Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Williams
To the victor go the spoils. When Lil' Chiefy can offer the NFL something besides John Gruden yapping his jaws about parking lot BBQ, then they may receive the blessings.
Yes, because Chiefs football is life. You are such a maroon. Your pain; I find it pleasing. This has been a long time coming. |
I don't disagree, but I think it's deeper than that. It's one thing to have the league shit on you, but since 1969 "circumstances" have resulted in no SB play for the Chiefs. At this point I think there's something going on between the league and the Chiefs organization, and specifically the Hunt family.
I'll say again, I think the league might prefer that the sell the team so a more competent group can be in ultimate command. While Clark has added some focus to the team let's face it, this isn't a big part of his life, nor his passion. He does just enough to get a few lawyers to agree that, technically, he's doing something more than nothing to turn the club around (but not as much as anybody with some passion would do, but that doesn't matter). And Clark knows he doesn't even have to do that to clear those many millions of free money, he seems to do it just to save a little face.
Much like term limits and seniority for committee chairmanships would help fix our congress, a test to be a parent would help the planet, so too would some form of post-season success, over some period of time, be required for an owner to not have to sell. At a minimum your team should be required to win a post-season game every 7 years (two rebuilding cycles IN A SALARY CAP SPORT) for the owner to not be forced to sell after being given the opportunity to buy his own team at the current market price (giving any proceeds to NFL charities). Something to force owners to care enough to demand their subordinates to piece together success.
The problem in all of that, like congress doing the right things, you can't get them to vote themselves a harder life, or to refuse a pay raise!