I would agree with your point if the contracts that they are cornered into signing weren't so one sided. If the owners were obligated to honor a contract as well, I would agree more. As it is, 4 years is 4 years for the players, but the owners can sign that contract and then cut you before the ink dries.

And there are more specific cases I can't fault the players for either. Like Vincent Jackson. The best WR his team has had in years, hugely talented, highly successful, one of the most productive players on the team... But he had no star power when he signed his contract, and got a scrub contract and then played like an all-pro. I don't blame him for finally saying "Screw this, the kicker makes 3 times more money than I do, my 3rd string backup makes twice the money I do, pay me!".



I'm totally with you there. When the unions were created they were sorely needed. Now they are a big part of what is hindering this country. Naturally, there are still unions that are exceptions to this, but for the most part...


What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints

The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days.

If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well.

The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

Good post and to the point!

Lets discuss contracts. I know, you know, the owners know, and the player is well aware (through his agent if he's not savvy enough on his own) how things work. They negotiate these contracts with that in mind. It isn't like they get blind-sided. They aren't cornered into a damn thing. In my opinion that is ludicrous. Wouldn't either of us like to sign on with employer "X" and get half-a-mil before we stepped foot in the door? Damn skippy.

The fact is just about every damn one of them is over payed right out of college - and yes, even the league minimum guys. Even the league minimum guys are making enough to maintain two (or more) residences. Even the league minimum guys are through with their pay in to social security before the season even starts, and before they've played a down. Even the league minimum guys can afford to buy their cars outright. Even the league minimum guys go to work in first-class facilities and enjoy Cadillac heal care plans most people can only dream about. The rest of them sign deals worth many millions of dollars before they play their first down in the NFL. Yes, some guys out play their deals. You know what? I out performed my hiring position with Google. In three years I was promoted twice, but I had to wait until the promotion period before I could 'negotiate'. That's how it works in the 'real' world. Why should the NFL be excluded from the real world?

If these players think they're gonna out play their deals, then they should write a renegotiation clause into their contracts. If the owners go for it great, but if they don't, well, that's great too. The player is free to not sign, not play, and not get wealthy. Of course the players don't do this, because it's too risky. They might suck. This is why they hold out (and hold teams ransom) for every last penny they can get. It happens every summer, and it'll happen again this summer assuming there is actually any football.

The owners have to be able to protect themselves too. The players don't seem to get this. The owners have a right to make money too. Lots of it. They are the owners. That's the way it works.

i can't explain to all of u the happiness the honeybadger has brought to me in these times of need because of the greedy football world putting itself in front of fans and to all like breesfan who greatfully just don't give a s--t about no rich biatch whining in her wine glass of napas finest.

True, I know Unions aren't _always_ the working man's friend.
But I know management _never_ is. I've been on both sides
of the street, and no one in this world can ever convince me
that the interests of corporations/owners/management are
beneficial to the people on whose backs the companies are built.
That may have been true before about 1980, but since then
the only thing that trickles down is the fecal matter of bulls.

I'm with you that if they'd've moved the Saints,
I would have never watched the NFL again. I probably
would have had to've stopped watching TV during football
season because I'm sure the sorrow and the rage would
have driven me to drinking or hoarding or some other
equally terrible thing. So I'm really glad for
The NEW ORLEANS Saints.

I can think of one man who probably makes anyone
with a pen and a contract not sleep well at night:

Albert Haynesworth.

I think, and I have suggested to Halo, that we should all change our Avatar on a pre-determined day, to some image of the Honey Badger. A show of solidarity. A statement to the NFL, owners and players alike, that we, the collective fan, much like the honey badger, don't give a ****. Just play some damn football.

Count me in!! Cause I'm angry and I don't give a ****!!

http://nixtasinks.nixta.com/images/HoneyBadger.jpg

the difference between B&G & the rest of the net
 

See? While discussion over the rest of the net devolves
into personal attacks and hatred, our deliberations take a creative,
more interesting turn. Congratulations, B&G, you have once again taken
a contentious, divisive topic, and turned it to something fuzzy.

not nice, mind you, but fuzzy, nevertheless.

The only negative I can see is that the cats have disappeared, for their own safety, no doubt.

Tripoli burns, our economy tanks, the end of the world looms, and
our favorite pastime threatens long hiatus, does this guy care?

Go ahead. Ask him point blank. How does he feel? Worried? Frightened? Remorseful? Melancholy? No!

Honeybadger he dont give a ****!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pdwnzUooju...ney+badger.bmp

That's right. He eats Cobras! Ewwwwwwww :mrgreen:

(BF'27, close your ears & eyes)
i dont believe that dude's really that grossed out by the concept of
eating a snake that spits.

More power to you guys. But if I didn't change my avatar during hot Asian girl month, I sure ain't gonna do it for the honey badger.

It's okay. Remember: Honey Badger don't give a ****

Seems I've heard that somewhere before.

he really doesnt. he'll eat cobras...

just like.... whatever...

Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so.


Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time.

So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks.

You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect.


True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about.

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed.

If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.

Yes. I certainly do. And the Billy Joe's and the Everette's too. And I don't remember any blackouts during Brooks' time with the team, but I could be wrong.

Look, it's a combination of players and geography for most people, and we latch on to players and loathe others, but we still live and die by what the 'team' does on Sunday. I'll be bleeding Black and Gold long after Drew retires. So will you. That's part of what makes it so popular - the fact that we'd latch on to replacement players too if they played long enough. That's just the nature of the beast. And I think that's the argument.

And I agree with Saint_Michael 100%. The comparisons are completely valid. Why shouldn't they be?

You guys seem to think I am arguing philosophy. I am arguing reality.

Why the NFL should or should not be excluded from the "real world" is irrelevant.

The fact is, the NFL IS excluded from the "real world".


When it comes to the philosophy, I can't even agree that they "should" be held to the same employment standards. They DO have a greater value to their business than the average employee has to their own employers. I'm just not down with communism. Everyone does not have the same value. If you have the leverage to make a better deal because of higher value, good on you.

Seconded. :D

You don't have to be a Honey Badger to not give a ****!

That thinking is how Union labor got too big for its britches.

S.E.M.A.N.T.I.C.S.

Regardless of how you choose to interpret the specifics of the contract, which I'm fairly sure you don't know 100% and haven't read yourself, the fact remains that the owners caused the contract to CEASE. In doing so they started this whole mess. Add in the fact that there was an obvious act of collusion that also included the commissioner of the NFL, and the owners have lost just about any credibility that they may have had; At least with anyone who isn't a complete moron, or Ronald Reagan.

If you absolutely must have it viewed from your particular wording, however, then I would argue that the players are simply exercising a mutually agreed upon right renegotiate also.

The owners opened this can of worms, just accept it. I applaud the players for not backing down, and while it pisses me off to no end that we may not see football for a good while, I refuse to misguide my rage towards them for exercising their right to be taken seriously. Just open the books owners, and this all goes away.


That letter is admittedly bad though. It is overly obvious that it's either an act of lunacy, or a half-hearted attempt at securing pity.

I loved Scott as a player when he was a Saint, and regardless of the recent social potholes, he remains to me a classy and sincere guy. No one is perfect, and he's just riding the wave. His wife however... He should pull a Peoples Republic of China and censor her.

Thats what Baseball thought before it went on strike.

"Facts" & "reality" are apparently fuzzier than I've been lead to believe.
Let me help here:

I dont recall everyone being 100% sold on Drew Brees. Not saying anyone disliked him, but only 2 teams were interested, and nobody was sure if he'd be the same after the shoulder. I didnt hear everyone screaming "Brees" all the way to the Dome. My memory keeps hearing, "Reggie- Reggie- Reggie."

That said, New Orleans was a global news story, and fans were fighting to save the Saints. I strongly question that the season sell-out was all about two superstars. Saving the Saints, supporting the City, and joining the Dome reopening was foremost in conversations.

Not saying Reggie didnt help. (I remain a Reggie apologist.) But its presumptuous to assert that he and Drew were the reason people came. Your "hard cold numbers" lack a survey there, Mr. Gallup.

By that logic, we should have sold out for Rickey Williams & Mike Ditka. We've had superstars. (Earl Campbell, Ken Stabler) We've had Heismans (George Rogers, Danny Weurffel.) -- How'd that work for us?

I could sit here and claim we all came to see Green Day, and call it a "hard cold fact."

And actually the Hebert years were damn exciting-- the best we'd had to that date. There were these guys called the Dome Patrol. And the Steelers won, & Three Rivers was an exciting place to be when (K)ordell played.

But you know what? When they went on strike in '87, we still watched the Scabs play. Some of the Scabs made the teams after the strike ended. The point is, we still watched, and the NFL went on.

I wont go as far as Seinfeld, and say we're rooting for laundry, in fact, I've stated in an earlier post how important the players are, and how much I love them. But "fact" is, we are Saints fans, and we went when Jim Everett played. We went when Dave Wilson played.

But dont try to sell your uncited opinions as "facts" and "reality." I work in news media. "Indisputable" my a$$.

Last time I heard "indisputable," somebody was trying to tell me there wouldnt be any more snow.

