Reply With Quote
A church's role is to show alcohol-free pro games?
Can't people get together in their own homes to have crowd to watch a game?
What about parents drinking in their homes watching the game with their kids present?
This is pathetic...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes
A church's role is to show alcohol-free pro games?
Can't people get together in their own homes to have crowd to watch a game?
What about parents drinking in their homes watching the game with their kids present?
NFL could'e handled it alot Better.
Could've offered to let em do it if they said "Big Game Party" and what not.
what the that is gay
NFL you guys are ing greedy ass cheapskate es. GTFO.
What are they (the NFL) going to do, go to the church and see if they are going to show it? I think they should just take that sign down and show it anyway, because I think the NFL is going to be worrying about more important things like the game itself!
While I agree with the general sentiment, there is that whole "charging a fee to attend" to answer to.
And to answer the comeback, you charge for the beer and food, not showing the game.
boutons, I know you hate Christians and all, and are eager to support anybody opposing them on anything, but this is a really bad marketing decision by the NFL.
You would think somebody at the NFL would be thrilled that their league and the Super Bowl had gotten so ingrained into the culture of a bunch of evangelical Christians that they wanted to have a party at their church to watch it.
There are churches out there that have had Monday night devotionals/watching parties.
It was a whole little NFL subculture in the evangelical church being set up. HUGE marketing opportunity.
But now, to increase Nielsen ratings in the short term, they're going to blow that all up. They are lawyering up against their fans instead of finding a way to partner with them. Those Christians are going to find something else to do when they meet besides watch the NFL.
This is typical bad American-style management --> completely miss or torpedo long-term growth opportunities in order to improve results in the short term. They take their customers for granted, and then start alienating them.
Did the new commissioner use to work for GM?
In short, this is an example of killing the golden goose. I wonder if it's a coincidence this only is brought up as an issue now that Tags has retired? Perhaps this new guy is not up to the task?
You seem to have totally missed the point. It's about community.
The NFL is lucky that this happened too late for the boycott machine to get rolling. If this happened a month ago, you can bet they'd have seen a Super Bowl ratings dip.
I'll be curious to see whether there is an effect anyway. I know I won't be watching now.
"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."
Right. And you were going to do that by charging members of your congregation to come? And that makes sense? Sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I see nothing wrong with what the NFL did.
It's one thing to object to charging admission. It's another thing altogether to ban free indoor public viewings based on an arbitrary maximum screen size.
Me neither. They got in trouble for being a Baptist uberchurch that was advertising - and charging for - an alcohol free party using the term 'Super Bowl'. If it was just for the parishoners, free, and the only mention was a small blurb in the church bulletin, we wouldn't be hearing about this. Fall Creek's own legal team told them not to throw the party after the NFL got wind of it.
"But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches."
I have an HD projector that displays the game at 125 inches. Am I breaking an NFL law? I love being such an outlaw
I love finding quotes:
He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it."Between 40 and 50 percent of our church on any given Sunday is under the age of 18," Newland told BP. "Our kids don't have anyplace to go watch it in a party-type atmosphere, unless it's a very small party. We wanted to provide a place for our kids and our teenagers to watch the game.
Even God needs money to showcase a football game to a large number of people. I thought someone as intelligent as you would have known that...I love finding quotes:
He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it.
Damn that devil's brew and the millions of people who use it responsibly.
http://www.fallcreekbaptist.com/facilities.asp
Judging by the size of their building as shown on their website, I would guess that this church has no more than a thousand members. I grew up in a congregation that size, and we would usually have about 50-75 people show up for an event like this.
It's unbelieveably stupid from a business and logic standpoint for the NFL to make a big deal of this. This could be a huge PR blunder for them.
The church asked attendees to donate money to pay for snacks.I love finding quotes:
He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it.
This was not exactly a fund-raising business venture.
Wow -- I had assumed this was a pretty large megachurch.
This is a medium-sized neighborhood church.
Wow.
This is going to end badly for the NFL once the news cycle comes around. More than a few team owners are going to flip out.
I would think a potluck SB party would have been a better idea for a church group instead of charging admission to pay for food. And "charging admission" hardly sounds like donating money.
Whoever was running the party planning clearly didn't know what they were doing. At all.
From the sound of it, "charging admission" was the NFL's interpretation, not the church's wording.
Possibly, but why should they handle this differently than say if NAMBLA did the same thing? They do it for the kids, too...
I agree with the NFL.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
