Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

ALLSAINTS66 · 03-24-2011, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by strato

Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses....we have no control on what these rich people do

Actually... we have ALL CONTROL on what these rich people do.
If they do something we don't like and we stop buying tickets
and merch., they'll "hup to" in short order. What they assume is
that fans will keep taking it and taking it without end. I think
they're wrong. I think NFL fans have limits too, and the owners
seem to forget who's REALLY paying for their ride.

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed?

No, trying to get them to open their books is not taking away their right to keep them closed. As you said later in the post, they have the right to ASK them to open the books, which is what they did.

The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well.

They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players.

I know you are blinded by these Owner/Employee labels you are clinging to, but do you think that being a "boss" gives the owners the right to neglect or outright break their own contractual obligations?

Originally Posted by lynwood

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.

See, here is the thing dude... If it was that simple we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? The players would have been fired and the NFL would have gotten replacements and that would be the end of the story. That isn't the case. Why not? Because as it has been mentioned before, the players ARE the product.

The NFL is bigger than the CFL or the Arena league because of the product, and the product isn't the game. If it was, we wouldn't care about this strike because we could watch the Voodoo or the Argonauts or something. They play football too. The fans watch the NFL because they field the best of the best. Finding anyone who is willing to play is NOT a viable solution to the problem.

Originally Posted by lynwood

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.

Yes, the owners OWN. And without the best players in the world, what they own isn't worth a damn. The man that OWNS the Colorado Avalanche also works for the man who owns the Denver Broncos. Why? Because he wants to work with the best of the best, and that is something that the Arena League doesn't have to offer. Football is not about planes or about stadiums. If it was, wouldn't the Lions be a good football team? They fly to games in nice planes, and they have a nice stadium, and... they suck. Why have they sucked for so long? Crappy players. There aren't even enough elite players in the country to fill the 32 teams in the NFL. Teams full of scrub replacements won't fill those stadium seats. The planes and the stadium and the game itself are all secondary to the real product, which is the players.

The players do indeed have the right to ask for whatever salary they deem to be fair, and to refuse to work for a salary they deem unfair. As I have said before, this is not a pedestrian owner/employee relationship. Those rules do not apply here. The only reason they apply to a normal work situation is because of the availability of replacements of an equivalent value. If this wasn't true, the players would still be making $40,000 a year.

You can replace a waiter with a guy off the street. The same for an office worker. They have a low value because there are many of them. The more education or specialized training you need to do a job, the more value they have, because there are less people available to do those jobs. If you hire unqualified people for them, then the whole business starts to suffer. This is why Commander's Palace doesn't scout for executive chefs at Waffle House.

lynwood · 03-24-2011, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

No, trying to get them to open their books is not taking away their right to keep them closed. As you said later in the post, they have the right to ASK them to open the books, which is what they did.

The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well.

They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players.

I know you are blinded by these Owner/Employee labels you are clinging to, but do you think that being a "boss" gives the owners the right to neglect or outright break their own contractual obligations?

See, here is the thing dude... If it was that simple we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? The players would have been fired and the NFL would have gotten replacements and that would be the end of the story. That isn't the case. Why not? Because as it has been mentioned before, the players ARE the product.

The NFL is bigger than the CFL or the Arena league because of the product, and the product isn't the game. If it was, we wouldn't care about this strike because we could watch the Voodoo or the Argonauts or something. They play football too. The fans watch the NFL because they field the best of the best. Finding anyone who is willing to play is NOT a viable solution to the problem.

Yes, the owners OWN. And without the best players in the world, what they own isn't worth a damn. The man that OWNS the Colorado Avalanche also works for the man who owns the Denver Broncos. Why? Because he wants to work with the best of the best, and that is something that the Arena League doesn't have to offer. Football is not about planes or about stadiums. If it was, wouldn't the Lions be a good football team? They fly to games in nice planes, and they have a nice stadium, and... they suck. Why have they sucked for so long? Crappy players. There aren't even enough elite players in the country to fill the 32 teams in the NFL. Teams full of scrub replacements won't fill those stadium seats. The planes and the stadium and the game itself are all secondary to the real product, which is the players.

