How much of a season will there be?

**bbacker51** · 05-18-2011, 10:46 AM

I am getting very skeptical of there being a 16 game regular season. Just wanted to see where everybody else is.

**Connie Jo** · 05-18-2011, 11:25 PM

Oh, and I voted for the 16 game season. I continue to have hope & faith we will have the full season in 2011.

**tornadospotter** · 05-18-2011, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Connie Jo

I read an atricle earlier in a Bleacher Report, of which the author's opinion I tend to agree with. Below is a portion of that article, authored by 'Aaron Mee'.

The owners stand to lose very little money through this whole ordeal. This however, is only a small part of the reason the owners are in the drivers seat for these negotiations. Many owners, or their families will be making money from their respective NFL teams for decades after the draft class of 2011 rides off into the sunset.

Also worth thinking about is that by time Von Miller, the #2 pick of the 2011 draft was born in 1989, his boss, Pat Bowlen had owned the Denver Broncos for five years. Champ Bailey, 32, who in all likelihood just signed his last big contract shortly before the lockout, was a mere 6 years old when Bowlen bought the Broncos for $78 million.

These owners can afford to wait. The players cannot.
Players the age of Champ Bailey very rarely get another big contract. This is a league that generally gives players away as soon as they hit 32-33 years of age. The window of opportunity for players to make big money is very small.

In other words, the players should be in a far greater hurry to get a deal done than the owners, and thus the NFL will simply wait for the players to crawl back to the table this summer, where they will give the league exactly what it wants.

This was never a negotiation, because it never needed to be.

Do any of you think that players where going to be paid less? Do you think the owners are not going to pay high dollars to sign players? I think that the over paid rookie contracts are needed fixed, and proven employees should be paid for there work. I think that is what some of the issues are.

I know I am underpaid, I know some one else with much by far less experience but younger has been hired for more than I am making, how does that make you think I feel. Now that may make me want a union, but in my job, a union would not work, a limited min pay scale for teenagers verse adults would allow more pay roll dollars to actual employees that pay for expenses of overpaid high school kids, who are being taught how to work by us. That might work.

**Connie Jo** · 05-19-2011, 12:57 AM

I don't disagree that there are legitimate issues/concerns on both sides, including those you mention TS. That said however, I do think the players are at more of a financial & career disadvantage than the owners with 'waiting it out'. I don't think the players can afford to wait it out for an entire season, for many reasons, which is why I retain hope there will be a season in 2011.

This lockout isn't necessary at all...both sides have the option of negotiating without all the bullying legal manuevers to force their position on the other side. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, nor the last...but I still believe ego's play a huge role on both sides, and those ego's ultimately are what lead to decertifying the union and the resulting lockout by the opposing side (owners). This all began due to legitimate issues/concerns on both sides, but the issues/concerns have been since lost among the egos involved of those leading negotiations on both sides. This lockout situation has evolved into a battle of ego's more than anything else. Oh, and attorney's involved on both sides make a whole lot more money the longer this lockout continues. As to how influential the attorney's advice is over their represented parties...I have no clue, but doubt the attorney's want a resolution any time soon! :/

**matthewschiefs** · 05-19-2011, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Connie Jo

I don't disagree that there are legitimate issues/concerns on both sides, including those you mention TS. That said however, I do think the players are at more of a financial & career disadvantage than the owners with 'waiting it out'. I don't think the players can afford to wait it out for an entire season, for many reasons, which is why I retain hope there will be a season in 2011.

This lockout isn't necessary at all...both sides have the option of negotiating without all the bullying legal manuevers to force their position on the other side. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, nor the last...but I still believe ego's play a huge role on both sides, and those ego's ultimately are what lead to decertifying the union and the resulting lockout by the opposing side (owners). This all began due to legitimate issues/concerns on both sides, but the issues/concerns have been since lost among the egos involved of those leading negotiations on both sides. This lockout situation has evolved into a battle of ego's more than anything else. Oh, and attorney's involved on both sides make a whole lot more money the longer this lockout continues. As to how influential the attorney's advice is over their represented parties...I have no clue, but doubt the attorney's want a resolution any time soon! :/

I think if there truly are "bad guys" in this whole mess it's not the owners it's not the players it's those attorneys. Everytime I see Jeff Pash (nfl attorney) and Demarcus Smith (NFLPA head) on tv talking I want to punch them in the face. Smith a tad more because he tends to go with the poor us approach when he speaks about this mess. I think that if you got all 32 owners together with the union reps from all 32 teams put them in a room for an afternoon with no lawyers from either side there would be a deal done.

**Three7s** · 05-19-2011, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

I think if there truly are "bad guys" in this whole mess it's not the owners it's not the players it's those attorneys. Everytime I see Jeff Pash (nfl attorney) and Demarcus Smith (NFLPA head) on tv talking I want to punch them in the face. Smith a tad more because he tends to go with the poor us approach when he speaks about this mess. I think that if you got all 32 owners together with the union reps from all 32 teams put them in a room for an afternoon with no lawyers from either side there would be a deal done.

Smith is the biggest problem to the whole thing. He doesn't care about football. He cares about getting a "fair deal". A lot like an agent. He makes me sick.

**Hayvern** · 05-19-2011, 06:02 PM

The reality is that no one is going to be making any less money. I hear people who say that the owners only want the extra billion in order to pad their already fat pocket books. I dismiss that as drival from people who really do not understand the workings of business.

The owners are trying to grow this business. We, the lower forms of life, don't even begin to understand what that is like. Growing a business to 1 million dollars in revenue per year 1 in 200. The chance of making 10 million per year, the chance of making 100 million per year is better buying a lottery ticket.

How many businesses in this world can say they make 9 billion dollars per year? How much harder is it to make 10 billion than it is to make 9 billion. These things just don't "happen" it happens through the hard work of people who know how to do these things. It certainly does not happen just because some guy can catch a football.

If you think the owners want to take an additional 1 billion and stash it away, you are a little insane. The motivation of most of the owners is to make more money, most people who make a million dollars are driven to the necxt plateau and everything they do is to that end.

Of course you are going to have the Frank McCorts of the industry, but largely that is a fluke. The sports team owners club is such an exclusive club, that even if you have the money, you would have a hard time being let in.

The players are being asked to give back a little for the future. That has nothing to do with the team books, or player salaries being less, it has everything to do with taking an additional 1 billion dollars in the hopes of making an addition 2 or 3 billion down the road.

**bbacker51** · 05-19-2011, 07:03 PM

each team should have to put 32 million into a pot each year as a fee. that would raise 1billion dollars every year to build a new stadium for 1 team per year. Every team would get a new stadium built every 32 years. this backs some of the pressure off of the owners from the players about giving back. Also, could you imagine the tax breaks and help cities would give the NFL to keep a team or get a team to their city if the city knew they wouldn't have to worry about building a new stadium?????? I wonder if the UFL would be interested in a plan like this?????

**chief31** · 05-21-2011, 05:26 AM

I remain confident that business will be handled in time to play all 16 games.

Muck up the offseason all you want. But long-term market loss will be the result of interrupting the season.

No matter how bad an agreement may have seemed to have been, losing a section of your customers for good would be far worse.

It truly is a no-brainer, if you ask me.

**KCChiefs2010** · 05-23-2011, 01:01 AM

I'm gonna say no Preseason but season still starts as planned in September.

**Blitzed** · 05-30-2011, 08:04 PM

I passed skeptical in December. It's interesting to read the terms and conditions of the sale of tickets. It doesn't spell it out but...if any team shows up wearing KC colors then that counts as a game and it does not allow for a refund. The only way a refund is possible is if a game is not played by anyone and there is no rescheduled game even if that game is decades in the future. This is not just Kansas City but all the teams have this sort of wording. It's the edge of the razor. The "experiment" of using "substitute" players is well remembered on the other hand, it's also been learned that though fans will complain, they'll still go to the game even if they boo the players. Addiction to football is strong and in few places is that more true than in Kansas City. The teams that have a more transient population, such as in Florida and Southern California, would, I think, be the ones most tempted to try the "substitute" player route. However, they've go to have teams to play and that may be difficult. Regrettably this is an argument that has been a very long time coming and has been kicked down the road too many times. There are "created" grievances on both sides but the overarching one is not "Show me the money" but rather "Give me the money." Even as recently as a year ago some compromise might have been achieved. But now? It's not just who might blink first but who can stick their finger in the other side's eye the strongest. I suppose we'll learn to love soccer.