Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

Memnoch_TP · 03-21-2011, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

I dissagree. I do not equate the two simply based on JOB!

Football is a sport no matter how much you'd like to put it in an Oscar catagory. ESPN turned it into a TMZ showcase.

Yes. Football is a sport. I didn't say it wasn't a sport. This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Originally Posted by lynwood

When Brees was signed we finally had a winning QB to lead a TEAM! That's what sold tickets. RB was the most spectacular Athlete coming out of college. That is what sold tickets.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Reggie was the most spectaular athlete coming out of college. He had proven nothing on an NFL football field at that point, and it was his Star Power that sold tickets in a way that a greater talent with lesser Star Power would not have.

Originally Posted by lynwood

And YES the Studios still DECIDE who to offer the part to. Same with the NFL owners. The "Actor" can take whats offered or refuse. Actors have been known to do that. You never hear of Actors turining down a part or Studios passing on an Actor because salary demand was too high?

Um, again you are arguing something else entirely. I did not say the studios don't DECIDE who to offer a part to. If studio has a very small budget for a movie, they will not bother offering a part to Tom Hanks since his salary would eat up most of the budget. When Waffle House needs a new grill cook, they don't offer the job to Gordon Ramsay.

And, really, are you SERIOUSLY insinuating that no actor has ever refused a part because they weren't offered enough money? That is so silly it isn't even worth retorting.

Originally Posted by lynwood

I don't watch football for the Drama, I watch for the competition and love of the sport. I watch a movie for entertainment and when it's over I don't go out and buy a Team Edward T-shirt. Big Difference.

As I said (Did you really read what I posted?) that even if you have an alternative choice or taste you have to recognize everyone does NOT have those same tastes. The very existence of those Team Edward shirts that you mentioned kind of proves my point.

In any case, I didn't suggest that anyone watched football for the "Drama". As you said, you watch for the competition. Watching the Arena/CFL players isn't as fun as watching the NFL players because their skill levels are not as high and the competition is not as intense. This is part of that Star Power that gives NFL athletes the ability to bargain differently than an hourly employee. Because they cannot be replaced with substitutes that are of equal quality.

Originally Posted by lynwood

Actors,Waiters,Nurses,Office managers,etc... ARE all teh same. They all work for someone else. Difference is how they get paid. Hourly or Salary.

*sigh* Okay. The act of working for someone else does not make Actors, Waiters, Nurses, and Office Managers the same.

Nurses make more than waiters. Why? Because they have years of specialized training that allows them to command a better salary. And I do mean "command". They won't work for minimum wage, so the people that employ them pay them more. Hospitals don't pay them a fair wage because a fair wage is fair. Hospitals don't care about fairness, they care about profit. If they could pay all the nurses minimum wage, they would. But, they CANNOT. Not because of any legal binding, because once you are over the minimum wage all bets are off. They CANNOT because the nurses will not work for less and if the hospital does not have nurses all the patents will die. This is not profitable.

Waiting tables does not require years of specialized education. If a waiter refuses to work for $2.13 an hour, they hire someone else off the street. Problem solved.

This is what is called a difference. A difference makes two things not the same.

Originally Posted by lynwood

I think your view on this is very skewed. And if you don't like that then tough ***** commie.

My view is not at all skewed. It looks that way to you, because it is your view that is actually skewed. I am laying down simple and obvious truths and facts. I am not putting any personal bias on any of my statements.

And finally, do you know what a "commie" is, and what communists believe? Communists spout how all people are completely equal and that no one person has more value than any other person. The type of statement that a communist would give would be something like "Actors, Waiters, Nurses, Office managers, etc... ARE all the same." You see, the comments I have been making are very capitalistic and the antithesis of communism. The very fact that you are countering my anti-communist arguments with communist arguments while calling me a "commie" is really quite funny. Not "haha" funny, but "mock your intellectual capacity while laughing at you funny".

Being a communist is about a system of ideology. Using the word "Comrade" (especially sarcastically) doesn't make someone a communist, just like saying "P'tahk" doesn't make you a Klingon, or saying "Shazam" doesn't make you Captain Marvel.

