PDA

View Full Version : Really good article on the Lockout.



furmat60
05-22-2011, 02:39 AM
http://www.chiefscoastbias.com/2011/05/owners-and-players-share-blame-but-i.html

Now that's ****ing honesty right there. For me, that hit the nail on the head. This **** is getting ridiculous.

Caribou Lou
05-22-2011, 04:05 AM
http://www.chiefscoastbias.com/2011/05/owners-and-players-share-blame-but-i.html

Now that's ****ing honesty right there. For me, that hit the nail on the head. This **** is getting ridiculous.

I couldn't disagree more with that article. What a load of ********. I'm guessing it hit the nail on the head for you because you're on the players' side?

Hawk Deez Natz
05-22-2011, 06:52 AM
Well, I do agree it is rich people arguing with richer people about getting more money. However, you can't fault people for trying to make as much money as possible. That is what our society and economy is built on. The owners are the ones with the cash and ability to present a league and are supplying the means for the players to make alot more money than they would with there degrees. In essence, they own the corporation and are entitled to any profits that are made. The players are entitled to ask for market prices for their services and pay raises if they feel are warrented. They are the work force. Where it all goes wrong is when the communities are forced to fund things in order to keep the bussiness in town. I know someone referenced Boeing before so it happens in other industries but that doesn't mean it is right. It is one thing to give some tax brakes in order to keep a bussiness in town that will provide jobs but it is entirely different when you are paying 1/3 of the cost for a new stadium and another 128 million dollars to provide roads for it. It is for those reasons alone that the owners need to make more money in order to provide the infrastructure for there bussiness. But, because we don't hold their feet to the fire, they aren't paying for these expenses and that is what is causing the profit issues. My personal opinion is that the players should stay with the salary cap they have and the owners should be forced to pay for their own expenses and their own stadiums. If you know you want a new stadium to make more profits, save up for 10 years and you will have it. Isn't that what normal people have to do? This would also keep teams from leaving cities as there wouldn't be another city selling their soul to get a team because the owner is purchasing the stadium (or renting one already built) not the city. There is a little more to it but its getting lengthy already. That's just my basic thoughts on it.

shen
05-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Sorry but I have said it before and will say it again, I side with the owners. This lockout is because of the players and is only still going because of there pride and arrogance. However if there is anyone else that should get some blame other then players it is the former commissioner of football for completely blowing the last CBA which is why owners are trying so hard for a better one. Owners got completely taken in the last one so now players think they can do what ever they want. It pisses me off more and more listening to the players spew lies. The owners are not the ones preventing football, the players are. The players put a guy in charge who had no interest in negotiating. The players walked away from the table. The players dissolved the union. The players decided to tie this up in court.

House
05-22-2011, 02:34 PM
The OWNERS (Snyder, Davis and a few others) started this **** years ago! What player would turn down a $100M contract (Haynesworth)??? I sure as hell wouldn't...

The owners set the tone for these players and their JADED sense of self-worth. If contracts more INCENTIVE laden with escalators, we'd have a much better league, higher quality players and less *****ing and moaning.

Regardless of who's to blame, this **** needs to get solved soon!

Caribou Lou
05-23-2011, 01:17 AM
The OWNERS (Snyder, Davis and a few others) started this **** years ago! What player would turn down a $100M contract (Haynesworth)??? I sure as hell wouldn't...

The owners set the tone for these players and their JADED sense of self-worth. If contracts more INCENTIVE laden with escalators, we'd have a much better league, higher quality players and less *****ing and moaning.

Regardless of who's to blame, this **** needs to get solved soon!


You're seriously putting the blame on the owners for the players' inflated egos? If a weak team or a team in a horrible market want marquee players, they HAVE to over pay for them.

As for your $100m contract example, only $41m was guaranteed and close to $20m of the $100m were incentives.

The reason contracts are getting so ridiculous has far more to do with the lopsided decision of the previous labor agreement than it does with the owners.

House
05-23-2011, 02:17 AM
Not 100%, but they are a HUGE part of the problem. I'm not neccessarily blaming the owners, but the loose pens haven't helped. Previous labor agreements (owners and players agreed to) have blown up the players heads.

I'll never stick up for the cry-baby players that get paid MILLIONS and MILLIONS just to piss it away and cry about it later, but the SYSTEM has allowed these guys to be this way. The first sign of change in a "negative" light has brought on their tears.

One article I read today stated "Snyder was willing to open his checkbook to acquire Asomougha and a pass-rusher." I get that owners will pay BIG $$$ to improve their teams, but they also reap what they sow...

This labor agreement NEEDS to get done soon! There is WAY too much $$$ to be lost and all this is doing is pissing off the fans.

FWBrodie
05-23-2011, 03:06 AM
You're seriously putting the blame on the owners for the players' inflated egos? If a weak team or a team in a horrible market want marquee players, they HAVE to over pay for them.

As for your $100m contract example, only $41m was guaranteed and close to $20m of the $100m were incentives.

The reason contracts are getting so ridiculous has far more to do with the lopsided decision of the previous labor agreement than it does with the owners.

It's supply and demand. The market sets the prices.

Magic12ball
05-23-2011, 01:04 PM
I used to be on the owner's "side." now, **** them all for even letting there be a chance of no football next year. The biggest thing with this article was that yes, when football resumes, the fans will continue taking it in the wrong end of the alimentary canal. That never changes.

hawks4life
05-24-2011, 10:56 PM
Not 100%, but they are a HUGE part of the problem. I'm not neccessarily blaming the owners, but the loose pens haven't helped. Previous labor agreements (owners and players agreed to) have blown up the players heads.

I'll never stick up for the cry-baby players that get paid MILLIONS and MILLIONS just to piss it away and cry about it later, but the SYSTEM has allowed these guys to be this way. The first sign of change in a "negative" light has brought on their tears.

One article I read today stated "Snyder was willing to open his checkbook to acquire Asomougha and a pass-rusher." I get that owners will pay BIG $$$ to improve their teams, but they also reap what they sow...

This labor agreement NEEDS to get done soon! There is WAY too much $$$ to be lost and all this is doing is pissing off the fans.

I agree with this. I hate listening to all these players whine. But let's be honest, does Goodell really care about the fans? Goodell doesn't care about the players and he doesn't give a **** about the fans. It's the owners that are paying his $10 million salary and it's the owners that vote him in when his contract is up. All he cares about is getting a deal done that works for the owners and that's it.

At the same time, you have all these lawyers (On both sides) involved that are doing what they can to prolong this. The longer this plays on, the more they get paid... That simple. No one is innocent in this and it's all about money and greed! Sadly, it's the fans that have to pay.

shen
05-24-2011, 11:20 PM
Lawyers goes from retainer to billable hours. Better believe they spend a great many of those hours looking up the 30 letter longs words they keep using to distract people.

Schadie001
05-25-2011, 02:11 AM
I think there is blame to go around but in almost any industry where a union is involved these days things tend to go south. Owners are owners and should be the ones to set the prices on what players get. If you own your home and want a kid to mow your lawn you are going to pay whatever you want to pay to have it done. Now you may pay less and get a lesser job done or have to pay more for a great one. But there is no union that says you have to pay X amount because this kid has been mowing lawns for 5 years and that's what he gets regardless of how good of a job he does.

This is what happens when a union is involved, performance is taken out of the equation, and the job being performed is taken out of the equation. It all comes down to trying to force someone to pay you more than the job you are performing is really worth, there is no market value for that job, just the value that the union says it should be. This is why the car industry is in such disarray. When you are paying people ridiculous amounts of money to build a car, then you are forced to over price the car, people can't afford to pay your crazy prices and you don't sell cars. Same could be said for professional sports, they are overpricing the industry and we are getting to the point where it is almost unaffordable to go and watch a game, no butts in seats means no money for owner to pay players.

I would agree that in a capitalist system owners should be the ones footing the bill for the stadium, but this would only work if there were no unions involved. Risks takers should be rewarded for the risks they have taken. There is no benefit at present day to take such a huge risk. Unions are destroying our sports just as they have almost everything else in our society; it is nothing more than legal extortion in my opinion.

Seattle4Ever
05-25-2011, 02:15 AM
I'd side with the players if I had to pick a side. But they need to get back to the table, in the end, they're just going to have to budge.

shen
05-25-2011, 02:22 AM
It is going to come down to the money players are trying to get from the tv deal. If the Owners can keep them from it then the players will cave right away. If the players get it then we will have no season. So at this point if Owners win suit we have a season but if the players win then we have no season.

Schadie001
05-25-2011, 05:52 AM
Replacements...I can remember going to watch the Seahawks as a kid and watching the replacement players. With all the spin off leagues there are today it would not be hard to fill a roster with replacement players. I bet current players would also come as they are not part of a union anymore and thus would not be crossing the picket line. Just a thought, but one I would like to see happen.

SEAbeliever
05-25-2011, 12:40 PM
The whole system is flawed. Every company is feeling the effects of this economy. With good reason, this system in place is horribly illogical. The only reason we're all focused on the NFL is because they are an industry who is at the top, being the top form of American sports entertainment.

Look around the next time you're driving around. There are a lot of businesses right now expecting employees to take lower pay coupled with added responsibilities. The NFL is no different.

Let's use a balloon for an example : If you start out with an empty balloon and start pumping air into it, two things will happen. You will either run out of air to blow into it, or you will run out of space for the air to fill. Either way you will end up deflated or popped in the end.

Nobody is to blame except this economic system that is in place. Think about it, we used to operate with real solid money (ie: gold and silver). That balloon popped when they figured out that gold and silver are finite resources. They switched balloons and now we have paper money with no backing. Paper was thought to be an infinite resource, but now they have so much of it, it's too much to keep track of.

What's next? Electronic money. THAT is an infinite resource with no physical footprint. They can create money out of seemingly nothing except electrical energy. The best part of the whole equation is that money has always just been made up. Even the Federal Reserve (the folks who supply the entire market with numbers) isn't even Federal at all. It's not even a part of the government. The Federal Reserve is privately owned by the biggest bankers on the planet.

Hate to break it to you guys, but this system is failed. Has been for some time now. This happens to every great society throughout history. We need to somehow find a different way of operating. We need a new balloon.
/endrant.

As a sidenote if you'd like to educate yourself further on this system and it's history, go here http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/federal-reserve-owners-and-history/. It's well worth your time, and they don't teach this stuff in school...yet.

BTW, GO HAWKS!!!! :D

Seattle4Ever
05-26-2011, 02:06 AM
Too much thinking for me.

furmat60
05-26-2011, 06:46 PM
^ I lol'd.

Seppuku
05-26-2011, 11:04 PM
I think there is blame to go around but in almost any industry where a union is involved these days things tend to go south. Owners are owners and should be the ones to set the prices on what players get. If you own your home and want a kid to mow your lawn you are going to pay whatever you want to pay to have it done. Now you may pay less and get a lesser job done or have to pay more for a great one. But there is no union that says you have to pay X amount because this kid has been mowing lawns for 5 years and that's what he gets regardless of how good of a job he does.

This is what happens when a union is involved, performance is taken out of the equation, and the job being performed is taken out of the equation. It all comes down to trying to force someone to pay you more than the job you are performing is really worth, there is no market value for that job, just the value that the union says it should be. This is why the car industry is in such disarray. When you are paying people ridiculous amounts of money to build a car, then you are forced to over price the car, people can't afford to pay your crazy prices and you don't sell cars. Same could be said for professional sports, they are overpricing the industry and we are getting to the point where it is almost unaffordable to go and watch a game, no butts in seats means no money for owner to pay players.

I would agree that in a capitalist system owners should be the ones footing the bill for the stadium, but this would only work if there were no unions involved. Risks takers should be rewarded for the risks they have taken. There is no benefit at present day to take such a huge risk. Unions are destroying our sports just as they have almost everything else in our society; it is nothing more than legal extortion in my opinion.

This is so wrong that I hardly know where to begin. Unions are about protecting employees from abuse, not about collecting a paycheck for doing nothing. If you have a union working for you, and in your case it was a kid cutting your grass, you will have to pay him a fair wage to do it. You cannot threaten his livelihood and take away his home by paying him pennies on the dollar. You cannot force that kid to mow 40 lawns this week, and 50, then 60 then 80 lawns a week and give him a flat rate of pay. You can't have that kid mow all of the neighborhood lawns for you and then hold all of the money for yourself without giving any to your worker because you called the neighbors and go them to sign on. This is what unions are about, not your absurd projection that you are going to pay too much to have your lawn cared for and then end up with the lawn not mowed. If you think union contracts don't have very specific performance and quality levels spelled out, you've got another thing coming.

Back to football. The problem with the negotiations is honesty. The owners aren't willing to prove that they are being honest and keeping their end of the contract that they agreed to. They want the players to "trust" them about the billions of dollars that they are supposedly sharing while denying the players any access to proof that the owners are actually trust worthy. Some of them are, but remember, Al Davis is an owner, and he lied, cheated and stole the Raiders from the orignal owners. Can we expect that his character has changed?

shen
05-26-2011, 11:47 PM
Al Davis does not remember how to lie, cheat, or steel. Now it is entirely possible he will forget there is a new CBA once one is agreed upon. However that is because he is old, crazy, and once more old.

shen
05-26-2011, 11:50 PM
At this point I don't think it is any longer about sides. It boils down to if the Owners win the tv deal suit then we will have football and will start on time. If the Players win then we will have no 2011 NFL season at all. That TV suit is the only card the players have left. Once it's gone and players realize they were suppose to put money back for a reason and rookies realize they now have no job and for most no education. Well once that happens a deal will be reached real quick regardless of how much Smith likes to hear himself speak.

Schadie001
05-27-2011, 02:11 AM
This is so wrong that I hardly know where to begin. Unions are about protecting employees from abuse, not about collecting a paycheck for doing nothing. If you have a union working for you, and in your case it was a kid cutting your grass, you will have to pay him a fair wage to do it. You cannot threaten his livelihood and take away his home by paying him pennies on the dollar. You cannot force that kid to mow 40 lawns this week, and 50, then 60 then 80 lawns a week and give him a flat rate of pay. You can't have that kid mow all of the neighborhood lawns for you and then hold all of the money for yourself without giving any to your worker because you called the neighbors and go them to sign on. This is what unions are about, not your absurd projection that you are going to pay too much to have your lawn cared for and then end up with the lawn not mowed. If you think union contracts don't have very specific performance and quality levels spelled out, you've got another thing coming.

Back to football. The problem with the negotiations is honesty. The owners aren't willing to prove that they are being honest and keeping their end of the contract that they agreed to. They want the players to "trust" them about the billions of dollars that they are supposedly sharing while denying the players any access to proof that the owners are actually trust worthy. Some of them are, but remember, Al Davis is an owner, and he lied, cheated and stole the Raiders from the orignal owners. Can we expect that his character has changed?


Your analogy may have been something that happened oh say 100 years ago. But yes to everything you said, I can say I will pay you 10 dollars an hour and you cut grass 8 hours a day, you may have to work overtime and will be paid for it. You may cut 40 lawns today or the whole neighborhood tomorrow. It happens every day without unions and guess what it works. Today there are laws that protect against everything that you are talking about.

Unions are nothing more than legal extortionists...you tell me what the harsh working environment that the NFL union is protecting it's players from. They don't need a union to sign a contract with a team that says I will do X, Y, and Z or that you will provide me X, Y, and Z. They have the best doctors, the best facilities; get paid millions of dollars to play a childís game. The poor players they won't be able to pay for their expensive house...boo hoo, entitlement mentality is all we are talking about. I'm a football player, I'm worth millions, I want, I want. Well, I'm sorry you are not the OWNER of the company you are merely a worker and workers don't get to tell the owner how much you get paid, or how much of that industries money goes to you.

House
05-27-2011, 04:25 AM
This "lockout" is a ****ing joke! Money is the root of ALL evil and it makes me sick! We have owners *****ing about having to dip more into their Billions, players *****ing about not making enough...

What a bunch of ****ing crybabies... All of them! You wanna know the crazy part? We as fans pay ALL of these guy's salaries and we're the one getting screwed!

ccg34
05-27-2011, 07:37 AM
This "lockout" is a ****ing joke! Money is the root of ALL evil and it makes me sick! We have owners *****ing about having to dip more into their Billions, players *****ing about not making enough...

What a bunch of ****ing crybabies... All of them! You wanna know the crazy part? We as fans pay ALL of these guy's salaries and we're the one getting screwed!

The love of money is the root of all evil, not money. Money is good! But I agree the lockout is a joke!

Seppuku
05-27-2011, 03:02 PM
Your analogy may have been something that happened oh say 100 years ago. But yes to everything you said, I can say I will pay you 10 dollars an hour and you cut grass 8 hours a day, you may have to work overtime and will be paid for it. You may cut 40 lawns today or the whole neighborhood tomorrow. It happens every day without unions and guess what it works. Today there are laws that protect against everything that you are talking about.

Unions are nothing more than legal extortionists...you tell me what the harsh working environment that the NFL union is protecting it's players from. They don't need a union to sign a contract with a team that says I will do X, Y, and Z or that you will provide me X, Y, and Z. They have the best doctors, the best facilities; get paid millions of dollars to play a childís game. The poor players they won't be able to pay for their expensive house...boo hoo, entitlement mentality is all we are talking about. I'm a football player, I'm worth millions, I want, I want. Well, I'm sorry you are not the OWNER of the company you are merely a worker and workers don't get to tell the owner how much you get paid, or how much of that industries money goes to you.

I'm sorry that you don't know what you are talking about. My Union recently went through its 3rd labor negotiation since I started working here. The first walkout we had was because the company was working us 80 hours a week, every week, non-stop. You cannot live like that. Our current contract sets limits on how much overtime we can be forced to work. Currently that is only 20 hours per week and we get incredible benefits if the company pounds us that hard. The last contract they tried to cut our wages, benefits, retirement, etc while citing the economy. We had already given wage concessions on the previous contract because our company had suffered a downturn. No reason to gut our future and our lives after the company recovered and while they were making billions in profits. No reason I should lose my house and my insurance because a multi- millionaire wants to put all of our money in his pocket as personally mandated bonuses.

As for the NFL, they are not the "workers", they are the final product, front to back. They are the manufacturer, the distributor, the advertizing, and they are what is being consumed. The "owners" are writing checks and rolling in cash because they write those checks. You don't write the check, you don't make the money because without the players, you have nothing to sell. No one is a fan of the Cowboys because they have an empty stadium and a locker-room full of helmets with stars on them. There are fans because there are players flinging a football around and risking their lives for the game.

Schadie001
05-28-2011, 06:53 AM
I'm sorry that you don't know what you are talking about. My Union recently went through its 3rd labor negotiation since I started working here. The first walkout we had was because the company was working us 80 hours a week, every week, non-stop. You cannot live like that. Our current contract sets limits on how much overtime we can be forced to work. Currently that is only 20 hours per week and we get incredible benefits if the company pounds us that hard. The last contract they tried to cut our wages, benefits, retirement, etc while citing the economy. We had already given wage concessions on the previous contract because our company had suffered a downturn. No reason to gut our future and our lives after the company recovered and while they were making billions in profits. No reason I should lose my house and my insurance because a multi- millionaire wants to put all of our money in his pocket as personally mandated bonuses.

As for the NFL, they are not the "workers", they are the final product, front to back. They are the manufacturer, the distributor, the advertizing, and they are what is being consumed. The "owners" are writing checks and rolling in cash because they write those checks. You don't write the check, you don't make the money because without the players, you have nothing to sell. No one is a fan of the Cowboys because they have an empty stadium and a locker-room full of helmets with stars on them. There are fans because there are players flinging a football around and risking their lives for the game.


First, without coming off as a jerk, I'm going to have to say cry me a river. I'm deployed to Iraq and work no less than 84 hrs a week with no days off and I don't get a dime of overtime, in fact there's no such term as over time in the military you work til the work is done. 8am-8pm, mon-sun to start. So, though I'm sure you think you have it bad, at least you get to go home every night, drink a beer if you want, have a hamburger, sit on a coach. But guess what...I chose this life, I raised my hand and I like what I do. No union necessary. As for your Union, I hope you don't do to your company what the UAW did to their company when they wouldn't take concessions. Because the tax payers should not be on the hook for ridiculous contracts and legalized extortion.

The player is not the product the team is the product. A player is merely a worker who gets paid to create that product. Players come and go but the team, the brand is what you are a fan of. For instance, I love Matt Hasselbeck but if he isn't there next year, I'm still going to love the Seattle Seahawks. So the player is irrelevant to whether fans love the team or not. Trust me there are a thousand people who would swim in a river of fecal matter to play in the NFL for pennies compared to what players make today and the game would go on. In fact, I would venture to say that probably 80% of the current players would still be on rosters because they still couldn't find a job that paid as good as the money they get in the NFL.

FWBrodie
05-28-2011, 01:45 PM
First, without coming off as a jerk, I'm going to have to say cry me a river. I'm deployed to Iraq and work no less than 84 hrs a week with no days off and I don't get a dime of overtime, in fact there's no such term as over time in the military you work til the work is done. 8am-8pm, mon-sun to start. So, though I'm sure you think you have it bad, at least you get to go home every night, drink a beer if you want, have a hamburger, sit on a coach. But guess what...I chose this life, I raised my hand and I like what I do. No union necessary. As for your Union, I hope you don't do to your company what the UAW did to their company when they wouldn't take concessions. Because the tax payers should not be on the hook for ridiculous contracts and legalized extortion.

The player is not the product the team is the product. A player is merely a worker who gets paid to create that product. Players come and go but the team, the brand is what you are a fan of. For instance, I love Matt Hasselbeck but if he isn't there next year, I'm still going to love the Seattle Seahawks. So the player is irrelevant to whether fans love the team or not. Trust me there are a thousand people who would swim in a river of fecal matter to play in the NFL for pennies compared to what players make today and the game would go on. In fact, I would venture to say that probably 80% of the current players would still be on rosters because they still couldn't find a job that paid as good as the money they get in the NFL.
WRONG.

Take away all of the Seahawks and put a second rate (replacement) roster in their places and I won't be watching. The owners need these palyers, the best in the world, to make all the money they make, but one player doesn't have the clout to back that statement up at the negotiating table against a billionaire owner. Unions give the players (or workers) the voice they deserve.

shen
05-28-2011, 07:14 PM
I like certain players but I am a fan of the team not the players. Anything else is same as being bandwagon.

Schadie001
05-29-2011, 01:23 AM
WRONG.

Take away all of the Seahawks and put a second rate (replacement) roster in their places and I won't be watching. The owners need these palyers, the best in the world, to make all the money they make, but one player doesn't have the clout to back that statement up at the negotiating table against a billionaire owner. Unions give the players (or workers) the voice they deserve.

That's just you. Just like you don't make up the whole fan base, these players aren't the only ones that can make up the team. The next line in my post also said that I would also be willing to bet "most" of the current players would come back even if they were making a substantial amount less than they are today say 100k a year, because they wouldn't be able to make that doing something else given their skill set.

Hawk Deez Natz
05-29-2011, 04:49 AM
I agree with Schaedie that most would be back even if they made less (assuming they aren't Palmer with 88 mil in the bank already) but I also agree with Brodie that if the majority of the players did continue to play you would lose fan base. Maybe they could build it back up, maybe not. I still think that players are over paid and owners should pay for their own stadiums. I don't think I will ever change my mind on that, unless I become an owner....:)

Hawk Deez Natz
05-29-2011, 04:50 AM
I meant if the majority of the players did not continue to play

Schadie001
05-29-2011, 11:23 AM
I agree with Schaedie that most would be back even if they made less (assuming they aren't Palmer with 88 mil in the bank already) but I also agree with Brodie that if the majority of the players did continue to play you would lose fan base. Maybe they could build it back up, maybe not. I still think that players are over paid and owners should pay for their own stadiums. I don't think I will ever change my mind on that, unless I become an owner....:)

Agree on all counts...

FWBrodie
05-29-2011, 03:07 PM
That's just you. Just like you don't make up the whole fan base, these players aren't the only ones that can make up the team. The next line in my post also said that I would also be willing to bet "most" of the current players would come back even if they were making a substantial amount less than they are today say 100k a year, because they wouldn't be able to make that doing something else given their skill set.

What's your point?

House
05-29-2011, 11:09 PM
Owners of Football teams need Football players to make them money. Football players need to play Football to make money! They need to set the bull-**** aside or TONS of $$$ will be lost! Not to mention a BUNCH of pissed off fans that need to be pleased!

Go June 3rd... Bring good news!!!

Seppuku
05-30-2011, 03:55 AM
What's your point?

I don't know on that. Would you take that pay to reduce your life span by 10-20 years and age with permanent pain and disability? Look at the players forced into retirement or aging badly with brain damage, ruined joints, paralyzations, etc. Are you sure you will take a dose of that for only $100,000 a year?

Again, it comes down to the contract you have and no ability to ensure that you are being compensated truthfully. If your contract says you get 50% of the total, but the person getting the other 50% holds the books and won't show you what you are getting 50% of, you have no assurity that you are getting the division that was agreed upon. It seems highly unlikely that you are not.

Seattle4Ever
05-30-2011, 02:23 PM
I don't know on that. Would you take that pay to reduce your life span by 10-20 years and age with permanent pain and disability? Look at the players forced into retirement or aging badly with brain damage, ruined joints, paralyzations, etc. Are you sure you will take a dose of that for only $100,000 a year?

Again, it comes down to the contract you have and no ability to ensure that you are being compensated truthfully. If your contract says you get 50% of the total, but the person getting the other 50% holds the books and won't show you what you are getting 50% of, you have no assurity that you are getting the division that was agreed upon. It seems highly unlikely that you are not.

Honestly, I would. Not every player's life gets cut short by 10-20 years. Not every plater suffers from permanent pain/disability. There is only a handful of players forced into retirement (i.e Jerry Azumah.)

I would easily take 100k to play a sport I loved for 20 or so years.

FWBrodie
05-30-2011, 03:19 PM
I don't know on that. Would you take that pay to reduce your life span by 10-20 years and age with permanent pain and disability? Look at the players forced into retirement or aging badly with brain damage, ruined joints, paralyzations, etc. Are you sure you will take a dose of that for only $100,000 a year?

Again, it comes down to the contract you have and no ability to ensure that you are being compensated truthfully. If your contract says you get 50% of the total, but the person getting the other 50% holds the books and won't show you what you are getting 50% of, you have no assurity that you are getting the division that was agreed upon. It seems highly unlikely that you are not.

Hell yes I would. It's no different than working construction, being in the military, or any other labor intensive job.

Caribou Lou
05-30-2011, 04:14 PM
Owners of Football teams need Football players to make them money. Football players need to play Football to make money! They need to set the bull-**** aside or TONS of $$$ will be lost! Not to mention a BUNCH of pissed off fans that need to be pleased!

Go June 3rd... Bring good news!!!


Can you please stop insinuating that the owners make the bulk of their money from their football teams? It's getting old.

shen
05-30-2011, 06:17 PM
NFL is a hobby for the owners except for Packers. That's part of why they can afford the lockout. Because they don't feel anything financially from a work stoppage. Owners provide the financing for grown men to spend all there time playing a game. If the players would rather make 40k a year working 50x as much a year then let um.

FWBrodie
05-30-2011, 06:22 PM
NFL is a hobby for the owners except for Packers. That's part of why they can afford the lockout. Because they don't feel anything financially from a work stoppage. Owners provide the financing for grown men to spend all there time playing a game. If the players would rather make 40k a year working 50x as much a year then let um.

:facepalm:

shen
05-30-2011, 06:24 PM
Don't facepalm just because I stated the reality of the situation.

House
05-30-2011, 10:12 PM
Can you please stop insinuating that the owners make the bulk of their money from their football teams? It's getting old.

I know thats not where they make ALL of their money, but it definitely effects everything around them. The investment alone that these guys have in their teams is HUGE. Jerry Jones is worth $1.7B. Do you know how much the Dallas Cowboys franchise is worth? Over $800M.

There is just WAY TOO MUCH $$$ to be lost if NO season happens. BOTH sides are in the "I'm not bending anymore" mindset vs. the "bend but not break". It'll get worked out. You aren't the only one frustrated!

Caribou Lou
05-31-2011, 12:28 AM
Yes, there investments in these teams ARE huge but not playing a season isn't going to affect these guys too much. The majority of the owners around the league make the vast majority of their cash outside the NFL.

Not having an NFL season is going to hurt the players and surrounding economy much more-so than the owners. They can EASILY survive a couple of seasons without football. The players on the other hand, won't be able to.

I'm all for the owners taking a hard stance here. And no I'm not frustrated with the situation, I'm frustrated that some people think that the owners have as much to lose as the players do, because they don't.

FWBrodie
05-31-2011, 05:16 PM
Don't facepalm just because I stated the reality of the situation.

