Bronco Billy Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Neither side is "right", there's just two sides fighting for the same thing. You can like one side more than the other, but, going in, you can't make any claims that one side "deserves" to win more than the other. Again you mischaracterize. My position is that under the most recently proposed deal - the one the players walked out of - both sides win. The numbers show it. The only side coming out on the short end of the whole deal are the incoming rookies, who have their salaries scaled to what almost everyone but agents agree is needed. Otherwise, the vets make more as well as getting health care for life and more time off, the owners make more, the retired players make more, and the fans get football back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 So you state above that the fact that the players walked out of negotiations was untrue, and now you admit that the players indeed did walk out. Thank you. Finally. Geez, getting a simple response from you to a simple question is like pulling freakin' teeth Great! You got what you wanted which didn't prove anything. Good for you. Doesn't change the fact that there is no football now, nor in the near future. Doesn't matter who walked out on whom or who locked the doors on whom. Both sides are going to spin this issue into their favor and the Arizona article is an example of the owners doing just that. There are plenty of other examples where the players are doing the same thing. So what! I don't care what the end deal is, I just want it done. Rant over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 So you state above that the fact that the players walked out of negotiations was untrue, and now you admit that the players indeed did walk out. Thank you. Finally. Geez, getting a simple response from you to a simple question is like pulling freakin' teeth Did you read the response you quoted or just the part you wanted to? You asked for "lies and half-truths" and IMO, an owner essentially saying "Sadly the players would rather go to court than negotiate" seems like a rather one-sided account of the situation. And since there's two sides, giving one side would seem like, well, a "half-truth". Again, considering how many questions you've dodged in this on-going debate I think you have no business implying how hard it is to get me to answer a simple question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Did you read the response you quoted or just the part you wanted to? You asked for "lies and half-truths" and IMO, an owner essentially saying "Sadly the players would rather go to court than negotiate" seems like a rather one-sided account of the situation. And since there's two sides, giving one side would seem like, well, a "half-truth". Again, considering how many questions you've dodged in this on-going debate I think you have no business implying how hard it is to get me to answer a simple question. :bye: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Again you mischaracterize. My position is that under the most recently proposed deal - the one the players walked out of - both sides win. The numbers show it. The only side coming out on the short end of the whole deal are the incoming rookies, who have their salaries scaled to what almost everyone but agents agree is needed. Otherwise, the vets make more as well as getting health care for life and more time off, the owners make more, the retired players make more, and the fans get football back. Rookies are vets before their first contract is over. Spin the deal however you want, but at the crux of it, the owners are getting a larger share, with respect to the players, than they are now. Again, maybe they should. I don't know, and you don't know. But the fact that you call this a "win-win" illustrates your unfounded bias. In a negotiation between labor and management. How can an any shift in how the overall pie is divided with respect to those two parties be thought of as "win-win" unless the current situation is not sustainable for either side and thus hinders the health of the business as a whole? And none of us actually know if that is true or not. I mean, it's win-win in as much as both players and owners make a ton of money in this deal, just like they did in the last. In this respect, both sides certainly "win". But I'm going to assume that you're smart enough to realize that "win-win" in that respect is not the same as the "win-win" you're trying to sell us in your above post. So, since I don't think you're stupid, the only logical conclusion is that you have decided the owners are right and the players are wrong. That and you pretend to be privy to facts that none of us have in order to substantiate that stance. Again, I think the rookie salary structure would be the single best new rule for football and actually make the draft do what it is supposed to (because, right now, I think it does the opposite). And, if that was simply it, that it wasn't being used to take money away from the players total cut of the pie, I can't see why either side would argue against it. But it is. And the players would have to be fools not to see that. "We're not taking money away from you guys, we're taking it away from those guys who are about to become you guys." Edited April 11, 2011 by detlef 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.