SalishHawkFan wrote:And I'm saying that's the wrong lesson to learn from this. The Nordstroms could have just as easily sold the team to Paul Allen and we may have had decades of Super Bowl appearances and be a long running dynasty.
Where do I start,,,
First off, the Nordstrom family was the Paul Allen of that time, a wealthy owner with deep pockets that hired football people to run their football operations. They never meddled with the affairs of the team they owned.
Second Paul Allen wasn’t Paul Allen at that time, in ’83 Microsoft had yet to build much less sell an operating system. In ’86 they went public and raised $61 million, in ’88 the Seahawks were sold for $80 million.
Third the minority ownership under the Nordstroms were some of the wealthiest people in Seattle and none had either the means or the desire to be vetted by the NFL, a process every perspective owners must go through.
So their choices of buyers were not as vast as you portray…
SalishHawkFan wrote:That it didn't work out that way is beyond the abilities of any of those protesters to foresee. NO ONE could foresee what might have happened that day.
Well I saw the possibility at the time. You had to be blind or stupid to think you could disrupt a man’s means of support and not think there will be ramifications. Now the extent of the damage the new ownership would eventually cause was certainly unforeseen, in fact it took several years for it to manifest itself.
SalishHawkFan wrote:Protesting, on that day, was the RIGHT thing to do.
It might have been if they had an actual agenda, but they didn’t, they were just angry fans. The sad aside to this story is they weren’t even angry at the Nordstroms, they were angry at the NFL, they were angry because there was 57 days with no football, they were angry about replacement players. The Nordstroms were just convenient targets.
SalishHawkFan wrote:I'm not going to play games with people who want us to live in fear of the consequences of excercising our freedom. Especially not when their prime example is a case where no one COULD HAVE possibly foreseen the chain of events that would have followed.
I never professed anyone should live in fear of their acts, only to think before we act or react. I’m sure there was at least once you wished you’d taken pause before you did something or reacted to a perceived wrong and that was what the OP was about. If not then more power to you, you’re a better man than me.
SalishHawkFan wrote:It's a BS "cautionary tale".
BS or not that’s what happened, I didn’t change the details. If it helps think of it as a moral about cause and effect and change the names so the innocent will be protected.
SalishHawkFan wrote: I'm betting the OP is conservative, hates liberals and thinks "freedoms" are things soldiers fight for in Iraq and liberals are naive to hate the Patriot Act. I may be wrong, but I tend to find the only people that ever lump consequences and freedoms together are the same ones that always are quick to give up our freedoms for safety.
I would NEVER presume you’re a tree hugging liberal that thinks the government owes you a living or someone who believes the wealth of people who have worked a lifetime to amass it should be distributed to the less fortunate by a government that can’t agree on how to spend the money they already have fast enough, because I don’t know you or your beliefs.
Kindly accord me the same courtesy because if you did know me you would find your presumption is indeed wrong…