There are 79 users in the forums
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Post on Google+
- Post on LinkedIn
- Post on Digg
- Post on Delicious
- Post on StumbleUpon
- Post on Reddit
- Post on Tumblr
Who is most at fault for this CBA mess?
Who is most at fault for this CBA mess?
Mar 12, 2011 at 09:38:28
#1
- fryet
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,485
Mar 12, 2011 at 09:40:39
#2
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,470
it is obviously still, and will always be, the owners fault. they started this mess. if it weren't for them, we would be having free agency discussions right now.
Mar 12, 2011 at 09:42:35
#3
- jreff22
- Veteran
- Posts: 33,404
both
Mar 12, 2011 at 09:51:11
#4
- fryet
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,485
Yes, I can see how the owners did start things by opting out of the existing CBA (which was legal). However, it is my understanding that football players get a larger share of the pie than other professional sports. In addition, they are taking a long term view of the game, and the fact that they have old stadiums that need to be replaced. As 49er fans, we should know this better than anyone. I have never understood why it is the cities that have to pay even part of the bill to build a new stadium when football is such a profitable buisiness. The NFL should finance the total cost of their stadiums. The owners proposal puts them a step closer to doing so.
It should also be noted that the owners seemed to be moving much closer to the players requirements than the players moved to the owners. It appears that the players believe their position is stronger, and I suspect that they are right, since the courts seem to side with them.
It should also be noted that the owners seemed to be moving much closer to the players requirements than the players moved to the owners. It appears that the players believe their position is stronger, and I suspect that they are right, since the courts seem to side with them.
Mar 12, 2011 at 10:14:22
#5
- Paul_Hofer
- Veteran
- Posts: 1,584
Originally posted by fryet:
Yes, I can see how the owners did start things by opting out of the existing CBA (which was legal). However, it is my understanding that football players get a larger share of the pie than other professional sports. In addition, they are taking a long term view of the game, and the fact that they have old stadiums that need to be replaced. As 49er fans, we should know this better than anyone. I have never understood why it is the cities that have to pay even part of the bill to build a new stadium when football is such a profitable buisiness. The NFL should finance the total cost of their stadiums. The owners proposal puts them a step closer to doing so.
It should also be noted that the owners seemed to be moving much closer to the players requirements than the players moved to the owners. It appears that the players believe their position is stronger, and I suspect that they are right, since the courts seem to side with them.
It is the owners that compete against each other to pay such high salaries. Owners agreed to the previous CBA, now they want to cut back on that agreement. If your boss wanted to cut your pay after signing a contract with you, wouldn't you think it was the boss's fault?
Mar 12, 2011 at 10:48:46
#6
- dj43
- Veteran
- Posts: 19,166
Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:Yes owners did agree to higher salaries but the players, or should I say their agents, were equally culpable in that effort. Agents, perhaps more so than players, drove some very tough bargains on the owners. The union also pushed for these higher salaries. On many occasions we have heard players say they were holding out for higher salaries to set the bar higher for their fellow players. There often appeared to be a concerted effort on the part of players to press for higher salaries.Originally posted by fryet:
Yes, I can see how the owners did start things by opting out of the existing CBA (which was legal). However, it is my understanding that football players get a larger share of the pie than other professional sports. In addition, they are taking a long term view of the game, and the fact that they have old stadiums that need to be replaced. As 49er fans, we should know this better than anyone. I have never understood why it is the cities that have to pay even part of the bill to build a new stadium when football is such a profitable buisiness. The NFL should finance the total cost of their stadiums. The owners proposal puts them a step closer to doing so.
It should also be noted that the owners seemed to be moving much closer to the players requirements than the players moved to the owners. It appears that the players believe their position is stronger, and I suspect that they are right, since the courts seem to side with them.
It is the owners that compete against each other to pay such high salaries. Owners agreed to the previous CBA, now they want to cut back on that agreement. If your boss wanted to cut your pay after signing a contract with you, wouldn't you think it was the boss's fault?
