Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Send in strike breakers to rough up the football players union?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Becoming an owner of a football team means that you're a business, selling a product, to customers. Typically, businesses try to avoid having the face of the business be a polarizing figure of any sort, for fear that turning off those who are polarized against will outweigh pleasing those that are polarized for. This is why you don't see a lot of corporate CEO's blabbing on facebook about how they're going to a homosexual orgy or about how they think that Obama is a Kenyan plant, Manchurian candidate.

If Limbaugh buys the Rams, Rams fans that like Limbaugh will go to Rams games, as they would have anyway. Rams fans that dislike Limbaugh will probably stop buying jerseys and tickets and may even stop watching. That's bad for business because he's driving away profits without necessarily bringing them in - particularly in the home market (on the national scale, the NFL would probably love it since the Rams would replace the Cowboys as the "love em or hate em" team).

The comparison to Cuban is not a good one. Cuban behaves like a jackass, but does so advocating on behalf of his team. I'm not a Dallas local, so I don't really know how sentiment for him runs there, but I was intrigued by him trying to buy the Cubs. That is, outside of how he acts as an owner, there isn't significant opinion of him in the sports world. The same cannot be said for Limbaugh. How he acts as an owner would be comparably irrelevant to his effect, positive or negative on sales. Limbaugh's politics would outweigh his business decisions as owner, in terms of the fan base reaction.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

It'd be bad for the actual team, but probably not the NFL. Interesting to see if the commish would give it the go-ahead.

Originally Posted by timj219

Why can't he buy the Cowboys? I already hate them.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Do they have the same morals-type clauses for owners, like they do for players? As a synthetic opiate addict, that might cause him some problems.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Do they have the same morals-type clauses for owners, like they do for players? As a synthetic opiate addict, that might cause him some problems.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

An admitted past of drug abuse doesn't preclude one from being President, apparently, so why should it matter to the NFL? Or is drug abuse OK for libs but not Conservatives? I'm interested in your spin on this.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

What spin?

Limbaugh is a convicted criminal, and an admitted synthetic opiate addict. The NFL has penalties for this, and contractual obligations that players must observe or be penalized, fined and/or thrown out. I asked whether this applies to owners.

This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives; it's just your attempt to inject them into this discussion.

Originally Posted by Imperator

I must have missed it, is he still hooked? or is this just the usual cheap shot?

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

An admitted past of drug abuse doesn't preclude one from being President, apparently, so why should it matter to the NFL? Or is drug abuse OK for libs but not Conservatives?

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

What spin?

Limbaugh is a convicted criminal, and an admitted synthetic opiate addict. The NFL has penalties for this, and contractual obligations that players must observe or be penalized, fined and/or thrown out. I asked whether this applies to owners.

This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives; it's just your attempt to inject them into this discussion.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

You obviously disagree with Mr Limbaugh, and I disagree with President azzole. Why cant Limbaugh own the Rams while it's perfectly fine for an admitted marijuanna smoker/coke snorter to be POTUS? See? It has everything to do with liberals vs. Conservatives.