Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Texans Plan To Show "Sign of Solidarity" Sunday

It seems as if a lot of people think that the players are complaining and asking for more money...Here's an article that explains what I was saying a little more:

According to Goodell, under the current labor agreement with the players the NFL has the right to impose an 18-game schedule, and keep four preseason games for each team. But that contract expires after this season, and a new proposal would have to be presented to the players' union.

The owners did not vote on the issue and have yet to iron out several issues involved with expanding the regular season, including coming up with new ways to evaluate the rookie players who wouldn't have as many preseason games to make a good impression.

And, as former player and coach Mike Ditka points out in a Sporting News interview, "When you've got more chances for guys to get hurt, you've got to have a bigger roster."

Many NFL players are expressing concerns about an expansion, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, who told the New York Times that adding games means more risk of injury.

"We’re not automobiles; we’re not machines; we’re humans,” said Lewis. “After the first three, four months, your body feels a certain way. You’ve got to ask yourself how many people are truly healthy in 18 games. I just think it’s a lot of football."

Money is another issue. As Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita points out, the owners want the players to take less money in the next labor agreement.

"They are asking you to play more games and put yourself at more risk, and they are also asking us to take a pay cut," Fujita told the AP. "That's a lot to ask. All those things don't make a whole lot of sense."
Click to expand...

Link


Forgot about the fact that they are trying to push the season to 18 games which IMO makes it even worse...

They want them to take less money and play more games...I don't blame the players for showing some resistance...

Ultimately, the owners will probably get the longer end of the stick, but I can't blame the players for not immediately signing the new labor agreement under those terms...
 
JB said:
It must suck to be screwed with almost $100k for 4 months of work...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not picking sides here, but 4 months? These guys have to work 24/7 to be able to play this game at the level they are playing. Then we have OTAs in April mini camp in June, training camp in July...
 
thunderkyss said:
I'm not picking sides here, but 4 months? These guys have to work 24/7 to be able to play this game at the level they are playing. Then we have OTAs in April mini camp in June, training camp in July...
Click to expand...

The 4 months and almost $100K is for the practice squad guys during the season. That does not count the money they get paid during OTA's and TC. And that is only the practice squad guys. All players on the active roster get a lot more than that.
 
Cjeremy635 said:
I actually sat here and read through all five pages of this thread before I decided to post. I agree with those of you who said to keep this mess off of the field. It belongs behind closed doors, period.

If I had to pick a side though, I would side with the owners. Yes, the players are the ones that the fans show up to see, but the owners are the ones who shelled out all of that money to purchase the team. As a co-owner of a small business, I wouldn't sympathize with my employees if they all decided to show a sign of solidarity and demand more money. I feel like I bear the financial burden of running the company and the stress that goes along with it, so shouldn't you make the most from the profits? I'm not saying that you should pay your employees like **** (which I don't BTW), but those NFL players aren't paid like **** either. There are plenty of things that go on behind closed doors that have to deal with running a business that the players do not have to worry about. Those headaches can drive you crazy sometimes and that's why the CEOs make what they do. Also, the players wanting 50-60% of the money is rediculous. How does that impact owner's profits after they have to deal with profit sharing for teams that can't sustain themselves?

I have a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at that for now. :cool:
Click to expand...

These owners get the tax payers to pay for their chief moneymaking assets- the stadiums- and still convince people that their investment in the NFL, a closed economic system that discourages the free market, makes them some kind of martyrs to the players who are calling for half the revenue. Incredible.
 
SheTexan said:
I enjoy watching my grandson's play football as much as I do any NFL player, and it does NOT cost me a friggin fortune. There are ELITE performers in a lot of different areas of entertainment. Maybe if I didn't spend over 400 bucks every Sunday just for tickets, plus another hundred or more for tailgating, I would be able to travel more, or go to NY to the theatre, or save and go to the Olympics! YES, we all enjoy the entertainment that comes from the NFL, but, we can survive without it!!

...

This arguement can go on forever and we will not come any closer to agreeing than the players or owners. truth is, the fans are the only victims. The owners make mega bucks, the players make mega bucks, the fans SPEND mega bucks just so we can be entertained by selfish people.
Click to expand...


I wanted to respond to this portion of your post SheTexan. It sounds like you're saying that you're reliant on the NFL and if they charge $400, you have to pay it. That you can't do things like travel because the NFL is exorting money out of you. I don't understand this, though. Football is entertainment. Its your choice alone whether to spend that $400.

Football is not a life necessity. This isn't some company charging out the rear for basic food and water and shelter. Its 100% entertainment.

There are a lot of things in life that everyone cannot afford. I will never own a Ferrari, I will never own a jet, etc. Im lucky if I make it to one pro game per year because of cost.
Because diamonds are so expensive, Im still paying for an engagement ring I purchased and thats preventing me from traveling. But that was my choice. I dont really have a right to be upset at the price, because I was the one who decided to pay it.

Like you said, you already have alternatives. You can watch highschool games for free or very cheap. You can watch college (altough they are expensive as well) and you can always watch for free locally on TV.

It makes sense to be frustrated at prices, but the NFL is a business, and as such, the bottom line is whats important. This is capitalism and this is America. If the owners can make more money by charging more, don't they have a right to?


Edit: I want to go ahead and change my opinion on the solidarity act issue. I agree with those of you who say youre fine with the players asking for more, fine with the owners asking for more, but want them to keep it behind closed doors. Thats the only sensible move. Doing it while at work (gametime) is not acceptable. Take AJ as an example. Do your business and negotiate in private. Don't make it a public ordeal.
 
JB said:
If you were the owner of a company, would you be happy with giving your employees 60% of revenue? Not 60% of profit, but 60 % of revenue?

Again, I really don't care about the issues at hand, 'cause I have no control over that. I just want them to keep their negotiating off the football field. Just play ball on Sunday and hold your ceremonial bs for behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

If I were the owner of an NFL team I'd just be thankful to be in such a great position...So I'm prolly not the one to ask that question to...

But I don't know a whole lot about owning a company...

What is the typical percentage that owners of companies designate as 'employee revenue'?

And does the fact that they are putting their health at risk have anything to do with the discrepancy (if there is one) between...say Starbucks and the NFL?
 
Rey said:
If I were the owner of an NFL team I'd just be thankful to be in such a great position...So I'm prolly not the one to ask that question to...

But I don't know a whole lot about owning a company...

What is the typical percentage that owners of companies designate as 'employee revenue'?

And does the fact that they are putting their health at risk have anything to do with the discrepancy (if there is one) between...say Starbucks and the NFL?
Click to expand...

The health issue is very overplayed in my opinion.

First of all, what is the incidence of death in the NFL? Im sure its not much higher than any other job. Construction is probably a lot more dangerous.

Secondly, if they get hurt, they get compensated. They have insurance for things like that.
 
gtexan02 said:
The health issue is very overplayed in my opinion.

First of all, what is the incidence of death in the NFL? Im sure its not much higher than any other job. Construction is probably a lot more dangerous.

Secondly, if they get hurt, they get compensated. They have insurance for things like that.
Click to expand...




Just playing football for that many years takes years off your life...

I'm not even talking about people who actually die or get hurtplaying the game...

But besides that I don't understand what comparing their mortality rate to another profession has to do with anything...

I think that timber cutters should be well compensated as well, and if the person who owned the company they worked for tried to decrease their pay and add more shifts, I think they should resist as well...

A better comparison would be to compare the revenue sharing to that of other sports...If baseball gets 40%and basketball gets 50% (completely made up #'s, I have no idea what it is) then it stands to reason that since NFL players health are at greater risk than the other two sports that's where the discrepancy comes in.
 
Rey said:
If I were the owner of an NFL team I'd just be thankful to be in such a great position...So I'm prolly not the one to ask that question to...

But I don't know a whole lot about owning a company...

What is the typical percentage that owners of companies designate as 'employee revenue'?

And does the fact that they are putting their health at risk have anything to do with the discrepancy (if there is one) between...say Starbucks and the NFL?
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer of all those questions. I am a small business owner, and I know that employee salary, incuding mine, comes nowhere close to 50% of revenue. The owners also provide health insurance for all their employees, plus they have to guarantee large porpotions of the salary of most of their employees. So, if the employee winds up to be a total bust (see Ryan Leaf & Jamarcus Russell) they still have to pay out huge amounts of money. If you sucked at your job, would you keep it? Of course not. If you lost your job, would you still receive a large chunk of your salary? Of course not. The players get their money because they are the best in the world at what they do. But, the owners are the ones taking all the financial risk in this deal.

