I think they are both greedy. I can't say that I think one side is better than the other. But for the sake of the sport there are rules that the owners are trying to initiate that would make it more competitive and easier for a team on the bottom to become competitive now. You have a number 1 pick and its almost 70MM now. If it was 10MM they would not have a problem risking a bust and setting the franchise back 5 years. The players all just want more money (from what I heard, I could be wrong) and they already make so damn much money.

In the end, I am fine with the Bradys and Peyton Mannings making a shit ton of money. But your Cassels, Staffords and Sanchezes should be making far less. Do you think the Chiefs would have a problem drafting a QB with the number 5 pic if it was only going to cost them 15MM over 5 years if they player turns out to be a bust. As I stated before. Make a rule that after 3 years a team can renegotiate the original contract if they believe the player has played to expectations and give them their pay day. The only people this would hurt are the JaMarcus Russells of the world who bust and will never get a big time payday.

I'm on the owners' side all the way. The hired help is free to go sell insurance or something.

I'd be disappointed if they got rid of the salary cap, but I'd stick around for a while to see what would happen.

I don't really support either side ... all of them are a bunch of rich,spoiled asshats.


but the reality is that we fans need the owners to win.

The question to ask in any negotiation is "who needs it more". If professional football were abolished tomorrow, the owners would still be billionaires with massive incomes from their primary ventures. NFL players would still be working for the owners, but it would be by stocking shelves at Home Depot instead of playing for the Falcons.

I recently read that MLB avg salaries are the lowest they've been since something like 2004. Teams are spending less because the earnings aren't there.

I'm kind of hoping ownership makes a stand, but that it is done to keep football affordable to the fans. I know that may seem laughable, but the owners are more likely to take up for the long term health of the league than players are. Players know what the avg career span is for them.

Hey, jspchief sighting!

I ain't sayin that they gold diggas
But they ain't tryin to be no broke ****as

if the players win that helps the players and only the players

if the owners win then maybe ticket prices don't go up so fast. Maybe the owners are more likely to give more money to help build stadiums. Maybe the owners are more likely to keep profit sharing etc.

all those owner items are 'big maybes' but you dam well know nothing good is gonna happen for the fans if the owners lose.

we need lower ticket prices
we need rookies paid after they prove
doesn't the NBA have a rookie slot thing?

the NFL needs that

and stadiums need cheaper beer and food

and the parking?

doesn't the TV package already cover the salary ?

NO MORE SIGNING BONUSES

I'm all for a rookie salary cap. Paying a player 70 million who has never played a down in the NFL is a joke.

As far as how much Cassel makes, that's not something they should make a rule about. If an owner is dumb enough to lock himself into a vet who is unproven, that's on the dumb owner. But for Rookies, there should definitely be a cap. You have to prove it to make it. If there was a cap for rookies, I'd imagine a lot of vets could be kept on rosters instead of being released in FA because they can't afford to keep them around while paying for the shiney new unproven rookie.

In fact, I can't believe the NFLPA would have a problem with that...the only people who get hurt are the un-proven rookies and their agents...

What exactly has Cassel proven to be paid 63MM? I have seen nothing. As far as the NFLPA, the same agents for the players are the agents for the rookies. Im sure they give their guys an ear full to vote against it. Like "if Im not making so and so this much money, how am I going to get you this much money. Its a trickle down effect." Or something similar.

I think you missed his point. Cassel is a vet, it's not your choice how much he makes. It's the owners. If he wants to throw money at an unproven player, that's his problem.

Rookies on the other hand, should have a slotting system. It's what is best for the NFL. Look at the Chiefs right now. How much money have they, essentially, been forced to shell out on two going on 3 consecutive rookies that have proven nothing, and there is no guarantee that they pan out.

That sets a franchise back, and it really isnt even the Franchises choice.

Vets dont need a slotting system. They have already proven there worth to a team. Rookies do.

See post 4

Work stoppage worries only increase
Posted by Mike Florio on January 19, 2010 6:51 PM ET
We've been trying to focus primarily if not exclusively on subjects other than the sluggish labor talks, since it's the postseason and folks are generally happy and upbeat about the greatest sport on the planet.

But we need to press "pause" on the playoff party train for a few minutes, if for no reason other than to remind everyone that a real problem is looming, and it's closer than anyone realizes.

In this week's Monday Morning Quarterback column, Peter King of SI.com writes that it will be an "upset" if there isn't a work stoppage in 2011, based on a "total lack of progress" in the eleven bargaining sessions held to date.

The core dispute is the system for paying players. The owners want to pay a lot less; the players want to keep what they have.

And there's a lingering sense that the players did too well in 2006, when they successfully expanded the player-salary formula to include all football revenues. By finagling 59.6 cents on virtually every dollar earned, the players have forced the teams to try to run their businesses with the remaining 40.4 cents -- and to carve a fair profit out of that amount.

And so the owners now want to push the pendulum in the other direction, not only evening out the financial playing field but also recapturing some of the losses they believe they experienced under the deal that former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the late Gene Upshaw brokered.

The players say they won't stand for it, but the owners realize that the players likely won't have the will to miss an entire season of football salaries. Few have much money saved, and many live check-to-check, given lifestyles based on the assumption that they'll earn football money indefinitely.

Indeed, the players have caved every time they'll staged a strike; it's hard to imagine them not agreeing to the last best offer the owners make, if the alternative is zero dollars, zero cents, and lost opportunities to play football.

Then there's the reality that, from the NFL's perspective, the clock doesn't strike 12 until the labor agreement expires next year. The union would prefer to do a deal now, in part to avoid the potential mutiny that will arise when guys who thought they would be free agents learn that they aren't really free agents -- and when the free agents realize that the uncapped year doesn't entail Pacman Jones in a cherry picker with a Grinch sack full of cash.

So if the union wants to do a deal now, they'll have to do a bad deal. If they choose to wait, the owners will get more serious about working something out as midnight approaches.

In the end, it's a battle of wills, and the owners are intent on testing the players' resolve. It starts first by seeing if they'll flinch in the face of an uncapped year. Then, the question becomes whether the players will blink as the owners prepare to lock them out.

If the players stand firm, then 2011 could be a huge mess.

We hope it won't come to that. But if it does, there's always the CFL. And the UFL.