The Elephant in the room.....

SaintPauly · 09-12-2010, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by spkb25

Private VS Public refers to (and I know you know this) independent of the Gov, or run by the gov.

The main difference is choice- people can choose to spend the money for this product (the NFL). If they do not want their product they won't buy it.

The Government forces you to buy their product. There is no choice.

Your other point though Saint Paul- I don't know what is going to happen if they lock out. They will all lose money- it will not be good for anyone

Another point on this I want to bring up is, exactly what you said: private money. With free agency, each player could be considered, a business to themselves. We all shout from the rooftops about salary caps, and how that "balances" the competitive scales, and makes it to where small market teams, such as the Saints, can have a chance to win championships. We blast owners like Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder, for trying to spend their "private money", to buy players, that small market teams cannot, to win championships. Now, if I read something wrong into your views on this issue, i apologize, but it seems to me, that you aren't a fan of the cap. You believe, in your own words, that a man should be allowed to spend his private money, as he sees fit, right? Then in that mindframe, it seems to me, that you would also have to believe, that owners should be allowed to spend as much of THEIR MONEY, as they want, to buy as many players as they want. That is the impression you are giving.

spkb25 · 09-12-2010, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

I don't agree with this either. When fans get fed up with coaches, and players, if they raise enough hell, management eventually gets the message, and makes a change. I'm not saying they are going to call us to see who we should, and shouldn't sign, but the fans have alot more influence than you seem to acknowledge.

If this was really the case the Saints would have folded a long time ago- they didn't win a playoff game for more than 30 years of their existence.

I do agree that when the quality of their product is suffering they do look to improve it- as a business you have to, but that has nothing to do with their right to pay their employees. They don't listen to you on that. Not at all. That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that.

SaintPauly · 09-12-2010, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by spkb25

If this was really the case the Saints would have folded a long time ago- they didn't win a playoff game for more than 30 years of their existence.

I do agree that when the quality of their product is suffering they do look to improve it- as a business you have to, but that has nothing to do with their right to pay their employees. They don't listen to you on that. Not at all. That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that.

Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap.

"That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that."

If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money.

strato · 09-13-2010, 12:09 AM

spkb25 · 09-13-2010, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap.

"That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that."

If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money.

I don't know what you mean by both ways. The player decides whether he is willing to play for that amount- he doesn't have to.

Yes, accept where there are binding agreements otherwise. Whatever rules and/or laws the NFL has set up would have to be followed.

SP- If the money doesn't belong to you you can't direct it. Why would you feel you have that right? That is a strange concept to me.

spkb25 · 09-13-2010, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap.

"That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that."

If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money.

Also, how did we get on this topic- my original post was against the idea that teachers and the police, etc should be paid more than athletes if someone is willing to pay athletes more.

bobad · 09-13-2010, 10:08 AM

The demonstrations are a turnoff to me. They look childish at best, and thuggish at worst. Pay disputes are a private matter, and should be kept private. As a fan, I don't want to be pulled into this fight and forced to choose sides. If you want to be a pro football player, play ball! If you want to be a politician, hang up your cleats and go for it.

Choupique · 09-13-2010, 10:13 AM

I have no problem with a players organization showing solidarity in the face of the couch potato nation on the most watched football game in a long time. Good for them.

pherein · 09-13-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by spkb25

No Problem man. It is okay for us to think differently, but one thing we agree on- GEAUX SAINTS!!!!

yep, on that theres no need for debate , TWO DAT!!!! brother.

nogumbo4u · 09-13-2010, 11:55 AM

What we have is millionaire players complaining to their billionaire owners, and vice-versa. At the end of the day any increase in money on either side is passed down to you and me, not absorbed by the owners. When Nike or whoever pays an athlete a crazy check for endorsements the costs are trickled down to you and me in the price tag of their products. It's the fans who always get the shaft. We should be the ones holding our fingers up in solidarity. I love football but the salaries have become gross, for everyone involved.

The QB is the highest paid position due to the fact that they are the most vulnerable. However, there are increasing rules protecting the quarterback and their salaries continue to grow (see Tom Brady's recent deal). My opinion, for every rule that is added to protect a player, their salaries are reduced. If the logic is increased pay due to danger effect then reduced pay for less danger makes sense.

Is my suggestion silly, of course. But it just goes to show how what is going on in the NFL is not logically sound.

I think the NFL is not unlike the real estate market was, artificially inflated. Every bubble pops. The NFL is not exempt from the laws of economics.

Probably took that to a different level than intended but had to vent.

