PDA

View Full Version : Football Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell


Pages : [1] 2

Von Dumbass
04-25-2011, 10:44 PM
There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams.

Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.

Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html

Baconeater
04-25-2011, 11:21 PM
Well gee Roger, maybe your fucking owners shouldn't have opted out of the old CBA and started this shit.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 11:24 PM
Well gee Roger, maybe your ****ing owners shouldn't have opted out of the old CBA and started this shit.

^
I
I

CaliforniaChief
04-25-2011, 11:29 PM
These guys need to put a stop to this madness and sit down together until a deal is done. They're acting like children with a $9 Billion ball and threatening to go home.

lazepoo
04-25-2011, 11:32 PM
Sorry, but people only go to the court of public opinion when they have a weak case legally. Goodell is fucked, and I think he knows it. He probably has every owner in the league up his ass right now asking how this happened.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-25-2011, 11:36 PM
Remember when Roger Goodell was a much heralded new commissioner that was considered a great successor to Tagliabue?

BigMeatballDave
04-25-2011, 11:39 PM
Fuck this assclown.

BigMeatballDave
04-25-2011, 11:41 PM
Laz will be slobbering all over this thread.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 11:42 PM
Remember when Roger Goodell was a much heralded new commissioner that was considered a great successor to Tagliabue?

"You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him"

Sound reason to me.

Problem is Goodell is not a benevolent god...

alnorth
04-25-2011, 11:52 PM
Roger, you are one hell of an amazing mind-blowing moron.

Its very simple: bargain in good faith. Thats it, just bargain in good faith.

EVERY GOD DAMNED MAJOR SPORT in the ENTIRE US except the NFL OPENS THEIR DAMNED BOOKS to their players.

If you need more money, fine. Prove it. If you open your books and explain why you need to take away another $600MM from the players and they dont buy it, OK fine. We'll probably have a strike and you can see who can hold out long enough.

Don't pretend the players woke up one day and decided, just for the hell of it, to de-unionize and file antitrust lawsuits. You drove them to this because you got greedy. You negotiated below-market TV contracts to get lockout payments, violating your fiduciary duty to the players in the process, and REFUSED to open the books, and you just assumed a judge would somehow rule that you had a right to a lockout even without a union. You didn't negotiate in good faith. Sorry NFL, you were the lieing scumbag in this story, you lose this round.

It was stupid for you to assume that you had this dominant negotiating position unsupported by law. Admit it, you screwed up. Now, go back to the table, and this time open your books.

CrazyPhuD
04-25-2011, 11:52 PM
The funny thing is that while this sounds bad it actually may not end up quite so bad. In this short term if this were to play out I would expect the smaller market teams to then recruit and develop the HS level talent. No CBA also means no minimum age which means the teams most desperate for talent can cherry pick the potential, but unpolished HS athletes. Put them on an NFL training program with judicious use of chemicals and they would develop physically quite quickly. Very high risk but somewhat high rewards too. Also no contract lengths so those you hit you could keep for a 10 year initial contract.

The bigger programs will lure the elite HS talent but the good to midrange should still be available for the mid sized NFL teams. Scouting HS talent becomes almost as important if not more so than the draft today.

philfree
04-25-2011, 11:54 PM
I see nothing wrong with the Goodells statement. I'm not really a Goodell fan either.

So if the NFL goes total free agent will there be roster limits or will teams be able to sign as many players as they want? If that's the case the richest owners will buy up all the talent living the other teams with all the scrubs. And those guys won't make jack.

PhilFree:arrow:

tk13
04-26-2011, 12:00 AM
Well, it definitely takes a huge set of stones, or something else, to lock out a workforce because you want to change the system, then when it backfires, turn around and write a huge column making the argument that a few months ago they didn't want to change the system at all. Well, duh.

It's like sticking your hand in a beehive, getting stung 231 times, then arguing that before you stuck your hand in there, the bees were getting along just fine, why'd they get so angry?

Rausch
04-26-2011, 12:01 AM
He's definitely the best the NFL could have put forth.

I'm not sure if I love him or hate him...

alnorth
04-26-2011, 12:03 AM
Well, it definitely takes a huge set of stones, or something else, to lock out a workforce because you want to change the system, then when it backfires, turn around and write a huge column making the argument that a few months ago they didn't want to change the system at all. Well, duh.

It's like sticking your hand in a beehive, getting stung 231 times, then arguing that before you stuck your hand in there, the bees were getting along just fine, why'd they get so angry?

Exactly. The NFL made a retarded gamble because they wanted an extra $600MM out of over 10 billion. Thats all this was about, just a measly 600 little million out of billions and billions. The players had a very good reason, based on prior lawsuits, to believe they were on solid legal ground if the NFL became unreasonable.

For that, Goodell and the retarded owners prodding him forth were willing to risk the draft, roster limits, salary caps, player control, EVERYTHING, for just another little 600 million. Why? Because for some retarded reason they thought the courts would rule in their favor. They were willing to gamble everything for that.

Well, NFL you were wrong, and you just screwed this up big-time. At this point, you probably need to go back to the player's union and BEG to go back to the old CBA.

Bump
04-26-2011, 12:05 AM
with Tagliabue, you didn't know what you had until it's now gone.

tk13
04-26-2011, 12:09 AM
I see nothing wrong with the Goodells statement. I'm not really a Goodell fan either.

So if the NFL goes total free agent will there be roster limits or will teams be able to sign as many players as they want? If that's the case the richest owners will buy up all the talent living the other teams with all the scrubs. And those guys won't make jack.

PhilFree:arrow:


I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo. That's the most unbelievable part of the article... he's leaning on the players argument that would've avoided the whole thing in the first place. That is some grade A hypocrisy.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 12:21 AM
There is a whole lot of sense being made in this thread, and frankly it surprises me. **** Goodell and the owners for being douchenoozles. IF they had gone for something that made sense like dumping the rookie salary cap and doing something good with it, they would have a compliant group in the players agreeing with them.

Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

philfree
04-26-2011, 12:38 AM
I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo.

I don't think the owners would have signed the last CBA without the opt out clause because they weren't that comfortable with the deal. The players signed a CBA that gave the owners an opt out and if they thought that the owners wouldn't opt out at the 1st chance then they weren't thinking very well. I believe the players at that time new they would sue if the owners excersized their option. This whole mess was predestined since 2006. The owners shouldn't have ever signed that CBA. That was the screw up. The owners gave up more then they were comfortable with and if they thought the players would ever give back any ground they weren't thinking very clearly.

the players were fine with the status quo

That says the players know they got a sweet deal and got one over on the owners. I'd still like to see what the players want in a new CBA. I've never seen or heard a word about what they'd want in a new CBA. That tells me that they never really negotiated. If they had they would have put something on the table.


PhilFree:arrow:

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 12:43 AM
OK I take part of my statement back.

Psyko Tek
04-26-2011, 12:58 AM
The funny thing is that while this sounds bad it actually may not end up quite so bad. In this short term if this were to play out I would expect the smaller market teams to then recruit and develop the HS level talent. No CBA also means no minimum age which means the teams most desperate for talent can cherry pick the potential, but unpolished HS athletes. Put them on an NFL training program with judicious use of chemicals and they would develop physically quite quickly. Very high risk but somewhat high rewards too. Also no contract lengths so those you hit you could keep for a 10 year initial contract.

The bigger programs will lure the elite HS talent but the good to midrange should still be available for the mid sized NFL teams. Scouting HS talent becomes almost as important if not more so than the draft today.
you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

BIG_DADDY
04-26-2011, 01:02 AM
Exactly. The NFL made a retarded gamble because they wanted an extra $600MM out of over 10 billion. Thats all this was about, just a measly 600 little million out of billions and billions. The players had a very good reason, based on prior lawsuits, to believe they were on solid legal ground if the NFL became unreasonable.

For that, Goodell and the retarded owners prodding him forth were willing to risk the draft, roster limits, salary caps, player control, EVERYTHING, for just another little 600 million. Why? Because for some retarded reason they thought the courts would rule in their favor. They were willing to gamble everything for that.

Well, NFL you were wrong, and you just screwed this up big-time. At this point, you probably need to go back to the player's union and BEG to go back to the old CBA.

Shut it down

CrazyPhuD
04-26-2011, 02:05 AM
you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

Well if I have some stupids god help what you have. How hard is it to realize that with CBA and no age limit there will be no quality athletes at the college level. The notion of not being 'physically ready' is complete bullshit. They are only not physically ready because they don't have access to the same nutrition/training experience in that they have in college. Physically most of them have stopped growing etc(but there are always a few exceptions). If they have the capability to go pro post or even during high school they will join independent programs and become physically 'ready' sooner. Much like you have kids playing AAU ball pre-college for NBA level competition. For instance the NBA instituting the 1 year out of college rule had nothing to do with physical characteristics.

stating that he wanted the league's scouts and general managers out of high school gyms and that too many young urban Americans incorrectly saw the NBA as a sure path to fame and financial security.

Remove the classes from school and they'd have plenty of time to dedicate. Would they? Well that's part of the scouting program. It would be the only way that the small teams would have a chance to compete. Take the really raw talent out of HS, sign him to a 7-10 year contract and spend 1-2 years getting them football ready.

Without the 3 years out of HS rule there would be no reason for most of those good to great athletes to even head to college. Better to get on a NFL training program and be ready to play/get paid sooner. It would likely be a hybrid between the NBA/MLB systems. You'd have people being signed for raw talent and then developed, rather than having more polished players come out of college. It's a huge risk that they would develop but that's why the small teams would have to do it, because they'd have no shot for a player that's developed and proved they can play. Only those that have potential but have proved very little. The ultimate developmental projects. With a really quality scouting system it could work to make the smaller teams competitive. But considering they can poach the scouting too it's not clear how long it would enable them to stay competitive.

HMc
04-26-2011, 02:20 AM
I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money.

Well, the players agreed to the inclusion of the opt-out term, didn't they? And for that, they got something in return (the process of negotiation).

It should have been well within the contemplation of the players that the owners may opt out.

This has lasted longer than I thought it would. I still think they'll get a deal done before opening day. Really though, complete free agency and no restraints of trade is really the only way to settle these arguments using the "market"

HMc
04-26-2011, 02:25 AM
Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

People don't purchase auto insurance because they know they'll have an accident. It's a transfer of risk. It makes sense include the same protection in a TV deal. It's not particularly compelling evidence that the owners knew there would be a lockout.

Direckshun
04-26-2011, 02:29 AM
Alnorth is torching this thread.

ChiefsCountry
04-26-2011, 02:51 AM
I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

Fruit Ninja
04-26-2011, 03:18 AM
Godell is just pissed because this epic fuck up is happening on his watch. I used to like him, but lately its making it harder and harder. He's turning into a big ole jackass.

