Jump to content

Saintsfan

Members
  • Posts

    11,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saintsfan

  1. Agreed. I don't get all the hate. Thirded! Decent old style feel without copying anything. All the hate seems to be very petty, numbers too thin, bad word mark etc.
  2. I can't see that much point, the transcript would be in admissible surely? And as much as it might be something that Fox talking heads can get the,selves into a lather about,if something that was potentially an admission of guilt was aired I would have thought it would make a fair trial and any chance of a conviction virtually impossible.
  3. I wouldn't say pullovers should be worn again, but it wouldn't be beyond someone to take design inspiration from that era.
  4. Yeah, but Paterno's testimony from the Grand Jury transcipts (you know, the ones that most ALL of you have never read) could possibly be read into the court proceedings. Yeah I wouldn't get too excited over this. I think in the absence of any other possible testimony from Paterno, the Grand Jury Testimony may end up being used in some manner. (I don't know the legal technicalities of doing this, but I can't see a moral problem with doing it, and I would imagine the prosecutors don't either, given their decision not to try and get testimony from Paterno in another way in the last couple of months of his life.) Not that I'm excited over it, but I thought there may be some possibility of Paterno's GJT being used as he was never under suspicion and he is reliable figure. I've tried looking up PA law about this situation but have yet to find anything. I do believe Curley's and Schultz attorney's mention that they could not cross examine Paterno on his GJT and there for could not offer rebuttal in defense of Curley and Schultz. The cross examination point is a good one, but remember these are defense attorneys, whose job is to try and get their men off. They are obligated to follow every path that could benefit their clients.
  5. Yeah, but Paterno's testimony from the Grand Jury transcipts (you know, the ones that most ALL of you have never read) could possibly be read into the court proceedings. Yeah I wouldn't get too excited over this. I think in the absence of any other possible testimony from Paterno, the Grand Jury Testimony may end up being used in some manner. (I don't know the legal technicalities of doing this, but I can't see a moral problem with doing it, and I would imagine the prosecutors don't either, given their decision not to try and get testimony from Paterno in another way in the last couple of months of his life.)
  6. Actually it applies to everyone. You can say Sandusky is a child-rapist if you like, but then you could say trees are purple, if you wanted, or that OJ Simpson is a murderer. Noone is guilty of a crime until they are convicted of it. In an actual bona fide court of law. OJ Simpson stands as a monument to that. Again none of this is to say Sandusky is innocent, simply that the legal process needs to be allowed to happen and it's best if it happens without an atmosphere of hysteria.
  7. There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case. When setting bail, you can presume if there is a high percentage of conviction. Well for a start, the 8th Amendment protects against excessive bail. So either you don't grant bail or you put stringent conditions on it. (Which is what has been done in this case, as I understand it.) As I understand it, actually its not a presumption of guilt, its whether or not the defendant is considered a high risk of either flight, or of posing a danger to the public. Now you could make a case for saying Sanduskey is a danger to the public, but I within the limits of his bail, which remember bans him even from contact with his grand children, I don't see that really coming into play here. Also remember that any judgement on bail, and refusing it is risky in a trial situation, because it may lead a jury to presume guilt, and if it is judged that is the case, it would not be difficult for the court to rule a miss trial (which is surely not what anyone wants, if the case is such an open and shut case.) So its not a presumption of guilt, its a weighing up of the risk to the public in setting bail.
  8. There is no such presumption in any legal case. I appreciate that there is compelling evidence that Sandusky should indeed be found guilty, but there is no legal presumption of guilt in any case.
  9. He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that. Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you? I am not, nor have I ever on these boards, defended Sandusky. Respecting a man's civil rights is not the same as defending him against the charges that he will face in a court of law.
  10. He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.
  11. That doesn't seem such a disinsentive to field mediocre teams though. Then again their is a minimum salary level as well as a cap if I remember correctly? So the CBA kind of acknowledges that!
  12. I've a question on revenue sharing, if all merchandise profits are shared in that way, and other revenues as well, how does it encourage weaker teams to improve? What is their to encourage the Raiders or Rams or Jaguars to improve, given that it's expensive to build an effective team?
  13. I'd love to hear an explanation how playing games in London is great for the city.. I think CVC thinks it can leverage the London exposure into increased tourism from the UK. That is the job of the "Convention and Visitor?s Commission", after all. I don't think it will neccesarily do any harm. But I would have thought the major thing would be more Rams merchandise being sold in the UK. However I am still utterly convinced that the Patriots are a bad choice as first opponent if thats what the NFL and the Rams are after. If it were say the Rams against say the Vikings, Cardinals or Redskins you'd stand half a chance, but the Patriots have a following in the UK. In fairness its not the easiest of schedules to find a better home game to take to Wembley for the Rams. But the Patriots were amongst the worst in terms of drumming up some UK support for the Rams.
  14. I am not at all attacking Negro Leagues. But I think my problem is the league whose racist, segragationist policies forced those leagues to exist profitting from the use and sale of jerseys from those teams. Doesn't seem very respectful to me.
  15. This. The MLB does the same thing from time to time. And it's just as bad there, even if sometimes it's throwing back to Negro League teams. It needs to stop!!
  16. Haha, I love this. A man noone would vote for in a uniform noone would wear
  17. At least for the first few years, ticket sales aren't going to be a problem. I agree that it's not ideal for a TV audience, but TV rights is not the stumbling block. The primary issues (as I see it) are scheduling playoff games and guarateeing ticket sales over the long run. 8 games a year selling 80,000 tickets is not going to be straightforward over the long run.
  18. I think UK NFL fans are pretty used to watching games at unsociable hours. (MNF kicks off usually around 1 am). Only the two primetime US slots would be so unsociable. I don't see TV rights as an issue. There are problems with a London franchise, I don't see that as one at all.
  19. I don't see why TV rights would be such a problem? A potential London Rams home games would all be scheduled as current Wembley games are, and away games would be more open to primetime scheduling. I don't see an issue. That being said, I don't see an NFL team being able to fill Wembley 8 times a year. Once or twice, maybe, but 8 times a year over a prolonged period? Nope. (Its worth remembering that the Scottish Claymores lasted longer than the London/England WLAF (or whatever it was called lol) franchise.)
  20. This is another reason for a certain coolness to the Rams amongst London NFL fans. If you are a Tottenham Hotspur or Chelsea fan, amongst others, that's a definite black mark against the Rams.
  21. Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London? I know in the red vs. blue uniform argument we go back and forth over how much the history behind a name really matters, but... are fans living in England really excited about picking a team named after the American Patriots that fought against them as their team? Or does the star power and success of that squad just make the name irrelevant? Most NFL fans in England who don't already follow a particular team are going to follow a winning team. Give a casual fan Brady to cheer for and they'd be quite happy! That and the historical links between the UK and Boston.
  22. Things I've learnt from this thread- Gordie Howe has worn just about every possible hockey jersey going, at one time or another.
  23. Interesting. I am not sure that the Rams are the best placed NFL team to gain a fan base in the UK, especially if the Patriots are there opponents next year. Unless of course the Rams are considering relocating to London?
  24. If he had been given more power over personal moves he would have gone to Miami. I can't say I blame him for basically calling the Dolphins front office incompetent by demanding to have more say in the club. Nobody willingly goes to St. Louis over Miami for a high paying job like that unless they just have no faith in the Dolphins organization. Except that the Dolphins are in the same division as Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and the Patriots, at least for a few years. The Rams are in a divison without much established competition. (And a better place in the 2012 draft as well).
  25. The idea is that you raise your arms in victory after a win or goal and show off your glorious armpits of triumph. One of the dumbest uniform idiosyncrasies around. Things have certainly improved in this regard in the last 30 years!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.