>>Thats what Baseball thought before it went on strike. <<

And the NHL as well. They STILL haven't recovered from the
early 90s Player's Strike, the following mid-90s lockout, and
then the 04-05 lockout. After all that chicanery, very few teams
are in the black. 'Doesn't seem like it did ANYBODY any good,
and most certainly not THE FANS.

>>But that contract said that if either of you were unhappy with the deal, you have the option to re-negotiate another contract at that point.
The owners did NOT back out of a contract, they simply exercised a mutally agreed upon right to renegotiate.<<

Yeah you know, we tried that here in the South back in the 1800s, and
look how THAT worked out... *smirk*

Your avatar is AWESOME, '66!

66 made a very good point with his reference to baseball.

Baseball killed it's self with the strike. The MLB started the recovery during the Sosa - McGwire HR battle. (which was later destroyed by the press and government) with the steriod crap.

I remember, not too long ago, you could turn on just about any channel and find a baseball game. You can't do that now. Baseball is still having the effects of the stopage.

Football. Has fully taken over the tv waves. For goodness sake, they even play re-runs for pro and college games all year long. I don't think the players, owners and NFL Brass really understand what harm can happen to the NFL as a whole if this lockout continues.

Most of sports fans are lower - middle blue collar people. Who work very hard for the money they make and are so devote to the teams they support that they will adjust their income just to buy tickets to games.

Once you make those people feel alienated, or feel betrayed.....your buisness is screwed.

Faddarekkid, I think the original baseball quote was Danno's.

And fadda resta darekkid, I'm a chick. Not that it really matters
in this context, but, just in the interest of full disclosure, I guess.

As for blue collar fans, it feels like most of the major sports leagues
have totally forgotten this. They cater to high dollar fans and corporations,
even tearing out season ticket holder seats to make room for corporate
ballrooms to watch games from. Glassed enclosures, away from all
of us rowdy, dirty, raucous, drunk and disorderly fans who made
all those gottdang seats POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

While I will *always* love the New Orleans Saints, I do feel like
the leagues have let their money go to their heads, and are shooting
themselves in the feet with some of this stuff. NASCAR is another
example. They keep trying to make the sport more "mainstream
friendly" and they keep wondering why seats at tracks like Bristol
last weekend get emptier, and emptier. They say, "it's the economy".
Naw, it's not the economy. It's that they keep jacking ticket prices
up, while changing rules and watering down the sport more an'
more. There's only so much fertilizer people will put up with.
And with ALL these leagues, there's usually a smaller, cheaper,
passionate and wildly entertaining local league we all CAN and
WILL go to instead of their overpriced pablum.

Except for the Saints. There is not, was not and never will be
a replacement for them. Which is why I really really REALLY
hope the NFL and the players will find a happy medium and
GET ON WITH IT ALREADY.

Thank ye. I got it as a magnet from ebaY. You can get one
too, ratcheer:

h**p://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-ORLEANS-SAINTS-JAX-BEER-FRIDGE-MAGNET-/120702943237?pt=US_Football_Fan_Shop&hash=item1c1a74c005

Replace the *s with t's, just so we don't show up in
searches or nothin' like that.

No, I ain't that person, and I make no profits from tellin' y'all
about this here cool magnet. Enjoy.

Just like you saying it is a bad comparison doesn't make it so. It is apt. When they want to play the role of common man, then they have to play by the rules of the common man. If they don't want to, then say something like "Hey we are all wealthy individuals here who are dealing with money you normal fans can't understand. We'll get this worked out, but until then just sit tight"? But don't try to play it both ways. Why you seem to think that just because they make more money they get to create a new set of rules is beyond me.

So, you think that because of the “indisputable fact” the Saints had a ticket spike when Drew and Reggie joined the team it proves your point about the players being indispensable? That’s a jump! Back in 1987 the players thought they were indispensable too. After watching replacement players fill their shoes for three games, they quickly realized that people would indeed watch without them and their big work stopping strike lasted all of 24 days. There is your indisputable fact. And let’s think about it…is football less or more popular than it was in 1987? You can say what you want to about MLB and NHL strikes hurting the sports, but they were not as strong as football is now. When Sundays and Monday nights come rolling around in October, people will watch football if it’s on no matter if it’s drew Tom Brady QBing or not.




The rough moments may not be as cherished as the good ones, but they were and are still watched and that is the point. You can’t enjoy the good times without having the bad times to compare them to.

