NFLPA To Have Commercial Seeking Fan Sympathy

[Hostile]

They're looking for a little fan sympathy.

AjWAg7k9o38

[Reality]

Absolutely pathetic .. and extremely desperate ..

-Reality

[Nirvana]

I don't think this runs during the Super Bowl, it's just a youtube deal.

And yes it's pathetic. Instead of "letusplay" it should be "getyourbuttoutthereandplay"

[wileedog]

And yes it's pathetic. Instead of "letusplay" it should be "getyourbuttoutthereandplay"

I was thinking you could replace the word "play" with "get paid" throughout the whole thing.

They can play anytime they want.

[MonsterD]

:thumbdo:

[Everlastingxxx]

I already signed.

Let them Play!

[Hostile]

I don't think this runs during the Super Bowl, it's just a youtube deal.

And yes it's pathetic. Instead of "letusplay" it should be "getyourbuttoutthereandplay"Thanks for the info. I got it as an e-amil so I just went with what that said.

I changed the thread title.

[JVita17]

Let them play

[SilverStarCowboy]

4 million a year to a decently talanted player, most fans will probably make less in a lifetime of hard work.

[LongSnapper]

No sympathy from me

[JIMMYBUFFETT]

They'll get nothing and like it!

[Vtwin]

Absolutely unbelievable!

:lmao2:
Let us play!!! :lmao2: :lmao:

[warrior43]

They are just making it worse. They are strting to look like a joke. This is pathetic

[StylisticS]

No sympathy from me

Same here.

[Duane]

Billionaires vs Millionaires. Neither sides gets any sympathy from me.

[links18]

Billionaires vs Millionaires. Neither sides gets any sympathy from me.

:hammer:

[Big Country]

Billionaires vs Millionaires. Neither sides gets any sympathy from me.

:hammer: :hammer:

[NextGenBoys]

I'll side with the players every time on this.

Why do you guys want owners to get more money and a longer season? Those aren't the guys you cheer for on Sunday.

Makes no sense to me.

[DallasEast]

<-- ~watches video and suddenly remembers catchphrase from Windows Phone commercials~



Really..?

[GimmeTheBall!]

Im Sorry Players Association!!!!

Let Them Play, Here's My Money!!!!!!!!!!!

[THUMPER]

Absolutely pathetic .. and extremely desperate ..

-Reality

Exactly right. There is no sympathy for the players any more than there was for the MLB players in 1994. They do not have a legitimate gripe and have very little leverage.

They keep saying that "THEY are the product and without them there would be no NFL". Well guys that is true of EVERY business. The difference is that in most businesses the employees don't get paid millions like they do in professional sports.

You think the CEO of a company doesn't make 50-100 times what his employees make? Do you think that the company could exist without those employees? Who designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells the products that a company makes? It isn't the CEO, it is the employees but they don't get a percentage of the profits like the NFL players do, they get a salary that is typically between 35K-100K, not 350K-10M!

These NFL players (well ALL pro athletes actually) make an exorbitant amount of money compared with employees in other industries. Yes they are special athletes and should get more, but if they think for one minute that they deserve to get an even larger share of the pie than they already do they are tragically delusional.

The players should remember that the NFL would not exist without the owners and that it is the players who are replaceable. Apple would not exists without Steve Jobs or Wosniak but it could easily continue to exist without any one of its many employees. The same is true of pro sports.

Can't replace MVP Tom Brady? Matt Cassel filled in nicely when Brady was out a couple of years ago. No player is irreplaceable. Maybe not at the same skill level but they can be, and are, replaced every year.

The owners are just that, they OWN the league and they are not going to replace themselves nor is anyone going to force them out. They hold all the cards and all the leverage. If the players absolutely refused to sign a CBA the owners would go out and sign replacement players at a fraction of the cost and move on. Yes the game wouldn't be as good at first but it would catch up eventually and most of those players would come back anyway because they will NEVER find a better job anywhere else.

The players should agree to the CBA that the owners are offering and count themselves incredibly blessed to get it. They won't get anywhere near that kind of money in any other job.

Just sign the damn thing and let's get back to preparing for the 2011 season!

[THUMPER]

Billionaires vs Millionaires. Neither sides gets any sympathy from me.

Without those Billionaires those players wouldn't be Millionaires.

[Apollo Creed]

"Let's move it, you turds. You'll get no sympathy from me. You want sympathy, look in the dictionary between **** and syphillis."
-Major Payne

[NextGenBoys]

Exactly right. There is no sympathy for the players any more than there was for the MLB players in 1994. They do not have a legitimate gripe and have very little leverage.

They keep saying that "THEY are the product and without them there would be no NFL". Well guys that is true of EVERY business. The difference is that in most businesses the employees don't get paid millions like they do in professional sports.

You think the CEO of a company doesn't make 50-100 times what his employees make? Do you think that the company could exist without those employees? Who designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells the products that a company makes? It isn't the CEO, it is the employees but they don't get a percentage of the profits like the NFL players do, they get a salary that is typically between 35K-100K, not 350K-10M!

These NFL players (well ALL pro athletes actually) make an exorbitant amount of money compared with employees in other industries. Yes they are special athletes and should get more, but if they think for one minute that they deserve to get an even larger share of the pie than they already do they are tragically delusional.

The players should remember that the NFL would not exist without the owners and that it is the players who are replaceable. Apple would not exists without Steve Jobs or Wosniak but it could easily continue to exist without any one of its many employees. The same is true of pro sports.

Can't replace MVP Tom Brady? Matt Cassel filled in nicely when Brady was out a couple of years ago. No player is irreplaceable. Maybe not at the same skill level but they can be, and are, replaced every year.

The owners are just that, they OWN the league and they are not going to replace themselves nor is anyone going to force them out. They hold all the cards and all the leverage. If the players absolutely refused to sign a CBA the owners would go out and sign replacement players at a fraction of the cost and move on. Yes the game wouldn't be as good at first but it would catch up eventually and most of those players would come back anyway because they will NEVER find a better job anywhere else.

The players should agree to the CBA that the owners are offering and count themselves incredibly blessed to get it. They won't get anywhere near that kind of money in any other job.

Just sign the damn thing and let's get back to preparing for the 2011 season!


So your argument comes down to because NFL players get paid alot and more than most everyone else, and that they could not get paid that much doing any other job, that they don't deserve anything else? That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

Guess what it's a product of the high demand for the NFL. If us fans didn't obsess over it like we did, the players wouldn't be demanding for more money. We fill the stadiums, we buy the merchandise, and we watch the games. And who do we watch? The players.

But you'd like to give even more of our money to the owners?

I do not share your root of thinking. Especially in related to the bolded text. IMO that is a very bad comparison.

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Let them get minimum-wage jobs sweeping floors at WalMart, or collect unemployment when they find out their pseudo college educations didn't even qualify them for those jobs.

[Double Trouble]

That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

If you think that's whats involved in owning and risking everything with an NFL team, you're pretty ignorant. That point of view says the person flipping burgers at mcdonalds is more important than the CEO. :laugh2: Regardless of what you think of Jerry Jones, and it's obvious I don't think very highly of him, he risked every penny he had to buy the Cowboys and I support his right to try to get every cent he can out of the venture.

The NFLPA has put itself in a terrible situation by hiring a complete moron as its chief negotiator.

I'm in favor of both sides getting as much as they can. I don't care how they slice it up. I find the back and forth sparring interesting, but the attempts by Roger Goodell and the nflpa to curry favor with the public downright pathetic. The less either side says publicly the better off they are.

[SilverStarCowboy]

They keep saying that "THEY are the product and without them there would be no NFL". Well guys that is true of EVERY business.






NFL replacement players would get better ratings than any other sports' starting players.

People route for thier teams far more than the individuals on the teams they route for.

[NextGenBoys]

Let them get minimum-wage jobs sweeping floors at WalMart, or collect unemployment when they find out their pseudo college educations didn't even qualify them for those jobs.

How about you stop watching and promoting NFL football and they won't have a job.

You guys realize we're the ones who fund the players.

[NextGenBoys]

If you think that's whats involved in owning and risking everything with an NFL team, you're pretty ignorant. That point of view says the person flipping burgers at mcdonalds is more important than the CEO. :laugh2: Regardless of what you think of Jerry Jones, and it's obvious I don't think very highly of him, he risked every penny he had to buy the Cowboys and I support his right to try to get every cent he can out of the venture.

The NFLPA has put itself in a terrible situation by hiring a complete moron as its chief negotiator.

I'm in favor of both sides getting as much as they can. I don't care how they slice it up. I find the back and forth sparring interesting, but the attempts by Roger Goodell and the nflpa to curry favor with the public downright pathetic. The less either side says publicly the better off they are.

And THAT point of view is so flawed I don't know where to begin.

Next time you see burger flippers signing multi-million dollar endorsements to help sell another multi-million dollar product let me know.

[sago1]

Actually I do have some sympathy for the players. Must admit I fail to understand why the owners get so much sympathy on this board. Wonder if you would feel that way if the Cowboys were owned by the Ford family, or one of the owners of the Bengals, Browns, Bills, Rams, etc.

After all, it's not the owners will even suffer. They will still get their piece of the pie from TV rights and they will still own all the players they have under contract. If the owners go ahead and claim their no lockout going on and players must play, just how many of you are going to fork out the money to go see that game. Didn't realize so many of you hated Ware, Witten, Ratliff, Romo, Dez, Austin, etc.

If the players had the option of playing where they wanted to, wonder how many of them would play for the Lions, Bengals, etc

[Vtwin]

So your argument comes down to because NFL players get paid alot and more than most everyone else, and that they could not get paid that much doing any other job, that they don't deserve anything else? That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

Guess what it's a product of the high demand for the NFL. If us fans didn't obsess over it like we did, the players wouldn't be demanding for more money. We fill the stadiums, we buy the merchandise, and we watch the games. And who do we watch? The players.

