jocstrap 8 Posted February 24, 2011 mum is still the word eh? This is good keeping the media out of the loop IMO. It might persuade bad thoughts by either party. Get it done behind closed doors, then fill us in on what happened. PLEASE LET THERE BE A 2011 SEASON <insert our new praying emoticon here> (That's one of my sig hopefuls Mike ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shovelheadt 71 Posted February 24, 2011 League calls special meeting The league has called a meeting for tomorrow at the Combine for all GMs and coaches. At the meeting, the NFL is expected to brief teams on any number of issues pertaining to labor uncertainty and football operations, including what to expect in the days leading up to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the manner of league business that will be allowed this offseason, and the type of contact that teams will be permitted to have with agents. The meeting is expected to be held at 5:30 p.m. ET Thursday. So do you think this means anything? If you believe the league, they have meetings like this at every combine. Not sure tho if they're ever called last minute. The one that caught my attention was how the players union side left the meeting for a quick break about an hour before it was due to end. First time anyone's left the building throughout these mediated sessions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Larry David 20 Posted February 24, 2011 So do you think this means anything? If you believe the league, they have meetings like this at every combine. Not sure tho if they're ever called last minute. The one that caught my attention was how the players union side left the meeting for a quick break about an hour before it was due to end. First time anyone's left the building throughout these mediated sessions. I think it's a bad sign. It sounds like they're going to go over what the coaches and GMs can do and can't do during the lockout. Hope I'm wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted February 28, 2011 There is not much info out there??? This was the best I could do as of late... Indy still hoping players, owners can make a deal By MICHAEL MAROT Posted 10:15 AM ET INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard doesn't buy the conventional wisdom. He believes NFL owners and players are making progress on a new collective bargaining agreement and that next year's Super Bowl will still be played at Lucas Oil Stadium. "I like the fact they got the mediator in there, and they're meeting seriously," Ballard said during this weekend's annual scouting combine. "I'm sure they're closer than they have been in the past. They're kind of keeping it to themselves right now because they don't want to have any extra pressure on them right now." NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith and league officials have not provided updates on negotiations before federal mediator George Cohen. The two sides met for seven consecutive days in Washington before stopping Thursday. Talks are to resume Tuesday, less than 72 hours before the labor deal expires and a lockout could begin. On Thursday, Cohen said the two sides had made "some progress" but "very strong differences remain." Later that day, league officials updated the head coaches and general managers and provided a list of possible scenarios. On Friday, Smith spent nearly two hours meeting with agents, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and league counsel Jeff Pash met with the owners' labor committee at the Colts' complex. Ballard, like most everyone else, has no inside information. But he surely has a rooting interest. Some estimates say losing the Super Bowl could cost Indy as much as $200 million. And after years of preparation for the city's first Super Bowl, the last thing Ballard or the host committee wants is a repeat of the 1994 baseball season. "I can't believe they didn't do a World Series," he said. "We don't want to go down that road. This model works. Everybody makes money in the NFL. So there's no reason not to continue." Not everyone agrees, which is why labor talks have overshadowed one of the biggest and busiest weeks of the entire offseason. The most recent CBA was signed in 2006, but owners exercised a clause in 2008 that let them opt out. League owners want a greater percentage of the roughly $9 billion in annual revenue that is shared with the players. Among the other significant issues are a rookie wage scale; the owners' push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games; and benefits for retired players. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/APOnline/Article/242179/201102281015/Indy-still-hoping-players-owners-can-make-a-deal.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted February 28, 2011 NFLPA to decertify by March 3 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6161468 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted February 28, 2011 What am I going to do on Sunday's when there is no football What is going to happen to FFotaday's front page? There will be nothing, a void, oh the pain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadLizard 73 Posted February 28, 2011 What am I going to do on Sunday's when there is no football What is going to happen to FFotaday's front page? There will be nothing, a void, oh the pain Oh please - There is always something else to do. Personally, maybe this is what needs to happen to get the "ducks in a row" so to speak. The league needs a good wake-up call. I think the NFL feels its a little too important and maybe a mini-bitchslap is the right thing here. Its obvious they think their crap smells good since they've been trying to fock over lots of people with incredibly obnoxious demands for the NFL Network. Take a year off. Its billionaires fighting with multi-millionaires while the rest of the country fights over scraps. Fock them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,272 Posted February 28, 2011 Watch college ball, hit an extra round of golf on Sundays Let the millionaires and billionaires slap fight it out.