Cunning Runt Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pretty simple really. Not looking for in betweens. I'm really looking to see if there are those that have a very definite opinion on this and how that translates to a simple vote. For me, while I know it won't happen, I'd personally like to see ownership completely break the union, but then, I don't like unions in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I started out hoping the same, but over the past few weeks my views have shifted. The players are not employees, they're contracted workers who are also the product. They're business partners, not bean counters in the office. Although I just heard on Sirius that about half of the owners are willing to open up there books 100%. And that others, like Mike Brown in Cinncy doesn't because they'll find out how many "GM performance bonuses" he's given himself. Greed is greed is greed. What the owners are asking for isn't realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I started out hoping the same, but over the past few weeks my views have shifted. The players are not employees, they're contracted workers who are also the product. They're business partners, not bean counters in the office. Although I just heard on Sirius that about half of the owners are willing to open up there books 100%. And that others, like Mike Brown in Cinncy doesn't because they'll find out how many "GM performance bonuses" he's given himself. Greed is greed is greed. What the owners are asking for isn't realistic. Nice writeup. I see it the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 They're business partners, EPIC FAIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 EPIC FAIL Good info here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'd love to vote but simply don't have the info to say who is in the right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) I'd love to vote but simply don't have the info to say who is in the right here. Not a matter of right or wrong, but "who ya for"? Edited March 10, 2011 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Neither and Both. Just want something done that will benefit both parties and is fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Not a matter of right or wrong, but "who ya for"? I don't think it's that simple. What I want is for whomever is being unreasonable to realize that is the case and back off. So, if the current CBA truly has put the league's health in doubt, then I'm for the owners. On the other hand, if the owners were just counting on the 4 Billion TV deal, the fact that a bunch of players are bad with their money, and the public perception that they're all overpaid to just squeeze the union despite the fact that they're making a ton of money already, then I'm for the players. One would think that you'd either have to have intimate knowledge of the facts or just have an unfounded predisposition to one side or the other to pick a side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 C - Fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 C - Fans Beat me to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 C - Fans Too easy and not an option intentionally. I was trying to flush out those that have specific feelings one way or the other - unfounded or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Too easy and not an option intentionally. I was trying to flush out those that have specific feelings one way or the other - unfounded or not. Owners. Not a fan of Smith at all and IMO he is starting to alienate the public. Fishing trip: he was on Obama's campaign staff. Socialism in the NFL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Owners. I don't find the players arguments persuasive. They are well-compensated. Ain't nothing special about them because they play professional football. We pay our employees what we pay our employees. They know up front. They are free to apply somewhere else after they interview if they think that they are worth more money. We don't pay them more in a good year, but we don't pay them less is a bad year. Some of us make more than 150x what some of our employees make. The employee doesn't like it - good luck at your new position at your new company. You want to see our books? You gotta be kidding me. If Drew Brees doesn't like whats going on in the NFL, he can do what at every other worker can do in this country - try to find another job. If Jerry Jones or whoever wants to risk his franchise - that's his business. Edited March 10, 2011 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The players are the product. The fans don't pay to watch Al Davis and company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Should have a third option for "Just play football". Taking sides only exacerbates differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'm also for whichever side will end the monopoly of DirectTV for the Sunday Ticket so I can get it through my cable company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Owners. Not a fan of Smith at all and IMO he is starting to alienate the public. Fishing trip: he was on Obama's campaign staff. Socialism in the NFL? There already is socialism in the NFL and it's what has led to prosperity of the league. Compare the NFL and it's revenue sharing and parity to something like Major League Baseball where you have 3-4 teams with all the cash and all the players and very little parity. It's not even close to what has shown to be the better business model IMO. Edited March 10, 2011 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Too easy and not an option intentionally. I was trying to flush out those that have specific feelings one way or the other - unfounded or not. Well, honestly I'm not for either one. Both have their points. I agree, that if there is that much money being made then the players should get a sizable share of it given that they are what brings in that money. So I've got no problem with the players saying they want their piece of the pie. My problem is they all get too friggin' much money to begin with. IMO, they need to do either one of two things and neither of those has anything to do with either side getting more: 1) Lower the prices across the board for the fans who are struggling in a tough economy. 2) Give more to the little guys in the organization who don't make SHAM WOW!. Personally I like option 1 better. I mean George Foreman Grill... $250 for a stinking shirt, $335 for Sunday Ticket? Edited March 10, 2011 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Good info here. The owners and the players are not business partners. What part of that do you not understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I think I lean slightly more to the owners side, but really I just want to see them reach an agreement. the only specific outcome I want to see is a rookie wage scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Forgot to add the owners lost a lot of credibility in my mind with the lockout insurance issue. They failed to operate in good faith with the CBA there. Does it make business sense to try protect yourself? Sure, but that's not the point. Also totally agree on the rookie wage scale issue. Edited March 10, 2011 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If somebody could tell me one thing that the owners do to earn that money, I'd be all for compensating them for their efforts. In the end, they take no risk and do just about nothing to help the fan enjoyment of their product. They sit back in their throne or beach house and take their multi-millions off the top. That is it. That is all. I can't justify paying them millions more than they are already making to do so. Players are our heroes. They are the ones with the talent that we enjoy watching, and they are the ones having their lives shortened and made more difficult by entertaining us, and they deserve the lion's share of any profits made by the league by doing so, IMO. To equate Peyton Manning to a McDonald's employee doesn't seem quite fitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If somebody could tell me one thing that the owners do to earn that money, I'd be all for compensating them for their efforts. In the end, they take no risk and do just about nothing to help the fan enjoyment of their product. They sit back in their throne or beach house and take their multi-millions off the top. That is it. That is all. I can't justify paying them millions more than they are already making to do so. Players are our heroes. They are the ones with the talent that we enjoy watching, and they are the ones having their lives shortened and made more difficult by entertaining us, and they deserve the lion's share of any profits made by the league by doing so, IMO. To equate Peyton Manning to a McDonald's employee doesn't seem quite fitting. Somehow in this country we've come to value wealth more than work. Just look at our tax code for example. We tax wages at a higher rate than we do capital gains. If you work with your hands you are taxed higher than if you let your money work for you. 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.