ChiefsPlanet
Page 6 of 6 « First 2345 6
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football The Bizarre Cult Of Pro-Owner NFL Fanboys (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245046)

jspchief 05-12-2011 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7637957)
don't be dumb. The owners do not give a rat's ass about affordability, UNLESS affordability is the point where supply and demand cross on the theoretical chart. If ticket prices are affordable, I give the owners NO credit WHATSOEVER because they were FORCED into making the game affordable by solid unforgiving economics.
The owners care about long term success of the league. Affordability factors into that.

Your problem is you're talking about "giving credit" like this is an issue of choosing which side is good vs bad.

They are both trying to maximize their profits at the expense of fans. It's not about which side has more noble intent.

I side with the owners because I believe they have more reason to keep the NFL in my price range for the rest of my life. It's not because I believe they have any altruistic motives.

Just Passin' By 05-12-2011 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 7637980)
The owners care about long term success of the league. Affordability factors into that.

Your problem is you're talking about "giving credit" like this is an issue of choosing which side is good vs bad.

They are both trying to maximize their profits at the expense of fans. It's not about which side has more noble intent.

I side with the owners because I believe they have more reason to keep the NFL in my price range for the rest of my life. It's not because I believe they have any altruistic motives.
Players get a percentage of revenue, and are generally represented by a union that is looking to keep things going for current and future players. Owners get a percentage of revenue. Both sides have basically the same interest in keeping the game affordable enough to max out revenues in both the long and the short term.

jspchief 05-12-2011 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 7637991)
Players get a percentage of revenue, and are generally represented by a union that is looking to keep things going for current and future players. Owners get a percentage of revenue. Both sides have basically the same interest in keeping the game affordable enough to max out revenues in both the long and the short term.
If players were looking for anything other than fast riches, they would have allowed a rookie pay scale a long time ago.

I don't believe for 1 second that players have the same interest in the long term health of the league. They only need it to last as long as their careers.

kcfanXIII 05-12-2011 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 7637971)
Ahh...so all that success occurred between 2006-2010?

And would you say that Jerry Jones is an "average" NFL owner?
I may be wrong here but they simply extended the previous CBA in 06.

No jj is not, but i blame all the other owners for not telling him to stfu and stfd. Its owners like him that are struggling. The ones that pissed and moaned about new stadiums, are now saying operating expenses are too high. I thought new stadiums increased revenue? If they show the books and prove they are hurting (not by their own doing.... Dan Snyder) I might change my opinion about the situation.

tk13 05-12-2011 09:32 PM
I think the old school owners definitely are more interested in the long term health of the league. I'm not sure guys like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder care as long as they're making money. That's what started this thing in the first place... the big market owners goaded the small market owners into a CBA they didn't like 5 minutes after they signed it. They couldn't work it out so instead they're just going to try and settle it by getting a bigger cut of the TV money.

Just Passin' By 05-12-2011 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 7638005)
If players were looking for anything other than fast riches, they would have allowed a rookie pay scale a long time ago.

I don't believe for 1 second that players have the same interest in the long term health of the league. They only need it to last as long as their careers.
There has been a rookie salary cap in place, and rookie pay scale has no effect on overall revenues paid to players.

Marcellus 05-12-2011 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 7638005)
If players were looking for anything other than fast riches, they would have allowed a rookie pay scale a long time ago.

I don't believe for 1 second that players have the same interest in the long term health of the league. They only need it to last as long as their careers.
Ding ding ding. Winner.

While both are motivated by money the players want paid now regardless of long term effect.

Both parties need to pull their panties out of their crack but to act like the players are innocent in all of this is naive.

They both need to quit using the courts and sit down.

chiefzilla1501 05-12-2011 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 7638014)
I think the old school owners definitely are more interested in the long term health of the league. I'm not sure guys like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder care as long as they're making money. That's what started this thing in the first place... the big market owners goaded the small market owners into a CBA they didn't like 5 minutes after they signed it. They couldn't work it out so instead they're just going to try and settle it by getting a bigger cut of the TV money.
I personally believe what made the NFL is less about the salary cap, and more about the salary floor. Look at the Pittsburgh Pirates. They learned that you build a beautiful stadium, invest in a good enough team, and you make a killing without ever fielding a competitive team. Or the Florida Marlins, where the cheapskate owner is paying for a less than $25M payroll in some years.

Mr. Laz 05-12-2011 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lane (Post 7637234)
Thank god there isn't anyone that feels the other way around about this issue right Laz?

I'd probably side with the owners if they came straight and came at me clean but seriously this ****ing lying they have been promoting is quite sad. I don't like being talked down to and treated like a moron. I'm sure Laz is used to that but I'm not.
the writer of the piece started that shit with his ... "please know that you are wrong and that you are stupid and that I ****ing hate you."

so don't go and get all victim on me

btw both sides are spinning and stretching the face for PR

Okie_Apparition 05-12-2011 09:44 PM
A 24 year old with millions in the bank not giving a shit about the future? No way
an 84 year old with billions in the bank worrying about his legacy? No ****ing way

MahiMike 05-12-2011 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by notorious (Post 7637041)
Being the owner of a business, I can see where they are coming from.


Being a former employee of a business, I can see where they are coming from.




With that said, any employee that thinks he is entitled to a set % of the businesses income can politely go **** HIMSELF. It is none of their business to know how much the company is bringing in. Get paid, STFU, or get another job. I don't give a ****.
This sums it up for me. If Reagan was still alive, he'd just fire all of their asses and get another set of players.

Adept Havelock 05-13-2011 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7637951)

What I care about is figuring out who is right, no matter who started it.

The NFL owners adamantly refuse to open their books, even though NHL/NBA/MLB owners open their books to their player unions. So, by default the owners lose the PR battle in my mind. Don't wanna open your books? Too bad, you are asking the players to allow you to do things that are normally illegal and all of your peers open their books to their players. Still wanna act stupidly with your lack of transparency? Fine, f*** 'em, the owners deserve all the blame until they come to the table with every piece of information the players want.
QFT.

blaise 05-13-2011 05:29 AM
I actually don't care who is right or wrong. I don't follow sports to get involved in debates over labor relations.

Chiefnj2 05-13-2011 05:52 AM
The players agreed to let the owners opt out of the CBA.

The players walked away from the negotiating table first by decertifying and not making a counter-offer to a reasonable offer from the owners.

Are the owners greedy. Sure. Would you expect different from Snyder or Jones?

If BOTH SIDES wanted an agreement, they could just agree to negotiate. At this point, they are BOTH rolling the dice on the courts.

chiefzilla1501 05-13-2011 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okie_Apparition (Post 7638036)
A 24 year old with millions in the bank not giving a shit about the future? No way
an 84 year old with billions in the bank worrying about his legacy? No ****ing way
Watch baseball.

When you don't force a salary floor on owners, a lot of owners become cheapskates. There are a lot of good owners out there, but there also a lot of cheapskates who would much rather make money than build a good team.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 AM.
Page 6 of 6 « First 2345 6
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.