The owners and players have been "winning" for years. You are talking about ridiculously wealthy owners and wealthy players. At the end of the day, no matter who the media declares the "winner" in the negotiations, they all come out way ahead of 99.9% of the fans. It's silly to get wrapped up in being on the owner's side or players side. There is no loser between them.

I dont give a shit about any of this. I just want to see football this fall.

Right. The perspective that makes the most sense to me is the one that leads to a better result for the fans, which in this case is the league envisioned by the owners group rather than the one envisioned by the players, IMO.

The owners are interested in cost control, the players are not and the result will be reflected in ticket prices. The majority of owners are interested in maintaining the competitiveness and stability of every team in the league, the players are interested in player opportunity even at the expense of parity and stability.

Riiight. Do you really think the Owners are concerned at all about cost when it comes to ticket prices? Dream on, Pat. Dream the **** on.

The players haven't risked any of their own money either. That no-cap-on-profit thing is the "reward" in risk/reward.

It's so vital that more Americans don't watch football than do.

Your argument is absurd. The greasy donut isn't vital, but neither is football.

They're more concerned about it than the players are. They're the ones who have to sell them. It's not that they're being benevolent, it's just the reality of their situation.

Who is more concerned about costs and the price of their products, the restaurant owner or the waiters and busboys?

The fact that the old CBA is over doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from everyone's memory as if it never existed. In any negotiation between the two its going to be the baseline from which either side judges. So yes, for all intents and purposes of the negotiation process the owners are asking for money back.

Yea, I'm hoping the judge orders business as usual under the expired CBA.

Such a joke of a letter by Goodell. I can't believe his PR people wrote it with a straight face.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...-letter-to-wsj

Use whatever mental gymnastics that make you happy, but don't impose your counter-reality on me.

The way I see it is as this - if the owners win in court, there is a greater chance of normalcy.

If the players keep winning, there is incentive for the owners to get things done quickly, but there is also a slim chance of some really bad things happening such as "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."

In particular, the potential antitrust allegations and lawsuits could really be a mess. Imagine Andrew Luck has a dad just like Archie Manning. Buffalo has the first pick in the 2012 draft and papa Luck doesn't want Andy playing in Buffalo. He files suit that the draft is unfair, etc. It's a slim chance, but all you need is one a-hole to mess it up.

Windmills don't work that way.

The owner hate by some of the posters in this thread is staggering in both jealousy and stupidity. The support for employee entitlement beyond that which is offered by the employer and agreed upon by the employee isn't surprising.
The thought that anyone can be an owner, that being an owner is easy and requires no work is laughable.

How many employees does an average nfl team have? (non players)