politically correct mob. Seriously why would you care? Always thought being "owners" was a bit strange Why do I care? The people trying to police the words we use and finding offense in terms that are not offensive are getting out of control. The term “owner” is not offensive and has nothing to do with “owning” people. Adults know the difference. Let’s act like grownups.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Jun 3, 2019 21:09:57 GMT -5
I’m afraid some are missing the point regarding the term owner in relation to the control of human capital regarding the employment. Franchise owner may be appropriate, regarding hard tangible assets of the corporate entity, but in relation to employees it is term that I find offensive. No company that I was employed “owned” me. I am sure that you and many of our colleagues feel the same way. Using the term “I own you” on the playground is fighting words. It is a matter of cultural and historical perspective. If you have not experienced it, you would not understand. Really? You find the term owner offensive? You really think that the term owner implies someone “owns” another person? I find that hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 21:14:02 GMT -5
Does John Henry have 100% financial investment in the franchise?
If you have a family business, even with 100% investment on your part, do you own the other members of your family that work in that business?
If the answer you respond is yes, I do not want to be sitting in a room when your family has that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 3, 2019 21:19:26 GMT -5
Is anyone with a rational mind actually suggesting or thinking that because a person or group owns a sports franchise that means they own a person?
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 21:22:03 GMT -5
Wormtown Railer, I have given my perspective, for additional perspectives, I suggest you go down to Compton Park in Worcester and engage in a socratic discussion during a pick up game regarding ownership. I believe you will come away enlighten.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 21:26:40 GMT -5
Cultural perspective. To be polite, and not personal, it has a different view in some communities than others. One that some may not understand unless they have been a volunteer in JVC or the Peace Corp.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Jun 3, 2019 21:33:46 GMT -5
Wormtown Railer, I have given my perspective, for additional perspectives, I suggest you go down to Compton Park in Worcester and engage in a socratic discussion during a pick up game regarding ownership. I believe you will come away enlighten. I guarantee you two things if I go down to Crompton Park and have this discussion. 1. Nobody I speak to will have been owned by another person. 2. Those I speak to would absolutely understand the meaning of owning a team.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jun 3, 2019 21:44:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jun 3, 2019 21:46:37 GMT -5
One may own a sports franchise but not the team. The nuance is important regarding the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 3, 2019 23:06:08 GMT -5
Insanity prevails yet again.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 4, 2019 0:15:41 GMT -5
I see the NBA players cultural and historical point. None of these chairmen or managing partners or Governors are divesting a penny in profits, however, and the players aren't giving up a penny in salary. Why not be considerate if it doesn't cost anything.
Reminds me of the time I attended a small bachelor party held in an adult club of ill repute. I was surprised to see my manager in there and called out to him by name. He quickly shooshed me and said: "In here I go by Isaac." Fine, I said.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 4, 2019 7:03:03 GMT -5
I see the NBA players cultural and historical point. None of these chairmen or managing partners or Governors are divesting a penny in profits, however, and the players aren't giving up a penny in salary. Why not be considerate if it doesn't cost anything.Reminds me of the time I attended a small bachelor party held in an adult club of ill repute. I was surprised to see my manager in there and called out to him by name. He quickly shooshed me and said: "In here I go by Isaac." Fine, I said. Nails it.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 4, 2019 7:19:49 GMT -5
Considerate of what?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 4, 2019 7:25:32 GMT -5
One may own a sports franchise but not the team. The nuance is important regarding the discussion. In the same manner that the millions of home owners here in the US may not necessarily 'own' all the occupants of the house. (Heck they may not even 'own' the home if there is a mortgage, etc.). Simply a manner of speaking that hitherto has been universally understood and inoffensive (although that may change).
|
|