|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
NFL owners call meeting for final day of current labor deal Associated Press Published: Feb. 14, 2011 at 05:36 p.m. Updated: Feb. 14, 2011 at 10:13 p.m. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- NFL owners will meet March 3, the final day of the current collective bargaining agreement. It is possible the owners will call for a lockout of the players if negotiations with the union aren't sufficiently progressing. All 32 owners are expected to be at the meeting, in Fort Lauderdale, that follows two days of committee meetings that were previously scheduled. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith repeatedly has said he expects a lockout. Talks broke down last week in Washington. The owners opted out of the CBA in 2008. For more NFL labor news, visit http://NFLLabor.com Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845 |
Quote:
This story is not good news folks...
Jay Feely says Jerry Richardson talked down to Peyton Manning
2/13/2011
Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post reports Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely disclosed an interesting anecdote about a recent bargaining session in Dallas between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.
He revealed that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson talked down to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees during the negotiation.
“Jerry Richardson, he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said during an appearance on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you understand how to read that?’ That doesn't help us get a deal done."
Richardson is regarded as a hard-liner.
Editors Note: Richardson is the only owner who is a former NFL player. My guess is he wants the players to make what he did back in the old days.
web page
Let's see Goodell explain this behavior by the owners... 
Panthers: Richardson 'condescension' a 'mischaracterization'
2/14/2011
Reports of Panthers owner Jerry Richardson being extremely condescending toward Peyton Manning and Drew Brees brought a response from the Panthers according to Darin Gantt of the Charlotte Observer.
A Panthers spokesman said Monday those reports were a “mischaracterization,” of Richardson’s feelings, but said he wouldn’t comment further, since Richardson wanted the negotiations to happen in private.
The Panthers owner has taken a hard line in negotiations, and is known within the league as one of ownerships’ hawks. During a rambling January press conference, he even drew pictures to illustrate what he believed to be the bad deal owners agreed to in 2006, and opted out of two years later.
“It’s said to me when I meet with the union lawyers, they say Mr. Richardson we want more money, more benefits and we want to work less,” Richardson said. “Then they say let’s begin the negotiations. I’m not optimistic we’re making a lot of progress.”
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This paragraph says it all..."A Panthers spokesman said Monday those reports were a “mischaracterization,” of Richardson’s feelings, but said he wouldn’t comment further, since Richardson wanted the negotiations to happen in private."
Note, Richardson didn't say a word..either he or most likely the rest of the NFL owners believe he has said enough...no sense letting Richardson dig this hole any deeper.
Also, he is not denying he said what is alleged.
This sort of disrespect toward the union's negotiating team can't be helpful if the owners are serious about completing a deal before the deadline.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845 |
Quote:
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
free..."unknown"..
If there are no games, logic would suggest that one option might be retaining the same draft order. I'm sure that some owners would think that is very unfair.
I guess the owners would have to decide that issue among themselves..if that is possible.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
The owners strategically are waiting til the last day.. Trying to make the players sweat a little.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
free..."unknown"..
If there are no games, logic would suggest that one option might be retaining the same draft order. I'm sure that some owners would think that is very unfair.
I guess the owners would have to decide that issue among themselves..if that is possible.
I would think they would goto a random draw scenario to determine the order in that case.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
it would be up to the new CBA as it would be worked in as a 1-time provision. it could remain the same, it could be a completely random lottery, it could be a weighted lottery or they could come up with something else entirely.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845 |
Quote:
I would think they would goto a random draw scenario to determine the order in that case.
Floridafan...let's hope we don't have to find out... 
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
That's a 64 Dollar question.
[Referring to History] The last stoppage in '87' the Draft of 88 went by the record of that season even though they played scabs.
So we put together a poor scab team and we end up with a high Draft pick if it comes to that or visa versa.
If there is a lockout teams will still play the schedule with replacement players as in '87' the standings will be official, so therefore my hypothesis would be... No... we will not pick 6th as in the up coming Draft in 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718 |
Things can and do change, but they don't change that much.
You would have to use this years draft order as the starting point.
To protect the teams who draft last, I would propose snaking back through either the 3rd or 4th round, then back to normal the rest of the way.
If it was determined to snake the 3rd round, the team with the last pick of the 2nd round would have the first pick of the 3rd, and so on.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
That's a 64 Dollar question.
[Referring to History] The last stoppage in '87' the Draft of 88 went by the record of that season even though they played scabs.
So we put together a poor scab team and we end up with a high Draft pick if it comes to that or visa versa.
If there is a lockout teams will still play the schedule with replacement players as in '87' the standings will be official, so therefore my hypothesis would be... No... we will not pick 6th as in the up coming Draft in 2012.
Hmm, I think there is some debate about whether or not the league can hire scabs. Last time the players held a strike thus the Owners could hire scabs. This time the Owners are locking out the players. I was hearing that they couldn't hire replacements then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Hmm, I think there is some debate about whether or not the league can hire scabs. Last time the players held a strike thus the Owners could hire scabs. This time the Owners are locking out the players. I was hearing that they couldn't hire replacements then.
+1
A lockout means no games....no scabs. Right?
The NHL lockout season had no games all season.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just a curiosity, We pick 6th this year. Let's say (Heaven forbid) there is no season. Does the draft order remain the same for the 2012 draft?
That's a 64 Dollar question.
[Referring to History] The last stoppage in '87' the Draft of 88 went by the record of that season even though they played scabs.
So we put together a poor scab team and we end up with a high Draft pick if it comes to that or visa versa.
If there is a lockout teams will still play the schedule with replacement players as in '87' the standings will be official, so therefore my hypothesis would be... No... we will not pick 6th as in the up coming Draft in 2012.
Hmm, I think there is some debate about whether or not the league can hire scabs. Last time the players held a strike thus the Owners could hire scabs. This time the Owners are locking out the players. I was hearing that they couldn't hire replacements then.
I know that they (owners) have a one year clause I think with their media contracts, but I still would not rule it out that they find some loop hole to allow them to hire a replacement team.
I am not an authority like I said it was an educated guess. The suit (labor) the League just filed might buy them the loop whole I don't know.
It's going to come down to a Judges (or committees) ruling.
I would think that the League has a plan.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845 |
Still more details emerge regarding Richardson during negotiations
2/15/2011
Recently Jay Feely and Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports relayed acecdotes of Panthers owner Jerry Richardson's condescending attitude toward players, particularly Peyton Manning and Drew Brees.
Mike Silver of Yahoo Sports is now relaying more information and details of incidents that happened during negotiations.
Richardson became so angry at Sean Morey after the recently retired player cited a slew of statistics on player safety and average career length that the Panthers’ owner snapped, “You guys made so much [expletive] money – if you played three years in the NFL, you should own your own [expletive] team.”
“It was bad from the start,” said one player who attended the session. “[Richardson] opened the meeting by describing how he was almost annoyed how we would ask for that meeting on their busiest weekend of the year. And I’m thinking, ‘Your team finished 2-14. You shouldn’t be that busy. Why are you worrying about how busy you are during Super Bowl weekend?’ ”
“He was condescending to Peyton,” said one player who was at the meeting. “He tried to talk about P&L [profit and loss] statements and all these other risks that the owners assume, as if Peyton didn’t know anything. Drew interrupted and said, ‘All we’re doing is just asking you to show us your books. We want to negotiate in good faith.’”
Said another player who was present: “We were so pissed. Peyton was breathing heavily, and some of us were about ready to jump across the table.”
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It sounds like the players attempting to negotiate with this idiot owner have had about enough of him. No sense in keeping this kind of behavior from the public and pretending that negotiations are going well, just to cast Roger Goodell and the rest of the owners in a positive light.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,845 |
Domonique Foxworth compares CBA talks to 'whack-a-mole'
2/15/2011
Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post reports Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth is convinced that the NFL owners are ready for a lockout as talks haven't gone well so far.
"It feels kind of like whack-a-mole," Foxworth said in a radio interview with Denver station 104.3 The Fan. "They'll say this is one issue and we'll whack that mole and then something else will pop up that this is the major issue. We're always trying to catch up to what it is. That's why I feel that's part of the strategy.
"Some people want us to get to a lockout and some people recognize how lucrative this business is and what to make sure it goes forward."
"We can't come to an understanding on how to divvy up the money in a very lucrative business," Foxworth said. "It's embarrassing. It reminds me a lot of the political discourse in this country where it's a lot of arguing and nothing getting down. It's frustrating."
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Domonique really seems like she gets it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I'm just thinking out loud here - Is there anything legally that would prevent the players from self-financing and forming their own league?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,623
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,623 |
Quote:
Domonique really seems like she gets it.
"Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth" - She should being the first female NFL Player and all... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,623
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,623 |
I'm sure there is some sort of non-compete clause protecting the League,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Drew interrupted and said, ‘All we’re doing is just asking you to show us your books. We want to negotiate in good faith.’”
Sorry, Drew....I own a VERY small business and even my four part timers don't "see the books". Hell, they wouldn't if we made millions. You agreed to work for XX money...the end.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Normally I would agree with you, but I think the larger issue is that the Players are asking for more money (for whatever reason) and the owner's response is that they can't afford to pay them more and that they are actually losing money (some) if not accounting for shared revenue ... especially the teams that don't sell out.
If I have been following this correctly the players called their bluff and said they would understand as long as they could see the books, then the owners say that the players don't get to.
That's why I can't take a side. That and I just don't care ... the owners are going to win anyway because half a season lost is no huge chunk off of their backs ... but half of a season lost for the players represents maybe 10 to 20 % of their career earnings ... they will cross the line and play once it starts hitting them in the wallet... Especially the ones that dont have long term contracts or that know they are close to retirement and might only have a year or two left to get that last big payday
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
I'll bet they'd ask to see your books if you were asking them to work 2 more weeks during the year and also take a $1 billion pay cut......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
Really? That's the end?  There's a hell of a lot more money on the table, the players actually have a union (and are full time), and want a clearer idea of what's out there to determine a more fair negotiation process. The players are actually the product. That's where this differs from a restaurant or manufacturing plant where the employees are assembling or preparing the product; because they ARE the product. Given how football popularity has only continued to soar and the league revenues are about as high as they've ever been, they have every right to claw back against the owners. What do they have to hide by not opening their books? In that same breath, though, I do fear an NBA, "Inmates running the asylum" system. I think the NFL and its owners are too strong for that and it takes too many more pieces to compete in football, but that's something I don't want to see.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Drew interrupted and said, ‘All we’re doing is just asking you to show us your books. We want to negotiate in good faith.’”
Sorry, Drew....I own a VERY small business and even my four part timers don't "see the books". Hell, they wouldn't if we made millions. You agreed to work for XX money...the end.
You get it.
Richardson played the game. Having done such, he has every right to talk to other players any way he chooses.
Whether they like it or not, he is a part of the fraternity.
Plus....maybe those guys don't know how to read a balance sheet
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
LOL to be fair ... even though some of them are below what we would consider business intelligence ... Im not so sure that some of the millionaire owners can interpret financial ratios either. For that matter, some of the posters on this board might not have a college degree, but it still doesn't mean they don't get to argue their side and stand up for their rights ...
I did laugh when I read that though
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Really? That's the end?
There's a hell of a lot more money on the table, the players actually have a union (and are full time), and want a clearer idea of what's out there to determine a more fair negotiation process. The players are actually the product. That's where this differs from a restaurant or manufacturing plant where the employees are assembling or preparing the product; because they ARE the product. Given how football popularity has only continued to soar and the league revenues are about as high as they've ever been, they have every right to claw back against the owners. What do they have to hide by not opening their books?
No - the players are NOT the product. The game is the product. There's not a single player, or any group of 500 players, that can't be replaced.....or 1000 players for that matter.
They are NOT the product.
They also have a choice as to what they do for a living. Not one single one of them is tied to their contract - they can break it at any time and find another job if they want to do that.
The players do not get to determine anything other than "should I play this game that might hurt me, for X amount of dollars, or should I not."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,718 |
I have no problem standing up for your rights or trying to make a buck.
And to be fair, I don't know that they don't know how to read a balance sheet.
That said, it's really none of their business what the owner makes.
You want to find out, put up a billion or so and find out.
I've posted the number before and i won't now.
The Packers numbers are open being a publicly traded company.
I don't think any reasonable person could say the Packers are league bottom feeders and run by idiots.
They made less than 10 mil last year....that's less then 10% net profit....and the trends, which is what this is all about are going DOWN.
Oh...that 10 mil the Packers made....that isn't what the owner made even in a privately held company.
