Saturday, October 25, 2014

Three Quick Hits to Get Another Thread Going

(1) I'm not the biggest fan of the more juvenile aspects of The Ticket, but I have to confess (of course) that the Hardline's new "Throw Down Your Anus" challenge had me larfing mightily in the old Conestoga yesterday on the way home.  The guy ("Ted") who was talking to his girlfriend/wife about giving medicine to the cat, and her absolute I'm-not-having-any-of-your-nonsense responses while putting away groceries (and knocking down a shelf in the process) -- ya know, one likes to think one is a sophisticated consumer of highbrow humor, but Ted (who is apparently a law student) and his anus talk and w/g's responses about had me driving off the road.

(2) We have a pretty amazing population of Confessors here.  All of the people signing themselves "not" someone triad of obscure philosophers or fictional characters  .  .  .  I don't really even care if the writer had to look those people up or whether they knew who they were to begin with.  I'm getting a nice education just looking them up.

(3) Listen up, pilgrims:  You got a point to make, make it.  I'm reading along in some of these comments, and the comment is fine, well-put, legit, and then, in the last sentence, the author seems to feel the need to take a shot at another commenter's intelligence, motives, identity, whatever.

As Bob Newhart said:  Stop it.

[Tried inserting the video itself, but Blogger wasn't having it.  You have to click on the hyperlink.]

Thursday, October 16, 2014

BREAKING / EXCLUSIVE: The New World Catman Confesses

Well  .  .  .  it's not a Ticket Confession, exactly.

Jeff "Cat" Catlin ("The Catman of the Americas," as Mike R calls him), Ticket Program Director, flew by the site the other day.  He doesn't do that frequently, he says, but perhaps it's like binge watching a TV series.  He takes some time and browses the site a time or two a year.  And, if the spirit moves him, he might drop me a line with some impressions, corrections, and occasionally a nugget.

He did that a couple of days ago.  I asked him if I could post his thoughts, and he was kind enough to agree.  Bear in mind that this is not a planned essay of the exquisite construction you have come to expect at My Ticket Confession -- it's just an email that he has graciously allowed this site to reproduce.  It appears between the asterisks without editing.  So don't look for a distinctive beginning, middle, and end.

I'll have a brief note after his remarks.

*      *     *

First I think its nice and even charming and I LOVE p1s for having the attitude that The Ticket somehow operates outside the normal rules of a business. Wish it did, but it doesn’t.  We have to follow EEOC, Hippa Laws etc and all the rest. Long gone in radio and on the Ticket are the days where “one employee can get another employee blown out because they don’t like them”.  In radio wholesale format changes and blowouts went by the boards in 1996 when the telecommunications act was passed. But I digress.

Point being, employees are let go because of actual real performance issues. It has nothing to do with anything else. And certainly it’s not on a whim because, for example,  the Musers decide they didn’t like someone.

Side comment as it relates to Sean moving, TC on BaD,  etc. (See comment above about EEOC) the Hosts aren’t in management. They don’t hire or fire anyone. It sounds fun and all on the radio but its just not true. I hire these guys with corp approval. Now do I ask the shows for opinions? Of course I do. THEY Have to work in the studio with these guys every day. I don’t.  But the decisions I make, I make for the good of the station, the good of the show and how all the other pieces fit together and based on normal employee evals or interviews. Not everyone likes every decision and I can live with that. I don’t love every content segment every show does, but I respect the ability of the guys to make those choices, and I like to think they in turn show that same respect to me when I make a decision they disagree with, but still support.

And a word on the subjective "like vs dislike" —I get it, its radio, they are on air personalities….TC left here in the proper way. At least to me, he gave notice, he was trying to better himself in his career and all that…And he got blown out in Pensacola and I did what I thought any human being would do. He called me, and I extended a hand—I didn’t give him his old job back, I didn’t offer charity. I told him what I had available and how it would work and then he had to decide himself if wanted to start from the bottom now he’s here.  He did. I give anyone credit for that.  I also recognize that he HAS gotten better,  because he has.  And all of us in life have had situations that have helped us grow and change. Kudos to those that actually do. He got the ticker job because he was most ready for it right now and his tickers were consistently the best of the group that applied. (PS-some of the other guys that applied will be heard on weekends PT)

Sean moved to AM Drive because (see above again) It was best for the station, best for the show and best for all the other pieces. And he’s still planning on doing Dtalk next season.  He was happy and excited to do it..and no I didn’t really give him a choice. But he saw the writing on the wall when I asked him to start getting his head right with it. But he knew it was the best move as well. Everyone up here, to a man, is a team player. When it comes down to it, everyone wants to do whats best for The Ticket first.

Justin IS good at tickers and he’s growing. He is on the proper career path here and he will get more opportunities to grow. But at this time for this spot, TC was the choice.  (BTW BaD Radio nor Jake hard sold me on adding or not adding TC to the show. In fact they told me when I asked, that they were cool with any move I ended up making including keeping Sean 10a-3pm) J.

Newbury’s role at the station I think has actually increased with his presence on Cowboys Countdown to Kickoff.
Jake is doing a fine job as BaD Radio Producer….and all of the guys, All of us,  LIKE Tom. For real. He still works here.

The Shake Joint has the highest ratings of any weekend show on the ticket and that is pretty consistently true and its usually a pretty significant margin.

*      *     *

I would ask that Confessors bear in mind that Cat's doing us a nice turn here and that criticism or disagreement be expressed in your inside voice and like your mother is at your elbow.

He mentioned that he likes the illustrations.

Thanks, Cat

My thanks to the Western Hemispherical Catman.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

LISTENING TOO HARD: There's a Problem with Norm's Crest Cars Copy

I've heard this ad, the one that focuses on Crest Cars' service organization, a dozen times like we all have.  Each time, I pause and think there's something odd there, can't quite put my finger on it, but it's just an ad, it's there and gone, who cares.

But this morning when I heard it, I stopped in mid-stroke.

(I was shaving.)

