10:00
Unknown
I, for one, am fine with him. Why?
1) He sure knows how to smile.
2) He's QB for the Panthers, meaning there is an ever slight chance that I might get free tickets from him someday.
3) I think he is a victim of a college system that is extremely unethical.
You can judge me all you want. I am also a Tim Tebow fan, so bring on the rocks.
Anyhoo, an interesting blurb from the pre-season Cam-wire is that he was asked by his new boss to avoid ink. That's right... Panthers owner Jerry Richardson recently asked his top draft pick to avoid getting tattoos.
I am with you. I know exactly what you're thinking. What on earth was Cam doing when his counterparts at Ohio State were trading jerseys for tattoos? Oh yeah... actually winning a National Championship (zing!). But more importantly, how did Cam make it this far without getting tatted up?
Tattoos have become quite ubiquitous. One can actually walk in public and not be arrested while sporting them. In fact, with as many high school and college athletes that have them, I thought it was a requirement to have them to retain eligibility (don't judge me. Can you make sense of any of the "rules" that currently exist?). My youth recently estimated that 65% of their high schoolmates had tats, some clearly and sadly home-made.
In any case, Mr Richardson's request did seem weird on the surface. But is it overstepping his bounds?
The broader question is: can an employer make this request of an employee? What do you think?
2 comments:
Cam Newton is marketable for the carolina Panthers, and Jerry Richardson has done what he can to make it a family friendly team. If Richardson feels that a tatted up Cam would hurt the team and it's marketability, then he has every right to include a no tat clause in Cam's contract, and Cam has the right to refuse to sign the contract. From what it sounds like though, this is a gentlemen's agreement, not a contract, so Cam can do what he wants.
I do not disagree.
Post a Comment