PDA

View Full Version : Whos More at Fault....the Owners or the Players?



WARHORSE
03-12-2011, 01:53 AM
Poll coming.

It looks to me like the players are screwing it up.


They are EMPLOYEES. Not partners.


The owners took one on the chin for the sake of keeping the game moving last time the CBA was being negotiated with Upshaw.

The players gaining 60 percent is a sham, and the owners let them for a couple of years get paid.


Now that they have said, ok, this is too much, we excercise our right to opt out, the players are acting like idiots as if theyre losing something.


They arent losing jack.

Youre getting paid millions to play a game you would play anyway. All that crap about risking life and limb is bull, no one makes you play. You play cause you want to. Go flip burgers if you dont like it.

The offer the owners gave is more than fair, what do the players want? To run the league?


Get off your high horse.

The players today will feel it how?

Theyre getting huge money to play.


Let the players rot for all I care. Bring in the next batch and let them play for 1970 prices.


This is the players fault.

Every year they get more.

As a business owner, there is no way you should have a great product like this and simply have to pay more because youre making more. Theyve already been getting HUGE checks, that go up EVERY YEAR.

Giving a roookie fiddy mil guaranteed is bull.




Piss off players and get back to work, or leave to the UFL.:coffee:



Maurice Smith needs to be bound and gagged, and put in a corner at the local steelworkers pub.



:coffee:

jetrazor74
03-12-2011, 02:23 AM
After reading everything the NFL was trying to offer to the NFLPA, and considering they NFLPA was filing for decertification while still "negotiating" with Goodell and the owners, it's pretty apparent to me that Smith and the NFLPA never had any intention of working any kind of a deal out.

When one side keeps making offers and the other side keeps refusing to even make a compromise, it's pretty clear to me where the majority of the fault lies.

BroncoTech
03-12-2011, 02:23 AM
Both sides are equally at fault. Owners pay rooks 50 mil a year because if they don't, the next owner will. If they played for 1970 wages it wouldn't bother me a bit either. Not playing at all is unacceptable though. If I remember right the last time they hired scabs you're better off watching college ball.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 02:34 AM
what about the NFL trying to get 4 billion dollars to allow them to lockout?

it was the owners who opted out of the existing deal... its them who want to change the existing deal and get more money..

it was the owners who wanted to tamper with what wasnt broken...

i blame the NFL.. and BTW legaly the players ARE partners. if they werent there wouldnt even be a dispute.. the NFL wouldnt need their permission to dip 1 bill from the coffers

jetrazor74
03-12-2011, 02:58 AM
what about the NFL trying to get 4 billion dollars to allow them to lockout?

it was the owners who opted out of the existing deal... its them who want to change the existing deal and get more money..

it was the owners who wanted to tamper with what wasnt broken...

i blame the NFL.. and BTW legaly the players ARE partners. if they werent there wouldnt even be a dispute.. the NFL wouldnt need their permission to dip 1 bill from the coffers

The CBA was set to expire next year anyway. We're just here a year earlier. The owners didn't 'break' anything. It was already broken.

And they HAD to opt out earlier. There are franchises who may have gone under within the next year or two had they not. The Packers would have been one of them and there were 4 teams who had a net profit less than they did.

If I were you, I'd go to the NFL home page and take a look at what the NFL was offering. I think you'll have a change of opinion.

cuzz4169
03-12-2011, 03:08 AM
Why give more money to players most of them blow it and are broke anyways....sad most of them live check to check bc they overspend...I'm all for giving better benefits and making sure retired player have health care. These guys salaries go up every year with new contracts...mine and yours don't at our jobs. I can't go to my boss and say hey you're making more money than I thought I want more too. Owners are owners for a reason.

underrated29
03-12-2011, 03:13 AM
The NFL is also doing the same thing. They had a pre emptive strike trying to rule that the union could not decertify. They did that a while ago as we heard that that judge ruled against them. It was all on the owners because they knew they were never going to give a deal close to what the PA wanted.


I still say both are at fault, but really asking someone to pay you millions to billions because you are losing money, but wont show it on the books to prove it.......yeah, thats weak. If I was the players I would be pissed that I am paying to have THEIR friends and family get paid and take vacations.




I have not read everything, but from what I understand the players do not want anything except documentation- which was not provided and a little more retirement security-which was provided. Where as the league wants a lot of money-which is probably wrong (especially if they take 1 BILLION off the top before the revenue split), rookie wage- which is good and done...I think there is more, but to me it seems like the league wants it all and the players want documentation which they will not provide.

sneakers
03-12-2011, 03:18 AM
The fans, because if they didn't watch they wouldn't have so much money to fight over.

cuzz4169
03-12-2011, 03:19 AM
The NFL is also doing the same thing. They had a pre emptive strike trying to rule that the union could not decertify. They did that a while ago as we heard that that judge ruled against them. It was all on the owners because they knew they were never going to give a deal close to what the PA wanted.


I still say both are at fault, but really asking someone to pay you millions to billions because you are losing money, but wont show it on the books to prove it.......yeah, thats weak. If I was the players I would be pissed that I am paying to have THEIR friends and family get paid and take vacations.




I have not read everything, but from what I understand the players do not want anything except documentation- which was not provided and a little more retirement security-which was provided. Where as the league wants a lot of money-which is probably wrong (especially if they take 1 BILLION off the top before the revenue split), rookie wage- which is good and done...I think there is more, but to me it seems like the league wants it all and the players want documentation which they will not provide.

Why do they have to show the books? I would get fired if I asked my boss that. How do the player pay for the owners to have their friends and family to take vacations? What about players coming in an asking for advances on future salary bc they blow millions of dollars?

cuzz4169
03-12-2011, 03:23 AM
Honestly I could careless I don't care who gets what....I just want to watch football **** them!!! I want them all to stop crying and play!!!

underrated29
03-12-2011, 03:48 AM
Why do they have to show the books? I would get fired if I asked my boss that. How do the player pay for the owners to have their friends and family to take vacations? What about players coming in an asking for advances on future salary bc they blow millions of dollars?



Because the NFL has asked the players to pay them a check for 1 billion dollars because they are losing money. The players say, ok, we will pay the money if you show us your financial records showing you are losing money and not just pissing it away on vacations and family hires. If the books showed the nfl is legitimately losing money then the players should pay it. If they dont then they are being the bigger idiots. But the rumors are that the Owners do not want to show the books because it has lots of vacations and family memebers on salary and such.

So if the owner are asking for money because they are losing it, how about they stop paying family and taking vacations and such. Kinda like the banks getting the bail out money and giving it away as bonuses or whatever.

zbeg
03-12-2011, 03:57 AM
Why do they have to show the books? I would get fired if I asked my boss that. How do the player pay for the owners to have their friends and family to take vacations? What about players coming in an asking for advances on future salary bc they blow millions of dollars?

It's not a boss/employee relationship; it's a business partner relationship.

If you had a contract with your business partner, and then he was like, "hey, I need an extra $1 billion - I'm losing money," and you said, "that seems implausible, since every indication is that business is booming - show me the books," and he says, "I refuse, but just believe me when I tell you I'm losing money. So, how about that $1 billion?" you might be a little skeptical, too.

Lonestar
03-12-2011, 04:18 AM
The owners have spent their own money to buy the franchises except GB.

They have risked billions to own a team.

Most of them are not in it just to give their money away. Although Daniel Snyder seems to be that exception.

Should the retired players have better benefits absolutely.

But should the current crop retain 60% of the income not a chance in hell.

I know Of no business that has that much money going just to the worker bees so to speak.

The generally accepted rule of thumb is 54-60%nfor all employee related expenses. Which includes every person on the staff from CEO to janitor. Salaries, benifits such as insurance FICA and all related taxes not that much for one part of the staff.

They wanted labor peace last time and gave away the store.
That does not mean they are dumb enough to do it again.

Hell they could make a good profit from putting all their money into tax free bonds and not have all the hassle they are today.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

dogfish
03-12-2011, 04:25 AM
i voted mcdaniels. . .

:welcome:

WARHORSE
03-12-2011, 05:49 AM
The players have no right to ask for financials.


Unfortunately, they now seem to feel theyre entitled to this type of information.



WRONG.


The unions are screwing it all up.


Same reason the unions have been banned in Wisconsin.


People put the rights of the individual over the rights of the whole.


No can do padre.



Only reason the players union hasnt gone even more in the tank is that in order to get paid you have to prove youre the best.
Unlike.....say....the teachers unions.


You can have a sorry and pitiful teacher who doesnt give a rats turd about what the kids theyre teaching are learning, and this teacher will be defended by the union and refuse to let you fire them.




Take a mallet to Maurice Smiths balls.

Dean
03-12-2011, 08:11 AM
After reading everything the NFL was trying to offer to the NFLPA, and considering they NFLPA was filing for decertification while still "negotiating" with Goodell and the owners, it's pretty apparent to me that Smith and the NFLPA never had any intention of working any kind of a deal out.

When one side keeps making offers and the other side keeps refusing to even make a compromise, it's pretty clear to me where the majority of the fault lies.

Here is the link to what the NFL owners were offering and the players backed away from.

Secondly and correct me if I am incorrect, didn't the owners offer to show the last 5 years of their books and the players balked because they wanted 10 years of data. I don't believe the owners have stated that 5 to 10 years ago they were losing money. They said they are approaching it now.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:39 AM
I don't see how anyone could say it's not the owners.

BroncoJoe
03-12-2011, 09:15 AM
NFLPA has even taken down their website.

www.nflplayers.com

HORSEPOWER 56
03-12-2011, 09:32 AM
i voted mcdaniels. . .

:welcome:

Me too... :D

NightTrainLayne
03-12-2011, 09:58 AM
The owners gave too much in the last CBA. They've all had the same complaint for the last several years.

The pendulum swung too far in favor of the players, and they don't want to give it up. . .problem is things are out of balance now.

So the players decertify so that they can change the rules mid-stream and file law-suits. .. not exactly the actions of innocent bystanders if you ask me.

The players are not "partners" with the NFL. They don't have to borrow a dime for stadiums or operating expenses. If the fans don't show up, they still get their paychecks. They do risk their health etc., and should be compensated for that, but I would argue that for the most part they are.

Heck. The players don't even want to share with the retired players. Over the decades they have taken a bigger and bigger piece of the pie, and left their retired "brothers" out in the cold.. . now they want the owners to just pay more for retired players benefits out of the kindness of their heart.

