Who is most at fault for this CBA mess?

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by LundyLove:
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. Do you really believe that NFL belongs to them? They own a franchise of the NFL and do business on NFL regulations. You don't think the NFL, players, not to mention fans should have a say?
2. If Tagliabue made a bad contract, are you saying the owners aren't responsible for the CBA they signed?
3. Everything you say it #3 can be applied to the owners. Isn't the players' privilege earned as much as the owners' privilege?

Did they or did they not spend their own money (probably a billion dollars) to buy a franchise.....

The players do not spend anything to make their money.

Exactly. Players only risk their health and well-being. f**k them.

Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by LundyLove:
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. Do you really believe that NFL belongs to them? They own a franchise of the NFL and do business on NFL regulations. You don't think the NFL, players, not to mention fans should have a say?
2. If Tagliabue made a bad contract, are you saying the owners aren't responsible for the CBA they signed?
3. Everything you say it #3 can be applied to the owners. Isn't the players' privilege earned as much as the owners' privilege?

Did they or did they not spend their own money (probably a billion dollars) to buy a franchise.....

The players do not spend anything to make their money.

Exactly. Players only risk their health and well-being. f**k them.

The last proposal significantly increased health benefits. Of course, they do not have to play football... But they do because they get very well compensated for it.......

nobody is sticking a gun to your head

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by LundyLove:
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. Do you really believe that NFL belongs to them? They own a franchise of the NFL and do business on NFL regulations. You don't think the NFL, players, not to mention fans should have a say?
2. If Tagliabue made a bad contract, are you saying the owners aren't responsible for the CBA they signed?
3. Everything you say it #3 can be applied to the owners. Isn't the players' privilege earned as much as the owners' privilege?

Did they or did they not spend their own money (probably a billion dollars) to buy a franchise.....

The players do not spend anything to make their money.

Exactly. Players only risk their health and well-being. f**k them.

The last proposal significantly increased health benefits. Of course, they do not have to play football... But they do because they get very well compensated for it.......

nobody is sticking a gun to your head

They are to mine!

and Pants is telling me to do unspeakable actions...what do I do?!?

Owners. The only thing that I can support as far as the owners go is that they shouldn't have to open all of there books to the players. Imagine if you demanded that your boss show you everything in his books....you'd be fired.

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by LundyLove:
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. Do you really believe that NFL belongs to them? They own a franchise of the NFL and do business on NFL regulations. You don't think the NFL, players, not to mention fans should have a say?
2. If Tagliabue made a bad contract, are you saying the owners aren't responsible for the CBA they signed?
3. Everything you say it #3 can be applied to the owners. Isn't the players' privilege earned as much as the owners' privilege?

Did they or did they not spend their own money (probably a billion dollars) to buy a franchise.....

The players do not spend anything to make their money.

Exactly. Players only risk their health and well-being. f**k them.

The last proposal significantly increased health benefits. Of course, they do not have to play football... But they do because they get very well compensated for it.......

nobody is sticking a gun to your head

They are to mine!

and Pants is telling me to do unspeakable actions...what do I do?!?

Do them! Quickly, before you realize I'm holding a squirt gun!

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Saying players get 59% of the total revenue is silly. They don't. How could the players get 59% of everything when no one even knows how much the owners make?

they do get 59 of all shared revenue............ that stuff is reporter per the CBA, And, really it doesn;t matter because the owners own the team and the players are just employees,

name another industry where employees get 59 percent of total revenue..... None

The owners signed a bad deal and opted out of it as per their legal right to fix what tagliboob messed up.

Its not like they are not offering a fair compensation.

I'm siding with the owners almost regardless of what the NFLPA proposal looks like. I despise unions...of any type. I despise the notion and mentality that the employees DEMAND certain benefits, pay scale, etc. from the business owners...

NO ONE is making you play football. If you don't like the pay, go work somewhere else. If you don't like the injury risk, go work somewhere else. If you don't like the shortened career with book deals, sports broadcasting and other PR opportunities for life after you retire, go work somewhere else. If you don't like a $500,000/year minimum, go work somewhere else. If you think the owners are making too big a piece of the pie, go work somewhere else.

The owners are the ones taking all the risk. Admittedly, football is a safe bet and they are making money. Kudos to them. I am not jealous of the owners making bank. These prima donna players that aren't happy with multi-million dollar deals and get upset that the owners are making too much off them infuriate me.

Shut down the league for all I care. Show those owners you mean business!! Guess what pal...you're out of a job.

Most os us work for companies and do things for our owners that make them money. They compensate you for it. If you don't like it and feel that the scales are infavorably tilted toward them, leave. THEY risk everything getting that business up and running and, if it failed, where would everyone be then? Would they come give some of their salary back to help keep the business afloat or would they still demand their salary. We all see the success and then want to stand around and complain that the business is making too much off us. But no one talks about the thousands of businesses that have failed and the total loss their owners suffered.

Guess what, you take risks and you get paid if it works out. That's America baby.

Screw the players

59% of all shared revenue - not total revenue. They are not the same.

Players risk plenty, their lives and their career. Just like no one is puttin' a gun to a players head, no one put a gun to an owners head and made them buy the franchise. This stuff goes both ways.

Comparing sports to a normal business is silly. Do you go to McDonalds to see how they're flipping the burgers? You're acting like it's easy to replace the players. Did you see UFL or other football leagues? You will pay $75 per ticket to watch that? Owners know that there are only so many good players.

Again, we don't know how much the franchises are making. We only know total shared revenue and players get 59% of that. We don't have exact figures on total revenue - and there is a reason why owners won't open up their books.