I hope I hear it again before I post this so I can get the words exactly right, but here's the gist of it, emphasis mine:

"If you think you're getting the best service for your Mercedes, Infiniti, or Cadillac, you've never been to Crest."

We know that the copywriter meant to imply the conclusion:

" .  .  .  because if If you had ever been to to Crest, you would think that Crest [and not whatever lame service place you're going to now] provided the best service."

But when I heard it this morning, it jumped out at me as more naturally implying the following:

".  .  .   because if you had ever been to Crest, you would never think you were getting the best service for your Mercedes, Infiniti, or Cadillac [i.e., because it sucks]."

Mind you, I am agnostic on the excellence (or not) of Crest service.  I'm sure it's great, or else surely Norm would not be endorsing it.

I know.  Don't call him Shirley Norm.

*     *     *

Speaking of endorsements:

A commenter to the "It's Just Lunch" post of a few days back noted that IJL was being sued in a class action for fraud, and the judge has ruled that the suit can proceed as a class action.  I won't go into details but it's an interesting claim plaintiffs are making -- essentially, that ILJ falsely represents the "custom selection" feature of the service.  In fact, I think there's more than one of them.  Check it out:

This looks like a brand new one with more serious allegations of fraud:

And while I may be projecting my knowledge of these suits onto Gordon, it seemed to me when I heard him reading that copy today, that he had lost interest, that his presentation had taken on the "do you like good food?" level of enthusiasm.

But, as I say, I may have been projecting.

AMENDMENT:   Just heard Norm's Crest ad.  Think I wrote down the material phrase correctly.  It's:  "if you think you're getting the best service in town, you haven't been to" Crest.  Point stands.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

This is Pretty Interesting, but Not Really

From The Observer's "Best of" list, including text, excerpted without permission:

Best Sports Radio Station Dallas 2014 - KESN-FM 103.3 ESPN Radio

Readers' Choice: KTCK-AM 1310 The Ticket
Sure, many might object to this choice. That one station, the one that just turned 20, inspires such rabid passion among its followers that it's hard to fathom that sports fans might tune their radios to anything other than that other station — you know, the one that's won this category here forever. This year, we thought we'd offer some praise to the other guys. Being an ESPN fan is almost like being a Texans fan in a Cowboys city, but for listeners who want mostly unadulterated sports talk without the frills, 103.3 is their destination. We're sure there are people like that out there, and for them ESPN is just the ticket.

*     *     *
I confess:  When my attention wanders between 3:30 and 6, I switch to 103.3.  I do like Cowlishaw and Mosley.  Not that it happens very often, but it happens.

As one of the commenters to the Observer article said, ESPN wins the award basically for just showing up.  It is interesting, though, that the "other guys" they chose to recognize was the partly-outsourced ESPN, and not the homegrown Fan.

Of course  .  .  .  Cumulus programs KESN.

Monday, September 29, 2014

BREAKING: You Can Grab Just One Butt-Cheek, Only for about Twenty Seconds; Better, Just Fondle It Gently

International radio industry sources are tweeting on the Deep Twitter:

Sean Bass:  Permanent Muser Tickerman.

Nothing too butt-worthy there, long-predicted outcome.

T.C. Fleming:  Permanent Midday Tickerman.

"Permanent," of course, being an HR term and not one that necessarily describes their likely tenures.

Someday, someone will tell me an interesting story about T.C.'s return to The Ticket.  Maybe pretty soon, who knows?  How, after a peculiarly graceless exit from a station that had given him generous exposure from extremely humble beginnings, and a much-ballyhooed but brief stint as a host in Pensacola, he has returned as a regular voice on The Ticket.

The man has some skills, as I've suggested in the past.  So perhaps the Western Hemispherical Catman is exercising prudence in promoting someone who knows the station, its personalities, and its traditions, and who can put together a produced segment on short notice.  Probably not a talent that's easy to find.

Perhaps it's that.

Someone knows.

All right, get your hand out from under your trousers.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman -- PART 3

We now have a couple of reports on today's hearing.

Very interesting.

A few observations:

(1)  Defendants' attorneys repeatedly condemned the lawsuit as "lies."  Of course, a defendant who denies the truth of a pleading is going to take that position.  But as I've noted, the court is not going to assess the truth of the complaint at this point so that isn't going to get the Cowboys/Jones anywhere.  And it sounds like it didn't get defendants anywhere today.

(2)  Weckerly's lawyer made the argument that the statute of limitations should have been stopped during any period that the defendant is out of the state, as he alleged in the original complaint.  Defendants' lawyer argued that the law didn't apply because Jerry is very well-known and could have been found at any time, in or out of the state, to be served.  The judge was skeptical of this argument, suggesting that Jerry was arguing that he should be treated differently from any other defendant. 

Score one for Weckerly.  However, I don't see how this overcomes the Cowboys' statute of limitations argument.  The corporate "person" of the Cowboys never left the state.

(3) This site suggested in an earlier post that a better argument for stopping the statute of limitations involved the concept of "duress," illustrated by the allegations that Weckerly was subjected to a variety of pressures from defendants to keep quiet, which would prevent her from taking advantage of the court system while the statute was running.

Judge, it's like Dirty Harry said in Magnum Force:  "A man has got to know his limitations."

Now, Weckerly has explicitly made that argument.  From the account in the Observer "Weckerly, Bowers said, accepted the money, which she didn't want, under duress and without a lawyer.  'Having just been a victim of sexual assault, she was coerced by forced payments and threats,' Bowers said. 'We've got a mountain of intimidation and threats.'"

 (4)   Weckerly's lawyer has also added conspiracy allegations.  I don't know too much about this.  I don't think Jerry can conspire with the Cowboys, which is why Weckerly has now added the Cowboys' lawyer as a defendant.   (I'm not sure whether a lawyer can be held liable for conspiracy for actions in the course of representing his client.  Maybe, under particularly outrageous circumstances.  No idea on this one.)  The point of the conspiracy allegations is to allow Weckerly to argue that the statute is extended for an additional period measured from the last act of conspiracy -- in this case, the alleged forced payments.
Another hearing is set for October 16.  The judge said that the parties could argue the facts at that time.  It sounds like it may be an actual mini-trial limited to the limitations issue, where sworn testimony will be presented.  This seems a bit premature -- I would have thought that the parties would have been given the opportunity for discovery on the limitations issue, but sworn testimony is sworn testimony, I guess.  Might also be presented via affidavit.  Again, no idea on this one, although I would think that the pretty short hearing date might marginally favor Jerry.
It's hard to say, and we'll see what Weckerly can prove or credibly testify to on October 16.  On balance, I'd say this round went to her.  The judge could have ruled that even if Weckerly proved her allegations the statute would still have run out and he would have dismissed the case.  But it appears to my unschooled eye that the judge thinks that Weckerly's legal theories on the limitations issue are correct, and that if she proves what she's claiming factually -- the case will proceed.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman -- PART 2


        Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

        Speculation AND a Rant]]

*     *     *

We learn today that Jana Weckerly has amended her complaint to allege that -- well, we're not entirely sure how it's amended because the Court has sealed the new complaint and imposed a gag order on the parties and counsel.

But the reports are that the amendment alleges that she was "coerced" not to disclose the events giving rise to the pathetic Jerry photographs by the forced deposit of money into her account.


(1) While the Musers thought that if the Cowboys' payment to Weckerly could be proven through bank records it would be bad for Jerry's case -- with which I agree -- I'm guessing that this may have more to do with attempting to beat back Jerry's statute of limitations defense.  Remember my account of this from the prior post.  She's got statute of limitations problems with her case unless she can show that she was somehow "unnaturally" prevented from acting -- subjected to "duress" -- during a time that the statute was running (or, as she alleged, Jerry was out of the state during a long-enough period of time that would get added to the end of the limitations period).  This would account for the odd locution that the money was "forced" on her to buy her silence.
(2) There's something else that no one is focusing on, which is that the first complaint alleged that the Cowboys forced her to sign a document, not described in her original complaint.  What was it?  Was it a document where she agreed either not to disclose the events, or possibly even not to file a claim, in return for the payments (i.e., a release)?  If so, that's bad news for a "duress" defense against the statute of limitations argument, unless, as her first complaint alleged, she was also unnaturally pressured to sign the agreement, which would be hard to prove if she accepted handsome cash for it

One way or the other, she has got to get around the Cowboys' facially appealing statute of limitations argument, although she doesn't need to show an extremely long period of time either of "duress" or Jerry being out of the state, in order to extend it past a period that would postdate the filing of her lawsuit.

If that document was a release, then it also could be a good defense by the Cowboys/Jerry to the substantive claim of assault and the other torts alleged.  But if it was only a nondisclosure agreement, then it would not preclude the civil liability claim (although the claim itself might breach a promise of nondisclosure -- will be interesting to see if the Cowboys file a counterclaim for breach of either a release or nondisclosure agreement).

(3) What effect will the sealing of this amended complaint and the gag order have on Roger Goodell's no-doubt energetic and fearless investigation of Jerry's misconduct?  Will he say to the Cowboys, "uh, what about these payments and the records she says she has?"  And will the Cowboys say to him, "Geez, sorry Rog, court says we can't talk about it"?  And would that be a good argument for stonewalling an NFL investigation?  I don't know how far a gag order extends, but I don't think it would trump an independent obligation of an NFL owner to cooperate with an internal investigation.  Don't know.

(4) OK, Roger Goodell, you pusillanimous pretender.  You're probably going see evidence pretty soon that Jerry paid off a stripper/hooker either to keep her quiet about something worth keeping quiet, possibly even the sexual assault of a drunken or drugged woman.  Wachoo gonna do about it?

(5) OK, Gene Jones, you laughingstock to some and object of pity and derision to most of the rest of us, wachoo gonna do about it?

"I read me some MTC 'cause I loooove me some redheads."

(6) OK, Dallas sports and news media (finally, an MTC connection), wachoo gonna do about it?  Gag order doesn't extend to investigative reporting.  Who will be the first to understand the potential dynamite this case represents and investigate and report it accordingly -- starting, perhaps, with what reporters "know" about similar Jerry behavior with other women?   

Who will be the first to ask Roger Goodell how he is investigating the sexual assault claim against one of his biggest supporters?

Who will be the first to ask the new "consultant group" of women whether they've been asked to consult on the Jerry Jones charges?

Who will be the first news organization to petition the court to unseal the record, and to appeal it if it is denied?  (Picture the Dallas and Fort Worth papers and every local TV and radio outlet and ESPN seeking this, and what effect this might have on how the judge -- who is elected -- rules on it.)

And who will be the first to ask  -- even if only theoretically at this point -- whether an ongoing drumbeat of unsavory details of Jerry's underground activities could affect the management or ownership of the Cowboys?

Waiting for the next pictures, the next hooker, the next lawsuit.

Or, more likely, the next payoff and interment of another sordid Niffle scandal.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

A Tale of Two Jerrys

Was it a week ago?  I think so.  I was listening to the Tuesday 6:40 replay of the Monday 8:40 Fake Jerry interview.

Gordon started the bit not with his Cartoon Jerry foghorn voice, the one he always uses, but instead his Actual Jerry genuwine impersonation that he brings out once in awhile, but only rarely and briefly.  He only got through a phrase -- possibly even less than a sentence -- when he decided it wasn't happening the way he wanted, and he made a very brief reference to it not working and then shifted back into Cartoon Jerry for the balance of the bit.

But not this week.  He did the whole interview, for the first time I can recall, in his Actual Jerry voice.  Which, for my money, may be even more brilliant than Cartoon Jerry.

Gordon, you're getting me all  .  .  .  confused.

Wondering why, not that I care.  Both Jerrys are very funny.  I wondered briefly if Gordon might be thinking that Actual Jerry might be more amusing -- the shock of recognition -- to a national audience that might pick up one of the bits during a time that the Cowboys are more in the national  spotlight.