But you'd like to give even more of our money to the owners?

I do not share your root of thinking. Especially in related to the bolded text. IMO that is a very bad comparison.


I don't understand why that is a bad comparison. Even the lowest paid of these men are making a lot of money for something they started out doing for fun. Thier natural talents and gave them an opportunity to get an education that many of them would NEVER had gotten if not for their athletic ability. Once in college they had access to facilties and time to hone their natural talents with an eye on making a career of playing football. The good ones got their wish and have the best of facilities and all the time in the world to "work" at making themselves better to earn that big paycheck.

What exactly do these men have invested in this up to this point? Seems to me they have had a pretty easy go of it considering all the things they do to get to where they are they were doing for fun anyway.

It's easy to look at the fat cats who make things happen and say "look at them pigs. I want mine too"

Well maybe with that college education they got for free they can make their billions and buy a team and have their cake and eat it too.

Until then they are the product that the NFL fan is buying and there is a lot more of them where they came from.

[zrinkill]

I don't understand why that is a bad comparison. Even the lowest paid of these men are making a lot of money for something they started out doing for fun. Thier natural talents and gave them an opportunity to get an education that many of them would NEVER had gotten if not for their athletic ability. Once in college they had access to facilties and time to hone their natural talents with an eye on making a career of playing football. The good ones got their wish and have the best of facilities and all the time in the world to "work" at making themselves better to earn that big paycheck.

What exactly do these men have invested in this up to this point? Seems to me they have had a pretty easy go of it considering all the things they do to get to where they are they were doing for fun anyway.

It's easy to look at the fat cats who make things happen and say "look at them pigs. I want mine too"

Well maybe with that college education they got for free they can make their billions and buy a team and have their cake and eat it too.

Until then they are the product that the NFL fan is buying and there is a lot more of them where they came from.


Great great post .....

[Double Trouble]

And THAT point of view is so flawed I don't know where to begin.

Next time you see burger flippers signing multi-million dollar endorsements to help sell another multi-million dollar product let me know.The amount they make has nothing to do with it. They make the actual burgers, just as the players are the ones playing. Each is the ultimate provider of the one who gives you what you consume.

Your point of view is idiotic and ignores everything else that goes into the product. The owner pays the coaches that prepare the players. The owner provides the stadium, the uniforms, the insurance and everything else it takes to stage an nfl game. There are only 32 owners (or ownership groups), but ~2000 players. Acting as though players' role in the NFL dwarfs that of owners is laughable.

[AMERICAS_FAN]

That ad, with all the locks and frnces makes the league look like a prison. And some of those player shots made them look like a bunch of down-on-their-luck hobos. So Maybe the NFL owners should run a cammercial of their own titled "Let Us Out" feturing guys like OJ Simpson behind bars.

[AMERICAS_FAN]

You sure about that?

Dohhhh :rolleyes:

[evarc]

I'll side with the players every time on this.

Why do you guys want owners to get more money and a longer season? Those aren't the guys you cheer for on Sunday.

Makes no sense to me.
Because players make enough just to play a game...

[NextGenBoys]

I don't understand why that is a bad comparison. Even the lowest paid of these men are making a lot of money for something they started out doing for fun. Thier natural talents and gave them an opportunity to get an education that many of them would NEVER had gotten if not for their athletic ability. Once in college they had access to facilties and time to hone their natural talents with an eye on making a career of playing football. The good ones got their wish and have the best of facilities and all the time in the world to "work" at making themselves better to earn that big paycheck.

What exactly do these men have invested in this up to this point? Seems to me they have had a pretty easy go of it considering all the things they do to get to where they are they were doing for fun anyway.

It's easy to look at the fat cats who make things happen and say "look at them pigs. I want mine too"

Well maybe with that college education they got for free they can make their billions and buy a team and have their cake and eat it too.

Until then they are the product that the NFL fan is buying and there is a lot more of them where they came from.

If you do your job for a multi-million dollar corporation and in turn your life span is shortened from the physicality from it, why would you not want more money during and after your playing days for medical reasons?

Again, you're going to say well they get paid alot of money to begin with.

And I'll go back to the foundation of my argument, which is demand. We as a culture have a demand for NFL football, therefore the players get paid. Did players make this much back in the 70's? No because the demand was not as high.

So let's see, would I rather give my money to those who field the product, and in turn due to the physicality of it usually have health problems down the road, or would I rather give it to the owner who 90% of the time (besides Jerry) doesn't do much that is football related and is there strictly to make a profit off the players.

Again, I take the players side every time.

I just have a fundamental different side of thinking on this view than everyone else. And it's probably mainly an age and political issue lol.

[CowboyDan]

NFL Owners: "We'll let them play...............18 games!"

No sympathy from me either.:cool:

[NextGenBoys]

Because players make enough just to play a game...

And the owners don't make enough? They don't do near as much football related material as the players do. Not even close. Jerry is the exception, not the rule.

Like I've said all along, we as a culture are the reason sports athletes are paid so much. We have a demand for it, as obvious by TV ratings, sold-out stadiums, and multi-million dollar TV agreements.

If you want to whine about players getting paid enough, then stop funding them.

[evarc]

So your argument comes down to because NFL players get paid alot and more than most everyone else, and that they could not get paid that much doing any other job, that they don't deserve anything else? That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

Guess what it's a product of the high demand for the NFL. If us fans didn't obsess over it like we did, the players wouldn't be demanding for more money. We fill the stadiums, we buy the merchandise, and we watch the games. And who do we watch? The players.

But you'd like to give even more of our money to the owners?

I do not share your root of thinking. Especially in related to the bolded text. IMO that is a very bad comparison.

The owners earned their money. They made it by being smart and good at business. So YES they deserve to have THEIR money. Players play a game and most have no other knowledge at all. These guys would be in prison or fliping burgers if not for those billionaires who were kind enough to make them millionaires to play a kids game.

[NextGenBoys]

The amount they make has nothing to do with it. They make the actual burgers, just as the players are the ones playing. Each is the ultimate provider of the one who gives you what you consume.

Your point of view is idiotic and ignores everything else that goes into the product. The owner pays the coaches that prepare the players. The owner provides the stadium, the uniforms, the insurance and everything else it takes to stage an nfl game. There are only 32 owners (or ownership groups), but ~2000 players. Acting as though players' role in the NFL dwarfs that of owners is laughable.

Yes the amount does matter, because it provides a clear view of the demand for the product.

And I am not ignoring everything else that goes in to it, I simply do not have the time nor energy to type out everything that does go into it, and I'd hope you'd be smart enough to realize that I'm simplifying.

Off the top of your head, name even a third of NFL owners? I bet you can name a third of the players. I know I can.

[NextGenBoys]

The owners earned their money. They made it by being smart and good at business. So YES they deserve to have THEIR money. Players play a game and most have no other knowledge at all. These guys would be in prison or fliping burgers if not for those billionaires who were kind enough to make them millionaires to play a kids game.

I'm done debating this with you.

I won't debate with people with that racist and stereotypical viewpoint.

Players = poor, prison-bound thugs. Owners = smart, rich business men.

Done.

[evarc]

And the owners don't make enough? They don't do near as much football related material as the players do. Not even close. Jerry is the exception, not the rule.

Like I've said all along, we as a culture are the reason sports athletes are paid so much. We have a demand for it, as obvious by TV ratings, sold-out stadiums, and multi-million dollar TV agreements.

If you want to whine about players getting paid enough, then stop funding them.
Yes and the players get more then their fair share. What do they give to the game of football? 5-10 years of their life? How long does the average owner give? Not counting the money that the owners spend on players coaches stadiums stadium up keep and the millions of jobs to blue collar people. But their time as well...
Also while these millionaires cry about how they want more of the billionaires money there are average everyday joes who will be laid off because of this.
Consession stands, cleaning crews among lots of others. As if the economy wasnt bad enough there is going to be a MASS layoff in 32 cities because the players want more then they deserve. If they want to be billionaires they could take the millions they get and invest it instead of making it rain and partying it up and buying their boyz stuff.

[evarc]

I'm done debating this with you.

I won't debate with people with that racist and stereotypical viewpoint.

Players = poor, prison-bound thugs. Owners = smart, rich business men.

Done.
What am I racist against? Players? lol...:lmao2:

[THUMPER]

And I'll go back to the foundation of my argument, which is demand. We as a culture have a demand for NFL football, therefore the players get paid. Did players make this much back in the 70's? No because the demand was not as high.

You couldn't be more wrong. NFL football in the 70s was HUGE!

The difference wasn't the demand but the money available and the structure of the league. It was the owners/GMs who got the networks to start paying enormous sums to the league for the right to televise the games, not the players.

Cable TV and new networks like Fox, TBS, & ESPN created competition for the established networks (CBS, NBC, & ABC) which gave the league leverage to force bigger and bigger contracts from the networks for broadcast rights.

The big money coming in was due to the league forcing the networks to pay more, not the popularity of the game increasing, it was already hugely popular in the 70s.

More money coming in meant more money for the players as well. The strikes in 1982 & 1987 were all about the players getting a larger piece of the network pie.

[evarc]

I'm done debating this with you.

I won't debate with people with that racist and stereotypical viewpoint.

Players = poor, prison-bound thugs. Owners = smart, rich business men.

Done.
oh and where would vick be with out the nfl? How about pacman? Tank? Dez? Ray lewis? Big ben? Hell how about irvin? Owens? Ocho? You think these guys would be the ceos of companys? You think they would have the money and fame they have now? Come on dude... For every dez bryant that goes on strike their is one that missed his shot for one reason or another that would love to scabb his way into the nfl even if it is only for one season.

