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

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Crusader

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.

Once again, too many of you are looking at the 10% of players that currently make millions of dollars and play for several years. This issue isn't addressing them. It has to do with those players that played before these huge salaries and are so crippled or brain damaged that they can't work. There are former players who made $20,000 per year that are now living in poverty with no medical benefits at all.

Most corporations offer disability plans for their employees. The NFL does, too, but it is a joke. This is a major issue for the players. For example, Eric Shelton, who played one season with the Panthers, received spinal cord damage in a preseason practice with the Redskins in 2008 that ended his career. After a series of rulings he was finally awarded $1,140 per month. That's $14,000 per year. Who can live on that especially when you are disabled and cannot work. After much fighting in court he has managed to get a higher compensation, but the NFL Retirement fund has refused the highest level of compensation because he he attempted to work at Walgreens for a very brief period.

Your argument that former players should get a job like everyone else doesn't hold water. The players in question are not the Michael Irvins and Peyton Mannings of the league that made or make a ton, play for an extended period and retire relatively healthy. The players being affected are the ones that sustain injuries that play a major impact in the rest of their life and livelihood. That's who they are fighting for.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 10:50 AM

If every player made millions and played a long career I could see your point. But, the fact is that the average playing career of an NFL player is less than three years and most leave the game with costly afflictions suffered from years of high school, college and the pro game. Many of us will surely earn a million dollars over our working career. That more than the average NFL player makes in his career.

Every single owner is filthy rich and everyone of them is making money off their team. There is no risk at all in owning an NFL team. Television and marketing contracts have ensured that.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 11:08 AM

I must also point out a couple of major misunderstandings in the opening post.

Originally Posted by 44Champs

Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries),

The players are not requesting anything additional or different in the terms of salary. It was the owners that executed opt-out option on the final year on the previous CBA, because they wanted to reduce the percentage of revenue going to the players. The players didn't want more money, they only wanted what they were already getting. They are even willing, and supportive, of instituting a rookie wage scale like the NBA. The uncapped salary of 2010 was a term of the owner's opting out of the CBA.

Originally Posted by 44Champs

the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets.

Once again, uncapped salaries are not an issue at all. The cap will remain in any new CBA. The issue is the percentage of revenues going toward the players' salaries. The owners want to cut that percentage by 18% and they are prepared to lock the players out to get that done. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. They have no concern over the jobs of thousands of NFL support people like concession workers or ticket takers. It is all about billionaires wanting to squeeze every drop out of the cash cow called the NFL. How is any of this fair?

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by strato

I side with the fans...

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.

lynwood · 01-27-2011, 12:56 PM

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.

xan · 01-27-2011, 01:02 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, 01:27 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.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 01:40 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, 02:15 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...

neugey · 01-27-2011, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit.

You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games?

The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this.

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, 10:42 AM	#21
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	Originally Posted by Crusader 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. Once again, too many of you are looking at the 10% of players that currently make millions of dollars and play for several years. This issue isn't addressing them. It has to do with those players that played before these huge salaries and are so crippled or brain damaged that they can't work. There are former players who made $20,000 per year that are now living in poverty with no medical benefits at all. Most corporations offer disability plans for their employees. The NFL does, too, but it is a joke. This is a major issue for the players. For example, Eric Shelton, who played one season with the Panthers, received spinal cord damage in a preseason practice with the Redskins in 2008 that ended his career. After a series of rulings he was finally awarded $1,140 per month. That's $14,000 per year. Who can live on that especially when you are disabled and cannot work. After much fighting in court he has managed to get a higher compensation, but the NFL Retirement fund has refused the highest level of compensation because he he attempted to work at Walgreens for a very brief period. Your argument that former players should get a job like everyone else doesn't hold water. The players in question are not the Michael Irvins and Peyton Mannings of the league that made or make a ton, play for an extended period and retire relatively healthy. The players being affected are the ones that sustain injuries that play a major impact in the rest of their life and livelihood. That's who they are fighting for.

01-27-2011, 11:08 AM	#23
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	I must also point out a couple of major misunderstandings in the opening post. Originally Posted by 44Champs Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries), The players are not requesting anything additional or different in the terms of salary. It was the owners that executed opt-out option on the final year on the previous CBA, because they wanted to reduce the percentage of revenue going to the players. The players didn't want more money, they only wanted what they were already getting. They are even willing, and supportive, of instituting a rookie wage scale like the NBA. The uncapped salary of 2010 was a term of the owner's opting out of the CBA. Originally Posted by 44Champs the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets. Once again, uncapped salaries are not an issue at all. The cap will remain in any new CBA. The issue is the percentage of revenues going toward the players' salaries. The owners want to cut that percentage by 18% and they are prepared to lock the players out to get that done. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. They have no concern over the jobs of thousands of NFL support people like concession workers or ticket takers. It is all about billionaires wanting to squeeze every drop out of the cash cow called the NFL. How is any of this fair?

01-27-2011, 11:20 AM	#24
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	Originally Posted by strato I side with the fans... 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.

01-27-2011, 12:56 PM	#25
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.

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

01-27-2011, 10:50 AM	#22
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	If every player made millions and played a long career I could see your point. But, the fact is that the average playing career of an NFL player is less than three years and most leave the game with costly afflictions suffered from years of high school, college and the pro game. Many of us will surely earn a million dollars over our working career. That more than the average NFL player makes in his career. Every single owner is filthy rich and everyone of them is making money off their team. There is no risk at all in owning an NFL team. Television and marketing contracts have ensured that.

01-27-2011, 01:02 PM	#26
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,369 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, 01:27 PM	#27
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	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, 01:40 PM	#28
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	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, 02:15 PM	#29
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,369 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...

01-27-2011, 03:19 PM	#30
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,697 Blog Entries: 13	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido . The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games? The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this.