Drew Brees on the CBA via Twitter

[BillyBalata]

guess.

 

If Peyton Manning got 45 of his buddies together, and Tom Brady got 45 of his buddies together and Peyton said "hey Tom, why don't you bring your buddies, I'll bring my buddies, we can play against each other, we'll rent a stadium, or get backing to buy stadiums, sell some spamshirts and offer tickets to fans to come watch us play", you seriously don't think they could sell out the stadiums, and become filthy rich in the process?

 

Why in the world would they need some rich guys to come take money off the top?

 

Brilliant!

 

And the people doing the backing of this scheme of yours, they're going to just do all this for free and not want any money taken off the top right? I'm sure Jerry Jones will give them a price break to rent out his stadium!

[detlef]

Um, sure it is. A salary cap doesn't dictate what a player makes but more what a team can spend as a whole and for teams really wanting to keep or trade for a player but their salary cap prevents them paying the players market value, generally other means are offered i.e John Elway was given a percentage of the team in lou of payment. Or teams can place the players pay at 500k for the life of the players contract and have a balloon payment at contractual end (not very common at all, but has occured) Hell, a team can pay what ever the hell they want for a player, but at the expense of their salary cap or some of their other players.

First of all, this is complete idiocy. The cap certainly dictates what a player and absolutely dictates what the entirety of the league's players make. That is, after all, who the NFLPA represents. Not just Tom Brady, but back-up linebackers as well. The entirety element is so bloody obvious I won't bother trying to explain it to you. The individual part is only slightly less obvious, so I will. Well, for starters, there is a minimum salary for all players so, if you want to actually fill your entire roster, you can only pay one player so much and have enough left over to fill the team. Now, of course, that's still way more than any single player is every going to make because you actually need more than one good player so you have to spread that money around a bit. Well, when you can only spend so much, that means you can only really spend so much on any single player and still have enough left over to attract other good players and be at all competitive.

 

And all these back door shenanigans you mention like pushing a guys salary out forever, etc. First off, you have to get a guy to agree to that, which is a lot harder than getting him to agree to $10 mil today. It is still on your cap figure forever. Teams that have done these sort of back-loaded deals paid the price big time when all that money came home to roost. The Cowboys and Niners were totally hamstrung by the fact that they had 10s of millions tied up in cap figures for guys who weren't even playing for them anymore and that kept them from being able to pay their current players more.

 

Thanks for playing. I'm not saying the cap is a bad thing but it is, by definition something that dictates what players can get paid.

 

 

The NFL owners have worked together in remarkable fashion to control themselves, and most especially the most ego-driven & deep pocketed amongst themselves. Seriously - what other sport of this magnitude could have a publicly owner team like Green Bay that competes at a high level with the rest of the league? The owners quite frankly were incredibly generous in the percentage of gross revenue allowed to the players - find me another business this size that specifically contractually dedicates that much gross revenue to only a portion of their employees.

 

The salary cap is generous to the players while simultaneously affording all teams to remain on a relatively competive level with all other teams. I agree that the NFLPA and the league should have and still should hammer out a rookie cap so that more money goes to proven vets, but the union hasn't taken a very strong stand on that issue either (which really puzzles me). Do the owners profit handsomely? Of course they do - they're the freakin' owners! They are entitled to capitalize on their risk and investment, and because they have managed the league so well and turned it into such a successful cash cow.

 

Most importantly, the owners and the union have worked hand-in-hand even when it wasn't all smiles for the greater benefit of the league. Both the owners and the players have reaped substantial financial rewards while maintaining the best business model of any pro sports league. It's amazing that both sides can't get together now given the can-do attitude of the previous decades, when there is so much more at stake for the league as a whole (and personally I think there is more than a little posturing going on and that the sides will get this done) .

You can't use typical labor data when describing how the players are paid because they are both the labor and the product. In my business, for example, typical labor plus cost of goods numbers come to around 60% of the top line. That number is usually split about half way down the middle. But it simply not an accurate comparison to say that I split the pot 30% with my employees so the NFL should come anywhere near that because, with very, very few exceptions, nobody give a rat's ass about who is cooking their steak. They just want the steak. Adrian Peterson is both the guy cooking the steak and the steak itself. So, even using a restaurant scheme (which, more than likely has nothing to do with what we're talking about) starting at 60%, and then shaving off the non-player labor and products un-related to the product on the field, like beer and hot dogs, and to a degree spamshirts because there's both a team and individual player association), you come up with a number much higher than 30%.