BringTheWood · 03-22-2011, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

I dissagree. I do not equate the two simply based on JOB!

Football is a sport no matter how much you'd like to put it in an Oscar catagory. ESPN turned it into a TMZ showcase.

When Brees was signed we finally had a winning QB to lead a TEAM! That's what sold tickets. RB was the most spectacular Athlete coming out of college. That is what sold tickets.

And YES the Studios still DECIDE who to offer the part to. Same with the NFL owners. The "Actor" can take whats offered or refuse. Actors have been known to do that. You never hear of Actors turining down a part or Studios passing on an Actor because salary demand was too high?

I don't watch football for the Drama, I watch for the competition and love of the sport. I watch a movie for entertainment and when it's over I don't go out and buy a Team Edward T-shirt. Big Difference.

Actors,Waiters,Nurses,Office managers,etc... ARE all teh same. They all work for someone else. Difference is how they get paid. Hourly or Salary.

I think your view on this is very skewed. And if you don't like that then tough ***** commie.

This... This is all wrong. Memnoch basically nailed my point of view, in so many words. Football should not be treated in the same facet as a common mans job. Most generally, and at the VERY LEAST with high caliber players, when a player has a a spot on a professional sports team it means that they are exceptionally talented with athletic abilities. In a manner of speaking, (someone will undoubtedly misinterpret this one) a person can't just go and say "Hey, I want to toss the rock for St. Louis" and send in a resume looking for a job. As is easily apparent with the combine showings, the senior bowl, draft day, and generally the sports tabloids as a whole, owners and general managers actively SEEK OUT the hottest talent to add to their team. They don't always know exactly what to expect from that person come game time, but if that person reached 100 million google hits for their 40 time, you better bet the team reps are looking at them.

The NFL as a business is very much a partnership. The owners (and Roger Goodell) can continue to deceive themselves into thinking that they have everyone by the balls (no pun intended) while they hide behind their TV contracts and try to scrape even more off the top, but that serves them very little good in the long run. How long will the TV companies offer contracts to a league that can't, or more importantly, won't field players?

It's awfully funny, and somewhat ironic to me that of the many possible analogies Memnoch could have used, he chose the film industry one. Remember the writers strike not so long ago. You can damn well bet that the studios and their investing partners didn't want for that to happen, nor I would say did the actors. Without the writers and actors what good are the studios? All that they would have become is a big pile of money quickly being spent. The owners are in no different position in that they cannot fill those seats and play the games. The main difference is that the owners have Goodell to change their diapers for them.

In the end, the main difference between how most people are choosing to view this, albeit ignorantly, can be easily broken down to sound like this:

Say you have a Burger King chain, complete with an owner, a few managers, and several handfuls of employees. This Burger King operates much like any other company in that the owner hires the managers, the managers hire the employees, and the employees do the grunt work. It is very true that the owners and managers can just fire people at will and they will have no trouble replacing them. Let's say on the other hand though, that suddenly the world runs out of beef. Where do you think that leaves the Burger King. They have plenty of people willing to do the work, but no product to sell. They could try selling nothing but chicken, but I highly doubt that would sustain the brand for very long. This is really no different than the way the NFL works. Sure, there are plenty of people out there willing to suit up and take some snaps, but that doesn't mean that anyone will care to watch them, at least not for very long. The players should not be compared to a common worker in a 9-5 job. What they are IS the product. We eat up everything these high profile characters lay out. Without the players the owners would not have a leg to stand on (in terms of what they make from football). They would have no jerseys, no marketable figures, no bobbleheads, no Madden 2011 with Drew Brees on the front, nothing.

At the end of the day it angers me, but also amuses me, that the only thing stopping the owners from continuing to squeeze every dime they can from their fanbase, and the players from playing, is a silly unwillingness from the owners to say 'Hey, players, we need more money man, we're not making what we want to, that cool?' and the players being all 'Np bro, just show us the books so that we know you aren't lying to us' and then the owners coming back with 'Efffffffff, can't you just trust us? We promise we aren't just trying to take a bigger cut of the pie.' Which as we all know lead to the players saying 'Roflmao, that's cute. Show us the books, go back to the old contract that we ALREADY agreed on, or just gtfo and go try to scam someone else'.

