NFL on the brink of a lockout

[Denver Native (Carol)]

WASHINGTON — With the NFL on the brink of its first work stoppage in nearly a quarter of a century, Commissioner Roger Goodell and union head DeMaurice Smith met at a federal mediator's office Friday, the day the league's twice-extended labor contract was set to expire.

Goodell was joined by nine of the 10 members of the owners' labor committee, along with various league executives and lawyers. Smith walked over from the NFL Players Association's nearby headquarters with about 20 people, including New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees and several other current or former players.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17592072

[Denver Native (Carol)]

WASHINGTON -- NFL and NFL Players Association representatives arrived Friday morning for their 16th federal mediation session in their labor-deal discussions, but it could be a short meeting, according to league and union sources.

The session is scheduled to include a proposal -- likely a final one -- from the NFL. If it isn't to the union's liking -- and doesn't include major changes from past proposals and/or more full financial data -- then multiple NFLPA officials said they will present the league with a letter saying they will dissolve. The union also will begin filing papers with U.S. District Judge David Doty in Minnesota to seek an injunction against a potential lockout.

The league can't impose a lockout of players until after 11:59 p.m. ET Friday, when the collective bargaining agreement expires. The union has until 5 p.m. to decertify.

The possibility also remains that the sides, along with federal mediator George Cohen, could agree that future talks might spur more movement and enough potential for a new deal exists to agree to a third extension of the negotiating window. However, multiple high-ranking union sources have indicated it would take significant movement from the owners' previous proposals to prompt another extension.

full article - much more - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb6e46/article/league-set-to-make-proposal-to-union-as-cba-deadline-nears?module=HP_headlines

[silkamilkamonico]

I think for anyone following this the last year they could see this was going to happen. Question is for how long.

[SR]

Guess it's time for me to be a college football fan for a year.

[The Glue Factory]

Gene Upshaw, where have you gone?



I know he's dead, so don't bother informing me of that fact, thank you.

[silkamilkamonico]

Gene Upshaw, where have you gone?



I know he's dead, so don't bother informing me of that fact, thank you.

Owners have been preparing for this for 3 years. They are willing to lose an entire season or possibly more to get what they want. I don't think there's much even he cold have done about it.

[BroncoStud]

Sorry, this is on the players. Greedy ******. Everyone else has taken paycuts across the board, screw them. If the NFL locks out and the year is lost, I'm done with it. I won't watch again. Just like MLB - I've never gone back.

[underrated29]

i STILL doubt a lockout will occur. There might be whatever along the way, but come sept I bet there will be a season, not with replacements.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees rejoined mediated negotiations in Washington on Friday, reiterating the union's desire for the NFL owners to open their books.

Brees was among a group of about 20 people, including NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith, who walked over from the union's nearby headquarters to the federal mediator's office. Brees and Smith were flanked by several other current or former players.

"To our fans -- I give you my word that we as players are doing everything we can to negotiate with the NFL towards a fair deal," Brees tweeted before the start of Friday's meetings. "The NFL brought this fight to us -- they want $1 billion back, we just want financial information to back up that request."

If there is no deal and no extension, the NFLPA is poised to decertify, a source familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. If the NFLPA decertifies, it has to be done by 5 p.m. ET.

The CBA, however, is scheduled to expire at the end of the day Friday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

[silkamilkamonico]

Sorry, this is on the players. Greedy ******. Everyone else has taken paycuts across the board, screw them. If the NFL locks out and the year is lost, I'm done with it. I won't watch again. Just like MLB - I've never gone back.

There's no way in hell you would agree to a paycut, more work hours, and a loss of health insurance if you worked for a company that was experiencing booming revenue. That is just ridiculous.l

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The only way the NFLPA would consider extending CBA talks is if the NFL’s new proposal includes what the union is looking for when it comes to full financial disclosure.— Adam Caplan

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-collective-bargaining-agreement-deadline-union-updates-blog-030311

[BroncoStud]

There's no way in hell you would agree to a paycut, more work hours, and a loss of health insurance if you worked for a company that was experiencing booming revenue. That is just ridiculous.l

Nobody is taking away their health insurance and there is no way they are booming during a "recession" aka theft of investor and tax money...

They still get insurance, the 18 game season is OFF THE TABLE, and the owners own the business, not the players. They can always get guys out of college who are willing to work right now and tell the current players to either take it or leave it.

Either way, this thing has greed written all over it. The players got a FAT deal when Tags was Commissioner and they didn't deserve it then, don't deserve it now. There has to be a correction they players just don't want it.

[silkamilkamonico]

Nobody is taking away their health insurance and there is no way they are booming during a "recession" aka theft of investor and tax money...

They still get insurance, the 18 game season is OFF THE TABLE, and the owners own the business, not the players. They can always get guys out of college who are willing to work right now and tell the current players to either take it or leave it.

Either way, this thing has greed written all over it. The players got a FAT deal when Tags was Commissioner and they didn't deserve it then, don't deserve it now. There has to be a correction they players just don't want it.

The owners are the greedy --------. They want the players to take less money, they are indeed still pushing more games, N they want to limit the players retirment benefits. I would think limiting their benefits woudl have been completely off the table considering a lengthened season to 18 games increases the safety risks.

The players have been more than generous in giving with this. On top of that, they aren't even saying "No" to the owners. They merely want evidence of the owners claims of losing money, which everyone knows is bullshit.

BTW, the one piece of evidence the owners showed to losing their money, was the books from onf small market organization without shared revenue. Absolutely laughable. Absolutely laughable what the owners are doing.

Also, everyone knows that the NFL players are the one's that have made the NFL what it is, so any argument of the owners just getting different players, and then expecting the NFL to continue what it is, is not a very thought out argument. Just my humble opinion.

[SR]

The owners are the greedy --------. They want the players to take less money, they are indeed still pushing more games, N they want to limit the players retirment benefits. I would think limiting their benefits woudl have been completely off the table considering a lengthened season to 18 games increases the safety risks.

The players have been more than generous in giving with this. On top of that, they aren't even saying "No" to the owners. They merely want evidence of the owners claims of losing money, which everyone knows is bullshit.

BTW, the one piece of evidence the owners showed to losing their money, was the books from onf small market organization without shared revenue. Absolutely laughable. Absolutely laughable what the owners are doing.

Also, everyone knows that the NFL players are the one's that have made the NFL what it is, so any argument of the owners just getting different players, and then expecting the NFL to continue what it is, is not a very thought out argument. Just my humble opinion.


The NFL has said publicly that an 18 game season has been taken off the table.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I can't remember who the commentator was, but whoever said that if the owners do open their books, you would see where they have paid for family members vacations, added family members on their payroll, etc. And I am thinking - SO WHAT - is an owner NOT allowed to do what he wants to do with his profits :confused:

[BroncoStud]

The owners are the greedy --------. They want the players to take less money, they are indeed still pushing more games, N they want to limit the players retirment benefits. I would think limiting their benefits woudl have been completely off the table considering a lengthened season to 18 games increases the safety risks.

The players have been more than generous in giving with this. On top of that, they aren't even saying "No" to the owners. They merely want evidence of the owners claims of losing money, which everyone knows is bullshit.

BTW, the one piece of evidence the owners showed to losing their money, was the books from onf small market organization without shared revenue. Absolutely laughable. Absolutely laughable what the owners are doing.

The players aren't being greedy because they already got their greedy way with the last round of collective bargaining.

I have a question... Do you own a business? Did you pay millions, maybe even billions to purchase a business only to share the profits 50/50 with your employees who risked nothing financially and got paid millions to perform their jobs?

The 18 game season is indeed off of the table, it's out, they're not trying to push it any longer and it is quite possible some of the franchises are losing money, especially in the smaller markets, and that in itself is an issue to the future of the league. The NFL has to maintain revenue sharing or you're going to end up like MLB where major market teams have an overwhelming advantage.

Either way it's clear the owners are in a better position than most of the players to weather a lockout and there are always those idiot fans who will flock back after greedy players and owners shut down a season or cancel a World Series.

I guess it just comes back to the fact that most Americans are nothing more than selfish sheep being led with the flock to whereever the shepard wants to take them, as only proven by our current and recent past Presidential, Senate, and Congressional voter-decisions.

Face it, the NFL can do what it wants, the players will have to cave eventually or take their amazing skillsets to the business world where they will get eaten alive.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The players aren't being greedy because they already got their greedy way with the last round of collective bargaining.

I have a question... Do you own a business? Did you pay millions, maybe even billions to purchase a business only to share the profits 50/50 with your employees who risked nothing financially and got paid millions to perform their jobs?

The 18 game season is indeed off of the table, it's out, they're not trying to push it any longer and it is quite possible some of the franchises are losing money, especially in the smaller markets, and that in itself is an issue to the future of the league. The NFL has to maintain revenue sharing or you're going to end up like MLB where major market teams have an overwhelming advantage.

Either way it's clear the owners are in a better position than most of the players to weather a lockout and there are always those idiot fans who will flock back after greedy players and owners shut down a season or cancel a World Series.

I guess it just comes back to the fact that most Americans are nothing more than selfish sheep being led with the flock to whereever the shepard wants to take them, as only proven by our current and recent past Presidential, Senate, and Congressional voter-decisions.

Face it, the NFL can do what it wants, the players will have to cave eventually or take their amazing skillsets to the business world where they will get eaten alive.

My thinking exactly - if I understand it, the players received 60% of the profits from the last CBA, and are now upset that the owners want a 50%-50% split. So - if the players want the 60% profits again - I then say they pay all of their expenses - i.e. practice/game uniforms, travel expenses, food expenses during training camp, and during road games, upkeep/replacement for all training equipment they use, etc., etc., etc.

[BroncoStud]

My thinking exactly - if I understand it, the players received 60% of the profits from the last CBA, and are now upset that the owners want a 50%-50% split. So - if the players want the 60% profits again - I then say they pay all of their expenses - i.e. practice/game uniforms, travel expenses, food expenses during training camp, and during road games, upkeep/replacement for all training equipment they use, etc., etc., etc.

Exactly.

[underrated29]

i have heard tho that the 60% split is after the owners take 1 billion off the top first.

[underrated29]

I can't remember who the commentator was, but whoever said that if the owners do open their books, you would see where they have paid for family members vacations, added family members on their payroll, etc. And I am thinking - SO WHAT - is an owner NOT allowed to do what he wants to do with his profits :confused:



That seems fine to me. But on the players side you have to think...That the nfl wants them, the players, to send them a check for hundreds of millions or a billion. because they are losing money or whatever. Is it the players faul tthat the owners put family members on salary or took them on vacations or whatever. I would not want to pay for that.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

That seems fine to me. But on the players side you have to think...That the nfl wants them, the players, to send them a check for hundreds of millions or a billion. because they are losing money or whatever. Is it the players faul tthat the owners put family members on salary or took them on vacations or whatever. I would not want to pay for that.

Are the owners NOT entitled to make a profit???? Are not ALL business owners, regardless of what business they own, in it to make a profit?????? As long as all of an owner's employees are getting paid the figure they agreed on, as long as the owner is paying all of his/her business expenses, it is no one's business what they do with what is left = profit.

I am sure that business owner's books are audited - however, I don't believe they then need to let the employees know what the findings were.

[Krugan]

The whole thing is a sham.

This game would be nothing without the people who started it, people who created teams by putting forth their own dollars.

This is just standard for America these days. Our money isnt worth anything anyway, we are selling ourselves out to other countries to keep the ship floating.

And on the side is a entertainment industry that is squabbling ove 1 billion dollars? Employees demanding equal share, yet not paying for stadiums, staffs to man them, people to keep the whole thing rolling.

I say let the whole thing sink, screw both sides and the stupid advertiser willing to dump billions into this sport.

I hope there are more people out there that just say f u and have a nice day.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The time posted is eastern time.


NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith told players during a 2:00 p.m. ET conference call that the union plans to decertify later today, according to ESPN.

Player sources told FOXSports.com that after last week’s decision to extend collective bargaining agreement discussions another seven days, the vibe the players received from their union representatives was that there would be no more extensions. The feeling was that the NFL would have to show the NFLPA the financial transparency it was seeking within the seven-day extension.

Various reports stated that the NFL made one last ditch proposal during Friday’s CBA discussions. — Adam Caplan

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-collective-bargaining-agreement-deadline-union-updates-blog-030311

[Nomad]

Guess it's time for me to be a college football fan for a year.

SEC and PAC 12 is where it's at!!!

[SR]

Go ASU!

[BroncoStud]

So I guess the NFL can screw off... I hope they lose at least half of their fanbase over this. Screw the owners, screw the players. Most of all, SCREW THE UNIONS.

[Northman]

I think Sprewell just called, he's needs to be able to feed his family because 14.6 million wasnt enough. Im sure to some extent the owners are being greedy but if anyone thinks that the players AREN'T being greedy are clearly out of the minds.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The NFL Players Association, presented with a proposal from the league's owners group in a federal mediation session late Friday afternoon as a 5 p.m. decertification deadline approached, has rejected the offer as "significant differences continue to remain," union chief DeMaurice Smith said.

Smith said 10 years of audited financial records must accompany any request from the owners for an extension before the deadline .

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

JUST HEARD MORTENSEN SAY THAT THE UNION HAS FILED PAPERS FOR DECERTIFICATION

[Bullgator]

I still dont think there will be a lockout... Doty will most likey rule business as usual and not allow a lockout by the owners

IMO the owners are stuck.. they want to settle but no way they want to show the audited financial records... with the skellies in thier closet its not even an option. and now it goes to court.. what a shit storm.

But IMO Doty will rule until this is settled, play will resume

[topscribe]

Are the owners NOT entitled to make a profit???? Are not ALL business owners, regardless of what business they own, in it to make a profit?????? As long as all of an owner's employees are getting paid the figure they agreed on, as long as the owner is paying all of his/her business expenses, it is no one's business what they do with what is left = profit.

I am sure that business owner's books are audited - however, I don't believe they then need to let the employees know what the findings were.

That's what gets me. The owners made the investments, took the risks. The
owners built the franchises to the point where jobs are available. The players
came along looking for employment with the owners.

And now, the players want even a bigger cut?? Who the hell runs a business
like that?

-----

[KCL]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

JUST HEARD MORTENSEN SAY THAT THE UNION HAS FILED PAPERS FOR DECERTIFICATION

The NFL players’ union has decertified, making the league’s first work stoppage since 1987 a near-certainty. After 16 days of mediated talks with the NFL, the sides could not reach agreement on a new deal. The current one expires at the end of Friday, and the league could lock out its players.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/11/2717892/players-union-asks-for-more-data.html

[underrated29]

Are the owners NOT entitled to make a profit???? Are not ALL business owners, regardless of what business they own, in it to make a profit?????? As long as all of an owner's employees are getting paid the figure they agreed on, as long as the owner is paying all of his/her business expenses, it is no one's business what they do with what is left = profit.

I am sure that business owner's books are audited - however, I don't believe they then need to let the employees know what the findings were.



you are right. And as a business owner, I also do not share my profit earnings with my employess, I also can put anyone on my payroll I wish.

Buuuuuuut- I am not going to ask my employees for millions or billions of dollars because I am losing money (yet still putting my family on payroll and taking vacations and such)


That was my point, and that I think is what the NFLPA is saying too.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The start-and-stop negotiations between the NFL's owners and players came to a dramatic end Friday, when the Players Association filed paperwork to decertify as a union.

The move is expected to transfer the labor impasse from the bargaining room to the court room. The owners previously said they would lock out the players if the sides failed to come to terms on a new collective bargaining agreement before Friday's midnight deadline.

Were a lockout to happen, the players would sue the league for restraint-of-trade antitrust violations. Star quarterbacks Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees already have agreed to be the lead plaintiffs, although many more players could be involved.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/11/union-labor/

[KCL]

This whole deal SUCKS!!!

[SOCALORADO.]

This whole deal SUCKS!!!

Dont know if you noticed, but the entire world is falling apart.
Just sayin.:mad:

[KCL]

Dont know if you noticed, but the entire world is falling apart.
Just sayin.:mad:

It seems that way...doesn't it? I hate this shit and just when the Chiefs seemed to be getting it together...but bad for all fans!

[Bullgator]

That's what gets me. The owners made the investments, took the risks. The
owners built the franchises to the point where jobs are available. The players
came along looking for employment with the owners.

And now, the players want even a bigger cut?? Who the hell runs a business
like that?

-----

you have to remember that the owners and players are PARTNERS in this... the revenue is less a boss/eployee thing as it is a 60/40 partnership

the players didnt want a bigger cut.... the OWNERS DID they are the ones that opted out of the deal.. its the owners that want more money out of the NFL coffers that belong as much to the players as it does to the owners as it is a partnership.

and so if the owners want to dip into those coffers then they must show WHY.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

WASHINGTON

There is no more overtime in labor negotiations between the NFL and NFL Players Association.

Talks for a new collective bargaining agreement fell apart Friday, as the players' union moved to decertify. This will undoubtedly lead to the league's first work stoppage in 24 years.

The news came Friday afternoon following a contentious Thursday of verbal salvos between both sides during heated negotiations. Nine NFL owners on the league's executive committee as well as a slew of NFLPA executives and player representatives were among those who attended Friday's session at Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service headquarters in Washington.

Several legal proceedings are now set to follow, which could continue the impasse into the regular season.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-Players-Association-union-decertifies-labor-talks-owners-031111

[Edmonton Bronco Fan]

This sucks. Not sure if I can survive without NFL Football this season.

[Northman]

NFL releases statement.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/NFL-Releases-Statement/875dcecd-d3f8-4b16-964b-025c2254bd09


The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players' union has notified our office that at 4pm ET it had "decertified" and is walking away from mediation and collective bargaining, presumably to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players' financial demands in the latter years.

The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.
The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

[BORDERLINE]

Well this news F'N sucks. I really believe the Owners are gonna stand there ground and the players will start to crack. All those Aston Martins and Buggattis need to be paid. I believe it's gonna come down to who has the most cash stashed and obviously that would be the OWNERS.

Looks like it's gonna be a while SMH

[Dirk]

Unions...gotta love 'em. :tsk:

[Bullgator]

Well this news F'N sucks. I really believe the Owners are gonna stand there ground and the players will start to crack. All those Aston Martins and Buggattis need to be paid. I believe it's gonna come down to who has the most cash stashed and obviously that would be the OWNERS.

Looks like it's gonna be a while SMH

well dont forget all the new stadiums that nneed to be payed for.. thats billions of dollars man.. and also with the 4billion witheld from the NFL by Doty the owners are in a hotseat too.

its in the best interest of the players to get to court... it is NOT in the owners to get to court IMO

[arapaho2]

does this mean goodell is only being paid a buck this year

[KCL]

well dont forget all the new stadiums that nneed to be payed for.. thats billions of dollars man.. and also with the 4billion witheld from the NFL by Doty the owners are in a hotseat too.

its in the best interest of the players to get to court... it is NOT in the owners to get to court IMO

Aren't some of the stadiums paid in part by companies that have their name on them...The Rams is the Edward Jones Dome...how does that work?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Aren't some of the stadiums paid in part by companies that have their name on them...The Rams is the Edward Jones Dome...how does that work?

This is how Invesco field was paid for:


Taxpayers in the six-county Denver metropolitan area believe Invesco Field is theirs. And deservedly so. They agreed to fund 75 percent of the football stadium by extending the 0.1 percent sales tax initially set up for Coors Field — and quickly paid off because of a strong economy.

Bowlen had to come up with 25 percent of the estimated $364 million needed to build Invesco Field, or $91 million.

And on top of that $91 million, Bowlen also has to pay for Invesco Field's electric, cleaning and improvement bills.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16479977

I don't believe in Denver that what Invesco paid for in naming rights, went towards the cost of the new stadium.

[Nomad]

In this economy with food, fuel, utilities, clothing prices rising considerably, I feel bad for all those who don't make millions or billions and will be laid off in the result of these numbnuts because each side is greedy and can't come to terms. But in the end, the players will cross that picket line.

Do the players still get paid being locked out/decertified/striking? I know if I were to strike with the IBEW (which is supposed to be a non striking union), I wouldn't get paid if I was employed.

[Dirk]

Because I am not that versed on how all this works I will ask a possible silly question.


If the players decertified, in essence making the union void. Can the league now say that they are going to be an organization that doesn't have a union. Meaning that the league is now going to be a "right to work" company?

If so, can they then give offers to any player that wants to play and tell the NFLPA to get Effed and go non union?

I know that wouldn't happened but could that happen?

Again I don't know much about how all this works and with the anti-trust BS that they are going to pursue.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Because I am not that versed on how all this works I will ask a possible silly question.


If the players decertified, in essence making the union void. Can the league now say that they are going to be an organization that doesn't have a union. Meaning that the league is now going to be a "right to work" company?

If so, can they then give offers to any player that wants to play and tell the NFLPA to get Effed and go non union?

I know that wouldn't happened but could that happen?

Again I don't know much about how all this works and with the anti-trust BS that they are going to pursue.

I am not sure if the following answers your questions, or not, as I don't fully understand the process.


The union decertified, and players including Tom Brady and Peyton Manning sued the league, putting the country's most popular sport on a path to its first work stoppage since 1987.

By dissolving and announcing it no longer represents the players in collective bargaining, the NFL Players Association cleared the way for class-action lawsuits against the NFL, which opted out of the CBA in 2008.

full article - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

[Nomad]

I keep reading and hearing Manning, Brees, and Brady's names thrown around as if they are the image of the NFLPA. Am I supposed to have more empathy with them or the PA? Actually, it does reverse for me because they have so much cash, they probably wipe their asses with it.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The NFL players no longer have a union and they probably cannot be locked out by team owners, either.

After two weeks of mediation with the league, the NFL Players Assn. resorted to its most extreme measure Friday, decertifying as a union and becoming a trade association.

The group is seeking an injunction to bar owners from locking out the players, and they likely will be successful. Because there's no longer a union with which to collectively bargain, NFL teams are now in peril of running afoul of antitrust laws.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-labor-talks-fail,0,3575936.story

[Hardwired]

Got this in email:

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.



Yours,
Roger Goodell

[Denver Native (Carol)]

MINNEAPOLIS -- Star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are among the players who filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL on Friday to prevent a lockout.

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson, Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber and defensive end Brian Robison, New England guard Logan Mankins, New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora, Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel, and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year's draft.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb9269/article/ten-players-named-as-plaintiffs-in-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-nfl?module=HP_headlines

How can Von Miller, who is NOT on any NFL team, be part of this :confused:

[PAINTERDAVE]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb9269/article/ten-players-named-as-plaintiffs-in-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-nfl?module=HP_headlines

How can Von Miller, who is NOT on any NFL team, be part of this :confused:

Class action suit... no NFL union.. just players and "potential players"?

[Krugan]

If thats the case everyone get in on it, we all have the "potential" to be NFL employees.

This whole thing is just dumb, by looking at the final offer and the players deciding to go against it, it just pushes me further away.


So now its down to 500 mil in difference...

the biggest sucky part of this, as the costs to employee these people go up, who has to foot the damn bill at the gates? Us poor ********.

And it figures 3 of the highest paid players are first in line to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon. If it werent for this sport they all wouldnt be nearly as rich as they are.

No TV commercials, no hot super model wives, screw em all.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

If thats the case everyone get in on it, we all have the "potential" to be NFL employees.

This whole thing is just dumb, by looking at the final offer and the players deciding to go against it, it just pushes me further away.


So now its down to 500 mil in difference...

the biggest sucky part of this, as the costs to employee these people go up, who has to foot the damn bill at the gates? Us poor ********.

And it figures 3 of the highest paid players are first in line to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon. If it werent for this sport they all wouldnt be nearly as rich as they are.

No TV commercials, no hot super model wives, screw em all.

I heard from the beginning that these would be the 3 players who would be listed. I would assume it was a "planned" thing. As far as I am concerned, this whole thing is STUPID AND CHILDISH.

[JaxBroncoGirl]

I heard from the beginning that these would be the 3 players who would be listed. I would assume it was a "planned" thing. As far as I am concerned, this whole thing is STUPID AND CHILDISH.

I am at a loss as to what to think about the whole thing, I have lost respect for the owners and players. I am with you guys, I do not understand this whole process of the CBA agreement verses unions and all that mess, but if this does not turn out good, then (they) the (NFL) will put the "regular guy" out of work and that makes me seriously mad.

I really never thought it would go this far, some of you that have the NFL experience posted that you thought this would happen and I kept ignoring that scenario thinking this would be easy and the NFL would get through this and now I just do not know. Bummed Out In Jacksonville, FL

[underrated29]

Wow, that letter was a bunch of crap. Feaking owners. Freaking players. How idiotic.




here is how it works. With a union and a lockout, the owners can do whatever they want. They can make up any rules they want. 18 game season, 70/30 split, whatever. By decerftifying the owners are not longer able to make up any rules they want and lockout the players, because it would be ruled against the anti trust laws.

So by decertifying the players can keep from being locked out and the owners can not call all of the shots. It will also force the owners to actually submit how much money they are making and or losing. because lets face it- if someone comes to you and says give me money because I have none and you find out that they have been going on vacations and buying gifts and stuff for family you are not going to give it to them. Same thing with the owners and players.

This also means that if the judge rules in favor of violation of anti trust laws that there can be no lockout. At least in theory. remember just a week or two ago the Owners PRE EMPTIVELY tried to get a court order keeping the players from decertifying . But that Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

"The reason we had such harmony for so many years is that Gene Upshaw and Paul Tagliabue had a great relationship. Commissioner Goodell and De Smith do not have that relationship. It has been contentious from the beginning. When you opt out of an agreement saying you are unhappy, now you have to say why you are unhappy. I look at this (like) a divorce." —Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-03-11-laborreax_N.htm

On link, comments from some players, some NFL owners, and others.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Bad enough the NFL moved from the field to a bargaining table. Now, the game has moved from the field to the bargaining table to the courtroom.

And as nearly American adult at one time or another has discovered, once a case is in court, it hangs there for a while.

The NFL has effectively shut down business after failed labor negotiations led the players' union to decertify Friday afternoon.

Players' union chief DeMaurice Smith will next file an antitrust suit against NFL owners in a Minneapolis court where Judge David Doty awaits.

Before decertifying, the union said it would agree to extend negotiations if the owners agreed to turn over 10 years worth of audited financial records. The league has said it has revealed enough information. Thus, a labor impasse that moves to the courts.

"DeMaurice Smith did a great job communicating to the players during this past season that there was a 95 percent possibility of a lockout," said Broncos defensive end Elvis Dumervil. "So, the players have been prepared for this for quite a while.

"At the end of the day I think it's a good thing this will get decided in the courts because now the players and owners won't have their personality conflicts involved and whatever outcome the court system feels is fair, I think that's what both sides should live with and we can get back to playing football again for our fans."

full article - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17595133

[Poet]

That's what gets me. The owners made the investments, took the risks. The
owners built the franchises to the point where jobs are available. The players
came along looking for employment with the owners.

And now, the players want even a bigger cut?? Who the hell runs a business
like that?

-----

The problem is that this is not a regular business environment. A lot of these owners did nothing other than be born from the right family. A lot of them are successful in their own right, own a sports team because that's what rich people do, and then hire GM's to actually run the team.

What I'm getting at is that so many of these guys are richer (they're all smarter than 99% of the world, don't get it wrong) from buying an NFL team after they've gotten rich.

The other thing is that so many of these guys get help from the fans to buy for their stadiums and parking lots. It's not like the owners built everything from the ground up.

Then you factor in that so many of the Owners are basically worthless from a football stand point. Al Davis (now), Mike Brown, the Bill's owner, Ford, the Cardinals owner, the Browns' owner, etc etc etc, are perinnial losers and put out a bad product.

And bad products don't typically last in a competitive environment.

UNLESS you were lucky enough to inherit or buy something that's part of the most successful sports league in America, because then you can piggy back off of revenue sharing.

It's quasi-socialism, so no, the owners, a good fourth of them have no room to actually bitch about money, because it's money that they get from their betters.

Owners of businesses should always make the most money. You work for them. But again, a team drafts a player in the first round and then fans go out and buy his jersey. They make money off of him just being there. Tim Tebow can be the biggest bust ever, and he's made Bowlen money.

JaMarcus Russell made Oakland money.

Akili Smith made Cincinnati money.

Players get paid on their endorsements as well, don't get me wrong.

That's my owners rant.

Don't get me wrong, the players are just as greedy, but the owners get too much pity.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

King - in regards to your comment that Tebow has made Bowlen money - not quite as much as you would think. This is an old article, but I have heard this before.


In a good year, a typical NFL team makes about $5 million off merchandise sales, which worldwide totaled $3.2 billion in 2006. However, because of a wacky economic scheme, the teams don’t benefit all that much, sharing only about 12% of the wholesale price of an item. So, based on that number, when a superstar’s jersey is sold, each team gets 11 cents a piece.

http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html

[Poet]

King - in regards to your comment that Tebow has made Bowlen money - not quite as much as you would think. This is an old article, but I have heard this before.



http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html

I've also read, and I will try to find the link, that a lot of the money that is made goes into a pool, which is then distributed amongst teams and owners.

In the end, it is what it is.

[topscribe]

The problem is that this is not a regular business environment. A lot of these owners did nothing other than be born from the right family. A lot of them are successful in their own right, own a sports team because that's what rich people do, and then hire GM's to actually run the team.

What I'm getting at is that so many of these guys are richer (they're all smarter than 99% of the world, don't get it wrong) from buying an NFL team after they've gotten rich.

The other thing is that so many of these guys get help from the fans to buy for their stadiums and parking lots. It's not like the owners built everything from the ground up.

Then you factor in that so many of the Owners are basically worthless from a football stand point. Al Davis (now), Mike Brown, the Bill's owner, Ford, the Cardinals owner, the Browns' owner, etc etc etc, are perinnial losers and put out a bad product.

And bad products don't typically last in a competitive environment.

UNLESS you were lucky enough to inherit or buy something that's part of the most successful sports league in America, because then you can piggy back off of revenue sharing.

It's quasi-socialism, so no, the owners, a good fourth of them have no room to actually bitch about money, because it's money that they get from their betters.

Owners of businesses should always make the most money. You work for them. But again, a team drafts a player in the first round and then fans go out and buy his jersey. They make money off of him just being there. Tim Tebow can be the biggest bust ever, and he's made Bowlen money.

JaMarcus Russell made Oakland money.

Akili Smith made Cincinnati money.

Players get paid on their endorsements as well, don't get me wrong.

That's my owners rant.

Don't get me wrong, the players are just as greedy, but the owners get too much pity.

No, the problem is we keep being reminded that this is a "business." Well, if it
is a business, then run it like a business. You have owners and employees.
The owners are the ones who invest, who risk, who administrate. The players
are employees who came looking for a job, and they get paid to perform the
function of their respective positions. That's it.

And now they want ever bigger cuts in the profits? Because the owners are
"rich"? They are paid so much now that one just about has to be rich to buy
tickets to the games.

Take your millions, get out on the field, and play the game. Oh, but they don't
all make millions, you say? Well, what's the minimum wage? Have I ever made
the equivalent to their minimum wage? Oh, but the average NFL career is only
3½ years. So what then? They die? Or maybe they can just get a job, just
like me?

No, I don't have any pity for the owners. But neither do I the players. They
choose to be there. They can get out at any time . . . just ask Jake Plummer.

Millionaires against billionaires. I wish I had it so rough . . .

-----

[Bullgator]

Dont know if this was linked already but it explains the players side well...what important here is that the players and owners are PARTNERS.. the owners are only owners of the teams not the league and its revenues.

http://nfl.cpa.delvenetworks.com/delve/player/carousel/embed_code.html?channelId=de89a8aeb3e422bac4eb4856 7f10ebd0&mediaId=affad511152940e29d029457c2729887

not pash vid... demaurice smith vid

[Benetto]

No, the problem is we keep being reminded that this is a "business." Well, if it
is a business, then run it like a business. You have owners and employees.
The owners are the ones who invest, who risk, who administrate. The players
are employees who came looking for a job, and they get paid to perform the
function of their respective positions. That's it.

And now they want ever bigger cuts in the profits? Because the owners are
"rich"? They are paid so much now that one just about has to be rich to buy
tickets to the games.

Take your millions, get out on the field, and play the game. Oh, but they don't
all make millions, you say? Well, what's the minimum wage? Have I ever made
the equivalent to their minimum wage? Oh, but the average NFL career is only
3½ years. So what then? They die? Or maybe they can just get a job, just
like me?

No, I don't have any pity for the owners. But neither do I the players. They
choose to be there. They can get out at any time . . . just ask Jake Plummer.

Millionaires against billionaires. I wish I had it so rough . . .

-----

I wish I can Hi-Five one post, more than once...

[GEM]

you are right. And as a business owner, I also do not share my profit earnings with my employess, I also can put anyone on my payroll I wish.

Buuuuuuut- I am not going to ask my employees for millions or billions of dollars because I am losing money (yet still putting my family on payroll and taking vacations and such)


That was my point, and that I think is what the NFLPA is saying too.

The reason they are making a big deal about that is because these owners put family on payroll is so at the bottom of their profit and loss they show a loss. Apparently these family members were added in the last couple years to bring their bottom line numbers down.

[Poet]

No, the problem is we keep being reminded that this is a "business." Well, if it
is a business, then run it like a business. You have owners and employees.
The owners are the ones who invest, who risk, who administrate. The players
are employees who came looking for a job, and they get paid to perform the
function of their respective positions. That's it.

That's not really true. SO many of them invested into something that they know was already a winner. I don't really look at the group who just got the Rams as 'investors'. I look at them as the guys who were lucky enough to buy the Rams. They're going to make money just by owning a NFL team.

Mike Brown make money because he came out of Paul Browns' balls. This isn't like the owners built something from the ground up in recent years. It's far from that.


And now they want ever bigger cuts in the profits? Because the owners are
"rich"? They are paid so much now that one just about has to be rich to buy
tickets to the games.

It was the owners who opted out on this one. The owners want more of the money and the players want more of the money. They're both guilty of that.


Take your millions, get out on the field, and play the game. Oh, but they don't
all make millions, you say? Well, what's the minimum wage? Have I ever made
the equivalent to their minimum wage? Oh, but the average NFL career is only
3½ years. So what then? They die? Or maybe they can just get a job, just
like me?

A lot of these guys aren't millionaires. Yeah, I wish I could get paid that much money to play football. I wish I was a great business mind and be able to buy a NFL team, then I can make a ton of money no matter how awful I am at the job.




No, I don't have any pity for the owners. But neither do I the players. They
choose to be there. They can get out at any time . . . just ask Jake Plummer.

Millionaires against billionaires. I wish I had it so rough . . .

-----

That also cuts too ways as well. ;)

In the end, I want football.

[Bullgator]

I think everyone is forgetting the NFLPA is not "employees" but rather partners along with the owners. one half of the partnership wants money that belongs to both halves. IDK about you but if my business parter decides to dip into our collective coffers without my knowlage of why he needs it, he aint getting shit. This "beacause I said so" crap is not giong to fly... again its not boss vs employee, its two sides that are equal business partners.

to think the players dont have a right to know what the owners are doing with 1 billion bucks that belongs TO YOU BOTH is crazy.

[BroncoTech]

You can't just blame the union it takes 2 sides to negotiate a contract. Imagine if you kept your business partners from seeing your books, eventually it's going to cause problems. On the other hand, if in previous negotiations the owners had 'given away the farm' to the player the impetus is on the owners to get the farm back.

The risk in starting an NFL franchise is greatly reduced due to the exclusion of the NFL from monopoly laws that they use to control who can make NFL items, who can broadcast NFL games all of which is to the detriment of all NFL fans.

I think teams make more than 11 cents on a jersey sale, they would make 11 cents if jerseys sold for 1 dollar if the return was 11%.

[bcbronc]

This is a good example of why we shouldn't let the filthy rich rule the world.

[LSIGRAD09]

I'm going to be sick, anybody else feel that way?

I'm disgusted, and devastated.

[hamrob]

There is a great show on the History Channel this month about the Dirty Thirties. People standing in soup lines, families starving...there was no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security and no unemployment.

Those times were rough. Workers would work for pennies and owners would squeeze every last ounce of work they could out of them for those pennies. That's when Unions were needed.

We live in a Country today that feeds the poor, provides benefits to the underpriviledge, has unemployment and much, much more.

If my grandparents were alive today, they would laugh their asses off at these whiners.

Unions are the thing of the past...when workers rights meant the right to eat. Today...for some reason beyond me...unions think they have the right to share in the profits as they see fit....make rich men out of workers and tell ownership what they can and can't do. Personally, I think we should follow Wisconsin's lead when it comes to Unions...period.

Make no doubt...this crap is on the Union and a bunch of punk players like useless Dominic Foxworth!!!

The owners "OWN" their teams and they offer millions of dollars to play for them. There is zero reason for the players to think they are owed more than what they will get.

60% of the profits is BS.

One more thing: I'm a DENVER BRONCOS FAN...The Hell with all the damn players...players come and go...I've been a Broncos Fan for more than 35yrs!!!

[Bullgator]

There is a great show on the History Channel this month about the Dirty Thirties. People standing in soup lines, families starving...there was no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security and no unemployment.

Those times were rough. Workers would work for pennies and owners would squeeze every last ounce of work they could out of them for those pennies. That's when Unions were needed.

We live in a Country today that feeds the poor, provides benefits to the underpriviledge, has unemployment and much, much more.

If my grandparents were alive today, they would laugh their asses off at these whiners.

Unions are the thing of the past...when workers rights meant the right to eat. Today...for some reason beyond me...unions think they have the right to share in the profits as they see fit....make rich men out of workers and tell ownership what they can and can't do. Personally, I think we should follow Wisconsin's lead when it comes to Unions...period.

Make no doubt...this crap is on the Union and a bunch of punk players like useless Dominic Foxworth!!!

The owners "OWN" their teams and they offer millions of dollars to play for them. There is zero reason for the players to think they are owed more than what they will get.

60% of the profits is BS.

One more thing: I'm a DENVER BRONCOS FAN...The Hell with all the damn players...players come and go...I've been a Broncos Fan for more than 35yrs!!!

I really think you are misinformed... the players are not the ones who backed out of the exsisting deal.. the players are not the ones who walked away from the table wanting more money...

once again its not the players wanting more money its the owners...

If your business partner wants you to take a pay cut and give himself a raise and wont tell you why. what do you do?

the OWNERS want more money... hellloooo McFly!!

[sneakers]

Yeah, like anyone expected them to get a deal done before the 2012 season anyway....

[BroncoTech]

Recently I've seen the US richest 2% of tax payers hold up unemployment benefits to the masses. When 2% can control and get their way over 98% of the people it just shows what a nation of sheeple we have become.

Tell it to the workers that make Apple's iPhone at the Foxconn factory in China. Those workers make $32 a week and work 34 hour shifts, are housed 9 employees to a 90 sf studio that are equipped with suicide nets on the windows to prevent workers from committing suicide.

If you have examined the working conditions of the workers employed by US companies in India and China then you would not come to the conclusion the time of the union has past. You would discover American companies are still squeezing every last cent from their employees, just as they always have.

What I said about getting the farm back applies to Wisconsin too, after all it takes 2 to negotiate, if the state gave the farm away to workers they should have to get the farm back at the negotiation table, where they gave the farm up. This concept that state workers can't gather and collectivly bargain is called communism.



There is a great show on the History Channel this month about the Dirty Thirties. People standing in soup lines, families starving...there was no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security and no unemployment.

Those times were rough. Workers would work for pennies and owners would squeeze every last ounce of work they could out of them for those pennies. That's when Unions were needed.

We live in a Country today that feeds the poor, provides benefits to the underpriviledge, has unemployment and much, much more.

If my grandparents were alive today, they would laugh their asses off at these whiners.

Unions are the thing of the past...when workers rights meant the right to eat. Today...for some reason beyond me...unions think they have the right to share in the profits as they see fit....make rich men out of workers and tell ownership what they can and can't do. Personally, I think we should follow Wisconsin's lead when it comes to Unions...period.

Make no doubt...this crap is on the Union and a bunch of punk players like useless Dominic Foxworth!!!

The owners "OWN" their teams and they offer millions of dollars to play for them. There is zero reason for the players to think they are owed more than what they will get.

60% of the profits is BS.

One more thing: I'm a DENVER BRONCOS FAN...The Hell with all the damn players...players come and go...I've been a Broncos Fan for more than 35yrs!!!

[SoCalImport]

I'm going to be sick, anybody else feel that way?

I'm disgusted, and devastated.

Disgusted... Definitely.

Devestated? well yes.. when I think of all the hard working people like you and me that will lose their livelihoods while there's a lockout.

In this depressed ecomomy brought to us by millionares and billionares, I am sickened and devestated my this spat between those same people (yes I know not all players are millionares).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/625981-nfl-lockout-2011-winners-and-losers/page/3

"Thousands of employees who keep the stadiums clean, keep food and beer in your hands, and provide a secure experience for you as fans will be out of work if the lockout happens. This could mean unemployment rates will spike, and be very costly for the United States in the long run.

I think what the owners and players do not understand is that this lockout will really hurt the "little guy" that works behind the scenes to provide that "NFL Experience" we as fans pay high dollars for"

[hamrob]

Recently I've seen the US richest 2% of tax payers hold up unemployment benefits to the masses. When 2% can control and get their way over 98% of the people it just shows what a nation of sheeple we have become.

Tell it to the workers that make Apple's iPhone at the Foxconn factory in China. Those workers make $32 a week and work 34 hour shifts, are housed 9 employees to a 90 sf studio that are equipped with suicide nets on the windows to prevent workers from committing suicide.

If you have examined the working conditions of the workers employed by US companies in India and China then you would not come to the conclusion the time of the union has past. You would discover American companies are still squeezing every last cent from their employees, just as they always have.

What I said about getting the farm back applies to Wisconsin too, after all it takes 2 to negotiate, if the state gave the farm away to workers they should have to get the farm back at the negotiation table, where they gave the farm up. This concept that state workers can't gather and collectivly bargain is called communism.We don't have control over laws in India and China. We do in the U.S. and the Unions have had their day in the sun. We have passed several laws that cover workers rights...none of which existed in the 30's. The need for Union's have far past. In terms of the situation in Wisconson...that situation saw a group of yellow bellied cowards who ran and hid and wouldn't discuss the situation. The Govoner had to hunt them down and bring them back. Each of them should be prosecuted for the stunt they pulled.

[hamrob]

I really think you are misinformed... the players are not the ones who backed out of the exsisting deal.. the players are not the ones who walked away from the table wanting more money...

once again its not the players wanting more money its the owners...

If your business partner wants you to take a pay cut and give himself a raise and wont tell you why. what do you do?

the OWNERS want more money... hellloooo McFly!!I'm not sure that you fully understand how businesses operate. Company's can go out and give huge raises, only to find out that their direct profit just plumented and EBITDA is going to look less than attractive in the years to come. When that happens, any and every Company will step in and ratchet back spending...to include employee salaries, benefits etc. It happens every day. Have you ever heard of employees taking pay reductions, furloughs etc.? Why should it be any different in the NFL?

Owners are just that....they "OWN" the flippen teams. They are the "ONLY" ones taking the risks. When teams are doing poorly financially and teams are losing money...do players step up and say...oh yea, we own 59% of the risk and liability. I don't think so.

[turftoad]

Disgusted... Definitely.

Devestated? well yes.. when I think of all the hard working people like you and me that will lose their livelihoods while there's a lockout.

In this depressed ecomomy brought to us by millionares and billionares, I am sickened and devestated my this spat between those same people (yes I know not all players are millionares).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/625981-nfl-lockout-2011-winners-and-losers/page/3

"Thousands of employees who keep the stadiums clean, keep food and beer in your hands, and provide a secure experience for you as fans will be out of work if the lockout happens. This could mean unemployment rates will spike, and be very costly for the United States in the long run.

I think what the owners and players do not understand is that this lockout will really hurt the "little guy" that works behind the scenes to provide that "NFL Experience" we as fans pay high dollars for"

Agreed. And..... who writes the checks to the "little guy"? Oh yeah, the owners.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Agreed. And..... who writes the checks to the "little guy"? Oh yeah, the owners.

AND - besides the players getting their pay, who pays for everything for them - practice/game uniforms, all of their travel expenses, all of the food they eat during training camp, all of the equipment in the training room, etc., etc., etc.

AND - if they want a LARGE chunk of the profits, in ADDITION to the HUGE pay they get - then the owners should get a LARGE chunk of what some of the players receive for endorsements, etc.

[bcbronc]

There is a great show on the History Channel this month about the Dirty Thirties. People standing in soup lines, families starving...there was no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security and no unemployment.

Those times were rough. Workers would work for pennies and owners would squeeze every last ounce of work they could out of them for those pennies. That's when Unions were needed.

We live in a Country today that feeds the poor, provides benefits to the underpriviledge, has unemployment and much, much more.

If my grandparents were alive today, they would laugh their asses off at these whiners.

Unions are the thing of the past...when workers rights meant the right to eat. Today...for some reason beyond me...unions think they have the right to share in the profits as they see fit....make rich men out of workers and tell ownership what they can and can't do. Personally, I think we should follow Wisconsin's lead when it comes to Unions...period.

Make no doubt...this crap is on the Union and a bunch of punk players like useless Dominic Foxworth!!!

The owners "OWN" their teams and they offer millions of dollars to play for them. There is zero reason for the players to think they are owed more than what they will get.

60% of the profits is BS.

One more thing: I'm a DENVER BRONCOS FAN...The Hell with all the damn players...players come and go...I've been a Broncos Fan for more than 35yrs!!!

this is a ridiculous post. to try to equate the NFLPA with a public sector union trying to get their members 50 grand a year and benefits is asinine. A players union in a professional sports league is NOTHING like any other union.

I was a Teamster for five years, so I understand unions aren't all peaches and cream. I used to tell my shop steward and union rep that I needed to start a union to protect us workers from our union. But to say labour shouldn't have a right to organize and collectively bargain is naive at best.

[PAINTERDAVE]

Bronco Tech - "This concept that state workers can't gather and collectivly bargain is called communism."

-------------------------------

Painter - "You are WRONG, dude. It is democracy in action... the OPPOSITE of Communism"




President Franklin D. Roosevelt, The big Democrat Liberal who gave us the welfare state, said "the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

The Battle of Wisconsin has focused public attention on a fiscal reality. Whatever the necessity and value of public-sector jobs, federal, state and local governments simply can't sustain their current costs. Irrational unionists and media liberals have preposterously compared duly-elected Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin to anti-democratic dictators. In fact, it's just the opposite. This is democracy at work. Wisconsin voters in 2010 ousted Democrats and gave majority control of their legislature and the governor's office to the GOP. Walker campaigned on exactly the measures he's now taking in regard to balancing the budget, reining in excessive compensation for public employees and restricting their collective bargaining privileges, as is done in 24 other states.



Read more: Rosen: Unions are "busting" taxpayers - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17523052#ixzz1GPiCTgJW
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[Poet]

AND - besides the players getting their pay, who pays for everything for them - practice/game uniforms, all of their travel expenses, all of the food they eat during training camp, all of the equipment in the training room, etc., etc., etc.

AND - if they want a LARGE chunk of the profits, in ADDITION to the HUGE pay they get - then the owners should get a LARGE chunk of what some of the players receive for endorsements, etc.

But who pays for the biggest thing of all, the stadium? In a lot of cases, it's the fans and the county who pony up for that.

As far as the uniforms and what not, the NFL has sponsors. I'm pretty sure that those jerseys are either free or pretty damn close to it.

The NFL has a business 'model' that is so far from the norm that it's not even funny.

[bcbronc]

But who pays for the biggest thing of all, the stadium? In a lot of cases, it's the fans and the county who pony up for that.

As far as the uniforms and what not, the NFL has sponsors. I'm pretty sure that those jerseys are either free or pretty damn close to it.

The NFL has a business 'model' that is so far from the norm that it's not even funny.

don't companies like Reebok, Nike etc actually BID on the right to provide jerseys?

[rcsodak]

NFL releases statement.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/NFL-Releases-Statement/875dcecd-d3f8-4b16-964b-025c2254bd09

Looks to me like the NFL may be trying the 'last offer" venue as their out. Them going from $2B down to $1.325 (iirc) additional and STILL getting turned down wont look good to any judge, imo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[PAINTERDAVE]

Looks to me like the NFL may be trying the 'last offer" venue as their out. Them going from $2B down to $1.325 (iirc) additional and STILL getting turned down wont look good to any judge, imo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I am still hopeful Doty will issue an injunction and though the NFL may appeal...
the injunction will be in place...
the apeal may take a LONG time to happen.

Hence... we'd have free agancy , the draft, pre season...


and by then maybe the millionaires play nice with each other.

[Lonestar]

Out standing post Hamrob. Some folks do not want to hear it but those are facts of life.

Can't hi-5 on mobile so consider yourself 5ed.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[rcsodak]

The owners are the greedy --------. They want the players to take less money, they are indeed still pushing more games, N they want to limit the players retirment benefits. I would think limiting their benefits woudl have been completely off the table considering a lengthened season to 18 games increases the safety risks.

The players have been more than generous in giving with this. On top of that, they aren't even saying "No" to the owners. They merely want evidence of the owners claims of losing money, which everyone knows is bullshit.

BTW, the one piece of evidence the owners showed to losing their money, was the books from onf small market organization without shared revenue. Absolutely laughable. Absolutely laughable what the owners are doing.

Also, everyone knows that the NFL players are the one's that have made the NFL what it is, so any argument of the owners just getting different players, and then expecting the NFL to continue what it is, is not a very thought out argument. Just my humble opinion.

Poo! They could shitcan all of the current players and within 5yrs, league would be back to the same level.
silk, I haven't seen where the bennys are being lowered..just the skyrocketing salarys. You have a bona fide link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Lonestar]

But who pays for the biggest thing of all, the stadium? In a lot of cases, it's the fans and the county who pony up for that.

As far as the uniforms and what not, the NFL has sponsors. I'm pretty sure that those jerseys are either free or pretty damn close to it.

The NFL has a business 'model' that is so far from the norm that it's not even funny.
Also who pays to clean, mend tears, get them ready for practices and games. Who pays for the facility and everything in it and the trainers and consumables icy hot tape etc.
the players are not paying 60% of all the associated other costs.

Lots of things we do not think about getting and maintIning the team.

I will also be that while they may not pay retail for the equipment uniforms they are paying something for them.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

Also who pays to clean, mend tears, get them ready for practices and games. Who pays for the facility and everything in it and the trainers and consumables icy hot tape etc.
the players are not paying 60% of all the associated other costs.

Lots of things we do not think about getting and maintIning the team.

I will also be that while they may not pay retail for the equipment uniforms they are paying something for them.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

And who gets to make millions like a lot of teams do from a public funded stadium by renting out the name?

What else do you get to own, hire someone to do all the work (GM's and coaches) and be guaranteed to make a profit?

The fact that the players want 60% of the money is stupid, that's not how this shit works.

My point is that people seem to forget that the owners are just as petty as the players.

Like I said, this is NOT a normal business model.

[JaxBroncoGirl]

AND - besides the players getting their pay, who pays for everything for them - practice/game uniforms, all of their travel expenses, all of the food they eat during training camp, all of the equipment in the training room, etc., etc., etc.

AND - if they want a LARGE chunk of the profits, in ADDITION to the HUGE pay they get - then the owners should get a LARGE chunk of what some of the players receive for endorsements, etc.

Jeepers Carol now you have opened a large can of worms that I did not even think about. Endorsements!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BroncoTech]

Painter Dave,
The attack on public-sector unions is a distraction from the real issue, which is the erosion in pay and working conditions for workers throughout the economy. In 1965, the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the private sector was 24 to 1; it's now about 260 to 1. Corporate greed never goes out of style.

[Lonestar]

Silk tell me where a millionaire needs a retirement plan.


The league minimum was like $450,000. Per year.

And well the max is on the moon.

Please tell me why logically the NFL should have to foot the bill for these guys.

I can understand some of the older players that were paid squat.

Hell when Elway was on his second contract IIRC he was paid a whooping 7mil for a 4 or 5 year deal.


Not each year but the total package of 7mil. The rest of the players were piaaed he made so much and there was some head hunting going on because he was the 7million dollar man.

IIRC Namath signed for $435k. His rookie contract.
My HS coach was a bronco played OT he had to have a second job to pay the bills.

Those guys I could see given a retirement package together for.

But Manning not a chance.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Lonestar]

And who gets to make millions like a lot of teams do from a public funded stadium by renting out the name?
What else do you get to own, hire someone to do all the work (GM's and coaches) and be guaranteed to make a profit?
The fact that the players want 60% of the money is stupid, that's not how this shit works.
My point is that people seem to forget that the owners are just as petty as the players.

Like I said, this is NOT a normal business model.

Actually it is normal

Take the airlines their CEO hire all the staff they need to get the job done.
Their company flys out of publicly funded facilities.
They pay rent and utilities for that space.
Btw the get Anti trust imunity all the time.
The government routinely pays for infrastructure for large companies as well as give them BIG tax deals to get them to build factories creating jobs.
Why should the NFL not get some of those deals also.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

Actually it is normal

Take the airlines their CEO hire all the staff they need to get the job done.
Their company flys out of publicly funded facilities.
They pay rent and utilities for that space.
Btw the get Anti trust imunity all the time.
The government routinely pays for infrastructure for large companies as well as give them BIG tax deals to get them to build factories creating jobs.
Why should the NFL not get some of those deals also.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

You realize that airlines are notoriously unprofitable and the NFL has been nothing short of a juggernaut for the past ten years, right?

My point is that people are saying the owners are 'taking risks' and 'putting it all on the line' and that's not the case.

Own a team and your stadium, in large part is usually going to be taken care of. Your team can underachieve for decades and you will still make a profit. Want to own a team because you're super wealthy but know nothing about football? Hire a GM and be hands off.

[topscribe]

You realize that airlines are notoriously unprofitable and the NFL has been nothing short of a juggernaut for the past ten years, right?

My point is that people are saying the owners are 'taking risks' and 'putting it all on the line' and that's not the case.

Own a team and your stadium, in large part is usually going to be taken care of. Your team can underachieve for decades and you will still make a profit. Want to own a team because you're super wealthy but know nothing about football? Hire a GM and be hands off.

Makes no difference. The owners' money is theirs. It belongs to them. It makes
no difference how they came by it. It makes no difference whether they are
nearly broke or swimming in money. It is theirs.

The owners invested money, time, skill, and effort in obtaining and building
their respective franchises. The players invested nothing. Bottom line . . .

-----

[Poet]

Makes no difference. The owners' money is theirs. It belongs to them. It makes
no difference how they came by it. It makes no difference whether they are
nearly broke or swimming in money. It is theirs.

The owners invested money, time, skill, and effort in obtaining and building
their respective franchises. The players invested nothing. Bottom line . . .

-----

Seeing how their apparently partners in the money it does matter.

And no, Top, most of them did not. The Rooneys built their franchise. Wilf, Brown, the new Rams owners, etc etc etc invested nothing other than money. They bought a golden ticket. Great investment, no sarcasm.

The players, they invested the majority of their lives on a long shot that came to fruition.

Yeah, the 60% is rofltastic, but don't give me the old conservative mantra here. It almost always applies, but on this one it's far from that.

[bcbronc]

Makes no difference. The owners' money is theirs. It belongs to them. It makes
no difference how they came by it. It makes no difference whether they are
nearly broke or swimming in money. It is theirs.

The owners invested money, time, skill, and effort in obtaining and building
their respective franchises. The players invested nothing. Bottom line . . .

-----

The players are EVERYTHING though. The reason we all love watching the game is because we get to see the top .1 % of the population do something. Tell me top, what would be easier to replace, the 32 owners or the hundreds of players? I'm pretty sure if all 32 teams were suddenly on the block, you'd have hundreds of interested investors kicking the tires.

I'll play NFL football for half the league minimum. You going to buy a ticket or tune in on Sunday to see my 5'10" 185 lb white ass play MIKE? I mean back in my 20s I probably ran a 5.2 40. You getting excited?

I've used the CFL example earlier. A couple of decades ago, the CFL expanded into the US, but it didn't catch on. Part of it is probably a stigma about the 3 downs being a gimmick, but part of it is because they're second-tier athletes compared to the NFL. Which isn't to say they suck, they don't. Most have been Div 1 players in college, and are really, really good football players in their own right.

but it's like anything else, nobody wants to watch second tier. It's like reading a novel from an "okay" writer. or going to an art gallery displaying average painters. Or the WNBA. the reason we all tune in on Sundays is because NFL players are absolute freaks. There's not just a bunch of them lying around looking for work.

and that's why BOTH sides agreed to SHARE revenue...because you can't have one without the....ooooother.

[topscribe]

Seeing how their apparently partners in the money it does matter.

And no, Top, most of them did not. The Rooneys built their franchise. Wilf, Brown, the new Rams owners, etc etc etc invested nothing other than money. They bought a golden ticket. Great investment, no sarcasm.

The players, they invested the majority of their lives on a long shot that came to fruition.

Yeah, the 60% is rofltastic, but don't give me the old conservative mantra here. It almost always applies, but on this one it's far from that.

Very diversionary of you to say so. But you did not . . . and cannot . . . erase
the bottom line: The owners invested. The players (empoyees) did not. Period.

It is neither here nor there what the players "invested" by playing a game all
the majority of their lives. They have the opportunity to go to work as a
professional football player because the franchises are already there, because
the owners already invested and established them.

The players have no moral right to percentage, nor to see the owners' books.
It is not their money. Never has been, and should never be. They can go to
work for more than I ever dreamed of, while I have to watch on TV because
I can't afford the tickets. If they're not happy with that, then lock them out
until they have to go get real jobs like the rest of us . . .

-----

[topscribe]

The players are EVERYTHING though. The reason we all love watching the game is because we get to see the top .1 % of the population do something. Tell me top, what would be easier to replace, the 32 owners or the hundreds of players? I'm pretty sure if all 32 teams were suddenly on the block, you'd have hundreds of interested investors kicking the tires.

I'll play NFL football for half the league minimum. You going to buy a ticket or tune in on Sunday to see my 5'10" 185 lb white ass play MIKE? I mean back in my 20s I probably ran a 5.2 40. You getting excited?

I've used the CFL example earlier. A couple of decades ago, the CFL expanded into the US, but it didn't catch on. Part of it is probably a stigma about the 3 downs being a gimmick, but part of it is because they're second-tier athletes compared to the NFL. Which isn't to say they suck, they don't. Most have been Div 1 players in college, and are really, really good football players in their own right.

but it's like anything else, nobody wants to watch second tier. It's like reading a novel from an "okay" writer. or going to an art gallery displaying average painters. Or the WNBA. the reason we all tune in on Sundays is because NFL players are absolute freaks. There's not just a bunch of them lying around looking for work.

and that's why BOTH sides agreed to SHARE revenue...because you can't have one without the....ooooother.

You are providing absolutely no reason for taking the owners' money and
giving it to the players. The money belongs to the owners. It is theirs. Period.
The players invested nothing. They work for the owners. If the don't like what
they are getting, let them work for someone else and see whether they can
get what they are already getting from the owners.

It is not theirs (the players'). It does not belong to them. They are employed.
I have no pity for them.

Now, the teachers . . . I'm all behind them. Many of them are driving buses
and trucks because they can make more money than doing what they want
to do.

But the players? I spit on their cause . . .

-----

[bcbronc]

You are providing absolutely no reason for taking the owners' money and
giving it to the players. The money belongs to the owners. It is theirs. Period.
The players invested nothing. They work for the owners. If the don't like what
they are getting, let them work for someone else and see whether they can
get what they are already getting from the owners.

It is not theirs (the players'). It does not belong to them. They are employed.
I have no pity for them.

Now, the teachers . . . I'm all behind them. Many of them are driving buses
and trucks because they can make more money than doing what they want
to do.

But the players? I spit on their cause . . .

-----

well, you're taking it up with the wrong people. what you want to do is go back to 1987 when the league installed a salary cap AGREEING to SHARE revenue with the players.

It was the OWNERS that wanted a salary cap based on percentages of revenue. This current negotiation is about deciding HOW they split the pie, not whether they should.

so you're claims that this "money belongs to the owners" is:
a. wrong
b. naive
c. ignorant
d. all of the above.

[topscribe]

well, you're taking it up with the wrong people. what you want to do is go back to 1987 when the league installed a salary cap AGREEING to SHARE revenue with the players.

It was the OWNERS that wanted a salary cap based on percentages of revenue. This current negotiation is about deciding HOW they split the pie, not whether they should.

so you're claims that this "money belongs to the owners" is:
a. wrong
b. naive
c. ignorant
d. all of the above.

I never thought you would start getting personal with me, but you are.

Due to my loss of respect for you, our discussion is over . . .

-----

[Poet]

Very diversionary of you to say so. But you did not . . . and cannot . . . erase
the bottom line: The owners invested. The players (empoyees) did not. Period.

I didn't divert from anything.


It is neither here nor there what the players "invested" by playing a game all
the majority of their lives. They have the opportunity to go to work as a
professional football player because the franchises are already there, because
the owners already invested and established them.

Well sure it is. As BCB pointed out, one is a little more expendable than the others.

What you're missing is that these aren't the same owners that actually built the league. For every Rooney or Halas family you have twice if not triple of the owners who are 'Johny come lately'. Exactly pray tell did Chip Rosenbloom build for the Rams? Nothing, he didn't build or invest anything at all. He's rich as all get out and bought himself a team. Good for him, he will make a lot of money doing that. But don't tell me that he's built anything. He hasn't, nor have many of the owners. [/QUOTE]




The players have no moral right to percentage, nor to see the owners' books.
It is not their money. Never has been, and should never be. They can go to
work for more than I ever dreamed of, while I have to watch on TV because
I can't afford the tickets. If they're not happy with that, then lock them out
until they have to go get real jobs like the rest of us . . .

-----

I'll quote Dreadnought and say that request to see the books was reasonable because the players are entitled to a percentage. When you are entitled to a percentage you want to make sure you're getting what you are supposed to. That's basic business principle.

I'll give you a real life example, a moment that I learned from. I checked my pay stubs from work are realized that I was getting paid a dollar less an hour than what I should have received. There was an error in the accounting, it happens. A large amount of blame falls on me for not double checking it before hand as well.

I'm supposed to make 8.50 an hour. The players as a group are supposed to make billions. Blaming them for wanting to make sure that billions of dollars is silly. Saying that it isn't moral is silly.

Sorry guys, the owners are far from the squeaky clean victims that you think they are.

[topscribe]

I didn't divert from anything.



Well sure it is. As BCB pointed out, one is a little more expendable than the others.

What you're missing is that these aren't the same owners that actually built the league. For every Rooney or Halas family you have twice if not triple of the owners who are 'Johny come lately'. Exactly pray tell did Chip Rosenbloom build for the Rams? Nothing, he didn't build or invest anything at all. He's rich as all get out and bought himself a team. Good for him, he will make a lot of money doing that. But don't tell me that he's built anything. He hasn't, nor have many of the owners.





I'll quote Dreadnought and say that request to see the books was reasonable because the players are entitled to a percentage. When you are entitled to a percentage you want to make sure you're getting what you are supposed to. That's basic business principle.

I'll give you a real life example, a moment that I learned from. I checked my pay stubs from work are realized that I was getting paid a dollar less an hour than what I should have received. There was an error in the accounting, it happens. A large amount of blame falls on me for not double checking it before hand as well.

I'm supposed to make 8.50 an hour. The players as a group are supposed to make billions. Blaming them for wanting to make sure that billions of dollars is silly. Saying that it isn't moral is silly.

Sorry guys, the owners are far from the squeaky clean victims that you think they are.

What I tried to express is that the players do not have a moral right to the
owners' money, nor do they have the moral right to see the owners' books.
Nor do they have the moral right to try to force that money out of the owners.

The term "moral" has different implications, according to the context in which
it is used. Please understand my intentions by the context.

-----

[bcbronc]

Sorry guys, the owners are far from the squeaky clean victims that you think they are.

exactly. both sides are asshats and trying to paint this as a real world labour negotiation is foolish.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Very diversionary of you to say so. But you did not . . . and cannot . . . erase
the bottom line: The owners invested. The players (empoyees) did not. Period.

It is neither here nor there what the players "invested" by playing a game all
the majority of their lives. They have the opportunity to go to work as a
professional football player because the franchises are already there, because
the owners already invested and established them.

The players have no moral right to percentage, nor to see the owners' books.
It is not their money. Never has been, and should never be. They can go to
work for more than I ever dreamed of, while I have to watch on TV because
I can't afford the tickets. If they're not happy with that, then lock them out
until they have to go get real jobs like the rest of us . . .

-----

Good post. I'd like to add, if I may, that not only are these players paid millions of dollars and granted instant celebrity status to play a game, but because they were always the strongest, fastest, and best at sports they were always given special advantages and considerations from high school, through college.

It's pretty obvious that probably 1/2 of the college football athletes wouldn't have necessarily been eligible for or accepted to most of the major universities that they play for if it was based solely on academic merit like it is with the rest of us "normal" people.

So, after they receive $100,000 full-ride scholarships to the college of their choice, they then continue to play a child's game for a living where they become millionaires. My heart bleeds for them... :rolleyes:

[rcsodak]

You realize that airlines are notoriously unprofitable and the NFL has been nothing short of a juggernaut for the past ten years, right?

My point is that people are saying the owners are 'taking risks' and 'putting it all on the line' and that's not the case.

Own a team and your stadium, in large part is usually going to be taken care of. Your team can underachieve for decades and you will still make a profit. Want to own a team because you're super wealthy but know nothing about football? Hire a GM and be hands off.
Denver has 25 coaches/FO on the payroll. Then you add in secretaries (pay/benefits), groundskeepers (pay/benefits), et al.

I'd hate to foot that payroll.

I guarantee rosenbloom has more skin in the team than the players do.

And if I hear 1 more person using this 'health risk' excuse for the players, I might :puke:.
I bet more firemen die or receive serious injuries/diseases than these overpaid babies do. The same with cops, construction workers, and most importantly, soldiers.
Its not like these guys are playing with leather helmets anymore.
How many players have lost their lives? Been paralyzed? (Don't jump my shit..1 is too many)

If this sport is SO dangerous, then maybe the AFL-CIO needs to jump in and get it shutdown. For the sake of these poor, dumb players.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

Denver has 25 coaches/FO on the payroll. Then you add in secretaries (pay/benefits), groundskeepers (pay/benefits), et al.

I'd hate to foot that payroll.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Oh yeah, I'm sure being an owner of a team that's apart of the most profitable sport in this country makes it real hard to foot that bill.

Again, most of that is paid for by the fans and county for the team. Come on guys, you really think the owners of the NFL are getting hosed? Please. These guys have the best lawyers money can be and in the end they have all the leverage in the world.

The players wanting 60% is ******* dumb, but how are the owners a sob story?

[rcsodak]

Oh yeah, I'm sure being an owner of a team that's apart of the most profitable sport in this country makes it real hard to foot that bill.

Again, most of that is paid for by the fans and county for the team. Come on guys, you really think the owners of the NFL are getting hosed? Please. These guys have the best lawyers money can be and in the end they have all the leverage in the world.

The players wanting 60% is ******* dumb, but how are the owners a sob story?

What's $8B/32? Then subtract salaries/bennys of 25 coaches/fo mgmt. Less corporate building/offices, utilities. Less full/part help pay/bennys. Then stadium help's.

Oh, yeah.....FIRST, you have to pay the players.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

What's $8B/32? Then subtract salaries/bennys of 25 coaches/fo mgmt. Less corporate building/offices, utilities. Less full/part help pay/bennys. Then stadium help's.

Oh, yeah.....FIRST, you have to pay the players.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Again, you're trying to tell me that the most profitable sport in America ever has owners that are just really hurting for cash.

You're really not getting this. The players are greedy. The owners are greedy. It's a business, a successful business at that, greed is how it works. The players and owners are far, far from martyrs. I looked at the offer the owners put up on the table, I thought it was for the most part fair.

Maurice Smith can go suck on all the dicks in the world. But if you think that the owners are actually hurting for money, you're high.

If I divide that by 32 there's 250 million bucks, RC. Give me a break.

[topscribe]

What's $8B/32? Then subtract salaries/bennys of 25 coaches/fo mgmt. Less corporate building/offices, utilities. Less full/part help pay/bennys. Then stadium help's.

Oh, yeah.....FIRST, you have to pay the players.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


Again, you're trying to tell me that the most profitable sport in America ever has owners that are just really hurting for cash.

You're really not getting this. The players are greedy. The owners are greedy. It's a business, a successful business at that, greed is how it works. The players and owners are far, far from martyrs. I looked at the offer the owners put up on the table, I thought it was for the most part fair.

Maurice Smith can go suck on all the dicks in the world. But if you think that the owners are actually hurting for money, you're high.

If I divide that by 32 there's 250 million bucks, RC. Give me a break.

You two wouldn't be agreeing and still arguing over it, would you?

-----

[rcsodak]

You two wouldn't be agreeing and still arguing over it, would you?

-----

:tsk:

That's 87 for ya!

:rolleyes:






:D

[Poet]

:tsk:

That's 87 for ya!

:rolleyes:






:D

Well if you would only be right we wouldn't have this issue. :shocked::lol:;)

[rcsodak]

Well if you would only be right we wouldn't have this issue. :shocked::lol:;)
I thought I was wrong, once.....



...but I was mistaken.

:lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The Tom Brady antitrust case is getting passed around like a brick-sized Christmas fruitcake.

Judge Richard Kyle dumped the case on Friday. Judge Patrick Schiltz has now done the same.

According to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the case has now landed on the docket of Judge Susan Nelson.

Kaplan believes that the players will file a motion to shift the Brady case to Judge Doty. This assumes, of course, that Judge Nelson won’t find a way to pass the potato back to the clerk’s office for another random reassignment to a shrinking pool of judges not named Doty.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/14/the-hot-potato-gets-passed-to-judge-susan-nelson/

[rcsodak]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/14/the-hot-potato-gets-passed-to-judge-susan-nelson/
What a frikn' joke our courts have become. :tsk:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums