Why do some defend the players as being victims here?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

I wish people would STOP comparing this to their day jobs. In your day job, you are a replacable part, you are not the product. The nfl players ARE the product.

[tsiguy96]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I wish people would STOP comparing this to their day jobs. In your day job, you are a replacable part, you are not the product. The nfl players ARE the product.

irrelevant. all but the top players are replaceable.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

irrelevant. all but the top players are replaceable.

Regardless of whether thats true or not (its not), youre missing the point. The players, regardless of the name and person, is still the product. The fans come to watch the players play football, they grow attachments to the player and the team, which of course, is comprised of players.

No ones coming to your job or mine to watch us type into a computer

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I wish people would STOP comparing this to their day jobs. In your day job, you are a replacable part, you are not the product. The nfl players ARE the product.

I am the product. You are the product no matter what you do as long as there is a customer involved.

And I'd like to point out that every player is utterly replacable

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I am the product. You are the product no matter what you do as long as there is a customer involved.

And I'd like to point out that every player is utterly replacable

They are replaceable in the sense you could get any human to do it, but if you want a shock to the quality, then sure, they could hire you and me and get an inferior product. Now, the human's greatest asset is its ability to adjust, so perhaps we would enjoy inferior football just as much (though i dont enjoy the college game much for these reasons), but im not sure if they want to take that chance.

And we are not the product, we make the product. No one tunes into my station to watch me, im not shrink wrapped on some store shelf.

I'm sure any owner could find a willing buyer for the team too. Cuts both ways.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Regardless of whether thats true or not (its not), youre missing the point. The players, regardless of the name and person, is still the product. The fans come to watch the players play football, they grow attachments to the player and the team, which of course, is comprised of players.

No ones coming to your job or mine to watch us type into a computer

Not entirely true. I've had some creeper staring at me through my window since I arrived this morning.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

Not entirely true. I've had some creeper staring at me through my window since I arrived this morning.

Hmmm, you should mention this to your boss next time you discuss a raise! Irreplacable asset.

[rugbythug]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I wish people would STOP comparing this to their day jobs. In your day job, you are a replacable part, you are not the product. The nfl players ARE the product.

So when john elway left the broncos stadium went empty?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

Dan Snyder: Hard working entrepreneur.

Heard it on the Mane.

He was.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah...I am the product. I have billable clients and when the come calling I have to perform.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by rugbythug

So when john elway left the broncos stadium went empty?

Will there be a ****load of fans in the stands to watch locked out football? Losing ONE player isn't the problem. Losing ALL the players is.

yeah, good luck with that.

[gunns]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

irrelevant. all but the top players are replaceable.

I really think he meant the players as a whole, not as individuals.

[gunns]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He was.

This is true. He didn't inherit the money, he has earned it.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by tnedator

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.

The owners had decided to lock out the players long before the players even had a vote amongst themselves whether to decertify or not. decertifying was in reaction to the pending lock out. not the other way around.
there's no evidence to suggest that owners have been negotiating in good faith.
BTW, locking out the players is not conducive to healthy bargaining either.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The owners had decided to lock out the players long before the players even had a vote amongst themselves whether to decertify or not. decertifying was in reaction to the pending lock out. not the other way around.
there's no evidence to suggest that owners have been negotiating in good faith.
BTW, locking out the players is not conducive to healthy bargaining either.

There is literally not one thing correct about this post. It's been disproven over and over, yet you still continue to post it.

Please provide evidence. Prove me wrong.

You can't.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Yeah...I am the product. I have billable clients and when the come calling I have to perform.

Fine, you are the product, i cant believe im even having this convo, its APPLES AND ORANGES.

[Play2win]

I find it funny as hell, that a bunch of irresponsible thugs and malcontents who like to make it rain are victums...

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Fine, you are the product, i cant believe im even having this convo, its APPLES AND ORANGES.

You must have a vested interest. You are like an Oil-Man who votes republican, even though he doesn't believe in many of their core values.

[bombay]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I wish people would STOP comparing this to their day jobs. In your day job, you are a replacable part, you are not the product. The nfl players ARE the product.

Yep. The owners are the greedy ****s who get taxpayers to build their billion dollar stadiums in order to squeeze fans for $25 parking, $8 beers, and $125 tickets to watch the players play.

[Bronco Yoda]

(this is my new answer to everything)

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The owners had decided to lock out the players long before the players even had a vote amongst themselves whether to decertify or not. decertifying was in reaction to the pending lock out. not the other way around.
there's no evidence to suggest that owners have been negotiating in good faith.
BTW, locking out the players is not conducive to healthy bargaining either.

Apparently you didn't follow any news or player/player rep comments from the time the owners opted out until the 2010 season started. It was very clear that in the early stages that the players believed they had massive leverage heading into the 2010 season, because they were under the impression (massively wrong) that the owners feared an uncapped season, because they feared a bidding war.

To act like the players were working hard to get a new CBA and the owners locked them out, is either disingenuous, uninformed or naive.

[*WARHORSE*]

I agree with ya TNED.

The players are blaming the owners for bringing it here because they opted out, but if you didnt want to give them that option, then why did you negotiate it into the CBA?

The right to opt out after a couple of years, was a negotiating factor in getting the last CBA done.

The owners said they didnt like the model, didnt think it would work, and the union said, "Hey, try it out for a couple of years, and if it doesnt work for ya, lets write in the option to opt out and renegotiate after two years....how about that?"

The league agreed, and they tried for a few years, and then we opted out.......WHICH, btw, included going another two years under that same agreement.


The owners had every right to ask to renegotiate.

Now..............who is NOT willing to renegotiate?


The players are saying show us the books.

Bull.

Show me your stadium.


No way an EMPLOYEE of mine tells me that I gotta show em the books.

The worst thing the NFL did, was call the players 'partners'.

They are NOT partners.

They are workers, and they are perishable workers at that, with short lived careers.


It is NOT the players 'RIGHT' to play football for a living....but you are perfectly free to do so anywhere else.

The NFL is THE football market, and if you want to make money, you play here.

If you dont want to play here, may I suggest the Canadien football league?

The Arena football league?

Rugby?

Or how about flippin burgers at Burger King?


FIRE THE AGITATOR and INSTIGATOR that is named D. Smith, and get a real leader in there for the ignorant players.


All these players will be gone soon, and the next group of heros in the league will step up........like Von Miller.


The Broncos to me are whomever is wearing the jersey.

Once you take it off.......goodbye.


MAKE an OFFER players, or get frozen out.

DONT GIVE IN OWNERS.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by Play2Win

You must have a vested interest. You are like an Oil-Man who votes republican, even though he doesn't believe in many of their core values.

Huh?? This doesn't even make a bit of sense. In this case, even though its an odd one, im siding with the populous, which is generally in line with my political beliefs and values.

[WIldbill]

People need to quit referring to us fans as victims. We are far from being victims. We like to sit around and complain about the cost of the games, the beer, the hot dogs, etc yet we are the ones who ultimately determine how much they are. Sure we don't directly set the price but as long as people will pay $12 for a beer football teams are going to charge $12 a beer and more if they can.

The owners of the teams did not invest in the team in order to give us fans something to do on a Sunday afternoon. They bought the team to make money and they have every right to make as much as they can. The same goes for the players they have put in countless hours of training and preparation to master their craft and they are entitles to make as much as they can pursued the owners to give them. As fans we work hard for our money and only give it to the owners because we value the entertainment that we receive more than we value the money. (The one exception to this is when owners ask tax payers to pay for their stadiums. We as fans still bear a lot of the blame because we allow them to get away with it but that still doesn't excuse the owner for taking tax payer money to fund their private business.)

As fans we may not have a direct vote in these negotiations but we have the most powerful voice of all... we can vote with our feet. If we are not willing to give up something as simple as entertainment then we have no right to complain about the price of that entertainment.

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Huh?? This doesn't even make a bit of sense. In this case, even though its an odd one, im siding with the populous, which is generally in line with my political beliefs and values.

The populous. Thats a good one.


I don't really care one way or another. Too busy to really give a rat's ass. Hell, I don't even remember the last time I watched sport center-- or whatever that albatross has become...