PDA

View Full Version : Football NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides


Cave Johnson
02-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Big Red is a giant cocksocket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html?hpid=topnews

I'm not sure why NFL players and fans should pay the estate taxes for Daniel Snyder's children, along with the little Bidwills and Maras. That's one way to think of the current NFL labor dispute. The owners are worried that $9 billion isn't enough revenue growth, and their heirs might someday have to fly commercial. So they're demanding that everybody pony up.

That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.

They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own. They contend the players are overpaid, and they are threatening to lock them out as of March 4 if they don't agree to a significant cut. They say this is a necessary step to ensure future profitability.

But in what other industry do business owners act so entitled to make money every year into the limitless future? According to Forbes, the NFL's revenue has increased 43 percent since 2006 to $9.3 billion. Under the current agreement, the first billion goes to the 32 owners right off the top, while players receive a 60 percent split of revenues after that. Now the owners are demanding another billion off the top.

Who exactly is more overpaid? To repeat, the argument is over money that comes out of the fans' pockets. The only question is who should get more of it, the owners or the players that the fans pay to see? After all, they don't pay to see Snyder smoke a cigar, or consult with media advisors.

The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars. Pete Rozelle's wife once observed that, "every owner I ever met thinks he's just two players from winning the Super Bowl."

The cost argument really should be an internal quarrel between the owners. If some of them aren't making enough money, or are even losing money - if some of them built sports palaces and some didn't - whose fault is that? Maybe they don't need a better collective bargaining agreement. Maybe they need a budget.

Yet the owners quite clearly want the players to pick up the tab for some of their excesses - and the fans, too. On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums." But bigger stadiums may well mean more expenses shifted to the fans.

What's more, they appear to be digging in, judging by their latest actions. Last week; they walked away from a bargaining session; this week; they filed a charge against the players' union with the National Labor Relations Board. One day, they refuse to talk; the next, they accuse the other side of not negotiating; and then, the next say that the season could be in jeopardy if a deal isn't reached soon.

What's really going on? The suspicion here is that the league owners are simply tempted to see if they can do as well in labor negotiations as the NHL did in improving its financial condition with a lockout a few years ago. But there is a big difference between the NFL and the NHL: Hockey is not nearly so profitable, and the lockout and the accompanying risk of alienating their fans were therefore worth it.

As long the NFL is raking in $9 billion and so many owners are clearly making money, it's pretty difficult for them to claim to be on the high ground, or to cry poor.

It's not like they're the airline industry, or even hockey.

So far they have utterly failed to make the case that they are so financially imperiled that players should make sacrifices for them, or fans either. For one thing, they continue to refuse to open their books, presumably because the results could be embarrassing.

Disclosure of their real conditions might reveal just how ungenerous they are with the players they claim to care about. Or it might reveal just how mercilessly hard they are working to strip every dime out of the fans.

<b>The next time a league official claims the players make "outrageous sums," as Goodell does,</b> fans should ask themselves the following questions: How much are owners making? And how much of that is due to government subsidies?

Are teams really in danger of losing money - or do they merely crave unlimited "growth?" Would a new labor agreement work for or against the interest of the ticket-buyers? If the owners win a billion-dollar concession from players, what will they do with the money? Will prices go down?

Do they really need a new deal - or have they been getting a sweetheart one all along?

vailpass
02-21-2011, 01:20 PM
You don't like it, don't patronize THEIR business.

Mr. Laz
02-21-2011, 01:38 PM
They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living
This is quite the twist.

More accurately the owners believe they are entitled to control the budgets of their businesses just like the owner of every other business. If Acme Business Company is not making a profit then they will either cut cost,raise prices or some combination of the two.

This isn't much different ... they are cutting cost by wanting to lower the salary of their employees and they look to increase prices through ticket,parking and PSA prices.

:shrug:

A very bias article imo

Cave Johnson
02-21-2011, 01:54 PM
This isn't much different ... they are cutting cost by wanting to lower the salary of their employees and they look to increase prices through ticket,parking and PSA prices.

But that's not what the owners (through their proxy, Goodell) are saying. From the article:

"On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums."

Which will lead to new, taxpayer-financed stadiums that marginally increase the experience for the average fan and justify continually jacking up ticket/concession prices.

No thanks.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 01:58 PM
But that's not what the owners (through their proxy, Goodell) are saying. From the article:

"On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums."

Which will lead to new, taxpayer-financed stadiums that marginally increase the experience for the average fan and justify continually jacking up ticket/concession prices.

No thanks.

ROFL If new stadiums are what the market will bear and the people approve what is your objection? How else do you propose NFL team ownership be handled comrade?

Cave Johnson
02-21-2011, 02:04 PM
ROFL If new stadiums are what the market will bear and the people approve what is your objection? How else do you propose NFL team ownership be handled comrade?

Because a business that's exempt from antitrust laws and extracts concessions from cities by threatening to move is 100% capitalist, right? ;)

Brock
02-21-2011, 02:05 PM
ROFL If new stadiums are what the market will bear and the people approve what is your objection? How else do you propose NFL team ownership be handled comrade?

What the market will bear? So imploding the NJ meadowlands while NJ still owes 110 million dollars on it is what you call market economics?

googlegoogle
02-21-2011, 02:05 PM
The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars.


The draft is costing a lot now.

Let them negotiate.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 02:06 PM
Because a business that's exempt from antitrust laws and extracts concessions from cities by threatening to move is 100% capitalist, right? ;)

I'm blinded by the light coming off your tin hat.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 02:07 PM
What the market will bear? So imploding the NJ meadowlands while NJ still owes 110 million dollars on it is what you call market economics?

And any of that is the fault of the owner's how? Why should an NFL owner be any less free to pursue maximum profits for the business he OWNS than any other business owner or CEO?

WV
02-21-2011, 02:12 PM
Only in sports do the employees think they should get a share of the employers revenues.

King_Chief_Fan
02-21-2011, 02:12 PM
stupid article.
Keep raising prices and salaries of over priced players. Fans will know what to do.
See you guys on the golf course.

Brock
02-21-2011, 02:13 PM
And any of that is the fault of the owner's how? Why should an NFL owner be any less free to pursue maximum profits for the business he OWNS than any other business owner or CEO?

It's pretty amazing to me how sometimes you support the taxpayer getting it up the ass, depending on who's doing the pitching.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 02:15 PM
It's pretty amazing to me how sometimes you support the taxpayer getting it up the ass, depending on who's doing the pitching.

What? The tax payer via their elected official is the one who authorizes tax concessions and any other stadium allownaces. How can anyone blame a businessman for being a good businesman?
You know what happens to the NFL or any other business that is poorly run?
It goes away.

suzzer99
02-21-2011, 02:16 PM
Only in sports do the employees think they should get a share of the employers revenues.

Right. Not entertainment, or dotcoms, or hedge funds, or any other business where it takes rare talent to succeed. Just sports.

Brock
02-21-2011, 02:19 PM
What? The tax payer via their elected official is the one who authorizes tax concessions and any other stadium allownaces. How can anyone blame a businessman for being a good businesman?
You know what happens to the NFL or any other business that is poorly run?
It goes away.

You're really going to say that with a straight face? It's the politician's fault that an NFL owner held a gun to his head and told him to get us a new stadium, FREE, or we'll blow town? Jesus Christ.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 02:19 PM
Right. Not entertainment, or dotcoms, or hedge funds, or any other business where it takes rare talent to succeed. Just sports.

You lost me at dotcoms.

Brock
02-21-2011, 02:22 PM
"Keep the guvment out of private business affairs!! Except when we want something we can't afford on our own!!"

bowener
02-21-2011, 02:30 PM
I am very curious to know why and see why the owners will not open their books. Do they have pay-for-play hookers on the books or do they have a $1 million retainer with certain high end call girls or what?

I also find it stupid that the owners are bitching about the player salaries, and yet they are the fucking idiots who let them become what they are. They need to beat the old piece of shit mercilessly (Al Davis), and run a red hot poker up Dan Snyder's fucking asshole to teach the rest of the owners not to fuck it up anymore.

Phobia
02-21-2011, 02:31 PM
You don't like it, don't patronize THEIR business.

No problem. I'm there.

Mr. Laz
02-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Right. Not entertainment, or dotcoms, or hedge funds, or any other business where it takes rare talent to succeed. Just sports.
all those take form of a negotiated salary not a legal/social mandate.

WV
02-21-2011, 03:09 PM
Right. Not entertainment, or dotcoms, or hedge funds, or any other business where it takes rare talent to succeed. Just sports.

In no other place do the employees want or get such a large cut though. Not to mention the already inflated salaries the players already receive.

Others have mentioned this also and haven't provided any proof that it's anywhere close to the same. I've looked and can't find anything on revenue sharing where it provides %'s in regards to other businesses.....I'd be willing to bet the NFLPA gets at least double.

Phobia
02-21-2011, 03:13 PM
In no other place do the employees want or get such a large cut though. Not to mention the already inflated salaries the players already receive.

Others have mentioned this also and haven't provided any proof that it's anywhere close to the same. I've looked and can't find anything on revenue sharing where it provides %'s in regards to other businesses.....I'd be willing to bet the NFLPA gets at least double.

Actors, Musicians, entertainers.... The whole entertainment industry is pretty well screwed up. However, at least a movie is still affordable to attend and I didn't have to pay for the movie theater.

Halfcan
02-21-2011, 03:20 PM
Petty typical of the NFL owners.

Just like Clark Hunt threatening to take the chiefs to kansas after jackson County paid for Arrowhead unless he got even Bigger tax breaks

what a douche

Halfcan
02-21-2011, 03:21 PM
Actors, Musicians, entertainers.... The whole entertainment industry is pretty well screwed up. However, at least a movie is still affordable to attend and I didn't have to pay for the movie theater.

:thumb:

Halfcan
02-21-2011, 03:21 PM
In no other place do the employees want or get such a large cut though. Not to mention the already inflated salaries the players already receive.

Others have mentioned this also and haven't provided any proof that it's anywhere close to the same. I've looked and can't find anything on revenue sharing where it provides %'s in regards to other businesses.....I'd be willing to bet the NFLPA gets at least double.

Except the NBA.

mikey23545
02-21-2011, 03:24 PM
I can't believe this article didn't come out of Pravda...LMAO

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:31 PM
You're really going to say that with a straight face? It's the politician's fault that an NFL owner held a gun to his head and told him to get us a new stadium, FREE, or we'll blow town? Jesus Christ.

You are kidding with this statement, right?

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2011, 03:32 PM
You don't like it, don't patronize THEIR business.

lock up the thread.

This

Asolute this.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:32 PM
I am very curious to know why and see why the owners will not open their books. Do they have pay-for-play hookers on the books or do they have a $1 million retainer with certain high end call girls or what?

I also find it stupid that the owners are bitching about the player salaries, and yet they are the fucking idiots who let them become what they are. They need to beat the old piece of shit mercilessly (Al Davis), and run a red hot poker up Dan Snyder's fucking asshole to teach the rest of the owners not to fuck it up anymore.

You don't understand a business owner not wanting to open his books to a union during negotiation time? Really?

Brock
02-21-2011, 03:36 PM
You are kidding with this statement, right?

I could ask you the same question with your naive "free market" statements and how you naively think the NFL operates in a free market by free market rules.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:38 PM
I could ask you the same question with your naive "free market" statements and how you naively think the NFL operates in a free market by free market rules.

Back off the ledge Brock. Blaming an NFL owner for procuring the best stadium deal he can is pure lunacy. The politician or other official/s who agreed to the deal should be the target of your ire if you don't like the deal.

Phobia
02-21-2011, 03:41 PM
I've never paid $100 for admission to any event and I never will. So, if that's where we're headed with this I'll sit at home and whine about it. Somebody else can pick up the tab or the place can sit empty.

If the players want a percent then give them 100% of the gate and concessions. That will guarantee effort and accountability.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:43 PM
I've never paid $100 for admission to any event and I never will. So, if that's where we're headed with this I'll sit at home and whine about it. Somebody else can pick up the tab or the place can sit empty.

If the players want a percent then give them 100% of the gate and concessions. That will guarantee effort and accountability.

And that is the consumer's best revenge. It does no good to cry about it while wearing their licensed merchandise.

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 03:43 PM
You don't understand a business owner not wanting to open his books to a union during negotiation time? Really?

You don't understand a union wanting to see the books when an ownership group is crying poverty despite multi-billion dollar television contracts and record ratings, and demanding 20% cuts?

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:45 PM
You don't understand a union wanting to see the books when an ownership group is crying poverty despite multi-billion dollar television contracts and record ratings, and demanding 20% cuts?

Of course I do, that wasn't the point. The point made was that the poster could not understand why the owners wouldn't open their books.

Brock
02-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Back off the ledge Brock. Blaming an NFL owner for procuring the best stadium deal he can is pure lunacy. The politician or other official/s who agreed to the deal should be the target of your ire if you don't like the deal.

The NFL owners are crying about how broke they are. It doesn't wash, you'd have to be an idiot to swallow that. The stadium deals alone show it to be nonsense, is what you don't seem to be getting.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:47 PM
The NFL owners are crying about how broke they are. It doesn't wash, you'd have to be an idiot to swallow that. The stadium deals alone show it to be nonsense, is what you don't seem to be getting.

Okay, so you don't like the deals the owners are able to swing. That's different than claiming the onwers somehow engaged in wrongdoing in negotiating their stadium deals.
Have you applied that same microscope to the player's situation beginning with rookies?

Phobia
02-21-2011, 03:50 PM
Pay for Play, period. Incentives are great but this guaranteed money crap needs to go away. You play you get paid. You play well, you get paid more. You win you get even more. You play like a superstar and win, you get multimillions.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:52 PM
Pay for Play, period. Incentives are great but this guaranteed money crap needs to go away. You play you get paid. You play well, you get paid more. You win you get even more. You play like a superstar and win, you get multimillions.

Nobody but a union could argue with this as the guiding principal to NFL contracts.

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 03:52 PM
Of course I do, that wasn't the point. The point made was that the poster could not understand why the owners wouldn't open their books.

The owners are the ones crying poverty and demanding a 20% cut. It makes sense that they'd be willing to verify such poverty. The fact that they are unwilling to do so makes their claims seem dubious, to put it mildly.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:53 PM
The owners are the ones crying poverty and demanding a 20% cut. It makes sense that they'd be willing to verify such poverty. The fact that they are unwilling to do so makes their claims seem dubious, to put it mildly.

Not real keen on the whole negotiation thing huh?

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 03:55 PM
Not real keen on the whole negotiation thing huh?

I'm fine with it. I'm not keen on outsiders being fool enough to buy nonsensical stories told by either side of such negotiations. The owners clearly don't have a revenue problem.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 03:57 PM
I'm fine with it. I'm not keen on outsiders being fool enough to buy nonsensical stories told by either side of such negotiations. The owners clearly don't have a revenue problem.

A little more to it than that.

Phobia
02-21-2011, 03:57 PM
I'm just glad Clark moved back to the US. I'd be roasting him daily if his home of record was still in a tax shelter.... even though he's probably in a better, less transparent tax shelter by now.

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 03:59 PM
A little more to it than that.

Not really.

Saul Good
02-21-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm fine with it. I'm not keen on outsiders being fool enough to buy nonsensical stories told by either side of such negotiations. The owners clearly don't have a revenue problem.

The owners aren't getting a great return on their investment. If I were them, I would shut down the league for at least a season. The owners are billionaires without football. The players would be working at Safeway.

Halfcan
02-21-2011, 04:04 PM
The owners aren't getting a great return on their investment. If I were them, I would shut down the league for at least a season. The owners are billionaires without football. The players would be working at Safeway.

Look how it f ed up Baseball-many fans Never came back.

Phobia
02-21-2011, 04:08 PM
Look how it f ed up Baseball-many fans Never came back.

Let's be honest. Baseball is pretty boring anyway. Football fans will come back because they love the action and there is no substitute. Football really became a substitute for baseball fans post-strike. Where are NFL fans going? Saturday?

Halfcan
02-21-2011, 04:12 PM
I think UFC is gaining a lot of ground on the NFl. Anything can happen in that sport. It has destroyed Boxing, jumped every other sport except the NFl.

It is probably the best watched sport in the world next to soccer.

Nfl better not screw up.

Nfl has the same 5 teams every year going for the ring- the rest of the nfl pretty much sucks.

vailpass
02-21-2011, 04:14 PM
Not really.

LMAO

vailpass
02-21-2011, 04:15 PM
The owners aren't getting a great return on their investment. If I were them, I would shut down the league for at least a season. The owners are billionaires without football. The players would be working at Safeway.

Could happen. The owners can find players a hell of a lot easier than players can find owners.

googlegoogle
02-21-2011, 04:20 PM
NFL owners should pay for their stadiums.
NFL players should take whatever the owners give them and jump for joy. They play a game for a living.

Mr. Laz
02-21-2011, 04:27 PM
You don't understand a union wanting to see the books when an ownership group is crying poverty despite multi-billion dollar television contracts and record ratings, and demanding 20% cuts?
do you ask to see the books when you ask your boss for a raise?

boss doesn't have to validate anything ... if you don't like the salary he's offering then go get a job somewhere else.

BigMeatballDave
02-21-2011, 04:41 PM
do you ask to see the books when you ask your boss for a raise?

boss doesn't have to validate anything ... if you don't like the salary he's offering then go get a job somewhere else.I thought you were a democrat. Fuck the Man! :D

Brock
02-21-2011, 05:01 PM
do you ask to see the books when you ask your boss for a raise?

boss doesn't have to validate anything ... if you don't like the salary he's offering then go get a job somewhere else.

He does need to open his books if he's trying to opt out of an existing contract with you.

J Diddy
02-21-2011, 05:06 PM
He does need to open his books if he's trying to opt out of an existing contract with you.


They've already opted out of the contract and has little to do with current negotiations. Both sides left an out in the previous contract.

tmax63
02-21-2011, 05:06 PM
Have to agree with Laz. If you don't want to play for the salary offered then find a different line of work. I'm sure being PE teachers and other jobs will pay them what they want and give them the ego boost they crave. The owner is the owner for a reason. Not getting into the debate of how they got there but they are there. The fan will ultimately determine by buying merchandise and tickets what's enough. They pay less for a poor product more for a good one.

Brock
02-21-2011, 05:07 PM
They've already opted out of the contract and has little to do with current negotiations. Both sides left an out in the previous contract.

What do you mean it has little to do with current negotiations? The current contract is the post in the ground. That's where both sides are negotiating from. If the owners want to say they are having financial difficulties (yeah, right), they should have to prove it.

Brock
02-21-2011, 05:09 PM
Have to agree with Laz. If you don't want to play for the salary offered then find a different line of work. I'm sure being PE teachers and other jobs will pay them what they want and give them the ego boost they crave. The owner is the owner for a reason. Not getting into the debate of how they got there but they are there. The fan will ultimately determine by buying merchandise and tickets what's enough. They pay less for a poor product more for a good one.

The owners are just going to need to absorb the financial pain they're going to feel during a work stoppage. If they think they can do that, they'll probably get whatever they want. I wouldn't just roll over without a fight, though. That would be stupid.

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 06:34 PM
do you ask to see the books when you ask your boss for a raise?

boss doesn't have to validate anything ... if you don't like the salary he's offering then go get a job somewhere else.

I'm an individual, not a union of specialist workers dealing with a specialized business that has a limited anti-trust exemption. I know you like to keep ignoring that part of things, but it's applicable no matter how hard you try to insist it's not.

And, yes, by the way.... I would want to see proof that my company was losing money before I accepted a 20% pay cut. 20% is one hell of a cut to be taking on faith.

Just Passin' By
02-21-2011, 06:43 PM
LMAO

I'm not sure what you find to be so amusing, but here's an example for you:


http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1007684_uaw-hires-bank-to-study-gm-books

HMc
02-21-2011, 07:18 PM
i've said this before but no one pays attention?


Why do the players need a union if theyre apparantly worth everything they say theyre worth?

It's all become far too complicated IMO. The owners should agree on a draft and a salary cap. That's it. The players union doesn't need to exist.

Let's see what the REAL market price for these players are.

If the owners can coax citizens into funding their stadiums then good luck to them,. It's you lot that vote for it.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:13 AM
And, yes, by the way.... I would want to see proof that my company was losing money before I accepted a 20% pay cut. 20% is one hell of a cut to be taking on faith.

How about you take a 20% cut or you just stay at home until the bank comes and takes your home away? How about that, Big Time?

Count Zarth
02-22-2011, 12:20 AM
Women should shut their pieholes about professional sports. The NFL is like no other business.

joesomebody
02-22-2011, 01:57 AM
I feel the owners need to be careful and the players need to be smart.

At the end of the day, we don't go pay our hard earned money down to watch and cheer for the owners.

There is a ton of tradition and loyalty involved, but if the players union decided to wait out a year or two, and formed their own league the owners would be in serious trouble.

Keep the teams together (players), make new team names and allow free agency for those not currently under contract (based on percentages of profit, not straight up dollars.)

Play in the same stadiums if legal, if not move the teams to nearby major university stadiums (Chiefs could rotate between Columbia, Lawrence, Norman, and other local Universities) and make television contracts with Spike, TNT and the like.

Would it out earn the NFL or even come close? No. But all of the profit would be split amongst the NFLPA and the owners don't own shit without players. It wouldn't take long before they have a league that could at least negotiate a merger with the NFL like the AFL did, and the players would be in a lot better bargaining position.

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 07:15 AM
What is interesting about all of this is that at the end of the day, the fans control everything. Too bad there is no way to unite the fans. No tv viewership, no Sunday ticket, no season tickets, no parking fees, etc., = no money that the owners and players are arguing over.

Too bad fans can't unionize and get what we want.

Lzen
02-22-2011, 07:41 AM
Pay for Play, period. Incentives are great but this guaranteed money crap needs to go away. You play you get paid. You play well, you get paid more. You win you get even more. You play like a superstar and win, you get multimillions.:thumb:

Lzen
02-22-2011, 07:48 AM
I feel the owners need to be careful and the players need to be smart.

At the end of the day, we don't go pay our hard earned money down to watch and cheer for the owners.

There is a ton of tradition and loyalty involved, but if the players union decided to wait out a year or two, and formed their own league the owners would be in serious trouble.

Keep the teams together (players), make new team names and allow free agency for those not currently under contract (based on percentages of profit, not straight up dollars.)

Play in the same stadiums if legal, if not move the teams to nearby major university stadiums (Chiefs could rotate between Columbia, Lawrence, Norman, and other local Universities) and make television contracts with Spike, TNT and the like.

Would it out earn the NFL or even come close? No. But all of the profit would be split amongst the NFLPA and the owners don't own shit without players. It wouldn't take long before they have a league that could at least negotiate a merger with the NFL like the AFL did, and the players would be in a lot better bargaining position.

I don't even see how this is possible. The players that are still currently under contract couldn't just go play elsewhere. They signed a legal, binding contract to play for their respective teams for so many years.

jspchief
02-22-2011, 08:17 AM
At least owners building expensive stadiums are making long term investments in the league.

You think any player gives a shit what happens to the NFL beyond 5 years from now? The NFL is a lottery ticket to players. It's an investment to owners.

philfree
02-22-2011, 08:17 AM
I have a business and if I saw a chance to lock up large profits every year for years to come you can bet I'd be doing my best to make it happen. Wouldn't any business owner do that? Yes I believe they would.

