The Elephant in the room.....

SaintPauly · 09-12-2010, 10:31 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.

spkb25 · 09-13-2010, 01:17 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, 01:21 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.

09-12-2010, 10:31 PM	#1
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 10:37 PM..

09-13-2010, 01:17 AM	#2
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,138	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, 01:21 AM	#3
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,138	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.