PDA

View Full Version : Who do you support


Doppelganger
03-12-2011, 11:42 AM
In the clash of NFL Owners vs NFL Players, which side are you on?

JB
03-12-2011, 11:52 AM
Neither

IDEXAN
03-12-2011, 12:12 PM
Of all of the hundreds and hundreds of players in the NFL today, I wonder how many (if any at all), would be better off financially if weren't for the NFL ? On the other hand, the owners would pretty much be stinkin rich with or without the league I suspect ? All I'm saying is, the players had better not lose sight of what they have to lose and keep that foremost in their minds at all times as they proceed thru this process to reach a new CBA with the
NFL owners.

PapaL
03-12-2011, 12:21 PM
I support the fans. Without us the ownera don't own and the players don't play.

Fans need to stand up and unite. Where do you think the $9B comes from? OUR pockets!

Errant Hothy
03-12-2011, 12:37 PM
I'm with the owners, especially when it comes to opening the books for the players. If I asked my coporate masters to open the books, I'd be laughed out of their offices; and unlike the players a fair chunk of the company I work for shares are owned by the employees.

I understand the concerns on health care, both during and after their playing days; but it seems the owners agreed with them and were willing to make concessions in that direction.

The players lost all the trust I had with them when they made the first move to stop the process by decertifing.

On the other hand both sides are being greedy bastards.

toronto
03-12-2011, 01:19 PM
Neither. Both sides are gonna see a dramatic effect on diehards like me. I was a diehard MLB fan until 1994, and have NEVER been the same again. I was a bigtime NHL fan until they killed their season several years ago, and I have yet to buy a ticket to a game there since then, nor have I purchased any official NHL merchandise.

The NFL is no different to me, as much as I love it. I'll eventually get apathetic, move on and take years to regain passion for their sport.

PapaL
03-12-2011, 02:35 PM
The players lost all the trust I had with them when they made the first move to stop the process by decertifing.


The owners opted out of the CBA years ago. That was the 1st move. Had they not done that, everyone would still be operating under that CBA.


I voted neither.

dream_team
03-12-2011, 03:24 PM
In the poll, I voted for owners... as I was drafting my post for reasons why, I couldn't argue against one fact!

The NFL is a monopoly!!!

Alot of people, including myself, may say something like... "In my job, I'd get fired for asking my boss I deserve more 'piece of the pie'. Owners take all of the risk when purchasing an NFL team, therefore they have the right to dictate how much they want to play their players." I was going to go on and on down these lines...

But then I realized... if I feel my boss isn't paying me enough, I can simply quit and work elsewhere, doing the same thing. Therefore, they are encourage to keep salaries high to stay competitive. This doesn't hold true in the NFL, though. They have a Monopoly. NFL owners don't have to worry about the players quitting and playing for the Arena league, or the CFL. So I get the players' side as well.

Unfortunately, the only loser in all of this are the fans.

Lucky
03-12-2011, 05:21 PM
I'm with the owners, especially when it comes to opening the books for the players. If I asked my coporate masters to open the books, I'd be laughed out of their offices; and unlike the players a fair chunk of the company I work for shares are owned by the employees.
If your income was based upon a percentage of the company's revenue, I'm pretty darn sure you'd want to look at the books.

TEXANRED
03-12-2011, 05:34 PM
Neither for me.

The NFL is a business nothing more.

To quote one of the greatest movies of all time:

This is a business, this is not a charity. You know, I mean maybe one day Unicef will get into the impound business, but you know, until then, we're the people to see.

The players have the right to want to make more money and the owners have the right to keep as much of their money. Anything less is socialism.

The real losers here is going to be Vegas.

GNTLEWOLF
03-12-2011, 07:05 PM
Neither. Both sides are gonna see a dramatic effect on diehards like me. I was a diehard MLB fan until 1994, and have NEVER been the same again. I was a bigtime NHL fan until they killed their season several years ago, and I have yet to buy a ticket to a game there since then, nor have I purchased any official NHL merchandise.

The NFL is no different to me, as much as I love it. I'll eventually get apathetic, move on and take years to regain passion for their sport.

Exactly!!!!:clap:

TexansBull
03-12-2011, 07:25 PM
Neither. Both sides are gonna see a dramatic effect on diehards like me. I was a diehard MLB fan until 1994, and have NEVER been the same again. I was a bigtime NHL fan until they killed their season several years ago, and I have yet to buy a ticket to a game there since then, nor have I purchased any official NHL merchandise.

The NFL is no different to me, as much as I love it. I'll eventually get apathetic, move on and take years to regain passion for their sport.


So is soccer next for you?

Atleast the Houston 1836 errrrr Dynamo have won a championship.

Buffi2
03-12-2011, 08:07 PM
I voted neither. Eventually, this is going to hurt everyone - the fans, the players, the owners and the NFL. I think more and more people share Toronto's view and just won't be as interested if and when the two groups decide to get along and go back to playing.

I can see both sides point of view and don't like either one of them.

ATXtexanfan
03-12-2011, 08:32 PM
If your income was based upon a percentage of the company's revenue, I'm pretty darn sure you'd want to look at the books.

my feelings as well

JimBaker488
03-12-2011, 09:02 PM
If your income was based upon a percentage of the company's revenue, I'm pretty darn sure you'd want to look at the books.
Get real man ! Everybodys income ultimately is based upon the financial performance of their employer, assuming they work in the nongovernmental/private sector of the economy. And I'm also pretty darn sure if most people in the private sector told their employer they wanted to see his books, he'd tell them to look else where for employment.

Ranger Tom
03-12-2011, 09:09 PM
I just want football.

Doppelganger
03-12-2011, 09:58 PM
Maybe its time for a triumphant return of the opening play scramble and

http://www.xflboard.com/photos/week7/photot6.jpg

He Hate Me!

http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hate.jpg

Maybe its time for a triumphant return of the XFL!

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/XFL.jpg

ArlingtonTexan
03-12-2011, 10:49 PM
Get real man ! Everybodys income ultimately is based upon the financial performance of their employer, assuming they work in the nongovernmental/private sector of the economy. And I'm also pretty darn sure if most people in the private sector told their employer they wanted to see his books, he'd tell them to look else where for employment.

I guess more of America works for privately held corporations and individuals owners than I thought. I mean it has been a few years for me, but when I worked for places like Target, Wells Fargo and Nations Bank (I think now Bank of America), I was (or either could pretend to be) a stockholder and could get audited financial reports by just requesting it. In fact, Starbucks just sent the annual report(with audited financials) to me.

Audited financials at least with public corporations is a course of business. Now, I am not saying there was not funny money in the report, but for the most an individual could determine if the company was making more, making less money (probably what's happening with some of the NFL franchises) or not making money at all.

Corrosion
03-13-2011, 12:05 AM
In the poll, I voted for owners... as I was drafting my post for reasons why, I couldn't argue against one fact!

The NFL is a monopoly!!!

Alot of people, including myself, may say something like... "In my job, I'd get fired for asking my boss I deserve more 'piece of the pie'. Owners take all of the risk when purchasing an NFL team, therefore they have the right to dictate how much they want to play their players." I was going to go on and on down these lines...

But then I realized... if I feel my boss isn't paying me enough, I can simply quit and work elsewhere, doing the same thing. Therefore, they are encourage to keep salaries high to stay competitive. This doesn't hold true in the NFL, though. They have a Monopoly. NFL owners don't have to worry about the players quitting and playing for the Arena league, or the CFL. So I get the players' side as well.

Unfortunately, the only loser in all of this are the fans.


No , they dont have a monopoly , they may be the highest paying league but there are other leagues including the Arena and Canadian leagues .... the players do have options , those options are just less appealing than the NFL. They are options just the same.


