Newton told: No tats or piercings

Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
who cares

agreed.

Originally posted by sf49ersx11:

Originally posted by YungAce:

Originally posted by susweel:
Good job by Richardson, the man is going to pay this man to be the face of franchise and he doesn't want someone who looks like a dirty thug.


Good job

*AHEM*

susweel is just waiting for Kap to become the starting QB before he starts to troll him. watch.

If Cam doesn't like those rules, he could rescind his $22 mil. contract and pull a Glenn Coffee by quitting the NFL.

Originally posted by mcbaes72:

If Cam doesn't like those rules, he could rescind his $22 mil. contract and pull a Glenn Coffee by quitting the NFL.

More like if Richardson doesn't want Newton to get any tattoos, Richardson could trade him if he gets some. I doubt if the contract says anything about tattoos. It seems like it was just an off the cuff remark by Richardson because he doesn't like how many young people make an ink board out of themselves.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by susweel:
Good job by Richardson, the man is going to pay this man to be the face of franchise and he doesn't want someone who looks like a dirty thug.


Good job

of all the things you respond positively to...Jerry Richardson.

Figures.

I think its good, nothing wrong with having your organization presented in a clean professional manner. Look at the Yankees they dont even allows facial hair or long hair.

I don't understand why an athlete has too look like a thug if he gets tattoos. No one thinks David Beckham looks like thug. The Yankees are lame for having that policy. No one ever cared about Johnny (Formerly Jesus) Damon after the Yankees made him cut his signature hair and beard. Fans loved it. Clay Matthews and Palomalu have long hair and it's part of their allure. Troy gets commercials out of it. I personally don't understand tattoos, but if people want them and there's nothing offensive written, who cares. It's sports. It's a time to lighten up and simply focus on what's going on on the field.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by sf49ersx11:

Originally posted by YungAce:

Originally posted by susweel:

Good job by Richardson, the man is going to pay this man to be the face of franchise and he doesn't want someone who looks like a dirty thug.


Good job

*AHEM*

susweel is just waiting for Kap to become the starting QB before he starts to troll him. watch.

One thing I am patient with players I give them ample time to prove themselves. But if he does suck ass after two years then yes I will critique him.

I'm just not as patient as the 49ers are.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by susweel:

Good job by Richardson, the man is going to pay this man to be the face of franchise and he doesn't want someone who looks like a dirty thug.


Good job

of all the things you respond positively to...Jerry Richardson.

Figures.

I think its good, nothing wrong with having your organization presented in a clean professional manner. Look at the Yankees they dont even allows facial hair or long hair.

I don't understand why an athlete has too look like a thug if he gets tattoos. No one thinks David Beckham looks like thug. The Yankees are lame for having that policy. No one ever cared about Johnny (Formerly Jesus) Damon after the Yankees made him cut his signature hair and beard. Fans loved it. Clay Matthews and Palomalu have long hair and it's part of their allure. Troy gets commercials out of it. I personally don't understand tattoos, but if people want them and there's nothing offensive written, who cares. It's sports. It's a time to lighten up and simply focus on what's going on on the field.

His team his money he can do whatever he wants.

Originally posted by susweel:

His team his money he can do whatever he wants.

Not necessarily. Unless there's some type of clause in his contract, he can't tell one player he can't get a tat while other players on the team have them. If Newton gets a tat, Richardson can get pissed but he will still have to pay him. I'm guessing it was more of a suggestion anyway because like me, Richardson probably doesn't get why people want to ink themselves up, but not a demand.

Originally posted by susweel:

One thing I am patient with players I give them ample time to prove themselves. But if he does suck ass after two years then yes I will critique him.

I'm just not as patient as the 49ers are.

Honestly I've never seen you criticize a player's performance that didn't deserve it.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by susweel:
One thing I am patient with players I give them ample time to prove themselves. But if he does suck ass after two years then yes I will critique him.

I'm just not as patient as the 49ers are.

Honestly I've never seen you criticize a player's performance that didn't deserve it.

I admit I say some dumb things sometimes but I try to be fair.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by mcbaes72:
If Cam doesn't like those rules, he could rescind his $22 mil. contract and pull a Glenn Coffee by quitting the NFL.

More like if Richardson doesn't want Newton to get any tattoos, Richardson could trade him if he gets some. I doubt if the contract says anything about tattoos. It seems like it was just an off the cuff remark by Richardson because he doesn't like how many young people make an ink board out of themselves.

There is also the fact that certain companies prefer not to have their product associated with the image of tattoos at a time that a lot of that image is associated with gang activities and profane rap artists. Sports and leisure research indicates that people are being more discriminating about where they spend their leisure dollars. This is particularly true of baby boomers who trend to a more conservative interest in sports. Sports growth has been greatest in participation sports while attendance at more costly pro sports has not seen the same increases.

The NFL offices reported a reduction of 150 jobs since 2008, partly as a result of the economic times. Perhaps Richardson is just taking a preemptory step to protect a portion of his market.

Originally posted by dj43:
There is also the fact that certain companies prefer not to have their product associated with the image of tattoos at a time that a lot of that image is associated with gang activities and profane rap artists. Sports and leisure research indicates that people are being more discriminating about where they spend their leisure dollars. This is particularly true of baby boomers who trend to a more conservative interest in sports. Sports growth has been greatest in participation sports while attendance at more costly pro sports has not seen the same increases.

The NFL offices reported a reduction of 150 jobs since 2008, partly as a result of the economic times. Perhaps Richardson is just taking a preemptory step to protect a portion of his market.

so people are going to stop watching football, are going to stop going to games, because the quarterback has tattoos? Ooooook.

and lol at the bold.

and if Richardson was so concerned with people not spending their leisure dollars on watching his team because of their opinion of the quarterback, then maybe he shouldn't have allowed the team to draft a quarterback with a history of scandal who has a slim chance of NFL success.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by dj43:
There is also the fact that certain companies prefer not to have their product associated with the image of tattoos at a time that a lot of that image is associated with gang activities and profane rap artists. Sports and leisure research indicates that people are being more discriminating about where they spend their leisure dollars. This is particularly true of baby boomers who trend to a more conservative interest in sports. Sports growth has been greatest in participation sports while attendance at more costly pro sports has not seen the same increases.

The NFL offices reported a reduction of 150 jobs since 2008, partly as a result of the economic times. Perhaps Richardson is just taking a preemptory step to protect a portion of his market.

so people are going to stop watching football, are going to stop going to games, because the quarterback has tattoos? Ooooook.

and lol at the bold.

and if Richardson was so concerned with people not spending their leisure dollars on watching his team because of their opinion of the quarterback, then maybe he shouldn't have allowed the team to draft a quarterback with a history of scandal who has a slim chance of NFL success.

I know that may sound strange to the Bay Area market but there are many places across the country where people prefer not to spend their money to benefit guys whose image they find questionable. As to Newton's future in the game, Richardson thinks it is very bright, and he is the guy who signs the check.

A well-documented major change in sports viewership is the increase in casual fans who do not have the depth of commitment to an individual team that you and I have to teams like the 49ers. Those are the fans that are having a substantial impact on the bottom line of sports teams. A ball game is an event to them, not a passion. As such, they are more critical of things like tattoos and the like.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by dj43:
There is also the fact that certain companies prefer not to have their product associated with the image of tattoos at a time that a lot of that image is associated with gang activities and profane rap artists. Sports and leisure research indicates that people are being more discriminating about where they spend their leisure dollars. This is particularly true of baby boomers who trend to a more conservative interest in sports. Sports growth has been greatest in participation sports while attendance at more costly pro sports has not seen the same increases.

The NFL offices reported a reduction of 150 jobs since 2008, partly as a result of the economic times. Perhaps Richardson is just taking a preemptory step to protect a portion of his market.

so people are going to stop watching football, are going to stop going to games, because the quarterback has tattoos? Ooooook.

and lol at the bold.

and if Richardson was so concerned with people not spending their leisure dollars on watching his team because of their opinion of the quarterback, then maybe he shouldn't have allowed the team to draft a quarterback with a history of scandal who has a slim chance of NFL success.

I know that may sound strange to the Bay Area market but there are many places across the country where people prefer not to spend their money to benefit guys whose image they find questionable. As to Newton's future in the game, Richardson thinks it is very bright, and he is the guy who signs the check.

A well-documented major change in sports viewership is the increase in casual fans who do not have the depth of commitment to an individual team that you and I have to teams like the 49ers. Those are the fans that are having a substantial impact on the bottom line of sports teams. A ball game is an event to them, not a passion. As such, they are more critical of things like tattoos and the like.

i'd like to see where you get this idea. I look around the sports world and I see some of the most popular players have long hair, tattoos, DUIs, were murder suspects, killed dogs, raped women, etc, etc, etc. Because of things like fantasy football and the like fans maybe are becoming more casual, but that doesn't stop them from rooting for questionable characters.

Everyone sees things through a bubble. I have mine, and you have yours.

I know many lawyers with tattoos. I am one of them. It's 2011. 1/3 of people have tattoos now. It's not a big deal.