PDA

View Full Version : Just in: Talks Collapse


UberBroncoMan
03-11-2011, 02:34 PM
Union peeps walked out.

Lockout time!

Killericon
03-11-2011, 02:35 PM
I wanna boycott the NFL's next season, whenever it is.

lostknight
03-11-2011, 02:35 PM
Dupe.

schaaf
03-11-2011, 02:36 PM
I'm more mad at the NFLPA, than the NFL

Smiling Assassin27
03-11-2011, 02:36 PM
Decertification papers filed. Look for a lawsuit soon.

gunns
03-11-2011, 02:41 PM
I'm more mad at the NFLPA, than the NFL

Not me, but I'm not thrilled with them either.

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 02:43 PM
Both parties suck as far as i'm concerned. Greed will be mankinds undoing.

Old Dude
03-11-2011, 02:46 PM
No big surprise. No progress will be made until the bleeding begins.

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 02:48 PM
All of these educated idiots couldn't sit down and hammer out a deal for the good of the game and it's fans. Neither party better never utter the words, "it's for the fan's" again. It's all about them, screw the fans. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy hypocrits, all of them.

Smiling Assassin27
03-11-2011, 02:53 PM
All of these educated idiots couldn't sit down and hammer out a deal for the good of the game and it's fans. Neither party better never utter the words, "it's for the fan's" again. It's all about them, screw the fans. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy hypocrits, all of them.

FYI, on the ladder of priorities for both players and owners, fans are WAY down the ladder between 'concession sales' and 'clean restrooms'.

Rohirrim
03-11-2011, 02:54 PM
Game over. :pity:

lostknight
03-11-2011, 02:56 PM
here is the last offer the NFL gave the union. Given that the players got what they wanted with regard to no 18 game season, the the later years on the deal were the same as the union wanted (and the NFL offered to split the difference on the first two years), I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other then the NFLPA betting that they can threaten the NFL with destruction ot get what it wants.



It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.
The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

Gort
03-11-2011, 02:58 PM
All of these educated idiots couldn't sit down and hammer out a deal for the good of the game and it's fans. Neither party better never utter the words, "it's for the fan's" again. It's all about them, screw the fans. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy hypocrits, all of them.

if somebody threatened you with the nuclear option (de-certifying and filing an anti-trust suit), would you concede knowing that they could do that anytime they wanted something from you? probably not. there was no avoiding this. this train started speeding toward the brick wall 2 years ago. it had to happen this way.

if i was an owner and somebody threatened me that way, i'd tell them to F off. on principle alone.

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 03:05 PM
They still could have come to an agreement with the owners. Why do I need to see my employers' books anyway, that's none of my frickin business. I have a job, that's all I should be worried about. If I want more money, I'll play better to get a better contract. I think the union has over stepped their bounds as well.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 03:07 PM
Both parties suck, but i assume Doty will call for an injunction to prevent a lockout. if thats the case, its business as usual under the old rules. From what i understand. Not exactly sure how this will effect september.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 03:08 PM
They still could have come to an agreement with the owners. Why do I need to see my employers' books anyway, that's none of my frickin business. I have a job, that's all I should be worried about. If I want more money, I'll play better to get a better contract. I think the union has over stepped their bounds as well.


STOP COMPARING IT TO YOUR 9-5!!!! The NFL is a partnership with owners and players. I damn well wanna know what they are making to prevent them from JUST being greedy

Doggcow
03-11-2011, 03:09 PM
Game over. :pity:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dsx2vdn7gpY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 03:10 PM
The players are employees and the owners are their EMPLOYERS!!!!

baja
03-11-2011, 03:10 PM
Is there much call for a 347 pound hamburger flipper?

yerner
03-11-2011, 03:11 PM
I'm ****ing bummed out.

bowtown
03-11-2011, 03:11 PM
here is the last offer the NFL gave the union. Given that the players got what they wanted with regard to no 18 game season, the the later years on the deal were the same as the union wanted (and the NFL offered to split the difference on the first two years), I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other then the NFLPA betting that they can threaten the NFL with destruction ot get what it wants.



It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.
The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

Sure seems like comprimise to me.

Cosmo
03-11-2011, 03:14 PM
Sure seems like comprimise to me.

seems pretty vague to me.

Last I saw, the owners had done most of the compromising and the NFLPA demanded to see their books to determine what percentage they should get.

Maurice Smith should be fired immediately.

bowtown
03-11-2011, 03:16 PM
seems pretty vague to me.

Last I saw, the owners had done most of the compromising and the NFLPA demanded to see their books to determine what percentage they should get.

Maurice Smith should be fired immediately.

That's what I'm saying. It seems like a pretty good comprimise from the owners. Sure makes te NFLPA look bad to me.

Rock Chalk
03-11-2011, 03:17 PM
They still could have come to an agreement with the owners. Why do I need to see my employers' books anyway, that's none of my frickin business. I have a job, that's all I should be worried about. If I want more money, I'll play better to get a better contract. I think the union has over stepped their bounds as well.

This.

The players get paid a salary and are getting some other revenue from my understanding. Why the hell should they get part of the TV deal? Do most employee's get part of the net profits from each job/client their company does? Hell no. You get paid by the hour, salary or commission and the employer gets the bulk of the money. THATS HOW IT ****ING WORKS.

Unions suck balls in every instance.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 03:18 PM
seems pretty vague to me.

Last I saw, the owners had done most of the compromising and the NFLPA demanded to see their books to determine what percentage they should get.

Maurice Smith should be fired immediately.

Im gonna safely assume both sides are at fault.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 03:20 PM
This.

The players get paid a salary and are getting some other revenue from my understanding. Why the hell should they get part of the TV deal? Do most employee's get part of the net profits from each job/client their company does? Hell no. You get paid by the hour, salary or commission and the employer gets the bulk of the money. THATS HOW IT ****ING WORKS.

Unions suck balls in every instance.

For the hundreth time, the NFL isnt your 9-5. Its like when people compare the national deficit to their credit card debt. Its apples and oranges. Two, if theres one thing i learned in life, really really rich people dont make compromises too often. None of us are close enough to these negotiations to know whats really going on, but i sincerely doubt the players are willing to risk the future of their jobs out of sheer unabashed greed. Lets not forget the owners, who are required to negotiate tv money on behalf of the NFLPA tried to stick it to em with the 4 billion. And suddenly THEY are the good guys?

that said, all players/owners are rich and they are a bunch of a-holes for not figuring this out. Im sure we all agree on that.

baja
03-11-2011, 03:20 PM
Shanahan just called me to get the fishing boat ready for some extensive trips.

enjolras
03-11-2011, 03:29 PM
This.

The players get paid a salary and are getting some other revenue from my understanding. Why the hell should they get part of the TV deal? Do most employee's get part of the net profits from each job/client their company does? Hell no. You get paid by the hour, salary or commission and the employer gets the bulk of the money. THATS HOW IT ****ING WORKS.

Unions suck balls in every instance.

Oh come on, this is just silly. You have the answer to your own question in your comment ("Do most employee's get part of the net profts form each job/client their company does?"). The answer is, as you point out no. Except for NFL players, because that is how their deal is structured. In this instance, not opening their books shows just what the owners are trying to do. IIRC the hockey owners were more than glad to open their books, because they weren't lying through their teeth.

The NFL exists under an anti-trust exemption. It's literally the only game in town for these atheletes. So they engage in collective bargaining to ensure fair treatment. There is no market for their services, they don't have a competitor they can go play for.

"Unions suck balls in every instance" is nothing but a platitude, and a really incorrect one at that. In this case the union serves a really important competitive purpose... it sucks that we as fans have to deal with this... hopefully they'll resolve it soon.

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 03:29 PM
We all agree that both sides suck.

gyldenlove
03-11-2011, 03:31 PM
They still could have come to an agreement with the owners. Why do I need to see my employers' books anyway, that's none of my frickin business. I have a job, that's all I should be worried about. If I want more money, I'll play better to get a better contract. I think the union has over stepped their bounds as well.

But the players didn't want more money, the owners wanted to pay less. If your employer came to you and said we are going to slash every non-exec employees wages by 15% overnight and require you to work 5 hours more per week because the company is in trouble, wouldn't you want to know how much trouble the business is in? you have to remember that unlike you and me, a football player can't quit his job and go work for another team.

Gort
03-11-2011, 03:34 PM
But the players didn't want more money, the owners wanted to pay less. If your employer came to you and said we are going to slash every non-exec employees wages by 15% overnight and require you to work 5 hours more per week because the company is in trouble, wouldn't you want to know how much trouble the business is in? you have to remember that unlike you and me, a football player can't quit his job and go work for another team.

i've always thought that the 18-game schedule was a bargaining tool. i think the owners created it as something that could trade away for something they really wanted during negotiations. same with their stated desire for overseas expansion.

cutthemdown
03-11-2011, 03:37 PM
wow once looks like the union wanted to go the legal route all the time. There general counsel is a known sue first type attorney.