Open the books ? ..... Hell no , an employee has no right to see that information.

I could easily see some teams losing money especially in smaller markets or those who's teams cant fill a stadium - Jacksonville ? Carolina ? Detroit ?


As for the players wanting a bigger piece of the profits , hell the leage minimum pays about 20 times the salary of the average American .... and most make that many times over. Sure they run the risk of injury but does that mean they can never work again ? ..... these people need to come back down to earth. So much for putting that college education they got for free to work.

Rey
03-13-2011, 12:37 AM
No , they dont have a monopoly , they may be the highest paying league but there are other leagues including the Arena and Canadian leagues .... the players do have options , those options are just less appealing than the NFL. They are options just the same.


Open the books ? ..... Hell no , an employee has no right to see that information.

I could easily see some teams losing money especially in smaller markets or those who's teams cant fill a stadium - Jacksonville ? Carolina ? Detroit ?


As for the players wanting a bigger piece of the profits , hell the leage minimum pays about 20 times the salary of the average American .... and most make that many times over. Sure they run the risk of injury but does that mean they can never work again ? ..... these people need to come back down to earth. So much for putting that college education they got for free to work.


Ummmmm....

You do realize that the players didn't really ask for a bigger piece of the profits...

The owners asked them to play more games and take less money.

I do not blame the players at all (doesn't mean I'm taking their side)...I can see why they would want to see the books and I can see why they don't just bend over and take it like some people want them to.

If I enter into a contract with someone and they come back and ask me to take less money because they are losing money, I'd want to know why too. Especially if they asked me to work a couple extra days as well...

It's business. Yes it sucks for the fans and for all those working class people spending their hard earned money, but I think people just want what works for them.

The fans don't care about the players anymore than the players and owners care about the fans. We just want to watch football, the owners want more money coming their way and the players don't want to take a step back.

Just a bunch of whining coming from all three angles.

JimBaker488
03-13-2011, 09:42 AM
I guess more of America works for privately held corporations and individuals owners than I thought. I mean it has been a few years for me, but when I worked for places like Target, Wells Fargo and Nations Bank (I think now Bank of America), I was (or either could pretend to be) a stockholder and could get audited financial reports by just requesting it. In fact, Starbucks just sent the annual report(with audited financials) to me.

Audited financials at least with public corporations is a course of business. Now, I am not saying there was not funny money in the report, but for the most an individual could determine if the company was making more, making less money (probably what's happening with some of the NFL franchises) or not making money at all.
See the thing is AT you are talking apples and oranges here. The Houston Texans are a wholy owned corporation of Bob McNair and/or the McNair family, except perhaps for some very nominal interests held by some other prominent Houstonians. But the corporate entity is "privately held", whereas
the companies you're talking about are public companies that have their securities (stocks, bonds, etc), actively traded in the financial markets and as such they are required by the government (actually the SEC), to prepare and publish formal financial statements made available to the public.

toronto
03-13-2011, 10:27 AM
So is soccer next for you?

Atleast the Houston 1836 errrrr Dynamo have won a championship.

I have kids - trust me, my time isn't as disposable as it once was. I also work for an all-sports network that shoves 500 regional NHL games down everyone's throats. I've never been busier at work either.

Best way I can add to what I already said is this.

Since 1994, I have yet to attend a MLB game. I've not bought any Astros gear, not even when they came so close winning the Series.

Since 2004, I have not bought any Leafs tickets (which are beyond expensive anyways). I have not spent a dime on merchandise.

I have about 10 NFL jerseys purchased in the last 5 years, and have been to a game almost every year, which I have happily paid for, and in most cases, flown to Nashville to get 'er done. That stops the second these guys deprive us all of their sport. They wanna test my loyalty? My track record suggests otherwise, and I'll bet there are millions like me. There are lots of things to do on Sundays in the fall, I'll re-discover them and move on.

Doppelganger
03-13-2011, 11:10 AM
Ummmmm....

You do realize that the players didn't really ask for a bigger piece of the profits...

The owners asked them to play more games and take less money.

I do not blame the players at all (doesn't mean I'm taking their side)...I can see why they would want to see the books and I can see why they don't just bend over and take it like some people want them to.

If I enter into a contract with someone and they come back and ask me to take less money because they are losing money, I'd want to know why too. Especially if they asked me to work a couple extra days as well...

It's business. Yes it sucks for the fans and for all those working class people spending their hard earned money, but I think people just want what works for them.

The fans don't care about the players anymore than the players and owners care about the fans. We just want to watch football, the owners want more money coming their way and the players don't want to take a step back.

Just a bunch of whining coming from all three angles.


If you enter into a contract with someone,and they want you to take less you have a choice. You can choose to refuse to take less or accept the cut. If you refuse, you can try to continue working at the rate and try to work it out or walk.

The players chose to walk (i.e. decetify) in this case rather than continue negotiating. That is their choice and right. If they want to make a statement, the FAs can go play in the CFL or Arena league. The public will likely not accept it right away and it will take several seasons to become the more popular league (if it ever does). So, the players certainly have a choice.

That said, employees do have ever have the right to ever see the books of the employer.

Dan B.
03-13-2011, 11:55 AM
deleted

TexansBull
03-13-2011, 12:14 PM
Here is the thing that I don't get: the whole arguement of whether or not employees have the right to see their employers financial statements.

Do you work for BP, Exxon, Chevron, Chase, Bank of America or any other publicly traded company? go to your company's website and you can probably find it. Its, get this, public info. If you can't find it there you can pay for it on the web.

I can understand if you are a small business employer and thats personal information, but as large as the NFL is what does it matter?

To me the whole situation sucks because they are 200 million per team on how to divide the money? Send it over here to the fans. Lower concession prices and ticket prices so a family of four can go to the game once a year without costing them an arm and a leg.

So many employers have stopped matching 401ks, layed off people, decreased wages for all employees, frozen pension funds, schools closing, police and fire departments running limited staff, etc. What audacity the players and owners have to squabble over a millions of dollars in these rough times when we are the ones paying for everything. Where is there financial sacrifice?

NFl player and owners - you suck.

dalemurphy
03-13-2011, 12:20 PM
If your income was based upon a percentage of the company's revenue, I'm pretty darn sure you'd want to look at the books.

They got to look at 5 years of material, though not the level of detail they were demanding.

I see two problems with the union's request:

1. The union was determined to stand firm. The owners weren't claiming that there was an immediate threat to the league. So, nothing the union would see in the balance sheet would convince the union it should ask for less.

2. What the sheets would provide would be anecdotal evidence supporting the union's argument that the owners are wasteful with the money and should be better stewards.

There is not one scenario, other than proof the league was headed for immediate financial ruin, where showing the union each team's balance sheet would aid in collective bargaining. Not one.

dalemurphy
03-13-2011, 12:25 PM
I have kids - trust me, my time isn't as disposable as it once was. I also work for an all-sports network that shoves 500 regional NHL games down everyone's throats. I've never been busier at work either.

Best way I can add to what I already said is this.

Since 1994, I have yet to attend a MLB game. I've not bought any Astros gear, not even when they came so close winning the Series.

Since 2004, I have not bought any Leafs tickets (which are beyond expensive anyways). I have not spent a dime on merchandise.

I have about 10 NFL jerseys purchased in the last 5 years, and have been to a game almost every year, which I have happily paid for, and in most cases, flown to Nashville to get 'er done. That stops the second these guys deprive us all of their sport. They wanna test my loyalty? My track record suggests otherwise, and I'll bet there are millions like me. There are lots of things to do on Sundays in the fall, I'll re-discover them and move on.