09-12-2010, 11:20 PM	#41
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by spkb25 Private VS Public refers to (and I know you know this) independent of the Gov, or run by the gov. The main difference is choice- people can choose to spend the money for this product (the NFL). If they do not want their product they won't buy it. The Government forces you to buy their product. There is no choice. Your other point though Saint Paul- I don't know what is going to happen if they lock out. They will all lose money- it will not be good for anyone Another point on this I want to bring up is, exactly what you said: private money. With free agency, each player could be considered, a business to themselves. We all shout from the rooftops about salary caps, and how that "balances" the competitive scales, and makes it to where small market teams, such as the Saints, can have a chance to win championships. We blast owners like Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder, for trying to spend their "private money", to buy players, that small market teams cannot, to win championships. Now, if I read something wrong into your views on this issue, i apologize, but it seems to me, that you aren't a fan of the cap. You believe, in your own words, that a man should be allowed to spend his private money, as he sees fit, right? Then in that mindframe, it seems to me, that you would also have to believe, that owners should be allowed to spend as much of THEIR MONEY, as they want, to buy as many players as they want. That is the impression you are giving.
	What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.....

09-12-2010, 11:29 PM	#42
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,101	Originally Posted by saintpaul25 I don't agree with this either. When fans get fed up with coaches, and players, if they raise enough hell, management eventually gets the message, and makes a change. I'm not saying they are going to call us to see who we should, and shouldn't sign, but the fans have alot more influence than you seem to acknowledge. If this was really the case the Saints would have folded a long time ago- they didn't win a playoff game for more than 30 years of their existence. I do agree that when the quality of their product is suffering they do look to improve it- as a business you have to, but that has nothing to do with their right to pay their employees. They don't listen to you on that. Not at all. That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that.
	Your team stinks

09-12-2010, 11:31 PM	#43
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by spkb25 If this was really the case the Saints would have folded a long time ago- they didn't win a playoff game for more than 30 years of their existence. I do agree that when the quality of their product is suffering they do look to improve it- as a business you have to, but that has nothing to do with their right to pay their employees. They don't listen to you on that. Not at all. That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that. Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap. "That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that." If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money.
	What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular..... Last edited by SaintPauly; 09-12-2010 at 11:37 PM..

09-13-2010, 02:17 AM	#45
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,101	Originally Posted by saintpaul25 Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap. "That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that." If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money. I don't know what you mean by both ways. The player decides whether he is willing to play for that amount- he doesn't have to. Yes, accept where there are binding agreements otherwise. Whatever rules and/or laws the NFL has set up would have to be followed. SP- If the money doesn't belong to you you can't direct it. Why would you feel you have that right? That is a strange concept to me.

09-13-2010, 02:21 AM	#46
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,101	Originally Posted by saintpaul25 Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap. "That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that." If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money. Also, how did we get on this topic- my original post was against the idea that teachers and the police, etc should be paid more than athletes if someone is willing to pay athletes more.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-13-2010, 12:09 AM	#44
strato Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: "Little Ole Town in Tejas" Posts: 7,586

09-13-2010, 10:08 AM	#47
bobad 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 247	The demonstrations are a turnoff to me. They look childish at best, and thuggish at worst. Pay disputes are a private matter, and should be kept private. As a fan, I don't want to be pulled into this fight and forced to choose sides. If you want to be a pro football player, play ball! If you want to be a politician, hang up your cleats and go for it.
bobad 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 247

09-13-2010, 10:13 AM	#48
Choupique 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 2,594	I have no problem with a players organization showing solidarity in the face of the couch potato nation on the most watched football game in a long time. Good for them.
Choupique 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 2,594

09-13-2010, 10:37 AM	#49
pherein failclownHunter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: N.O. and V.A. Posts: 2,260 Blog Entries: 3	Originally Posted by spkb25 No Problem man. It is okay for us to think differently, but one thing we agree on- GEAUX SAINTS!!!! yep, on that theres no need for debate , TWO DAT!!!! brother.

09-13-2010, 11:55 AM	#50
nogumbo4u Registered Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Orbitting NOLA Posts: 57	What we have is millionaire players complaining to their billionaire owners, and vice-versa. At the end of the day any increase in money on either side is passed down to you and me, not absorbed by the owners. When Nike or whoever pays an athlete a crazy check for endorsements the costs are trickled down to you and me in the price tag of their products. It's the fans who always get the shaft. We should be the ones holding our fingers up in solidarity. I love football but the salaries have become gross, for everyone involved. The QB is the highest paid position due to the fact that they are the most vulnerable. However, there are increasing rules protecting the quarterback and their salaries continue to grow (see Tom Brady's recent deal). My opinion, for every rule that is added to protect a player, their salaries are reduced. If the logic is increased pay due to danger effect then reduced pay for less danger makes sense. Is my suggestion silly, of course. But it just goes to show how what is going on in the NFL is not logically sound. I think the NFL is not unlike the real estate market was, artificially inflated. Every bubble pops. The NFL is not exempt from the laws of economics. Probably took that to a different level than intended but had to vent.
	Proud member of the Who Dat Nation since 1974.