Rick Reilly & Bill Simmons Articles-about CBA

Originally posted by jimrat201:

Originally posted by Amir_Mamu:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Quote:
Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

fuhhhhhhh,,

Dude co-founded Microsoft, what else would you expect. He didn't get all that money from owning the Seahawks.

Thats a Battleship not a yacht

seriously what the hell does he use the two submarines for?

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:

Originally posted by jimrat201:

Originally posted by Amir_Mamu:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Quote:
Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

fuhhhhhhh,,

Dude co-founded Microsoft, what else would you expect. He didn't get all that money from owning the Seahawks.

Thats a Battleship not a yacht

seriously what the hell does he use the two submarines for?

To drive around underwater. Duh.

I only read the Simmons article.

I'm having a hard time seeing the owners in a negative light. Everything he alludes to regarding the owners...they have earned. They earned the ability to have leverage. They were far-sighted enough to plan their leverage. That's business.

People may want to make an ethical debate about player health and not paying players, etc. That's fine. But that is the risk of being a player. None of this is a surprise. And if it is, the union has done a disservice to the people who comprise it.

Players ARE replaceable. I'm sorry. Only a miniscule few are household names. Why is that so hard for people to understand? That's life. Mind you, these "peons" get paid a MINIMUM of hundreds of thousands of dollars as a vet.

The owners earned their leverage. The union could have seen this coming years ago, just as the owners did. But the union did next to nothing to improve it's situation.

People try to turn this into a "David and Goliath" or some warped underdog story. Americans love an underdog, we need to pick a dog in the fight. But at one time, most of these owners were underdogs too. They understand the value of leverage. They went out of their way to get it. If a judge handicaps that, that's fine. But the owners will win in the long run. They always do.

You can always tell who has a better position by analyzing the options. All of the options at the union's disposal are 100% reactionary. Not progressive. Hardly an enviable negotiating position.

Owners will get 18 games (this deal or next). They will not open their books. Doing so gives up nearly all of their leverage...today and henceforth. They will get a rookie wage scale (this deal or next). And they will likely continue to be the more business savvy and progressive of the two parties. You have a bunch of self made millionaires (and billionaires) up against a handful of highly touted attorneys. The seasoned and successful biz guy will win that negotiation 9 out of 10 times.

When a deal is struck (regardless of terms) people will say the players "won". The only thing they can win is in the court of public opinion. They have the resources (hundreds of direct player to fan contacts) to dominate in that sphere that the owners do not. When a resolution is achieved people will say "man the owners really came down".

That is what we call "anchoring". In negotiations you push extremely heavily for the extreme position, and then "compromise" somewhere in the ZOPA (zone of possible agreement). It allows your counterpart in a highly public negotiation save face.

Let this be clear, the union's primary concern is "winning" in the public's eyes. That's it. Don't get that twisted. The owners, for the most part, don't give a f**k. They care about winning financially. So, they will get ideal terms but allow for areas that get the union street cred. I assure you THAT is what is being discussed at the table.

Rick's latest

There is a valid point he makes in all of this but I think he ruins it all by training to slant his article into owner bashing and trying to get us to feel sorry for fringe players.

I have no problem with players making what they do and I think they have some legitimate concerns and issues in this labor mess but don't expect me to feel sorry for them either.

I mean oh man that poor guy only taking home a little over 200k last year after taxes I just don't know how you could survive on that. Granted he's not buying a fleet of cars or a 20 room mansion with that but that's not exactly one bedroom apartment in the bad side of town and eating instant ramen everyday either.

Also what he seems to fail to mention is that probably all these unfortunate guys here got a free college education for their skills at football. Man what a bad rap on that.

And his line about the guys choosing the lowest paying sport with the lowest amount of years brought me to tears. What a terrible fate they were cursed with to have the opportunity to play in the NFL I mean I totally wouldn't want that for myself or any of my family. Those owners are so vile and evil for making money we should really get the fire and pitchforks out and storm their mansions!

Everyone is trying to make this a good guy/bad guy thing and the fact of the matter it isn't. It's just two sides trying to agree to disagree on what each side is entitled to the big money pie. I have no problem with the players making what they make but I do think the owners have a right to make a respectable profit from their investment. The NFL is still an entity that's all about making money and none of these guys got rich and successful by giving money away and not making sound business decisions.