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:

Originally posted by LundyLove:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by LundyLove:
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. Do you really believe that NFL belongs to them? They own a franchise of the NFL and do business on NFL regulations. You don't think the NFL, players, not to mention fans should have a say?
2. If Tagliabue made a bad contract, are you saying the owners aren't responsible for the CBA they signed?
3. Everything you say it #3 can be applied to the owners. Isn't the players' privilege earned as much as the owners' privilege?

Did they or did they not spend their own money (probably a billion dollars) to buy a franchise.....

The players do not spend anything to make their money.

Exactly. Players only risk their health and well-being. f**k them.

The last proposal significantly increased health benefits. Of course, they do not have to play football... But they do because they get very well compensated for it.......

nobody is sticking a gun to your head

They are to mine!

and Pants is telling me to do unspeakable actions...what do I do?!?

Do them! Quickly, before you realize I'm holding a squirt gun!

Why do you have a squirt gun in your pants....oooooooh.....

Originally posted by boomer49er:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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?

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.

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?

My point was that the agents shopped deals around and chose Snyder's offer over other teams. It wasn't like Snyder was the only one in the game. The agents pumped up deals all around the league. Hence, the players can't just sit back and say it was only the owners. The hired greedy, pushy agents whose egos pushed them to break the bank and raise the bar with every deal they made. Owners agreed to those terms in order to try to put a quality product on the market.

As I said, I am not over the moon in favor of the owners but they have shown the most willingness to make a deal while the union has made little apparent effort.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by boomer49er:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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?

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.

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?

My point was that the agents shopped deals around and chose Snyder's offer over other teams. It wasn't like Snyder was the only one in the game. The agents pumped up deals all around the league. Hence, the players can't just sit back and say it was only the owners. The hired greedy, pushy agents whose egos pushed them to break the bank and raise the bar with every deal they made. Owners agreed to those terms in order to try to put a quality product on the market.

As I said, I am not over the moon in favor of the owners but they have shown the most willingness to make a deal while the union has made little apparent effort.

The owners just talked about willingness, but didn't show it. They have been quite firm on the getting more share of the shared revenue. I go with the players on this. They and the coaches are the ones that put together a good product.

Originally posted by fastforward:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by boomer49er:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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?

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.

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?

My point was that the agents shopped deals around and chose Snyder's offer over other teams. It wasn't like Snyder was the only one in the game. The agents pumped up deals all around the league. Hence, the players can't just sit back and say it was only the owners. The hired greedy, pushy agents whose egos pushed them to break the bank and raise the bar with every deal they made. Owners agreed to those terms in order to try to put a quality product on the market.

As I said, I am not over the moon in favor of the owners but they have shown the most willingness to make a deal while the union has made little apparent effort.

The owners just talked about willingness, but didn't show it. They have been quite firm on the getting more share of the shared revenue. I go with the players on this. They and the coaches are the ones that put together a good product.

Without the owners there would be no such product. This is big business. Sorry players, but you need to accept that.

More money.

C.R.E.A.M.

Originally posted by jones49:
Owners. The only thing that I can support as far as the owners go is that they shouldn't have to open all of there books to the players. Imagine if you demanded that your boss show you everything in his books....you'd be fired.

But, it's different. Owners and players divide up the revenue - if the players don't know how big is the pie - how can they know what is a good number for them. NFL owners are saying that they have taken a big hit in total profits since the 2006 CBA - but don't want to show it.

Right now, players are taking 59 cents on a dollar on shared revenue - who many estimate it to be 2/3rds of the total revenue. Comes out to be around 40 cents on a dollar on TOTAL revenue (if we go by those estimates). Owners are askin' them to reduce that number significantly.

If those estimates are correct - to me 40cents on a dollar on total revenue seems like a great deal for the owners.

Originally posted by luv49rs:

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.

We have a lot of greedy people here who have lost touch with reality. They think that they can just continue to milk this thing. Television money has taken the fans out of the loop and no one really cares about them any more. The big bucks come from sponsorship and the tv rights. All sides in this assume that once their petty squabbles are settled and the loot divided, that the fans will rush back and take what they are given. And maybe they are right.

In the long term, though, this very unhealthy situation will fail. Any operation which becomes so divorced from its roots will fail. Eventually the fans will start to lose interest and the gates will start to fall. No one will care to begin with. But when the trend is clear the corporate sponsors will start to look elsewhere and the television companies will start to play hardball at contract renewal time. Because they wont care so much.

And then both sides will blame each other. But the fault for where they are now and where they will be then is clear. It rests with greedy men who have lost touch with the reason for the existance of this sport. Some of those greedy men wear uniforms and some wear suits.

It is entirely possible that we are at the end of the golden age of the NFL.

The player's union and Smith are just being stubborn at this point. They're demanding that they get everything and it'll probably blow up in their face. There can't be a negotiation if one side won't budge.

They left a sweet deal on the table. The owners gave them nearly everything they asked for too. Now, it's about greed and Smith sticking it to the owners.

Originally, I blamed the owners for getting us into this mess, but the players' union is responsible for the current situation. They need to take a step back and remember that they are the "hired help". They are the labor. They don't own anything. They are getting paid millions of dollars to live out their dream and play football for a living.

The players' major leverage is a strike, but if this gets ugly, the ace in the owner's pocket is that they know the vast majority of the players in the league can't afford to be locked out. Sure, the high profile guys have the cashflow, but they'll be the minority. I'm convinced that we'll have football this season.

[ Edited by strickac on Mar 13, 2011 at 09:28:22 ]