That is money that stays in the company to fund expansion, improvements, and provide a rainy day fund.
No doubt the owners make a great deal of money.
I guess my question is why shouldn't they??
I can't speak for every employee of the company, like the guy who washes jocks or sweeps floors, but from what I see most folks involved make a pretty nice living....from players to the others.
Players are like actors. If they are hot, they make big bucks. If not, they start showing up in crappy movies and taking lesser roles.
Now my comments lead me to another line of thought.
Those packers numbers mentioned....there is no owner salary paid out of those figures.
I don't think it unreasonable for a NFL team owner to pay himself a couple of million a year. Why shouldn't he make a good average of what the team back-up QB makes??
So take a few mil out of the Packers bottom line of under 10% and now we are getting to the point at 7% or so where you don't have enough cushion to keep on doing what you are doing.
I'd lock them out too.
If this goes to no football, it's all on the shoulders of the players for being too stupid to know a good thing when they have it.....or maybe too stupid to understand a balance sheet?
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
The funny thing is ... I 100% agree with you. After studying (what seems like years) of economic theory and all that other business mumbo-jumbo I don't like big unions.
That being said, I also dislike that a a few of the "class acts" and "smarter" representatives (guys like Drew Brees and Peyton Manning who represent their teams and all ..) seem to be trying to get to the bottom of it, but then some jackass owner comes off the way that he does.
It could just be the way that it's being framed? But like I said ... I'm usually on the owner's side because if the team goes defunct and they dont hire the right guys and the team needs to be moved to LA or Canada ... they take the loss. Not the players.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
he players are actually the product.
This comment ,IMO is laughable.
The game is the product. The players act as if they are the product. The players are employees of a team, the team isn't the product either, it is the game.
While many of todays players feel they are bigger than the game, and feel that without them personally the team doesn't matter. People generally go to see a team play a game, not just to see a player. Many of these players have egos that make them think otherwise.
We root for the Cleveland Browns football team, that is the product. The tickets are sold for a game, not a player review. Using a restaurant for an example is good. The product for a restaurant is the food on the menu. But, without the employees, such as cooks to cook it, waiters to serve it, and staff to keep it going, there would be no food. So should the chef and waiters share completely the profits of the owner? I bet most would believe not. Those who do, have a misguided view of how business works.
I am not anti-union, but IMO the union here is overstepping their bounds. There is no legal obligement, if that's even a word, for the owners to show the books. This is a ploy to get the fan to side with them. They want the totals to been in the media so they can say "look at the money the owners are making". Problem there, is any time the press is used for something like this, it gets twisted and spun for one side or the other. Total costs and losses that the owners have, will not be mentioned, just the bottom line to make their arguement look better to folks ignorant of the whole facts.
It is the National Football League, not the National Football Players League. Once again, the game of football is the product, not the players. Players are employees of the team, and the last time I looked, none of them were being underpaid. It is all about greed, the problem is, the players IMO are the ones looking greedy. The owners invested the money they EARNED to buy these teams, the players are paid to play for them........big difference.
Like someone said above, why don't the players buy their own team, I bet their outlook would change fast.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Really? That's the end?
There's a hell of a lot more money on the table, the players actually have a union (and are full time), and want a clearer idea of what's out there to determine a more fair negotiation process. The players are actually the product. That's where this differs from a restaurant or manufacturing plant where the employees are assembling or preparing the product; because they ARE the product. Given how football popularity has only continued to soar and the league revenues are about as high as they've ever been, they have every right to claw back against the owners. What do they have to hide by not opening t
heir books?
No - the players are NOT the product. The game is the product. There's not a single player, or any group of 500 players, that can't be replaced.....or 1000 players for that matter.
They are NOT the product.
They also have a choice as to what they do for a living. Not one single one of them is tied to their contract - they can break it at any time and find another job if they want to do that.
The players do not get to determine anything other than "should I play this game that might hurt me, for X amount of dollars, or should I not."
Exactly.....
How many of us get to have the choice whether or not to do a job that will/could be a risk to your health?
In fact I can't think of any job, physical or otherwise that there are no risk involved.
That argument is not relevant.
If the union continues down the path of bad faith in trying to come to a compromise, then eventually the owners will hire replacements and the talent will eventually return. Eventually!
They will return under the Leagues rules.
