Rock out with your Lockout

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Where can we vote for owners?

lolololol....FD I wont see you down in the players picket lines? I took you for a union man.

[hooskins]

SmootSmack, I know that the many that depend on NFL to pay their bills includes you and ESPN. I completely understand that, and I understand the residual impacts of the league. But you can't say out of all Americans employed the majority of them are dependent on the NFL for employment. I would venture to say you could not even make such a claim for the plurality of employed Americans.

No football next year would impact many Americans but not a plurality.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

SmootSmack, I know that the many that depend on NFL to pay their bills includes you and ESPN. I completely understand that, and I understand the residual impacts of the league. But you can't say out of all Americans employed the majority of them are dependent on the NFL for employment. I would venture to say you could not even make such a claim for the plurality of employed Americans.

No football next year would impact many Americans but not a plurality.

Honestly, it won't have as big an impact on me as it would many of my colleagues. I'm actually a bit more screwed by an NBA lockout. If anything, an NFL lockout may help me if it increases interest in college football.

But when did I ever say the majority are dependent on the NFL?

[hooskins]

Yeah, you never said majority. We just need to define "many".

But a lockout in the NFL has to have secondary impacts on your position. Perhaps not immediate but eventual.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Give me a break please. Are there issues to work out yes, but all players and owners are more than "fairly" compensated for a game they all love. In 1987 players had a reasonable claim in that owners controlled the whole playing field. Now not so much. Players also are doing better at marketing themselves outside of the sport (ie manning). This is about two super rich groups risking alienating the very fanbase which has bought into the hype and enjoyment of a sports entertainment package. If the billionare owners and millionaire players can't understand that a large percentage of the fanbase may work 10 to 20 years to earn what they earn in a few seasons (for the lowest paid player) than they are all being selfish with a sport that I and my family enjoy the heck out of.

No my support is not a question of fairness to the players, or the pity on owners who just want a reasonable return. My support is for the thousands of fans across the nation on boards like this one day in and day out rooting and cheering and aching when their team wins and loses.

Hopefully the greedy owners and selfish players hear that message through their various sycophants and media outlets!

As someone else mentioned police put their lives on the line daily, I don't see millionaire police officers (well not ones who aren't corrupt). Teachers in truly downtrodden school systems risk life and limb in trying to elevate their students out of despair - tell them about a guy with a 40 million dollar contract who isn't being fairly treated. Tell the miners who go down into the depths of the earth that the poor football players are not given more than 5 years of guaranteed health benefits, I doubt you will though cuz they would look at you like you are crazy.

The owners are no better. Tell other ceo's that their return rate in this economy is "only" 8% (or whatever). Or take their woe is me story to baseball which would love to have the same type player salaries and non-guaranteed contracts.

Both sides are at fault for not acknowledging that this system that upshaw and the old commissioner worked out really is a boon for the sport and all involved ought to do everything in their power to ensure it stays upright.

this argument really doesn't hold up. just like an actor, surgeon, golfer or football player, it takes a special skill to do what these guys do. and becuase of that skill people are highly compensated for it. it doesn't take a special skill to be a police officer or teacher. i commend teachers cause my mom was one but gotta keep it real.

[skinsfan69]

I don't know much about all these complex issues but I'd have to side with the players. Isn't the argument that the owners say they're losing money? And the union is saying open up the books to prove it? and the owners aren't willing to do so. Don't the owners make a shit load of $ off the TV money? I just find it hard to believe that owners are losing money with revenue sharing and tv deals.

[skinsfan69]

Not sure I would even watch the NFL if they do what they did in 87 and have scab games.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

this argument really doesn't hold up. just like an actor, surgeon, golfer or football player, it takes a special skill to do what these guys do. and becuase of that skill people are highly compensated for it. it doesn't take a special skill to be a police officer or teacher. i commend teachers cause my mom was one but gotta keep it real.

It depends on what argument is being made. I am not arguing against players making the dollars they make. Nor am I arguing that the players aren't the best of the best. I understand that they have trained and honed their bodies and skills to levels that are equivalent to a highly skilled surgeon. My argument when invoking police officers, teachers, coal miners, etc is that their chosen profession involves risks. The players risk their health every time they step on the field, they are modern day gladiators, and they are given high salaries, and more long-term health care than others in our society who put themselves in equally hazardous conditions.

If the next CBA includes extended healthcare privileges, and I hope it does, than excellent. But the head of the NFLPA has repeatedly made it sound like the players are not being fairly treated in health coverage and that's not right (in my opinion) based on the normal contractual agreements in other high risk professions.

Once again, both sides have a huge pie to slice up, and if the players want longer health insurance than ok, but let's look at what other slices need to shrink to make that happen, maybe rookie wage cap, maybe less of the overall pie goes to player salaries. Maybe it comes from a combined source. I don't know the answers, but I know that there is enough of a pot that working together the NFLPA and owners ought to be able to come up with a reasonable solution.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Not sure I would even watch the NFL if they do what they did in 87 and have scab games.

Scab games is what we need. America loves the NFL and the league needs to field replacement teams if they refuse to agree to a new CBA....

Can they even use replacement players?? Someone earlier said that replacement players are forbidden.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The linked article says that the league may indeed use replacement players...

[freddyg12]

So much to say on this thread, where to start?

To all those that like to use the trite public servant examples w/teachers, policemen, etc., be aware that in some states & localities those employees have unions too. Just like the NFLPA, those unions are equally criticized for doing what unions do - trying to get the most for thier membership. (Never mind that virtually none of these professionals has to be the very best to get a job like an nfl player does.)

The main reason that I really get sick of hearing arguments like 'pro athletes don't do as much for society as teachers, but they get paid so much more...' is that the logic is essentially assuming socialism. Saying someone "should" make the same or less as someone else assumes that they are both being paid from the same pool of money, which in this case they obviously aren't. If you think teachers & pro athletes should make the same amount, you basically are saying you believe in the tenets of socialism.

Me? I'm not a socialist, and if I truly feel the players or owners are making too much or not deserving, I'll simply discontinue my consumption of the products they sell.

[hooskins]

^^Agreed

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

CRedskins, I understand your point completely. But look at this statement you made:

The owners are no better. Tell other ceo's that their return rate in this economy is "only" 8% (or whatever). Or take their woe is me story to baseball which would love to have the same type player salaries and non-guaranteed contracts.

As much as the owners gripe about the players, the truth is the pie has grown larger and the game has gotten much more violent. For every Manning there are hundreds of Ethan Albrights. Those players who will continue to make relative chump change if we go in the direction the owners would like.

Yes there are billionaires and millionaires in the NFL. But the rising tide has not lifted all boats equally.

Thats becaus they are not equal. Thats how life works.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by warpaint

O.K. with this said what is better for them? The general workers that are never seen. Is it better for the owners to come on top or the players?

Owners. The FO, maintenance and team people are paid out of the owners pockets, not the players %. If teams are really struggling they will cut team staff before they cut player salaries so they still try to field a competitive team.

My question to those supporting the players is; do the players give back some of their salaries if the team doesn't hit their revenue goals or loses $$$ (Buffalo, Jax, Detroit, Cincy, etc.)? Of course not. Who takes the ultimate financial risk, the owners.

Good read:
The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com

From the article:
At the other end of the scale, the NFL's low-revenue teams are struggling to keep pace with their big-market competition. The NFL's 10 least valuable teams all declined in value over the past year, led by the Jacksonville Jaguars, which fell 16% to $725 million. The Jags lost 17,000 season ticket holders following a disappointing 5-win, 11-loss season in 2008. The poor support forced the Jaguars to have all but one of its games blacked out locally on TV. The Jags boosted their season ticket base for the upcoming season, but did it with heavily discounted tickets.

The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.
The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

Also, looking at the Packers' numbers, their profit was down 52% in 2010. League-wide, total team values fell 2%.

Like any negotiation there will be trade-offs on each side, it shouldn't be too difficult to resolve though:

- 18 games - No way.
- Owners fund better after playing career health coverage. - Absolutely
- Rookie wage scale - Absolutely
- Players take a slight % cut of approx. 5% instead of 18%

CBA done, how hard was that?

[hooskins]

Firstdown, I never said they need to be equal, but they need to be proportionate for it to be fair. When owners' growth would be exponential and the players' is not, there is a problem.

[44ever]

NFL hit with collusion charge, but case could be hard to prove by players - Michael McCann - SI.com