 

What needs to be realized is that the cap, which is proving to be a great asset in maintaining competitive balance, is basically something that the players are giving. Both parties benefit from the fact that the overall product is improved, but the owners get the added bonus of capping a portion of their costs. If they're going to give that, they absolutely have the right to demand that cap be fixed to a percentage of revenue. Anything else is stupid. Not sure what mooran mentioned how arrogant it was for the players to demand this, but there's your reason. Because somebody representing them is not stupid. The owners are certainly not going to agree to a number that causes them to not make what they need to make, so there's no reason to think anyone is getting over on anyone in this regard. Well, I think they're both getting over on us, but that's another story. That's why I'm a passive consumer when it comes to this. I don't go to games, don't buy the spamshirts. Hell, I don't drink Coors Light, eat Doritos, drive a Chevy, or eat at McDonalds. But for my cable bill, I'm sort of skating along and frankly watching less and less anyway.

 

Now, I certainly agree that all parties need to realize they have a good thing going and they all need to not strangle this thing. However, if I'm going to admire the owners for anything, it's the fact that they've managed to Jedi mind trick the average man that the players, not them, are a bunch of greedy bastages who "are playing a game" and should be happy with what they have. While the part about them getting paid mad-jack to play a game may be true, they also face the very real likelihood of spending their life from age 30 on as a cripple (or close to it) and, provided there's a big pile of money sitting right there, I'm not going to fault them for getting their share of it. I certainly am not going to shed a tear for Jerry Jones, that's for sure. I'm not going to begrudge the guy for making what he can, but I'm rather certain he can take care of himself and doesn't need any sympathy from me.

Edited March 16, 2010 by detlef

[detlef]

Brilliant!

 

And the people doing the backing of this scheme of yours, they're going to just do all this for free and not want any money taken off the top right? I'm sure Jerry Jones will give them a price break to rent out his stadium!

This isn't as far-fetched as you guys make it seem. It's not like NFL players themselves are going to be selling peanuts or even hiring the guys who sell the peanuts. Jerry Jones financed Cowboy Stadium and that is something completely unrelated to the fact that he owns the Cowboys. Every time he uses it himself, he does so at the opportunity cost of renting it out to the NBA for the All-Star game or some big concert, or what have you. Jerry Jones Stadium Inc charges Jerry Jones Cowboys Inc whatever it costs to use that stadium for the purpose the Cowboys need it. He could rent it out to Payton Manning Inc just the same. He charges himself as much as he has to to make the real estate deal work or he wouldn't have built the damned thing.

 

I hear the same thing when people have horrible business models but their ace in the hole is that they own the building. Hell, maybe they own it outright because the inherited it. Regardless, if you are occupying your own building, it costs you what you could be making on it by renting it out.

 

It's also not like guys who scored 10s on the Wonderlick are going to be going into meetings and making major legal decisions. There will be executives and lawyers and accountants... just like there is right now. Basically, every team would be more like the Packers. The Packers don't survive because some all-knowing savior like Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder is making sure everything is OK. No. It is collectively owned by a bunch of people who have hired the exact same types of people the NFLPA would hire to run their franchise.

 

This would be no different.

[BillyBalata]

This would be no different.

 

 

I think that right there sums up why I felt his idea was so humorous. The NFL players should just dump all these rich greedy owners and go hire some other rich greedy guys to run things for them.

 

On the other hand, Cunning Runt wants the rich greedy owners to dump the rich greedy players and go hire some not so rich greedy players. Of course those players would then become the best, so only a matter of time before they become the rich greedy players.

[Bronco Billy]

I think that right there sums up why I felt his idea was so humorous. The NFL players should just dump all these rich greedy owners and go hire some other rich greedy guys to run things for them.

 

On the other hand, Cunning Runt wants the rich greedy owners to dump the rich greedy players and go hire some not so rich greedy players. Of course those players would then become the best, so only a matter of time before they become the rich greedy players.

 

On the third hand ( ) you have BB saying that the NFL is doling out very generous shares to both the owners and the players in a manner pretty fair to both sides, and both sides should be doing everything in their power not to screw up a great thing and piss a buttload of fans off...

[detlef]

I think that right there sums up why I felt his idea was so humorous. The NFL players should just dump all these rich greedy owners and go hire some other rich greedy guys to run things for them.

 

On the other hand, Cunning Runt wants the rich greedy owners to dump the rich greedy players and go hire some not so rich greedy players. Of course those players would then become the best, so only a matter of time before they become the rich greedy players.

Well, I liken it to when some NBA players, realizing that they were "Max players" and could command exactly X dollars, no more no less, just ditched their agents and hired a lawyer for a fixed amount of money to draw up the contract. A much better deal than giving some guy a cut of your salary.

 

I don't think there's any shortage of greed going on right now and I don't think that would change. However, it would be interesting to see what the true costs of buying a franchise are and how much of the cost is merely based on the ROI. If it costs as much as it does simply because these things spit out so much money, then the players could, quite possibly, cut the current owners out of the loop. I don't know how many owners own their stadiums, for instance, and how many lease them.

 

I don't think Seahawks was saying this because he thinks it would be better for us. I think he was saying this because the players may wise up at some point and realize that this could be better for them.

[BearBroncos]

First of all, this is complete idiocy. The cap certainly dictates what a player and absolutely dictates what the entirety of the league's players make. That is, after all, who the NFLPA represents. Not just Tom Brady, but back-up linebackers as well. The entirety element is so bloody obvious I won't bother trying to explain it to you. The individual part is only slightly less obvious, so I will. Well, for starters, there is a minimum salary for all players so, if you want to actually fill your entire roster, you can only pay one player so much and have enough left over to fill the team. Now, of course, that's still way more than any single player is every going to make because you actually need more than one good player so you have to spread that money around a bit. Well, when you can only spend so much, that means you can only really spend so much on any single player and still have enough left over to attract other good players and be at all competitive.

 

And all these back door shenanigans you mention like pushing a guys salary out forever, etc. First off, you have to get a guy to agree to that, which is a lot harder than getting him to agree to $10 mil today. It is still on your cap figure forever. Teams that have done these sort of back-loaded deals paid the price big time when all that money came home to roost. The Cowboys and Niners were totally hamstrung by the fact that they had 10s of millions tied up in cap figures for guys who weren't even playing for them anymore and that kept them from being able to pay their current players more.

 

Thanks for playing. I'm not saying the cap is a bad thing but it is, by definition something that dictates what players can get paid.

 

The NFL cap is often called a hard cap. It was introduced in 1994 and It limits franchises from spending more than 63% of the League-determined Defined Gross Revenues which I think was in the ball park of $133 million for 2009. Again the cap is not intended to cap what a player makes, what’s so friggin hard to understand. A linebacker can make as much as a QB or you could pay a single player $120 million a year and pay the remaining squad the base minimum salary of ($900k for 11 year vet and $285k for rookies) if you so chose to do. Granted, your team will suck.

 

The salary cap was meant to restructure the league to allow for more competitiveness in the league offering smaller market teams to have the same dollars as the higher revenue markets. One effect, however, of the salary cap is that it does mitigate salaries getting exorbitant to which other teams could never afford star players. Again, that is market effect!

 

Every company has a budget that they must adhere to (or at least the ones who survive) which set basic guidelines to how much labor dollars can be allocated to produce the end result. Someone with more talent may come in asking for more money. You can either chose to have them walk or restructure your budget by either reallocating dollars or reduce staffing to accommodate the higher salary. That's how the market works.

[BearBroncos]

And all these back door shenanigans you mention like pushing a guys salary out forever, etc. First off, you have to get a guy to agree to that, which is a lot harder than getting him to agree to $10 mil today. It is still on your cap figure forever. Teams that have done these sort of back-loaded deals paid the price big time when all that money came home to roost. The Cowboys and Niners were totally hamstrung by the fact that they had 10s of millions tied up in cap figures for guys who weren't even playing for them anymore and that kept them from being able to pay their current players more.

 

Thanks for playing. I'm not saying the cap is a bad thing but it is, by definition something that dictates what players can get paid.

 

Remember the work around Jerry Jones did to obtain Deon Sanders? Anyway, it's not as difficult as you might think. Not many players fall into this catagory and the ones that do tend to want to stay with a specific franchise versus having to move so they make consessions in their contract to ensure their team stay within the cap guidelines. Other players that want more money have to move to another team with more salary cap room. This happens all the time.

[detlef]

The NFL cap is often called a hard cap. It was introduced in 1994 and It limits franchises from spending more than 63% of the League-determined Defined Gross Revenues which I think was in the ball park of $133 million for 2009. Again the cap is not intended to cap what a player makes, what’s so friggin hard to understand. A linebacker can make as much as a QB or you could pay a single player $120 million a year and pay the remaining squad the base minimum salary of ($900k for 11 year vet and $285k for rookies) if you so chose to do. Granted, your team will suck.

 

The salary cap was meant to restructure the league to allow for more competitiveness in the league offering smaller market teams to have the same dollars as the higher revenue markets. One effect, however, of the salary cap is that it does mitigate salaries getting exorbitant to which other teams could never afford star players. Again, that is market effect!

 

Every company has a budget that they must adhere to (or at least the ones who survive) which set basic guidelines to how much labor dollars can be allocated to produce the end result. Someone with more talent may come in asking for more money. You can either chose to have them walk or restructure your budget by either reallocating dollars or reduce staffing to accommodate the higher salary. That's how the market works.

 

I understand that the cap was primarily put into place to preserve competitive balance but it just so happens to dictate how much teams can pay a player. Which, btw, is rather convenient for the ownership. Hell, the very fact that they can "only" pay a single player $120 mil does, in fact, dictate how much they can pay a player. Now, obviously that's a silly argument because nobody would command that much even if there were no cap. However, considering the fact that teams are forced to pay a number of players well above the minimum, the fact that, as a whole, they can only pay so much absolutely affects how much single players can get. Because, in any given year, there will be a finite number of teams who are even capable of going after a player of a certain stature. That artificially sets his market value. Instead of going to the highest bidder, you go to the highest bidder among the teams who aren't up against the cap. Maybe among those teams, half of them are set at your position, now you've got even a smaller group. Again, a group made artificially smaller because the cap exists.

 

This rather undeniably affects how much players get paid.

 

Compare this with something like MLB. The Yankees are always there, ready to open their pocket book. And that drives up the price of everyone. Why? Because if the Yankees feel like nobody is paying what they're prepared to pay you, they'll step in and pay you that. The Yankees are free to decide for themselves what payroll makes sense for their particular business model. This might mean that they're paying the same in terms of % but making a boatload more than other teams or this might mean that they're prepared to pay a larger than normal % because it results in a consistently interesting team which drives the top line number so high that all their fixed costs are driven low enough as a % to make up for it. Who knows, but it seems to be working for them. That, dear sir, is the market in action.

 

Once again, I don't say this to vilify the cap. Rather to point out that it is, unquestionably, something that artificially alters the market.

Edited March 16, 2010 by detlef

[detlef]

Remember the work around Jerry Jones did to obtain Deon Sanders? Anyway, it's not as difficult as you might think. Not many players fall into this catagory and the ones that do tend to want to stay with a specific franchise versus having to move so they make consessions in their contract to ensure their team stay within the cap guidelines. Other players that want more money have to move to another team with more salary cap room. This happens all the time.

We always remember who "easily" teams are able to work around the cap. Then, somehow magically, they end up falling off a few years later, unable to address key positional needs because they've got retired players counting for 10s of millions against their cap. I forgot what the number was with the Niners after Young and Rice, and a few others had left but it was ugly. At the end of the day, the fact that the pain can be delayed doesn't change the fact that it impacts what you can pay. However, the fact that it puts you in a position where you need to hope a player is particularly hell-bent on winning a ring or something like that absolutely affects your place in the market.

 

Cap or no, if you can convince someone to play for less money, more power to you. That has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand.

[Bronco Billy]

...and the workers will seize the means of production, and all will be productive and live in peace. From each according to their means to each according to their needs.

[detlef]

...and the workers will seize the means of production, and all will be productive and live in peace. From each according to their means to each according to their needs.

[Bronco Billy]

 

I was hoping for something with a bit more pizzazz...

 

Only a fool or a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist could possibly think the players could run their own league and have it survive more than a couple of years, much less to be as wildly successful as the NFL currently is. This isn't the '20s, and Curly Lambeau ain't playing anymore. This is extremely big business, and a very large proportion of the players have the ego part down, but don't come anywhere close to the business savvy part. They'd torpedo each other without mercy - and then have to get on the same field, or even better - put on the same uniform.

 

It might be great fun to watch the trainwreck for a while, but in the end we'd be left with a vastly inferior product that most probably wouldn't survive. The current system works, and works very well, thanks. The owners know it, and most of the players know it. It's the best pro sports business model going, and the other pro sports aren't even in the same zip code when it comes to running a successful & competitive league.

[detlef]

I was hoping for something with a bit more pizzazz...

 

Only a fool or a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist could possibly think the players could run their own league and have it survive more than a couple of years, much less to be as wildly successful as the NFL currently is. This isn't the '20s, and Curly Lambeau ain't playing anymore. This is extremely big business, and a very large proportion of the players have the ego part down, but don't come anywhere close to the business savvy part. They'd torpedo each other without mercy - and then have to get on the same field, or even better - put on the same uniform.

 

It might be great fun to watch the trainwreck for a while, but in the end we'd be left with a vastly inferior product that most probably wouldn't survive. The current system works, and works very well, thanks. The owners know it, and most of the players know it. It's the best pro sports business model going, and the other pro sports aren't even in the same zip code when it comes to running a successful & competitive league.

Surely you don't think that they'd just gather each and every player in a big meeting hall and hash out every detail. Because honestly, that's exactly what it sounds like you're describing.

 

And who's to say that not enough of these guys possess the savvy or, at very least, are incapable of surrounding themselves with guys who do? The template is there to follow. There would absolutely need to be a commish as well as executives for each team. GMs, pretty much every employee that they have. These guys would get paid and would get paid plenty, just like they are right now. It is often said that the best run teams are owned by owners who get the hell out of the way and hire football people to run the thing. If that's the case, why is the owner himself so key to keeping the train on the tracks?

 

The ownership structure would just be closer to the Packers. There would be shareholders rather than one owner. Those shareholders being the players themselves. I pointed out the Packers before and you totally ignored the argument. Again. How is any different to be jointly owned by a bunch of random shareholders and being jointly owned by a bunch of football players? Joe Six Pack in Green Bay has no say at all in what the Packers do even though he owns a tiny slice. Well, he get's some petty useless vote just like the rest of us do if we own stock in something. No, Joe Six Pack buys into the Packers and trusts the executives that they've hired to manage the team.

 

Some meathead linebacker would be no more able to make policy about the league in this situation than he would now. There would likely be a board of players, elected by their peers (again, not at all unlike now) that would meet and discuss league matters with their hired advisors, the exact same way the owners now get together.

 

I understand it's more fun to imagine Ocho Cinco sitting behind a desk his eye-black on, balancing the ledger. Unfortunately for your "argument", that's not how it would go down.

 

Oh, and I have no intention of hashing out exactly how the players would work out shares, nor do I have to do so in order to understand that this is not as ludicrous an idea as you claim it would be. All you keep doing is talk about the inevitable train wreck without even responding to any of the specific points that have been raised already.

Edited March 17, 2010 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

I know this is going to sound like sacriledge to some of your propping up the virtues of the common man, but there's nothing wrong with being a well compensated employee of a well run ship in this country, while at the same time letting those who own the company prosper simultaneously. Let those who know better run the show, and let the players soak up the benefits while not having to worry about the mundane/annoying things that swirl around the perimeter of what is going on down on the field.

 

It obviously works - why screw it up and try to fix what isn't broken?

[detlef]

I know this is going to sound like sacriledge to some of your propping up the virtues of the common man, but there's nothing wrong with being a well compensated employee of a well run ship in this country, while at the same time letting those who own the company prosper simultaneously. Let those who know better run the show, and let the players soak up the benefits while not having to worry about the mundane/annoying things that swirl around the perimeter of what is going on down on the field.

 

It obviously works - why screw it up and try to fix what isn't broken?

Are you actually going to debate the actual issues or just continue to regurgitate your bit about class warfare?

