PDA

View Full Version : Adrian Peterson: NFL is like "modern-day slavery"


Taco John
03-16-2011, 01:31 AM
Adrian Peterson took part in a new online reality show called "Double Take" recently and he did some interviews to accompany his appearance.

ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert provided a link to a transcript of an interview Peterson did with Doug Farrar of Yahoosports.com. In the interview, Peterson reportedly referred to the NFL as "modern-day slavery" and that players are getting "robbed."

This was in reference to questions about the NFL lockout. Peterson conducted the interview soon after the players union decertified last week.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/118019104.html

cutthemdown
03-16-2011, 01:33 AM
Then what do we call the real slaves? Hell there are probably more slaves right now then there was during the black slave trade.

What an idiot that is enough for me to side with the owners. Not to NFLPA, tell Adrian Peterson to shut his Clinton Portis.

Shananahan
03-16-2011, 01:50 AM
Maybe it's all a meta joke to promote the show, causing everyone to do a double take and become slaves to comments about slaves on Double Take.

http://doubletake.powerbalance.com/

It's a comedy series, right?

Doggcow
03-16-2011, 01:51 AM
LOL Wowwwwwwwww

Killericon
03-16-2011, 02:09 AM
I've lost all affection for purple jesus.

ZONA
03-16-2011, 02:26 AM
I don't think the slaves of the past were complaining about getting robbed of a % of what they were paid. Nah, they complained about much more petty stuff like um, getting beat, raped, killed, worked till they dropped, etc..

And Mr. Peterson can simply walk away if he doesn't like it. The slaves of the past had no such luxury.

What a stupid ass statement that was.

Shananahan
03-16-2011, 02:34 AM
The slaves of the past got to construct amazing buildings and structures which have been around for thousands of years, though. All these modern slaves get to do is pay higher taxes while trying to make a couple Pro Bowls.

Pseudofool
03-16-2011, 02:38 AM
He's a fool for making the comparison, but I don't doubt his frustration in moving the actual chains of the business and getting paid such a small portion as opposed to people who simply have money to be an owner, and may not labor at all.

Requiem
03-16-2011, 02:52 AM
Adrian Peterson should shut up. If he wasn't in the NFL, he might have the intellectual capacity to run a cash register at McDonalds.

This is where Ryan Grant came in and pretty much made a fool of Adrian. I'd expect a 4.0 GPA graduate of Notre Dame, like Grant, to be able to use common sense. Of course that would be void in a guy like Peterson, who barely scrapped by the academic minimum to keep his scholarship and eligibility on the playing field.

TDmvp
03-16-2011, 05:21 AM
I don't think the slaves of the past were complaining about getting robbed of a % of what they were paid. Nah, they complained about much more petty stuff like um, getting beat, raped, killed, worked till they dropped, etc..

And Mr. Peterson can simply walk away if he doesn't like it. The slaves of the past had no such luxury.

What a stupid ass statement that was.



Yup he can just walk away whenever he wants
Buy whatever he wants and from the sounds of it say whatever he wants.
He just can't stop fumbling or have a educated thought.

The Joker
03-16-2011, 05:30 AM
He's a fool for making the comparison, but I don't doubt his frustration in moving the actual chains of the business and getting paid such a small portion as opposed to people who simply have money to be an owner, and may not labor at all.

It's no different from any big business though.

You think the guys who work the hardest in McDonalds are the ones who earn the most money?

No problem with the players wanting a better deal and trying to do some things to get it, but statements like this are absolutely pathetic and won't exactly be appreciated by the fans.

RhymesayersDU
03-16-2011, 05:59 AM
This was a bad play when Warren Sapp said it 10 years ago, and it's a bad play now.

It's not going to win you any sympathy in this situation.

eddie mac
03-16-2011, 06:00 AM
Another masterpiece from the agent driven world of pure greed. These ****ers dont want to play for the love of it anymore, it's all about green.