The players do indeed have the right to ask for whatever salary they deem to be fair, and to refuse to work for a salary they deem unfair. As I have said before, this is not a pedestrian owner/employee relationship. Those rules do not apply here. The only reason they apply to a normal work situation is because of the availability of replacements of an equivalent value. If this wasn't true, the players would still be making $40,000 a year.

You can replace a waiter with a guy off the street. The same for an office worker. They have a low value because there are many of them. The more education or specialized training you need to do a job, the more value they have, because there are less people available to do those jobs. If you hire unqualified people for them, then the whole business starts to suffer. This is why Commander's Palace doesn't scout for executive chefs at Waffle House.

Look, I'm cutting out of this conversation with you. Clearly we have a difference of philosphy and I can respect that. I still totally disagree with yours.

I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement.

Players sit out all the time wanted to be traded or their ego isn't stroked enough. So your view on the Owners breaking a contract is silly. If the players are owed something they get it...it's in the contract...if owners trade a player...it's in the contract.

In the end I know we will have football with a probably a bunch of guys well overpaid. I don't really mind that since it is a Capitalist Market and if someone is willing to pay it you should take it. It's just unfortunate that when they don't get what they think they deserve they whine and cry.

Danno · 03-24-2011, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement.

Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract.

Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. They exercised an option and thus the players did they same; The option to not be bent over and told what to do.

EDIT: Lyn, I am intrigued at how you suddenly call a ceasefire when basically every point you attempt to make is systematically broken down to mean nothing substantial. However, I am also tiring of this thread and am very much okay with agreeing to disagree, whether or not your post was directed at me, as I very clearly disagree with you.

Danno · 03-24-2011, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that.

The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 10:47 PM

...

Originally Posted by lynwood

Look, I'm cutting out of this conversation with you. Clearly we have a difference of philosphy and I can respect that. I still totally disagree with yours.

That is fine, but your mistake is thinking that this was a philosophy discussion. I was discussing the facts of the situation, while you have been screaming "But Santa is so good that he SHOULD be real" when you weren't screaming "If I can't go to the party, Billy shouldn't be able to either! It isn't fair!"

It hasn't exactly been intellectually stimulating for me, either.

Originally Posted by lynwood

I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement.

You know what, it would be easier to do this than say this... again...

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well.

They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players.

See, you had seen a breaking of a contractual obligation by the owners.

Originally Posted by strato

Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses....we have no control on what these rich people do..do me a favor and let it go..we to have just play the waiting game...let just hope for a good draft and a resolution.....just stare at my avi for 5 mins...

We have no control over what happens on a football field, either, but we have an entire board to discuss it on.

No one is making you read the thread. Skip it and stop telling me what to talk about. Thanks.

PS, I would rather just watch Dogma than stare at your avatar.

foreverfan · 03-24-2011, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by strato

Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses... just stare at my avi for 5 mins...

You know this is total nonsense... this isn't about the fans.
Have you seen ticket prices or the price of dome foam?

My avatar will stare back at you.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

Actually, the CBA that was in place, would still be in place had it not been for the owners and the league opting out of it. Thus, the owners are responsible for there not being an active CBA, so yeah, they actually did.

Second, my usage of the colloquialism "Weaseled out of" does not dampen the previously stated fact, and is only a particular phrase that I decided to use because it fit the mood; My mood. It doesn't make the truth, or my obvious utterance thereof, subjective, or any less real.

The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not.

You call yourself a truth addict. Well, here's a freebie, so pull out your pipe and smoke it.

EDIT: Someone lock this thread. Perhaps if we want to continue in healthy debate we should start a thread elsewhere; Somewhere besides the Saints section of the boards.

saintfan · 03-25-2011, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not.

This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is.

Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted.

No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court.

03-24-2011, 08:12 AM	#21
ALLSAINTS66 Bless You Boys! Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: In mah hause. Posts: 319	Originally Posted by strato Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses....we have no control on what these rich people do Actually... we have ALL CONTROL on what these rich people do. If they do something we don't like and we stop buying tickets and merch., they'll "hup to" in short order. What they assume is that fans will keep taking it and taking it without end. I think they're wrong. I think NFL fans have limits too, and the owners seem to forget who's REALLY paying for their ride.