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted February 28, 2011 Oh please - There is always something else to do. Personally, maybe this is what needs to happen to get the "ducks in a row" so to speak. The league needs a good wake-up call. I think the NFL feels its a little too important and maybe a mini-bitchslap is the right thing here. Its obvious they think their crap smells good since they've been trying to fock over lots of people with incredibly obnoxious demands for the NFL Network. Take a year off. Its billionaires fighting with multi-millionaires while the rest of the country fights over scraps. Fock them. I was looking for some sympathy, not a realistic slap in the face Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted February 28, 2011 Watch college ball, hit an extra round of golf on Sundays Let the millionaires and billionaires slap fight it out.... didn't know they played on Sunday's and I retired from golf when I shot a 99 8 or 9 years ago. I get toooo frustrated with that sport. It's not fun when blood pressure increases 5 fold. Maybe I'll fish a little more:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted February 28, 2011 I got an invoice from the Green Bay Packers today, they want payment for next season by 3/31/11. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted February 28, 2011 I got an invoice from the Green Bay Packers today, they want payment for next season by 3/31/11. What happens if there is no season? Do you still have to pay for 2011? If you don't pay, will they take you off the current ticket holder list and put you on a waiting list? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,272 Posted March 1, 2011 didn't know they played on Sunday's and I retired from golf when I shot a 99 8 or 9 years ago. I get toooo frustrated with that sport. It's not fun when blood pressure increases 5 fold. Maybe I'll fish a little more:) Oh yes. I prefer earlier tee times, especially in the summer heat...... or maybe hit the back nine at twilight or something. Regardless, I am less concerned with the score, though if I do well that is great too. I bring a twelve pack, a radio, and have no issue with you playing through.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted March 1, 2011 What happens if there is no season? Do you still have to pay for 2011? If you don't pay, will they take you off the current ticket holder list and put you on a waiting list? If you don't pay you are out, no waiting list. If there is no season you will get a refund. If there is no season they will be holding a big chunk of money for 5 months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
worm 36 Posted March 1, 2011 Adam Schefter from Twitter: Doty ruled for Players in TV Case. Overturned Burbank's Decision. All TV Contracts violate CBA. Separate earing to come on the damages. Peter King: For fb fans, Doty's ruling that NFL can't use $4B in TV money for '11 expenses during lockout is gd news. Could push sides to legit talks. Here's a nice summary/analysis of the situation - Link The NFLPA argued that the NFL breached its duty to its major partner – the players – to exploit revenues in its broadcast contracts. The NFL, the union argued, chose to negotiate “lockout insurance” at the expense of getting the most possible revenue from the deals, revenue shared by the players. After an earlier ruling allowed the NFL access to those funds, tonight’s ruling reversed that decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted March 2, 2011 T-Minus 1 day and praying :praying emoticon: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted March 2, 2011 Here is the latest... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e90f98/article/pash-league-could-extend-deadline-if-gap-in-labor-talks-closes?module=HP_headlines WASHINGTON -- NFL owners would be open to extending the deadline for expiration of the collective bargaining agreement beyond Thursday at 11:59 p.m. ET, NFL general council Jeff Pash said Wednesday morning before the league and the NFL Players Association resumed labor negotiations at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service office of George Cohen. "I think we have to see where we're at," Pash said. "I think that's option. We're not taking anything off the table. "I think it's important to reach an agreement as soon as you can. We've talked about the damage uncertainty does to the league, the damage uncertainty does to the players." NFLPA president Kevin Mawae and executive committee member and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees joined the mediation for the first time on Wednesday. "Hopefully we get a little closer to where we need to be," Mawae said. Wednesday also marked the first time the entire NFL labor committee participated in the negotiations. The committee -- comprised of owners Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers, Pat Bowlen of the Denver Broncos, Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers, John Mara of the New York Giants, Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs, Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots, Dean Spanos of the San Diego Chargers and Mike Brown of the Cincinnati Bengals, and Green Bay Packers CEO Mark Murphy -- has a previously scheduled meeting in nearby Chantilly, Va., scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. That meeting, scheduled to start at 3 p.m. ET, is intended to provide updates to the full ownership group and determine next steps in the negotiating process. "We decided it would be a good idea for our full committee to meet with this mediation process," Richardson said. "Our objective, of course, is to negotiate a fair agreement for players and teams. So far we obviously haven't had success. We're optimistic in due time we will." In an exclusive interview with NFL Network, Brees was asked why he felt it was important for a player of his stature to be involved in the talks. "Because I feel like I can make a difference," Brees said. "I feel like I represent all 1,900 players in this league, just as all the players who are involved do. "I know how many have sacrificed on my behalf in the past. I'm just trying to do the same for them." The NFL's labor committee arrived in the D.C. area Tuesday and met over dinner, shortly after a ruling by U.S. District Court judge David Doty in Minneapolis in which he sided with the union by overruling a special master's Feb. 1 decision to reject the NFLPA's request that $4 billion in 2011 payments from networks to the league be placed in escrow if there is a lockout. "It doesn't change the dynamic for us," Pash said. "It was very clear the TV money was a loan. The decision not unexpected." Mawae thought the ruling works in the players' favor. "I feel great we won the case with Doty," Mawae said. The mediation in front of Cohen, which resumed Tuesday for six hours after a weekend break, doesn't have a definite end point. Cohen has cleared his schedule to continue mediation at least through Wednesday. Another large group of players accompanied NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith on Wednesday, including Mawae, Brees, Minnesota Vikings linebacker Ben Leber, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch, Denver Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, New York Jets fullback Tony Richardson, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel and Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth. Neither the league nor the union would discuss if they fared any better Tuesday than they did during more than 40 hours of meetings spread across seven previous days of mediation. When that round ended this past Thursday, Cohen said the parties still had "very strong differences" on the "all-important core issues." The CBA runs out at midnight as Thursday becomes Friday on the East Coast, and the owners could lock out the players afterward. The union also could decertify -- essentially, declare itself out of the business of representing players -- and let the players take their chances in court. "We're less than two days away from the deadline, so obviously this is crunch time," Brees said. "We as players want to get a deal done. There is definitely a sense of urgency on our side." Whatever happens between now and Friday eventually could wind up causing the country's most popular sports league to lose regular-season games to a work stoppage for the first time since 1987. Or everything could be resolved by management and labor in an industry with revenues topping $9 billion annually. The biggest sticking point all along has been how to divide those revenues, including what cut team owners should get up front to help cover certain costs, such as stadium construction. Under the old deal, owners received $1 billion off the top. They entered these negotiations seeking to double that. Among the other significant topics in negotiations: a rookie wage scale, the owners' push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games, and benefits for retired players. In many respects, the labor talks boil down to money. And there is plenty of money at risk the longer it takes for the league and NFLPA to work together again. The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $350 million if there's no new CBA by August, before the preseason starts, and a loss of revenues totaling $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. And if regular-season games are lost in 2011, the NFL figures that revenue losses would amount to about $400 million per week. If the league locks out the players, everything would stop except the NFL Draft on April 28-30, and any interviews or workouts teams hold for college players leading up to the draft. After that, though, teams wouldn't be able to contact their picks or sign undrafted rookies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike FF Today 732 Posted March 4, 2011 Deadline Extended 24 Hours "The NFL and the players' union agreed Thursday to a 24-hour extension of the current collective bargaining agreement so that negotiations can continue. The CBA was set to expire at midnight, which would likely have prompted the first work stoppage since 1987 for a league that rakes in $9 billion a year. The extra time, according to sources, gives the union a chance to review the league's latest proposal and for both sides to decide on the next step -- be that another extension, more negotiations, a lockout or decertification." It's hard to guess what this 24-hour extension means but at the least the players union felt compelled enough by the owners latest offer to give it more consideration... a small step of progress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted March 4, 2011 Deadline Extended 24 Hours "The NFL and the players' union agreed Thursday to a 24-hour extension of the current collective bargaining agreement so that negotiations can continue. The CBA was set to expire at midnight, which would likely have prompted the first work stoppage since 1987 for a league that rakes in $9 billion a year. The extra time, according to sources, gives the union a chance to review the league's latest proposal and for both sides to decide on the next step -- be that another extension, more negotiations, a lockout or decertification." It's hard to guess what this 24-hour extension means but at the least the players union felt compelled enough by the owners latest offer to give it more consideration... a small step of progress. you are saying there still is a chance? "This is my dumb and dumber quote" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted March 4, 2011 KFFL) The NFL and the Players Association have agreed to a seven-day extension in their talks toward a new collective bargaining agreement, reports Adam Schefter, of ESPN. The two sides likely will resume mediation Monday, March 7. Analysis: The NFL and the Players Association have agreed to a seven-day extension in their talks toward a new collective bargaining agreement, reports Adam Schefter, of ESPN. The two sides likely will resume mediation Monday, March 7. I suppose this is good news:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,685 Posted March 10, 2011 Union says no to 18 games Posted by Mike Florio on March 9, 2011, 8:25 PM EST Though it’s unclear whether the NFLPA continues to posture on the issue in the hopes of getting the best financial deal possible, the union’s position on an expanded season is getting more and more clear. In late