[x]Register Now
Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
"In a recent interview on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS, the 75-year-old Richardson recounted a conversation he had with the the 22-year-old Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback on April 4 in which he asked Newton if he had any tattoos or piercings.
When Newton replied "No sir, I don't have any," Richardson told Rose he told the quarterback: "Good. We want to keep it that way."
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/68...tats-piercings
Panthers owner Jerry Richardson tells Newton he does not want him to have any tattoos or piercings. It's unclear if this is a desire or a demand.
Either way should, or can, an NFL owner require the player to be tattoo or piercing free? -
Of course he can't / thread.
Edited By: AMARTIN1181 Aug 25th, 2011 at 06:05 PM -
The Yankees used to have a no facial hair rule (don't now if still in place). I don't recall any of them getting bent out of shape about it. If someone is going to pay you millions of dollars, then you should probably do what they ask.
-
No they can't but they have the right to market the team around any player they choose and not everyone wants a thug life representing their brand.
-
Obviously not but I went with the extreme example.
-
This is all they were talking about on Sports Talk Radio yesterday and it was fucking annoying.
-
if it's Not in his contract then go for it if he wants to imo.
-
Assuming the owner did order Newton to not get any piercings or tattoos, Newton is obviously 100% free to defy that order and get them. However, the owner is equally free to take into account that insubordination in future contract talks, etc.
-
He never even told him not to get tattoos... he said he'd like to keep it that way. LOL @ that being insubordination, you really do have a wild imagination jetsjets... but I guess we already knew that here in OT.
-
I think a boss can require you to wear long sleeve shirts if you work in an office and your arms are covered in tats if I'm not mistaken, so even though this is different I really don't see a boss paying you millions but requesting this as being that big of a deal.
Cam's made it this far in his life without any, so doubt it is a big issue to him either. -
Oh and Owner sounds like a racist IYAM
-
Originally Posted by jetsjets1028
Assuming the owner did order Newton to not get any piercings or tattoos, Newton is obviously 100% free to defy that order and get them. However, the owner is equally free to take into account that insubordination in future contract talks, etc.
lol @ that 'insubordination' meaning anything in an NFL contract talk. if he puts up huge numbers, he'll get a huge deal regardless -
You should probably re-read the 1st 6 words of my post.
-
Of course he does, he is the face of the franchise and a huge investment for the owner. Other players have them but they are not QBs, who get held to a higher standard based on their leadership role on the team. My company is very strict on that too.
-
I just said the owner was free to consider it. I didn't say or even imply that it would or should matter. I was simply responding to the question in the final line of the OP.
Originally Posted by jonnyg123
lol @ that 'insubordination' meaning anything in an NFL contract talk. if he puts up huge numbers, he'll get a huge deal regardless
I personally have no problem with an employer insisting on a certain public appearance when the employee is so critical to the employer's brand value and profit.
Does McDonalds have the right to insist that their employees wear company uniforms?
Can Ronald McDonald decide to come into work in his underwear and dirty white tank top instead of his clown costume?
This isn't that difficult.
Did you or did you not misread my post the 1st time? -
I didn't misread shit. LOL @ tattoos affecting future contract negotiations.
All your examples are apples and oranges too fwiw. -
and all of your posts are peaches and dingleberries....you really can't be dense enough to take that from my post...can u?
Edited By: jetsjets1028 Aug 25th, 2011 at 06:42 PM -
they still do, though it's not really a rule. any player could violate it if they really wanted. The Reds (think it was them) had the same rule in the 90s and Greg Vaughn told them to fuck off.
-
Here....quoted for you again....
-
I saw that part champ, I was referring to the 2nd part. I can see where there would be some confusion, though so my apologies.
-
If you know your boss wants something a certain way and you as the employee intentionally disregard his desires and do it differently, I would call that insubordination.
Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181
He never even told him not to get tattoos... he said he'd like to keep it that way. LOL @ that being insubordination, you really do have a wild imagination jetsjets... but I guess we already knew that here in OT.
Unless you are leveling here, this post was made for you AMARTIN1181. Why can't he tell him what to he wants as far as tattoos and piercings are go? -
Cam for Heisman