I agree with your philosophy. However, here's the problem: Unless you normally attend Jacksonville or Buffalo games, there are 10 other people that will buy that ticket you are choosing not to... And, the NFL players and owners count on that. Not to mention the fact that pro leagues are almost eager to cater less to the real fans and more towards corporate America. Perhaps they'll just remove another 500 seats and replace them with more suites to sell to the oil companies so they can party at the stadium and strike their own billion dollar deals.

Hagar
03-13-2011, 01:30 PM
Neither. Both sides are gonna see a dramatic effect on diehards like me. I was a diehard MLB fan until 1994, and have NEVER been the same again. I was a bigtime NHL fan until they killed their season several years ago, and I have yet to buy a ticket to a game there since then, nor have I purchased any official NHL merchandise.

The NFL is no different to me, as much as I love it. I'll eventually get apathetic, move on and take years to regain passion for their sport.

Exactly, I haven't paid for a baseball ticket since '94 and will never buy another ticket. I've been to a few games as a freebee but that's it.

Rey
03-13-2011, 06:17 PM
They got to look at 5 years of material, though not the level of detail they were demanding.

I see two problems with the union's request:

1. The union was determined to stand firm. The owners weren't claiming that there was an immediate threat to the league. So, nothing the union would see in the balance sheet would convince the union it should ask for less.

2. What the sheets would provide would be anecdotal evidence supporting the union's argument that the owners are wasteful with the money and should be better stewards.

There is not one scenario, other than proof the league was headed for immediate financial ruin, where showing the union each team's balance sheet would aid in collective bargaining. Not one.

Couldn't disagree more.

You're making it sound like the players are imbeciles and the owners are just so much more smarter....

If the owners can look at their books and determine that they are heading down a bad path, why couldn't they just present that evidence? I'm pretty sure there is someone smart enough on the players side to decipher the same information and come to a conclusion.

Another thing...Why not just show them the data or numbers? I understand that everything is "about the principal", but wouldn't that help to rapidly move the talks along? They would completely put the ball in the unions court....Examine the books...if you are really losing money or heading for that end, they will be able to see that and will have to make a move...The fans would know that the owners are being genuine and so would the players union.

I'm not really defending either side...just pointing out that they both share some fault. It's business.

dalemurphy
03-13-2011, 06:47 PM
Couldn't disagree more.

You're making it sound like the players are imbeciles and the owners are just so much more smarter....

If the owners can look at their books and determine that they are heading down a bad path, why couldn't they just present that evidence? I'm pretty sure there is someone smart enough on the players side to decipher the same information and come to a conclusion.
Another thing...Why not just show them the data or numbers? I understand that everything is "about the principal", but wouldn't that help to rapidly move the talks along? They would completely put the ball in the unions court....Examine the books...if you are really losing money or heading for that end, they will be able to see that and will have to make a move...The fans would know that the owners are being genuine and so would the players union.

I'm not really defending either side...just pointing out that they both share some fault. It's business.


I don't doubt that the players' representatives are intelligent enough to understand the numbers. That's not the issue. The issue is that, like any union, it is an advocate for the players and, especially during moments like this, see ownership as its adversary. Therefore, any information gained will be used as evidence against the owners and not the begin of a conversation for compromise.

here's an example: Perhaps the books show a gradual decline in prophets over the past few years. But, maybe the balance sheet for the Titans show Bud Adams flying a private jet accross the country and it is being classified as a business expense. So, De. Smith brushes off the declining prophets by quickly deflecting it by pointing out wasteful spending by some owners and also some cooking of the books. All of a sudden, the real issue has been derailed.

Hagar
03-13-2011, 07:51 PM
If you've put together and analyzed as many operating statements as I have you'll know that the interpretation of the information is in the eye of the beholder. Rarely, is the information so one sided as to be completely good or bad; you can either sing the praises of God or the damnation of the Devil, take your pick.

SheTexan
03-13-2011, 11:56 PM
Not that it matters, but, I voted neither.

Looks like I'll get a little more interested in high school and college football. I've always loved high school ball anyway, and I'll have a granddaughter in high school next year, SOOOOOO, I'll still get my football fix. NO, it won't be the same, but, screw the NFL for screwing with the fans!!

Go LaPorte Bulldogs and A&M!!!! I'll be watching!

HTown2ATX
03-14-2011, 09:25 AM
I side with the players on this one.

The owners made the 1st move a couple years ago causing this mess, they want the players to give back money AND work/play 2 more games.

While it is one thing to say that the owners should not have to show their books, it's another to ask the employees to work more AND cut their pay AND say to the employees screw off you can't see our books.

Would we get laughed out of the office of our bosses if we demanded to see the books...probably.....

But in this case, if I was required to work more and take a pay cut.....I'd not only demand to see the books, but upon them refusing, I'd have to quit...matter of principal at that point.

Double Barrel
03-14-2011, 10:56 AM
I support the fans. Without us the ownera don't own and the players don't play.


History undermines your bolded point. Players were playing football well before they were getting paid and drawing huge crowds. Look into the history of the sport. Players played the game because they loved playing the game. They played the game in muddy fields, in spite of a lack of health care and trainers and large stadiums and all of that. Watch NFL Films to see the grainy images of guys playing because they loved to play the game. I have little doubt that the game of football would continue if the NFL folded today.

Plus, every one of current players played the game well before they got paid, through little league, middle school, high school, and college. They love playing the game like any other athlete playing their sport. It is just silly to act like they would not play the game if owners or fans were not around. History clearly reveals otherwise.

Fans need to stand up and unite. Where do you think the $9B comes from? OUR pockets!

The sad fact of the matter is that the money comes from EVERYONE'S pockets, even those that never watch a down of football. With TAXPAYER FINANCED stadiums, all citizens live with the repercussions of finite resources being poured into these luxury stadiums. Even taking into account the financing schemes of taxing hotels and rentals, that money could still have been used for improvement of critical infrastructure that benefits everyone.

In addition, EVERYONE pays for advertising in products, regardless if they watch the NFL. And advertisement is what is driving much of the revenue.

This league is not a example of the real world, and I find it a bit of folly to act like it resembles anything like the real world. This is an ENTERTAINMENT industry. Let's quit the disingenuous comparisons to the average working person.

HOU-TEX
03-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Neither! They can both kiss my ass

Texan_Bill
03-14-2011, 11:49 AM
I voted neither as well... Eff 'em, both!

TD
03-14-2011, 02:05 PM
Siding with the players.

There was a CBA in place...the owners opted out of it.

The owners claimed they opted out because they weren't as profitable as projected. Seems fair to ask them to prove it. Especially since the revenues are there.

Just from what I have read, the owners have been planning on this from the get-go. The TV contract they negotiated supports that. Their sporadic attendance with the mediators supports it.

I think the owners miscalculated here and will likely eventually cave on other issues to avoid producing audited financial statements. Not so much because of the players, but rather the taxpayers who are going **** bricks when they see the profit margins they have been subsidizing in black and white.

infantrycak
03-14-2011, 02:16 PM
I think the owners miscalculated here and will likely eventually cave on other issues to avoid producing audited financial statements.

The owners have offered 5 years of financial statements and an independent audit.

JB
03-14-2011, 02:34 PM
The owners have offered 5 years of financial statements and an independent audit.


I don't know why people don't get this.


Way too much misinformation out there by both sides.

Doppelganger
03-14-2011, 02:39 PM
I would love to see the team have an event where there is a player signing autographs and the fans no show.

Something like this
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/cindy_sheehan_2.jpg

or this

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/cindy_sheehan_1.jpg

It would tell both sides not to take US the fans for granted. They get big money becuase we allow it.

TD
03-14-2011, 02:43 PM
The owners have offered 5 years of financial statements and an independent audit.

You got a link for that? There is a HUGE difference between "selected financial data" and financial statements.

infantrycak
03-14-2011, 03:09 PM
You got a link for that? There is a HUGE difference between "selected financial data" and financial statements.