The point of owning a business is to turn a profit, raise capital to grow the business, and increase profits over time. You're trying to make it sound like the owners are just playing with monopoly money. That money has places to be. If they don't make money this year they are failing as business owners, and I guarantee not one owner will be okay with that.

Reality my ***.

shen
05-31-2011, 06:14 PM
compared to the money/profit each owner actually receives, it is monopoly money in comparison to each owners real business's.

As for Cowboys thing above. Jones spent over a billion dollars on a franchise that is worth 800mil. That right there should tell you everything about the actual economics of the NFL.

Seattle4Ever
05-31-2011, 07:22 PM
compared to the money/profit each owner actually receives, it is monopoly money in comparison to each owners real business's.

As for Cowboys thing above. Jones spent over a billion dollars on a franchise that is worth 800mil. That right there should tell you everything about the actual economics of the NFL.


Jones will be in much better shape to make his monthly nut if he schedules events like concerts and college football games and boxing matches and other attractions on the 355 days per year that the place isn’t being used as the home of the Dallas Cowboys.

The stadium gets rented out for several events (i.e boxing fights.) You're an idiot if you don't think that man, and other owners do not want to make money.

shen
05-31-2011, 08:36 PM
never said they don't want to make money. Just said NFL is not primary means of doing so, in fact it's not even close.

Seppuku
06-01-2011, 01:32 AM
Honestly, I would. Not every player's life gets cut short by 10-20 years. Not every plater suffers from permanent pain/disability. There is only a handful of players forced into retirement (i.e Jerry Azumah.)

I would easily take 100k to play a sport I loved for 20 or so years.

Only 60% of players suffer concussions. Football players have only 19 times the normal occurrence of Alzheimers.


http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133053436/brain-injuries-haunt-football-players-years-later (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133053436/brain-injuries-haunt-football-players-years-later)

On life expectancy:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Sports/A_huge_problem.shtml


While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years, recent studies suggest the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen.

That was from a 2006 study. This one below is from 2008.


http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/New-NFL-goal-A-longer-life-1272886.php#ixzz1O01PGyUS (http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/New-NFL-goal-A-longer-life-1272886.php#ixzz1O01PGyUS)


The average NFL player plays just 3.52 seasons and loses two to three years off his life expectancy for every season played.

Caribou Lou
06-01-2011, 03:09 AM
Only 60% of players suffer concussions. Football players have only 19 times the normal occurrence of Alzheimers.


http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133053436/brain-injuries-haunt-football-players-years-later (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133053436/brain-injuries-haunt-football-players-years-later)

On life expectancy:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Sports/A_huge_problem.shtml



That was from a 2006 study. This one below is from 2008.


http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/New-NFL-goal-A-longer-life-1272886.php#ixzz1O01PGyUS (http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/New-NFL-goal-A-longer-life-1272886.php#ixzz1O01PGyUS)


Of those three articles, the first is the only one that has legs for your argument here. The second two talk about atherosclerosis and plaque build up due to the player's "size." Maybe after they retire they should eat a little healthier, continue working out and consider taking up jogging as a weekly hobby.

As for the first, concussions are a part of the game. If you don't want to have to deal with the potential consequences of a contact sport, don't play.

shen
06-01-2011, 01:54 PM
I am getting tired of this 3 year crap. That is only the players using the draftee's that don't make it to drag down the average. The majority of those are guys that just did not cut it leaving the league after a season or two. They act like big name players get knocked out every three years with a life altering injury when that is not the reason the number is so low. I mean there are hundreds of college football teams each with more players then an NFL team is allowed. So every four years over a thousand college players move on and how many are actually good enough to stick it out in the NFL.

FWBrodie
06-01-2011, 02:06 PM
never said they don't want to make money. Just said NFL is not primary means of doing so, in fact it's not even close.

On the one hand there's logic and common sense, on the other some kid named shen from Arkansas who claims he has access the fiscal information that the NFLPA has been trying to get their hands on for months.

I'm gonna go with logic.

Caribou Lou
06-01-2011, 03:58 PM
^ If you seriously think that the majority of owners make the bulk of their personal income off of their football teams, you're delusional.

And I have access to the fiscal information of one NFL team to help shed some light on the topic. So does shen, so do you.

hawks4life
06-01-2011, 06:19 PM
Lol, You know there's nothing going on in the NFL and that topics are running dry when we start arguing 'who knows more about the economics of football.' Man, I hope they get a deal done soon. Doesn't seem like it though. Chester Pitts said they're in it for the long haul.

shen
06-01-2011, 06:44 PM
If players lose the TV suit the long haul will get real damn short real quick. The entire key to the players ability to hold out is that TV suit. They win and we will have no 2011 season, they lose and week 1 starts on time.

FWBrodie
06-01-2011, 07:11 PM
^ If you seriously think that the majority of owners make the bulk of their personal income off of their football teams, you're delusional.

And I have access to the fiscal information of one NFL team to help shed some light on the topic. So does shen, so do you.
Enlighten us.

Caribou Lou
06-01-2011, 11:04 PM
Every year, because they are publicly owned, the Packers release a financial statement.