Fruit Ninja
04-26-2011, 03:19 AM
I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 03:58 AM
The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

Yes they should. It's called bargaining in good faith.

Fruit Ninja
04-26-2011, 04:58 AM
I understand what your saying, but these are really powerful dudes that hate people looking at all their business. I am on the players side, but you shouldnt have to show what your spending your money on. at least thats how i feel.

It is what it is. Godell is stressing, this is all on his watch.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 07:07 AM
I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.You should pay more attention to whats going on here.

Gonzo
04-26-2011, 07:11 AM
Laz will be slobbering all over this thread.

Hey now...

That's "D.J. Lazzy Left" to you, buddy.
Posted via Mobile Device

King_Chief_Fan
04-26-2011, 07:15 AM
All the owners have to say now is.......get to work.
They tell the union to piss off since they have decertified.

There is no agreement, union is gone......NFL make up your own rules.

veist
04-26-2011, 07:17 AM
This is some the sky is falling crocodile tears from the owners, they know the draft, the cap and drug testing are all safe. The supreme court told them as much when they got their asses handed to them in the American Needle case. This whole thing is such a farce.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 07:18 AM
It's not just Goodell, remember DeMaurice Smith is also an asswhipe extraordinaire.

Having Tagliabue around wouldn't mean shit other than he has done this before. Smith wouldn't be working with him either.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 08:08 AM
I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo. That's the most unbelievable part of the article... he's leaning on the players argument that would've avoided the whole thing in the first place. That is some grade A hypocrisy.

I think the owners opting out is a moot point because in 2 years the same thing would be happening just like it is now. Everybody knew 3 years ago this was going to happen and they still couldn't get a deal done.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 08:15 AM
One way to look at it is:

The owners started it by opting out of the CBA.

Others would say:

In order to avoid a strike and lockout years ago the owners decided to agree to a bad deal for them and everyone knew the owners were going to opt out as soon as the agreement allowed them to opt out.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 08:15 AM
I think the owners opting out is a moot point because in 2 years the same thing would be happening just like it is now. Everybody knew 3 years ago this was going to happen and they still couldn't get a deal done.A moot point? Thats convenient to say when you're siding with the Owners.

Really, the biggest issues are amongst the Owners, themselves, IMO.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 08:17 AM
One way to look at it is:

The owners started it by opting out of the CBA.

Others would say:

In order to avoid a strike and lockout years ago the owners decided to agree to a bad deal for them and everyone knew the owners were going to opt out as soon as the agreement allowed them to opt out.Bad deal? Boo Fucking Hoo. If they are loosing money, prove it.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:19 AM
A moot point? Thats convenient to say when you're siding with the Owners.

Really, the biggest issues are amongst the Owners, themselves, IMO.

That really is the issue.

The owners dodn't want to open their books, because they don't want that information open to the other owners.

They are already at odds on revenue sharing.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:20 AM
One way to look at it is:

The owners started it by opting out of the CBA.

Others would say:

In order to avoid a strike and lockout years ago the owners decided to agree to a bad deal for them and everyone knew the owners were going to opt out as soon as the agreement allowed them to opt out.

Funny thing is, the perception at the time was that Gene Upshaw got bent over.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 08:26 AM
A moot point? Thats convenient to say when you're siding with the Owners.

Really, the biggest issues are amongst the Owners, themselves, IMO.

My point was it is a moot point to blame this lockout on the owners because they opted out. They could have certaintly not opted out but that was just delaying the inevitable until 2013.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 08:30 AM
Bad deal? Boo ****ing Hoo. If they are loosing money, prove it.

If the players don't like the NFL they can go play in Canada or the Arena League.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:31 AM
If the players don't like the NFL they can go play in Canada or the Arena League.

That is the stupidest fucking argument ever.

MOhillbilly
04-26-2011, 08:34 AM
fuck this shit. just give me some fucking football.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 08:35 AM
If the players don't like the NFL they can go play in Canada or the Arena League.Good God. You cant be fucking serious. :LOL:

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 08:38 AM
My point was it is a moot point to blame this lockout on the owners because they opted out. They could have certaintly not opted out but that was just delaying the inevitable until 2013.Not really a moot point. They are the ones Locking the players out, regardless of when it happens.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 08:44 AM
That really is the issue.

The owners dodn't want to open their books, because they don't want that information open to the other owners.

They are already at odds on revenue sharing.

Thats just too damned bad.

Every other major sport in this country opens their books to their players. If the NFL doesn't want to do that, then they can just live without a draft, without caps, without guaranteed player control, and rampant mercenary free agency.

If the league doesn't want all of that in the name of competitive balance without antitrust lawsuits, then the least they can do is show the same information that the MLB, NBA, and NHL owners show to their players.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 08:52 AM
Every other major sport in this country opens their books to their players. If the NFL doesn't want to do that, then they can just live without a draft, without caps, without guaranteed player control, and rampant mercenary free agency.



You think 99% of the players want what you just posted? They want the Snyder paying Andrew Luck 10x what Manning gets? They want owners to tie up big money in a handful of players?

notorious
04-26-2011, 09:46 AM
Well if I have some stupids god help what you have. How hard is it to realize that with CBA and no age limit there will be no quality athletes at the college level. The notion of not being 'physically ready' is complete bullshit. They are only not physically ready because they don't have access to the same nutrition/training experience in that they have in college. Physically most of them have stopped growing etc(but there are always a few exceptions). If they have the capability to go pro post or even during high school they will join independent programs and become physically 'ready' sooner. Much like you have kids playing AAU ball pre-college for NBA level competition. For instance the NBA instituting the 1 year out of college rule had nothing to do with physical characteristics.



Remove the classes from school and they'd have plenty of time to dedicate. Would they? Well that's part of the scouting program. It would be the only way that the small teams would have a chance to compete. Take the really raw talent out of HS, sign him to a 7-10 year contract and spend 1-2 years getting them football ready.

Without the 3 years out of HS rule there would be no reason for most of those good to great athletes to even head to college. Better to get on a NFL training program and be ready to play/get paid sooner. It would likely be a hybrid between the NBA/MLB systems. You'd have people being signed for raw talent and then developed, rather than having more polished players come out of college. It's a huge risk that they would develop but that's why the small teams would have to do it, because they'd have no shot for a player that's developed and proved they can play. Only those that have potential but have proved very little. The ultimate developmental projects. With a really quality scouting system it could work to make the smaller teams competitive. But considering they can poach the scouting too it's not clear how long it would enable them to stay competitive.


So basically you want the NFL to become MLB, only worse.


We won't even get a shot to draft the talent. They will already be going to Dallas, NY, etc.


Open system will kill the NFL overnight.


Besides, what you are proposing will also kill college football just like it kills college basketball.

Garcia Bronco
04-26-2011, 09:49 AM
All the league has to do is stop revenue sharing and they could end this nonsense.

Garcia Bronco
04-26-2011, 09:51 AM
I understand what your saying, but these are really powerful dudes that hate people looking at all their business. I am on the players side, but you shouldnt have to show what your spending your money on. at least thats how i feel.

It is what it is. Godell is stressing, this is all on his watch.

Only if it's a publically traded company. Otherwise it's no one's business.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 10:00 AM
If the players don't like the NFL they can go play in Canada or the Arena League.
It sounds like you support the owners over the players because you have a dogmatic belief that business owners are always right and labor is always wrong.

Just to show you where I am coming from: I hate players unions. The MLB Players Association has pretty much destroyed baseball in Kansas City and changed the game so much that it's almost unrecognizable today compared to what it was like in the 1970s and 1980s.

And for the most part I side with managment over labor unions. Labor unions certainly have accomplished some good things ever since the Industrial Revolution, but today I think they do more harm than good. Just ask the American Auto Industry.

However, IN THIS CASE, the NFL owners are virtually 100% wrong and the NFL players are virtually 100% right. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. The owners started this fight. The owners showed that they were planning to screw the players when they left money on the table in the negotiation for the last television contract so that they could get the provision put in stating that they would still get paid even if they locked out the players. That right there is prima facie evidence regarding what has been in the minds of the owners all along.

As has been already stated several times in this thread, IF THE OWNERS ARE GOING TO CLAIM POVERTY, THEY NEED TO PROVE IT. The fact is that owning an NFL team is just about the most lucrative investment anyone could ever make. These guys are raking in billions of dollars. If they really aren't, then it would be a simple matter to prove it. Just open up the damn books.

Roger Goodell's OP in the Wall Street Journal is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. According to him, the sky is about to fall and it's all the players' fault. I've lost all respect for the man.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 10:02 AM
All the league has to do is stop revenue sharing and they could end this nonsense.
What a fine idea. :spock:

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 10:04 AM
It sounds like you support the owners over the players because you have a dogmatic belief that business owners are always right and labor is always wrong.

Just to show you where I am coming from: I hate players unions. The MLB Players Association has pretty much destroyed baseball in Kansas City and changed the game so much that it's almost unrecognizable today compared to what it was like in the 1970s and 1980s.

And for the most part I side with managment over labor unions. Labor unions certainly have accomplished some good things ever since the Industrial Revolution, but today I think they do more harm than good. Just ask the American Auto Industry.

However, IN THIS CASE, the NFL owners are virtually 100% wrong and the NFL players are virtually 100% right. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. The owners started this fight. The owners showed that they were planning to screw the players when they left money on the table in the negotiation for the last television contract so that they could get the provision put in stating that they would still get paid even if they locked out the players. That right there is prima facie evidence regarding what has been in the minds of the owners all along.

As has been already stated several times in this thread, IF THE OWNERS ARE GOING TO CLAIM POVERTY, THEY NEED TO PROVE IT. The fact is that owning an NFL team is just about the most lucrative investment anyone could ever make. These guys are raking in billions of dollars. If they really aren't, then it would be a simple matter to prove it. Just open up the damn books.

Roger Goodell's OP in the Wall Street Journal is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. According to him, the sky is about to fall and it's all the players' fault. I've lost all respect for the man.Could not agree more.

Brock
04-26-2011, 10:05 AM
Welp, you should have talked those guys into extending the deal they had, Rog.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 10:07 AM
I understand what your saying, but these are really powerful dudes that hate people looking at all their business. I am on the players side, but you shouldnt have to show what your spending your money on. at least thats how i feel.

It is what it is. Godell is stressing, this is all on his watch.I agree, however, the Owners are claiming they are not making enough.

Also, I'd bet its not the players that they dont want to see their numbers, its other owners.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 11:08 AM
That is the stupidest ****ing argument ever.

Hard to prove a monopoly when there are two other national leagues and a handful of other professional leagues.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 11:08 AM
Not really a moot point. They are the ones Locking the players out, regardless of when it happens.

Didn't that stop mattering when there ceased to be a player's union?

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 11:15 AM
I don't think he's that far off in generally saying "You don't want a baseball-like situation".

But on behalf of everyone I say, screw you all, wake us when this is over.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:20 AM
"screw dem owners, make em open their books11!!" Kneejerk retards.

It is amazing how so many of you can understand so little. You will be the same people who bitch and moan when the NFL becomes MLB and your football team has as little chance of winning anything as your baseball team does now.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:20 AM
Didn't that stop mattering when there ceased to be a player's union?Why would this matter?

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 11:21 AM
"screw dem owners, make em open their books11!!" Kneejerk retards.

It is amazing how so many of you can understand so little. You will be the same people who bitch and moan when the NFL becomes MLB and your football team has as little chance of winning anything as your baseball team does now.

Zactly

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:23 AM
"screw dem owners, make em open their books11!!" Kneejerk retards.

It is amazing how so many of you can understand so little. You will be the same people who bitch and moan when the NFL becomes MLB and your football team has as little chance of winning anything as your baseball team does now.Seriously? If this were a STRIKE I would agree. Its not. The players were content with what they had and were willing to adopt a rookie wage scale.

The Owners claim they arent making enough. BS. Prove it.

-King-
04-26-2011, 11:29 AM
"screw dem owners, make em open their books11!!" Kneejerk retards.

It is amazing how so many of you can understand so little. You will be the same people who bitch and moan when the NFL becomes MLB and your football team has as little chance of winning anything as your baseball team does now.

How does opening books make football into MLB? If the owners didn't want to be exposed as frauds, then they shouldn't have started this in the first place.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:29 AM
I don't understand all the owner resentment in this thread.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:30 AM
How does opening books make football into MLB? If the owners didn't want to be exposed as frauds, then they shouldn't have started this in the first place.

Why should the owners open their books?

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:31 AM
How does opening books make football into MLB? If the owners didn't want to be exposed as frauds, then they shouldn't have started this in the first place.

The fact you think a business owner is required to open his books to his employees shows how far off base you are.

-King-
04-26-2011, 11:32 AM
Why should the owners open their books?

To prove that they need the 600MM they're demanding.

RockChalk
04-26-2011, 11:32 AM
Yawn.

Someone wake me up when all of these multi-millionaire whiny bitches end their little tiff.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:32 AM
I don't understand all the owner resentment in this thread.I dont resent the Owners. But when you're a billionaire and you're crying about not making enough, then I have little sympathy for you.

-King-
04-26-2011, 11:33 AM
Yawn.

Someone wake me up when all of these multi-millionaire whiny bitches end their little tiff.

How many multi millionaires are there in the NFL?

How about when the billionaires end their little tiff?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:35 AM
Yawn.

Someone wake me up when all of these multi-millionaire whiny bitches end their little tiff.The multi-millionaires are the players and were happy with the status quo. The billionaire owners were the ones crying.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:35 AM
To prove that they need the 600MM they're demanding.

Why should they have to prove it? They certainly have the option to do it, but I don't see why anyone should expect them to do it when they have other cards to play.

Should every player open up his finances to his team when he's negotiating for a contract extension or a FA contract?

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:36 AM
The multi-millionaires are the players and were happy with the status quo. The billionaire owners were the ones crying.

WTF are you talking about? Are you so easily deceived?

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:36 AM
I dont resent the Owners. But when you're a billionaire and you're crying about not making enough, then I have little sympathy for you.

It sounds like you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Why does their net worth make any difference here?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:37 AM
Why should they have to prove it? They certainly have the option to do it, but I don't see why anyone should expect them to do it when they have other cards to play.

Should every player open up his finances to his team when he's negotiating for a contract extension or a FA contract?The team is already aware of what players make.

-King-
04-26-2011, 11:37 AM
WTF are you talking about? Are you so easily deceived?

So the players are the ones who Opted out?

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:40 AM
The team is already aware of what players make.

The team doesn't know what the player's expenses are. Surely that's relevant when the team decides how much the player "needs" a bigger contract. This is effectively the same argument being made about the owners' books. It's ridiculous, I know.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:41 AM
Why does their net worth make any difference here?Considering the Players ARE the reason these Owners make 100s of millions, then it does matter.

MOhillbilly
04-26-2011, 11:41 AM
talked to a cousin who thinks a deal will be in place sometime around the time training camp runs. sounded confident.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:43 AM
Considering the Players ARE the reason these Owners make 100s of millions, then it does matter.

1. These players are not irreplaceable.

2. Even if they were, your argument wouldn't make any sense and doesn't answer the question. Why does it matter?

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 11:44 AM
To prove that they need the 600MM they're demanding.

What is going to happen is if they don't get more money already high prices are going to go a lot higher and then they will add more games.

-King-
04-26-2011, 11:45 AM
1. These players are not irreplaceable.

2. Even if they were, your argument wouldn't make any sense and doesn't answer the question. Why does it matter?

So who would replace the players?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:49 AM
1. These players are not irreplaceable.

:spock: This shit again? Stupid. Fucking. Argument.

I forgot, players like Manning and Brady grow on trees. :rolleyes:

milkman
04-26-2011, 11:49 AM
So who would replace the players?

Casey Printers, ftw, mutherfucker!

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:51 AM
Considering the Players ARE the reason these Owners make 100s of millions, then it does matter.

Those owners ARE the reason those players make 100s of millions. If there were no NFL the owners would still be wealthy while the vast majority of NFL players would be far from wealthy.

None of this has anything to do with a business owner having to show his books to an employee. You want to see the books? Start your own business.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:52 AM
talked to a cousin who thinks a deal will be in place sometime around the time training camp runs. sounded confident.

The only way the NFL remains the NFL is if a deal gets done and the anti-trust suit and all other suits against the league dissapear.
The owners know this. Glad to hear the players might know it too.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:53 AM
Those owners ARE the reason those players make 100s of millions. If there were no NFL the owners would still be wealthy while the vast majority of NFL players would be far from wealthy.

None of this has anything to do with a business owner having to show his books to an employee. You want to see the books? Start your own business.

The NFL is unlike any other business.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 11:54 AM
The NFL is unlike any other business.

You mean they should be allowed special consideration in dealing with their labor force?

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:57 AM
So who would replace the players?

Other players

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 11:58 AM
Other playersLMAO

patteeu
04-26-2011, 11:58 AM
:spock: This shit again? Stupid. ****ing. Argument.

I forgot, players like Manning and Brady grow on trees. :rolleyes:

If you didn't have Manning and Brady, you'd have someone else like Branning and Mady come along. The league is doing alright without Elway and Montana, isn't it?

-King-
04-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Other players

You realize how hard it is to find a player like 2.7 Larry Johnson much less find a player like Peyton Manning?

milkman
04-26-2011, 12:01 PM
If you didn't have Manning and Brady, you'd have someone else like Branning and Mady come along. The league is doing alright without Elway and Montana, isn't it?

You are talking about the normal player turnover vs. a complete purge of rosters.

Entirely different situation.

But then I think you're smart enough to recognize that, and you are only being stupid by choice.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:02 PM
If you didn't have Manning and Brady, you'd have someone else like Branning and Mady come along. The league is doing alright without Elway and Montana, isn't it?Dude. :shake:

MOhillbilly
04-26-2011, 12:05 PM
some dumbass shit in this here thread.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 12:07 PM
You realize how hard it is to find a player like 2.7 Larry Johnson much less find a player like Peyton Manning?

Why is college football so popular with all those inferior players?

How would the NFL have survived if John Elway had decided to play baseball instead of playing football? Surely there are other top athletes that choose a different sport over the NFL but somehow we don't notice the absence.

The majority of the current player pool will turn over within a few years anyway. The players are far more replaceable than the owners who have created this league and managed to shepherd it into becoming the top American professional sport.

milkman
04-26-2011, 12:11 PM
Why is college football so popular with all those inferior players?

How would the NFL have survived if John Elway had decided to play baseball instead of playing football? Surely there are other top athletes that choose a different sport over the NFL but somehow we don't notice the absence.

The majority of the current player pool will turn over within a few years anyway. The players are far more replaceable than the owners who have created this league and managed to shepherd it into becoming the top American professional sport.

Once again.

Natural turnover process vs. replacing every player in a singular stroke.

-King-
04-26-2011, 12:11 PM
Why is college football so popular with all those inferior players?
The atmosphere.


Surely you can't be this dumb. Theres a reason less than 10% of college football players go to the NFL.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 12:17 PM
You are talking about the normal player turnover vs. a complete purge of rosters.

Entirely different situation.

But then I think you're smart enough to recognize that, and you are only being stupid by choice.

No, I'm talking about the fact that the current players are more expendable than the owners are.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 12:18 PM
The atmosphere.


Surely you can't be this dumb. Theres a reason less than 10% of college football players go to the NFL.

Of course there's a reason. They aren't as good. But that doesn't mean that the NFL couldn't restock and rebuild easier than the current players could partner with alternative billionaires to build a new league.

And no, atmosphere isn't the only reason college football is popular. It's popular because they play an exciting game despite their inferior players.

tk13
04-26-2011, 12:19 PM
I can't believe anyone still argues with patteeu. Its obvious 90% of the time he's out just to yank your chain. I actually agree, the owners own the teams... if they want to start over with new players they have the right to do that. I think you could argue that guys like Casey Printers and Drew Tate aren't going to bring the star power of Brady and Manning... but if that's what the owners want, it's their business.
Posted via Mobile Device

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:20 PM
No, I'm talking about the fact that the current players are more expendable than the owners are.No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

milkman
04-26-2011, 12:21 PM
No, I'm talking about the fact that the current players are more expendable than the owners are.

No, you're talking about trying to maintain the popularity, and by extension, the profits, by replacing every single player with new players in one fell swoop.

It just won't happen.

People will tune out, and it could take years, possibly decades, to regain the popularity that the NFL enjoys now.

The players are absolutely replacable, but at an exorbitant cost.

L.A. Chieffan
04-26-2011, 12:22 PM
what a fucking dumpsterfireclusterfuckfubarshit this is

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:23 PM
I actually agree, the owners own the teams... if they want to start over with new players they have the right to do that. I think you could argue that guys like Casey Printers and Drew Tate aren't going to bring the star power of Brady and Manning... but if that's what the owners want, it's their business.
Posted via Mobile DeviceWell, sure. But the owners cant be dumb enough to believe they will make anywhere near the kind of money they were.

L.A. Chieffan
04-26-2011, 12:23 PM
nobody is going to watch the nfl with scabs. problem is owners dont give a shit

Discuss Thrower
04-26-2011, 12:24 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

On an individual player basis, sure. But if the entire league is full of substandard players then "anyone" can play football at the NFL level.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:28 PM
On an individual player basis, sure. But if the entire league is full of substandard players then "anyone" can play football at the NFL level. We are used to this standard of play in the NFL. Putting substandard players in isnt NFL level of play.

Discuss Thrower
04-26-2011, 12:29 PM
We are used to this standard of play in the NFL. Putting substandard players in isnt NFL level of play.

Don't take this as confrontational: do you care more about the athletes on a team (or the league in general) or do you care more about the tram regardless of who suits up on game day?

L.A. Chieffan
04-26-2011, 12:30 PM
We are used to this standard of play in the NFL. Putting substandard players in isnt NFL level of play.

it really doesnt matter, the tv contracts are guaranteed. even if murder she wrote reruns are getting better ratings the owners are still getting paid.

whos going to be better off in a year, the players or the owners?

Garcia Bronco
04-26-2011, 12:33 PM
What a fine idea. :spock:

It is a fine idea. Then they no longer have to follow this anti-trust bullshit.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 12:33 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

Not true. You would have to be a billionaire which very few people are and the other owners have to approve you

RockChalk
04-26-2011, 12:45 PM
The multi-millionaires are the players and were happy with the status quo. The billionaire owners were the ones crying.

Everyone is crying now. It will take both parties (multi-millionaires and billionaires) to solve this mess.

milkman
04-26-2011, 12:46 PM
Not true. You would have to be a billionaire which very few people are and the other owners have to approve you

Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder prove that all you really need is the money.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Not true. You would have to be a billionaire which very few people are and the other owners have to approve you:facepalm:

Split that hair a little thinner next time.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Don't take this as confrontational: do you care more about the athletes on a team (or the league in general) or do you care more about the tram regardless of who suits up on game day?If it were a sudden change, I would care. Its the same as using replacement players. Do not want.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 12:51 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

:LOL:

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 12:52 PM
Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder prove that all you really need is the money.

Rush Limbaugh had money...:hmmm:

:facepalm:

Split that hair a little thinner next time.

I will as long as you keep saying anyone can be an owner. You should change that to any of the 400 billionares in the USA can buy a NFL team

vailpass
04-26-2011, 12:53 PM
We are used to this standard of play in the NFL. Putting substandard players in isnt NFL level of play.

99.9 % of current NFL players would still play no matter the outcome of the current situation.
It is sheer fallacy to assume that the league would have to start over.
What else can the vast majority of the players do to earn an income within 3 tax brackets of pro football?

milkman
04-26-2011, 12:55 PM
Rush Limbaugh had money...:hmmm:



I will as long as you keep saying anyone can be an owner. You should change that to any of the 400 billionares in the USA can buy a NFL team

I don't think he had the kind of money that Jones and Snyder have, and that there was concern that he couldn't maintain the team with his resourses.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 12:56 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

There are a lot more people who have played in the NFL than who have owned NFL teams.

Bowser
04-26-2011, 12:58 PM
One thing to remember -

The owners were the ones that opted out of the CBA. The owners were the ones that thought they could reform the league to their liking. The owners were the ones who lost in court.

The owners are the ones that brought this mess down on the league, not the players.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 12:58 PM
There are a lot more people who have played in the NFL than who have owned NFL teams.More hair splitting...

patteeu
04-26-2011, 12:59 PM
No, you're talking about trying to maintain the popularity, and by extension, the profits, by replacing every single player with new players in one fell swoop.

It just won't happen.

People will tune out, and it could take years, possibly decades, to regain the popularity that the NFL enjoys now.

The players are absolutely replacable, but at an exorbitant cost.

I agree that the cost would be very high. The cost to the players would be permanent though. The veterans who have already made the majority of their money wouldn't be hurt too bad, but the younger and less well paid players would lose bigtime (and in fact might decide to rejoin the NFL on the owners' terms). The question was whether the owners or the players are the most important component of the NFL's success and I think the obvious answer is the owners.

Brock
04-26-2011, 01:00 PM
One thing to remember -

The owners were the ones that opted out of the CBA. The owners were the ones that thought they could reform the league to their liking. The owners were the ones who lost in court.

The owners are the ones that brought this mess down on the league, not the players.

We're gonna take our league back!!!

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:00 PM
I have to assume now that Patt is being intentionally obtuse.

Bowser
04-26-2011, 01:02 PM
The question was whether the owners or the players are the most important component of the NFL's success and I think the obvious answer is the owners.

I think tk13 is right. You just argue for the sake of arguing. I'm sure JD and Amnorix flock to Foxboro just for a hope of catching a glimpse of Robert Kraft.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:02 PM
One thing to remember -

The owners were the ones that opted out of the CBA. The owners were the ones that thought they could reform the league to their liking. The owners were the ones who lost in court.

The owners are the ones that brought this mess down on the league, not the players.

Opting out of the CBA was a negotiated right.

The players were the ones who disolved their union.

The court battle is still in question, but even if the players win, it's not clear that it's a win for the majority of the players.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:06 PM
I agree that the cost would be very high. The cost to the players would be permanent though. The veterans who have already made the majority of their money wouldn't be hurt too bad, but the younger and less well paid players would lose bigtime (and in fact might decide to rejoin the NFL on the owners' terms). The question was whether the owners or the players are the most important component of the NFL's success and I think the obvious answer is the owners.

The question is, how many of these owners would still be owners when, and if, the league ever reached the same level of popularity and prosperity?

And the fact is, many of these owner had no role in creating the foundation that has brought the league to this level.

And these owners that had nothing to do with that are the ones that are trying to change the system that created this cash cow.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:06 PM
Opting out of the CBA was a negotiated right.

The players were the ones who disolved their union.

The court battle is still in question, but even if the players win, it's not clear that it's a win for the majority of the players.ROFL Go away. You're not even serious about this.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:08 PM
I have to assume now that Patt is being intentionally obtuse.

I think tk13 is right. You just argue for the sake of arguing. I'm sure JD and Amnorix flock to Foxboro just for a hope of catching a glimpse of Robert Kraft.

How can JD and Amnorix possibly enjoy a patriot's game now that Drew Bledsoe and Ty Law are gone? NFL fans root for uniforms. The players in the uniforms come and go. If the Patriots trade Tom Brady and Matt Light to the Chiefs for Matt Cassel and Branden Albert, do you think JD and Amnorix are going to switch allegiance to the Chiefs or are they going to stick with their hometown team and hope they can recover from such a questionable trade?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:08 PM
The players were the ones who disolved their union.

They did that because they were locked out.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:09 PM
The question is, how many of these owners would still be owners when, and if, the league ever reached the same level of popularity and prosperity?

And the fact is, many of these owner had no role in creating the foundation that has brought the league to this level.

And these owners that had nothing to do with that are the ones that are trying to change the system that created this cash cow.

Likewise with the players.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:09 PM
They did that because they were locked out.

There's always a "because".

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:10 PM
Patt is trolling...

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:10 PM
I don't think he had the kind of money that Jones and Snyder have, and that there was concern that he couldn't maintain the team with his resourses.

That maybe and IIRC he wasn't wanting to be the majority owner he was just part of the ownership group until he got kicked out. And we know it wasn't because of how much money he had or didn't have.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 01:15 PM
Patt is trolling...

And he's doing a terrible job of it.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:19 PM
The question is, how many of these owners would still be owners when, and if, the league ever reached the same level of popularity and prosperity?

And the fact is, many of these owner had no role in creating the foundation that has brought the league to this level.

And these owners that had nothing to do with that are the ones that are trying to change the system that created this cash cow.

I don't see how the owners are trying to change the system by requesting an additional 600 million - 1 billion dollars.

It seems to me when you talk about changing the system that is like De Smith saying today the draft may be in trouble.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:22 PM
They did that because they were locked out.

The union decertified first.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 01:24 PM
I have two questions for the posters who are steadfastly supporting the owners in this battle:

(1) Do you believe Roger Goodell was being honest in his opinion piece in the WSJ?

(2) Is there EVER a situation where you would support labor in a dispute against management?

DA_T_84
04-26-2011, 01:25 PM
The union decertified first.

The owners opted out first.

Furthermore, if someone cocks back their arm to punch you, you had better take action to avoid getting your nose broken.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:25 PM
I don't see how the owners are trying to change the system by requesting an additional 600 million - 1 billion dollars.

It seems to me when you talk about changing the system that is like De Smith saying today the draft may be in trouble.

It's been reported numerous times that the newer owners want to change how the revenue sharing system works.

They want to take a number of things off the table, that will reduce the the share substantially.

It's also the primary reason that owners opted out of the CBA and are looking for a larger share of those profits.

Large market owners want bigger profits, and small market owners know that they won't be able to compete unless thay retain some of that money.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 01:26 PM
I understand what your saying, but these are really powerful dudes that hate people looking at all their business. I am on the players side, but you shouldnt have to show what your spending your money on. at least thats how i feel.

It is what it is. Godell is stressing, this is all on his watch.

If you are pleading poverty to the players and we need more of your money to help us out, then yes, you do need to open your books or STFU. Use some other tactic to raise more money but don't say I'm not making enough so I'm cutting your salary and not expect the players to say, OK we will consider it but show us why.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:27 PM
The union decertified first.Would they have decerified had they knew the Owners werent going to lock them out?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:29 PM
To prove that they need the 600MM they're demanding.

Prove someone else needs it.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:29 PM
I have two questions for the posters who are steadfastly supporting the owners in this battle:

(1) Do you believe Roger Goodell was being honest in his opinion piece in the WSJ?

(2) Is there EVER a situation where you would support labor in a dispute against management?

1. Yes

2. Yes. I supported the Wisconsin unions when they tried to block collective bargaining.

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 01:30 PM
I'm not supporting the owners or the players. I'm supporting common sense. Common sense is with the players so they have my support.

If the players were asking for a bigger cut, demanding an extra $600 million or they would strike and not play, I'd be 100% behind the owners.

I have two questions for the posters who are steadfastly supporting the owners in this battle:

(1) Do you believe Roger Goodell was being honest in his opinion piece in the WSJ?

(2) Is there EVER a situation where you would support labor in a dispute against management?

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:30 PM
Would they have decerified had they knew the Owners werent going to lock them out?



They decertified so they could file their law suit.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:31 PM
The owners opted out first.

Furthermore, if someone cocks back their arm to punch you, you had better take action to avoid getting your nose broken.

No, nj2 is right.

When the players reached the conclusion that the owners weren't going to negotiate in good faith, they decertified before the deadline, and the owners locked out later that evening.

However, had the players waited for the deadline to pass, they would not have been able to decertify for at least a month, so they had to be proactive.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 01:31 PM
Prove someone else needs it.
It can be argued that the burden of proof is on the side that is f*cking everything up. If the players were striking and demanding more money and saying that the owners can afford to pay them more money, the burden of proof would be on them. But the owners are locking out the players and saying the owners need more money because it's just so gosh darn hard to make a profit as an NFL owner.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:32 PM
They decertified so they could file their law suit.BECAUSE THE FUCKING OWNERS LOCKED THEM OUT.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:33 PM
1. Yes

2. Yes. I supported the Wisconsin unions when they tried to block collective bargaining.

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

The players didn't want to alter anything.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 01:33 PM
The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

How in the world is it possible to make this conclusion from the facts as they exist today?

They want the same CBA that has been in effect for 5 years. Why have you not been complaining since 2006 about the horrors of the current contract. To me other than the rookie pay scale its been fine.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:33 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:36 PM
Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?:rolleyes:

Jaric
04-26-2011, 01:37 PM
How can JD and Amnorix possibly enjoy a patriot's game now that Drew Bledsoe and Ty Law are gone? NFL fans root for uniforms. The players in the uniforms come and go. If the Patriots trade Tom Brady and Matt Light to the Chiefs for Matt Cassel and Branden Albert, do you think JD and Amnorix are going to switch allegiance to the Chiefs or are they going to stick with their hometown team and hope they can recover from such a questionable trade?

Pat the issue isn't a question or player vs laundry. The point is that without the superior athletes putting out a superior product the NFL wouldn't be what it is today.

Which is why no one gives a shit about arena football, or NFL Europe, or the UFL. Not because the owners aren't as good, but because the players aren't as good.

Brock
04-26-2011, 01:37 PM
Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?

Well, not everybody inherited an NFL team from their daddy.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 01:38 PM
Prove someone else needs it.

Do you have any idea, at all, about how collective bargaining works in professional sports?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:38 PM
If it were a sudden change, I would care. Its the same as using replacement players. Do not want.

I didn't want to go to work today. It happened anyway.

If the owners put on scab players and never rehired a single guy from today's NFL rosters you'd be back in two years or less. I'd bet money on it.

With that said: 85% of the players on a roster today would be back in the NFL in less than two years, even if the new deal sucked compared to the last deal. Athletes aren't generally known for their financial prowess.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 01:39 PM
1. Yes

2. Yes. I supported the Wisconsin unions when they tried to block collective bargaining.

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.
I'd be interested to hear why you think the PLAYERS want to dramatically alter the game when all they wanted to do was keep the status quo.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:39 PM
It's been reported numerous times that the newer owners want to change how the revenue sharing system works.

They want to take a number of things off the table, that will reduce the the share substantially.

It's also the primary reason that owners opted out of the CBA and are looking for a larger share of those profits.

Large market owners want bigger profits, and small market owners know that they won't be able to compete unless thay retain some of that money.

That is true and I can understand why considering the small market teams can't compete with the rich teams like the Cowboys.

Youíve heard all about the $9 billion that the league rakes in annually. Surely there must be a profit in there somewhere? Of course there is. Teams like the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots are making so much money itís not even funny anymore.

But while high-revenue teams are raking in the cash by the truckload, low-revenue franchises make only a small profit - if theyíre lucky - and are probably even losing money. And the situation can only get worse Ė by design.

The way the current labor deal is structured, the following hypothetical example is happening in real life all the time. Say the Cowboys sell the naming rights to Cowboys Stadium for $32 million. Good news for the Cowboys, because they get to pocket all of that money. Bad news for the other teams, because those 32 million count towards the Total League Revenue as defined by the CBA, against which the salary cap is calculated. Effectively, this means that the salary floor for each team just went up by an additional $1 million, because the salary cap and salary floor is determined by the revenues generated by all teams, including the high-revenue teams.

If youíre a low-revenue team like the Buffalo Bills or Jacksonville Jaguars, you donít like that one little bit, because where the Cowboys just made money, youíre expenses just went up, and thereís nothing you can do about it. Think about that for a minute: every time Jerry Jones has a great idea and increases his revenues, the expenses for all other teams go up. How crazy is that?

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:39 PM
No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

Its clear to me now that I should have added "IF YOU HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO"


:shake:

JohnnyV13
04-26-2011, 01:41 PM
Pat, there are actually many reasons why the owners should open their books:

1. Put simply, because legal authority will compel it when the players' anti-trust case moves forward.
The owners are now operating what can only be described as a monopoly. Since the NFL likely generates more than 90% of total revenue of professional football in the United States, that's primae facia evidence that the NFL's structure violates the Sherman Anti-trust act.

As you know, opening the company books is part of the evidentiary process for a Sherman anti-trust case.

The NFL had an anti-trust exemption based on the existence of a collective bargaining agreement. The NFL opted to terminate the CBA and the players decided they were willing to abide by free market rules rather than accept limitations on their employment rights in return for what would now be a lower share of the revenue pie.

Since money is a principle term in any contract, its hardly unreasonable for the players to decertify under such circumstances. The NFL bears the burden of proof before the court will give any weight to their contention that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham.

Of course, the NFL is under no obligation to open their books until proper legal authority compels them to do so.

2. The NFL bargained in bad faith.
I don't think we can really argue this point. The NFL agreed to share revenue with the players. This agreement created a presumed fiduciary duty to negotiate a fair market value contract for broadcast rights with the players as third party beneficiaries to this contract.

The NFL violated this fiduciary duty when they instead negotiated a contract where the TV networks would indemnify the league in case of a labor dispute. That agreement violates their fiduciary duty to the players since it used a portion of revenue earned by the players to indemnify the owners alone, without providing the players their contractual share. In essense, the owners converted some of the players' rightful revenue in order to insure themselves against a work stoppage.

To add further insult, this contract term is illusory, since the owners were in complete control over whether a lockout occured. The TV networks could theoretically refuse to pay on these grounds, but that act would compromise their ability to win future broadcast rights from a party that holds a monopolistic position in the market.

When a party bargains in bad faith and converts rightful revenue of their employees toward their own purpose, the employees now have a right for full disclosure in order to discover any further conversion.

3. The NFL wants to maintain a employment model where it compels their employees to surrender considerable free market rights.
Opening the books is part of establishing any kind of argument that the only viable model for their business requires such a surrender.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:41 PM
I have two questions for the posters who are steadfastly supporting the owners in this battle:

(1) Do you believe Roger Goodell was being honest in his opinion piece in the WSJ?

I don't remember every comment he made, but in general I'd say yes. Is there a specific comment you'd like me to focus on?

(2) Is there EVER a situation where you would support labor in a dispute against management?

Sure, but it would have to be something egregious. In general though, I rarely support labor in collective bargaining disputes.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:43 PM
BECAUSE THE ****ING OWNERS LOCKED THEM OUT.

The players decertified, then the owners locked them out. It's not tough to follow.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:44 PM
I have two questions for the posters who are steadfastly supporting the owners in this battle:

(1) Do you believe Roger Goodell was being honest in his opinion piece in the WSJ?

It's not relevant in my eyes. My guess is there were a lot of half truths in there, just like what the players are saying.

(2) Is there EVER a situation where you would support labor in a dispute against management?

No, because labor is only risking a job. Ownership is risking their company. If ownership's demands were truly outside what the market would support then they wouldn't be able to get replacements and in the end they'd only hurt themselves.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:44 PM
The players didn't want to alter anything.

How in the world is it possible to make this conclusion from the facts as they exist today?

They want the same CBA that has been in effect for 5 years. Why have you not been complaining since 2006 about the horrors of the current contract. To me other than the rookie pay scale its been fine.

I'd be interested to hear why you think the PLAYERS want to dramatically alter the game when all they wanted to do was keep the status quo.

I am not buying it. Heck Gene Upshaw said after the last labor deal he would never go for the salary cap again.

Kessler’s vision for the NFL moves one step closer (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/kesslers-vision-for-the-nfl-moves-one-step-closer/)

Posted by Mike Florio on April 26, 2011, 9:32 AM EDT

Plenty of players, agents, and media members have scoffed at NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s brand-new op-ed item appearing in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html), which explains the end result of the legal strategy that the players hatched on March 11 with the filing of the Tom Brady (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1163) antitrust lawsuit.

Goodell sets forth some of the same things we’ve been saying of late — that ultimate player victory in the Brady antitrust lawsuit will result in an NFL with no labor deal, no limits on free agency, no rules that apply across the 32 teams, and no draft. As to the “no draft” concept, Goodell even quotes agent Brian Ayrault’s recent tweets directed to PFT (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/23/at-least-one-agent-wants-no-draft-at-all/) regarding Ayrault’s belief that there should be no draft.

In addition to no draft, Goodell explains that, under the players’ vision of the NFL as crafted by lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, the league would be lacking various devices that have protected players for years. There would be no minimum team payroll (i.e., salary floor). There would be no minimum player salary. There would be no standard compensation for players who suffer serious injuries while practicing or playing. The would be no league-wide benefit plans. There would be no limits on free agency, with franchise “perpetually out of the playoffs” serving “essentially as farm teams for the elites.” (It reminds me of my once-beloved Pirates. If they had anyone in the past decade or so that an elite team actually wanted.)

Also, each team would be permitted to determine its rules for training camp and offseason workouts, with no limits on duration or intensity of practices. And without a league-wide program of drug testing, teams would be left to their own devices. Some teams may choose not to test for marijuana. Others may choose not to test for steroids. (The end result likely would be a decision by Congress to impose Olympic-style testing on the sport, something neither the league nor the players want.)

Those who disagree with Goodell (Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com has characterized the op-ed as “scare tactics”) believe that Kessler’s legal positions are aimed merely at securing more leverage. The players will have plenty of leverage if the lockout ultimately is lifted on appeal, and then Kessler can position the players for even more by arguing that any rules imposed by the teams for 2011 constitute a violation of the antitrust laws.

There’s no reason to believe that Kessler and the players won’t make that argument, especially since the players realize that more leverage can eventually be parlayed into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with better terms for the players. Though we’ve heard privately from NFLPA* sources that the Brady antitrust litigation won’t be attacking the draft, no one has come out and said publicly that the draft won’t be attacked. (We gave NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith a chance to do just that last month, and he didn’t (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/21/demaurice-smith-interview-transcript-part-2/).)

Besides, the attack can come from college players entering the league. If there isn’t a labor agreement in place between the owners and the reconstituted union to make the NFL immune from employee-launched antitrust attacks, Andrew Luck or anyone else can argue that they should (as Ayrault believes) to “be able to choose who they work for.”
Thus, unless and until one of the 10 named plaintiffs or one of their lawyers says “we’re not and we never will attack the draft” and unless and until a new CBA is in place, preventing the clients of Ayrault and other like-minded agents from doing essentially what Maurice Clarett did in 2004 (one of the few big cases in the past decade that the NFL actually won), the draft is in jeopardy.

We hope that, in the end, cooler heads prevail. But cooler heads have yet to make an appearance in two-plus years of negotiation and legal wrangling. There’s no reason, even after the ruling to lift the lockout, to believe that the league will buckle or that Kessler and company will stop pushing for the ultimate leverage for a labor deal that would make even Marvin Miller say, “Wow, that’s a damn good labor deal.” And then, if Kessler and company obtain an order from the highest court in the land that any rules implemented by the NFL violate the draft and if Kessler and company make pie-in-the-sky demands including, for example, partial ownership of the teams by the players, the NFL may decide that it’s better to roll the dice in a rules-free NFL.

If it ultimately happens both sides will share the blame. But as long as Kessler is pushing for no draft — and as long as no CBA is in place to stop future rookies from doing the same — everyone who follows football needs to recognize the possibility that, in the future, there will be no draft.
Maybe by then the Pirates will be competitive, and I can go work for Calcaterra.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:45 PM
...and small market owners know that they won't be able to compete unless thay retain some of that money.

And as a fan of a small market team you're siding with the players?

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 01:45 PM
Of course the owners don't have to open their books. That's their right. It's also the right of the players to demand that they open their books if the owners wish to negotiate an agreement that takes money out of the players pocket.

They both exercised their rights, and now the courts are handling the fallout. So far it looks like the players made the smart play.

If I'm arrested, it is my right to remain silent. That doesn't mean it is smart for me to do so regardless of the situation.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:45 PM
Pat the issue isn't a question or player vs laundry. The point is that without the superior athletes putting out a superior product the NFL wouldn't be what it is today.

Which is why no one gives a shit about arena football, or NFL Europe, or the UFL. Not because the owners aren't as good, but because the players aren't as good.

That's not entirely true, IMO.

1. The players in those leagues aren't as good as the players in another league, the NFL. If there weren't an established, superior league, those players would be seen as the cream of the crop. College football thrives despite being filled with inferior players.

2. Those leagues don't have the funding, the infrastructure, the exposure, or the tradition of the NFL.

If the NFL turned over it's players, and the former NFL players moved to the AFL, UFL and CFL, none of those leagues would be likely to eclipse the new NFL.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:46 PM
The players decertified, then the owners locked them out. It's not tough to follow.:facepalm: Good God, man. The Owners were going to lock the players out.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:48 PM
:facepalm: Good God, man. The Owners were going to lock the players out.

The owners requested an additional extension to the talks. The owners conceded a half dozen important items in their last offer to the players, hours before the union decertified.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:49 PM
It can be argued that the burden of proof is on the side that is f*cking everything up. If the players were striking and demanding more money and saying that the owners can afford to pay them more money, the burden of proof would be on them. But the owners are locking out the players and saying the owners need more money because it's just so gosh darn hard to make a profit as an NFL owner.

There is no burden of proof. The owners own the teams. They don't have to prove anything, not to players and not to fans. It's their ball and they can take it home and end the game if they want to.

I'm not saying that would be wise, but they can.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 01:49 PM
The owners requested an additional extension to the talks. The owners conceded a half dozen important items in their last offer to the players, hours before the union decertified.:doh!: Its clear you dont get it.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 01:49 PM
Its clear to me now that I should have added "IF YOU HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO"


:shake:

I told you that already if you would have listened :p

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 01:50 PM
The owners requested an additional extension to the talks. The owners conceded a half dozen important items in their last offer to the players, hours before the union decertified.

Because they had to decertify or be forced to wait at least a month. That would have weakened the players position. The owners refused to negotiate in good faith and at the 11th hour put forth a proposal that was still cutting money from the players with no justification.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:50 PM
The players didn't want to alter anything.

Not for another two years until that contract expired.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:50 PM
Let the big name players win. I'm sure KC will be able to compete just fine in an open market with Jones, Snyder and Kraft.

DJ's left nut
04-26-2011, 01:50 PM
Well gee Roger, maybe your fucking owners shouldn't have opted out of the old CBA and started this shit.

Yeah, that should about cover it.

This is like that skinny kid talking shit to the fat aussie, getting his ass kicked and then whining about it.

The owners decided to whip their dicks out but the courts have thus far been unimpressed. I'm not inclined to listen to their little stooge whine when things haven't gone the way they hoped it would.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:51 PM
:rolleyes:

Well written and thoughtful reply. Is it indicative of how you'd run a multi-billion dollar organization?

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 01:51 PM
Because they had to decertify or be forced to wait at least a month. That would have weakened the players position. The owners refused to negotiate in good faith and at the 11th hour put forth a proposal that was still cutting money from the players with no justification.

It's a negotiation. You give, you get. The owners made a major concession of no 18 game season, plus other benefits. Make a counter offer.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:52 PM
Well, not everybody inherited an NFL team from their daddy.

Why doesn't a collection of billionaires create an alternative league to overtake the NFL? It's been tried at least 5 or 6 times and it's always failed (or at best, resulted in getting a few teams merged into the NFL).

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:52 PM
Well, not everybody inherited an NFL team from their daddy.

How many of the owners got in that way?

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 01:52 PM
There is no burden of proof. The owners own the teams. They don't have to prove anything, not to players and not to fans. It's their ball and they can take it home and end the game if they want to.

I'm not saying that would be wise, but they can.

as I said...

Of course the owners don't have to open their books. That's their right. It's also the right of the players to demand that they open their books if the owners wish to negotiate an agreement that takes money out of the players pocket.

They both exercised their rights, and now the courts are handling the fallout. So far it looks like the players made the smart play.

If I'm arrested, it is my right to remain silent. That doesn't mean it is smart for me to do so regardless of the situation.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:53 PM
I didn't want to go to work today. It happened anyway.

If the owners put on scab players and never rehired a single guy from today's NFL rosters you'd be back in two years or less. I'd bet money on it.

With that said: 85% of the players on a roster today would be back in the NFL in less than two years, even if the new deal sucked compared to the last deal. Athletes aren't generally known for their financial prowess.

You must be trolling. But at least you're trolling with the truth. ;)

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 01:53 PM
It's a negotiation. You give, you get. The owners made a major concession of no 18 game season, plus other benefits. Make a counter offer.

Too little, too late. The owners were in no position to go to court, but they played chicken with the players anyway. Their bad.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 01:54 PM
Its clear to me now that I should have added "IF YOU HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO"


:shake:

If you had the funds to do so you'd most likely be the Bills. Damn near bankrupt and looking to find some municipality stupid enough to fund you in order to get you to move there.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:55 PM
And as a fan of a small market team you're siding with the players?

I think when all evidence suggests that the NFL is making unprecedented profits, if the owners ask for a larger share of those profits because they are losing money, then the players are right to ask for proof.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:56 PM
I'd be interested to hear why you think the PLAYERS want to dramatically alter the game when all they wanted to do was keep the status quo.

That was the position of the union. The union has been decertified by it's members. The current initiatives are aimed at destroying anything that might run afoul of anti-trust laws. They're effectively fighting for a future that includes teams and players acting independently from one another at the moment.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 01:58 PM
Pat, there are actually many reasons why the owners should open their books:

Yes, there may be legal reasons for which they will now be forced to open their books, but there was no reason for them to do so as a part of the collective bargaining process. If the players' union wanted open books, they could have negotiated that issue.

milkman
04-26-2011, 01:59 PM
The owners requested an additional extension to the talks. The owners conceded a half dozen important items in their last offer to the players, hours before the union decertified.

No, actually, it was an hour before the deadline, and the owners didn't really concede much.

Their proposal would have cut the salry cap by billions over the course of the proposed contract, and they only conceded to table discussion of an expanded schedule for a year.

Brock
04-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Yes, there may be legal reasons for which they will now be forced to open their books, but there was no reason for them to do so as a part of the collective bargaining process. If the players' union wanted open books, they could have negotiated that issue.

The owners wouldn't have ever agreed to that. You know it for a certainty.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:02 PM
:doh!: Its clear you dont get it.

He's owning you with your own misstatements.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:03 PM
I think when all evidence suggests that the NFL is making unprecedented profits, if the owners ask for a larger share of those profits because they are losing money, then the players are right to ask for proof.

Some teams are. The NFL as a whole is making great money, but with the current structure of salary scale based on total league revenues some smaller market teams are getting squeezed. The owners are trying to fix some of that before it becomes headline news that 4 NFL teams have stopped paying their bills.

Is Jerry Jones trying to put some more cash in his pocket in the mean time? Sure.

Brock
04-26-2011, 02:05 PM
How many of the owners got in that way?

The Bidwells, the Hunts, the Rooneys, the Maras, the Halas/McCaskeys, the Browns, just off the top of my head.

Chiefnj2
04-26-2011, 02:06 PM
No, actually, it was an hour before the deadline, and the owners didn't really concede much.

Their proposal would have cut the salry cap by billions over the course of the proposed contract, and they only conceded to table discussion of an expanded schedule for a year.

In addition to agreeing to 2014 salary cap #'s and an increase in the 2011 cap:

* A rookie wage scale based on the Unionís proposal, which pays 2nd-7th round picks more or the same while repurposing money currently given to first-round picks back to veterans and for benefits.
* A $1 million guarantee for players the year after they get hurt.
* A decrease in number of OTA practices and practice time and additional days off.
* A commitment that an 18-game season would not occur until 2012 and only via agreement by both sides.
* An additional $82 million of owner funding that would go towards improved benefits.
* Retired players can opt into the player medical plan for life.
* Third-party arbitrators for drug and suspension cases.
* Improvements in Mackey Plan and others.
* A minimum salary cap figure of 90 percent of the cap

milkman
04-26-2011, 02:10 PM
Some teams are. The NFL as a whole is making great money, but with the current structure of salary scale based on total league revenues some smaller market teams are getting squeezed. The owners are trying to fix some of that before it becomes headline news that 4 NFL teams have stopped paying their bills.

Is Jerry Jones trying to put some more cash in his pocket in the mean time? Sure.

Again, prove it to the players.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 02:11 PM
He's owning you with your own misstatements.I assumed he had the common sense to know WTF I was talking about.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:13 PM
The Bidwells, the Hunts, the Rooneys, the Maras, the Halas/McCaskeys, the Browns, just off the top of my head.

So 19%. Less than 1 in 5.

milkman
04-26-2011, 02:13 PM
In addition to agreeing to 2014 salary cap #'s and an increase in the 2011 cap:

* A rookie wage scale based on the Unionís proposal, which pays 2nd-7th round picks more or the same while repurposing money currently given to first-round picks back to veterans and for benefits.
* A $1 million guarantee for players the year after they get hurt.
* A decrease in number of OTA practices and practice time and additional days off.
* A commitment that an 18-game season would not occur until 2012 and only via agreement by both sides.
* An additional $82 million of owner funding that would go towards improved benefits.
* Retired players can opt into the player medical plan for life.
* Third-party arbitrators for drug and suspension cases.
* Improvements in Mackey Plan and others.
* A minimum salary cap figure of 90 percent of the cap

They threw in a couple of nuggets.

Big deal.

They are still talking about a large chunk of money that the players would be losing over the course of the contract.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:13 PM
The owners wouldn't have ever agreed to that. You know it for a certainty.

I don't know that. I think it would depend on what the players' union was willing to give up.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:15 PM
Again, prove it to the players.

Unless the courts force them to there's no reason to prove jack crap to your employees.

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 02:16 PM
Unless the courts force them to there's no reason to prove jack crap to your employees.

Unless you're trying to show that you're negotiating in good faith.

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Unless the courts force them to there's no reason to prove jack crap to your employees.

They probably won't force them, but the owners stubbornly refusing to do it destroyed negotiation which forced this into the courts where the owners are getting their ass handed to them. Great move, guys!

vailpass
04-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Some real Johnyy Bluecollar talk on this thread. Are any of you that are posting in favor of the players a laborer and/or union member?

Brock
04-26-2011, 02:17 PM
So 19%. Less than 1 in 5.

Okay, so 20 percent is some insignificant number? LMAO

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Some real Johnyy Bluecollar talk on this thread. Are any of you that are posting in favor of the players a laborer and/or union member?

I'm actually an NFL owner. (Don't tell anyone)

milkman
04-26-2011, 02:18 PM
Unless the courts force them to there's no reason to prove jack crap to your employees.

No, you're right.

It's better for the owners to be forced to prove it by the courts.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:19 PM
Okay, so 20 percent is some insignificant number? LMAO

You're going to force something on the 80% because 20% got something?

Royal Fanatic
04-26-2011, 02:21 PM
Some real Johnyy Bluecollar talk on this thread. Are any of you that are posting in favor of the players a laborer and/or union member?
Nope, I'm an IT manager. I haven't been a laborer since I graduated from college, and I've never been a union member.

I almost always side with management in a management/labor dispute. But when I look at what is going on with this particular situation, it just seems to me that the behavior by the NFL owners is hard to justify or agree with. I understand it and I understand what their motivation is, I just don't agree that they are acting fairly.

Brock
04-26-2011, 02:22 PM
You're going to force something on the 80% because 20% got something?

Don't think I advocated forcing anyone to do anything. You made some allusion to how awesome these guys must be, after all they were able to buy their way into the NFL, and I pointed out that a very significant number of them didn't do a goddamn thing to get an NFL team. That's all.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 02:22 PM
Some real Johnyy Bluecollar talk on this thread. Are any of you that are posting in favor of the players a laborer and/or union member?

I've never worked in a Union. In fact, I'm typically anti-union.

And, depending on the terms, if the players had struck, I'd be anti-player.

The owners are crying about losing/not making enough money. They locked out the players.

The players were/arent asking for anything extra.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 02:23 PM
The Bidwells, the Hunts, the Rooneys, the Maras, the Halas/McCaskeys, the Browns, just off the top of my head.

What is negative about an owner being an owner due to family business? Damn there are some butt-hurt haters out there.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 02:23 PM
Unless the courts force them to there's no reason to prove jack crap to your employees.

Yes, there is. It's called negotiating a CBA with a party that you've got a revenue sharing system in place with, and claiming that you're taking a major profitability hit.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:25 PM
I get it:

1. Wealth envy is very powerful.
2. It's easier to put yourself in the shoes of a player (an employee) which makes it easy to sympathize with their position.
3. Nobody wants to see their favorite (older) players retire because there's less money to be made.
4. Humans like the status quo and the owners took away two years of that.

The biggest point here is that it really isn't any of our business what the two of them do. We aren't owners and we aren't players. It isn't your league or your team. Those belong to the owners. They aren't your QB or your RB, those guys belong to themselves.

Both the NFL and the players have been using marketing tools for decades to suck the maximum amount of dollars out of you that they could, and a major tool in doing that is convincing you that you're part of the team. Surprise, you aren't and you never were. You aren't even a third party in the talks and frankly neither side gives a crap about you past the number of dollars in your wallet and how many of them you'll give to them.

Brock
04-26-2011, 02:26 PM
What is negative about an owner being an owner due to family business? Damn there are some butt-hurt haters out there.

I didn't say anything negative about it. It certainly doesn't make them business pioneers or anything like that, though.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:27 PM
Don't think I advocated forcing anyone to do anything. You made some allusion to how awesome these guys must be, after all they were able to buy their way into the NFL, and I pointed out that a very significant number of them didn't do a goddamn thing to get an NFL team. That's all.

My bad, I must have confused this with one of the other half dozen fights I've picked in this thread.

I would argue even some of the guys that inherited their teams worked very hard to learn how to run those teams.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:32 PM
Yes, there is. It's called negotiating a CBA with a party that you've got a revenue sharing system in place with, and claiming that you're taking a major profitability hit.

Do you really believe that when the players union negotiated that revenue sharing system they didn't insist on some kind of auditing mechanism to insure that they got their fair share? If they didn't, their representation was incompetent, but that's not the owners' fault.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 02:32 PM
I get it:

1. Wealth envy is very powerful.
2. It's easier to put yourself in the shoes of a player (an employee) which makes it easy to sympathize with their position.
3. Nobody wants to see their favorite (older) players retire because there's less money to be made.
4. Humans like the status quo and the owners took away two years of that.

The biggest point here is that it really isn't any of our business what the two of them do. We aren't owners and we aren't players. It isn't your league or your team. Those belong to the owners. They aren't your QB or your RB, those guys belong to themselves.

Both the NFL and the players have been using marketing tools for decades to suck the maximum amount of dollars out of you that they could, and a major tool in doing that is convincing you that you're part of the team. Surprise, you aren't and you never were. You aren't even a third party in the talks and frankly neither side gives a crap about you past the number of dollars in your wallet and how many of them you'll give to them.

X2. Add in the fact that if a new CBA isn't agreed upon and the players are left unchecked they will alter the game forever and for the worse.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 02:33 PM
I didn't say anything negative about it. It certainly doesn't make them business pioneers or anything like that, though.

Sure. Anybody can be an owner right?

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:35 PM
That's not entirely true, IMO.

1. The players in those leagues aren't as good as the players in another league, the NFL. If there weren't an established, superior league, those players would be seen as the cream of the crop. College football thrives despite being filled with inferior players.

2. Those leagues don't have the funding, the infrastructure, the exposure, or the tradition of the NFL.

If the NFL turned over it's players, and the former NFL players moved to the AFL, UFL and CFL, none of those leagues would be likely to eclipse the new NFL.
You can't compare college football to the pros because the college football roster turns over at least every 4 years. There are also hundreds of teams. It's a complete apples to oranges comparison.

As to your second point, while accurate, if the two leagues switched rosters, which league to you think would be more successful? The one with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees as the faces of their respective franchises? Or the one with the corpse of Daunte Culpepper?

Players aren't the only thing that makes the NFL great, but without players no one is watching on Sundays.

milkman
04-26-2011, 02:36 PM
My bad, I must have confused this with one of the other half dozen fights I've picked in this thread.

I would argue even some of the guys that inherited their teams worked very hard to learn how to run those teams.

Some have.

But if the league were left in the hands of Mike Brown, we'd all be talking about something else now.

DeezNutz
04-26-2011, 02:36 PM
Yes, there is. It's called negotiating a CBA with a party that you've got a revenue sharing system in place with, and claiming that you're taking a major profitability hit.

No, no, no. This is just like any other employer-employee relationship.

Can you imagine demanding to see your boss's books?!!?

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:38 PM
No, no, no. This is just like any other employer-employee relationship.

Can you imagine demanding to see your boss's books?!!?

If I'm one of a very select few people who can do my job which nets my employer millions/billions of dollars I can.

veist
04-26-2011, 02:39 PM
In addition to agreeing to 2014 salary cap #'s and an increase in the 2011 cap:

* A rookie wage scale based on the Unionís proposal, which pays 2nd-7th round picks more or the same while repurposing money currently given to first-round picks back to veterans and for benefits.
* A $1 million guarantee for players the year after they get hurt.
* A decrease in number of OTA practices and practice time and additional days off.
* A commitment that an 18-game season would not occur until 2012 and only via agreement by both sides.
* An additional $82 million of owner funding that would go towards improved benefits.
* Retired players can opt into the player medical plan for life.
* Third-party arbitrators for drug and suspension cases.
* Improvements in Mackey Plan and others.
* A minimum salary cap figure of 90 percent of the cap

And yet they were still more than $350M apart from the PA's position. They spent a week sitting with their thumbs collectively up their asses, came back with a weak offer at the 11th hour and the players didn't bite. In fact, I believe the PA's position on the last offer before the decertification has been that it wasn't materially different from what got the extension in the first place.

Look at it from the PA's perspective, they caught the league screwing them with the lockout insurance. They gave them a week's extension in negotiations and as the only real negotiation in that extension got a meh new offer at the 11th hour. And to top it off you are getting hammered in the PR battle. Is your best move to punt and see if the owners actually do something next week as you take another week of them hammering you in PR or make a play for leverage, decertify, and file a lawsuit? Considering where we are today with the NFL crying wolf about how great the status quo was after spending so much time harping about how it was going to bankrupt them I think the players made the entirely correct move.

P.S. The NFL wouldn't repeatedly be getting their ass handed to them legally if there was any law to support the positions they've been taking, it isn't like they are hiring incompetent lawyers.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 02:40 PM
If I'm one of a very select few people who can do my job which nets my employer millions/billions of dollars I can.

:LOL:

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 02:41 PM
Do you really believe that when the players union negotiated that revenue sharing system they didn't insist on some kind of auditing mechanism to insure that they got their fair share? If they didn't, their representation was incompetent, but that's not the owners' fault.

What was negotiated in the past regarding oversight was clearly insufficient to the current desired tasks. That's not the same as incompetence. The prior desired tasks were not as demanding of information from the owners' financials.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:41 PM
You can't compare college football to the pros because the college football roster turns over at least every 4 years. There are also hundreds of teams. It's a complete apples to oranges comparison.

As to your second point, while accurate, if the two leagues switched rosters, which league to you think would be more successful? The one with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees as the faces of their respective franchises? Or the one with the corpse of Daunte Culpepper?

Players aren't the only thing that makes the NFL great, but without players no one is watching on Sundays.

Then why don't these startup leagues lure some of the big stars over with huge buckets of money if it's that easy to overtake the NFL? It's not like the NFL actually owns the exclusive right to these players.

I disagree with your argument that college football and pro football are apples and oranges. On the important factors (the game of football), they're both apples. The biggest differences are that college has inferior players overall and that it's stars are flushed every couple of years. That actually strengthens my argument rather than weakens it, IMO.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:44 PM
What was negotiated in the past regarding oversight was clearly insufficient to the current desired tasks. That's not the same as incompetence. The prior desired tasks were not as demanding of information from the owners' financials.

If it didn't serve the oversight purpose then it was incompetent. If the oversight purpose was served, then further disclosure is unnecessary.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:45 PM
Then why don't these startup leagues lure some of the big stars over with huge buckets of money if it's that easy to overtake the NFL? It's not like the NFL actually owns the exclusive right to these players.What do you think happened back in the 60s with the AFL? What you're proposing is precisely why the NFL agreed to merge with the "inferior league" as it was thought of at the time.
I disagree with your argument that college football and pro football are apples and oranges. On the important factors (the game of football), they're both apples. The biggest differences are that college has inferior players overall and that it's stars are flushed every couple of years. That actually strengthens my argument rather than weakens it, IMO.If that is true, why isn't NFL Europe, the UFL, and arena football just as popular? It's football right?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:52 PM
If I'm one of a very select few people who can do my job which nets my employer millions/billions of dollars I can.

There are millions of people that can play football and the owners don't require the best. They just require a competitive product.

There's a best dishwasher salesmen in the world. You don't see Sears or Best Buy in a bidding war to get that guy and paying him millions of dollars a year.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 02:53 PM
What do you think happened back in the 60s with the AFL? What you're proposing is precisely why the NFL agreed to merge with the "inferior league" as it was thought of at the time.

Yes, I already mentioned that. Out of the several times that alternative owners attempted to best the NFL, that was the most successful failure. They didn't beat them, but they did well enough to be invited to join.

If that is true, why isn't NFL Europe, the UFL, and arena football just as popular? It's football right?

Because they don't have the NFL owners, their traditions, their infrastructure, and their exposure. It would be a huge setback to the NFL to suffer a one time loss of all of their pro-bowlers to the UFL, but I'd bet that the NFL would overcome that setback and be on top 5 years from now. The UFL might be able to parlay that boon into some kind of merger, but I don't think it could become the dominant pro football league.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 02:56 PM
Those of you on the player's side are also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the current NFL players would still wind up on an NFL roster, even under new rules set entirely by the owners. A bunch of those guys are living paycheck to paycheck and/or can't make anywhere near that kind of money anywhere else.

DeezNutz
04-26-2011, 02:58 PM
Because they don't have the NFL owners, their traditions, their infrastructure, and their exposure. It would be a huge setback to the NFL to suffer a one time loss of all of their pro-bowlers to the UFL, but I'd bet that the NFL would overcome that setback and be on top 5 years from now. The UFL might be able to parlay that boon into some kind of merger, but I don't think it could become the dominant pro football league.

Where would the television dollars go? To an NFL loaded with scabs? Or to the upstart league loaded with the most talented players?

Infrastructure is the biggest hurdle, and it's an enormous one.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:59 PM
There are millions of people that can play football and the owners don't require the best. They just require a competitive product.If channel A has a game between Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, and channel B has a game between Daunte Culpepper and Cleo Lemon, who are you going to watch?

There's a best dishwasher salesmen in the world. You don't see Sears or Best Buy in a bidding war to get that guy and paying him millions of dollars a year.:spock:

If (insert big name franchise QB) hit the open NFL market, there would be a bidding war for his services in the millions of dollars. That's why comparing people who aren't NFL players to NFL players is a bad idea. It's a different set of circumstances.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 02:59 PM
If it didn't serve the oversight purpose then it was incompetent. If the oversight purpose was served, then further disclosure is unnecessary.

If I just want a basic revenue total, I only need one amount of information. If I want a full accounting of revenues and expenses, I need a different amount of information. I refuse to believe that you're too stupid to figure this out.

veist
04-26-2011, 03:00 PM
There are millions of people that can play football and the owners don't require the best. They just require a competitive product.

There's a best dishwasher salesmen in the world. You don't see Sears or Best Buy in a bidding war to get that guy and paying him millions of dollars a year.

Instead they hire a marketing department and spend millions on them, advertising and promotional pricing.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 03:01 PM
If channel A has a game between Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, and channel B has a game between Daunte Culpepper and Cleo Lemon, who are you going to watch?
:spock:

If (insert big name franchise QB) hit the open NFL market, there would be a bidding war for his services in the millions of dollars. That's why comparing people who aren't NFL players to NFL players is a bad idea. It's a different set of circumstances.

No, no, no, no, NO! If Peyton Manning/Tom Brady were to hit free agency in an unfettered football market, he'd be lucky to be pulling down $10/hr.

It's all about the charitable beneficence of the owners.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 03:03 PM
Yes, I already mentioned that. Out of the several times that alternative owners attempted to best the NFL, that was the most successful failure. They didn't beat them, but they did well enough to be invited to join.

Because they don't have the NFL owners, their traditions, their infrastructure, and their exposure. It would be a huge setback to the NFL to suffer a one time loss of all of their pro-bowlers to the UFL, but I'd bet that the NFL would overcome that setback and be on top 5 years from now. The UFL might be able to parlay that boon into some kind of merger, but I don't think it could become the dominant pro football league.Imagine all the players from NFL seasons past aren't in the NFL. Where do you think that tradition is going to be? If the cream of the college crop continually goes to a different league, that league will eventually overtake the NFL.

The average fan doesn't give a **** about infastructure. You don't see too many owner's Jerseys at the stadium do you?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 03:05 PM
If channel A has a game between Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, and channel B has a game between Daunte Culpepper and Cleo Lemon, who are you going to watch?

You're operating under the absurd assumption that 100% of the NFL players are going to jump ship. In your scenario it'll be Brees and Rodgers throwing to Bobby Sippio and Kevin Lockett vs. Culpepper and Lemon throwing to guys who are on NFL rosters today, protected by guys who are on NFL rosters today. And there isn't another league out there today that could afford to buy all of the top 5 QBs in the NFL even over the reduced NFL salaries.

If (insert big name franchise QB) hit the open NFL market, there would be a bidding war for his services in the millions of dollars. That's why comparing people who aren't NFL players to NFL players is a bad idea. It's a different set of circumstances.

Look at it based on scale. The best guy at his job anywhere in the world, regardless of the job in question, is only worth some small percentage more than the #2 guy, etc. on down the line.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 03:07 PM
Instead they hire a marketing department and spend millions on them, advertising and promotional pricing.

Which gets way more money out of the general public. Companies wouldn't be doing it if it was stupid.

You think McDonald's regrets spending money on their ad campaigns instead of hiring the best cash-register operators and burger flippers?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 03:09 PM
Imagine all the players from NFL seasons past aren't in the NFL. Where do you think that tradition is going to be? If the cream of the college crop continually goes to a different league, that league will eventually overtake the NFL.

The average fan doesn't give a **** about infastructure. You don't see too many owner's Jerseys at the stadium do you?

Can we drop the stupid assumption that any sizable percentage of players would leave the NFL for some other league that doesn't have the kind of money needed to pay even the reduced salaries? The NFL owners aren't dumb. They won't reduce the salaries to the point that other leagues can start scavenging talent. At least not enough to matter.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 03:12 PM
You're operating under the absurd assumption that 100% of the NFL players are going to jump ship. In your scenario it'll be Brees and Rodgers throwing to Bobby Sippio and Kevin Lockett vs. Culpepper and Lemon throwing to guys who are on NFL rosters today, protected by guys who are on NFL rosters today. And there isn't another league out there today that could afford to buy all of the top 5 QBs in the NFL even over the reduced NFL salaries.Pat is claiming that people will root for the NFL regardless of who is playing because it's the NFL and people love the NFL. My point is that the reason people watch the NFL is because it has the best athletes playing. The point in this hypothetical is not how likely it would be that all the players switch leagues, but simply what the outcome would be if it actually happened. If Pat is right, it shouldn't matter who plays for what league, because people will choose the NFL even if it's now the Cleo Lemon show.

Look at it based on scale. The best guy at his job anywhere in the world, regardless of the job in question, is only worth some small percentage more than the #2 guy, etc. on down the line.I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, I'm sorry. I still don't see how that makes the guy selling dishwasher in anyway comparable to an NFL quarterback.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Can we drop the stupid assumption that any sizable percentage of players would leave the NFL for some other league that doesn't have the kind of money needed to pay even the reduced salaries? The NFL owners aren't dumb. They won't reduce the salaries to the point that other leagues can start scavenging talent. At least not enough to matter.

See previous post. That discussion isn't about the likelyhood that it will happen. But merely comparing who is more responsible for the success of the NFL.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 03:22 PM
Pat is claiming that people will root for the NFL regardless of who is playing because it's the NFL and people love the NFL.

He's right to a large degree. The NFL brand and the individual team brands are very powerful. Even when Coke and Pepsi change their formulas people continue to follow the brand because it's what people do. Jones Cola and a handful of other companies may have a superior product now, but that isn't enough to overcome the brand strength of Coke and Pepsi.

People aren't going to throw out all their team gear next week just because the formula (players) changed.

If I had the choice of buying a competitor's product, but they keep their brand, or buying their brand and they keep their product I'd take the brand almost every time. It isn't uncommon for companies to buy a competitor then part off everything but the brand. There are even cases of companies securing formerly respected brands that have gone out of business and resurrecting them. It's powerful stuff.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 03:24 PM
See previous post. That discussion isn't about the likelyhood that it will happen. But merely comparing who is more responsible for the success of the NFL.

I would argue that who is responsible isn't relevant. That's all water under the bridge. The fact is the brand now exists and it's owned by the owners.

However, I would put the number at somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% owners, 20% players.

Cave Johnson
04-26-2011, 03:38 PM
Big Red is a clown of the highest magnitude.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/28810087

Roger Goodell and the NFL have made it clear that one thing which will be needed in a new labor agreement is HGH testing.

This is a tough sell, because a) players don't like drug testing in the first place and b) HGH testing, in order to really be accurate, typically needs a blood sample, and players aren't exactly eager to hand that over to the league.

Give credit, then, to Goodell, who apparently put his money where his mouth is and got tested himself last week.

"I just had my HGH tested in the last couple of weeks," Goodell told Jarrett Bell of USA Today. "I wanted to see what was involved in the testing. They came in here at 9:30 in the morning, completely unannounced, and I went through the procedure. The same one our players would go through."

Now, the players will likely argue that it's not a huge deal for Goodell to take the test because he's not subject to any sort of fines or suspensions, and because he's not handing over heretofore unknown medical knowledge to his employer.

Goodell refused to disclose whether or not his test came back clean because of "confidentiality," but added that he was "proud of my results."

So either he passed or he REALLY likes HGH, I guess. Probably the former.