PDA

View Full Version : former NFLPA starting to crack?


tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 10:01 AM
are they cracking? crazy story coming up, but i dont doubt it. the highest paid, high tier guys are leading the revolution for the players right now, but the guys making 320k a year or who are free agents but cant sign represent a far larger population of the players, so i definitely see why this is happening. they wanted a deal to continue to be hammered out, which makes sense to everyone except apparently the people doing the deal.

The Sports Business Journal reports a "breakaway" group of "mid-tier" NFL players is set to sign a lawfirm to intervene in the Brady vs. NFL case.
The players, believed to be as many 70, are not happy that talks under federal mediator George Cohen broke off in March. Their motion, expected to be filed late this week, is essentially an attempt to have their voices heard alongside the owners and higher-paid players at the mediation table. This is the first tangible sign of discord among the players that comprise the NFLPA. Even if Judge Susan Nelson is expected to grant an injunction, this report is more fodder for the belief that NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith's extreme positions have "painted himself into a corner," as PFT's Mike Floria suggested.

DrFate
04-20-2011, 10:17 AM
This, if true, isn't that surprising (to me, at least)

Favor whichever side you wish, but I firmly believe Smith had no intention of ever making a deal and wanted to litigate from day one. And I'm not sure 100% of the players were in favor of that.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-20-2011, 10:18 AM
Nothings gonna happen until the deal with the injunction is decided. So, there will either be football under the old rules or the players will lose some leverage and come back to the bargaining table.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 10:21 AM
I hope the players get chrushed.

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 10:21 AM
Nothings gonna happen until the deal with the injunction is decided. So, there will either be football under the old rules or the players will lose some leverage and come back to the bargaining table.

the fact that one side needs leverage over hte other in order to get a deal done means we will be right back here in a few years.

BroncoLifer
04-20-2011, 10:33 AM
This, if true, isn't that surprising (to me, at least)

Favor whichever side you wish, but I firmly believe Smith had no intention of ever making a deal and wanted to litigate from day one. And I'm not sure 100% of the players were in favor of that.

I read a story (sorry, I forget where and no link) two months ago which warned that Smith has eyes on a political career and would try to drag the situation out as long as possible so that he could keep his name in the news and his face on TV. If true, I think that's a scary scenario for fans.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-20-2011, 10:34 AM
the fact that one side needs leverage over hte other in order to get a deal done means we will be right back here in a few years.

I think thats gonna be true no matter what

Drunk Monkey
04-20-2011, 10:35 AM
I hope the players get chrushed.

this

theAPAOps5
04-20-2011, 10:59 AM
I hope the players get chrushed.

Because the billionaires are victims?

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 11:03 AM
Because the billionaires are victims?

no, because the owners own the business and provide a working environment where these guys get paid a very large amount of money for what amounts to very little work in comparison with the rest of america (3-6 months off with exception of 1-4 hour workouts each day?) but it just wasnt enough.

its a slap in the face to the american public that guys like drew brees and tom brady who make 20 mil a year refuse to work because they want more. yes they represent the guys who make less, but it doesnt change how it is.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 11:06 AM
Because the billionaires are victims?

No.

Pat Bowlen
04-20-2011, 11:10 AM
Because the billionaires are victims?
Exactly.

We might make a lot of money, but we also spend a lot of money as well.

Chris
04-20-2011, 11:16 AM
no, because the owners own the business and provide a working environment where these guys get paid a very large amount of money for what amounts to very little work in comparison with the rest of america (3-6 months off with exception of 1-4 hour workouts each day?) but it just wasnt enough.

its a slap in the face to the american public that guys like drew brees and tom brady who make 20 mil a year refuse to work because they want more. yes they represent the guys who make less, but it doesnt change how it is.

In any business where you're a significant source of revenue you get an appropriate portion of the total revenue. That's why players make so much money. That's why actors can make up to 25 million on a movie.

Playing pro football is probably more detrimental to someone's life (injuries, risk of dementia) than either basketball or baseball and those guys make more money.