[NextGenBoys]

You couldn't be more wrong. NFL football in the 70s was HUGE!

The difference wasn't the demand but the money available and the structure of the league. It was the owners/GMs who got the networks to start paying enormous sums to the league for the right to televise the games, not the players.

Cable TV and new networks like Fox, TBS, & ESPN created competition for the established networks (CBS, NBC, & ABC) which gave the league leverage to force bigger and bigger contracts from the networks for broadcast rights.

The big money coming in was due to the league forcing the networks to pay more, not the popularity of the game increasing, it was already hugely popular in the 70s.

More money coming in meant more money for the players as well. The strikes in 1982 & 1987 were all about the players getting a larger piece of the network pie.

Alright thanks for correcting me. I should have said the 60's then. I know for a fact the first couple of Super Bowls didn't sell out.

But I'm not going to argue for a second that owners haven't indeed helped the league grow. I'm just saying demand for the NFL product right now is at an all time high. Owners have done their part, yes. But without the Peyton's, Adrian Peterson's, TO's, Troy Polamalu's, and Bart Scott's, the NFL would not be what it is.

[warrior43]

Exactly right. There is no sympathy for the players any more than there was for the MLB players in 1994. They do not have a legitimate gripe and have very little leverage.

They keep saying that "THEY are the product and without them there would be no NFL". Well guys that is true of EVERY business. The difference is that in most businesses the employees don't get paid millions like they do in professional sports.

You think the CEO of a company doesn't make 50-100 times what his employees make? Do you think that the company could exist without those employees? Who designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells the products that a company makes? It isn't the CEO, it is the employees but they don't get a percentage of the profits like the NFL players do, they get a salary that is typically between 35K-100K, not 350K-10M!

These NFL players (well ALL pro athletes actually) make an exorbitant amount of money compared with employees in other industries. Yes they are special athletes and should get more, but if they think for one minute that they deserve to get an even larger share of the pie than they already do they are tragically delusional.

The players should remember that the NFL would not exist without the owners and that it is the players who are replaceable. Apple would not exists without Steve Jobs or Wosniak but it could easily continue to exist without any one of its many employees. The same is true of pro sports.

Can't replace MVP Tom Brady? Matt Cassel filled in nicely when Brady was out a couple of years ago. No player is irreplaceable. Maybe not at the same skill level but they can be, and are, replaced every year.

The owners are just that, they OWN the league and they are not going to replace themselves nor is anyone going to force them out. They hold all the cards and all the leverage. If the players absolutely refused to sign a CBA the owners would go out and sign replacement players at a fraction of the cost and move on. Yes the game wouldn't be as good at first but it would catch up eventually and most of those players would come back anyway because they will NEVER find a better job anywhere else.

The players should agree to the CBA that the owners are offering and count themselves incredibly blessed to get it. They won't get anywhere near that kind of money in any other job.

Just sign the damn thing and let's get back to preparing for the 2011 season!
This is perfect:hammer::hammer:

[dadymat]

its simple business.....yes the players work hard and produce on the field....so what?....who created and plays for the environment they GET to play in ...its a privilege not a right......you look at any business and the employees do the work and will always make alot less than the owners...the players NEED the owners the owners dont need the players......the owners can always find other players who will play for what they are offering....can the players find 32 billionaires to start a new league?

[NextGenBoys]

its simple business.....yes the players work hard and produce on the field....so what?....who created and plays for the environment they GET to play in ...its a privilege not a right......you look at any business and the employees do the work and will always make alot less than the owners...the players NEED the owners the owners dont need the players......the owners can always find other players who will play for what they are offering....can the players find 32 billionaires to start a new league?

So you share the argument that people would still consume the NFL like they do today even with replacement players???

[zrinkill]

So you share the argument that people would still consume the NFL like they do today even with replacement players???

Yes because highschool football and college football are huge even though 90% of their players are not NFL worthy.

[Dallas]

I already signed.

Let them Play!


Sucker !!!! :lmao:

[evarc]

Alright thanks for correcting me. I should have said the 60's then. I know for a fact the first couple of Super Bowls didn't sell out.

But I'm not going to argue for a second that owners haven't indeed helped the league grow. I'm just saying demand for the NFL product right now is at an all time high. Owners have done their part, yes. But without the Peyton's, Adrian Peterson's, TO's, Troy Polamalu's, and Bart Scott's, the NFL would not be what it is.
The average nfl career for a player is 3 1/2 seasons. Can the same be said for owners? Owners are owners all year round can the same be said of players? No matter how you cut it the owners have done more then the players and continue to give even when the players move on to become tv and movie stars.
Players will come and go every year but great business minds are rare and that is why they can aford to make 53 men millionaires each season. They may not have the brawn of the players but they had the brains to give the players a place to shocase their gifts and to make millions doing so.
If you ask me no player should get any garunteed money it should all be insentive based.

[evarc]

So you share the argument that people would still consume the NFL like they do today even with replacement players???

Who was tony romo in 2005? He barely made the team... Replacement players will make the plays the fans love just like the current group of overpaid babies make... They would probably be hungrier and make bigger plays. I would love a replacement season!

[dadymat]

So you share the argument that people would still consume the NFL like they do today even with replacement players???


no , im saying that probably about 99% of the players would leave the NFLPA and play under those conditions if it came to who could do without who..and that it is easier to find players than it is to find billionaires with the resources to build a league like the one they play in.....

the people flippin the burgers will NEVER be as important as the restaurants they work in

[Vtwin]

If you do your job for a multi-million dollar corporation and in turn your life span is shortened from the physicality from it, why would you not want more money during and after your playing days for medical reasons?

Again, you're going to say well they get paid alot of money to begin with.

And I'll go back to the foundation of my argument, which is demand. We as a culture have a demand for NFL football, therefore the players get paid. Did players make this much back in the 70's? No because the demand was not as high.

So let's see, would I rather give my money to those who field the product, and in turn due to the physicality of it usually have health problems down the road, or would I rather give it to the owner who 90% of the time (besides Jerry) doesn't do much that is football related and is there strictly to make a profit off the players.

Again, I take the players side every time.

I just have a fundamental different side of thinking on this view than everyone else. And it's probably mainly an age and political issue lol.

There are many professions which leave those that choose them hurting down the road. Most of those folks don’t make anywhere near the coin a pro ball player makes. Nor do they have the education or reputation/exposure of having been a pro player to fall back on. Many of them work for millionaires who never get near the jobsite or plant. Many of them get layed off because some “cost cutting” needs to be done. It’ s very hard not to get into the politic of unions and the result of their influences in this discussion but we shouldn’t go there

I haven’t had a raise in two years. I have seen some friends here let go because the business couldn’t sustain the level of payroll with the current level of business. I feel lucky to have a job.

Maybe I should make an “Let me work” video and show it to management and maybe I’ll get a raise?

[The Emperor]

I love how they have a cracker Steelers fan in there for good measure.

[DallasEast]

http://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/2011-Lockout-Central/

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/ContentPages/Lockout%20Central/Slide3-500x375.jpg

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/ContentPages/Lockout%20Central/Slide4-500x375.jpg

Percentage of All Revenue (By League Year) received by Players:

Players get roughly 60% of what's defined in the CBA as "Total Revenues" after a number of categories of expense credits. Players get roughly 50% of all NFL revenues.

2002–51.87 %
2003–50.23 %
2004–52.18 %
2005–50.52 %
2006–52.74 %
2007–51.84 %
2008–50.96 %
2009–50.06 %---------------------------

My question is why can't the players union be happy with 49% of the pie? 51% owners. 49% players. Seems doable. Exactly how many billions are we talking about here?

[jimnabby]

These NFL players (well ALL pro athletes actually) make an exorbitant amount of money compared with employees in other industries. Yes they are special athletes and should get more, but if they think for one minute that they deserve to get an even larger share of the pie than they already do they are tragically delusional.

Um, the players aren't asking for a larger share of the pie. They're not asking for anything. The owners are asking them to take less.

The players should agree to the CBA that the owners are offering and count themselves incredibly blessed to get it. They won't get anywhere near that kind of money in any other job.

So if the owners proposed cutting players' salaries in half, or a third, or a tenth, the players should just bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"?

The money is out there - if it doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners. The owners are already raking it in - the way the NFL is set up, team ownership is about the closest thing to a can't-lose proposition as there is. I mean, it's not like the owners are going to cut ticket prices or beer prices or take less money from the TV networks, no matter how much more money they can extract from the players.

[THUMPER]

http://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/2011-Lockout-Central/

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/ContentPages/Lockout%20Central/Slide3-500x375.jpg

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/ContentPages/Lockout%20Central/Slide4-500x375.jpg

Percentage of All Revenue (By League Year) received by Players:

Players get roughly 60% of what's defined in the CBA as "Total Revenues" after a number of categories of expense credits. Players get roughly 50% of all NFL revenues.

2002–51.87 %
2003–50.23 %
2004–52.18 %
2005–50.52 %
2006–52.74 %
2007–51.84 %
2008–50.96 %
2009–50.06 %---------------------------

My question is why can't the players union be happy with 49% of the pie? 51% owners. 49% players. Seems doable. Exactly how many billions are we talking about here?

I keep hearing that it's not about the money, they just want to play. :lmao2:

[jimnabby]

Players will come and go every year but great business minds are rare and that is why they can aford to make 53 men millionaires each season. They may not have the brawn of the players but they had the brains to give the players a place to shocase their gifts and to make millions doing so.

These "great business minds" agreed to the terms they've been playing under. They acted on their own free will when they signed their players' contracts. Clearly, they think the players are worth millions to their organizations.

The owners are making tons of money from their teams. All of them are. And now they're asking the players to give back money so they can make more. And that's fine. But it's also fine for the players to say, "No, the current system is working great and we don't think we should have to give back money." That's what this negotiation is all about. I just don't understand all the rancor directed at the players, except as jealousy.

[wileedog]

Um, the players aren't asking for a larger share of the pie. They're not asking for anything. The owners are asking them to take less.
Because the owners say the current model is not sustainable.

When my company says its losing money so its going to have to lower salaries, I can either deal with it or find someplace else to work.


So if the owners proposed cutting players' salaries in half, or a third, or a tenth, the players should just bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"?
Except they aren't doing that, are they?

The owners are already raking it in - the way the NFL is set up, team ownership is about the closest thing to a can't-lose proposition as there is. .

Considering no one has seen the books for any team outside of GB, how do you know this?

[InmanRoshi]

I keep hearing that it's not about the money, they just want to play. :lmao2:

It's hard to play (or work) when you're locked out of the building.

the players NEED the owners the owners dont need the players......the owners can always find other players who will play for what they are offering....can the players find 32 billionaires to start a new league?

The owners decide how much to pay the players. If an owner offers to pay a player a $30 million contract, evidently that owner thinks he NEEDS that player to the tune of $30 million dollars. If they could get by with just anyone, I'm assuming they would do so for much cheaper.

I never understood why people hate the concept of the free market economy when it comes to professional athletes.

[DallasEast]

Players will come and go every year but great business minds are rare and that is why they can aford to make 53 men millionaires each season.All professional football players are not millionaires. Practice squad players are certainly not. :)

I do not have the exact percentages, but there are players which only make the veteran minimum each season for example. Proper investing and longevity could push those kinds of players into the millionaire club, but it's not a guarantee as well.

[Nirvana]

Great point about the product not being the players. I have been mulling that over myself as I've seen that talking point a lot by player reps. The players are the workers just like any factory. Just because "widgets" aren't being produced doesn't mean there isn't another type of product the players are producing. I think it's comparable to the movie and entertainment business. They provide a service to the fans - entertainment.

And another thing - these players are not only given money, but fame. Without the genius managerial moves of the league (marketing, NFL Network, salary cap, etc.) this league would not be anywhere near as popular. With that popularity comes FAME for the players. Kim Kardashian, Jessica Simpson, etc. wouldn't give these guys the time of the day were it not for the popularity of the NFL. What is getting that kind of *** worth?

They also get to be involved in a highly competitive activity, with a huge prize to strive for. Any man worthy of the name wants to be in such a game where the stakes are high, there is a tough challenge, there is an audience, and there is a prize.

So no, I have no sympathy for these guys. The bottom line is there are a few teams that would have trouble making the salary floor for players were supplemental revenue sharing dropped out (or at the least show little profit), so a new CBA has to get done. Revenue sharing is an obvious ingredient for success when it comes to network deals and ticket revenue between teams playing, but this extra supplemental pay-offs for lesser earning (and a lot of time lazier) teams like from the Cowboys to the Vikings pisses me off, and I can only imagine how Jerry feels about it. It reminds me of socialism.

[jimnabby]

Because the owners say the current model is not sustainable.

And they won't release their financial data (as you yourself note) to the union to provide any evidence that this statement is true.

So if the owners proposed cutting players' salaries in half, or a third, or a tenth, the players should just bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"?
Except they aren't doing that, are they?
The data I can find is that the owners are asking for an 18% cut. I don't know if that's the most recent. So what's the cutoff at which point it's ok for the players to complain?

Considering no one has seen the books for any team outside of GB, how do you know this?
It's pretty well documented by places like Forbes. Also, when the owners don't release their financials during a negotiation like this, AND they don't claim to be losing money, you can be certain they're doing fine.

[Doomsday101]

Hopefully the NFL Owners will put together a Burger King commercial because for many players if not for the NFL that is where they would be working. :laugh2:

[InmanRoshi]

Great point about the product not being the players.

Evidently the owners disagree with you. They sign these players to huge mega million deals, so evidently they think it's more about the players than the product.

[DallasEast]

Hopefully the NFL Owners will put together a Burger King commercial because for many players if not for the NFL that is where they would be working. :laugh2:
Not so sure that will happen. BK's popular slogan is, "Have it your way". :p:

[Nirvana]

Evidently the owners disagree with you. They sign these players to huge mega million deals, so evidently they think it's more about the players than the product.

No, they don't. It's the NFLPA that disagrees with me. They say the players ARE the product. I say the product is entertainment.

And what amount of money they are signed for is based on 60% of total revenue.

Also, it goes without saying that highly talented players make the game more entertaining (it's no fun to lose), so you pay for the best talent.

To prove the point that the players aren't the product, you could take the same group of players for one season into another and that team will generate less revenue if the team is less entertaining (ie. loses more games.)

[Doomsday101]

Not so sure that will happen. BK's popular slogan is, "Have it your way". :p:

On to Micky D's then. :D

[wileedog]

And they won't release their financial data (as you yourself note) to the union to provide any evidence that this statement is true.
Nor should they have to. They are a privately owned business.

Again, if my company says it is losing money, I have zero choice but to believe them, or at least no other options to prove otherwise.


The data I can find is that the owners are asking for an 18% cut. I don't know if that's the most recent. So what's the cutoff at which point it's ok for the players to complain?
Which one NFL official already concedes will be negotiated downward probably to 9%. Hardly back breaking for a sport with a $300,000 minimum wage. I mean how do you put food on the table with $270,000?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815dc70b&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true


It's pretty well documented by places like Forbes. Also, when the owners don't release their financials during a negotiation like this, AND they don't claim to be losing money, you can be certain they're doing fine.
Again, no privately held organization is obligated to or ever will release their books. Certainly not to their employees. If Forbes is documenting anything it is guesswork. And while some franchises may be doing well there are certainly other smaller ones who are not.

If the owners were doing 'fine' then there wouldn't even be a threat of a lockout. They know the PR damage they are doing to their sport right now, and to do it just to randomly grab another 9% profit would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Doomsday101]

You know there is always the Great White North where they play professional football. I would think the NFL and owners were such bad guys the players would be heading to the CFL. I don't see much for these guys to complain about.

[InmanRoshi]

No, they don't. It's the NFLPA that disagrees with me. They say the players ARE the product. I say the product is entertainment.

The product and the players are the same entity. If the owners think they can remove the players from the equation without effecting the product, they should do so. They can cut Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson and their mega million dollar contracs and replacing them with Joe McNobody from Applachian Stated from the UFL for $500k. Jerry can cut Tony Romo and bring in Graham Harrell and save a lot of cash. You wouldn't care right, because you're getting the same product by your reasoning? I'm sure that would fly really well on this board.

I really don't understand why Americans hate the concept of free market value only when it comes to professional athletes. No one whines and complains that Keith Richards can stumble his old drug addled butt up on stage and make millions by half arse playing a few sloppy chords on stage for 2 hours, because people have an understanding that if Keith Richards can get people to pay millions of dolllars to come see him then that's what he deserves. Yet, it seems to eat away at people when athletes make millions of dollars because fans pay millions of dollars in attendance and TV ad revenues to watch them.

Again, no one holds a gun to these owners heads and forces them to give out mega million contracts. They give these contracts to these players because they believe that's what their market value is worth to their franchise. All the players ask is that there isn't some arbitrary ceiling put above their heads as to what the free market can dictate they make (or if there is, at least make it a reasonable ceiling). Just like there is no cap as to what a computer programmer can make if he has Apple and Google competing for his services, just let the free open market decide what he's worth.

[Nirvana]

The product and the players are the same entity. If the owners think they can remove the players from the equation without effecting the product, they should do so. They can cut Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson and their mega million dollar contracs and replacing them with Jje McNobody from Applachian Stated from the UFL for $500k. Jerry can cut Tony Romo and bring in Graham Harrell. By your reasoning, it's the same product so the buying public wouldn't care.


I really don't understand why Americans hate the concept of free market value only when it comes to professional athletes. No one whines and complains that Keith Richards can stumble his drug addled butt up on stage and make millions by playing a few sloppy chords on stage for 2 hours, because people have an understanding that if Keith Richards can get people to pay millions of dolllars to come see him then that's what he deserves. Yet, it seems to eat away at people when athletes make millions of dollars because fans pay millions of dollars in attendance and TV revenues to watch them. Again, no one holds a gun to these owners heads and forces them to give out mega million contracts.

They give these contracts to these players because they believe that's what their market value is worth. All the players ask is that there isn't some arbitrary ceiling put above their heads as to what the free market can dictate they make. Just like there is no cap as to what a computer programmer can make if he has Apple and Google competing for his services.


If there was no arbitrary ceiling (ie. salary cap) you would lose league parity and cities would no longer have anything to get excited about as they know their team is going to suck. I suppose that's true for Buffalo lately, however.

The other arbitrary ceiling (percentage of total revenue given to players) has to be set in such a way that it allows for league health, and some teams are not able to build new stadiums to achiever higher revenues as it costs too much (more than the revenue left over after giving the players their share.) That's why no new stadiums have been built since this deal got put in place.
Further, teams like the Cowboys have high revenues but higher costs (new stadium) yet are expected under current CBA to give money to lesser earning teams. It doesn't work out.

The product is not the players. Like I said earlier, you could put the same players on the field season to season and the fans won't keep on paying unless it's entertaining (ie. winning). The players are workers. It's the talented ones that provide the best entertainment (wins), so they get paid more.

[InmanRoshi]

The product is not the players..

Yes it is. Otherwise the UFL would be just as big as the NFL. The UFL is playing the exact same game using the exact same formations and the exact same plays. No one watches the UFL because they don't have the same caliber of players, therefore they can't offer the same product to fans that the NFL does.

Again, if what you said is true, then the owners are the stupidest business people walking on the face of the earth. Why in the world would Jerry pay Romo so much money when the fans would still come in droves to watch Graham Harrell play for $50k instead?