I hope the players lose in court.

baja
03-11-2011, 03:38 PM
This is what you get for firing McD

long beach bronco
03-11-2011, 03:38 PM
I'm just a fan, all I want to see if football. When I don't get that because of rich people (employees and employers) not coming to an agreement, then everyone is to blame, and the biggest losers are us, the fans.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 03:41 PM
wow once looks like the union wanted to go the legal route all the time. There general counsel is a known sue first type attorney.

I hope the players lose in court.


More support for a group of owners that blatently tried to **** the players and then lost their hand.

gyldenlove
03-11-2011, 03:42 PM
Oh come on, this is just silly. You have the answer to your own question in your comment ("Do most employee's get part of the net profts form each job/client their company does?"). The answer is, as you point out no. Except for NFL players, because that is how their deal is structured. In this instance, not opening their books shows just what the owners are trying to do. IIRC the hockey owners were more than glad to open their books, because they weren't lying through their teeth.

The NFL exists under an anti-trust exemption. It's literally the only game in town for these atheletes. So they engage in collective bargaining to ensure fair treatment. There is no market for their services, they don't have a competitor they can go play for.

"Unions suck balls in every instance" is nothing but a platitude, and a really incorrect one at that. In this case the union serves a really important competitive purpose... it sucks that we as fans have to deal with this... hopefully they'll resolve it soon.

("Do most employee's get part of the net profts form each job/client their company does?").

The players do not get a penny from the net profits. The players just like every other privately employe person gets part of the revenue, if you work for a company where do you think your salary comes from? the tooth fairy? no it comes from the companies revenue.

The recently expired CBA gave the owners the first 1.2 billion league revenue per year to themselves to spend as they saw fit. Of the remaining amount the players were entitled to up 59.5% and no less than 57.5% I believe.

The league makes on average about 9 billion per year, so the players take home pretty much half the revenue, the remaining half goes to pay expenses on stadiums, salary to other employees, marketing and profit margin.

There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.

Broncojef
03-11-2011, 03:42 PM
Break the damn union and make the players work for a living. Hope they take the year or whatever it takes to put these idiots where they belong. The owners are the employers and I'm tired of whiney overpaid union workers demanding crap.

gyldenlove
03-11-2011, 03:44 PM
i've always thought that the 18-game schedule was a bargaining tool. i think the owners created it as something that could trade away for something they really wanted during negotiations. same with their stated desire for overseas expansion.

The overseas expansion I have to admit I never bought, it would only work if you created an overseas division. The travel time would be prohibitive for the quality of the game and the time difference would mean that games would have to either be played at an ungodly hour local time or it would not be good for tv. If you wanted a monday night game played in London or Berlin they would have to start the game well after midnight and play to about 4.30 am.

cutthemdown
03-11-2011, 03:57 PM
But the players didn't want more money, the owners wanted to pay less. If your employer came to you and said we are going to slash every non-exec employees wages by 15% overnight and require you to work 5 hours more per week because the company is in trouble, wouldn't you want to know how much trouble the business is in? you have to remember that unlike you and me, a football player can't quit his job and go work for another team.

They can play a different sport or get a real job though. These owners have hundreds of millions tied up in the teams. It's a huge huge investment so IMO they shouldn't have to show some football player everything. They decide what they need to make because it is there investment. Paul Allen who owns Hawks, who is richest of them all, says all the time I could make more money investing the money I do in the seahawks somewhere else. They make a lot per year but have tons of overhead and money tied up in teams.

cutthemdown
03-11-2011, 04:01 PM
More support for a group of owners that blatently tried to **** the players and then lost their hand.

If the mediators say it went down like that then I will jump on that bandwagon with you. From what I hear though the fed mediators are saying it looks like the union had its mind made up.

I will wait to read more from different sources, see how some information goes, then decide for sure how i feel.

But when so many players walk away with tons of money for not playing well I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of them. If anything about half of the players don't deserve a dime for what they did. Then guys like Elway were probably way underpaid because they carried a team.

The should be able to play a player exactly what he is worth, no mins or max in my opinion. Truthfully some players worth 3 million a yr, some worth about 50 grand.

