She's an asset...a very, very rich asset. I like that we have a female owner in a male dominated profession. People seem more offended that she has a libido than they do most rich men, that's for sure.
I don't think she's a very rich NBA owner. From everything I've heard she doesn't even have enough to buy the team outright. ***I was wrong. She's reportedly worth over $20 billion*** I'd much prefer MacKenzie Scott or Laurene Powell Jobs if we're going to have a female owner. But we couldn't ask for a better owner than Phil Knight. He'd immediately be one of the best owners in pro sports.
I don't care to argue...she's very rich. She doesn't have to buy the team outright, she owns it now. She's not Phil Knight rich, if that's the comparison...just looked it up.....Jody Allen has 20.3 billion dollars. That'll buy a few NBA teams
Not trying to argue at all. The claim was made that people just don't like that she's a woman. That doesn't even enter the equation for me. There are many reasons to want her to sell. It does look like she's estimated to be worth around $20 billion. That info wasn't out a few months ago and all I was finding was that she didn't have enough to buy team outright. So it looks like she'd be among one of the wealthier of sports owners after all.
If you operate from a position of power against someone (such as a boss or the owner's sister). That in no way is just libido. Best to not make sexual comments to people in the work place.
I think women in positions of power are looked at differently than say a man in the same position pretty often. I don't look at Jody any differently than I looked at her brother and I'm sure he had a history too. Jody is has not been found guilty of whatever mistake she made and I sure don't know the circumstances other than the bodyguards took the buyout. I don't know Phil Knight's or Marc Cuban's history either. I'm just saying Jody doesn't offend me as an owner.
Riv, I love you, but whether it is on the clock or not does not matter. If they are your boss or the owner's sister, it is still operating from a position of power.
I agree...said it three times now. Don't know the circumstances nor trust the gossip though. It's wrong for her to want to fuck her bodyguards....just like it's wrong for Bill Gates to want to fuck his secretary but I'm saying a lot of billionaires probably have that in common...she just happens to be a female billionaire. I'm not interested in her personal life unless she actually hurts someone which I don't think has happened so much in these settlements....as I don't know the circumstances. Fact is,,I don't know enough to judge one way or the other. If she lost in court or was arrested.....I'd trust that situation and not want her as an owner
if the person making such an allegation then takes money to settle, i have as much an issue with them as jody actually doing it. it sets a president thar the rich can do what they want and buy out. The accuser is slapping all other victims in the face by settling. I think the bias in this situation is misdirected. We will have to agree to disagree.
If you're ok with your wife and kids being around folks that have been accused of sexual assault/harassment, i don't know what to say. You're victim blaming. Maybe they don't want to relive the events that took place. If someone was sexually assaulted, you think they want to explain in detail their events? Everyone is different. Some have the courage to do so. Some don't. Money doesn't make you happy or take away the experience.
I accuse you of sexual assault. Now pay me. Im sorry but i refuse to be so judgmental over something i do not know all the details on and both parties came to terms on their own. People get accused of things they didn't do all the time.
Then go to court and fight it instead of settle. That's where someone makes a choice to pay and leave suspicion they may have done it, or fight it in court if they have nothing to hide. I care too much about my wife and kids to let them be around someone who had those accusations made and chose to settle.
Go to court and don't settle goes both ways. There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty. If we raise pitchforks against all those accused but not convicted, then we are nothing more than a lynch mob. But please stop trying to act as though you have some higher level of caring, simply because i refuse to judge off rumors. It isn't necessary in a debate of opinions.
I disagree. Sorry. If they have nothing to hide, go to court and clear your name. Otherwise suspicion will be there because you settled. If you feel comfortable with your family with someone that could do horrible things and just pay someone off for it, have at it. Not me.
This is not a personal shot at all, but this is far more idealistic than realistic. There is so much data out there about people who settle (in civil cases) or plea guilty (in criminal cases) who are innocent. The system is designed for settlements and strongly discourages going to trial. And the theory that if you go to trial and are found guilty (or not guilty) that it will remove suspicion is also naive. OJ went to trial, was found not guilty, and that did not remove suspicion.
If you want to let your family be around someone accused of sexual assualt who settles, be my guest. Too much on the line to do that for me. I don't disagree that people DO settle that are not guilty. Oj is a good example where suspicion doesn't go away. It can be on a case by case basis. Unfortunately lawyers can suck either way.