If a typical business has a down period, (like many are having in these tough times), they might have to lay a few people off and cut expenses and try to make it thru. If a NFL team goes through a period of suckitude (see Jacksonville) and cannot sell their seats, the players still get paid the same money they would if every game was sold out. What financial risk do the players take?
 
Rey said:
Just playing football for that many years takes years off your life...

I'm not even talking about people who actually die or get hurtplaying the game...

But besides that I don't understand what comparing their mortality rate to another profession has to do with anything...

I think that timber cutters should be well compensated as well, and if the person who owned the company they worked for tried to decrease their pay and add more shifts, I think they should resist as well...
Click to expand...

I was just trying to say that I don't believe that the discrepency between starbucks and NFL players is due to injury incidence or health risk. If it was, then you're right, timber cutters would be a very high paying career.

I think its 100% specialization. There's only one Andre Johnson. Even the 2nd best receiver in the NFL is not nearly the same. In order to keep the competition at the highest level possible, they have to pay the athletes a premium
 
gtexan02 said:
The health issue is very overplayed in my opinion.

First of all, what is the incidence of death in the NFL? Im sure its not much higher than any other job. Construction is probably a lot more dangerous.

Secondly, if they get hurt, they get compensated. They have insurance for things like that.
Click to expand...

I totally agree here. The players know exactly the health risks, they have been playing the game most of their lives. No one is forcing them to have a dangerous job. No one is disguising the dangers of the job.
 
Kulluminatii said:
Soooo you're saying you wouldn't want to stare at this for a good 3-4 minutes?

Taylor-Swift-b03.jpg


:kitten:
Click to expand...

If I wanted to stare at her for 3-4 minutes I'd go to the NSFW forum or just do a GIS, but I don't really care to. She's supposed to be a talented singer, but she sounded more like a lame drunk karaoke girl you would see at Bubba's on Monday night.
 
JB said:
I don't know the answer of all those questions. I am a small business owner, and I know that employee salary, incuding mine, comes nowhere close to 50% of revenue. The owners also provide health insurance for all their employees, plus they have to guarantee large porpotions of the salary of most of their employees. So, if the employee winds up to be a total bust (see Ryan Leaf & Jamarcus Russell) they still have to pay out huge amounts of money. If you sucked at your job, would you keep it? Of course not. If you lost your job, would you still receive a large chunk of your salary? Of course not. The players get their money because they are the best in the world at what they do. But, the owners are the ones taking all the financial risk in this deal.

If a typical business has a down period, (like many are having in these tough times), they might have to lay a few people off and cut expenses and try to make it thru. If a NFL team goes through a period of suckitude (see Jacksonville) and cannot sell their seats, the players still get paid the same money they would if every game was sold out. What financial risk do the players take?
Click to expand...

I work for a fortune 500 company, and while the "little people" don't get those perks, you can bet your ass there are many a golden parachutes handed out. While times were tough during the recession, they couldn't afford to pay the hourly workers their $3K-$4K bonuses. But they had no problem finding the money to pay the CEOs & the CFOs their $10MM bonuses, or the middle managers their $50K bonuses.

Just saying.

& yes, we cut a lot of the Janitors, & asked the hourly workers to clean up after themselves, we've got Electricians welding & building scaffolds, and Mechanics pooring concrete.

But that's a different story.
 
JB said:
What financial risk do the players take?
Click to expand...

What financial risk does any employee take in any business?

There are plenty business owners who have hired busts...

If you hire an employee but later you find out that employee is sleeping on the job, or doing something else that can be perceived as detrimental to the business then I would consider that employee a bust.

As a business you have to expect that to happen sometimes...But if you are constantly hiring (or drafting) employees that do nothing and hurt your business, then that means something is wrong with your interview (evaluation) skills.

Yes if a company is having a down period they may have to lay people off, but NFL teams have that option too....They can let go of marginal players who are not really worth their salary and hire cheaper ones...Didn't we just save money by cutting Jacques Reeves?

NFL owners do not have to give FA's the outlandish contracts...You have the option to pass on that player...

I understand that you have to strike a balance of being competitive (hiring capable employees) and limiting salaries....I get that...

But IMHO, the best thing that could be done for owners is for the rookie salaries to go down. They should have a defined wage scale as well...

But I can't really think of too many businesses where they employees are taking financial risks like the owner would take...
 
