New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue? (https://blackandgold.com/saints/32188-do-you-side-players-owners-cba-issue.html)

44Champs 01-25-2011 03:11 PM

Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue?
 
Note: I've never posted a poll before, so I'm sorry if it doesn't show up in this thread.

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

and

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.

Then you have Roger Goodell telling owners that they need to either upgrade or build new stadiums if they want to host a Superbowl.


NFL Collective Bargaining: Can This Multi-Billion Dollar Giant Be Tamed? | Bleacher Report

Danno 01-25-2011 03:17 PM

Both are to blame, but since most will side with players due to their popularity, I voted Owners, just to provide fair balance.

I'd be shocked if owners ever won a single poll over players.

44Champs 01-25-2011 03:23 PM

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?

saintfan 01-25-2011 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44Champs (Post 282500)
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?

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.

lynwood 01-25-2011 03:49 PM

I voted owners. When it comes down to it all the players need is Health Insurance, salary, and Incentives. When a contract is signed that player is expected to fullfill his end as well as the owner fullfilling his. Playa wanna hold out, Playa don't gets paid! Playa don't wanna go to team that drafts him...playa don't gets paid.

I also don't think that Owners should expect to flip coin for Tax Moneys to be used to build stadiums unless it is on a ballot. I'm for Tax incentives that pretty much any business would get. I am glad that the Saints are Still in New Orleans but I don't understand the state sending Bensen a paycheck every year.

neugey 01-25-2011 09:29 PM

Players, because the flippin' 18-game season that is causing all the problems in CBA discussions is their (or NFL's) bright idea.

Euphoria 01-25-2011 11:42 PM

There are a number of issues not just a money thing. One we need to see the books.

Fans should have a say as well.

18 game season - YES

Rookie pay scale - YES

Crusader 01-26-2011 01:02 AM

I'm siding with the owners. There will always be new players.

alleycat_126 01-26-2011 05:12 AM

I gotta go players here, all the owner does is put out the dough, and rake it in they don't give a crap whether its 16 games or 21 games as long as it is profitable. I player has to fight for fair bargain, with absolutely nothing no safeguards and no guarantees. The owners have already voted 18 game seasons through, plus there won't probably be any hikes in active players your roster can hold, which in short means there's gonna be more injuries.

Luda34 01-26-2011 07:37 AM

I going player 18 game season is stupid in the player eyes more chance for player to get hurt and it's going to take years off player careers. The owners need to give these guys a ganranted contracts so most these guy's want be broke when they retire. The owner's are only thinking about money for prolonging the season to 18 games thats why they voted so fast for the 18 game season there are alot of good owners out there but I don't believe there looking out for the players like they should.

AsylumGuido 01-26-2011 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44Champs (Post 282500)
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 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282607)
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 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 282504)
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 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynwood (Post 282608)
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 03:15 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 05:01 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 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skymike (Post 282674)
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 07:20 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 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skymike (Post 282674)
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 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusader (Post 282769)
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!

AsylumGuido 01-27-2011 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusader (Post 282769)
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 09:50 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 10:08 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44Champs (Post 282496)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44Champs (Post 282496)

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 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strato (Post 282802)
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 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282803)
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 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 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynwood (Post 282818)
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 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xan (Post 282819)
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...

neugey 01-27-2011 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282800)
. 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.

AsylumGuido 01-27-2011 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neugey (Post 282836)
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.

Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal.

neugey 01-27-2011 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282844)
Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal.

Yeah, and I bet the TV Networks each signed off on a bad deal because they didn't want to be left out at the table with the other competitor networks getting their slice of the pie. And the NFL and DirectTV are in bed together.

This could be nasty.

skymike 01-27-2011 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282716)
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? .

happens all the time in the real world to real people. Not saying I agree with it. Remember --I hate the 18 game schedule. It will ruin football.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282795)
There are former players who made $20,000 per year that are now living in poverty with no medical benefits at all. ..

Thats what Im talking about. The Future, and the safety net. Stop paying 10% of the guys a billion dollars, and put more into benefits, compensation, and retirement. I'm all for that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282796)
Every single owner is filthy rich and everyone of them is making money off their team. .

If these guys are so "risk free," why did they all have to move a decade ago? Did Art Modell really leave Cleveland for pure greed? He needed a better deal so he could compete. They have to constantly come up with schemes to keep up with the escalating astronomical player salaries.

I personally dont hate anyone for being rich. If youre rich, you either worked your ass off for it, or you worked to maintain it, and controlled your vices. We all should be rich, with the opportunity we have.

--ditch the insane 18 game schedule.
-- take care of the disabled and elderly players
-- say no to the rookies and hotshots. defer their payments,
until they're smart enough to take care of the money.
-- dump the stupid stuff at halftime, in favor of a SWAC band.
-- take the rule book back to 1975.

There, I just fixed the NFL.

AsylumGuido 01-28-2011 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skymike (Post 282871)
--ditch the insane 18 game schedule.
-- take care of the disabled and elderly players
-- say no to the rookies and hotshots. defer their payments,
until they're smart enough to take care of the money.
-- dump the stupid stuff at halftime, in favor of a SWAC band.
-- take the rule book back to 1975.

There, I just fixed the NFL.

That's sounds like what the players are looking for.

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.

Danno 01-28-2011 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 282967)
That's sounds like what the players are looking for.

\

Except for taking the rule book back to 1975. WR's wouldn't last 1/2 a season and many would probably die or be paralyzed for life. O-linemen wouldn't last log either with the chop blocks and leg whips.

lynwood 01-28-2011 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 283017)
\

Except for taking the rule book back to 1975. WR's wouldn't last 1/2 a season and many would probably die or be paralyzed for life. O-linemen wouldn't last log either with the chop blocks and leg whips.

and the purple nurpls, wet willies and Indian Burns.

SAINT_MICHAEL 01-28-2011 06:21 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 283017)
\

Except for taking the rule book back to 1975. WR's wouldn't last 1/2 a season and many would probably die or be paralyzed for life. O-linemen wouldn't last log either with the chop blocks and leg whips.

Don't forget the Stickum!

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.

OldMaid 01-31-2011 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 283017)
\

Except for taking the rule book back to 1975. WR's wouldn't last 1/2 a season and many would probably die or be paralyzed for life. O-linemen wouldn't last log either with the chop blocks and leg whips.

Back then you did not have the strength conditioning like now, and so many guys hitting 300 lbs and over.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com