PDA

View Full Version : Why NFL could close in 2011



GlennBree
09-09-2010, 09:54 AM
Anyone read this article on Yahoo this morning?
Thoughts...

Yahoo! Sports - Sports News, Scores, Rumors, Fantasy Games, and more (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?)
slug=ms-laborquestions090810

bwilliams
09-09-2010, 10:09 AM
Anyone read this article on Yahoo this morning?
Thoughts...

Yahoo! Sports - Sports News, Scores, Rumors, Fantasy Games, and more (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?)
slug=ms-laborquestions090810

Link doesn't work.

GlennBree
09-09-2010, 10:24 AM
poop....sorry... please see below

GlennBree
09-09-2010, 10:31 AM
Roger Goodell was in the midst of a leisurely training camp tour last month when the NFL commissioner began experiencing severe labor pains.
Goodell, as part of his weeklong bus trip to seven NFL camps with Hall of Fame coach and broadcasting icon John Madden, initiated locker-room meetings with players at each stop, and the level of interrogation he faced became increasingly charged as players expressed anxiety and anger over a potential lockout next spring.
At one point in the commissioner’s visit with the Cleveland Browns (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/cle/), linebacker Scott Fujita (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6029/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6029/news), a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee, asked: “What do the owners want? What’s it going to take to get a deal done?”
“I can’t answer that,” Goodell replied.
“You’re the NFL commissioner,” Fujita shot back. “You’re here as the mouthpiece for the owners, and you can’t even tell us what they want? The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] is up in March. Don’t you think you need to start giving us some answers?”
By the end of his visit with the Browns, players were referring to the league’s chief executive as “Roger the Dodger.” It got worse for Goodell during the final visit of his tour, this stop coming at the Indianapolis Colts (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/ind/)’ training camp. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, some Colts players admonished Goodell with swear words, to the point where star quarterback Peyton Manning (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4256/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4256/news) was embarrassed by their behavior. Veteran center Jeff Saturday (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4953/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4953/news), another executive committee member, cut the meeting short to keep the situation from escalating further.
Welcome to the strange world of the 21st-century NFL, a wildly profitable business in uncertain economic times whose proprietors and employees can’t just get along. With the two sides seemingly headed for a rancorous and incongruous labor showdown next spring, America’s most prosperous and popular sporting enterprise could be walking a fine line between hard-fought progress and shameful self-immolation.
Two years ago, when the owners voted unanimously to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement following the 2010 season, it set the stage for a confrontation that could well result in the league’s first work stoppage since 1987. As the deadline for striking a new deal nears – things will likely come to a head on or around March 1 of next year – each camp is preparing for battle on numerous fronts. There has been legal wrangling, political maneuvering, spin-doctoring and economic leveraging by both sides … and much of it has been lost on a blissfully oblivious fan base.
Internal NFLPA studies have shown that only 33 to 40 percent of hardcore NFL fans have the impending labor drama on their radar screens. For everyone else, the prospect of football interrupted – and the potential havoc it could wreak upon everything from video games to fantasy drafts – may come as an unwelcome shock.
As we head into a season that could end with an abrupt dose of harsh reality, here’s a fan’s guide to the labor landscape based on exhaustive research and conversations with owners, NFLPA officials, players, agents and other league insiders.

THIS IS JUST PART OF THE ARTICLE ON YAHOO

bwilliams
09-09-2010, 11:18 AM
Roger Goodell was in the midst of a leisurely training camp tour last month when the NFL commissioner began experiencing severe labor pains.
Goodell, as part of his weeklong bus trip to seven NFL camps with Hall of Fame coach and broadcasting icon John Madden, initiated locker-room meetings with players at each stop, and the level of interrogation he faced became increasingly charged as players expressed anxiety and anger over a potential lockout next spring.
At one point in the commissioner’s visit with the Cleveland Browns (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/cle/), linebacker Scott Fujita (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6029/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6029/news), a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee, asked: “What do the owners want? What’s it going to take to get a deal done?”
“I can’t answer that,” Goodell replied.
“You’re the NFL commissioner,” Fujita shot back. “You’re here as the mouthpiece for the owners, and you can’t even tell us what they want? The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] is up in March. Don’t you think you need to start giving us some answers?”
By the end of his visit with the Browns, players were referring to the league’s chief executive as “Roger the Dodger.” It got worse for Goodell during the final visit of his tour, this stop coming at the Indianapolis Colts (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/ind/)’ training camp. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, some Colts players admonished Goodell with swear words, to the point where star quarterback Peyton Manning (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4256/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4256/news) was embarrassed by their behavior. Veteran center Jeff Saturday (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4953/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4953/news), another executive committee member, cut the meeting short to keep the situation from escalating further.
Welcome to the strange world of the 21st-century NFL, a wildly profitable business in uncertain economic times whose proprietors and employees can’t just get along. With the two sides seemingly headed for a rancorous and incongruous labor showdown next spring, America’s most prosperous and popular sporting enterprise could be walking a fine line between hard-fought progress and shameful self-immolation.
Two years ago, when the owners voted unanimously to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement following the 2010 season, it set the stage for a confrontation that could well result in the league’s first work stoppage since 1987. As the deadline for striking a new deal nears – things will likely come to a head on or around March 1 of next year – each camp is preparing for battle on numerous fronts. There has been legal wrangling, political maneuvering, spin-doctoring and economic leveraging by both sides … and much of it has been lost on a blissfully oblivious fan base.
Internal NFLPA studies have shown that only 33 to 40 percent of hardcore NFL fans have the impending labor drama on their radar screens. For everyone else, the prospect of football interrupted – and the potential havoc it could wreak upon everything from video games to fantasy drafts – may come as an unwelcome shock.
As we head into a season that could end with an abrupt dose of harsh reality, here’s a fan’s guide to the labor landscape based on exhaustive research and conversations with owners, NFLPA officials, players, agents and other league insiders.

THIS IS JUST PART OF THE ARTICLE ON YAHOO

Setting up a new CBA seems like it would be easy. Keep the hard cap, keep it a percentage of revenues, set a rookie scale, and improve the healthcare/retirement plan for the guys who make less than $1M over their football career (about 80% of the league).

Oh, and I know the owners really want 18 games. It's a terrible idea.

Chiefster
09-09-2010, 11:51 AM
Both sides will have to give and take. I have very little concern over two groups who earn more in one season than I'll make in one lifetime. Both sides need to suck it up and get it done or go the way of the Dodo.

brdempsey69
09-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Both sides will have to give and take. I have very little concern over two groups who earn more in one season than I'll make in one lifetime. Both sides need to suck it up and get it done or go the way of the Dodo.

That's right and get a $%&#ing rookie salary scale in place. The teams drafting in the top 10 are getting screwed royally and they can't trade out because nobody wants to pay the outrageous rookie pay scale that is in place right now.

whatwasthat?
09-09-2010, 12:42 PM
so much turmoil over 16 games or 18 games...is it really that hard? 17 games and 3 preseason...boom...happy medium

Three7s
09-09-2010, 02:18 PM
Both sides will have to give and take. I have very little concern over two groups who earn more in one season than I'll make in one lifetime. Both sides need to suck it up and get it done or go the way of the Dodo.
No chance of that happening. Most NFL owners are incredibly egotistical and would have a heart attack if it meant the players getting what they wanted over the owners. I'm calling no football in 2011 unless a miracle happens.

Hayvern
09-09-2010, 02:58 PM
No chance of that happening. Most NFL owners are incredibly egotistical and would have a heart attack if it meant the players getting what they wanted over the owners. I'm calling no football in 2011 unless a miracle happens.

There are things on both side that are going to have to happen, but remember, the people who get squeezed the most in all of this are the fans.

If the players get what they want, and the number one issue is the salary cap, then that is going to drive up ticket, concession, merchandising and TV costs because that money to pay those guys has to come from somewhere. Yeah, I know everyone thinks that rich people just have endless amounts of money that can be taken from them, but that is not reality.

Salary caps need to stay in place. Additionally, they need to put something in place to get rookie contracts under control. I think the compromise here is that high pick rookies will be paid on a percentage of the highest paid players at that position, sort of like the franchise tag works. I also think you will see that the picks in the lesser rounds will get more money than they have been getting. Either through signing bonuses or contracts.

I think that is a sensible agreement. I don't believe the lockout will go past the start of spring training though. All of these guys realize that no football means no revenue. Either by salary or ticket sales.

Chiefster
09-10-2010, 01:05 AM
That's right and get a $%&#ing rookie salary scale in place. The teams drafting in the top 10 are getting screwed royally and they can't trade out because nobody wants to pay the outrageous rookie pay scale that is in place right now.

Exactly! Excellent point!


No chance of that happening. Most NFL owners are incredibly egotistical and would have a heart attack if it meant the players getting what they wanted over the owners. I'm calling no football in 2011 unless a miracle happens.

I hope your wrong dude, but wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lock out or a strike.

tornadospotter
09-10-2010, 01:19 AM
Both sides will have to give and take. I have very little concern over two groups who earn more in one season than I'll make in one lifetime. Both sides need to suck it up and get it done or go the way of the Dodo.
Let them strike again, we can still play!:11:

Three7s
09-10-2010, 01:21 AM
I'll play if it means I get health insurance and a guaranteed 6-figure contract! :lol:

matthewschiefs
09-10-2010, 10:49 AM
I think that there will be football next season. Maybe not 16 games. But when the paychecks are not comeing in to the players and the owners are not makeing all there money. Both sides will get motivated to FINALY give something to the other side.

brdempsey69
09-10-2010, 12:37 PM
According to NFL.com, they're hoping to have something ironed out in November, but we'll see.

chief31
09-10-2010, 08:01 PM
Both sides will have to give and take. I have very little concern over two groups who earn more in one season than I'll make in one lifetime. Both sides need to suck it up and get it done or go the way of the Dodo.

The average NFL player isn't making that much. And he is taking a huge phisical risk to his body, therefore life.

The players union isn't about the well-being of Drew Brees. It's about the well being of the avergae guy who hones his skill for a lifetime, and injury shortens that.

Guys like Drew Brees standing up for them is is very respectable.


so much turmoil over 16 games or 18 games...is it really that hard? 17 games and 3 preseason...boom...happy medium

16 games, or 18?

Well, are you cool with working six days a week, instead of five, for the same pay? And are you willing to risk your ability to walk for it?

I am going to side with the players every single time. As I know players who aren't millionaires. Does anyone, anywhere on earth, know an owner that isn't a billionaire?

I am no fool. I see right where the greed is.

matthewschiefs
09-10-2010, 08:45 PM
The average NFL player isn't making that much. And he is taking a huge phisical risk to his body, therefore life.

The players union isn't about the well-being of Drew Brees. It's about the well being of the avergae guy who hones his skill for a lifetime, and injury shortens that.

Guys like Drew Brees standing up for them is is very respectable.



16 games, or 18?

Well, are you cool with working six days a week, instead of five, for the same pay? And are you willing to risk your ability to walk for it?

I am going to side with the players every single time. As I know players who aren't millionaires. Does anyone, anywhere on earth, know an owner that isn't a billionaire?

I am no fool. I see right where the greed is.

I have a huge problem with this line by football players. I have friends that are Firefighters guys who also put there well being on the line when others would run away. They don't make half of what the players in the nfl make. The Lowest pay for a guy in his rookie year is over 200k You go tell the police and firefighters that playing a game of football is more dangrous then what they do. I understand the wanting of insurance and all that good stuff but they also want MORE MONEY. They want to take and give NOTHING.

As for the owners they should have given players health insuracne a LONG time ago. I agree. And yes the owners are just as greedy as the players. BOTH sides are being greedy and that's the problem. I hope things get worked out. But if they dont I won't feel sorry for one player or owner when I here how tough things are going for them. BOTH sides made there beds now they have to lay in them.

chief31
09-10-2010, 11:09 PM
I have a huge problem with this line by football players. I have friends that are Firefighters guys who also put there well being on the line when others would run away. They don't make half of what the players in the nfl make. The Lowest pay for a guy in his rookie year is over 200k You go tell the police and firefighters that playing a game of football is more dangrous then what they do. I understand the wanting of insurance and all that good stuff but they also want MORE MONEY. They want to take and give NOTHING.

As for the owners they should have given players health insuracne a LONG time ago. I agree. And yes the owners are just as greedy as the players. BOTH sides are being greedy and that's the problem. I hope things get worked out. But if they dont I won't feel sorry for one player or owner when I here how tough things are going for them. BOTH sides made there beds now they have to lay in them.

Just out of curiosity, how much money does the firefighting industry profit per year?

I agree that there is too much money going into The NFL. But, since we keep sending it there, instead of to our military, law enforcement and other emergency services, then someone is going to be keeping that money.

The only people to blame for the massive amounts of money that are going to The NFL is the fans. We actually made their bed, so-to-speak.

Now, you say that the owners are being just as greedy as the players.....

How many owners are leaving the league without ever seeing $1 million, and with a lifelong disability?

And to say "Just as greedy", when talking about guys who generally make ten times as much as the NFL's highest paid player, I think "just as greedy" may be a slight understatement.

One more thing....

It is more than just "playing a game". It is dedicating your life to that game, to become one of the best in the world at it.

It is playing a very dangerous game. The fact that someone else does a more dangerous job, will never change that playing football against the best in the world is extremely dangerous.

It is playing a game that has an average life expectancy that is over twenty years shorter than the national average.

We agree that there is far too much money going to The NFL.

But that is capitalism at work. The market has spoken.

Now the union, capitalism at work again, wants to stand for fair treatment, based on the income of the industry, for the people that are creating the consumer-base for those profits.

Not that I have sympathy for the Ray Lewis', Payton Mannings, or Tom Brady's of The NFL. But, with the amoutnt of money that the league is bringing in, I do not despise the amount that players are making.

And keep in mind that it was the owners who opted out of the CBA. And it is the owners who are threatening a lockout.

The players have not been making any demands... yet.

bwilliams
09-10-2010, 11:14 PM
I have a huge problem with this line by football players. I have friends that are Firefighters guys who also put there well being on the line when others would run away. They don't make half of what the players in the nfl make. The Lowest pay for a guy in his rookie year is over 200k You go tell the police and firefighters that playing a game of football is more dangrous then what they do. I understand the wanting of insurance and all that good stuff but they also want MORE MONEY. They want to take and give NOTHING.

As for the owners they should have given players health insuracne a LONG time ago. I agree. And yes the owners are just as greedy as the players. BOTH sides are being greedy and that's the problem. I hope things get worked out. But if they dont I won't feel sorry for one player or owner when I here how tough things are going for them. BOTH sides made there beds now they have to lay in them.

The average football player plays three years for about $1,000,000. Let's say $1,000,000 exact. 15% off the top goes to the player's agent. That leaved $850,000. Their federal taxation rate is 35%, and the average state taxation rate is 9%. The total after that is $476,000. Which totals $158,666 per year. Factor in cost of living, rookie hazing, and all of the rest, and they're making basically nothing their first contract.

And we're not factoring in long-term effects. Players who get dementia at age 40. Whose hearts explode from over-conditioning. Who have repetitive joint disorders and concussion syndromes.

No profession compares. There are 2,000 football players in the league. There are more rocket scientists walking the streets. These are guys who cannot be replaced due to their physical and mental capabilities. Lawyers, doctors, firemen, teachers - all worthy professions but they don't compare. And each and every player is a bad hit away from never being able to work again.

So when players are seeking not to work 12% more for no pay, seeking a better pension, and seeking some real health insurance, it's hard to say that they're in the wrong.

Not to mention that they *owners* opted out of the CBA and forced this whole issue. If there's a stoppage in 2011, they are 100% to blame.

matthewschiefs
09-11-2010, 12:06 AM
Just out of curiosity, how much money does the firefighting industry profit per year?

I agree that there is too much money going into The NFL. But, since we keep sending it there, instead of to our military, law enforcement and other emergency services, then someone is going to be keeping that money.

The only people to blame for the massive amounts of money that are going to The NFL is the fans. We actually made their bed, so-to-speak.

Now, you say that the owners are being just as greedy as the players.....

How many owners are leaving the league without ever seeing $1 million, and with a lifelong disability?

And to say "Just as greedy", when talking about guys who generally make ten times as much as the NFL's highest paid player, I think "just as greedy" may be a slight understatement.

One more thing....

It is more than just "playing a game". It is dedicating your life to that game, to become one of the best in the world at it.

It is playing a very dangerous game. The fact that someone else does a more dangerous job, will never change that playing football against the best in the world is extremely dangerous.

It is playing a game that has an average life expectancy that is over twenty years shorter than the national average.

We agree that there is far too much money going to The NFL.

But that is capitalism at work. The market has spoken.

Now the union, capitalism at work again, wants to stand for fair treatment, based on the income of the industry, for the people that are creating the consumer-base for those profits.

Not that I have sympathy for the Ray Lewis', Payton Mannings, or Tom Brady's of The NFL. But, with the amoutnt of money that the league is bringing in, I do not despise the amount that players are making.

And keep in mind that it was the owners who opted out of the CBA. And it is the owners who are threatening a lockout.

The players have not been making any demands... yet.


The average football player plays three years for about $1,000,000. Let's say $1,000,000 exact. 15% off the top goes to the player's agent. That leaved $850,000. Their federal taxation rate is 35%, and the average state taxation rate is 9%. The total after that is $476,000. Which totals $158,666 per year. Factor in cost of living, rookie hazing, and all of the rest, and they're making basically nothing their first contract.

And we're not factoring in long-term effects. Players who get dementia at age 40. Whose hearts explode from over-conditioning. Who have repetitive joint disorders and concussion syndromes.

No profession compares. There are 2,000 football players in the league. There are more rocket scientists walking the streets. These are guys who cannot be replaced due to their physical and mental capabilities. Lawyers, doctors, firemen, teachers - all worthy professions but they don't compare. And each and every player is a bad hit away from never being able to work again.

So when players are seeking not to work 12% more for no pay, seeking a better pension, and seeking some real health insurance, it's hard to say that they're in the wrong.

Not to mention that they *owners* opted out of the CBA and forced this whole issue. If there's a stoppage in 2011, they are 100% to blame.


What you say about the game being dangrous is true it is. SO WHAT. They CHOSE to play it.

There are alot of things you leave out.

1 FREE EDUCATION. MOST nfl players got to go to school for FREE or at least at a HIGH discount. That should provide them the abilty to set up life AFTER football. If they chose to blow through school that is there fault and no one eles. The players have a pretty nice life they just want more.

2. What other industruy do the employess gets a higher % of the money then the ownership?. For example I work for a major chain store. Ownership for that chain makes FAR more then what I as a employee does and it's not even close. The employee who like the players provides most of the service makes very little compared to those in ownership and managment. And because they CHOSE to play a game that should be diffrant? Ijust don't buy it. I don't no the excat number I just no that the players get more the 50% of the money that the NFL brings in. You make it sound like its just the owners Rolling in Money keeping the players down. It's not. It's BOTH sides.

The owners did opt out. But It's also the players REFUSEING to give an inch on there demands like the owners that is the players. If the players would be willing to give something back then it would be much easier. Likewise with the owners. It's going to take BOTH sides fianly giveing in and giveing something to the otherside to work things out. Not just 1.

Three7s
09-11-2010, 12:36 AM
The owners are 100% to blame and there's no getting around it. They won't give an inch because their pride takes a hit when the players get what they want and the owners don't when the owners feel like they OWN the players. These owners all need to figure out that it's not about them or even the players. It's about those people in the STANDS that support them, most to their graves.

bwilliams
09-11-2010, 12:44 AM
What you say about the game being dangrous is true it is. SO WHAT. They CHOSE to play it.

There are alot of things you leave out.

1 FREE EDUCATION. MOST nfl players got to go to school for FREE or at least at a HIGH discount. That should provide them the abilty to set up life AFTER football. If they chose to blow through school that is there fault and no one eles. The players have a pretty nice life they just want more.

2. What other industruy do the employess gets a higher % of the money then the ownership?. For example I work for a major chain store. Ownership for that chain makes FAR more then what I as a employee does and it's not even close. The employee who like the players provides most of the service makes very little compared to those in ownership and managment. And because they CHOSE to play a game that should be diffrant? Ijust don't buy it. I don't no the excat number I just no that the players get more the 50% of the money that the NFL brings in. You make it sound like its just the owners Rolling in Money keeping the players down. It's not. It's BOTH sides.

The owners did opt out. But It's also the players REFUSEING to give an inch on there demands like the owners that is the players. If the players would be willing to give something back then it would be much easier. Likewise with the owners. It's going to take BOTH sides fianly giveing in and giveing something to the otherside to work things out. Not just 1.

1. A "free" education is what players get in *college* in exchange for the colleges getting hundreds of millions of dollars. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pros.

2. In every industry of any size the cost labor exceeds ownership profits. No individual player makes as much as the owner, but employee salaries as a whole necessarily exceed profits. The larger the organization, the more true this statement becomes.

Players agreed to certain concessions. Now, after *ownership* opted out, they're negotaiting to get healthcare and pensions.

And when you say players are refusing to give into demands. What demands, exactly, are you talking about? If it's longer hours for less pay, what employee will agree to that? If you want to pretend this a fair contractual agreement, what person in his right mind will agree to that? If it's not those, what is it? Because owners have been very quiet about what they're actually seeking.

chief31
09-11-2010, 02:21 AM
2. In every industry of any size the cost labor exceeds ownership profits. No individual player makes as much as the owner, but employee salaries as a whole necessarily exceed profits. The larger the organization, the more true this statement becomes.

Add to that that this is an industry where the product is the employee's own skills.

A lockout would be entirely on the owners. And that is what is being discussed here.

But, if that happens, then it will be the owners who feel the immediate sting of a massive loss of customers.

matthewschiefs
09-11-2010, 06:34 AM
1. A "free" education is what players get in *college* in exchange for the colleges getting hundreds of millions of dollars. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pros.

2. In every industry of any size the cost labor exceeds ownership profits. No individual player makes as much as the owner, but employee salaries as a whole necessarily exceed profits. The larger the organization, the more true this statement becomes.

Players agreed to certain concessions. Now, after *ownership* opted out, they're negotaiting to get healthcare and pensions.

And when you say players are refusing to give into demands. What demands, exactly, are you talking about? If it's longer hours for less pay, what employee will agree to that? If you want to pretend this a fair contractual agreement, what person in his right mind will agree to that? If it's not those, what is it? Because owners have been very quiet about what they're actually seeking.

So the players should get heatcare and pensions AND More money? What excatly would the owners be gaining? Why would they agree to that? That's the problem in the whole deal.

Why not the onwers get there extra 2 games to take in more money and the players get there healthcare and pensions provided by the owners? Both sides gain.

the owners there 2 games of money.

The players there healthcare and pensionsions.

Both sides walk away with something. But see it's not the health care/pensions that is the problem. Its the greed on the players side saying give us this but we are not going to take any less.And it's the greed on the owners part that they don't want to give one dime less then they have to.

As for the free education that does have somethign to do with it. People make it sound like theses guys can't do anything after they play. If they used there education they should be able to do something after they play. Or heres a novel idea don't buy the 100,000 cars and all that nice stuff the players like to get and live i don't no like a normal person. The players have good lifes. They make almost 3 times what the normal american gets every year and yes maybe that's only 3 years on the average but again they should do fine afterwards to. But yet they still want more. I call that greed.

matthewschiefs
09-11-2010, 06:41 AM
Add to that that this is an industry where the product is the employee's own skills.

A lockout would be entirely on the owners. And that is what is being discussed here.

But, if that happens, then it will be the owners who feel the immediate sting of a massive loss of customers.

That's the same in any industry. But Ownership gets a higher % of the money. Example
EA sports a major game makers made over 4 Billion in profits last year. There toatal payroll is less then 1 billion. Were did the money go. Into the owerners managers pockets. The diffrance pay in the industry does not start at over 200,000$ a year. You get John doe who makes 30,000$ a year. That's the point. players don't no how good they have it. I bet you if you made the players work for 30,000 for a year they would sign the deal the owners want the very next day. The players have it good. The owners have it good. Both sides want more. Thats what I call greed.

Pro_Angler
09-11-2010, 02:21 PM
I say they should make it 18 hame season, get a rookie cap in place 1pick 50% of what they went for last year and down from there.
Then increase the tam cap 25% to get more money to vetran players.

bwilliams
09-11-2010, 02:23 PM
So the players should get heatcare and pensions AND More money? What excatly would the owners be gaining? Why would they agree to that? That's the problem in the whole deal.

Why not the onwers get there extra 2 games to take in more money and the players get there healthcare and pensions provided by the owners? Both sides gain.

the owners there 2 games of money.

The players there healthcare and pensionsions.

Both sides walk away with something. But see it's not the health care/pensions that is the problem. Its the greed on the players side saying give us this but we are not going to take any less.And it's the greed on the owners part that they don't want to give one dime less then they have to.

As for the free education that does have somethign to do with it. People make it sound like theses guys can't do anything after they play. If they used there education they should be able to do something after they play. Or heres a novel idea don't buy the 100,000 cars and all that nice stuff the players like to get and live i don't no like a normal person. The players have good lifes. They make almost 3 times what the normal american gets every year and yes maybe that's only 3 years on the average but again they should do fine afterwards to. But yet they still want more. I call that greed.

Why are you assuming the players haven't offered concessions? How do you know?

And again, the only reason there's even a situation is because owners opted out. How does the owners opting out mean the players are greedy?

As for the 18 games. I don't know if you have a job. If you do, assume that your employer asked you to work 12% more hours for no pay. Oh, and you work in dangerous job, and if you get hurt you're fired. Would you do it?

Again, how little or much NFL players got out of college is irrelevant. The NFL didn't pay for any of the players' educations. You don't need a college education or degree to be a NFL player. The players who did graduate worked for the colleges in exchange for their scholarships. The NFL has nothing to do with it.

And as I showed you earlier, the average NFL player isn't buying $100,000 cars. They aren't making millions. Why do you think they are?

chief31
09-11-2010, 06:02 PM
Add to that that this is an industry where the product is the employee's own skills.


That's the same in any industry. But Ownership gets a higher % of the money. Example
EA sports a major game makers made over 4 Billion in profits last year. There toatal payroll is less then 1 billion. Were did the money go. Into the owerners managers pockets. The diffrance pay in the industry does not start at over 200,000$ a year. You get John doe who makes 30,000$ a year. That's the point.

John Doe can easily be replaced by John Moe.

Payton Manning cannot be replaced by John Moe.

Noone wants to pay to see John Moe play football, nor do anything else. They pay to see Payton Manning.

That is, most definitely, not the same in any industry.



players don't no how good they have it. I bet you if you made the players work for 30,000 for a year they would sign the deal the owners want the very next day. The players have it good. The owners have it good. Both sides want more. Thats what I call greed.

I bet if you made slaves of any people, that they would start obeying their masters.

What kind of point is that?

Just because you can point to some corporate greed that has ownership taking all the profits doesn't, by a far cry, make that right.

They need the employees in order to make those profits happen. They have to have the whole team working together.

But, once the teamwork results in massive profits, the owners no longer want to be a part of the team. They want all the rewards.

Only by unity do the employees have any voice, aside from begging the masters, on the "team".

And the entire history of our planet has shown that, left to the masters to decide unchallenged, masters will have slavery.

All you need to do as an NFL owner is have alot of money to buy the team, and hire a GM and/or team president.

I am not on the bandwagon of helping the rich to get richer. And the average NFL player is not even on the "rich radar" with these owners.

Free market? Fine. As long as you are willing to accept that unions are a part of the free market.

But again, it is the owners who cancelled the existing agreement. And it is the owners who are threatening to disrupt regular season play.

brdempsey69
09-11-2010, 06:45 PM
Have a look at this:

NFL.com news: Players union collecting signatures for decertification vote (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a70089/article/players-union-collecting-signatures-for-decertification-vote?module=HP_headlines)

matthewschiefs
09-11-2010, 06:48 PM
Why are you assuming the players haven't offered concessions? How do you know?

And again, the only reason there's even a situation is because owners opted out. How does the owners opting out mean the players are greedy?

As for the 18 games. I don't know if you have a job. If you do, assume that your employer asked you to work 12% more hours for no pay. Oh, and you work in dangerous job, and if you get hurt you're fired. Would you do it?

Again, how little or much NFL players got out of college is irrelevant. The NFL didn't pay for any of the players' educations. You don't need a college education or degree to be a NFL player. The players who did graduate worked for the colleges in exchange for their scholarships. The NFL has nothing to do with it.

And as I showed you earlier, the average NFL player isn't buying $100,000 cars. They aren't making millions. Why do you think they are?


John Doe can easily be replaced by John Moe.

Payton Manning cannot be replaced by John Moe.

Noone wants to pay to see John Moe play football, nor do anything else. They pay to see Payton Manning.

That is, most definitely, not the same in any industry.




I bet if you made slaves of any people, that they would start obeying their masters.

What kind of point is that?

Just because you can point to some corporate greed that has ownership taking all the profits doesn't, by a far cry, make that right.

They need the employees in order to make those profits happen. They have to have the whole team working together.

But, once the teamwork results in massive profits, the owners no longer want to be a part of the team. They want all the rewards.

Only by unity do the employees have any voice, aside from begging the masters, on the "team".

And the entire history of our planet has shown that, left to the masters to decide unchallenged, masters will have slavery.

All you need to do as an NFL owner is have alot of money to buy the team, and hire a GM and/or team president.

I am not on the bandwagon of helping the rich to get richer. And the average NFL player is not even on the "rich radar" with these owners.

Free market? Fine. As long as you are willing to accept that unions are a part of the free market.

But again, it is the owners who cancelled the existing agreement. And it is the owners who are threatening to disrupt regular season play.

Ok one last time And I think we can agree to disagree.

I am sure that if the players were willing to give something back we would not be were we are now. The owners are not stupid they would make something work. Likewise if the owners would budge then the players would. It's BOTH sides. Yes the owners opted out but you have to keep in mind the economy has been on the decline for years. It's simply not the same market. Can you say if you made a deal the market changed you would not opt out.


The avarge player does not make millions i no but they make about 300,000 a year at least. I would have to work 10 years to get to that. If they only do play 3 years thats 900,000 and I am going off the 2007 salarys. I am sure they have gone up. I most likely will not see 900,000 in my lifetime. So why can't the players get there own health insuarce? Millions of other americans do it. Why are they so specal?

Like i stated sports are the only industry where the ownership/managment does not get the higher % of the income. Gamestop the company i work for reports over 3 billion almost every year with a payroll of about 750,000. Ownership makes all the money. The players have it good. The fact that they are wanting any more is greed IMO.

I don't care to much about the owners and belive it or not I side with the players most of the time. I have just grown tired of hearing people makeing 10 times more then I complain about there job market. They have it so good. Make them work for 30,000 a year and then offer what the owners want i bet they would take that deal in a hartbeat.

bwilliams
09-12-2010, 01:34 AM
Ok one last time And I think we can agree to disagree.

I am sure that if the players were willing to give something back we would not be were we are now. The owners are not stupid they would make something work. Likewise if the owners would budge then the players would. It's BOTH sides. Yes the owners opted out but you have to keep in mind the economy has been on the decline for years. It's simply not the same market. Can you say if you made a deal the market changed you would not opt out.

OK, that doesn't make sense. The owners opt out of the CBA. That means the first move is theirs. So far, they haven't conceded anything. All they've done is demand that players work 12% more for less pay. They opted out because they're greedy. That's the only reason. Every owner except for Wayne Weaver is making tens of millions of dallars a year.

And your economy argument isn't accurate. The NFL is making more money than any time than ever in its history.


The avarge player does not make millions i no but they make about 300,000 a year at least. I would have to work 10 years to get to that. If they only do play 3 years thats 900,000 and I am going off the 2007 salarys. I am sure they have gone up. I most likely will not see 900,000 in my lifetime. So why can't the players get there own health insuarce? Millions of other americans do it. Why are they so specal?

Again, they don't make that much. See my earlier post on the economics of being a football player.

And they don't get their own insurance because companies won't cover them. You know, because of the massive injury risks associated with being a NFL player.

Finally, they're so special because they work harder and have more specialized skills than 99.99% of the population. You can't do what they do. Neither can I. Neither can 99.99% of people.


Like i stated sports are the only industry where the ownership/managment does not get the higher % of the income. Gamestop the company i work for reports over 3 billion almost every year with a payroll of about 750,000. Ownership makes all the money. The players have it good. The fact that they are wanting any more is greed IMO.

OK, that isn't true. Every company of any size spend more on labor than they get in profits. That's the fact of modern corproate life.


I don't care to much about the owners and belive it or not I side with the players most of the time. I have just grown tired of hearing people makeing 10 times more then I complain about there job market.

With all respect, you don't remotely have the skills of even the worst football player. Does it bother you when other skilled professionals negotiate contracts? Lawyers, surgeons, programmers, and engineers negotiate contacts in which they make 10x what you or I do. If that doesn't bother you, why not? What's the difference?


They have it so good. Make them work for 30,000 a year and then offer what the owners want i bet they would take that deal in a hartbeat.

Huh? You can get a bunch of guys off the street to play for $30,000 if you want. But you can't get NFL quality players for that. No one will risk life and limb, condition, work, train, and play at a NFL level for that money.

You have to decide what you want, the NFL or the XFL. The difference is the quality of player.

matthewschiefs
09-12-2010, 04:30 PM
OK, that doesn't make sense. The owners opt out of the CBA. That means the first move is theirs. So far, they haven't conceded anything. All they've done is demand that players work 12% more for less pay. They opted out because they're greedy. That's the only reason. Every owner except for Wayne Weaver is making tens of millions of dallars a year.

And your economy argument isn't accurate. The NFL is making more money than any time than ever in its history.



Again, they don't make that much. See my earlier post on the economics of being a football player.

And they don't get their own insurance because companies won't cover them. You know, because of the massive injury risks associated with being a NFL player.

Finally, they're so special because they work harder and have more specialized skills than 99.99% of the population. You can't do what they do. Neither can I. Neither can 99.99% of people.



OK, that isn't true. Every company of any size spend more on labor than they get in profits. That's the fact of modern corproate life.



With all respect, you don't remotely have the skills of even the worst football player. Does it bother you when other skilled professionals negotiate contracts? Lawyers, surgeons, programmers, and engineers negotiate contacts in which they make 10x what you or I do. If that doesn't bother you, why not? What's the difference?



Huh? You can get a bunch of guys off the street to play for $30,000 if you want. But you can't get NFL quality players for that. No one will risk life and limb, condition, work, train, and play at a NFL level for that money.

You have to decide what you want, the NFL or the XFL. The difference is the quality of player.


Agree to disagree on this one as well.


Just keep in mind the old saying it takes 2 to tango. If either sided really wanted to get a deal done now it would be done. The owners are greedy but so are the players. It's both sided IMO..

bwilliams
09-12-2010, 04:54 PM
Agree to disagree on this one as well.


Just keep in mind the old saying it takes 2 to tango. If either sided really wanted to get a deal done now it would be done. The owners are greedy but so are the players. It's both sided IMO..

Unfortunately, how much players are paid, the economic state of the NFL, insurance practices, and how much of average corporate income is given to labor aren't matters of opinion. They're black and white facts.

If I want you to take a pay cut and work longer, and you don't agree to do that, are you greedy? Should you capitulate just to get a deal done? Because that's exactly the situation here.

matthewschiefs
09-12-2010, 05:16 PM
Unfortunately, how much players are paid, the economic state of the NFL, insurance practices, and how much of average corporate income is given to labor aren't matters of opinion. They're black and white facts.

If I want you to take a pay cut and work longer, and you don't agree to do that, are you greedy? Should you capitulate just to get a deal done? Because that's exactly the situation here.


I can easliy turn this around to people want all the benfits at the owners expense and want more money on top of that? and they are not being greedy?
No one answed this when I asked before whats wrong with this deal

The owners get there 2 extra games.

the player get the benfits they are asking for.

Both sides gain something. both sides give something.

The players won't go for that because they will whine that its 2 more games. See it's not really about the benfits like they are makeing it out to be in the media its about the MONEY. The benfits are just there sob story to get people behind them.
I know they don't have benfits they should Again I think the owners are just as if not more greedy then the players. I just no it's both sides. Millions of people dont get benfits are work. If they don't like it they find somewere eles to work that matches there skill level. These people are not makeing near the money the LOWEST paid nfl player makes a year. Yes theres more danger but they chose to play. Not to mention there takeing out 2 preseason games so it's not like this is 2 games that come out of no were.

And keep this in mind. The same people that want there benfits and play a dangrous game complain when the NFL moved the umpire for his safety because it affects the way the game is played. Theres greed on both sides that's just how it is. That's my opinion.

bwilliams
09-12-2010, 06:09 PM
I can easliy turn this around to people want all the benfits at the owners expense and want more money on top of that? and they are not being greedy?

That argument only makes sense if the players had opted out. They haven't sought extra money. They were content to play under a system that was profitable to both owners and players (the prior CBA). Fighting pay cuts and longer hours isn't remotely greedy, especially at a time in which the NFL is making more money than ever before.


No one answed this when I asked before whats wrong with this deal

The owners get there 2 extra games.

the player get the benfits they are asking for.

Both sides gain something. both sides give something.

The players would take that deal in a second. It hasn't been offered by ownership.


The players won't go for that because they will whine that its 2 more games. See it's not really about the benfits like they are makeing it out to be in the media its about the MONEY. The benfits are just there sob story to get people behind them.

Nope. The players will play more games, but they won't work more for less money in a league in which career-ending injuries are a common occurrence.


I know they don't have benfits they should Again I think the owners are just as if not more greedy then the players. I just no it's both sides. Millions of people dont get benfits are work.

OK, I mean this nicely, but you need to work harder on writing your posts. You're not making sense here.


If they don't like it they find somewere eles to work that matches there skill level. These people are not makeing near the money the LOWEST paid nfl player makes a year. Yes theres more danger but they chose to play. Not to mention there takeing out 2 preseason games so it's not like this is 2 games that come out of no were.

Most people don't have the skills of NFL players. As a Gamestop employee, you're probably good at playing video games and customer service. But you can be replaced easily. NFL players can't.

Believe it or not, it isn't easy to play in the NFL. It requires conditioning and skill that almost no one else can do. The experiences and pay of Gamestop employees or of most any other professions don't matter.


And keep this in mind. The same people that want there benfits and play a dangrous game complain when the NFL moved the umpire for his safety because it affects the way the game is played. Theres greed on both sides that's just how it is. That's my opinion.

No, they didn't. Peyton Manning complaining isn't the same as 2000 players complaining. And as I said before, this isn't about the Mannings of the world. This is about the 80% of players who have 3-year careers before being shuffled out of the league.

matthewschiefs
09-12-2010, 06:37 PM
That argument only makes sense if the players had opted out. They haven't sought extra money. They were content to play under a system that was profitable to both owners and players (the prior CBA). Fighting pay cuts and longer hours isn't remotely greedy, especially at a time in which the NFL is making more money than ever before.



The players would take that deal in a second. It hasn't been offered by ownership.



Nope. The players will play more games, but they won't work more for less money in a league in which career-ending injuries are a common occurrence.



OK, I mean this nicely, but you need to work harder on writing your posts. You're not making sense here.



Most people don't have the skills of NFL players. As a Gamestop employee, you're probably good at playing video games and customer service. But you can be replaced easily. NFL players can't.

Believe it or not, it isn't easy to play in the NFL. It requires conditioning and skill that almost no one else can do. The experiences and pay of Gamestop employees or of most any other professions don't matter.



No, they didn't. Peyton Manning complaining isn't the same as 2000 players complaining. And as I said before, this isn't about the Mannings of the world. This is about the 80% of players who have 3-year careers before being shuffled out of the league.

Ok they take out 2 preseason games and make them regular season games and that's more games? Do you alway change facts to suite your opinion? They will play more plays but not more games. Changeing the facts won't change that.


Yes i am well aware that it's hard to play in the NFL they get paid almost 10xs the avarge person and thats the lowest with the lowest salary being 285,000 per year. And again that was the 2007 number it's gone up. Isn't that enough? Yet they want benfits and to be paid for the 2 games that people like you seem to think are added out of no were. They don't get benfits. While i agree they should why cant they go and put money away for if something bad does happen. Millions of other people have to take care of themselfs. I no I no how much risk there is. I will again bring up the police and firemen whos job is EVERYDAY they don't get an offseason. And yes the U.S. Goverment brings in more money then nfl owners They blow it. But the police and firemen who have a job with higher risk seem to manage on less. And most are happy to do it. The players could do the same they just won't

bwilliams
09-12-2010, 07:14 PM
Ok they take out 2 preseason games and make them regular season games and that's more games? Do you alway change facts to suite your opinion? They will play more plays but not more games. Changeing the facts won't change that.

Come on. Guys don't play preseason games with 1/10th of the passion they play regular season games. Not to mention that starters play, what, a quarter, maybe two?

Why don't we go to a 14-game season and play 6 preseason games? Same thing, right?


Yes i am well aware that it's hard to play in the NFL they get paid almost 10xs the avarge person and thats the lowest with the lowest salary being 285,000 per year. And again that was the 2007 number it's gone up.

1. That isn't ten times the average salary (about $40K).

2. You're forgetting higher tax brackets (state and federal) and agent fees. As my father always said, it doesn't matter what you make. It matters what you keep.


Isn't that enough? Yet they want benfits and to be paid for the 2 games that people like you seem to think are added out of no were. They don't get benfits. While i agree they should why cant they go and put money away for if something bad does happen. Millions of other people have to take care of themselfs. I no I no how much risk there is. I will again bring up the police and firemen whos job is EVERYDAY they don't get an offseason.

Are you aware of the benefit packages for police officers and firefighters? If NFL players get the same, they'd be more than happy.

And NFL players will play more games. They'll play 365 games a year if you want. But they won't play without being paid for it. Or without asurances that they won't be put out on the street if they get hurt.

And again, service industry jobs aren't the same, either mentally or physically, as NFL jobs.


And yes the U.S. Govermentg that brings in more money then nfl owners They blow it. But the police and firemen who have a job with higher risk seem to manage on less. And most are happy to do it. The players could do the same they just won't

Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that being a fireman or police officer is as dangerous or as risky as being a NFL player, you're incredibly wrong.

matthewschiefs
09-12-2010, 07:43 PM
Come on. Guys don't play preseason games with 1/10th of the passion they play regular season games. Not to mention that starters play, what, a quarter, maybe two?

Why don't we go to a 14-game season and play 6 preseason games? Same thing, right?



1. That isn't ten times the average salary (about $40K).

2. You're forgetting higher tax brackets (state and federal) and agent fees. As my father always said, it doesn't matter what you make. It matters what you keep.



Are you aware of the benefit packages for police officers and firefighters? If NFL players get the same, they'd be more than happy.

And NFL players will play more games. They'll play 365 games a year if you want. But they won't play without being paid for it. Or without asurances that they won't be put out on the street if they get hurt.

And again, service industry jobs aren't the same, either mentally or physically, as NFL jobs.



Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that being a fireman or police officer is as dangerous or as risky as being a NFL player, you're incredibly wrong.


Ok I am done argueing this.

for the record I am more on the side of the players. The owners did opt out I don't think thats a big deal this would have happend they made it happen sooner rather then later. The point is Millions of people don't have what they and they want more. That in my opinion is greed. I just feel that there is greed on both sides.

bwilliams
09-12-2010, 07:50 PM
Ok I am done argueing this.

for the record I am more on the side of the players. The owners did opt out I don't think thats a big deal this would have happend they made it happen sooner rather then later. The point is Millions of people don't have what they and they want more. That in my opinion is greed. I just feel that there is greed on both sides.

Negotiating for a salary and benefits isn't greed. Greed is seeking salary and benefits beyond what you're worth. Again, do you want the NFL or the XFL?

You can get 53 guys on every team who will play for $30K a year. But you won't get NFL caliber players.

Chiefster
09-13-2010, 01:03 AM
Good exchange! :D

NFLLockout
11-21-2010, 09:50 PM
Hey Guys-
I'm here from the NFL Players Association and was just reading through this thread. We're trying to get as many signatures as we can on this petition (http://nfllockout.com/), so that when it comes time to meet with the owners we can show them just how many people do not want a lockout next year. We appreciate it!

wilqb16
11-22-2010, 02:27 AM
I should buy UFL season tickets, I guess...

Can't decide if I am a Locomotive or Mountain Lion kind of guy, though...

Big Daddy Tek
11-22-2010, 05:57 AM
Although MathewsChiefs brings up some good points that depict the opinion of the casual hard working fan very accuratly, I would have to say that BWilliams and Chief31 really nailed this one for what it is - in my opinion.

The bottom line here is that there is X amount of money entering this business and an already negotiated percentage of that money is going to the workers. (players)

The NFL owners would like to lower that negotiated percentage and make the employees work more hours even though the X amount seems to be either increasing or staying the same.

In any other business this would be laughed at and deemed unethical.

This point sounds great until I replace that X amount with 50 Billion dollars and the negotiated amount at 30 Billion dollars.

All of the sudden my point isn't taken seriously by the hard working American family man who can't even fathom that amount of money. Especially when he sees that that the players are getting more than half of the leagues income.

But you cant argue that this is the only business that the employees receive more than the owners because in this business the players are also the product.

For product and payroll to only cost a company 52% of their revenue is actually a very low figure that most companies wish they could obtain.

All of the sudden 52% sounds low doesn't it?

When you tie in all of the health issues and early death expectancy statistics with the fact that the majority of these players are making barely a sliver of what the marquee player is recieving, it really becomes a no brainer to me.

In my opinion, this backout stance that the owners have taken on the CBA is a ruthless thug move that should be looked at very negatively by the public.

Unfortunatly the casual fan will never know any of the points that were brought up in this thread and side with owners that appear to be doing the "right thing."

This was one of the best threads that I have read in this forum in quite while as everybody involved stuck to thier guns and really threw out some great facts without getting personal.

I remember what the hardcore forum was like during the Herm Edwards era and I think we have came a long way. Those of you that were around then know what I'm talking about. LOL

I'm sure the winning doesn't hurt either.

jtsr65
11-22-2010, 12:09 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching football especially my Chiefs. Football is just a sport. Our nations military fights and dies daily for peanuts compared to any NFL player or owner. I can do without the skill sets of 99.99% of NFL players. I (We-Our country) cannot do without the skill sets of our nations military, or our states police, firefighters, and emergency services. I agree that all of our career choices are just that choices. We won't have to worry about these NFL situations, if we can no longer speak english in our own country; due to another country calling the shots...Priorities!

matthewschiefs
11-22-2010, 12:40 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching football especially my Chiefs. Football is just a sport. Our nations military fights and dies daily for peanuts compared to any NFL player or owner. I can do without the skill sets of 99.99% of NFL players. I (We-Our country) cannot do without the skill sets of our nations military, or our states police, firefighters, and emergency services. I agree that all of our career choices are just that choices. We won't have to worry about these NFL situations, if we can no longer speak english in our own country; due to another country calling the shots...Priorities!

THIS

As i have stated in this thread a few times I hate what the owners have done but I will not be 100% pro players either. IMO there is greed on there side as well. When you make more then 75% of the pouplation and you want MORE IMO that is greed.

melted ice
11-22-2010, 01:05 PM
THIS

As i have stated in this thread a few times I hate what the owners have done but I will not be 100% pro players either. IMO there is greed on there side as well. When you make more then 75% of the pouplation and you want MORE IMO that is greed.

75%? Try 95%.

There will be a lockout, and it's because of pure greed. The only question now is how long will it last?

Connie Jo
11-22-2010, 07:22 PM
My random thoughts on this subject out loud, hahaha...

I love my Chiefs, I love the players. They do risk permanent life altering injuries each week, although the NFL has implented many rules protecting players...it still happens. The stats do show their lifespan is shortened, and they risk a senior life of severe joint & muscular issues. Although, the players are more healthy today than those of yesterday, are better taken care of by the franchise medical teams, and medical science has advanced as well, treating health issues related to athletic careers. Players today also have pensions and healthcare coverage, of which decades ago once a career was over, they had to rely on other careers for income, pension, healthcare.

The players are entertainers, no different in theory than movie stars...with exception most athletes spend a lifetime sacrificing and focusing on perfecting their athletic talents and abilities, including childhood. Most deserve to make big money, they've paid their lifetime dues & then some. Don't mean to offend nor disrespect, but most owners inherited wealth, didn't make the same sacrifices as players. Few are self made billionaires.

The players I really feel badly for...are those before the million dollar contracts and protection of the players association. When I met Otis Taylor the reality became clear...these were the REAL heroes of football. They played for the love of the game more than the money. None of the legends became wealthy from their football paychecks.

Otis was scheduled to do a meet and greet autograph signing at a mall in Topeka several years ago. I was so excited that I would finally get to meet such a Chiefs legend...with much anticipation I waited for the date to arrive. I got there early, thinking I'd beat any long lines forming to meet him. Well, only two fans showed...me and another. I couldn't understand, and still don't...why Chiefs fans wouldn't take an opportunity to meet such a Chiefs HOF and Super Bowl legend while still possible.

Anyway, Otis walked in...I was shocked. This once young athletically talented Super Bowl IV and Chiefs HOF WR could barely walk. He was hunched over in his back, walked very slow, and needed some assistance. He wore no sparkly jewelry, other than his Super Bowl Ring, he wore no high dollar suit, nor designer clothing, rather average everyday clothing. I'm not sure what his finanical life is like, but would imagine it's no different than the average American...rather not that of a legendary Super Bowl Champion WR of today.

I'm grateful to the Players Association...they make sure the players and heroes of the game we have a passion for are protected financially and physically once their career ends...a career that begins in childhood for most. Otis didn't have that, doubt his preventative healthcare was adequate, especially after his career ended. Possibly had he, he wouldn't have been as crippled from his career in later years. He gave of himself for his love of the game, but also for his team, the Hunts, and us fans.

All that said, I do agree there is greed today on both sides. It's too bad really, that neither side considers how truly blessed they are for what they have, not what they don't have.

To the players and the owners...this is reality for many fans: I took my grandson to yesterday's game in celebration of his upcoming birthday. I didn't have to buy his ticket since my friend Kelly let's me use his season ticket seat when he can't make games. Still...Gas $30, parking $22, Stadium Nacho $9, Coke in souvenir cup $6, another Coke later in a regular cup $4.50, and we found him a souvenir t-shirt in the Chiefs sale tent for $10. Without ticket cost...$81.50 to take one grandchild to a Chiefs game. Including the two Diet cokes I had for myself, add $9...$90.50. I didn't eat, though I was hungry, but didn't feel I could afford the cost of the stadium food, & making sure Mikey had a fun & perfect day was what mattered to me most. $90.50 may not seem like a great deal of money to some, but on my current meek disability income I had to cancel a DR's appointment to be able to afford to take Mikey to the game. It was a choice I made in good conscience, and the memories we created are priceless...especially hearing him tell his parents upon returning home..."I'm never going to forget this birthday, it was the best I've ever had."

I simply want both sides to remember us fans...the sacrifices we make for the love of the game. We the fans, are the NFL players & owners employers, realistically. We also own the stadiums as taxpayers of the county the stadium is located. I believe we fans should have a voice and say in the negotiations, rather than be ignored. Maybe we need to found a 'Fans Association' so we can have a vote and say as well. If the NFL won't consider us fans important in the overall negotiating and decisions, maybe we should have a "lockout".

Our society overall has become so spoiled, selfish, and greedy...taking much for granted daily of priceless value. I suggest both sides reflect upon MLB strike many years ago...the fan base supporting MLB has not been the same since. Reports say NFL stadiums and owners are struggling as it is with low fan attendance, due mostly to a failed economy and the high cost of attending a game already. I don't think the owners nor county/city taxpayer owned stadiums can afford to lose more fans. A lockout will be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Canada
11-22-2010, 11:26 PM
The average NFL salary in 2009 was $770 000 (this is closer to 20x the average salary)


1. That isn't ten times the average salary (about $40K).




guys who make less than $1M over their football career (about 80% of the league).

By your numbers the average career is 3 years. That makes $2 310 000 over an average career. Where do you get 80% from?



The average NFL player isn't making that much. And he is taking a huge phisical risk to his body, therefore life.

$2 310 000
The players union isn't about the well-being of Drew Brees. It's about the well being of the avergae guy who hones his skill for a lifetime, and injury shortens that.


I am going to side with the players every single time. As I know players who aren't millionaires. Does anyone, anywhere on earth, know an owner that isn't a billionaire?

The owners own the company and shoulder ALL of the financial risk. Why shouldn't they make most of the profit?




The average football player plays three years for about $1,000,000. Let's say $1,000,000 exact. 15% off the top goes to the player's agent. That leaved $850,000. Their federal taxation rate is 35%, and the average state taxation rate is 9%. The total after that is $476,000. Which totals $158,666 per year. Factor in cost of living, rookie hazing, and all of the rest, and they're making basically nothing their first contract.

Double those numbers and its a little more realistic.






And as I showed you earlier, the average NFL player isn't buying $100,000 cars. They aren't making millions. Why do you think they are?


Im not sure where you guys are getting all your number from but in 2009 the average NFL salary was $770 000. You say the average career last 3 years...that makes $2 310 000. I find it hard to believe that 80% of the league is making the league minimum. While I dont agree with the work stoppage, everyone should shoulder their share of the blame. Injuries etc...part of the inherent risk of your chosen line of work.

Boxermm187
11-23-2010, 12:23 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching football especially my Chiefs. Football is just a sport. Our nations military fights and dies daily for peanuts compared to any NFL player or owner. I can do without the skill sets of 99.99% of NFL players. I (We-Our country) cannot do without the skill sets of our nations military, or our states police, firefighters, and emergency services. I agree that all of our career choices are just that choices. We won't have to worry about these NFL situations, if we can no longer speak english in our own country; due to another country calling the shots...Priorities!
Politics and sports don't gel together. I distract my self with sporting events from the world we live in now. Sports (CHIEFS FOOTBALL) is my safe haven.

Hayvern
11-23-2010, 10:24 AM
Sorry guys, the players are as greedy as the owners are.

You know what is funny about people in general. You all want to complain about the price of a ticket, complaining that these owners are ripping off the fans, ripping off the players, yet who do you think it is that spends millions to put on this game every Sunday? Do you think the NFL magically comes up with the money to put these games together? Who pays the parking attendents? Security guards? Who pays the electricity for the stadium? In many cases, who paid to build the darn stadium to begin with.

Then add in that the players want their salaries as well. Is there room for a raise? You tell me? Judging by attendance at Arrowhead I would say that there is no room for a ticket price raise. So where does the extra money come from?

I really wonder, what is the liability insurance cost for one Sunday at Arrowhead to cover 70,000 screaming fans who at any point could slip on a spilt beer and break their necks? How about coverage for if one of the players on the field gets angry and beats up a person in the stands?

The players could probably get more money, but those costs are going to ultimately come from you and me in increased ticket sales and increased merchandising.

I have a hard time siding with anyone, all of these people make more money than I do, so if I let me anger for the greedy taint my vision, then I would say all of these people are out of their minds.

Chiefster
11-23-2010, 03:10 PM
Sorry guys, the players are as greedy as the owners are.

You know what is funny about people in general. You all want to complain about the price of a ticket, complaining that these owners are ripping off the fans, ripping off the players, yet who do you think it is that spends millions to put on this game every Sunday? Do you think the NFL magically comes up with the money to put these games together? Who pays the parking attendents? Security guards? Who pays the electricity for the stadium? In many cases, who paid to build the darn stadium to begin with.

Then add in that the players want their salaries as well. Is there room for a raise? You tell me? Judging by attendance at Arrowhead I would say that there is no room for a ticket price raise. So where does the extra money come from?

I really wonder, what is the liability insurance cost for one Sunday at Arrowhead to cover 70,000 screaming fans who at any point could slip on a spilt beer and break their necks? How about coverage for if one of the players on the field gets angry and beats up a person in the stands?

The players could probably get more money, but those costs are going to ultimately come from you and me in increased ticket sales and increased merchandising.

I have a hard time siding with anyone, all of these people make more money than I do, so if I let me anger for the greedy taint my vision, then I would say all of these people are out of their minds.

A great big THIS!

Canada
11-23-2010, 04:27 PM
Sorry guys, the players are as greedy as the owners are.

You know what is funny about people in general. You all want to complain about the price of a ticket, complaining that these owners are ripping off the fans, ripping off the players, yet who do you think it is that spends millions to put on this game every Sunday? Do you think the NFL magically comes up with the money to put these games together? Who pays the parking attendents? Security guards? Who pays the electricity for the stadium? In many cases, who paid to build the darn stadium to begin with.

Then add in that the players want their salaries as well. Is there room for a raise? You tell me? Judging by attendance at Arrowhead I would say that there is no room for a ticket price raise. So where does the extra money come from?

I really wonder, what is the liability insurance cost for one Sunday at Arrowhead to cover 70,000 screaming fans who at any point could slip on a spilt beer and break their necks? How about coverage for if one of the players on the field gets angry and beats up a person in the stands?

The players could probably get more money, but those costs are going to ultimately come from you and me in increased ticket sales and increased merchandising.

I have a hard time siding with anyone, all of these people make more money than I do, so if I let me anger for the greedy taint my vision, then I would say all of these people are out of their minds.

ha ha ...you said taint!! :lol:

Hayvern
11-23-2010, 04:49 PM
ha ha ...you said taint!! :lol:
BUAHAHAHAH by design!

matthewschiefs
11-23-2010, 04:50 PM
Sorry guys, the players are as greedy as the owners are.

You know what is funny about people in general. You all want to complain about the price of a ticket, complaining that these owners are ripping off the fans, ripping off the players, yet who do you think it is that spends millions to put on this game every Sunday? Do you think the NFL magically comes up with the money to put these games together? Who pays the parking attendents? Security guards? Who pays the electricity for the stadium? In many cases, who paid to build the darn stadium to begin with.

Then add in that the players want their salaries as well. Is there room for a raise? You tell me? Judging by attendance at Arrowhead I would say that there is no room for a ticket price raise. So where does the extra money come from?

I really wonder, what is the liability insurance cost for one Sunday at Arrowhead to cover 70,000 screaming fans who at any point could slip on a spilt beer and break their necks? How about coverage for if one of the players on the field gets angry and beats up a person in the stands?

The players could probably get more money, but those costs are going to ultimately come from you and me in increased ticket sales and increased merchandising.

I have a hard time siding with anyone, all of these people make more money than I do, so if I let me anger for the greedy taint my vision, then I would say all of these people are out of their minds.

100% agree

I don't care who gets what but the owners and players both owe it to the fans to get this worked out. After all it is the fans who go to the games that pay both the owners and palyers.

chief31
11-23-2010, 07:32 PM
Im not sure where you guys are getting all your number from but in 2009 the average NFL salary was $770 000. You say the average career last 3 years...that makes $2 310 000. I find it hard to believe that 80% of the league is making the league minimum. While I dont agree with the work stoppage, everyone should shoulder their share of the blame. Injuries etc...part of the inherent risk of your chosen line of work.

The fact is, just like everything else, the small top percentage of players make the majority of that money, leaving the majority of players earning much less than your $770,000 estimate.

But there is nothing that can be said here.

You are going to base it all off of Payton Manning's pay either way.

Not that what the players earn really has anything to do with it.

You overpay for the product, (The players) then want to complain that they are overpaid.

The league/owners set all prices. So, if you feel you are overpaying, then who is to blame?

Actually, it's you. Noone is forcing you to overpay. You are choosing to.

Complaining about the product, as well as the price, while continuing to buy is borderline lunacy, since it is a luxury product anyway. Noone needs this product.

But this whole ordeal is, in no way, about players trying to get more money.

The owners opted out of an agreement.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

But damn those evil players for it all, anyway.

Canada
11-23-2010, 09:22 PM
The fact is, just like everything else, the small top percentage of players make the majority of that money, leaving the majority of players earning much less than your $770,000 estimate.

But there is nothing that can be said here.

You are going to base it all off of Payton Manning's pay either way.

Not that what the players earn really has anything to do with it.

You overpay for the product, (The players) then want to complain that they are overpaid.

The league/owners set all prices. So, if you feel you are overpaying, then who is to blame?

Actually, it's you. Noone is forcing you to overpay. You are choosing to.

Complaining about the product, as well as the price, while continuing to buy is borderline lunacy, since it is a luxury product anyway. Noone needs this product.

But this whole ordeal is, in no way, about players trying to get more money.

The owners opted out of an agreement.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

But damn those evil players for it all, anyway.

I understand your hatredd of "the man" but to say players have no responsibility for the price increases is ridiculous. You say a small percentage make over $770 000 and that is limited to players like Peyton Manning? How about the multi million dollar contracts being signed every season by 1st round picks. For every Peyton Manning, there is a kicker on the other end of the spectrum. I think $770 000 a year is pretty accurate estimate of what the average player makes. Im not complaining about the product, but when there is a fu*k up in getting that product out to the market, then I blame the whole company. Not just the owner.

Connie Jo
11-23-2010, 09:28 PM
The fact is, just like everything else, the small top percentage of players make the majority of that money, leaving the majority of players earning much less than your $770,000 estimate.

But there is nothing that can be said here.

You are going to base it all off of Payton Manning's pay either way.

Not that what the players earn really has anything to do with it.

You overpay for the product, (The players) then want to complain that they are overpaid.

The league/owners set all prices. So, if you feel you are overpaying, then who is to blame?

Actually, it's you. Noone is forcing you to overpay. You are choosing to.

Complaining about the product, as well as the price, while continuing to buy is borderline lunacy, since it is a luxury product anyway. Noone needs this product.

But this whole ordeal is, in no way, about players trying to get more money.

The owners opted out of an agreement.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

But damn those evil players for it all, anyway.

Well, in many ways I agree with you, one exception noted however..."Noone needs this product."..............I do. :)

We spend billions each year for physical healthcare, to live longer and healthier physically. We 'need' good physical health, without it we eventually die sooner than we're told we should.

Well, emotional well being is vital to overall physical well being. Lack of good emotional health risks physical health, will take it's toll on our physical health overall, including lowering immune system. It's a proven scientific fact that emotional well being is a vital positive factor to battling any serious illness or health issue. It's also a proven fact that the common stresses endured living in today's complicated society can kill us if our stress levels become too high.

The majority of people overlook emotional health being as important as physical health. Public awareness is lacking by comparison to that of preventative care related to our physical health. We have many various forms of emotional R & R, breaks or escapes to relieve stress...vacations, hobbies, etc.. For most their emotional R & R relates to an interest or passion.

The Chiefs games are an emotional fun escape, day vacations, R & R I have a passion for & interest in. The Chiefs are a major source of preventative emotional healthcare. Seriously, I don't know that I would've survived the most stressful and emotionally painful period of my life, the last two years, without having Chiefs & Kid Rock related events as an emotional escape on occasion from the cruel & stressful realities of life.

I hope this makes sense, lol.

Hayvern
11-23-2010, 11:17 PM
The fact is, just like everything else, the small top percentage of players make the majority of that money, leaving the majority of players earning much less than your $770,000 estimate.

But there is nothing that can be said here.

You are going to base it all off of Payton Manning's pay either way.

Not that what the players earn really has anything to do with it.

You overpay for the product, (The players) then want to complain that they are overpaid.

The league/owners set all prices. So, if you feel you are overpaying, then who is to blame?

Actually, it's you. Noone is forcing you to overpay. You are choosing to.

Complaining about the product, as well as the price, while continuing to buy is borderline lunacy, since it is a luxury product anyway. Noone needs this product.

But this whole ordeal is, in no way, about players trying to get more money.

The owners opted out of an agreement.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

But damn those evil players for it all, anyway.

Wow, well ordinarily we agree on a lot of things, but really, a small amount of searching would point you to this page:

NFL Player Salaries (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nfl-player-salaries.html)

[qoute]The average NFL player salary for the year 2009 was around US $770,000. The average base salary of an NFL player in 2009 was around US $990,000. The average NFL player signing bonus salary for all players in 2009 was approximately US $1.3 million.[/quote]

matthewschiefs
11-23-2010, 11:25 PM
The fact is, just like everything else, the small top percentage of players make the majority of that money, leaving the majority of players earning much less than your $770,000 estimate.

But there is nothing that can be said here.

You are going to base it all off of Payton Manning's pay either way.

Not that what the players earn really has anything to do with it.

You overpay for the product, (The players) then want to complain that they are overpaid.

The league/owners set all prices. So, if you feel you are overpaying, then who is to blame?

Actually, it's you. Noone is forcing you to overpay. You are choosing to.

Complaining about the product, as well as the price, while continuing to buy is borderline lunacy, since it is a luxury product anyway. Noone needs this product.

But this whole ordeal is, in no way, about players trying to get more money.

The owners opted out of an agreement.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

But damn those evil players for it all, anyway.

Even if that is true lets cut that in half lets even go all the way down to 350,000$ a year. That is still a LOT of money. Even the players that only last 3 years that is over 1 million dollars. Thats A LOT OF money. Compared to the owners it's not but what % of the pouplation is makeing what the owners are. In the grand scheme of things the players are well off. They have room to give just as the owners do.

chief31
11-24-2010, 12:08 AM
I understand your hatredd of "the man" but to say players have no responsibility for the price increases is ridiculous. You say a small percentage make over $770 000 and that is limited to players like Peyton Manning? How about the multi million dollar contracts being signed every season by 1st round picks.

Yep. They too, balloon that number.

Still a minority, collecting the majority of the money.

For every Peyton Manning, there is a kicker on the other end of the spectrum.

Yep. That's where the average player tends to be on the pay-scale. Right with that kicker.

I think $770 000 a year is pretty accurate estimate of what the average player makes.

Too bad it isn't. 5 guys made a million dollars, 95 guys made one dollar. The average is $10,000. But the average guy still made one dollar.

Im not complaining about the product, but when there is a fu*k up in getting that product out to the market, then I blame the whole company. Not just the owner.

The owners voided the agreed upon contract.

The owners are threatening a lockout.

Yet you blame "the whole company".

What part of that line of thinking isn't ridiculous?

Do you blame the janitor at the grocery store if the store runs out of your brand of potato chips too?

Maybe we should be discussing how much that janitor gets paid. It is completely irrelevant to the potato chips issue too, so why not?

Hayvern
11-24-2010, 12:10 AM
Even if that is true lets cut that in half lets even go all the way down to 350,000$ a year. That is still a LOT of money. Even the players that only last 3 years that is over 1 million dollars. Thats A LOT OF money. Compared to the owners it's not but what % of the pouplation is makeing what the owners are. In the grand scheme of things the players are well off. They have room to give just as the owners do.

Consider the fact that I have been working for over 20 years, and I only JUST made $1 million dollars, TOTAL. Some people work their entire LIVES and never make $1 million dollars.

Think about it, median salary in the US is 43K per year, it will take over 23 years to make a million at that rate.

In my entire lifetime I MIGHT make $1.75 million dollars. Just about every player in the NFL can make that in 2 - 3 years, just for playing a game. I can almost lay ten to one that I have taken a worse beating in my 20 years on the job, and I can guarantee there are guys that are in much more dangerous jobs that don't make what these guys make.

So I really don't want to hear about how hard these guys have it and how hard their lives are, and what their life expectency is. Most people in this country would take 8 years to make what the league minimum is for a rookie right out of college.

Put that in perspective a moment before we start talking about how they need to make more money.

chief31
11-24-2010, 12:15 AM
Even if that is true lets cut that in half lets even go all the way down to 350,000$ a year. That is still a LOT of money. Even the players that only last 3 years that is over 1 million dollars. Thats A LOT OF money. Compared to the owners it's not but what % of the pouplation is makeing what the owners are. In the grand scheme of things the players are well off. They have room to give just as the owners do.

I agree that all NFL players do pretty well on pay.

The point is that the players were not making any demands.

The owners opted out of the last contract. And it is the owners who are threatening a lockout.

How do we blame the players for the actions of the owners?

matthewschiefs
11-24-2010, 12:51 AM
I agree that all NFL players do pretty well on pay.

The point is that the players were not making any demands.

The owners opted out of the last contract. And it is the owners who are threatening a lockout.

How do we blame the players for the actions of the owners?


Because the players just like the owners are looking to gain more. The players can give in on some things just like the owners. BOTH sides are refuseing to give in. Yes the owners are threating to lockout the players but the players are threating to decertify union so the owners can't lock them out.N.F.L. Players Union Begins Voting on Decertification - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/sports/football/12nfl.html)
That move is hardly saying lets meet half way.

Both sides are refuseing to give an inch. Yes the owners opted out but the players agreed to give them that option and the owners are takeing it. And this would have happend as soon as the deal ended. All the owners opting out did was make it happen sooner rather then later.

Hayvern
11-24-2010, 01:38 AM
I agree that all NFL players do pretty well on pay.

The point is that the players were not making any demands.

The owners opted out of the last contract. And it is the owners who are threatening a lockout.

How do we blame the players for the actions of the owners?

No one opted out of a contract. The contract is over. It is time to negotiate a new one.

The owners are asking for a couple of things, rookie salary caps for one. The players are obviously against that since so much of their current plan depends on those salaries continuing to increase.

For instance, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady initiated hold outs the minute Bradford got his major contract. The owners are trying to get this under control a little bit.

It is a negotiation that has to take place, the owners will excercise their leverage which is a lockout just the same as the players can initiate a strike.

Connie Jo
11-24-2010, 07:31 PM
Consider the fact that I have been working for over 20 years, and I only JUST made $1 million dollars, TOTAL. Some people work their entire LIVES and never make $1 million dollars.

Think about it, median salary in the US is 43K per year, it will take over 23 years to make a million at that rate.

In my entire lifetime I MIGHT make $1.75 million dollars. Just about every player in the NFL can make that in 2 - 3 years, just for playing a game. I can almost lay ten to one that I have taken a worse beating in my 20 years on the job, and I can guarantee there are guys that are in much more dangerous jobs that don't make what these guys make.

So I really don't want to hear about how hard these guys have it and how hard their lives are, and what their life expectency is. Most people in this country would take 8 years to make what the league minimum is for a rookie right out of college.

Put that in perspective a moment before we start talking about how they need to make more money.

Those are some very good points, and I tend to agree, but I still feel badly for those players like Otis...before the million dollar paychecks, pensions, healthcare, etc.. I realize however, that this discussion doesn't pertain to those players, rather those of today. The greed is on both sides. I don't think many of the NFL owners are self made, nor do they face risks the players do with injury, taking a beating, etc....so the players do have that much on their side of the greed.

NFLLockout
11-28-2010, 06:48 PM
Hey Guys -
Just wanted to show you the letter (http://www.nfllockout.com/2010/10/11/petition-letter-to-nfl-commissioner-and-nfl-owners/) that we will be sending the owners along with the petition signatures. As you can tell, a lockout would effect an enormous amount of people.

Big Daddy Tek
11-28-2010, 09:50 PM
No one opted out of a contract. The contract is over. It is time to negotiate a new one.

The owners are asking for a couple of things, rookie salary caps for one. The players are obviously against that since so much of their current plan depends on those salaries continuing to increase.

For instance, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady initiated hold outs the minute Bradford got his major contract. The owners are trying to get this under control a little bit.

It is a negotiation that has to take place, the owners will excercise their leverage which is a lockout just the same as the players can initiate a strike.

Actually the owners did opt out of the contract. The current contract had three years remaining.

kilobytes
11-29-2010, 01:11 AM
This is the worst time for a lockout. The Chiefs are on the rise and if there is a lockout....****

GlennBree
11-29-2010, 10:45 AM
This is the worst time for a lockout. The Chiefs are on the rise and if there is a lockout....****

DITTO! DITTO! DITTO!

NFLLockout
01-17-2011, 12:28 PM
Just wanted to give you guys a heads up that the NFLPA will be conducting a #LETUSPLAY day, where among other things (http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/01/14/nfl-players-fans-to-team-up-for-let-us-play-day/), you can ask players questions via Twitter (http://twitter.com/#%21/nfllockout) & Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/#%21/NFLLockout).

4everchiefsfan25
01-17-2011, 12:38 PM
Hey Guys -
Just wanted to show you the letter (http://www.nfllockout.com/2010/10/11/petition-letter-to-nfl-commissioner-and-nfl-owners/) that we will be sending the owners along with the petition signatures. As you can tell, a lockout would effect an enormous amount of people.
I signed the petition :D

Hayvern
01-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Actually the owners did opt out of the contract. The current contract had three years remaining.

Wrong, it was due for an extension, after the 2011 season. Yes, the owners opted out of the final season of the extension, but either it would have happened in 2010, or it would have happened in 2011.

Right now, the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season. I don't really get this argument because you play those games now, and they don't mean anything.

A player can have a career ending injury in a pre-season game as easily as he can in a regular season game. If you are going to play the games anyway, make them worth something.

matthewschiefs
01-17-2011, 06:17 PM
Wrong, it was due for an extension, after the 2011 season. Yes, the owners opted out of the final season of the extension, but either it would have happened in 2010, or it would have happened in 2011.

Right now, the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season. I don't really get this argument because you play those games now, and they don't mean anything.

A player can have a career ending injury in a pre-season game as easily as he can in a regular season game. If you are going to play the games anyway, make them worth something.

I agree with this. I think way to much is being made of the 2 extra regular season games. Look at hockey. That is a very physical game not as physical as football but it still adds up and takes a tole on there bodies they manage to play 82 games a year Condering they would take 2 preseason games off I think that this is an overblown issue

NFLLockout
01-20-2011, 02:46 PM
I signed the petition :D

Thanks for signing, we appreciate it! Did anyone happen to participate in #LETUSPLAY day? Here's a brief recap (http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/01/18/731/) of what went down, and to anyone who helped make it a great success, thank you!

NFLLockout
02-03-2011, 05:51 PM
Pardon the double post guys, just wanted to share the new NFLPA Super Bowl commercial. What do you think of the spot?

Chiefster
02-03-2011, 10:56 PM
Pardon the double post guys, just wanted to share the new NFLPA Super Bowl commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl9BpUgYljQ). What do you think of the spot?


It definitely conveys your message.

chief31
02-04-2011, 04:56 PM
Pardon the double post guys, just wanted to share the new What do you think of the spot?

I like it.

Chiefster
02-05-2011, 06:32 AM
Wrong, it was due for an extension, after the 2011 season. Yes, the owners opted out of the final season of the extension, but either it would have happened in 2010, or it would have happened in 2011.

Right now, the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season. I don't really get this argument because you play those games now, and they don't mean anything.

A player can have a career ending injury in a pre-season game as easily as he can in a regular season game. If you are going to play the games anyway, make them worth something.

The problem I have with this is that it gives coaches two less weeks to evaluate talent and make final cuts.

tornadospotter
02-05-2011, 12:05 PM
The problem I have with this is that it gives coaches two less weeks to evaluate talent and make final cuts.
I agree, and it gives 2 less weeks for players to be evaluated.:smile

GlennBree
02-05-2011, 06:22 PM
Two weeks can make a HUGE difference.

chief31
02-05-2011, 06:54 PM
Wrong, it was due for an extension, after the 2011 season. Yes, the owners opted out of the final season of the extension, but either it would have happened in 2010, or it would have happened in 2011.

Right now, the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season. I don't really get this argument because you play those games now, and they don't mean anything.

A player can have a career ending injury in a pre-season game as easily as he can in a regular season game. If you are going to play the games anyway, make them worth something.


The problem I have with this is that it gives coaches two less weeks to evaluate talent and make final cuts.

That, and the players are currently not playing much of those two preseason games, whereas they will be required to play every minute of two additional regular season games.

One of the remaining two preseason games would still require a lot of playing time from starters, as game three currently does.

What it boils down to is almost two complete games added to the schedule, as opposed to two games that they already playing, being counted, as was suggested.

Then, after a season or two of having only two preseason games, to prepare for an eighteen game schedule, of course teams will want the other two preseason games back, without subtracting them from the eighteen game schedule.

That would complete the addition of two games of work and physical risk to the players. And that is exactly what the owners are looking for.

But I also love the bias shown with the issue, as "the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season" suggesting that it is the NFLPA that is making some demands, instead of the fact that it is the owners who are making the demand for more games.

Hayvern, you make it seem like there was no cost to the decision to opt out of the current agreement, by saying it would have happened eventually.

Yeah. That is not something that places the blame for the threatened lockout onto players though.

All blame for the current situation should be placed on the owners. They, literally, asked for the blame.

Had the owners not opted out, (because how many of us are really feeling sorry for the massive profits that they are recording under the current CBA?)then the threat would have been a year away. Not to mention the extra year to negotiate, while not threatening to lockout.

Make no doubt, the whole issue exists now, because the owners chose to make it an issue right now.

As for who is actually putting themselves at risk, is this really a question? Some billionaire risks part of his massive collection of money, while a player risks his health, livelihood, and even his life.

No amount of financial risk equals the risk that the players are putting fourth.

What? The owners are risking being poor? (Not really) So what? Be poor. Life goes on. Try being permanently handicapped. Then I'll listen to your plight.

matthewschiefs
02-05-2011, 10:32 PM
That, and the players are currently not playing much of those two preseason games, whereas they will be required to play every minute of two additional regular season games.

One of the remaining two preseason games would still require a lot of playing time from starters, as game three currently does.

What it boils down to is almost two complete games added to the schedule, as opposed to two games that they already playing, being counted, as was suggested.

Then, after a season or two of having only two preseason games, to prepare for an eighteen game schedule, of course teams will want the other two preseason games back, without subtracting them from the eighteen game schedule.

That would complete the addition of two games of work and physical risk to the players. And that is exactly what the owners are looking for.

But I also love the bias shown with the issue, as "the argument is that the players do now want two more games for the regular season" suggesting that it is the NFLPA that is making some demands, instead of the fact that it is the owners who are making the demand for more games.

Hayvern, you make it seem like there was no cost to the decision to opt out of the current agreement, by saying it would have happened eventually.

Yeah. That is not something that places the blame for the threatened lockout onto players though.

All blame for the current situation should be placed on the owners. They, literally, asked for the blame.

Had the owners not opted out, (because how many of us are really feeling sorry for the massive profits that they are recording under the current CBA?)then the threat would have been a year away. Not to mention the extra year to negotiate, while not threatening to lockout.

Make no doubt, the whole issue exists now, because the owners chose to make it an issue right now.

As for who is actually putting themselves at risk, is this really a question? Some billionaire risks part of his massive collection of money, while a player risks his health, livelihood, and even his life.

No amount of financial risk equals the risk that the players are putting fourth.

What? The owners are risking being poor? (Not really) So what? Be poor. Life goes on. Try being permanently handicapped. Then I'll listen to your plight.

I think everyone knows what I think on this issue. I think that it's both sides that need to get there heads on stright. That includes the players union. Let me put it like this. It takes two to tango.

Anyway on to my main part. I think that most the bias has been pro players. At least from what I have seen. example. Mark Schlereth many times has talked about how the NFL is to strict with the players when it comes to there uniforms. And I agree with him on that. But then while talking about the owners he went on a rant about how bad it is that the owners don't force players to wear mouthguards. You can't have it both ways. That's the type of talk I have heard on this issue. But I tend to tune out the tv when They start talking about the labor issure after a while.

chief31
02-06-2011, 11:52 AM
I think everyone knows what I think on this issue. I think that it's both sides that need to get there heads on stright. That includes the players union. Let me put it like this. It takes two to tango.

Anyway on to my main part. I think that most the bias has been pro players. At least from what I have seen. example. Mark Schlereth many times has talked about how the NFL is to strict with the players when it comes to there uniforms. And I agree with him on that. But then while talking about the owners he went on a rant about how bad it is that the owners don't force players to wear mouthguards. You can't have it both ways. That's the type of talk I have heard on this issue. But I tend to tune out the tv when They start talking about the labor issure after a while.


Wow. That's a pretty obscure example. The mouthguards and uniform issues are closet issues. I don't think that those two issues are going to have anything to do with a lockout.

But, talk about your hypocritical thinking....

The NFL asserts that they are infinitely concerned with players' health and well-being when defending fines for hits. But, they are demanding that the players play two more games.... for more profits.

The two biggest demands in this labor dispute are being made by the owners.

Two more games is huge. It is similar to my boss saying that he wants me to work Saturdays, but at the same pay that I was getting for Mon-Fri.

You want a day of free labor? Hmmm...

The other is that the owners are asking to get some money back from the NFLPA.

So, you want me to work more days, for less pay?

How this whole thing is being blamed on the players, or even being looked at as the fault of both sides is quite baffling.

FACT: The owners cancelled the agreed upon contract.
FACT: The owners want more work from the players.
FACT: The owners want more money.
FACT: The owners are threatening a lockout.

kckidd8870
02-06-2011, 01:19 PM
I say if there is know football in 2011,we the fans should have a holdout in 2012.I love football very much.It has been my fovorite thing to do and watch for the past 33 years but this has gone too far.They all make crazy money.Even the guys that make less than a million a year.Players and owners make a mint.Half the players don't even give it there all.Just playing for the money.Like I said they hold out in 2011,the fans need to hold out in 2012.At least not go or watch them for the first few weeks.Let them know we are in charge.Not the owners or the players,but the fans are in charge.Another thing they should do is,make every team and every player make the same amount of money but when they make it to the playoffs or super bowl,depending on how deep of a run they make in the playoffs.That is the big payday for the players.Make them perform to get the money.Tired of the half *** play from some of the players and they still get paid sick money.We they fans are more serious about are team,than some of the players.Someone should set up some kind of poll to see what everyone thinks.I would but my computer skills arent the best lol.Hope to hear some good comments.I think if the fans did this,football would be better than ever in 2013.The NFL and the players would have to rethink themselfs.For that matter ,let them know what we think now.Maybe they will listen and get there asses in gear and get the deal done.Get fans in every NFL city envolved if ther is a holdout in 2011.Talking about economy,if there is a holdout.It will hurt this great nation badly.There will be billions of dollars of revenue lost.

matthewschiefs
02-06-2011, 01:21 PM
Wow. That's a pretty obscure example. The mouthguards and uniform issues are closet issues. I don't think that those two issues are going to have anything to do with a lockout.

But, talk about your hypocritical thinking....

The NFL asserts that they are infinitely concerned with players' health and well-being when defending fines for hits. But, they are demanding that the players play two more games.... for more profits.

The two biggest demands in this labor dispute are being made by the owners.

Two more games is huge. It is similar to my boss saying that he wants me to work Saturdays, but at the same pay that I was getting for Mon-Fri.

You want a day of free labor? Hmmm...

The other is that the owners are asking to get some money back from the NFLPA.

So, you want me to work more days, for less pay?

How this whole thing is being blamed on the players, or even being looked at as the fault of both sides is quite baffling.

FACT: The owners cancelled the agreed upon contract.
FACT: The owners want more work from the players.
FACT: The owners want more money.
FACT: The owners are threatening a lockout.

That's not as uncommon as many think in the business world. And this is the business side of football. As one of the store managers at my work I deal with other stores around in the area. If we are short on something that they have planty of we work out a deal to get what we are short on. Doing so you get to no the people from those stores. Gamestop my employer felt that one store in our area (thankfully not mine) was not meeting there expectations and the owners of that store gave there employees the choice to take a pay cut or close the store. It happens alot in the business world.

The reason that I put some (not even half) of the blame on the players is this. I have heard former players admit that in the last CBA the owners got there butts kicked. If you made a deal or anyone made a deal and it didn't turn out as good as you might have thought that it would and you had the RIGHT in that deal to opt out you would anyone would. The owners had the right in that agreement to opt out they took that right. Just like the players would take any right that they have in the CBA. The players can give a little just as easy as the owners can. Neither side is at this time. The owners are threating to lockout the players the players have threatened to decertify the union so they can sue the owners. Both sides are makeing threats. I think that both sides will eventualy give a little and get a deal done before the season. I just feel that it's unfair to say the owners are 100% to blame. I think its more like they are 75% the players are 25%

chief31
02-06-2011, 06:34 PM
That's not as uncommon as many think in the business world. And this is the business side of football. As one of the store managers at my work I deal with other stores around in the area. If we are short on something that they have planty of we work out a deal to get what we are short on. Doing so you get to no the people from those stores. Gamestop my employer felt that one store in our area (thankfully not mine) was not meeting there expectations and the owners of that store gave there employees the choice to take a pay cut or close the store. It happens alot in the business world.

Regardless of how often it happens in other businesses, NFL ownership is far from being unprofitable.

And, I see no way that this takes the focus off of the owners, who are the people actually making the holdout threats, for even better profits.

Just because it is common to be so hyper-greedy, doesn't mean that it is faultless, and certainly doesn't shift the fault to anyone else.


The reason that I put some (not even half) of the blame on the players is this. I have heard former players admit that in the last CBA the owners got there butts kicked. If you made a deal or anyone made a deal and it didn't turn out as good as you might have thought that it would and you had the RIGHT in that deal to opt out you would anyone would.

Fine. But there is zero fault on the players for that decision to opt out.

If the owners made a bad deal, (Man are they ever going to the poorhouse from it.)then that was their decision.


The owners had the right in that agreement to opt out they took that right.

Not without fault.


Just like the players would take any right that they have in the CBA. The players can give a little just as easy as the owners can. Neither side is at this time. The owners are threating to lockout the players the players have threatened to decertify the union so they can sue the owners. Both sides are makeing threats. I think that both sides will eventualy give a little and get a deal done before the season. I just feel that it's unfair to say the owners are 100% to blame. I think its more like they are 75% the players are 25%

I don't call it 100%. But, seeing as how it was the owners who initiated this whole showdown, and the biggest demands are being made by the owners, I think that 75%/25% is quite generous to them.

Now, not having been in any of the negotiations, I can't say how much the players may have offered to sacrifice. But, it is safe to assume that they haven't caved on every single request, as a deal would have been done immediately.

I have heard, however, that the owners are refusing to share information that would show how badly the last contract was "hurting" them.

Pretty hard to make claims of poor profits, while not offering the evidence that you have in your possession.

I put it at about 90%/10% because the players could simply agree to whatever demands the owners have.

But good to see that you do realize that this is being initiated by the owners.

Perhaps, behind the scenes, during the meetings that they have had, the players are being very tight. I just don't see how one could make such an assumption, considering how it is the owners who are making the major demands.