Nah.  Nah.  Anyway, it was excellent.

*     *     *

NOTE:  Earlier versions of this post made erroneous reference to a "5:50 replay."

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Jason Garrett's Personality is 8-8

That phrase occurred to me the other day.  Just thought I would share it with you.

Other quick hits:

(1)  I said it about Wade Phillips;  I said it about Jerry Jones:  Why should we think that they talk to their underlings any differently than they talk to the public -- i.e., incoherently and ineffectually?

Same question about Garrett.  What evidence do we have that what he says to his players evidences any more creativity, emotion, accountability, or interest than what he says to us?

(2)  I try to keep ad hominem reasoning out of these pages.  However, I am going to grant myself a dispensation this occasion to say that from the moment of his hiring I have loathed Roger Goodell because I didn't like his smug, thuggish, privileged, self-regarding face.  I'd never heard of him and knew nothing about him, but I've disliked him ever since.

Everything I've heard about him since confirms my unfair first impression, even before the recent evidence of his unsuitability for running anything.  The Ticket guys have from time to time described encounters with him, to the extent one can have an encounter with someone as cocooned by his entourage as this grossly-overpaid monarch.

(3)  I have only spoken with one person about the Goodell interview with Norah O'Donnell, the one were he looked stupid, inarticulate, and truthless.   She said to me exactly what I was thinking myself:  This guy's a big, hard drinker.

Small-eyed, red-faced, blotchy, trouble forming sentences. However, I just googled "roger goodell alcohol" and the only thing I come up with is "drunk with power."

(4) I've been punching out on the Central Market "are you really into  .  .  .  ?" commercials for quite some time now.  They show no sign of abating.  I'm sure I've missed me some good Ticket lately.

I'm missing more.  I'm now punching out on the Evil Cat telling her owner about Dropcam.

The first reason I'm punching out on it is that the accent is stupid.  Can't decide whether to be British or East Coast Patrician, really inept.  There have to be better voice actresses around.  Maybe one of the no doubt thousands who really have an accent?

The second reason I'm punching out is that the narrative is stupid.  The end of the commercial forgets what's in the beginning of the commercial.

     --   The Evil Cat says "you're not here right now" -- meaning not present in the house, or else the whole Dropcam premise is nonsense -- at the beginning of the ad, and finishes by ordering the owner "now get in here and pet me."

     --   The Evil Cat says it "hates" Dropcam because it shows all of the naughty things she is doing, but then it says there's a "bright side" because the cat "can't wait" for the owner to view "what I'm doing to your sweaters."  The "bright side" is exactly what the Evil Cat claims to "hate" about Dropcam.  

Listening too hard again.

Apologies for all of today's negativity.

I do like The Ticket.  There.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

OPEN THREAD: Create Ur Own Topix!

I know, it's always Open Thread around here, but thought we needed a little thread-freshener.

Here's my topic:  The David Newbury segment with David Moore (the latter on the phone) on yesterday's afternoon show (Newbury/T.C.) was the best ten minutes on the Cowboys I've heard this season.  The focus:  Tony Romo has been given too much power to run the offense, change plans, dance around until the play clock is a microsecond away from delay of game.   I can't remember the last time I heard a weak segment featuring either, and when they're both on, it's must-listen.

Will we hear The Boomtown (David & David) in a show this year?

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

A couple of posts back I threw out the thought that those photos could, under certain circumstances, affect the ownership, control, or management of the Cowboys.  Or, at the very least, this possibility should be considered by the commentariat (other than Your Plainsman).  It did not get much traction.

I would now like to revisit that topic in view of Weckerly v. Jones, et al., Civ. No. 14-10061, District Court for Dallas County, Texas.

Just some random thoughts upon reading the complaint.  Bearing in mind that your simple Man of the Plains is no expert in sexual assault lawsuits, statutes of limitations, and the like.  But I think there are some things an observer can take away from this with a little effort.  (Since I haven't heard these thoughts elsewhere, it tends to suggest to me that, um, I may be missing something.)

First, it's interesting that this was filed in Texas state court.  If Weckerly is presently a resident of Oklahoma, she could have filed it in U.S. District Court here.  Maybe she no longer lives in the Ardmore metro and has moved to Texas.  But if she does still live in OK and she could have filed in federal court, I wonder how her lawyer decided to file in state court.  One possibility is that a state court judge would be more likely to be sympathetic to the local team.  But the local team ain't making too many locals happy lately, so maybe the calculation is t'other way around -- a state court judge would be inclined to hammer Jerry to please his restless constituents.  Also, if it gets to trial, a state court jury might be more plaintiff-oriented.  The law the two courts would apply would be the same -- state law, because they are state law claims.  But, fairly or not, the bar widely believes that the federal bench (unelected) is more learned and more likely to apply the law somewhat more expertly than a state court judge (elected).  Would that favor one side or the other?  DNK.  (Also, some state-court plaintiff practitioners are less comfortable with the federal procedural rules.)   Don't have a strong conclusion on this -- just an interesting strategy move.

Second, I just heard Intentional Grounding read from some motions filed by Jerry's team earlier today, asking for a temporary restraining order and dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit is unbelievable and scandalous and a money grab.  In the absence of any factual record whatsoever, and in the presence (in the judge's mind, if not the record) of those pathetic photographs, the dismissal ploy is unlikely to work.    (I thought Texas didn't have a strict motion to dismiss, but rather an archaic form of pleading called "special exceptions."  I need to track down those filings.)

Third, at present it does appear that the technical issue is going to be the statute of limitations.

The lawsuit has several claims, each a tort:  (1) Sexual Assault; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; and (4) Conspiracy to Cover Up Sexual Assault.  The complaint alleges criminal conduct, but violation of the Criminal Code does not give rise to a civil claim beyond the torts described by the alleged conduct (I think; not sure about that).  The statute of limitations for tort claims in Texas for personal injuries caused by torts is two years UNLESS the conduct involves violation of the Penal Code in certain respects, in which case it is five years.  I understand that the encounter in question took place more than five years from the filing of the suit.  But, if the conduct took place in 2009, not a whole lot longer than five years.  Hold that thought.

So, is Weckerly sunk?

Her lawyer has thought about this, and alleges that the statute has been "suspended" pursuant to "TCPRC sec. 16.063."  (That's "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.")  Well, let's Google that and take a look.  It states:  "The absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence."  In other words, the limitations clock stops while the defendant is out of the state, starts up again when he gets back.  Well, that would not work against the Cowboys, the other defendant, which hasn't left the state as a corporate entity.   But Jerry?  The incident was alleged to have taken place in "May or June of 2009," so the deficiency is not going to be more than about four months.  Could she show that Jerry was out of the state in the aggregate longer than that since the incident?  A month per year?  Dunno.  But if I were the court I think I might at least let her proceed with discovery on Jerry's whereabouts at all times between the assault and the filing of suit.  Maybe there are some technical interpretations of that statute that make this all more complicated than I'm making it seem, but they haven't jumped out at me in my Internet reading.  So -- maybe not a bad argument for Weckerly.  Maybe.

But there's something else that really, really intrigues me that I haven't heard mentioned anywhere, at least as far as this limitations issue is concerned:

       --  Paragraph 26 states that Jerry and the Cowboys "threatened Plaintiff so that she would not tell the police." 

       --  Paragraph 27 states that they "intimidated Plaintiff and told her to keep quiet and not tell anyone else 'or else.'"

       --  Paragraph 28 states that they "bullied Plaintiff into believing that she would somehow be in trouble if she told anyone about the sexual assault." 

       --  And most intriguingly, she drops this nugget:  Paragraph 29 states that they "intimidated her into signing documents against her will, without giving her a copies (sic) or access to legal counsel."

       --  Finally, she concludes in Paragraph 30 that those actions "placed Plaintiff in imminent fear of her life, safety and well being."  

I only know what I read in Google search results.  But I am pretty sure that statutes of limitations clock gets stopped or delayed, or "tolled," as it is called, if the plaintiff has been subject to "duress" during that period that tends to discourage her from filing suit within the proper period of time.  

These four paragraphs describe situations where plaintiff was pressured not to take legal action, and may have been pressured under threat or fraud to sign a release (guessing at what the "legal documents" might have been, if they exist at all), all of which would have served artificially to have caused her to refrain from filing suit while the statute was ticking away.

However -- Weckerly has not alleged duress as a ground for delaying the operation of the statute of limitations.  An oversight?  Or something that her attorney thinks he cannot prove?   I think I might say more about that "document," if there was one, even if she doesn't have a copy.   DNK.  But if he's smart, he'll find some other ground for tolling the statute, and based on what he's alleged, that ground should be duress.  Which is something that itself would be subject to "discovery" before a court would rule on whether it were a factually supportable theory for beating back the limitations defense.  At the every least, I would think it would serve to keep the lawsuit alive.

The point I wish to make is that no matter what you think of Weckerly, her motives, or her truthfulness, the wisdom of Google suggests that there may well be enough in this complaint to survive the initial technical challenges.  Again, the complaint is very, very unlikely to be dismissed just because it seems crazy, as seems to be Jerry's initial legal position.  (Really -- does it seem all that crazy?  Or, in light of those photos, does it ring highly possible?)

Fourth: What if it doesn't go away?   The suit could go on and depositions would be taken and it would devolve into the classic he said-she said, and maybe these "legal documents" surface, and maybe more pictures, and lurid accounts of Jerry's misconduct.  Maybe it gets settled; maybe the court grants summary judgment against Weckerly based on the discovery in the case (i.e., her case turns out to be factually deficient based on the sworn record in discovery); or maybe it goes to trial.

A whole lot more interesting is what Roger Goodell -- or his successor -- will do.  If Jerry is accused of sexually assaulting a drunken young woman, with photographic evidence that something happened, and that case lingers with her allegations potentially subject to a jury's decision, his hand may be forced.  Irsay.  Rice.  Rampant NFL thuggery.  A tsunami of disgust over the Niffle's handling of criminal conduct of its constituents has got to have them running scared in the executive suite.

All kinds of other things could happen aside from NFL discipline (or worse).  Gene cannot be happy that a jury will be asked to decide if her husband f-f'd a young woman and got fellated while requiring -- or even inviting -- Weckerly to admire the performance.  What's her level of tolerance for thoroughgoing mortification?  Fans could vote with their season tickets (as they're already starting to do). 

"So, set 'em up, Joe  .  .  .  . "
Again, my sports-radio-related point in suggesting that the complaint may not be as cartoonish as it seems is that at some level this is a sports story because, now more than ever, it could impact the operation, if not the ownership, of the Cowboys.  That it happened five years ago is irrelevant.  The Niffle consumer (and his spouse) are in an ugly mood, and Jerry looks, acts, and sounds like the corrupt face of big-time American sports -- and incompetent in the bargain.  He'll probably survive, but if this story turns out to be her word against his -- that is, if this case not thrown out on limitations or other technical grounds and is headed to trial, whether it gets settled or not -- it's hard to see how Jerry can continue to be the ubiquitous public face of his team and influential in the inner sanctum of the NFL.  And that would be a big change for the Cowboys even if he doesn't sell the team or move out of management.

And, finally -- what if this isn't the only time something like this has happened?

Even that insufferable jocksniff Papa John might stop calling.

Saturday, September 6, 2014


Like everyone else, I'm saddened by Ron Washington's departure and by the offered reason for it.   I have no particular insight on this.  But it reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago.  This piece ran on October 26, 2010.

Ron Washington and The Other

[Irrelevant matter omitted.]

To Ron Washington, baseball is The Other.
To Ron Washington, baseball is a, separate, sensate, volitional entity.  It is a thing unto itself that gives, takes, and speaks, and to whom one gives and from which one takes, and to whom one listens. 
Consider the way he talks about it.  I don’t have the time to research all of his interviews, but it appeared vividly in today’s press conference, when he said something like: When the game tells you to bunt, you bunt; when the game tells you to steal, you steal.   And in another recent interview, he said something like:   You take what baseball gives you, and you give what baseball takes.   There are numerous other examples along these same lines.  

Even his repeated use of the phrase "the game of baseball" bespeaks a certain reverence, a reverence one holds for the mysterious Other.
And even his Ticket-promoted signature phrase – That’s the way baseball go.  Doesn’t that sound a lot like Josh Howard saying that you can’t control what the ball do?  And, like that basketball, baseball is crazy.  (Fun?)  And you have to deal with its craziness like it’s an insanely possessive lover from whom you cannot escape, to whom you must return day after day to do her bidding, whatever she tells you to do, and you give to her what she demands.   You have to listen to what she tells you she wants, make sure you heard it correctly, and then deliver it right then and there so that she will give you what you want.
No, I don’t mean that Ron Washington has a peculiar sexual yearning for the game of baseball.    I mean nothing more than that Ron Washington thinks of baseball as a discrete being, equal parts demanding and benevolent, to whom direct and careful attention must be paid.  And if you do it right, with appropriate respect and loyalty, that attention will be rewarded with victory.
To Ron Washington, baseball is a spirit. 
His relationship with The Other is the source of The Passion of Ron Washington.
*     *     *

OK, we're back to September 2014.
It wasn't drugs.  It wasn't health.  He wasn't fired.   The possibility of depression has been mentioned; no one seems to know.  USA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that Wash texted him:  "I'll be back!  Need some time!"
As The Hardline said, the departure invites speculation.  Mine is no more informed than anyone else's, and less than many's.  
But I wonder if what happened was a something akin to an unbearable crisis of faith.  The game let the man down.  Turned its back on him.  Visited ill-fortune on individual players, robbed promising up-and-comers of their promise.   Robbed talented players of their desire to fight through adversity (Yu?).  And nothing he did changed a thing.   Loss after loss after dreary loss.
He had to get away, before another loss attacked his soul, maybe to talk to it, like Job, think about where the love had gone.

Friday, September 5, 2014

OVERLISTENING: Did Vinny Misspseak?

See it all the time.  A word here, a word there, we try to figure out what's going on, sometimes we overfigure.  This site has been known to do this.

I'm going to do it now.

Today's Picking Games Against an Unlucky P1.

Caller:  Vinny.

We learn that Vinny is in "tax."

Musers: "Generic."

Then a Muser said something said that I don't remember, and Vinny responded:

"Yeah, Fernando woke me up."

Did anyone other than your overlistening Plainsman slam on the brakes, veer into the JOAN RIVERS RIP billboard on the Tollway, smear Sausage McMuffin with Egg all over the windshield, and go: "Whoa -- the Unlucky P1 is not just some random spare caller waiting on the line on Friday morning, but is known to and selected by The Ticket, or Fernando, well in advance of bedtime Thursday night on some non-random basis?"

George (I believe), awkwardly, before immediately changing the subject:  "I don't think Fernando called and woke you up."

And that was that.

Vinny may have been making a joke.

Sure, gotta be it.

"Oh, hi, Fernando.   6:50 already?  Yeah, just woke up.  Sure, I'm feeling unlucky today.  How 'bout you, Fernando, do you feel lucky?  Well, do ya, punk?  Hey, it's a joke, from the movie, you know.  Hey, thanks for the wakeup, didn't want to miss my big moment on The Ticket..  See you later.  Go ahead, put Georgio on,  I'll give that big shaggy noble mon some picks, you betcha."

Comment moderation suspended.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014


The world of radio, and, in this case, the world of DFW radio, and, further to this case, the world of DFW sports radio, is pretty small.  News travels fast.  Sometimes it travels fast this direction.

The Ticket/Cumulus has terminated Logan Gourley.

This site does wants to be scrupulously fair to Logan, and does not want to unduly publicize this unfortunate event.  (Yeah, then why you posting this?  Well, you're not going to be hearing Logan on The Ticket any more, so most Confessors could figure it out before too much time passed.)  There are usually two sides to every issue.  Not always two equal sides, but at least two stories.  I only have one.

Reportedly, there were performance issues of the sort sometimes seen with young men and women of the present generation in their inaugural encounter with the requirements of professional employment.

Thought the guy had something, was at least holding his own among the latest generation of JV.

This site wishes Logan the best of luck.

Comment moderation temporarily suspended

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

BREAKING: Musers -- Possible Recalibration

I do not have details, but I have put a few things together and it seems as though there may be some kind of non-seismic shift in the Muser showgram landscape in the immediate offing.

I would like to stress that this is not confirmed by any person in a position to know for certain, but I'm getting some radar returns that the earlier interested Confessors tune in tomorrow, the better.

Sorry to be cryptic, but this is what I gots for you.

Comment moderation temporarily suspended.

Thursday, August 28, 2014


Sorry I've been away.  A few notes from recent morning showgrams:

(1)  I haven't heard George as prepared or animated as he was last week when Craig was gone and he went off on a very animated rant in the 5:30 segment on high school bands.  Good to hear George excited about something.  Wished he'd packaged for a later segment, it deserved a bigger audience.  Probably made the Top 10.

(2)  I'm liking Gordon's contractor talk as contractor Randy Cody.  George is jumping in with some funny contractor talk as well.  The gag range tends to be somewhat limited, but it's a good bit.

(3)  I don't know why I found it interesting that Grey Goose Vodka is sponsoring the Dunham & Miller Open.  It's not a station sponsor, that I recall.  I guess it's not all that interesting -- but I'd think that one of the major advertisers on the station would sponsor the thing.  Is it tense when D&M Auto Leasing or All-Pro Foundation Repair or whoever calls up Sales and says, "Welp, almost time for the Open, let's talk about this year's sponsorship" and the Sales chick says "Uh, we've already sold that sponsorship to Grey Goose," and the old sponsor says, "Hey, that's my spot, how much you getting from Grey Goose?" and she tells him and he hangs up violently, indignant over the ingratitude.

Yes, I know, I know, it doesn't happen that way.  Don't leave comments telling me how stupid I am.

There have been comments lately on the surprising lack of sponsorship on the online broadcast.  And once in awhile you hear an on-air segment being sponsored by Your Mama.  Doubt it has much meaning to The Ticket's overall health, but maybe one of our radio insiders knows the dope.

(4)  Fight Night tonight.  George remarked this morning that one doesn't hear fight broadcasts on the radio today.  Junior riposted:  "You won't hear it tonight, either -- it'll be just three hours of screaming."  Which is a criticism many Confessors have about that broadcast.  Very difficult to tell what's going on, who's winning, anything.

However:  The careful student of The Ticket should pay close attention to such broadcasts.  In the same way that Ticket Round Tables can be revealing of inter-host relationships that you don't get during the normal broadcast day, the Fight Night white elephant broadcast teams also disclose some tensions and discomforts that aren't revealed during the shows.  I may listen while the Cowboys game is on, see if anything pops up.

If you go, drop us a comment with a report.  If you hear something interesting on the broadcast, ditto.

*     *     *

Comments are moderated.  
Don't waste your time with ad hominem attacks on Confessors or name-calling or especially impugning the intelligence, motives, or writing style of Your Plainsman.  (Actually, writing style criticisms might survive if the comment is otherwise acceptable.  Recent hate mail has not been.)   Watch the cussing.  Comments may be rejected for tone.

Monday, August 18, 2014

FROM THE ARCHIVES: A Gift for Some Lucky Host -- A Near-New Cowboys Theory

This article first appeared on February 11 of this year.  I thought it was an interesting theory -- within the well-known limitations of my sportsy knowledge -- but it didn't attract much interest among the Confessoriat and none elsewhere.  But as the season threatens to begin again, I trot it out one more time, fully prepared for another round of thunderous indifference:

This is a bit of a scam entry, because it's really just one of my tragically sportsy opinions disguised as something with an extremely attenuated Ticket connection. 

It is never a good thing when I dip my toe into sportness.

So you have been warned.

Yeah, so here is a sports opinion that I want to offer to any Ticket host who wants to adopt it.    No, really.  That fortunate host may have it free of charge, and the beauty part is that he, whoever he may turn out to be, may have it without giving this site any credit whatsoever.  No mention necessary.  Hey, what good would more readers do me?  I don't get a nickel from this if I have one hit a day or a million.

It's a Cowboys opinion.  I have not heard it previously opined.  If anyone has previously opined it, well, I thought of it first a long time ago, so that's my position on that there.

*     *     *

No one thinks that Jerry's management of the Cowboys is competent.  This evening, I'm thinking particularly of his game of musical coaches, the difference between what Jerry's doing and musical chairs being that no one gets eliminated -- you just get more and more coaches.

But I don't think this is just aimless, random meddling.

I think Jerry knows exactly what he's doing. 

Now, this is not to say that what he's doing is good for the Cowboys.  But I think that Jerry believes that what he's doing is good for Jerry.

So here is my theory:

Jerry keeps adding coaches and layers of football-team management because it is a way for him to increase his influence over the coaching function and, ultimately, the locker room.

We all know that if he thought he could get away with it, he'd name himself head coach.  Instead, as we also know, he inserts himself in coaching matters.

Adding more coaches and layers of management enables him to meddle more, and more effectively (by his lights), in several ways:

First, the addition of each new coach that Jason Garrett had no role in selecting further dilutes the influence of that poor man. 

Second, each new non-Garrett coach gives Jerry someone new to call, someone who hasn't completely tuned him out and who feels some gratitude to him in the short run for giving him a job with one of the most famous sports franchises in the world, and who will report his views to the group.

Third, the more coaches in the room who listen to Jerry when he calls, the more his ideas, advice, scolding, whatever, get repeated in the room.

And, finally, and most importantly for his purposes, if he can get coaches fighting with each other over the direction of the team, the weaker and less certain that direction is and the more influence he will be called upon (by himself, but now with justification he's created by his machinations) to exercise  to "resolve" these disagreements.

Take the Callahan business.  He won't let Callahan interview for a job?  Why not?  Because it serves his purpose to have a disaffected and even angry Callahan on the staff, because it gives management -- Jerry -- the chance to step into the coaches' conclave to resolve matters and, oh, by the way, long as I'm here, why don't y'all emphasize the tight ends this week?

Of course, this is a terrible way to manage almost anything.  But it is entirely consistent with what we know about Jerry's scorching ambition to be a respected "football man."  What better way, in his toupee-warmed brain, than to divide and conquer his own coaching staff?

Who will be the first host to discover this jewel of Cowboys analysis and make it his own?

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Two for One Sale, and No Sales Tax: Speculation AND a Rant!

First of all, I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint that what a prominent person does in his or her personal life, up to a point, is his or her own business.  Where that point is depends on why the person is prominent, the particular private action involved, when it took place, whether it compromises the person's public activities, and other contextual variables.  This site generally avoids broadcasting stuff about the hosts that may come its way that is not in the public record.

The very different reactions of The Hardline and The Musers on the Jerry Jones photos is notable.  I'm referring here to the first segments done by those shows on the subject.  If they've gone into it more deeply since -- that is anything other than passing mentions -- I didn't hear it.

The Hardline crew was unanimously dismissive.  Their points:

       --  Jerry's philandering and alcohol-fueled carousing are well-known.  Actually, I hadn't known it, but a little scouting on the Internets suggests that it may indeed be the case that Jerry's a too-often-drunken poon hound, or at least has some history of it.

       --  Many men have arrangements with their wives that permits extramarital adventures; the wife "signs on," as it were, to this circumstance in return for whatever benefits she gets from the marriage.

       --  Nothing will come of this.  Nothing should come of it.

All of those points may be correct.  I am mildly skeptical, but only mildly.  I'll get to that in a moment.

The Musers mused a little more deeply on the matter.

       --  They noted that, at that point, not a single major media outlet had given the publication of the photos any play at all.

       --  They wondered what Roger Goodell thought of this.  I believe they made reference to Roger Goodell's dithering over what, if anything, to do about Jim Irsay.  (Nothing, yet, but he has commented on it.)

       --   They made passing reference, if I'm recalling correctly, to the possible effect on the Jones family.

As I said, the Hardline may be right that nothing will come of this.

But I think there is at least the possibility that something will.  I'm wondering if we'll hear from women's groups.  I'll bet Roger Goodell has at least made a phone call to Jerry.

But what I'm really wondering about is Gene.

True it may be that she knows what Jerry does when he goes out at night and travels to faraway places.  And true it may be that she's made the bargain the Hardline ascribes to women like her.

But the women who make those kinds of deals do so with the understanding that the tomcatting itself will remain private.  They do not sign on to be publicly humiliated, and that is what is happening to Gene Jones.

Which takes me back to those contextual circumstances I mentioned above.  What if Gene decided she'd had enough?    Independently prominent spouses like Hilary Clinton and Huma Abedin have hung on for their own craven political reasons (hell, Hillary told Huma to divorce the pathetic Anthony Weiner), but Silda Spitzer divorced Eliot's sorry hosebarge ass and got millions; on the Republican side, there's Ahhnold, quickly sent on his way by Maria Shriver.  Sports example?  Elin Nordegren Woods.

Texas is a community property state.   Property acquired by a spouse after marriage is, generally speaking, the property of both spouses.   I was speaking to a long-time well-informed observer of the Cowboys, and expressed the thought that surely Jerry had some kind of post-nuptial agreement with Gene that partitions their property in a way that would designate Cowboy-related assets as Jerry's separate property (i.e., his in the event of a divorce).  This guy said he doubted it (although he was in no way privy to the Joneses' estate planning).

So I speculate -- of course! -- on a possible course of events should the mortifying photos not go away and Gene's society buddies (who may themselves be Cowboy fans as disgusted at Jerry's incompetent management as by his injurious behavior) tell her to make her move.

My point:  While we're very uninformed about Jerry's financial planning and Gene's disposition, those photos do have the potential to influence the ownership of the Cowboys.  Even if Jerry has the Cowboys tied up, a divorce nevertheless might influence the team's operations.  Consider:  Jerry's net worth is estimated to be in the $3.1-3.2 billion range.  That includes the value of the Cowboys, which is estimated at $2.3 billion.  Would Gene have made a deal after all those years of marriage that didn't give her halvsies, even if it didn't include the Cowboys (purchased at the time for a measly $0.14 billion)?  (I have considered the possibility that these numbers are apples and oranges, as the net worth figure includes aggregate indebtedness but the Cowboys value figure may not.)  Is it possible that a divorce would have a negative impact on Jerry's ability to invest in the Cowboys?  If Gene walked off with the oil and gas, would the franchise throw off enough cash for Jerry to continue to flirt with the salary cap?

I have two answers for that:  (1) Probably, and (2) I have no idea.  And, of course, they may have a post-nuptial/partition agreement that would give Jean much, much less than half in the event of a divorce.

OK, I'm way off in cloud-cuckoo land, big surprise.  All I'm saying is that those pictures have the potential to do something that no mortal ever dreamed possible, and that is to shake up the management, if not the ownership, of this franchise.  Has this not even occurred to people in the sport reporting biz?  While I concede I'm speculating, are these scenarios so remote that they don't bear the slightest consideration?

Which leads me to my final point, which is:   The Musers started to make an excellent point when they noted how the MSM were running from the story like MSNBC from the IRS scandal.  The Hardline is going to be exactly right if this story dies, either because the Niffle does nothing, or news media do nothing.

I say:   Roger Goodell, you're terrific at bullying players.  Whatcha going to do about titgrabbing, crotchoffering, possible extortion target, so-drunk-he-allowed-himself-to-be-photographed Jerry Jones (and Jim Irsay, for that matter)?  I quote the Commish, speaking after fining Detroit Lions owner Tom Lewand $100,000 and suspending him for 30 days in 2010:  "You occupy a special position of responsibility and trust.  [T]hose who occupy leadership positions are held to a higher standard of conduct that exceeds what is ordinarily expected of players or member of the general public."  What's changed since 2010?

I also say:  Dale Hansen, how about showing some real courage, yes, courage even greater than required to support a gay player that the country is already largely rooting for?  How about calling out your pal Jonesy, who has mortified your city, disgusted Cowboy fans, and is in the process of revealing your own profession as a willing handmaiden to the AlDavisization of a once-great franchise.

So yeah: There's a real story here -- the corruption of the major sports media.   There's another one lurking:  a Jones family shakeup.   (We haven't yet considered the effects on future Cowboy ownership of a Stephen Jones divorce.)

You know, though:  The Hard Ones are probably right.  This story is going to die, and with it, any likelihood that Gene will kick Jerry's wizened glutes to the curb.  I'd just like to see someone do some digging, and think it through.

At least The Ticket is talking about it.  Here's your assignment:  Let us know what The Fan ("the station of YOUR Dallas Cowboys") had to say about this story.  [Also, please advise on Norm's and BaD's reaction.]

I'm FOS?  Sure, happens.  But my hypothetical isn't crazy, and The Musers share my bafflement, if not my disgust, at the supine sports media.  Those pictures are a disgrace, and I'd like to see someone claiming to be a reporter do some, you know, reporting.

I'll conclude by thanking you for shopping at My Ticket Confession, and remembering that comments are moderated.  (I've gotten some amusingly bilious ones lately.)

*     *     *

CORRECTION:  Earliest editions of this post misspelled Mrs. Jones's name as "Jean."  Thanks to Confessor Anonymous for correcting my error.