DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum So ... the Owner Can't be Called the Owner?

There is a huge, huge difference between owning a thing (team) and owning a person. Often this stuff goes way over the top, and people get offended for the sake of being offended. I would not refer to a team owner as "our owner", but as "Our team's owner"? Sure, That's entirely accurate.

Multiple NBA teams reportedly move away from the term “owner” – ProFootballTalk
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...the-term-owner/

In a move that could place pressure on the NFL to follow suit, some NBA teams are considering getting away from the longstanding label that applies to the people who own NBA teams.

TMZ reports that at least two NBA teams have done away with the term “owner” within the past year, and that other teams have discussed making a similar change.

“You shouldn’t say owner,” Warriors forward Draymond Green said last year on HBO’s The Shop, via TMZ. The thinking is that the term “owner” in a league predominantly consisting of African-American players is racially insensitive.

In the current politically correct vs. politically incorrect cage-match climate, as many will strongly agree as will strongly disagree with that notion. We’ve begun the process of exploring whether to employ an alternative term in reference to NFL owners; the problem in some cases is that a team has an owner and, separately, a CEO or a chairman. The goal would be to find a term that reflects the status of the person who is the principal decision maker and primary holder of equity interest, without having to type out that many words every time.

Good Lord.

This reminds me of the great debate of whether or not Sashi was the GM or not.

Sorry, that was the first thing to pop into my head. Kinda like the phrase......a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Call it what you like, but the role is still the same. The person still owns the team whether you call him an owner or not.

Humans are Stupid.

So sensitive.

The TEAM is a "thing" not a person.

FORD is a thing.. But it employees people. That doesn't mean that if you own ford stock that you own the people that work there..

This is just insane.....

No one should be a sports franchise owner.

Are you the "owner" of this message board? If so, I think we need to have a talk.

Do you think he REALLY gives a crap...I don't.

As Jimmy and Dee Haslam say, they are stewards of the franchise!

Good point. He seems like the dude that would raise this stink just to troll the fans and media.

He prefers to be called "Prpl the First, by the Grace of God, of the Talkers of Dawg and other Browns fans and of his other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith', with the style of 'Majesty'.

Call the team and ask "Who is the owner", and let me know what they say.

Pretty sure they're always referred to as "team owner" not "player owner."

Actually, I'm 100% sure.

Seriously, I need to add more/better laughing emojis just for this right here, heheh!

This is what happens when your life is so good you have to go searching for things to whine about.

Lol, pretty much. Though I do get the sense that Draymond Green whines just to whine.

Yea, Draymond is one of many "victims" in the NBA who has never committed a real foul, they are all made up.. but when somebody touches him, that should have been a foul.

He is also a very good basketball player who has been relegated to being the 3rd or 4th best player on his own team... so there is probably some anxiety over that too in his cries for attention.

Which is idiotic. The team owner is the team owner. There is nothing dehumanizing about that.

Now if a team owner walked out and said "I own these players" ... that's an entirely different story.

People have to stop being offended by every word that is spoken or written.

Just to add, the person in question is referred to in the initial tweet as an "investor". Does that somehow make what he did OK? If a person acts like a jackass, changing his title isn't going to change his behavior.

They should write it into their contracts that only the "owner" can sign the checks.

They called dude an investor because he owns a venture capital firm.

But the tweet you posted implies that because he is an owner, he dehumanized the player by acting as he did, by virtue of his position with the team.

JC

Only a simpleton would think being called the owner would imply he owns the players.


Maybe it's time to be real and have an adult conversation.

Sorta like me being the steward of my leaf blower? The steward of my golf clubs? The steward of my upright freezer?

I like it. "I am the steward of my 4 pairs of jeans".

It sounds right man. It sounds just so right.

I am the steward of my truck, the steward of my home, and the steward of my favorite pair of boxers.

Yeah. Yeah! That does sound good!

Yeah, well that's all true too. But they call him an investor because his job is investing. Like that's what he does to make money.

So if I invest in buying a business, I don't own it? Alternate universe type stuff.

No. You own it. Everyone is calling him a minority owner, because that's what he is.

They originally identified as an investor, because he runs an investment firm. Do you think that people who invest for a living should be called cars salesman?

So he is a minority owner, but he isn't an owner. I do think you can be both an investor and a used car salesman. If you choose to be.

That's like saying the Haslam's own the Browns but they're not marketers. In case you missed it, they're both.

He is a minority owner. I just said that. Why are you arguing and more importantly what is your point?

Let's try this:

He is a minority owner.

In addition to that runs an investment firm, which is his primary source of income.

He's referred to as an investor because that is his main job description, and has no relation to what his standing is or is not with the Warriors franchise.

If he owned no stake in the Warriors. they still would refer to him as "investor". If he owned a stake in the Warriors but competitive food eating was his main trade, they would of referred to him as "ingester".

My point is he is both an investor and one of the owners of the Warriors. It's a very basic concept.

we're on the same page. Ytown asked why he was originally referred to as an investor. I said it was because he owned an investment firm, and his ties to the warriors were unknown. Since he has a minority share, I also called him a minority owner of the team. Although, I'm not sure how much longer he'll have that title for.

As for thread, I haven't weighed in on what they should be called. All I have said is that there should be no owners, and I didn't mean that in a semantic sense. I literally do not believe a person should own a sports team. I mean, that cities or shareholders should own the team. If being a Cleveland fan has taught me anything it's that a ship tied to Lerner, Dan Gilbert and Modell are all sinking ships. But I do not care what billionaires refer to themselves as.

That said, this is a pretty bad time for business owners to be attacking Union contractors. Especially when you want to avoid optics regarding slavery. In what business does this happen in? Could you imagine if the owner of Domino's saw a Pizza Hut driver and wrecked his car? It's insane

Honestly the situation reminds me of the Marx quote, 'History repeats itself. First as tragedy then as farce'

We agree in one respect. I believe when citizens have to fund a stadium with their tax money they are just as much invested in a sports franchise as anyone else and have some right to ownership.

In the case of the Warriors, they are using private funding to build a stadium. As such, I don't view it as a public project. Without it being a public project, I don't think they're obligated to hire union contractors.

Union contractor refers to NBA players who are Union members contracted to teams. It does not mean construction workers.

I took that out of context. There wouldn't be an NBA without the players. The players hold all the cards here.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how it plays out. I really doubt that this guy will be able to keep his shares next season.

I don't know, in today's society it seems saying stupid things has been far more widely accepted.