PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Mike Vrabel will be suspended for his first tackle next season


Bump
03-19-2011, 12:27 AM
if there is a next season

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- Chiefs veteran linebacker Mike Vrabel has an idea for progressing talks between the NFL Players Association and the owners who have locked them out: Cut out the middle men.

Vrabel, speaking to ESPN's George Smith in a roundtable interview during a break at the former union's annual meeting Friday, suggested meetings that don't include commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL's lead labor attorneys would be to everyone's advantage.

Clayton: Owners' cap math doesn't work

Before the NFLPA decertified last Friday, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million. But a pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries, writes John Clayton. Story

"We are willing to negotiate. But we don't want to negotiate with Bob Batterman, Jeff Pash or Roger Goodell," Vrabel said, referring to the NFL's outside labor counsel in Batterman and its executive vice president and lead counsel in Pash. "Our executive committee needs to negotiate with Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, Jerry Richardson -- their executive committee. People that are willing and can agree to a deal. Jeff Pash can't agree to a deal."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league accepts Vrabel's invitation to negotiate but didn't rule out the top executives' participation.

"The NFL's negotiating team -- accompanied by the three owners Mike mentioned, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson and Robert Kraft -- is prepared to meet immediately. Just tell us when and where," Aiello said of the Cowboys owner, the Panthers owner and the Patriots owner.

A week after the union decertified and a lockout began shortly thereafter, Vrabel was among several players who continued to ratchet up the rhetoric publicly, targeting the owners group's motives and means in the NFL's labor stalemate.

Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative, told reporters labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players -- player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Kendall, a former 13-year offensive lineman who retired after the 2008 season.

Colts center and player representative Jeff Saturday, speaking to ESPN's Smith along with Vrabel, Saints quarterback Drew Brees, Broncos safety and player rep Brian Dawkins and Ravens player representative Domonique Foxworth, bashed a letter Goodell sent to all NFL players Thursday in which he detailed the owners' version of events that led to last Friday's lockout.



The NFL's negotiating team -- accompanied by the three owners Mike mentioned, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson and Robert Kraft -- is prepared to meet immediately. Just tell us when and where.
-- NFL spokesman Greg Aiello

"It's his attempt to, you know, to divide us as a group of men," Saturday said. "You know, anytime you send something out like that after we've been in negotiations for two-years plus, you know, 15-day extension -- all the things we've been through -- you know it's just one of those tactics different people use during the negotiations."

Mediation cut off last Friday, and the union dissolved itself, allowing players to file suit in federal court. Hours later, when the old collective bargaining agreement expired, owners locked out the players.

"The reality is we've been communicating to our men throughout this whole process about what the offers really are, what the numbers really are, things that we have tried to agree upon that have not been agreed upon and as a group of men we knew it wasn't a deal that our membership would accept," Saturday said.

In a speech Friday to players at the NFLPA's annual meeting, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said he won't be paid during the work stoppage -- the league's first since 1987. Goodell and Pash, the league's lead labor negotiator, already said they would reduce their salaries to a dollar each.

"Our players are locked out," Smith said during a brief session with reporters. "The league made a unilaterial decision to punish the people who made this game great."

Smith said he does not consider Goodell's letter an attempt to engage in good-faith negotiations. The league, he said, could attempt to restart talks by writing, instead, to lawyers representing the players now that the union has dissolved.

"Let's not kid ourselves. Jeff Pash ... knows that class counsel can always engage in discussions with counsel for the National Football League to have discussions relating to a settlement," Smith said. "He knows what letter should have been sent."

Kendall described the league's 11th-hour offer as "kind of the old switcheroo," saying that throughout negotiations the players' chance to share in increased revenues had been a key component of how to divide the NFL's yearly take of more than $9 billion.

Kendall said the discussions until talks stopped last Friday -- the 16th day of federal mediation -- always revolved around the premise that if the rise in league revenues exceeded a certain percentage each year, players would get a cut.

"The most important thing is getting back to playing football again," Brees said. "And that's why we're enjoining a lockout. Like all these guys have said, we, our intention was never to get locked out, we wanted to get a fair deal done. We always had guys there to do that."

Brees addressed the perceived Catch-22 surrounding rookie prospects' decision over whether to attend next month's draft, set for April 28-30.

Goodell letter

Goodell NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a letter to 1,900 NFL players on Thursday. Read it here. Letter

"Each rookie has -- if they've been invited to New York -- they absolutely have the option of going to New York," Brees said in the interview with ESPN. "I think to our point it was -- how do you feel about walking across the stage and shaking the hand of the commissioner who just locked you out? And as great an experience as it is to get drafted, which it absolutely is, I think the even greater experience is to play your first game, and to have to opportunity to win a championship and right now that's being threatened with this lockout."

While the addition of an immediate 18-game schedule was tabled in the negotiations early last week, the possibility for instituting it in future seasons -- with the players' approval -- was retained.