On a separate note, as said above, if owners are to be now solely responsible for building new stadiums rather than local government participation, that changes things from where they were 10 years ago when communities did chip in as a way to draw jobs and tax revenue to the area. Now that dynamic has changed totally. Jerry'w World has set a new standard for stadiums that will be the measuring stick for other owners. This puts a great deal more pressure on the owners to raise money to update or re-build old stadiums. These changing economic times demand a review of the overall operating basis. As has been shown, these new facilities generate more revenue from which to pay players, however, in order to get this revenue they must spend some money, money which the league does not have at this point. Hence, it is in the best interest of the players to give up something in order to help produce a better overall product.
As this point, given the unyielding position that DeMaurice Smith has taken on just about every issue, I am somewhat on the side of the owners. The owners are the ones that have given up the most ground in an attempt to reach a resolution. The union has dug in their heels and given little.
Mar 12, 2011 at 11:29:31
#7
- ChaunceyGardner
- Veteran
- Posts: 11,721
Mar 12, 2011 at 11:33:49
#8
- boomer49er
- Veteran
- Posts: 11,822
Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:Yes owners did agree to higher salaries but the players, or should I say their agents, were equally culpable in that effort. Agents, perhaps more so than players, drove some very tough bargains on the owners. The union also pushed for these higher salaries. On many occasions we have heard players say they were holding out for higher salaries to set the bar higher for their fellow players. There often appeared to be a concerted effort on the part of players to press for higher salaries.Originally posted by fryet:
Yes, I can see how the owners did start things by opting out of the existing CBA (which was legal). However, it is my understanding that football players get a larger share of the pie than other professional sports. In addition, they are taking a long term view of the game, and the fact that they have old stadiums that need to be replaced. As 49er fans, we should know this better than anyone. I have never understood why it is the cities that have to pay even part of the bill to build a new stadium when football is such a profitable buisiness. The NFL should finance the total cost of their stadiums. The owners proposal puts them a step closer to doing so.
It should also be noted that the owners seemed to be moving much closer to the players requirements than the players moved to the owners. It appears that the players believe their position is stronger, and I suspect that they are right, since the courts seem to side with them.
It is the owners that compete against each other to pay such high salaries. Owners agreed to the previous CBA, now they want to cut back on that agreement. If your boss wanted to cut your pay after signing a contract with you, wouldn't you think it was the boss's fault?
On a separate note, as said above, if owners are to be now solely responsible for building new stadiums rather than local government participation, that changes things from where they were 10 years ago when communities did chip in as a way to draw jobs and tax revenue to the area. Now that dynamic has changed totally. Jerry'w World has set a new standard for stadiums that will be the measuring stick for other owners. This puts a great deal more pressure on the owners to raise money to update or re-build old stadiums. These changing economic times demand a review of the overall operating basis. As has been shown, these new facilities generate more revenue from which to pay players, however, in order to get this revenue they must spend some money, money which the league does not have at this point. Hence, it is in the best interest of the players to give up something in order to help produce a better overall product.
As this point, given the unyielding position that DeMaurice Smith has taken on just about every issue, I am somewhat on the side of the owners. The owners are the ones that have given up the most ground in an attempt to reach a resolution. The union has dug in their heels and given little.
The players can only get paid what the owners are willing to pay them. If the owners are so concerned about how hight he saleries are getting they should reign in the owners out there who are paying record breaking contracts to overrated players. If Dan Snyder is going to pay every FA that come sup $100 million why is it the players fault?
Mar 12, 2011 at 11:35:29
#9
- Lifer
- Veteran
- Posts: 926
Einstein said "The difference between stupidity and genius is that stupidity has no limit." Human greed is one of the many forms of human stupidity and, indeed, there is no limit. What we're going to see over the next weeks or months is a bunch of very rich people squabbling over their piece of a very big pie.
We're talking about nine billion dollars here. There's plenty for everybody and an equitable solution could be found if people were willing to back down just a little bit. But they won't. People never back down when there's money involved. They'll push it until they've reached a crisis point, there's no way out, and they're FORCED to back down. Then they'll end up accepting a compromise that they could've come to yesterday, if they'd only been willing. This is how it always works.
It's not the owner's fault or the player's fault. It's ALL of them. For the fans to side with one group or the other just makes the fans a part of the stupidity. There's not going to be a winner or a loser in this battle. There's just going to be a compromise in the end. The pie will be divvied up a little bit differently and all the rich boys will go back to their fabulous houses and their cars that cost twice your annual salary.
We're talking about nine billion dollars here. There's plenty for everybody and an equitable solution could be found if people were willing to back down just a little bit. But they won't. People never back down when there's money involved. They'll push it until they've reached a crisis point, there's no way out, and they're FORCED to back down. Then they'll end up accepting a compromise that they could've come to yesterday, if they'd only been willing. This is how it always works.
It's not the owner's fault or the player's fault. It's ALL of them. For the fans to side with one group or the other just makes the fans a part of the stupidity. There's not going to be a winner or a loser in this battle. There's just going to be a compromise in the end. The pie will be divvied up a little bit differently and all the rich boys will go back to their fabulous houses and their cars that cost twice your annual salary.
Mar 12, 2011 at 12:36:41
#10
- luv49rs
- Veteran
- Posts: 40,806
Originally posted by Lifer:
Einstein said "The difference between stupidity and genius is that stupidity has no limit." Human greed is one of the many forms of human stupidity and, indeed, there is no limit. What we're going to see over the next weeks or months is a bunch of very rich people squabbling over their piece of a very big pie.
We're talking about nine billion dollars here. There's plenty for everybody and an equitable solution could be found if people were willing to back down just a little bit. But they won't. People never back down when there's money involved. They'll push it until they've reached a crisis point, there's no way out, and they're FORCED to back down. Then they'll end up accepting a compromise that they could've come to yesterday, if they'd only been willing. This is how it always works.
It's not the owner's fault or the player's fault. It's ALL of them. For the fans to side with one group or the other just makes the fans a part of the stupidity. There's not going to be a winner or a loser in this battle. There's just going to be a compromise in the end. The pie will be divvied up a little bit differently and all the rich boys will go back to their fabulous houses and their cars that cost twice your annual salary.
Mar 12, 2011 at 13:17:43
#11
- LundyLove
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,594
As I see things so far I tend to side with the billionaires over the millionaires just due to a couple of reasons
1. The Owners ( however they hide their money) have the right to spend their hard earned or inherited money the way they see fit..I would do the same thing in their shoes..if I had a team and could save 250 mill by giving money to a niece to watch the yardage markers every week I would and you would too..the players have no right to demand 10 years of "opening the books"..the IRS can't even demand that...they can only go back 7..why the hell would the NFLPA?
2. The Owners took it in the shorts under Paul Tagliboob when they signed off on the last threat of work stoppage and the players got the better deal..they had the right to opt out of the deal and they did first chance they got...they should get the oppurtunity to make back that money..it wasn't about stadium funds drying up that caused this threat, it was the idea that they didn't want this to happen in 2006 and we got 4 years of good football revenue..the players got more in that time frame than any other ..so did the rest of the country..now we are in a recession and most Physicians I know are making far less today than 2006 in terms of money in terms of billing and accounts recievable.......why should the NFL NFLPA be any different?
3. It's not a right to work in the NFL..it's a privilige to be able to make that kind of money in a short term setting..no other industry is the standard of money so high in such a short life span..they do " After all, they're just out there taking tons of abuse on their bodies for your enjoyment", but that's a choice they make as far as taking the risks..no one is asking them to do it..why demand more? So they can have it? Not one player is coming on and saying that this is for the guys that played for peanuts back in the day and are giving them a generous portion of their salaries..the Owners are making that possible..and some owners were not even owners during those players heyday but are ok with paying some of their pensions, I don't hear the players saying anything but we want to keep what's we won..
Long and short is every time I see Demaurice Smith on a podium in his anger, I see a moron trying to keep control of something that's not his...the spokesman for the NFLPA is articulate and proffessional and Smith sounds like a idiot..
1. The Owners ( however they hide their money) have the right to spend their hard earned or inherited money the way they see fit..I would do the same thing in their shoes..if I had a team and could save 250 mill by giving money to a niece to watch the yardage markers every week I would and you would too..the players have no right to demand 10 years of "opening the books"..the IRS can't even demand that...they can only go back 7..why the hell would the NFLPA?
2. The Owners took it in the shorts under Paul Tagliboob when they signed off on the last threat of work stoppage and the players got the better deal..they had the right to opt out of the deal and they did first chance they got...they should get the oppurtunity to make back that money..it wasn't about stadium funds drying up that caused this threat, it was the idea that they didn't want this to happen in 2006 and we got 4 years of good football revenue..the players got more in that time frame than any other ..so did the rest of the country..now we are in a recession and most Physicians I know are making far less today than 2006 in terms of money in terms of billing and accounts recievable.......why should the NFL NFLPA be any different?
3. It's not a right to work in the NFL..it's a privilige to be able to make that kind of money in a short term setting..no other industry is the standard of money so high in such a short life span..they do " After all, they're just out there taking tons of abuse on their bodies for your enjoyment", but that's a choice they make as far as taking the risks..no one is asking them to do it..why demand more? So they can have it? Not one player is coming on and saying that this is for the guys that played for peanuts back in the day and are giving them a generous portion of their salaries..the Owners are making that possible..and some owners were not even owners during those players heyday but are ok with paying some of their pensions, I don't hear the players saying anything but we want to keep what's we won..
Long and short is every time I see Demaurice Smith on a podium in his anger, I see a moron trying to keep control of something that's not his...the spokesman for the NFLPA is articulate and proffessional and Smith sounds like a idiot..
Mar 12, 2011 at 13:20:53
#12
- Snider8706
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,905
demaurice smith and his stupid ass face.
Mar 12, 2011 at 13:24:53
#13
- 49ERGLENN
- Veteran
- Posts: 5,456
Originally posted by fryet:
I asked this poll a few weeks ago, but with the latest info coming from the failed talks, I am curious to see if support has changed. Also, I took away the option of blaming both of them - who do you think is the greater villain here?
You need another category, BOTH! This is what I posted in Ninertalk and it works here also!
Try greedy a$$ owners and players, no one is blameless here. They both want to get this into court! The players because they believe Judge Doty will rule for them and the Owners because they want this before the U.S. Supreme Court where they believe the Roberts led court will rule for them. This is strictly greed between Millionaires and Billionaires! None of the Players or Owners give a damn about the fans, it's all about money baby and that's all it's ever been about! You may not see football in some form until October or maybe not at all this season unless both sides wake up and see that they are killing the game equally!
Mar 12, 2011 at 13:28:24
#14
- NC49erfan82
- Veteran
- Posts: 11,009
Originally posted by 49ERGLENN:Originally posted by fryet:
I asked this poll a few weeks ago, but with the latest info coming from the failed talks, I am curious to see if support has changed. Also, I took away the option of blaming both of them - who do you think is the greater villain here?
You need another category, BOTH! This is what I posted in Ninertalk and it works here also!
Try greedy a$$ owners and players, no one is blameless here. They both want to get this into court! The players because they believe Judge Doty will rule for them and the Owners because they want this before the U.S. Supreme Court where they believe the Roberts led court will rule for them. This is strictly greed between Millionaires and Billionaires! None of the Players or Owners give a damn about the fans, it's all about money baby and that's all it's ever been about! You may not see football in some form until October or maybe not at all this season unless both sides wake up and see that they are killing the game equally!
I am right there with you man. You could have not said it better.
Mar 12, 2011 at 13:39:50
#15
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,470
Deadspin: the real villains of the NFL Lockout
*there is a prominent NSFW word if you follow that link.
*there is a prominent NSFW word if you follow that link.
Make no mistake, if you don't get to watch football next fall, it will be because 31 rich a*****es (and whatever cheese-and-sausage co-op owns the Packers) have decided that they aren't rich enough. Period. Think about that. Think of everything that will be impacted simply for the sake of these 31 people. The Jets are already getting set to give their coaching staff pay cuts. By the time the fall rolls around, there could be massive layoffs across all teams: secretaries, equipment managers, trainers, everyone. People who are decidedly NOT wealthy and who stand to gain nothing from any of these talks. That's all the fault of Jerry Richardson and his ilk.
You only need to see the topline of U.S District Judge David Doty's TV ruling to know the owners are the vile pieces of s**t responsible for this work stoppage. Or, better yet, read it straight from Roger Goodell's desk. Witness just how poor of a job Goodell does trying to convince you the players are to blame for this potential disaster.
Staying with the status quo is not an option.
You had record ratings, made billions of dollars, and established yourself as the dominant force in televised entertainment. So you're going to have to do better than, "Well, it's the same s**t!" to convince me this deal currently puts you in dire straits.
The union has repeatedly said that it hasn't asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side.
That's a f**king pathetic argument. "Hey, one side is happy with the deal. IT MUST BE UNFAIR!"
You can read the rest of Goodell's letter for yourself. He also says that the league "needs" new stadiums in Minneapolis, San Diego, Buffalo, and L.A. That's a bald-faced lie. The NFL doesn't NEED new stadiums at all. It won't become financially unviable just because the Bills are still eating ass in Orchard Park a decade from now. It WANTS new stadiums, and it wants the players to help pay for them. And while I'm all for making as much money as you can, I'm not all for it if it means dicking everyone out of football for two years just because you can get away with it.
Regardless of how this s**t plays out, starting tonight, this is all 100 percent the owners' fault. Maybe you'll grow tempted to start blaming the players equally as this thing drags out, but you shouldn't. This isn't like 1994, when baseball shut down because it had both a*****e owners and a players union that didn't even want drug testing and initiated the labor conflict by putting down their bats and striking in the middle of the season. This is different. This was premeditated and instigated by the NFL owners. And while Goodell may continually try and spin it otherwise as we go on (no doubt with help from his accordion monkey Peter King), and while some people might start buying into joint blame, I won't. And neither should you. The players are cool. The owners are worthless titblisters. There's no need for even-handedness here.
You only need to see the topline of U.S District Judge David Doty's TV ruling to know the owners are the vile pieces of s**t responsible for this work stoppage. Or, better yet, read it straight from Roger Goodell's desk. Witness just how poor of a job Goodell does trying to convince you the players are to blame for this potential disaster.
Staying with the status quo is not an option.
You had record ratings, made billions of dollars, and established yourself as the dominant force in televised entertainment. So you're going to have to do better than, "Well, it's the same s**t!" to convince me this deal currently puts you in dire straits.
The union has repeatedly said that it hasn't asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side.
That's a f**king pathetic argument. "Hey, one side is happy with the deal. IT MUST BE UNFAIR!"
You can read the rest of Goodell's letter for yourself. He also says that the league "needs" new stadiums in Minneapolis, San Diego, Buffalo, and L.A. That's a bald-faced lie. The NFL doesn't NEED new stadiums at all. It won't become financially unviable just because the Bills are still eating ass in Orchard Park a decade from now. It WANTS new stadiums, and it wants the players to help pay for them. And while I'm all for making as much money as you can, I'm not all for it if it means dicking everyone out of football for two years just because you can get away with it.
Regardless of how this s**t plays out, starting tonight, this is all 100 percent the owners' fault. Maybe you'll grow tempted to start blaming the players equally as this thing drags out, but you shouldn't. This isn't like 1994, when baseball shut down because it had both a*****e owners and a players union that didn't even want drug testing and initiated the labor conflict by putting down their bats and striking in the middle of the season. This is different. This was premeditated and instigated by the NFL owners. And while Goodell may continually try and spin it otherwise as we go on (no doubt with help from his accordion monkey Peter King), and while some people might start buying into joint blame, I won't. And neither should you. The players are cool. The owners are worthless titblisters. There's no need for even-handedness here.
©1997-2013 49erswebzone.com. Part of Skybox 360 Media, LLC