Rey said:
But I can't really think of too many businesses where they employees are taking financial risks like the owner would take...
Click to expand...

Neither can I. Can you think of any others where the employees get more than 50% of revenue?
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Your premise does not hold when you look at how many pack college stadiums each week and even HS stadiums. In fact, there are many who would rather go to those games than to NFL games, and would tell you that those games are much more exciting to them. In Canada, the excitement of Canadian fans being at their games rivals any seen in the states watching NFL football.......despite the supposed lesser talent. As much disappointment would be felt, if the NFL folded today, lesser venues would become available immediately both locally and nationally..........and more afordable for the honor of being able to view them upclose and personal. Life would go on with new "favorite" teams and new "favorite" players. Yes, life would go on.
Click to expand...

Yep...don't know about Canadian football because I don't watch but the University of Tennessee has 102 thousand fans in their stadium tonight. I've grown to be more of a college fan thru the years and less of an NFL fan.
 
Let me throw this little nugget out.

As close as I can determine, decertification of the union, combined with the expiration of the CBA will have a very ominous ring. It basically means that all players not signed to an existing contract, including all players coming out of college, are UFA's and can negotiate any terms with any team, without limits.

If the owners don't lock out the players, there would be utter chaos with no draft and dozens of players jumping teams.:mcnugget:
 
WWJD said:
Yep...don't know about Canadian football because I don't watch but the University of Tennessee has 102 thousand fans in their stadium tonight. I've grown to be more of a college fan thru the years and less of an NFL fan.
Click to expand...

Ive tried college, but just can't get into it. There is so little parity and the championship portion is just so awful that its difficult to really believe in it.
 
JB said:
I totally agree here. The players know exactly the health risks, they have been playing the game most of their lives. No one is forcing them to have a dangerous job. No one is disguising the dangers of the job.
Click to expand...

I don't really get that statement...

If the best players that played the game had decided not to play the game because of health risks then the NFL wouldn't be what it is...

dangerous2.gif


This is from '02, but I'm sure it hasn't changed much. No one hides the risk of any of those jobs, but I am sure that most are fairly compensated for their 'occupational risks' despite the fact they know what they are getting into when they go into it.

And just so I'm not coming off as someone blindly defending players, I have read many articles stating that the health of NFL players is over exaggerated due to the fact that you have so many 300+ pound employees...guys like that are obviously going to skew health rates...

But taking the pounding that NFL players take, I do think that they are at "a" risk...what that risk is in relation to other professions...I don't know...
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Let me throw this little nugget out.

As close as I can determine, decertification of the union, combined with the expiration of the CBA will have a very ominous ring. It basically means that all players not signed to an existing contract, including all players coming out of college, are UFA's and can negotiate any terms with any team, without limits.

If the owners don't lock out the players, there would be utter chaos with no draft and dozens of players jumping teams.:mcnugget:
Click to expand...

However the draft in 2011 will be happening. It is part of the expiring CBA and the conditions of the opt out agreement.
 
WWJD said:
Yep...don't know about Canadian football because I don't watch but the University of Tennessee has 102 thousand fans in their stadium tonight. I've grown to be more of a college fan thru the years and less of an NFL fan.
Click to expand...

Do you remember when the Oilers first moved (and local excitement for the new team was at a peak) and there were potential scheduling conflicts with Univ of Tenn games............and it was made very clear that the Univ of Tenn would come out well ahead on a head to head?
 
thunderkyss said:
Let's say you were in sales, you're the top salesperson for your company. You bring in over $30 million in sales for your employer. Lets say you're with a customer, talking about renewing his contract.

Would you pause before your presentation to make sure your customer knew you & your employer were in the middle of a labor dispute that should be settled in 6 months?

Would you consider that professional?

Heck, would you ask for his support, because that's what the players are doing with this "show of solidarity" before the game.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.
If your prospective customer was drawn to your brand of product because he trusted you and your past ability to make good on your word. Think about it, there aren't many products that customers can't go elsewhere and buy; hell, there are probably several other vendors selling your same brand of product. Be it cars or houses or stocks or health insurance or whatever in most cases, the customer has choices. If he (the prospective customer) thought that the guy he's trusted in the past to give him good service and advice would be gone in six months due to the owner's stupidity (and he'd have to be stupid to risk losing someone bringing in $30 Mil) then yeah, it would be in your best interest to let him know you'll be there to continue to provide the support he's looking for.

OTOH, if this was a new customer with whom you have no history, then telling him about this dispute might shake his confidence in your ability to meet your promises after six months because you might not be there.

Bad example. Try again.
:D
 
JB said:
Neither can I. Can you think of any others where the employees get more than 50% of revenue?
Click to expand...

No I can't...

I don't know what percentage large businesses generally allocate to employee salaries...

Heck...I don't even know what other sports leagues give their employees...
 
gtexan02 said:
I wanted to respond to this portion of your post SheTexan. It sounds like you're saying that you're reliant on the NFL and if they charge $400, you have to pay it. That you can't do things like travel because the NFL is exorting money out of you. I don't understand this, though. Football is entertainment. Its your choice alone whether to spend that $400.
Click to expand...

Please don't try to read something in my post that is not there! OF COURSE the money I spend is my choice!! Never said it wasn't! It would be the same if I CHOSE to travel, or go to other expensive entertainment venues, or just stuck my money in the bank, it is my decision what to do with it. I don't have to pay a damn thing to the NFL if I don't want to!! I like watching LIVE football, that's my entertainment from August to Jan/Feb, so I pay the price, same as I would for any other type of entertainment. Heck, I just plunked down $400 to take my kids and grandkids to see SYTYCD! :dance3::dance3::dancer:

Truthfully, I understand both sides. To bad it's the fans that get caught in the middle. If we all CHOSE to stay at home, we wouldn't be having this argument, now would we.:thinking:
 
gtexan02 said:
Ive tried college, but just can't get into it. There is so little parity and the championship portion is just so awful that its difficult to really believe in it.
Click to expand...

Yea I understand that..I watch the bigger games you know on TV...I don't search the web for scores or anything like that. Follow the Texas schools and players. There are HUGE gaps in talent from school to school but to me just from the boob tube the college fans are more into the games and seem to be having more fun than the NFL fan. Of course it's thousands of young drunk kids and all that but at many games it's a mass of school colors (even the UH crowd I saw on ESPN..that stadium was a mass of red) and the fans just look like they're having a lot of fun.

To me the college games I watch are every bit as exciting as the pro games.

And I despise the BCS. Just hate all that.
 
Rey said:
I don't really get that statement...

If the best players that played the game had decided not to play the game because of health risks then the NFL wouldn't be what it is...

dangerous2.gif


This is from '02, but I'm sure it hasn't changed much. No one hides the risk of any of those jobs, but I am sure that most are fairly compensated for their 'occupational risks' despite the fact they know what they are getting into when they go into it.

And just so I'm not coming off as someone blindly defending players, I have read many articles stating that the health of NFL players is over exaggerated due to the fact that you have so many 300+ pound employees...guys like that are obviously going to skew health rates...

But taking the pounding that NFL players take, I do think that they are at "a" risk...what that risk is in relation to other professions...I don't know...
Click to expand...


From the article you took that image from:

. Many timber fellers earn upwards of $60,000 working a nine- or 10-month year.
Click to expand...

They are the most dangerous job by almsot a 2x margin, and they are compensated at less than 6 figures. By a lot.
 
ObsiWan said:
Perhaps.
If your prospective customer was drawn to your brand of product because he trusted you and your past ability to make good on your word. Think about it, there aren't many products that customers can't go elsewhere and buy; hell, there are probably several other vendors selling your same brand of product. Be it cars or houses or stocks or health insurance or whatever in most cases, the customer has choices. If he (the prospective customer) thought that the guy he's trusted in the past to give him good service and advice would be gone in six months due to the owner's stupidity (and he'd have to be stupid to risk losing someone bringing in $30 Mil) then yeah, it would be in your best interest to let him know you'll be there to continue to provide the support he's looking for.

OTOH, if this was a new customer with whom you have no history, then telling him about this dispute might shake his confidence in your ability to meet your promises after six months because you might not be there.

Bad example. Try again.
:D
Click to expand...

Nope, it's still a good example. It would be unprofessional (the purpose of the post) to bring that up. You have a job to do, do it. You could be just as unprofessional and offer to extend the current contract for 6 months, and not bring the customer into the dispute.

The boss knows you're bringing in $30 million. He knows there will be repercussions. That's part of the business. No need bringing the customer into it. For all we know, the customer may not like dealing with you anyway... you're too tough in negotiations, and he'd be happy to have to deal with someone else.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Do you remember when the Oilers first moved (and local excitement for the new team was at a peak) and there were potential scheduling conflicts with Univ of Tenn games............and it was made very clear that the Univ of Tenn would come out well ahead on a head to head?
Click to expand...

Yes I do remember that...I see Tennessee on alot on ESPN or ABC games. They have a huge fan base. Must be the checkerboard endzones.

I'd rather watch the Vols play than the Titans any day of the week. They have a ton of fun in that stadium. They definitely have more fans. :)
 
JB said:
If you were the owner of a company, would you be happy with giving your employees 60% of revenue? Not 60% of profit, but 60 % of revenue?

Again, I really don't care about the issues at hand, 'cause I have no control over that. I just want them to keep their negotiating off the football field. Just play ball on Sunday and hold your ceremonial bs for behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong question. The owners signed up to split the pie 60/40 during the past agreement. The pie has only gotten bigger due to the new TV contracts and advertising agreements. The question is why is 40% of an ever larger "pie" suddenly not enough for the owners?
 
If the players want to hold up their fingers for a few seconds, whatever floats their boats. But dont expect me to care about your problems or issues with management. I am busy enough paying my bills and trying to obtain a better living.

If there is no NFL next year I will live. I will go on and spend my entertainment money on another product. Either work out yalls **** behind closed doors or get ready to lose some money.
 
Hmmmm...

Sources: Saints OK union breakup if necessary; LINK

The New Orleans Saints voted 59-0 to authorize the National Football League Players Association to decertify as a union if collective bargaining talks should eventually reach an impasse, according to union and player sources.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith asked the Saints to vote on the strategic procedure when he met with the team in New Orleans. The Saints voted on the issue Monday.

The union will send a memo to its approximately 1,900 members Monday to inform them of the strategy that is being described as a housekeeping step.

...

Under decertification guidelines established by the National Labor Relations Board, the union would no longer be able to represent the players in collective bargaining.

It is an action the union took that enabled individual players to seek antitrust lawsuits against the NFL and eventually provided the leverage that led to a new era of free agency in 1993.

On the NFL players association website in 2008, NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen warned of the potential union action to prevent the NFL from locking out players in 2011.

"The NFLPA would sooner go out of business as a union," Berthelsen said. "This is not just a threat, it's a reality because we did it once before."
Click to expand...


Interesting stuff...
 
thunderkyss said:
Nope, it's still a good example. It would be unprofessional (the purpose of the post) to bring that up. You have a job to do, do it. You could be just as unprofessional and offer to extend the current contract for 6 months, and not bring the customer into the dispute.

The boss knows you're bringing in $30 million. He knows there will be repercussions. That's part of the business. No need bringing the customer into it. For all we know, the customer may not like dealing with you anyway... you're too tough in negotiations, and he'd be happy to have to deal with someone else.
Click to expand...

Now you're altering the scenario. And even your altered scenario has holes. Like I said, it's extremely rare that my product, whatever it is, cannot be obtained someplace else from someone else. And if the customer is doesn't like my sales approach, he/she has the option to go over my head - to my sales mgr or even the owner if necessary - and request another sales rep; he/she doesn't need to wait until I'm replaced when my personal negotiations fall through.

But as I said, whether you bring it up or not depends on your relationship with each particular customer.

Back to the original topic, to be honest, I'm not sure what the players hope to accomplish with this little display. The folks who are sympathetic to the players will still be sympathetic. Those who aren't, don't care, or hate both sides will just get more P/O'd.
 
Compared to the lockout many years ago this will get very nasty very quickly just by the media saturation...nowadays we all log in to numerous sports sites, numerous sports columnists, etc for hours at a time if we want to. They all have an opinion and they'll all be spouting it 24 hours a day 7 days a week from now till time for the lockout. It wasn't like that last "strike"...
 
WWJD said:
Compared to the lockout many years ago this will get very nasty very quickly just by the media saturation...nowadays we all log in to numerous sports sites, numerous sports columnists, etc for hours at a time if we want to. They all have an opinion and they'll all be spouting it 24 hours a day 7 days a week from now till time for the lockout. It wasn't like that last "strike"...
Click to expand...

Very good point. The longer this crap goes on, and the more it is played out in public, the worse it's gonna get. And you thought the Tebow & Favre coverage was over the top? You ain't seen nothing yet!
 
JB said:
If you were the owner of a company, would you be happy with giving your employees 60% of revenue? Not 60% of profit, but 60 % of revenue?
Click to expand...
The equipment manager is an employee. The players are the product. No one is showing up to an empty stadium.

It's absurd compare the work of professional athletes to everyday jobs. They are entertainers. Performers. They're not timber cutters, teachers, nurses, janitors. All important jobs. But no one is showing up with hard earned $$$ to watch them chop trees, write on a chalkboard, change a bed pan, or mop the floor.

Well, maybe to watch Mario mop up Reliant with Peyton's enormous melon.
 
Lucky said:
The equipment manager is an employee. The players are the product. No one is showing up to an empty stadium.

It's absurd compare the work of professional athletes to everyday jobs. They are entertainers. Performers. They're not timber cutters, teachers, nurses, janitors. All important jobs. But no one is showing up with hard earned $$$ to watch them chop trees, write on a chalkboard, change a bed pan, or mop the floor.

Well, maybe to watch Mario mop up Reliant with Peyton's enormous melon.
Click to expand...

Ok, I should change it to the players are receiving 60% of revenue. But it really makes no difference to me how much the players are getting, other than how it changes how much I must pay.
 
JB said:
Very good point. The longer this crap goes on, and the more it is played out in public, the worse it's gonna get. And you thought the Tebow & Favre coverage was over the top? You ain't seen nothing yet!
Click to expand...

We'll be begging to find out more about Brett! :)

Seriously there won't be an ESPN or NFL Network show where this won't be played out ad nauseum...those sportswriters shows....your local sports....blogs and so forth.

I think I'll stick to the message board and just let you guys do all the work and link all the important coverage...I don't even pay to go to NFL games anymore and I don't have the stomach for this. I can't imagine how bad it will be for the paying customer. Get a good team finally and guess what? No football next year. Ugh.

By the time it's all said and done you'll be told a)the players are playing for very little comparable to what they're worth b)the owners are just barely making a profit and c)guess what? NFL football just got more expensive!

and a and b are lies. C is a certainty.
 
JB said:
Ok, I should change it to the players are receiving 60% of revenue. But it really makes no difference to me how much the players are getting, other than how it changes how much I must pay.
Click to expand...
That's it. It doesn't change a thing regarding how much you pay. The NFL will charge exactly what it can for its product. They aren't just pulling these ticket prices out of their collective arse. They know exactly what they can get away with to maximize their revenue. And from that $$$ (as well as their other revenue sources), they pay their talent an agreed upon percentage. Really, it should be transparent to the fans. But, the business of the game has become almost as fascinating to some fans as the game itself. I include myself among this group.
 
"If we're not on the same page, No. 1, it's not going to work," Williams said. "We've got to be on the same page and be of one accord, and we'll be all right."

-- they better be on the same page in the game! Wish/Hope he (Williams) will be talking about some "one accord" football. Hopefully the Defensive Line is on the "same page".
 
SheTexan said:
I didn't boo, but, can't say I liked it. BUT, it took nothing away from the game. I just want them to get it all worked out.
Click to expand...

It didn't add anything either. It wasn't done by all of the players. A lot of the attending crowd didn't even know it happened. Those that did as a rule did voice their disfavor.
 
They snuck it in right after the national anthem.

I'm glad some people were paying atention, and voiced their opinion.

I was screaming and cheering the National anthem when I saw them holding their fingers up. I told my daughter to stop cheering and we both sat down.
 
I don't side with the players or the owners here, really, but I do think the NFLPA is delusional if they expect the average Joe Sixpack member of the endangered and shrinking middle class to relate to their "workplace oppression" which needs strong union action. They know *nothing* of the real workplace screwing that many in the middle class are enduring today.

I think the players are miscalculating in the arena of public opinion by doing this. The last thing struggling families, laid off workers and people enduring pay cuts want to hear is a claim from millionaires that their compensation isn't sufficient.

IMO, professional sports unions give working class unions a bad name by looking like they are never satisfied with way more than enough. Having said that, both sides are way out of touch. There's more than enough "pie" for both the players and the owners, and they are arguing over a small amount of pie which is already more than they can eat anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top