Las Vegas Raiders Forum

If Chucky is brought back with small percentage ownership of team it would have to be voted on by all the other owners in agreement that they approved the move. Could get crazy

Getting Gruden back may or may not be good for us, (I'm happy about it) but giving him a percentage of ownership, even a small percentage, sets a very bad precedent, IMO. This will open the door for other coaches to do the same. The owners are opening Pandora's Box, here.

silver & black wrote:

If Chucky is brought back with small percentage ownership of team it would have to be voted on by all the other owners in agreement that they approved the move. Could get crazy

Getting Gruden back may or may not be good for us, (I'm happy about it) but giving him a percentage of ownership, even a small percentage, sets a very bad precedent, IMO. This will open the door for other coaches to do the same. The owners are opening Pandora's Box, here.

Actually, they’re trying to close that box. From what I understand, the league may have already nixed the ownership stake. It looks like they won’t allow it.

Personally, I don’t understand why the league thinks they have the authority to disallow this. I men’s, precedent was set long ago. Coaches aren’t players. Their salaries and other comp has nothing to do w the salary cap. I men’s, we fucking SOLD Gruden to Tampa.

So I don’t see why the fuck the league should have ANY say in how we choose to compensate a coach. As long as the ownership stake doesn’t make him the controlling partner, I don’t see a problem w it. It’s the same as how we choose to compensate a GM. None of their fucking business.

When a company brings in a new VP, they give him a shitload of stock, and if he stays for any length, it could wind up being pretty substantial. So, everyone always says “this is a business.” And I agree. So let the fuckin Raiders conduct their business in the fuckin way they see fit.

So while I agree to an extent that it would set a bad precedent, to me the WORST precedent here would be the league deciding how we can or can’t pay our non-player personnel.

So my only concern about bringing in both Gruden and Gannon would be: are these guys going to come ina nd try to force square pegs into round holes? Will they try to force Carr to be a dink-and -dunk QB? Would they complicate the hell out of things? Because I don’t think Carr is nearly as smart as Gannon so all the crazy west-coast play calling.

The reason I think Hue was the best coach since Gruden was they way he put his players in a position to succeed based on what they were good at instead of what Hue wanted them to be good at. I don’t know that Gruden and Gannon can be that kind of coach.

That said, my concern is mitigated by the fact that they’ve basically “seen it all” at this point through their broadcasting, and i’m Confident they know how to tweak their playbooks to fit with our key guys.

DeadRinger wrote:

silver & black wrote:

If Chucky is brought back with small percentage ownership of team it would have to be voted on by all the other owners in agreement that they approved the move. Could get crazy

Getting Gruden back may or may not be good for us, (I'm happy about it) but giving him a percentage of ownership, even a small percentage, sets a very bad precedent, IMO. This will open the door for other coaches to do the same. The owners are opening Pandora's Box, here.

Actually, they’re trying to close that box. From what I understand, the league may have already nixed the ownership stake. It looks like they won’t allow it.

Personally, I don’t understand why the league thinks they have the authority to disallow this. I men’s, precedent was set long ago. Coaches aren’t players. Their salaries and other comp has nothing to do w the salary cap. I men’s, we fucking SOLD Gruden to Tampa.

So I don’t see why the fuck the league should have ANY say in how we choose to compensate a coach. As long as the ownership stake doesn’t make him the controlling partner, I don’t see a problem w it. It’s the same as how we choose to compensate a GM. None of their fucking business.

When a company brings in a new VP, they give him a shitload of stock, and if he stays for any length, it could wind up being pretty substantial. So, everyone always says “this is a business.” And I agree. So let the fuckin Raiders conduct their business in the fuckin way they see fit.

So while I agree to an extent that it would set a bad precedent, to me the WORST precedent here would be the league deciding how we can or can’t pay our non-player personnel.

Hmmm............ I hadn't thought of it in those terms.... and I actually forgot that Gruden was "sold". Who says you can't change someone's mind.... if the person has an open mind to begin with? Thanks for the enlightening post.

The league is controlled by a few select fuckin jews of course these kikes want to know about Gruden's contract and potential ownership although small. Money is more important to breathing for those hook nosed Jesus killers.