03-24-2011, 09:30 AM	#22
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by lynwood Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? No, trying to get them to open their books is not taking away their right to keep them closed. As you said later in the post, they have the right to ASK them to open the books, which is what they did. The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well. They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players. I know you are blinded by these Owner/Employee labels you are clinging to, but do you think that being a "boss" gives the owners the right to neglect or outright break their own contractual obligations? Originally Posted by lynwood 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. See, here is the thing dude... If it was that simple we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? The players would have been fired and the NFL would have gotten replacements and that would be the end of the story. That isn't the case. Why not? Because as it has been mentioned before, the players ARE the product. The NFL is bigger than the CFL or the Arena league because of the product, and the product isn't the game. If it was, we wouldn't care about this strike because we could watch the Voodoo or the Argonauts or something. They play football too. The fans watch the NFL because they field the best of the best. Finding anyone who is willing to play is NOT a viable solution to the problem. Originally Posted by lynwood 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. Yes, the owners OWN. And without the best players in the world, what they own isn't worth a damn. The man that OWNS the Colorado Avalanche also works for the man who owns the Denver Broncos. Why? Because he wants to work with the best of the best, and that is something that the Arena League doesn't have to offer. Football is not about planes or about stadiums. If it was, wouldn't the Lions be a good football team? They fly to games in nice planes, and they have a nice stadium, and... they suck. Why have they sucked for so long? Crappy players. There aren't even enough elite players in the country to fill the 32 teams in the NFL. Teams full of scrub replacements won't fill those stadium seats. The planes and the stadium and the game itself are all secondary to the real product, which is the players. The players do indeed have the right to ask for whatever salary they deem to be fair, and to refuse to work for a salary they deem unfair. As I have said before, this is not a pedestrian owner/employee relationship. Those rules do not apply here. The only reason they apply to a normal work situation is because of the availability of replacements of an equivalent value. If this wasn't true, the players would still be making $40,000 a year. You can replace a waiter with a guy off the street. The same for an office worker. They have a low value because there are many of them. The more education or specialized training you need to do a job, the more value they have, because there are less people available to do those jobs. If you hire unqualified people for them, then the whole business starts to suffer. This is why Commander's Palace doesn't scout for executive chefs at Waffle House.
	"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.

03-24-2011, 02:02 PM	#23
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP No, trying to get them to open their books is not taking away their right to keep them closed. As you said later in the post, they have the right to ASK them to open the books, which is what they did. The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well. They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players. I know you are blinded by these Owner/Employee labels you are clinging to, but do you think that being a "boss" gives the owners the right to neglect or outright break their own contractual obligations? See, here is the thing dude... If it was that simple we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? The players would have been fired and the NFL would have gotten replacements and that would be the end of the story. That isn't the case. Why not? Because as it has been mentioned before, the players ARE the product. The NFL is bigger than the CFL or the Arena league because of the product, and the product isn't the game. If it was, we wouldn't care about this strike because we could watch the Voodoo or the Argonauts or something. They play football too. The fans watch the NFL because they field the best of the best. Finding anyone who is willing to play is NOT a viable solution to the problem. Yes, the owners OWN. And without the best players in the world, what they own isn't worth a damn. The man that OWNS the Colorado Avalanche also works for the man who owns the Denver Broncos. Why? Because he wants to work with the best of the best, and that is something that the Arena League doesn't have to offer. Football is not about planes or about stadiums. If it was, wouldn't the Lions be a good football team? They fly to games in nice planes, and they have a nice stadium, and... they suck. Why have they sucked for so long? Crappy players. There aren't even enough elite players in the country to fill the 32 teams in the NFL. Teams full of scrub replacements won't fill those stadium seats. The planes and the stadium and the game itself are all secondary to the real product, which is the players. The players do indeed have the right to ask for whatever salary they deem to be fair, and to refuse to work for a salary they deem unfair. As I have said before, this is not a pedestrian owner/employee relationship. Those rules do not apply here. The only reason they apply to a normal work situation is because of the availability of replacements of an equivalent value. If this wasn't true, the players would still be making $40,000 a year. You can replace a waiter with a guy off the street. The same for an office worker. They have a low value because there are many of them. The more education or specialized training you need to do a job, the more value they have, because there are less people available to do those jobs. If you hire unqualified people for them, then the whole business starts to suffer. This is why Commander's Palace doesn't scout for executive chefs at Waffle House. Look, I'm cutting out of this conversation with you. Clearly we have a difference of philosphy and I can respect that. I still totally disagree with yours. I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement. Players sit out all the time wanted to be traded or their ego isn't stroked enough. So your view on the Owners breaking a contract is silly. If the players are owed something they get it...it's in the contract...if owners trade a player...it's in the contract. In the end I know we will have football with a probably a bunch of guys well overpaid. I don't really mind that since it is a Capitalist Market and if someone is willing to pay it you should take it. It's just unfortunate that when they don't get what they think they deserve they whine and cry.