There's enough blame to go around, but the players have had it too good for several years now, and seem either impervious to that fact, or think that they can play hardball and keep it that way anyways.

red98
03-12-2011, 10:38 AM
Whose fault is it? Clearly Josh McDaniels.

The better question is who will ultimately lose and be forced to accept the others offer.

I think that will be the players.

If you want to get paid big bucks to play football it's the NFL or nothing.

There must be tens of thousands of people who would like to play in the NFL and only a few thousand can be hired to do so.

The window for earning the biggest bucks is fairly short for most NFL players. Any work stoppage will shrink this window costing players money.

Given this I think the players should come to their senses and head back to the bargaining table post haste.

It doesn't matter whether the players hold the moral high ground or not.

In the end the owner's have all the leverage will inevitably be the winners.

BroncoTech
03-12-2011, 10:40 AM
The company I work for was a merger of 2 companies, the officers took 40% of each others companies. When it came time for one owner to reveal his books it was learned the owners wife was putting trips to 'Happy Nails' on the company credit cards, and that she was using them to pay her friends rent etc. When one owner complained about it the other owner removed his access to the books.

It's not like the NLFPA is just an employee, they hold 40%. The owners need to quit cooking the books and hand them over. The players need to make concessions for a rough economy. It takes 2 to tango.

Softskull
03-12-2011, 10:41 AM
The owners gave too much in the last CBA. They've all had the same complaint for the last several years.

The pendulum swung too far in favor of the players, and they don't want to give it up. . .problem is things are out of balance now.

So the players decertify so that they can change the rules mid-stream and file law-suits. .. not exactly the actions of innocent bystanders if you ask me.

The players are not "partners" with the NFL. They don't have to borrow a dime for stadiums or operating expenses. If the fans don't show up, they still get their paychecks. They do risk their health etc., and should be compensated for that, but I would argue that for the most part they are.

Heck. The players don't even want to share with the retired players. Over the decades they have taken a bigger and bigger piece of the pie, and left their retired "brothers" out in the cold.. . now they want the owners to just pay more for retired players benefits out of the kindness of their heart.

There's enough blame to go around, but the players have had it too good for several years now, and seem either impervious to that fact, or think that they can play hardball and keep it that way anyways.

I mostly agree with you. I think that the 2006 deal favored the players.
The one thing that I keep reading here is the “I’d be fired” or “no other industry” nonsense that somehow this is just like your job. It’s not. The players are the commodity here. People don’t go to McDonalds to watch you flip burgers. Entertainers get to call some of the shots whether it’s sport, music or silver screen.

Northman
03-12-2011, 10:49 AM
Good poll War.

To a degree its the owner and players. But, i chose the fans. Strange huh?

Thing is though, we as fans dump our money into these franchises because we love the game, love to support them. But, unlike the owners and players we dont organize and put a stop to the outrageous prices at stadiums, or the crazy contracts that some players sign when they havent proven anything on the field, or even when we buy shitloads of merch in that support.

In reality, whats going on is a product of the fanbase. The owners and players both know how diehard the fanbase is for their respective teams and the owners are betting that if they had to settle for scabs again that there will be plenty of fans who will just slide in while others might leave.

Its the fanbase that has given these individuals the power they have. If the fanbases for all franchises were as organized as the owners and players we could easily send a message to them both that it is WE who actually fill your pocket books and we will no longer tolerate it. The owners just sign the checks but without us, there is no NFL. But, either because of emotion or loyalty we dont stop supporting them no matter how crazy or how high the prices go up.

Like sheep we continue to act like a drug addict trying to get our fix because we dont like the alternative to having no football. So as much as it pains me to say it i think we are the biggest problem because clearly the owners and players dont give a rats ass what we think because we've given them no cause to take our feelings under consideration.

Nomad
03-12-2011, 10:57 AM
I vote North to be the spokesman for the fans!!

We, the fans did create this monster and we should bring it down to reality by not investing into it until they get their shit straight!!

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 10:59 AM
The owners gave too much in the last CBA. They've all had the same complaint for the last several years.

The pendulum swung too far in favor of the players, and they don't want to give it up. . .problem is things are out of balance now.

So the players decertify so that they can change the rules mid-stream and file law-suits. .. not exactly the actions of innocent bystanders if you ask me.

The players are not "partners" with the NFL. They don't have to borrow a dime for stadiums or operating expenses. If the fans don't show up, they still get their paychecks. They do risk their health etc., and should be compensated for that, but I would argue that for the most part they are.

Heck. The players don't even want to share with the retired players. Over the decades they have taken a bigger and bigger piece of the pie, and left their retired "brothers" out in the cold.. . now they want the owners to just pay more for retired players benefits out of the kindness of their heart.

There's enough blame to go around, but the players have had it too good for several years now, and seem either impervious to that fact, or think that they can play hardball and keep it that way anyways.

Why is it on the players to bear the burden of the owners greed? If the owners want luxury boxes and all of that, why shouldnt it be on them? Its not like the players are forcing them to build new stadiums.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 11:01 AM
After reading everything the NFL was trying to offer to the NFLPA, and considering they NFLPA was filing for decertification while still "negotiating" with Goodell and the owners, it's pretty apparent to me that Smith and the NFLPA never had any intention of working any kind of a deal out.

When one side keeps making offers and the other side keeps refusing to even make a compromise, it's pretty clear to me where the majority of the fault lies.


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

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

This tells me that - UNLESS THE OWNERS GAVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY WANTED - there is NO WAY it would get solved.

turftoad
03-12-2011, 11:02 AM
I voted the Players but it is clearly Josh McDaniels fault. He had to have something to do with it.

Northman
03-12-2011, 11:04 AM
Why is it on the players to bear the burden of the owners greed? If the owners want luxury boxes and all of that, why shouldnt it be on them? Its not like the players are forcing them to build new stadiums.

Well, yes and no.

A few years ago there was a coach who was going to refuse to play a game (cant remember if it was pre-season or reg season) in Philly because the turf had major pot holes in it and it was becoming very dangerous for players to play on. And something like that draws major concern from players of many teams.

So while it doesnt necessarily mean the owner had to build a new stadium there are various reasons such as that one where the stadiums need to be upgraded or replaced because of the conditions they were in.

Slick
03-12-2011, 11:05 AM
I don't see how anyone could say it's not the owners.

I don't see how anyone couldn't blame both sides in this case. At the end of the day it's rich people fighting over money. Not very attractive to the majority of the population who are struggling to hold on to their jobs and their families well being.

Dzone
03-12-2011, 11:08 AM
Sorry, but I cant stand Demaurice Smith...WTF did they find this loser? Then he puts on a fedora and looks like a CLOWN!!!!...What a total idiot

BroncoStud
03-12-2011, 11:14 AM
Unions are obsolete, they worked at one time when labor conditions were horrible and people were being mistreated and killed on the job, now they are just a monster of evil and greed that is killing the viability of this country.

What a joke. If they don't get a deal done before the draft or season I hope the NFL never recovers. I hope all those idiot 90 IQ players actually have to get a real job and compete with the rest of us in the free market. Their "40" times won't help them I'm guessing.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 11:20 AM
Unions are obsolete, they worked at one time when labor conditions were horrible and people were being mistreated and killed on the job, now they are just a monster of evil and greed that is killing the viability of this country.

What a joke. If they don't get a deal done before the draft or season I hope the NFL never recovers. I hope all those idiot 90 IQ players actually have to get a real job and compete with the rest of us in the free market. Their "40" times won't help them I'm guessing.

Theres nothing wrong with unions. Theyre not inherently evil. Theyre certainly no more evil than any corporation that hires lobbyists or any politician that's in bed with corporations.

PAINTERDAVE
03-12-2011, 11:36 AM
Theres nothing wrong with unions. Theyre not inherently evil. Theyre certainly no more evil than any corporation that hires lobbyists or any politician that's in bed with corporations.

Umm.. yes there is nothing "inherently" wrong wiith Unions..
but gone are the says of Joe Hill.

There is a difference between private unions... like at King Soopers...
and Public Sector Government unions whose over the top benefit packages are guaranteed by the taxpayers.

Out of control Public Sector Unions of the 21st century are destroying our economy...
along with the politicians who benefit from union support. (The ones who are "in bed" with the Unions)
There are as many nasty "lobbyists" for the Unions as any corporation.

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians have bankrupted California.
Wisconsin is strugglling to rectify what the unions have done...
and look at how they (Union members) respond.

They are more like mafia thugs than anything else now.



This private squabble between Owners and players sucks.
I hope the judge issues an injunction against the lockout....
forces the game to go on..
and then the millionaires can all just work out their financials behind the scenes and move on.

nevcraw
03-12-2011, 11:41 AM
I spent 11 hours yesterday in the car and listened to the NFL radio the whole time... I have gone back and forth on this about who's at fault but am now siding with the players.
The offer the owners said was rejected was bit of a sham...

1. The reduction of OTA's etc. is silly because they were already on a volunteer basis. -- Thanks for reducing something I already don't have to go to. The rest of the practice time said to be reduced was hardly worth a hefty pay cut.
2. The owners are reneging on a previous CBA deal that was agreed upon last time, the players are not asking for anything. They want keep old deal. You can judge them for greed but if someone asks you to take a pay cut you should be able to know why before you agree to it.
3. The increased injury insurance only would effect a very small % of the players those currently in a contract but not if it's your contract year. Hardly a trade worthy offer.

4. According to the players there was no talk of the lifetime insurance thingy until Pash's last speech to reporters after de-certification-- so was that just a throw in to help sway public opinion? Not sure... But during the last CBA it was studied ad naseum and concluded that the there was no way financially this could be sustained.
5. As far as the lofty compensation or greed - the roughly 1800 players are a super elite group that only has one place to ply their trade (NFL) which is practically a monopoly. The NFL brings in the 9 bil on their backs. Why should they take a pay cut when the sport is thriving? Due to the violence of this job I don't have a problem with them scrapping for every dime and using there only leverage they have which is to decertify.

__________________________________________________ ___________________

Meanwhile -- not sure if this has been brought up anywhere but wasn't Bowlen the lead on the TV deals? What was his role in the shady contracts??

Dzone
03-12-2011, 11:46 AM
Demaurice Smith should be slapped for wearing that hat.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 11:49 AM
How many people in the job market get HUGE paychecks, get everything paid for them, AND receive 60% of the profit that their company makes?

jlarsiii
03-12-2011, 12:20 PM
Interesting article on ESPiN showing an alternate viewpoint to what most are stating here. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6208732

Here is an exerpt:

The question today, as the NFL calls its players irresponsible and as the players head to the courts seeking some form of outside authority to hold the league accountable, is what will the fans do with this power? Will they take the old, tired positions and blame the players, calling them greedy for wanting to be a true business partner? Will they take the "shut up and play" position we've seen so many times during previous labor impasses across American sports? Saying players should be grateful to be paid millions for playing a kid's game is, at its worst, an unsophisticated position, for professional sports is not a kid's game. Kid's games don't charge $75 to park, or $1,200 per ticket to attend the championship game. Kid's games don't generate $9 billion in revenue.

It is this expectation of unsophistication that at least in part emboldens owners to force labor unrest onto the public, for they believe the fans' wrath will always be levied worse against the players. And they have often been correct in this assumption.

The truth is far more complicated and fans have an opportunity to use their power both by learning complicated financial issues and changing how they view the relationship between the player and the owners.

nevcraw
03-12-2011, 12:24 PM
How many people in the job market get HUGE paychecks, get everything paid for them, AND receive 60% of the profit that their company makes?

The nfl in so many, many ways is nothing remotly close to the "job market".
and that 60% you speak of is the deal they agreed to previously? If it was such a bad deal-- why did they make it? don't fault the players for taking a good deal.. so sorry the owners have had to live with the 3.6 billion..

pnbronco
03-12-2011, 12:29 PM
I voted for the players because as a owner of a business I understand that I take 100% of the risk. Everyone else gets paid first and if things come up short then it's my saving/loan that I have to do to make sure everyone gets paid.

However I do understand that the NFL is not real life and the owners may have earned this money or not. So in a way I think the fault is us the fans. That we have made NFL football so important in our lives that you have billionaires and millionaires fighting for entertainment money.

Our country is in a tough place and has been for well over a year. Up until a few months ago I was thinking that I would have to stop my business and get a min wage job because I was barely breaking even and that just doesn't work. I know many vendors that did just that and took min wage jobs this fall to have some money to pay bills like shelter and food.

So it's hard for me to really care about either side. In fact I found a flyer not too long ago that said I could buy a lamb for a family and it would provide milk and wool for that family of 4 for at least 5 years for $ 45.00. Since that's much less than one ticket to a Bronco game I'm thinking maybe it's time to rethink how I spend my money. If they fight too long many more fans may begin to realize that the people working their tails off to fund this entertainment may find better ways to spend their hard earned dollars.

Nomad
03-12-2011, 12:33 PM
Interesting article on ESPiN showing an alternate viewpoint to what most are stating here. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6208732

Here is an exerpt:

The question today, as the NFL calls its players irresponsible and as the players head to the courts seeking some form of outside authority to hold the league accountable, is what will the fans do with this power? Will they take the old, tired positions and blame the players, calling them greedy for wanting to be a true business partner? Will they take the "shut up and play" position we've seen so many times during previous labor impasses across American sports? Saying players should be grateful to be paid millions for playing a kid's game is, at its worst, an unsophisticated position, for professional sports is not a kid's game. Kid's games don't charge $75 to park, or $1,200 per ticket to attend the championship game. Kid's games don't generate $9 billion in revenue.

It is this expectation of unsophistication that at least in part emboldens owners to force labor unrest onto the public, for they believe the fans' wrath will always be levied worse against the players. And they have often been correct in this assumption.

The truth is far more complicated and fans have an opportunity to use their power both by learning complicated financial issues and changing how they view the relationship between the player and the owners.

The fans actually have control of this situation if they were disciplined enough and could stand firm against the owners/players, but as Northman nailed it in his post #24, fans just aren't that strong!!

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 12:53 PM
Shame on you, NFL.

But you, the fan, is the one who is really angry today. And you have every right to be.

You are the one who was betrayed when Doomsday arrived at 5 p.m. yesterday after 17 fruitless days of mediation between players and owners who behaved like Ali vs. Frazier. Betrayed by two sides held hostage by their own greed, two sides who could not trust one another, two sides who now take their petty, insane war to the courtroom. From trust to the spectre of antitrust. From Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith to players' judge David Doty and the fearsome army of NFL lawyers. Tom Brady vs. Robert Kraft now. Peyton Manning vs. Jim Irsay. Drew Brees vs. Tom Benson.

A dark day as the NFL goes dark, for however long no one can say for certain.

Limbo, litigation and now a lockout.

No more union. No more NFL offseason as we know it, except for next month's draft. No more hope for labor peace.

Shame on the NFL.

Personal foul on you -- for roughing the fan.

full article - http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/now_it_the_no_football_league_hYn1AomMwpEYnbAPeTs6 lO

Fan in Exile
03-12-2011, 01:17 PM
Interesting article on ESPiN showing an alternate viewpoint to what most are stating here. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6208732

Here is an exerpt:

The question today, as the NFL calls its players irresponsible and as the players head to the courts seeking some form of outside authority to hold the league accountable, is what will the fans do with this power? Will they take the old, tired positions and blame the players, calling them greedy for wanting to be a true business partner? Will they take the "shut up and play" position we've seen so many times during previous labor impasses across American sports? Saying players should be grateful to be paid millions for playing a kid's game is, at its worst, an unsophisticated position, for professional sports is not a kid's game. Kid's games don't charge $75 to park, or $1,200 per ticket to attend the championship game. Kid's games don't generate $9 billion in revenue.

It is this expectation of unsophistication that at least in part emboldens owners to force labor unrest onto the public, for they believe the fans' wrath will always be levied worse against the players. And they have often been correct in this assumption.

The truth is far more complicated and fans have an opportunity to use their power both by learning complicated financial issues and changing how they view the relationship between the player and the owners.

I'm calling this a load of crap. First it annoys me that he insults us fans by talking about how unsophisticated we are. Bullshit, we get the arguments we just don't agree with players. It's not like these players are conducting brain surgery for crying out loud their lives are not beyond our understanding.

Second players themselves aren't concerned about safety. It's just not true. Look at the helmets that they were. More often than not they could be wearing helmets that reduce the rate of concussions but they don't because of style concerns. Look what happened to procaps. If you're that much more concerned about your looks than safety don't start whining to me about how much you're risking.

Then look at the rules about risky hits that were put in last year. Who was it who complained about the wussification of the game of Football, the players. If you want to talk about safety then start learning how to wrap up and take people down. Stop bouncing off of guys because you're going for a big hit.

Even Peyton Manning spent so much time whining about the change in where the ref was stationed. He moved for his safety but Manning doesn't care about people being safe.

Next the owners and the Players both agreed to the language that voided the contract early. Nobody reneged on the agreement they both just exercised the rights that were in the old CBA.

The players however feel like they have the owners over a barrel in the litigation department so they didn't bend at all in negotiations. The thing is the owners know that, they know how much they're risking, and the leverage that the players have, because the courts will probably side with them. So what tells me that they're in an untenable situation is that they were still willing to risk moving ahead with a lock-out.

Let's be clear it's not like it's any surprise that there are teams that are on a razors edge. e.g. Buffalo, Jacksonville What happens to the NFL if these teams go under? I'm when people blame the owners that it's easy to look at Jerry Jones and say he doesn't need any money. But there are thirty two teams and the bottom five or so seem to be in real trouble.

Sure they signed a deal that was bad for them last time around, but you can't blame them for trying to fix it now.

Finally it's not like anyone is actually asking any player to take less money. They're also not asking that the salary cap be lowered or that players as a whole take less money, just that it increase at a slower rate.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 01:18 PM
The CBA was set to expire next year anyway. We're just here a year earlier. The owners didn't 'break' anything. It was already broken.

And they HAD to opt out earlier. There are franchises who may have gone under within the next year or two had they not. The Packers would have been one of them and there were 4 teams who had a net profit less than they did.

If I were you, I'd go to the NFL home page and take a look at what the NFL was offering. I think you'll have a change of opinion.

bullshit... you said your self the packers and 4 teams made less NET PPPRRROOOFFFIIIITTT not loss... there isnt a team in the NFL that would ever go under. thats just crazy talk, nothing was broken everything was fine before the greedy owners tampered with it

Day1BroncoFan
03-12-2011, 01:21 PM
I voted Josh McDaniels. I'm ultimately blaming greed. I don't really give a crap who's to blame. How do we divide our 9 billion dollars a year? Well, just play the frickin' game and shut up... both sides, just shut up and play.

I don't feel any sympathy for either side. What I do know is if there is no season next year or, if any kind of lockout happens I will never spend another dime on NFL anything.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 01:32 PM
I DONT GET WHY PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLAYERS ARE PARTNERS IN THE WAY THAT THE NFL IS SET UP. THE MONEY GAINED THROUGH REVENUE BELONGS TO THEM AS MUCH AS THE OWNERS LEEGGAALLLYY.

This aint your corner store with your zit faced employee demanding a raise and wanting to see your books!

This is like a law firm where ONE of the senior partners wants to give HIMSELF a raise out of company money that BELONGS TO YOU BOTH LEGALY and wont provide evidence as to why.

You guys forget that the players did not ask for more money. These negociations were never about giving the players more money! that money already belonged to the players as well as the owners. the players wanted to keep shit the way it is, the pay scale as it is, the yearly increases they way it is! the owners want to CHANGE the structure!!!!!! and get more money or they will lockout theplayers! they conspired to ILEGALY put a stash of 4 bill away so they could strong arm the players with a lockout to increase their own profit.

Now the players smell blood and they went for the kill you cant blame them, its a dogfight and the owners are hurt bad... so if you might be buthurt that the players could have niped this in the bud and showed some mercy to the owners ill give you that but just remember who started all this shit to begin with.

the owners opted out of a RECURRING deal, they opened this can of worms due to thier greed and got facerolled by Doty.

its plain as day whos at fault.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 01:37 PM
By dissolving and announcing it no longer represents the players in collective bargaining, the union cleared the way for class-action lawsuits against the NFL, which exercised a CBA opt-out clause in 2008. The antitrust suit -- forever to be known as Brady et al vs. National Football League et al -- attacked the league's policies on the draft, salary cap and free-agent restrictions such as franchise-player tags.

Invoking the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust statute from 1890 that limits monopolies and restrictions on commerce, the players are seeking triple the amount of damages they've incurred. That means the stakes could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

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

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 01:40 PM
"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

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 01:41 PM
full article - much more - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

that is nothing more than leverage to get a deal done... the triple damages is a penalty IF the NFL decides to make thier own rules.. its nothing more than a deadly threat making the NFL play ball. its not the players wanting tripple pay

atwater27
03-12-2011, 01:43 PM
Why is it on the players to bear the burden of the owners greed? If the owners want luxury boxes and all of that, why shouldnt it be on them? Its not like the players are forcing them to build new stadiums.

