|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735 |
Just speaking as a fan, I like the restricted system, though I think it needs to be less restrictive.
No first round tags....maybe start with 2nd round tags, and reduce the number of tags a team could impose.....not sure what it is now and don't care to look it up. You'd see more teams give up the pick to sign a player.
I don't mind a franchise tag, but I would say a player could only be tagged once. You better get him signed or traded for the best deal possible.
One player per team...that's 32 players who might be stuck with a team they don't want to play for, for 1 extra year at the current pay calculation.
Really, the beauty of the NFL is parity....teams need to keep that to keep this beast running, but it doesn't need to be so restrictive a guy can't change teams even against a teams will.
Now, in all of this, the players have to pay for the freedom.
I would say lowering the cap by about 20 mil a year is in order.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
No first round tags....maybe start with 2nd round tags, and reduce the number of tags a team could impose.....not sure what it is now and don't care to look it up. You'd see more teams give up the pick to sign a player.
You can apply the franchise tag to one player per year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735 |
I know. What I am saying is you could only do it once to a player in a multi-year contract cycle. Not year after year as has happened in the past.
Take Joe Thomas. If he wants to leave, we can tag him once and he has to stay that year. If he doesn't agree to a new contract, he goes free and clear if we don't trade him. We can't tag him two times in a row. The only way we could tag him again is if he signed a new deal and that contract expired.
Is that clear to my meaning??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Orlando Pace comes to mind when referencing a player being tagged more than once.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying for much the same reasons. Although I've argued the player's side often in this thread it's really not what I prefer.
Years ago when players stayed with the same team year after year I loved it! My Browns were my Browns. Year-in and year-out we knew them all and they were our guys. And I likewise hated it when players got a bit of freedom to move. I grumbled that at times it didn't even feel like our team anymore with all the new faces showing up.
But at the time I never gave it a thought at how the players felt about it. I was a kid and hadn't yet worked for a living.
I realize that allowing the players to change jobs is as good for them as it is for us in our own working careers. But I realize too that teams don't get to stay together for long. Maybe that's one reason we don't have the dynasties we used to have and why there's more parity. Rosters are always in a flux and everybody's in the same boat.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
We can go on like this for years. 
Let's not 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
What huge pay cut? More miss information.
No misinformation (or bad spelling). In a nutshell,the owners started by wanting an extra $1 billion off the top of the pie. Which would have been an 18% pay cut from last year coupled with the other give-backs they wanted.
The owners have moderated their stance to a graduated give-back by the players over the life of the new contract they proposed. But a pay cut is a pay cut no matter the size.
Now, if you had a feeling your boss was making bigger and bigger profits yet he was asking you to take a pay cut so he could make even bigger profits wouldn't that make you stop and think?
If your answer is anything but, "Why, yes, I guess it would", then you're either lying to yourself or delusional.
It's always about the money. This time is no different. But it's not about unreasonable demands. Unless we're talking about the owners. At least for now.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Quote:
What huge pay cut? More miss information.
No misinformation (or bad spelling). In a nutshell,the owners started by wanting an extra $1 billion off the top of the pie. Which would have been an 18% pay cut from last year coupled with the other give-backs they wanted.
The owners have moderated their stance to a graduated give-back by the players over the life of the new contract they proposed. But a pay cut is a pay cut no matter the size.
Now, if you had a feeling your boss was making bigger and bigger profits yet he was asking you to take a pay cut so he could make even bigger profits wouldn't that make you stop and think?
If your answer is anything but, "Why, yes, I guess it would", then you're either lying to yourself or delusional.
It's always about the money. This time is no different. But it's not about unreasonable demands. Unless we're talking about the owners. At least for now.
One point you keep missing Otto,, the owners OWN the league. They bought in, they own it. They take all the financial risk. If a team lost money, you can bet the players would still be paid.
Players are just employees.. Important employees,, you bet! But nothing more than employees.
In the end, if the owners don't get thier way, they can say,, to hell with it, we'll just desolve the league.
Then what will the players do?
The owners won't miss a meal,, But at some point, the players will.. except for the highest paid guys that is. Which is another reason they are different than the lower paid players.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I know. What I am saying is you could only do it once to a player in a multi-year contract cycle. Not year after year as has happened in the past.
...
Is that clear to my meaning??
Yep, I see what you're saying. Misunderstanding on my part.
As far as I know, there is no limit as to how many times a player can be tagged.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
I'm not missing any points.
I was accused of spreading misinformation. Which I did not do. So I set the record straight. Again.
And can we get off the "Owners can dissolve the league" horse crap? They'd never do it and we all know it. There's too much money involved even if they kept the current CBA which they've been crying about almost since they signed it.
I understand you siding with the owners. I just wish the guys who do would stop making things up. Too many on here believe everything they see in print on here.
Reading truly is fundamental......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Crazy, you may fault me for my spelling disability [Dyslexia], but you still haven't said a thing because you don't take the facts of the owners proposal in mind.
They only asked for more off the top... Off the top of future revenues, yet they stipulated an adjustment of allocations of the players share.
Namely away from 1st round picks and more to vested veterans including better medical security.
They also said that all teams must spend a minimum of 90% of cap.
[This means that even players on cheap O teams will earn as do their peers. This in it self would ensure that the players will not lose what they already have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Regardless of how the money is distributed, 60% of the present revenue is still greater than 60% of $1 billion less than the present revenue, which is what the owners are asking the players to give up.
Also, there has always been a salary floor in place in this CBA (aside from the most recent, uncapped year. In 2009 it was a shade under 88%. That's not the revelation you're making it out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I think that you are not up to speed here. 325 million (divided by 32) was there offer.
You also have to take into account future revenues that where negotiated by the owners on behalf of the league.
% aside the players are not being asked to take a pay cut.
Who is/should run the business of the league? The owners or the players?
Stupid question right and with that I will end my discussions on this debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
I think that the fans should get a billion off the top...lower ticket and concession prices across the board so cheaper to take the family to a game 
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526 |
Quote:
I think that the fans should get a billion off the top...lower ticket and concession prices across the board so cheaper to take the family to a game
I think us Browns fans should get "pain and suffering" right off the top ..........  lol
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I'm not missing any points.
I was accused of spreading misinformation. Which I did not do. So I set the record straight. Again.
And can we get off the "Owners can dissolve the league" horse crap? They'd never do it and we all know it. There's too much money involved even if they kept the current CBA which they've been crying about almost since they signed it.
I understand you siding with the owners. I just wish the guys who do would stop making things up. Too many on here believe everything they see in print on here.
Reading truly is fundamental......
Exactly Otto. People are making emotional rant threads without understanding what the hell is going on, as if they see a new blurb on the bottom of the screen on sportscenter then log on here and start pounding keys.
"Owners will dissolve the league!" 
"They want to turn the NFL on it's ear!"
It's pretty simple if you've followed it all for awhile. The owners knew the union would decertify and the players knew the owners would lock them out. The lockout hearing is scheduled for April 6th......so until then, rant away folks! Keep saying stuff like they should get rid of the tags, even though you don't know how they work......it's great stuff to read when I log on each morning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
and with that I will end my discussions on this debate.
Smartest thing you've said in this thread yet.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
I'm not missing any points.
I was accused of spreading misinformation. Which I did not do. So I set the record straight. Again.
Sorry Otto,, I didn't realize you were being accused of that.. but clearly, it wasn't me doing it.
Quote:
And can we get off the "Owners can dissolve the league" horse crap?
Why, because it defeats your argument? Look, I don't believe for one second that the owners will just dissolve the league.. But if the players want to take it over, that may be thier only choice.
Why in heavens name would a guy buy or build a team, spend his money to do so, only to have his employees want to take it over.
In the end, the owners have the final say.. if the courts side with the players, the owners have the ultimate answer.. Shut down, go out of business.
But really, what I think will happen if there isn't a settlement, is that the owners will just hire new players. Replacements.
I don't wanna see it come to that. But I suspect it's a better than even bet that it could.
Quote:
I understand you siding with the owners. I just wish the guys who do would stop making things up. Too many on here believe everything they see in print on here.
Siding with the owners? Listen, the owners have explained thier position very clearly. The Union has De Smith spouting nonsense. Can you dig? If you want to believe that nonsense,, don't let me get in your way.
How in the hell is stating my opininon "making things up"?
Hey, you don't like what I said,, cool,, But it's just my opinion....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
Quote:
3. Declairing that the NFL Defendants imposition of other anticompetitive restrictions, including the Salary Cap, "Franchise Player" designation, "Transition Player" designation, and/or other player restrictions, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restrictions;
maybe it's just me but If I'm reading this right, what the union is asking for is to have the Salary cap, Franchise player, Transition player designation to be found in violation of the Sherman Act? Isn't that the same as having all those designations removed from all future negotitions? I think that turns the NFL on it's ear. All by itself.
I believe what they're saying is that those violate the Sherman Act now that the players are no longer operating as a union. They're not suing to get those things removed from future negotiations, they're just using them as evidence of the now 32 individual businesses operating together in violation of anti-trust laws in order to get the ruling they need.
Once the legal battle is settled and the union reformed, you can bet those terms will make it back into whatever new CBA we get.
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Like I said, perhaps I'm reading it wrong.. But to me, it feels as if they are using that as a hammer,, and when/if things get settled, I believe the union will try to get those designations removed.. I believe that with all my heart..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
j/c Peter King had some good stuff in his Monday Morning QB. My stupid mouse isn't working, so it's tough for me to copy and paste the whole article, so if someone else wants to, go for it. MMQB
Last edited by brownsfansince79; 03/15/11 09:56 AM.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Good read,, once again, if King is right, it really looks like the owners were trying to put something out there that worked for both sides.. and the union didn't seem to want to have anything to do with it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
Good read,, once again, if King is right, it really looks like the owners were trying to put something out there that worked for both sides.. and the union didn't seem to want to have anything to do with it.
I'm become more and more inclined to agree with you.
That being said, I think the one thing that King says that I can certainly see is that the two sides just plain don't trust each other one bit.
Almost that, no matter what the owners would say, the union wouldn't believe it, even if there were documents to back it up, and vice versa.
"Here is every single financial statement"
"Well, we have a feeling you're still holding something back."
Not saying it makes any sense, or that I agree with it, just that that's the way it's appearing.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
The lack of trust is because there is so much money involved,...aka "greed."
Just because the past was wrecklessly allowed to inflate value doesn't mean it should continue.
If gone unchecked, player salaries will ruin the game, and that is what's more important.
I like to view it as the end-of-tunnel light finally coming on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735 |
Quote:
j/c
Peter King had some good stuff in his Monday Morning QB. My stupid mouse isn't working, so it's tough for me to copy and paste the whole article, so if someone else wants to, go for it.
MMQB
It's time to get off the 'if the writer is right".
There is enough information out there in multiple areas that outline the same basic information. The writers aren't making anything up. If anyone did, it is the owners, but I don't see any advantage at all in releasing anything but what was offered.
The bottom line is the players didn't want anything to change, and don't believe the owners who claim profits are getting too thin.
All one has to do is look at the climate of business in general to know that probably isn't even a stretch.
I know just from a insurance standpoint the owners costs have had to skyrocket over the past 2-3 years.
How many of you in here have seen your insurance rates increase?? Most I'll bet.
I wonder what sort of premium a team has covering it's players?? Somebody pays for broken teeth and bones. Someone pays to have knees fixed.
The cap goes up, rookie contracts go up 10% a year, utilities, etc, etc.....it isn't hard to believe team profits have shrunk significantly over the last several years.
Only a idiot would think otherwise.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Exactly.
The players aren't willing to find a middle ground from what the owners originally wanted (that extra billion off the top)....they want the same or more money, not less in any way.
So sure, the owners last offer was the middle ground that worked for both....but only based on them needing that extra billion off the top. And the players don't believe them.
Ya, even if the owners opened the books, the players wouldn't believe the books were right.
I thought the timeline would go like this:
#1 - Decertify the union
#2 - Lawsuit by the owners (saying decertification was a sham)
#3 - Lawsuit by the players (saying FA, franchise tags, and the draft is bogus)
#4 - Owners lock the players out
#5 - Lawsuit by the players #2 (to reject the lockout)
#6 - If the lockout is reversed, the owners just close up shop (right? Nobody can force the owners to keep the games going - lockout or not?)
#7 - While all this is playing out, some other court will determine if a season is played, what year's rules of the old CBA will be used (2009 or 2010).
I know 1, 2, & 3 are in process....what about 4 & 5?
So, we're almost guaranteed no replacement players. Right?
![[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: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
It's time to get off the 'if the writer is right".
There is enough information out there in multiple areas that outline the same basic information. The writers aren't making anything up. If anyone did, it is the owners, but I don't see any advantage at all in releasing anything but what was offered.
To be fair to Brownsfan, you must be thinking of me when you wrote that.
And I do agree with you that there is more than enough info out there to verify what King is saying..
But honestly Peen, I always question what writers say. Not that they would lie, but because they tend to not tell all.
In this article, I think King pretty much called it as it is given the amount of verification we've seen in other places..
I wasn't always, but I"m convinced that the owners tried... And that De Smith and the NFLPA weren't going to give in at all. I believe it was thier plan all along.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
I know just from a insurance standpoint the owners costs have had to skyrocket over the past 2-3 years.
How many of you in here have seen your insurance rates increase?? Most I'll bet.