"Eighteen games does nothing for our health and safety," said Foxworth, the former defensive back and Ravens player rep who retired in 2009. "We're not looking to make any financial gains, we're looking to protect former players and make protections and safety improvements for current players."

But the players told ESPN's Smith it wasn't a deal-breaker.

"No. We'll negotiate on the economics of football," Vrabel said. "We're not negotiating on health and safety. And as far as we're concerned 18 games lies right in the way of our players health and safety."

Pash told the AP this week that the owners' final proposal was for a 10-year CBA. Kendall confirmed that.

"A 10-year, fair deal might be something worth considering," Kendall said. "A 10-year deal where the players don't participate in any of the upside is not a deal that I think is ... something that the players should have taken."

An April 6 hearing date is set for U.S. District Court in Minnesota for a ruling on the players' request for an injunction that would end the lockout.

But a settlement between the owners and players before the hearing is unlikely, an NFLPA source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter earlier this week. The source said a ruling on the players' injunction request was expected within a week of the hearing.

"We're confident that this injunction is gonna be granted," Foxworth said. "And I think the message to the fans is -- all the fans should just unite and root for this at this point. You don't have a team to root for at this point, you wanna root for your team when the season comes, you need to be outside the courthouse with your face painted cheering for the judge to grant this injunction. Because I think simply put if we are granted this injunction there will be football."

WebGem
03-19-2011, 01:29 AM
What? That article says nothing having to do with the title of this thread.

Dylan
03-19-2011, 01:43 AM
What? That article says nothing having to do with the title of this thread.

http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-14836.gif

bigbucks24
03-19-2011, 01:52 AM
So the players want the owners' lawyers to stay home but they want to bring their own? I'm guessing if the players wanted to negotiate against the owners with NO lawyers there, it would not end well for the players.

FAX
03-19-2011, 01:58 AM
Deep in my heart of hearts, I believe that this decertification is a crock.

FAX

bigbucks24
03-19-2011, 02:02 AM
Deep in my heart of hearts, I believe that this decertification is a crock.

FAX

Come on. It really is decertification. They don't have a union. They just still meet and are represented by the same guy and nothing has changed. But it's not a union. :spock: Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.......but it's not a duck?

HMc
03-19-2011, 02:06 AM
1. a Union / Players association (or, the people at the top of it) is the very definition of a "middle man"

2. But the players told ESPN's Smith it wasn't a deal-breaker.

"No. We'll negotiate on the economics of football," Vrabel said. "We're not negotiating on health and safety. And as far as we're concerned 18 games lies right in the way of our players health and safety."

Um, that sounds like a deal breaker to me. It would be easier to understand if they printed the actual question rather than paraphrasing it.

3. The players should all shut the hell up at this point, save those that are halfway articulate. Vrabel and Brees are parties to the lawsuit but so far they've done more harm than good in the public speaking arena.

jsmax
03-19-2011, 07:40 AM
I do not understand what the issue is, or say, how anyone would expect a group of ego-centric punks (NFL Players) that do not have a clue how to manage their money (Usually broke within 5yrs of retirement) that hold out on their contracts saying they need more money to commonly agree to much of anything fair and reasonable. Especially with all the middle men that work off of percentages egging them on about how they are worth more than that.

bevischief
03-19-2011, 08:43 AM
Deep in my heart of hearts, I believe that this decertification is a crock.

FAX

:thumb:

bevischief
03-19-2011, 08:44 AM
What? That article says nothing having to do with the title of this thread.

:thumb: And we are all dumber for reading it.

Chiefnj2
03-19-2011, 08:58 AM
The Judge should call the parties to the lawsuit into court and enter an order prohibiting all of them from speaking with the media.

Deep down inside I would still like to see them have the draft prior to free agency, just to mess with all the teams.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 11:26 AM
Come on. It really is decertification. They don't have a union. They just still meet and are represented by the same guy and nothing has changed. But it's not a union. :spock: Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.......but it's not a duck?
Technically, i believe it's called a NFL Players Trade Association now. :spock:

The Bad Guy
03-19-2011, 11:29 AM
As long as that tackle happens in another uniform, I don't give a shit.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 11:46 AM
I do not understand what the issue is, or say, how anyone would expect a group of ego-centric punks (NFL Players) that do not have a clue how to manage their money (Usually broke within 5yrs of retirement) that hold out on their contracts saying they need more money to commonly agree to much of anything fair and reasonable. Especially with all the middle men that work off of percentages egging them on about how they are worth more than that.