This is another case of a greedy union that in the end will be their undoing.
If the League has been so unfair then why have these same player whom would force a lockout have ever signed a contract to begin with? I should think that the reason should be obvious.
The NFL has prospered, because unlike MLB, they did not sell the game away to the players. My hope is that they do not waiver here.
I really miss baseball and I played the game, but I no longer have an interest in MLB. Luckily for me my youngest still has another College season coming up at Mercyhurst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Normally I would agree with you, but I think the larger issue is that the Players are asking for more money (for whatever reason) and the owner's response is that they can't afford to pay them more and that they are actually losing money (some) if not accounting for shared revenue ... especially the teams that don't sell out.
Now here's this again. I'm once more reminded that in the beginning it was the owners who were asking the players to take an 18% pay cut citing economic hardship. The players in response asked to see the books so that they would know for certain that it was about owners losing money and not just owners wanting more money.
The owners refused to open the books. The players refuse to take an 18% pay cut unless they see the proof of hardship.
Now, once again, I see someone state just the opposite. That the players want more money and demand to see the books to prove the owners can pay it.!?
Isn't that backwards of the way it really started?
Did the players ever ask for more money in the first place? Ever?
Didn't it start out with the owners wanting the players to play two extra games AND take an 18% pay cut?
My God! Somebody help me here. I need a witness! What the hell is going on?!
I don't even know how to think on this matter anymore.
Which one is it? Because we have two factions discussing and arguing the same issue based on a completely different set of facts, if there even are any facts in it anymore.
Am I that dang wrong?
I'd love to get at least this one part of it straight.
Just one more time.
Pick one:
1) The players demand more money and want to see the books to prove the owners have enough money to pay it.
2) The owners want the players to take a pay cut but won't show the books to prove economic hardship.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
You guys crap me up with the "poor old owners" routine. NONE of these guys are losing money.......not one of them. I don't really have a side in this as I think it's utterly ridiculous that these groups can't find a sensible way to divide up 9 billion dollars. However, the owners aren't the NFL no matter how bad some of you want to make them out to be.
If every player told the owners to ... off they weren't playing without X amount of money (which isn't what is happening the players have offered to take a pay cut), and no players of the current talent level coming into the draft was willing to sign off unless they had X amount (rounds 1-3 type of guys) then the owners would cave...............elite players are the product and thus the NFL. People can say stuff like "the game is the product", but that is BS. IF that were true then leagues like the UFL, USFL, and the Arena league would still be in business. What separates those leagues from the NFL??? Elite players. So all of this crap about comparing pro athletes to "real world" economics is nonsense. I am a pretty good Network Admin, but you cannot compare me to a pro athlete, because I am replaceable by at least ten thousand people in this country. An elite athlete simply doesn't have nearly as many competitors as the average person..........thus the rules that govern typical employer/employee relationships don't apply. Their market value is in another stratosphere of what you and I are used to, and because of the unique skillset they bring to the table they have a lot more input into how the "business" is run............ because quite frankly the business would not run without them.
As I said earlier, the owners will win because the players have the absolute worst union in pro sports. Shep has been talking about this coming for 2 1/2 years now, but the players union still wasn't prepared for it. As I said in an earlier post whenever there is even potential for a work stoppage the MLB union is putting money in the coffers to protect the guys who can't afford to hold the union line. The NFL union??...........has done jack crap..lol. The owners have the TV revenue from this year anyway, and don't lose anything by not playing games (hell Peen they probably make more money because they don't have to divide any of it with the players..lol). When you consider that 90% of these players can't afford to take a year off of getting paid then it's simply a matter of time before the players cave to most of the owners demands. This is the way the NFL has always worked and today is no different...........the NFL union is weak.
Personally I'm glad the players union is weak, because it saves the game from the crap that has happened in baseball. If I were a player though I would be looking for leadership that had the vision and the smarts to start preparing for the NEXT CBA and start putting money in the coffers for those times. If they ever do, and make a stand then the owners would be the ones with no choice to cave. As it stands now though, it's only a matter of time before the players come crawling with their tails between their legs.
Against logic,the most effective armor is willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Right now it is all nothing more than puffing up your chest from both sides.
The union knows they can't win.
The NFL knows they will win.
The union wants to hold out long enough to get the best deal possible and force the NFL's hand. Take the deal or miss the season and risk fan backlash.
NFL seems more than willing to allow this thing to play out and see just how willing the players are to miss a few checks. Take our deal or get a real job.
This thing has a stench to it right now. When neither side wants to get it done, it isn't going to get done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Again - no one is forcing the players to play. If they don't want to, someone else will step in. If that happens, there won't be a huge drop off. Face it, the difference between the AVERAGE nfl player and the guy that would sub for him isn't huge.
Also, I don't go to games, or watch on tv, to see a "player", I go or watch to see a team.
One more thing - pay me the league minimum - heck, pay me the rookie minimum - and I'd be able to sit out a year with no problem. Just because the players don't manage their money very well doesn't mean they deserve more.
They can always find another job, right?
I swear, some people act as if the players are forced into the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
Didn't it start out with the owners wanting the players to play two extra games AND take an 18% pay cut?
This is correct. The rest is all fluff thrown out by the owners. They signed a dumbass deal last time and are looking to the players to save them from themselves.
Apparently, Jerry Richardson is the one who couldn't read a balance sheet a couple of years ago 'cause he signed on back then.
It boils down to this: The owners need (well, actually want) a better deal than last time. The players aren't going to take an 18-20% pay cut and work more games to boot . Both positions seem reasonable to me.
For the guys that are disparaging the players just ask yourself this: Are you tuning in on Sundays to watch Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder or Peyton Manning and Drew Brees?
And the idea that any team other than possibly the Jaguars is even in the neighborhood of losing money is laughable. C'mon, I was born at night but it wasn't last night......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
Face it, the difference between the AVERAGE nfl player and the guy that would sub for him isn't huge.
If this were true we'd be in the playoffs every year or close to it.
Your position is right in style. If this were about 1918.
Face it.....if your boss walked into the building after getting out of his Rolls Royce and told you to take an 18% pay cut and work an extra 2 weeks to boot you'd laugh in his face. To say anything else is disingenuous at best.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
For the record ddubia I am not entirely sure either. I have heard it on both sides and like I keep saying ... I can agree with both of them. They both have legitimate demands that someone in that respective viewpoint would have.
I dont really care how it's settled though, I just dont want to waste an entire offseason when MoMass, Robo, maybe Cribbs and Stuckey (or williams, mitchell, norwood and haggerty for that matter) could be learning how to get open and run crisp routes with our QB in a brand new offense... but as they keep saying ... millionaires arguing with billionaires in the mean time ..
We play a meaningful game in about six months if I'm not mistaken ... and a handful of people on one side are too concerned about how much of the golden calf that they get or dont get .. but the people on the other side are doing the exact same thing. I really am getting sick of it ... but at least it's not Brett Favre retirement talk yet
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Face it, the difference between the AVERAGE nfl player and the guy that would sub for him isn't huge.
If this were true we'd be in the playoffs every year or close to it.
Your position is right in style. If this were about 1918.
Face it.....if your boss walked into the building after getting out of his Rolls Royce and told you to take an 18% pay cut and work an extra 2 weeks to boot you'd laugh in his face. To say anything else is disingenuous at best.
Here's a fact: I would do it, OR, I'd look for another job. My boss is my boss - when it comes to the hours I work, the pay I get, etc. I can like it or dislike it - I can stay or go. My choice - not his.
For you to say the players have a right to demand something is disingenuous.
Put it to you this way - you're the boss that got out of the Rolls. Your employee comes up to you and says "hey, you're making too much. I want more - and I demand to see your net income and net worth." What are you going to do? If you say anything other than "I'd tell the employee to shove off", you're lying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
BS
IF that were true then leagues like the UFL, USFL, and the Arena league would still be in business. What separates those leagues from the NFL???
Many things, but most importantly the money a player can make.
Not to mention their exposure, there medical capability and if they are vested, a pension.
Oh yeah let's not for get the privilege to play for a league with the legacy the NFL has built.
The players time of bleeding the league is over and they are not happy.
They have been receiving around 50% or more of the revenue of late and that is simply not prudent business and ensuring the future of this League.
Owners have many more cost above and beyond just the players to take into account.
Edit: The only ones getting screwed here are the fans as per usual.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 02/15/11 11:17 PM.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective
Bargaining Update
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