 

This isn't about communism, this isn't about propping up the common man. This is about a bunch of really wealthy guys with a lot of cache quite possibly being able to create a situation where other really wealthy guys are cut out of the loop. This is capitalism.

 

So quit pretending we're arguing something that we're not just because it's easier to argue against and start addressing the actual arguments being made. Once again. Please explain how the Packers manage to survive without the warm blanky of a single owner making sure everything is going to be OK? How does any publicly owned business survive? Once again, explain how, provided teams continue to employ a commish and team execs, execs who would still make the call about what individual players are worth in terms of contracts, that merely changing who exactly owns the teams would.

 

It's not that crazy. As a player, you have two revenue streams. One is your salary which, just like now is based on merit and market demand. If you're good and a bunch of teams want you, you get paid more. If not, you get paid less. Just like now, it is what it is and has nothing to do with whether the teams are owned by individuals or the players as shareholders. I own shares in the business I run but my base salary is determined by the whole. I can't just go give myself a raise just because I'm one of the owners. Then there's a cut you get, perhaps based on years in the league, I don't know. That's the share you get for being one of the shareholders in the league as a whole.

 

So, Tom Brady is not going to be any more bothered with day to day issues of running the league if they do this. The same sorts of guys who do now will be. He's just gonna get a tidy little check once a year in addition to his salary.

[WaterMan]

I bet people would watch the NFL if:

 

If Peyton Manning got 45 of his buddies together, and Tom Brady got 45 of his buddies together and Peyton said "hey Tom, why don't you bring your buddies, I'll bring my buddies, we can play against each other, we'll rent a stadium, or get backing to buy stadiums, sell some spamshirts and offer tickets to fans to come watch us play", you seriously don't think they could sell out the stadiums, and become filthy rich in the process?

 

The owners aren't the people bringing in the fans(money spenders). Come to think of it, do they get randomly drug tested? I'd hate to have a boss who was under the influence.

[keggerz]

Salary cap hardly restricts the veterans, but it will stop the 70 million rookie bs. Whose stadium are you in? You seriously think the players would build something like Dallas stadium? hell no, they'd have more money in their wallets. I really hope they do a salary cap, it's far past due, and increase the retired benefits. Something even the current players are too greedy to make sure happens. You claim one side, but it's both. I've yet to see a business be created without out an owner shelling huge $ to make it happen and hope they see a return. I'm not sure who's more in a fantasy world, you or some of the players.

i didnt read the entire thread so dont know if its been covered yet or not but....

 

You dont think JJ built daalas sstadium toput more money in his pocket? n i dont mean just money from footbakk

 

One thing is for sure, imo and that is both sides are about as greedy as all get out....also dont get me on my soapbox about "contracts" in the nlf

 

on a similar yet slightly different note has anyone seen how old timer nfl players are now from their plaing injuries...the nfl and the players imo should be taking much better care of those guys...they paved the way and many are in dire straights health wise from their playing days and from what i know their

pensions pretty much suck.

 

 

EDIT: One thing that did burn me up a bit last year was when I read the Jets (think it was them) that either laid off employees or made them take mandatory leave or something like that...Yes the economy is in bad shape but the nfl is prosperous and for that to happen to "employees" (non-players) when the owners are lining their pockets and multi million dollar contracts are being given away is just disgusting, imo.

Edited March 18, 2010 by keggerz

[Bronco Billy]

Are you actually going to debate the actual issues or just continue to regurgitate your bit about class warfare?

 

This isn't about communism, this isn't about propping up the common man. This is about a bunch of really wealthy guys with a lot of cache quite possibly being able to create a situation where other really wealthy guys are cut out of the loop. This is capitalism.

 

So quit pretending we're arguing something that we're not just because it's easier to argue against and start addressing the actual arguments being made. Once again. Please explain how the Packers manage to survive without the warm blanky of a single owner making sure everything is going to be OK? How does any publicly owned business survive? Once again, explain how, provided teams continue to employ a commish and team execs, execs who would still make the call about what individual players are worth in terms of contracts, that merely changing who exactly owns the teams would.

 

It's not that crazy. As a player, you have two revenue streams. One is your salary which, just like now is based on merit and market demand. If you're good and a bunch of teams want you, you get paid more. If not, you get paid less. Just like now, it is what it is and has nothing to do with whether the teams are owned by individuals or the players as shareholders. I own shares in the business I run but my base salary is determined by the whole. I can't just go give myself a raise just because I'm one of the owners. Then there's a cut you get, perhaps based on years in the league, I don't know. That's the share you get for being one of the shareholders in the league as a whole.

 

So, Tom Brady is not going to be any more bothered with day to day issues of running the league if they do this. The same sorts of guys who do now will be. He's just gonna get a tidy little check once a year in addition to his salary.

 

You just made an outsatnding argument for leaving the current system alone.

 

Nicely done.

 

(BTW - if this isn't about "class warfare", then why would anyone even question screwing with such a successful system as the current one just to make some kind of attempt to free the players from being under the owner's yoke?)

Edited March 18, 2010 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

i didnt read the entire thread so dont know if its been covered yet or not but....

 

You dont think JJ built daalas sstadium toput more money in his pocket? n i dont mean just money from footbakk

 

One thing is for sure, imo and that is both sides are about as greedy as all get out....also dont get me on my soapbox about "contracts" in the nlf

 

on a similar yet slightly different note has anyone seen how old timer nfl players are now from their plaing injuries...the nfl and the players imo should be taking much better care of those guys...they paved the way and many are in dire straights health wise from their playing days and from what i know their

pensions pretty much suck.

 

Have to agree wholeheartedly with this, or at least as much of the drug-addled goop as I am able to comprehend.

 

It's shameful with the amount of money passing through the system that the guys who paved the way to make it happen are being left with relatively very little to cope with the consequences of playing such a violent game in the eras that they did. If the owners and the players each took a little bit out of their pockets - say 1.5% to 2% each - the old timers would have a very nice slush fund from which to pull to get some much needed help.

[detlef]

You just made an outsatnding argument for leaving the current system alone.

 

Nicely done.

 

(BTW - if this isn't about "class warfare", then why would anyone even question screwing with such a successful system as the current one just to make some kind of attempt to free the players from being under the owner's yoke?)

So, in other words, you don't actually have a point, don't intend to actually address any arguments, and are just going to pretend this is about class warfare. Duly noted. I'll bother to continue this "discussion" once you actually present anything worth discussing further.

 

ETA: For the record, I'm not even saying the players should do this. I'm simply pointing the folly in the argument that the NFL would become a rudderless ship if the ownership structure were to change from individuals to shareholders (even if those shareholders were specifically the players themselves).

Edited March 18, 2010 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

So, in other words, you don't actually have a point, don't intend to actually address any arguments, and are just going to pretend this is about class warfare. Duly noted. I'll bother to continue this "discussion" once you actually present anything worth discussing further.

 

I made my point, and I made it very clearly - the system curently in place works very well, appeals greatly to the current target audience, and enrichs all parties greatly, so why mess around with it. Sometimes doing nothing is exactly the right thing to do. That you don't happen to like that answer is beyond my control.

[detlef]

I made my point, and I made it very clearly - the system curently in place works very well, appeals greatly to the current target audience, and enrichs all parties greatly, so why mess around with it. Sometimes doing nothing is exactly the right thing to do. That you don't happen to like that answer is beyond my control.

Um, actually, I believe your point (at least initially) is that the league would be a train wreck if the players took it over. You do realize that's not the same thing as saying, "It's working fine right now". It is possible that something could be working fine right now and also work if it were set up another way. Again, like the difference between privately and publicly held companies. Just because privately held companies work doesn't mean publicly held ones can't. However, that is basically your argument.

 

Seahawks: I think the players should just take this thing over.

You: That would be a train wreck

Me: Why? What about x,y,z?

You: Because it's working fine right now. That's all you need to know.

 

That's pretty much this entire discussion in a nut shell.

[Outshined]

Some info from the owners side:

 

http://nfllabor.com/2010/02/05/commissione...odell-on-labor/

[Seahawks21]

Dumbest post of 2010.

Most cowardly post of 2010.

 

You just gonna sit there on your pedestal and call people out while offering no thought or reasoning whatsoever? Go ahead big man, tell me, why is this the dumbest post of 2010? Do you have any original thoughts on the subject or are you just content to be a lemming piling on? Typical.