Kaylore
03-16-2011, 06:10 AM
He's right. Slave owners frequently prevented their slaves from working because they were taking 60% of the profits...wait a minute...

broncswin
03-16-2011, 06:52 AM
wow...what a douche bag...now that I think about it, he is right, I enslaved him on my fantasy football team

broncogary
03-16-2011, 07:18 AM
It's slavery posting on this board.

long beach bronco
03-16-2011, 07:30 AM
If some slave owner was paying me 6 million a year to be his slave, I would pick all the cotton in the fields, clean the house everyday, feed all the livestock, wash the owners feet at any time, run his bath water, run the errands, and cook all his food. This is one slave that would be smiling all the way to the bank. Just shut up and work Adrian.

colonelbeef
03-16-2011, 07:51 AM
I am on the players' side in this dispute, but clearly Adrian Peterson is a complete moron

tsiguy96
03-16-2011, 07:53 AM
I am on the players' side in this dispute, but clearly Adrian Peterson is a complete moron

yea. poor guys, only make a few million dollars a year. im gonna go make my boss open the books, then demand a raise.

TheReverend
03-16-2011, 08:09 AM
Maybe Knowshon has sucked so far because he's just exhausted from picking cotton in Bowlen's fields all day?

jhns
03-16-2011, 08:14 AM
The Vikings owner should show up with a whip on the first day back.

bowtown
03-16-2011, 08:16 AM
He's a fool for making the comparison, but I don't doubt his frustration in moving the actual chains of the business and getting paid such a small portion as opposed to people who simply have money to be an owner, and may not labor at all.

So then I guess Peterson is also outraged at how the employees are compensated at all the restaurants, clubs and car dealerships that are owned by players.

bronco militia
03-16-2011, 08:17 AM
It's slavery posting on this board.

Ha!Ha!Ha!

epicSocialism4tw
03-16-2011, 08:44 AM
C'mon Adrian.

Im sure every average American who busts their butt everyday for the average 38K feels alot of sympathy that you have to work so hard playing a childrens game for 5 months out of the year and make the income of a corporate CEO.

Terrible.

DarkHorse30
03-16-2011, 08:51 AM
Oklahoma.....where young men go to school to learn how to be idiots.

Minnesota.....they elected Al Franken, need I say more?

I blame this on Obama and Farrakhan

Old Dude
03-16-2011, 08:52 AM
This was a bad play when Warren Sapp said it 10 years ago, and it's a bad play now.

It's not going to win you any sympathy in this situation.

Deja Vu. Every time there's been a lockout or strike some player has made the same analogy and then gets blasted for it.

Around and around it goes. Nothing new.

eddie mac
03-16-2011, 08:55 AM
He's just been dropped from 31 draft boards. Guaranteed to be a Raider now cos they'll take anyone.

Jason in LA
03-16-2011, 08:56 AM
Sometimes overstating your point is a really bad thing.

I'm assuming that Peterson didn't see this blowing up in his face. Dude is not very smart.

Smiling Assassin27
03-16-2011, 09:07 AM
He's right. Slave owners frequently prevented their slaves from working because they were taking 60% of the profits...wait a minute...

and the slaves were acquired thru a crude, but effective form of free agency and were allowed to collectively bargain for their daily ration of grits and lima beans.

I see your point, AP.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-16-2011, 09:14 AM
Then what do we call the real slaves? Hell there are probably more slaves right now then there was during the black slave trade.

What an idiot that is enough for me to side with the owners. Not to NFLPA, tell Adrian Peterson to shut his Clinton Portis.

Because one player said something stupid, your entire stance has shifted?

HUmans are ****ing weird.

Chris
03-16-2011, 09:17 AM
You might say that was...... a bit of a fumble.

spdirty
03-16-2011, 09:42 AM
I wish I were a modern day slave.

BigPlayShay
03-16-2011, 09:54 AM
He's just been dropped from 31 draft boards. Guaranteed to be a Raider now cos they'll take anyone.

Adrian Peterson said this, not Patrick Peterson.

bendog
03-16-2011, 10:02 AM
Adrian Peterson said this, not Patrick Peterson.

One slave looks like any other slave. ^5

rbackfactory80
03-16-2011, 10:09 AM
I always thought Adrian was the dumbest player in the NFL.

Thanks for proving me correct Adrian.

eddie mac
03-16-2011, 10:27 AM
Adrian Peterson said this, not Patrick Peterson.

Same surname so he'll be dropped.

Pony Boy
03-16-2011, 10:39 AM
Hillis would never say any thing like that he's a good little white boy.......he knows who butters his bread.....

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 10:40 AM
yea. poor guys, only make a few million dollars a year. im gonna go make my boss open the books, then demand a raise.

So, during this whole process, the players have not demanded money. Ever. Not once.

bendog
03-16-2011, 10:49 AM
So, during this whole process, the players have not demanded money. Ever. Not once.

well, I agree they havn't asked for a bigger share of shared revenue, but the pot of shared revenue is increasing. I think the owners should open their books, but I don't think Jones and Snyder or even Richardson, who claims to not be making money, will do it. Imo, the players will have to cave by fall because of money unless Doty enjoins the owners to end the lockout. If they could hold out on anti-trust issues they probably have a real good chance.

But the union isn't anymore nterested in retired guys who have health issues than the owners, and neither side gives a **** about fans.

baja
03-16-2011, 11:00 AM
He's just been dropped from 31 draft boards. Guaranteed to be a Raider now cos they'll take anyone.


Who are you talking about?

Beantown Bronco
03-16-2011, 11:02 AM
So, during this whole process, the players have not demanded money. Ever. Not once.

One could argue against that. The vets for their part lobbied for more money at the expense of the big rookie contracts. And it was one of the points conceded by the owners prior to the decertification/lockout.

bendog
03-16-2011, 11:10 AM
One could argue against that. The vets for their part lobbied for more money at the expense of the big rookie contracts. And it was one of the points conceded by the owners prior to the decertification/lockout.

All that's true, but Inkana is correct that the core issue is that the owners want to keep a greater % of the shared revenue that the previous contract gave them, and they want the players to take a smaller % of that same pot.

Archer81
03-16-2011, 11:37 AM
All that's true, but Inkana is correct that the core issue is that the owners want to keep a greater % of the shared revenue that the previous contract gave them, and they want the players to take a smaller % of that same pot.


I suppose a 50-50 split is too much to ask for?


:Broncos:

Rascal
03-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Can I be a slave?

bronco militia
03-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Can I be a slave?

it Depends Ha!

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2011, 11:52 AM
I suppose a 50-50 split is too much to ask for?


:Broncos:

The players don't deserve 50 percent IMO.

Archer81
03-16-2011, 11:52 AM
Can I be a slave?


Ask an arab shiek. That's their thing, apparently.


:Broncos:

Archer81
03-16-2011, 11:53 AM
The players don't deserve 50 percent IMO.


I tend to agree, but it would make sense to start at 50-50 and adjust it through negotiating.


:Broncos:

Beantown Bronco
03-16-2011, 11:53 AM
All that's true, but Inkana is correct that the core issue is that the owners want to keep a greater % of the shared revenue that the previous contract gave them, and they want the players to take a smaller % of that same pot.

Depends on how you define the word "players". In the case of these negotiations, you have to eliminate the rookies from that title. Why? Because they are not part of the debate. They are not currently in the NFL therefore they have no place at the negotiating table. It is strictly league vets vs owners.

Therefore the only "players" are technically vets. And they not only demanded, but also will actually get, more money under the latest offer by the owners than they did under the old CBA.

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 11:54 AM
The players don't deserve 50 percent IMO.

Why is that?

bendog
03-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Depends on how you define the word "players". In the case of these negotiations, you have to eliminate the rookies from that title. Why? Because they are not part of the debate. They are not currently in the NFL therefore they have no place at the negotiating table. It is strictly league vets vs owners.

Therefore the only "players" are technically vets. And they not only demanded, but also will actually get, more money under the latest offer by the owners than they did under the old CBA.

All that's true, but you are being disengenous if you are trying to assert anything beyond the controversey exists BECAUSE THE OWNERS WANT A BIGGER SLICE OF SHARED REVENUE. The players would be happy to continue under the same contract, and in fact are suing the owners to open up the lockout and let them play.

The owners may actually need a bigger slice or the players may actually deserve or need more, but none of that can be known because it's not public knowledge and/or its a subjective belief.

footstepsfrom#27
03-16-2011, 12:09 PM
I'm guessing Peterson was engaging in hyperbole, but whatever...still a stupid thing to say.

Taco John
03-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Why is that?

Because they're not sharing 50% of the risk.

footstepsfrom#27
03-16-2011, 12:20 PM
Because they're not sharing 50% of the risk.
You'd have a valid point if players were acting in the role of venture capitalists, but since it's not risk, but what they bring to the table as an asset that is more germain here, the argument could be made that CEO's aren't sharing the risk either, at least not in terms of financial commitment, yet they are compensated so highly because they possess a rare skill set, one that only a tiny fraction of the people have in a market that pays accordingly. It could also be argued that they should be viewed as sharing the risk from a physical standpoint. A lot of NFL players die considerably earlier than they would have, spend part of their lives being unable to walk, etc, etc...so apples to oranges is my only point here. I don't care how they work it out so long as they solve it.

TheReverend
03-16-2011, 12:21 PM
Because they're not sharing 50% of the risk.

The owners last agreement was to give the players 60%.

Reducing that to 50% would be a massive coup for them.

Beantown Bronco
03-16-2011, 12:27 PM
You'd have a valid point if players were acting in the role of venture capitalists, but since it's not risk, but what they bring to the table as an asset that is more germain here, the argument could be made that CEO's aren't sharing the risk either, at least not in terms of financial commitment, yet they are compensated so highly because they possess a rare skill set, one that only a tiny fraction of the people have in a market that pays accordingly. It could also be argued that they should be viewed as sharing the risk from a physical standpoint. A lot of NFL players die considerably earlier than they would have, spend part of their lives being unable to walk, etc, etc...so apples to oranges is my only point here. I don't care how they work it out so long as they solve it.

NFL owners possess a rare skill set: they're all billionaires. They have shown the ability to retain and grow wealth into the billions and should be compensated highly because they possess that rare skill set. No player in the history of the NFL has shown similar skill (Carson Palmer at $80 million in the bank is a rarity....and that's still a rounding error for most owners), so they should not.

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 12:50 PM
NFL owners possess a rare skill set: they're all billionaires. They have shown the ability to retain and grow wealth into the billions and should be compensated highly because they possess that rare skill set. No player in the history of the NFL has shown similar skill (Carson Palmer at $80 million in the bank is a rarity....and that's still a rounding error for most owners), so they should not.

That's comparing apples to oranges. The owners possess a rare skill, but so do the players, but in totally different arenas.

Without the players, the owners aren't nearly as wealthy, and the players also risk (and in a lot of cases, give up) their health.

The players posses a rare skill that gives them the ability to work in a 9 Billion dollar arena, often at the cost of their health. That seems like grounds to be compensated to me.

tsiguy96
03-16-2011, 12:54 PM
That's comparing apples to oranges. The owners possess a rare skill, but so do the players, but in totally different arenas.

Without the players, the owners aren't nearly as wealthy, and the players also risk (and in a lot of cases, give up) their health.

The players posses a rare skill that gives them the ability to work in a 9 Billion dollar arena, often at the cost of their health. That seems like grounds to be compensated to me.

and without the owners, there is no league for players to even make money at. they are very, very well compensated. bigger issue here, both sides are so incredibly compensated that maybe they should do something for the millions of fans who are struggling but still find time to support these people while putting money in their pocket. not that that will happen.

bowtown
03-16-2011, 12:58 PM
and without the owners, there is no league for players to even make money at. they are very, very well compensated. bigger issue here, both sides are so incredibly compensated that maybe they should do something for the millions of fans who are struggling but still find time to support these people while putting money in their pocket. not that that will happen.

Or better yet the thousands of other employees that are needed to keep the industry afloat, and won't see in their entire lifetime what some of these players and owners see in a year.

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 01:04 PM
and without the owners, there is no league for players to even make money at. they are very, very well compensated. bigger issue here, both sides are so incredibly compensated that maybe they should do something for the millions of fans who are struggling but still find time to support these people while putting money in their pocket. not that that will happen.

I disagree that without the owners they wouldn't have a venue to make money in. Maybe not in the NFL, but they'd find some way. Football is too popular in America for there to not be a place for them.

Bottom line is that it's a partnership between the two. No one side is more deserving than the other. The problem is that the owners and players agreed to the deal we currently have (the players didn't force anything on the owners, it was an agreement), and now it is the owners who are demanding more money, without (as it appears to me) trying to establish any sort of trust with the players. Trotter's article from yesterday about Jerry Jones being a dickhead and earlier stories about how big of a douche Richardson is illustrate this nicely, I believe.

It's hard to give up money to a side that doesn't seem to respect you very much.

broncswin
03-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Get back to the SLAVE talk or get off this thread....AP approves

listopencil
03-16-2011, 01:10 PM
The solution is obvious. We need to go liberate Adrian Peterson so he can come play in Colorado.

footstepsfrom#27
03-16-2011, 01:16 PM
NFL owners possess a rare skill set: they're all billionaires. They have shown the ability to retain and grow wealth into the billions and should be compensated highly because they possess that rare skill set. No player in the history of the NFL has shown similar skill (Carson Palmer at $80 million in the bank is a rarity....and that's still a rounding error for most owners), so they should not.
"Compensation" is something reserved for one who provides a service, or is in some other inferior position (employee, contractor, sub-subcontractor, etc)... to the one providing the compensation. In other words, if you own the store, you don't "deserve" anything more than what the market and your skillfull manipulation of business practices and smarts, common sense and hard work plus capital investment can earn you. Entrepreneurs as business originators, essentially what NFL owners are, deserve what the market will pay them, and the players as "employees" deserve what they can collectively bargain the owners to pay them based on the scarcity of their skill set relative to what the market will pay...ie; the same formula that CEO's depend on. Is a CEO worth $60 mill a year? That depends on how "value" is measured, but we're really only talking about one thing here, scarcity of a commodity or marketable skill, and what it's worth on the open market. So it's not a question of "risk", which owners justifably share as the business originators, vs. "compensation", which is what is owed to the hired help so to speak.

Broncos4Life
03-16-2011, 01:42 PM
and the slaves were acquired thru a crude, but effective form of free agency and were allowed to collectively bargain for their daily ration of grits and lima beans.

I see your point, AP.

LOL! A complete ****in douche bag to the nth degree!

bendog
03-16-2011, 01:45 PM
NFL owners possess a rare skill set: they're all billionaires. They have shown the ability to retain and grow wealth into the billions and should be compensated highly because they possess that rare skill set. No player in the history of the NFL has shown similar skill (Carson Palmer at $80 million in the bank is a rarity....and that's still a rounding error for most owners), so they should not.

16 owners possess proven biz skills. 14 were either born rich (or married well) and used thieir inherited weath to buy teams or inherited the teams outright. A$ D(v(s is unique in that he was actually a coach.

Bidwell, inherited the team

Blank earned his with Home Depot

Biscotti made his.

Wilson took over his dadís insurance biz and used the money to buy the bills for next to nothing when the AFL started.

Richardson made his, but I forgot how.

Makasky inherited the team.

Mike Brown inherited the team.

Lerner inherited his fatherís investment biz.

Ford ... nuff said

McNair made his in the energy biz

Clark Hunt ... nuff said, but I still remember when those to crazy coots tried to fix the silver market in the 70s.

Ross, real estate.

Wilf, housing market. (Youíd think he could figure out how to finance a new roof)

Kraft made his selling ..... cheese

Benson made his selling cars, I believe

Mara and Tisch inherited the team

Johnson ... can you say Johnson and Johnson ďa family owned company?Ē

Lurie made his making movies

Rooney, inherited the team

Spanos, made his is real estate

Debartelo, inherited the team. York married well.

Stan the Man, married very very well.

Paul Allen, had a good biz partner.

Glazer, made it buying and selling stuff.

Bud Adams .... oil, son. Lots of it.

Jones ... even more oil.

Al D*v*s, heís really the only real football guy in the bunch ... outside of Richardson who played but had nothing to do with the game until he bought the Panthers.

Weaver, made it selling shoes

Irsay, inherited the team.

Snyer, made it buying and selling ****.

Bowlen, inherited the nut he used to buy a maj share from Kaiser, then bought out the others as he made millions off the team.

bendog
03-16-2011, 01:48 PM
"Compensation" is something reserved for one who provides a service, or is in some other inferior position (employee, contractor, sub-subcontractor, etc)... to the one providing the compensation. In other words, if you own the store, you don't "deserve" anything more than what the market and your skillfull manipulation of business practices and smarts, common sense and hard work plus capital investment can earn you. Entrepreneurs as business originators, essentially what NFL owners are, deserve what the market will pay them, and the players as "employees" deserve what they can collectively bargain the owners to pay them based on the scarcity of their skill set relative to what the market will pay...ie; the same formula that CEO's depend on. Is a CEO worth $60 mill a year? That depends on how "value" is measured, but we're really only talking about one thing here, scarcity of a commodity or marketable skill, and what it's worth on the open market. So it's not a question of "risk", which owners justifably share as the business originators, vs. "compensation", which is what is owed to the hired help so to speak.

It's a cartel. Take your notions of "free trade" to the toilet.

El Minion
03-16-2011, 01:54 PM
16 owners possess proven biz skills. 14 were either born rich (or married well) and used thieir inherited weath to buy teams or inherited the teams outright. A$ D(v(s is unique in that he was actually a coach.

Bidwell, inherited the team

Blank earned his with Home Depot

Biscotti made his.

Wilson took over his dadís insurance biz and used the money to buy the bills for next to nothing when the AFL started.

Richardson made his, but I forgot how.

Makasky inherited the team.

Mike Brown inherited the team.

Lerner inherited his fatherís investment biz.

Ford ... nuff said

McNair made his in the energy biz

Clark Hunt ... nuff said, but I still remember when those to crazy coots tried to fix the silver market in the 70s.

Ross, real estate.

Wilf, housing market. (Youíd think he could figure out how to finance a new roof)

Kraft made his selling ..... cheese

Benson made his selling cars, I believe

Mara and Tisch inherited the team

Johnson ... can you say Johnson and Johnson ďa family owned company?Ē

Lurie made his making movies

Rooney, inherited the team

Spanos, made his is real estate

Debartelo, inherited the team. York married well.

Stan the Man, married very very well.

Paul Allen, had a good biz partner.

Glazer, made it buying and selling stuff.

Bud Adams .... oil, son. Lots of it.

Jones ... even more oil.

Al D*v*s, heís really the only real football guy in the bunch ... outside of Richardson who played but had nothing to do with the game until he bought the Panthers.

Weaver, made it selling shoes

Irsay, inherited the team.

Snyer, made it buying and selling ****.

Bowlen, inherited the nut he used to buy a maj share from Kaiser, then bought out the others as he made millions off the team.

Georgia Frontiere's skill for owning the Rams was...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BpMgNcZq53c/R1-XNVxsEPI/AAAAAAAAAoc/BPwdW4qPOs0/s1600/georgia-frontiere-whore.jpg

bendog
03-16-2011, 01:57 PM
It's sort of fitting her kid got shoved out by Stan.

Kaylore
03-16-2011, 02:18 PM
Oh man this thread is funny. Good job, Mane. :notworthy

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 02:23 PM
16 owners possess proven biz skills. 14 were either born rich (or married well) and used thieir inherited weath to buy teams or inherited the teams outright. A$ D(v(s is unique in that he was actually a coach.

Bidwell, inherited the team

Blank earned his with Home Depot

Biscotti made his.

Wilson took over his dadís insurance biz and used the money to buy the bills for next to nothing when the AFL started.

Richardson made his, but I forgot how.

Makasky inherited the team.

Mike Brown inherited the team.

Lerner inherited his fatherís investment biz.

Ford ... nuff said

McNair made his in the energy biz

Clark Hunt ... nuff said, but I still remember when those to crazy coots tried to fix the silver market in the 70s.

Ross, real estate.

Wilf, housing market. (Youíd think he could figure out how to finance a new roof)

Kraft made his selling ..... cheese

Benson made his selling cars, I believe

Mara and Tisch inherited the team

Johnson ... can you say Johnson and Johnson ďa family owned company?Ē

Lurie made his making movies

Rooney, inherited the team

Spanos, made his is real estate

Debartelo, inherited the team. York married well.

Stan the Man, married very very well.

Paul Allen, had a good biz partner.

Glazer, made it buying and selling stuff.

Bud Adams .... oil, son. Lots of it.

Jones ... even more oil.

Al D*v*s, heís really the only real football guy in the bunch ... outside of Richardson who played but had nothing to do with the game until he bought the Panthers.

Weaver, made it selling shoes

Irsay, inherited the team.

Snyer, made it buying and selling ****.

Bowlen, inherited the nut he used to buy a maj share from Kaiser, then bought out the others as he made millions off the team.

Richardson owns a bunch of burger franchises or some **** like that.

gunns
03-16-2011, 02:41 PM
Dumb ass statement.

Still, doesn't make me side with either side. Dumb and Dumber.

bendog
03-16-2011, 02:43 PM
Richardson's actually a pretty interesting guy. I really admire him. And he's one reason why I think the owners may not be lying out their asses when they say profits go up 5-6% a year, but expenses are going up double that. But in terms of being astute bizmen, nearly half of those owners are just sons of rich men.

footstepsfrom#27
03-16-2011, 05:27 PM
It's a cartel. Take your notions of "free trade" to the toilet.
Even a cartel is subject to the principles of market supply and demand. In any case, whether it's a "cartel" or not doesn't change anything. Something is worth what the market dictates it's worth.

Arkie
03-16-2011, 07:08 PM
Al D*v*s, heís really the only real football guy in the bunch ... outside of Richardson who played but had nothing to do with the game until he bought the Panthers.



Jerry Jones was all-conference and co-captain of the 1964 national champions.

rmsanger
03-16-2011, 08:41 PM
If that's slavery then sign my white ass up! All aboard the slave train..

Gort
03-16-2011, 09:28 PM
Jerry Jones was all-conference and co-captain of the 1964 national champions.

also, i hate Jim Irsay with a passion, but i believe he played a year of football at SMU, just before they became National Championship contenders with the Pony Express.

Cito Pelon
03-18-2011, 10:01 AM
Richardson's actually a pretty interesting guy. I really admire him. And he's one reason why I think the owners may not be lying out their asses when they say profits go up 5-6% a year, but expenses are going up double that. But in terms of being astute bizmen, nearly half of those owners are just sons of rich men.

Yeah, I can see that. The owners keep preaching "we need a better, sustainable 'business model'".

I can see that at this point - guaranteeing 59.5% of total income to employees is NOT a good, sustainable business model.

OTOH, the owners gave that 59.5% guarantee to the players in the last CBA (with some dissent), so the NFLPA has to agree to essentially a "giveback", and there we are.

The owners (from what I've seen) are not disputing the 59.5% guarantee, but they do want the extra $$$$ off the top of the gross income to mitigate that poor "business model" decision from the last CBA.

I think that's a fair deal for the NFLPA, and they should have made the deal, especially with the other concessions the owners made.

epicSocialism4tw
03-18-2011, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I can see that. The owners keep preaching "we need a better, sustainable 'business model'".

I can see that at this point - guaranteeing 59.5% of total income to employees is NOT a good, sustainable business model.

OTOH, the owners gave that 59.5% guarantee to the players in the last CBA (with some dissent), so the NFLPA has to agree to essentially a "giveback", and there we are.

The owners (from what I've seen) are not disputing the 59.5% guarantee, but they do want the extra $$$$ off the top of the gross income to mitigate that poor "business model" decision from the last CBA.

I think that's a fair deal for the NFLPA, and they should have made the deal, especially with the other concessions the owners made.

The players need a wake up call.

They want access to the books of the guys who fund the league...that's over-the-top. A request like that is disheartening because it shows that their leadership either doesnt have the best understanding of what it takes to run the business, or that they have become brazen and have forgotten who butters the bread.

bendog
03-18-2011, 01:37 PM
Even a cartel is subject to the principles of market supply and demand. In any case, whether it's a "cartel" or not doesn't change anything. Something is worth what the market dictates it's worth.

No. That's simply wrong. It's not even a matter of disagreement. As a matter of factual statement, it is wrong.

http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/monopoly/cartels.htm