I wonder what sort of premium a team has covering it's players?? Somebody pays for broken teeth and bones. Someone pays to have knees fixed.
The cap goes up, rookie contracts go up 10% a year, utilities, etc, etc.....it isn't hard to believe team profits have shrunk significantly over the last several years.
Only a idiot would think otherwise.
In my opinion, salaries are the hugest chunk of all that.
Why would an insurance premium -- Lloyd's for example -- cost so much if the "value" wasn't so high ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
So, we're almost guaranteed no replacement players. Right?
pretty much. replacement players are for a strike. the owners can't say they have locked out the current players but allow replacement players through the door.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Quote:
That is like Apple creating the IPod or IPhone but never being allowed to sell it because Samsung stole the rights to do so.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. No one is stealing anything.
I am not responsible for your lack of intelligence nor your inabilty to conceptualize. Just because you don't like the analagy doesn't mean it is not a good one nor that it isn't correct. The fact of the matter is that the Owners will have invested millions into developing a product and you are in favor of NOT ALLOWING them ANY protection whatsoever in collecting the divedends from that investment. You act as if the franchise tag is an act of Slavery. There are limits to its use and it is extremely costly to use. So it is not used in willy nilly fashion. The owners MUST be given some sort of protection for the investments they have provided. And while some players may not like it....They do prosper by it and as a concession for a larger Free Agency System that it allows I think it is a good thing. The owners would never have agreed to a free agency system without these types of protections.
It is simply bad for the league and bad for owners and bad for the fans for a anarchisticly free FA system. We think player loyalty is bad now??? We miss the days where we could root for Teams AND Players and not just Teams. I mean don't buy a Jersey with a name on it....because next year it may be obsolete...and that was a good 150-200 dollars down the drain. Anyone sporting their Authentic Quinn Jersey right now??? How many players out there when you say their name.....you think of their Team??? Not many....not like before. Manning, Brady, Joshua Cribbs (possibly) I know people will come up with others....But the point is it isn't like before when you said a name and Bam you thought of the team...They didn't even have to be particulaly good...but the team still flashed in your head. Now its worse than baseball and you need the back of the trading card to see that oh yeah he played 2 years in Buffalo, then he played a year in Saint Louis, He was then traded to Philidelphia, after which he went to play for Denver for 2 more years. And you don't even get the bubble gum anymore from the trading cards to ease your grief.
Does the NFL need FA....absolutely...for some of these players it is their best chance at staying in the league and for others it is their best chance for maximizing their financial potential. However I think the product on the field has suffered some because of it. The most successful clubs are those that have been able to keep its core members together the longest.(as long as those core members have some talent) The Manning /Harrison or Manning/Wayne hookups are a great example....because of their familiarity they can do things and have done things on the field that are truly amazing beyond words. Imagine whole teams like that (or at least a majority of a team). Free Agency works directly against this from ever happening.
What needs to be done is to develop a system that is good for the NFL...not one that is good for the owners, nor one that is good for the players. One that is good for the NFL. And I think they were prety close to that system (as far as Free Agency is concerned) before. The Players were able to have some flexibility and move to different teams and maximize their salaries. But the owners still had some protection on some of their investments. Was it perfect....no...but if you are looking for perfect, you are living on the wrong planet.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
Look, I don't believe for one second that the owners will just dissolve the league.. But if the players want to take it over, that may be thier only choice.
That is so ludicrous that I'm not even sure how to respond. They are not trying to take anything over. They were more than happy to leave things as they were. They are not asking for anything extra. This is not a strike. What part of these things do you not understand?
Quote:
Siding with the owners? Listen, the owners have explained thier position very clearly. The Union has De Smith spouting nonsense.
Yet strangely, the people that have taken the time to read what both sides have said/written don't think it's nonsense at all. You may disagree with what he says but it's not nonsense. In fact as far as the courts go there's a good chance the players will get a good chunk of what they want.
Guess all those guys are spouting nonsense, too.......
"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:
I am not responsible for your lack of intelligence nor your inabilty to conceptualize
Way out of bounds, dude. Way outta bounds......
If anyone in this debate lacks intelligence it sure as hell isn't ddubia.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Like 'Brady Quinn' out of bounds?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,619
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,619 |
Quote:
Like 'Brady Quinn' out of bounds?
Now now, let's not get carried away here...
Oh yeah, and you beat me to it!
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
j/c Peen After much thought, I would have to say We all should back the Owners. Why? I'm glad you asked There's a parable in the bible that deals with this kinda thing, and after some thought it does make sense. I don't know if this guy was a farmer or what he was but his story is that he went to town early in the morning to find workers for his field. He offered a penny a day for workers and hired what he thought he would need. Come mid-morning he thought he needed more, so off to town he went. He offered a penny a day for workers for his field, hired what he thought was needed and went back to the field. Early afternoon, He again goes to town & offers a penny a day to work in his field, each time he hires the ones willing to work. Come late afternoon, he again goes to town and offers a penny a day for workers. Late that evening, workers come and collect their penny for the work they did. However, some of the ones that were hired early in the morning started to question the farmer about why the ones that just started to work in the afternoon were being paid the same as they were, even though they were there all day. The farmers response was this: What is it to you? Is it not right that I should be able to spend my money the best way that I see fit? ( Not word for word here) but you should get the picture. In other words, It's HIS business, so shouldn't he be able to run it like he wants? The same applies to the owners here, their the ones who hire the guys, their the ones who offer the $$$, If the workers (players) agree to work (play) for their penny, then what right do they have to complain about how the owners spend their money? It is their $$$. Just saying...............
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Ya know, My Dad had his own business, a big construction co. I'd say in the mid-'60's and early '70's he had as many as 30+ workers. He built roads and curb systems for new housing developments. From time to time I'd go along with him and watch as he & others were working. Every once in a while a guy would do a better than avg. job and just gloat over what a good job he did.
On the way home I'd say to my Dad, maybe you should give the guy a raise or at least a pat on the back, because most of the time my Dad would just ignore the guy and say carry on. My Dad would shake his head and tell me, that he was paying the guy to do his job and he expected him to do a good job, he wouldn't have hired him otherwise. Now I always argued in defense of the worker, not that it ever did any good. But, the older I get the more I can see were my Dad was coming from. I'm 53 now and I don't know when it happened, It just has: For the last 20+ years, we (the working class) have somehow developed a sense of entitlement. If Joe Blow down the road has worked his business up & he is now driving a Jag, Well, by-golly I'm entitled to a Jag also. We all want what everyone has, but....I shouldn't have to work as hard to get it. Sad really.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
I'm entitled
Yep. That's the problem right there...
for all the crap my generation has already caused (and inevitably will down the line...) we weren't the ones who raised our kids on the idea that everyone gets a trophy, every girl is a princess, and rather than let kids scrape their knees, get yelled at, and have to deal with failure ... the overall idea of overprotective parents crept into our society...
Now we have generations that grew up believing that crap and what's worse is that they are trying to raise their kids as such ... so that they dont even know HOW to respond when someone tells them their kid isn't perfect because they've never even considered that option.
Not me, I got beat as a kid (figured it was a good plug ..) I still remembered the time I got into my first fight in 3rd grade, some fourth grader was picking on me and I hit him. Long story short, the principle lady had my dad on speaker phone and he said "Well if he didn't start it ... I think your full of ... for trying to punish him... but tell me when he serves detention and I'll come in and serve it with him." Then when the parent of the other student threatened to sue, she had a written statement swearing that her son wouldn't start a fight ... legally swore that her son wouldn't do that ... thankfully the video camera proved otherwise."
The point is, I think she was one of those people that honestly didn't believe that her son could be anything but an angel. That crap needs to stop.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Quote:
Look, I don't believe for one second that the owners will just dissolve the league.. But if the players want to take it over, that may be thier only choice.
That is so ludicrous that I'm not even sure how to respond. They are not trying to take anything over. They were more than happy to leave things as they were. They are not asking for anything extra. This is not a strike. What part of these things do you not understand?
Quote:
Siding with the owners? Listen, the owners have explained thier position very clearly. The Union has De Smith spouting nonsense.
Yet strangely, the people that have taken the time to read what both sides have said/written don't think it's nonsense at all. You may disagree with what he says but it's not nonsense. In fact as far as the courts go there's a good chance the players will get a good chunk of what they want.
Guess all those guys are spouting nonsense, too.......
No,, just you
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Oooohhhhh.....you hit me with the However will I heal from that hit....... What's next? Plugging your ears and screaming, "Nanananananananana...." Now that is funny.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Oooohhhhh.....you hit me with the However will I heal from that hit.......
What's next? Plugging your ears and screaming, "Nanananananananana...."
Now that is funny.
If you were any more clever, your IQ would climb to 10
Last edited by Damanshot; 03/15/11 07:17 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
I used to think my Dad was the meanest man on earth. Not to me, but to his workers. Now the older I get, I am starting to understand the reason he did things the way he did. I'm just sorry it took me as long as it has to understand it. Thank You for sharing your story. Good ol times.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement: Part Three
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
