Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

lynwood · 03-25-2011, 06:06 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.

Ha!

BringTheWood · 03-26-2011, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

For the absolute last time... Of course there was a negative connotation, as my former admittance thereof would prove. How many times do I have to say that it was something I said in line with "My mood" before you will believe me? I'm not a professional spin artist, I'm not getting paid for this. You all clearly are smart enough to gather what I meant by it. I'm just gonna leave it at that. I refuse to be drawn any further in to a semantics argument fueled by your apparent dislike, for my dislike of the owners, in this situation.

To be crystal clear. My stance is that in support of we getting to see some damn football. I'm not so biased as to think that the owners didn't or won't get a little manhandled by players or the union at times. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them seeing as how they KNOW they are gonna make plenty of money. Boohoo to them if it's 250 million in a year, instead of 350 million. Whom I am much more inclined to support are the players that will REALLY benefit from the union making sure rookies get incentive laden contracts, that veterans and players forced into retirement with injuries have some medical financial security, and generally that the faces that make this game will make wheat they are worth. It's foolhardy to think that I am only seeing this from the point of view of a few rich players. I don't necessarily give a rats ass if Drew, Peyton, or Tom don't get the pleasure of getting a record setting deal, though I would argue that Drew almost deserves it. He's been a PR wet dream for the NFL, until now. I won't argue the validity of many of the other points that you brought up, because they are nice, concise, relevant details that have plenty of worth to the conversation, but to write agreements to all of them would see my reply become 3 times as long. So, in one fell swoop, I agree with, and am not blind to most of what you discussed.

This dead horse has almost been beaten back to life, but one last time. Of course the players knew this was coming, did all of the fans, likely not. Of course because they saw this coming, they saved money, at least some of them did. that would be the generally non-retarded thing to do. the owners could have easily done the same, or realistically not given a damn, because I'm sure each one of them is worth more money than they can probably spend before they'd die. Where there is a difference is that the owners, supported by Roger Goodell and the NFL, colluded (don't mistake, there is no positive connotation to this term) with the TV contracts. They did this to primarily to gain leverage over the players, grab them by the balls, so to speak. Of course they are getting paid as a result, and Rog was all in because he also collects his paycheck as a result. You won't convince me though, that those contracts were done in good faith, by any stretch of the imagination. The players are suing, and most importantly are suing under anti-trust legislation. I can't really blame them, as the owners haven't particularly given them reason in recent memory TO trust them. I won't go back to the argument that "The owners can straight up Honey Badger this crap and tell the players to take it or leave it, because they don't give a ****, they're OWNERS!" because that is completely retroactive, and not practical. This is an almost completely unique business model, therefore the game changes. THAT is why I have chosen to side with the players. I don't want to see the Marcus Colstons of the future get cornholed. He's a 7th round pick that has more than proven his worth, and he plays his heart out, for a relatively modest salary. Yes he makes 'decent' money, and he damn sure deserves it. I'm not about supporting the spoiled ones, just supporting the players in general.

I really really really do tire of this argument though. Upon review there isn't anyone in this thread that didn't propose at least some valid points or arguments, and I can see that we aren't going to cave in to each other, which is fine, because we share different beliefs. However, these philosophical, and obviously political meanderings are becoming redundant. Agreeing to disagree sounds good about now, and maybe we can all instead focus on where our draft, and our team might be headed. I'm going to do as I do, and remain optimistic that we're fielding the Saints in September.

And Danno, there isn't any "Wealth Jealousy" there. Money isn't that important to me. I've been on the bottom side of the economic scale my entire life and still find more than enough to keep me positive and loving every minute of it. Jealousy in general? No. Disgust at this whole situation, and at the power struggle taking place? Yes. I called a theoretical owner a "Rich guy behind a franchise". There is nothing false about that. I could care less if they were the richest man/woman alive, just so long as they make it work so that I can see my football. You are obviously forming opinions of me, based on silly little rantings in otherwise mostly relevant conversation, which is disheartening. I have nothing against you, and haven't been here very long, but I do intend to get along with most, if not all of you. If I wanted somewhere to make enemies AND friends, I would've signed up to some league-wide forums. So I ask you politely, engage in the debate, or don't, totally up to you. But don't hop in, dissect my post down to one line that shows even the slightest level of bias, and then counter with your negative opinion. Debate me and let's coexist as rabid saints fans.

Lastly, Lynwood. You seem like a really nice guy and it was all to fun butting heads on the issues. I apologize if I ever came close the a personal attack, and hope we can argue some more.

I'm out, need to find a camera to post pictures of my new Saints bedspread and various other accessories.

03-25-2011, 06:06 PM	#41
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	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. Ha!

03-26-2011, 11:32 AM	#42
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by saintfan 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. For the absolute last time... Of course there was a negative connotation, as my former admittance thereof would prove. How many times do I have to say that it was something I said in line with "My mood" before you will believe me? I'm not a professional spin artist, I'm not getting paid for this. You all clearly are smart enough to gather what I meant by it. I'm just gonna leave it at that. I refuse to be drawn any further in to a semantics argument fueled by your apparent dislike, for my dislike of the owners, in this situation. To be crystal clear. My stance is that in support of we getting to see some damn football. I'm not so biased as to think that the owners didn't or won't get a little manhandled by players or the union at times. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them seeing as how they KNOW they are gonna make plenty of money. Boohoo to them if it's 250 million in a year, instead of 350 million. Whom I am much more inclined to support are the players that will REALLY benefit from the union making sure rookies get incentive laden contracts, that veterans and players forced into retirement with injuries have some medical financial security, and generally that the faces that make this game will make wheat they are worth. It's foolhardy to think that I am only seeing this from the point of view of a few rich players. I don't necessarily give a rats ass if Drew, Peyton, or Tom don't get the pleasure of getting a record setting deal, though I would argue that Drew almost deserves it. He's been a PR wet dream for the NFL, until now. I won't argue the validity of many of the other points that you brought up, because they are nice, concise, relevant details that have plenty of worth to the conversation, but to write agreements to all of them would see my reply become 3 times as long. So, in one fell swoop, I agree with, and am not blind to most of what you discussed. This dead horse has almost been beaten back to life, but one last time. Of course the players knew this was coming, did all of the fans, likely not. Of course because they saw this coming, they saved money, at least some of them did. that would be the generally non-retarded thing to do. the owners could have easily done the same, or realistically not given a damn, because I'm sure each one of them is worth more money than they can probably spend before they'd die. Where there is a difference is that the owners, supported by Roger Goodell and the NFL, colluded (don't mistake, there is no positive connotation to this term) with the TV contracts. They did this to primarily to gain leverage over the players, grab them by the balls, so to speak. Of course they are getting paid as a result, and Rog was all in because he also collects his paycheck as a result. You won't convince me though, that those contracts were done in good faith, by any stretch of the imagination. The players are suing, and most importantly are suing under anti-trust legislation. I can't really blame them, as the owners haven't particularly given them reason in recent memory TO trust them. I won't go back to the argument that "The owners can straight up Honey Badger this crap and tell the players to take it or leave it, because they don't give a ****, they're OWNERS!" because that is completely retroactive, and not practical. This is an almost completely unique business model, therefore the game changes. THAT is why I have chosen to side with the players. I don't want to see the Marcus Colstons of the future get cornholed. He's a 7th round pick that has more than proven his worth, and he plays his heart out, for a relatively modest salary. Yes he makes 'decent' money, and he damn sure deserves it. I'm not about supporting the spoiled ones, just supporting the players in general. I really really really do tire of this argument though. Upon review there isn't anyone in this thread that didn't propose at least some valid points or arguments, and I can see that we aren't going to cave in to each other, which is fine, because we share different beliefs. However, these philosophical, and obviously political meanderings are becoming redundant. Agreeing to disagree sounds good about now, and maybe we can all instead focus on where our draft, and our team might be headed. I'm going to do as I do, and remain optimistic that we're fielding the Saints in September. And Danno, there isn't any "Wealth Jealousy" there. Money isn't that important to me. I've been on the bottom side of the economic scale my entire life and still find more than enough to keep me positive and loving every minute of it. Jealousy in general? No. Disgust at this whole situation, and at the power struggle taking place? Yes. I called a theoretical owner a "Rich guy behind a franchise". There is nothing false about that. I could care less if they were the richest man/woman alive, just so long as they make it work so that I can see my football. You are obviously forming opinions of me, based on silly little rantings in otherwise mostly relevant conversation, which is disheartening. I have nothing against you, and haven't been here very long, but I do intend to get along with most, if not all of you. If I wanted somewhere to make enemies AND friends, I would've signed up to some league-wide forums. So I ask you politely, engage in the debate, or don't, totally up to you. But don't hop in, dissect my post down to one line that shows even the slightest level of bias, and then counter with your negative opinion. Debate me and let's coexist as rabid saints fans. Lastly, Lynwood. You seem like a really nice guy and it was all to fun butting heads on the issues. I apologize if I ever came close the a personal attack, and hope we can argue some more. I'm out, need to find a camera to post pictures of my new Saints bedspread and various other accessories.
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