03-24-2011, 02:32 PM	#24
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Originally Posted by lynwood I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement. Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract.

03-24-2011, 05:48 PM	#25
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Danno Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract. Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. They exercised an option and thus the players did they same; The option to not be bent over and told what to do. EDIT: Lyn, I am intrigued at how you suddenly call a ceasefire when basically every point you attempt to make is systematically broken down to mean nothing substantial. However, I am also tiring of this thread and am very much okay with agreeing to disagree, whether or not your post was directed at me, as I very clearly disagree with you.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

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

03-24-2011, 06:15 PM	#26
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Originally Posted by BringTheWood Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

03-24-2011, 10:47 PM	#27
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	... Originally Posted by lynwood Look, I'm cutting out of this conversation with you. Clearly we have a difference of philosphy and I can respect that. I still totally disagree with yours. That is fine, but your mistake is thinking that this was a philosophy discussion. I was discussing the facts of the situation, while you have been screaming "But Santa is so good that he SHOULD be real" when you weren't screaming "If I can't go to the party, Billy shouldn't be able to either! It isn't fair!" It hasn't exactly been intellectually stimulating for me, either. Originally Posted by lynwood I have yet to see any neglet or breaking of obligations that wasn't allowed in the agreement. You know what, it would be easier to do this than say this... again... Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP The court case isn't about forcing the NFL owners to open their books, it is about the NFL owners setting up loaded TV contracts to give them leverage over the players when those same owners are contractually obligated to looks out for the well being of the players as well. They are supposed to try to maximize profits for EVERYONE, instead they deliberately set up a scenario that would keep money rolling in for them, yet allow them to freeze out the players. See, you had seen a breaking of a contractual obligation by the owners. Originally Posted by strato Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses....we have no control on what these rich people do..do me a favor and let it go..we to have just play the waiting game...let just hope for a good draft and a resolution.....just stare at my avi for 5 mins... We have no control over what happens on a football field, either, but we have an entire board to discuss it on. No one is making you read the thread. Skip it and stop telling me what to talk about. Thanks. PS, I would rather just watch Dogma than stare at your avatar.
	"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.

03-24-2011, 10:58 PM	#28
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by strato Ok everybody take a deep breath and get off your high horses... just stare at my avi for 5 mins... You know this is total nonsense... this isn't about the fans. Have you seen ticket prices or the price of dome foam? My avatar will stare back at you.
	Last edited by foreverfan; 03-24-2011 at 11:00 PM..

03-24-2011, 11:39 PM	#29
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Danno The owners didn't weasle out of anything either. Actually, the CBA that was in place, would still be in place had it not been for the owners and the league opting out of it. Thus, the owners are responsible for there not being an active CBA, so yeah, they actually did. Second, my usage of the colloquialism "Weaseled out of" does not dampen the previously stated fact, and is only a particular phrase that I decided to use because it fit the mood; My mood. It doesn't make the truth, or my obvious utterance thereof, subjective, or any less real. The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not. You call yourself a truth addict. Well, here's a freebie, so pull out your pipe and smoke it. EDIT: Someone lock this thread. Perhaps if we want to continue in healthy debate we should start a thread elsewhere; Somewhere besides the Saints section of the boards.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-25-2011, 12:51 AM	#30
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by BringTheWood The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not. This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is. Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted. No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court.
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 03-25-2011 at 12:53 AM..