you say this like the players, not the owners, are the ones who wanted more money. the players didn't go to the owners and say "we aren't making enough money." it was the owners who went to the players crying about how expensive their new stadiums are, and how they were losing money. it was also the owners that refused to show any proof to the players that this was in fact the case. i know i'd be upset if my boss tried rolling back my wages to what i was getting paid 5 years ago.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 11:55 AM
you say this like the players, not the owners, are the ones who wanted more money. the players didn't go to the owners and say "we aren't making enough money." it was the owners who went to the players crying about how expensive their new stadiums are, and how they were losing money. it was also the owners that refused to show any proof to the players that this was in fact the case. i know i'd be upset if my boss tried rolling back my wages to what i was getting paid 5 years ago.This has become the lamest bullshit excuse i've ever heard.

if your boss wanted to cut salaries they would be cut or you would be fired

Bump
03-19-2011, 12:00 PM
What? That article says nothing having to do with the title of this thread.

the title is more of a prediction. Goodell will be keeping a close eye on Vrabel as paypack for opening his bitch mouth.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 12:00 PM
This has become the lamest bullshit excuse i've ever heard.

if your boss wanted to cut salaries they would be cut or you would be fired

i have the option to go work else where. which will prevent my boss from cutting my salary just to make an extra buck.

and it doesn't change the fact the players are not the ones going after more money. they are trying to maintain the same level of pay that has been in effect since the early 90's.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:10 PM
i have the option to go work else where. which will prevent my boss from cutting my salary just to make an extra buck.
UFL
AFL

the players are free to go play in one of the other leagues or can even play in the CFL if they prefer. They also have several sport related professions they can go work.

As all you pro union guys keep screaming, the nfl is not the same as a normal job. You're right, they are more of a construction contract worker who is not employed but rather contracted out for a job. The current contract was up and now the owners are offering less for the next contract. The owners are not "asking for money back" because the players are not employed. The players are just pissed because the owners are not offering as much for the next contract job.

Also the players are not regular employees, they have other ways to make money. They are famous and can use the notoriety they achieved while playing pro football to make money and/or become analysts or broadcasters to make money. They can do commercials etc. The concept that the players are at the mercy of the owners for a job like some kind of sweatshop worker is just stupid.

KC Tattoo
03-19-2011, 12:13 PM
the title is more of a prediction. Goodell will be keeping a close eye on Vrabel as paypack for opening his bitch mouth.

Players can say what ever they want with out any consinquences untill a deal is made. Right now no statute or regulations in place to hold players responsible for there actions by the NFL.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:15 PM
Players can say what ever they want with out any consinquences untill a deal is made. Right now no statute or regulations in place to hold players responsible for there actions by the NFL.
yep, no rules but lots of "memory"

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 12:16 PM
UFL
AFL

the players are free to go play in one of the other leagues or can even play in the CFL if they prefer. They also have several sport related professions they can go work.

As all you pro union guys keep screaming, the nfl is not the same as a normal job. You're right, they are more of a construction contract worker who is not employed but rather contracted out for a job. The current contract was up and now the owners are offering less for the next contract. The owners are not "asking for money back" because the players are not employed. The players are just pissed because the owners are not offering as much for the next contract job.

Also the players are not regular employees, they have other ways to make money. They are famous and can use the notoriety they achieved while playing pro football to make money and/or become analysts or broadcasters to make money. They can do commercials etc. The concept that the players are at the mercy of the owners for a job like some kind of sweatshop worker is just stupid.

i imagine at this point in time everybody is fairly entrenched in their ideas of who is right and wrong in this situation. so let's agree to disagree, with one last thought..

the chick in your avitar isn't that hot...

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:17 PM
i imagine at this point in time everybody is fairly entrenched in their ideas of who is right and wrong in this situation. so let's agree to disagree, with one last thought..

the chick in your avitar isn't that hot...lol

fyi the bitch in your avatar isn't that hot either :p

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 12:33 PM
lol

fyi the bitch in your avatar isn't that hot either :p

lol, he may not have nuts, but he ain't no bitch.

Royal Fanatic
03-19-2011, 12:33 PM
the chick in your avitar isn't that hot...
Bullshit. The chick in his avatar is very hot.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 12:39 PM
Bullshit. The chick in his avatar is very hot.

a little flashback humor always has to be explained...

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:39 PM
This has become the lamest bullshit excuse i've ever heard.

if your boss wanted to cut salaries they would be cut or you would be fired

And you continue to demonstrate that you're absolutely clueless about the issues, even though they've been explained over and over and over again.

Congratulations, Idiot.

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:42 PM
Deep in my heart of hearts, I believe that this decertification is a crock.

FAX

Then what you have advised the NFLPA to do? Their ONLY recourse to the awful deal offered by the owners was to decertify and sue.

kstater
03-19-2011, 12:44 PM
Then what you have advised the NFLPA to do? Their ONLY recourse to the awful deal offered by the owners was to decertify and sue.

I don't know, make a counter offer?

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:46 PM
I don't know, make a counter offer?

Um, really? Have you been following the chain of events?

The owners changed the deal at the "11th Hour". There was NO time to make a counter-offer as time was about to expire.

The union and owners had been working to resolve this issue for TWO YEARS. Another week wasn't going to change a thing, especially after the owners last proposal.

kstater
03-19-2011, 12:49 PM
Um, really? Have you been following the chain of events?

The owners changed the deal at the "11th Hour". There was NO time to make a counter-offer as time was about to expire.

The union and owners had been working to resolve this issue for TWO YEARS. Another week wasn't going to change a thing, especially after the owners last proposal.

I have been following. If the players had actually wanted to negotiate, there would have been little problem extending the deadline to continue negotiations. They instead decided to not negotiate and go to court.

Okie_Apparition
03-19-2011, 12:49 PM
Sometimes I watch games without picking sides

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:50 PM
besides the fans have really nothing to gain by have the players win. In fact, they have lots to lose potentially.

everyone wants it over ... but over means somebody winning not just the players

things that will/could happen if:

Owners win -

NFL salary cap back in place
Rookie salary cap
players making less money
18 game season (maybe although the owners haven't even formally purposed it)
leagues stays mostly the way it is now
lower salary cost leads to lower ticket prices and owners paying more of their own stadiums stuff? ( ROFL not likely but at least they won't have excuse to raise prices)

Players win -

no 18 game schedule (personally this is the only positive i see from the players winning)
will salary cap come back? (have my doubts and would kill small markets like chiefs imo)
rookie salary cap? (why would they if they win?)
guaranteed salaries? (you think some of these fat guys are lazy now)
higher salaries (lead to at least the threat of passing that cost to ticket and parking cost, cable bills, directv season ticket costs ... virtually every dollar would get passed on to the fans imo.)

do we know exactly what will happen? No, but there are very few positive possibilities for the fans if the Players win.

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:51 PM
I have been following. If the players had actually wanted to negotiate, there would have been little problem extending the deadline to continue negotiations. They instead decided to not negotiate and go to court.

The owners pretty much completely threw the NFLPA a curveball in the final hour of "negotiations". It was clear that both sides were no where CLOSE to an agreement and if the NFLPA didn't decertify by 5:00 pm last Friday, they would have lost that right.

Both sides were SO far apart that another week wouldn't have done a damn thing, so the players decertified and sued.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:52 PM
Um, really? Have you been following the chain of events?

The owners changed the deal at the "11th Hour". There was NO time to make a counter-offer as time was about to expire.

The union and owners had been working to resolve this issue for TWO YEARS. Another week wasn't going to change a thing, especially after the owners last proposal.bullshit

the players could of extended it but instead they pulled the PR stunt of saying "we will extend it but only if you completely open your books for the last 10 yrs. Something they knew the owners wouldn't do.

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 12:52 PM
I keep wondering why everyone just believes what players and "unnamed sources" are leaking out there.

If its legit put your name on it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 12:52 PM
I have been following. If the players had actually wanted to negotiate, there would have been little problem extending the deadline to continue negotiations. They instead decided to not negotiate and go to court.

The players had been trying to negotiate ever since the league opted out of the deal. The owners' last minute deal came at 1 pm on deadline day, and it was a worse deal than the one the owners had offered the week before. The owners then showed up 20 minutes late for a 3:30 pm meeting. The owners continued refusing requests to show the union the audited books.

What reason would the players have had to go along with an extension at that time?

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:52 PM
besides the fans have really nothing to gain by have the players win. In fact, they have lots to lose potentially.

everyone wants it over ... but over means somebody winning not just the players

things that will/could happen if:

Owners win -

NFL salary cap back in place
Rookie salary cap
players making less money
18 game season (maybe although the owners haven't even formally purposed it)
leagues stays mostly the way it is now
lower salary cost leads to lower ticket prices and owners paying more of their own stadiums stuff? ( ROFL not likely but at least they won't have excuse to raise prices)

Players win -

no 18 game schedule (personally this is the only positive i see from the players winning)
will salary cap come back? (have my doubts and would kill small markets like chiefs imo)
rookie salary cap? (why would they if they win?)
guaranteed salaries? (you think some of these fat guys are lazy now)
higher salaries (lead to at least the threat of passing that cost to ticket and parking cost, cable bills, directv season ticket costs ... virtually every dollar would get passed on to the fans imo.)

do we know exactly what will happen? No, but there are very few positive possibilities for the fans if the Players win.

You're missing the most important piece of the puzzle: Revenue sharing.

The rest is all blather.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:53 PM
And you continue to demonstrate that you're absolutely clueless about the issues, even though they've been explained over and over and over again.

Congratulations, Idiot.
go fuck yourself(for once) pedophile

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:54 PM
bullshit

the players could of extended it but instead they pulled the PR stunt of saying "we will extend it but only if you completely open your books for the last 10 yrs. Something they knew the owners wouldn't do.

Oh really? So, you think that one more week of negotiations would have made a difference? You're smokin' crack.

They'd been far apart on this deal for more than TWO YEARS. After seeing the owners latest proposal, the NFLPA KNEW IMMEDIATELY that it wouldn't make ANY sense to extend the deal by a week.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 12:55 PM
You're missing the most important piece of the puzzle: Revenue sharing.

The rest is all blather.

you're correct ... you can bet your ass that the second that the salary cap goes that full profit sharing will quickly follow.

yet another reason to want the owners to win.

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2011, 12:55 PM
go fuck yourself(for once) pedophile

Fuck you, Laz. The next time I'm in KC, we're gonna meet, okay?

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 12:55 PM
Technically, i believe it's called a NFL Players Trade Association now. :spock:

How could a judge go along with the decertification?

Same people doing the same things for the same
players
Posted via Mobile Device

Rausch
03-19-2011, 01:01 PM
go **** yourself(for once) pedophile

I haven't been on much lately so kindly link me to some Dane = pedo statements...

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 01:05 PM
Fuck you, Laz. The next time I'm in KC, we're gonna meet, okay?
Really? Wow.
Posted via Mobile Device

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 01:06 PM
besides the fans have really nothing to gain by have the players win. In fact, they have lots to lose potentially.

everyone wants it over ... but over means somebody winning not just the players

things that will/could happen if:

Owners win -

NFL salary cap back in place
Rookie salary cap
players making less money
18 game season (maybe although the owners haven't even formally purposed it)
leagues stays mostly the way it is now
lower salary cost leads to lower ticket prices and owners paying more of their own stadiums stuff? ( ROFL not likely but at least they won't have excuse to raise prices)


from what i understand, the salary cap and the rookie salary cap are agreed upon by both sides, and both sides understand that they are essential to maintaining a level playing field. as for stadium upkeep, well, no one forced jerry jones to build a 1 billion dollar stadium, and most teams receive some sort of compensation from tax payers to help with the cost.


Players win -

no 18 game schedule (personally this is the only positive i see from the players winning)
will salary cap come back? (have my doubts and would kill small markets like chiefs imo)
rookie salary cap? (why would they if they win?)
guaranteed salaries? (you think some of these fat guys are lazy now)
higher salaries (lead to at least the threat of passing that cost to ticket and parking cost, cable bills, directv season ticket costs ... virtually every dollar would get passed on to the fans imo.)

the 18 game schedule and guaranteed salaries are nothing more then bargaining chips, and if you don't think the owners will continue to raise prices, regardless of salaries, on tickets, concessions, and parking you are unbelievably naive. the owners are just as greedy as the players.



do we know exactly what will happen? No, but there are very few positive possibilities for the fans if the Players win.

the players are what we gather around our tv's for every sunday. you don't bundle up, go tailgate in sub freezing temperatures, and sit for 3 or 4 hours paying way too much for beer to watch the owners sit around and drink wine, and eat cheese. no, you go to watch a football game played by football players. they are what draws the money in, they deserve to get paid like they are the center of the football universe.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Fuck you, Laz. The next time I'm in KC, we're gonna meet, okay?
oopsy ... threats on the message board

http://ps3crunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/banhammer1.jpg

funny how mr. "been wounding vaginas since 2000" start crying like a little bitch when someone takes it to him. Everyone notice how the tone of the thread changes as soon as he showed up? He brings nothing to a thread besides "fighting".

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:08 PM
Really? Wow.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't know the backstory, but calling someone a pedophile without context would seem to be fighting words in my book.

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 01:10 PM
I haven't been on much lately so kindly link me to some Dane = pedo statements...
have no idea ... somebody else called him that and it pissed him off, so i used it. ROFL

similar to die and fire usage

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 01:11 PM
I don't know the backstory, but calling someone a pedophile without context would seem to be fighting words in my book.
oh look ... a thread about NFL/NFLPA where passin by is going to side with dane.

i'm shocked

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:13 PM
oh look ... a thread about NFL/NFLPA where passin by is going to side with dane.

i'm shocked

I'm not talking about NFL/NFLPA right here, you douche. Your utter stupidity on that matter is a subject for other posts. You called a man a pedophile without anything to back it up. In the real world, you'd be lucky to get away with your teeth after something like that.

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 01:14 PM
I don't know the backstory, but calling someone a pedophile without context would seem to be fighting words in my book.


Have you SEEN some of the shit dane says to people?

I you dish it you damn well be able to take it
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 01:16 PM
from what i understand, the salary cap and the rookie salary cap are agreed upon by both sides, and both sides understand that they are essential to maintaining a level playing field. as for stadium upkeep, well, no one forced jerry jones to build a 1 billion dollar stadium, and most teams receive some sort of compensation from tax payers to help with the cost.
i expect that to change if the players win the court challenge. If not this time then next.
the 18 game schedule and guaranteed salaries are nothing more then bargaining chips, and if you don't think the owners will continue to raise prices, regardless of salaries, on tickets, concessions, and parking you are unbelievably naive. the owners are just as greedy as the players.agree that the owners are greedy but a built-in excuse like losing this negotiations will speed up raising prices. I think guaranteed salaries will definitely be on the players agenda if they win.
the players are what we gather around our tv's for every sunday. you don't bundle up, go tailgate in sub freezing temperatures, and sit for 3 or 4 hours paying way too much for beer to watch the owners sit around and drink wine, and eat cheese. no, you go to watch a football game played by football players. they are what draws the money in, they deserve to get paid like they are the center of the football universe.understood, it's hard to root for the players one minute and then against them the next but the players are always saying "this is a business" everything they hold out or move on and for the fans "this is business". Having the owners win is good business for the fans.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:17 PM
Have you SEEN some of the shit dane says to people?

I you dish it you damn well be able to take it
Posted via Mobile Device

I had Dane on ignore for months, because he'd been a complete tool about a lot of things, and he'd lied about something he claimed I was doing, and gave me an infraction when I'd done nothing wrong. I only took him off during the Charlie Sheen stuff, because I thought he might have some insight there that I wouldn't want to miss. I've never seen him call anyone a pedophile before, especially in a thread that had nothing to do with that topic.

Have you?

Mr. Laz
03-19-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm not talking about NFL/NFLPA right here, you douche. Your utter stupidity on that matter is a subject for other posts. You called a man a pedophile without anything to back it up. In the real world, you'd be lucky to get away with your teeth after something like that.Dane is a douchebag who says whatever he can to fuck with people on here everyday.

if he doesn't want to get shit then he shouldn't give it.


i have openly said that calling him pedo is just a name to piss him off and i have nothing to prove that he really is. Would calling idiot,douche or telling him to die in a fire be better for you?

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:25 PM
Dane is a douchebag who says whatever he can to **** with people on here everyday.

if he doesn't want to get shit then he shouldn't give it.


i have openly said that calling him pedo is just a name to piss him off and i have nothing to prove that he really is. Would calling idiot,douche or telling him to die in a fire be better for you?

Dane is a douchebag. You called him a pedophile. Two different things.

And, yes, the other names would be better. All it takes is someone doing a background check to pull up "Dane, pedophile" on the internet, to cause trouble in the man's real life.

Just how ****ing retarded are you?

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 01:26 PM
No. not a pedophile. But he has said a lot of stuff that's crosses lines. Is there really a difference?

I had Dane on ignore for months, because he'd been a complete tool about a lot of things, and he'd lied about something he claimed I was doing, and gave me an infraction when I'd done nothing wrong. I only took him off during the Charlie Sheen stuff, because I thought he might have some insight there that I wouldn't want to miss. I've never seen him call anyone a pedophile before, especially in a thread that had nothing to do with that topic.

Have you?
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 01:28 PM
Yeah this would make sense if his name is dane mcloud
Dane is a douchebag. You called him a pedophile. Two different things.

And, yes, the other names would be better. All it takes is someone doing a background check to pull up "Dane, pedophile" on the internet, to cause trouble in the man's real life.

Just how ****ing retarded are you?
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:29 PM
Yeah this would make sense if his name is dane mcloud

Posted via Mobile Device

Do you think people don't get accounts and screen names? You really are ignorant.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:31 PM
No. not a pedophile. But he has said a lot of stuff that's crosses lines. Is there really a difference?


Posted via Mobile Device

If it crosses the line, it should be dealt with. I may call you (just examples) Asshole, dipshit, dumbass, whatever, and there are not real issues there, since they are generic and accepted. Hell, we joke about pretty much everything, up to and including rape and murder. Pedophilia, however, remains off limits. Given that, I don't see how calling someone a pedophile doesn't merit some form of a bitch slap.

I'm not for banning, but something should at least have been said to the idiots choosing that as an attack.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 01:33 PM
Dane is a douchebag. You called him a pedophile. Two different things.

And, yes, the other names would be better. All it takes is someone doing a background check to pull up "Dane, pedophile" on the internet, to cause trouble in the man's real life.

Just how ****ing retarded are you?

dude, if you have your real name attached to your account so somebody could google your name, and find posts by you and about you from here on chiefsplanet, your and idiot. especially with the way people talk on here. if somebody was that interested in dane's life, a lot of the things he said to other people would look far worse then some poster randomly calling him a pedophile with no evidence to back it up..

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:37 PM
dude, if you have your real name attached to your account so somebody could google your name, and find posts by you and about you from here on chiefsplanet, your and idiot. especially with the way people talk on here. if somebody was that interested in dane's life, a lot of the things he said to other people would look far worse then some poster randomly calling him a pedophile with no evidence to back it up..

Hell, some employers actually require that you give them to them.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 01:40 PM
Hell, some employers actually require that you give them to them.

A. no fucking way would i admit this place to an employer.

B. that still goes beyond a simple background check.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 01:55 PM
A. no ****ing way would i admit this place to an employer.

B. that still goes beyond a simple background check.

Hey, if all words were on the table, I'd be with you on this, and my preference is for no words to be censored, since that's what the filters are for. I also don't think Laz's being a dick was ban worthy. But if other words are blocked, I don't see justifying calling someone a pedophile without evidence, unless it's clearly a joke.

Rausch
03-19-2011, 02:03 PM
A. no ****ing way would i admit this place to an employer.

B. that still goes beyond a simple background check.

If they want to it won't cost $50 to find everything you've posted.

EVER...

Chiefnj2
03-19-2011, 02:13 PM
You called a man a audiophile without anything to back it up. In the real world, you'd be lucky to get away with your teeth after something like that.

Is "audiophile" some CP auto correct, that stands for something else?

An audiophile, from Latin audio "I hear" and Greek philos "loving," is a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of non-mass-produced high-end audio electronics.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 02:15 PM
Is "audiophile" some CP auto correct, that stands for something else?

An audiophile, from Latin audio "I hear" and Greek philos "loving," is a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of non-mass-produced high-end audio electronics.

Yes, DaFace put audiophile in as an auto-correct for the term referring to adults who would prefer the sexual company of children.

Chiefnj2
03-19-2011, 02:19 PM
Yes, DaFace put audiophile in as an auto-correct for the term referring to adults who would prefer the sexual company of children.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not sure what to make of the dispute.

You shouldn't call someone a pedo. However, it's allowed by CP, whereas veiled threats of violence aren't.

Laz baited him in and gut hooked Dane.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 02:28 PM
Hey, if all words were on the table, I'd be with you on this, and my preference is for no words to be censored, since that's what the filters are for. I also don't think Laz's being a dick was ban worthy. But if other words are blocked, I don't see justifying calling someone a audiophile without evidence, unless it's clearly a joke.

If you're worried about that, then don't say you're making a porno with a guy's 14 year old daughter.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 02:30 PM
If you're worried about that, then don't say you're making a porno with a guy's 14 year old daughter.

R8er made the porno crack. Dane said something like "mother, wife and daughter". It was R8er who followed that up with the 14 year old comment. That was on R8er, not Dane.

All I'm saying is that either all words should be clear or something as charged as the word in question should be considered at least as serious as that 3 letter insult to homosexuals. Hell, at least that word has alternate meanings.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 02:34 PM
R8er made the porno crack. Dane said something like "mother, wife and daughter". It was R8er who followed that up with the 14 year old comment. That was on R8er, not Dane.

All I'm saying is that either all words should be clear or something as charged as the word in question should be considered at least as serious as that 3 letter insult to homosexuals. Hell, at least that word has alternate meanings.

So be it. If you can explain that away, then you can explain away why someone called you a pedo.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 02:38 PM
So be it. If you can explain that away, then you can explain away why someone called you a pedo.

I'm not explaining anything away. R8er was looking to start shit. R8er started shit. Dane was happy to oblige. R8er added the 14 year old part to the back and forth.

That's just how it went down.

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 02:44 PM
R8er has said that dane was making pornos for quite some time. That wasn't something that came up thee last day or two. Dane had time to think up a response
Posted via Mobile Device

Rausch
03-19-2011, 02:44 PM
R8er has said that dane was making pornos for quite some time.

:spock:

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 02:48 PM
I'm not explaining anything away. R8er was looking to start shit. R8er started shit. Dane was happy to oblige. R8er added the 14 year old part to the back and forth.

That's just how it went down.

So be it. Neither of them are victims. In the preposterously unlikely event that Dane ever has to answer for why the words "pedo" and "danemccloud" come up together in a google search, he brought it on himself. Dane had better hope they don't search for "AIDS".

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=496966

TrebMaxx
03-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Frankly I think the owners and the players should both just go fuck themselves. We need the NFLFA (NFL Fans Association) to tell them who really makes football what it is. If there were no fans would there be a league? The high ticket prices, parking fees, food and beverage cost at stadiums is reaching a point that a lot fans can no longer afford. I think it would be great to boycott the first couple of weekends games whenever the next season starts. Both by not going to the games and not watching on T.V. just to send a message from those who truly pay the paychecks.

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 02:52 PM
:spock:

What he has. Keep up with the financial threads.

It didn't just start the last day or two
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 03:09 PM
So be it. Neither of them are victims. In the preposterously unlikely event that Dane ever has to answer for why the words "pedo" and "danemccloud" come up together in a google search, he brought it on himself. Dane had better hope they don't search for "AIDS".

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=496966

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not defending Dane. Anyone can check my post history and see that Dane and I have rarely posted a civil word to one another.

I'm focused on the uneven use of censorship on the board. That's a big issue for me.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 03:10 PM
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not defending Dane. Anyone can check my post history and see that Dane and I have rarely posted a civil word to one another.

I'm focused on the uneven use of censorship on the board. That's a big issue for me.

Dane wasn't banned. He left of his own accord.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 03:12 PM
Dane wasn't banned. He left of his own accord.

I never claimed he was banned.

Rausch
03-19-2011, 03:12 PM
What he has. Keep up with the financial threads.

It didn't just start the last day or two
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm always the last to know.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 03:13 PM
I never claimed he was banned.

Then what's with the "uneven use of censorship" talk? Who was censored?

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 03:17 PM
Then what's with the "uneven use of censorship" talk? Who was censored?

No offense, but I'm not going to go over this again. It's in 2 threads, and DaFace has, at least for the moment, adjusted things.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 03:24 PM
No offense, but I'm not going to go over this again. It's in 2 threads, and DaFace has, at least for the moment, adjusted things.

No problem. If you're talking about the Flopnuts ban, that was bullshit, but it was the exception. THAT was an example of poor moderating. This is just an example of mods not getting involved in a playground spat.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 03:30 PM
No problem. If you're talking about the Flopnuts ban, that was bullshit, but it was the exception. THAT was an example of poor moderating. This is just an example of mods not getting involved in a playground spat.

No, that's not it. I'm talking about CP finding it ok to call someone a pedo (+ the rest), but not to call someone a flag (minus the 'l'). There are other banned words, too (or at least one), but I've been using that one as an example. Calling someone a pedo is more damning in this country than the example I've been pointing to.

But, as I said, DaFace has adjusted that, for the moment.

P.S. to the mods. It's tough to talk specifically about the words if you can't use the words. No evil intent is meant in the "circumvent the filter" manner.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
No, that's not it. I'm talking about CP finding it ok to call someone a pedo (+ the rest), but not to call someone a flag (minus the 'l'). There are other banned words, too (or at least one), but I've been using that one as an example. Calling someone a pedo is more damning in this country than the example I've been pointing to.

But, as I said, DaFace has adjusted that, for the moment.

P.S. to the mods. It's tough to talk specifically about the words if you can't use the words. No evil intent is meant in the "circumvent the filter" manner.

I think you are WAY off base here. The "flag" word isn't banned because it is damning. It's banned because it's offensive to homosexuals. The "n" word is also banned, not because it's a huge insult to a white person to be called this. It's banned because it's a pejorative against blacks.

I don't think that anyone really cares if actual child molesters are offended, so the word isn't going to be treated as if it were toxic. I suppose that people who wear hats made of asses could be offended by the term "asshat", but this board doesn't seem to worry enough about offending those people to ban this term, either.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 04:30 PM
I think you are WAY off base here. The "flag" word isn't banned because it is damning. It's banned because it's offensive to homosexuals. The "n" word is also banned, not because it's a huge insult to a white person to be called this. It's banned because it's a pejorative against blacks.

I don't think that anyone really cares if actual child molesters are offended, so the word isn't going to be treated as if it were toxic. I suppose that people who wear hats made of asses could be offended by the term "asshat", but this board doesn't seem to worry enough about offending those people to ban this term, either.

Being called a pedo was apparently offensive to Dane. His status as a pedo/non-pedo is irrelevant. FFS, we're seeing internet comments biting people in the ass in real life all the time now.

Saying "Tough shit. Man up. Except for the gays. We'll protect their sensibilities." is just idiotic.

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 04:41 PM
Being called a pedo was apparently offensive to Dane. His status as a pedo/non-pedo is irrelevant. FFS, we're seeing internet comments biting people in the ass in real life all the time now.

Saying "Tough shit. Man up. Except for the gays. We'll protect their sensibilities." is just idiotic.

So we should protect those who choose to sexualize young children in the same manner we protect ethnic minorities and homosexuals? That's one opinion, I guess. I disagree, as I don't really care about offending pedos. Then again, I don't really care about racial or homophobic slurs, either.

That said, if the internet has proven anything, its that people love porn and they love typing the "n" word.

Rausch
03-19-2011, 04:45 PM
So we should protect those who choose to sexualize young children in the same manner we protect ethnic minorities and homosexuals?

I was born and raised Catholic so I guess I have to answer yes here.

I think.

Probably...

kcfanXIII
03-19-2011, 04:45 PM
I think if you can't take even the most vile of insults in stride you need to find a new board to post on.

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 04:48 PM
So we should protect those who choose to sexualize young children in the same manner we protect ethnic minorities and homosexuals? That's one opinion, I guess. I disagree, as I don't really care about offending pedos. Then again, I don't really care about racial or homophobic slurs, either.

That said, if the internet has proven anything, its that people love porn and they love typing the "n" word.

You are trying to twist what I've said. I'm not going to play that game on sensitive topics like this.

My personal preference would be for having no words being banned/autocorrected. That's apparently not an option. Given that some words are being singled out, calling someone a pedo is worse than calling them the "f" word. That should be without question, and your post about which group you'd protect essentially acknowledges this. If the "f" word is banned/autocorrected, the "P" word should be banned/autocorrected.