It was reported on profootballtalk.com and a couple other sources such as:

Pash said the league was prepared to work with an agreed upon third party to give full audited financial team statements from the last five years. What exactly that third party would report on whether it was more than just generalized profits or not was uncertain.

Now what that means is more your bailiwick.

Dan B.
03-14-2011, 03:16 PM
I don't think we will ever see full financial data of every team, because that would cause a fraction between the owners. Right now Jerry Richardson has no idea exactly how much Jerry Jones makes off the Cowboys. Jones wants to keep it that way.

TD
03-14-2011, 03:34 PM
It was reported on profootballtalk.com and a couple other sources such as:

Now what that means is more your bailiwick.

OK...found that article. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/14/pash-im-not-convinced-they-want-to-see-the-numbers/).

Hard to tell exactly what the owners are offering, but clearly its less than full financials. The problem with not providing full financial statements, is that its too easy to hide information with creative accounting, related party transactions, etc... I am going to go out on a limb and say all the owners and the league have full audited financial statements (complete with disclosures) prepared for their banks and/or investors. You can't really hide anything in those without committing fraud, so its not surprising that's what the union is pressing for.

At the same time I will be SHOCKED if the owners produce them. Once they started getting leaked, all hell would break loose.

Texecutioner
03-14-2011, 05:37 PM
I'm totally with the owners here. Here is why.

1. NFL players and NBA players are some of the most greedy, immature, and over paid athletes alive. Baseball players are as well, but they don't waste all their money away nearly as much, aren't arrested as much, and don't have near the egos that NBA and NFL players do. That being said, I'd almost like it if the season were pushed away in hopes that some of the NFL players could see how well they have it and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. Owners will always be rich whether it was in this business or some other business. They earned their keep already and already built empires so they're a little more deserving to me. It's the fans that make up this sport. We live and die to watch it. I don't think that the athletes today hardly understand or care about that. SO many of them buy bling, 5 cars, several houses, and support their entourages with gifts and everything else. They have no right to be bitching right now. They're making a gazillion times more money than the early pioneers of this sport ever made in the 60's and 70's who didn't have all these great doctors and endorsement deals that these other clowns get now days.


A lockout just might be what the doctor ordered. Bring in some new players and some athletes that can appreciate the history of this sport and what makes it available for them which is the fans.

Double Barrel
03-14-2011, 05:54 PM
I'm totally for the record companies. Screw these bands, with their parties and groupies and jamming on stage. They are sooo out-of-touch with average fans who buys their cds and concert shirts and goes to their shows.

See how funny it sounds when applied to other entertainers? :rolleyes:

Corrosion
03-15-2011, 04:29 AM
I'm totally with the owners here. Here is why.

1. NFL players and NBA players are some of the most greedy, immature, and over paid athletes alive. Baseball players are as well, but they don't waste all their money away nearly as much, aren't arrested as much, and don't have near the egos that NBA and NFL players do. That being said, I'd almost like it if the season were pushed away in hopes that some of the NFL players could see how well they have it and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. Owners will always be rich whether it was in this business or some other business. They earned their keep already and already built empires so they're a little more deserving to me. It's the fans that make up this sport. We live and die to watch it. I don't think that the athletes today hardly understand or care about that. SO many of them buy bling, 5 cars, several houses, and support their entourages with gifts and everything else. They have no right to be bitching right now. They're making a gazillion times more money than the early pioneers of this sport ever made in the 60's and 70's who didn't have all these great doctors and endorsement deals that these other clowns get now days.


A lockout just might be what the doctor ordered. Bring in some new players and some athletes that can appreciate the history of this sport and what makes it available for them which is the fans.

Back in the 70's and before .... many players had to work actual JOBS on top of playing football.

I read something interesting today - the big sticking point is that the owners refuse to open their books - I wouldnt open mine either. Its not my employee's business how much profit I show or how much of a loss I accumulate. Now if the players were "Shareholders" that would be a totally different situation but thats not the case - forget seeing the books. You are not partners , You are employee's.

As I understand it , they were not close to an agreement - It was the players decision to walk away from negotiations.

toronto
03-15-2011, 10:57 AM
I'm totally with the owners here. Here is why.

1. NFL players and NBA players are some of the most greedy, immature, and over paid athletes alive. Baseball players are as well, but they don't waste all their money away nearly as much, aren't arrested as much, and don't have near the egos that NBA and NFL players do. That being said, I'd almost like it if the season were pushed away in hopes that some of the NFL players could see how well they have it and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. Owners will always be rich whether it was in this business or some other business. They earned their keep already and already built empires so they're a little more deserving to me. It's the fans that make up this sport. We live and die to watch it. I don't think that the athletes today hardly understand or care about that. SO many of them buy bling, 5 cars, several houses, and support their entourages with gifts and everything else. They have no right to be bitching right now. They're making a gazillion times more money than the early pioneers of this sport ever made in the 60's and 70's who didn't have all these great doctors and endorsement deals that these other clowns get now days.


A lockout just might be what the doctor ordered. Bring in some new players and some athletes that can appreciate the history of this sport and what makes it available for them which is the fans.

I couldn't disagree more with you on NFL players - as someone that has dealt with them I feel I can comment. The differences between a NFL contract (non-guaranteed), the lifespan of their career, and the likelihood of physical health issues after their career is much more paramount than a NBA or MLB player. For every Albert Haynesworth, there a ton of 'pluggers' that fight to stay in the league and are incredibly kind with their time for the media and fans. Many players I've met on the Buffalo Bills (a team I can't stand BTW) are down to earth decent guys, and many of them better have a second career path once their playing days are over.

The NFL owners are desperate to rekindle a 1950s-level era in terms of their control, and it was their call to rip up their current CBA and bring this armageddon to all of us. The players were fine with the current situation. When you consider the amount of money Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC/ESPN pay them, then throw in all other revenue generated, then add in the incredible rise in franchise value (the average team is worth 900M) since 1990, if an owner feels unsatisfied, then sell your team, make hundreds of millions of dollars and roll around in that naked.

They are the crybabies in this equation, and I feel absolutely no empathy for their 'situation.' They already had players by the balls, and now want to cut them off.

scourge
03-15-2011, 02:11 PM
The differences between a NFL contract (non-guaranteed), the lifespan of their career, and the likelihood of physical health issues after their career is much more paramount than a NBA or MLB player.

I grow tired of the "but, but, their contract isn't guaranteed. They can be let go at any time..." Is your job guaranteed? Mine's not. Maybe they should actually try and learn something while in college instead of going through the motions just to get to where they are. "But the average career of an NFL player is only 3 years and can have lasting damage to their bodies.." That's weak, because they know this when they take the job. These are the 15 most dangerous jobs in America. (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2010-3#no-15-grounds-maintenance-workers-1) Football isn't one of them, but a job I once held is.

It is a privilege to play a sport for a living, not a right. Music groups/bands/artists/etc don't go asking what kind of profits the record companies are making. I sure don't, either. If the players feel they are treated unfairly they can always find new jobs that apply to their degree(probably communications or physical education). Bring in the scrubs, I say. Sign UFL players, Arena, whomever and get back to playing. I pay to watch a team, not a player.

Are the owners right in asking for more money? I don't know, probably, and don't really care anymore. Just bring football back, regardless of who the players are.

toronto
03-15-2011, 03:09 PM
I grow tired of the "but, but, their contract isn't guaranteed. They can be let go at any time..." Is your job guaranteed? Mine's not. Maybe they should actually try and learn something while in college instead of going through the motions just to get to where they are. "But the average career of an NFL player is only 3 years and can have lasting damage to their bodies.." That's weak, because they know this when they take the job. These are the 15 most dangerous jobs in America. (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2010-3#no-15-grounds-maintenance-workers-1) Football isn't one of them, but a job I once held is.