Again, I dont understand why any freedom loving American hates the free market when it comes to professional athletes.

[NextGenBoys]

Yes it is. Otherwise the UFL would be just as big as the NFL. The UFL is playing the exact same game using the exact same formations and the exact same plays. No one watches the UFL because they don't have the same caliber of players, therefore they can't offer the same product to fans that the NFL does.

Again, if what you said is true, then the owners are the stupidest business people walking on the face of the earth. Why in the world would Jerry pay Romo so much money when the fans would still come in droves to watch Graham Harrell play for $50k instead?

Again, I dont understand why any freedom loving American hates the free market when it comes to professional athletes.

Because according to many, players should thank the owners for paying them. Without the owners, all players would be flipping burgers. :rolleyes:

[InmanRoshi]

Because according to many, players should thank the owners for paying them. Without the owners, all players would be flipping burgers. :rolleyes:

Yep. Which puts them in the same category as 99% of the people on their TV Screens. As if Charlie Sheen, Keith Richards, Bill O'Reilly or Tom Cruise would be solving world hunger if not otherwise predisposed with entertaining the public. Yet somehow it's only professional athletes who shouldn't make what the free market says their worth. Strange.

[Nirvana]

Yes it is. Otherwise the UFL would be just as big as the NFL. The UFL is playing the exact same game using the exact same formations and the exact same plays. No one watches the UFL because they don't have the same caliber of players, therefore they can't offer the same product to fans that the NFL does.

Again, if what you said is true, then the owners are the stupidest business people walking on the face of the earth. Why in the world would Jerry pay Romo so much money when the fans would still come in droves to watch Graham Harrell play for $50k instead?

Again, I dont understand why any freedom loving American hates the free market when it comes to professional athletes.

Romo gets paid what he does because he gives the Cowboys a better chance to win on Sundays. But it's the winning that is the point. When the wins stopped happening, Jerry stopped getting payments on luxury suites and lost millions. So the product is the wins/entertainment. Without a good product the money doesn't come in. Bringing in UFL players would be a disaster, not because of the name on their backs, but because they would lose games and not show the talent that Romo and other players can show. It would be less entertaining.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I love the free market. Frankly the way it is currently set up with supplemental revenue sharing, it's not American but more like Russian. Also, anyone who loves the "any given Sunday" aspect of the league would want a salary cap.

[NextGenBoys]

Romo gets paid what he does because he gives the Cowboys a better chance to win on Sundays. But it's the winning that is the point. When the wins stopped happening, Jerry stopped getting payments on luxury suites and lost millions. So the product is the wins/entertainment. Without a good product the money doesn't come in. Bringing in UFL players would be a disaster, not because of the name on their backs, but because they would lose games and not show the talent that Romo and other players can show. It would be less entertaining.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I love the free market. Frankly the way it is currently set up with supplemental revenue sharing, it's not American but more like Russian. Also, anyone who loves the "any given Sunday" aspect of the league would want a salary cap.

Exactly, which makes the winning/entertainment part of it a player-driven product.

[bracey]

Poor PR move by the players. Their leadership is awful. There is no reason they shouldn't have most fans on their side on this and yet they might blow it with crap like this. The message they should send is obvious, "The owners are trying to force us to take a pay cut after 20 years of ever increasing profits as the most successful league in the world so they can make even more money. Would you accept that? " It skims over a lot of the details, but that's a message that people could relate too.

[bracey]

You know there is always the Great White North where they play professional football. I would think the NFL and owners were such bad guys the players would be heading to the CFL. I don't see much for these guys to complain about.

This is like all 5 star restaurants getting together to cut their master chefs' wages and force them to work longer. Then telling them if they don't like it there's a McDonald's down the street.

[NextGenBoys]

Poor PR move by the players. Their leadership is awful. There is no reason they shouldn't have most fans on their side on this and yet they might blow it with crap like this. The message they should send is obvious, "The owners are trying to force us to take a pay cut after 20 years of ever increasing profits as the most successful league in the world so they can make even more money. Would you accept that? " It skims over a lot of the details, but that's a message that people could relate too.

That message would not work.

Many on here proved that by saying they have no sympathy for millionaires. Bringing money into the equation is not the answer to the general public, because they already feel the players make too much of it, even though fans own interest in the NFL is what indirectly pays them.

[Doomsay]

Maybe we can help the players with.....another MS Paint Contest!!!

[Nirvana]

Exactly, which makes the winning/entertainment part of it a player-driven product.

That's a good description - not the same one the union is making.

Coaches drive the product as well, as do scouts, team staff, owners, GMs, etc. It's not all about the players. But yes, the players are on the stage. They only bring in as much revenue as they provide wins/entertainment. That's what we are buying. They aren't the product themselves.

[bracey]

That message would not work.

Many on here proved that by saying they have no sympathy for millionaires. Bringing money into the equation is not the answer to the general public, because they already feel the players make too much of it, even though fans own interest in the NFL is what indirectly pays them.

Sigh, you might be right. Some of this thread is depressing reading. I could understand the sentiment if players were holding out for more money but they would be fine with the status quo. Trade a rookie cap for better pensions for retired players and it would be a done deal with fans and players happy.

The owners are getting greedy by asking for an 18 game season while asking players to take a lower percentage of total revenue. I don't get how anyone can just gloss over that and think "Players make too much money. Shut up and play!".

[NextGenBoys]

That's a good description - not the same one the union is making.

Coaches drive the product as well, as do scouts, team staff, owners, GMs, etc. It's not all about the players. But yes, the players are on the stage. They only bring in as much revenue as they provide wins/entertainment. That's what we are buying. They aren't the product themselves.

You are right that coaches, scouts, comprise the product as well.

But look at it like movies. Unless you're a real famous director (Cameron, Spielberg, etc) people aren't going to go to movies because of a director. They go because of the actors. Same with football. Unless you're a famous coach/GM (Jerry, Belichick, etc) the majority of the people consume the product because of the players.

[InmanRoshi]

That's a good description - not the same one the union is making.

Coaches drive the product as well, as do scouts, team staff, owners, GMs, etc. It's not all about the players. But yes, the players are on the stage. They only bring in as much revenue as they provide wins/entertainment. That's what we are buying. They aren't the product themselves.

Yep. That's why the Las Vegas Locomotives were making money hand over fist by going 5-2 in the UFL. Fans don't care about the atrocioius level of performance by crappy players, they just want to watch winning football.

Oh ... wait.

[InmanRoshi]

You are right that coaches, scouts, comprise the product as well.

But look at it like movies. Unless you're a real famous director (Cameron, Spielberg, etc) people aren't going to go to movies because of a director. They go because of the actors. Same with football. Unless you're a famous coach/GM (Jerry, Belichick, etc) the majority of the people consume the product because of the players.

They sure aren't paying money to see the key grip or the props master.

[bbgun]

"We're only down to three Ferraris, two maids, and one au pair. Please give."

[Nirvana]

You are right that coaches, scouts, comprise the product as well.

But look at it like movies. Unless you're a real famous director (Cameron, Spielberg, etc) people aren't going to go to movies because of a director. They go because of the actors. Same with football. Unless you're a famous coach/GM (Jerry, Belichick, etc) the majority of the people consume the product because of the players.


Taking your example, a lot of people won't go unless it's a GOOD movie - ie. it's entertaining. Granted, some die-hards will go see it because of the actors themselves. (Maybe I could fall into that category with Megan Fox.)

Just like us die-hards watched every game even when we were 1-7. But a lot of people stopped watching. It wasn't entertaining anymore.

[Nirvana]

Yep. That's why the Las Vegas Locomotives were making money hand over fist by going 5-2 in the UFL. Fans don't care about the atrocioius level of performance by crappy players, they just want to watch winning football.

Oh ... wait.

That's not what I said.

[InmanRoshi]

This is like all 5 star restaurants getting together to cut their master chefs' wages and force them to work longer. Then telling them if they don't like it there's a McDonald's down the street.

And according to some here, if the 5 star restaurant went out and hired the McDonalds cooks to replace the master chefs, they would still gladly pay $85 a plate for a Big Mac because they're there for the restaurant, not the chefs or quality of food.

[speedkilz88]

Yep. That's why the Las Vegas Locomotives were making money hand over fist by going 5-2 in the UFL. Fans don't care about the atrocioius level of performance by crappy players, they just want to watch winning football.

Oh ... wait.
You got it all wrong. We root for the laundry. If it's the Dallas Cowboys uniforms out there we are watching.

[Nirvana]

Part of the problem with the 87 Strike replacement players is that those teams were put together in days! The league wouldn't do it that way this time, evidenced by the contracts they negotiated with the networks of getting paid even if there is a lockout.

Give a team a year to put together a new squad (and there would certainly be a lot of union guys who cross over), with OTAs, training camp, pre-season, etc. and the PRODUCT put out would be worth watching for most of us. Over time, it would climb right back up to where it is today. I don't expect things to go this route at all, as the players will cave within a couple missed paychecks at worst. I expect a deal even before then, but it won't take longer than that in my opinion.

These guys are replaceable, and will be if they don't take heed of what the owners are saying and reach a new agreement. Why should I feel sympathy when they are free to work somewhere else if they don't like the deal? How is that different from what the rest of us have to deal with in trying to make a living? Why should it be?

[InmanRoshi]

You got it all wrong. We root for the laundry. If it's the Dallas Cowboys uniforms out there we are watching.

Which makes Jerry Jones incredibly stupid for paying multi million dollar contracts to Tony Romo and DeMarcus Ware and Jason Witten when fans would evidently gladly pay up to $150k for personal seating licenses to watch a bunch of scrubs play in the same laundry.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

While I might not agree with the players' stance, at least it is no longer a house union like it was under previous NFLPA leadership. When Gene Upshaw ran it, it was basically just a union that parotted what the owners wanted.

[InmanRoshi]

Why should I feel sympathy when they are free to work somewhere else if they don't like the deal?

Why should I feel sympathy for owners who are willingly paying these players the contracts? Why is it the players responsibility to keep owners from paying them money?


Why should I feel sorry for owners who don't have enough business sense to turn a profit in the a sport drawing $9 billion dollars a year in revenue (by far the most of any sport). A sport with the only CBA that allows non-guaranteed contracts, and doesn't allow complete unrestricted free agency. How stupid do you have to be as a business man to not turn a profit when your peers are printing money.

Just like its not a players God given right to play football, it's not Ralph Wilson or Wayne Weaver's God Given right to own a professional sports franchise. If he can't make any money doing it, do what every other failed business owner has to do when they can't turn a profit ... sell the asset off to someone else and get out of the business.

I promise you, if any of these owners put their teams up for sell on the open market there would be a line a mile long of mega millionaires and billionaires wanting to buy it from them. When Wayne Huizinga put the Dolphins on the block Stephen Ross was there in a matter of days with a blank check. There are billionaires dying to own their own NFL franchise, because it's a license to print money. But yet you believe the owners when they tell you that the current current business model isn't sustainable? Please, don't make me laugh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep. That's why the Las Vegas Locomotives were making money hand over fist by going 5-2 in the UFL. Fans don't care about the atrocioius level of performance by crappy players, they just want to watch winning football.

Oh ... wait.

If that was true then NCAA football would not make the money that it does yet games like Auburn vs Louisiana Lafayette still sell out and get good ratings for their market.

[links18]

Without those Billionaires those players wouldn't be Millionaires.

You got that backwards......

[speedkilz88]

You got that backwards......No he didn't. The game has been around a lot longer than the current players and will be around a lot longer after them.

[hornitosmonster]

You got that backwards......

???

Most of these guys (owners) are billionaires without the NFL.

And Sympathy for the players? :lmao2:

[Nirvana]

Why should I feel sympathy for owners who are willingly paying these players the contracts? Why is it the players responsibility to keep owners from paying them money?


Don't think the owners are asking for sympathy, just stating the facts that a new deal must get worked out. And I don't see that the owners are willing to pay them this much anymore, which is why they opted out. The players are responsible to do their job, not sure if I understand that last question. They can quit if they want.


Why should I feel sorry for owners who don't have enough business sense to turn a profit in the a sport drawing $9 billion dollars a year in revenue (by far the most of any sport). A sport with the only CBA that allows non-guaranteed contracts, and doesn't allow complete unrestricted free agency. How stupid do you have to be as a business man to not turn a profit when your peers are printing money.

The players draw a bigger percentage of that revenue than any other sport, which is too much to allow teams to expand with new stadiums, etc. That's going to change, and hopefully the players realize that sooner rather than later. The era of supplemental revenue sharing is over.


Just like its not a players God given right to play football, it's not Ralph Wilson or Wayne Weaver's God Given right to own a professional sports franchise. If he can't make any money doing it, do what every other failed business owner has to do when they can't turn a profit ... sell the asset off to someone else and get out of the business.

The other option is to reduce costs, which is what they have opted to do here.


I promise you, if any of these owners put their teams up for sell on the open market there would be a line a mile long of mega millionaires and billionaires wanting to buy it from them. When Wayne Huizinga put the Dolphins on the block Stephen Ross was there in a matter of days with a blank check. There are billionaires dying to own their own NFL franchise, because it's a license to print money. But yet you believe the owners when they tell you that the current current business model isn't sustainable? Please, don't make me laugh.

The players will be fine. If the owners were doing great, why hasn't a new stadium gone up since the new CBA was agreed to? The system is flawed.

I'm mainly a concerned fan who sees the 2011 season slipping away unless the players agree to a new deal.

[SultanOfSix]

No he didn't. The game has been around a lot longer than the current players and will be around a lot longer after them.

But, then you could also say, without the fans, the billionaires wouldn't be there either, and neither would the players.

All positive relationships in life are synergistic ones.

[SaltwaterServr]

This is like all 5 star restaurants getting together to cut their master chefs' wages and force them to work longer. Then telling them if they don't like it there's a McDonald's down the street.

Except that Dardens did this very thing with their GM's, and they had to take it or move on. Not sure who Dardens is?

http://www.darden.com/

Master Chefs tend to OWN the restaurants they work in, or be heavily personally invested in them.

Bad analogy all the way around.

[SilverStarCowboy]

The Owners have the upper hand. Just like your Boss. Your Boss or someone in his family had the brains and drive to make a living in the first place.

The players are like me and you, we work for someone who happens to be more business successful for whatever reason and those reasons are limitless.

Alot of people aren't working rightnow who would love to have a Boss. Having someone take on that kind of responsability is a good thing.

Anything that goes wrong, it's on the Owner including losing revenue. While the Employed get paid each week no matter what goes wrong or how poorly they perform.


Owners and money should be appriciated, 50-50 atleast.

[InmanRoshi]

If the owners were doing great, why hasn't a new stadium gone up since the new CBA was agreed to? The system is flawed.


:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[jswalker1981]

This is great news for the NFL owners. Apparently they will sign anything so they can play. Right? I mean, it is obvious by that commercial that they aren't in it for the money. They just want to play.

:rolleyes:

[Randy White]

So your argument comes down to because NFL players get paid alot and more than most everyone else, and that they could not get paid that much doing any other job, that they don't deserve anything else? That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

Guess what it's a product of the high demand for the NFL. If us fans didn't obsess over it like we did, the players wouldn't be demanding for more money. We fill the stadiums, we buy the merchandise, and we watch the games. And who do we watch? The players..


You need to stop filling up this thread with facts and common sense.. The only thing you need to know is that the players are gridy and the owners have the fans best interest.

Owners don't bilk players with clauses like " new stadium funds and maintanence " that allows them to skims 1 billion dollars from the gross revenues figure. Owners don't blackmail taxpayers, or pin communities against each other, into forking over millions from the public coffers to build their playgrounds with threats of moving their teams. Owners don't terminate contracts at whims. Owners don't raise prices on everything ralated to the industry by more than 200% in the past 20 years. Owners don't receive funds from Network TV wether games are played or not and STILL lay off their non-player personnel who, mostly, live paycheck to paycheck..

Owners don't do any of that. It's those " gridy players " who are always asking for more. :rolleyes:

[Randy White]

Actually I do have some sympathy for the players. Must admit I fail to understand why the owners get so much sympathy on this board.

Because alot of folks in here have been brainwashed into thinking that those with the power " know best " and workers should be grateful for whatever crums that falls off the table.

There's a phrase for that way of thinking, but it's disrespectful and too distateful to post, even though it fits.

[jswalker1981]

Because alot of folks in here have been brainwashed into thinking that those with the power " know best " and workers should be grateful for whatever crums that falls off the table.

There's a phrase for that way of thinking, but it's disrespectful and too distateful to post, even though it fits.

I don't think that the owners aren't without fault. But I don't see them putting out commercials saying "Let us own them" either. The players shouldn't be asking fans for sympathy, ESPECIALLY in this economy. Some people are struggling to keep their head above water, and millionaires are on TV acting like they aren't greatly compensated for their work.

[Randy White]

[
My question is why can't the players union be happy with 49% of the pie? 51% owners. 49% players. Seems doable. Exactly how many billions are we talking about here?


They'd do that deal in a New York second. You know why the owners don't sign on it ? Because the players are asking them to show every single revenue stream that comes into the NFL and the owners are balking at opening up the books.

And it's not only the players, it's the small market teams as well that want a piece of the revenues that are NOT part of the shared pot.

[Randy White]

So if the owners proposed cutting players' salaries in half, or a third, or a tenth, the players should just bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"? .


Here we go again with more facts and common sense.. :bang2:

stop it.. It's all about the gridy players.

[Avery]

The argument I hear from players is how we'd like it if we had to work an extra two weeks per year with no raise.

Does anyone here with a full-time job put in exactly 40 hours? I don't recall getting any extra in my check but we do what we have to to get things done.

We don't need the extra games, but do me a favor and delete this video and sack up and get on the field.

[Randy White]

I don't think that the owners aren't without fault. But I don't see them putting out commercials saying "Let us own them" either. .

You mean you don't see commercials with owners asking for sympathy ? You're right. They rather use something else:

NFL Commissioner Plans Personal Pay Cut for Lockout‎

A lockout next season seems imminent but earlier this week NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made a show of good faith when he announced he will take a drastic pay cut if there is a work stoppage.


They don't mention, though, that owners are still going to get paid wether there are games or not.

[Randy White]

No he didn't. The game has been around a lot longer than the current players and will be around a lot longer after them.


So YOU would pay $300 for NFL Sunday ticket to watch Jerry Jones go against Jeff Lurie in one on one flag football..

[speedkilz88]

So YOU would pay $300 for NFL Sunday ticket to watch Jerry Jones go against Jeff Lurie in one on one flag football..We root for the laundry dude, and you are a liar if you try to state otherwise.

[wileedog]

They go because of the actors. .

Regardless of why they go, if there is not a network of producers, directors, theaters, marketing and other distribution outlets, no one gets to see the movies.

[Randy White]

Does anyone here with a full-time job put in exactly 40 hours? I don't recall getting any extra in my check but we do what we have to to get things done..

Then you're either on salary or on a contract job ( independent contractor). If you get paid hourly, you WILL get overtime. If you don't, it's illegal.

And the players don't want the 2 games, with or without money, period. 50% revenues of 18 games is more than 50% revenues of 16 games anyways, so they will get paid more not matter, but they don't want the 2 extra week of a " childs game ", that alot of people in here like to PARROTT without thinking, because of the physical toll it takes on them.

Their average careers length is short enough as it is.

[Randy White]

We root for the laundry dude, and you are a liar if you try to state otherwise.

that includes whomever owns the laundry and you're an even bigger liar if you don't believe that..

[wileedog]

The argument I hear from players is how we'd like it if we had to work an extra two weeks per year with no raise..

This argument is kind of galling when the players have basically 6 months to play golf every year.

[Randy White]

is that despite the high level of intelligence in this boards ( for the most part ), it's gotten past some of you in here the simple fact that this is a LOCKOUT.. not a strike.

Yet some of you STILL blame the players and side with the group that's locking up the gates..

[junk]

Interesting thread. The general consensus is not at all as I expected.

Seems most want to lay blame on the feet of the players.

The owners feel they got a bad deal with the last CBA and want to take back some of the concessions they gave the players.

OK...I think the players request to see the books is a reasonable one.

If my employer wanted me to work more (18 games) and take a cut in pay, I'd want a pretty good reason. If that was the only way to keep the business going, that's one thing. If the owners truly believe they have serious financial liabilities with the current deal, just show the players the data to back that up and go to the negotiating table.

I, for one, won't cheer for the laundry. If the players are locked out, I may watch games on TV, but Sunday Ticket is gone. I certainly wouldn't pay to attend.

The NFL is the most profitable league in the US. Lots of posturing on both sides right now, but I do think the request of the players is reasonable.

[wileedog]

Yet some of you STILL blame the players and side with the group that's locking up the gates..

C'mon man, its semantics.

The players could sit down tomorrow and bargain in good faith. They clearly aren't, declaring to the media they are "at war!!!!"

And I'm not necessarily on the owners side, I just want it done. The players are clearly well compensated for what they do. A 10% swing one way or the other in player salaries doesn't put anyone homeless on the streets. Haggling over millions in the middle of a recession just makes everyone look horrible.

Sit down, negotiate a deal and get back to business. Don't sell me this "let us play" crap when every single person in the world knows its about money.

[jswalker1981]

You mean you don't see commercials with owners asking for sympathy ? You're right. They rather use something else:

NFL Commissioner Plans Personal Pay Cut for Lockout‎

A lockout next season seems imminent but earlier this week NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made a show of good faith when he announced he will take a drastic pay cut if there is a work stoppage.


They don't mention, though, that owners are still going to get paid wether there are games or not.

And the NFLPA exec DeMaurice Smith came out and said he'd take a pay cut to $.68 if there was a deal done by the Super Bowl.

I'm not acting like both sides don't have their tactics. I'm just saying the players shouldn't be asking fans for sympathy. At least the owners realize that that's a dumb idea.

Players and owners should shut their mouths unless they are at the negotiating table.

[jimnabby]

Poor PR move by the players. Their leadership is awful. There is no reason they shouldn't have most fans on their side on this and yet they might blow it with crap like this.

Uh, no. The players ALWAYS lose the PR battle, in all pro sports negotiations, and they always will. Ever since free agency anyway, when the players in the top leagues started making salaries that were much more closely aligned with their value but much further removed from the money the fans make. Fans see the money that the players make and get jealous and angry. Fans don't see the money the owners make, so it's much more abstract to them. Also, fans get confused about basic economics and believe that ticket and concession prices are so high because the players make so much, instead of the other way around.

[jswalker1981]

C'mon man, its semantics.

The players could sit down tomorrow and bargain in good faith. They clearly aren't, declaring to the media they are "at war!!!!"

And I'm not necessarily on the owners side, I just want it done. The players are clearly well compensated for what they do. A 10% swing one way or the other in player salaries doesn't put anyone homeless on the streets. Haggling over millions in the middle of a recession just makes everyone look horrible.

Sit down, negotiate a deal and get back to business. Don't sell me this "let us play" crap when every single person in the world knows its about money.

And Bingo was his name-o!

[jimnabby]

C'mon man, its semantics.

The players could sit down tomorrow and bargain in good faith. They clearly aren't, declaring to the media they are "at war!!!!"

And I'm not necessarily on the owners side, I just want it done. The players are clearly well compensated for what they do. A 10% swing one way or the other in player salaries doesn't put anyone homeless on the streets. Haggling over millions in the middle of a recession just makes everyone look horrible.

Sit down, negotiate a deal and get back to business. Don't sell me this "let us play" crap when every single person in the world knows its about money.

If the swing in money doesn't matter, the owners could simply NOT lock the players out, and continue under the terms of the old CBA until they come to an agreement.

[wileedog]

If the swing in money doesn't matter, the owners could simply NOT lock the players out, and continue under the terms of the old CBA until they come to an agreement.

Except the owners contend that the current CBA is not in the best interest of the league. Considering that its their job to figure out what is in the best interest of the league, not the players, there needs to be some weight given to that opinion.

More importantly, if the current CBA is just allowed to continue indefinitely, what incentive is there for the players to bargain?

[peppersquad]

It's amazing how little people actually think for themselves. We live in such a tourch mob society just do what everone else is doing.


The players have every right to speak their minds and stand up for what they think they should get.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

This argument is kind of galling when the players have basically 6 months to play golf every year.

and recuperate from having the crap kicked out of them for 16 weeks

[Nirvana]

It's amazing how little people actually think for themselves. We live in such a tourch mob society just do what everone else is doing.


The players have every right to speak their minds and stand up for what they think they should get.

Ya these poor guys deserve a real salary and benefits. smh

[evarc]

These "great business minds" agreed to the terms they've been playing under. They acted on their own free will when they signed their players' contracts. Clearly, they think the players are worth millions to their organizations.

The owners are making tons of money from their teams. All of them are. And now they're asking the players to give back money so they can make more. And that's fine. But it's also fine for the players to say, "No, the current system is working great and we don't think we should have to give back money." That's what this negotiation is all about. I just don't understand all the rancor directed at the players, except as jealousy.

They are not asking them anything they are telling them first off. Second they are not saying the players should give anything back just that the players will have to take a paycut. Do you take into account all the money that the owners must spend? Coaches? Players? Stadiums? Stadium up keep? Accountants? Lawyers? Workers in the stadium? NFL network? Do the players assume any of the cost?
You are making it sound like the owners are making all the money and have no over head and telling the players to give back money they have already earned so they can have more money. That is not the case. The owners are simply saying that the players have to take a paycut in the future because the current deal didnt take into account that new stadiums would have to be built as well as other things.
The owners entered this deal knowing it was temporary as did the players. Everyone involved knew that this was not a long term deal.

[CCBoy]

So your argument comes down to because NFL players get paid alot and more than most everyone else, and that they could not get paid that much doing any other job, that they don't deserve anything else? That the owners sitting up in their box deserve more money while the players work their butts off?

Guess what it's a product of the high demand for the NFL. If us fans didn't obsess over it like we did, the players wouldn't be demanding for more money. We fill the stadiums, we buy the merchandise, and we watch the games. And who do we watch? The players.

But you'd like to give even more of our money to the owners?

I do not share your root of thinking. Especially in related to the bolded text. IMO that is a very bad comparison.

I guess you also don't understand why some people enlist and chose not to be an officer. Since carrying the load, and yea, the pain are the satisfaction in achievement of the whole. That links up to sacrifice and pride...not price scale and cash flow.

But get this, sacrifice is involved with both pictured projections. Only greed isn't rampant in the picture presented by Thumper.


And tacked onto what was the start of this particular thread, I'd say that those loving a veneer finish, articulating to an insulated and unknowledgeable
reference group is akin to insultive hogwash.

Most of those who would rush to that picture either have never tasted the real sting of a challenge and bearing their own fruits, or associate with a cherry picked comparison in their own mind's eye, that they themselves deserve to be next in the managerial food chain also.

There is never equal footing even in a democratic style social arrangement, when comparing the supporting elements to the top and directing people at the level of a franchise or coorporation. When the lower levels thing it is their right to possess greater parts than the whole, for their own use, then they are self serving, but pulling the wool over YOUR eyes. But certainly not the eyes of the owners, trying to cope in a very challenged cultural and National scene.

[CCBoy]

It's amazing how little people actually think for themselves. We live in such a tourch mob society just do what everone else is doing.


The players have every right to speak their minds and stand up for what they think they should get.

If dealing only with conceptual extremes...then the Nurenburg Trials were completely just. Even into today...right? As you are cherry picking the association and how it relates to a specific incident.

No, the players were brought up to speed in the last contract, as to considerations of past injustices and CASH. They are NOT a destitute group now, and hence, don't deserve a protective umbrella of injustice and being deprived. They shouldn't promote a cloak of naivetee about themselves and accept some of the burden in compromise and system need. That was what they received the LAST contract.

[CCBoy]

Except the owners contend that the current CBA is not in the best interest of the league. Considering that its their job to figure out what is in the best interest of the league, not the players, there needs to be some weight given to that opinion.

More importantly, if the current CBA is just allowed to continue indefinitely, what incentive is there for the players to bargain?

(We're not talking about a shallow group of Cub Scouts wanting to someday become Boy Scouts and then, if they serve out in their endeavors, Order of the Arrow...here.

They are by and large, a very educated and cosmopolitan group from their start. They are further backed by some of the sporting communities top legal minds. This, infused by a Union backed by history and some of the more prominent Political Lawyers available and FULLY knowledgeable about both court intricacies, arbitrations, and Congressional function. )

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Lot of former high school football players on here hating on the players.

Let me put it this way. Would you pay $1,000 to see He Hate Me start at RB?

[CCBoy]

Lot of former high school football players on here hating on the players.

Let me put it this way. Would you pay $1,000 to see He Hate Me start at RB?

Yea, to answer YOUR question....if scab games would get the players quicker to their senses and back on the field. Oh, and high schoolers wouldn't be on any roster.

