Replacement Players

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's kind of funny how people talk about not wanting to see replacement players in the NFL...yet at the same time you hear about how players are overpaid and overrated money grubbing bastards who get paid to play a game. "Try getting a job in the real world" I thought these guys were a dime a dozen?

Let's be frank. Most average fans are idiots. I hate to be rude and even assholish about that point, but it's true. These are the same people that keep voting in the idiots that ruin our country and wonder why nothing changes.

It's hard for the average person to relate to these guys situation. You know why they can't? Because they don't have that sort of leverage at their jobs or couldn't fathom having such talent. I said before I felt that most people spouting that stuff were doing so out of jealousy from their inability to command that type of money for having a talent they were born with. These people aren't easily (if at all) replaceable regardless of what we think.

I mean, who should get the money out of selling millions of records? The record label or the artist? I say the artist. Without him, the record label would not even exist. I feel the same way about the NFL and the players.

If people's beef with the players is that they make too much, then my suggestion to them is to lower the value of the market by stop attending games and watching on TV. That is a surefire way to decrease the value (revenue) of both the owners and players.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

.....If people's beef with the players is that they make too much, then my suggestion to them is to lower the value of the market by stop attending games and watching on TV. That is a surefire way to decrease the value (revenue) of both the owners and players.

I will not watch replacement players and I have cancelled my NFL gameticket.
It is really time to send a message to these spoiled owners. Frankly I am tired of the owners whining about their split of $9 billion is not enough, but yet won't open the books all the way to prove it. All of this at a time when the value of the franchises are multiplying every year.
Ultimately this is an ego thing on the part of the owners. Owners hold cities hostage on the threat of moving the team if they do not get a brand new state of the art stadium, these billionaire owners want more and more. The value of franchises is multiplying year after year. Shouldn't that be enough?
If it is true there are a handful or more of owners that are cash poor, they need to sell your ****ing team and that will easily provide enough money for generations of their family to live off of. There are so many financially qualified people dying to buy an NFL team out there, but the existing owners that are cash poor do not want to sell because they want to remain being a famous NFL owner. Ego!. The players should not be asked to give money back. That is just stupid. Especially when there is a huge history of owners making millions while players like Joe Jocoby were making like $60,000 in his second or third year and being one of the top players at his position.
What is the biggest insult is the only reason the owners will not open their books all the way is the wealthy owners do not want the small market onwers to see what they are making for fear of more revenue sharing amongst owners. So ultimately this is the reason we are in a lock out. Not because of the players.

[Longtimefan]

I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players. In 1987 I did attend the games because I realized they were going to count in the standings regardless of who the players were. Had we not won those games it's likely we would not have won the SB that year either. I have plenty of time to decide.

ps/ I'll be refunded if games are cancelled. It's no biggie one way or the other.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players.

/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

I think the question posed by the poster was: Would you watch the games "if" they were played by replacements, not whether there will or won't be.

[Brody81]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

Oh man...you poor, poor guy. Still a fool two weeks later

[Brody81]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Oh man...you poor, poor guy. Still a fool two weeks later

I know, I'm an idiot!!!

[tmandoug1]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

I think I just spit out all of my drink, man April Fools day was 12 days ago!!!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

haha...that was brilliant. I like this portion of the article.

"Our replacement owners might not be as flashy as someone like Al Davis, but they will be just as effective at running a football franchise, handling difficult management decisions, and collecting profits." Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones criticized the possible move, claiming the scab owners wouldn't know anything about the nuances of price-gouging and ****ing over fans.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.

Consider this a hypothetical situation to be discussed - - sort of like the hypothetical discussions we have around things like what would have happened if Jack Kent Cooke's will had not forced his son to sell the team or what would have happened if Gregg Williams had become head coach instead of Jim Zorn.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

1. Most NFL players have year by year contracts so that they can be voided without cost.

2. If the current players do not show up for work, it would be difficult for them to demand payment since they chose to withhold their services.

There are several good reasons why owners ought to be VERY reluctant to play games with replacement players, but having to pay the current players is not one of them.