PhilFree:arrow:

Uncle_Ted
02-22-2011, 08:19 AM
i've said this before but no one pays attention?


Why do the players need a union if theyre apparantly worth everything they say theyre worth?

It's all become far too complicated IMO. The owners should agree on a draft and a salary cap. That's it. The players union doesn't need to exist.

Let's see what the REAL market price for these players are.

If the owners can coax citizens into funding their stadiums then good luck to them,. It's you lot that vote for it.

The players and the owners BOTH need a union. The existence of a union allows the owners to collude on salaries and other work rules without having to worry about antitrust issues.

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 08:50 AM
Could happen. The owners can find players a hell of a lot easier than players can find owners.

Sure the owners could find players but the quality of the product would be like the UFL or the XFL or worse. People won't watch that shit for very long.

milkman
02-22-2011, 08:53 AM
Could happen. The owners can find players a hell of a lot easier than players can find owners.

I guess you didn't see 1987.

jspchief
02-22-2011, 09:05 AM
People won't watch that shit for very long.They won't have to. Too many of the players will realize just how bad they need pro football.

Brock
02-22-2011, 09:06 AM
The owners won't even try scab players this time. That's how awful it was.

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 09:20 AM
They won't have to. Too many of the players will realize just how bad they need pro football.

As will the owners with empty stadiums

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 10:12 AM
With the economy in the tank the last several years, the owners realize that the NFL is a really nice safe investment. They all lost tons of money in their other ventures, and realize the NFL is like buying a bond; one with exceptional interest rates. They are going to fight tooth and nail over this contract because it's a sure thing.

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 10:27 AM
I'm an individual, not a union of specialist workers dealing with a specialized business that has a limited anti-trust exemption. I know you like to keep ignoring that part of things, but it's applicable no matter how hard you try to insist it's not.

And, yes, by the way.... I would want to see proof that my company was losing money before I accepted a 20% pay cut. 20% is one hell of a cut to be taking on faith.Ah yes ... the old make-believe "nfl players are special" argument.

I don't believe the anti-exemption should even need to apply in this situation. The NFL is not the only place these guys can work. It's not even the only "football" place these guys can work. I think it's a bullshit reason for the government and unions to collude in to controlling the free market.

btw if you asked your boss to see the books he would tell you to "go get fucked and if you don't like it, then your fired".

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 10:29 AM
He does need to open his books if he's trying to opt out of an existing contract with you.contracts in the NFL are year-to-year for players and the CBA has an opt-out clause that was included.

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2011, 11:32 AM
The players could just cut out the middle man(owners) and play for a sponsor. The sponsors supply the revenue anyway. The fans would gladly go to any venue to get their fix. I think Dexter McCluster would look f'ing smashing in Mountain Dew green.

Brock
02-22-2011, 11:33 AM
contracts in the NFL are year-to-year for players and the CBA has an opt-out clause that was included.

Understood. I was only responding to what you said about asking for a raise.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 11:46 AM
How about you take a 20% cut or you just stay at home until the bank comes and takes your home away? How about that, Big Time?

Sports is not Walmart. With Walmart, if your worker doesn't show up, you just fire his ass and replace him with another fungible employee and, in similar fashion, if the worker doesn't like the wage that Walmart is paying him, he can try to get a job with someone else. In the NFL, if Peyton Manning doesn't show up for the Colts next season, bringing in JaMarcus Russell isn't going to get the job done, just as Manning doesn't really have a viable alternative to the NFL.

That's what Laz doesn't get.

Your point is valid when it comes to the willingness to strike, though. Given what the studies have shown about professional athletes and their difficulties handling money, the owners have a significant edge in any strike/lockout situation.

vailpass
02-22-2011, 11:50 AM
Sure the owners could find players but the quality of the product would be like the UFL or the XFL or worse. People won't watch that shit for very long.


I guess you didn't see 1987.


Given the choice of continuing to play in the NFL or not what percentage of current players do you think would continue to play?
I'm guessing right around 100%.

vailpass
02-22-2011, 11:52 AM
With the economy in the tank the last several years, the owners realize that the NFL is a really nice safe investment. They all lost tons of money in their other ventures, and realize the NFL is like buying a bond; one with exceptional interest rates. They are going to fight tooth and nail over this contract because it's a sure thing.

Outside of the Bidwells every NFL owner is a succesful business man set up to endure life without NFL games for much much longer than the players.
Of course no owner wants to see a day of revenue lost but they didn't get where they are by not being able to make tough deals.

BigMeatballDave
02-22-2011, 12:22 PM
Ah yes ... the old make-believe "nfl players are special" argument.

I don't believe the anti-exemption should even need to apply in this situation. The NFL is not the only place these guys can work. It's not even the only "football" place these guys can work. I think it's a bullshit reason for the government and unions to collude in to controlling the free market.

btw if you asked your boss to see the books he would tell you to "go get fucked and if you don't like it, then your fired".WTF dude? Why are you hanging from the Owners junk on this issue?

If the owners get what they want, do you think they are gonna cut fans a break and lower ticket prices? Not fucking likely.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:25 PM
WTF dude? Why are you hanging from the Owners junk on this issue?

If the owners get what they want, do you think they are gonna cut fans a break and lower ticket prices? Not ****ing likely.

Do you think seats would be $100+ if players were making $300k plus bonuses for performance?

I'm all about paying a stud performer whether it be on the field, in the boardroom, or on a job-site. But everything is screwed up in this country. We're paying our entertainers MILLIONS while we pay educators, military, fire, and police peanuts.

BigMeatballDave
02-22-2011, 12:25 PM
Sports is not Walmart. With Walmart, if your worker doesn't show up, you just fire his ass and replace him with another fungible employee and, in similar fashion, if the worker doesn't like the wage that Walmart is paying him, he can try to get a job with someone else. In the NFL, if Peyton Manning doesn't show up for the Colts next season, bringing in JaMarcus Russell isn't going to get the job done, just as Manning doesn't really have a viable alternative to the NFL.

That's what Laz doesn't get.

This. Exactly. Laz is being extremely obtuse on this matter. Not sure why, really.

BigMeatballDave
02-22-2011, 12:29 PM
Do you think seats would be $100+ if players were making $300k plus bonuses for performance?

I'm all about paying a stud performer whether it be on the field, in the boardroom, or on a job-site. But everything is screwed up in this country. We're paying our entertainers MILLIONS while we pay educators, military, fire, and police peanuts.I agree completely.

Why do we complain about what professional athletes make, but dont care that Jim Carrey makes $20 mil per each POS he makes.


Where I side with owners is the ridiculous 1st rd rookie salaries.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:31 PM
Sports is not Walmart. With Walmart, if your worker doesn't show up, you just fire his ass and replace him with another fungible employee and, in similar fashion, if the worker doesn't like the wage that Walmart is paying him, he can try to get a job with someone else. In the NFL, if Peyton Manning doesn't show up for the Colts next season, bringing in JaMarcus Russell isn't going to get the job done, just as Manning doesn't really have a viable alternative to the NFL.

That's what Laz doesn't get.

Your point is valid when it comes to the willingness to strike, though. Given what the studies have shown about professional athletes and their difficulties handling money, the owners have a significant edge in any strike/lockout situation.

Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

milkman
02-22-2011, 12:31 PM
This. Exactly. Laz is being extremely obtuse on this matter. Not sure why, really.

That's just Laz being Laz.

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 12:31 PM
Do you think seats would be $100+ if players were making $300k plus bonuses for performance?



If people were willing to pay that much, then yes, seats would be $100 +.

vailpass
02-22-2011, 12:32 PM
Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

Yep. and 1699+ of those players would come crawling back as soon as they realized it was for real.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:33 PM
I agree completely.

Why do we complain about what professional athletes make, but dont care that Jim Carrey makes $20 mil per each POS he makes.


Where I side with owners is the ridiculous 1st rd rookie salaries.

I agree. But the difference is I didn't pay for the movie theater. I didn't pay for the movie set. If their movie flops then I don't attend and their studio loses real dollars. The NFL can put a cap product on the field and even if nobody attends the stadium that tax dollars bought owners still turn a profit. Players still get paid. It's a big giant scam.

Brock
02-22-2011, 12:33 PM
Do you think seats would be $100+ if players were making $300k plus bonuses for performance?

Are people lining up to pay that, and more? That ought to answer your question.

Brock
02-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

You consider UFL elite talent?

milkman
02-22-2011, 12:35 PM
Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

That next best 1700 players might be better than just some average Joe on the street, but it is still pathetic.

It might be better than the majority of college ball, but not better than the best teams in the nation.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:37 PM
Are people lining up to pay that, and more? That ought to answer your question.

Are they lining up? I wouldn't necessarily say that. If they were lined up, the Chiefs wouldn't be advertising seat sales in every available local market. The stadium wouldn't be at risk of blackout. They wouldn't have to lie about sell-outs. You wouldn't be able to buy a seat for a rare home playoff game 24 hours before kickoff.

I think the only places they're truly lining up is in Green Bay, New England, and a few other rabid markets that put a winning product on the field.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:38 PM
You consider UFL elite talent?

Compared to me, you, 99% of the kids who suit up on Saturdays - yes. Its the next echelon of football talent. You put the first echelon out of a job and this echelon comes in.

Brock
02-22-2011, 12:44 PM
Are they lining up? I wouldn't necessarily say that. If they were lined up, the Chiefs wouldn't be advertising seat sales in every available local market. The stadium wouldn't be at risk of blackout. They wouldn't have to lie about sell-outs. You wouldn't be able to buy a seat for a rare home playoff game 24 hours before kickoff.

I think the only places they're truly lining up is in Green Bay, New England, and a few other rabid markets that put a winning product on the field.

You think the Chiefs are having trouble selling out because of ticket prices? Yeah, no.

Brock
02-22-2011, 12:44 PM
Compared to me, you, 99% of the kids who suit up on Saturdays - yes. Its the next echelon of football talent. You put the first echelon out of a job and this echelon comes in.

And looks like UFL. Which is second rate. Compared to me, you? Who cares about that?

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 12:51 PM
Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

So you didn't watch the scab games, then, because those games sure as hell weren't more entertaining than the NCAA games.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:52 PM
And looks like UFL. Which is second rate. Compared to me, you? Who cares about that?

Do they have elite football skills? Yes they do. Especially if the upper elite just retired early. Would the NFL be a hair slower and sloppier for 5 years? Yes. But it would fill up again with talent from college just like before and that generation would have learned from the mistakes of their elders.

Either way you slice it, this squabble between players and owners isn't going to squash football for spectators. We're going to watch something this fall whether its our favorite guys or not.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 12:52 PM
So you didn't watch the scab games, then, because those games sure as hell weren't more entertaining than the NCAA games.

I was a tween. I didn't even notice.

Brock
02-22-2011, 12:54 PM
Do they have elite football skills? Yes they do. Especially if the upper elite just retired early. Would the NFL be a hair slower and sloppier for 5 years? Yes. But it would fill up again with talent from college just like before and that generation would have learned from the mistakes of their elders.

Either way you slice it, this squabble between players and owners isn't going to squash football for spectators. We're going to watch something this fall whether its our favorite guys or not.

Right. Because you can just replace Peyton Manning and Tom Brady with Chris Griesen and Chase Clement and nobody will notice. You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on how to destroy the NFL's credibility.

Deberg_1990
02-22-2011, 12:54 PM
Why couldn't owners lock out every single current member of the players union and start over with the next best 1700 football players in the nation? Quality of play would suffer for while but it would be more entertaining than the NCAA because you're still talking about elite talent.

Because nobody cares about guys those 1700 average guys.

We pay good money to watch top athletes do their thing because they perform and do things at a level which very few people in the world can do.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 12:56 PM
I was a tween. I didn't even notice.