I know, I know, tl;dr.

lynwood · 03-22-2011, 09:15 AM

The bottom line is if you are an owner of a buiness you do not have to open your books to your employees and let them negotiate their Salary from that. Players can ***** about but really if it came right down to it what power do they really have? Walk out and not play? Replacements are eagar to fill the shoes. Product may be dimminished....maybe. Still competition to me.

I'm not willing to take away the rights of an owner that had to shell out the cash to even put a team in a city. only thing I own is a car. And if my Michlelin Tires demanded I drive less, I'd exchange them for goodyear.

SapperSaint · 03-22-2011, 09:49 AM

I think the players from ALL sports really need to take financial lessons. They buy extravagant houses (Usually more than one) then they get those houses totally re-done that make "life styles of the Rich and Famous look like shanty town USA. They go out and buy the coolest cars on the market...THEN they get the cars "Tricked out". It seems like they try to out do the others, just to get a spot on MTV Cribs. Alot of the get into STUPID buisness deals, that anyone with halh a brain would steer clear of. These guys spend, spend, spend. No wonder, when their bodies are broken and can't work anymore and have doctor bills out of the yin-yang.

No wonder they can't provide for themselves. Is there anyone here that couldn't take league minimum salary and live not only very comfortable but have security for your retirement years?

BringTheWood · 03-22-2011, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by SapperSaint

Is there anyone here that couldn't take league minimum salary and live not only very comfortable but have security for your retirement years?

I could, for sure. Also, I don't condone the 'Normal' spending habits of 'Most' athletes. That isn't point of all of this, however. How they choose to spend money is a completely different topic for debate, albeit a fun one to engage in.

Memnoch_TP · 03-23-2011, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

The bottom line is if you are an owner of a buiness you do not have to open your books to your employees and let them negotiate their Salary from that. Players can ***** about but really if it came right down to it what power do they really have? Walk out and not play? Replacements are eagar to fill the shoes. Product may be dimminished....maybe. Still competition to me.

I'm not willing to take away the rights of an owner that had to shell out the cash to even put a team in a city. only thing I own is a car. And if my Michlelin Tires demanded I drive less, I'd exchange them for goodyear.

It isn't about "taking away the owners rights". It isn't about rights at all. They aren't trying to take away their "right" to keep their books closed, they are trying to get them to open their books. There is a distinct difference.

It isn't like they have been demanding that the owners open up their books on general principle. They are just saying "prove your claims". They have the right to say "We require X to work for a wage of Z". This doesn't impinge on any owners "rights".

Furthermore, if you were an NFL player, would you REALLY trust the owners when they said "We aren't making enough money, so we want some of yours. We aren't going to show you proof, just trust us."? Really? These owners quite obviously screwed over the TV stations in an attempt to get leverage on the players in these negotiations, when they are contractually obligated to look out for the player's interests as well. If these guys are screwing over the players and the networks, and then they say "Just trust me", they would be ignorant to do so.

Don't turn this into an issue of "rights" because it isn't one. It has nothing to do with rights being taken away.

lynwood · 03-23-2011, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

It isn't about "taking away the owners rights". It isn't about rights at all. They aren't trying to take away their "right" to keep their books closed, they are trying to get them to open their books. There is a distinct difference.

It isn't like they have been demanding that the owners open up their books on general principle. They are just saying "prove your claims". They have the right to say "We require X to work for a wage of Z". This doesn't impinge on any owners "rights".

Furthermore, if you were an NFL player, would you REALLY trust the owners when they said "We aren't making enough money, so we want some of yours. We aren't going to show you proof, just trust us."? Really? These owners quite obviously screwed over the TV stations in an attempt to get leverage on the players in these negotiations, when they are contractually obligated to look out for the player's interests as well. If these guys are screwing over the players and the networks, and then they say "Just trust me", they would be ignorant to do so.

Don't turn this into an issue of "rights" because it isn't one. It has nothing to do with rights being taken away.

Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays.

Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit.

Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved.

I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse.

Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say.

Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check.

It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid.

