Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue?

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by 44Champs

Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world?

The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

lynwood · 01-26-2011, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

papz · 01-26-2011, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries.

Neutral for that very same reason. Both sides have valid points... just looking for a median. Like everyone else, the rookie pay scale, the top 7 at least, needs a big adjustment. I'd like to see something like the NBA where they're guaranteed their first 3 years or so... then becoming restricted free agents open for the bidding. If they perform well, they'll get it all back in a short period of time.

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

Here's where you are totally off base. A relatively small percentage of players make "millions" of dollars. The vast majority make closer to league minimums and only play for a handful of years. The players that need taken care of aren't the superstars, but those players from a couple of decades ago that were making not much more than some of us and are basically crippled or suffering from brain damage due to the playing conditions at the time. That not to say that today's players can't suffer the same fate.

You are under the false impression that all NFL players are rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the players are not asking for lifetime blanket coverage. All they are wanting is assistance to those suffering from debilitating injuries suffered on the job.

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 04:15 PM

In the 1970's the minimum salary for a rookie was $12,500 and $13,000 for a vet. Veterans were making well under $100K per year in the early 1980's. The strike in 1982 drove up players salaries with the average being $198,000. The minimum remained fairly low, though. It wasn't until the 1990's that minimums started edging up a bit. They reached $200K in 2000 and was $310K last year. Of course, in that bracket, taxes and such eat up close to half.

skymike · 01-26-2011, 06:01 PM

Owners.

Their payroll is astronomical, and they're between a rock and a hard place, with players demanding a billion dollars, and fans demanding they pay the top notch players. Its amazing how people are so eager to spend someone elses money.

Its simple really: When you pay astronomical salaries, the tickets cost more, the food costs more, the parking is more, the stadium needs luxury suites, and the need grows and grows out of control, until suddenly your stadium, with perfectly working grass and lights suddenly is not good enough, so your team moves to a city that is sucker enough to mortgage its future.

Not to mention they charge tv more, so tv needs more commercials, which is why we have to stop the game every time someone takes a breath. This is also why everything is sponsored from the "Whitney Bank First Down," to the kid who picks up the tee, to eventually the toilet paper. Because we're running out of ways to scrap up money for the billion dollar payroll.

Wouldnt it be amazing if the only thing you saw on the big screen was the game, and all you heard was Romig's play by play and the crowd?

The owners are the ones who invest and risk so we can all have an NFL. If not for them, the players would be playing in a sandlot somewhere for nothing. Our owner swept floors and hustled to get where he is.

Nevertheless, an 18 game schedule is a horrible idea. If you dont like preseason, dont watch preseason. I sell my preseason tix-- its not that hard. 18 reg. season games will change the whole dynamic of the game, not for the better, esp. for small markets. Youre a fool, if you change things that work.

Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20?

saintfan · 01-26-2011, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by skymike

Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20?

Speaking for me and for me only...not very smart, and I can imagine a lot of those kids aren't getting great advice and guidance during and right after school - and still they're getting more than most. Still that 300k MINIMUM could potentially be increased if they address rookie pay, and I shouldn't have to pay extra because they aren't financially responsible. They get rookie counseling. If they piss it away on the things SM mentions...not my problem.

The most I've ever made in a year was 114k. It's not as much as you might think, BUT, it's enough to live and raise a family on. Most people manage to do it for a hell of a lot less, sometimes risking more than any NFL player does.

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 08:20 PM

The players are not asking for more money. They are asking that what they are currently making isn't cut by over 20% and being forced to increase their work time by almost 10%.

Would any of you accept this if it happened to you? I wouldn't. Basically, the owners are saying that they want to add more to their billions by paying less for more at the player's expense. I don't care if you work at some corner store or are an elite athlete, this is wrong.

Crusader · 01-27-2011, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by skymike

Owners.

Their payroll is astronomical, and they're between a rock and a hard place, with players demanding a billion dollars, and fans demanding they pay the top notch players. Its amazing how people are so eager to spend someone elses money.

Its simple really: When you pay astronomical salaries, the tickets cost more, the food costs more, the parking is more, the stadium needs luxury suites, and the need grows and grows out of control, until suddenly your stadium, with perfectly working grass and lights suddenly is not good enough, so your team moves to a city that is sucker enough to mortgage its future.

Not to mention they charge tv more, so tv needs more commercials, which is why we have to stop the game every time someone takes a breath. This is also why everything is sponsored from the "Whitney Bank First Down," to the kid who picks up the tee, to eventually the toilet paper. Because we're running out of ways to scrap up money for the billion dollar payroll.

Wouldnt it be amazing if the only thing you saw on the big screen was the game, and all you heard was Romig's play by play and the crowd?

The owners are the ones who invest and risk so we can all have an NFL. If not for them, the players would be playing in a sandlot somewhere for nothing. Our owner swept floors and hustled to get where he is.

Nevertheless, an 18 game schedule is a horrible idea. If you dont like preseason, dont watch preseason. I sell my preseason tix-- its not that hard. 18 reg. season games will change the whole dynamic of the game, not for the better, esp. for small markets. Youre a fool, if you change things that work.

Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20?

An excellent post all in all. I especially like the last part "they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years" Why is it that so many athletes think they shouldn't have to work once they stop playing. I mean a job is a job. In the case of moste every NFL player their talent has already paid for a top notch college education which, if a player really studied, should give ample oppetunities for said player to find a job once he quit playing.

neugey · 01-27-2011, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Crusader

In the case of moste every NFL player their talent has already paid for a top notch college education which, if a player really studied, should give ample oppetunities for said player to find a job once he quit playing.

Agreed! And yet so many people criticized Andrew Luck for going back to complete his degree. At Stanford and on full scholarship!

View Poll Results: Do you side with the Owners or the Players on the CBA issue?
OWNERS - they take the risks and drive the business	17	53.13%
PLAYERS - they do all the work on the field and provide the entertainment to the fans	15	46.88%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

01-26-2011, 12:00 PM	#11
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Originally Posted by 44Champs Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world? The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

01-26-2011, 12:02 PM	#12
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut. Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

01-26-2011, 12:31 PM	#13
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,753	Originally Posted by saintfan It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries. Neutral for that very same reason. Both sides have valid points... just looking for a median. Like everyone else, the rookie pay scale, the top 7 at least, needs a big adjustment. I'd like to see something like the NBA where they're guaranteed their first 3 years or so... then becoming restricted free agents open for the bidding. If they perform well, they'll get it all back in a short period of time.

01-26-2011, 03:54 PM	#14
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Originally Posted by lynwood Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man Here's where you are totally off base. A relatively small percentage of players make "millions" of dollars. The vast majority make closer to league minimums and only play for a handful of years. The players that need taken care of aren't the superstars, but those players from a couple of decades ago that were making not much more than some of us and are basically crippled or suffering from brain damage due to the playing conditions at the time. That not to say that today's players can't suffer the same fate. You are under the false impression that all NFL players are rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the players are not asking for lifetime blanket coverage. All they are wanting is assistance to those suffering from debilitating injuries suffered on the job.

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

01-26-2011, 04:15 PM	#15
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	In the 1970's the minimum salary for a rookie was $12,500 and $13,000 for a vet. Veterans were making well under $100K per year in the early 1980's. The strike in 1982 drove up players salaries with the average being $198,000. The minimum remained fairly low, though. It wasn't until the 1990's that minimums started edging up a bit. They reached $200K in 2000 and was $310K last year. Of course, in that bracket, taxes and such eat up close to half.

01-26-2011, 06:01 PM	#16
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Owners. Their payroll is astronomical, and they're between a rock and a hard place, with players demanding a billion dollars, and fans demanding they pay the top notch players. Its amazing how people are so eager to spend someone elses money. Its simple really: When you pay astronomical salaries, the tickets cost more, the food costs more, the parking is more, the stadium needs luxury suites, and the need grows and grows out of control, until suddenly your stadium, with perfectly working grass and lights suddenly is not good enough, so your team moves to a city that is sucker enough to mortgage its future. Not to mention they charge tv more, so tv needs more commercials, which is why we have to stop the game every time someone takes a breath. This is also why everything is sponsored from the "Whitney Bank First Down," to the kid who picks up the tee, to eventually the toilet paper. Because we're running out of ways to scrap up money for the billion dollar payroll. Wouldnt it be amazing if the only thing you saw on the big screen was the game, and all you heard was Romig's play by play and the crowd? The owners are the ones who invest and risk so we can all have an NFL. If not for them, the players would be playing in a sandlot somewhere for nothing. Our owner swept floors and hustled to get where he is. Nevertheless, an 18 game schedule is a horrible idea. If you dont like preseason, dont watch preseason. I sell my preseason tix-- its not that hard. 18 reg. season games will change the whole dynamic of the game, not for the better, esp. for small markets. Youre a fool, if you change things that work. Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20?

01-26-2011, 06:40 PM	#17
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by skymike Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20? Speaking for me and for me only...not very smart, and I can imagine a lot of those kids aren't getting great advice and guidance during and right after school - and still they're getting more than most. Still that 300k MINIMUM could potentially be increased if they address rookie pay, and I shouldn't have to pay extra because they aren't financially responsible. They get rookie counseling. If they piss it away on the things SM mentions...not my problem. The most I've ever made in a year was 114k. It's not as much as you might think, BUT, it's enough to live and raise a family on. Most people manage to do it for a hell of a lot less, sometimes risking more than any NFL player does.
	C'mon Man...

01-26-2011, 08:20 PM	#18
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	The players are not asking for more money. They are asking that what they are currently making isn't cut by over 20% and being forced to increase their work time by almost 10%. Would any of you accept this if it happened to you? I wouldn't. Basically, the owners are saying that they want to add more to their billions by paying less for more at the player's expense. I don't care if you work at some corner store or are an elite athlete, this is wrong.

01-27-2011, 04:28 AM	#19
Crusader Resident Swede Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Märsta, Sweden Posts: 8,025	Originally Posted by skymike Owners. Their payroll is astronomical, and they're between a rock and a hard place, with players demanding a billion dollars, and fans demanding they pay the top notch players. Its amazing how people are so eager to spend someone elses money. Its simple really: When you pay astronomical salaries, the tickets cost more, the food costs more, the parking is more, the stadium needs luxury suites, and the need grows and grows out of control, until suddenly your stadium, with perfectly working grass and lights suddenly is not good enough, so your team moves to a city that is sucker enough to mortgage its future. Not to mention they charge tv more, so tv needs more commercials, which is why we have to stop the game every time someone takes a breath. This is also why everything is sponsored from the "Whitney Bank First Down," to the kid who picks up the tee, to eventually the toilet paper. Because we're running out of ways to scrap up money for the billion dollar payroll. Wouldnt it be amazing if the only thing you saw on the big screen was the game, and all you heard was Romig's play by play and the crowd? The owners are the ones who invest and risk so we can all have an NFL. If not for them, the players would be playing in a sandlot somewhere for nothing. Our owner swept floors and hustled to get where he is. Nevertheless, an 18 game schedule is a horrible idea. If you dont like preseason, dont watch preseason. I sell my preseason tix-- its not that hard. 18 reg. season games will change the whole dynamic of the game, not for the better, esp. for small markets. Youre a fool, if you change things that work. Players make more than enough to live comfortably, and if someone will help them to save and invest, rather than splurge on jewelry, cars, shoes, ho's, and bastard children, they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years. Their salaries need shrinking. Their savings and investments need growing. They need to take care of their future, and stop worrying about who's got the most bling. Remember, these are 20 year olds. How smart were we when we were 20? An excellent post all in all. I especially like the last part "they could live the rest of their lives off the work of a few years" Why is it that so many athletes think they shouldn't have to work once they stop playing. I mean a job is a job. In the case of moste every NFL player their talent has already paid for a top notch college education which, if a player really studied, should give ample oppetunities for said player to find a job once he quit playing.

01-27-2011, 10:23 AM	#20
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,715 Blog Entries: 13	Originally Posted by Crusader In the case of moste every NFL player their talent has already paid for a top notch college education which, if a player really studied, should give ample oppetunities for said player to find a job once he quit playing. Agreed! And yet so many people criticized Andrew Luck for going back to complete his degree. At Stanford and on full scholarship!