Pony Boy
03-11-2011, 04:04 PM
One of the players said "what am I going to do about insurance for me and my wife and kids if there is a lock out"? How about buy an insurance policy and pay the f-ing monthly premium out of your pocket like most of us do........ I don't feel sorry for them.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 04:06 PM
If the mediators say it went down like that then I will jump on that bandwagon with you. From what I hear though the fed mediators are saying it looks like the union had its mind made up.

I will wait to read more from different sources, see how some information goes, then decide for sure how i feel.

But when so many players walk away with tons of money for not playing well I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of them. If anything about half of the players don't deserve a dime for what they did. Then guys like Elway were probably way underpaid because they carried a team.

The should be able to play a player exactly what he is worth, no mins or max in my opinion. Truthfully some players worth 3 million a yr, some worth about 50 grand.

What are you talking about? We all know they negotiated the tv contracts with a lockout in mind

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2011, 04:06 PM
They can play a different sport or get a real job though. These owners have hundreds of millions tied up in the teams. It's a huge huge investment so IMO they shouldn't have to show some football player everything. They decide what they need to make because it is there investment. Paul Allen who owns Hawks, who is richest of them all, says all the time I could make more money investing the money I do in the seahawks somewhere else. They make a lot per year but have tons of overhead and money tied up in teams.

Guess what? The owners are still making money

DarkHorse30
03-11-2011, 04:19 PM
OBAMA the union busting president - selah!

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 08:48 PM
The players do not get a penny from the net profits. The players just like every other privately employe person gets part of the revenue, if you work for a company where do you think your salary comes from? the tooth fairy? no it comes from the companies revenue.

The recently expired CBA gave the owners the first 1.2 billion league revenue per year to themselves to spend as they saw fit. Of the remaining amount the players were entitled to up 59.5% and no less than 57.5% I believe.

The league makes on average about 9 billion per year, so the players take home pretty much half the revenue, the remaining half goes to pay expenses on stadiums, salary to other employees, marketing and profit margin.

There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.

You're ignoring some KEY factors.

1. The owners invest heavily in the team. The players don't invest a penny.

2. The players have easy access to multimillion dollar endorsement deals that the owners don't.

baja
03-11-2011, 09:05 PM
You're ignoring some KEY factors.

1. The owners invest heavily in the team. The players don't invest a penny.

2. The players have easy access to multimillion dollar endorsement deals that the owners don't.

3. By any measure in our society they are already over paid.

baja
03-11-2011, 09:08 PM
People are not going to be buying 9 dollar hot dogs, not in today's economy.

Funny most here were in favor of breaking the teachers union in Wisconsin but are supporting the payers in this dispute. Interesting.

That One Guy
03-11-2011, 09:10 PM
ESPN announcing lockout has happened as of midnight.

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 09:12 PM
Good news for me: the $300 I save on Sunday Ticket this year will literally pay for my season ticket to the local minor league baseball team.

F You NFL. I'm out.

That One Guy
03-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Good news for me: the $300 I save on Sunday Ticket this year will literally pay for my season ticket to the local minor league baseball team.

F You NFL. I'm out.

I've thought hard about it. I don't think I'm addicted to football but being forced to get off the couch and go do something I'll enjoy more, get some energy out on the weekends? I could definitely believe it'd be better for me.

razorwire77
03-11-2011, 09:20 PM
Ehh. So be it. Between the McD era fallout, the 600 plugs for Amazing Race/Crappy CBS programming every game, and the pricing out of the average fan at the stadium, I'd be OK with no season next year. Not that I would be doing backflips, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

NUB
03-11-2011, 09:23 PM
After the courts revealed the owners had planned a lockout all along I don't see how many could really support their "side". I mean, both the players and the owners are dihcks because this fight over money we'll never see is like throwing your dinner down the disposal in front of a Somalian, but the owners are the bad guys if there really were any.

baja
03-11-2011, 09:24 PM
Good news for me: the $300 I save on Sunday Ticket this year will literally pay for my season ticket to the local minor league baseball team.

F You NFL. I'm out.

I predict a huge numer of fans will do the same. They could not have picked a worse time to do this.

JDB7821
03-11-2011, 09:33 PM
After the courts revealed the owners had planned a lockout all along I don't see how many could really support their "side". I mean, both the players and the owners are dihcks because this fight over money we'll never see is like throwing your dinner down the disposal in front of a Somalian, but the owners are the bad guys if there really were any.

I don't think the owners went along the past couple of years saying "we're going to lock out the players, regardless"...they probably knew negotiations were going to go exactly as they have and came up with a contingency plan for it. They probably got wind of some of the players' demands and knew there was a possibility there wouldn't be an agreement, so they did what any smart person would do and protected themselves and their income. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea how legal it is and you can debate the ethics in this case, but it was only smart to try to keep their cash inflow.

NUB
03-11-2011, 09:35 PM
I would wager that they have had it up their sleeve since at least 2006.

chawknz
03-11-2011, 09:36 PM
Players are now locked out.

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 09:42 PM
After the courts revealed the owners had planned a lockout all along I don't see how many could really support their "side".

You must have missed the part where all the players had meetings last year with their union reps where they themselves "colluded" and voted in favor of decertification.

NUB
03-11-2011, 09:46 PM
You must have missed the part where all the players had meetings last year with their union reps where they themselves "colluded" and voted in favor of decertification.

It looks as if their suspicions then are now totally justified.

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 09:50 PM
It looks as if their suspicions then are now totally justified.

What suspicions? They acted first. They decertified. The owners kept making concessions right up until the deadline and wouldn't have gone forward with a lockout if the players didn't decertify first.

yerner
03-11-2011, 10:16 PM
What suspicions? They acted first. They decertified. The owners kept making concessions right up until the deadline and wouldn't have gone forward with a lockout if the players didn't decertify first.

Concessions on their made up position. They wanted to just take money from the players without showing a verifiable reason. Why would the players just give them money back? It was never going to not go to court.

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 10:25 PM
Concessions on their made up position. They wanted to just take money from the players without showing a verifiable reason. Why would the players just give them money back? It was never going to not go to court.

Made up position or not, have the players even made a single concession of any kind?

Blart
03-11-2011, 10:31 PM
How about those Nuggets?

BroncoMan4ever
03-11-2011, 10:40 PM
Made up position or not, have the players even made a single concession of any kind?

why should the players make concessions. granted they are making damn good money for playing a sport almost any fan would gladly play for a fraction of what they are getting paid, but the players are the faces of the game. the average fan couldn't pick the owner of their favorite team out of a lineup. fans could truly care less about the faceless owner of the team or the owners of a company banking 9 billion a year.

the players are the face of the game, they are the ones beating the hell out of themselves every single day, they are the ones who end up fighting crippling illnesses and brain problems after their careers are over, by themselves.

the players are in the right. they know the average career is something like 3 years. they need to make sure to get as much as they can before it is over. they see former players who are broke and physically destroyed suffering and getting no attention from the men who employed them and don't want to go through that. they are trying to ensure stability for themselves during and after their playing careers are over. there is nothing wrong with that/

broncocalijohn
03-11-2011, 10:43 PM
Good news for me: the $300 I save on Sunday Ticket this year will literally pay for my season ticket to the local minor league baseball team.

F You NFL. I'm out.

I get my refund from the Broncos yet still get my Thomas/Tebow litho for paying up before March 1st. I take that $390 (had credit) and put down on the Angels cheapo $2.50 a seat season tickets. Only $420 more for 82 games. Hockey is in full swing with playoffs around the corner. I am not happy but I have other things I can think about and put my money at.

boltaneer
03-11-2011, 10:50 PM
I predict a huge numer of fans will do the same. They could not have picked a worse time to do this.

I really hope the fans speak with their wallet on this one and cancel their season tickets, NFL Ticket, etc. in droves.

It's sad that it has come to this but this is the perfect opportunity for us to give all parties involved the big middle finger.

Beantown Bronco
03-11-2011, 10:56 PM
why should the players make concessions.

Ummmm, maybe just maybe because that is what a negotiation is. You don't go into a negotiation and just expect the other side will cave on every single issue. That defies all logic.

the players are the faces of the game. the average fan couldn't pick the owner of their favorite team out of a lineup. fans could truly care less about the faceless owner of the team or the owners of a company banking 9 billion a year.

the players are the face of the game, they are the ones beating the hell out of themselves every single day, they are the ones who end up fighting crippling illnesses and brain problems after their careers are over, by themselves.

If not for the owners, the league wouldn't exist. Period. And all but a few of these guys would be unemployed or working minimum wage jobs at best. This isn't even really debatable.

the players are in the right. they know the average career is something like 3 years. they need to make sure to get as much as they can before it is over. they see former players who are broke and physically destroyed suffering and getting no attention from the men who employed them and don't want to go through that. they are trying to ensure stability for themselves during and after their playing careers are over. there is nothing wrong with that/

They are not in the right if their demands cause the downfall of the entire league.

