Cowboyz1 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why don't they Owners and players just extend the current arrangement so that they can have another year to negotiate. Or are they using this expiration as leverage? It just doesn't make sense to piss billions of dollars away and lose countless fans in a lockout. Maybe I just don't understand but if I had a money train that is the NFL, it would make no sense to remove the tracks and stop the train just because they need repair. Seems to me they would agree to keep the current contract and negotiate their way to a new one. I just don't understand millionaires. They live in a world that most of us just think stupidity. I am about sick of watching them quibble over more money then most of us make in two lifetimes. The players are also being stupid with the money they make they could start there own league and tell the owners to kiss their arse. I just don't get that they let it come to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Why don't they Owners and players just extend the current arrangement so that they can have another year to negotiate. Or are they using this expiration as leverage? It just doesn't make sense to piss billions of dollars away and lose countless fans in a lockout. Maybe I just don't understand but if I had a money train that is the NFL, it would make no sense to remove the tracks and stop the train just because they need repair. Seems to me they would agree to keep the current contract and negotiate their way to a new one. I just don't understand millionaires. They live in a world that most of us just think stupidity. I am about sick of watching them quibble over more money then most of us make in two lifetimes. The players are also being stupid with the money they make they could start there own league and tell the owners to kiss their arse.I just don't get that they let it come to this. Silly statement. Playeres come and go. To equate the abilities of the players with that of the owners to run the league is ridiculous. There is a reason they are players and not owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Silly statement. Playeres come and go. To equate the abilities of the players with that of the owners to run the league is ridiculous. There is a reason they are players and not owners. Quick, name one thing that an owner does that a team president couldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Quick, name one thing that an owner does that a team president couldn't. Own the stadium they play the games in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Quick, name one thing that an owner does that a team president couldn't. botch the team's draft strategy? (see: Oakland and Dallas) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Silly statement. Playeres come and go. To equate the abilities of the players with that of the owners to run the league is ridiculous. There is a reason they are players and not owners. +1. that's like saying anyone can open up a hamburger stand and sell pseudo meat and turn it into a multi-billion dollar company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Quick, name one thing that an owner does that a team president couldn't. If you believe that the players that are for the most part uneducated and unproven in the business world could pull this off then there is no sense debating you. There is managment and there is labor. There is a reason for that. You can't take one and turn it into the other just because you want to. There are so many factors that need to be considered that this idea is just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2v Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Why don't they Owners and players just extend the current arrangement so that they can have another year to negotiate. Or are they using this expiration as leverage? It just doesn't make sense to piss billions of dollars away and lose countless fans in a lockout. Maybe I just don't understand but if I had a money train that is the NFL, it would make no sense to remove the tracks and stop the train just because they need repair. Seems to me they would agree to keep the current contract and negotiate their way to a new one. The owners hate the current deal; they feel they gave away too much, and even Tagliabue said it was viewed as a band-aid that would be replaced at the earliest opportunity. What the owners are hoping for is to declare an impasse in negotiations, at which point they can implement the terms of their last best offer. Then it's on the players to decide if they want to play under a deal that will obviously be skewed towards the owners or be the "bad guys" and strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Quick, name one thing that an owner does that a team president couldn't. Hire the team president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Own the stadium they play the games in. How many owners own their stadiums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How many owners own their stadiums? You've suggested many times that players could form their own league. My take is that as soon as the players would break off to form their own league, the players they'd be replaced with by the existing teams/owners would then become the "stars" or the name-brand leaving the players that broke off as a distant memory. People follow their team - not just the players that happen to be playing at any one given time. This is not to mention all the business reasons it will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What would waiting a year accomplish? Shortly after the current CBA was signed in 2006 it was already expected that the owners would opt out before the 2012 expiration. This has been a long time coming and a work action is the obvious way to force the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 You've suggested many times that players could form their own league. My take is that as soon as the players would break off to form their own league, the players they'd be replaced with by the existing teams/owners would then become the "stars" or the name-brand leaving the players that broke off as a distant memory. People follow their team - not just the players that happen to be playing at any one given time. This is not to mention all the business reasons it will never happen. This is a very reasonable argument, and the one that causes my argument the most problems IMO. People would very well have a decision to make. Do you watch Peyton Manning playing for the Indianapolis _____ or do you watch Jason White call signals for the Colts? Personally, I watch sports to watch amazing athletes doing unthinkable things, so I'd watch the better players, but I can certainly see the argument the other way. Maybe that would be a good question to pose to the audience....which one would you watch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osu1322 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 As soon as players form their own league, they become owners. Rinse and repeat. My question then becomes how the hell are the players forming teams??? Is it like in 5th grade gym class??? Ok all former NFL players stand against the wall and we r going to pick teams??? I got Peytom I got CJ I got Brady I got ... umm... crap I lost my draft sheet..... Barry Sanders.... Yeah I could see that being a larger problem then we have now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 My question then becomes how the hell are the players forming teams??? Is it like in 5th grade gym class??? Ok all former NFL players stand against the wall and we r going to pick teams??? I got Peytom I got CJ I got Brady I got ... umm... crap I lost my draft sheet..... Barry Sanders.... Yeah I could see that being a larger problem then we have now...... Exactly...and that would be the least of their problems. An owner is an owner. Whoever the owner is they will want to make money. Are these owners permanent or do they change over the years? You will have the same issues you have now. Just because a player is an owner does not mean they can give the new players everything they want. There is such a thing as busineess common sense. Plus not to mention these players are largely uneducated. What in the hell do they know about running a multi-billion dollar business. Again, the idea is ridiculous on so many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Exactly...and that would be the least of their problems. An owner is an owner. Whoever the owner is they will want to make money. Are these owners permanent or do they change over the years? You will have the same issues you have now. Just because a player is an owner does not mean they can give the new players everything they want. There is such a thing as busineess common sense. Plus not to mention these players are largely uneducated. What in the hell do they know about running a multi-billion dollar business. Again, the idea is ridiculous on so many levels. The "owner" in this model would be the conglomerate of teams, or the league itself. It would be more based off of revenue sharing. Teams wouldn't have individual owners, just team presidents, hired by the conglomerate, just as in every other business in the world. This "business common sense" is why you would hire business people to conduct the business, exactly the way the NFL and the teams do currently. None of that changes in any way whatsoever. It remains the exact same. Albert Haynesworth is not going to be running the business. People with business degrees, hired by Albert Haynesworth will run the business. The one and only key and one and only difference is that rather than being employees of an NFL owner, they are employees of the league. The person that signs their check is the only difference. You've got the exact same business model as the current NFL, except there is nobody sitting in a big office taking half off the top. The business people are employees, not employers. You see this all the time in entertainment, particularly the music and film industries. You see this all the time in the food industry. Heck, every day a major corporation breaks off from its parent company or comes to an agreement on some sort of buyout so they can make the profits for themselves. If your ownership is taking too much money off the top, in any business venture, you at least explore the possibilities of standing on your own two feet and making the profit for yourself instead. I'm not saying it is easy. I'm just saying there is a possibility that the players would make more money and get back at "the man" at the same time. Again, I would watch. Don't know about anybody else, but I would watch. If they get viewers, they get the sponsors and funds, period. Are we at least in agreement about that? You could either have a new draft, or even keep the teams the way they already are. That would be just about the smallest of issues. Keep trying to break this thing. When I first heard the idea, I was convinced it was off the wall, until I couldn't think of any viable reasons that this would be a broken model. I'm anxious to find some real tough ones that I can take to the people that originally gave me this idea and say "ok, now how do you plan to fix that!!!" Edited February 3, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Back to the original point.... There are a bunch of unsettled issues from the last CBA. There are several things