Real Officials and NFL close to agreement

[Azazello1313]

The NFL must have heard about the Huddlers protesting this weekend.

 

Don't go, bronco billy!

[Cunning Runt]

The NFL owners are pathetic. Give up .0001 of their collective incomes or something ridiculously small like that to have a better product. The NFL has lost WAY more in public relations than it would have if they would have just paid the officials.

 

That's just not a good way to conduct business. The NFL has temporarily ticked people off. Nothing more. Big deal.

 

The union officials want more than they're worth. Pensions? Gimme a break. These dudes are part timers and still make plenty of coin. Plus the NFL will contribute up to $38,500 annually into their 401k plans, but they want a pension too. The bad officiating is what it is, but methinks the refs are at fault, not the owners.

 

 

[godtomsatan]

As d00shy as Shefter is, his sources are almost always accurate.

 

his sources are almost always other reports.

[delusions of grandeur]

That's just not a good way to conduct business. The NFL has temporarily ticked people off. Nothing more. Big deal.

 

The union officials want more than they're worth. Pensions? Gimme a break. These dudes are part timers and still make plenty of coin. Plus the NFL will contribute up to $38,500 annually into their 401k plans, but they want a pension too. The bad officiating is what it is, but methinks the refs are at fault, not the owners.

Define worth. You've said the same about player's in the past, but it's a simple matter of supply, demand and earning potential. The Saints didn't give that absurd amount of money to Drew Brees just out of the goodness of their heart.

 

Similarly, if the absence of these refs is making for a much poorer product that stands to lose them money if it continues, then doesn't that make them "worth" more when there isn't a readily available supply of adequate replacements?

 

And frankly, your "big deal" attitude towards us the fans who pay their salaries, really reflects that you seem to think that the owners don't owe anyone anything for the massive amounts of money they make, not just to their labor, but even their customers. That's kind of messed up.

[Cunning Runt]

 

Define worth. You've said the same about player's in the past, but it's a simple matter of supply, demand and earning potential. The Saints didn't give that absurd amount of money to Drew Brees just out of the goodness of their heart.

 

Similarly, if the absence of these refs is making for a much poorer product that stands to lose them money if it continues, then doesn't that make them "worth" more when there isn't a readily available supply of adequate replacements?

 

And frankly, your "big deal" attitude towards us the fans who pay their salaries, really reflects that you seem to think that the owners don't owe anyone anything for the massive amounts of money they make, not just to their labor, but even their customers. That's kind of messed up.

 

I never said it wasn't a big deal. Those are your words, not mine. But I do not think the owners of any venture should simply cave because they can afford it. That's just stupid.

 

Why do you not blame the refs? You think they should get everything they want apparently. I find that curious.

[Big John]

Peter King tweet: “NFLRA negotiator Scott Green has notified officials that a deal is not imminent.”

 

Editing title as it is not a done deal

[detlef]

I never said it wasn't a big deal. Those are your words, not mine. But I do not think the owners of any venture should simply cave because they can afford it. That's just stupid.

 

Why do you not blame the refs? You think they should get everything they want apparently. I find that curious.

 

I think you and others feel that those who bring up how relatively small the money is compared to what the league makes thinks that's where the argument ends. As if that is reason enough to just pay them more because, "why not? They have the money." And, were that the case, you'd be right. If, for instance, the people selling hot dogs wanted a raise, even if it was even smaller compared to what the officials want, the NFL could, quite likely, tell them to take a hike and never miss a beat. So, it's not just how small the amount of money is.

 

It's how small the amount of money is compared to how important the people are who are asking for it. And, if the last few weeks are any indication, they're worth plenty. So, they shouldn't pay more because they can afford to. They should pay more because it's a relatively inexpensive way to make sure their product doesn't continue to suck or get worse. So they don't lose business.

[delusions of grandeur]

I never said it wasn't a big deal. Those are your words, not mine. But I do not think the owners of any venture should simply cave because they can afford it. That's just stupid.

 

Why do you not blame the refs? You think they should get everything they want apparently. I find that curious.

 

Actually your exact words were "big deal" that they're temporarily ticking off their paying customers.

 

And no, unlike you, I don't have a dog in this fight. It's a negotiation where both sides have to find acceptable middle ground. I was simply disputing your point that they're asking more than they're "worth", which I think is at least debateable after it's been shown how the product clearly suffers without them.

 

Anyways, I know you won't be changing your pro-owner opinion, so I won't waste my energy....

[Cunning Runt]

I think you and others feel that those who bring up how relatively small the money is compared to what the league makes thinks that's where the argument ends. As if that is reason enough to just pay them more because, "why not? They have the money." And, were that the case, you'd be right. If, for instance, the people selling hot dogs wanted a raise, even if it was even smaller compared to what the officials want, the NFL could, quite likely, tell them to take a hike and never miss a beat. So, it's not just how small the amount of money is.

 

It's how small the amount of money is compared to how important the people are who are asking for it. And, if the last few weeks are any indication, they're worth plenty. So, they shouldn't pay more because they can afford to. They should pay more because it's a relatively inexpensive way to make sure their product doesn't continue to suck or get worse. So they don't lose business.

 

 

Here's where I see the flaw in what you said. They won't lose business. People may moan and groan, but they won't lose a nickel on the replacement aspect and as soon as the regulars are back, under terms satisfactory to ownership, the replacement official thing will be nothing more than a footnote.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

That's just not a good way to conduct business. The NFL has temporarily ticked people off. Nothing more. Big deal.

 

The union officials want more than they're worth. Pensions? Gimme a break. These dudes are part timers and still make plenty of coin. Plus the NFL will contribute up to $38,500 annually into their 401k plans, but they want a pension too. The bad officiating is what it is, but methinks the refs are at fault, not the owners.

 

 

I thought there was a 20-24K cap on 401K ????

[Cunning Runt]

 

Actually your exact words were "big deal" that they're temporarily ticking off their paying customers.

 

And no, unlike you, I don't have a dog in this fight. It's a negotiation where both sides have to find acceptable middle ground. I was simply disputing your point that they're asking more than they're "worth", which I think is at least debateable after it's been shown how the product clearly suffers without them.

 

Anyways, I know you won't be changing your pro-owner opinion, so I won't waste my energy....

 

 

No worries. I am curious though, what dog exactly you think I have in this fight. I have none. Just an opinion like everyone else does.

[Cunning Runt]

 

 

I thought there was a 20-24K cap on 401K ????

 

 

Regurgitating what they said on Sirius Monday morning.

 

I know personal contributions are capped, I thought at $16,500. Are employer contributions capped?

[delusions of grandeur]

Here's where I see the flaw in what you said. They won't lose business. People may moan and groan, but they won't lose a nickel on the replacement aspect and as soon as the regulars are back, under terms satisfactory to ownership, the replacement official thing will be nothing more than a footnote.

 

And that attitude is exactly why I will never be pro-owner, if you put your bottom-line above keeping your customers and employees happy to still make boatloads of money.

 

It's truly sad the way many companies treat the customer nowadays, just because they have them by the balls with something they want.

[delusions of grandeur]

No worries. I am curious though, what dog exactly you think I have in this fight. I have none. Just an opinion like everyone else does.

 

 

Dude, no offense, but you make Bronco Billy look pro-union.

[Cunning Runt]

 

And that attitude is exactly why I will never be pro-owner, if you put your bottom-line above keeping your customers and employees happy to still make boatloads of money.

 

It's truly sad the way many companies treat the customer nowadays, just because they have them by the balls with something they want.

 

 

I understand.

 

Cable companies are the same. We as consumers can choose another sport, or whatever, but we won't and they know it. Who's to blame for that? We, as consumers are.

[Cunning Runt]

 

 

Dude, no offense, but you make Bronco Billy look pro-union.

 

 

I don't know what his position is, but I am very anti-union. No doubt about it.

[Replacement Referee]

What exactly do you mean "real officials" ???

 

You'll miss me when I'm gone.

[awahl63]

Here's where I see the flaw in what you said. They won't lose business. People may moan and groan, but they won't lose a nickel on the replacement aspect and as soon as the regulars are back, under terms satisfactory to ownership, the replacement official thing will be nothing more than a footnote.

 

 

I guarantee that the demand for the NFL is not as inelastic as you think. If they keep this up they will slowly lose revenue. It will be very hard to quantify but it's very clear that nationwide pretty much everyone has noticed a deterioration in the product. We all keep watching as we hope Goodell and the owners pull their heads out of their collective arses but if this continues I know for sure that I will watch less football.

 

Consider the MNF game between the Falcons/Broncos

 

I had players on both teams (for and against) and lost interest in the first half and turned off the game because the pace was TERRIBLY slow.

 

While YOU may not see that as revenue LOST, over time, other fans like me will (or have already) do the same.

 

Once again, the demand for the NFL is not quite as inelastic as you would like to believe.

[delusions of grandeur]

I understand.

 

Cable companies are the same. We as consumers can choose another sport, or whatever, but we won't and they know it. Who's to blame for that? We, as consumers are.

 

That is just silly to say that consumers are to blame for companies exploiting demand, especially in markets where they have a collective or sole monopoly.

 

However, I do agree to some extent, it applies to politics as well, that we as citizens need to demand more from those we have vested interest in, but it is really nothing more than an "illusion of choice".

 

So basically my choices are, watch my college team get screwed out of a title chance because of bias and them refusing to cater to a vast majority's demand for a playoff, watch my NFL team get screwed by replacement refs (neither of which is going to change much as long as long as people want to watch football), or don't watch at all. Wow, I'm so glad I have such awesome choices.

 

There has to be MUCH much more outrage to be able to actually organize a meaningful boycott or protest, so no, unless it gets to that point, then they're absolutely exploiting the inelastic demand, and it absolutely isn't the consumers' fault. We aren't a collective decision-maker like they are.

Edited September 26, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[Cunning Runt]

 

 

I guarantee that the demand for the NFL is not as inelastic as you think. If they keep this up they will slowly lose revenue. It will be very hard to quantify but it's very clear that nationwide pretty much everyone has noticed a deterioration in the product. We all keep watching as we hope Goodell and the owners pull their heads out of their collective arses but if this continues I know for sure that I will watch less football.

 

Consider the MNF game between the Falcons/Broncos

 

I had players on both teams (for and against) and lost interest in the first half and turned off the game because the pace was TERRIBLY slow.

 

While YOU may not see that as revenue LOST, over time, other fans like me will (or have already) do the same.

 

Once again, the demand for the NFL is not quite as inelastic as you would like to believe.

 

 

Hell, I hardly watch football as it is, and I subscribe to two message boards. I was away from the house Sunday. Wanna know what I DVR'd? The Tour Championship. Will only be watching any NFL on Sunday when the Ryder Cup is on commercial break or concluded.

 

But I digress. I do put most of this on the refs, not the owners.

[Replacement Referee]

Brett Favre has to be jealous at the attention that I am getting. #Trending #Popular

[Cunning Runt]

 

That is just silly to say that consumers are to blame for companies exploiting demand, especially in markets where they have a collective or sole monopoly.

 

However, I do agree to some extent, it applies to politics as well, that we as citizens need to demand more from those we have vested interest in, but it is really nothing more than an "illusion of choice".

 

So basically my choices are, watch my college team get screwed out of a title chance because of bias and them refusing to cater to a vast majority's demand for a playoff, watch my NFL team get screwed by replacement refs (neither of which is going to change much as long as long as people want to watch football), or don't watch at all. Wow, I'm so glad I have such awesome choices.

 

There has to be MUCH much more outrage to be able to actually organize a meaningful boycott or protest, so no, unless it gets to that point, then they're absolutely exploiting the inelastic demand, and it absolutely isn't the consumers' fault. We aren't a collective decision-maker like they are.

 

 

It IS our fault in the sense that we continue to demand their product despite the slights they impart upon us. Until and unless the NFL saw actual harm due to customers leaving, they're going to continue to do as they always have done.

[Whiskey Pimp]

Maybe a sponsor or two should bail on some of the advertising dollars to prove the point.

[Big John]

Brett Favre has to be jealous at the attention that I am getting. #Trending #Popular

 

http://piczilike.blogspot.com/2012/09/nfl-replacement-refs-meme-brett-favre.html#.UGNhn64fjZg

[Square]

No worries. I am curious though, what dog exactly you think I have in this fight. I have none. Just an opinion like everyone else does.

Everyone knows who you are backing. Doesn't matter the issue, terms, or details. You're a broken record on the subject. You just place rationale with "my opinion".