nuke'em ttg Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Would WW make a good Therapist? get yer facts straight ya Jackwagon crybaby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Is it just me, or do others just want to punch D Smith in the face. He keeps on saying "For the fans..." I think he is loving this "limelight" and drove it to the conclusion he intended months ago. There was never any intention of resolving the issues ... just drag it out longer. Before this, who ever really heard of him or felt he had anything useful to say. I had a lot more respect for Gene Upshaw (RIP) because he came from the players. Just my $.02 Not just you...been saying it for weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Is it just me, or do others just want to punch D Smith in the face. He's the Joe Buck of negotiators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 You've got to be kidding me. Every single point is completely false. The final offer by the NFL asked for $283M back per year over the next four years, $1.13B total. That was down from their initial desire for $1B back each year. I won't even bother with the rest of this crap. Try getting your info from credible sources, not some obviously biased anonymous blog with no sourcing. Edit: My bad, it's an NFLPA run blog. Not so anonymous I guess. Sorry I figured you guys at the Huddle would all ready have read where this came from before I posted it. I found this on Yahoo Sports news this morning. So you are saying the NFLPA blog is posting false info? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I had a job 3 years ago where I had to take 2 10% paycuts in 6 months. The owners did it because they recognized the economic realities and that the entire company would eventually collapse at the current payroll/benefits. I wasn't a partner - like the players seem to think they are - and I couldn't file an injunction to stop them. I had two choices: take the pay cuts or find another job. That's the situation the players should be faced with,. Instead they take the position that they have an inherent "right" to play and that they have the same status as partners. They can do what I did - find another job. I wish them the best in that. I'm sure that Burger King will pay them $1M signing bonuses and contract with them to flip burgers at $2M for 3 years. Instead they rely on a sympathetic judge and that judge's interpretation of labor law. Well, the owners are astute businessmen, or they have astute advisors working for them. They know they can wait the players out if they choose to play hardball. The players have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can not manage their finances despite the enormous paychecks they get. The owners simply need to file appeals and watch the players drop to their knees in a year or two. Hell, there are already players who are in serious financial distress. Instead, the owners keep coming to the table with reasonable offers that De Miller just pisses away. The owners don't have to have the money, but they are the only side trying to make this work. That's something else that sticks in my craw. If the players get more of the owner's money (and it is the owners money), 78% of them will still be destitute within 2 years of them being out of football. If the union really gave a damn, why wouldn't they help players manage their finanaces so the players could live very comfortably after their NFL careers are over? Teach these financial morans how to make their earnings last? This is like watching the public education battle. They think more money will cure all the problems, and all it ends up doing is wasting more money with no better results. The owners are very wealthy. No question. They are greedy. No question. But they are the owners and they have compensated players very very well, and the players have shown no capability of making their capital work for them so that they can live rich lives for their entire lives. Right now it's like watching a drunk sue for more booze, with the assurance that they will not get drunk any more if they get it, and besides they have a "right" to have someone buy them more booze. If we really want to discuss "fair", let's start by looking at the alternatives the players have if they do anything else beside play football. By that standard, the owners are being downright overwhelmingly generous. Billy, think there's any chance the players are in a better bargaining position than you were when your bosses cut your pay? I mean, we all make a point of realizing the owners are coming from a very strong position, but then we turn around and assume the players could just as well be working at Burger King. However, regardless of how you think about it, that is not the case, because the guys who matter don't feel that way. That being, the owners. If the owners were holding all the cards and the players could suck it and go work for BK, why did 1) the owners agree 30-2 to accept the terms of the CBA that just expired and 2) why did they budge at all from whatever their first offer this spring was and extend the CBA even a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 It doesn't change the fact that the Owners were trying to meet in the middle... No, more than the middle and the NFLPA wouldn't budge an inch. Both sides are greedy, but one side isn't trying to work out something at all. Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Here's the thing though, who says the middle is fair? For all we know, everything was truly hunky dory and the owners just wanted a bigger cut because they figured they could get it. Again, we simply don't know. So, if that's the case, and they throw out some big number they want, why should the players have to accept half of that number? What if the truly "fair" number is the one they've been operating with this whole time? If your boss came to you and said he wanted to cut your pay by 20% and then, when you balked, said, "OK, let's just cut it 10%". Are you a dick because you're not ready to "meet him halfway"? I'm not saying the middle is fair, but I'm going to side with the group that at least did some negotiating, opposed to the group that seemed to have fingers in there ears screaming like children. If one side is moving off of initial demands, and the other isn't moving an inch that's an indicator. The fact that De. Smith's history in litigation also tells me to not trust him, and that he was never for Collective bargaining in the first place. Is it just me, or do others just want to punch D Smith in the face. He keeps on saying "For the fans..." I think he is loving this "limelight" and drove it to the conclusion he intended months ago. There was never any intention of resolving the issues ... just drag it out longer. Before this, who ever really heard of him or felt he had anything useful to say. I had a lot more respect for Gene Upshaw (RIP) because he came from the players. Just my $.02 I think when all is said and done the NFLPA will regret ever electing Smith. When they become a players association again I would be shocked if they selected him to head it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 When I heard what the owners offered and that the NFLPA turned it down, even I, the staunchest of NFLPA supporters, was taken aback a bit. I'm thinking that De Smith found out that the owners are making a lot more than we previously thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) I'm not saying the middle is fair, but I'm going to side with the group that at least did some negotiating, opposed to the group that seemed to have fingers in there ears screaming like children. If one side is moving off of initial demands, and the other isn't moving an inch that's an indicator. The fact that De. Smith's history in litigation also tells me to not trust him, and that he was never for Collective bargaining in the first place. I think when all is said and done the NFLPA will regret ever electing Smith. When they become a players association again I would be shocked if they selected him to head it up. +1 Did NFL learn nothing from hockey? Step 1) Hardass PA director takes hardline stance against league. Step 2) Owners lockout Players Step 3) League plays the waiting game against PA's unwillingness to waiver on demands at fans expense Step 4) PA starts showing cracks as money dries up and players see no progress. Step 5) A faction within the PA starts gaining support against the PA director. Step 6) Faction fires PA director and installs someone willing to negotiate Step 7) PA and league hammer something out but lose an entire year of season and suffer losses on TV deals and sponsorships Edited March 13, 2011 by Tford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 You've got to be kidding me. Every single point is completely false. The final offer by the NFL asked for $283M back per year over the next four years, $1.13B total. That was down from their initial desire for $1B back each year. I won't even bother with the rest of this crap. Try getting your info from credible sources, not some obviously biased anonymous blog with no sourcing. Edit: My bad, it's an NFLPA run blog. Not so anonymous I guess. I just consider the source of this post to come to the same conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Would WW make a good Therapist? get yer facts straight ya Jackwagon crybaby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 When I heard what the owners offered and that the NFLPA turned it down, even I, the staunchest of NFLPA supporters, was taken aback a bit. I'm thinking that De Smith found out that the owners are making a lot more than we previously thought. it's not that, it's that they think they can get this in front of a judge who will rake the owners over the coals. if that possibility wasn't looming, I am firmly convinced they would have reached an agreement by now. but as it is, they're trying to shoot the moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Is it just me, or do others just want to punch D Smith in the face. it's taken a long time for someone to come along in these kinds of negotiations who I want to punch in the face more than donald fehr. donald, your reign is finally over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 When I heard what the owners offered and that the NFLPA turned it down, even I, the staunchest of NFLPA supporters, was taken aback a bit. I'm thinking that De Smith found out that the owners are making a lot more than we previously thought. Or that De. Smith has a history of not negotiating and instead going for litigation. Take the NFLPA glasses off. De. Smith is bad for everyone. it's not that, it's that they think they can get this in front of a judge who will rake the owners over the coals. if that possibility wasn't looming, I am firmly convinced they would have reached an agreement by now. but as it is, they're trying to shoot the moon. It's going to go to Doty. But prior rulings may handcuff his ability to try and screw over ownership. I think the NFLPA and Doty are backed into a corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 it's taken a long time for someone to come along in these kinds of negotiations who I want to punch in the face more than donald fehr. donald, your reign is finally over. Now that's saying something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The players aren't just employees, they ARE the product. There's no way the owners could give the quality level of product to fans without the players, so it's really nothing like the situation you had in your work. The supply/demand for people who can do your job is entirely different than that of NFL caliber football player. You are not the first to make this statement, so I don;t direct this solely or directly at you. To say the players are the product is a very myopic view of the situation. The players play the game. The stadium experience of watching the game is a product. The television production of the game is a product. All of the framework that goes around the game is at least as important as the players. There are other people to be players, albeit not quite as talented. There is no other framework. If it was all about how talented the players are, nobody would watch College Football where the talent pool is much broader and much, much lower at the median. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 You are not the first to make this statement, so I don;t direct this solely or directly at you. To say the players are the product is a very myopic view of the situation. The players play the game. The stadium experience of watching the game is a product. The television production of the game is a product. All of the framework that goes around the game is at least as important as the players. There are other people to be players, albeit not quite as talented. There is no other framework. If it was all about how talented the players are, nobody would watch College Football where the talent pool is much broader and much, much lower at the median. The NFL is a force onto itself. Remind me again how popular the XFL and Canadian Football are . . oh, and NFL Europe which had televised games too . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The NFL is a force onto itself. Remind me again how popular the XFL and Canadian Football are . . oh, and NFL Europe which had televised games too . . That just makes my point even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 That just makes my point even better. Not so sure about that. The other leagues have inferior talent compared to the NFL, and theoretically inferior play as a result. So at the end of the day is it the marketing of the NFL? Or is it the QUALITY of the football involved (which lends itself to the PLAYERS being just as important)?? If we have scabs play in the NFL again like before, this theory will be tested again. Otherwise I think a solid argumnet could be made for EITHER side . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think the possibility of the NFL losing some sort of "you are a monopoly and therefore should be made to pay up" argument are so very slim. ...others have tried (USFL, XFL, etc.) and failed...that does not make the surviving entity a nefarious monopoly... Also, for anyone claiming franchise values only go up, remember many were making the same arguement about why you should invest in real estate about five years ago. Just because they've historically gone up a huge amount in the past does not mean they will continue to go up in perpetuity, nor does it mean that somehow the players (or team coaches, or team management, or whomever other than the OWNERS) should benefit from a rising (or suffer from a falling) franchise value. Can you imagine some owner selling his franchise for a loss and going back to the NFLPA for a partial reimbursement for his costs? If you can't see that, you can't include mark-to-market (i.e., paper) gains on franchise value either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The NFL is a force onto itself. Remind me again how popular the XFL and Canadian Football are . . oh, and NFL Europe which had televised games too . . Those others fialed with inferior quality because the quility is in the NFL. They also play in Canada and Europe so there is no home team feel. If the owners could just scrap the NFL and start a new league (same teams), how many of the current NFL players would sign up? And if they didn't, what would they do? Are there enough people out there that could start a serious league to compete with the current owners (salary, facility, etc.)? And I'm not proposing owners do this as I'm sure there is some legal reason/judge that wouldn't allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Those others fialed with inferior quality because the quility is in the NFL. They also play in Canada and Europe so there is no home team feel. If the owners could just scrap the NFL and start a new league (same teams), how many of the current NFL players would sign up? And if they didn't, what would they do? Are there enough people out there that could start a serious league to compete with the current owners (salary, facility, etc.)? And I'm not proposing owners do this as I'm sure there is some legal reason/judge that wouldn't allow it. Regardless where the current players would go, that's a short term thing. The two main questions in maintaining the sustainability of a league are - 1) where would the future talent go, and 2) who would the TV contracts follow? We can debate this 'til the cows come home, but my money would remain firmly on the existing ownership/league on both fronts. I do kind of like the notion of the NFL "decertifying" itself as a league and saying F U players. We're starting this new league and if you want in, you can play under OUR rules. Won't happen, but I would LOVE it if it were doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 You've got to be kidding me. Every single point is completely false. The final offer by the NFL asked for $283M back per year over the next four years, $1.13B total. That was down from their initial desire for $1B back each year. I won't even bother with the rest of this crap. Try getting your info from credible sources, not some obviously biased anonymous blog with no sourcing. Edit: My bad, it's an NFLPA run blog. Not so anonymous I guess. Can you point me out to what sources are telling the 100% truth? If I'd be interested in what you consider to be an unbiased news source when both sides are trying to spin the PR battle. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Can you point me out to what sources are telling the 100% truth? If I'd be interested in what you consider to be an unbiased news source when both sides are trying to spin the PR battle. . I'm going to side with the people with the most money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Confused here. All of the people against the NFLPA* must be in favor of a lockout? Seems odd. I want football. The owners are taking it away from the players and us, the fans! 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.