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 11:22 AM
In any business you get an appropriate portion of the total profit for your contribution. That's why players make so much money. That's why actors can make up to 25 million on a movie. When you're a significant source of revenue, you get paid like it.

Playing pro football is probably more detrimental to someone's life (injuries, risk of dementia) than either basketball or baseball and those guys make more money.

no one makes them play, just like AP's statement that its like modern day slavery, who is making them stay to play if its not enough money?

basketball and baseball have significantly more games, so more chance for revenue. not that i want it, but owners gave the option for more games and players said no (for good reason, but cant say that wasnt an option).

the players get paid a LOT, even people like vrabel say they got a great deal with the last CBA, they dont want it to end becasue it was a player friendly deal. now that it got voided, they are unhappy saying they want and need more money, and the guys who OWN the business, pay the bills and make the major decisions (even if its deciding who makes the decisions) are being demanded by their employees to pay them more...

oubronco
04-20-2011, 11:47 AM
When the players start losing money and those checks aren't coming in they will start panicing and crack

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 11:51 AM
When the players start losing money and those checks aren't coming in they will start panicing and crack

To mak demands one must have leverage. The players have little to no leverage.

2KBack
04-20-2011, 11:56 AM
In any business where you're a significant source of revenue you get an appropriate portion of the total revenue. That's why players make so much money. That's why actors can make up to 25 million on a movie.

Playing pro football is probably more detrimental to someone's life (injuries, risk of dementia) than either basketball or baseball and those guys make more money.

Baseball has the highest ceiling, so some of them make waaaaay more....but it also has a ton of guys paid way lower than average NFL player, the majority of players likely.

Basketball salaries are spread over like 10 guys on the team.

Football teams have their salary caps spread over 53 guys, of course the average pay will seem lower. The football players also only play 16 games per season, making them paid much better per game than the 100 game season sports.

LonghornBronco
04-20-2011, 12:00 PM
Exactly.

We might make a lot of money, but we also spend a lot of money as well.

LOLHilarious! good one Pat! love the Patrick Ewing quote. :afro:

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 12:01 PM
This, if true, isn't that surprising (to me, at least)

Favor whichever side you wish, but I firmly believe Smith had no intention of ever making a deal and wanted to litigate from day one. And I'm not sure 100% of the players were in favor of that.

the same applies more to the owners,lets not forget the owners locked the players out.

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 12:02 PM
the same applies more to the owners,lets not forget the owners locked the players out.

Only AFTER the players decertified the union.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 12:04 PM
no, because the owners own the business and provide a working environment where these guys get paid a very large amount of money for what amounts to very little work in comparison with the rest of america (3-6 months off with exception of 1-4 hour workouts each day?) but it just wasnt enough.

its a slap in the face to the american public that guys like drew brees and tom brady who make 20 mil a year refuse to work because they want more. yes they represent the guys who make less, but it doesnt change how it is.

don't be an idiot,they get paid because there union & have fought that pay scale. drew brees & tom brady are not refusing to work they were locked out. whatever amt they make be it 20 or 30 million is a result of their hard work. and have earned it.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 12:07 PM
Only AFTER the players decertified the union.now your being an idiot, the NFLPA decertified to try to prevent a lock out. get your facts straight. NFL was already doing the lock out long before the decertification happened.

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 12:15 PM
now your being an idiot, the NFLPA decertified to try to prevent a lock out. get your facts straight. NFL was already doing the lock out long before the decertification happened.

YOU ARE WRONG.

The lockout didn't start until AFTER the union decertified. Sorry.

How many links would you like to see to prove this?

OBF1
04-20-2011, 12:29 PM
Peacepipe has been smoking himself

Mountain Bronco
04-20-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't feel any more sorry for the 350K a year guy than I do the 10mill a year guy.

I make a good living and it would take me 3 years to make that much. Let say they only make that much for 5 years (average career) then they have made what I will make over 15 years. Why again are they struggling to survive?

Mountain Bronco
04-20-2011, 12:33 PM
Oh Yeah and no one has job security in this world, so don't give me that crap about guaranteed contracts, injuries etc... I could get laid off tomorrow and tough **** sherlock.

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 12:34 PM
C'mon peacepipe, I see that you're back viewing the thread now after no doubt googling the crap out of "decertification" and "lockout". Just admit you were wrong and apologize for calling everyone idiots and we'll move on. It's not like you moved to Myrtle Beach or anything. We'll let this one slide eventually.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 12:49 PM
C'mon peacepipe, I see that you're back viewing the thread now after no doubt googling the crap out of "decertification" and "lockout". Just admit you were wrong and apologize for calling everyone idiots and we'll move on. It's not like you moved to Myrtle Beach or anything. We'll let this one slide eventually.

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=762:qaa-inside-a-possible-nflpa-decertification&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61
Can the players block the lockout?

Yes, with a technical move, being described in the media as "decertification". You can't tell me that you're the only person in the country who was surpprised by the NFL locking out it's players. so no I AM NOT WRONG. everybody,except for you knew the NFL was going to lock out its players. this has been public knowledge for 2 yrs now.

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 12:54 PM
http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=762:qaa-inside-a-possible-nflpa-decertification&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61
You can't tell me that you're the only person in the country who was surpprised by the NFL locking out it's players. so no I AM NOT WRONG. everybody,except for you knew the NFL was going to lock out its players. this has been public knowledge for 2 yrs now.



you said:
NFL was already doing the lock out long before the decertification happened.


which is not true. the decertification came first, in order to try and prevent a work stoppage, which happened anyway.

R8R H8R
04-20-2011, 12:54 PM
I hope this gets some traction. It's the the 2nd & 3rd tier guys that need representation and the NFLPA appears to completely ignore them each time an aggreement is negotiated.

The Manning's & Brady's of the league, along with the unproven rookies in the 1st round, will certainly get their money. But it is the non top-tier vets that seem to get screwed in these talks. So good for them to stand up to the elites and NFLPA.

If the players really want to be fair to all concerned, they will agree to limit the ridiculous money and guarantees that the high 1st rounders get and give that money to the vets.

Also, they should be willing to give up a bit of thier current pay now to help contribute to a fund for retired players. Why? Because some day soon, they are going to be there.

Drunk Monkey
04-20-2011, 12:56 PM
don't be an idiot,they get paid because there union & have fought that pay scale. drew brees & tom brady are not refusing to work they were locked out. whatever amt they make be it 20 or 30 million is a result of their hard work. and have earned it.

No they have not earned that kind of money. That is a ridiculous sum of money to play a sport. When are people like you going to get it. We are paying for those stupid salaries. How many games do you go see? How many beers do you buy at games? If cost go up then revenue needs to go up. That means we get screwed even more. There is 3 parties involved in this dispute and no one is talking about the fans. Hell, we should form a union and tell them all to go **** themselves.

gunns
04-20-2011, 12:59 PM
Ah hell, I don't care who gets what. Just end this thing. Let's get the season going. The Mane is dull, with a main discussion board full of everything but football, posters are getting crabby (see Beantown), the Broncos have the #2 pick in the draft, finally a homeopener, and a sweet schedule as far as home and away.....and NE......and I, for one, want everything to be perfect. Now stop it boys! Or start it.......whatever.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 01:03 PM
No they have not earned that kind of money. That is a ridiculous sum of money to play a sport. When are people like you going to get it. We are paying for those stupid salaries. How many games do you go see? How many beers do you buy at games? If cost go up then revenue needs to go up. That means we get screwed even more. There is 3 parties involved in this dispute and no one is talking about the fans. Hell, we should form a union and tell them all to go **** themselves.

We don't need a Union to do that. :)

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 01:04 PM
http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=762:qaa-inside-a-possible-nflpa-decertification&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61
You can't tell me that you're the only person in the country who was surpprised by the NFL locking out it's players. so no I AM NOT WRONG. everybody,except for you knew the NFL was going to lock out its players. this has been public knowledge for 2 yrs now.

Hah!

Classic response that had nothing to do with my post at all, as tsiguy showed. Ignoring the fact that you're not dealing with the timing of the lockout vs decertification which was the whole crux of the debate for a second is telling. Now I'm not sure what I love more, the spin or the fact that the site you use to try to support your point and, specifically, the quote you pulled from it is ironically wrong too.

You pulled this excerpt:

Can the players block the lockout?

Yes, with a technical move, being described in the media as "decertification".

Now tell me....did decertification block the lockout? Did it?

Too easy.

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 01:07 PM
posters are getting crabby (see Beantown),

Wait, what? All I did was literally post that the players decertified prior to the owners locking them out. Then a guy named "peacepipe" came out of nowhere and tried to start fights with two posters and called me an idiot. (Talk about an ironic choice of names)

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 01:37 PM
you said:


which is not true. the decertification came first, in order to try and prevent a work stoppage, which happened anyway.

there would have never been a decertification if there wasn't going to be a lock out. you can't do a decertification after a lock out has been done. wether the NFLPA decertified or not the NFL owners were going to lock out the players. this notion that owners locked them out because they decertified is bogus.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 01:40 PM
unfortunately after the lock out a judge ruled they can not stop the lock out.

Beantown Bronco
04-20-2011, 01:43 PM
there would have never been a decertification if there wasn't going to be a lock out. you can't do a decertification after a lock out has been done. wether the NFLPA decertified or not the NFL owners were going to lock out the players. this notion that owners locked them out because they decertified is bogus.

True or false: On Friday, March 11, 2011, the owners offered to extend the CBA talks for another week with no lockout and the players union said no to the offer to engage in mediation for another week and decertified that afternoon instead.

If you say false, I want to see evidence.

Taco John
04-20-2011, 01:54 PM
Because the billionaires are victims?


I'm having a hard time finding any victims in this.

jebures
04-20-2011, 02:22 PM
I don't feel any more sorry for the 350K a year guy than I do the 10mill a year guy.

I make a good living and it would take me 3 years to make that much. Let say they only make that much for 5 years (average career) then they have made what I will make over 15 years. Why again are they struggling to survive?

because they are retards with their money, spending money on bling and favorite pass times such as "making it rain." Invest some money you idiots!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
no, because the owners own the business and provide a working environment where these guys get paid a very large amount of money for what amounts to very little work in comparison with the rest of america (3-6 months off with exception of 1-4 hour workouts each day?) but it just wasnt enough.

its a slap in the face to the american public that guys like drew brees and tom brady who make 20 mil a year refuse to work because they want more. yes they represent the guys who make less, but it doesnt change how it is.

That's... not correct. The players didn't want anything changed. Most of them have said as much.

The owners want to take an additional BILLION off the top without dedicating anything more to retired player healthcare and other significant contributions.

Players aren't asking for anything more. Owners are. And you blame the players.

Astounding.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 02:56 PM
because they are retards with their money, spending money on bling and favorite pass times such as "making it rain." Invest some money you idiots!

Even when they make investments some lose their shirt.

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 02:57 PM
That's... not correct. The players didn't want anything changed. Most of them have said as much.

The owners want to take an additional BILLION off the top without dedicating anything more to retired player healthcare and other significant contributions.

Players aren't asking for anything more. Owners are. And you blame the players.

Astounding.

the players got a player friendly deal, as admitted by multiple NFLPA seat members, and they dont want anything changed? who woulda thunk it....

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-20-2011, 02:59 PM
the players got a player friendly deal, as admitted by multiple NFLPA seat members, and they dont want anything changed? who woulda thunk it....

Gee, I didn't realize so many owners were in the red that they needed another BILLION before any rev gets shared with the players. That totally makes sense now. I mean the owners are the ones out there getting injured and having careers that average 3-4 years.

Mountain Bronco
04-20-2011, 03:47 PM
Do you know how expensive stadiums are? Really freaking expensive and if the owners don't get the billion, then they won't be able to build new stadiums because the time of tax payer funded stadiums is gone. So expecially the small market teams will get hurt and the NFL will end up like the MLB with the haves and have nots. By the way, Denver isn't a have either, but not quite a have not.

It is not as simple as Billion dollars this or that. You shouldn't even look at in dollar figures, but rather by percentages and expenses etc....

gunns
04-20-2011, 04:06 PM
Talks have adjourned till 5/16. What? Are they tired? She needs to give her decision now. Why not?

FireFly
04-20-2011, 05:18 PM
I'm having a hard time finding any victims in this.

The fans?

RhymesayersDU
04-20-2011, 05:41 PM
No they have not earned that kind of money. That is a ridiculous sum of money to play a sport. When are people like you going to get it. We are paying for those stupid salaries. How many games do you go see? How many beers do you buy at games? If cost go up then revenue needs to go up. That means we get screwed even more. There is 3 parties involved in this dispute and no one is talking about the fans. Hell, we should form a union and tell them all to go **** themselves.

So stop watching. The players have absolutely earned it, because the market has dictated it.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 06:35 PM
True or false: On Friday, March 11, 2011, the owners offered to extend the CBA talks for another week with no lockout and the players union said no to the offer to engage in mediation for another week and decertified that afternoon instead.

If you say false, I want to see evidence.they did have a one week extention. hence why the lock out didn't happen on the 4th. hell the players were all in agreement to get the current contract extended another 3-6 yrs. there didn't have to be a lockout if the owners had just extended the current contract.

Play2win
04-20-2011, 08:38 PM
they did have a one week extention. hence why the lock out didn't happen on the 4th. hell the players were all in agreement to get the current contract extended another 3-6 yrs. there didn't have to be a lockout if the owners had just extended the current contract.

Sure, why not? Lets party like its 1999...

Except its not, its 2011. Adjustments have to be made.

They got lucky on their last deal, now there has to be a normalization.

Just like with housing and home values, the NFL was in a great position, time and place, and reaped the benefits.

NFL player, hear that sound? its Eliot Ness knocking...

tsiguy96
04-20-2011, 08:44 PM
they did have a one week extention. hence why the lock out didn't happen on the 4th. hell the players were all in agreement to get the current contract extended another 3-6 yrs. there didn't have to be a lockout if the owners had just extended the current contract.

why does everyone think just extending the current contract, which all the owners unanimously agreed was not sustainable and the players admitted was player friendly, was a feasible option?

Dedhed
04-20-2011, 09:25 PM
The players need the NFL far more than the NFL needs these particular players.

baja
04-20-2011, 09:32 PM
One thing that should be considered in this economic climate is it maybe be the perfect storm to lose their fan base if they don't get this worked out soon.

peacepipe
04-20-2011, 09:35 PM
why does everyone think just extending the current contract, which all the owners unanimously agreed was not sustainable and the players admitted was player friendly, was a feasible option?

it was sustainable,owners are just greedy.

Dedhed
04-20-2011, 09:51 PM
it was sustainable,owners are just greedy.
I doubt you know that.

baja
04-20-2011, 09:58 PM
maybe the networks will find a way to break their contracts that would be poetic justice

Bronco Boy
04-20-2011, 10:28 PM
who cares soccer is the new football

GoBroncos DownUnder
04-20-2011, 11:04 PM
I still really don't support EITHER side in this argument but I TOTALLY do not understand the argument that the "Owners opted out of the agreement, so it's their fault".

If the Owners didn't opt out, the current players would still be stuffing their face with generous servings of pie, while 1st round rookie wages would be out of control and retired players would continue to be screwed!
I don't support the owners for screwing with my favorite sport, but I DO respect their guts for "pulling the pin" on that deal, to start working on another that will hopefully address a LOT of the league's issues.
IMO the players would have gone on for 20 more years before opting out of that last agreement, without bothering to fix the problems within the agreement.

Broncos_OTM
04-21-2011, 01:09 AM
i mean i am a diehard football fan. but do any of you all ever get out... seriously..

BroncoMan4ever
04-21-2011, 02:01 AM
I don't feel any more sorry for the 350K a year guy than I do the 10mill a year guy.

I make a good living and it would take me 3 years to make that much. Let say they only make that much for 5 years (average career) then they have made what I will make over 15 years. Why again are they struggling to survive?

agreed. anyone who can't live a good life on 350,000 a year is a retard and i have no desire to feel sorry for anyone in that situation.

i am just out of college and working a ****ty job i hate because i can't get hired anywhere in my field of study and making right around 27,000 a year and i am able to pay my bills, put a little in savings, and have enough money to handle almost any emergency that pops up.

i don't even make a tenth of what some of these lower paid dickwads are making and i'm not bitching like these douchebags

i hope the owners bend the players over a barrell and give it to them hard

BroncoMan4ever
04-21-2011, 02:09 AM
they did have a one week extention. hence why the lock out didn't happen on the 4th. hell the players were all in agreement to get the current contract extended another 3-6 yrs. there didn't have to be a lockout if the owners had just extended the current contract.

the owners were making damn good coin on that old CBA, it is true. however in terms of actual business models that was a ****ty deal for the owners. can you tell me another business where the employees are taking home over 50% of all revenue? can you tell me another business where the employee has any business at all asking to see the employers books?

that is a ****ty business model for the owners. sure it was paying them extremely well but, nowhere near the level it should have been.

TailgateNut
04-21-2011, 03:39 AM
One thing that should be considered in this economic climate is it maybe be the perfect storm to lose their fan base if they don't get this worked out soon.


^This

Talking to a few of my local friends here in Co, they have already done so. I'm hoping they do get it worked out soon so I can put a for sale sign on my RV and relax in my den on sundays. ****ing prima donnas, owners and player alike.

Beantown Bronco
04-21-2011, 06:14 AM
they did have a one week extention. hence why the lock out didn't happen on the 4th. hell the players were all in agreement to get the current contract extended another 3-6 yrs. there didn't have to be a lockout if the owners had just extended the current contract.

Can't even answer my question with a simple true/false. Shocking.

I didn't ask what happened on the 4th. I asked about the 11th, clear as day.

tsiguy96
04-21-2011, 06:22 AM
just an FYI, one of the goals of the lawyers of the NFLPA is to get rid of essentially everything that makes professional football attractive. most FA rules, tags, the draft, basically anything that a normal business does not have they want the NFL to get rid of.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/goodell-fears-an-nfl-without-a-draft-free-agency-rules/

DrFate
04-21-2011, 06:24 AM
the same applies more to the owners,lets not forget the owners locked the players out.

The last thing the owners want is to decide this in court. It takes one judge to alter the nfl as we know it.

ol#7
04-21-2011, 06:32 AM
the owners were making damn good coin on that old CBA, it is true. however in terms of actual business models that was a ****ty deal for the owners. can you tell me another business where the employees are taking home over 50% of all revenue? can you tell me another business where the employee has any business at all asking to see the employers books?

that is a ****ty business model for the owners. sure it was paying them extremely well but, nowhere near the level it should have been.

This^^^^^

Dont forget how much this has been driven by the agents who want no part of a rookie wage scale. They were actually pretty close number wise before the players walked away from the table last time. I also love how everyone thinks 1bil off the top (which was negotiated down to 300 mil before talks broke off) is some huge number when it is split 32 ways. Look how many teams cant sell out causing tv blackouts which lowers ad revenue for those markets...If the tv deal is worse next time under the current system the owners are now losing money. Cant sustain that and fans should want that fixed.

Beantown Bronco
04-21-2011, 06:42 AM
I love how people think that none of the owners were hurting under the current deal, when it was clear by their actions that they were. I mean, really, would Bowlen have fired a good chunk of their support staff that one offseason, guys like Andrew Mason, etc. who were all making less than $50K in salary, if things were going well?

peacepipe
04-21-2011, 06:49 AM
just an FYI, one of the goals of the lawyers of the NFLPA is to get rid of essentially everything that makes professional football attractive. most FA rules, tags, the draft, basically anything that a normal business does not have they want the NFL to get rid of.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/goodell-fears-an-nfl-without-a-draft-free-agency-rules/

BS,fans could care less about franchise tags.which 1 thing that should be done away with in this CBA. Anyway its quite the propaganda piece.

tsiguy96
04-21-2011, 06:52 AM
BS,fans could care less about franchise tags.which 1 thing that should be done away with in this CBA. Anyway its quite the propaganda piece.

you just keep sticking your head in the sand hoping that none of it is true. and your just dumb if you think fans dont care about franchise tags, thats how thier favorite team can keep one of their best players from entering FA.

peacepipe
04-21-2011, 06:57 AM
I love how people think that none of the owners were hurting under the current deal, when it was clear by their actions that they were. I mean, really, would Bowlen have fired a good chunk of their support staff that one offseason, guys like Andrew Mason, etc. who were all making less than $50K in salary, if things were going well?

I love how people think they were somehow NFL owners were onthe vergepf poverty. Owners who off the bat, before anything was divied up amongst the players,pocketed more than 30 milion each. Whoopi he cut down on staff.

tsiguy96
04-21-2011, 06:59 AM
I love how people think they were somehow NFL owners were onthe vergepf poverty. Owners who off the bat, before anything was divied up amongst the players,pocketed more than 30 milion. Whoopi he cut down on staff.

to own billion+ business and pocket nearly as much as some of the PLAYERS that you employ? thats bad. you are clueless.

Beantown Bronco
04-21-2011, 06:59 AM
I love how people think they were somehow NFL owners were onthe vergepf poverty.

Show me one example of this please. Nobody EVER said this. Does someone pay you every time you post something that's completely inaccurate, because it really seems like it's become your job?

baja
04-21-2011, 07:28 AM
Both sides are doing their very best to kill the cash cow... and don't think the networks won't find a way to get back at the NFL if they have to pay and there is no season.

peacepipe
04-21-2011, 07:47 AM
to own billion+ business and pocket nearly as much as some of the PLAYERS that you employ? thats bad. you are clueless.

it's the cost of doing bussiness.

HAT
04-21-2011, 08:00 AM
now your being an idiot, the NFLPA decertified to try to prevent a lock out. get your facts straight. NFL was already doing the lock out long before the decertification happened.

*You're

Old Dude
04-21-2011, 08:02 AM
It will all get worked out, at the last minute, like it always does.

The owners and players will all wind up with a lot of money, just like they always do.

Any additional costs will get passed on to the fans, just like like always.

So I advise everyone to just bend over and relax.

Beantown Bronco
04-21-2011, 08:08 AM
It will all get worked out, at the last minute, like it always does.


1982

1987

Kaylore
04-21-2011, 08:34 AM
I still think the owners will win. The longer this takes with hearings and appeals the more it benefits the owners. They'll stir the pot to force the players to go into their bank accounts.

baja
04-21-2011, 08:38 AM
I still think the owners will win. The longer this takes with hearings and appeals the more it benefits the owners. They'll stir the pot to force the players to go into their bank accounts.

I don't think lack of "money in the pocket" is going to be an issue with the players any time soon not when there will be agents and money lenders more that ready to loan them all they want.... at a price of course.

That One Guy
04-21-2011, 09:20 AM
It will all get worked out, at the last minute, like it always does.

The owners and players will all wind up with a lot of money, just like they always do.

Any additional costs will get passed on to the fans, just like like always.

So I advise everyone to just bend over and relax.

Nobody can open your wallet except you.

BroncoLifer
04-21-2011, 12:08 PM
Nobody can open your wallet except you.

Don't forget Uncle Sam.......

That One Guy
04-21-2011, 12:09 PM
Don't forget Uncle Sam.......

...

And your wife. Not what I meant though.

Taco John
04-21-2011, 02:20 PM
The fans?

Hmmm... The fans as victims...

I guess in a manner of speaking, but it really marginalizes the word "victim." This whole thing sucks, but I can't say that I feel "victimized" by it.

2KBack
04-21-2011, 02:30 PM
I'd say fans are more just consumers than victims. It's like calling me a victim when Taco Bell stops serving the Cheesy Gordita Crunch.

The concession workers, and Venue employees at the stadiums might be victims in a way.

That One Guy
04-21-2011, 03:19 PM
I'd say fans are more just consumers than victims. It's like calling me a victim when Taco Bell stops serving the Cheesy Gordita Crunch.

The concession workers, and Venue employees at the stadiums might be victims in a way.

"in a way"

They just have to find a new job.

Victims of rape and whatnot aren't so fortunate. "Victim" is definitely being watered down for dramatic effects.

2KBack
04-21-2011, 03:27 PM
"in a way"

They just have to find a new job.

Victims of rape and whatnot aren't so fortunate. "Victim" is definitely being watered down for dramatic effects.

Yeeeah, I don't think calling victims of less violent misfortunes...well...victims is going to water down the use of the word if it is used to describe rape or murder.

TailgateNut
04-21-2011, 04:27 PM
I'd say fans are more just consumers than victims. It's like calling me a victim when Taco Bell stops serving the Cheesy Gordita Crunch.

The concession workers, and Venue employees at the stadiums might be victims in a way.

Try local restaurants, bars, gambling establishments, grocery and liquor stores, etc.... I read somewhere a while back that local games pump up to a Million (may have been more, but the figure surprised me)bucks into a local host city economy each weekend.

Chris
04-21-2011, 05:05 PM
Try local restaurants, bars, gambling establishments, grocery and liquor stores, etc.... I read somewhere a while back that local games pump up to a Million (may have been more, but the figure surprised me)bucks into a local host city economy each weekend.

I expect a digital future where we'll have some way of aggregating all the data to track this sort of thing.

That One Guy
04-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Yeeeah, I don't think calling victims of less violent misfortunes...well...victims is going to water down the use of the word if it is used to describe rape or murder.

Severity is obviously different but it's overly dramatic to call someone a victim of a choice they willingly make. There's other routes available. Just like players aren't modern day slaves, anyone out of work over it is no more a victim than anyone else that's been laid off in the last few years.

GoBroncos DownUnder
04-22-2011, 01:07 PM
I expect a digital future where we'll have some way of aggregating all the data to track this sort of thing.
It's already being done ... back in Melbourne (Aust) there's a government funded group, called Melbourne Special Events.*
Established promoters and organizations who have an Original/International event that will draw a large crowd will approach MSV with their pitch, MSV will then go away calculate how much it is "worth" to the local economy and start making financial offers...


...
The ability of these events to attract tourists and to focus attention on the host economy has
prompted some State, Territory and local governments to establish special units or
organisations to seek out events from around the world and attract them to the State or
Territory. Examples include Eventscorp WA, the Ipswich Events Corporation and the
Melbourne Special Events Unit.
A feature of these organisations is their use of public funds in bidding for, assisting and
underwriting events which are expected to bring economic benefits to the host economy.
Such use of public funds requires a careful examination of the economic benefits. It is
important that the economic impacts are estimated correctly, that there is no overstatement,
and that nothing is left out.
Taken from: Valuing Tourism - Bureau of Tourism Research (http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tra/Snapshots%20and%20Factsheets/OP%2028.pdf)

Why do you think so many NFL teams have "extra" tickets for each game, when there's a waiting list for their season tickets? Out of state fans who blow $1000-2000 on a road trip are good for the nearby economy! ;)
Like TGN said: local restaurants, bars, gambling establishments, grocery and liquor store ... all benefit from out of town visitors, ... and right now I think a LOT of them are sweating over the prospect that THEY are about to lose a LOT of $$$$$$$!