[Randy White]

Players and owners should shut their mouths unless they are at the negotiating table.

This...

But there's no way I'm blaming the players for this one, nor should they deserve any blame for it. This is not a strike. THEY are not the ones who are refusing to play, nor demaning anything than what's already been agreed upon before.

The burden on this one it's on ownership. THEY are the ones with the keys to the gate and THEY are the ones who are demanding to renegotiate after the fact. THEY are the ones who are threatening to cancel the games if THEY don't get THEIR way.

[Randy White]

Uh, no. The players ALWAYS lose the PR battle, in all pro sports negotiations, and they always will. Ever since free agency anyway, when the players in the top leagues started making salaries that were much more closely aligned with their value but much further removed from the money the fans make. Fans see the money that the players make and get jealous and angry. Fans don't see the money the owners make, so it's much more abstract to them. Also, fans get confused about basic economics and believe that ticket and concession prices are so high because the players make so much, instead of the other way around.


What he said..

[CCBoy]

This...

But there's no way I'm blaming the players for this one, nor should they deserve any blame for it. This is not a strike. THEY are not the ones who are refusing to play, nor demaning anything than what's already been agreed upon before.

The burden on this one it's on ownership. THEY are the ones with the keys to the gate and THEY are the ones who are demanding to renegotiate after the fact. THEY are the ones who are threatening to cancel the games if THEY don't get THEIR way.

They aren't involved in the process? Then why hasn't a new contract already been signed?

They aren't going to hurt as to pay, and I'm sure they have already been offered a deal up to here.

[CCBoy]

What he said..

Use a money excuse for justification on fans...maybe, the fan can see when the Player's Union's shiza stinks also. Just because there is a loophole of 'dependence' with the player's situation, doesn't further mean they are the least bit disenfranchised through this process. Look, they aren't employed by the Post Office, and going Postal.

[Randy White]

[QUOTE=wileedog;3824356]Except the owners contend that the current CBA is not in the best interest of the league. Considering that its their job to figure out what is in the best interest of the league, not the players, there needs to be some weight given to that opinion.

Like I said " those in power know better " so everybody else should just bow their head and accept whatever they think it's best.

Their " jobs " is to stuff their pockets with as much cash as possible, disregarding everything else. They're going after the players because they can't go after each other. This goes back to what I originally been saying for over a year: it's not about the players, it's about small market teams vs big market teams.

Small market teams want more money because they're looking at big market teams making tons of money on ways they cannot themselves make due to the size of their markets. Big market teams don't want to share what they believe they earned on their own. The CBA is just a pawn in this dispute that's not only an easy target, but it's being used as a weapon. Small market teams are, essentialy, telling big market teams that if they don't want to share, they'll be no games, and the big market teams are not flinching. Neither side care because they're getting paid no matter if they're games or not.

THAT's what you're putting your trust on.

[Randy White]

Use a money excuse for justification on fans...maybe, the fan can see when the Player's Union's shiza stinks also.

No question. And if it was THEY going on strike, you'd see a much different tone from me, but that's not the case.

[Randy White]

They aren't involved in the process? Then why hasn't a new contract already been signed? They aren't going to hurt as to pay, and I'm sure they have already been offered a deal up to here.

The owners are not going to hurt as to pay either, as a matter of fact, they're going to make MORE than what they were before, so why the lock out ?

[CCBoy]

The owners are not going to hurt as to pay either, as a matter of fact, they're going to make MORE than what they were before, so why the lock out ?

The concept in question here, is solvency of the lower end teams and the ability of a team such as the Cowboys, to pay their own way, not for the low end teams. The question on the board, is strength of the entire league, not pay scale for an already affluent player group.

[CCBoy]

No question. And if it was THEY going on strike, you'd see a much different tone from me, but that's not the case.

Lol, and this fan is still holding out for a resolution before the official start of the free agency period.:starspin

[CCBoy]

Just to present some realistic comparisons:

MarkMaske NFL projects $1 billion in lost revenues if there's no labor settlement until September. http://wapo.st/gIiC92

MarkMaske ... $350 million in lost revenues if no settlement until August.

MarkMaske Other NFL projections: $120 million in lost revenues if no labor settlement until March...


http://www.cowboysnation.com/2011/01/mobile-diary-part-ii-wes-bunting.html

[DallasEast]

They'd do that deal in a New York second. You know why the owners don't sign on it ? Because the players are asking them to show every single revenue stream that comes into the NFL and the owners are balking at opening up the books.

And it's not only the players, it's the small market teams as well that want a piece of the revenues that are NOT part of the shared pot.I wasn't referring to the "shared pot".

Hopefully, they can hash this out between both parties because the players would lose this argument in the general court of opinion. The center point of contention remains the slicing up of a pie worth billions.

Not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Nah. Millions? Nope. Billions with the capital 'B'.

The players union publicly acknowledges that total revenue is basically worth billions minus streams (labeled as 'expense credits') worth millions. They would rather dictate that the entire pie (e.g. All Revenue) be divided up.

The general public sees both arguing points valued in the billions. Yes, as demonstrated in this thread, the union will receive some support. Yet, the overwhelming public view will mostly be negative. And that is after being educated about the entire dispute. Perhaps it would be different if tens or even hundreds of millions was being fought over, but monies eclipsing the ten digit mark do not often receive pity points.

[CCBoy]

I wasn't referring to the "shared pot".

Hopefully, they can hash this out between both parties because the players would lose this argument in the general court of opinion. The center point of contention remains the slicing up of a pie worth billions.

Not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Nah. Millions? Nope. Billions with the capital 'B'.

The players union publicly acknowledges that total revenue is basically worth billions minus streams (labeled as 'expense credits') worth millions. They would rather dictate that the entire pie (e.g. All Revenue) be divided up.

The general public sees both arguing points valued in the billions. Yes, as demonstrated in this thread, the union will receive some support. Yet, the overwhelming public view will mostly be negative. And that is after being educated about the entire dispute. Perhaps it would be different if tens or even hundreds of millions was being fought over, but monies eclipsing the ten digit mark do not often receive pity points.

:beer2: Here, here....nice post. Dallas East.:starspin

[burmafrd]

The big issue really is revenue sharing among the owners. Next comes the players wanting a specific percentage of the pie. BOTH points are tough ones. Jerruh and the owners who work their tales off resent the Wilsons and company that suck on the rest of the NFL. Like the Cinci owner and others who just do not work that hard. Jerruh resents it and he should. Then add to that the stadium problem: public money for stadiums is drying up and will be dry for quite a while while the states and cities are strapped. So the poorer owners will need help upgrading, modernizing, and building new stadiums. Some of the revenue will have to go into a stadium fund.

[CCBoy]

Good post, burma...:)

[jimnabby]

They are not asking them anything they are telling them first off.
Um, no. They're asking them. More precisely, they're negotiating with them.
Second they are not saying the players should give anything back just that the players will have to take a paycut.
And in these kinds of negotiations, the word for that is "givebacks". Check a dictionary.
Do you take into account all the money that the owners must spend? Coaches? Players? Stadiums? Stadium up keep? Accountants? Lawyers? Workers in the stadium? NFL network? Do the players assume any of the cost? You are making it sound like the owners are making all the money and have no over head...
I suggested no such thing. I said that the NFL is incredibly profitable (profit = the money you take in after all those expenses you're talking about). This is not a controversial position.
...and telling the players to give back money they have already earned so they can have more money. That is not the case. The owners are simply saying that the players have to take a paycut in the future because the current deal didnt take into account that new stadiums would have to be built as well as other things.
Sure. The owners are saying this. What they're not doing is giving a shred of evidence to indicate that what they're saying is true.

[Boom]

The big issue really is revenue sharing among the owners. Next comes the players wanting a specific percentage of the pie. BOTH points are tough ones. Jerruh and the owners who work their tales off resent the Wilsons and company that suck on the rest of the NFL. Like the Cinci owner and others who just do not work that hard. Jerruh resents it and he should. Then add to that the stadium problem: public money for stadiums is drying up and will be dry for quite a while while the states and cities are strapped. So the poorer owners will need help upgrading, modernizing, and building new stadiums. Some of the revenue will have to go into a stadium fund.

Combine that with a new NFLPA president who doesn't want to be perceived as weak by taking steps backwards in his first order of business, and you have the makings of a long, nasty fight.

[jimnabby]

The big issue really is revenue sharing among the owners. Next comes the players wanting a specific percentage of the pie. BOTH points are tough ones. Jerruh and the owners who work their tales off resent the Wilsons and company that suck on the rest of the NFL. Like the Cinci owner and others who just do not work that hard. Jerruh resents it and he should. Then add to that the stadium problem: public money for stadiums is drying up and will be dry for quite a while while the states and cities are strapped. So the poorer owners will need help upgrading, modernizing, and building new stadiums. Some of the revenue will have to go into a stadium fund.

The only comment I have is about "the players wanting a specific percentage of the pie." The owners are the ones who wanted that (and got the players to agree to it back when the salary cap was put in). The fact that players get a specific percentage of the pie is what keeps total player salaries lower than they would be in a completely free market.

[SilverStarCowboy]

Screw the stupid players, lets have Arena guys in here, Jerry can put a Superbowl Team of those cats together!

Seriously....it doesn't make that big of a difference. It's still football at the highest level, many will cross the lines. Starting with Cromartie.

[wileedog]

THEY are the ones with the keys to the gate and THEY are the ones who are demanding to renegotiate after the fact.

That's simply not true. The players and owners made an agreement. That agreement expires in a month. It no longer exists. Nobody is renegotiating anything.

They are negotiating a NEW deal in a NEW economic environment. If there is no new CBA the league can't function, so really until there is an agreement nobody can play either way.