IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Other 31 Teams
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2011, 02:50 PM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,845
Default

I'm not going to waste too much time with you on this but your analogy is poor. Many owners made lots of money in business, sure, but many use taxpayer funded stadiums. To try to hold them up as paragons of the free market is laughable. They are taxpayer funded monopolists.

An accountant working at a Fortune 500 company may hope for a career spanning many decades. An NFL player cannot. If that accountant feels under-compensated or under-appreciated in his work he may seek work elsewhere. An NFL player cannot.

NFL teams net tens of millions of dollars in profits annually, even the terrible ones. On top of that the franchises themselves appreciate in value faster than most any other asset class, at least the decent ones do. NFL franchises are spectacular investments. If I had a billion dollars or two I would try to buy one, I promise you. But I would not be callous enough to say from the comfort of my taxpayer built suite that the concussed, hobbled players on the field beneath me, the very ones that give my franchise its value, should give me back 20% of their earnings. That's just immoral and insulting.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-06-2011, 08:54 AM
nunusguy nunusguy is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck View Post
NFL teams net tens of millions of dollars in profits annually, even the terrible ones.
It's not socialism or communism, it's capitalism. I don't see how the owners are under any obligation to pay the players anymore than the bare minimum compensation they can get them at, nor do I think they are under any obligation to share in what some might think is an equitable or fair portion of the teams profits or revenues no more than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is obligated to share their salary with the guys on their roster making only base minimum.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Roy P Roy P is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,761
Default

I am able to see the point of view that the rookies should not be making crazy guaranteed money unless they have proven themselves. When Jamarcus Russell is making more than Tom Brady, then there is a problem. Taking a look at the article, it seems as if Andrew Luck will be making $19.9 Million over 6 years if he's the #1 pick next year. If he had been smart enough to come out this year, he'd probably have $50 Million guaranteed. So, I might compromise by allocating $30 Million for the #1 pick and allowing contract renegotiations after 2 years for all rookies, not just the ones not drafted in the 1st round. Matt Ryan has shown that a 1st round QB can be under-compensated.
__________________
Originally Posted by chuck
I'm just sitting here thinking (pacing, actually) that whatever my issues with Kubiak he is apparently a goddam genius at tutoring quarterbacks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-06-2011, 12:07 PM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
It's not socialism or communism, it's capitalism.
What in the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about any of this? But now that you mention it, taking taxpayer revenue and giving it to an entity far mightier than the individual for its own use is certainly not capitalism. It's more akin to fascism, actually. And furthermore, what do you make of the NFL's revenue sharing? I hope that dangerous example of socialism infuriates you enough to act. Maybe you should call in to the Michael Berry show and vent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
I don't see how the owners are under any obligation to pay the players anymore than the bare minimum compensation they can get them at...
The owners are certainly under no obligation to do any of this, and left to their own devices the league would be run like it was in the 1960s with low pay and no regard to the health consequences suffered by playing the game that further enriches the owners. You're fine with that. I understand. I'm not fine with this, and more relevantly the players are not, either. That is why they unionize. The owners run highly profitable franchises in a league that has never been more popular yet they are trying to squeeze the players. I try to see both sides of any issue that matters to me. In this case I think any sensible person would realize that the players are in the right here.

You say you have "0 sympathy" for the players. I hope you remember that sentiment when your boss at the dirt factory depresses your wages, lowers your working conditions and slashes your benefits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2011, 02:59 PM
Nconroe Nconroe is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lake Conroe
Posts: 2,897
Default

The NFL is such high revenue, like 9 billion a year, seems the owners could negotiate to WIN-WIN position, but it does seem they are trying for WIN-LOSE for players, I don't really like that at all.

The more owners walk out on negotiations, demand ridiculous changes, sue the NFLPA, appear to be to ok with delaying offseason and regulare season, the less I appreciate them at all.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2011, 03:25 PM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nconroe View Post
The NFL is such high revenue, like 9 billion a year, seems the owners could negotiate to WIN-WIN position, but it does seem they are trying for WIN-LOSE for players, I don't really like that at all.

The more owners walk out on negotiations, demand ridiculous changes, sue the NFLPA, appear to be to ok with delaying offseason and regulare season, the less I appreciate them at all.
Absolutely. The league is getting almost two BILLION a year from ESPN for MNF alone in a deal will extend through 2020.

It's not some third-string linebacker's fault or some incoming rookie's fault that an idiot like Jerry Jones finds himself with a lot of debt after having built a colossal onanistic fantasy.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-27-2011, 09:07 PM
Nconroe Nconroe is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lake Conroe
Posts: 2,897
Default

Here is a small summary of the issues after this last week of 40 hours negotiating with a mediator present.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...t/7443945.html

Apparently discussions to resume discussions this upcoming Tuesday.

It was also reported not one owner was there on the side of the NFL, so that doesn't sound right if true.

And some discussion of NFLPA disbanding the player union and that then the owners would not have organization to lockout. so maybe players could continue using facilities, and negotiate in good faith somehow?

well, hope it works out quickly and fairly for all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Nconroe Nconroe is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lake Conroe
Posts: 2,897
Default

Don't hear a whole lot official from the negotiators, have ya'll?

It is a little encouraging there is still no lockout and no de-certification, and a seven day extension of negotiations till next Friday.

So hopefully a little progress finally being made, sure hope it ends soon and the season continues as normal.

I did hear the main difference in two sides wishes is about 25 million per team / per year, at this time. just split the difference and be done with it guys.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.