Intersting take on NFL Lockout.
 

As I am sure some of you may have seen the contents of these links, and this is generally old news at this point, I am not looking for credit on 'breaking news'.

First link is a pretty honest look into what has been going on with the labor disputes by someone who is no longer financially invested in the league as a player or an owner, making their opinion more third party than anything, but also more genuine. Most intriguing is the information about Southwest Airlines and the interaction and ownership stake that the employees are accustomed to. I personally feel that the business model that they use is near perfect for the NFL, a business where employees are also extremely wealthy, powerful, and influential. It's ignorant for us fans to continue to compare this situation, and the players demands, like those of a burger flipping employee at a multibillion dollar McDonalds corporation asking to see the books.

Hillenmeyer: Cutting Through the NFL Spin | NBC Chicago

Second link is basically the NFLPA stronghold of news and information. Even if you are partial to opposition towards the players stance, it's got some interesting info about the 'safety net' money the league would receive from broadcast contracts and partially explains why the owners and league were so lethargic in getting a deal done. At the end of the day, they were getting paid either way.

NFLLockout.com

Again, this may or may not be new news to the folks around BnG, but I thought I would post it anyways, and offer my opinion of sorts on the matter.

EDIT: I'm not saying the NFL should operate just like Southwest Airlines, but the business model in general seems like it would be a good fit in a place where employers and employees are both reaping such generous rewards. I don't think it's ever been very healthy for the NFL to operate almost like several (32 to be exact) small monopolies that are capable of putting several US cities in financial deathgrips.

If the league folded and started over from scratch, 99% of the current players would play for 1/2 of what they make now.


I'd bet 80% would play for 1/4th of what they make now.

I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but I get the point. However, I'm a bit less worried about how greedy everyone is being, and more worried about how the NFL isn't showing particularly good business practices. This isn't the same league that existed in the beginning where players were given room and board, meals and transportation and played for almost nothing. Perhaps it goes further than just football politics for me, to general politics, but I don't think the NFL acts in good faith towards the very people that ensure they exist. They (the NFL and the owners) are the ones that are causing all of this by generally bailing on the CB agreement that should still be in effect. Goodell in general has been bad for fans of the NFL, as his whole focus is on the NFL as SOLELY (Keyword) a business and not as the American pastime that millions love. Same old story is true, more work, less pay, and most importantly, less voice.

I respectfully disagree, the minimum salary is approaching a half million per year. I think they pay these guys quite well. College athletes do it for 1/10th the price, albeit some much more than that.

The bailout was an option negotiated by both sides, which was put there in case the owners weren't getting the deal they'd hoped for. Thats not bad faith, its like a return policy on a product you're unhappy with. They are exercizing a right that the players willingly gave them.

I don't think Goodell has been bad for the fans either. What exactly has he done that's bad for the fans? The players wanted more safety, so he's punishing players who step over the line.

I can't think of one thing Goodell has done that's bad for the fans that the players also didn't also want. The fans wanted drugs out of football, so he adopted a zero tolerance policy. It may have gone a tad overboard with the starcaps case, but that affected about 6 players in total and so far has had zero effect on the fan.

"Goodell in general has been bad for fans of the NFL, as his whole focus is on the NFL as SOLELY (Keyword) a business and not as the American pastime that millions love."

It is a business. Not a Tournament

The owners are multi millionaires and are greedy by nature. The players play the game from the time they are children because they love the game. They grow up hoping that they'll make it big in the pros and making the big money. When it comes to money the players earn it. It then goes to their owner who take the financial risk.
Maybe Southwest has got something that the NFL owners don't. Rules to make them play fair. Let it go to the courts.:argue::argue::argue:

The Players are Multi-Millionaires if they stop "making it rain" and invest properly. Who cares how much they love the sport. If it a love of the sport then they wouldn't be crying to the owners that they want 50%. What other company/ owners give their emplyees 50% of the profit? Players play a GAME. They do earn money just like any other worker that has a job earns money. I don't know what you mean by "Owner's play fair." Owners propose a salary, the player accepts it or rejects it. A contract is signed. The NFL needs to break free of all the "we make your business" talk from the players.

Owners own the team not the players. If it does go to courts I hope the players fall on their arse and the owners start new with a fresh draft and no union. Which by the way they dissolved only so they could go to court. Sham!!

Everyone needs to get rid of the "The owners are bosses and the players workers, just like my job" mindset, simply because it is wrong. They are MUCH closer to entertainers than they are 9 to 5ers.

Tom Hanks commands a huge salary for movies. The studio doesn't say "You will take what I offer or I'll cast someone else." because Tom Hanks draws a crowd. Without even hearing what the plot is, who the director is, who the co-stars are, or even the genre of movie, what would you choose... The new Tom Hanks movie, or the new Johnny Knoxville movie? Even if you choose Johnny Knoxville, you know damn well you are in the minority. Tom Hanks will bring in more people on his name alone, a lot more. So much more that he is worth the 10 - 20 million dollar difference in their salaries.

This works the same for football. Again, if you feel differently, that is fine, but you still have to recognize you are in the minority. When we picked up Drew Brees, season ticked sales soared. A few weeks later when we drafted Reggie, *BAM*, season tickets were sold out for the first time in a LOOONG time, and there is STILL a waiting list for them. Jay Cutler and Thomas Jones would not have caused that reaction because they don't have the star power. Not athletic skills and talents, because I would take Thomas Jones over Reggie every day of the week, but Jones would not have sold us out.

I wait tables, I have done it for ages, and I am DAMN good at it. Even so, I can't increase or decrease a restaurants business by 20% - 50% all by myself. I can make it run smoother, or more roughly... I can keep guests coming back, or keep them from coming back, but not in that quantity. When I get a job at a new restaurant the whole city is NOT a twitter about it. I have mad skills, but no star power. Thus I can't say open your books and show me why you can't pay me more than $2.13 an hour.

Hell, just take Reggie for example. Has Reggie earned his salary on the field? I'm going to go with "no" on that. I don't think he has quite played up to his salary. But that star power of his... That sold a lot of tickets. It sold a lot of jerseys, tee shirts, and hats. I'm sure Benson made a nice net profit off of that, even with Reggie's big salary.

Athletes equate to Actors/Entertainers, hourly employees do not equate to athletes. If you don't think that is "fair", well, tough **** comrade. Hell, even when the founding fathers said "All men are created equal." they said with with a wink and a nudge. I would even be willing to stipulate that all men are created equal, but that sure doesn't mean they stay that way.

nice way of putting it, good read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know, I know, tl;dr.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

That I can Agree with 100%

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

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.

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

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.

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.

The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

...

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.

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

My avatar will stare back at you. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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. :mrgreen:

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.

:lolup: