PDA

View Full Version : Players Union decertifies



SAPHOJUNKIE
03-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Per Chris Mortensen, ESPN NFL insider.

Players union has filed decertification papers in Minneapolis court.

Peaceful renegotiation of new CBA is now a thing of the past. The courts will decide, and there may be no football this year.

Three7s
03-11-2011, 06:19 PM
Guess I should take up gardening.

Lazeye
03-11-2011, 07:05 PM
If the season is lost then so am I as a fan, I am sorry to many broke people in the world to be a fan of a sport where we have crybabys balling of a BILLION dollars, somebody got 15 cent I can borrow? I am not going to post again until what would have been the 1st game of the year in sept. If we are not playing then this will be my last post and it has been fun being all of your friends. 28 years of being a chiefs fan may go down the drain because of a bunch of B*tch@s, I would like to hear what the coachs think about this matter since they are in the middle of this mess wanting to get there teams ready.:banghead:

N TX Dave
03-11-2011, 08:13 PM
Well if they mess around and screw up the season I am with you I still do not watch MLB because of their last strike. I still consider the Royals my team but I might look at the standings a couple of weeks is how I follow MLB. That is how I will change to follow the NFL if they screw this up, my football will be Friday night and Saturday. The damn crybabies are going to screw a good thing. From what I just read the only thing the owners did not give in on was opening the books for the last 10 years. Read this Players' union decertifies as talks break down - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor)

matthewschiefs
03-11-2011, 08:50 PM
From what I have heard today on ESPN the owners offered to meet the players halfway on the issues. The players turned that down. Wanting to see the owners books for the past 10 years. I think I saw the owners offered the books for the past 5 (not sure on that) I have said all along I think the players are being greedy just like the owners I think that this is some proof of that.

I am not an expert and don't no much about the issues at all but I am not sure how they will do in the anti trust suite against the owners. Seeing that the NFL now is not the only place you can go to play football. There is a UFL now. The players won't want to go to the UFL to play because they won't make nearly as much but it is there.

I think that the greed on both sides is going to what ends up getting a deal done. Neither side is going to want to miss one game check. I think come July august both sides are going to be willing to give in more then they are now.

Coach
03-11-2011, 09:55 PM
Why do players think they deserve to make half of the profits? Are they going to cough up their half of the losess if the franchise loses money in any given year? The player salaries are in large part why I pay $125 for a ticket. It's ridiculous that a bunch of greedy players that are already overpaid can ruin the game of football.

Screw the union and the current players. I would be happy to see the owners move on without the current players. Let's draft this year and start anew. The current players can come back if and when they want to collect a their measily million dollar paychecks.

matthewschiefs
03-11-2011, 11:25 PM
Why do players think they deserve to make half of the profits? Are they going to cough up their half of the losess if the franchise loses money in any given year? The player salaries are in large part why I pay $125 for a ticket. It's ridiculous that a bunch of greedy players that are already overpaid can ruin the game of football.

Screw the union and the current players. I would be happy to see the owners move on without the current players. Let's draft this year and start anew. The current players can come back if and when they want to collect a their measily million dollar paychecks.


While I do think that the players should get more of the profits because they are the ones that supply the product I don't no if they should get 20% more then the owners maybe 10-15% more.

I do think it says a lot that the owners have been the ones that have made some movement from there first demands and the players have stuck with theres according to reports. I have said all along that there is greed from there side they have proved me right.

Ryfo18
03-12-2011, 02:07 AM
Why do players think they deserve to make half of the profits? Are they going to cough up their half of the losess if the franchise loses money in any given year? The player salaries are in large part why I pay $125 for a ticket. It's ridiculous that a bunch of greedy players that are already overpaid can ruin the game of football.

Screw the union and the current players. I would be happy to see the owners move on without the current players. Let's draft this year and start anew. The current players can come back if and when they want to collect a their measily million dollar paychecks.

I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.

kckidd8870
03-12-2011, 02:17 AM
I'm with you guys,Ive been a football fan for 35 years.I don't know what i'm gonna do without it.I will watch high school and college ball I guess.I'm not watching nfl football, if the deal doesnt get done.Even if I miss one preseason game.I will be done.It is a bunch of crap.The players make tons of money and half the time they don't even give full effort.play when they want to play.They want wewarded for that.If anything ,every player should get paid the same and have a huge purse at the end of the year.For those who make it to the playoffs and the super bowl.It really hurts to know im not gonna watch my Chiefs any more.I promise you I will not watch it if they don't get a deal done before the season starts.To think ,I got a big Chiefs tattoo on my arm two years ago.I know they put there bodys on the line but they already get payed well to do it.If I was good enough you almost wouldnt even have to pay me.Thats how much I love football.I played High school football and play pick up games at my old high school for years until I got to old to play.It's a shame everyone has to be so greedy.You have to pay 26.00 dollars just to park your car at the game.Give me a break.Most average familys can't even afford to go to the game it cost so much.As usual we try and scrape up the money to go because we love are respective teams.I hope and pray I get to hear those famouse words ,Touchdown Kansas city.
If not I guess I will servive.Love ya Chiefs fans.

tornadospotter
03-12-2011, 03:02 AM
I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.
How much money went into the New Arrowhead? How much of the Hunt family money contribute to the New Arrowhead? Who are the owners of Arrowhead?

Hayvern
03-12-2011, 03:58 AM
I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.

Partially true, tax payers are sometimes asked to pay for renovations. When they wanted to put the rolling roof over Arrowhead and Kauffman, the put a bond on to pay for it. If the roof went on, then Arrowhead would have gotten a Super Bowl in 2015. Voters turned down the bond, so the roof never happened.

In the end, the 375 million in renovations were to be paid by the city, as it turns out though, the Hunts put up 125 million of their own money for the renovations, the city, I believe, paid the rest.

Coach
03-12-2011, 09:20 AM
While I do think that the players should get more of the profits because they are the ones that supply the product

Wrong. Who supplies the product??? The owners OWN the business and therefore they supply the product, not the employees.

I suppose you also believe that Apple employees should receive 50% of the profits since they manufacture the iPhone. And GM employees deserve 50% of the profits since they drive the screws into the car.

I hate the sense of entitlement that exists in this country. Btw, I'm not referring to you Matthew, I don't even know you. If employees/players don't like the deal they are getting, they should look for another company/team or start their own business. Why should the owners be penalized for having a successful business?

As you can probably tell I am bigger fan of capitalism than I am of unions.

nigeriannightmare
03-12-2011, 10:11 AM
I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.


This is true but it seems as the players weren't willing to concede anything. I am sure the owners would open the books if the players would at least entertain an 18 game season. Goes both ways here and it sucks for us. Players carry every bit as much blame as the owners on this one.

Hayvern
03-12-2011, 11:17 AM
I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.

The players never were serious about negotiation on this. They have NEVER in the entire time of these talks ever told anyone what they would take. The owners have given, they gave back all the way up to the end, but the players still did not want to give up anything.

NFL.com news: League locks out players, whose union decertified (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb6e46/article/league-locks-out-players-whose-union-decertified?module=HP_headlines)

I hope the judges slap the crap out of them and put them in their place.

kcvet
03-12-2011, 12:25 PM
if ya want help from the player's union there is none. its been dissolved.

NFL players union dissolved; lockout imposed


WASHINGTON -- The players had the owners on the run, but picked the nuclear option instead.

Seeking a decisive blow against the backpedaling owners instead of agreeing to a new collective bargaining agreement, the NFL Players Association shifted the labor war to the courts yesterday by decertifying and then having 10 players -- including the Giants' Osi Umenyiora -- file an antitrust lawsuit against the league.

The owners, who angrily accused union chief DeMaurice Smith of negotiating in bad faith, then imposed a lockout last night at 11:59 p.m. and set off the sport's first work stoppage since 1987.



Read more: NFL players union dissolved; lockout imposed - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/union_dissolved_lockout_imposed_tsa3EzG58Txyy8Ml20 7qaI#ixzz1GP2Nn4B8)

but from what I understand the players have the right to sue the owners for blocking them out. where's a philly lawyer when you need one???

the draft will go forward but the players picked are out to. what a mess. if there's no games might be the end of me as a fan to. when the last MLB strike took place i was never much of a fan and im still not. and I feel the same here. if and when they play again ill never be an NFL fan anymore.

matthewschiefs
03-12-2011, 04:48 PM
I've gotta disagree with you here...Ticket prices are determined solely by demand, not by player salaries.

There are a ton of reasons why the players deserve 50% of the profits. These guys are the best football players in the world. We watch every Sunday because of them. Why do the owners deserve another $1 billion off the top? To pay for their new yacht? It's not to pay for new stadiums, they get taxpayers to do that.


Agreed on the ticket prices.

I think the owners are wanting something back because numbers say attendance is down so there money is down. More people are watching the game on tv then going to the games so I do think the owners are not making as much as they once were. I don't think that they are hurting to bad but why should they pay the price from that alone? This is a group effort from the players and owners why shouldn't the players have to give some back when the owners do?

For me the bottom line is it has been the OWNERS who have moved off there demands not the players. The players are becoming more and more to blame for this. I find it funny that the players have been all upset for the owners planing a lockout when they planned to break up the union before last season. Both sides need to be at the table. The owners are there the players decided to leave and they are the ones that won't come back. The players greed is hurting the NFL just as the owners did. Two rights don't make a wrong.

chief31
03-12-2011, 05:01 PM
Wrong. Who supplies the product??? The owners OWN the business and therefore they supply the product, not the employees.

I suppose you also believe that Apple employees should receive 50% of the profits since they manufacture the iPhone. And GM employees deserve 50% of the profits since they drive the screws into the car.

I hate the sense of entitlement that exists in this country. Btw, I'm not referring to you Matthew, I don't even know you. If employees/players don't like the deal they are getting, they should look for another company/team or start their own business. Why should the owners be penalized for having a successful business?

As you can probably tell I am bigger fan of capitalism than I am of unions.

I think that all employees are entitled to whatever they can get through the common practices of capitalism.

And, since collective bargaining is one of the primary tools of any free market negotiation, then go Capitalist unions.

Funny how so many encourage allowing the free market to speak, until it speaks on behalf of the slaves.

I support capitalism. But only if everybody is allowed to play.

AkChief49
03-12-2011, 07:37 PM
To think I was about to switch to Direct TV.......no freaking way now!!Both sides can kiss my ---!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ryfo18
03-12-2011, 10:16 PM
The players never were serious about negotiation on this. They have NEVER in the entire time of these talks ever told anyone what they would take. The owners have given, they gave back all the way up to the end, but the players still did not want to give up anything.

NFL.com news: League locks out players, whose union decertified (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb6e46/article/league-locks-out-players-whose-union-decertified?module=HP_headlines)

I hope the judges slap the crap out of them and put them in their place.

I hear you, but you make it sound like the players weren't losing anything either. The owners wanted an extra $1 BILLION a year in revenues!

KristofLaw
03-13-2011, 12:02 AM
Disappointing....

Ryfo18
03-13-2011, 01:23 AM
How much money went into the New Arrowhead? How much of the Hunt family money contribute to the New Arrowhead? Who are the owners of Arrowhead?

So it was $125M or the Hunt's and $250M for the city. The big difference? It's an investment for the Hunt family, and an expense for the taxpayer.

Coach
03-13-2011, 10:25 AM
So it was $125M or the Hunt's and $250M for the city. The big difference? It's an investment for the Hunt family, and an expense for the taxpayer.

Nice try. Other way around. The Hunt's don't own Arrowhead, Jackson County Sports Complex(taxpayers) does. Don't hate Clark Hunt because he makes money. You should hate Clark if he agrees to a deal where he loses money, because then you would be in jeopardy of losing your Chiefs to another city.

I say the owners move forward and play with scabs. These players know how good they have it.

Here is an excerpt from this article: What Do Athletes Salaries Say About American Values? | Prose Before Hos (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/sports-editor/03/08/what-do-athletes-salaries-say-about-american-values/)


Wake up, people. Take a stand. Not only against athletes’ astronomical paychecks, but against their behavior. Maybe earning $60,000 in a year instead of $15 million will help them realize that while having extreme athletic skill is pretty awesome, it’s not nearly as cool as making a real difference in someone’s life.

Ryfo18
03-13-2011, 01:27 PM
Nice try. Other way around. The Hunt's don't own Arrowhead, Jackson County Sports Complex(taxpayers) does. Don't hate Clark Hunt because he makes money. You should hate Clark if he agrees to a deal where he loses money, because then you would be in jeopardy of losing your Chiefs to another city.

I say the owners move forward and play with scabs. These players know how good they have it.

Here is an excerpt from this article: What Do Athletes Salaries Say About American Values? | Prose Before Hos (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/sports-editor/03/08/what-do-athletes-salaries-say-about-american-values/)

Would you honestly watch that though? The reason the NFL is the most popular sport in America (hands down) is because of the marketability of the players. It's the same reason the UFL or AFL will never be a fraction of what the NFL is.

I get that the average Joe like you and me would love to come close what the players are making, but you can't really compare this our situation. It's completely different because the NFL generates a huge amount of revenue considering the small amount of players it employs.

And we're not just talking about the players playing today. There are retired players living off a $300 a month pension with tremendous health problems. The union is speaking for these people, who made the game what it is today, also. There are great players, like Bobby Bell, trying to sell autographs on Facebook to make ends meet. The players union is also looking out for the needs of those who are long retired (like making a rookie wage scale and giving this savings to the retired players). I realize this is something we'll probably never agree on, so sorry for the bickering.

I'm not saying that the owners don't do good things (like the Hunt family), but in any walk of a life if a companies owners decide to one day walk in and stiff their employees by asking for an extra $1 billion off the top (of about $8 billion in total revenue last year), there is going to be a backlash.

70 chiefsfan70
03-13-2011, 03:43 PM
Would you honestly watch that though? The reason the NFL is the most popular sport in America (hands down) is because of the marketability of the players. It's the same reason the UFL or AFL will never be a fraction of what the NFL is.

I get that the average Joe like you and me would love to come close what the players are making, but you can't really compare this our situation. It's completely different because the NFL generates a huge amount of revenue considering the small amount of players it employs.

And we're not just talking about the players playing today. There are retired players living off a $300 a month pension with tremendous health problems. The union is speaking for these people, who made the game what it is today, also. There are great players, like Bobby Bell, trying to sell autographs on Facebook to make ends meet. The players union is also looking out for the needs of those who are long retired (like making a rookie wage scale and giving this savings to the retired players). I realize this is something we'll probably never agree on, so sorry for the bickering.

I'm not saying that the owners don't do good things (like the Hunt family), but in any walk of a life if a companies owners decide to one day walk in and stiff their employees by asking for an extra $1 billion off the top (of about $8 billion in total revenue last year), there is going to be a backlash.

If these players choose the nfl career, they do it for the money and if they are too iresponsible to save or invest then its not the taxpayers or the fans problems. Most of these players are big overgrown overpaid crybabies that know nothing about the average person(the person who pays to see them play). These guys would not care if we all lost our homes or died. All they care about is money. If they get hurt, they have insurance. If they don't its their own fault, cause they sure get paid enough to buy it. Many of these players live it up and blow their wealth then they sit around and play the poor poor pitiful me song. They are unappreciative and greedy.

I have been a nfl fan for many years.Seldom do I leave the house without a Chiefs hat or shirt. I work hard and have never taken a taxpayer or government handout. I pay my bills and if I have any left I go to the game. Last season was my first game ever, I didn't have the money but promised the kids.

Now for the owners, they are well educated and serve their purpose well in each of their cities, they run this like a buisiness just like they should. If they are billionairs than I'm sure they, or their daddies earned that title. I'm sure that if they did not own an nfl team they would own some other prosperous buisiness that would employ many other people and serve their cities well. But these overpayed, greedy players would not have the nfl they would have more normal jobs. Maybe it would make them better money managers and teach them responsibilities. And who knows maybe, just maybe they would understand capitalism and realize that if you want to make more money, work harder or get a different job.

I wish we had more billionairs living in this country.

Just my 2 cents. I believe everyone is entitled to their oppinion, so feel free to rip me up.

matthewschiefs
03-13-2011, 06:17 PM
Would you honestly watch that though? The reason the NFL is the most popular sport in America (hands down) is because of the marketability of the players. It's the same reason the UFL or AFL will never be a fraction of what the NFL is.

I get that the average Joe like you and me would love to come close what the players are making, but you can't really compare this our situation. It's completely different because the NFL generates a huge amount of revenue considering the small amount of players it employs.

And we're not just talking about the players playing today. There are retired players living off a $300 a month pension with tremendous health problems. The union is speaking for these people, who made the game what it is today, also. There are great players, like Bobby Bell, trying to sell autographs on Facebook to make ends meet. The players union is also looking out for the needs of those who are long retired (like making a rookie wage scale and giving this savings to the retired players). I realize this is something we'll probably never agree on, so sorry for the bickering.

I'm not saying that the owners don't do good things (like the Hunt family), but in any walk of a life if a companies owners decide to one day walk in and stiff their employees by asking for an extra $1 billion off the top (of about $8 billion in total revenue last year), there is going to be a backlash.

To me those former players are among the ones that are paying the price for this. But the current players turned down a deal that would have given those former players 82 Million NFLLabor.com EXCLUSIVE: Summary of NFL proposal to NFLPA « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa/) I thought the deal the owners offered was pretty fair. Yes the players would have lost money but then they would have got some things to. Like the not going to 18 games that they fought so hard against. It's a shame that the former players pay the price I am sure they could have used that 82 million.

Hayvern
03-13-2011, 07:02 PM
I think that all employees are entitled to whatever they can get through the common practices of capitalism.

And, since collective bargaining is one of the primary tools of any free market negotiation, then go Capitalist unions.

Funny how so many encourage allowing the free market to speak, until it speaks on behalf of the slaves.

I support capitalism. But only if everybody is allowed to play.

OMG did you actually use the word "slaves"? SLAVES? are you kidding me?

That offends me, even the lowliest player that never plays a game and sits on the bench makes more than I make if 6 years. You want to call them slaves?

:lol:

chief31
03-13-2011, 09:24 PM
OMG did you actually use the word "slaves"? SLAVES? are you kidding me?

That offends me, even the lowliest player that never plays a game and sits on the bench makes more than I make if 6 years. You want to call them slaves?

:lol:

Do you bother to ever read anything other that what gets you in an uproar?

This was in response to Coach's comment about preferring capitalism (economic anarchy) over unions.


You want to be offended? Have fun with that.

You are going to be offended at any comment that doesn't bow down to the masters as superior beings anyway. Superior, in most cases, for accepting Daddy's money.

You copped a big attitude and called me a liar in the "Some Interesting Numbers" thread, while you were as wrong as could possibly be, and somehow, you are insulted?

Good. Stay that way.

I couldn't care less what offense you take from subjects that do not include you.


Wake up, people. Take a stand. Not only against athletes’ astronomical paychecks, but against their behavior. Maybe earning $60,000 in a year instead of $15 million will help them realize that while having extreme athletic skill is pretty awesome, it’s not nearly as cool as making a real difference in someone’s life.

Yeah! How dare these athletes live free? It's a disgrace!

Let's go back to paying them $60,000 a year, so we won't have to bother having good athletes in the game too.

Let's see just what kind of rejects we can get to risk their ability to walk for average pay.

The people who work for a living deserve as little pay as the do-nothing masters can find a way to pay them.

Because, as we all know, the risk of your health, or well-being is nothing compared to the risk of part of a mountain of money that Daddy left you.

And the commitment to becoming the absolute best in the world at your job pales in comparison to the commitment of risking some of Daddy's money.

Capitalism is a failure because capitalists don't even know what it is, or how it works.

Collective bargaining is a staple of capitalism. But capitalists go to great lengths to ensure that their opposition in a negotiation be restricted from using it.

"where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

“Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land." - Ronald Reagan

Coach
03-13-2011, 10:56 PM
Here is a copy of the offer the owners made to the players. They offered to meet the players halfway, but the players union walked away.

1.***** We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).
2.***** An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs.* Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today.* Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.
3.***** A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.
4.***** Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by
a.***** Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;
b.***** Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and
c.****** Increasing number of days off for players.
More after the jump.
5.***** Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.
6.***** Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.
7.***** Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.
8.***** Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.
9.***** Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.
10.* A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

wilqb16
03-13-2011, 11:35 PM
To me, this who owners / players debate is silly.

All of these people are much richer than any of us will likely ever be and both are greedy, in so far as they want as much as they can get.

Also, both are uncaring in so far as they won't agree to an offer that would help save the jobs of so many "little people", even though they themselves would still be richer than probably 98% of Americans and 99.9% of the world.

Unfortunately, we don't have a culture in this country that cares about the ordinary guy. What do you expect, when governement goes to bat for the top 2% of income earners, who getting rich sending all of our jobs to the Philippines and India, while simultaneously cutting all the rights of teachers making (at the most generous of estimates) $51K in salaries and $30K in benefits.

All of the rich have the power to manipulate and fight through the government and get richer, which is just the game the players and owners are playing.

The rest of us can just "eat cake".

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 12:07 AM
I say that there are plenty of Football Players, that would love to keep playing. Make the lock out permanent for any member of the NFPLA. They did dissolve there union.

matthewschiefs
03-14-2011, 12:09 AM
Here is a copy of the offer the owners made to the players. They offered to meet the players halfway, but the players union walked away.

1.***** We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).
2.***** An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs.* Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today.* Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.
3.***** A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.
4.***** Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by
a.***** Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;
b.***** Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and
c.****** Increasing number of days off for players.
More after the jump.
5.***** Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.
6.***** Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.
7.***** Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.
8.***** Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.
9.***** Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.
10.* A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

I thought that this was a pretty fair offer from the owners. Yes the owners would have taken money from the players side but they would have given them more off days. You work less you get paid less. It's just how the world works.

Not to mention they would have gotten some of the health benfits they claimed this was all about.I would have taken this offer. It's not a bad offer from the owners.

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 12:17 AM
I have no care for the members of the NFLPA, they did not come to the table in true faith. Prove me wrong.

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 12:48 AM
Over inflated wages in any business cause inflation to the end user!
I would love to have a brand new car, but I can not afford one, and if I could, the insurance would be unaffordable, why does a new car cost so much? because of the cost to produce it? If unions did not affect the cost of delivery of good to the store I work at then maybe my income would be better than it is. . I am just Pissed about all of this! I have no respect for the NFLPA! Why, Why should I to my opinion they never negotiated in good faith.

wilqb16
03-14-2011, 02:03 AM
Over inflated wages in any business cause inflation to the end user!
I would love to have a brand new car, but I can not afford one, and if I could, the insurance would be unaffordable, why does a new car cost so much? because of the cost to produce it? If unions did not affect the cost of delivery of good to the store I work at then maybe my income would be better than it is. . I am just Pissed about all of this! I have no respect for the NFLPA! Why, Why should I to my opinion they never negotiated in good faith.

How can you be so sure that the owners negociated in good faith? Negociating doesn't mean putting a take it or leave it offer on the table. That isn't negociating, that's an ultimatem. Also, your anology about the car would be apt, if any cars were actually built in America, anymore. Detroit is a ghost town. My father's company relocated their manufacturing plant to Mexico. Why? Because they can work the laborers 16 hours a day and pay them literally $2.00 an hour. This isn't about viability, this is about greed. Sad to say, Ross Perot was quite right when he talked about NAFTA, tarriffs and the sound of jobs being sucked out of America.

Regardless, I'm not defending the NFLPA, except to say that I think that both side are equally greedy and could care less about us - except to the extent the we line their pockets. Although people are saying lots of people want to play football, it isn't the players themselves who offered them millions of dollars. I am sure that NFLPA would be quite happy with no salary cap and other concessions they have made over the years.

Really, just watching a lot of greedy millionaires hurt the lives of everyday Americans. What else is new? Anyone who thinks anything else, is a little delusional, IMO.

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 02:15 AM
How can you be so sure that the owners negociated in good faith? Negociating doesn't mean putting a take it or leave it offer on the table. That isn't negociating, that's an ultimatem. Also, your anology about the car would be apt, if any cars were actually built in America, anymore. Detroit is a ghost town. My father's company relocated their manufacturing plant to Mexico. Why? Because they can work the laborers 16 hours a day and pay them literally $2.00 an hour. This isn't about viability, this is about greed. Sad to say, Ross Perot was quite right when he talked about NAFTA, tarriffs and the sound of jobs being sucked out of America.

Regardless, I'm not defending the NFLPA, except to say that I think that both side are equally greedy and could care less about us - except to the extent the we line their pockets. Although people are saying lots of people want to play football, it isn't the players themselves who offered them millions of dollars. I am sure that NFLPA would be quite happy with no salary cap and other concessions they have made over the years.

Really, just watching a lot of greedy millionaires hurt the lives of everyday Americans. What else is new? Anyone who thinks anything else, is a little delusional, IMO.
I am very sure that the former nflpa would love to have a no salary cap! There agents will be all in favor of it.

wilqb16
03-14-2011, 02:22 AM
I am very sure that the former nflpa would love to have a no salary cap! There agents will be all in favor of it.

Interesting thought I had was what if the players banded together and formed their own league? What then, would anyone follow NFL teams with clearly inferior talent? What portion of its share would the NFL stand to lose? At the very least, the owners would stand to lose their virual monopoly.

Not saying that this is going to happen, but I think it shows that both sides have something to bring to the table.

If the NFL tried to lock out the players and break the union, I could see this happening, or the UFL getting much bigger and better much more quickly (as for me, I can't decide if I am a Las Vegas Locomotives fan or San Francisco Bobcats guy...)

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 02:43 AM
Interesting thought I had was what if the players banded together and formed their own league? What then, would anyone follow NFL teams with clearly inferior talent? What portion of its share would the NFL stand to lose? At the very least, the owners would stand to lose their virual monopoly.

Not saying that this is going to happen, but I think it shows that both sides have something to bring to the table.

If the NFL tried to lock out the players and break the union, I could see this happening, or the UFL getting much bigger and better much more quickly (as for me, I can't decide if I am a Las Vegas Locomotives fan or San Francisco Bobcats guy...)
Where would they play the games?

wilqb16
03-14-2011, 02:56 AM
Where would they play the games?

Probably college stadiums or where-ever they could. Probably in any city without an NFL team. Realistically, if the NFL tried to break the union, by locking out the players, you would probably see an exodus to Canada and or the UFL. Don't forget, that the new USFL is starting up in 2012, too.

Again, I don't see this happening. Just kind of making the point that the owners and the players need each other because only together can they maximize and fullfill their greedy aspirations.

Frankly, they are like two lions fighting over a giant dead carcass.

tornadospotter
03-14-2011, 03:10 AM
Probably college stadiums or where-ever they could. Probably in any city without an NFL team. Realistically, if the NFL tried to break the union, by locking out the players, you would probably see an exodus to Canada and or the UFL. Don't forget, that the new USFL is starting up in 2012, too.

Again, I don't see this happening. Just kind of making the point that the owners and the players need each other because only together can they maximize and fullfill their greedy aspirations.

Frankly, they are like two lions fighting over a giant carcass.
College Stadiums are not that easy to book, you have to plan around, and then who gets what from concessions, who pays for clean up of the stadium?
You are wrong, the owners do not need the current nfpa players! There is plenty of football players that want a opportunity to play in the NFL. The biggest mistake anybody makes is that they can not be replaced.

wilqb16
03-14-2011, 03:41 AM
College Stadiums are not that easy to book, you have to plan around, and then who gets what from concessions, who pays for clean up of the stadium?
You are wrong, the owners do not need the current nfpa players! There is plenty of football players that want a opportunity to play in the NFL. The biggest mistake anybody makes is that they can not be replaced.

I disagree.

Let's say that the owners did break the NFLPA and hired scabs. If the players had no where to go, do you think they would just get jobs at Taco Bell? No, in time they would leave the union and return to play with NFL. If you recall, when the NFL hired scabs during the last strike, a number of players crossed the picket lines to play.

No way to stop this. But then what happens, teams start fighting for better players and paying more and more money. Without a CBA, there is no cap. Do you really think the owners would stick together when Tom Brady wants to come back? How do you keep the Patriots from allowing him back?

Problem is that the NFL needs a CBA as much as the players do...

Coach
03-14-2011, 08:54 AM
Fact if the matter is that most if these players live well beyond their means and will be bouncing checks starting this Friday. The owners know this. The deal will get done once the players start feeling a little pain.

The sad part is that the damage is already done. Everyone in this thread is a little bit salty about the fact that these rich people couldn't figure out to split a billion dollars so they punish the fans by taking away their game.
The longer this drags out, the worse the damage. Baseball was really popular once too. NBA will be negotiating thir CBA this summer as well. That should be entertaining. Hopefully that league goes away. What a meteoric fall the NBA has taken.

chief31
03-14-2011, 09:51 AM
Fact if the matter is that most if these players live well beyond their means and will be bouncing checks starting this Friday. The owners know this. The deal will get done once the players start feeling a little pain.

The sad part is that the damage is already done. Everyone in this thread is a little bit salty about the fact that these rich people couldn't figure out to split a billion dollars so they punish the fans by taking away their game.
The longer this drags out, the worse the damage. Baseball was really popular once too. NBA will be negotiating thir CBA this summer as well. That should be entertaining. Hopefully that league goes away. What a meteoric fall the NBA has taken.

I was very encouraged with the quote from the league. Something to the effect of "There will be an NFL football season".

So long as they do not interrupt the regular season, they can salvage my loyalty.

Cut the season short, even by one game, and you run a real risk of losing me.

And I may well be one of the more patient fans. Look at how TS is taking it, and we still have several months before any games are scheduled.

Every day from here on, that there is no deal, adds to the risk of losing fans forever.

The offer shown by Coach does not help the players' case much either. Not sure how accurate it is, nor what might have been left out of it. But the big issues seemed to have been very reasonable.

It definitely makes it appear as if the players union was looking to decertify.

But then, opting out of the old CBA still has the owners on that same level, of having been looking for a lockout and a long fight.

I may be a union supporter. But that support is not unconditional.

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 11:01 AM
Fact if the matter is that most if these players live well beyond their means and will be bouncing checks starting this Friday. The owners know this. The deal will get done once the players start feeling a little pain.

The sad part is that the damage is already done. Everyone in this thread is a little bit salty about the fact that these rich people couldn't figure out to split a billion dollars so they punish the fans by taking away their game.
The longer this drags out, the worse the damage. Baseball was really popular once too. NBA will be negotiating thir CBA this summer as well. That should be entertaining. Hopefully that league goes away. What a meteoric fall the NBA has taken.

I think this too is a misnomer. I agree there are some idiots who probably will be bouncing checks (like one unnamed player on the Eagles who asked his teammate for a $100K loan), but those are the idiots making every other player look irresponsible. Most of them realize they have to plan for their future outside of football.

Hayvern
03-14-2011, 11:31 AM
I have no care for the members of the NFLPA, they did not come to the table in true faith. Prove me wrong.

You are right TS. They went to the table all along expecting to decertify. They want the books opened up wide and so they can see everything about how the owners are spending the money. Since when does ANY employee group get such things.

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 11:35 AM
You are right TS. They went to the table all along expecting to decertify. They want the books opened up wide and so they can see everything about how the owners are spending the money. Since when does ANY employee group get such things.

The thing being ignored by everyone supporting the owners though, as a friend reminded me today is this:

There was a CBA in place and owners chose to opt out. Plain and simple. We have football IF THEY DON'T OPT OUT.

Hayvern
03-14-2011, 11:39 AM
Interesting thought I had was what if the players banded together and formed their own league? What then, would anyone follow NFL teams with clearly inferior talent? What portion of its share would the NFL stand to lose? At the very least, the owners would stand to lose their virual monopoly.

Not saying that this is going to happen, but I think it shows that both sides have something to bring to the table.

If the NFL tried to lock out the players and break the union, I could see this happening, or the UFL getting much bigger and better much more quickly (as for me, I can't decide if I am a Las Vegas Locomotives fan or San Francisco Bobcats guy...)

The players would not be able to pull it off. There is no money for it, no leadership for it. Could you see this group of misfits ever getting something like that off the ground? These guys may be smart about playing football, but how on earth would a player run league ever get the likes of Ochocinco or Terrel Owens to do anything?

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 11:40 AM
The players would not be able to pull it off. There is no money for it, no leadership for it. Could you see this group of misfits ever getting something like that off the ground? These guys may be smart about playing football, but how on earth would a player run league ever get the likes of Ochocinco or Terrel Owens to do anything?

Maybe not, but they certainly wouldn't have any trouble having the UFL or CFL taking them. Look back to the days before the AFL merger. The AFL and NFL fought for the best players, because that's who people want to watch.

OPLookn
03-14-2011, 11:49 AM
The thing being ignored by everyone supporting the owners though, as a friend reminded me today is this:

There was a CBA in place and owners chose to opt out. Plain and simple. We have football IF THEY DON'T OPT OUT.

Then we have this problem one year later, I don't care if the owners opt'd out. That's like arguing if you should pay a bill for $500 now when it's $500 or next year when you're in the same financial shape and it's still $500. Who cares when you pay?

matthewschiefs
03-14-2011, 12:20 PM
The thing being ignored by everyone supporting the owners though, as a friend reminded me today is this:

There was a CBA in place and owners chose to opt out. Plain and simple. We have football IF THEY DON'T OPT OUT.

The problem I have with the owners opted out arguement is that they simply took a right that they had in the CBA. We don't jump on a player when they take a right in the CBA why do we have to do it when the owners do.

pojote
03-14-2011, 12:37 PM
The players would not be able to pull it off. There is no money for it, no leadership for it. Could you see this group of misfits ever getting something like that off the ground? These guys may be smart about playing football, but how on earth would a player run league ever get the likes of Ochocinco or Terrel Owens to do anything?

It's a multi billions business, so hire some high profile marketing company to do all the arrengement. They can even have a loan to start their own league.
If they are smart enough, they can play in teams with the same players in same or near cities.

Imagine "Columbia Chieftains", playing in Farout Field, red and gold uniforms, with players: Jamaal Charles, Tamba Hali, Eric Berry. I think it won't be as profitable as the real chiefs, but in a couple years they will be back in KC as the chiefs.

Now imagine the real chiefs with no player that you have even heard of, ok maybe Tiki Barber, or some of that kind.

Who is risking the most? Where is the value of this league? I don't think it is in the names of the teams or their stadiums.

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 12:58 PM
Saw this quote from Drew Brees: "And don't let the NFL influence you with manipulation and false information. Don't drink the kool aid!"

I've been backing the players (mostly b/c of all the support for the owners on here), but I'm really just mad at both sides for not getting something done. The owners and players are both going to paint it like the other is at fault. There's two sides to the story, and then there is the truth.

wilqb16
03-14-2011, 02:13 PM
You are right TS. They went to the table all along expecting to decertify. They want the books opened up wide and so they can see everything about how the owners are spending the money. Since when does ANY employee group get such things.

I think the only reason they get it is because the owners opened pandora's box by breaking the existing CBA because they said they were losing money.

If the owner's didn't want to have to open the books, then they shouldn't have publicly cried poverty. Frankly, if I were an owner, I'd be embarrassed that I can't live within my means and have to ask my employees to take paycut. On the other hand, most of these guys make more in a season than I make in 10-20 years, so its hard to be too sympathetic. Again, all the players or the owners want is to get the most the can, while they can. The idea that either of them would compromise for the good of the fans or the game is so laughable it is pathetic.

If there is one thing I have learned in the past couple of years is that you can't trust ANYONE who is rich (talking the top 2% here to which all of the owners and a good chunk of the players belong). Once you have the power of money, it corrupts and all you care about is getting more.

Coach
03-14-2011, 03:55 PM
Look at the GB Packers as an example. They are a publicly owned franchise so their records are public. That franchise made $20.1 million in 2009. It isn't like the owners are going broke, they made $20 million. At the same time, that's less than Tom Brady and Peyton. It us also likely less than what Aaron Rodgers will make on his new deal.
Why should the employees make more than the owner? And if we recognize the fact that the Packers make MUCH more than most franchises(including the chiefs) due to merchandise sales and being sold out for every game. Then all of the sudden you realize that these billionaires are taking on all of the risk for a very small return on their money.

Look at the bills, jags, panthers, rams, etc instead of the Packers are you quickly realize many owners probably aren't making tons of money and are possibly losing it. Especially when you consider owners like Clark Hunt are kicking in $150mm of their own money to renovate stadiums.

Hayvern
03-14-2011, 05:03 PM
If the owner's didn't want to have to open the books, then they shouldn't have publicly cried poverty. Frankly, if I were an owner, I'd be embarrassed that I can't live within my means and have to ask my employees to take paycut. ...


Your post makes it sound like that owners are just taking all of the proceeds. You make it sound like the owners have no expenses, no concerns and that all the money that is coming in is going directly to their pockets.

Why don't the players learn to live within their means? Why do they need a pay increase? Why are the NFL players any different than the rest of us who have been asked to take paycuts to keep working?

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 05:45 PM
Look at the GB Packers as an example. They are a publicly owned franchise so their records are public. That franchise made $20.1 million in 2009. It isn't like the owners are going broke, they made $20 million. At the same time, that's less than Tom Brady and Peyton. It us also likely less than what Aaron Rodgers will make on his new deal.
Why should the employees make more than the owner? And if we recognize the fact that the Packers make MUCH more than most franchises(including the chiefs) due to merchandise sales and being sold out for every game. Then all of the sudden you realize that these billionaires are taking on all of the risk for a very small return on their money.

Look at the bills, jags, panthers, rams, etc instead of the Packers are you quickly realize many owners probably aren't making tons of money and are possibly losing it. Especially when you consider owners like Clark Hunt are kicking in $150mm of their own money to renovate stadiums.

You're ignoring supply and demand. If an owner doesn't want to pay a player $20M, he by all means does not have to. He just loses out on that player, and someone else out there will pay him that.

These players also bring a lot to the table for the NFL in terms of other revenue generating opportunities (merchandise primarily), so it's tough to say how much money a guy like Manning actually "costs" an organization compared to a lifelong special teamer who won't do anything to bring in money.


Your post makes it sound like that owners are just taking all of the proceeds. You make it sound like the owners have no expenses, no concerns and that all the money that is coming in is going directly to their pockets.

Why don't the players learn to live within their means? Why do they need a pay increase? Why are the NFL players any different than the rest of us who have been asked to take paycuts to keep working?

I'm going to try to answer this question:

If an average worker is told to take a paycut, or lose his/her job, he/she can go find another job if they feel they are worth more money. The company might feel a small blow if that person leaves, but also remember that they save money from that person's salary that they are no longer paying, and most jobs you can find a suitable replacement.

Is the same true for the NFL? Not at all. If the NFL doesn't have it's players, it won't touch the $9B in revenues that it made in 2010. Can they find "replacement workers?" Sure. They did that in 1987. Will it have anywhere near the popularity that it currently does? Not a chance. Some players may cross the lines, but probably only those that really need the money. What if the UFL and NFL swapped players...Which would you watch?

The players are being viewed in a bad light mostly because the owners starting point was ridiculous. Though they did come down on many bargaining items, in the end it was the money that was the main issue. As it stood, the owners:

1.) Gave low projections for how much money they would make in future years.
2.) Wanted 100% of any money over the "estimates" that were made.

I own a lemonade stand and you are my employee. I tell you that our stand will probably make $9 next year, fully knowing that this is a very generous estimate and that $10-11 or more is more likely. I say that money up to the $9 we make will be split 50/50, and anything over $9, I get 100% of. You're the best lemonade stand operator out there and the majority of people wouldn't buy lemonade from our business if it was some "scab" working. You tell me that's BS and quit. Now where do I stand? I have a lemonade stand that can barely sell lemonade, because people weren't coming there to buy lemonade, they were coming there to buy it from you.

Seek
03-14-2011, 06:42 PM
You're ignoring supply and demand. If an owner doesn't want to pay a player $20M, he by all means does not have to. He just loses out on that player, and someone else out there will pay him that.

These players also bring a lot to the table for the NFL in terms of other revenue generating opportunities (merchandise primarily), so it's tough to say how much money a guy like Manning actually "costs" an organization compared to a lifelong special teamer who won't do anything to bring in money.



I'm going to try to answer this question:

If an average worker is told to take a paycut, or lose his/her job, he/she can go find another job if they feel they are worth more money. The company might feel a small blow if that person leaves, but also remember that they save money from that person's salary that they are no longer paying, and most jobs you can find a suitable replacement.

Is the same true for the NFL? Not at all. If the NFL doesn't have it's players, it won't touch the $9B in revenues that it made in 2010. Can they find "replacement workers?" Sure. They did that in 1987. Will it have anywhere near the popularity that it currently does? Not a chance. Some players may cross the lines, but probably only those that really need the money. What if the UFL and NFL swapped players...Which would you watch?

The players are being viewed in a bad light mostly because the owners starting point was ridiculous. Though they did come down on many bargaining items, in the end it was the money that was the main issue. As it stood, the owners:

1.) Gave low projections for how much money they would make in future years.
2.) Wanted 100% of any money over the "estimates" that were made.

I own a lemonade stand and you are my employee. I tell you that our stand will probably make $9 next year, fully knowing that this is a very generous estimate and that $10-11 or more is more likely. I say that money up to the $9 we make will be split 50/50, and anything over $9, I get 100% of. You're the best lemonade stand operator out there and the majority of people wouldn't buy lemonade from our business if it was some "scab" working. You tell me that's BS and quit. Now where do I stand? I have a lemonade stand that can barely sell lemonade, because people weren't coming there to buy lemonade, they were coming there to buy it from you.


So based on your response. What is the best answer for the future of the NFL and the fans. Giving more money to the players, which in the long run will hit the pockets of the fans, in either higher prices, or a decrease in quality as the owners start cutting cost and taking cheaper means for the little things.

Or having the owners give a little more to the players but also maintaining their books for being the the ones who made the NFL the great product we see on the field. There is more to a game that the players. I can tell you that the Monday night game this year at home, was by the far the best game I have been to in years and it had nothing to do with the players.

To answer you question, yes the players will eventually cross and take the pay cuts. Most of the players live pay check to pay check and even for the good majoirity of the players who live in their means, still find hard time, Like Tiki Barber.. Who have to come out of retirement at the age of 35 because of other issues.

I fear, that the players are asking the NFL to become the NBA and you will eventually see the Rich Big Market teams become the big boys of the league like you see with baseball, and the NBA. There are already teams struggling with salary to keep their team competitive. You will start seeing teams fall off the chart for years, only to make one big push spending money to get competitive for one or two years before they strip the team down to basic players.

The owners (ants) already stored their supply for the winter. Lets see if the players (grasshoppers) did the same.

In the end, the players don't have the leverage they seem to think they do. Yeah, the league won't exist without them, but I think the owners can live with their means if the NFL is destroyed. Can a majority of the players? Not just the highly contracted players.

Ryfo18
03-14-2011, 06:54 PM
So based on your response. What is the best answer for the future of the NFL and the fans. Giving more money to the players, which in the long run will hit the pockets of the fans, in either higher prices, or a decrease in quality as the owners start cutting cost and taking cheaper means for the little things.

It's not giving "more money" to the players in the sense that the money they make is based off of total revenue. It does hit the pockets of the fans, but as I've said before...Player costs in no way determine ticket prices. It's demand for the product. I hear people complaining about the crazy ticket prices, but in the end, they are still getting sold, right? Have the owners come out said if they get more of the revenues they'll pass on the savings to the fans?

It's not on the owners or players to fix the rising costs of the NFL. It's simple supply/demand. Sure you can create a "false demand" that drives ticket prices down, but in that scenario the owners AND players stand to lose money. There are other options like creating more franchises to increase the "supply", which would help decrease costs. Or if the fans get fed up with the costs, stop watching to help drive the demand down. In the end though, we as fans will continue to get screwed as the NFL gets more popular.

matthewschiefs
03-14-2011, 07:51 PM
Saw this quote from Drew Brees: "And don't let the NFL influence you with manipulation and false information. Don't drink the kool aid!"

I've been backing the players (mostly b/c of all the support for the owners on here), but I'm really just mad at both sides for not getting something done. The owners and players are both going to paint it like the other is at fault. There's two sides to the story, and then there is the truth.


I can understand that.

The reason i am growing more and more pro owners is the players talking in the media. I have heard more players whine about the evil nfl owners and it drives me nuts. They whine about the owners wanting to take more off the top and say they wont accept any less then what they get until the owners open the books. But then they want more benfits and all that jazz for the former players. Where do they think that money would come from? I say the owners give them the benfits the players give the owners at least some of the money off the top they are asking for. Nothing in life is free.

N TX Dave
03-15-2011, 12:11 AM
I disagree.

Let's say that the owners did break the NFLPA and hired scabs. If the players had no where to go, do you think they would just get jobs at Taco Bell? No, in time they would leave the union and return to play with NFL. If you recall, when the NFL hired scabs during the last strike, a number of players crossed the picket lines to play.

No way to stop this. But then what happens, teams start fighting for better players and paying more and more money. Without a CBA, there is no cap. Do you really think the owners would stick together when Tom Brady wants to come back? How do you keep the Patriots from allowing him back?

Problem is that the NFL needs a CBA as much as the players do...

First of all the owners are not trying to break the union by having a lockout the union decertified as soon as talks broke off Friday so individual players could sue the league and take the whole thing to litigation instead of mediation.

Well they can all kiss my :mooning:

N TX Dave
03-15-2011, 12:33 AM
The union tells us it is about the money but the owners agreed to set the cap at the unions propsed cap and still the players want the books open what difference do the books make if the owners agree to pay what the union asked for? What privately owned company will open the books for the employees to look at? Not too many I know.

1.***** We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

Chiefster
03-15-2011, 02:44 AM
It amazes me to no end that people with way too much money to start with can't get a deal done. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

Canada
03-15-2011, 02:56 AM
F*ck 'em All!!

Canada
03-15-2011, 02:58 AM
Make the NFL like the real world. Everyone gets paid the same for the same job. Qbs all make the same, RBs all make the same, WRs all make the same. IF they dont like it, get another f#ckin' job.

Chiefster
03-15-2011, 03:02 AM
I think a bus load of NFL agents going off a cliff is a good start.

pojote
03-15-2011, 10:48 AM
Make the NFL like the real world. Everyone gets paid the same for the same job. Qbs all make the same, RBs all make the same, WRs all make the same. IF they dont like it, get another f#ckin' job.

That would be Cuban Football League, in hands of mister Castro, and all the people will have full access to all the games on TV for free. Ticket prices will be $10 for every seat.

They have very good athletes, so I don't think that would be a bad idea, except for the owners and players.

Coach
03-15-2011, 11:13 AM
Look at the GB Packers as an example. They are a publicly owned franchise so their records are public. That franchise made $20.1 million in 2009. It isn't like the owners are going broke, they made $20 million. At the same time, that's less than Tom Brady and Peyton. It us also likely less than what Aaron Rodgers will make on his new deal.
Why should the employees make more than the owner? And if we recognize the fact that the Packers make MUCH more than most franchises(including the chiefs) due to merchandise sales and being sold out for every game. Then all of the sudden you realize that these billionaires are taking on all of the risk for a very small return on their money.

Look at the bills, jags, panthers, rams, etc instead of the Packers are you quickly realize many owners probably aren't making tons of money and are possibly losing it. Especially when you consider owners like Clark Hunt are kicking in $150mm of their own money to renovate stadiums.

Also consider that the average NFL franchise is worth roughly $1 billion dollars (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/08/forbes-average-nfl-franchise-value-drops-for-the-first-time-in-12-years/1). So in the example shown above that would equate to about a 2% return on their investment. And that is for a very popular and profitable team. That's a lot of risk for a very small return. Shame on the owners for wanting to make money. All I've sen so far are concessions by the owners. It's time for the players to get this deal done. You won't se the books, because you have no right to se the books.
IMO, This comes down to a fundamental problem of "Partner or Employee". The players union thinks they are partners. The owners view them as employees. As partners, they have the have the right view the books and a bigger piece of the pie. As employees, they do not. I personally believe they are employees. They don't take on the risk of the franchise. If it loses money they still get paid. The way I know they are employees, not partners, is because they sign the back of the paychecks, not the fronts. The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done. Does anyone dispute that they are vastly overpaid? Does anyone believe that someone should get paid $25 million a year to throw a football while doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?
The players need to have a Coke and a Smile and the shut the HELL up!

Ryfo18
03-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Also consider that the average NFL franchise is worth roughly $1 billion dollars (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/08/forbes-average-nfl-franchise-value-drops-for-the-first-time-in-12-years/1). So in the example shown above that would equate to about a 2% return on their investment. And that is for a very popular and profitable team. That's a lot of risk for a very small return. Shame on the owners for wanting to make money. All I've sen so far are concessions by the owners. It's time for the players to get this deal done. You won't se the books, because you have no right to se the books.
IMO, This comes down to a fundamental problem of "Partner or Employee". The players union thinks they are partners. The owners view them as employees. As partners, they have the have the right view the books and a bigger piece of the pie. As employees, they do not. I personally believe they are employees. They don't take on the risk of the franchise. If it loses money they still get paid. The way I know they are employees, not partners, is because they sign the back of the paychecks, not the fronts. The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done. Does anyone dispute that they are vastly overpaid? Does anyone believe that someone should get paid $25 million a year to throw a football while doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?
The players ned to have a Coke and a Smile and the shut the F*** up!

The thing that you're forgetting about, is that this $20M in profit is what's left AFTER the owners/board of directors gets paid.

The $1 billion number is what they would get paid if they were to sell the franchise. In 2009, they made $247.9M in revenue, with a $20.1M profit. That's an 11% return on investment, AFTER the owners got paid their salaries and bonuses.

Coach
03-15-2011, 11:31 AM
The thing that you're forgetting about, is that this $20M in profit is what's left AFTER the owners/board of directors gets paid.

The $1 billion number is what they would get paid if they were to sell the franchise. In 2009, they made $247.9M in revenue, with a $20.1M profit. That's an 11% return on investment, AFTER the owners got paid their salaries and bonuses.

You don't quote ROI before expenses. I am referrring to the Return on Investment after expenses. In this case it is 2%. Revenue is before expenses and means pretty much noothing. Unless they don't have to pay players and have no expenses.

pojote
03-15-2011, 11:38 AM
The thing that you're forgetting about, is that this $20M in profit is what's left AFTER the owners/board of directors gets paid.

The $1 billion number is what they would get paid if they were to sell the franchise. In 2009, they made $247.9M in revenue, with a $20.1M profit. That's an 11% return on investment, AFTER the owners got paid their salaries and bonuses.

That's right. Here is why players want to review the books. If a company wants to cut salaries and benefits and keep the same workers, because they are loosing money, it's adequate to show the books to a small group of them to prove their point. Why they don't want to?

If the owners can find replacements for the players and pay them less, all what they need to do is hire new people. But they can't!!!

Ryfo18
03-15-2011, 11:40 AM
You don't quote ROI before expenses. I am referrring to the Return on Investment after expenses. In this case it is 2%. Revenue is before expenses and means pretty much noothing. Unless they don't have to pay players and have no expenses.

Right, their profit was $20.1M and they made $247.9M in revenue. That means their expenses were 247.9-20.1 = $227.8M. The $1Billion number is what the franchise is "worth" if it were to be up for sale.

Just to put it in perspective, the company I work for made around $180 billion in revenue last year, with a 10% profit margin. Our top executive made $10M including bonuses. It seems like most of the owners are doing pretty well if they're making anywhere near $10M, considering they probably generated about 1/1000th the revenue my company does (.001%), and has the same profit margins.

I'll let it rest for now b/c I get the sense I'm not going to change anyone's minds :). Both sides are at fault here for not getting something done, but I can't put the blame more on the players than the owners.

Coach
03-15-2011, 11:56 AM
Right, their profit was $20.1M and they made $247.9M in revenue. That means their expenses were 247.9-20.1 = $227.8M. The $1Billion number is what the franchise is "worth" if it were to be up for sale.

Just to put it in perspective, the company I work for made around $180 billion in revenue last year, with a 10% profit margin. Our top executive made $10M including bonuses. It seems like most of the owners are doing pretty well if they're making anywhere near $10M, considering they probably generated about 1/1000th the revenue my company does (.001%), and has the same profit margins.

I'll let it rest for now b/c I get the sense I'm not going to change anyone's minds :). Both sides are at fault here for not getting something done, but I can't put the blame more on the players than the owners.

Do me a favor, call you CEO and tell him that you deserve to make more than he does. Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm). Let me know how that goes.

I do agree though that BOTH sides are at fault. This deadline has been known for months yet they waited till the week before the deadline to get serious about it. Too late, damage has been done and gets worse every day that people like us are discussing it in forums instead of tdiscussing who our favorite teams will be drafting in 1 month. It's sad and all parties are worse off.

pojote
03-15-2011, 12:09 PM
Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm).

These negotiation don't have anything to do with top players salaries. Do you think that a new CBA will make Manning earn less? How many teams will offer Manning a better deal if he hit free agency because Indianapolis won't pay him as much?

The most of sports venture's owners don't want to make money, they want to win. What they need to win? Players and coaches, so they pay.

chief31
03-15-2011, 12:09 PM
Shame on the owners for wanting to make money.

The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done.

The billionaires get the sarcastic remark, as if to say that they really deserve to make higher profits, and the players, most of whom are not quite millionaires, are greedy?

So, by my calculations, wanting as much money as you can get is not greedy, only so long as you have approximately 1000 times what the truly greedy guys have. Is that about right?



: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed


All I've sen so far are concessions by the owners.

Could that be because those "concessions" are only concessions from the ridiculous demands that they made when they decided to take on this fight?

Is it possible that the "concessions" would actually still be gains on their part, and losses on the players' parts?






It's time for the players to get this deal done. You won't se the books, because you have no right to se the books.

Anybody who wants to bargain with me, by saying that the deal they have with me is making them lose money needs to prove that claim, or shut up about it.


IMO, This comes down to a fundamental problem of "Partner or Employee". The players union thinks they are partners. The owners view them as employees. As partners, they have the have the right view the books and a bigger piece of the pie. As employees, they do not. I personally believe they are employees.

Employees are partners. You need me. I need you. Let's do this together.

Even partners? No. But partners none the less.


They don't take on the risk of the franchise. If it loses money they still get paid.

Yeah. The risk of still living better than most of the world has ever dreamed of is so frightening.

There is zero risk to being an NFL owner. None.

Risk involves the potential for losing something important. And extra money is not important. It's pure luxury.

Worst case scenario for the owners, they wind up living better than the average NFL player.


The way I know they are employees, not partners, is because they sign the back of the paychecks, not the fronts. The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done. Does anyone dispute that they are vastly overpaid?

Yes. For the amount of money that is paid to watch them? Yes.


Does anyone believe that someone should get paid $25 million a year to throw a football while doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?
The players need to have a Coke and a Smile and the shut the HELL up!

Does anyone believe that using Daddy's money to hire people to make you money should get you paid $60 million a year while the athletes make a fraction of that, and doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?

By the way, what athlete is making $25 million a year?

Ryfo18
03-15-2011, 12:16 PM
Do me a favor, call you CEO and tell him that you deserve to make more than he does. Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm). Let me know how that goes.

I do agree though that BOTH sides are at fault. This deadline has been known for months yet they waited till the week before the deadline to get serious about it. Too late, damage has been done and gets worse every day that people like us are discussing it in forums instead of tdiscussing who our favorite teams will be drafting in 1 month. It's sad and all parties are worse off.

I'm not going to tell him I need to make more, but considering that my company has 287,000 employees, vs about 1700 for the NFL (32 teams * 53 players/team). That means the NFL has 1/168th the number of employees as my company. Let's assume each employee makes around $40K (conservatively). If my company for some reason decided to reduce the workforce to 1700 while spending the same amount of money on salaries as when they had 287,000 employees, the remaining 1700 employees would make $6.75M each. The average NFL player makes nowhere close to that. Keep in mind too that there are other costs for the company to create products. The NFL players are the product.

Ok, I'm really done this time. Let's just get a damn agreement!!!!!:chiefs:

Ryfo18
03-15-2011, 12:39 PM
The above example is probably pretty confusing to make sense of, but basically what I was trying to prove is that given the small number of players and the large amount of revenue generated, they are not overcompensated.

Hayvern
03-15-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm not going to tell him I need to make more, but considering that my company has 287,000 employees, vs about 1700 for the NFL (32 teams * 53 players/team). That means the NFL has 1/168th the number of employees as my company. Let's assume each employee makes around $40K (conservatively). If my company for some reason decided to reduce the workforce to 1700 while spending the same amount of money on salaries as when they had 287,000 employees, the remaining 1700 employees would make $6.75M each. The average NFL player makes nowhere close to that. Keep in mind too that there are other costs for the company to create products. The NFL players are the product.

Ok, I'm really done this time. Let's just get a damn agreement!!!!!:chiefs:
And you are way off in your number of employees for the NFL. The NFL is more than just the players, there is the coaches, the people who work the front offices, the officials, the venders who work during the game, security for the parking lots. A lot of those people are part-time and only get paid during the season, but that is far more than the 1700 that are just players and coaches.

In fairness, those employees may not work for the NFL per se, but they work for the teams in the NFL.

Hayvern
03-15-2011, 01:09 PM
Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.

matthewschiefs
03-15-2011, 01:24 PM
Could that be because those "concessions" are only concessions from the ridiculous demands that they made when they decided to take on this fight?

Is it possible that the "concessions" would actually still be gains on their part, and losses on the players' par

While I 100% agree the the first demands by the owners were 100% unfair to the players I think the same can be said about the offers from the players. The players are on record saying they won't give a dime back till they are shown the books while at the same time they want benfits for former players more health benfits for themselfs. WHO PAYS FOR THAT? The owners. They to wanted more and not to give anything back. Yes the owners opted out they HAD THAT RIGHT in the CBA. Like I have asked many times do we jump on a player for takeing the rights in the CBA? Just because the owners have more money that does not make an action less wrong. If I had a billion$ and you only had a million we both killed someone should you go to jail alone just because I have more money? A wrong is still a wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

The fact is say what you will about the greed from the owners they have made moves on this whole deal while the players won't even talk until there demands to have the books are open. That's not negotiating that's makeing demands.

Ryfo18
03-15-2011, 01:25 PM
While I 100% agree the the first demands by the owners were 100% unfair to the players I think the same can be said about the offers from the players. The players are on record saying they won't give a dime back till they are shown the books while at the same time they want benfits for former players more health benfits for themselfs. WHO PAYS FOR THAT? The owners. They to wanted more and not to give anything back. Yes the owners opted out they HAD THAT RIGHT in the CBA. Like I have asked many times do we jump on a player for takeing the rights in the CBA? Just because the owners have more money that does not make an action less wrong. If I had a billion$ and you only had a million we both killed someone should you go to jail alone just because I have more money? A wrong is still a wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Actually, a lot of the money for that comes from a rookie wage scale (less money to rookies goes towards former health benefits).

Here's a decent article from Peter King on why the owners should open the books. I like his point about the McCaskey's and the Bears. That's a huge family, and needless to say, just about everyone in that family is an employee of the Chicago Bears. I'm not saying that they shouldn't look out for the interests of their family, it's more saying that if the owners want to cry poverty their should be some financial transparency. What if (and I have no idea if this is true), each of their family members were making ridiculous amounts of money? Should the players have to give up money so the entire family can make decent salaries to fly around on private jets and watch football every week?

NFL lockout is bad, but resolution closer than it appears - Peter King - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/14/labor/1.html)

If this doesn't change your mind a little bit, I don't know what will haha. I keep saying I'm done, I might be this time!

Seek
03-15-2011, 02:14 PM
It's not giving "more money" to the players in the sense that the money they make is based off of total revenue. It does hit the pockets of the fans, but as I've said before...Player costs in no way determine ticket prices. It's demand for the product. I hear people complaining about the crazy ticket prices, but in the end, they are still getting sold, right? Have the owners come out said if they get more of the revenues they'll pass on the savings to the fans?

It's not on the owners or players to fix the rising costs of the NFL. It's simple supply/demand. Sure you can create a "false demand" that drives ticket prices down, but in that scenario the owners AND players stand to lose money. There are other options like creating more franchises to increase the "supply", which would help decrease costs. Or if the fans get fed up with the costs, stop watching to help drive the demand down. In the end though, we as fans will continue to get screwed as the NFL gets more popular.

The big picture is much more than Supply and demand for tickets. The owners profits are based off much more than just tickets.

Giving more money to the players will decrease the owners profit, thus decrease quality of the game. Do you think the Chiefs will go out and spend the extra money to have all the fire works, the bands playing and all the extra stuff that went on that game.

Not that the food is good at Arrowhead, but they will start to cut back on the quality of food, yet charge the same price or raising the price in attempts to regain that profit margin.

Maybe cut back on staff, which makes longer lines longe to get in or buy that watered down beer.

For the owners to pay more to the players cutting their profits down, the other tangibles that makes the game day experience enjoyable other than the players will suffer. When the demand for those items start to decrease you will see teams saving money by not signing big contract, thus making the game less competitive.

With the last CBA, the owners gave more to the players, and I think the whole reason you see the Owners saying NO more, is that they are already seeing this uncompetitive trend taking place with some of the teams. Now you can say it is a down economy, but smaller market teams are finding it hard to Make the Demand.

So in the long run. What is best for the NFL as a whole.

wilqb16
03-15-2011, 02:50 PM
Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.

How do you know that the players did not negotiate in good faith? To me, it seems like the owners pretty much took a take or leave it attitude by walking out the same offer over and over again.

Because you see unions as "legalized extortion" I suspect it may be hard for you to keep an unbiased perspective on this matter.

Granted, the NFL seems outrageous because of the salaries, but this is a microcosm of what is going in our society at large. People are so afraid of the rich and big business that they want to just roll over and if to say, "thank you, sir, may I have another"

Don't kid yourself, if these owners could import players from China and screw all their American players, they would do it in a heartbeat. If you don't believe me, call a tech support for anything and ask the employee where he is at. If we keep it up, everyone in the USA will be making $8.00/hour to serve the mega-rich 2% who will laugh all the way to their foreign bank accounts with 99% of the wealth.

Xanathol
03-15-2011, 07:55 PM
Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.

Have not read the entire thread but wow, this is an extremely misguided post.


#1 The owners did not get a raw deal last CBA - they felt they did, because they didn't get everything to go their way ( which is exactly what Mawae said, before you go quoting him ). Compared to the MLB and the NBA, the NFL owners are raking in the money under the 2009 CBA rules. Not to mention the sport has been growing very, very well.


#2 If someone you partner in business with requested you concede 1/9th of total revenue to them because of 'costs increase', you'd want to see their books too.

In the 1987 disputes, it was shown that written against the team's cost were million dollar salaries for the owner and their family members, multiple 'bonuses' in a year, expensing plane trips for personal use, and writing off bad investments ( see Green Bay's books this year when investments failed to return as projected ).

Why do you think the owners refuse to open them now if they are not hiding the same kinds of stuff? And don't kid yourself - the owners aren't claiming losses - just decreased profit margins, meaning they aren't making as much as they use to.



Let's get some facts straight here:


1. The owners colluded to fund the lockout two years in advance, breaking their CBA agreement, and per at least one TV station, 'bullied' the stations into signing the 'lockout insurance' checks. Furthermore, the owners would not budge on anything until Doty ruled they couldn't touch this lockout fund, and ironically, filed suit against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith!



2. More on that 'good faith' suit... The CBA in 2009 gave the owners 1 bill off the top, then a 40/60 split between owners and players, netting in 2009, 4.2 bill to the owners, 4.8 bill to the players, or 47% to the owners, 53% to the players. The owners requested 2 bill off the top and 40/60, which would have flipped those numbers around - 4.8 to the owners, 4.2 to the playes or 53% / 47%.

The players offered a complete 50/50 split, to which the owners got up, walked away, and field suit against the NFLPA for 'not bargaining in good faith'...



3. Pash stated they agreed to 'open the books for 5 years but the NFLPA wanted 10'. Know where that 'request for 10 years of books' comes from? Its from an email sent 2 years ago to the league - not a current request.

Next, did you read PFT's interview with Pash? He admits that what they agreed to was to turn the books over to an independent auditor for review BUT as of this time, the auditor could only disclose to the NFLPA the revenue and cost figures, NOT what those costs were ( such as the above type of items ). WTF is the point in that?



4. And this may be the MOST important to counter your ill-conceived notions about the players' "unwillingness" to work things out. Did you read what the NFL's final ( ridiculous ) proposal was? Well here it is:


a. The player's split would go back to 2007 levels.

b. The player's split would be based off of "projected" revenue, as projected by the owners, not actual revenue!!!

c. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue would go 100% to the owners!


Know what the "projected" growth was for the next 4 years? 4%, 4%, 2.5%, and 2.5%.

Know what the actual growth of the NFL's total revenue has been? ~7%.

Know when the next TV deals are due? The same years as those projected 2.5% increases...



And MOST important, know what the NFLPA responded with?


a. The player's split would go back to 2007 levels.

b. The player's split would be based off of "projected" revenue, as projected by the owners, not actual revenue.

c. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue UP TO 1.5% over the project amount would go completely to the owners!

d. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue above a 1.5% increase would be split as normal!



The owners said NO!



With all due respect, please get your facts straight before claiming the players are 'extorting' the owners or are even much at fault - this is a clear case of the owners using their money to try and dictate terms to the players and not to mention, run misinformation out to the public. If you just want to side with the owners, that's fine, but at least know & represent what is going on truthfully & honestly ( something the NFL can't seem to do right now ).


FYI, All of my information can be found on PFT, CBS Sports and ESPN. If I have time, I'll even link each item later tonight.

matthewschiefs
03-15-2011, 08:16 PM
1. The owners colluded to fund the lockout two years in advance, breaking their CBA agreement, and per at least one TV station, 'bullied' the stations into signing the 'lockout insurance' checks. Furthermore, the owners would not budge on anything until Doty ruled they couldn't touch this lockout fund, and ironically, filed suit against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith!

First off I complety agree the owners makeing sure they had money is a greedy move but....

Heres a fact that the NFLPA most the media and yourself have left out. The PLAYERS voted to break up the union BEFORE the season began last summer. They were doing the SAME THING THEY WHINE ABOUT THE OWNERS doing when they said the owners were plaining to lock them out.

Yes the owners were asking for even more money but the players wanted extra benfits without giveing any of there money back. Why i think this heres why. Anytime during interviews they talk they say not a dime back until they open the books. And they have admitied they want these benfits for themselfs and former players. They will tell you that the rookie pay scale will help pay but strange when i have heard them talk about that All i have heard is why should a guy whos never played make more then me.(witch i do agree with) NOT ONE player mentioned that helping pay for health benfits. The players want this so theres more cap room on teams so they get MORE. Again the players are doing the SAME THING they whine about the owners doing. Wanting more for nothing.

Final point the PLAYERS walked away from the talks. To quote Drew brees yesterday an offer begins with the owners opening there books. Something they no the owners are against. That's NOT negotiating that's makeing demads. You can say why shouldn't the owners open the books but why should the empolyee tell the bosses (yes the owners are the bosses they are the ones that sign the checks) what to do. If anyone eles did that they would not be employeed very long. If these owners are so evil and greedy then why don't we see guys trying to get on UFL teams. I am sure the UFL would gladly take names like peyton manning and tom brady. It's because they would not make as much money there and they no that. The NFLPA is being greedy just like the owners but people are giveing them a free pass.

Coach
03-15-2011, 08:53 PM
Employees are partners. You need me. I need you. Let's do this together.

Even partners? No. But partners none the less.



Yeah. The risk of still living better than most of the world has ever dreamed of is so frightening.

There is zero risk to being an NFL owner. None.

Risk involves the potential for losing something important. And extra money is not important. It's pure luxury.

Worst case scenario for the owners, they wind up living better than the average NFL player.



Does anyone believe that using Daddy's money to hire people to make you money should get you paid $60 million a year while the athletes make a fraction of that, and doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?

By the way, what athlete is making $25 million a year?

Many erroneous points in this post. Suffice it to say that you think the players are partners in the business. I believe the players are employees. All of our disagreement stems from this. :meow:

Xanathol
03-15-2011, 09:58 PM
First off I complety agree the owners makeing sure they had money is a greedy move but....

Heres a fact that the NFLPA most the media and yourself have left out. The PLAYERS voted to break up the union BEFORE the season began last summer. They were doing the SAME THING THEY WHINE ABOUT THE OWNERS doing when they said the owners were plaining to lock them out.

Yes the owners were asking for even more money but the players wanted extra benfits without giveing any of there money back. Why i think this heres why. Anytime during interviews they talk they say not a dime back until they open the books. And they have admitied they want these benfits for themselfs and former players. They will tell you that the rookie pay scale will help pay but strange when i have heard them talk about that All i have heard is why should a guy whos never played make more then me.(witch i do agree with) NOT ONE player mentioned that helping pay for health benfits. The players want this so theres more cap room on teams so they get MORE. Again the players are doing the SAME THING they whine about the owners doing. Wanting more for nothing.

Final point the PLAYERS walked away from the talks. To quote Drew brees yesterday an offer begins with the owners opening there books. Something they no the owners are against. That's NOT negotiating that's makeing demads. You can say why shouldn't the owners open the books but why should the empolyee tell the bosses (yes the owners are the bosses they are the ones that sign the checks) what to do. If anyone eles did that they would not be employeed very long. If these owners are so evil and greedy then why don't we see guys trying to get on UFL teams. I am sure the UFL would gladly take names like peyton manning and tom brady. It's because they would not make as much money there and they no that. The NFLPA is being greedy just like the owners but people are giveing them a free pass.

#1 Now what you're not telling about the situation is that the players collected the signatures during the season because if they did not decertify before the CBA expires ( which required majority signatures ), they had to wait 6 months to bring a case to the courts, per the CBA agreement. The players collecting those names didn't hurt the owners - the owners reducing TV contract values ( and thereby reducing money to the players ) to get the contracts that funded them cash to out last the players in the lockout certainly DID hurt the players. The two acts are in no way similar.


#2 Anything to back this claim up whatsoever?


#3 The players HAD TO decertify before the CBA expired, period, else wait 6 months, meaning they HAD to "make the first move".

The business model of the NFL is not the same as yoru childhood lemonaide stand - its not a competitive, open market that can be sued at any time were the owners are disjoint from the employees. Instead, its a monopoly, protects by certain anti-trust laws when in agreements to collectively bargain with the players who more accurately represent partners than employees. If your partner whom you split profits with asks for $1 bill more due to expenses, you would want to see the books too, and have every right to.

Btw, the owners don't sign the checks - the NFL does. Your check as a player comes from the NFL. And its hard to have a competing league when the NFL ties up TV rights, stadiums, etc - that's why monopolies are governed differently than lemonaide stands.

Xanathol
03-15-2011, 10:04 PM
As promised, here are two links of some of my sources of the aforementioned points:

PFT Summary of NFL's Final Proposal (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/)

Pash-PFT interview (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/14/jeff-pash-interview-transcript/)

Section where Pash runs around the question:

MF: A couple more quick ones before we let you go and I appreciate you hanging around. The issue of transparency — where does that stand right now? I just feel like the union wants what it wants, and you’re willing to give what you’re willing to give. And I’m trying like heck to find a middle ground that would work for everybody, and I don’t know that there is one. Do you think that there is a middle ground?

JP: It’s hard to say. I thought what we offered was pretty good. I mean, the union has been saying for a long time, ‘Show us that there’s a decline in profits,’ and we offered to do that. We told them that we’d give a third-party accounting firm the individual club audited financial statements for fiveseasons to be reviewed and analyzed. So I think we went a long way towards satisfying their financial transparency demands. And frankly, I’m not convinced that they want to see the numbers. I think they like it better as an issue to whack us upside the head with than to actually look at the numbers.

MF: How does the profitability calculation take into account money paid to owners and owner families in the form of salary, bonuses, other things that would go into expenses and not necessarily show up in profits?

JP: Well that’s something that we were prepared to talk to them about, and prepared to work with a third-party accounting firm to make sure that issue was included in the analysis.

MF: Is it fair to say at this point that audited financial statements just, that’s a non-starter, that they’re not going to be given?

JP: I think I just said exactly to the contrary. I think I said exactly the opposite, that we offered to give five years of individual club audited financial statements to a third-party firm to review and analyze and to report on.

MF: When was that offer made?

JP: The offer has been made on any number of occasions, but most specifically it was made last week in writing.

MF: And maybe I’m confused, because it was my understanding that there was a limited offer made last week – total profitability of the league, and also an identification of the number of teams that have lost profits, seen profits drop, over the past five years. You’re saying there was an offer made to submit audited financial statements to a 3rd party who would analyze them and then produce — what, this profitability number or something else?

JP: We would have to define what the assignment of the third party was, obviously, but the two things that you mentioned — yes we did offer that but we also offered to go beyond that, and that was what they said they didn’t want to take from us. That’s why I say I’m not really certain that they want the numbers.



And just to add to the fire, new from PFT is the Jerry Jones attitude that was reported (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/).

I'll toss in the other links if need be / as time permits, but I think I've proved my information is sourced and not dreamt up like some folks are doing.

matthewschiefs
03-15-2011, 10:12 PM
#1 Now what you're not telling about the situation is that the players collected the signatures during the season because if they did not decertify before the CBA expires ( which required majority signatures ), they had to wait 6 months to bring a case to the courts, per the CBA agreement. The players collecting those names didn't hurt the owners - the owners reducing TV contract values ( and thereby reducing money to the players ) to get the contracts that funded them cash to out last the players in the lockout certainly DID hurt the players. The two acts are in no way similar.


#2 Anything to back this claim up whatsoever?


#3 The players HAD TO decertify before the CBA expired, period, else wait 6 months, meaning they HAD to "make the first move".

The business model of the NFL is not the same as yoru childhood lemonaide stand - its not a competitive, open market that can be sued at any time were the owners are disjoint from the employees. Instead, its a monopoly, protects by certain anti-trust laws when in agreements to collectively bargain with the players who more accurately represent partners than employees. If your partner whom you split profits with asks for $1 bill more due to expenses, you would want to see the books too, and have every right to.

Btw, the owners don't sign the checks - the NFL does. Your check as a player comes from the NFL. And its hard to have a competing league when the NFL ties up TV rights, stadiums, etc - that's why monopolies are governed differently than lemonaide stands.

So last August was anywhere close to March? If they were truley wanting to get a fair deal done they would have given it till after the season to see how things were going. They would have had almost a month to take that vote.

The UFL is currently on tv. And there are a number of networks that I am sure would love to get football once the UFL gets big enough Turner (tbs,TNT) Spike there are other networks that most people get besides NBC ABC/ESPN CBS FOX

The truth is a FAIR deal is something the players would never take. Do you think the players would take a 50/50 deal of profits and expenses That's what a TRUE partnership really is.

Xanathol
03-16-2011, 12:47 AM
So last August was anywhere close to March? If they were truley wanting to get a fair deal done they would have given it till after the season to see how things were going. They would have had almost a month to take that vote. After the season try and round everyone up? Riiight. And again, their act had them prepared to move, but in no way whatsoever harmed the owners.


The UFL is currently on tv. And there are a number of networks that I am sure would love to get football once the UFL gets big enough Turner (tbs,TNT) Spike there are other networks that most people get besides NBC ABC/ESPN CBS FOX
And who organizes that? Where do they play? If this is so easy, I certainly suggest you run with it, bc you could make millions yourself!

The truth is a FAIR deal is something the players would never take. Do you think the players would take a 50/50 deal of profits and expenses That's what a TRUE partnership really is.
Considering the players are by far the #1 expense and already compensate the owners for most expenses including advertising, stadium upkeep, luxury suite construction & upkeep, percentage of concessions, etc, etc, they already are ( that's where the 1 billion off the top comes from ). You never read the CBA, have you?


Btw, another great read on the greed of the NFL owners in regards to stadiums (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html). Ironic how the owner of the Bengals was one of the ones saying he needed more money from the players for stadium cost & upkeep when the taxpayers in that area are actually paying for that for him. The owners are greedy, manipulative liars, plain & simple. And I'm a conservative!

matthewschiefs
03-16-2011, 01:24 AM
After the season try and round everyone up? Riiight. And again, their act had them prepared to move, but in no way whatsoever harmed the owners.


And who organizes that? Where do they play? If this is so easy, I certainly suggest you run with it, bc you could make millions yourself!

Considering the players are by far the #1 expense and already compensate the owners for most expenses including advertising, stadium upkeep, luxury suite construction & upkeep, percentage of concessions, etc, etc, they already are ( that's where the 1 billion off the top comes from ). You never read the CBA, have you?


Btw, another great read on the greed of the NFL owners in regards to stadiums (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html). Ironic how the owner of the Bengals was one of the ones saying he needed more money from the players for stadium cost & upkeep when the taxpayers in that area are actually paying for that for him. The owners are greedy, manipulative liars, plain & simple. And I'm a conservative!


So the players can't do a little work to get there teams together? They can at least call each other to get there vote? It's funny how the owners plan for a lockout there greedy the players plan to take legal action there the good guys. It's the same action both makeing plans to get the upper hand. If your going to jump on one side for it you have to the other side to.

It would be work but there are many non nfl fields they could play at across the country. It would take time and work but like I said if the NFL owners are so evil why don't they just go play in the other league?

Think about the expenses outside of the players that an owner has. You have your security,ushers,vendors.equitment for the food vending,office staff, There are over 100 games in the NFL every year. This adds up. I think its very easy this could add up to over a billion for the owners. Why do they have to play for that alone. How about that equitment the players wear? Coaching staff training equitment used by the players. There are A LOT of expenses outside of payroll most enjoyed by the players why shouldn't they have to chip in a little for this stuff they enjoy?

The media has been very pro player. That's why i am growing more and more anti player. I think the owners are greedy liars yes. But that is no excuse for the players to be greedy as well. Look at the NFL players. They are the ones who won't even talk unless the owners cave into to there demands to open the books to them. Again that's not negotating that makeing a demand. A.P. of the vikings had the nerve to say the NFL players are slaves. That's why i am so anti player. They are being greedy to and getting a free pass. I just think if people are going to jump all over one side don't let the other side off for doing some of the same things.

DC_Chiefsfan
03-16-2011, 01:32 AM
Owners and Players are both to blame for this current debacle; however, I really get the feeling that the NFLPA* is being run by a handful of players and executives that don't necessarily speak for the 1600+ players in the NFL. I have no evidence to back this up, its just the impression they're giving through the media. I honestly believe they did not negotiate in good faith with the Owners. Of course who would if they can get a better deal through litigation. But litigation will prove to be unfruitful, in my opinion, because decertification is assuredly a "sham". It's obvious they decertified to sue for anti-trust and that they'll reorganize with a new CBA. But overall, I really don't care how this pans out and who gets a fair deal. I just want football this year, not just games, but free agency, OTAs, Training camp and a full season.


P.S. Players should take heed that all the media right now is not favorable to their camp. They seem greedy with a "take it or leave it" CBA demand. I don't believe that's true, but De Smith is a terrible media figure. He seems to act like a child holding his breath. Players, get it together and strike a deal. I wish I could get paid a couple hundred thousand to play a game.

Hayvern
03-16-2011, 01:57 AM
Don't kid yourself, if these owners could import players from China and screw all their American players, they would do it in a heartbeat. If you don't believe me, call a tech support for anything and ask the employee where he is at. If we keep it up, everyone in the USA will be making $8.00/hour to serve the mega-rich 2% who will laugh all the way to their foreign bank accounts with 99% of the wealth.

This is not as true anymore as it once was. Companies here in the states like Dell and HP have learned that people will not purchase their systems when support sucks and they have moved those operations back on American soil.

Largely you are correct, but the offshoring trend is not what it once was.

Xanathol
03-16-2011, 02:36 AM
So the players can't do a little work to get there teams together? They can at least call each other to get there vote? It's funny how the owners plan for a lockout there greedy the players plan to take legal action there the good guys. It's the same action both makeing plans to get the upper hand. If your going to jump on one side for it you have to the other side to.

It would be work but there are many non nfl fields they could play at across the country. It would take time and work but like I said if the NFL owners are so evil why don't they just go play in the other league?

Think about the expenses outside of the players that an owner has. You have your security,ushers,vendors.equitment for the food vending,office staff, There are over 100 games in the NFL every year. This adds up. I think its very easy this could add up to over a billion for the owners. Why do they have to play for that alone. How about that equitment the players wear? Coaching staff training equitment used by the players. There are A LOT of expenses outside of payroll most enjoyed by the players why shouldn't they have to chip in a little for this stuff they enjoy?

The media has been very pro player. That's why i am growing more and more anti player. I think the owners are greedy liars yes. But that is no excuse for the players to be greedy as well. Look at the NFL players. They are the ones who won't even talk unless the owners cave into to there demands to open the books to them. Again that's not negotating that makeing a demand. A.P. of the vikings had the nerve to say the NFL players are slaves. That's why i am so anti player. They are being greedy to and getting a free pass. I just think if people are going to jump all over one side don't let the other side off for doing some of the same things.
The owners violated the CBA and per Doty himself, benefited themselves while harming the players. What you are saying is the same just isn't, not even remotely.

Go do it then - let me know how it goes.

Again, you need to actually read the CBA...

Not really - the media keeps repeating the crap the NFL, Pash et al are spewing with only a few sources actually caring to give the whole story and let people know how wrong it is.

Yeah, AD is an idiot. Is it any worse than what Jerry Jones said? Or when the Panthers' owner cussed at Manning? Or all the owners spewing the lies and propaganda that they are right now, such as Mara? Compare the statements by owners / Pres / VP to those of De Smith, Brees, etc - the players have been proven to be honest and forthcoming to those who care to look at the facts and the owners have been anything but.

OPLookn
03-16-2011, 11:56 AM
Well since both sides are evil here's my solution...the players want such a big part of the NFL well here you go...you now have to pay half of everything, you want half the profits you get half of the expenses. If it goes over your half they start pulling money from the players checks. Hey it's only fair right? I mean if you're going to demand half of everything you need to start contributing half of everything. So when the NFL does have those bad years and the players haven't budgeted for having to pay 100k each when they've gone out and bought 3 bentley's and several million dollar house for the year to bad. Nothing off the top for the owners. We stay at 16 game seasons, 18 games was a dumb idea to begin with. Rookie pay scale get's put in...don't know how it gets done or what it looks like. I don't care if there are a lot of details to work out I don't get paid to figure that kind of stuff out.

Bottom line there are a lot of cry babies out there saying they want half and we want more money etc. when everyone involved in with the details is getting paid millions of dollars a year when I'm working for peanuts...figure it out.

Xanathol
03-16-2011, 12:33 PM
Well since both sides are evil here's my solution...the players want such a big part of the NFL well here you go...you now have to pay half of everything, you want half the profits you get half of the expenses. If it goes over your half they start pulling money from the players checks. Hey it's only fair right? I mean if you're going to demand half of everything you need to start contributing half of everything. So when the NFL does have those bad years and the players haven't budgeted for having to pay 100k each when they've gone out and bought 3 bentley's and several million dollar house for the year to bad. Nothing off the top for the owners. We stay at 16 game seasons, 18 games was a dumb idea to begin with. Rookie pay scale get's put in...don't know how it gets done or what it looks like. I don't care if there are a lot of details to work out I don't get paid to figure that kind of stuff out.

Bottom line there are a lot of cry babies out there saying they want half and we want more money etc. when everyone involved in with the details is getting paid millions of dollars a year when I'm working for peanuts...figure it out.
#1 32 owners != >2,000 players, so your math alone is extremely flawed.

#2 Does anyone actually read the CBA? The NFLPA site is down right now due to the decertification, but when its back up, PLEASE, educate yourselves - the owners already have most of their costs covered, not to mention things paid for by tax payers, such as stadiums & in some cases, stadium upkeep.

Canada
03-16-2011, 12:57 PM
#1 32 owners != >2,000 players, so your math alone is extremely flawed.

#2 Does anyone actually read the CBA? The NFLPA site is down right now due to the decertification, but when its back up, PLEASE, educate yourselves - the owners already have most of their costs covered, not to mention things paid for by tax payers, such as stadiums & in some cases, stadium upkeep.

Didnt Hunt pat $150 million into the new Arrowhead? Im pretty sure the taxpayers also beneft from having an NFL team in their city as well.

matthewschiefs
03-16-2011, 01:07 PM
#1 32 owners != >2,000 players, so your math alone is extremely flawed.

#2 Does anyone actually read the CBA? The NFLPA site is down right now due to the decertification, but when its back up, PLEASE, educate yourselves - the owners already have most of their costs covered, not to mention things paid for by tax payers, such as stadiums & in some cases, stadium upkeep.

First off yes i have read the CBA in the past. When the first talks of this whole labor mess started. I rember thininking why in the world would the ownrs take this deal. The head of the union himself has said publicly that the players got a great deal last time. If they TRUELY wanted a FAIR deal like they claim they would be willing to come back a little bit.

You said yourself owners have most of those expenses coverd WHY SHOULDN't the players have to help with the rest. After all a lot of those expenses the PLAYERS enjoy the benifits.

Yes the owners get help from the taxpayers alot of times to build these stadiums how much does the NFLPA chip in to build these stadiums? (outside of being taxpayers) They make A LOT more then the avarge person they can afford to chip in on some things to.

Ryfo18
03-16-2011, 01:11 PM
And while we're at it, let's make baseball players buy their own bats, gloves, and uniforms...NBA players need to start buying their own shoes. The KC Wizards play soccer on Arrowhead, let's make them chip in to fund Arrowhead also.

I'm sorry, it's just a poor argument.

matthewschiefs
03-16-2011, 01:29 PM
And while we're at it, let's make baseball players buy their own bats, gloves, and uniforms...NBA players need to start buying their own shoes. The KC Wizards play soccer on Arrowhead, let's make them chip in to fund Arrowhead also.

I'm sorry, it's just a poor argument.

Why?

MANY high school Jr college kids around the country have to pay for there own stuff. They don't come from families that are makeing at least over 100,000$ I had to do it for football and basketball in highschool (the school might have prefered i didn't lol) and was happy to do it. Just because these guys are better playing a game they are better then anyone eles? To me this argument makes far more sense then the argument you here from the players side about the avarge carrer only being 3 years. MILLIONS get laid off in less then 3 years what do they do they look find other places to work it's how the world works.

Ryfo18
03-16-2011, 01:42 PM
Why?

MANY high school Jr college kids around the country have to pay for there own stuff. They don't come from families that are makeing at least over 100,000$ I had to do it for football and basketball in highschool (the school might have prefered i didn't lol) and was happy to do it. Just because these guys are better playing a game they are better then anyone eles? To me this argument makes far more sense then the argument you here from the players side about the avarge carrer only being 3 years. MILLIONS get laid off in less then 3 years what do they do they look find other places to work it's how the world works.

Why? Because the players bring an extraordinary amount of money in. If these high school and junior college kids played for football programs that in turn brought money back that could be used to fund equipment, they wouldn't have to pay. You're completely ignoring the fact that the NFL players bring in money to themselves and the owners. As soon as you try to make comparisons between an NFL team and high school teams, you're getting lost in the argument.

The whole argument is ridiculous, and rooted out of jealousy for how much money the NFL players make (as do a lot of arguments on this site). Do I wish I made what an NFL player made? Hell yeah! But am I going to bash them for making "too much" when they have busted their *** their whole life to mold themselves into an elite NFL football player, a career that sometimes yields extraordinary salaries? NO. The sense of entitlement that some people have is ridiculous.

Work your whole life, get to the NFL and you can have the same chance at the money they make. You didn't get there? Well, time to find a new day job (there are people who try but don't make it). But don't tell me that they should start buying their own equipment, or actors/actresses should start paying for sets and production costs. Say your boss walks in and tells you they're cutting back on costs, the computer you use everyday you're now going to have to buy, along with the printers, copiers, etc. You're going to be fine with that?

OPLookn
03-16-2011, 01:51 PM
Why? Because the players bring an extraordinary amount of money in. If these high school and junior college kids played for football programs that in turn brought money back that could be used to fund equipment, they wouldn't have to pay. You're completely ignoring the fact that the NFL players bring in money to themselves and the owners. As soon as you try to make comparisons between an NFL team and high school teams, you're getting lost in the argument.

The whole argument is ridiculous, and rooted out of jealousy for how much money the NFL players make (as do a lot of arguments on this site). Do I wish I made what an NFL player made? Hell yeah! But am I going to bash them for making "too much" when they have busted their *** their whole life to mold themselves into an elite NFL football player, a career that sometimes yields extraordinary salaries? NO. The sense of entitlement that some people have is ridiculous.

Work your whole life, get to the NFL and you can have the same chance at the money they make. You didn't get there? Well, time to find a new day job (there are people who try but don't make it). But don't tell me that they should start buying their own equipment, or actors/actresses should start paying for sets and production costs. Say your boss walks in and tells you they're cutting back on costs, the computer you use everyday you're now going to have to buy, along with the printers, copiers, etc. You're going to be fine with that?


As a matter of fact I am...I have to use my personal lap top to work more often than not and I had to buy that with zero compensation to me. I want to print something out to use guess what I don't go to the boss saying I want 50% of the profits. The arguement that they're professional athletes and shouldn't have to pay for anything is ridiculous. I'm a computer programmer and do things a lot of other people can't do, does that mean that people should buy a computer for me?

The reason I said that is because when you start asking to be partners (which is what the 50/50 split the Union asked for) you get to start paying all the costs in my book...pure and simple.

matthewschiefs
03-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Why? Because the players bring an extraordinary amount of money in. If these high school and junior college kids played for football programs that in turn brought money back that could be used to fund equipment, they wouldn't have to pay. You're completely ignoring the fact that the NFL players bring in money to themselves and the owners. As soon as you try to make comparisons between an NFL team and high school teams, you're getting lost in the argument.

The whole argument is ridiculous, and rooted out of jealousy for how much money the NFL players make (as do a lot of arguments on this site). Do I wish I made what an NFL player made? Hell yeah! But am I going to bash them for making "too much" when they have busted their *** their whole life to mold themselves into an elite NFL football player, a career that sometimes yields extraordinary salaries? NO. The sense of entitlement that some people have is ridiculous.

Work your whole life, get to the NFL and you can have the same chance at the money they make. You didn't get there? Well, time to find a new day job (there are people who try but don't make it). But don't tell me that they should start buying their own equipment, or actors/actresses should start paying for sets and production costs. Say your boss walks in and tells you they're cutting back on costs, the computer you use everyday you're now going to have to buy, along with the printers, copiers, etc. You're going to be fine with that?

The owner make a TON yes. But the players make tons more then the familes who have to pay for there equitment and THEY DON'T get paid to play. They do it for FUN. Athletics bring in money for schools the kids who play don't get a dime of that. They are the ones who put out the product they don't get paid. Most of them are happy to play.

IF my employer did that your right I would not be happy. I also don't have the money the players have. I can't afford to give as much as they can. But I am not in a partnership. A TRULY fair partnership spilt BOTH income and expenses 50/50. And if that happend I would move on go work for someone eles.

Heres something eles to think about. Not all the owners are just rich because of who mommy and daddy are. Some of them worked there ***es of to get in a postion where they could afford to buy an NFL team.

My whole argument is not that the owners are any less to blame for this then the players. My problem is people jump all over the owners for things and rightfully so. But defend the players for doing some of the same things. Just because the owners make more doesn't mean the players should be excused. A millionare and billionare both kill someone should only the billonare go to jail?

OPLookn
03-16-2011, 02:48 PM
A millionare and billionare both kill someone should only the billonare go to jail?

Oh c'mon now...everyone knows that neither will go to jail.

:lol:

N TX Dave
03-16-2011, 02:52 PM
According to A Peterson who signed a $40.5 Million contract of his own free will and accord the players are just slaves. If they are in fact slaves (which I think is total BS) who sold them in to it? Themselves thats who they signed the contract and they can walk away anytime just leave the money on the table. If the players don't like the CBA being offered they are free to walk away and find a job somewhere else oh yeah they can't get one 10% of what they are being offered by the NFL too bad they need to walk away.

If you don't like your job because you don't like the pay scale you will leave so can the players. When I got out of the Army after 8 years in '76 jobs were hard to find like now but I had had enough of their treatment I chose to walk away from a steady pay check and look for something else which took me about 6 months to find but that was my choice they players can do the same and don't lecture me about I was not a talented as the players to bad that is life we all can't be as gifted as them but they also have options it's just that they may have to lower their lifestyle to meet their new means.

Ryfo18
03-16-2011, 03:05 PM
As a matter of fact I am...I have to use my personal lap top to work more often than not and I had to buy that with zero compensation to me. I want to print something out to use guess what I don't go to the boss saying I want 50% of the profits. The arguement that they're professional athletes and shouldn't have to pay for anything is ridiculous. I'm a computer programmer and do things a lot of other people can't do, does that mean that people should buy a computer for me?

The reason I said that is because when you start asking to be partners (which is what the 50/50 split the Union asked for) you get to start paying all the costs in my book...pure and simple.

I'm a computer programmer as well, and I have never once had to use my own personal computer for anything work related. If I were told I had to, I would find another job. I mean that comment in no offense to you, because I think that is an unfortunate circumstance you have.


The owner make a TON yes. But the players make tons more then the familes who have to pay for there equitment and THEY DON'T get paid to play. They do it for FUN. Athletics bring in money for schools the kids who play don't get a dime of that. They are the ones who put out the product they don't get paid. Most of them are happy to play.

IF my employer did that your right I would not be happy. I also don't have the money the players have. I can't afford to give as much as they can. But I am not in a partnership. A TRULY fair partnership spilt BOTH income and expenses 50/50. And if that happend I would move on go work for someone eles.

Heres something eles to think about. Not all the owners are just rich because of who mommy and daddy are. Some of them worked there ***es of to get in a postion where they could afford to buy an NFL team.

My whole argument is not that the owners are any less to blame for this then the players. My problem is people jump all over the owners for things and rightfully so. But defend the players for doing some of the same things. Just because the owners make more doesn't mean the players should be excused. A millionare and billionare both kill someone should only the billonare go to jail?

Another thing in regards to splitting expenses...The owners don't open up the books, so there is no way to tell what is getting written off as expenses. So when Ms. McCaskey of the Bears decides to give her great nephew a $250K salary to go watch Bears games all year, she writes this off as an expense. The players should have to support that?

Another thing about the equipment, that's all free from the equipment manufacturers anyway.

Canada
03-16-2011, 03:44 PM
The sense of entitlement that some people have is ridiculous.



Isnt it the players sense of entitlement exactly what you are arguing so passionately for.
You say that the average fan should have tried for the NFL and if they didnt make it then they should get another day job. Then i say NFL players should have tried to be owners and if that didnt work out then go find a day job.

Ryfo18
03-16-2011, 03:50 PM
Isnt it the players sense of entitlement exactly what you are arguing so passionately for.
You say that the average fan should have tried for the NFL and if they didnt make it then they should get another day job. Then i say NFL players should have tried to be owners and if that didnt work out then go find a day job.

It's a vicious cycle. Don't you have beer to drink?

Canada
03-16-2011, 04:26 PM
It's a vicious cycle. Don't you have beer to drink?
Im workin; on it :bananen_smilies046:

tornadospotter
03-17-2011, 02:41 AM
And you are way off in your number of employees for the NFL. The NFL is more than just the players, there is the coaches, the people who work the front offices, the officials, the venders who work during the game, security for the parking lots. A lot of those people are part-time and only get paid during the season, but that is far more than the 1700 that are just players and coaches.

In fairness, those employees may not work for the NFL per se, but they work for the teams in the NFL.
These are the little people who are not making big dollars, but are needed for all to make there money, who represents them? Who is negotiating, or walking away from them?

Also consider that the average NFL franchise is worth roughly $1 billion dollars (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/08/forbes-average-nfl-franchise-value-drops-for-the-first-time-in-12-years/1). So in the example shown above that would equate to about a 2% return on their investment. And that is for a very popular and profitable team. That's a lot of risk for a very small return. Shame on the owners for wanting to make money. All I've sen so far are concessions by the owners. It's time for the players to get this deal done. You won't se the books, because you have no right to se the books.
IMO, This comes down to a fundamental problem of "Partner or Employee". The players union thinks they are partners. The owners view them as employees. As partners, they have the have the right view the books and a bigger piece of the pie. As employees, they do not. I personally believe they are employees. They don't take on the risk of the franchise. If it loses money they still get paid. The way I know they are employees, not partners, is because they sign the back of the paychecks, not the fronts. The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done. Does anyone dispute that they are vastly overpaid? Does anyone believe that someone should get paid $25 million a year to throw a football while doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?
The players need to have a Coke and a Smile and the shut the HELL up!
Maybe these top paid stars should share their endorsement deals with the business that made them what the are? Maybe they should give a percentage of that income to retired players that built the game? Maybe they do, I do not know. But I think plenty of money is being made by some players from the game of football, that maybe they should share with least fortunate players, after all their endorsements came from the game they where able to be play, built by those before. Maybe some of them should open their financial accounts for all to see.

Just get a deal done Dammit!!!!

:whipping1:

Connie Jo
03-17-2011, 02:47 AM
I've read through most of the 'lockout' debate threads. I'm honestly torn, because those of you on opposing sides have valid points on both sides. On one hand I agree with the points in favor of owners, but on the other I agree with points in favor of players. I rarely have difficulty in choosing where I stand on an issue, but this is certainly one of those times. One day I'm in favor of the players, the next, the owners. They both have valid points & arguments, but it's a pitiful shame they can't simply be grateful for their blessings on both sides.

I'm having difficulty also with this issue, & the debates occurring among fans, media, etc....being solely focused on the money aspect. Some valid concerns & principles on both sides have been lost with the money aspect a primary focus for the majority.

This much I do know that I stand firm in my beliefs upon: we live in a free country, with wealth opportunities knocking at everyone's door at one point or another in life. Some begin their journey & focused efforts seeking fame & fortune in childhood, others adulthood, some inherit it, some come by it naturally in God given talents. Regardless, an individual has a free constitutional right to become 'legally' wealthy in America. Men, women, families...have been sacrificing body, limb, and life for such freedom. Condemning any one for being wealthy is unjust, greed however, is another matter, but is not within the point I'm wanting to make currently.

When we begin to resent those who have obtained wealth, or have a desire and/or belief that wealth should be restricted or limited, we begin to cross a line into socialism. Socialism fails, it destroy's societies overall.
Would you want to make major sacrifices, dedicate years of your life developing a talent, skill, education, career, business, but not be rewarded for such? Would you want to share your rewards with others who put forth no effort, made no sacrifce, or lessor effort & sacrifice? Based upon human nature I assure you, that most individuals are not willing to make sacrifices & put forth 100% in effort...if there is no personal gain or reward at the end.

Both the players and owners are entitled to their wealth...they've made the efforts & sacrifices necessary to obtain such. I'm tired, goodnight all, wishing for all no lockout nightmares, rather future Super Bowl Chiefs victory dreams.

tornadospotter
03-17-2011, 03:08 AM
I've read through most of the 'lockout' debate threads. I'm honestly torn, because those of you on opposing sides have valid points on both sides. On one hand I agree with the points in favor of owners, but on the other I agree with points in favor of players. I rarely have difficulty in choosing where I stand on an issue, but this is certainly one of those times. One day I'm in favor of the players, the next, the owners. They both have valid points & arguments, but it's a pitiful shame they can't simply be grateful for their blessings on both sides.

I'm having difficulty also with this issue, & the debates occurring among fans, media, etc....being solely focused on the money aspect. Some valid concerns & principles on both sides have been lost with the money aspect a primary focus for the majority.

This much I do know that I stand firm in my beliefs upon: we live in a free country, with wealth opportunities knocking at everyone's door at one point or another in life. Some begin their journey & focused efforts seeking fame & fortune in childhood, others adulthood, some inherit it, some come by it naturally in God given talents. Regardless, an individual has a free constitutional right to become 'legally' wealthy in America. Men, women, families...have been sacrificing body, limb, and life for such freedom. Condemning any one for being wealthy is unjust, greed however, is another matter, but is not within the point I'm wanting to make currently.

When we begin to resent those who have obtained wealth, or have a desire and/or belief that wealth should be restricted or limited, we begin to cross a line into socialism. Socialism fails, it destroy's societies overall.
Would you want to make major sacrifices, dedicate years of your life developing a talent, skill, education, career, business, but not be rewarded for such? Would you want to share your rewards with others who put forth no effort, made no sacrifce, or lessor effort & sacrifice? Based upon human nature I assure you, that most individuals are not willing to make sacrifices & put forth 100% in effort...if there is no personal gain or reward at the end.

Both the players and owners are entitled to their wealth...they've made the efforts & sacrifices necessary to obtain such. I'm tired, goodnight all, wishing for all no lockout nightmares, rather future Super Bowl Chiefs victory dreams.

CJ I do agree with you, but I am just piod about this whole thing, and from where I stand, the players planned to do this from the start, the owners have known that, because the former nflpa told them that what they where going to do it. The Owners tried to negotiate, but the players were set on the path they where going to go from the start, imo. There was no negotiation effort in good faith from the former nflpa, from the start. It is sad that is what it is.

tornadospotter
03-17-2011, 03:22 AM
Who is advising the Players? My opinion, right or wrong, is there agents. Agents make money of the commission of the players contract they negotiate, I am sure they have a big part of this stinking pile of bovine excrement that is going on.

:sign0053::bash:

Hayvern
03-17-2011, 03:30 AM
CJ I do agree with you, but I am just piod about this whole thing, and from where I stand, the players planned to do this from the start, the owners have known that, because the former nflpa told them that what they where going to do it. The Owners tried to negotiate, but the players were set on the path they where going to go from the start, imo. There was no negotiation effort in good faith from the former nflpa, from the start. It is sad that is what it is.

Another strike against the players for me. I was listening to Colin Cowherd on ESPN this morning and he said something interesting.

The NFLPA came out bad mouthing the owners because the owners locked out the players, including not paying for their medical insurance. The interesting thing he brought up was that the reason unions collect dues is to be able to offset things like health insurance and salaries during labor negotiations. But instead of setting something like that up, the union just bad mouthed the owners and left their own people out in the cold.

Look, the owners are not without blame either, they were the ones that walked away from an existing agreement, and they certainly have more money than the players do in most cases. This however, is a business and I get business, I understand it, even when I am on the receiving end of crappy things.

Another analogy is like this: I used to go to a restaurant to lunch about three or four times per week. Now, that I have had to cut back on my expenditures, I do not go to the restaurant as much. I went in there today and the owner, who I felt was a friend of mine was really disappointed that I no longer came in as much anymore. I had to tell him it wasn't personal against him, I just could not afford to eat there anymore. Overall, that was just one small part of my overall income, and to most people saving $5 per day, or $100 per month is no big deal, but for me, saving even that small amount is still a business decision.

tornadospotter
03-17-2011, 03:54 AM
Another strike against the players for me. I was listening to Colin Cowherd on ESPN this morning and he said something interesting.

The NFLPA came out bad mouthing the owners because the owners locked out the players, including not paying for their medical insurance. The interesting thing he brought up was that the reason unions collect dues is to be able to offset things like health insurance and salaries during labor negotiations. But instead of setting something like that up, the union just bad mouthed the owners and left their own people out in the cold.

Look, the owners are not without blame either, they were the ones that walked away from an existing agreement, and they certainly have more money than the players do in most cases. This however, is a business and I get business, I understand it, even when I am on the receiving end of crappy things.

Another analogy is like this: I used to go to a restaurant to lunch about three or four times per week. Now, that I have had to cut back on my expenditures, I do not go to the restaurant as much. I went in there today and the owner, who I felt was a friend of mine was really disappointed that I no longer came in as much anymore. I had to tell him it wasn't personal against him, I just could not afford to eat there anymore. Overall, that was just one small part of my overall income, and to most people saving $5 per day, or $100 per month is no big deal, but for me, saving even that small amount is still a business decision.
Here is another uneducated though from me. Has the former nflpa opened there books or offered to, to see what they spend the dues paid to them on? I am just asking, because I do not know. Would be interesting to know. If I was in a Union, I would want to know where my dues went to, and my benefits of belonging, here again, benefits for those past players who made the game great for current players. What has the former nflpa done for them? I am just asking questions, anybody have answers, inform me.
Where is NFLLockout? Why does this member not post anymore? I am waiting for this member to talk to us. I thought he represented the former nflpa? Talk to us! The true heart of the NFL! The Fans!

kcred
03-17-2011, 11:24 AM
After 48 years of being a chiefs fan,if there is no football.this year i am done. I haven't been to a royals game or watched them on tv sin e their strike and wont watch the chiefs anymore. I have-not renewed my season tickets. Good luck chiefss fans. College sports for me. Peace. Kc red

Xanathol
03-17-2011, 11:59 AM
CJ I do agree with you, but I am just piod about this whole thing, and from where I stand, the players planned to do this from the start, the owners have known that, because the former nflpa told them that what they where going to do it. The Owners tried to negotiate, but the players were set on the path they where going to go from the start, imo. There was no negotiation effort in good faith from the former nflpa, from the start. It is sad that is what it is.You need to educate yourself on the subject. At the very least, read the thread.


Facts:


1. Owners started planning this lockout over 2 years ago - not the players - in their TV contract negotiations, breaking the CBA they were under, and in order to help them and harm the players in the event of a lockout. IE. They could perform a lockout and have money to outlast the players with to force them into their demands. The owners are begging Doty to not unseal those court docs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/16/nfl.union.tv.ap/index.html?eref=twitter_feed), btw.... hmmm wonder why? :Tool:


2. The owners didn't even approach the table until Judge Doty ruled against them on the lockout money.


3. Joe Banner confirms that even the infamous 'final proposal', the owners never expected the players to agree to it (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/joe-banner-explains-why-league-thinks-offer-to-players-was-fair/). But you contend the owners are seriously negotiating and the players are not?!


4. Again, the 2009 numbers worked out such that the owners received 47% of the total pot, and the players 53%. The owners first proposal would have flipped those numbers to 53% owners, 47% players.

Now check this out: 53 - 47 = 6 - that's the 'gap' there. 6 / 2 ( ya know, half way ) is... drum roll.... 3! Add 3 to one side, sub from the other and you get.... you guessed it! 50/50! Which is exactly what the players counter offered with, to which the owners GOT UP AND WALKED OUT ON, then THEY turned around and filed charges against the NFLPA for "not negotiating in good faith". Since when is meeting halfway "not negotiating in good faith"? Wouldn't WALKING OUT on an offer to meet half way be "not negotiating in good faith"?


Seriously, this information is out there for consumption, even in this very thread. The least you could do is offer counters to it if you're going to make the outlandish statements you did above.

tornadospotter
03-17-2011, 01:02 PM
You need to educate yourself on the subject. At the very least, read the thread.


Facts:


1. Owners started planning this lockout over 2 years ago - not the players - in their TV contract negotiations, breaking the CBA they were under, and in order to help them and harm the players in the event of a lockout. IE. They could perform a lockout and have money to outlast the players with to force them into their demands. The owners are begging Doty to not unseal those court docs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/16/nfl.union.tv.ap/index.html?eref=twitter_feed), btw.... hmmm wonder why? :Tool:

Begging?
2. The owners didn't even approach the table until Judge Doty ruled against them on the lockout money.


3. Joe Banner confirms that even the infamous 'final proposal', the owners never expected the players to agree to it (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/joe-banner-explains-why-league-thinks-offer-to-players-was-fair/). But you contend the owners are seriously negotiating and the players are not?!

You can not be serious. The Owners did not make better offer? Yes they already knew the players would not except, because?

4. Again, the 2009 numbers worked out such that the owners received 47% of the total pot, and the players 53%. The owners first proposal would have flipped those numbers to 53% owners, 47% players.

Now check this out: 53 - 47 = 6 - that's the 'gap' there. 6 / 2 ( ya know, half way ) is... drum roll.... 3! Add 3 to one side, sub from the other and you get.... you guessed it! 50/50! Which is exactly what the players counter offered with, to which the owners GOT UP AND WALKED OUT ON, then THEY turned around and filed charges against the NFLPA for "not negotiating in good faith". Since when is meeting halfway "not negotiating in good faith"? Wouldn't WALKING OUT on an offer to meet half way be "not negotiating in good faith"?

Benefit package for players, former and current what side of that 50/50 was it coming from?

Seriously, this information is out there for consumption, even in this very thread. The least you could do is offer counters to it if you're going to make the outlandish statements you did above.
Keep posting info, I am asking questions and voicing my outrage over the whole deal. You tell me, when did the players decide to get a new deal done? You think that they would have gotten a hint, when the Owners opted out of the CBA? They all should have from that point on, worked out a deal by now.

Seek
03-17-2011, 01:38 PM
You know, I kind of like the idea of this lock out after thinking about it, our team is so young, they will most likely bounce back if there is a year of lock out, but the Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's of the leage are getting old, and will be even more rusty. A lock out like this could be the end of the careers for many big name players not on the Chiefs...

I mean our biggest concern if there was a long lock out would be Brian Waters, Casey Weigmann and Mike Vrabel. All players that most of us already know need to be addressed.

I know it would suck not watching football next year, but on the positive side of that, I have already paid for my tickets, so I would then get a credit to the following season making my budget a little easier.

Let the players hold out. Don't give in owners.

Seek
03-17-2011, 01:41 PM
After 48 years of being a chiefs fan,if there is no football.this year i am done. I haven't been to a royals game or watched them on tv sin e their strike and wont watch the chiefs anymore. I have-not renewed my season tickets. Good luck chiefss fans. College sports for me. Peace. Kc red

I don't believe you. A Chief fan for 48 years and your going to hang it up now. I can't see it, I mean what a waste. I can understand not seeing the Royals but was it really the Strike or the fact the Royals just sucked.

Seek
03-17-2011, 02:06 PM
Just got this email from the Chiefs.


Thank you for your support of the Kansas City Chiefs. We recognize the importance of our Season Ticket Holders and are grateful for your continued loyalty.

Much has been written and said in the past few days about the status of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players. Many of you have contacted customer relations with questions regarding your account or looking for updated information on the process. We appreciate you taking the time to reach out to us, and we hope to answer as many of your questions as we can in this letter.

In most negotiations, if all sides give a little, a deal can be reached. Last week, the NFL proposed a deal to the players that more than met them in the middle on the economic issues. The league's proposal also included provisions designed to enhance player health and safety and significantly improve benefits for retired players. Unfortunately, the players rejected this proposal and walked away from the negotiating table.

We know you are disappointed that negotiations broke down. I was also disappointed that an agreement was not reached last week, but I am not discouraged. While it's impossible for me, or anyone, to predict the next steps in the process, I hope it will lead back to the negotiating table and, ultimately, to a full 2011 season.

However, in the event preseason or regular-season home games are missed, you will receive a full refund for any cancelled Chiefs home games. Details of the refund policy were sent to you previously and are available on our website by clicking here (http://smr.mm.ticketmaster.com/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTEwMTI3MjImbWVzc2FnZWlkPTEwMjcxM jImZGF0YWJhc2VpZD1EQVRBQkFTRUlEJnNlcmlhbD0xMjI3NDY 4NzA0JmVtYWlsaWQ9Y2hpZWZfc2Vla0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbSZ1c 2VyaWQ9MTMzMjEyNDYyJmV4dHJhPSYmJmh0dHA6Ly93d3cua2N jaGllZnMuY29tL3RpY2tldHMvc2Vhc29uLXRpY2tldC1ob2xkZ XJzLmh0bWw=).

Ultimately, we understand that our fans want us to return to football as soon as possible. After a season that began with Monday Night Magic at the grand opening of the New Arrowhead, and culminated in a division championship, we are more focused than ever on improving every area of our team. We know there will be football in the future – and we have already started to plan for the 2011 season. Our football staff is hard at work preparing for the 2011 NFL Draft and our business operations staff is using fan feedback to make the Arrowhead experience the best in the NFL.

We are committed to keeping you informed of our plans and welcome your feedback. If you have questions or comments, please send them to customerrelations@kcchiefs.org (customerrelations@kcchiefs.org).
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Sincerely,

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/03/4.jpg



Clark Hunt






Chairman and CEO

matthewschiefs
03-17-2011, 04:53 PM
You need to educate yourself on the subject. At the very least, read the thread.


Facts:


1. Owners started planning this lockout over 2 years ago - not the players - in their TV contract negotiations, breaking the CBA they were under, and in order to help them and harm the players in the event of a lockout. IE. They could perform a lockout and have money to outlast the players with to force them into their demands. The owners are begging Doty to not unseal those court docs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/16/nfl.union.tv.ap/index.html?eref=twitter_feed), btw.... hmmm wonder why? :Tool:


2. The owners didn't even approach the table until Judge Doty ruled against them on the lockout money.


3. Joe Banner confirms that even the infamous 'final proposal', the owners never expected the players to agree to it (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/joe-banner-explains-why-league-thinks-offer-to-players-was-fair/). But you contend the owners are seriously negotiating and the players are not?!


4. Again, the 2009 numbers worked out such that the owners received 47% of the total pot, and the players 53%. The owners first proposal would have flipped those numbers to 53% owners, 47% players.

Now check this out: 53 - 47 = 6 - that's the 'gap' there. 6 / 2 ( ya know, half way ) is... drum roll.... 3! Add 3 to one side, sub from the other and you get.... you guessed it! 50/50! Which is exactly what the players counter offered with, to which the owners GOT UP AND WALKED OUT ON, then THEY turned around and filed charges against the NFLPA for "not negotiating in good faith". Since when is meeting halfway "not negotiating in good faith"? Wouldn't WALKING OUT on an offer to meet half way be "not negotiating in good faith"?


Seriously, this information is out there for consumption, even in this very thread. The least you could do is offer counters to it if you're going to make the outlandish statements you did above.

The 50/50 split was talked about that is true. But the information your not including is the owners didn't fell that was a serious offer. And to be honest this is not even as fair as the NFLPA would have you think. Here is an article explaining why CSN Boston: Curran: NFLPA's 50-50 offer isn't what it seems - LockerPulse (http://www.lockerpulse.com/News/Curran-NFLPAs-50-50-offer-isnt-what-it-seems-S815009/)

I 100% agree with you when you say the owners didn't start talking until the judge spanked them in court. But can you say the players have? They are the ones who say they won't even talk until the owners open the books. That's not talking thats makeing a demand.

Once again if people are going to get all upset at the owners for something the players need to be held accountable to. That's all I am saying.

Xanathol
03-17-2011, 06:12 PM
The 50/50 split was talked about that is true. But the information your not including is the owners didn't fell that was a serious offer. And to be honest this is not even as fair as the NFLPA would have you think. Here is an article explaining why CSN Boston: Curran: NFLPA's 50-50 offer isn't what it seems - LockerPulse (http://www.lockerpulse.com/News/Curran-NFLPAs-50-50-offer-isnt-what-it-seems-S815009/)

I 100% agree with you when you say the owners didn't start talking until the judge spanked them in court. But can you say the players have? They are the ones who say they won't even talk until the owners open the books. That's not talking thats makeing a demand.

Once again if people are going to get all upset at the owners for something the players need to be held accountable to. That's all I am saying.

Ummm you do realize that your article says the exact same thing I did, except they spin it to not tell you the percentages current vs owner proposed?


Here, let me illustrate it - and you can check the numbers with what the article did provide if you don't believe me.


2009, the total revenue pot is ~$9 Billion. Under the 2009 CBA, ~$1 billion comes off the top for expenses to the owners, then the owners get a 40% split of the $8 billion that is left and the player pool is the 60% of that $8 billion left.

40% of $8 billion == $3.2 billion
60% of $8 billion == $4.8 billion

So the players got $4.8 billion.

The owners got $4.2 billion - $1 billion for expenses, $3.2 billion from the pie cutting.


~$4.2 billion = 47% of ~$9 billion
~$4.8 billion = 53% of ~$9 billion


Or in other words, in terms of the overall revenue, the owners get 47%, the players get 53%. Check the math if you don't believe it.


The owners' first proposal would have given them ~$2 billion off the top for expenses, then the same 40/60 split.

40% of $7 billion == $2.8 billion
60% of $7 billion == $4.2 billion

So there, the players would have gotten $4.2 billion.

The owners would have gotten $4.8 billion - $2 billion off the top, then $2.8 billion from the pie.

Using the numbers above, you can see that the situation would have flipped-flopped, meaning instead of 47% going to owners, the owners would have gotten 53%, and vice versa for the players.

The players countered with a proposal for a 50/50 split of all revenue. No money off the top, just split the entire thing 50/50, or in 2009, $4.5 billion to the owners & players.


The article you linked tries to spin things in the owners' favor by comparing the '50/50' number to the 60% piece of the pie. They don't directly lie about the numbers, they just show them to you the way they want you to see them. The 50/50 was most definitely right in the middle of the two offers, and the owners *walked out* in response to that and filed charges against the NFLPA, saying they were not negotiating in good faith. That just makes you go 'wow'...



More updates...

Kevin Mawae, per the twitter world, was quoted as saying over the 15 days of negotiations, they had a total of ~8 hours face time with the NFL owners. Makes sense, as we already knew the owners weren't even showing up for most of those meetings.


D Smith finally responds on the infamous 'final proposal' by the NFL (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/17/demaurice-smith-calls-nfl-offer-worst-deal-in-the-history-of-sports/), sharing the previously unknown percentage values. Basically, the NFL wanted the players to start off at ~44% of all revenue ( remember - 2009 was a 47% owners, 53% players split ) and have that number decrease over the coming years to 40%.

matthewschiefs
03-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Ummm you do realize that your article says the exact same thing I did, except they spin it to not tell you the percentages current vs owner proposed?


Here, let me illustrate it - and you can check the numbers with what the article did provide if you don't believe me.


2009, the total revenue pot is ~$9 Billion. Under the 2009 CBA, ~$1 billion comes off the top for expenses to the owners, then the owners get a 40% split of the $8 billion that is left and the player pool is the 60% of that $8 billion left.

40% of $8 billion == $3.2 billion
60% of $8 billion == $4.8 billion

So the players got $4.8 billion.

The owners got $4.2 billion - $1 billion for expenses, $3.2 billion from the pie cutting.


~$4.2 billion = 47% of ~$9 billion
~$4.8 billion = 53% of ~$9 billion


Or in other words, in terms of the overall revenue, the owners get 47%, the players get 53%. Check the math if you don't believe it.


The owners' first proposal would have given them ~$2 billion off the top for expenses, then the same 40/60 split.

40% of $7 billion == $2.8 billion
60% of $7 billion == $4.2 billion

So there, the players would have gotten $4.2 billion.

The owners would have gotten $4.8 billion - $2 billion off the top, then $2.8 billion from the pie.

Using the numbers above, you can see that the situation would have flipped-flopped, meaning instead of 47% going to owners, the owners would have gotten 53%, and vice versa for the players.

The players countered with a proposal for a 50/50 split of all revenue. No money off the top, just split the entire thing 50/50, or in 2009, $4.5 billion to the owners & players.


The article you linked tries to spin things in the owners' favor by comparing the '50/50' number to the 60% piece of the pie. They don't directly lie about the numbers, they just show them to you the way they want you to see them. The 50/50 was most definitely right in the middle of the two offers, and the owners *walked out* in response to that and filed charges against the NFLPA, saying they were not negotiating in good faith. That just makes you go 'wow'...



More updates...

Kevin Mawae, per the twitter world, was quoted as saying over the 15 days of negotiations, they had a total of ~8 hours face time with the NFL owners. Makes sense, as we already knew the owners weren't even showing up for most of those meetings.


D Smith finally responds on the infamous 'final proposal' by the NFL (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/17/demaurice-smith-calls-nfl-offer-worst-deal-in-the-history-of-sports/), sharing the previously unknown percentage values. Basically, the NFL wanted the players to start off at ~44% of all revenue ( remember - 2009 was a 47% owners, 53% players split ) and have that number decrease over the coming years to 40%.

What the article basicly tells you is that under that offer things would basicly stay the same.How is that pro owners? So the players "fair offer" was to keep things the same just word it diffrent. How is that negotiating? You know that the owners are not happy as things are so lets just make the words diffrent?

They might have only had 8 hours face to face but that doesn't mean the owners were not there to talk. Funny how you right away put the blame on them. Most of that time the medator is talking to one party or anther then he goes to talk with the other. The medator is the one who is the link between the two sides. That in know way means one side was not willing to talk. And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

And you do realize basicly your arguement is 53-47 split if fair only if it goes the players way right?

Xanathol
03-17-2011, 08:13 PM
What the article basicly tells you is that under that offer things would basicly stay the same.How is that pro owners? So the players "fair offer" was to keep things the same just word it diffrent. How is that negotiating? You know that the owners are not happy as things are so lets just make the words diffrent?

They might have only had 8 hours face to face but that doesn't mean the owners were not there to talk. Funny how you right away put the blame on them. Most of that time the medator is talking to one party or anther then he goes to talk with the other. The medator is the one who is the link between the two sides. That in know way means one side was not willing to talk. And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

And you do realize basicly your arguement is 53-47 split if fair only if it goes the players way right?
Now I'm not sure if you are arguing just to argue or if you even followed the mediation proceedings at all. The players were at every meeting - the owners were not, sending their lawyers instead. That's a fact dude - why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

In regards to the article you linked and your comments.... seriously?!

Current: 47/53
Owner requested: 53/47

That's 6% up for the owners, 6% down for the players.

Player counter: 50/50

That's meeting half way, 3% up for the owners, 3% down for the players.


If you think that 'basically didn't change anything' or was not a negotiation, then perhaps http://www.merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) may help you out? I mean seriously, I don't know how else to be civil and acknowledge what you're doing here.

According to you, its ok for the owners to be there 8 hours out of 15 days... but not the players. According to you, a counter of +/- 3% for a request of +/- 6% is "no change at all" if it comes from the players.

The best gem has to be this, though:


And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

Again, get your facts straight. There was no offer to extend negotiations, and the mediator recommended stopping the efforts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/mediator-george-h-cohen-issues-statement-after-nfl-labor-talks-break-off/2011/03/11/AB7LPQR_story.html)!

after carefully reviewing all of the events that have transpired, it is the considered judgment of myself and Deputy Director Scot Beckenbaugh, who has been engaged with me throughout this process, that no useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time So just stop saying the owners wanted to continue talks - they did not.

The owners are simply stating that now, publicly, to win over public opinion because they know the players cannot negotiate, else risk having the decertification called a sham and the antitrust case thrown out.

I am fairly convinced you're just making claims based on what the owners / Roger / Pash are saying because its what you want to believe. From now on, please, if you wish to make one of these claims like 'the players walked out', provide a link to back it up, like showing that the owners offered to continue. You get the picture.

matthewschiefs
03-17-2011, 08:40 PM
Now I'm not sure if you are arguing just to argue or if you even followed the mediation proceedings at all. The players were at every meeting - the owners were not, sending their lawyers instead. That's a fact dude - why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

In regards to the article you linked and your comments.... seriously?!

Current: 47/53
Owner requested: 53/47

That's 6% up for the owners, 6% down for the players.

Player counter: 50/50

That's meeting half way, 3% up for the owners, 3% down for the players.


If you think that 'basically didn't change anything' or was not a negotiation, then perhaps http://www.merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) may help you out? I mean seriously, I don't know how else to be civil and acknowledge what you're doing here.

According to you, its ok for the owners to be there 8 hours out of 15 days... but not the players. According to you, a counter of +/- 3% for a request of +/- 6% is "no change at all" if it comes from the players.

The best gem has to be this, though:



Again, get your facts straight. There was no offer to extend negotiations, and the mediator recommended stopping the efforts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/mediator-george-h-cohen-issues-statement-after-nfl-labor-talks-break-off/2011/03/11/AB7LPQR_story.html)!
So just stop saying the owners wanted to continue talks - they did not.

The owners are simply stating that now, publicly, to win over public opinion because they know the players cannot negotiate, else risk having the decertification called a sham and the antitrust case thrown out.

I am fairly convinced you're just making claims based on what the owners / Roger / Pash are saying because its what you want to believe. From now on, please, if you wish to make one of these claims like 'the players walked out', provide a link to back it up, like showing that the owners offered to continue. You get the picture.


Your doing what your accuseing me of. I have said time and time again I think the owners are being greedy. And I have even AGREED with you on some things. Like when I said that I 100% agree the owners were not really talking until they got spanked by the judge. So tell me what wrong doing has the players done in this? Are the 100% innoncent?

The owners for the most part are greedy shelfish people. (see me putting blame on the owners) But the players share in that trait alot. The players are now telling College players who will be in the draft not to attend the draft. Saying hay we are not even currently working to get a deal done but give up that once in a lifetime moment you have worked so hard for. In hearing your name called in front of friends and family.

The decertification is a sham IMO. The secound they reach a deal they will all of a sudden decide to reform the union. The owners would not give them what they wanted so they took them to court instead of sitting and trying to work things out so they might get the deal they want. And BTW the players have publicly stated they will talk if the owners open there books. Meet our demands and then we will talk. You know if the owners did that you would get mad about that two.

wilqb16
03-17-2011, 09:15 PM
The owners for the most part are greedy shelfish people. (see me putting blame on the owners) But the players share in that trait alot. The players are now telling College players who will be in the draft not to attend the draft. Saying hay we are not even currently working to get a deal done but give up that once in a lifetime moment you have worked so hard for. In hearing your name called in front of friends and family.


Seems to me that choosing between the owners and players is choosing between a douche and turd sandwich.

N TX Dave
03-17-2011, 11:52 PM
why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

Let me ask you why do you keep defending the players right out of the gate. You both are saying the same thing over and over again and again. State you facts once and drop it obviously neither of you is going to convince the other.
:efpge: :meow: :efpge:

Both sides are at fault both sides have valid points and both sides have BS points. But generally I am siding with the owners because the players are demanding to see the books opened, well show me one privately held company that opens the books to their employees and yes the players are employees of the NFL they are not partners. If the players would come up with something other than they have to show us the books then I agree with them but to "demand" the books to be opened is not negotiating so they are going to take it to court and try get a judge to force it which in my opinion would be wrong.

And like I said earlier both sides can kiss my :mooning:

chief31
03-18-2011, 12:14 AM
The 50/50 split was talked about that is true. But the information your not including is the owners didn't fell that was a serious offer. And to be honest this is not even as fair as the NFLPA would have you think. Here is an article explaining why CSN Boston: Curran: NFLPA's 50-50 offer isn't what it seems - LockerPulse (http://www.lockerpulse.com/News/Curran-NFLPAs-50-50-offer-isnt-what-it-seems-S815009/)

I 100% agree with you when you say the owners didn't start talking until the judge spanked them in court. But can you say the players have? They are the ones who say they won't even talk until the owners open the books. That's not talking thats makeing a demand.

Once again if people are going to get all upset at the owners for something the players need to be held accountable to. That's all I am saying.

Bottom line?

If the owners hadn't tried to scam everybody through that TV contract, and ended the last CBA, there would be plenty of time to get a deal worked out.

You can point at anything the players have done and say "SEE?!?!?!? They are now the bad guys!!!" But the owners started this fight with claims of poverty, and, as business goes, are still fighting for every cent that they can get, while imposing a lockout.

The players did not ask for this fight. They did not opt out of the last CBA. And the players did not strike. The owners imposed a lockout.

Are the players completely blame-free? No.

But this whole thing was brought on by the owners. And the owners have cancelled The NFL. Not the players.

matthewschiefs
03-18-2011, 12:30 AM
Bottom line?

If the owners hadn't tried to scam everybody through that TV contract, and ended the last CBA, there would be plenty of time to get a deal worked out.

You can point at anything the players have done and say "SEE?!?!?!? They are now the bad guys!!!" But the owners started this fight with claims of poverty, and, as business goes, are still fighting for every cent that they can get, while imposing a lockout.

The players did not ask for this fight. They did not opt out of the last CBA. And the players did not strike. The owners imposed a lockout.

Are the players completely blame-free? No.

But this whole thing was brought on by the owners. And the owners have cancelled The NFL. Not the players.


I think many are misunderstanding my argument. I am NOT saying that the owners are ANY less to blame for this whole mess then the players.

In fact I blame them for a good part if not most of it. But It just bugs me when the players do things and do not get the backlash that the owners do. The players demanding the owners open the books before they even talk is just as wrong as a lot of what the owners did. If the owners had said we won't even talk unless you meet our demand of 18 games people would jump all over them and rightfully so.

I just think if people are going to bash one side they need to bash the other when there wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both sides have far more then most people and we are the ones who put alot of that money in there pockets. I no I did by the Chiefs tee shirt I wear to bed everynight. and the many jerseys i have bought. BOTH sides need to finaly start to say ok maybe i can live with this if you give me this. Something NEITHER side has done a lot of.

Chiefster
03-18-2011, 12:38 AM
Well, they can do whatever they want; I'm on a fan strike! :D

...Besides, I plan on seeing a lot of college football.

matthewschiefs
03-18-2011, 12:41 AM
Well, they can do whatever they want; I'm on a fan strike! :D

...Besides, I plan on seeing a lot of college football.


I have been on a fan strike of college football for years. No nfl i might go crazy.

disclaimer Matthewschiefs lied when he said he might go crazy. He is a sick sick man. Use caution before approching.

Chiefster
03-18-2011, 12:44 AM
I have been on a fan strike of college football for years. No nfl i might go crazy.

disclaimer Matthewschiefs lied when he said he might go crazy. He is a sick sick man. Use caution before approching.

:lol:

Well, the college football games I plan on seeing will, hopefully, feature my son.

Hayvern
03-18-2011, 02:46 AM
The owners for the most part are greedy shelfish people.

HAHAHA SHELFISH

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/03/5.jpg

chief31
03-18-2011, 10:07 AM
I think many are misunderstanding my argument. I am NOT saying that the owners are ANY less to blame for this whole mess then the players.

In fact I blame them for a good part if not most of it. But It just bugs me when the players do things and do not get the backlash that the owners do. The players demanding the owners open the books before they even talk is just as wrong as a lot of what the owners did. If the owners had said we won't even talk unless you meet our demand of 18 games people would jump all over them and rightfully so.

I just think if people are going to bash one side they need to bash the other when there wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both sides have far more then most people and we are the ones who put alot of that money in there pockets. I no I did by the Chiefs tee shirt I wear to bed everynight. and the many jerseys i have bought. BOTH sides need to finaly start to say ok maybe i can live with this if you give me this. Something NEITHER side has done a lot of.

Well, you paint it as if there has been a whole lot of people taking up for the players here. But, including myself, I count four people taking the players' side in this thread.

Including you, I am counting twelve on the owners side. (Claiming to be in the middle, but aiming far more criticism at the players for "balance" puts you in this category.)


But generally I am siding with the owners because the players are demanding to see the books opened


I really get the feeling that the NFLPA* is being run by a handful of players and executives that don't necessarily speak for the 1600+ players in the NFL. I have no evidence to back this up, its just the impression they're giving through the media. I honestly believe they did not negotiate in good faith with the Owners.


If the players don't like the CBA being offered they are free to walk away and find a job somewhere else oh yeah they can't get one 10% of what they are being offered by the NFL too bad they need to walk away.


Let the players hold out. Don't give in owners.


If employees/players don't like the deal they are getting, they should look for another company/team or start their own business. Why should the owners be penalized for having a successful business?


Make the NFL like the real world. Everyone gets paid the same for the same job. Qbs all make the same, RBs all make the same, WRs all make the same. IF they dont like it, get another f#ckin' job.


The players make tons of money and half the time they don't even give full effort.play when they want to play.They want wewarded for that.If anything ,every player should get paid the same and have a huge purse at the end of the year.



Most of these players are big overgrown overpaid crybabies that know nothing about the average person(the person who pays to see them play). These guys would not care if we all lost our homes or died. All they care about is money. If they get hurt, they have insurance. If they don't its their own fault, cause they sure get paid enough to buy it. Many of these players live it up and blow their wealth then they sit around and play the poor poor pitiful me song. They are unappreciative and greedy.




I have no care for the members of the NFLPA, they did not come to the table in true faith. Prove me wrong.


The players never were serious about negotiation on this. They have NEVER in the entire time of these talks ever told anyone what they would take. The owners have given, they gave back all the way up to the end, but the players still did not want to give up anything.

I hope the judges slap the crap out of them and put them in their place.


To think I was about to switch to Direct TV.......no freaking way now!!Both sides can kiss my ---!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep. Those who stand with the players are a serious minority around here.

This fight was chosen by the owners, when they opted out of the previous CBA, and they have been planning to cheat for a couple of years, with the TV money.

If they get punched in the mouth, or if they get hit with a low blow, they started this fight. They chose it. I won't be real sympathetic to their "plight".

And, if they cost me my NFL enjoyment, I will blame the guys who chose to do this.

I do not believe that you are being as fair as you think. I see you stand up to any post defending the players. But I do not see you standing up to any posts defending the owners.

pojote
03-18-2011, 10:46 AM
This isn't a negotiation, is a force demonstration. When the owners sign that TV contract and opted out of current CBA (both things together), and after that threatened with a lockout, they showed their strength.
What was the smartest thing for players to do? I can't figure it out, but I think was decertification, a force demonstration in the same level as the owners.
Who started this kind of "negotiation"? The owners did.
For the owners is a business, an exciting business, but business anyway.
For the players is a business, their only real business for most of them.
So they are doing business, but in a controversial way. Again, who dragged negotiation to this place? Facts shows that owners did.

Questions that I would like to know:
-What are college players winning participating in the draft? Without a CBA is far more interesting being a free agent that a top drafted player.
-Are all players free agents now? There isn't a CBA and they are locked out from their former teams.

Jasper
03-18-2011, 04:14 PM
After a year when 18 of the 20 biggest TV events were NFL games, the Players were not asking for a raise.
The Owners asked Players to take ~30% less (18% less of their 55%-57%)? For basically no reason other than the Owners wanted to make more. They claimed possible downside to their enterprise, but wouldn't show the books in a meaningful way, and planned (for several years) to have access to the full TV contract money during the lockout. To mention nothing of the Owners asking the Players to play 2 more games.
And did you know the Players get $400 each for Preseason games and none of the savings is pass on to you? That's right, it's all just extra cash for the Owners... your full-priced parking, your full-priced beer, None of that major fan complaint is at the Players feet.
The result is, the courts will decide.
Just as Courts already decided the Owners weren't bargaining in good faith, and their TV Contract money will be held up, to the Court it will be clear the Owners are being greedy, as the Players did not ask for a raise. It's unclear how long it will take, but College Football is a lot of fun.

Connie Jo
03-19-2011, 12:44 AM
I've not done all the research & numbers as thoroughly as many of you posting in this thread. Besides, I hate math in depth, haha. However, if it is accurate that the owners drew first blood manipulating & scamming TV contract money...then one would think the owners would wisely want this lockout to end prior to a court discovering their questionable integrity. The deeper the courts go for evidence, the more the public will be made aware through mass media, of information the owners prefer not be public knowledge.

chief31
03-29-2011, 10:55 AM
I didn't see a new thread for this, but figured it would be added soon. So here it is, until then...

Retired players file antitrust suit against NFL - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-wetzel_retired_players_file_antitrust_suit_against _nfl_032811)

The plaintiffs include Priest Holmes.

pojote
03-29-2011, 11:01 AM
Wow!!! Retired players kicking owners in the...


...draft. At least is a smart legal move. I hope that this makes lockout ends.

matthewschiefs
03-29-2011, 02:37 PM
Wow!!! Retired players kicking owners in the...


...draft. At least is a smart legal move. I hope that this makes lockout ends.

I think the quickest end to the lockout would be if the judge lifts the lockout.

I think that would lead to a new cba faster to. Not sure it will happen but I think that would speed things up.

Canada
03-29-2011, 04:13 PM
I count four people taking the players' side in this thread.

Including you, I am counting twelve on the owners side.



Dont count me as being "on anyones side" Im on the fans side...the ones who lose in all of this. Regardless of what they are arguing about, its the fans who will lose. If there is a lockout, the millionaires will remain millionaires, we however, will not have football. I think they are all far too greedy. The only side I am taking is the side of the fans!!

josh1971
03-29-2011, 09:34 PM
Dont count me as being "on anyones side" Im on the fans side...the ones who lose in all of this. Regardless of what they are arguing about, its the fans who will lose. If there is a lockout, the millionaires will remain millionaires, we however, will not have football. I think they are all far too greedy. The only side I am taking is the side of the fans!!

This and this! Players or owners? Meh- the people I'm on the side of are the folks like the ones working at the stadiums, who-come fall- just won't have jobs.

And like Canada said- the fans, who get screwed no matter which side makes how many millions or billions, or who gets to look at who's books, or anything else.

chief31
03-30-2011, 09:40 AM
Isnt it the players sense of entitlement exactly what you are arguing so passionately for.
You say that the average fan should have tried for the NFL and if they didnt make it then they should get another day job. Then i say NFL players should have tried to be owners and if that didnt work out then go find a day job.






Dont count me as being "on anyones side" Im on the fans side...the ones who lose in all of this. Regardless of what they are arguing about, its the fans who will lose. If there is a lockout, the millionaires will remain millionaires, we however, will not have football. I think they are all far too greedy. The only side I am taking is the side of the fans!!

Well, the reason I counted you on the owners' side is because you made some harsh statements against the players specifically, and have also made some pro owner statements.


Make the NFL like the real world. Everyone gets paid the same for the same job. Qbs all make the same, RBs all make the same, WRs all make the same. IF they dont like it, get another f#ckin' job.
Didnt Hunt pat $150 million into the new Arrowhead? Im pretty sure the taxpayers also beneft from having an NFL team in their city as well.

You may not intend to be "on anyone's side", but your remarks have been one-sided, aside from your main point, of being on the fans' side, which I think would apply to every last one of us.

But when the discussion has been 'players vs. owners', your comments have been mostly anti-player/pro-owner.

Canada
03-30-2011, 12:43 PM
Well, the reason I counted you on the owners' side is because you made some harsh statements against the players specifically, and have also made some pro owner statements.



You may not intend to be "on anyone's side", but your remarks have been one-sided, aside from your main point, of being on the fans' side, which I think would apply to every last one of us.

But when the discussion has been 'players vs. owners', your comments have mostly been anti player, pro owner

You can't take a quote out of context and tell me my opinion. I was responding to a conversation that was going on that was all about how terrible the owners are and how the players shouldn't be blamed. If someone starts discuss how hard the owners have it, I have my share of opinions on that too. Like I said, they both play their part in all of this and at the end, the only losers will be the fans.

I think I have posted here about 10 times this year so and you said MOST of my post have been anti player...which would mean that some of my posts have also been anti owner...which would put me right where I said I am. On the fans side and I blame them all for the mess. If you say that the owners came to the table ta negotiate in good faith...explain all the money they saved up for a lockout. And if the players came in good faith, explain why they also have a fund built up for a lockout to pay players while they are locked out. Fact is, they are all too greedy and they are all to blame. Dont try to read into my post to fit your argument. It is clear. They are ALL to blame.

matthewschiefs
03-30-2011, 02:06 PM
You may not intend to be "on anyone's side", but your remarks have been one-sided, aside from your main point, of being on the fans' side, which I think would apply to every last one of us.

I think the reason that some others and myself might come across as being one sides is because well there are people like yourself who are already blasting the owners. What I was doing is was trying to say that the players are also doing some things that are just as bad as what the owners have done. If you look back at most of my post on this issue I have not said the owners were right and that the owners were not doing this or that (I have time and time again said the owners were part of the problem.) it was the players are also doing this or that. I don't see that as being one sided I see that as being fair.
Example.
I did once say that I felt the players were becoming more and more to blame that's because there the ones who are PUBLICLY saying they won't even talk until there demands are met to open the books . If the owners had said they wouldn't even talk until the players agreed to give them 18 games you would be all over them for that. And rightfully so. So why is it one sided to call out the players when the players do what can be considered the same thing?

chief31
04-01-2011, 10:35 AM
You can't take a quote out of context and tell me my opinion.

I didn't try to tell you your opinion. I assume you just want to argue, because you are already inventing things to fight about.

What I told you was what made me believe that you were pro-owner.


I was responding to a conversation that was going on that was all about how terrible the owners are and how the players shouldn't be blamed. If someone starts discuss how hard the owners have it, I have my share of opinions on that too.

You didn't interject, and have yet to, against the owners specifically, and you have interjected in their defense.

Meanwhile, you have spoken against the players, and not offered a word in their defense.

Rather you would call yourself being on either side, or not, your comments have spoken in defense of the owners.


Like I said, they both play their part in all of this and at the end, the only losers will be the fans.

I think I have posted here about 10 times this year so and you said MOST of my post have been anti player...which would mean that some of my posts have also been anti owner...

But when the discussion has been 'players vs. owners', your comments have been mostly anti-player/pro-owner.

This is what I said. I did not say that most of your posts have been anything. I didn't make any claim to have taken count of your posts.


which would put me right where I said I am. On the fans side and I blame them all for the mess. If you say that the owners came to the table ta negotiate in good faith...explain all the money they saved up for a lockout. And if the players came in good faith, explain why they also have a fund built up for a lockout to pay players while they are locked out. Fact is, they are all too greedy and they are all to blame.

Here is every post you've made in this thread, up to throwing a fit about mine....


Isnt it the players sense of entitlement exactly what you are arguing so passionately for.
You say that the average fan should have tried for the NFL and if they didnt make it then they should get another day job. Then i say NFL players should have tried to be owners and if that didnt work out then go find a day job.

Harshly anti-players and slightly pro-owners.


Didnt Hunt pat $150 million into the new Arrowhead? Im pretty sure the taxpayers also beneft from having an NFL team in their city as well.

Pro-Owner.


F*ck 'em All!!

Just like it says... F*uck 'em all!!


Im workin; on it :bananen_smilies046:

Off-topic. No statement made about players/owners.


Make the NFL like the real world. Everyone gets paid the same for the same job. Qbs all make the same, RBs all make the same, WRs all make the same. IF they dont like it, get another f#ckin' job.

Pro-Owner and anti-player.

That comes to a total of ...


Anti-owner - 1 (indirect)
Pro-player - 0
Anti-player - 3
Pro-owner - 3

Nothing taken out of context. It's every single word that you had posted here before demanding that you aren't pro-Owner.

If you feel mis-represented, then say that. No need to "call me out".

I was just telling you why I mistook your stance as pro-owner, and that is simply because you have had a couple of things to say in defense of owners, none for players, and you've directed a few negative remarks directly at the players and none directly at the owners.

Only one "F*ck 'em all!!" had any form of balance, as far as the player/owner discussion.


Dont try to read into my post to fit your argument. It is clear. They are ALL to blame.

If it was clear, then you were pro-owners.

The idea that you had no bias between the two was not clear. :lol:

Canada
04-01-2011, 10:52 AM
First off, I was taking the opposite side of a one sided discussion when I interjected. I dont count how many times I post somethng pro plyer, anti owner etc. I very specifically said exactly how I feel about the situation. They are all to blame. No where did I throw a fit, I just tried to clarify where I stand in the whole thing. Just because someone responds to you does not mean they are throwing a fit. I know you like to make it seem like I am, but it was clarifying my position.

FYI...This Quote "Isnt it the players sense of entitlement exactly what you are arguing so passionately for.
You say that the average fan should have tried for the NFL and if they didnt make it then they should get another day job. Then i say NFL players should have tried to be owners and if that didnt work out then go find a day job."

Was in response to several pro player posts. Some of which I agreed with, but taking that post and putting it up alone the definition of "taking something out of context"

chief31
04-01-2011, 10:57 AM
I think the reason that some others and myself might come across as being one sides is because well there are people like yourself who are already blasting the owners. What I was doing is was trying to say that the players are also doing some things that are just as bad as what the owners have done. If you look back at most of my post on this issue I have not said the owners were right and that the owners were not doing this or that (I have time and time again said the owners were part of the problem.) it was the players are also doing this or that. I don't see that as being one sided I see that as being fair.
Example.
I did once say that I felt the players were becoming more and more to blame that's because there the ones who are PUBLICLY saying they won't even talk until there demands are met to open the books . If the owners had said they wouldn't even talk until the players agreed to give them 18 games you would be all over them for that. And rightfully so. So why is it one sided to call out the players when the players do what can be considered the same thing?

There is nothing one-sided about calling out the players for a move that you feel is counter-productive.

What is one-sided about your stance is that I have not seen you oppose any pro-owner remarks, while heavily opposing the pro-player remarks. And, as already stated above, there are more posters leaning their comments toward the owners side, than toward the players' side.

You are watching the pro-owner comments pass by, with no reaction, while contesting almost all pro-player comments.


But guys! Both of you....

Seriously...

The discussion of rather or not you have any bias on the (players/owners) topic is an even less entertaining discussion than the actual (player/owners) topic.

Let's just say that you are both the model of even-handedness and balance, and let this one go at that?