Then, and no offense meant here, you really shouldn't be making definitive claims about the quality and excitement that replacements bring. If you didn't see it, you really have no basis for your position. It's been done, and it was terrible.

To be fair to your position, it's possible that the owners would do a better job the next time. However, what information we do have on the subject runs counter to your position.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 12:58 PM
Right. Because you can just replace Peyton Manning and Tom Brady with Chris Griesen and Chase Clement and nobody will notice. You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on how to destroy the NFL's credibility.

If it was as easy as Phobia and Laz seem to be claiming it is, the USFL would still be running strong.

Deberg_1990
02-22-2011, 01:02 PM
If it was as easy as Phobia and Laz seem to be claiming it is, the USFL would still be running strong.

heh, and even then, the USFL had some elite level talent. Steve Young, Reggie White, Jim Kelly, Herschel Walker

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:03 PM
If it was as easy as Phobia and Laz seem to be claiming it is, the USFL would still be running strong.

I'm not saying it would be easy and it wouldn't suck for a while but eventually you're going to get enough quality talent in that the NFL wouldn't be any different in terms of talent than it is today. If one side is going to play hardball, then I suspect the owners have the leverage.

ClevelandBronco
02-22-2011, 01:04 PM
Actors, Musicians, entertainers.... The whole entertainment industry is pretty well screwed up. However, at least a movie is still affordable to attend and I didn't have to pay for the movie theater.

Actually, if you are attending movies, you are paying for the theater. Your objection is that people who don't attend movies shouldn't have to pay for the theater.

philfree
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
This is as good as place as any to pose my question.

If the owners get their way will the current players asctually take a pay cut? Will they be making less money?

I'm thinking they won't.


PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
I'm not saying it would be easy and it wouldn't suck for a while but eventually you're going to get enough quality talent in that the NFL wouldn't be any different in terms of talent than it is today. If one side is going to play hardball, then I suspect the owners have the leverage.

You do realize that the owners voluntarily pay these guys huge sums of money.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Then, and no offense meant here, you really shouldn't be making definitive claims about the quality and excitement that replacements bring. If you didn't see it, you really have no basis for your position. It's been done, and it was terrible.

To be fair to your position, it's possible that the owners would do a better job the next time. However, what information we do have on the subject runs counter to your position.

I'm not offended. We're just throwing out vague ideas of what might happen. I don't think my dumb ideas are definitive of anything other than my dumb ideas. I'm an employer and business owner so yeah, I'm going to side with the owners on this. I'll say this though - money has ruined the game. It makes it hard to really invest completely with a team when you know you're watching 50 spoiled douchebags on the field.

Brock
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
This is as good as place as any to pose my question.

If the owners get their way will the current players asctually take a pay cut? Will they be making less money?

I'm thinking they won't.


PhilFree:arrow:

I'm thinking you must be bad at math.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:07 PM
Actually, if you are attending movies, you are paying for the theater. Your objection is that people who don't attend movies shouldn't have to pay for the theater.

Technically, I'm not paying admission and a tax to pay for the theater. But I get what you're saying.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:08 PM
You do realize that the owners voluntarily pay these guys huge sums of money.

They have, yes. But why are we in a standoff today?

Deberg_1990
02-22-2011, 01:09 PM
I'll say this though - money has ruined the game. It makes it hard to really invest completely with a team when you know you're watching 50 spoiled douchebags on the field.

How are they any different that you or I, your employees or anyone else on Earth...we all want to make more $$$$.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm not saying it would be easy and it wouldn't suck for a while but eventually you're going to get enough quality talent in that the NFL wouldn't be any different in terms of talent than it is today. If one side is going to play hardball, then I suspect the owners have the leverage.

The owners actually have much better leverage in the short-term, because they are a richer, smaller group, and they are better organized. If the players could hold out to start, though, the owners would be screwed, because there would be others who were more than willing to start up a competitor league and bring the striking players into the fold. That would break the NFL owners.

It's the play the UFL should have made, instead of jumping in to existence when the NFL was still at a height.

Rausch
02-22-2011, 01:11 PM
If it was as easy as Phobia and Laz seem to be claiming it is, the USFL would still be running strong.

If anything I think the lack of a tripple A football league has hurt the NFL.

The XFL didn't really contribute much but the USFL and NFLE did a lot for coaches and players...

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:12 PM
How are they any different that you or I, your employees or anyone else on Earth...we all want to make more $$$$.

Well, they make ungodly amounts of money. More money than they know what to do with. They have been placed on a pedestal and they look down their noses at everybody else. Have you ever tried to have a normal conversation with a 24 year old who is worth $25,000,000?

milkman
02-22-2011, 01:12 PM
I'm thinking you must be bad at math.

I'm thinking that some of us don't really understand what we are talking about.

To the best of my understanding, if the owners got what they are asking, the salary cap would be decreased, so that while specific players would not take pay cuts, some players that would not otherwise be victims of cap cuts, would now become victims.

Rausch
02-22-2011, 01:16 PM
Have you ever tried to have a normal conversation with a 24 year old who is worth $25,000,000?

I doubt it would last very long...

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 01:16 PM
Well, they make ungodly amounts of money. More money than they know what to do with. They have been placed on a pedestal and they look down their noses at everybody else. Have you ever tried to have a normal conversation with a 24 year old who is worth $25,000,000?

I played sports all the way through college and a bit beyond. I was around professionals from all 4 sports. While there were a lot of spoiled people among them, and a fair share of complete idiots, there were also a lot of decent people who can hold a legitimate conversation.

philfree
02-22-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm thinking you must be bad at math.

Probably not great at math but if player X has an existing contract that runs through the next 3 years will he not get paid for that contract? Players who don't have contracts but are due to make more money may not make as much on their next contract as they could have but I bet they would still recieve an increase in pay. No?


PhilFree:arrow:

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:21 PM
I played sports all the way through college and a bit beyond. I was around professionals from all 4 sports. While there were a lot of spoiled people among them, and a fair share of complete idiots, there were also a lot of decent people who can hold a legitimate conversation.

Based on your comments in this thread, you've dated yourself as either very near or over 50 years of age. Things were different then. Things were different even 10 years ago.

No, not every kids turns into a douchebag when he's given a lot of money but a lot of them do. I would even suggest most of them do.

Brock
02-22-2011, 01:22 PM
Probably not great at math but if player X has an existing contract that runs through the next 3 years will he not get paid for that contract? Players who don't have contracts but are due to make more money may not make as much on their next contract as they could have but I bet they would still recieve an increase in pay. No?


PhilFree:arrow:

Are you under the impression that NFL contracts are guaranteed?

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Based on your comments in this thread, you've dated yourself as either very near or over 50 years of age. Things were different then. Things were different even 10 years ago.

No, not every kids turns into a douchebag when he's given a lot of money but a lot of them do. I would even suggest most of them do.

I'm in my early 40's.

And I still routinely have contact with pros, and that includes the young guys as well as the oldest veterans. I just don't hang out with them as much as I was able to before. There are still spoiled brats, idiots and nice guys among them.

philfree
02-22-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm thinking that some of us don't really understand what we are talking about.

To the best of my understanding, if the owners got what they are asking, the salary cap would be decreased, so that while specific players would not take pay cuts, some players that would not otherwise be victims of cap cuts, would now become victims.

How would a new rookie pay scale effect those would be cap victims? Could the savings on the rookie contracts provide some revenue to offset some of that?




PhilFree:arrow:

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm in my early 40's.

And I still routinely have contact with pros, and that includes the young guys as well as the oldest veterans. I just don't hang out with them as much as I was able to before. There are still spoiled brats, idiots and nice guys among them.

I think we're agreeing. I'm just a little more resentful about it.

philfree
02-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Are you under the impression that NFL contracts are guaranteed?

So they're going to cut players so they can sign them back to smaller deals? If that's the case I'm not sure how that's going to work out considering signing bonus' and all.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
02-22-2011, 01:34 PM
How would a new rookie pay scale effect those would be cap victims? Could the savings on the rookie contracts provide some revenue to offset some of that?




PhilFree:arrow:

If the owners got the deal they want, I'm not sure a rookie scale would cover the difference.

Brock
02-22-2011, 01:37 PM
So they're going to cut players so they can sign them back to smaller deals? If that's the case I'm not sure how that's going to work out considering signing bonus' and all.

PhilFree:arrow:

Signing bonuses are a sunk cost at this point.

philfree
02-22-2011, 01:45 PM
Signing bonuses are a sunk cost at this point.

If I'm a player and you cut me I'll require another signing bonus with my new contract. Which ever team it's with. I'm not sure that would work to the advantage of the owner.


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
02-22-2011, 01:48 PM
If I'm a player and you cut me I'll require another signing bonus with my new contract. Which ever team it's with. I'm not sure that would work to the advantage of the owner.


PhilFree:arrow:

:facepalm: Good grief. The owners, if they're successful, are going to lower their labor costs by 20 percent across the board. It isnt' that hard to understand.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 01:57 PM
In no other sport does individual talent mean less than football. If you have a team that can work together and execute well you can get away with less talent. If NBA's owners were in the same position I'm not sure they could lock out their best players because individual skills are a premium in that league.

Again, it wouldn't happen overnight but the league could definitely survive with a new player pool, I think.

Brock
02-22-2011, 01:58 PM
In no other sport does individual talent mean less than football.

ROFL k.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:03 PM
ROFL k.

Well, if you disagree to the point of laughability then post a couple of sports where individual talent matters less than football. I'm talking about major spectator sports, not Rowing.

Brock
02-22-2011, 02:12 PM
Well, if you disagree to the point of laughability then post a couple of sports where individual talent matters less than football. I'm talking about major spectator sports, not Rowing.

Individual talent matters as much in football as it does anywhere else. Didn't you learn anything from watching the 90s Chiefs? You're not going to win anything with a bunch of undertalented faceless players.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:19 PM
Individual talent matters as much in football as it does anywhere else. Didn't you learn anything from watching the 90s Chiefs? You're not going to win anything with a bunch of undertalented faceless players.

You're not following my point. If a meteorite takes out an NFLPA convention where attendance was mandatory and the top 1700 players in the world are gone, the next 1700 talented players could step up and entertain to a reasonably high standard since they are competing against and alongside equal talent. You're not going to notice that half-step difference on your TV screen because everybody is a half-step slower.

But if you lost the top 450 basketball players in the world then your quality of play is going to be significantly different. If you lose the top 500 baseball players, MLB would somehow become even more boring.

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 02:19 PM
Given the choice of continuing to play in the NFL or not what percentage of current players do you think would continue to play?
I'm guessing right around 100%.

I am sure they would want to continue to play. If the players had any stones they could hold out for a year and make the owners sit on empty billion dollar stadiums.

And it is a joke to even talk about bringing in new players we have already seen that before and it was worse than the WNBA.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:23 PM
I am sure they would want to continue to play. If the players had any stones they could hold out for a year and make the owners sit on empty billion dollar stadiums.

And it is a joke to even talk about bringing in new players we have already seen that before and it was worse than the WNBA.

It's a joke as a short-term solution but it could be successful as a long-term solution if absolutely necessary. The league didn't just develop overnight. It had to start somewhere. Now everything else is in place and if you plug in different players it could survive.

Surely you're not suggesting that if all 53 current Chiefs were released tomorrow that you wouldn't be a Chiefs fan. There are only a couple of current Chiefs who were even on the roster 5 years ago.

Brock
02-22-2011, 02:27 PM
You're not following my point. If a meteorite takes out an NFLPA convention where attendance was mandatory and the top 1700 players in the world are gone, the next 1700 talented players could step up and entertain to a reasonably high standard since they are competing against and alongside equal talent. You're not going to notice that half-step difference on your TV screen because everybody is a half-step slower.

But if you lost the top 450 basketball players in the world then your quality of play is going to be significantly different. If you lose the top 500 baseball players, MLB would somehow become even more boring.

I'm not missing your point. I'm saying your point is ridiculous. I'm saying it's wrong, and the reason I'm saying it's wrong is because I've actually watched some UFL football. It's garbage, and the difference between it and NFL football is obvious and glaring.

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 02:30 PM
It's a joke as a short-term solution but it could be successful as a long-term solution if absolutely necessary. The league didn't just develop overnight. It had to start somewhere. Now everything else is in place and if you plug in different players it could survive.

Surely you're not suggesting that if all 53 current Chiefs were released tomorrow that you wouldn't be a Chiefs fan. There are only a couple of current Chiefs who were even on the roster 5 years ago.

I don't think it would be successful as long as the union is still around. I don't think very big name draftees would cross the line.

I will guarantee you this if there was replacement players I will not watch and I won't even care.

None of this will happen though because the players lack the stones to hold out for long.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 02:34 PM
You're not following my point. If a meteorite takes out an NFLPA convention where attendance was mandatory and the top 1700 players in the world are gone, the next 1700 talented players could step up and entertain to a reasonably high standard since they are competing against and alongside equal talent. You're not going to notice that half-step difference on your TV screen because everybody is a half-step slower.

But if you lost the top 450 basketball players in the world then your quality of play is going to be significantly different. If you lose the top 500 baseball players, MLB would somehow become even more boring.

I'm not sure where you're getting this notion from, but we're now back to the scabs. AAA baseball is better to watch than the scab football games were.

HonestChieffan
02-22-2011, 02:38 PM
You don't like it, don't patronize THEIR business.


The OP did not say the owners owned the business. How dare you inject that foolishness.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:40 PM
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying your point is ridiculous. I'm saying it's wrong, and the reason I'm saying it's wrong is because I've actually watched some UFL football. It's garbage, and the difference between it and NFL football is obvious and glaring.

I agree the first couple years would be painful but eventually the talent pool rebuilds from new players. Save a couple of superstar QB's and a lot of kickers, you wouldn't notice much difference in 5 years. Case-in-point, expansion teams have competed pretty well in the past couple decades. You scrub the top 1700 players you're really left with 32 expansion teams. They get better.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:43 PM
I don't think it would be successful as long as the union is still around. I don't think very big name draftees would cross the line.

Cross what line? Why would they join a union that doesn't offer a paycheck? They are going to go where they'll get paid.

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 02:50 PM
Cross what line? Why would they join a union that doesn't offer a paycheck? They are going to go where they'll get paid.

I am only assuming the lockout is temporary. If the owners just decided to completely replace the current players and never let them back in then yes college players would probably play.

I imagine though in a very short order there would be a another league start up.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 02:58 PM
I imagine though in a very short order there would be a another league start up.

Another league starting is almost as likely as a new players league. Neither will happen but in the interest of discussion, I don't think a new league could effectively organize suitably to hurt the NFL. I think the only way the NFLPA could hurt the NFL is if they joined with the UFL and that would be ugly for everybody.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 02:59 PM
I agree the first couple years would be painful but eventually the talent pool rebuilds from new players. Save a couple of superstar QB's and a lot of kickers, you wouldn't notice much difference in 5 years. Case-in-point, expansion teams have competed pretty well in the past couple decades. You scrub the top 1700 players you're really left with 32 expansion teams. They get better.

The league doesn't have a couple of years. If they take a stance that keeps out the best players, and the players stay strong, there will be other rich investors who form a league with those elite players, and the NFL will be screwed.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 03:02 PM
The league doesn't have a couple of years. If they take a stance that keeps out the best players, and the players stay strong, there will be other rich investors who form a league with those elite players, and the NFL will be screwed.

Yeah, that's an option. But I don't see it as viable as the NFL succeeding with new players. The NFL has all the tools in place. It has taken them 80 years to get to where they are.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 03:04 PM
Yeah, that's an option. But I don't see it as viable as the NFL succeeding with new players. The NFL has all the tools in place. It has taken them 80 years to get to where they are.

If the UFL got all the NFL players tomorrow, and the NFL had to settle for the scraps, the NFL would be out of business in about 2 months. People want to see the best play. That's why minor league sports don't get huge dollar contracts.

jspchief
02-22-2011, 03:07 PM
It wouldn't last a couple of years.

In a very short span, the players would realize just how easy it is to take a 20% pay cut in a career field that only has 1 employer.

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 03:10 PM
WTF dude? Why are you hanging from the Owners junk on this issue?

If the owners get what they want, do you think they are gonna cut fans a break and lower ticket prices? Not ****ing likely.
If you want the NFL to be all screwed up like the MLB then you keep "hanging onto the players junk"

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 03:14 PM
If you want the NFL to be all screwed up like the MLB then you keep "hanging onto the players junk"

How is MLB all screwed up?

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 03:16 PM
How is MLB all screwed up?
Boom

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 03:18 PM
Boom

I'm not sure what "Boom" is supposed to mean. How is MLB screwed up, and how is it a function of people having been "hanging onto the players junk"?

Phobia
02-22-2011, 03:23 PM
If the UFL got all the NFL players tomorrow, and the NFL had to settle for the scraps, the NFL would be out of business in about 2 months. People want to see the best play. That's why minor league sports don't get huge dollar contracts.

People want to see the best play but how are they going to see them play? Where are they going to play? Who is going to put them on TV?

It's not just about watching players compete for a lot of people. Some of it has to do with tradition, city or regional pride, and tattoos. The Kansas City Cavalry isn't going to resonate immediately with very many people even if they took the very same 53 players.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 03:25 PM
People want to see the best play but how are they going to see them play? Where are they going to play? Who is going to put them on TV?

It's not just about watching players compete for a lot of people. Some of it has to do with tradition, city or regional pride, and tattoos. The Kansas City Cavalry isn't going to resonate immediately with very many people even if they took the very same 53 players.

You keep making claims that run counter to past experiences, yet you refuse to accept claims that either have more backing them or less against them. Your position is that the NFL product will be fine without NFL players (it hasn't been when tried in the past), but you won't allow that new leagues could start up (when they have on multiple occasions) and could be successful if they had the best players (as every top sporting league in the U.S. has needed to thrive over the past 30+ years).

It's just become a back-and-forth of opinion at this point, with nothing new being added. I don't think we'll do anything but harden our positions if we continue with this.

Brock
02-22-2011, 03:39 PM
If you want the NFL to be all screwed up like the MLB then you keep "hanging onto the players junk"

MLB has 8 or 9 different teams that have won championships in the past 10 years. The idea that MLB is "screwed up" because of money is a myth.

DaFace
02-22-2011, 03:48 PM
If the UFL got all the NFL players tomorrow, and the NFL had to settle for the scraps, the NFL would be out of business in about 2 months. People want to see the best play. That's why minor league sports don't get huge dollar contracts.

The sheer logistics of pulling it off would be incredible. The UFL would have to poney up an enormous amount of cash to be able to retain the NFL players. While I don't doubt there would be some investors out there who would do it, pulling it off quickly just ain't gonna happen. And that's not mentioning the fact that there are only a handful of UFL teams, so the level of competition would be pretty low.

Under the hypothetical scenario that the NFL doesn't play this season, the BEST CASE scenario for the UFL would be to add a team or two and find some NFL players willing to take a massive pay cut to (hopefully) support a new football entity. It'd take 5-10 years for them to become anything remotely considered a true challenger to the NFL.

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 04:00 PM
I'm not sure what "Boom" is supposed to mean. How is MLB screwed up, and how is it a function of people having been "hanging onto the players junk"?if you don't think the MLB is screwed up then there is nothing left to talk about.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 04:07 PM
if you don't think the MLB is screwed up then there is nothing left to talk about.

I'm asking you how it's screwed up, and how that's a function of "hanging onto the players junk". You apparently don't have an answer to either question.

DeezNutz
02-22-2011, 04:09 PM
MLB has 8 or 9 different teams that have won championships in the past 10 years. The idea that MLB is "screwed up" because of money is a myth.

MLB fans in KC have been well trained by ownership.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 04:12 PM
The sheer logistics of pulling it off would be incredible. The UFL would have to poney up an enormous amount of cash to be able to retain the NFL players. While I don't doubt there would be some investors out there who would do it, pulling it off quickly just ain't gonna happen. And that's not mentioning the fact that there are only a handful of UFL teams, so the level of competition would be pretty low.

Under the hypothetical scenario that the NFL doesn't play this season, the BEST CASE scenario for the UFL would be to add a team or two and find some NFL players willing to take a massive pay cut to (hopefully) support a new football entity. It'd take 5-10 years for them to become anything remotely considered a true challenger to the NFL.

I mentioned that the UFL's timing was off. Had that league waited until this upcoming season, it might have been able to pull of a coup. If nothing else, it would have been fun to watch the developments.

WV
02-22-2011, 04:26 PM
MLB fans in KC have been well trained by ownership.

:D

Mr. Laz
02-22-2011, 05:11 PM
I'm asking you how it's screwed up, and how that's a function of "hanging onto the players junk". You apparently don't have an answer to either question.you develop that same passive aggressive asshole gene so prevalent at CPlanet really well.

how MLB is screwed up has been talked about endlessly and i'm not going to review the entire thing. Google it if you really don't understand.

the whole "hanging junk" reference was started by BCD so you can read the thread and figure it out.

in other words, use your fucking brain and figure it out i'm not going to spoon feed you.

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2011, 05:13 PM
People would rather pay to see Adrian Peterson and the Bluespring Cool Ranch Diritos. Than Quincy Carter and the KC Chiefs. The BS CR Diritos would have some pretty crappy coaches and field conditions though. The refs might be an improvement.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 05:13 PM
you develop that same passive aggressive asshole gene so prevalent at CPlanet really well.

how MLB is screwed up has been talked about endlessly and i'm not going to review the entire thing. Google it if you really don't understand.

the whole "hanging junk" reference was started by BCD so you can read the thread and figure it out.

in other words, use your ****ing brain and figure it out i'm not going to spoon feed you.

I wasn't being passive-aggressive at all. I don't read the baseball threads here, since I couldn't care less about the Royals if you paid me to do so, so I have absolutely no idea what YOU think is screwed up in baseball, regardless of whether or not I would agree with you.

You've offered me nothing on the subject, however, so at this point I'll assume that you were just spouting off without having anything until I see evidence to the contrary.

Pawnmower
02-22-2011, 05:14 PM
Figures this article was written by a woman.

Women don't know shit about sports or business, generally.

And this dumb bitch PROVES it.

philfree
02-22-2011, 05:26 PM
:facepalm: Good grief. The owners, if they're successful, are going to lower their labor costs by 20 percent across the board. It isnt' that hard to understand.

So that means that all the players next year take a 20% pay cut? It's just not that cut and dry.


PhilFree:arrow:

Phobia
02-22-2011, 05:46 PM
You keep making claims that run counter to past experiences, yet you refuse to accept claims that either have more backing them or less against them. Your position is that the NFL product will be fine without NFL players (it hasn't been when tried in the past), but you won't allow that new leagues could start up (when they have on multiple occasions) and could be successful if they had the best players (as every top sporting league in the U.S. has needed to thrive over the past 30+ years).

It's just become a back-and-forth of opinion at this point, with nothing new being added. I don't think we'll do anything but harden our positions if we continue with this.

How many games did scrabs play in 1982? In 87? Very few. If we're talking about scabs playing a full season and then they have some continuity to which they can look forward the next year, the product starts becoming more competitive. But, when scabs are week-to-week yeah, they're gonna look pretty crappy on the field. I agree with you.

I think we agree on more levels than one. You just have a different agenda.

DeezNutz
02-22-2011, 05:56 PM
How many games did scrabs play in 1982? In 87? Very few. If we're talking about scabs playing a full season and then they have some continuity to which they can look forward the next year, the product starts becoming more competitive. But, when scabs are week-to-week yeah, they're gonna look pretty crappy on the field. I agree with you.

I think we agree on more levels than one. You just have a different agenda.

This is simply not true. They can have all the training, reps, practices they want. The common denominator is that they fucking suck. Not "suck" when compared to you or me, but exponential suck when compared to an elite athlete currently playing in the NFL.

The resources aren't endless. The product won't get much better. Owners MUST have the players. This is not the typical employer-employee relationship.

philfree
02-22-2011, 06:06 PM
This is simply not true. They can have all the training, reps, practices they want. The common denominator is that they ****ing suck. Not "suck" when compared to you or me, but exponential suck when compared to an elite athlete currently playing in the NFL.

The resources aren't endless. The product won't get much better. Owners MUST have the players. This is not the typical employer-employee relationship.

They'll still be getting the elite players out of college so in a matter of 3 to 5 years it won't look any different then it does now. It won't come to that though becuase the players will come running back if there's games going on.

PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 06:07 PM
Figures this article was written by a woman.

Women don't know shit about sports or business, generally.

And this dumb bitch PROVES it.

The irony is thick.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 06:16 PM
This is simply not true. They can have all the training, reps, practices they want. The common denominator is that they ****ing suck. Not "suck" when compared to you or me, but exponential suck when compared to an elite athlete currently playing in the NFL.

The resources aren't endless. The product won't get much better. Owners MUST have the players. This is not the typical employer-employee relationship.

Can we agree that players are bigger, faster, stronger than they were 40 years ago? So, they're probably more elite or better athletes, no?

Yet, the NFL still entertained people back then. There were a lot of classic games and HOF quality players.

How do you explain running backs dropping like flies for team after team over the years but they always seem to find somebody to slide into that spot? Denver did it for years and years after TD retired. Do you really think that they just consistently signed quality running backs?

DeezNutz
02-22-2011, 06:27 PM
Can we agree that players are bigger, faster, stronger than they were 40 years ago? So, they're probably more elite or better athletes, no?

Yet, the NFL still entertained people back then. There were a lot of classic games and HOF quality players.

How do you explain running backs dropping like flies for team after team over the years but they always seem to find somebody to slide into that spot? Denver did it for years and years after TD retired. Do you really think that they just consistently signed quality running backs?

I think that the quality is relative to the time, yes, which is why it's best that the "gold ol' days" stay "good ol' days."

While it's true that systems can enable success, systems run by mediocre personnel will generate only mediocrity.

I'm going to cross sports, so humor me. But I've heard numerous college basketball coaches asked the following question: "Which is more important, recruiting or your system?"

I've never heard a coach say the latter. Talent trumps.

Rausch
02-22-2011, 06:31 PM
I've never heard a coach say the latter. Talent trumps.

Then why is it easily replaced year after year in the college ranks?

Brock
02-22-2011, 06:31 PM
Then why is it easily replaced year after year in the college ranks?

It isn't.

DeezNutz
02-22-2011, 06:47 PM
Then why is it easily replaced year after year in the college ranks?

Could we blow up the NFL as we know it, suffer through a dog shit product for a number of years, and eventually return to the quality that we're accustomed to now? Perhaps.

But if all of the current players end up unemployed, do you really think that an entrepreneur with the appropriate means wouldn't take advantage of such a uniquely skilled (and profitable) resource?

To answer your question, I agree with Brock. It's not really replaced, and it's certainly not easy.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 07:06 PM
Could we blow up the NFL as we know it, suffer through a dog shit product for a number of years, and eventually return to the quality that we're accustomed to now? Perhaps.

But if all of the current players end up unemployed, do you really think that an entrepreneur with the appropriate means wouldn't take advantage of such a uniquely skilled (and profitable) resource?

To answer your question, I agree with Brock. It's not really replaced, and it's certainly not easy.

Heh. If a Billionare's club can't pay them enough today, what makes you think a startup league is going to be able to pay them tomorrow? What makes you think they'll find 32 appropriate venues, season ticket holders, corporate sponsors, TV contracts, coaches, marketers, concessionares, janitors, training camps, executives, doctors, trainers, uniforms, shoes, offices, support staff and every single other detail required by a professional team in just a few short months? I lived in Houston while they organized and planned for the Texans arrival - took them more than 3 years for one team.

Are you going to buy tickets to watch the Missouri Monarchs play?

HMc
02-22-2011, 07:21 PM
You could likely substitute in 1700 new players without missing too much of a beat, IMO.

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2011, 07:37 PM
Hold on to that Larry Johnson jersey then.

Chiefnj2
02-22-2011, 07:52 PM
Scrap the NFL.

Each of the 6 major college conference establishes two professional teams, the mid majors and independents establish 4 teams, for a total of 16 teams.

Each professional team must be comprised of at least 80% of players who graduated from their respective conference. A certain percentage of the money made by the teams is equally divided by the collegiate teams in the conference.

DeezNutz
02-22-2011, 07:58 PM
Heh. If a Billionare's club can't pay them enough today, what makes you think a startup league is going to be able to pay them tomorrow? What makes you think they'll find 32 appropriate venues, season ticket holders, corporate sponsors, TV contracts, coaches, marketers, concessionares, janitors, training camps, executives, doctors, trainers, uniforms, shoes, offices, support staff and every single other detail required by a professional team in just a few short months? I lived in Houston while they organized and planned for the Texans arrival - took them more than 3 years for one team.

Are you going to buy tickets to watch the Missouri Monarchs play?

"Can't" has nothing to do with it.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 08:01 PM
You could likely substitute in 1700 new players without missing too much of a beat, IMO.

In the long term. It would be ugly for a while but they'd improve slowly just due to playing together and then as you introduce more and more talent through the draft, you won't miss too much.

philfree
02-22-2011, 08:11 PM
In the long term. It would be ugly for a while but they'd improve slowly just due to playing together and then as you introduce more and more talent through the draft, you won't miss too much.

Teams would look alot like the Chiefs of 2010. So the whole league goes into a rebuild? LOL that could be fun to watch!


Never happen.


PhilFree:arrow:
~obviously kinda agreeing with Phobia~

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 09:12 PM
Heh. If a Billionare's club can't pay them enough today, what makes you think a startup league is going to be able to pay them tomorrow? What makes you think they'll find 32 appropriate venues, season ticket holders, corporate sponsors, TV contracts, coaches, marketers, concessionares, janitors, training camps, executives, doctors, trainers, uniforms, shoes, offices, support staff and every single other detail required by a professional team in just a few short months? I lived in Houston while they organized and planned for the Texans arrival - took them more than 3 years for one team.

Are you going to buy tickets to watch the Missouri Monarchs play?

Phobia, stop trying to convince people using logic and business sense. They just won't get it.

It is pretty apparent that most everyone on here is an employee who has limited or no first hand experience as a business owner, so they are approaching things from that prospective.

I find it pretty amusing that people make ridiculous claims like the following:

I would want to see proof that my company was losing money before I accepted a 20% pay cut. 20% is one hell of a cut to be taking on faith.

A business owner has plenty of options to cut payroll by 20%, and few of them require your "consent" or approval.

Reduced benefits, eliminating overtime, reducing hours, outsourcing, "right" sizing, restricting bonuses, freezing salaries, retirement buyouts, the list goes on and on.


The players could just cut out the middle man(owners) and play for a sponsor. The sponsors supply the revenue anyway.


If anybody is a "middle man", it is the players, not the owners. In 3 years, the owners and the fans will still be around, but the average NFL player's career will be over.



The fans would gladly go to any venue to get their fix.


If so many fans would go to "any" venue to get their football fix, then explain why so many NFL stadiums face blackouts every week?

Obviously, there are a lot of fans who won't go to just any venue to get their fix. There are a lot of fans who only want to watch football on TV, not in person.



Sports is not Walmart. With Walmart, if your worker doesn't show up, you just fire his ass and replace him with another fungible employee and, in similar fashion, if the worker doesn't like the wage that Walmart is paying him, he can try to get a job with someone else. In the NFL, if Peyton Manning doesn't show up for the Colts next season, bringing in JaMarcus Russell isn't going to get the job done


I see where you are going with that, but I still disagree.

If by "getting the job done" you mean winning the superbowl, then 31 out of 32 teams already don't get the job done every year.

If by "getting the job done" you mean applying the same criteria that all other American for profit businesses are judged by - which is increasing shareholder value; then it is pretty apparent that NFL owners are receiving plenty of money from their businesses, so that means that almost without exception, they are getting the job done.

Further, if Peyton has a season ending injury, then the show will still go on, even with Jamarcus or someone else under center, so that is not really relevant either.



Your point is valid when it comes to the willingness to strike, though. Given what the studies have shown about professional athletes and their difficulties handling money, the owners have a significant edge in any strike/lockout situation.


I totally agree with this part.


The owners actually have much better leverage in the short-term, because they are a richer, smaller group, and they are better organized.

I totally agree with this part.



If the players could hold out to start, though, the owners would be screwed, because there would be others who were more than willing to start up a competitor league and bring the striking players into the fold. That would break the NFL owners.



This part is ridiculous.

Players holding out is the equivalent of a woman keeping her virginity until she is 80 years old. Noone (except Phobia) is going to want her at that point anyway. That clamshell is the very definition of a depreciating asset.


The players are not going to break the owners. Players are really good at running into people and throwing or catching a ball. Owners are really good at putting billions of dollars in their bank accounts, and that won't stop even if the players aren't playing.


And as far as a competitor league, that is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

I have a friend who plays for Jacksonville's other professional football team, the arena league Sharks. He would tell you that the Sharks are lucky to have 10,000 fans at their games. Not surprisingly, his bank account balance is miniscule compared to what his college roommate earned as an NFL 1st round pick.


A couple years ago another one of my friend's purchased an ABA team, the Kansas City Knights. Even with multiple sponsors, it is extremely difficult for a new owner to break even, let alone make a profit, which is the case with most any business.

It is easy for fans to admit when the players are the best in the world, but few realize or ever acknowledge the rare talent the owners possess to consistently succeed at running a multi-billion dollar organization.


If the UFL got all the NFL players tomorrow, and the NFL had to settle for the scraps, the NFL would be out of business in about 2 months. People want to see the best play. That's why minor league sports don't get huge dollar contracts.


What are you going to suggest next? That all of the best burger flippers at McDonald's rise up, join together, and in a matter of 2 months turn Humdinger's into the largest fast food franchise in the world?

I guarantee you that if all the burger flippers quit today, then the guy currently cleaning the bathrooms would be getting promoted. McDonald's would barely skip a beat.

milkman
02-22-2011, 09:19 PM
What are you going to suggest next? That all of the best burger flippers at McDonald's rise up, join together, and in a matter of 2 months turn Humdinger's into the largest fast food franchise in the world?

I guarantee you that if all the burger flippers quit today, then the guy currently cleaning the bathrooms would be getting promoted. McDonald's would barely skip a beat.

You were going along swimmingly until this.

That is the stupidest possible comparison imaginable.

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2011, 09:26 PM
Is Green Bay owned by stockholders?

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 09:33 PM
You were going along swimmingly until this.

That is the stupidest possible comparison imaginable.



Really?


McDonald's Corporate : NFL Corporate
McDonald's Franchisee : NFL Franchise
McDonald's Employees : NFL Players

NFL > UFL
McDonald's > Humdingers

Seems pretty clear to me, but what do I know.



If you could provide a better analogy than I did, I would be happy to hear it. I don't mind being proven wrong, that is the only way to learn.

milkman
02-22-2011, 09:36 PM
Really?


McDonald's Corporate : NFL Corporate
McDonald's Franchisee : NFL Franchise
McDonald's Employees : NFL Players

NFL > UFL
McDonald's > Humdingers

Seems pretty clear to me, but what do I know.



