Grits and Shins Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 If you made more money in one year than the average workers makes in his lifetime, yes. 837275[/snapback] The amount of money made in one year is irrelevant. If you expected to be employed for 10+ years and your career ended unexpectedly and you ended up on skid row. Is it your fault for not planning ahead? You see if you expect to be employeed for 10 years what you do with your money in the first year is very different than if you expect a shorter career. In that first year you buy a nice house, nice cars, nice clothes and eat well ... fully expecting that you will continue to enjoy your salary for the next 10 years. There is time to plan for the future as you come nearer to the end of your career. So when your career is cut short, is it or is it not YOUR fault for not planning ahead. The amount of money made is totally irrelevant to the question. When you got your first job out of college at, let's say $50K per year, did you set aside a large portion of that salary for the future? Or did you perhaps go in debt and buy a house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I've noticed that there are two arguements going around that I think are exclusive of each other. How many times have you heard each of the following: 1- Terrell Owens (or anyone else) signed a contract. If he didn't like it, he should not have signed it. 2- Kevin Winslow Jr. (or anyone else) should not hold out for that much money, he's not yet worth it. I can't see how we can have it both ways. You can say KW is full of himself thinking he's worth that much before playing a down, but once he signs, the other arguement is what is used to make him look bad. TO signed a contract and, after having a great year, wants to be rewarded beyond what he signed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of either player, but I can't really see making a big deal out of both. Only one should be 'wrong'. If I had to pick, I think I like T.O.'s approach a little better. You usually hear 'put up or shut up'. He's put up big time. I'm not saying Philly should give him a new monster deal, but maybe something is deserving. Perhaps the same contract with a roster bonus or new performance insentives. Just my $0.02. 836964[/snapback] I don't get this: one is a negotiation FOR a contract. The other is violating said contract agreed to and signed. The MLB union has leveraged guaranteed contracts, the NFLPA has not. That's why NFL owners get to cut guys the way they do: it's been agreed to already, and that context is what the negotiations are made in. TO should honor his contract he knew what he was signing and frankly no doubt believes in his ability to put up high numbers in the future. He probably also believed that when he negotiated with Philly last year so holding out now after he's 'proved his value' or whatever is bogus. He should have signed a shorter contract last year, or take it like a man. KW2 held out for his contract, and has arguably not honored it with his motorcycle accident, which is why the Browns can potentially recoup some ca$hola. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZDoesit Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Back to the topic starter....The fact that the owners do not have to honor contracts while the players are expected to is a non-issue, because the player's union agreed to these terms. The question is why would/should the eagles re-do Owens' contract? There were only two teams competing for the rights to aquire him... partly because of salary cap restrictions, but I think mostly because he's a pain in the ARSE !! Because of those reasons, he was only offered the contract that he was offered. He was warned by his player's union that the contract could be a two years and cut scenario, but that's the chance you take as a player..the guy didn't think he could get a better deal from the ravens, so he chose the city of brotherly shove... Now he's on the eagles and he's had this great year....that's great. But the eagles have advanced to the championship game the last few years without the guy and he doesn't help them win this one. I know..I know..he helped them to that gaudy record...but that conference stunk to high heaven last year....I think the eagles without TO would have been able to go to ATLANTA and beat that team in the conference final if they had to. Here comes the super bowl....he played great of course.... but everybody knows that the pats made a decision before the game to concentrate on stopping westbrook and keep mcnaab contained. Owens is a great receiver, but he was allowed to do what he did against the pats. Oh, I think he made them nervous by being more nimble than they thought he would be...he managed to shake some of that SINGLE coverage to make a couple of big plays.... But in the end, he did not factor in the outcome of the game. In a big game, it's rarely the receiver that does that. Lineplay/QB play and the running game. You can't break the bank because the guy had a big game in the superbowl, partly because he was seen as the least of two possible evils by the opposition. He's got NO leverage...is he gonna NOT play?.....he's getting older and another year from losing that step that seperates him from most of the rest. He should have gotten a better deal the first time... The eagles will not and should not budge..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The amount of money made in one year is irrelevant. If you expected to be employed for 10+ years and your career ended unexpectedly and you ended up on skid row. 837282[/snapback] How many former NFL players end up on skid row due to injuries or not being able to perform up to NFL standards? My guess is very few. The majority that do end up broke after NFL retirement are in that situation because they didn't invest their money wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunysteelfly76 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The amount of money made in one year is irrelevant. If you expected to be employed for 10+ years and your career ended unexpectedly and you ended up on skid row. Is it your fault for not planning ahead? You see if you expect to be employeed for 10 years what you do with your money in the first year is very different than if you expect a shorter career. In that first year you buy a nice house, nice cars, nice clothes and eat well ... fully expecting that you will continue to enjoy your salary for the next 10 years. There is time to plan for the future as you come nearer to the end of your career. So when your career is cut short, is it or is it not YOUR fault for not planning ahead. The amount of money made is totally irrelevant to the question. When you got your first job out of college at, let's say $50K per year, did you set aside a large portion of that salary for the future? Or did you perhaps go in debt and buy a house? 837282[/snapback] When in a profession where it is likely your career could suddenly be over at any moment, it would be prudent to plan ahead before you splurge. As a teacher, my career is not inherently dangerous so it is much more reasonable for me to assume a long career. Also, I do not make enough money in one year to sustain me for the rest of my life. Elite athletes do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 How many former NFL players end up on skid row due to injuries or not being able to perform up to NFL standards? My guess is very few. The majority that do end up broke after NFL retirement are in that situation because they didn't invest their money wisely. 837293[/snapback] Completely agree. I can state with utter certainty that if I had a 5 year career in the NFL at $850k a year, I would never be broke again. Not a chance. If they spend it all on posses, bling and other crap, F them, it's their problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Completely agree. I can state with utter certainty that if I had a 5 year career in the NFL at $850k a year, I would never be broke again. Not a chance. If they spend it all on posses, bling and other crap, F them, it's their problem. 837325[/snapback] You say this only because you have had to live on 50K per year. A professional football player enters the "real world" making tons of money ... in your shoes you do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 (edited) You say this only because you have had to live on 50K per year. A professional football player enters the "real world" making tons of money ... in your shoes you do the same. 837332[/snapback] Then NFL players need to be educated in fiscal responsibility. I thought that the league had "seminars" for incoming rookies about this and other issues (like drug use, steroids, etc.). Perhaps more emphasis needs to be put on this. But it's most certainly NOT the league's fault that players spend money like complete idiots. And guaranteed contracts aren't the solution to that. Edited June 10, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 (edited) You say this only because you have had to live on 50K per year. A professional football player enters the "real world" making tons of money ... in your shoes you do the same. 837332[/snapback] This crap. Again, was never like this and only the 'Hollywood' attitude has made this happen now. Andy Nelson's BBQ, Unitas' old bowling alleys, Tom Mitchells Golf, Gino's (purchased by KFC), Ray Lewis' restaurant. Not to mention some guy (Jerry Richardson) who QUIT the game after winning a championship because he wasn't making what he wanted. Took his playoff bonus, purchased a hamburger stand, purchased a few more, got a Hardees, a few Denny's and then the Carlolina Panthers. I guess if Johnny Bling Bling spends his $3 million bonus in two years and can't hold his job down, I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? Welfare for ex NFL players. [cartman]Democrats piss me off[/carman] Edited June 10, 2005 by Big Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soloArtist Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 people complaining about how much players make need to stop the hating. the reason YOU don't make that much money is because YOU don't bring in that much money. it's very simple. We live in a caplist society, where our economy is based on supply & demand. these players are responsible for bringing in billions of dollars annually, they deserve to be paid a percentage of that. now, if they blow all that money away and then lose thier jobs, well, that's thier fault. I agree with that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 [cartman]Democrats piss me off[/carman] 837378[/snapback] 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.