Thread: Who is in the Right?

I know that there have probablly been polls like this before on broncos forums before but I'm curious to see your opinion.

Who are you rooting for in this debate of epic proportions?

The owners orrrr........

The players?

I dont care if the players make 50K a year. In fact, I prefer that scenario. I really dont see what leverage they have. Most of these jabronies cant do anything else.

I like baby ducks myself....they are cute and fuzzy

For the long term good of the league the owners who have invested millions have to get a good contract.

Both sides are greedy and entitled. Both were extremely profitable prior to the lockout. Both deserve nothing but extreme animosity and disdain from fans.

Well, based on those poll choices, it's tough to answer. Especially, since the thread title is "who is in the right" and then the question is "who do you side with." I think those are two very different questions.

Who is in the right, I think I would say neither. The way both sides are handling things is far from ideal.

Now, in terms of who do I side with? If I have to pick one, then I have to go with the owners.

First, they own the businesses. They should get the lion share of the profits. If the players feel they "are the league", then they have every right to go start their own league, just like people have tried to do in the past.

Second, my loyalty to the Broncos and the NFL extends past the current crop of players. In fact, the changes in terms of free agency has created more player turnover and has 'hurt' the league from a fan/team perspective. I fully understand it from a player's standpoint, and think the version of free agency we've had for a while (RFA's and UFA's) was a decent compromise. Still, the Tebow's, Clady's and Royals of the world will come and go, and while I like them, I will be rooting for the next generation of Broncos players 10 years from now.

Third and finally, I have a problem with the player's tactics. I think they made a bad choice in terms of De Smith and their other council (can't remember his name). Their inflammatory speak and use of the press has at least, speaking personally, damaged my view of the players and their position. From talking about the worst union deal ever, to the equivalent of slavery (more from player reps), to threatening to decertify (and then doing it after the lockout), and finally to threaten to go to court to find some of the most fundamental aspects of the game we love, like the draft or the ability to trade players, to be illegal.

So, while I think both sides are losing sight of the "golden egg", us or more accurately our money or money spent to get us to watch the networks, I can't put equal weight in terms of blame for where we are at. So, I have to lean towards siding with the owners.

I would have to say owners, since it is their business and they are the ones taking care of all expenses and costs to run the business. The players act like they are the whole reason there is a league. I bet there are hundreds of college players who are FA or never drafted that would play for 10% of what the league minimum is. They would be almost as exciting being replacement players.

The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

I hope they all get herpes.

Bunch of greedy effing chicken******s.

Originally Posted by Grover

The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

Originally Posted by Buff

But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

That thought process is not limited to NFL players. Seems most everyone now feels they are entilited to something.

Originally Posted by Buff

But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

Yep, and hence they both have enough leverage that neither side has caved easily.

I side with the owners. I have posted the following before, where players commented on the great deal they got in 2006. There is definitely a totally different economy out there now, than there was in 2006. From what the players stated in regards to the 2006 CBA, it appears that the owners gave them everything they wanted. I believe the players should now be realistic in regards to this new CBA.

“We had a great deal,” Warner recently said, per Mike Sando of ESPN.com. “We had one of the best deals, in my opinion, of any of the pro sports when you talking about all of the things involved. Players knew that. We understood that. It afforded us lots of luxuries and making a lot of money.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...y-of-2006-cba/

Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle. “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout. We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much. I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing? I mean we are killing them on this.’ I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it. I knew there had to be a lockout this time around. I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...e-for-players/

Originally Posted by Grover

The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

spot on.

Why cant the nfl just come out with their own set of rules and if the players dont want to play they don't have to? Like say x% is for the players no negotiations you either play or you don't?