Dude. Soak the ultra rich. Then you soak the jobs. Then everyone loses. Great strategy.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 01:51 PM
Theres nothing wrong with unions. Theyre not inherently evil. Theyre certainly no more evil than any corporation that hires lobbyists or any politician that's in bed with corporations.
Unions are worse. They spend more money than the "evil" corporations, use it to rig elections in their favor, then expect their elected officials to do them favors in return. And the worst thing? They fleece their own members union dues to make it happen, while their managers bathe in 6 and 7 figure salaries and benefits and kickbacks. But they are allll about the worker.:rolleyes:


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A


Heavy Hitters
In boxing, big punchers seek knockouts. In government, the same principle applies: The wealthiest corporations and special interest groups usually pepper politicians with overwhelming amounts of money in hope of influencing the political process.

Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989 -- information that exists nowhere else.

Fan in Exile
03-12-2011, 01:58 PM
I DONT GET WHY PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLAYERS ARE PARTNERS IN THE WAY THAT THE NFL IS SET UP. THE MONEY GAINED THROUGH REVENUE BELONGS TO THEM AS MUCH AS THE OWNERS LEEGGAALLLYY.

This aint your corner store with your zit faced employee demanding a raise and wanting to see your books!

This is like a law firm where ONE of the senior partners wants to give HIMSELF a raise out of company money that BELONGS TO YOU BOTH LEGALY and wont provide evidence as to why.

You guys forget that the players did not ask for more money. These negociations were never about giving the players more money! that money already belonged to the players as well as the owners. the players wanted to keep shit the way it is, the pay scale as it is, the yearly increases they way it is! the owners want to CHANGE the structure!!!!!! and get more money or they will lockout theplayers! they conspired to ILEGALY put a stash of 4 bill away so they could strong arm the players with a lockout to increase their own profit.

Now the players smell blood and they went for the kill you cant blame them, its a dogfight and the owners are hurt bad... so if you might be buthurt that the players could have niped this in the bud and showed some mercy to the owners ill give you that but just remember who started all this shit to begin with.

the owners opted out of a RECURRING deal, they opened this can of worms due to thier greed and got facerolled by Doty.

its plain as day whos at fault.

You really don't understand what it means that the last CBA was voided.

bcbronc
03-12-2011, 02:29 PM
neither group is any more at fault than the other. it's a negotiating process. sometimes they go smoothly, sometimes they don't.

as for all the wingnuts that hate unions, feel free to go get a job in a Mexican maquiladoras or a Chinese export manufacturing zone. Don't worry, you can still work for American corporations but you won't have to worry about burdens like rights to organize or collectively bargain (or bathroom breaks, or wages you can live on etc).

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 02:35 PM
The nfl in so many, many ways is nothing remotly close to the "job market".
and that 60% you speak of is the deal they agreed to previously? If it was such a bad deal-- why did they make it? don't fault the players for taking a good deal.. so sorry the owners have had to live with the 3.6 billion..

Is the 3.6 billion before or after the owner's expenses involved with what they pay, including players salaries?

cuzz4169
03-12-2011, 02:38 PM
off topic a little...I just read the story in ESPN magazine about the Jeweler who sell to athletes, he was at the Dolphins camp....It makes me sick!!! Think the article was well timed.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 02:39 PM
You really don't understand what it means that the last CBA was voided.

Actually I think you dont understand that the CBA was NOT voided but was opted out of by one side.. the owners. the CBA has worked and grown the NFL profit margins since 1987 with things like free agancy... again it was not voided bt shaped the very NFL you love.

once again the public(you) are hurt that there may not be football, and since that ball was last in the NFLPAs court it must be thier fault... you are biased and just want to see football but are ignorant to what is actually going on here..

The owners feel they fcked up in 87 due to some legal loopholes and lost alot of power to the players, which they did. Now they feel the time is right to "take back our NFL"

well they could have just left it alone, everyone was making tons of money, the product was better than ever and the profit margins just keept growing.

they forget what lost them the power in the first place in 87 GREED. they tried to force the players hand with a lockout back then and got burned BAD.

This time they decided that they need to plan ahead and make sure that they have 4 bill in TV money in the event of a lockout (that they been planning from the start, THE NFL was planning shut you out not the players) to insure that the pressure of the lockout would only be felt by the players. with the money they could hold a lockout so long that the players would have no choice but to do what the league wants. THis btw was a breach of contract ruled by judge David Doty.

CLEARLY the owners planned a lockout to strong arm the players and JUST LIKE 87 it blew up in their faces and now they ware going to have to lose even more power to the players.

you may not like me or the situation but what i just stated was FACT. no amout of bias s going to change that.


and btw anyone who actually owns a business (like me) know that LABOR is your biggest overhead. the larger your business gets the more you have to play labor.. its not your dishwasher getting 60% of the restaurants profits its the EVRYONE who works for you.. usualy you pay 33% for you labor +overhead and 33% for your product(food cost, raw material) thats 66%!!! in the NFLs case the players are the labor AND the product!! 60% sounds about right

underrated29
03-12-2011, 02:40 PM
I think we also need to find out if the owners really are or are wanting/going to take 1 $billion off the top Right away, before the revenue split.

I cant remember which player it was...MJD maybe- but one of them was interviewed and he said what most people dont know is that the owners take 1 bill off the top.

So if there is 9 billion, then the owners take 1 bill right away. Then split the remaining 8 bil.......






What I cant remember beside which player it was that said it, is if this is from the current/old CBA or if this is something the owners want with a new one? I think that would be very important into knowing how this is all shaking down.

Fan in Exile
03-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Actually I think you dont understand that the CBA was NOT voided but was opted out of by one side.. the owners. the CBA has worked and grown the NFL profit margins since 1987 with things like free agancy... again it was not voided bt shaped the very NFL you love.

once again the public(you) are hurt that there may not be football, and since that ball was last in the NFLPAs court it must be thier fault... you are biased and just want to see football but are ignorant to what is actually going on here..

The owners feel they fcked up in 87 due to some legal loopholes and lost alot of power to the players, which they did. Now they feel the time is right to "take back our NFL"

well they could have just left it alone, everyone was making tons of money, the product was better than ever and the profit margins just keept growing.

they forget what lost them the power in the first place in 87 GREED. they tried to force the players hand with a lockout back then and got burned BAD.

This time they decided that they need to plan ahead and make sure that they have 4 bill in TV money in the event of a lockout (that they been planning from the start, THE NFL was planning shut you out not the players) to insure that the pressure of the lockout would only be felt by the players. with the money they could hold a lockout so long that the players would have no choice but to do what the league wants. THis btw was a breach of contract ruled by judge David Doty.

CLEARLY the owners planned a lockout to strong arm the players and JUST LIKE 87 it blew up in their faces and now they ware going to have to lose even more power to the players.

you may not like me or the situation but what i just stated was FACT. no amout of bias s going to change that.


and btw anyone who actually owns a business (like me) know that LABOR is your biggest overhead. the larger your business gets the more you have to play labor.. its not your dishwasher getting 60% of the restaurants profits its the EVRYONE who works for you.. usualy you pay 33% for you labor +overhead and 33% for your product(food cost, raw material) thats 66%!!! in the NFLs case the players are the labor AND the product!! 60% sounds about right

I'm not hurt that there isn't going to be football, I fully expect games to be played in September, so don't try to figure me out clearly you aren't capable of it.

You're just changing your tune because I called you on the flaws in your previous post and now you've got another one. The players are not the only cost that the owners have so the fact that you think it's comparable that they should get 60% shows you don't understand how the NFL works.

Of course it also shows that you don't understand the actual terms being discussed because the Players didn't get 60% under the old agreement and they never would have under any of the proposals, either NFL or NFLPA.

Just because you own a business doesn't mean you understand these issues better than everyone else.

If you're going to talk about what everyone else doesn't understand at least get the details right.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 03:06 PM
I'm not hurt that there isn't going to be football, I fully expect games to be played in September, so don't try to figure me out clearly you aren't capable of it.

You're just changing your tune because I called you on the flaws in your previous post and now you've got another one. The players are not the only cost that the owners have so the fact that you think it's comparable that they should get 60% shows you don't understand how the NFL works.

Of course it also shows that you don't understand the actual terms being discussed because the Players didn't get 60% under the old agreement and they never would have under any of the proposals, either NFL or NFLPA.

Just because you own a business doesn't mean you understand these issues better than everyone else.

If you're going to talk about what everyone else doesn't understand at least get the details right.

Ok why are you making this about me?

where did i change my tune?

When did i say the players are thier only cost? i said they are the BIGGEST cost

now your just talking out of your ass and being ignorrant. read what i wrote again and tell me what part is not true?

others on here talk about how the players are getting 60% i said if they are making 60% then thats about right considering they are both labor and the product..

my post is not opinion its HISTORY, take your hate for me out of your scales and judge what i wrote as if it was written by someone else

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 04:12 PM
Dude. Soak the ultra rich. Then you soak the jobs. Then everyone loses. Great strategy.

Nice response. Notice how you're purely advocating submission to the ultra-rich because they're the ultra-rich. But understand one thing: they're not your friend. There's no justification for this level of blind obedience.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 04:20 PM
Unions are worse. They spend more money than the "evil" corporations, use it to rig elections in their favor, then expect their elected officials to do them favors in return. And the worst thing? They fleece their own members union dues to make it happen, while their managers bathe in 6 and 7 figure salaries and benefits and kickbacks. But they are allll about the worker.:rolleyes:


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A


Heavy Hitters
In boxing, big punchers seek knockouts. In government, the same principle applies: The wealthiest corporations and special interest groups usually pepper politicians with overwhelming amounts of money in hope of influencing the political process.

Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989 -- information that exists nowhere else.

This is pure nonsense. The unions have lost power yet an alarming amount of corruption still exists. How is that? How have the unions lost power? Lets face it. This is as much an issue of north-south. The northern states have been historically more unionized. The plantation south has been less unionized and thats where the corporations have migrated. Now that jobs are moving out of the south and overseas, it's suddenly a problem. And lets not pretend that money isnt changing hands protectiing the corporate interest against unions and keeping wages down. Lets not pretend that the gvt and corp America isn't in on it like its a shared enterprise.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 04:24 PM
Umm.. yes there is nothing "inherently" wrong wiith Unions..
but gone are the says of Joe Hill.

There is a difference between private unions... like at King Soopers...
and Public Sector Government unions whose over the top benefit packages are guaranteed by the taxpayers.

Out of control Public Sector Unions of the 21st century are destroying our economy...
along with the politicians who benefit from union support. (The ones who are "in bed" with the Unions)
There are as many nasty "lobbyists" for the Unions as any corporation.

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians have bankrupted California.
Wisconsin is strugglling to rectify what the unions have done...
and look at how they (Union members) respond.

They are more like mafia thugs than anything else now.



This private squabble between Owners and players sucks.
I hope the judge issues an injunction against the lockout....
forces the game to go on..
and then the millionaires can all just work out their financials behind the scenes and move on.

You couldnt be more wrong. Too big to fail is worse than any union. This society of corporate welfare is the bigger wrecking ball to the economy. Throwing money at the problem only allows the problem to perpetuate itself.

Fan in Exile
03-12-2011, 04:29 PM
Ok why are you making this about me?

where did i change my tune?

When did i say the players are thier only cost? i said they are the BIGGEST cost

now your just talking out of your ass and being ignorrant. read what i wrote again and tell me what part is not true?

others on here talk about how the players are getting 60% i said if they are making 60% then thats about right considering they are both labor and the product..

my post is not opinion its HISTORY, take your hate for me out of your scales and judge what i wrote as if it was written by someone else

Dude I tried to help you get your history right but you're clearly not going to listen.

For the record I don't hate you, I don't even know you. You are going on ignore though.

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 05:30 PM
I don't see how anyone could say it's not the owners.
the players.....60/40.

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

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 05:31 PM
the players.....60/40.

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

...like I said.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:29 PM
Nice response. Notice how you're purely advocating submission to the ultra-rich because they're the ultra-rich. But understand one thing: they're not your friend. There's no justification for this level of blind obedience.

Blind obedience? How about economics 101?

Couldn't be said any better than Mary Katherine Ham said to Michael Moore when he suggested that the richest 400 people's wealth in this country should be 'seized' for the collective good of all....



http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/11/video-why-cant-we-balance-the-budget-by-confiscating-super-rich-peoples-money/


Simply said.... the net worth of all billionaires in the United States is 1.3 Trillion dollars. Even if we stole it all from them, it wouldn't even pay year one of our budget deficit. Oh yeah, and the millions of people that are provided with jobs through those evil billionaires would be hitting the unemployment lines the next day. :coffee:

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:39 PM
This is pure nonsense. It's fact, guy. I gave you the link, sorry if you can't handle it. The unions have lost power yet an alarming amount of corruption still exists. How is that? How have the unions lost power? Lets face it. This is as much an issue of north-south. The northern states have been historically more unionized. The plantation south has been less unionized and thats where the corporations have migrated. Now that jobs are moving out of the south and overseas, it's suddenly a problem. And lets not pretend that money isnt changing hands protectiing the corporate interest against unions and keeping wages down. Lets not pretend that the gvt and corp America isn't in on it like its a shared enterprise.

Gee, I wonder why jobs are moving overseas. Would have nothing to do with union inflated compensation and lazy/incompetent worker protection, draconian environmental laws and asphyxiating over regulation. No, not at all. I'm sure it's all corporate hedonists that only want foreign sweatshop workers.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:41 PM
So far, the polling suggests 2 to one favor blaming the players more. Guess they overplayed their hand and the fans are calling bullshit. Right on.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 07:45 PM
Gee, I wonder why jobs are moving overseas. Would have nothing to do with union inflated compensation and lazy/incompetent worker protection, draconian environmental laws and asphyxiating over regulation. No, not at all. I'm sure it's all corporate hedonists that only want foreign sweatshop workers.

Ha. Your assessment is more than a little amusing. Lazy? Really? Thats the best you can do? Normally Im not in favor of liberal agendas in the school system then I come across some like you that is full of such nonsense that I start so see why some feel its necessary.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 07:49 PM
Blind obedience? How about economics 101?

Couldn't be said any better than Mary Katherine Ham said to Michael Moore when he suggested that the richest 400 people's wealth in this country should be 'seized' for the collective good of all....



http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/11/video-why-cant-we-balance-the-budget-by-confiscating-super-rich-peoples-money/


Simply said.... the net worth of all billionaires in the United States is 1.3 Trillion dollars. Even if we stole it all from them, it wouldn't even pay year one of our budget deficit. Oh yeah, and the millions of people that are provided with jobs through those evil billionaires would be hitting the unemployment lines the next day. :coffee:

Im not sure what your point is. You're pretty much saying they could generate jobs but they won't, which bolsters my earlier claim that they're not your friends.

But whats more alarming is that its not merely a matter of being successful and holding on to the money theyve earned. There's no laissez faire economics here. These guys are buying influence, which creates barriers for others who could generate jobs.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 07:51 PM
So far, the polling suggests 2 to one favor blaming the players more. Guess they overplayed their hand and the fans are calling bullshit. Right on.

Thats because there are a lot of goober fans that equate players to being employees in the same way that they are.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:53 PM
Ha. Your assessment is more than a little amusing. Lazy? Really? Thats the best you can do? Normally Im not in favor of liberal agendas in the school system then I come across some like you that is full of such nonsense that I start so see why some feel its necessary.

In no way am I saying union workers are lazy. What I am saying is they provide ironclad protection for their lazy and incompetent. Since you brought up liberal agendas in the school system, I will counter by saying the school teachers unions are the worst offenders in that arena. You might want to watch that documentary Waiting for Superman. Directed and produced by the liberal that brought us An Inconvenient Truth. It will open your eyes.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:55 PM
Thats because there are a lot of goober fans that equate players to being employees in the same way that they are.

Lets face it... They are employees. they would more often than not be absolutely worthless if not for their nature given athleticsm. They would be nothing without the NFL. And if you think the NFL would be nothing without them, you apparently don't watch college football.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 07:57 PM
Our Commander in Chief has a plan to solve the NFL impasse!

A small, yet amusing excerpt...

He’ll then decide what income is “fair” and what is “greedy,” placing wage controls on players. Obama will say, “There is no longer a need for million dollar salaries. After all, just like government union employees, I’m going to guarantee NFL players — even the failed ones — pensions of $100K per year for life and free healthcare. We’ll call it ’NFL Tenure.’ It’s like a government job — a guaranteed job for life, without any performance necessary.”

Like American businesses, players will react to lower wages and higher taxes by leaving the USA to play football in Canada and Europe, destroying the NFL. Obama, of course, will blame the “greedy NFL owners” for sending American jobs offshore and pass a huge tariff on each player leaving the USA.

Then, Obama will state proudly, “We’ve got to spread the wealth around” and pass ”NFL Financial Reform,” requiring ninety-five percent of revenues be redistributed to employees, vendors, peanut salesmen, ticket takers, security, and parking lot attendants. A peanut vendor will be seen crying and telling a reporter, “I’ll never have to worry about paying rent or putting gas in my car ever again.”


http://biggovernment.com/waroot/2011/03/12/a-teachable-moment-how-obama-would-solve-the-nfl-labor-crisis/#more-239728

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:00 PM
In no way am I saying union workers are lazy. What I am saying is they provide ironclad protection for their lazy and incompetent. Since you brought up liberal agendas in the school system, I will counter by saying the school teachers unions are the worst offenders in that arena. You might want to watch that documentary Waiting for Superman. Directed and produced by the liberal that brought us An Inconvenient Truth. It will open your eyes.



And I'll counter by pointing out that its pretty apparent that you're just parroting punditry. This analysis of yours is a dime a dozen. Ive taken upper level economics classes and it gets really old seeing some unnuanced politico popping off on economics like he knows something and then trying to sell his point with the reference to "it's economics 101".

atwater27
03-12-2011, 08:04 PM
And I'll counter by pointing out that its pretty apparent that you're just parroting punditry. This analysis of yours is a dime a dozen. Ive taken upper level economics classes and it gets really old seeing some unnuanced politico popping off on economics like he knows something and then trying to sell his point with the reference to "it's economics 101".

All those fancy classes and you still don't get it. Might want to find another profession. One where you could capitalize on those impressive condescension skills. Perhaps NPR? I hear they have a few openings.:laugh:

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Lets face it... They are employees. they would more often than not be absolutely worthless if not for their nature given athleticsm. They would be nothing without the NFL. And if you think the NFL would be nothing without them, you apparently don't watch college football.

You're free to face any direction you want. You're also free to keep your head up "there".

This inisistence that they're employees is beyond naive and demonstrates a clear inability to comprehend anything beyond the scope of your every day life. The players are the product. You'd have a leg to stand on if the owners could substitute scabs and not see any difference in the popularity of the sport.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:06 PM
All those fancy classes and you still don't get it. Might want to find another profession. One where you could capitalize on those impressive condescension skills. Perhaps NPR? I hear they have a few openings.:laugh:

Yeah, because I'm going to take advice from someone like you.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 08:09 PM
You're free to face any direction you want. You're also free to keep your head up "there".

This inisistence that they're employees is beyond naive and demonstrates a clear inability to comprehend anything beyond the scope of your every day life. The players are the product. You'd have a leg to stand on if the owners could substitute scabs and not see any difference in the popularity of the sport.

Of course the popularity of the sport would take a hit, silly guy. the NFL would take it's lumps and move on without them. The players would simply be bitter and broke. And most definitely wishing they could go back and make the RIGHT decision. But hey, tell me some more about how simple minded I is instead of debating the ISSUE. It's entertaining to us all.

atwater27
03-12-2011, 08:11 PM
Yeah, because I'm going to take advice from someone like you.

I am shattered. :Cry:

Softskull
03-12-2011, 08:11 PM
I stole this from my favorite moderator Mingo over at KFFL.


A Corportate CEO, A Tea Party Supporter and a Union guy are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies in front of them. The Corporate CEO grabs 11 cookies and puts them in his pocket and then turns to the Tea Party Supporter and says: "That union fellow wants some of your cookie."

Read more: http://forums.kffl.com/threads/284349-Random-Thoughts-and-Questions.../page2#ixzz1GRC4cKGC

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 08:12 PM
Agent, the sheep will believe whatever they are told to believe. No amount of uncrazy is going to get them to right a ship they set sail to. Pearls in front of pigs my man.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:21 PM
Of course the popularity of the sport would take a hit, silly guy. the NFL would take it's lumps and move on without them. The players would simply be bitter and broke. And most definitely wishing they could go back and make the RIGHT decision. But hey, tell me some more about how simple minded I is instead of debating the ISSUE. It's entertaining to us all.

Its not surprising that you would get twisted around something stupid like you have. What you're failing to comprehend is that there is a demand for football players at the highest level. They're a commodity. They're not some guy who works on a factory floor or stocks shelves. They're a commodity. Comparable value does not exist if you substitute them out with someone who is inferior.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Actually, I think I'm going to start blaming Demaurice Smith for everything. I can't put my finger on just one thing, but every time he opens his mouth, I want to put my fist in it.

He seems extremely condescending to everyone who isn't the players and seems like a real a-hole when he addresses the media. Honestly, the fact that he's nothing more than a clown-puppet lawyer in a suit and not anyone who has any real connection with the league (like Gene Upshaw did) really makes me have ZERO respect for him.

I also don't particularly like the players believing that they are "in partnership" with the owners. They aren't. They are labor, not management. The players can be traded or cut (fired) at any time. The owners shoulder all of the risk (except of course their health, but that's why the players are paid so damned much) financially. Once a player has his "guaranteed money" in his contract, even if he doesn't play well, he still gets paid. If the team sucks, the owners typically lose money, not the players who play poorly.

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:23 PM
And I'll counter by pointing out that its pretty apparent that you're just parroting punditry. This analysis of yours is a dime a dozen. Ive taken upper level economics classes and it gets really old seeing some unnuanced politico popping off on economics like he knows something and then trying to sell his point with the reference to "it's economics 101".
Wow...you just brought nothing. :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:25 PM
You're free to face any direction you want. You're also free to keep your head up "there".

This inisistence that they're employees is beyond naive and demonstrates a clear inability to comprehend anything beyond the scope of your every day life. The players are the product. You'd have a leg to stand on if the owners could substitute scabs and not see any difference in the popularity of the sport.

I'll play. So if the owners are...the owners. And the players are...the product(even thoughr they're not being produced).
WHO/WHAT/WHERE is/are the employees?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

SPEECHLESS!?!?!?!?

nevcraw
03-12-2011, 08:26 PM
Dude. Soak the ultra rich. Then you soak the jobs. Then everyone loses. Great strategy.

not to put words in you mouth but it sounds like you are respresnting the argument towards reagan or trickle down economics..
but trickle down economics has failed at every turn.. one simple reason. greed.
the rule here is nobody looks after you better than yourself especially not the man..

atwater27
03-12-2011, 08:27 PM
Its not surprising that you would get twisted around something stupid like you have.Again, the issues have nothing to do with me personally, but if you want a date, all you have to do is PM me. What you're failing to comprehend is that there is a demand for football players at the highest level. no shit? You kidding me? They're a commodity. They're not some guy who works on a factory floor or stocks shelves. Hey, there, you leave skilled union workers out of your disdainful comparisons! They're a commodity. Comparable value does not exist if you substitute them out with someone who is inferior.

I never said there would be comparable value, though you are pretty good at putting words in people's mouths. Like I said, NFL will take it's lumps. Then they will move on, with different and inferior players. They will get better over several seasons, and Voila! Progress.

vettesplus
03-12-2011, 08:28 PM
its all the fans fault... as long as you pay the outrageous ticket prices and buy the $10 cup of beer the pro sports owners and players will always be greedy for more. stop going to the games and watch it on TV, then when they cannot afford a TV contract and have to black out the games you can always go fishing and camping, thats what i do on Sundays anymore with the poor play of so many teams...(broncos)... you and i as fans have no one but ourselves to blame for this mess....my flame suit is on so go ahead and hit me.....

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:31 PM
Agent, the sheep will believe whatever they are told to believe. No amount of uncrazy is going to get them to right a ship they set sail to. Pearls in front of pigs my man.

Namecalling everybody that disagrees with you? How grownup.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:34 PM
not to put words in you mouth but it sounds like you are respresnting the argument towards reagan or trickle down economics..
but trickle down economics has failed at every turn.. one simple reason. greed.
the rule here is nobody looks after you better than yourself especially not the man..
Well, when the little guy starts hiring, let us know. Lol
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

atwater27
03-12-2011, 08:36 PM
not to put words in you mouth but it sounds like you are respresnting the argument towards reagan or trickle down economics..
but trickle down economics has failed at every turn.. one simple reason. greed.
the rule here is nobody looks after you better than yourself especially not the man..

I'll take trickle down economics over trickle up poverty any day.

And I see your point about taking care of yourself. I have 2 jobs, one union represented, one not, in a right to hire/right to fire state. i see both sides of the coin. My non union represented employer tends to treat employees more like shit when given the chance, and also get higher production out of the empoyees and higher dividends to investors (who are EVERYONE) and better prices for customers.

My union job treats employees better, yet fails miserably at comparable production and in turn produces horrible investment results to the general public, who's taxes fund them.

I understand there needs to be a happy medium. I don't think unions should be busted. But their power in the public sector is collosal, and corrupt. I think corporations have taken liberties with workers, especially in this economy, and that should be adressed as well; perhaps by BOLI.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 08:36 PM
Actually, I think I'm going to start blaming Demaurice Smith for everything. I can't put my finger on just one thing, but every time he opens his mouth, I want to put my fist in it.

He seems extremely condescending to everyone who isn't the players and seems like a real a-hole when he addresses the media. Honestly, the fact that he's nothing more than a clown-puppet lawyer in a suit and not anyone who has any real connection with the league (like Gene Upshaw did) really makes me have ZERO respect for him.

I also don't particularly like the players believing that they are "in partnership" with the owners. They aren't. They are labor, not management. The players can be traded or cut (fired) at any time. The owners shoulder all of the risk (except of course their health, but that's why the players are paid so damned much) financially. Once a player has his "guaranteed money" in his contract, even if he doesn't play well, he still gets paid. If the team sucks, the owners typically lose money, not the players who play poorly.


you are right and you are wrong.

first off i hate the doosh smith as well i wanna slap that hat right off his head... but the fact remains it was the owners who PLANNED stoppage of football to get thier NFL back.. so if i miss a game ill bame them for starting this whole mess.

2 yes the individual players can come and go and be fired and hired and are employees... the shell that surrounds them, that collects them together as a union is not an employee but a partner.. peopl einside that shell are employees but the NFLPA itself is contracted as a partner in sharing revenues... you can argue that they dont belong as such but the fact that remains is that they are. thanks to the NFL shitting the bed when they tried to last do the same thing in 87.

Agent of Orange
03-12-2011, 08:39 PM
Well, when the little guy starts hiring, let us know. Lol
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If I spoke of the velocity of money, it's doubtful you'd know what it means without googling it. Same for Atwater. It's also doubtful that you know which strata of people spend money the least discriminantly.

nevcraw
03-12-2011, 08:50 PM
Well, when the little guy starts hiring, let us know. Lol
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

cute

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:58 PM
If I spoke of the velocity of money, it's doubtful you'd know what it means without googling it. Same for Atwater. It's also doubtful that you know which strata of people spend money the least discriminantly.
you've got edumacated people here, smartypanties. Businessmen/women, master degrees. Put your denigrating attitude to rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
03-12-2011, 09:00 PM
Good poll War.

To a degree its the owner and players. But, i chose the fans. Strange huh?

Thing is though, we as fans dump our money into these franchises because we love the game, love to support them. But, unlike the owners and players we dont organize and put a stop to the outrageous prices at stadiums, or the crazy contracts that some players sign when they havent proven anything on the field, or even when we buy shitloads of merch in that support.

In reality, whats going on is a product of the fanbase. The owners and players both know how diehard the fanbase is for their respective teams and the owners are betting that if they had to settle for scabs again that there will be plenty of fans who will just slide in while others might leave.

Its the fanbase that has given these individuals the power they have. If the fanbases for all franchises were as organized as the owners and players we could easily send a message to them both that it is WE who actually fill your pocket books and we will no longer tolerate it. The owners just sign the checks but without us, there is no NFL. But, either because of emotion or loyalty we dont stop supporting them no matter how crazy or how high the prices go up.

Like sheep we continue to act like a drug addict trying to get our fix because we dont like the alternative to having no football. So as much as it pains me to say it i think we are the biggest problem because clearly the owners and players dont give a rats ass what we think because we've given them no cause to take our feelings under consideration.

Post of the thread . . . maybe of the year . . .

-----

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 09:00 PM
cute
I know I am. Just LOOK at this face!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

HORSEPOWER 56
03-12-2011, 09:03 PM
you've got edumacated people here, smartypanties. Businessmen/women, master degrees. Put your denigrating attitude to rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I love it. Every college kid who just took an economics class is a "master of the CBA", and of the economy all of a sudden.

If it was so damned easy, why isn't it all figured out, yet? The only thing more complicated than money, is women, IMO.

;)

WARHORSE
03-12-2011, 10:52 PM
I'm calling this a load of crap. First it annoys me that he insults us fans by talking about how unsophisticated we are. Bullshit, we get the arguments we just don't agree with players. It's not like these players are conducting brain surgery for crying out loud their lives are not beyond our understanding.

Second players themselves aren't concerned about safety. It's just not true. Look at the helmets that they were. More often than not they could be wearing helmets that reduce the rate of concussions but they don't because of style concerns. Look what happened to procaps. If you're that much more concerned about your looks than safety don't start whining to me about how much you're risking.

Then look at the rules about risky hits that were put in last year. Who was it who complained about the wussification of the game of Football, the players. If you want to talk about safety then start learning how to wrap up and take people down. Stop bouncing off of guys because you're going for a big hit.

Even Peyton Manning spent so much time whining about the change in where the ref was stationed. He moved for his safety but Manning doesn't care about people being safe.

Next the owners and the Players both agreed to the language that voided the contract early. Nobody reneged on the agreement they both just exercised the rights that were in the old CBA.

The players however feel like they have the owners over a barrel in the litigation department so they didn't bend at all in negotiations. The thing is the owners know that, they know how much they're risking, and the leverage that the players have, because the courts will probably side with them. So what tells me that they're in an untenable situation is that they were still willing to risk moving ahead with a lock-out.

Let's be clear it's not like it's any surprise that there are teams that are on a razors edge. e.g. Buffalo, Jacksonville What happens to the NFL if these teams go under? I'm when people blame the owners that it's easy to look at Jerry Jones and say he doesn't need any money. But there are thirty two teams and the bottom five or so seem to be in real trouble.

Sure they signed a deal that was bad for them last time around, but you can't blame them for trying to fix it now.

Finally it's not like anyone is actually asking any player to take less money. They're also not asking that the salary cap be lowered or that players as a whole take less money, just that it increase at a slower rate.


Exactly. And once again, since when do the employees get to demand that they be viewed equally as 'partners'?


Another case......Haynesworth.

I own my own construction business and Im signatory to two of the local unions here. Stipulated in the agreement is that I only hire workers from the unions. I also agree that they will be paid certain wages and benefits in accordance to the union contracts concerning journeymen and apprentices.


The union guarantees that the men they send me will be able to do the work Im paying them for.

It costs me about $500 a day for eight hours of work for one of these men when the whole package is totalled up......wages, vacation, annuity, benefits, medical, dental, vehicle insurance, workmans comp, and umbrella insurance.

Not to mention bonding.


What becomes a breach of contract on their part, is when they send me someone who is not only supposed to be skilled in the areas of labor per each union contract, they also are guaranteeing that these guys will be on time, be reliable, and responsible.


So when you get a guy like Albert Haynesworth, who is being paid a gazillion dollars, and he turns around and acts like he doesnt have to put forth effort cause his money is guaranteed, and the union backs him up........BULLCRAP.


The union is trying to protect its own interest at the violation of the contract. The union wants the Haynesworth money to stay in its place.


Same thing for me. I had the union send me a guy who was supposed to be a journeyman mason. The guy showed up, had no tools, and was about as useful as a snail in a hot pan.


The players are spoiled, and have a right to go play for the UFL. Do you understand that NFLPA?

Take your players and go play for the UFL or the CFL, and preach to the choir up there.

You have it made here, and the players playing today will not feel a SINGLE dollar going back to the owners.


Piss off NFLPA.

atwater27
03-13-2011, 12:49 AM
If I spoke of the velocity of money, it's doubtful you'd know what it means without googling it. Same for Atwater. It's also doubtful that you know which strata of people spend money the least discriminantly.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is a discriminant? Is that like a defendant in a civil rights case, or just a discerning ant?

BroncoJoe
03-13-2011, 10:13 AM
What I can agree with is something someone said on the radio the other day:

Without the NFL, the owners would still be billionaires.
The players? Just a bunch of really big dudes.

jhildebrand
03-13-2011, 12:41 PM
If we are looking to lay blame...

Lay blame at the feet of the late Gene Upshaw and Paul Tagliabue. Paul while often very strong (see moving Super Bowl from AZ to Pasadena because AZ wouldn't recognize MLK day) got vaught in a soft moment and Upshaw capitalized.

They both could see the writing on the wall! Tagliabue fresh off the new tv deal wanted to be able to hand the league over and say he accomplished it all.

The problem is the deal the two hammered out, was known AT THAT TIME to be a stop gap or temporary deal at best. They were counting on people to forget about that as most people have. The consensus was they would certainly get a new deal done between 07 and 2010. It was KNOWN at that time the owners would opt out immediately following the 10 season. That happened.

So...if you want to lay blame. Lay the blame on the regime that put a bandaid on a breaking levee and passed the buck.

As for the right here and now-I blame them both! I don't like to see the league to use the labor situation in WI for their argument. I don't like the league saying there are papers some of their own teams haven't seen. I don't like DeMaurice smith and the players and their refusal to see what everybody else is forced to live with/through.

Finally, I don't think the league warrants anti trust exemption anymore. Strip that from them and the fans win in every regard /:rant:

jhildebrand
03-13-2011, 12:48 PM
trickle down economics has failed at every turn..

:confused:

Not sure I agree with that nor there aren't facts that clearly dispute the notion :noidea:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree and leave it for the P&R forum.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 01:09 PM
What I can agree with is something someone said on the radio the other day:

Without the NFL, the owners would still be billionaires.
The players? Just a bunch of really big dudes.

True.
I think it'd be cool if all 32 teams were put on the market. Let's see some squirming....
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Fan in Exile
03-13-2011, 01:10 PM
I love it. Every college kid who just took an economics class is a "master of the CBA", and of the economy all of a sudden.

If it was so damned easy, why isn't it all figured out, yet? The only thing more complicated than money, is women, IMO.

;)

I would say that the issues are simple but they aren't easy.

The Owners should get the money to cover expenses (current and future), and a reasonable return on investment, the rest should go to the players, with the most given to veterans who are still playing at a high level, along with guarantees for injuries. See simple

But it's money so it's not easy, not to mention the fact that they don't trust each other anymore.

I still think we'll have games in September though.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 01:19 PM
I would say that the issues are simple but they aren't easy.

The Owners should get the money to cover expenses (current and future), and a reasonable return on investment, the rest should go to the players, with the most given to veterans who are still playing at a high level, along with guarantees for injuries. See simple

But it's money so it's not easy, not to mention the fact that they don't trust each other anymore.

I still think we'll have games in September though.

that was already happening before the owners decided to screw things up

everyone was making money, even the small market teams

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 04:45 PM
you've got edumacated people here, smartypanties. Businessmen/women, master degrees. Put your denigrating attitude to rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ha! Then let them reveal themselves because its certainly not anyone I've been talking with. You're amusing.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 05:46 PM
Ha! Then let them reveal themselves because its certainly not anyone I've been talking with. You're amusing.
lmao.....
....at the 1st time I have to prove anything to anybody on a football forum.

You're cute. I might keep my eye on you.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 06:38 PM
lmao.....
....at the 1st time I have to prove anything to anybody on a football forum.

You're cute. I might keep my eye on you.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Save it for someone who doesn't know better.

KCL
03-13-2011, 06:39 PM
I love it. Every college kid who just took an economics class is a "master of the CBA", and of the economy all of a sudden.

If it was so damned easy, why isn't it all figured out, yet? The only thing more complicated than money, is women, IMO.

;)

I was getting ready to high5 this til I read your last sentence...:mad:
men can be complicated to...;)
okay I will give you half of a high5..I agree with the first part.

KCL
03-13-2011, 06:44 PM
I just wish all these people who are wealthier than me would think of the fans..:tsk:

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 06:45 PM
off topic...please stop acting like you're so intelligent...your post say otherwise...that is all..back to topic.
(Maybe he's Mensa!) :eek:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 06:49 PM
off topic...please stop acting like you're so intelligent...your post say otherwise...that is all..back to topic.

Who the **** are you? Does it not occur to you how pathetic it is that a chief fan would spend so much time at a Broncos message board? And to think you would question anyone's intelligence. Just on the basis of being a chiefs fan alone, its more than a little hysterical that you would feel qualified to chime in.

Maybe you should go work on your camaro.

ST*U

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 06:53 PM
He has picked fights with just about every established member on this board.
Maybe he ought to see if his boyfriend could do better?

-----

This coming from a guy who routinely trolls with his pro-Orton garbage.

BTW, speaking of boyfriends, it seems like this guy tries to brown nose practically every screen name he recognizes.

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 06:55 PM
LMAO....Ah I hit a nerve...:D

Its not so much a nerve. I have a low tolerance for the stupid. Congratulations.

topscribe
03-13-2011, 06:57 PM
Obviously it has not occurred to some of you, but KCL is one of the better liked members of this board.

-----

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 06:59 PM
Yep I hit a nerve...:elefant:

Not really. In case you're not aware, I showed you the same tolerance as I did any one else. Are you saying they hit a nerve?

Thats a rhetorical question, btw.

atwater27
03-13-2011, 07:01 PM
Who the **** are you? Does it not occur to you how pathetic it is that a chief fan would spend so much time at a Broncos message board? And to think you would question anyone's intelligence. Just on the basis of being a chiefs fan alone, its more than a little hysterical that you would feel qualified to chime in.

Maybe you should go work on your camaro.

ST*U

If you put it to a vote, 99.9% of this board would keep KC over you if given the choice, so eat it.

Go work on your Prius.

atwater27
03-13-2011, 07:02 PM
Its not so much a nerve. I have a low tolerance for the stupid. Congratulations.

So I take it you have self-immunity?

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:05 PM
If you put it to a vote, 99.9% of this board would keep KC over you if given the choice, so eat it.

Go work on your Prius.

Perhaps, but then, people like you would be voting. So thats not really saying much.

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:10 PM
It's not saying much about you....derrrrrrrr...you didn't figure that out?
:lol:

What I've learned is that you bring nothing to the table other than highfiving various moronic posts because they're made by people you like.

Awesome.

Bullgator was right. You havent really had anything relevant to say about anything once you look at the thread topic. So, again, ST*U and GT*O.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Its not so much a nerve. I have a low tolerance for the stupid. Congratulations.
wow....insult throwing is so......yesterday.

I just LUV internet bullies.


Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:15 PM
The only thing you've managed to do is make an ass out of yourself but hey
who am I to get in your way...carry on.

wow...awesome.

Get lost. Nothing you've said has been on topic. If you want to talk about asses, you should find a different thread to talk about your own. Im sure there would be people who are interested in hearing about it. Topscribe comes to mind.

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:17 PM
:lol:

I'm still waiting for you to say something on topic.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 07:18 PM
Get lost. Nothing you've said has been on topic. If you want to talk about asses, you should find a different thread to talk about your own. Im sure there would be people who are interested in hearing about it. Topscribe comes to mind.

Uuuhhhh......call me!! Oh baby! Your insulting is so erotic!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:26 PM
This is going to be my last post to you...you have done nothing but insult me and others..I pointed it out to you and you didn't like it...now let this thread get back to topic.

You've said nothing that was on topic.

topscribe
03-13-2011, 07:26 PM
This is going to be my last post to you...you have done nothing but insult me and others..I pointed it out to you and you didn't like it...now let this thread get back to topic.

Good idea.

:focus:

-----

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 07:28 PM
you have to understand this lil group will not stay on topic, they get their kicks on backing each others play however treydonkulous it is. they think they got a monopoly on this board and run things around here.

take it from me they are so weak they couldnt bend a wet noodle.

if they did have some weight i would be gone already what with all the effing sense i make. they dont like logic.

just ignore em if they bother you orange, i personally think its cute how they group together- its fun to take on their whole flock of sheepsies

Mmmmm....now I need to decide who insults the best between you two.

...decisions, decisions.........
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Agent of Orange
03-13-2011, 07:29 PM
you have to understand this lil group will not stay on topic, they get their kicks on backing each others play however treydonkulous it is. they think they got a monopoly on this board and run things around here.

take it from me they are so weak they couldnt bend a wet noodle.

if they did have some weight i would be gone already what with all the effing sense i make. they dont like logic.

just ignore em if they bother you orange, i personally think its cute how they group together- its fun to take on their whole flock of sheepsies

I can't argue with any of that. It's like they know they can't stand on their own so they fall back on each other.

KCL
03-13-2011, 07:33 PM
I don't see how anyone couldn't blame both sides in this case. At the end of the day it's rich people fighting over money. Not very attractive to the majority of the population who are struggling to hold on to their jobs and their families well being.

slick..this is exactly what my husband said when we were discussing this.
Millionaires fighting with billionaires..like I posted earlier I wish they would think of the fans..because w/o fans who pour a ton of money into the NFL where would the sport be?

I can remember years ago when players had to get jobs in the off season.

KCL
03-13-2011, 07:51 PM
KCCCCC Tops not on topic again! and he keeps touching me! i gotta pee are we there yet?



Seriously dude..get over it ok? so far I've been called stupid,pathetic,a sheep and a moron,insulted for being a KC fan(that one is my favorite btw) in this thread...let it go..and let WH's thread stay on topic.

atwater27
03-13-2011, 08:11 PM
Man we got some fierce trolls up in here. This is a perfect example of the need for negrep so we can hack these trolls into oblivion.

KCL
03-13-2011, 08:30 PM
well i dont call you stupid, a moron, pathetic or anything of the like...

i never did never will ... did call a group a flock of sheepsies but never named you =D

i did call you thread police >< i dont like it when you do that hall monitor thingthats why we got mods

Sorry you don't like it...doesn't mean I won't keep suggesting it.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 08:36 PM
Sorry you don't like it...doesn't mean I won't keep suggesting it.

I accept your apology :D

KCL
03-13-2011, 08:42 PM
With apologies to Warhorse, this thread looks like a candidate for the Black Hole . . .

-----

It just needs to be cleaned up really...it's a good thread.
I hate to see this happen...I look so forward to football when the fall gets here...even as bad as the Chiefs had been..OTOH this could save my husband's life...:lol:

KCL
03-13-2011, 08:48 PM
Okay, gotta proposition. To help out the mods, you delete your posts, and I'll
delete mine. How about you, RC? You game?

-----

I can do that...no problem but I really like the one talking about my Camero/mullet/Joe Montana jersey...lol

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 09:35 PM
Okay, gotta proposition. To help out the mods, you delete your posts, and I'll
delete mine. How about you, RC? You game?

-----

Isn't that a no-no? :confused:


Awww....ok. :tsk:

But I'm keeping up the ones where I got :hi5'd:, damnit! :mad:

topscribe
03-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Isn't that a no-no? :confused:


Awww....ok. :tsk:

But I'm keeping up the ones where I got :hi5'd:, damnit! :mad:

Left you with no choice, didn't we? :heh:

-----

topscribe
03-13-2011, 09:39 PM
:focus:

-----

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 09:49 PM
slick..this is exactly what my husband said when we were discussing this.
Millionaires fighting with billionaires..like I posted earlier I wish they would think of the fans..because w/o fans who pour a ton of money into the NFL where would the sport be?

I can remember years ago when players had to get jobs in the off season.

wow, really?

Didn't think you were THAT old! :eek:

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 09:52 PM
I can do that...no problem but I really like the one talking about my Camero/mullet/Joe Montana jersey...lol

I kinda like your mullet.


I mean...wow! You have a mullet? :defense:


It just needs to be cleaned up really...it's a good thread.
I hate to see this happen...I look so forward to football when the fall gets here...even as bad as the Chiefs had been..OTOH this could save my husband's life...:lol:

Well, it COULDA been a good thread, had it been taken seriously.

I mean, more people think McD is to blame?

:tsk:

WARHORSE
03-14-2011, 05:18 AM
Wow. I been gone a minute or two and the kids got into the superglue.


:salute:




I was stupid for putting Josh on the poll. It was simply too hard to resist for many of those who are still in recovery. ;)



Alas..............I was truly interested in the results.

Dean
03-14-2011, 05:52 AM
Can't you as the OP go back and delete that choice?

SR
03-14-2011, 08:12 AM
I don't think you can pin the blame on any one entity. It's a combination of the players and the owners. Hell, the NFLPA rep, Maurice Smith, told the players (allegedly) to prepare for a lockout before negotiations even began. If no one is willing to be flexible and comprimise, nothing will get accomplished.

rcsodak
03-14-2011, 08:49 AM
I don't think you can pin the blame on any one entity. It's a combination of the players and the owners. Hell, the NFLPA rep, Maurice Smith, told the players (allegedly) to prepare for a lockout before negotiations even began. If no one is willing to be flexible and comprimise, nothing will get accomplished.
Exactly. The moment they chose him, I knew this would happen. Lawyers don't negotiate. They litigate.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

SR
03-14-2011, 08:51 AM
Exactly. The moment they chose him, I knew this would happen. Lawyers don't negotiate. They litigate.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

He's an idiot. The moment I heard that, I lost all respect for him as the NFLPA representative. They could have chosen someone A LOT more compentent than him.

NameUsedBefore
03-14-2011, 09:19 AM
They were told to prepare for a lockout because they were suspicious the owners had already done the same. Judge Doty revealed that their suspicions were entirely correct, that the owners had been planning and preparing specifically for a lockout where they could stay comfortable sans football for a number of years through the multi-billion dollar T.V. deals.

SR
03-14-2011, 09:23 AM
I don't doubt that, but going in to it like that is being close minded. If both sides already had their minds made up, they should have skipped the whole negotiation thing and just gone to a lockout.

rcsodak
03-14-2011, 09:23 AM
They were told to prepare for a lockout because they were suspicious the owners had already done the same. Judge Doty revealed that their suspicions were entirely correct, that the owners had been planning and preparing specifically for a lockout where they could stay comfortable sans football for a number of years through the multi-billion dollar T.V. deals.

The judge offered his opinion...not sure it was a legal one or personal one since he was ruling on tv contract. And if I saw who the pa hired was smith, I might have tried covering my ass as well.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
03-14-2011, 04:09 PM
I don't think you can pin the blame on any one entity. It's a combination of the players and the owners. Hell, the NFLPA rep, Maurice Smith, told the players (allegedly) to prepare for a lockout before negotiations even began. If no one is willing to be flexible and comprimise, nothing will get accomplished.

Wait? You mean the players were preparing for something that could possibly happen? Say it aint so Joe!

SR
03-14-2011, 04:11 PM
Wait? You mean the players were preparing for something that could possibly happen? Say it aint so Joe!

It's not so much that. Being prepared "just in case" is the right thing to do, but for Smith to GO IN to the negotiations close minded is setting the entire NFL up for failure. I'm not pinning the lockout on solely him, obviously, but you can't negotiate close minded. Part of negotiation is comprimise. If you're close minded, there won't be any comprimise.

Northman
03-14-2011, 04:17 PM
It's not so much that. Being prepared "just in case" is the right thing to do, but for Smith to GO IN to the negotiations close minded is setting the entire NFL up for failure. I'm not pinning the lockout on solely him, obviously, but you can't negotiate close minded. Part of negotiation is comprimise. If you're close minded, there won't be any comprimise.

Of course, i was just goofing with you because Bullgator was implying that the owners had somehow tried to be sneaky when all they were doing was preparing for the same thing the players were. Everyone knew both sides were going to butt heads when it came time to create a new CBA.

SR
03-14-2011, 04:18 PM
Gotcha.

It would be foolish not to prepare for a lockout, but as I previously stated, it sounds like both sides had their minds made up before any talking actually went down.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-14-2011, 04:27 PM
Of course, i was just goofing with you because Bullgator was implying that the owners had somehow tried to be sneaky when all they were doing was preparing for the same thing the players were. Everyone knew both sides were going to butt heads when it came time to create a new CBA.

Exactly, the owners voted to opt out of the CBA in 2008. It wasn't like what is happening now was a big secret.

The problem is, people have know for 3 years it was coming and neither side did anything to try to preemptively fix the problem, they just took actions ahead of time so they could "stick it to" the other side if they didn't bend to their will.

Both sides are at fault. F them both.

Oh, McDaniels sucks and I'm sure he had a hand in this too so it's really his fault...

SR
03-14-2011, 04:29 PM
Sounds like the government when they vote on the annual defense budget. That shit is supposed to be approved before the start of the fiscal year in Oct, but never gets finalized until it's too late.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Sounds like the government when they vote on the annual defense budget. That shit is supposed to be approved before the start of the fiscal year in Oct, but never gets finalized until it's too late.

Strange, they've never had a problem voting themselves a pay raise, though...:confused:

SR
03-14-2011, 04:42 PM
Strange, they've never had a problem voting themselves a pay raise, though...:confused:

Sure haven't. I'd love to make what they make dammit.

GEM
03-14-2011, 04:45 PM
Exactly, the owners voted to opt out of the CBA in 2008. It wasn't like what is happening now was a big secret.

The problem is, people have know for 3 years it was coming and neither side did anything to try to preemptively fix the problem, they just took actions ahead of time so they could "stick it to" the other side if they didn't bend to their will.

Both sides are at fault. F them both.

Oh, McDaniels sucks and I'm sure he had a hand in this too so it's really his fault...

That lousy little *******. :lol:

NightTerror218
03-15-2011, 11:19 AM
I would say the Players....why do then need to have soooo much money.....the owners are already billionaires deal with it....but the owners take on all the expense and players take none and with all costs going up and with reduced ticket sales there is less income...so to off set the owners wanted more "guaranteed" off the top....5 years worth of book is a lot that was audited and requiring 10 years is absurd you are just testing the owners to see what they will give you....the owners back off their initial offer and the players union never budged. They had done counter offers that gave the players more money over all and would not accept anything less then what they were getting now......the players were not going to budge ever.....like almost all pro athletes they are too greedy.....i say screw em...give us a year of replacement players and show the players that they are not the ones in control of this game, we can have it without them.....sooo many college players would love to play for a quarter of what the pros make

BroncoNut
03-15-2011, 11:23 AM
I think you forgot to include one very important option WH, I think the scumbag agents are the cause of alot of this bs

rcsodak
03-15-2011, 12:55 PM
I think you forgot to include one very important option WH, I think the scumbag agents are the cause of alot of this bs
Heard Rosenhaus/Conden interviews on Sirius.
You'd think they would kinda keep their feelings close to their chests, as to not piss either side off....but they both blamed the NFL.

Rosenhous is an idiot though, saying the current/future economy should have no bearing in the owners' reasons.
Huh? :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums