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

lynwood · 01-27-2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

As do I. That's why I am totally against the owners threatening to shut down the league. The players want to play. The owners don't give a flying rat's ass and just want to put more of our money in their pockets.

I dissagree! The owners are just that OWNERS! They are bassically head of their own corporation and part of the NFL and unless you want to cap profits, they are entiltled to make what thay want. Knowing that the owners know in order to make a profit you have to put a quality product on the field and have the staff to back them up. All of this takes cash. If you look at the top payrolls of teams in the last few years Saints were in the top ten many of those years. Someone posted the salaries of teams here a while ago.

What would happen if an NFL team operated at a loss?

We have one of the best O-Lines in the league but everyone isn't going to make Drew Brees Money.

If the players want to be fair about it then negotiate a maximum salary per position along with the vet minimum. Everyone has a known pay scale.

The players know the risk of the Job when they sign up. It's all in the contract. I think to just sit back and say the owners just want to put more maney in theor pockets is silly when players hold out all the time for more cash!

Also not every NFL Organization makes the same profit. Some teams can't fill the seats.

As far as the older players go I do have some sympathy for them but again they knew the risk of playing a violent sport. You act as if they were taken advantage of. Couldn't they have purchased supplimental life? Or some outside risk insurance? Hell J-Lo insured her A$$.

If the players want lifetime medical and pension if they are injured fine. Just don't expect the salaries to go up.

Needless to say alot of what we are talking about is speculation on exactly what the details are concerning the players demands.

More pay how much and based on what?
Medical-What type and for how long?
Injury protection- What limits and how much?
Rookie Salary Caps-levels and what happens if rookie hold out.

My Job requires me to travel alot. If I get hurt in a car accident I'm not looking for my company to cover my medical for the rest of my life. They provide me with what they offered and I accepted. If I feel I need more protection I can call AFLAC.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

I dissagree! The owners are just that OWNERS! They are bassically head of their own corporation and part of the NFL and unless you want to cap profits, they are entiltled to make what thay want. Knowing that the owners know in order to make a profit you have to put a quality product on the field and have the staff to back them up. All of this takes cash. If you look at the top payrolls of teams in the last few years Saints were in the top ten many of those years. Someone posted the salaries of teams here a while ago.

What would happen if an NFL team operated at a loss?

We have one of the best O-Lines in the league but everyone isn't going to make Drew Brees Money.

If the players want to be fair about it then negotiate a maximum salary per position along with the vet minimum. Everyone has a known pay scale.

The players know the risk of the Job when they sign up. It's all in the contract. I think to just sit back and say the owners just want to put more maney in theor pockets is silly when players hold out all the time for more cash!

Also not every NFL Organization makes the same profit. Some teams can't fill the seats.

As far as the older players go I do have some sympathy for them but again they knew the risk of playing a violent sport. You act as if they were taken advantage of. Couldn't they have purchased supplimental life? Or some outside risk insurance? Hell J-Lo insured her A$$.

If the players want lifetime medical and pension if they are injured fine. Just don't expect the salaries to go up.

Needless to say alot of what we are talking about is speculation on exactly what the details are concerning the players demands.

More pay how much and based on what?
Medical-What type and for how long?
Injury protection- What limits and how much?
Rookie Salary Caps-levels and what happens if rookie hold out.

My Job requires me to travel alot. If I get hurt in a car accident I'm not looking for my company to cover my medical for the rest of my life. They provide me with what they offered and I accepted. If I feel I need more protection I can call AFLAC.

No NFL team operates at a loss. It is impossible with the TV and marketing money. The owners will make money with nobody in the stands.

The fact is that it wasn't the players making demands. It is the owners. The players have stated that they were happy with things the way they were. It is the owners that wanted things differently. The owners wanted an 18 game schedule and a shift of 18% in the revenue distribution from the players to the owners. Talk is that it will end up somewhere around 8% and the 18 game schedule will happen. The player are simply asking for something in return ... a better disability plan.

xan · 01-27-2011, 12:02 PM

If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world.

The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club.

Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts."

For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash.

For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated.

If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's.

I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by xan

If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world.

The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club.

Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts."

For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash.

For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated.

If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's.

I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment.

Keep dreaming. If state and city governments are willing to subsidize new stadiums owners will keeping milking that cow regardless of how much profit they are already making. And they will gladly raise ticket and food prices if they can squeeze a few more dollars out of us fans.

Veteran salaries are not the problem and players know that there needs to be rookies caps.

I could understand the contempt of the players had they made demands and threatened to strike. But, that isn't the case here at all. Any work stoppage is 100% on the owners. The players would gladly sign the old CBA and move right on. It is the demands of owners making more money every year than all of us put together in our lifetimes that are threatening to take our game away.

xan · 01-27-2011, 01:15 PM

Ah, but now, with municipalities under extreme duress, no owner making millions with a favorable CBA will be able to credibly poor mouth to gain public funding, especially since many of these initiatives have to gain ballot approval.

Funny thing about information, it makes things very transparent. Richer owners means that it will be hard for them to gain public support to get richer. That translates into lower taxes for Louisiana, and New Orleans.

Now if they'd only fix the roads...

CheramieIII · 01-28-2011, 05:40 PM

The owners the teams belong to them. If you don't like the working conditions where you work, even if the boss changes your duties then you find another job or shut up. I'm not saying they shouldn't get some kind of revenue sharing but I think it's getting way out of hand.

OldMaid · 01-31-2011, 10:48 AM

I did not vote because both sides are clearly right on some issues.

Salary-Owners.
Top guys name their pay. Mid -level guys get their due. Lower-level guys are still paid a great salary for the few years they play a few games, a few guarters, or side on the sidelines.

Financial advice-Player's Union.
These football players ,in my opinion, mostly come from single- female family households, lower-income families,
lack education about finances, sometimes a college degree and /or one that they can work in something after, imaturity, and really just lack of common sense.
They need NFL financial planning. Being given out their pay in parts for living on a budget. And the rest untouchable until retirement of 65. Maybe some at 40, 50, 60.
Hey,it works for the rest of us in our careers.

16 game season or not-Players.
16 games is enoguh for fans, networks, and esp. players and the owners too. Add the preseason games and you have 20 games. That is enough. Why water down the product. Canadian football, European football,arena football, former USFL anyone? There is the NFL and then there is just everything else. Lets keep it that way. Why have more and severe or career ending injuries.
Post season Play-off games, there are enough games.
Football is a fall thing, sport. Tradition. Not Spring or Summer sport.

Player Safety-players.
Bigger players, more injuires. The concussion thing is really serious. What are better ways to make the helments?
What ways to change some rules for player safety?

Moral behavior-Football fans.
NFL has somethings in place for this. Each team should have something in place for training camp seminars on avoiding the "club in the hood" and stuff like that.
Thugs and criminals, players in trouble with the law messes up the game for fans, teams,and the NFL.
Depending on the case, the NFL, teams, and fans should say enough and the player needs to be a former player and out of the NFL.

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

01-27-2011, 11:56 AM	#1
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido As do I. That's why I am totally against the owners threatening to shut down the league. The players want to play. The owners don't give a flying rat's ass and just want to put more of our money in their pockets. I dissagree! The owners are just that OWNERS! They are bassically head of their own corporation and part of the NFL and unless you want to cap profits, they are entiltled to make what thay want. Knowing that the owners know in order to make a profit you have to put a quality product on the field and have the staff to back them up. All of this takes cash. If you look at the top payrolls of teams in the last few years Saints were in the top ten many of those years. Someone posted the salaries of teams here a while ago. What would happen if an NFL team operated at a loss? We have one of the best O-Lines in the league but everyone isn't going to make Drew Brees Money. If the players want to be fair about it then negotiate a maximum salary per position along with the vet minimum. Everyone has a known pay scale. The players know the risk of the Job when they sign up. It's all in the contract. I think to just sit back and say the owners just want to put more maney in theor pockets is silly when players hold out all the time for more cash! Also not every NFL Organization makes the same profit. Some teams can't fill the seats. As far as the older players go I do have some sympathy for them but again they knew the risk of playing a violent sport. You act as if they were taken advantage of. Couldn't they have purchased supplimental life? Or some outside risk insurance? Hell J-Lo insured her A$$. If the players want lifetime medical and pension if they are injured fine. Just don't expect the salaries to go up. Needless to say alot of what we are talking about is speculation on exactly what the details are concerning the players demands. More pay how much and based on what? Medical-What type and for how long? Injury protection- What limits and how much? Rookie Salary Caps-levels and what happens if rookie hold out. My Job requires me to travel alot. If I get hurt in a car accident I'm not looking for my company to cover my medical for the rest of my life. They provide me with what they offered and I accepted. If I feel I need more protection I can call AFLAC.

01-27-2011, 12:27 PM	#2
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,472	Originally Posted by lynwood I dissagree! The owners are just that OWNERS! They are bassically head of their own corporation and part of the NFL and unless you want to cap profits, they are entiltled to make what thay want. Knowing that the owners know in order to make a profit you have to put a quality product on the field and have the staff to back them up. All of this takes cash. If you look at the top payrolls of teams in the last few years Saints were in the top ten many of those years. Someone posted the salaries of teams here a while ago. What would happen if an NFL team operated at a loss? We have one of the best O-Lines in the league but everyone isn't going to make Drew Brees Money. If the players want to be fair about it then negotiate a maximum salary per position along with the vet minimum. Everyone has a known pay scale. The players know the risk of the Job when they sign up. It's all in the contract. I think to just sit back and say the owners just want to put more maney in theor pockets is silly when players hold out all the time for more cash! Also not every NFL Organization makes the same profit. Some teams can't fill the seats. As far as the older players go I do have some sympathy for them but again they knew the risk of playing a violent sport. You act as if they were taken advantage of. Couldn't they have purchased supplimental life? Or some outside risk insurance? Hell J-Lo insured her A$$. If the players want lifetime medical and pension if they are injured fine. Just don't expect the salaries to go up. Needless to say alot of what we are talking about is speculation on exactly what the details are concerning the players demands. More pay how much and based on what? Medical-What type and for how long? Injury protection- What limits and how much? Rookie Salary Caps-levels and what happens if rookie hold out. My Job requires me to travel alot. If I get hurt in a car accident I'm not looking for my company to cover my medical for the rest of my life. They provide me with what they offered and I accepted. If I feel I need more protection I can call AFLAC. No NFL team operates at a loss. It is impossible with the TV and marketing money. The owners will make money with nobody in the stands. The fact is that it wasn't the players making demands. It is the owners. The players have stated that they were happy with things the way they were. It is the owners that wanted things differently. The owners wanted an 18 game schedule and a shift of 18% in the revenue distribution from the players to the owners. Talk is that it will end up somewhere around 8% and the 18 game schedule will happen. The player are simply asking for something in return ... a better disability plan.

01-27-2011, 12:02 PM	#3
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,372 Blog Entries: 34	If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world. The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club. Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts." For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash. For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated. If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's. I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment.
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

01-27-2011, 12:40 PM	#4
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,472	Originally Posted by xan If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world. The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club. Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts." For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash. For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated. If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's. I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment. Keep dreaming. If state and city governments are willing to subsidize new stadiums owners will keeping milking that cow regardless of how much profit they are already making. And they will gladly raise ticket and food prices if they can squeeze a few more dollars out of us fans. Veteran salaries are not the problem and players know that there needs to be rookies caps. I could understand the contempt of the players had they made demands and threatened to strike. But, that isn't the case here at all. Any work stoppage is 100% on the owners. The players would gladly sign the old CBA and move right on. It is the demands of owners making more money every year than all of us put together in our lifetimes that are threatening to take our game away.

01-27-2011, 01:15 PM	#5
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,372 Blog Entries: 34	Ah, but now, with municipalities under extreme duress, no owner making millions with a favorable CBA will be able to credibly poor mouth to gain public funding, especially since many of these initiatives have to gain ballot approval. Funny thing about information, it makes things very transparent. Richer owners means that it will be hard for them to gain public support to get richer. That translates into lower taxes for Louisiana, and New Orleans. Now if they'd only fix the roads...

01-28-2011, 05:40 PM	#6
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,489 Blog Entries: 3	The owners the teams belong to them. If you don't like the working conditions where you work, even if the boss changes your duties then you find another job or shut up. I'm not saying they shouldn't get some kind of revenue sharing but I think it's getting way out of hand.

01-31-2011, 10:48 AM	#7
OldMaid Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 2,917 Blog Entries: 3	I did not vote because both sides are clearly right on some issues. Salary-Owners. Top guys name their pay. Mid -level guys get their due. Lower-level guys are still paid a great salary for the few years they play a few games, a few guarters, or side on the sidelines. Financial advice-Player's Union. These football players ,in my opinion, mostly come from single- female family households, lower-income families, lack education about finances, sometimes a college degree and /or one that they can work in something after, imaturity, and really just lack of common sense. They need NFL financial planning. Being given out their pay in parts for living on a budget. And the rest untouchable until retirement of 65. Maybe some at 40, 50, 60. Hey,it works for the rest of us in our careers. 16 game season or not-Players. 16 games is enoguh for fans, networks, and esp. players and the owners too. Add the preseason games and you have 20 games. That is enough. Why water down the product. Canadian football, European football,arena football, former USFL anyone? There is the NFL and then there is just everything else. Lets keep it that way. Why have more and severe or career ending injuries. Post season Play-off games, there are enough games. Football is a fall thing, sport. Tradition. Not Spring or Summer sport. Player Safety-players. Bigger players, more injuires. The concussion thing is really serious. What are better ways to make the helments? What ways to change some rules for player safety? Moral behavior-Football fans. NFL has somethings in place for this. Each team should have something in place for training camp seminars on avoiding the "club in the hood" and stuff like that. Thugs and criminals, players in trouble with the law messes up the game for fans, teams,and the NFL. Depending on the case, the NFL, teams, and fans should say enough and the player needs to be a former player and out of the NFL.