Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

BringTheWood · 03-25-2011, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

Ok, no offense intended, but here goes...

Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president.

"Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball"
Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood.

That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.

lynwood · 03-25-2011, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

Ok, no offense intended, but here goes...

Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president.

"Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball"
Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood.

That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.

Back in..

Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements.

I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to.

You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out?

You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion.

This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

lynwood · 03-25-2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

...

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.

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

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

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.

I tried to back out of this conversation but you are so incorrect it's more painful for me to stay out.

I don't get the Santa Reference.

You seem like an Intelligent guy by the amount of words you can stuff into a paragraph so you should be able to understand what i'm saying and asking.

State a fact that is not an opinion from your point of view... I'll help you with some of mine:

Owners opted out of a contract that everyone had a right to do.

Owners Opted-out first based on their need for more cash for overhead and to work out terms that would be more favorable to them.

Owners own the football teams and decide salary(or agree to salary terms via CBA).

Players work for the owners and collect a paycheck provided by the owners.

Owners do not have to open the books for review by players to determine if teh owners request is legitimate.

Players can reject the owners offer.

Owners can reject the players demands. I say Demands because the players are not paying the owners anything.

I pulled this from an Article and if this doesn't convince you that the owners are getting a raw deal nothing will:

"Right now, the NFL players are getting about 60% of the total revenues the league generates each year.

But it’s not exactly a 60/40 split. You have to remember that the owners 40% cut goes into operational costs.

•Coaches: ALL of them make at least $100,000. There’s probably 20 of them.
•Highest coach could make up to $5 million
•Other top coaches on the staff make $1-2 million
•General Manager: this is around $1 million
•Office Staff: someone needs to staple all the documents.
•Media Relations, Public Relations, Marketing, Sales,Accounting
•Scouting: this is a huge cost that is sometimes forgotten about.
•Travel costs: this includes air transportation, hotels and meals.
•Equipment: we’re talking millions of dollars
The owner keeps whatever is left. No one is feeling sorry for the owners here but I vaguely understand why the owners want what they want."

NFL Owners vs. NFL Players - 104.5 THE TEAM - ESPN RADIO

Players use a union for negotiations and then disband their union for what again? I'd like to know your opinion or fact on this.

What rights do you think the owners have?

The above are some Facts of the situation plus a question or two.

Your facts of the situation up to this point doesn't really hold anything substansial(in my opinion) due to them being based on your philosophy of who you perceive as being Greedy or the system of ownership vs players and unions. They are all greedy or maybe just want what best benefits them. Who wouldn't want that? Your opinion is that the players should benefit more than the owners.

You seem to like the idea of players picking their own salary based on company revenue or what they perceive they are worth. But don't like the owners rejecting that figure. You don't like that based on not the facts but your philosophy about greed, owners and who should have control over salary and the total dollar amount of a 9 billion dollar industry. If that is not your opinion then you are not as clear as you think.

If there is no NFL games next year you would Blame the Owners for Breaking a contract they had the right to break(and the players knew this cause they shared the right) and say they are greedy because they didn't meet players demands?

I would say the players didn't meet the owners offer.

I'd rather you watch Dogma than stare at my Avatar as well.

lynwood · 03-25-2011, 09:20 AM

"You seem like an Intelligent guy by the amount of words you can stuff into a paragraph so you should be able to understand what i'm saying and asking."

I'd like to apologize for that statement. That was not called for and had no place in the discussion.

BringTheWood · 03-25-2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Back in..

Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements.

I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to.

You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out?

You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion.

This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion.

2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result.

3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did.

4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective.

I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals.

Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off.

5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take.

saintfan · 03-25-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion.

2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result.

3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did.

4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective.

I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals.

Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off.

5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take.

There is a certain connotation inferred by using the expression "weaseled out". Either you get that or you don't. My money says you do - just be man enough to confess it.

Regardless of what you think, it was a perfectly legitimate method for exiting the current CBA. It's what contracts are for.

And, weaseled out, backed out, exited from, choose whichever you like. If we weren't doing this now, we'd be doing it 2 years from now. This was coming. The owners want to make as much as they can. So do the players. And so, we head to court. This is what the players have been prepping for.

Some say the owners used the TV deal to ready themselves for this. Pretty obvious that they did just that. The players Union - well, the former players union, has been preaching to the players for the better part of 2 seasons to save their money, because they knew before they walked into the negotiating room they were going to court. There wasn't a damn thing the owners could negotiate with the players on unless and until they open their books. You can believe that....or not I suppose, but actions were taken by both sides preliminary to any negotiation.

This was headed to the courtroom the moment this CBA was signed, and that is no more the fault of the owners than the players. That's people being people. The truth is the owners effed up. They caved in. They shouldn't have. It was a huge mistake. The owners were forced to give up 7 million in salary cap, agree to revenue sharing between the teams and had to give the players a cool billion to get them to agree to the extension. That's what it took to make that deal happen. I took a HUGH chunk of money away from the owners.

So, they figure they can recoup some of that by going to 18 games. The players already got their extra billion plus another 7 million in salary cap AND revenue sharing which guaranteed each team could participate in a price war. But they used the sweatshop argument insisting two more games would jeopardize careers.

You may recall that extension was a last minute thing. The owners didn't want to do it. They HAD to do it otherwise guess what? The players were going to strike...again. So the owners said, okay, we'll do it, but we want an out clause so we can renegotiate. The players accepted this knowing full well they'd go to court before they negotiated a damn thing.

That's not speculation. That's certifiable history. You use the term 'weaseled' irresponsibly in my opinion, and a few of us here called you on it, that's all. The owner's had their hand forced by an over-zealous Union. The owners are now asking for some of that back...not all of it mind you...just some, and the players have refused to negotiate in good faith unless the owners open their books.

I see both sides. If I were a player I wouldn't want to give back a dime. If I were an owner I would want to recoup some of what I lost in the last agreement because maybe I feel like I'd been taken advantage of and held hostage by a powerful Union that took more than it's fair share.

I know it's not as simple as the mean old owners weaseling their way out of being fair to the poor downtrodden elite NFL athlete. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Danno · 03-25-2011, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners.
.

I quit reading this nonsense right here. Wealth jealousy irritates the **** out of me and totally taints any point you make thereafter.

saintfan · 03-25-2011, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by strato

she aint Selma... sorry bro and what do you suggest we do?...i want to hear how any fan will make a difference in this big money fight?

The only difference WE can make is to refuse to spend a dime on anything related to the NFL. Boycott the players, the video games, the team gear, and DO NOT watch on TV, or at the very least refuse to spend money at any establishment that advertises during the games.

That's the only way, and collectively, we, the fans, don't have the spine for it. We'll go running back soon after they strike a deal. We suck.

Danno · 03-25-2011, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

The only difference WE can make is to refuse to spend a dime on anything related to the NFL. Boycott the players, the video games, the team gear, and DO NOT watch on TV, or at the very least refuse to spend money at any establishment that advertises during the games.

That's the only way, and collectively, we, the fans, don't have the spine for it. We'll go running back soon after they strike a deal. We suck.

Or, like me, I'm not buying any player merchandise or purchasing anything that gives the hypocrite players any finacial advantage whatever.

I'll watch on Sundays, and buy generic Saints merchandise on the black market.

In fact, I'm cutting down all the "bushes" in my yard and erecting a fence to block the "Brees" from blowing into my yard.

I'm also gonna key a PT cruizer tonight.

saintfan · 03-25-2011, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Or, like me, I'm not buying any player merchandise or purchasing anything that gives the hypocrite players any finacial advantage whatever.

I'll watch on Sundays, and buy generic Saints merchandise on the black market.

In fact, I'm cutting down all the "bushes" in my yard and erecting a fence to block the "Brees" from blowing into my yard.

I'm also gonna key a PT cruizer tonight.

03-25-2011, 01:03 AM	#31
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by saintfan 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. Ok, no offense intended, but here goes... Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president. "Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball" Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood. That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-25-2011, 07:49 AM	#32
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by BringTheWood Ok, no offense intended, but here goes... Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president. "Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball" Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood. That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it. Back in.. Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements. I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to. You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out? You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion. This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

03-25-2011, 09:00 AM	#33
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP ... 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. You know what, it would be easier to do this than say this... again... See, you had seen a breaking of a contractual obligation by the owners. 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. I tried to back out of this conversation but you are so incorrect it's more painful for me to stay out. I don't get the Santa Reference. You seem like an Intelligent guy by the amount of words you can stuff into a paragraph so you should be able to understand what i'm saying and asking. State a fact that is not an opinion from your point of view... I'll help you with some of mine: Owners opted out of a contract that everyone had a right to do. Owners Opted-out first based on their need for more cash for overhead and to work out terms that would be more favorable to them. Owners own the football teams and decide salary(or agree to salary terms via CBA). Players work for the owners and collect a paycheck provided by the owners. Owners do not have to open the books for review by players to determine if teh owners request is legitimate. Players can reject the owners offer. Owners can reject the players demands. I say Demands because the players are not paying the owners anything. I pulled this from an Article and if this doesn't convince you that the owners are getting a raw deal nothing will: "Right now, the NFL players are getting about 60% of the total revenues the league generates each year. But it’s not exactly a 60/40 split. You have to remember that the owners 40% cut goes into operational costs. •Coaches: ALL of them make at least $100,000. There’s probably 20 of them. •Highest coach could make up to $5 million •Other top coaches on the staff make $1-2 million •General Manager: this is around $1 million •Office Staff: someone needs to staple all the documents. •Media Relations, Public Relations, Marketing, Sales,Accounting •Scouting: this is a huge cost that is sometimes forgotten about. •Travel costs: this includes air transportation, hotels and meals. •Equipment: we’re talking millions of dollars The owner keeps whatever is left. No one is feeling sorry for the owners here but I vaguely understand why the owners want what they want." NFL Owners vs. NFL Players - 104.5 THE TEAM - ESPN RADIO Players use a union for negotiations and then disband their union for what again? I'd like to know your opinion or fact on this. What rights do you think the owners have? The above are some Facts of the situation plus a question or two. Your facts of the situation up to this point doesn't really hold anything substansial(in my opinion) due to them being based on your philosophy of who you perceive as being Greedy or the system of ownership vs players and unions. They are all greedy or maybe just want what best benefits them. Who wouldn't want that? Your opinion is that the players should benefit more than the owners. You seem to like the idea of players picking their own salary based on company revenue or what they perceive they are worth. But don't like the owners rejecting that figure. You don't like that based on not the facts but your philosophy about greed, owners and who should have control over salary and the total dollar amount of a 9 billion dollar industry. If that is not your opinion then you are not as clear as you think. If there is no NFL games next year you would Blame the Owners for Breaking a contract they had the right to break(and the players knew this cause they shared the right) and say they are greedy because they didn't meet players demands? I would say the players didn't meet the owners offer. I'd rather you watch Dogma than stare at my Avatar as well.

03-25-2011, 10:29 AM	#35
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by lynwood Back in.. Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements. I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to. You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out? You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion. This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect. 1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion. 2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result. 3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did. 4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective. I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off. 5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-25-2011, 02:11 PM	#36
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by BringTheWood 1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion. 2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result. 3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did. 4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective. I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off. 5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take. There is a certain connotation inferred by using the expression "weaseled out". Either you get that or you don't. My money says you do - just be man enough to confess it. Regardless of what you think, it was a perfectly legitimate method for exiting the current CBA. It's what contracts are for. And, weaseled out, backed out, exited from, choose whichever you like. If we weren't doing this now, we'd be doing it 2 years from now. This was coming. The owners want to make as much as they can. So do the players. And so, we head to court. This is what the players have been prepping for. Some say the owners used the TV deal to ready themselves for this. Pretty obvious that they did just that. The players Union - well, the former players union, has been preaching to the players for the better part of 2 seasons to save their money, because they knew before they walked into the negotiating room they were going to court. There wasn't a damn thing the owners could negotiate with the players on unless and until they open their books. You can believe that....or not I suppose, but actions were taken by both sides preliminary to any negotiation. This was headed to the courtroom the moment this CBA was signed, and that is no more the fault of the owners than the players. That's people being people. The truth is the owners effed up. They caved in. They shouldn't have. It was a huge mistake. The owners were forced to give up 7 million in salary cap, agree to revenue sharing between the teams and had to give the players a cool billion to get them to agree to the extension. That's what it took to make that deal happen. I took a HUGH chunk of money away from the owners. So, they figure they can recoup some of that by going to 18 games. The players already got their extra billion plus another 7 million in salary cap AND revenue sharing which guaranteed each team could participate in a price war. But they used the sweatshop argument insisting two more games would jeopardize careers. You may recall that extension was a last minute thing. The owners didn't want to do it. They HAD to do it otherwise guess what? The players were going to strike...again. So the owners said, okay, we'll do it, but we want an out clause so we can renegotiate. The players accepted this knowing full well they'd go to court before they negotiated a damn thing. That's not speculation. That's certifiable history. You use the term 'weaseled' irresponsibly in my opinion, and a few of us here called you on it, that's all. The owner's had their hand forced by an over-zealous Union. The owners are now asking for some of that back...not all of it mind you...just some, and the players have refused to negotiate in good faith unless the owners open their books. I see both sides. If I were a player I wouldn't want to give back a dime. If I were an owner I would want to recoup some of what I lost in the last agreement because maybe I feel like I'd been taken advantage of and held hostage by a powerful Union that took more than it's fair share. I know it's not as simple as the mean old owners weaseling their way out of being fair to the poor downtrodden elite NFL athlete. Nothing could be further from the truth.
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 03-25-2011 at 02:45 PM..

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

03-25-2011, 09:20 AM	#34
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	"You seem like an Intelligent guy by the amount of words you can stuff into a paragraph so you should be able to understand what i'm saying and asking." I'd like to apologize for that statement. That was not called for and had no place in the discussion.

03-25-2011, 02:18 PM	#37
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,713	Originally Posted by BringTheWood You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. . I quit reading this nonsense right here. Wealth jealousy irritates the **** out of me and totally taints any point you make thereafter.

03-25-2011, 03:00 PM	#38
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by strato she aint Selma... sorry bro and what do you suggest we do?...i want to hear how any fan will make a difference in this big money fight? The only difference WE can make is to refuse to spend a dime on anything related to the NFL. Boycott the players, the video games, the team gear, and DO NOT watch on TV, or at the very least refuse to spend money at any establishment that advertises during the games. That's the only way, and collectively, we, the fans, don't have the spine for it. We'll go running back soon after they strike a deal. We suck.

03-25-2011, 03:40 PM	#39
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,713	Originally Posted by saintfan The only difference WE can make is to refuse to spend a dime on anything related to the NFL. Boycott the players, the video games, the team gear, and DO NOT watch on TV, or at the very least refuse to spend money at any establishment that advertises during the games. That's the only way, and collectively, we, the fans, don't have the spine for it. We'll go running back soon after they strike a deal. We suck. Or, like me, I'm not buying any player merchandise or purchasing anything that gives the hypocrite players any finacial advantage whatever. I'll watch on Sundays, and buy generic Saints merchandise on the black market. In fact, I'm cutting down all the "bushes" in my yard and erecting a fence to block the "Brees" from blowing into my yard. I'm also gonna key a PT cruizer tonight.

03-25-2011, 03:44 PM	#40
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Danno Or, like me, I'm not buying any player merchandise or purchasing anything that gives the hypocrite players any finacial advantage whatever. I'll watch on Sundays, and buy generic Saints merchandise on the black market. In fact, I'm cutting down all the "bushes" in my yard and erecting a fence to block the "Brees" from blowing into my yard. I'm also gonna key a PT cruizer tonight.