If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers.

lynwood · 03-23-2011, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by strato

Well lets just hope and i mean hope it can be worked out...this is a mess..

That I can Agree with 100%

st thomas · 03-23-2011, 11:34 PM

and both sides have not talked since the 16th? you ain't sh-ttin a big mess.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays.

Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit.

Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved.

I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse.

Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say.

Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check.

It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid.

If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers.

Look, no offense, but at this point it sounds like you are trying to sound like the most conservative republican possible, just for the sake of doing so. In theory, and practically just so, the owners can do whatever they want, or don't want to do. That is, however, not a practical business practice, at least in this instance. As fate would have it, this isn't the 1800's anymore and people actually give a **** if they are getting run over, whether you are aware of that. This has a lot to do with money, I won't deny that, but I'm also everything short of absolutely certain that it's more about establishing a voice and letting the owners know that they won't be run over. Whatever bull**** reason you care to give, the fact remains that this is all consequence of something the owners did, which was opt out of an already fair and active contract. Think of that the next time you talk about a player arguing a contract. The players aren't moral champions, and they are just as greedy as the owners, but this is almost entirely the owners fault, and thus, I hope they lose, especially that bastard Jerry Jones.

You can see it however you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that (especially in something as unique as the NFL) it's as cut and dry as the owners being all "Take it or leave it." is simply ignorance. Goodell and the owners are on a power trip, and much like any other economic leviathan that exists in modern crapitalist America, they refuse to compromise and show nearly any flexibility, only operating with the attitude of "I'll be damned if anyone is gonna take my money! THIS IS AMERICA!!!"

I'm often reminded of something upon reflection. People pride themselves in this country on the symbolism that we are "One Nation Under God" and that we are a "Christian Nation", yet most do not act like it. Remember the scripture: MARK 12:31 NKJ - `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.'

Was some of this slightly off topic? Maybe. Was it relative, comparatively? More than most would see.

Again, I know, tl;dr. Sue me.

03-21-2011, 01:35 PM	#11
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by lynwood I dissagree. I do not equate the two simply based on JOB! Football is a sport no matter how much you'd like to put it in an Oscar catagory. ESPN turned it into a TMZ showcase. Yes. Football is a sport. I didn't say it wasn't a sport. This has nothing to do with the discussion. Originally Posted by lynwood When Brees was signed we finally had a winning QB to lead a TEAM! That's what sold tickets. RB was the most spectacular Athlete coming out of college. That is what sold tickets. Yes, that is exactly what I said. Reggie was the most spectaular athlete coming out of college. He had proven nothing on an NFL football field at that point, and it was his Star Power that sold tickets in a way that a greater talent with lesser Star Power would not have. Originally Posted by lynwood And YES the Studios still DECIDE who to offer the part to. Same with the NFL owners. The "Actor" can take whats offered or refuse. Actors have been known to do that. You never hear of Actors turining down a part or Studios passing on an Actor because salary demand was too high? Um, again you are arguing something else entirely. I did not say the studios don't DECIDE who to offer a part to. If studio has a very small budget for a movie, they will not bother offering a part to Tom Hanks since his salary would eat up most of the budget. When Waffle House needs a new grill cook, they don't offer the job to Gordon Ramsay. And, really, are you SERIOUSLY insinuating that no actor has ever refused a part because they weren't offered enough money? That is so silly it isn't even worth retorting. Originally Posted by lynwood I don't watch football for the Drama, I watch for the competition and love of the sport. I watch a movie for entertainment and when it's over I don't go out and buy a Team Edward T-shirt. Big Difference. As I said (Did you really read what I posted?) that even if you have an alternative choice or taste you have to recognize everyone does NOT have those same tastes. The very existence of those Team Edward shirts that you mentioned kind of proves my point. In any case, I didn't suggest that anyone watched football for the "Drama". As you said, you watch for the competition. Watching the Arena/CFL players isn't as fun as watching the NFL players because their skill levels are not as high and the competition is not as intense. This is part of that Star Power that gives NFL athletes the ability to bargain differently than an hourly employee. Because they cannot be replaced with substitutes that are of equal quality. Originally Posted by lynwood Actors,Waiters,Nurses,Office managers,etc... ARE all teh same. They all work for someone else. Difference is how they get paid. Hourly or Salary. sigh Okay. The act of working for someone else does not make Actors, Waiters, Nurses, and Office Managers the same. Nurses make more than waiters. Why? Because they have years of specialized training that allows them to command a better salary. And I do mean "command". They won't work for minimum wage, so the people that employ them pay them more. Hospitals don't pay them a fair wage because a fair wage is fair. Hospitals don't care about fairness, they care about profit. If they could pay all the nurses minimum wage, they would. But, they CANNOT. Not because of any legal binding, because once you are over the minimum wage all bets are off. They CANNOT because the nurses will not work for less and if the hospital does not have nurses all the patents will die. This is not profitable. Waiting tables does not require years of specialized education. If a waiter refuses to work for $2.13 an hour, they hire someone else off the street. Problem solved. This is what is called a difference. A difference makes two things not the same. Originally Posted by lynwood I think your view on this is very skewed. And if you don't like that then tough ***** commie. My view is not at all skewed. It looks that way to you, because it is your view that is actually skewed. I am laying down simple and obvious truths and facts. I am not putting any personal bias on any of my statements. And finally, do you know what a "commie" is, and what communists believe? Communists spout how all people are completely equal and that no one person has more value than any other person. The type of statement that a communist would give would be something like "Actors, Waiters, Nurses, Office managers, etc... ARE all the same." You see, the comments I have been making are very capitalistic and the antithesis of communism. The very fact that you are countering my anti-communist arguments with communist arguments while calling me a "commie" is really quite funny. Not "haha" funny, but "mock your intellectual capacity while laughing at you funny". Being a communist is about a system of ideology. Using the word "Comrade" (especially sarcastically) doesn't make someone a communist, just like saying "P'tahk" doesn't make you a Klingon, or saying "Shazam" doesn't make you Captain Marvel.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

03-22-2011, 03:54 AM	#12
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by lynwood I dissagree. I do not equate the two simply based on JOB! Football is a sport no matter how much you'd like to put it in an Oscar catagory. ESPN turned it into a TMZ showcase. When Brees was signed we finally had a winning QB to lead a TEAM! That's what sold tickets. RB was the most spectacular Athlete coming out of college. That is what sold tickets. And YES the Studios still DECIDE who to offer the part to. Same with the NFL owners. The "Actor" can take whats offered or refuse. Actors have been known to do that. You never hear of Actors turining down a part or Studios passing on an Actor because salary demand was too high? I don't watch football for the Drama, I watch for the competition and love of the sport. I watch a movie for entertainment and when it's over I don't go out and buy a Team Edward T-shirt. Big Difference. Actors,Waiters,Nurses,Office managers,etc... ARE all teh same. They all work for someone else. Difference is how they get paid. Hourly or Salary. I think your view on this is very skewed. And if you don't like that then tough ***** commie. This... This is all wrong. Memnoch basically nailed my point of view, in so many words. Football should not be treated in the same facet as a common mans job. Most generally, and at the VERY LEAST with high caliber players, when a player has a a spot on a professional sports team it means that they are exceptionally talented with athletic abilities. In a manner of speaking, (someone will undoubtedly misinterpret this one) a person can't just go and say "Hey, I want to toss the rock for St. Louis" and send in a resume looking for a job. As is easily apparent with the combine showings, the senior bowl, draft day, and generally the sports tabloids as a whole, owners and general managers actively SEEK OUT the hottest talent to add to their team. They don't always know exactly what to expect from that person come game time, but if that person reached 100 million google hits for their 40 time, you better bet the team reps are looking at them. The NFL as a business is very much a partnership. The owners (and Roger Goodell) can continue to deceive themselves into thinking that they have everyone by the balls (no pun intended) while they hide behind their TV contracts and try to scrape even more off the top, but that serves them very little good in the long run. How long will the TV companies offer contracts to a league that can't, or more importantly, won't field players? It's awfully funny, and somewhat ironic to me that of the many possible analogies Memnoch could have used, he chose the film industry one. Remember the writers strike not so long ago. You can damn well bet that the studios and their investing partners didn't want for that to happen, nor I would say did the actors. Without the writers and actors what good are the studios? All that they would have become is a big pile of money quickly being spent. The owners are in no different position in that they cannot fill those seats and play the games. The main difference is that the owners have Goodell to change their diapers for them. In the end, the main difference between how most people are choosing to view this, albeit ignorantly, can be easily broken down to sound like this: Say you have a Burger King chain, complete with an owner, a few managers, and several handfuls of employees. This Burger King operates much like any other company in that the owner hires the managers, the managers hire the employees, and the employees do the grunt work. It is very true that the owners and managers can just fire people at will and they will have no trouble replacing them. Let's say on the other hand though, that suddenly the world runs out of beef. Where do you think that leaves the Burger King. They have plenty of people willing to do the work, but no product to sell. They could try selling nothing but chicken, but I highly doubt that would sustain the brand for very long. This is really no different than the way the NFL works. Sure, there are plenty of people out there willing to suit up and take some snaps, but that doesn't mean that anyone will care to watch them, at least not for very long. The players should not be compared to a common worker in a 9-5 job. What they are IS the product. We eat up everything these high profile characters lay out. Without the players the owners would not have a leg to stand on (in terms of what they make from football). They would have no jerseys, no marketable figures, no bobbleheads, no Madden 2011 with Drew Brees on the front, nothing. At the end of the day it angers me, but also amuses me, that the only thing stopping the owners from continuing to squeeze every dime they can from their fanbase, and the players from playing, is a silly unwillingness from the owners to say 'Hey, players, we need more money man, we're not making what we want to, that cool?' and the players being all 'Np bro, just show us the books so that we know you aren't lying to us' and then the owners coming back with 'Efffffffff, can't you just trust us? We promise we aren't just trying to take a bigger cut of the pie.' Which as we all know lead to the players saying 'Roflmao, that's cute. Show us the books, go back to the old contract that we ALREADY agreed on, or just gtfo and go try to scam someone else'. I know, I know, tl;dr.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-22-2011, 09:49 AM	#14
SapperSaint Pink Nightmare Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 3,028 Blog Entries: 7	I think the players from ALL sports really need to take financial lessons. They buy extravagant houses (Usually more than one) then they get those houses totally re-done that make "life styles of the Rich and Famous look like shanty town USA. They go out and buy the coolest cars on the market...THEN they get the cars "Tricked out". It seems like they try to out do the others, just to get a spot on MTV Cribs. Alot of the get into STUPID buisness deals, that anyone with halh a brain would steer clear of. These guys spend, spend, spend. No wonder, when their bodies are broken and can't work anymore and have doctor bills out of the yin-yang. No wonder they can't provide for themselves. Is there anyone here that couldn't take league minimum salary and live not only very comfortable but have security for your retirement years?
	"We are number one. All others are number two, or lower." -The Sphinx http://blackandgold.com/groups/28-ou...tsman-s-corner

03-22-2011, 04:53 PM	#15
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by SapperSaint Is there anyone here that couldn't take league minimum salary and live not only very comfortable but have security for your retirement years? I could, for sure. Also, I don't condone the 'Normal' spending habits of 'Most' athletes. That isn't point of all of this, however. How they choose to spend money is a completely different topic for debate, albeit a fun one to engage in.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-23-2011, 07:31 AM	#16
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by lynwood The bottom line is if you are an owner of a buiness you do not have to open your books to your employees and let them negotiate their Salary from that. Players can ***** about but really if it came right down to it what power do they really have? Walk out and not play? Replacements are eagar to fill the shoes. Product may be dimminished....maybe. Still competition to me. I'm not willing to take away the rights of an owner that had to shell out the cash to even put a team in a city. only thing I own is a car. And if my Michlelin Tires demanded I drive less, I'd exchange them for goodyear. It isn't about "taking away the owners rights". It isn't about rights at all. They aren't trying to take away their "right" to keep their books closed, they are trying to get them to open their books. There is a distinct difference. It isn't like they have been demanding that the owners open up their books on general principle. They are just saying "prove your claims". They have the right to say "We require X to work for a wage of Z". This doesn't impinge on any owners "rights". Furthermore, if you were an NFL player, would you REALLY trust the owners when they said "We aren't making enough money, so we want some of yours. We aren't going to show you proof, just trust us."? Really? These owners quite obviously screwed over the TV stations in an attempt to get leverage on the players in these negotiations, when they are contractually obligated to look out for the player's interests as well. If these guys are screwing over the players and the networks, and then they say "Just trust me", they would be ignorant to do so. Don't turn this into an issue of "rights" because it isn't one. It has nothing to do with rights being taken away.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

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

03-22-2011, 09:15 AM	#13
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	The bottom line is if you are an owner of a buiness you do not have to open your books to your employees and let them negotiate their Salary from that. Players can ***** about but really if it came right down to it what power do they really have? Walk out and not play? Replacements are eagar to fill the shoes. Product may be dimminished....maybe. Still competition to me. I'm not willing to take away the rights of an owner that had to shell out the cash to even put a team in a city. only thing I own is a car. And if my Michlelin Tires demanded I drive less, I'd exchange them for goodyear.

03-23-2011, 08:27 PM	#17
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP It isn't about "taking away the owners rights". It isn't about rights at all. They aren't trying to take away their "right" to keep their books closed, they are trying to get them to open their books. There is a distinct difference. It isn't like they have been demanding that the owners open up their books on general principle. They are just saying "prove your claims". They have the right to say "We require X to work for a wage of Z". This doesn't impinge on any owners "rights". Furthermore, if you were an NFL player, would you REALLY trust the owners when they said "We aren't making enough money, so we want some of yours. We aren't going to show you proof, just trust us."? Really? These owners quite obviously screwed over the TV stations in an attempt to get leverage on the players in these negotiations, when they are contractually obligated to look out for the player's interests as well. If these guys are screwing over the players and the networks, and then they say "Just trust me", they would be ignorant to do so. Don't turn this into an issue of "rights" because it isn't one. It has nothing to do with rights being taken away. Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays. Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit. Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved. I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse. Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say. Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check. It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid. If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers.

03-23-2011, 10:08 PM	#18
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by strato Well lets just hope and i mean hope it can be worked out...this is a mess.. That I can Agree with 100%

03-23-2011, 11:34 PM	#19
st thomas Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: lafayette Posts: 7,753	and both sides have not talked since the 16th? you ain't sh-ttin a big mess.

03-24-2011, 12:42 AM	#20
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by lynwood Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays. Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit. Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved. I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse. Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say. Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check. It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid. If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers. Look, no offense, but at this point it sounds like you are trying to sound like the most conservative republican possible, just for the sake of doing so. In theory, and practically just so, the owners can do whatever they want, or don't want to do. That is, however, not a practical business practice, at least in this instance. As fate would have it, this isn't the 1800's anymore and people actually give a ** if they are getting run over, whether you are aware of that. This has a lot to do with money, I won't deny that, but I'm also everything short of absolutely certain that it's more about establishing a voice and letting the owners know that they won't be run over. Whatever bull** reason you care to give, the fact remains that this is all consequence of something the owners did, which was opt out of an already fair and active contract. Think of that the next time you talk about a player arguing a contract. The players aren't moral champions, and they are just as greedy as the owners, but this is almost entirely the owners fault, and thus, I hope they lose, especially that bastard Jerry Jones. You can see it however you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that (especially in something as unique as the NFL) it's as cut and dry as the owners being all "Take it or leave it." is simply ignorance. Goodell and the owners are on a power trip, and much like any other economic leviathan that exists in modern crapitalist America, they refuse to compromise and show nearly any flexibility, only operating with the attitude of "I'll be damned if anyone is gonna take my money! THIS IS AMERICA!!!" I'm often reminded of something upon reflection. People pride themselves in this country on the symbolism that we are "One Nation Under God" and that we are a "Christian Nation", yet most do not act like it. Remember the scripture: MARK 12:31 NKJ - `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.' Was some of this slightly off topic? Maybe. Was it relative, comparatively? More than most would see. Again, I know, tl;dr. Sue me.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165