If you could provide a better analogy than I did, I would be happy to hear it. I don't mind being proven wrong, that is the only way to learn.

People don't go to Mcdonald's to watch the burger flippers.
They go there for the product.

In the NFL, the players are the product.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 09:40 PM
A business owner has plenty of options to cut payroll by 20%, and few of them require your "consent" or approval.

Reduced benefits, eliminating overtime, reducing hours, outsourcing, "right" sizing, restricting bonuses, freezing salaries, retirement buyouts, the list goes on and on.

No, it really doesn't. He can't cut my salary without my consent. I can explore legal avenues to prevent the action, or I can just leave.

I see where you are going with that, but I still disagree.

If by "getting the job done" you mean winning the superbowl, then 31 out of 32 teams already don't get the job done every year.

If by "getting the job done" you mean applying the same criteria that all other American for profit businesses are judged by - which is increasing shareholder value; then it is pretty apparent that NFL owners are receiving plenty of money from their businesses, so that means that almost without exception, they are getting the job done.

Further, if Peyton has a season ending injury, then the show will still go on, even with Jamarcus or someone else under center, so that is not really relevant either.

This is both misleading in some areas and completely wrong in others. I'll stick to the easy stuff. If Peyton is gone, the Colts record suffers. Attendance suffers. Merchandising suffers. In the end, the franchise itself suffers. And, if Manning is sitting out the season, ratings will suffer, which means that the entire league will suffer.

As for the owners getting it done, one can certainly point to an increase in the number of blackouts to question that, even without getting into the current situation, which is certainly about the owners not getting it done.

This part is ridiculous.

Players holding out is the equivalent of a woman keeping her virginity until she is 80 years old. Noone (except Phobia) is going to want her at that point anyway. That clamshell is the very definition of a depreciating asset.


The players are not going to break the owners. Players are really good at running into people and throwing or catching a ball. Owners are really good at putting billions of dollars in their bank accounts, and that won't stop even if the players aren't playing.

Tell this to the baseball owners. Hell, if you listen to the current NFL owners, they got their ass kicked in the last CBA, so you can find evidence that you're wrong even in the same sport.

Your virgin argument was horrible, btw.


And as far as a competitor league, that is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

I have a friend who plays for Jacksonville's other professional football team, the arena league Sharks. He would tell you that the Sharks are lucky to have 10,000 fans at their games. Not surprisingly, his bank account balance is miniscule compared to what his college roommate earned as an NFL 1st round pick.


A couple years ago another one of my friend's purchased an ABA team, the Kansas City Knights. Even with multiple sponsors, it is extremely difficult for a new owner to break even, let alone make a profit, which is the case with most any business.

It is easy for fans to admit when the players are the best in the world, but few realize or ever acknowledge the rare talent the owners possess to consistently succeed at running a multi-billion dollar organization.

Yes, it's true. The leagues with the lesser players struggle to stay afloat. That goes for the USFL, the Arena League, the XFL and the UFL. As for the running of the business, Patriots fans can tell you quite a bit about about owners screwing up NFL franchises.

What are you going to suggest next? That all of the best burger flippers at McDonald's rise up, join together, and in a matter of 2 months turn Humdinger's into the largest fast food franchise in the world?

I guarantee you that if all the burger flippers quit today, then the guy currently cleaning the bathrooms would be getting promoted. McDonald's would barely skip a beat.

Nobody goes to McDonald's to watch the the grill guy flip the burgers, so I'll let Milkman's response stand on this issue.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 09:41 PM
Is Green Bay owned by stockholders?
No. Green Bay stock is roughly the same as buying a Packer Foamfinger. You can take it to the game and wave it around and everybody thinks you're cool but once you get it home it's really not much good for anything except for hanging on the wall.

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2011, 09:49 PM
I don't think people are as loyal to a franchise as they may have been. Maybe fantasy football and moving to another job in another city made them more all around football fans. The better product would win out. It is having the balls and the backing to strike out on their own.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:07 PM
People don't go to Mcdonald's to watch the burger flippers.
They go there for the product.

In the NFL, the players are the product.

I respectfully disagree.

There is a difference between a product and promotion.

Product - what you sell
1. Game tickets
2. Jerseys
3. Parking


Promotion - influencing customer decisions to spend money
1. Peyton Manning on directv commercials
2. Ray Lewis on Old Spice billboards
3. Breast cancer ribbons everywhere during the game


People go to a restaurant, even a fast food one like McDonald's, for the experience.

1. Experience of feeling like a good parent - feeding your kid while giving them a present (Happy Meal).
2. Experience of having a full stomach while maintaining a full wallet - dollar menu and value meals.
3. Experience of eating healthy on a budget - salads, oatmeal, and smoothies.


People go to sporting events for the experience as well.

1. Experience of witnessing greatness
2. Experience of the atmosphere and emotion.
3. Experience of being part of the success.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:11 PM
I respectfully disagree.

There is a difference between a product and promotion.

Product - what you sell
1. Game tickets
2. Jerseys
3. Parking


Promotion - influencing customer decisions to spend money
1. Peyton Manning on directv commercials
2. Ray Lewis on Old Spice billboards
3. Breast cancer ribbons everywhere during the game


People go to a restaurant, even a fast food one like McDonald's, for the experience.

1. Experience of feeling like a good parent - feeding your kid while giving them a present (Happy Meal).
2. Experience of having a full stomach while maintaining a full wallet - dollar menu and value meals.
3. Experience of eating healthy on a budget - salads, oatmeal, and smoothies.


People go to sporting events for the experience as well.

1. Experience of witnessing greatness
2. Experience of the atmosphere and emotion.
3. Experience of being part of the success.

People don't buy tickets to the game without the players on the field.
Without the players, there is no experience.

And no one goes to McDonald's for the experience, and if you say you do you are lying.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:13 PM
Man, I think I'm probably gonna agree with MM on this. The product is what is put on the field.

I think the McDonalds analogy had some merit right up until the bathroom cleaners getting promoted.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:14 PM
And no one goes to McDonald's for the experience, and if you say you do you are lying.

Families do, especially the McDonalds with play centers.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:16 PM
That is comedian material.
One specifically comes to mind.

If you go to McDonald's for the experience, you might be a redneck.

BigMeatballDave
02-22-2011, 10:16 PM
I respectfully disagree.

There is a difference between a product and promotion.

Product - what you sell
1. Game tickets
2. Jerseys
3. Parking


Promotion - influencing customer decisions to spend money
1. Peyton Manning on directv commercials
2. Ray Lewis on Old Spice billboards
3. Breast cancer ribbons everywhere during the game


People go to a restaurant, even a fast food one like McDonald's, for the experience.

1. Experience of feeling like a good parent - feeding your kid while giving them a present (Happy Meal).
2. Experience of having a full stomach while maintaining a full wallet - dollar menu and value meals.
3. Experience of eating healthy on a budget - salads, oatmeal, and smoothies.


People go to sporting events for the experience as well.

1. Experience of witnessing greatness
2. Experience of the atmosphere and emotion.
3. Experience of being part of the success.LMAO

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:17 PM
Families do, especially the McDonalds with play centers.

They must be a hell of a lot better there than they are here.

Redneck families?

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:20 PM
They must be a hell of a lot better there than they are here.

Redneck families?

It's an age thing - anywhere from 3 years old to 8 or so. My girls always beg me to go there. I don't even let them eat food there. We'll get an ice cream.

Bacon Cheeseburger
02-22-2011, 10:20 PM
Man, I think I'm probably gonna agree with MM on this. The product is what is put on the field.

I think the McDonalds analogy had some merit right up until the bathroom cleaners getting promoted.
Yep, that was an absurd statement, the guys cleaning the bathrooms are the same guys that are flipping the burgers.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:20 PM
People don't go to Mcdonald's to watch the burger flippers.


Nobody goes to McDonald's to watch the the grill guy flip the burgers, so I'll let Milkman's response stand on this issue.



Irrelevant.


It doesn't matter who you are looking at, as long as the required result is achieved.



When you go to a magic show, the magician will at times have you look at him.

Other times he will invite an audience member to join him on the stage to participate during a magic trick.


In both instances, you will be looking at, and seeing exactly what the magician wants you to see.


The NFL wants you to focus on the players on your team.
1. in person
2. on television
3. on the internet
4. on the radio
5. on your cell phone


McDonald's wants you to focus on the players in your life.
1. Smiling faces on your kids when they get the happy meal toy.
2. Family sitting at the dinner table.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:22 PM
Irrelevant.


It doesn't matter who you are looking at, as long as the required result is achieved.



When you go to a magic show, the magician will at times have you look at him.

Other times he will invite an audience member to join him on the stage to participate during a magic trick.


In both instances, you will be looking at, and seeing exactly what the magician wants you to see.


The NFL wants you to focus on the players on your team.
1. in person
2. on television
3. on the internet
4. on the radio
5. on your cell phone


McDonald's wants you to focus on the players in your life.
1. Smiling faces on your kids when they get the happy meal toy.
2. Family sitting at the dinner table.

Doesn't matter.

You're still buying the product.

You are not there watching the burger flippers.

In the NFL, you are not there to watch the ticket takers.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:27 PM
Yep, that was an absurd statement, the guys cleaning the bathrooms are the same guys that are flipping the burgers.


I'm having a hard time imagining that.


Do they cook the burgers in the bathroom?

Or do customers use the bathroom in the kitchen?

Or do the cooks where you live have really long arms?

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:28 PM
I'm having a hard time imagining that.


Do they cook the burgers in the bathroom?

Or do customers use the bathroom in the kitchen?

Or do the cooks where you live have really long arms?

Jesus fucking Christ.

Count Zarth
02-22-2011, 10:31 PM
No one has brought up the better analogy...

Since the players are the product, McDonalds's burgers are their product.

Would you continue to eat at McDonalds if they used lower quality ingredients?

Since the ingredients are already shit, I bet not many people would notice.

I tend to agree with Phil's "slightly lower echelon of talent" premise. Talent is relative. I personally would be very interested in a league full of players no one really knows about.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:31 PM
Doesn't matter.

You're still buying the product.

You are not there watching the burger flippers.

In the NFL, you are not there to watch the ticket takers.



Yes, you are still buying the tickets and watching them on television, while wearing your team gear.

That is the product.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:33 PM
Yes, you are still buying the tickets and watching them on television, while wearing your team gear.

That is the product.

I'm done with this debate.

You are either being obtuse or an idiot.

Or both.

Not wasting my time on your dumb ass anymore.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:38 PM
I'm having a hard time imagining that.


Do they cook the burgers in the bathroom?

Or do customers use the bathroom in the kitchen?

Or do the cooks where you live have really long arms?

They don't have full-time bathroom help. They clean them after hours and sometimes a brief cleaning during slow hours. The low-man gets the duty. Then he washes up and heads back to the grill.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:40 PM
They don't have full-time bathroom help. They clean them after hours and sometimes a brief cleaning during slow hours. The low-man gets the duty. Then he washes up and heads back to the grill.

Do honestly believe that he had to have that explained to him?

KC Tattoo
02-22-2011, 10:40 PM
At any rate, they need to come to a conclusion or we are fucked for the 2011 season. It's fucking bull shit that it even comes to this close of a dead line & they had plenty of time to drum this deal done.


If there is a lock out, does that mean they wont practice or have OTAs? Will they still prepare to have a season? That is my question. If not then that would be a major set back for player development.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:42 PM
No one has brought up the better analogy...

Since the players are the product, McDonalds's burgers are their product.

Would you continue to eat at McDonalds if they used lower quality ingredients?

Since the ingredients are already shit, I bet not many people would notice.

I tend to agree with Phil's "slightly lower echelon of talent" premise. Talent is relative. I personally would be very interested in a league full of players no one really knows about.


That is my whole point. The players are not the product, but the employees of the company.


Employees

McDonald's Franchise
1. burger flipper (cook)
2. front line
3. drive thru

NFL Franchise
1. players
2. cashiers
3. concessions


Product

McDonald's Franchise
1. fries
2. burgers
3. drinks


NFL Franchise
1. tickets
2. gear
3. food/drinks

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:42 PM
At any rate, they need to come to a conclusion or we are ****ed for the 2011 season. It's ****ing bull shit that it even comes to this close of a dead line & they had plenty of time to drum this deal done.


If there is a lock out, does that mean they wont practice or have OTAs? Will they still prepare to have a season? That is my question. If not then that would be a major set back for player development.

Players will be locked out of team facilities.

No OTAs, no mini-camps.

No workouts in the weight room.

Nothing, nada, not a damn thing.

Just Passin' By
02-22-2011, 10:43 PM
That is my whole point. The players are not the product, but the employees of the company.


Employees

McDonald's Franchise
1. burger flipper (cook)
2. front line
3. drive thru

NFL Franchise
1. players
2. cashiers
3. concessions


Product

McDonald's Franchise
1. fries
2. burgers
3. drinks


NFL Franchise
1. tickets
2. gear
3. food/drinks

Ok, so you're an idiot.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:44 PM
Do honestly believe that he had to have that explained to him?

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our agendas that we can't see past them. I've been there.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:46 PM
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our agendas that we can't see past them. I've been there.

I'm not even sure what that means.

Are you suggesting that he is really that fucking stupid because he has an agenda?

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:49 PM
I'm not even sure what that means.

Are you suggesting that he is really that ****ing stupid because he has an agenda?

He's not a dumb guy. He's just trying to make his analogy work - which it did until he took it a step too far. He didn't recognize that and he's too stubborn to back-track. Stubborn doesn't mean stupid.

milkman
02-22-2011, 10:53 PM
He's not a dumb guy. He's just trying to make his analogy work - which it did until he took it a step too far. He didn't recognize that and he's too stubborn to back-track. Stubborn doesn't mean stupid.

It does if you suggest that you don't know that McDonald's cooks clean the bathroom and expect people to buy that.

BossChief
02-22-2011, 10:54 PM
What happens to the players with "guaranteed" money owed to them by contract if the owners decide to continue with a lockout?

I cant believe this is still going on in a business where all the employees are under written contract.

Its truly absurd.

Phobia
02-22-2011, 10:59 PM
What happens to the players with "guaranteed" money owed to them by contract if the owners decide to continue with a lockout?

I cant believe this is still going on in a business where all the employees are under written contract.

Its truly absurd.

I'm sure ownership has anticipated this for years. They must have some verbage in there about games being played. I do know they don't get the guaranteed salary until they're on the roster for the season opener. Maybe that's the catch. No season opener, no guaranteed money.

whoaskew
02-22-2011, 10:59 PM
I'm done with this debate.

You are either being obtuse or an idiot.

Or both.

Not wasting my time on your dumb ass anymore.


A person doesn't have to agree with me for me to learn something from them.

You should give it a try. But then again, learning is not for everyone.

milkman
02-22-2011, 11:01 PM
A person doesn't have to agree with me for me to learn something from them.

You should give it a try. But then again, learning is not for everyone.

When you suggested that you didn't know cooks cleaned the bathroom at McDonald's, I learned you're full of shit, and that's all I needed to learn.

KC Tattoo
02-22-2011, 11:03 PM
Players will be locked out of team facilities.

No OTAs, no mini-camps.

No workouts in the weight room.

Nothing, nada, not a damn thing.


Not cool.

BossChief
02-22-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm sure ownership has anticipated this for years. They must have some verbage in there about games being played. I do know they don't get the guaranteed salary until they're on the roster for the season opener. Maybe that's the catch. No season opener, no guaranteed money.

Then every player in the NFL with "guaranteed" money due to them should be able to take the NFL and the owners to class action court proceedings for them locking out the players in that instance...one would think anyway.

I wonder what the running total is of all the "guaranteed" money due to players for the 2011 season...

BossChief
02-22-2011, 11:11 PM
The real fucked thing about this is that the owners want to make it a split with them making more of the ching...but at the same time wont even open up the books to show how much of a real split they have given in the past to know if they have even kept up with their side of the bargain in the past.

I also wonder if the reason they have kept the books so close to the chest is because it would have implications to them off unpaid taxes due to misreported income.

There has to be a much bigger issue to them keeping those numbers so secretive, even when contract verbage of the past CBA was supposed to be in direct relation to profit margins/amounts.

Bacon Cheeseburger
02-22-2011, 11:17 PM
The real fucked thing about this is that the owners want to make it a split with them making more of the ching...but at the same time wont even open up the books to show how much of a real split they have given in the past to know if they have even kept up with their side of the bargain in the past.

I also wonder if the reason they have kept the books so close to the chest is because it would have implications to them off unpaid taxes due to misreported income.

There has to be a much bigger issue to them keeping those numbers so secretive, even when contract verbage of the past CBA was supposed to be in direct relation to profit margins/amounts.
I'm sure that's a factor considering gameday revenues are mostly in cash.

KC Tattoo
02-22-2011, 11:22 PM
How would the owners expect season ticket owners re up for this season? I'm sure they have the money to with stand a season, but can't fans get some say in this? We are the paying attribute that runs the machine. This to me is a total insult to fans across the nation that have passion for our beloved sport and teams. Hockey pretty much disapeared for quite some time and still hasn't recovered from there misdeal. Is the game going to mean or be the same if return 2012? This shit is driving me crazy.

BossChief
02-22-2011, 11:27 PM
How would the owners expect season ticket owners re up for this season? I'm sure they have the money to with stand a season, but can't fans get some say in this? We are the paying attribute that runs the machine. This to me is a total insult to fans across the nation that have passion for our beloved sport and teams. Hockey pretty much disapeared for quite some time and still hasn't recovered from there misdeal. Is the game going to mean or be the same if return 2012? This shit is driving me crazy.
Baseball is Americas Favorite Pastime (TM) /1994

bowener
02-23-2011, 12:21 AM
Baseball was Americas Favorite Pastime (TM) /NFL 1995

:)

BossChief
02-23-2011, 12:29 AM
I used to be a pretty big Dodgers fan, too. I was even a Dodger fan before I was ever a fan of any football team...I have pictures of me as a baby in dodger blue and knew about everything there was to know about any player of the team when I was very young. (and after 1989 I was a fan of wherever Griffey played as well because I think he was/is the epitome of what a real baseball player should be)

Then the strike happened and I wont drop a dime on so much as a baseball hat/ticket/etc...and havent watched a single game since back then either.

Fuck baseball and everything it has become...they should take it down to 20 teams IMO and stop letting certain owners blatently break the rules year in and year out if they ever want a product worthy of being watched ever again.

Im sure I am one of the millions that left baseball at that point and haven't came back.

I would come back to football, but it would NEVER be the same if they let the difference between billions of dollars let them decide to shut the doors over strictly GREED and NOTHING else.

All a move like that does is say "**** the fans, we dont really care about them no matter what we say"

So, in return, **** you owners.

Okie_Apparition
02-23-2011, 07:39 AM
How about an analogy, although as rough as taking a branch from a tree and using it as a 2x4. Can be milled, and is closer to home.

A large group of talent broke away from The KC Star Chiefs' board. It became successful because it kept evolving and new talent followed. The Star was an outdated/non-adpting business model unlike the NFL.

Other talent broke away from The Star & from Chiefsplanet, but was not as successful.

whoaskew
02-23-2011, 03:20 PM
When you suggested that you didn't know cooks cleaned the bathroom at McDonald's, I learned you're full of shit, and that's all I needed to learn.

Uh, when I was 15 I worked at a McDonald's on 28th and Prospect, and the cooks didn't clean the bathroom.


They had a cook, a front line worker, a drive through worker and a "roamer".

The front line and drive through workers never left their spots.

The cook (me) was responsible for cleaning the kitchen and no other parts of the restaurant.

The roamer helped make drinks and fill orders when we were busy. When we were slow, the roamer cleaned the bathrooms, dining area, and the parking lot.

I guess I should defer to your obviously recent experiences working as a fast food employee, instead of relying on my personal experience during a summer nearly 18 years ago.



You used the word obtuse earlier, which defined means:
1. lacking in insight or discernment
2. dense: slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity


I said if the cook quits, the guy cleaning the bathroom would get promoted.

In other words even with a drop off in talent level, the show would still go on.

Big macs and happy meals still would get sold.

It has been pointed out to you several times in this thread already that there are plenty of qualified athletes (college, arena, UFL, CFL) that would be available and happy to step in and fill those 1700 NFL jobs, regardless of the reason they are available - whether strike, retirement, injury, expansion, or for any other reason.

And yes, they are jobs, not products for sale, as I pointed out earlier.

Even with different people filling the positions, tickets will still get sold.

The tickets are the product, not the players. Stop being obtuse.



How about an analogy, although as rough as taking a branch from a tree and using it as a 2x4. Can be milled, and is closer to home.

A large group of talent broke away from The KC Star Chiefs' board. It became successful because it kept evolving and new talent followed. The Star was an outdated/non-adpting business model unlike the NFL.

Other talent broke away from The Star & from Chiefsplanet, but was not as successful.



People that are quick to say they don't like something, usually don't offer any logical alternative. They usually can't even tell you what if anything is incorrect about your statement. They'll just say they don't like it or that your idea sucks, usually without offering any facts to back up their point of view.

Just Passing By disagrees with me, but at least he explains his opinion using logic. I can respect that, even if we disagree.

People like milkman say things like - "since we disagree about something, then you must be an idiot." I'd like to think that people can disagree about something, without one of them being an idiot, but what do I know.


I understand your analogy and it makes perfect sense to me. Players quit, retire, get injured, start sucking all the time. They all get replaced, the game survives, and the owners keep swimming in money.


I often rub people the wrong way, because I don't care about being liked, I only care about stripping away the BS so we can identify what is really the truth.

To do so requires people to look at things from different points of view. Most people aren't comfortable doing that.

For instance, many people have claimed in this thread that if the NFL players went on strike and the owners found replacements for them, then those replacements would provide a lower quality experience for the fans. They justify that point of view by bringing up what happened in 1987 and in a few other isolated occasions.


Upon first hearing that argument it seems logical, but to me it is incomplete.

If current NFL players are so irreplaceable, then the following wouldn't occur:

1. Undrafted free agents becoming player of the year multiple times (James Harrison)
2. Undrafted free agents staying in the league longer than the 3 years the average draft pick does (my cousin is going into his 5th year on the buccaneers)
3. A guy sacking groceries winning the Superbowl (Kurt Warner)
4. A high school football coach starting an NFL game with only a couple days to practice and coming in and completing 18 passes for 2 TDs (Todd Bouman)
5. A guy who hasn't started a game in 9 years coming in and lead his team to 11 wins (Matt Cassel)
6. Rookies coming in and taking jobs and awards away from veterans. (Probowler Eric Berry)
7. Fans still renewing their season tickets after a franchise player leaves the team (Brett Favre, Joe Montana, Emmit Smith)

Further, the people who suggest that the players strike need to consider the reality of what they are saying. The average player's career (NFL employment) is 3 years. That would be the equivalent of me or you only receiving 3 paychecks during our entire working career.

It is easy for us to say, "yeah, they should just all agree to strike"

But the reality is that striking for a year would be the same as the players forfeiting one of the three paychecks that they will be getting during their entire working career.

Yeah, I am sure that it would be easy to convince a group of 1700 people to voluntarily give up 33% of their total expected lifetime earnings.

The players may not all be geniuses, but I guarantee that they aren't all idiots either.