From the Packers website:

"In the team’s latest financial report, a preview of which was released to the media this week, the Packers’ operating profit for the 2010 fiscal year (ending March 31, 2010), was $9.8 million, down from $20.1 million the year prior. The primary reason for the decline, despite a $10.1 million increase in overall revenue, was a $22.1 million jump in player costs, which increased 15.9 percent from $138.7 million to $160.8 million. It marked the third consecutive year that operating profits declined, from $34.2 million (2007) to $21.4 million (2008) to $20.1 million (2009) to $9.8 million (2010)."

Seppuku
06-02-2011, 07:53 PM
Every year, because they are publicly owned, the Packers release a financial statement.

From the Packers website:

"In the teamís latest financial report, a preview of which was released to the media this week, the Packersí operating profit for the 2010 fiscal year (ending March 31, 2010), was $9.8 million, down from $20.1 million the year prior. The primary reason for the decline, despite a $10.1 million increase in overall revenue, was a $22.1 million jump in player costs, which increased 15.9 percent from $138.7 million to $160.8 million. It marked the third consecutive year that operating profits declined, from $34.2 million (2007) to $21.4 million (2008) to $20.1 million (2009) to $9.8 million (2010)."

Seems a little thin on the details, like missing almost everything that makes this discussion relevant. Let's start with getting ticket sales numbers, move on to the Packer's cut of TV rights and revenues, then add in fan services revenues and merchandizing. Next advertizing and naming rights. Where did that $171 million dollars come from and why aren't we seeing the rest of the money?

shen
06-02-2011, 10:48 PM
That is the money. People forget how much the money NFL makes get's split up and that they pay out tons. NFL is not an overly profitable venture, mainly because the players.

Caribou Lou
06-03-2011, 03:31 AM
Seems a little thin on the details, like missing almost everything that makes this discussion relevant. Let's start with getting ticket sales numbers, move on to the Packer's cut of TV rights and revenues, then add in fan services revenues and merchandizing. Next advertizing and naming rights. Where did that $171 million dollars come from and why aren't we seeing the rest of the money?

Packers net income for the same year(from the same article/story): $5 million

FWBrodie
06-03-2011, 03:34 PM
Nice information, but overall irrelevant without the context of other teams. The Packers for example are in by far the tiniest market in the NFL. As far as NFL marketing areas go, GB is ranked 70th. The Seahawks are in the 14th largest market by comparison.

shen
06-03-2011, 03:54 PM
It is not irrelevant. They still sellout every game. They are a constant winner. Other then player salary they are better financially then Seattle easily. Just because it shows Vick will make more money next year then Packers does not make it irrelevant, just shows how effed up things are for NFL.

FWBrodie
06-03-2011, 04:37 PM
It is not irrelevant. They still sellout every game. They are a constant winner. Other then player salary they are better financially then Seattle easily. Just because it shows Vick will make more money next year then Packers does not make it irrelevant, just shows how effed up things are for NFL.

It's completely irrelevant. Nice random guesses.

Hawk Deez Natz
06-05-2011, 12:57 AM
I don't know on that. Would you take that pay to reduce your life span by 10-20 years and age with permanent pain and disability? Look at the players forced into retirement or aging badly with brain damage, ruined joints, paralyzations, etc. Are you sure you will take a dose of that for only $100,000 a year?

Again, it comes down to the contract you have and no ability to ensure that you are being compensated truthfully. If your contract says you get 50% of the total, but the person getting the other 50% holds the books and won't show you what you are getting 50% of, you have no assurity that you are getting the division that was agreed upon. It seems highly unlikely that you are not.

Why wouldn't I take that pay? I would have obviously taken the same risks during pony league, high school and college football for free. Besides, if I'm only making 100, 000 a year, im probabely not playing much anyway.

Hawk Deez Natz
06-05-2011, 01:05 AM
I don't know on that. Would you take that pay to reduce your life span by 10-20 years and age with permanent pain and disability? Look at the players forced into retirement or aging badly with brain damage, ruined joints, paralyzations, etc. Are you sure you will take a dose of that for only $100,000 a year?

Again, it comes down to the contract you have and no ability to ensure that you are being compensated truthfully. If your contract says you get 50% of the total, but the person getting the other 50% holds the books and won't show you what you are getting 50% of, you have no assurity that you are getting the division that was agreed upon. It seems highly unlikely that you are not.

Ohhhh yeah....I forgot....their are a hole lot of people in the military with the same symptoms doing it for about 30-40K a year. By some health insurance and shut the hell up (football players).

shen
06-22-2011, 03:53 AM
Do to no off topic threads or anything I figure this only place to put this without starting a new thread.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485


Reading that really got me excited. Seems like we are close to having football again. I am just concerned about the potential opposition group within the owners. I mean it requires what 24 owners to agree on a new CBA. I am curious about what the final call will be on the tags. I know players want them gone, maybe they will retain them this year then let them go away starting next year.