Let me see if I have this Vick thing straight- the NAACP is going to be protesting at the stadium, in order to keep Vick from being "held hostage" by animal-rights activists who want him banned, in order to protect his civil rights. But... Vick hasn't been banned. He signed with the Eagles. So really, they're protesting n favor of the Eagles.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the NAACP, and I agree with their position that Vick should be allowed to resume his career. But to argue that Michael Vick is somehow an heir to the American civil rights tradition is nothing short of absurd.
Another thing I don't understand: I've heard about ten different sports radio callers in the last two weeks saying "the Eagles only signed Vick for the money." Now I understand the "Eagles are cheap" idea is orthodoxy around here, but how does signing Vick get them money?
They're not going to sell any more or any fewer tickets as a result of him being on the team (all the games are sold out, and anyone who dumps their tickets will find someone willing to buy them.) They haven't gained or lost any sponsorships as a result of the signing. And while they'll get some money from T-shirt and jersey revenues, that money is split with the players association, and I can't imagine they'd make enough just from their cut of Vick jersey sales to make up for his $1.3 million salary. If they do, it'll be a thousand dollars or two.
So in other words, the Eagles paid money to sign a player who they believe will make an impact and help them win. Isn't that what the Cataldi types are always saying they should do?
Then there's this. Wow.
Don't about 60,000 people "protest in favor of the Eagles" every Sunday, inside the Linc?
Posted by: LilB at August 28, 2009 09:24 PM