Square Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Policyvote had a link to this article the other day on his blog. I found it pretty funny. Deadspin link Here's a tidy summation of how we've managed to get to where we are with the NFL lockout. A few years ago, the players and owners agreed to a new CBA, with only Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown voting against the agreement, in Wilson's case because he's old and easily confused by things. Then, almost immediately after that agreement was approved, all the other owners suddenly decided WHOA HEY! THIS AGREEMENT BLOWS! And so, this March, they opted out of that agreement and locked out the players. The players, for their part, were happy with the terms of the original CBA and wanted to keep playing. But then Roger Goodell, who is a Ginsuing stooge, told the world that players being happy with the CBA means the CBA is totally unfair. Now, the players decided to break up and sue the NFL to get the lockout lifted, which it was for seven seconds leading up to the draft back in April. The owners then fought to have the lockout reinstated while they appealed, and managed to temporarily prevail. So here we have one side that has shut down the operations of football TWICE, and another side who A.) didn't instigate the lockout and B.) sued to STOP the lockout and get football played again. This is now the longest work stoppage in NFL history, and it is the result of a labor battle initiated by the owners. Those are facts. It should seem obvious whose cause you, Mr. NFL Fan, ought to get behind. So it baffles and angers me that there appears to be actual people out there who are squarely in the owners' corner when it comes to this labor war. I went to this post at PFT the other day, where Florio outlines a rumor about the league going out of business if they lose their appeal, and the number of pro-owner comments were just … Ginsuing … I don't even know. They must be plants. They have to be plants. That's the only explanation. How else do you explain comments like these? (Click to enlarge.) It's like a group of people went directly to their computers after walking out of a screening of Atlas Shrugged. You can find retarded commenters at virtually any Internet forum (why, just scroll down!), but the idea that there are people out there who would like to see the owners succeed in PREVENTING THE PLAYING OF ACTUAL NFL GAMES to spite NFL players strikes me as … what's the word? Oh, right. GinsuING INSANE. Please God, let these people be planted there by Jerry Richardson. Don't tell me there are people out there this breathtakingly hardheaded. Do you know how many NFL teams are owned by people who inherited their respective franchises? Eleven. ELEVEN. Over one third of all NFL teams belong to people who did nothing to deserve them except shoot out of the right uterus or Ginsu the right spouse. Two more NFL teams are owned by scions of American industrial giants (the Lions and Jets). And somehow this makes them business geniuses who deserve to lock out their employees and rob the country of its favorite sport? Really? The same shrewd people who apparently screwed themselves into such an allegedly SHAM WOW!ty labor deal not but a few years ago? Is there ANY situation in which a billionaire can be Ginsuing wrong, then? Or is their wealth simply an overriding character trait that trumps all flaws? There's a distinctly political turn to much of these lockout arguments among fans. I guess if you think the players are right (and I do), that makes you a dirty liberal and there can't possibly be a decent case to be made. All unions are bad, which means the NFL players are ungrateful and lazy and deserve to be booted out on their ass because the owners are the beginning and end of why the NFL is successful. No success is ever entirely self-made. Billionaires don't just crawl out of a Ginsuing swamp and then work 23-hour days until they're filthy rich and deserving of every penny. There are a million factors that go into the making of a successful person, and hard work is merely one of them. There's an element of luck. There's certainly an element of breeding. There's an element of good timing, of catching the wave at the precise right moment. All of those things factor in, not to mention the millions upon millions of tax dollars used to subsidize the stadiums many of these fine gentlemen happen to now own. But these pro-owner people seem to believe that NFL owners are Ginsuing magical money unicorns that came out of a glowing cistern on a mountaintop, and they have carte blanche to strongarm people accordingly. I hope they're planted by the league. I really do, though some polls suggest otherwise. Because if you are a real, living, breathing person and you're actually rooting for the league to continue to, you know, not playing, then you can go Ginsuing die. If you have a beef with the union breaking up and suing the NFL, then you're too stupid to understand that suing the league was essentially ALL the players could do, because for years now the owners have been hellbent on losing games in the 2011 season specifically to squeeze more money out of the players, as much as humanly possible. Many owners didn't bother to show up for the initial negotiating sessions in March. They want their lockout, and they're going to exhaust every SHAM WOW!ty, awful option they can to make it happen. And they sure as SHAM WOW! don't care about your concerns in the process. You're the fan. You're just a Ginsuing sheep. Meanwhile, the players, who used legal recourse to return to the field, are the bad guys? Why? Because you think they may try and get rid of the draft, even though that will NEVER happen? (And it should be noted here that getting rid of the draft and making all incoming rookies free agents is far more in the spirit of unbridled capitalism, though that apparently only matters if the beneficiaries of said system are white billionaire c0cksuckers.) Are you that Ginsuing dumb? The idea that players are just dumb Chia Pets who should be grateful that their noble employer sees fit to pay them ANYTHING is a bizarre and downright feudal stance to take. These strike me as the thoughts of someone with a massive political blind spot, where your politics so utterly consume you that you can't be bothered with the reality staring you in the face. This doesn't need to be a political argument, and yet there are people out there desperate to make it precisely that. I love football. Football is pretty much what I live for, and it seems to me that only the players are interested in making football a reality this fall. So if you're somehow on the side of management in this NFL dispute, please know that you are wrong and that you are stupid and that I Ginsuing hate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's really simple, but it still seems to baffle a lot of people: The owners have a vested interest in keeping the NFL as strong as possible for as long as possible. The players have an interest in getting as much as they can out of the league for the short time they play in it, no matter what condition they leave the league in afterwards. As a fan, which side would seem more rational to be on? This will be my only post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 {offtopic] I wish people would quit using that term, it sounds so effing ghey. [/offtopic] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's really simple, but it still seems to baffle a lot of people: The owners have a vested interest in keeping the NFL as strong as possible for as long as possible. The players have an interest in getting as much as they can out of the league for the short time they play in it, no matter what condition they leave the league in afterwards. As a fan, which side would seem more rational to be on? This will be my only post in this thread. what does 'strong' mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) 4 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) 4 Members: rajncajn, detlef, Pope Flick, Trojanmojo Edited May 25, 2011 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Obviously management getting labor to take as little as they can get away with insures the business stays "strong". Especially if the labor is still well compensated. Of course, that doesn't mean that labor should give in at every turn. Just because business stays healthier when they can pay their employees less. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that the NFL brings in a ton of jack. And, as such, there's simply no reason why both sides shouldn't get fat and happy. They both deserve it. The players because they lay their bodies on the line and are among the finest athletes in the world and the owners because they've bankrolled a massively impressive business. The problems comes up when any of us pretend to know where that line is and what each side truly deserves. Perhaps the CBA agreed to in '06 was truly something that would ultimately take down the league. Perhaps the owners are making plenty, want to make more, and figure they have the means to wait the players out. None of us here know, and anyone in this forum who pretends to is lying to himself and to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 BB's right - the player's only concern is "what's in it for me now". F the players and especially F DeMaurice Smith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 BB's right - the player's only concern is "what's in it for me now". F the players and especially F DeMaurice Smith. The owners have no personal interest at all in the outcome. They invest all their time and money to benefit the fans. It's a business. Everyone is in it for themselves. C'mon now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The owners have no personal interest at all in the outcome. They invest all their time and money to benefit the fans. It's a business. Everyone is in it for themselves. C'mon now. I agree but I also firmly believe that the players are getting too much of the pie and in the LONG TERM if we want our football, the change to the owner's way of thinking needs to happen now. The players couldn't care less about the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I agree but I also firmly believe that the players are getting too much of the pie and in the LONG TERM if we want our football, the change to the owner's way of thinking needs to happen now. The players couldn't care less about the long term. But that's true in any business. I wouldn't care if my company blew up in a ball of fire -like the last scene in Office Space - once i'm gone and i doubt you would either (unless you own your own business). That doesn't mean that the players/ or employees should get screwed while they're working there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 But that's true in any business. I wouldn't care if my company blew up in a ball of fire -like the last scene in Office Space - once i'm gone and i doubt you would either (unless you own your own business). That doesn't mean that the players/ or employees should get screwed while they're working there. This is where we may apparently disagree. IMO the players got it good - WAAAAAY too good last time around. It is my opinion that the owners, even if they don't need it, should take back. The player's position and tactics and DeMaurice Smith all conspire to leave me hoping that they take one up the ying yang. I'm not going to try to spout facts, blah blah blah, 'cause I frankly don't care, though I will say that I consider myself fairly educated on both side's positions. Mine is a gut response and my gut hopes the player's do lose a LOT in these negotiatins. If for no other reason than to see DeMaurice Smith on the hot seat. I'll put it this way - I am SOOO against the players that I'd happily take a season without football if it meant they took a big hit in these negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I agree but I also firmly believe that the players are getting too much of the pie and in the LONG TERM if we want our football, the change to the owner's way of thinking needs to happen now. The players couldn't care less about the long term. Um, of course not. One play in a matter of seconds can at best end their careers and any money making potential and at worst cripple them for life. A far cry from having the luxury to watch the game unfold from the owner's box and rake in the money year after year regardless of the interchangeable pieces on the field that enrich them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'm Anti DeMaurice Smith. I'm Anti Rodger Goodell. Take them both out of the equation and this gets fixed. I'm by no means pro owner, but Smith has no interest in working out a solution with the owners. He wants to do it through the courts, league be damned. I think both sides want to get something done, but have jackasses leading them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Mine is a gut response and my gut hopes the player's do lose a LOT in these negotiatins. If for no other reason than to see DeMaurice Smith on the hot seat. I'll put it this way - I am SOOO against the players that I'd happily take a season without football if it meant they took a big hit in these negotiations. Somebody get the diva a Snickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'm Anti DeMaurice Smith.I'm Anti Rodger Goodell. Take them both out of the equation and this gets fixed. I'm by no means pro owner, but Smith has no interest in working out a solution with the owners. He wants to do it through the courts, league be damned. I think both sides want to get something done, but have jackasses leading them. I agree, both sides seem like they want to get a deal done but Goodell and Smith want to do it through the court. It's really annoying we have to wait for court dates, why can't they just talk now and get a compromise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 The owners have a vested interest in keeping the NFL as strong as possible for as long as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 what does 'strong' mean? like bull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Somebody get the diva a Snickers. You have a point to make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 You have a point to make? He thinks you're a diva. And that you need a snickers. I like Snickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 You have a point to make? I think I made it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) It's really simple, but it still seems to baffle a lot of people: The owners have a vested interest in keeping the NFL as strong as possible for as long as possible. Are you, like, for cereal? If the NFL owners are smarter and richer than the players, why would they care about keeping the NFL going when they could retire today and not sweat $4/gallon gas? here we have one side that has shut down the operations of football TWICE, and another side who A.) didn't instigate the lockout and B.) sued to STOP the lockout and get football played again. This is now the longest work stoppage in NFL history, and it is the result of a labor battle initiated by the owners. Those are facts. It should seem obvious whose cause you, Mr. NFL Fan, ought to get behind.... But these pro-owner people seem to believe that NFL owners are Ginsuing magical money unicorns that came out of a glowing cistern on a mountaintop, and they have carte blanche to strongarm people accordingly. Edited May 26, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 He thinks you're a diva. And that you need a snickers. I like Snickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 That was a good read and true, imo. If you support the owners in this, you're either an elite yourself or easily tricked into believing bullchit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'm so confused by all the pseudo-politics involved with this issue. Either side has, essentially, one thing they can do to try and force negotiations to better their end of the deal. For the players, it's a strike. For the owners, it's a lockout. That, this time, the owners are the ones that feel they need to resort to their singular nuclear option to negotiate a better deal doesn't make this some weird referrendum on labor vs. management, or unions vs. corporations, or whatever the hell else this has apparently become some twisted metaphor for. The highlight of this is the blog post that started this thread-- a windy maze of shortsighted blame full of liberal talking points (the writer makes his bias known in the first two sentences) that some people amusingly label as 'neutral'. It's irrelevant who locked out or went on strike or whatever-- it wouldn't change the opinions here much at all (pro-player people would still be pro-player and pro-owner people would still be pro-owner). Everyone wants football (including the owners and the players), but they have the right to try and negotiate a better deal. The attempt to pin blame during this is utterly unproductive as, like most things, the actual blame is a number of events that have happened for over a decade (i.e. numerous events that have shaped this issue over a long time). I don't really blame the owners for wanting a new deal, and I don't really blame the players for resisting. I honestly don't see what the big deal is, or why people same to take this so damn personal outside of wanting both sides to just figure it the hell out so we can have some football this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I think I made it. Really? How does having an opinion and expressing it make me a diva? Just curious. And before you answer, run along and fetch me that Snickers. I'm kinda hungry. 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.