that both sides have been looking forward to resolving for years now. They've sucked it up for a few years, knowing that they would have their chance to meet at the table and discuss the issues eventually. This is the time they have settled on to meet again and fix some of these issues. Some of them are so major that they literally won't play another game until they get some of this fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) What would be the distribution? Would the third string QB make as much as a starter? How would the starters get a distribution? You'd have guys like Ochocinco saying that he's far more entertaining than Roddy White, so he should make more money. "ok, now how do you plan to fix that!!!" I'd personally base it off of tenure/production, but that is certainly something you'd have to think long and hard about. Sure, it will be a sticky issue, as it always has been, but I don't think it would be a deal breaker. A uniform incentive based system might not work because of the different philosophies for success, so maybe it would be up to each team to figure out their own incentives. I dunno. I'd think a handful of intelligent representatives would be able to hammer something out though, much as they will probably be asked to do in regards to this upcoming rookie salary scale. Edited February 3, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I've hesitated to comment on this thread Seahawks because I seriously thought you had been smoking some really good Josh Gordon. But you continue to debate it So now, I have to chime in: That is some really, REALLY good Josh Gordon, care to send me some bro? Edited February 3, 2011 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I've hesitated to comment on this thread Seahawks because I seriously thought you had been smoking some really good Josh Gordon. But you continue to debate it So now, I have to chime in: That is some really, REALLY good Josh Gordon, care to send me some bro? Of course it is, this is Seattle man!! I'm not up for risking my arse to send some, but I'm heading down that way in March if you're still a hurtin' unit....... It isn't like you to chime in without getting your feet wet. Let us hear the Tazmanian viewpoint on the topic. I'll admit that I do have the fact that this isn't going to happen anytime soon going for me. I can say the grass is greener and there really isn't a way to disprove what I say, cause we very well may not see anything come of it. I do think that some of us younger folk around here are going to see a pretty drastic change in some fashion in the way sports franchises are funded and managed, especially in baseball and basketball where the current model isn't making money for very many folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Of course it is, this is Seattle man!! I'm not up for risking my arse to send some, but I'm heading down that way in March if you're still a hurtin' unit....... It isn't like you to chime in without getting your feet wet. Let us hear the Tazmanian viewpoint on the topic. I'll admit that I do have the fact that this isn't going to happen anytime soon going for me. I can say the grass is greener and there really isn't a way to disprove what I say, cause we very well may not see anything come of it. I do think that some of us younger folk around here are going to see a pretty drastic change in some fashion in the way sports franchises are funded and managed, especially in baseball and basketball where the current model isn't making money for very many folks. Not sure if this makes any sense or not, but I got 2 words for ya. Michael Jordan Assuming that players did start there own league, who is going to fund it? The players? Sorry but they don't make enough. And even if they did, how many have actually made sound investments to sustain it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Not sure if this makes any sense or not, but I got 2 words for ya. Michael Jordan Assuming that players did start there own league, who is going to fund it? The players? Sorry but they don't make enough. And even if they did, how many have actually made sound investments to sustain it? I'd think they could find investors/sponsors to at least get them going. They might not get McDonalds and Coke right away, and they might have to go down some avenues that the current NFL wouldn't touch, but it is professional football. Companies looking to get their name out there will be lining up. I don't think it would take them all that long to be turning a profit. Maybe it takes a while to pay back the overhead, but if it were to take off and they become more popular than the NFL, I don't think revenue will be the issue. If Americans have shown anything, it is that they will watch football, go to football games and buy merchandise. It is really the only game in town, and there are literally billions to be made. I'd think some investors would see potential. Michael Jordan would be a very poor choice for personnel decisions, but as a face, would probably be profitable. Edited February 4, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm putting this to bed, guys. We'll bring this up again next time there are labor issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 to finish my thought that I forgot I had The owners would break the players' league by simply offering Peyton, Brady and only a dozen or so other key players far more money then they could get in the player's league. While the game is won in the trenches, it's on TV cuz of key names. I want to respond but I just banned myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I want to respond but I just banned myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.