January, NFLPA president Kevin Mawae said he “can’t sell” an 18-game season to his constituents. At a time when a feeling had emerged that the union would acknowledge the pie-growing benefits of two more regular-season games, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith says that expanding the season from 16 to 18 games won’t happen. Speaking at the union’s Washington offices during an event arranged jointly with 106.7 the Fan, Smith was “categorical” that the union won’t agree to the change, according to Jim Trotter of SI.com. “First of all, the league has never presented a formal proposal for 18 games,” Smith said. “But more importantly, it’s something that our players don’t want. Eighteen games is not in the best interest of our players’ safety, so we’re not doing it.” Even if Smith is merely posturing, it will now be difficult for him to backtrack at a later date. It will be just as difficult for Commissioner Roger Goodell to stick with a four-game preseason after trashing consistently the quality of the games and expressing a strong desire to cut the full-price exhibition season in half. Of course, after the union decertifies, the league will be able to play as many games as it wants to play. Barring a major reversal, decertification and litigation is where we’re headed. ~pft.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted March 11, 2011 not looking good fellas... The deadline to reaching a new collective bargaining agreement between the NFL owners and players is Friday at 11:59 p.m. ET, but the indications from both sides on Thursday evening aren’t very good. In fact, you could say it couldn’t be much worse at this point. Both sides gave interviews to the media in different forms, and nothing that was said could be construed as positive. First, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith kicked things off late Thursday afternoon on Twitter. “Players stay strong! Stay informed, update by 2pm tomorrow,” the union leader said. Player sources said that the feeling after the last week’s extension is that the NFLPA was against extending the CBA discussions again, so Smith could be putting it out that things aren’t going well and to expect a major update on Friday afternoon. Then NFLPA assistant executive director of external affairs George Atallah took his frustrations to Twitter. “I would like to request an expense credit from the owners on the last 3 hours of my life. “Media, fans and friends: No negotiating tonight. We were just told the owners broke for dinner. You may go home now." Responding to Atallah's comments, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told a reporter on Twitter: "While George is at it, ask him when is union going to respond to our 150 pages of draft CBA provisions." Things also looked bleak when NFL general counsel Jeff Pash summed up where things are headed. "I don't know if both sides have an equal commitment (to getting the CBA done),” the lawyer said to a throng of reporters in Washington. “Obviously we have the commitment." Smith later responded: "With all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party's commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you, everybody who has an obligation to the people who love this game and the players who dig this game, everybody who reports (who) is here, stick to the facts." http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-union-players-association-trade-labor-insults-on-Twitter-031011 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fantasy Noob 10 Posted March 11, 2011 So I am confused, the NFL and the NFLPA keep arguing about splitting the 9billion revenue. My understanding was players got paid by their contracts, they dont get their contract and then an extra 2million each cause the NFL had a good year. So were is the money the NFLPA (shared revenue, 4billion) going? How do you have revenue sharing when your signed to a contract with the amount of money you get in black and white? Where is the slide/adjustment coming from in each players salary? Is it the base minimum contract every player gets is adjusted upwards and downwards based on the total revenue each year? So the only players that actually see a revenue sharing is the league minimum players is this what they are arguing about? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike FF Today 732 Posted March 11, 2011 ESPN Link Terrific, we're going to court. The NFL Players Association has filed papers to decertify, effectively disbanding the union and giving it the chance to sue under antitrust laws if there is a lockout. The move follows a 16th day of federally mediated negotiations in which the union, presented with a proposal from the league's owners group late Friday afternoon as a 5 p.m. decertification deadline approached, rejected the offer as "significant differences continue to remain," union chief DeMaurice Smith said. "They have chosen to choose another strategy, and that is their choice," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said. "The parties have not achieved an overall agreement," federal mediator George Cohen said, "nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held competing positions that separated them on core issues. "No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted March 12, 2011 Just dumb again by the players union. The owners were willing to show 5 years of records and not a budge. These are people playing a game and making multi million dollars. Even the lowest end makes 300K to be a focking long snapper or a 3rd stringer. Yet they b!tch. Okay football players careers are shorter than most sports - then stay in fockign college and get a damn degree for after football. They whine all day about they put their lives on the line - please check the great amount of money our soldiers make , Iron workers make , cops make , etc - they have a much more dangerous job then a damn football player. The players whine about the owners make so much and boo hoo it's not fair -- they are buisnessman who own a team you are their employee deal with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 12, 2011 So I am confused, the NFL and the NFLPA keep arguing about splitting the 9billion revenue. My understanding was players got paid by their contracts, they dont get their contract and then an extra 2million each cause the NFL had a good year. So were is the money the NFLPA (shared revenue, 4billion) going? How do you have revenue sharing when your signed to a contract with the amount of money you get in black and white? Where is the slide/adjustment coming from in each players salary? Is it the base minimum contract every player gets is adjusted upwards and downwards based on the total revenue each year? So the only players that actually see a revenue sharing is the league minimum players is this what they are arguing about? I'm not positive about this, but I think it has to do with where the salary cap is set at. The higher the salary cap, the more money players will make. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesitedoc 5 Posted March 12, 2011 Maybe this has been said before and better than I can say, but this is not a battle between millionaires and billionaires. True there are some rich NFL players, but on average, all NFL players are not millionaires when you factor in the salaries of the lesser payed players AND the length of their careers. Maybe I am wrong, someone smarter than me on this board might have the numbers. We should all remember that what many of these players earn now will need to last them for quite a long time. It is mostly the star players who go on to continued success as sports announcers, TV commercial actors etc... So I hope the players get exactly what they want. Eff, the greedy owners. They will all be able to walk well into their 80's while a good majority of past, present and future players won't. They also won't live as long anyway. The NFL life expectancy is about 20 years less than average. (Steps down from short soap box) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesitedoc 5 Posted March 12, 2011 Just dumb again by the players union. The owners were willing to show 5 years of records and not a budge. These are people playing a game and making multi million dollars. Even the lowest end makes 300K to be a focking long snapper or a 3rd stringer. Yet they b!tch. Okay football players careers are shorter than most sports - then stay in fockign college and get a damn degree for after football. They whine all day about they put their lives on the line - please check the great amount of money our soldiers make , Iron workers make , cops make , etc - they have a much more dangerous job then a damn football player. The players whine about the owners make so much and boo hoo it's not fair -- they are buisnessman who own a team you are their employee deal with it. I would argue that the cops, iron workers and soldiers for sure should be paid more. You realize that you and I are paying with our taxes to send private mercenaries to fight in the wars. Blackwater employees, for example. These "private soldiers/mercs" earn about $500/day or about $100K a year, depending on their position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted March 12, 2011 I would argue that the cops, iron workers and soldiers for sure should be paid more. You realize that you and I are paying with our taxes to send private mercenaries to fight in the wars. Blackwater employees, for example. These "private soldiers/mercs" earn about $500/day or about $100K a year, depending on their position. Look my argument is if you want to play football don't b!tch abut the circumstances when they are better than 99.9% of other jobs in america. Football players - make millions a year , treated like celeb's , the worst makes 300K a year , you live in luxury to play a game. If they are concerned of a short career - okay stay in school get a degree for after football - gee maye you will have to live like most people - what a travesty. If concerned about getting hurt - again stay in schooland don't play it's a choice - but there are dozens of more dangerous jobs that maybe pay 50-60 grand a year. Hell a soldier doesn't even make enough to buy a house yet he puts his life on the line every day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
giraldi02 476 Posted March 12, 2011 Maybe this has been said before and better than I can say, but this is not a battle between millionaires and billionaires. True there are some rich NFL players, but on average, all NFL players are not millionaires when you factor in the salaries of the lesser payed players AND the length of their careers. Maybe I am wrong, someone smarter than me on this board might have the numbers. We should all remember that what many of these players earn now will need to last them for quite a long time. It is mostly the star players who go on to continued success as sports announcers, TV commercial actors etc... So I hope the players get exactly what they want. Eff, the greedy owners. They will all be able to walk well into their 80's while a good majority of past, present and future players won't. They also won't live as long anyway. The NFL life expectancy is about 20 years less than average. (Steps down from short soap box) Give me 300,000 dollars for three years and I guarantee you ill be able to make due for the rest of my life. It's called fiscal responsibility and hardly anyone in major sports has it. Don't give me the argument that I should side with the players either. At the end of the day its a business. If these guys don't like the exorbitant amount of money they currently make and want more...screw them. I don't walk into my job and demand my salary. I'm gracious enough to even have a job right now. And when I see these players have a bugatti, lamborghini, and five hummers sitting in their driveway I become less inclined to side with them. Even to the players that make the league minimum, frugal is not in their vocabulary. The union screwed themselves by allowing smith to "lead" them. Now they've decertified, AGAIN, and its a complete sham. I hope they get railed at the bargaining table. I'm willing to sacrifice an entire season of NFL football in order to watch these players suffer financially. Maybe it can serve as a lesson to be more appreciative of what you have and to invest your income appropriately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted March 12, 2011 Give me 300,000 dollars for three years and I guarantee you ill be able to make due for the rest of my life. It's called fiscal responsibility and hardly anyone in major sports has it. Don't give me the argument that I should side with the players either. At the end of the day its a business. If these guys don't like the exorbitant amount of money they currently make and want more...screw them. I don't walk into my job and demand my salary. I'm gracious enough to even have a job right now. And when I see these players have a bugatti, lamborghini, and five hummers sitting in their driveway I become less inclined to side with them. Even to the players that make the league minimum, frugal is not in their vocabulary. The union screwed themselves by allowing smith to "lead" them. Now they've decertified, AGAIN, and its a complete sham. I hope they get railed at the bargaining table. I'm willing to sacrifice an entire season of NFL football in order to watch these players suffer financially. Maybe it can serve as a lesson to be more appreciative of what you have and to invest your income appropriately. I agree but instead of money management focus why not hey get your degree??? These people have a full ride everything paid for at almost any college they want to go to - take advantage of it. Then hey if you get injured or the NFL doesn't last more than 3-5 years you have a career to pursue. These are people that have been told they are the greatest thing in the world since 9th grade Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Truck Jackson 0 Posted March 13, 2011 Maybe this has been said before and better than I can say, but this is not a battle between millionaires and billionaires. True there are some rich NFL players, but on average, all NFL players are not millionaires when you factor in the salaries of the lesser payed players AND the length of their careers. Maybe I am wrong, someone smarter than me on this board might have the numbers. We should all remember that what many of these players earn now will need to last them for quite a long time. It is mostly the star players who go on to continued success as sports announcers, TV commercial actors etc... So I hope the players get exactly what they want. Eff, the greedy owners. They will all be able to walk well into their 80's while a good majority of past, present and future players won't. They also won't live as long anyway. The NFL life expectancy is about 20 years less than average. (Steps down from short soap box) Who says you should be able to retire because you played in the NFL for 3 years? and the owners own the teams, if players don't want to play for the millions the owners are offering to pay them, then they should go coach high school football somewhere for 30k dollars a year, and they can retire when they're 65 like every1 else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
typhus 13 Posted March 13, 2011 I keep seeing a number of posters posing the same question: "How can anyone support the owners?" I have a simple response: "Because the owners' interests here are largely aligned with those of the fans." Don't believe me? As a thought experiment, try to answer the following question: "if I really wanted to ruin fan interest in the game of professional football, what changes would I make?" I'll tell you the first change I would make. I'd get rid of the salary cap. Presto. Just like that I'd infect the game with a number of the problems that are currently plaguing MLB. Within a few years there would be a two-tiered league. The first tier would consist of maybe five or six teams which, because of their far greater resources and ability to spend on the best talent, would be the only teams that would ever really have a chance at winning it all. Oh sure, every once in a while the stars might align just right for a small-market franchise (the NFL equivalent of the Oakland As of the early 2000s or today's Tampa Devil Rays) allowing it to crash the big boys' party for a few years. But for the most part the same 5 or 6 teams would be winning Superbowls by outspending everyone else. Some of you might even think that all of this sounds pretty cool. After all, the Cowboys are the NFL equivalent of the Yankees. It's reasonable to suppose that no team generates more revenues and therefore that no team would be able to spend on talent like the Cowboys. Maybe it's just me, but that's not the way I want to see my team win. I'd rather know that the Cowboys are beating teams on a level playing field. I'd rather beat them with scouting and drafting, coaching and preparation and not by spending more money than them. In any event, I'm pretty sure that fans of the 26 or 27 teams in the "have-not" markets wouldn't think that this was an improvement to the game, even if the odd Cowboy or Giants fan might. But I digress. Do you want to know what else I'd do if I really wanted to ruin the game? I'd get rid of the draft. That would ensure that no small market team could make up for its competitive disadvantage in terms of resources through scouting and shrewd drafting. Nope. From the moment they left college, players would be free to go to the highest bidder. In fact, I suppose if I really wanted to ruin the game I'd get rid of any concept of team ownership of player rights: not just draft rights, or things like the franchise player tag, but even any rights arising under player contracts. If the Redskins wanted to scoop a player from another team mid-season by offering to pay him more, I'd let them do it. Now, for certain, I'd have ruined the competitive balance of the league and effectively killed the interest of fans in 26 or 27 markets. They wouldn't ever be able to rely on any of their good players sticking around for even a full season, so why form any attachments? But you know what else I'd have done? I'd have created a perfectly free market for players' services. Make no mistake: the players would love my new league in concept (at least in the short term), since it would obviously maximize their freedom to choose where to work and under what circumstances, not to mention its effect on their pocket-books. The upshot of all of this should be clear. Those of you arguing for player mobility and the right make whatever amount their services would command in a "free market" have overlooked the impact that this would have, taken to the extreme, on the competitive balance of the league. The NFL cannot be compared to most labor markets, where worker mobility and the lack of artificial constraints on wages are fundamental rights. At root, the NFL is an affiliated group of 32 businesses, each of which is in the business of selling a competitive spectacle. Keeping it competitive requires certain constraints on the rights of the players to move around and the rights of the owners to pay the players anything they want. Consequently, the players' don't operate in a "free market". We, as fans, benefit from that because it allows the NFL to stage a more competitive spectacle than other leagues, like MLB. In that sense, our interests in these labor disputes are largely aligned with those of the owners, who maintain the competitive integrity of the league even as they benefit themselves financially by placing constraints on the players' rights as employees. But don't worry. Ultimately, the players benefit just like the owners and the fans do. Indeed, the short-term constraints on their freedom and earning potential keeps interest in the game high, ensuring that butts are in seats and that the networks will pay those ridiculous amounts for TV contracts so that player salaries can can continue to rise at a mind-boggling rate over the long term. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted March 13, 2011 I keep seeing a number of posters posing the same question: "How can anyone support the owners?" I have a simple response: "Because the owners' interests here are largely aligned with those of the fans." Don't believe me? As a thought experiment, try to answer the following question: "if I really wanted to ruin fan interest in the game of professional football, what changes would I make?" I'll tell you the first change I would make. I'd get rid of the salary cap. Presto. Just like that I'd infect the game with a number of the problems that are currently plaguing MLB. Within a few years there would be a two-tiered league. The first tier would consist of maybe five or six teams which, because of their far greater resources and ability to spend on the best talent, would be the only teams that would ever really have a chance at winning it all. Oh sure, every once in a while the stars might align just right for a small-market franchise (the NFL equivalent of the Oakland As of the early 2000s or today's Tampa Devil Rays) allowing it to crash the big boys' party for a few years. But for the most part the same 5 or 6 teams would be winning Superbowls by outspending everyone else. Some of you might even think that all of this sounds pretty cool. After all, the Cowboys are the NFL equivalent of the Yankees. It's reasonable to suppose that no team generates more revenues and therefore that no team would be able to spend on talent like the Cowboys. Maybe it's just me, but that's not the way I want to see my team win. I'd rather know that the Cowboys are beating teams on a level playing field. I'd rather beat them with scouting and drafting, coaching and preparation and not by spending more money than them. In any event, I'm pretty sure that fans of the 26 or 27 teams in the "have-not" markets wouldn't think that this was an improvement to the game, even if the odd Cowboy or Giants fan might. But I digress. Do you want to know what else I'd do if I really wanted to ruin the game? I'd get rid of the draft. That would ensure that no small market team could make up for its competitive disadvantage in terms of resources through scouting and shrewd drafting. Nope. From the moment they left college, players would be free to go to the highest bidder. In fact, I suppose if I really wanted to ruin the game I'd get rid of any concept of team ownership of player rights: not just draft rights, or things like the franchise player tag, but even any rights arising under player contracts. If the Redskins wanted to scoop a player from another team mid-season by offering to pay him more, I'd let them do it. Now, for certain, I'd have ruined the competitive balance of the league and effectively killed the interest of fans in 26 or 27 markets. They wouldn't ever be able to rely on any of their good players sticking around for even a full season, so why form any attachments? But you know what else I'd have done? I'd have created a perfectly free market for players' services. Make no mistake: the players would love my new league in concept (at least in the short term), since it would obviously maximize their freedom to choose where to work and under what circumstances, not to mention its effect on their pocket-books. The upshot of all of this should be clear. Those of you arguing for player mobility and the right make whatever amount their services would command in a "free market" have overlooked the impact that this would have, taken to the extreme, on the competitive balance of the league. The NFL cannot be compared to most labor markets, where worker mobility and the lack of artificial constraints on wages are fundamental rights. At root, the NFL is an affiliated group of 32 businesses, each of which is in the business of selling a competitive spectacle. Keeping it competitive requires certain constraints on the rights of the players to move around and the rights of the owners to pay the players anything they want. Consequently, the players' don't operate in a "free market". We, as fans, benefit from that because it allows the NFL to stage a more competitive spectacle than other leagues, like MLB. In that sense, our interests in these labor disputes are largely aligned with those of the owners, who maintain the competitive integrity of the league even as they benefit themselves financially by placing constraints on the players' rights as employees. But don't worry. Ultimately, the players benefit just like the owners and the fans do. Indeed, the short-term constraints on their freedom and earning potential keeps interest in the game high, ensuring that butts are in seats and that the networks will pay those ridiculous amounts for TV contracts so that player salaries can can continue to rise at a mind-boggling rate over the long term. good post and true the owners interest naturally lie with the fans as they know thats where their money comes from Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 13, 2011 Maybe this has been said before and better than I can say, but this is not a battle between millionaires and billionaires. True there are some rich NFL players, but on average, all NFL players are not millionaires when you factor in the salaries of the lesser payed players AND the length of their careers. Maybe I am wrong, someone smarter than me on this board might have the numbers. We should all remember that what many of these players earn now will need to last them for quite a long time. It is mostly the star players who go on to continued success as sports announcers, TV commercial actors etc... So I hope the players get exactly what they want. Eff, the greedy owners. They will all be able to walk well into their 80's while a good majority of past, present and future players won't. They also won't live as long anyway. The NFL life expectancy is about 20 years less than average. (Steps down from short soap box) Amen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 13, 2011 good post and true the owners interest naturally lie with the fans as they know thats where their money comes from I'm not "interested" in paying $150 for a ticket in the nosebleed section so I can attend a game. I'm not "interested" in paying thousands of dollars for a "personal seat license" so that I have the "privilege" of paying an insane amount for season tickets. The owners' interest are NOT in line with the fans. Not at all. They are interested in taking as much of our money as possible, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted March 13, 2011 I'm not "interested" in paying $150 for a ticket in the nosebleed section so I can attend a game. I'm not "interested" in paying thousands of dollars for a "personal seat license" so that I have the "privilege" of paying an insane amount for season tickets. The owners' interest are NOT in line with the fans. Not at all. They are interested in taking as much of our money as possible, period. Hate to burst your bubble man but the players aren't doing this to save the fans any money. If they got everything they wanted we would be paying more likely to see a game than less. Ummm the owners are only interested in getting our money ... how do you do this - by trying to make the game as attractive as they can so can charge crazy prices. Now is the players were fighting for lower ticket prices and/or lower Sunday ticket costs hell I would be with them - their not. They care less about the fans than the owners do which isn't saying much granted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 13, 2011 Hate to burst your bubble man but the players aren't doing this to save the fans any money. If they got everything they wanted we would be paying more likely to see a game than less. I'm aware of that. But don't try to pretend that the owners are looking after the best interests of the fans because they aren't. They're looking after their bottom line and that's it. Often times that interest will align with putting the best product on the field, but sometimes that isn't the case. This is one of those occasions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
typhus 13 Posted March 13, 2011 And I love the "owners opted out" argument. Like it's any more ridiculous than some 1st round draft pick lighting up the league for a season or two and looking for a pay raise with 2-3 seasons left on their contract. Never mind they've already been paid with the assumption they will perform to a certain level, once they've hit that level they're steadfast in their belief that they are underpaid. I actually think players looking for a premature pay raise is more ridiculous than the owners looking to swing the pendulum in their favor. Furthermore, it isn't like the owners are opting out every year to renegotiate. It isn't like they are opting out earlier than they are allowed to. They played by the rules and exercised their agreed upon right to renegotiate. It's like those stupid contracts that Nate Clements and Haynesworth signed. You know damn well that they aren't seeing the last year or two of those deals. Not unless they play at a level worthy of being called the best ever at those positions. They haven't and they won't see those last years. Just like the CBA. You knew the owners were gonna bail unless that agreement worked out to be best thing since sliced bread. It didn't and they bailed. I don't see how someone can spin it as the owners fault by choosing to exercise a right that they negotiated for years ago as part of a less-than-ideal overall agreement. I'd go as far as to say that they probably took the last deal with full intent of opting out and that they only took the last deal because they were given the option of opting out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike FF Today 732 Posted March 13, 2011 Good thoughts, comments, and opinion guys. As I just posted on FFToday's facebook page, This situation really comes down to $ and the percentage of revenue split the two sides are left with. I agree with typhus' comments above. The owners signed what they thought was a bad deal back in 2006 (or realized it was bad soon after). They owners feel like they deserve more for their investment. The players don't want to regress. Whatever happens, the two sides need to keep their mouths shut... especially DeMaurice Smith and the players. Their speeches and tweets over the last couple days aren't doing anything except raising my blood pressure and further cement my feelings that they have no clue or concern about what their actions mean to the people that allow them to make the cash they do... the fans. If either side thinks they're swaying public opinion, they're failing as far as this fan is concerned. Put a lid on it guys and get back to the mediation table. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites