The Bizarre Cult Of Pro-Owner NFL Fanboys

[Cunning Runt]

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.

 

If you say so.

[bpwallace49]

Somebody get the diva a Snickers.

 

 

He thinks you're a diva. And that you need a snickers. I like Snickers.

 

 

[Square]

(the writer makes his bias known in the first two sentences)

Actual first two sentences of the blog post:

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.

 

that some people amusingly label as 'neutral'.

Times the word "neutral" is mentioned in this thread or in the article = 1. Written by: Deathpig.

 

You having an off day Deathpig? I don't really disagree with much of what you wrote. Just found these strange.

[Deathpig]

 

Actual first two sentences of the blog post:

 

 

 

Times the word "neutral" is mentioned in this thread or in the article = 1. Written by: Deathpig.

 

You having an off day Deathpig? I don't really disagree with much of what you wrote. Just found these strange.

 

Admittedly you can take the second sentence as a joke, but when read with the rest of the article it comes across more as a mean-spirited jab that echoes the author's bias.

 

As for neutral, I must have this thread mixed up in my head with something else because my recollection when trying to write my post (and it was at work, so my train of thought is interrupted constantly) doesn't actually jive now rereading everything in the thread. Though, in the end, I think most people just want some damn football and really don't want to deal with what comes across as some sort of messy divorce where a rich couple argue about who owns which half of what.

 

I'm getting old. The off days come faster and more frequently.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

 

 

I side with the owners.

[dug]

I side with the owners.

+1

[Azazello1313]

He thinks you're a diva. And that you need a snickers. I like Snickers.

 

 

the article was kinda stupid, because it misrepresents a lot of facts. the old CBA is expired. that means the parties have to agree to a new one.

 

I'm not really pro-owner or pro-player when it comes to the bottom line. they are both self-interested parties, and how they agree to be compensated in the future is between them. my only take in this whole thing is that the whole court-wrangling aspect of it is decidedly unhelpful and counterproductive. this is where I view the players union/un-union and that demaurice jackwad as being slightly more culpable in the impasse than the owners. they seem to be sticking to the strategy that they can get everything they want via judicial decree, rather than by actually negotiating with the owners. as long as that is where they pin their hopes, no negotiation will take place.

[Ursa Majoris]

The author has a point in writing about his wonderment at the amazing levels of deference shown to rich people, especially the super-rich. There is definitely a very large number of people who must think that the possession of massive wads of cash, in and of itself, is admirable regardless of how it was come by, how it is used or any other factor. It's almost medieval in it's forelock tugging servile attitude.

 

Totally weird.

[Azazello1313]

The author has a point in writing about his wonderment at the amazing levels of deference shown to rich people, especially the super-rich. There is definitely a very large number of people who must think that the possession of massive wads of cash, in and of itself, is admirable regardless of how it was come by, how it is used or any other factor. It's almost medieval in it's forelock tugging servile attitude.

 

Totally weird.

 

that is a pretty hollow, knee-jerk argument in this context, as everyone on every side of this dispute is "super-rich".

[Square]

everyone on every side of this dispute is "super-rich".

I don't agree. The guys who make six figures plus a year are rich. The guys who sign their checks are super rich. You don't see a difference?

 

Kind of surprised to see this coming from you. I mean even BB saw through your anticapitalist, pro union, spiel earlier in the year.

[WaterMan]

If everyone in the NFL is super rich, where are all the gigantic flatscreen TVs like Jerry Jones has?

[Chavez]

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).

 

Based on the last 10 years, I think you could make the argument that lots of CEOs and such don't seem to much care if their company blows up in a ball of fire either (Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, P&H, the financial crisis, etc etc), as long as they come out ahead in the end.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Prior to the last CBA the players saw the injustice of never being able to alter a deal when it was time for a new agreement. They did not say that since they had been livng under a deal previously that it must never be renegotiated. Instead tyhe renegotiated. They pushed for more and they got it. Much more. That deal had terms for experation, and the owners excercised those rights.

 

Now the players position is that it is unreasonable for the owners to do that which they themselves managed previously.The players are wrong and they are hypocrits.

 

 

The owners have not recently been satisfied with competing for entertainment dollars in a free market. They have blackmailed and extorted politicians who wish to pander to them and to the knee jerk ignorance of a large constituency. They have raided public coffers to enhance the value of their franchise. The owners are wrong and they are hypocrits.

 

The valuation increas in franchises over the past 20 years has been due to unsustainable factors, the baby boom demographic and the echo boom demographic both being in place to follow the sport, the explosion of fantasy football with which they had nothing to do, and the raiding of public coffers to build them more proffitable palaces. The latter i particular was interesting in that they externalized capital improvement costs to the public at large rather than to the more limited demographic of those who would willingly follow and support football. Thewse trends are not sustainable and prodictions that they are, are unrealistic to say the least. Whichever side fails to realize this is wrong.

 

Give me my damn football. Give it to me with fewer babbling announcers, less commercial breaks, more money shots of cheerleaders between plays, and give me a team centric broadcast option where I view my team on offense from behind the offense, and my team on defense from behind the defense. This is a option that I would pay extra for. Cink that broadcast up with hometeam announcers so I don't have to listen to the offical network broadcast crews and i would pay more.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[detlef]

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.

I think you make some great points. However, I'm not sure all of your conclusions are accurate. First off you're right that a lockout is no worse than a strike. The thing is, this time, it's a lockout. So, this time, it makes sense to side with the players. Even if only a little. Again, I think it's pretty foolish to be gung-ho for either side without knowing whether or not the expired cba was truly something that was not sustainable. As a result, we should all be on the side of football being played. And since this a battle between two very unsympathetic sides, why not root for the side who did not instigate the stoppage? Considering how much they make, I would certainly not have the players back right now if this was a strike instead. After all. I am in management. I am not pre-disposed to like the players, for me it's just about tie going to the group who did not call for the work stoppage. Well, that and the fact that the owners made the sleazy side deal with the networks to finance a war chest.

[tazinib1]

When I posted that I miss Gene Upshaw, I got hammered. At least Drew Brees understands my stance. Put that in your pipe and smoke it ya bunch of Mary's.

[WaterMan]

And since this a battle between two very unsympathetic sides, why not root for the side who did not instigate the stoppage?

...

Considering how much they make, I would certainly not have the players back right now if this was a strike instead. After all. I am in management. I am not pre-disposed to like the players, for me it's just about tie going to the group who did not call for the work stoppage. Well, that and the fact that the owners made the sleazy side deal with the networks to finance a war chest.

 

Well alot of people are confused as to why the NFL is locked out and who actually placed the lockout over the NFL.

 

The owners have not recently been satisfied with competing for entertainment dollars in a free market.

 

Uhm, the NFL has a monopoly over football in America. When it comes to competing for football entertainment, there is none. When they are driving up prices for everything in the NFL stadiums, it is no wonder they aren't seeing the returns they want. Is it not very smart to try and drain the working man dry during the Great Recession.

[Ursa Majoris]

that is a pretty hollow, knee-jerk argument in this context, as everyone on every side of this dispute is "super-rich".

It was a general observation rather than one based on this particular dispute. Automatic deference to owners / employers / super rich people seems to be ingrained in large numbers of people regardless of the rights and wrongs of any given situation.

[Cunning Runt]

quote name='Ursa Majoris' date='5/28/11 4:21pm' post='3440845']

It was a general observation rather than one based on this particular dispute. Automatic deference to owners / employers / super rich people seems to be ingrained in large numbers of people regardless of the rights and wrongs of any given situation.

 

Funny, 'cause I was thinking the same thing about a large number people siding with players simply because they always think ownership/management is the "bad guy".

 

Here's my take in general regarding an employer/employee relationship, which is also how I view the NFL and its current labor issues:

 

I believe management/ownership should have the right to do pretty much anything it pleases short of being abusive or genuinely unreasonable to their employees. Beyond that, I believe labor should be glad they have a job and getting a paycheck. And in the case of the NFL, they don't just have a job, they have a GREAT job, and they're treated FAR FAR better than just reasonable. So ya, the players irk me big time.

[WaterMan]

Prior to the last CBA the players saw the injustice of never being able to alter a deal when it was time for a new agreement. They did not say that since they had been livng under a deal previously that it must never be renegotiated. Instead the renegotiated. They pushed for more and they got it. Much more. That deal had terms for experation, and the owners excercised those rights.

 

Now the players position is that it is unreasonable for the owners to do that which they themselves managed previously.The players are wrong and they are hypocrits.

 

Are you sure?

 

The percentage of total revenues paid to players in the years following the

2006 CBA extension is lower than the average percentage paid to players

since the NFL and the players entered into the current salary cap/free agency

system in 1993. Recent increases merely reverse a downward trend that

began in 1999.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Here's my take in general regarding an employer/employee relationship, which is also how I view the NFL and its current labor issues:

 

I believe management/ownership should have the right to do pretty much anything it pleases short of being abusive or genuinely unreasonable to their employees. Beyond that, I believe labor should be glad they have a job and getting a paycheck. And in the case of the NFL, they don't just have a job, they have a GREAT job, and they're treated FAR FAR better than just reasonable. So ya, the players irk me big time.

We aren't actually polar opposites. I believe every situation / dispute / negotiation should be examined on it's overall merits. Decisions based on facts are always better than knee-jerk following of one side or the other.

 

Your automatic genuflection to whoever is in charge is, however, as extreme as any anarchist agitator believing all business is evil at the other end of the scale and flat out dangerous too. It takes no account whatsoever of the fact that businesses need good employees as much as people need employers. And before you argue that the employers are irreplaceable whereas employees are interchangeable, that isn't true. Employers / businesses only exist to service demand - if a company goes south and demand still exists, another will pop up to service it.

 

Your position is redolent of an admiration of serfdom where the peasants must prostrate themselves in the presence of the aristocracy.

[Cunning Runt]

Your position is redolent of an admiration of serfdom where the peasants must prostrate themselves in the presence of the aristocracy.

 

Huh?

 

I believe ownership/management should hold the cards save for abusive/unreasonable positions towards their employees. And if the employees don't like it, they are free to go work elsewhere. If that equals what you said, I'm good with it.

 

ETA.:

 

Oh....and I HATE unions in general so that may be showing through as well.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Cunning Runt

[Square]

I believe ownership/management should hold the cards save for abusive/unreasonable positions towards their employees. And if the employees don't like it, they are free to go work elsewhere.

What if they work in a system where there is only one employer? You know, like the NFL... Isn't it possible that you should see this situation slightly different as there is no way for Drew Brees to take his talents down the road for reasonable compensation (although it'd be quite different if he were a dr. or mechanic).

[Cunning Runt]

What if they work in a system where there is only one employer? You know, like the NFL... Isn't it possible that you should see this situation slightly different as there is no way for Drew Brees to take his talents down the road for reasonable compensation (although it'd be quite different if he were a dr. or mechanic).

 

I don't because the NFL is not the only thing they could do.

 

They could be a pharmaceutical rep, a plumber, a contractor, whatever. They are not entitled to be NFL players.

[Bronco Billy]

What if they work in a system where there is only one employer? You know, like the NFL... Isn't it possible that you should see this situation slightly different as there is no way for Drew Brees to take his talents down the road for reasonable compensation (although it'd be quite different if he were a dr. or mechanic).

 

And your argument threfore is that Brees is not getting reasonable compensation? Seriously?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Clubfoothead]

And your argument threfore is that Brees is not getting reasonable compensation? Seriously?

 

Are the owners not making enough profit? Seirously?