The Bizarre Cult Of Pro-Owner NFL Fanboys

[detlef]

not in my book, because that is about the dumbest "debate" I can imagine. what the hell difference does it make who deserves our "sympathy and support"? none of them deserve it. but even if any of them DID deserve our sympathy and support, this is not a sympathy contest. winning the PR battle here is utterly pointless. one side can try and cast blame on the other, but assuming they come to an agreement at some point, both sides are selling the exact same product. badmouthing the other side only hurts both sides long term. consumers can't monetarily support the players without supporting the league, and they can't support the league without supporting the players.

 

again, as a football fan, my only barometer for "good" and "bad" in this whole thing is whether it helps lead to an agreement, so that they can play f'ing football. and in that light, this inane PR war is counterproductive. the only positive development I can foresee would be both sides sitting back down at the negotiating table. everything else is stupid, silly noise that just prolongs the impasse.

Already addressed that one. After dozens of times when I made it abundantly clear that both sides are essentially guilty and neither deserves our support, I slipped up and typed the sentence you quoted. My response to the first person who rightfully called me out on that statement is below.

 

But, again, if there is to be a debate, and there most certainly is one. That debate is about picking sides between the two. Would you prefer that every thread on this topic be guys agreeing that we all want football?

 

Fair enough and I've said as much myself. Honestly, I'm ready to call it quits as soon as they are. So, perhaps sympathy and support was a bad choice of words. Well, not perhaps. It was a bad choice of words. I'll rephrase. Who, among these very unsympathetic sides is the worse?

[Azazello1313]

Already addressed that one. After dozens of times when I made it abundantly clear that both sides are essentially guilty and neither deserves our support, I slipped up and typed the sentence you quoted. My response to the first person who rightfully called me out on that statement is below.

 

But, again, if there is to be a debate, and there most certainly is one. That debate is about picking sides between the two. Would you prefer that every thread on this topic be guys agreeing that we all want football?

 

re-wording it doesn't change the gist. you are arguing about which side is more sympathetic, and I am saying that argument is stupid and pointless. winning the PR war isn't going to end this standoff, sitting at the table and negotiating is. if there is any good and bad in this, IMO, it is in one side or the other focusing on winning the PR war (and/or the lawyer war) in lieu of negotiating.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It's actually very different. You're talking about price wars and such where one competitor tries to out last the other. Losing money in the short run but driving a competitor out of business.

 

However, I'm assuming that in 2006, they were in somewhat the same position as 2010 (though not as contested). They needed to work out a new deal as something was about to expire. Why was it strategic to agree to a deal that they thought was bad (assuming that was the case)? How does that help the "end game"?

 

"I know what we'll do. We'll give them the best deal they've ever had. Then, out of the blue, we'll exercise a clause that they know we have and try to get about the same deal we had before we entered into this one. That'll show 'em."

 

Again, unless their plan was to just get something signed, knowing they had this side deal with the networks and figured they could stop business for a year, completely break the players while losing nothing in the process. But, again, I still don't know how giving the players a particularly nice in 2006 would be an important part of that plan.

 

 

It could be that the owners were not prepared to go to the matresses at that time as they knew Jerry Jones needed a stable environment to finance his new palace and the the Jets/Giants needed the same. Didn't we also have new facilities open in Detroit and Indy, or are they not in the right time frame? (I am old and I forget stuff) They may have paid a premium to settle matters quickly so that the fight that was inevitable would come at a time of their chosing, when their financial houses were in better order. (This is all wild speculation on my part. There is nothing I can point to which will back this up. It is just in response to your open-ended speculation, Nothing more.)

Edited June 2, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders