Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Are the owners not making enough profit? Seirously? So your position is that both sides are making sufficient money? Okay, I'll agree. FWIW, I never made the argument that owners aren't making enough, so thanks for adding the strawman argument. BTW - when did it become a bad thing in this country to run what has become a highly successful business and to reap the profits because of that? Edited May 30, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 BTW - when did it become a bad thing in this country to run what has become a highly successful business and to reap the profits because of that? Who is saying it's a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Who is saying it's a bad thing? You're new here, huh? Welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 You're new here, huh? Welcome! My general opinion on profit (and capitalism itself) is that it is the best economic vehicle for elevation of the most people as long as the success of it is shared around among the most people, thus profit is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 So your position is that both sides are making sufficient money? Okay, I'll agree. FWIW, I never made the argument that owners aren't making enough, so thanks for adding the strawman argument. BTW - when did it become a bad thing in this country to run what has become a highly successful business and to reap the profits because of that? When there are discussions of free speech, we are always quick to point out that doesn't mean any d-bag should be applauded for running their mouth. Rather that they're free to do it. Same goes here. The owners ( and players) are more than welcome to grab what they can. However, that doesnt mean either side deserves our blessing. So, when someone takes issue with a group who they think are likely profiting and well, taking away a product they like, that does not mean they're against profit and the American way, it's just that they've taken a side in a battle between to groups trying to maximize their earning potential. Ironic that you keep bringing this up because the pro-owner faction keeps bringing up that the players make so much that they should shut up and be happy. Which is obviously the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) When there are discussions of free speech, we are always quick to point out that doesn't mean any d-bag should be applauded for running their mouth. Rather that they're free to do it. Same goes here. The owners ( and players) are more than welcome to grab what they can. However, that doesnt mean either side deserves our blessing. Discussions of free speech have to do with the government's responsibility not to infringe on it. But one can have an opinion on offensive language even though it is protected from government censorship. And here's a clue to you - the debate is between we fans here and in other venues like this. Neither side gives a rat's ass about our opinions or our blessings. So, when someone takes issue with a group who they think are likely profiting and well, taking away a product they like, that does not mean they're against profit and the American way, it's just that they've taken a side in a battle between to groups trying to maximize their earning potential. Ironic that you keep bringing this up because the pro-owner faction keeps bringing up that the players make so much that they should shut up and be happy. Which is obviously the same thing. You continue to mischaracterize my position so that I can only think you are doing so intenionally because you can not otherwsie defend your position - which is what I beleive - or you simply are not capable of reading and understanding. My position isn't and hasn't been that the players "should shut up and be happy". I'm going to type this slowly so that perhaps you'll understand it this time. Maybe you can have a 5 year old read it to you to enhance your understanding. I believe that the NFL can not expect revenues to grow at the rates that they did in the past in the face of the economic indicators widely available to anyone who cares to do a minimum of research. I believe that the 5% projected annual increase in the portion of revenues to be paid to the players in conjunction with other enhanced benefits such as lifetime health care, increased contributions to the pension fund, less work days, etc are a reasonable position for the owners to open negotiations with and that the players ought to recognize that and return a counteroffer from which both sides can work together to find common ground. I also think the players ought to recognize that there has been an increase in costs to owners since the last CBA was agreed to and that should be considered in the negotiations. I do not believe that players have any business in getting 10 years of itemized financials from owners of private companies, nor should those individual team itemized financials have any bearing in the negotiations. Now, try to get your head around that and discuss that, rather than the fictional position you try feebily to assign to me in order to try to defend the players from refusing to negotiate, to walk out with no counteroffer, to make their transparently false decertification, and to attempt to litigate the issue through the court system by charging the owners with antitrust violations when it is exacty the NFLPA's earlier concession to this status that has the players earning the considerable wages that they have up to this point. Edited May 30, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 The health care part of the debate intrigues me. Most of these players have been playing 10 or more years by the time they get to the NFL. Many have had recorded injuries, others unrecorded injuries or certainly some wear and tear, the type of thing that leads to future medical issues. Statistically most work for the NFl for a far shorter time than they played ball previously, yet there is an expectation that the owners or the league is responsible for their helath care going forward. In many instances in the real world if one has pre-existing conditions they are difficult or impossible to insure, yet the league is expected, apparently, to take on this burden, an uncertain burden to be sure as future advances in medicine often bring with itfuture litigation as to cuasation and to stnadards of care, and medical care always seems to outstrip inflation. Why, I wonder, do we not have a debate as to colleges having to set up helath care for thier athletes? Why just the pro league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 And your argument threfore is that Brees is not getting reasonable compensation? Seriously? If the NFL locks out Drew Brees, NO he cannot get reasonable compensation at a competing company in the same line of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Why, I wonder, do we not have a debate as to colleges having to set up helath care for thier athletes? Why just the pro league? What, you mean, post graduation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 If the NFL locks out Drew Brees, NO he cannot get reasonable compensation at a competing company in the same line of work. That wasn't my question, and your attempt to deflect it is pretty pathetic. And from your response, you are essentially saying that the NFL is forced to do business so that players can be compensated properly. Who do you intend to use to enforce your decree and force the NFL to do business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) What, you mean, post graduation? If they suffer injury that can have life long ramifications. It seems to me the same argument now being made by the NFL players association. College players suffer concussions, collisions that effect their joints and spines, wear and tear that will increase their life long health care risks. Why should the NFL alone bear the costs. Why not highschools and Pop warner as well? Or do the players assume the risk to participate? If so why the debate at the NFL level? Is it the pool of apparent money? Does that give a right ? Edited May 31, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 If they suffer injury that can have life long ramifications. It seems to me the same argument now being made by the NFL players association. Coolege players suffer concussions, collisions that effect their joints and spines, wear and tear that will increase their life long health care risks. Why should the NFL alone bear the costs. Why not highschools and Pop warner as well? Or do the players assume the risk to participate? If so why the debate at the NFL level? Is it the pool of apparent money? Does that give a right ? I dunno, I was just confirming the scenario. Certainly interesting food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 BB, I stopped reading your post when you accused me of putting words in your mouth. Because, well, I didn't. I said "pro owner" and I could show you a collage of "if those overpaid thugs aren't happy, they can go flip burgers". So, surely you aren't saying that sentiment does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Oh what the hell. I think the owners lost the luxury to expect the players to take their word on it in terms of numbers when they failed to negotiate in good faith with the networks and essentially bought themselves an insurance policy with money they were supposed to share with the players. And compound that with the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike, I don't think the players are out of line to ask why you need to so badly get out of a deal that you approved 5 years ago 30-2, that you're prepared to stop business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 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. And if you believe DeMaurice Smith you're just as easily tricked into believing bullchit. Both sides are asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Oh what the hell. I think the owners lost the luxury to expect the players to take their word on it in terms of numbers when they failed to negotiate in good faith with the networks and essentially bought themselves an insurance policy with money they were supposed to share with the players. And compound that with the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike, I don't think the players are out of line to ask why you need to so badly get out of a deal that you approved 5 years ago 30-2, that you're prepared to stop business. Are they getting out of the deal, or fulfilling the deal by exercising an option? Maybe the deal was so favorable to the players precisely because the owners had an option out. Under that circumstance might it be unreasonable for the players to have thought the deal would continue in any sort of perpetuity? The players sold the owners flexibility at quite a premium, and are now upset that the owners are exercising that which they paid for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Are they getting out of the deal, or fulfilling the deal by exercising an option? Maybe the deal was so favorable to the players precisely because the owners had an option out. Under that circumstance might it be unreasonable for the players to have thought the deal would continue in any sort of perpetuity? The players sold the owners flexibility at quite a premium, and are now upset that the owners are exercising that which they paid for. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 And if you believe DeMaurice Smith you're just as easily tricked into believing bullchit. Both sides are asinine. Agreed, 110%! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 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? the guys making 6 figures have no pull in this thing. the guys making 8 figures do. and yes that is super rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Are they getting out of the deal, or fulfilling the deal by exercising an option? Maybe the deal was so favorable to the players precisely because the owners had an option out. Under that circumstance might it be unreasonable for the players to have thought the deal would continue in any sort of perpetuity? The players sold the owners flexibility at quite a premium, and are now upset that the owners are exercising that which they paid for. Sure, that's a fine distinction. The owners did nothing sleazy by opting out of the deal. Mind you, that doesn't place the onus on the players to agree to whatever new deal the owners wanted. It is still the owners, and not the players, who put the wheels in motion to create a work stoppage. Yet, people are still quick to point out that the players were the ones who refused the last offer. But think of it like this. Say you and I have a deal where we split profits down the middle. At some point, you opt out of that deal and tell me that, if I don't give you a bigger chunk, you're shutting down operations. Am I the dick in this picture if I don't accept your new terms? And I don't really buy the argument that the owners agreed to a crappy deal because they knew they had an out. They had to live with that deal for 4-5 years. So, you're telling me that they agreed to apparently get hosed out of 100s of millions of dollars simply because they knew they could stop the bleeding at some point? Guys who have clawed their way to the top of the business world? Guys who are so competitive (according to the more noble reasons for a salary cap) that they can't trust one another to not overspend in order to win? These guys allowed themselves to get fleeced just because they knew they wouldn't be getting fleeced for long? I guess I give them a bit more credit than you do. I would guess it was one of two things: 1) The deal really wasn't so bad for either side or 2) That they already had the sleazy side deal in their back pocket and figured they could totally cripple the players and lose nothing by canceling the season and still make basically as much as they would have if there was football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Sure, that's a fine distinction. The owners did nothing sleazy by opting out of the deal. Mind you, that doesn't place the onus on the players to agree to whatever new deal the owners wanted. It is still the owners, and not the players, who put the wheels in motion to create a work stoppage. Yet, people are still quick to point out that the players were the ones who refused the last offer. Wasn't the lock out to get the two parties at the negotiating table to renegotiate the CBA and wasn't it the NFLPA that tried to circumvent this to keep the status quo, even though the players union agreed to this opt out clause written in the previous CBA agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 a lot of pro-player rhetoric in this whole thing focuses on "the existing deal", but isn't that a misnomer? the old deal expired. that means they have to negotiate a new deal. obviously, one side wants the new deal to be the same as the old deal, the other side does not. one side wants to try to spin that into the other side being unreasonable, but that's all it is -- spin. all it really tells you is that the players ended up with a pretty favorable deal last time around and they know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 a lot of pro-player rhetoric in this whole thing focuses on "the existing deal", but isn't that a misnomer? the old deal expired. that means they have to negotiate a new deal. obviously, one side wants the new deal to be the same as the old deal, the other side does not. one side wants to try to spin that into the other side being unreasonable, but that's all it is -- spin. all it really tells you is that the players ended up with a pretty favorable deal last time around and they know it. I actually try to specifically refer to it as "the expired CBA" as often as I remember to. I'm sure I've missed on more than one occasion. Because your point is valid. It is not the current CBA, it's the one that expired in 2010. As for your conclusion, that might be presumptive. Or, at least, it needlessly vilifies "pretty favorable". If you've always been getting an unfairly large cut and I finally talk you into something that is equitable for both of us, I would consider that "pretty favorable" for me. That doesn't mean I've fleeced you this time around. So, it could be a very reasonable stance for me to say, "I don't need any more, but I'm not cool with giving anything back." That doesn't mean that I know, deep down, that I'm getting over on you. It just means that I'm finally happy with my cut. Now, I'm not saying this is the case. I honestly don't know. None of us do. None of us know whether the expired CBA was completely unreasonable and the owners really need to work it back for the good of the league or whether they simply see a chance to for a money grab. But I think it's grabbing for an argument to assume that, since the players are cool with the keeping things the way they were, that they must have really gotten over on the owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I actually try to specifically refer to it as "the expired CBA" as often as I remember to. I'm sure I've missed on more than one occasion. Because your point is valid. It is not the current CBA, it's the one that expired in 2010. As for your conclusion, that might be presumptive. Or, at least, it needlessly vilifies "pretty favorable". If you've always been getting an unfairly large cut and I finally talk you into something that is equitable for both of us, I would consider that "pretty favorable" for me. That doesn't mean I've fleeced you this time around. So, it could be a very reasonable stance for me to say, "I don't need any more, but I'm not cool with giving anything back." That doesn't mean that I know, deep down, that I'm getting over on you. It just means that I'm finally happy with my cut. Now, I'm not saying this is the case. I honestly don't know. None of us do. None of us know whether the expired CBA was completely unreasonable and the owners really need to work it back for the good of the league or whether they simply see a chance to for a money grab. But I think it's grabbing for an argument to assume that, since the players are cool with the keeping things the way they were, that they must have really gotten over on the owners. let me make sure I've got this right. the players are paying millions to have a shark like demaurice smith represent them in these negotiations. and they go into these negotiations with the starting position of leaving things exactly like they were in the old deal. and you think it's presumptive of me to infer that the players had a sweet deal under the last CBA? 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.