NUB
03-11-2011, 11:09 PM
What suspicions? They acted first. They decertified. The owners kept making concessions right up until the deadline and wouldn't have gone forward with a lockout if the players didn't decertify first.

They clearly did not act first if the March 1st court revealing showed the owners had this planned for at least two years. The NFLPA are reacting. It would be pretty hard for them to "act first" when the ball is ultimately in the owners' court hence why all initial bargains were heavily favoring the owners interests. Judge Doty showed the owners planning a lockout well in advance. That is all you need to know about who "acted first".

If the players make some outrageous claims, then yeah, you will have your point, but they haven't so far. It is the owners who are demanding less pay, more work, less post-career coverage, and wanting rookies to be paid rookie-wages well into their careers. If we ever get football this year it will be because of the court. If the $4b from TV deals were not overturned we absolutely would not have had football and whose fault would that have been? The owners. Who have planned for this. For at least two years. Yeah, not really the "demanding" players fault quite yet.

Play2win
03-12-2011, 12:35 AM
3. By any measure in our society they are already over paid.

The players are severely, severely, severely overpaid.

Play2win
03-12-2011, 12:40 AM
I predict a huge numer of fans will do the same. They could not have picked a worse time to do this.

The product has gotten so diluted over the past few years, with the chad johnsons, the commercial/media blitz, the constant plugs, and all the sideline interviews-- especially during live action, and, did I mention how many fricken commercials there are after every change of possession...

Play2win
03-12-2011, 12:42 AM
Players are now locked out.

GOOD!!

Beantown Bronco
03-12-2011, 04:32 AM
If the players make some outrageous claims, then yeah, you will have your point, but they haven't so far. It is the owners who are demanding less pay, more work, less post-career coverage, and wanting rookies to be paid rookie-wages well into their careers. If we ever get football this year it will be because of the court. If the $4b from TV deals were not overturned we absolutely would not have had football and whose fault would that have been? The owners. Who have planned for this. For at least two years. Yeah, not really the "demanding" players fault quite yet.

This entire paragraph leads me to believe you didn't even glance at the details of the owners' last offer. It's the exact opposite of everything above.

The same or more pay for every rookie except first round picks.
More money for vets.
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS year-round work.
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE post-career coverage.

Old Dude
03-12-2011, 06:15 AM
Bottom line as I see it:

Millionaires vs. Billionaires fighting over a big fat piece of pie.

90% of the fan base couldn't care less how they divvy it up and just want their football fix. To us, neither side is particularly sympathetic and no one is going to shed a lot of tears over the "loser" in the negotiations, because they are all filthy rich anyway.

Both sides know this.

They also know that the longer it goes on, the smaller the pie gets.

Just as they've done every time in the past, they'll posture and pose and wheedle around until the last minute and then some. We won't have a preseason and we can expect to miss anywhere from 0-4 regular season weeks before they finally get their act together.

We're looking at a slightly shortened season, and teams, such as Denver, installing new regimes, high draft picks, lots of free agents and attempting to make major changes in schemes, are going to be at a very big disadvantage.

Almost guaranteed the Broncos will lose 4 of their first 5, with maybe 9 or 10 games to go after that. That means no playoffs for us and high draft picks again in 2012.

May as well start the 2012 mock drafts.

rugbythug
03-12-2011, 06:48 AM
Am I the only one who hates not what happened but how?

If players think they are getting a raw deal strike or leave to cfl ufl etcc. Don't sue like. A painsey.

Owners should have the right to cease operations.

Dutch
03-12-2011, 07:01 AM
There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like someone serving in the military to me and being paid a rediculous amount of money to play a game. Sorry, but sympathy falls between Sh*t and syphilis in my dictionary on this one.

DrFate
03-12-2011, 07:04 AM
The NFL exists under an anti-trust exemption. It's literally the only game in town for these atheletes. So they engage in collective bargaining to ensure fair treatment. There is no market for their services, they don't have a competitor they can go play for.


I know this is the theory, but I don't agree with it. Canada has a football league. The UFL is still active. The Arena league has an active website, I assume they are still active.

Personally I find the entire concept silly that athletes get any special treatment (go sell insurance if you don't like the job). That said - I'm not sure why anti-trust applies when there are alternatives out there now.

Cito Pelon
03-12-2011, 07:20 AM
here is the last offer the NFL gave the union. Given that the players got what they wanted with regard to no 18 game season, the the later years on the deal were the same as the union wanted (and the NFL offered to split the difference on the first two years), I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other then the NFLPA betting that they can threaten the NFL with destruction ot get what it wants.



It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.
The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

Yeah, it seems to me the owners made a pretty good offer. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the owners basically would be gettiing very little more than they had under the old CBA.

I realize the current owner offer would still be a "giveback" by the NFLPA, but not much of a giveback. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest owner offer was for an extra $180 million off the top.

That's an extra $5.6 million per club and that's not much, considering there has been an increase in overhead for the clubs.

Rohirrim
03-12-2011, 07:36 AM
There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.

Sounds like someone serving in the military to me and being paid a rediculous amount of money to play a game. Sorry, but sympathy falls between Sh*t and syphilis in my dictionary on this one.

Yep. When I hear these arguments I'm always reminded of soldiers, and coal miners, and commercial fishermen, and fire fighters, and cops, and EMTs, etc. etc. etc.

A bunch of sniveling punks. They get paid huge money to entertain the "real" heroes in this world.

This is nothing more than greedy bastards fighting other greedy bastards. Who cares?

crush17
03-12-2011, 07:46 AM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-NFL/169587896425382

hit "like" on this page if you're ready to show the NFL and the players who the real bosses are. THE FANS!

bowtown
03-12-2011, 07:46 AM
Yeah, it seems to me the owners made a pretty good offer. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the owners basically would be gettiing very little more than they had under the old CBA.

I realize the current owner offer would still be a "giveback" by the NFLPA, but not much of a giveback. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest owner offer was for an extra $180 million off the top.

That's an extra $5.6 million per club and that's not much, considering there has been an increase in overhead for the clubs.

Right, not a huge giveback and in return the players get two months less work time and more rules and regulations to help protect their health. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Dutch
03-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Yep. When I hear these arguments I'm always reminded of soldiers, and coal miners, and commercial fishermen, and fire fighters, and cops, and EMTs, etc. etc. etc.

A bunch of sniveling punks. They get paid huge money to entertain the "real" heroes in this world.

This is nothing more than greedy bastards fighting other greedy bastards. Who cares?

Bingo. I have a real problem listening to a bunch of people who were afforded the opportunity of a free education crying about only having a 5 year career in pro sports. Get your dang free degree, then put it to use once your playing days are done. Again, no sympathy for a bunch of individuals who have led a coddled existance since they first showed athletic potential. Hence their over-inflated opinion of themselves and their position.

Cito Pelon
03-12-2011, 08:12 AM
The players do not get a penny from the net profits. The players just like every other privately employe person gets part of the revenue, if you work for a company where do you think your salary comes from? the tooth fairy? no it comes from the companies revenue.

The recently expired CBA gave the owners the first 1.2 billion league revenue per year to themselves to spend as they saw fit. Of the remaining amount the players were entitled to up 59.5% and no less than 57.5% I believe.

The league makes on average about 9 billion per year, so the players take home pretty much half the revenue, the remaining half goes to pay expenses on stadiums, salary to other employees, marketing and profit margin.

There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.

Question:

Would that guaranteed percentage of remaining revenue (59.5%) STILL be guaranteed with the owners' latest proposal?

If so, that's still a pretty good deal for the NFLPA, even if the owners get a little more off the top.

Cito Pelon
03-12-2011, 08:25 AM
why should the players make concessions. granted they are making damn good money for playing a sport almost any fan would gladly play for a fraction of what they are getting paid, but the players are the faces of the game. the average fan couldn't pick the owner of their favorite team out of a lineup. fans could truly care less about the faceless owner of the team or the owners of a company banking 9 billion a year.

the players are the face of the game, they are the ones beating the hell out of themselves every single day, they are the ones who end up fighting crippling illnesses and brain problems after their careers are over, by themselves.

the players are in the right. they know the average career is something like 3 years. they need to make sure to get as much as they can before it is over. they see former players who are broke and physically destroyed suffering and getting no attention from the men who employed them and don't want to go through that. they are trying to ensure stability for themselves during and after their playing careers are over. there is nothing wrong with that/

Yeah, but the owners' latest offer included an $82 million per year increase to the players' pension fund.

And also, the latest offer from the owners included the players could stay on the NFL's health insurance plan for life. Naturally, the retired player would have to pay the premium, but it would be like the COBRA premium paid by retirees in other businesses. Seems to me the retired player would get a better deal on his health insurance than if he went with some other health plan - and that's for a guy that retires in his 20's or 30's. That adds up to some serious $$$$.

jutang
03-12-2011, 08:34 AM
The health plan would be the biggest benefit to the players. Unfortunately for a bunch of 20 something yr olds that just doesn't seem that important to them.

baja
03-12-2011, 08:47 AM
Bingo. I have a real problem listening to a bunch of people who were afforded the opportunity of a free education crying about only having a 5 year career in pro sports. Get your dang free degree, then put it to use once your playing days are done. Again, no sympathy for a bunch of individuals who have led a coddled existance since they first showed athletic potential. Hence their over-inflated opinion of themselves and their position.

I have been curious how us fans would react. I felt there was strong potential for the above sentiment.

I think the NFL is going to take a huge hit over this.

People are sick of the crap, not only in sports by across the board, banksters, wall street bonuses, unpunished white collar crime, government not following the wishes of the people, deregulation causing people to be robbed of their retirement money, wanton destruction of the value of the dollar, starting wars most do not want and that we can ill afford, ETC ETC ETC.

We are sick and tired, will we take it some more?

broncs2bowl
03-12-2011, 09:46 AM
Bingo. I have a real problem listening to a bunch of people who were afforded the opportunity of a free education crying about only having a 5 year career in pro sports. Get your dang free degree, then put it to use once your playing days are done. Again, no sympathy for a bunch of individuals who have led a coddled existance since they first showed athletic potential. Hence their over-inflated opinion of themselves and their position.

In response it is quite difficult to actually maintain good grades when there is so much work in being involved in an NCAA sport. So it makes sense from their perspective.

Tombstone RJ
03-12-2011, 10:04 AM
In response it is quite difficult to actually maintain good grades when there is so much work in being involved in an NCAA sport. So it makes sense from their perspective.

BS. These guys get help with their classes, help the average student never receives (and the average student ususally has a job he/she has to work at while in school too, to help pay the bills), like tutors that hold their hands and help them do their homework.

Most of these guys are lazy. Some are not, some understand the value of an education and while they are in school they are doing everything they can to earn their degree and excell at their sport, but most are just spoiled and lazy athletes who are coddled by the system (football, basketball, baseball players on full rides).

Play2win
03-12-2011, 11:36 AM
How many of the players in the NFL do you REALLY think are truly college-educated-- in actuality?

Pick Six
03-12-2011, 03:45 PM
There ARE losers, in this lockout. But, it's not the average fan. It's the people working the stadium. It's the bar owners, who depend on Sunday football for their revenue. It's clothing stores, that sell NFL apparel. The average fan, who just watches the games, actually gets to save that money. It's a pretty good deal, for most of us...

oubronco
03-12-2011, 04:21 PM
There are 3 notable differences between football players and every day joes like you and me:

1. A football player can't quit his job if he is not making enough money and go work for someone else at a higher wage. If a football player doesn't make enough money he can either try to convince the team to pay him more or he can change career.

2. A career in pro football is at the very most 20 years long and the average career length is about 5 years, in this time the player has to make enough money to support himself through the rest of his often severely shortened life.

3. Every time a football player does his job he runs a risk of ending his career, very few other people have a significant risk of suffering a career ending injury every time they do their job.

Sounds like someone serving in the military to me and being paid a rediculous amount of money to play a game. Sorry, but sympathy falls between Sh*t and syphilis in my dictionary on this one.[/QUOTE]

Very well said

kappys
03-12-2011, 06:00 PM
I know this is the theory, but I don't agree with it. Canada has a football league. The UFL is still active. The Arena league has an active website, I assume they are still active.

Personally I find the entire concept silly that athletes get any special treatment (go sell insurance if you don't like the job). That said - I'm not sure why anti-trust applies when there are alternatives out there now.

That's because the NFL isn't a single business entity. It's a composite of 32 individual business entities(teams) that collude together to form a cartel. This was affirmed by a recent supreme court ruling. These teams are allowed to operate as a cartel through the prescence of a CBA that specifically allows for it.

kappys
03-12-2011, 06:03 PM
They can play a different sport or get a real job though. These owners have hundreds of millions tied up in the teams. It's a huge huge investment so IMO they shouldn't have to show some football player everything. They decide what they need to make because it is there investment. Paul Allen who owns Hawks, who is richest of them all, says all the time I could make more money investing the money I do in the seahawks somewhere else. They make a lot per year but have tons of overhead and money tied up in teams.

Paul Allen could also loose a lot of mony investing elsewhere. That's a pretty lame battle-cry - if he's not making the money he wants then sell the team. Or better yet take it public and raise capital - of course then the books would have to be opened.