The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   Orange Mane Central Discussion (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Why do some defend the players as being victims here? (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98361)

tnedator 05-26-2011 09:42 PM

Why do some defend the players as being victims here?
 
Why do some defend the players as being victims here?

Let's back up a bit and remember all of he player/player rep rhetoric about how the NFL owners/league were terrified of an uncapped year, and that they had leverage in getting what they wanted in a new CBA, once the owners opted out of the old one.

The players BADLY miscalculated that, because the uncapped year didn't turn into the out of control bidding war that players expected, but instead a chance for owners to dump bad contracts without worrying about salary cap hits and to have their restricted free agents locked up for another year or so.

During this time, De Smith and players were talking tough about how they weren't going to concede anything without big counter concessions from the league. For instance, they knew the owners wanted a rookie salary cap, so they let it be known that in return, the league would have to raise the minimum salary per team. Their ridiculous logic was that if you take x dollars from the rookies, you have to increase the salary minimum/floor by that amount to give the savings to the vets. That's the level of flawed logic and spin the league is dealing with. Simply implementing a rookie cap, while keeping the existing floor, would automatically funnel more dollars to the vets for those teams that hover around the floor in terms of salaries.

The Players and De Smith (a big time litigator from a big time lobbying firm -- Patton Boggs) believed they had great leverage points: The league not wanting an uncapped year and the league wanting a rookie salary cap. Therefore, by all accounts, they have not negotiated in good faith, but simply made outrageous demands and threats, like decertifying and suing, which is not conducive to healthy bargaining.

From the owners perspective, with the players threatening to decertify and sue, and some rumblings about a possible strike, when there was zero progress made in negotiations, the lockout made the most sense.

However, there was a LONG string of player/player rep actions that made the lockout about the only option for the league to take.

DBroncos4life 05-26-2011 09:48 PM

They all rich so F them. Without fans there wouldn't even be a NFL.

tnedator 05-26-2011 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBroncos4life (Post 3191499)
They all rich so F them. Without fans there wouldn't even be a NFL.

Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.

Boss Man 05-26-2011 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnedator (Post 3191504)
Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.

ignorant comeback is ignorant...

95% of "drivers" are not rich
95% of "bowlers" are not rich
95% of "tv viewers" are not rich

100% of NFL player are "rich" by our economical standards, and if there were no fans of the nfl there would be NO money....

IGNORANCE, pls go

DBroncos4life 05-26-2011 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnedator (Post 3191504)
Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.

Sorry dude the fans are the bigger victims in all this BS.

tnedator 05-26-2011 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss Man (Post 3191508)
ignorant comeback is ignorant...

95% of "drivers" are not rich
95% of "bowlers" are not rich
95% of "tv viewers" are not rich

100% of NFL player are "rich" by our economical standards, and if there were no fans of the nfl there would be NO money....

IGNORANCE, pls go

It's not ignorant, but since you are slow on the uptake, I will explain the point to you.

He said that without fans there would be no NFL. I pointed out there are countless other industries that would not "be" if not for those people that buy, use or watch the product. There would be no movie industry if people didn't buy tickets and go to the theaters.

As to your, dare I say "ignorant" response, you missed it by a mile. I didn't say the bowlers, drivers or viewers were rich, so your statement to that effect was, well, again, "ignorant". In the analogy, they are the same as the fans.

Movie and TV viewers are what allows Sitcom stars to get $1 million an episode, and the co-stars hundreds of thousands an episode, with 13-22 episodes produced a year.

There is nothing unique about the NFL where it has a consumer without whom the industry wouldn't survive. With few exceptions, that's all industries/businesses. The only real separation is that some are recreational or discretionary, like watching TV, going to movies, watching/attending sports, bowling, etc., etc., etc., while others are more essential such as buying food, clothes, etc.

It always amazes me when some people can't have a discussion without being a total dillwad, but it amazes me more how often the total dillwad makes an idiotic post/point while being the dillwad.

tnedator 05-26-2011 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBroncos4life (Post 3191511)
Sorry dude the fans are the bigger victims in all this BS.

I don't doubt that, but we don't have a seat or say in the negotiations. My issue is trying to understand why so many treat the players as these down trodden victims as if they were making third world wages, and all they want to do is play football, and the mean owners aren't letting them play the game they love.

maven 05-26-2011 10:36 PM

This is all about greed on both sides. The fans are the losers in this. And the fans can pick up and walk away and do something else.

tnedator 05-26-2011 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 3191531)
This is all about greed on both sides. The fans are the losers in this. And the fans can pick up and walk away and do something else.

36 holes of golf instead of 18 on Sundays in the fall, or for the church goers, 18 holes after church, rather than rushing home to watch the game, or heading to the stadium.

SonOfLe-loLang 05-26-2011 11:01 PM

Youre forgetting a major point. The owners are locking out the players, the players would be fine with the status quo. Also, the owners did not negotiate the tv deal in good faith (something the CBA instructs them to do).

DivineBronco 05-27-2011 12:35 AM

right or wrong does not really matter in this here tussle. This stand off will not end until the owners get most of what they want. They could miss a year of football and be fine the players can not. That really is the end all be all of the story. We get football when the players give up

05-27-2011 01:00 AM

I think that most fans do see the danger in this if the players were to get there way. The NFL is king because every market can compete. Not so in other sports. Add to that teams can keep face of the franchise players and you have the best set-up for the fans. That doesnt necessarily translates to what would be best for the players, but I think they are already more than adequately compensated for the entertainment they provide. Much like Charlie Sheen, at some point your to big a pain in the ass and too big for your britches to be worth it. Wish the other leagues would follow suite, but in baseball the major markets would never give that much money/leverage back, think the NBA is probably headed that way in order to survive.

TheElusiveKyleOrton 05-27-2011 05:20 AM

II don't really see either side as the "victim." Neither side is.

Though I would question the brightness behind calling the players rich and discussing how indefensible they are and not doing likewise for the owners, but...

Garcia Bronco 05-27-2011 05:23 AM

For me...the owners own the business. It belongs to them, if the players don't like it...go do something else. Go be Anne Frank or something.

cmhargrove 05-27-2011 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 3191625)
For me...the owners own the business. It belongs to them, if the players don't like it...go do something else. Go be Anne Frank or something.

As a business owner, I approve this remark.

Seriously, I think that making a few hundred thousand (or several million) a year for playing a game is a pretty sweet gig. What they are being paid is definitely "fair."

The Rookie Cap makes sense, for the very reasons tdnator stated before. Same escalating cap system - less for the untested rookies = More left over for thhe proven veteran players.

Get r done fellas.

tnedator 05-27-2011 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmhargrove (Post 3191633)
As a business owner, I approve this remark.

Seriously, I think that making a few hundred thousand (or several million) a year for playing a game is a pretty sweet gig. What they are being paid is definitely "fair."

The Rookie Cap makes sense, for the very reasons tdnator stated before. Same escalating cap system - less for the untested rookies = More left over for thhe proven veteran players.

Get r done fellas.

I think the rookie minimum was in the $300k range, and veteran minimum in the $800-900k range. Obviously, these are the minimums and many players get far in excess of the "minimum wage" of $300-900k, depending on how long you've been in the league.

orinjkrush 05-27-2011 06:05 AM

billionaire owners and millionaire players arguing about how to scam thousands from fans and trillions from TV. where's Geithner when you need his butt?

Rugby7 05-27-2011 06:16 AM

There is no status quo. The owners and players agreed to a CBA that included an option for the owners to end the CBA after 2 years and they exercised that right. That deal is history so now the players and owners need to negotiate a new one. I think D. Smith blew it. If they would have continued to negotiate with the threat of litigation in their back pocket the players would of at least had some kind of leverage. Now the owners are pissed and if the players lose in court they are going to get *** ***** by the owners.

gunns 05-27-2011 06:39 AM

I don't believe people are defending the players for the reasons stated in the opening post, at least I'm not. I'm not defending either side. To me, with the amount of money being discussed, it's greed vs greed. My problem with the owners is they've known they were going to do this for 2 years. Don't tell me they didn't. The arrangements they made for this whole thing, with the TV deals and insurance, says that. They couldn't have ironed and fought over this long before this? To me this whole thing is a power play. Hey, we know they are the owners, no need for it.

The players, on the other hand, should realize who butters their bread. I don't believe givng up what wasn't theirs to begin with (yes I know it was in the CBA, but the Lord giveth and he taketh away) will hurt any of them in the long run. Their biggest mistake is Smith. He doesn't seem to have a clue except to pound his chest and attempt to play hard ball. Almost as if he drags this out as long as possible he's thinking how well he can line his own pocket. If the owners prevail it could now be worse than if they had merely accepted the deal. I doubt any of them would have starved had they done this.

Yes, it is the fans that will pay for this whole thing. They will pay with higher prices across the board for money lost in this whole thing. What gripes me is they do not seem to ever consider the fan such as when developing TV deals, putting games on TV channels that don't reach the entire viewing public. Personally I would love to help stabbed both groups in the pocketbooks by boycotting watching or going to games. But I just can't. My love is too deep. I have however boycotted their products. I'm sure my boycott will have little effect but makes me feel better.

tsiguy96 05-27-2011 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunns (Post 3191652)
I don't believe people are defending the players for the reasons stated in the opening post, at least I'm not. I'm not defending either side. To me, with the amount of money being discussed, it's greed vs greed. My problem with the owners is they've known they were going to do this for 2 years. Don't tell me they didn't. The arrangements they made for this whole thing, with the TV deals and insurance, says that. To me this whole thing is a power play. Hey, we know they are the owners, no need for it.

The players, on the other hand, should realize who butters their bread. I don't believe givng up what wasn't theirs to begin with (yes I know it was in the CBA, but the Lord giveth and he taketh away). Their biggest mistake is Smith. He doesn't seem to have a clue except to pound his chest and attempt to play hard ball. Almost as if he drags this out as long as possible he's thinking how well he can line his own pocket. If the owners prevail it could now be worse than if they had merely accepted the deal. I doubt any of them would have starved had they done this.

Yes, it is the fans that will pay for this whole thing. They will pay with higher prices across the board for money lost in this whole thing. What gripes me is they do not seem to ever consider the fan such as when developing TV deals, putting games on TV channels that don't reach the entire viewing public. Personally I would love to help stabbed both groups in the pocketbooks by boycotting watching or going to games. But I just can't. My love is too deep. I have however boycotted their products. I'm sure my boycott will have little effect but makes me feel better.

there is some perception that the owners are now offering the players absolutely nothing in return. they are offering a great deal including huge amounts of money and especially benefits for active and retired players that the last CBA did not have, but the players want a deal with tons of cash without realizing that there is costs associated with running a team, and those costs get more expensive over time. the last deal was not sustainable due to those costs, hence the reason it was voided unanimously, not just for fun.

Rock Chalk 05-27-2011 06:47 AM

Ive been on the owners side from the beginning.

Throw out the rich comment, and disregard the fact that fans are the losers in this, both are true and neither is relevant.

Look at this objectively.

You are a hard working entrepeneur who spent many years of 18 hour days busting your ass to grow your business. Now you have a successful business and your employee's - who you pay far above the median income in this country and who have excessive benefits most people never see - are demanding a bigger share of your profits from the business YOU built.

Now I know that, in large part, owners didn't build their teams, they bought them and bought into a system. However, these rich ass owners did work hard and make a buttload of cash to buy into an investment which, is their right to try and maximize.

Players are, in effect, employees and they are extremely well compensated. Extremely well. Even the minimum wage of these employee's is far in excess of the average median income in the United States (behind just under 40K a year). If the Rookie Minimum is 300K a year as someone said, then rookies who are at the lower end of the pile are still making roughly 7.5 annual salaries of the median income in this country. Rookies that go on to work for 8 years in the NFL never making above the minimum will make about 600K a year or 4.8 million dollars.

The average person will not make 4.8 million dollars in their life time and the average dual income family it would take 60 years to make what the worst NFL player who managed to stay in the league for 8 years would make.

Do the owners make a crapload of money? Yes, but I bet the owner of the company you work for makes a crapload more than you too. Thats how the system works.

TheElusiveKyleOrton 05-27-2011 07:24 AM

Dan Snyder: Hard working entrepreneur.

Heard it on the Mane.

jhns 05-27-2011 07:31 AM

Why wouldn't we side with the slaves? They have it so rough....

JK, the players can go **** themselves.

Spider 05-27-2011 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton (Post 3191683)
Dan Snyder: Hard working entrepreneur.

Heard it on the Mane.

:~ohyah!:

Spider 05-27-2011 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnedator (Post 3191524)
It's not ignorant, but since you are slow on the uptake, I will explain the point to you.

Hilarious! ..... one of these days u will see that it isnt all of us that r clueless , and see you are


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.