It is a privilege to play a sport for a living, not a right. Music groups/bands/artists/etc don't go asking what kind of profits the record companies are making. I sure don't, either. If the players feel they are treated unfairly they can always find new jobs that apply to their degree(probably communications or physical education). Bring in the scrubs, I say. Sign UFL players, Arena, whomever and get back to playing. I pay to watch a team, not a player.

Are the owners right in asking for more money? I don't know, probably, and don't really care anymore. Just bring football back, regardless of who the players are.

No my job isn't guaranteed, in the sense that if I do a lousy job, it will show on air and I'll embarrass the hell out of my network. I suspect if it had happened 3 or 4 times I would get canned, with whatever severance one gets for 3 and a half years service.

I don't fully SUPPORT the players - I just believe this entire charade was orchestrated by the owners. The players were fine with the contract and if I have to choose a side that was more likely to 'honestly' collectively bargain - I believe the players were - they had MUCH more to lose by not being flexible.

At the end of the day I'm no different than you. Pissed at all of them and wondering who I get to shoot first for making me talk to my wife on Sundays during the fall.

Dan B.
03-15-2011, 03:15 PM
I grow tired of the "but, but, their contract isn't guaranteed. They can be let go at any time..." Is your job guaranteed? Mine's not. Maybe they should actually try and learn something while in college instead of going through the motions just to get to where they are. "But the average career of an NFL player is only 3 years and can have lasting damage to their bodies.." That's weak, because they know this when they take the job. These are the 15 most dangerous jobs in America. (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2010-3#no-15-grounds-maintenance-workers-1) Football isn't one of them, but a job I once held is.

It is a privilege to play a sport for a living, not a right. Music groups/bands/artists/etc don't go asking what kind of profits the record companies are making. I sure don't, either. If the players feel they are treated unfairly they can always find new jobs that apply to their degree(probably communications or physical education). Bring in the scrubs, I say. Sign UFL players, Arena, whomever and get back to playing. I pay to watch a team, not a player.

Are the owners right in asking for more money? I don't know, probably, and don't really care anymore. Just bring football back, regardless of who the players are.

You can also quit working for your employer and go to one of their competitors at any time. An NFL player can't because they signed a contract agreeing to play for one time for a specified length of time. NFL teams don't honor that same timeframe. The problem is that contracts in the NFL are one way.

Double Barrel
03-15-2011, 03:42 PM
It is a privilege to play a sport for a living, not a right. Music groups/bands/artists/etc don't go asking what kind of profits the record companies are making.

Actually, my friend, they do:

Artists Sue Major Record Labels For Pirating Music & Get Back Millions (http://www.newrockstarphilosophy.com/2011/01/artists-sue-major-record-labels-for-pirating-music-and-get-back-millions/)

20072008 Writers Guild of America strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike)

80 million Robbie spearheads artists strike in protest at EMI takeover (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-507556/80-million-Robbie-spearheads-artists-strike-protest-EMI-takeover.html)

Obviously different situations, but still the same with entertainment figures holding those they work for accountable.

We simply cannot compare professional athletes to average workers without distorting the situations. Pro athletes are entertainers, much like television/movie stars and musicians/singers. These industries are not the same as plumbers, or truck drivers, or home repair men, or any other regular job.

Entertainers are the product, and there is a reason whey they are the ones being watched and we are the ones watching them. I could find thousands of folks to do my job with proper training, but the fact is that not many people can do what an elite athlete can do on the football field.

b0ng
03-15-2011, 05:14 PM
I voted neither but you people who think your run of the mill 9 - 5 jobs or your small time business that barely break 6 digits a year are even close to NFL owners or players are really out there. Your skills aren't highly specialized that only a small single digit percentage of the population can perform, and you don't have a wealth of cash to buy your own NFL team. I know you have this urge deep down to try to compare your life to Peyton Mannings, or Mike Brown, but you aren't even in the same galaxy as either of those two guys. And how many companies are out there with limited anit-trust exemptions? How many of you earn a percentage of the revenue generated by your business? How many of you are going to end up physical vegetables because your work basically breaks your body if you do that work for any decent period of time? It's not the same, it's not ever going to be the same, and you will never be apart of it.

Both sides have made really stupid blunders through this, but in the end, if they stupid enough to kill this golden goose then neither side deserves to be apart of the most popular sport in America.

HoustonFrog
03-16-2011, 09:13 AM
I voted players. Easily players. These guys have a average career of 2-3 years. Their life expectancy is shorter than the average male due to the punishment they take for the sake of entertainment. The owners run the teams, yes, but they also make a ton of money and aren't putting their bodies on the line. The whole safety/18 game schedule was a joke.

I also don't buy this argument that "if you own a business you can do what you want to make money." Their business and your business aren't even close. The owners MADE the argument that they need 1 Billion of the cut because of expenses and decreasing profits. So if they broach the subject then the matter needs to investigated...opening the books. It isn't like the union is split on this. Guys like Brees, Manning, Brady and Jeff Saturday aren't idiots. They are going hard line on this because they aren't dumb enough to just hand over 1 Billion on the owners word. I'm not sure how owners even got a vote.

I don't know why people don't get this.


Way too much misinformation out there by both sides.

Because it was a BS, last second offer. According to most sources this wouldn't even give the players the information they needed to ascertain where the money was going etc....family on payroll, boats, use of private jet for non-business use, etc. The players need to know these things so owners can't cry wolf while needlessly throwing away cash.

infantrycak
03-16-2011, 09:24 AM
First off I go with neutral. I don't have a dog in this fight other than wanting football played. With that said...

These guys have a average career of 2-3 years.

This has to be one of the most over used arguments. The vast majority of players are out of the league in 3 years because of a lack of talent. Very few are forced out of the league by injury in that time period.

Their life expectancy is shorter than the average male due to the punishment they take for the sake of entertainment.

This one is true. Maybe fans shouldn't ***** so much about efforts to make the game safer.

The owners run the teams, yes, but they also make a ton of money and aren't putting their bodies on the line.

No, they put a billion dollars on the line and they had other options for making a ton of money. For the most part, the players do not.

The owners MADE the argument that they need 1 Billion of the cut because of expenses and decreasing profits. So if they broach the subject then the matter needs to investigated...opening the books.

Reports are the number was down to $700 mil. In addition, the owners offered up five years of financial information to be reviewed by an independent auditor.

HoustonFrog
03-16-2011, 09:35 AM
First off I go with neutral. I don't have a dog in this fight other than wanting football played. With that said...



This has to be one of the most over used arguments. The vast majority of players are out of the league in 3 years because of a lack of talent. Very few are forced out of the league by injury in that time period.



This one is true. Maybe fans shouldn't ***** so much about efforts to make the game safer.



No, they put a billion dollars on the line and they had other options for making a ton of money. For the most part, the players do not.



Reports are the number was down to $700 mil. In addition, the owners offered up five years of financial information to be reviewed by an independent auditor.

Disagree on the first point. The union is around to protect ALL players. From multi-millionaires to scrubs. The average is the average because not alot of guys get a cup of tea in the league and not many last too long, whether it be talent, injuries, etc. Look at Spencer from the Texans. Overall there is the falsehood that these players are spoiled rich guys when in reality you have 32 53 man rosters with a majority of guys who won't last too long and who probably will get a total of about 3 years of $350,000. Not shabby but not set for life and not a huge chunk in the scheme of things. It isn't like the NBA or baseball where I guy can get payed 15 million a year being a stiff because he takes up space in the lane.

Agree on safety rules because of their shorter life span

I addressed the financials above. Showing a bottom line for 5 years isn't transparency to me. Why reward an owner who is wasteful and not losing out because of business expenses. Heck it might help the owners if what they say is true. Seems like they are hiding how they are blowing their profits to me.

infantrycak
03-16-2011, 09:51 AM
Disagree on the first point. The union is around to protect ALL players. From multi-millionaires to scrubs. The average is the average because not alot of guys get a cup of tea in the league and not many last too long, whether it be talent, injuries, etc. Look at Spencer from the Texans. Overall there is the falsehood that these players are spoiled rich guys when in reality you have 32 53 man rosters with a majority of guys who won't last too long and who probably will get a total of about 3 years of $350,000. Not shabby but not set for life and not a huge chunk in the scheme of things.

I don't even see those as arguments against what I said. Those guys that make $350k per year and can't get off the bench or special teams make that money because the union has gotten a floor put in on salaries. More important the implication is often there that football is so tough people only play 3 years when it is really almost always lack of talent. I have a hard time working up a ton of sympathy for the poor 3 year player who got a free education to supposedly get a college education and a million dollars to start life off with at 24-25 years old. And yeah starting off life with hundreds of thousands in the bank (if you were on the bench you shouldn't be out making it rain like you are a superstar) is a huge leg up on life. Want to start a small business? - why sure. Want to go to school for a couple years and emerge with no debt? - cool.

I addressed the financials above. Showing a bottom line for 5 years isn't transparency to me. Why reward an owner who is wasteful and not losing out because of business expenses.

Not sure where you get bottom line only out of that. In fact the implication of an independent audit is background information will be provided to audit.

Dan B.
03-16-2011, 09:56 AM
There's more than one NFL owner that has yet to demonstrate any talent at their job. When do we get to kick them to the curb for a younger owner that would cost less? Only when they make back their investment ten times over?

drewmar74
03-16-2011, 09:58 AM
Who do you support? Hell, I don't know. I do know that I don't trust either side and I find the whole thing incredibly frustrating. What I'm finding, though, is that my frustration is rapidly turning into apathy.

I'm an average guy trying to make ends meet. I go to work all day and I have a side gig to help pay off some medical debt. My wife has health issues and can't work. We have two kids to feed and care for. We have our mortgage, utility bills, etc. I'm looking at $3.50 per gallon gas and $4.00 per gallon milk. Because of my workload, I don't have a lot of time for outside interests but I've been a diehard NFL fan for about 25 years.

Also, I've found that with marriage and kids, as the man of the house, what is actually "yours" diminishes with time. I have the garage, my grill, and football in the fall. That's about it. I'm not complaining, just stating fact.

So here I am - a 25 year fan who's busting tail for his family and really counting on the NFL as a nice little distraction from reality. That little distraction is all jacked up now and there is more finger pointing than I've seen around anything in years.

I could delve into the different angles of why things have gone down like they have. Why the union decertified.... why the owners locked them out... why DeMaurice Smith insists on wearing that goofy little hat. I could delve into those things but I just don't care. I don't care why its screwed up, I just want it fixed.

The longer this goes on and the more stupid things that get said by players and owners.... the more negative press that pops up..... Well, I find myself caring less and less. Maybe I should find a better outlet for my time on Sundays. Take my son fishing instead of cussing the Texans defense? Something more worthwhile?

They better get it fixed and quit acting like a bunch of azzholes. I know I'm not the only person who's rapidly getting fed up with the whole thing and, based on what happened with the NHL and MLB, a lot of fans won't come back once they walk off.

*sigh*

Can I just have my football back, please?

HoustonFrog
03-16-2011, 10:25 AM
I don't even see those as arguments against what I said. Those guys that make $350k per year and can't get off the bench or special teams make that money because the union has gotten a floor put in on salaries. More important the implication is often there that football is so tough people only play 3 years when it is really almost always lack of talent. I have a hard time working up a ton of sympathy for the poor 3 year player who got a free education to supposedly get a college education and a million dollars to start life off with at 24-25 years old. And yeah starting off life with hundreds of thousands in the bank (if you were on the bench you shouldn't be out making it rain like you are a superstar) is a huge leg up on life. Want to start a small business? - why sure. Want to go to school for a couple years and emerge with no debt? - cool.



Not sure where you get bottom line only out of that. In fact the implication of an independent audit is background information will be provided to audit.


That is not what I read. I heard it was basic numbers on the bottom line for the 5 years with the auditors getting only a checklist of debts and expenses, etc. I also read that the specifics of where that money was going would not be included. Again, an owner can be taking 12 vacations on the jet but then have that built into his business losses.

Good article

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159211/nfl-labor-pains-and-press-release-redefined-chutzpah

DeMaurice Smith and the NFL Players Association wanted ten years of financial audits so they could see why the most successful sports league on earth was claiming to be financially embattled. They wanted to see how the owners could feel justified to ask for a rookie pay scale and 18 percent cuts in player compensation. They wanted to see how, despite all we now know about the brutal hazards of the sport, the owners could insist on adding two more regular season games. But the owners refused to open the books, offering instead a single sheet of paper with two numbers on it. This single sheet would only be available to the union after being vetted by an independent third party.

According to this after the Friday deadline newsconference by players the owners were full of crap the whole time. Considering their position I don't doubt it

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/NFLPA-conference-call-shows-players-with-solid-r?urn=nfl-wp186

The players on the call were former Seattle Seahawks, New York Jets and Tennessee Titans center Kevin Mawae(notes), New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees(notes), and Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday(notes). All three spoke convincingly and eagerly; the players at times taking questions over from Atallah to give their view

Brees put his name as a primary plaintiff on the Brady case because he wanted to do something meaningful for the players now, before, and in the future.

As to the NFL's portrayal that the last deal offered to the players split the difference, it's important to remember that the league was attempting to "split the difference" between the $2 billion the owners want off the top of gross revenue now, not the $1 billion they got off the top in the old CBA. Brees said that the last proposal was trying to get back $1.66 billion in the first four years, and "that was only a good deal to them."

Mawae said that of all the misrepresented statements by the NFL, the worst was the claim that the players walked away from the negotiations. Atallah tag-teamed on this as well, saying that the NFL's timeline view was ridiculous, and he half-sarcastically wondered if he should present time-stamped photos of the fax machine used to send the decertification papers so that people would know what happened when.

Mawae said that it was amazing to him that a paid attorney would be like that in public, obviously referring to NFL counsel Jeff Pash, who has been the league's primary mouthpiece through this most recent process. A slew of lawyer jokes immediately hit Twitter when I put that up.

Brees said more than once this seemed to anger him in particular that the owners' last proposal was a sham and that the NFL intended to lock the players out all along. He said that the owners were just setting it up so that they could say they tried to act in good faith when that wasn't the case.

The audited financials continue to be the main sticking point. Brees said that because the salary cap is based off revenue, it's like no other business the players have access to revenue, but not to cost, and even in a horrible economy, the NFL grew 7.5 percent last year. Costs outstripping revenue? Brees said. Show us the books. They say no, that's not how business works. "It's impossible to negotiate a fair deal when you don't know the numbers," he said.

infantrycak
03-16-2011, 01:11 PM
That is not what I read. I heard it was basic numbers on the bottom line for the 5 years with the auditors getting only a checklist of debts and expenses, etc. I also read that the specifics of where that money was going would not be included. Again, an owner can be taking 12 vacations on the jet but then have that built into his business losses.

Except that doesn't make logical sense. The owners are getting $1 bil off revenues for expenses now. Revenue is income not net profit. There would be no negotiation about this if what the players were dividing up was net profit after all expenses not covered by the $1 bil. An additional sum off the top of the revenue would be totally unnecessary as they would already be splitting only net profit. Audited statements on all revenue sources make sense. Profit and loss statements for the league as a whole make sense because the owners say they have gone down. Individual team expenses do not make sense as that is not what is split. The split is on NFL revenue, not net profits and not individual team net profits so issues like an owner scamming the IRS over fake vacations also are irrelevant to the players.

