Article That Supports My POV

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Chester Pitts On Roger Goodell, commissioner: "I think he tends to be tone deaf. He doesn't understand players."

On the NFL owners: "Their main strategy is to delay as long as they can and hope we run out of money. They have no real interest in negotiating right now no matter what they say publicly."

On what he thinks the fight is all about: "If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

Then Pitts delivered this. You need to pay special attention, because his words, I think, represent the mindset of many NFL players:
"Most players are approaching this fight with the long term in mind," Pitts said. "This is a marathon, not a sprint. Most players feel this way. They're in this for the long fight. As long as it takes.
"There's this perception that the players should capitulate now. We're not suddenly going to start begging the owners. We understand what's at stake just like the owners do. Some of the owners underestimate us. There is far more resolve among the player base than the owners know.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15179248/outspoken-pitts-players-in-this-for-the-long-fight

 

[peplaw06]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

Definitely not the other way around.

 

[Hostile]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

He plays in Seattle.

 

[CooterBrown]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15179248/outspoken-pitts-players-in-this-for-the-long-fight

Despite what he claims is solidarity, I think he is mistaken.

The owners have history on their side. Previously,when the players went on strike they caved in because they had bills to pay and needed the money. They didn't all cross the picket line, and they didn't all cross at once, but one by one, player by player they did. Those who crossed the line got paid, those who didn't, didn't. Pretty simple strategy that worked for the owners. From the owners perspective: This situation is different because the players can't "cross the line", but when enough of them feel the pinch they will fragment and cave in.

 

[speedkilz88]

Pitts is/was the rep for Seattle. Of course I would expect the player reps to parrot the company line.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Despite what he claims is solidarity, I think he is mistaken.

The owners have history on their side. Previously,when the players went on strike they caved in because they had bills to pay and needed the money. They didn't all cross the picket line, and they didn't all cross at once, but one by one, player by player they did. Those who crossed the line got paid, those who didn't, didn't. Pretty simple strategy that worked for the owners. From the owners perspective: This situation is different because the players can't "cross the line", but when enough of them feel the pinch they will fragment and cave in.

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.

 

[JBS]

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.

 

[burmafrd]

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.

ditto

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Chester Pitts is only looking out for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

Nope. He's looking out for the average American employee:

On what he thinks the fight is all about: "If corporate America can crush thousands of professional athletes, what chance does an average employee have?"

It's remarkable that an obviously intelligent and articulate man could come up with such nonsense. Whatever this is about, it most certainly is not about protecting the interests of the average American employee.

 

[theogt]

Sarcasm, dude.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Sarcasm, dude.

pep was being sarcastic, for sure. As was I, in my response to him. But what of Pitts? Was he being sarcastic?

 

[Marktui]

I didn't read the article, just the quotes, but is he saying that he is fighting for the average worker as well??

He lost me when made that statement. Hey Chester, just keep it real dude, the average worker does not make the kind of wages the players in the NFL make. Most of corporate America does not work for any type of unions.

 

[DallasEast]

[youtube]WkRqnOr3RZY[/youtube]​

 

[CCBoy]

Sarcasm, dude.

You have such poignant barrister terms...

 

[CCBoy]

I didn't read the article, just the quotes, but is he saying that he is fighting for the average worker as well??

He lost me when made that statement. Hey Chester, just keep it real dude, the average worker does not make the kind of wages the players in the NFL make. Most of corporate America does not work for any type of unions.

:laugh2: The 'posturing' for negotiable advantage is dependent upon those very associated Union qualities. And now, voila, for personal gain, Smith is suggesting doing away with that class of judicial/legislative remedy as well. Posturing?

 

[sonnyboy]

Which has pretty much been why the owners are pissing me off. They could lose a season if it really came down to it, they are already filthy rich. And the TV money suggested they were prepared to do that.

The fact that the owners have so much and still want to screw around like this is upsetting. If Im an owner I consider myself blessed to be in the position I am and wouldnt take the game away from the fans.

Yea, yea, it takes two to tango etc. But like you said, the players have more to lose here. For the most part they will spend every dollar they make in the league in their life time. So not bowing down is just smart.

For the owners it just seems to be about ego and "putting them in their place". See Jerry Richardsons comments and their absence in the meetings.

If theres missed games or a lost season its on the owners. To do that because youre profit is at worst $15M is gross.

I hear what you're saying. You want football. Hell we all want football and I don't care who's right, wrong, wins or loses. I just want football.

Problem I see here is that the NFL has had a system, and is now trying to negotiate an extension of that system, that doesn't work. It's as if they're trying to fit two round pegs into both a round hole and square hole.


They want to share revenue with the players. You guys get this percentage of the total. That percentage is what is your salary floor/cap each team has to work with.

Problem is that total revenues the player comp is based on isn't shared equally amoung the teams. So the Cowboys get exactly the same cap/floor as the Jags, yet significantly more revenue.

And the NFL wants a sharing arrangement in place with the players that allows every team to make a profit.

There in lies the problem. In the current system, if the players get the % they want, teams will lose money, if the owners get the % they want, it's not really a fair split.

The best solution as I see it is a different system. 32 caps for 32 teams. Players get their fair share and no team has to run at a loss.

Competitive balance will take a little hit. But with so much revenue already shared between the teams, the disparity of highest to lowest cap will be nothing like what we have in baseball.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The main thing you are forgetting is that these people are BUSINESS OWNERS..They are not football fans or football people first..they are BUSINESS first..the bottom line is what they care about..PERIOD..if you were a business owner first, you would be the same way.

ditto

Maybe its just me but at that point you have won at life. Sit back, collect your checks, and be happy.

 

[Derinyar]

I hear what you're saying. You want football. Hell we all want football and I don't care who's right, wrong, wins or loses. I just want football.

Problem I see here is that the NFL has had a system, and is now trying to negotiate an extension of that system, that doesn't work. It's as if they're trying to fit two round pegs into both a round hole and square hole.


They want to share revenue with the players. You guys get this percentage of the total. That percentage is what is your salary floor/cap each team has to work with.

Problem is that total revenues the player comp is based on isn't shared equally amoung the teams. So the Cowboys get exactly the same cap/floor as the Jags, yet significantly more revenue.

And the NFL wants a sharing arrangement in place with the players that allows every team to make a profit.

There in lies the problem. In the current system, if the players get the % they want, teams will lose money, if the owners get the % they want, it's not really a fair split.

The best solution as I see it is a different system. 32 caps for 32 teams. Players get their fair share and no team has to run at a loss.

Competitive balance will take a little hit. But with so much revenue already shared between the teams, the disparity of highest to lowest cap will be nothing like what we have in baseball.

So you in essence want the baseball and current basketball system. Teams with enough money spend it. Teams without toil in mediocrity permanently, outside of one bright shining year every now and again.

I am all for free trade, except in my sports leagues where I want to see a competitive balance. I don't like having one team win because, primarily, of the market they are in affording them more money then the rest of the league.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I say put them in a room and attach electrodes to their scrotums and shock them every 15 minutes until they have a new CBA.