Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

lynwood · 03-23-2011, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BringTheWood · 03-23-2011, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 09:47 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.

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.

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 08:30 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, 01:02 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, 01:32 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, 04:48 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, 05:15 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.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 10:39 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.

03-23-2011, 07:27 PM	#1
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP It isn't about "taking away the owners rights". It isn't about rights at all. They aren't trying to take away their "right" to keep their books closed, they are trying to get them to open their books. There is a distinct difference. It isn't like they have been demanding that the owners open up their books on general principle. They are just saying "prove your claims". They have the right to say "We require X to work for a wage of Z". This doesn't impinge on any owners "rights". Furthermore, if you were an NFL player, would you REALLY trust the owners when they said "We aren't making enough money, so we want some of yours. We aren't going to show you proof, just trust us."? Really? These owners quite obviously screwed over the TV stations in an attempt to get leverage on the players in these negotiations, when they are contractually obligated to look out for the player's interests as well. If these guys are screwing over the players and the networks, and then they say "Just trust me", they would be ignorant to do so. Don't turn this into an issue of "rights" because it isn't one. It has nothing to do with rights being taken away. Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays. Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit. Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved. I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse. Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say. Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check. It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid. If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers.

03-23-2011, 11:42 PM	#2
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by lynwood Trying to get them to open their books...is not taking away their right to keep them closed? I'd love this to go to court. Owners don't have to prove squat. They say they need another Billion for costs, hell look around at how much it is to build and upkeep facilities, and planes, and practice facilities, and staff, nowadays. Owners didn't say they wanted more of "theirs(players)" money, owners want to keep more of "their own. Fact is Owners can keep what they find neccessary to run the business. They should have to break it down to their employees to justify it. Employees can whine and moan or quit. Honestly as an owner I wouldn't even make a "Trust me" statement. I'd offer and they can do what they are doing and refuse. Fine. Owners go out and get players that are willing to play for what you offer. problem solved. I'd rather see a backup get a chance to shine than watch Dez Bryant show off his arse. Players have the right to ask them to open the books, heck nothing wrong with asking. They do not however have the right to pick their own salary based on what the books say. Again Owners OWN, Players Play for the Owners to collect that check. It has everything to do with rights. Outside of a Federal law of a minimum wage a owner doesn't have to offer diddly else. Just make sure the taxes are paid. If the Owners go 50-50 with the players they are suckers. Look, no offense, but at this point it sounds like you are trying to sound like the most conservative republican possible, just for the sake of doing so. In theory, and practically just so, the owners can do whatever they want, or don't want to do. That is, however, not a practical business practice, at least in this instance. As fate would have it, this isn't the 1800's anymore and people actually give a ** if they are getting run over, whether you are aware of that. This has a lot to do with money, I won't deny that, but I'm also everything short of absolutely certain that it's more about establishing a voice and letting the owners know that they won't be run over. Whatever bull** reason you care to give, the fact remains that this is all consequence of something the owners did, which was opt out of an already fair and active contract. Think of that the next time you talk about a player arguing a contract. The players aren't moral champions, and they are just as greedy as the owners, but this is almost entirely the owners fault, and thus, I hope they lose, especially that bastard Jerry Jones. You can see it however you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that (especially in something as unique as the NFL) it's as cut and dry as the owners being all "Take it or leave it." is simply ignorance. Goodell and the owners are on a power trip, and much like any other economic leviathan that exists in modern crapitalist America, they refuse to compromise and show nearly any flexibility, only operating with the attitude of "I'll be damned if anyone is gonna take my money! THIS IS AMERICA!!!" I'm often reminded of something upon reflection. People pride themselves in this country on the symbolism that we are "One Nation Under God" and that we are a "Christian Nation", yet most do not act like it. Remember the scripture: MARK 12:31 NKJ - `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.' Was some of this slightly off topic? Maybe. Was it relative, comparatively? More than most would see. Again, I know, tl;dr. Sue me.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-24-2011, 09:47 PM	#3
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.

03-25-2011, 09:00 AM	#4
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.

03-24-2011, 08:30 AM	#5
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, 01:02 PM	#6
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, 01:32 PM	#7
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,764	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, 04:48 PM	#8
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

03-24-2011, 05:15 PM	#9
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,764	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, 10:39 PM	#10
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