Rey
03-16-2011, 02:11 PM
Their life expectancy is shorter than the average male due to the punishment they take for the sake of entertainment.

This one is true. Maybe fans shouldn't ***** so much about efforts to make the game safer.

I actually read something a while back that disputed the life expectancy of football players being shorter.

They basically said that because football players tend to be larger than everyday humans they tend to have more health problems. They said that offensive and defensive linemen greatly skew the statistics...

They also said that many other players tend to gain weight after they are done playing and that is a cause for the shortened life span.

Texecutioner
03-16-2011, 02:27 PM
I just find these demands from the players to be pretty ridiculous. If they don't like their deal, then find a new line of work. I don't care what anyone says it's a privlidge to play in the NFL. I could watch slightly less talented players and I'd be just fine with it. We already do that any way when we watch the college game. We're watching younger and less talented guys play and they're playing for free and many argue that college football is better than the NFL. I'd much rather be watching a bunch of players that are a lot more hungry and thankful for the privlidge they have at being able to support their families by playing a wonderful game and they also get to become celebrities just for playing a game. Very few athletes in the NFL embrace this now days since their money and their contracts got so high after while and their fame as individuals got so big. The more and more whining and bickering I hear from both side and especially from the players sides makes me hope that this season gets tanked and that a ton of the players lose big time. They are the ones that stand to lose here and if that were to happen they'd have no choice but to come crawling back after they're out of work and they don't know what to do with themselves.

I think it's about time we get back to the blue collar mentality from our athletes if we're going to make them stars. To many of them have egos way out of wack and could care less about working hard or being a professional once they're in the league. Jamarcuss Russell is pure proof of that and there are hundreds just like Jamarcuss Russell. Just look at guys like Mike Williams who wasted several years by goofing off after getting all of that money and then finally woke up and decided to play last season. I hate the mentality of most athletes now days. I'm on the owner's side of this and I hope the athletes lose big time in this. NFL players "Choose" to play football. They can go work somewhere else if this privlidged way of life and career isn't up to their standards. You wouldn't see a single one of them buck up and retire for something else unless they were riding the pine their whole career or were to old and could barely play. I'd like to see their salaries take a nose dive personally and see almost all guaranteed money taken away. Guaranteed money is what kills all sports. It takes away the incentive and it takes away the competitive edge.

Rey
03-16-2011, 02:31 PM
Very few athletes in the NFL embrace this now days since they money and their contracts got so high after while and their fame as individuals got so big. The more and more whining and bickering I hear from both side and especially from the players sides makes me hope that this season gets tanked and that a ton of the players lose big time. They are the ones that stand to lose here and if that were to happen they'd have no choice but to come crawling back after they're out of work and they don't know what to do with themselves.

The NFL gained more popularity, money and coverage.

Why shouldn't the players benefit from that?

HOU-TEX
03-16-2011, 02:41 PM
I support my local beer store, BPS and the Brazos River Club, in which my lake house resides

disaacks3
03-16-2011, 02:59 PM
Except that doesn't make logical sense. The owners are getting $1 bil off revenues for expenses now. Revenue is income not net profit. There would be no negotiation about this if what the players were dividing up was net profit after all expenses not covered by the $1 bil. An additional sum off the top of the revenue would be totally unnecessary as they would already be splitting only net profit. Audited statements on all revenue sources make sense. Profit and loss statements for the league as a whole make sense because the owners say they have gone down. Individual team expenses do not make sense as that is not what is split. The split is on NFL revenue, not net profits and not individual team net profits so issues like an owner scamming the IRS over fake vacations also are irrelevant to the players. Yes and No...the league claims that certain TEAMS are in dire financial straits and that this league-wide extra 1B will offset that. As the teams have more sources of income NOT covered in the "League Revenues", it stands to reason that if you're claiming that you need more $$ to avoid failures, then lets see what the REAL bottom-line is.

I agree with analysis I've read elsewhere on the 'financial disclosures'...the Owners may be more afraid of each other than the NFLPA*. Start thinking about things like Baseball's "luxury tax".

infantrycak
03-16-2011, 03:15 PM
Yes and No...the league claims that certain TEAMS are in dire financial straits and that this league-wide extra 1B will offset that. As the teams have more sources of income NOT covered in the "League Revenues", it stands to reason that if you're claiming that you need more $$ to avoid failures, then lets see what the REAL bottom-line is.

I have gone back and forth on this one. Individual team profitability doesn't affect the salary cap so from that side I don't think the books should be opened up. But there have been reports the league played the "some teams aren't or are close to not being financially viable card." Well that certainly opens up some proof. But if the claim is only about 3 teams I would say it is on those 3 teams not all 32. There were a few reports out that the NFL offered to open up books on the teams they were claiming were approaching non-viability.

A lot of the reporting on this stuff is self-serving statements so I think fans should be a little more careful on thinking they know exactly what is going on.

TD
03-16-2011, 03:38 PM
If anyone happens to find Green Bay's actual audited financial statements online, I'd appreciate a link. All I can find is summaries. Since they are public, there has to be a set floating around somewhere.

axman40
03-16-2011, 04:03 PM
Who do I like more George Soros or the Koch Brothers?
:um:

Texan4Ever
03-16-2011, 04:40 PM
I understand that players are asking for fair salaries and health insurance once they're retired, and I also understand that the owners are in a business to earn $$$$. However, these are my views:

Players who played in the past or at times when salaries were small, deserve to have the NFL pay for their health needs. Nowadays, players make millions of dollars and should have no problem getting the best quality healthcare money can buy.

A rookie salary needs to be put in place before anything else. It is unfair for veterans who have paid their dues to earn less than some hot shot rookie who hasn't even played a second of NFL football.

The biggest loser in this will by the fans. I look foward to football (NCAA and NFL) more than any other sporting event. Not having football would force me to actually work during the weekends instead of gluing my butt to the couch all weekend long. :foottap:

z_man57
03-16-2011, 04:42 PM
I support neither owner nor player in this mess, I support the fans.

Neither owner or player will really lose here, only the fans will get screwed.

For me, I will be pissed if either:

They cancel 2 home games and I still have to sit through "pre-season" or

they put in "replacements" and still charge me for "NFL" football.

Screw them all, they make great money off my poor ass...

Just get back to work!!!

BigBull17
03-16-2011, 05:20 PM
I support neither owner nor player in this mess, I support the fans.

Neither owner or player will really lose here, only the fans will get screwed.

For me, I will be pissed if either:

They cancel 2 home games and I still have to sit through "pre-season" or

they put in "replacements" and still charge me for "NFL" football.

Screw them all, they make great money off my poor ass...

Just get back to work!!!

I support the poor people who work at concessions, or parking attendants, or grounds keepers. The people who depend on this complementary income to support their families. These are the people who suffer.

Texecutioner
03-16-2011, 05:41 PM
The NFL gained more popularity, money and coverage.

Why shouldn't the players benefit from that?

They have, but way to much. They have in all sports like baseball, football, and basketball. The NFL is just lucky they never did the whole "guaranteed contracts" thing. Money for players has gone up and up and up......... At some point it needs to have a cap or it just gets out of hand and it waters down the game because the athletes no longer care or play as hard because they have no incentive. Again, Jamarcuss Russell and Mike Williams are perfect examples of that and I'd rather see less talented players if that meant that I would see a bunch of athletes that appreciated their jobs and ways of making a living compared to what we've got now.

HoustonFrog
03-16-2011, 06:25 PM
I just find these demands from the players to be pretty ridiculous. If they don't like their deal, then find a new line of work. I don't care what anyone says it's a privlidge to play in the NFL. I could watch slightly less talented players and I'd be just fine with it. We already do that any way when we watch the college game. We're watching younger and less talented guys play and they're playing for free and many argue that college football is better than the NFL. I'd much rather be watching a bunch of players that are a lot more hungry and thankful for the privlidge they have at being able to support their families by playing a wonderful game and they also get to become celebrities just for playing a game. Very few athletes in the NFL embrace this now days since their money and their contracts got so high after while and their fame as individuals got so big. The more and more whining and bickering I hear from both side and especially from the players sides makes me hope that this season gets tanked and that a ton of the players lose big time. They are the ones that stand to lose here and if that were to happen they'd have no choice but to come crawling back after they're out of work and they don't know what to do with themselves.

I think it's about time we get back to the blue collar mentality from our athletes if we're going to make them stars. To many of them have egos way out of wack and could care less about working hard or being a professional once they're in the league. Jamarcuss Russell is pure proof of that and there are hundreds just like Jamarcuss Russell. Just look at guys like Mike Williams who wasted several years by goofing off after getting all of that money and then finally woke up and decided to play last season. I hate the mentality of most athletes now days. I'm on the owner's side of this and I hope the athletes lose big time in this. NFL players "Choose" to play football. They can go work somewhere else if this privlidged way of life and career isn't up to their standards. You wouldn't see a single one of them buck up and retire for something else unless they were riding the pine their whole career or were to old and could barely play. I'd like to see their salaries take a nose dive personally and see almost all guaranteed money taken away. Guaranteed money is what kills all sports. It takes away the incentive and it takes away the competitive edge.

A quick statement on this. I think Russell and Mike Williams are the exception, not the rule. I'd bet there are more guys like Moose Johnson, DeMeco and others who clock in and work their asses off. We only hear about the bad seeds. The majority of the guys are working their tail off to earn a shot. It probably is the same minimal amount as there are owners who had family money, purchased a team or inherited it and then did nothing to make it better. I really think 95% of the league are the guys you never hear about and many of the ones you have...Brees, Manning, etc work their tail off. Guys coast in football and they get hurt. I can see this more in other sports where salaries are higher and rosters smaller.

Rey
03-16-2011, 07:03 PM
A quick statement on this. I think Russell and Mike Williams are the exception, not the rule. I'd bet there are more guys like Moose Johnson, DeMeco and others who clock in and work their asses off. We only hear about the bad seeds. The majority of the guys are working their tail off to earn a shot. It probably is the same minimal amount as there are owners who had family money, purchased a team or inherited it and then did nothing to make it better. I really think 95% of the league are the guys you never hear about and many of the ones you have...Brees, Manning, etc work their tail off. Guys coast in football and they get hurt. I can see this more in other sports where salaries are higher and rosters smaller.

Yeah...I think that there a far and away more guys busting their ass than guys just coasting...

Corrosion
03-17-2011, 02:14 AM
I just find these demands from the players to be pretty ridiculous. If they don't like their deal, then find a new line of work. I don't care what anyone says it's a privlidge to play in the NFL. I could watch slightly less talented players and I'd be just fine with it.


I could watch Highschool kids on Friday night and pay $3.00 for some nacho's .... and bring in my own booze in my back pocket instead of payin $8.00 for a beer and $10.00 for some damn chips and cheese. Not to mention the fact that I wouldnt have to fight the damn traffic gettin outa Reliant or make a house payment for the tickets.

Double Barrel
03-17-2011, 11:33 AM
I could watch Highschool kids on Friday night and pay $3.00 for some nacho's .... and bring in my own booze in my back pocket instead of payin $8.00 for a beer and $10.00 for some damn chips and cheese. Not to mention the fact that I wouldnt have to fight the damn traffic gettin outa Reliant or make a house payment for the tickets.

You could....but in no way could you make the case that high school (or even college) football is anywhere near the product that is the NFL.

People can whine and moan about player salaries until they are blue in the face, but the fact remains that any given entertainment industry (be it sports, television, music, movies, etc.) are not like regular jobs. And under a capitalistic system, they are free to make as much money as entertainers as the market allows.

We - the people - are ultimately at fault for elevating entertainers to the point that they can make these outrageous salaries because we demand that entertainment. We are willing to sacrifice improvements to critical infrastructure in our communities in order to build luxury stadiums and arenas for sports teams.

People complaining about feeling bad for fans? Give me a break! WE ARE THE REASON why things are the way that they are right now!!! Look in the mirror, folks, because you are just as much a part of this cycle as the owners and players at the end of the day. The $9 billion dollars doesn't fall out of the sky, it comes from US!

I find all the hand-wringing about a freakin' game to be a little pathetic (and I'm just as guilty about it). We are on the brink of economic collapse as a nation, we have serious problems with our education systems, crime is almost out-of-control, and we could list a whole bunch of other NSZ issues...and we're worried about an entertainment diversion???

Yeah, our priorities reveal the root of the problem, folks. :howdy: They can all kiss my ass!! [/Thorn]

Dan B.
03-17-2011, 12:08 PM
You could....but in no way could you make the case that high school (or even college) football is anywhere near the product that is the NFL.

People can whine and moan about player salaries until they are blue in the face, but the fact remains that any given entertainment industry (be it sports, television, music, movies, etc.) are not like regular jobs. And under a capitalistic system, they are free to make as much money as entertainers as the market allows.

We - the people - are ultimately at fault for elevating entertainers to the point that they can make these outrageous salaries because we demand that entertainment. We are willing to sacrifice improvements to critical infrastructure in our communities in order to build luxury stadiums and arenas for sports teams.

People complaining about feeling bad for fans? Give me a break! WE ARE THE REASON why things are the way that they are right now!!! Look in the mirror, folks, because you are just as much a part of this cycle as the owners and players at the end of the day. The $9 billion dollars doesn't fall out of the sky, it comes from US!

I find all the hand-wringing about a freakin' game to be a little pathetic (and I'm just as guilty about it). We are on the brink of economic collapse as a nation, we have serious problems with our education systems, crime is almost out-of-control, and we could list a whole bunch of other NSZ issues...and we're worried about an entertainment diversion???

Yeah, our priorities reveal the root of the problem, folks. :howdy: They can all kiss my ass!! [/Thorn]

I was thinking about our earlier conversation re publicly owned teams. What if Americans were to get together and fund their own league -- essentially creating a league of teams that are run like the Packers? A league where every team is a non profit, run by a board of directors, and owned by others in their community? What type of investment would it take?

I think $500 for a share in a franchise is reasonable. If 50,000 people per franchise can be found to pony up $500, that's $25 million dollars per team in start up revenue. If 50,000 people per franchise also buy season tickets at $50 per seat for 10 games (assuming the current number of games -- 8 regular season, 2 preseason), that would be another $500, or $25 million per team. That's $50 million in start up cash for each franchise. Assuming that the payroll is 60% of revenue (which I believe was the agreement under the last CBA), that would give an initial salary cap of $30 million per team -- before any revenue from TV rights, stadium naming rights, merchandise, parking, same day ticket sales, concessions, or advertising. That averages to $500,000 per player with a 60 man roster.

One million Americans would be enough for a 20 team league with 50,000 season ticket holders each.

If that $1,000 were completely refundable if the NFL plays next season, would you be willing to pay it? Is $500 a fair price to pay to own a piece of your own pro football team that seeks to sign current NFL athletes? Is $50 a ticket a fair price for season tickets?

I wouldn't expect it to actually get off the ground, but you could scare the daylights out of the owners if enough people did it. You'd basically be threatening to creating a competing non profit league with a billion dollars in immediate seed money and a guaranteed fan base.