I understand that the history of America shows that organized labor had its purpose and place. But as response to a seemingly common idea running through this thread, I say it is a mistake to relate modern day unions exclusively with hard, blue collar workers and vice versa. It’s the ethic of the person that makes a hard worker, not a union. I've got family and friends in both teacher and refinery worker positions (both heavily unionized) and to say that union workers are synonymous with hard workers is a crock. In fact, the opposite is often true because non-union contract workers are frequently self employed and more motivated because they don't have the safety net of a high profile, politically motivated, due funded, lawyer advised and represented union to fall back on.

I know for a fact that unions dissuade teachers in at least one local district here in the bay area from having extra open office hours before or after school or from spending weekend unpaid time on their own with students. Their union has specifically told them that those hours are not in their contract to provide and therefore not sanctioned by the union and should not be participated in. So, this blue collar, hard working teacher union basically tried to deny a teacher a weekend field trip to a local museum with her class even though it was on her time and dime.

I've been paid for many labor jobs and sweated through many 12-hour workdays to pay my way through college without joining a union. So don't act like the workingman claim is strictly for pro union members. I worked hard to get money for college, worked hard to get my degree in college, and I’ve worked hard once I got out of college to make a career. To me, the idea that a group of people can have a monopoly on a work skill and demand that anyone who is employed in that skill pay them money so that they can represent them is extortion and as Un American as denying someone freedom of speech or religion. Didn’t the Corleone family kinda get started out like that?

And do you know WHY the union tells them not to do that?

So it can't be FORCED ON THEM.

The idea that unions aren't needed any more is, IMO, a very
dangerous one. Unions are there to protect workers from
corporations. That's still a valid reason to have unions.
No, unions aren't always RIGHT, who IS? But collective
bargaining for workers is as important now as it ever was.
Because believe me, if there were no unions again, it wouldn't
take long at all to realize that when workers don't have a
collective voice, wages plummet, benefits plummet, working
conditions become hazardous beyond belief, and if a worker
complains... no job. THAT is why there are unions. Overzeal-
ous at times? Perhaps. But that HARDLY means that the
need for unions is outdated and over rated.

I personally have never made the jump that "union" = "hard worker".
I *do* make the jump that "union" = "blue collar". I hadn't personally
got that the jist of any of the union discussions was a paean to how
hard the person works or not. Hell, management, from my
personal experience, are some of the laziest people in all creation,
and proud of it. In fact, it gets worse the more wealthy most people
get. I know plenty of people whose idea of success is to live off of
interest and dividends and never have to work again. Most of them
are extreme fiscal conservatives when it comes to social issues, and
couldn't give a rat's arse about the quality of life of a working man
or his family.

I guess personally, the people I respect most are people who work
hard no matter what. No matter if they have money or not.
No matter if they get paid or not. I know it's not a universal value
or even a national one, but it's one amongst the people I love, and
it's how I was raised, so that's what's important to ME, and what
I value in people, whether they are football players, teachers,
janitors, or checkout clerks. What I also know from a lifetime
of observation, is that unions really protect people who can work
themselves to death, more than the lazy people. Unions protect
people with a good work ethic from being abused by corporations.
Lazy people are just lazy poeple, wherever they are found.

Hardly. They do it so they lazy tenured teachers won't look bad when they don't go the extra mile. To force teachers to have to work on weekends you'd have to force the kids to as well. We know that ain't gonna happen.

No, today's unions' goal is to get the most amount of money they can for it's members while performing the least amount of work possible. A person with a good work ethic would have no problem working their way up through better jobs with or without a union. Unions do more protecting of lazy workers that should be fired than they do of strong workers. Employers want strong workers...they don't need to be protected!

Believe it or not, all corporations are not monstrosities that are run as sweat shops only to torture the employees. Surprisingly, many have begun to realize that if you reward good workers with good salaries and good working conditions you get happy employees who do quality work. After all, there are plenty of workers in this country that are fine not working union jobs. In 2010, 88.1 % of the US workforce was non union:

Union Members Summary

So it seems that unions aren't always needed to protect the poor workers from the companies and their evil managers. 88 or so percent of us didn't need them in 2010.

amen.

and thanks for the magnet link! that sucker's going on my truck!

'66, you're really coming on this board with a bang. I disagree with a little of what you say, but thats what its all about. Dont take nothin
too serious. After all, B&G is all for fun, and we're rooting for the same
team.

If they'll get the season rolling, we'll get some tailgators going.

I don't get the whole badger thing. I must be out of the loop.

Kiss My Black Arse.

Well, apparently the main thing to remember about them is that they don't give a ****.

Its a must see, although I think its a guy thing. Most girls just roll their eyes.

Every guy thats seen it laughed their butts off.

exactly, Danno. My wife is not all that amused by honeybadger-- not like I am. she just doesnt give ....

you know what else? she doesnt like SouthPark. didnt think it was funny when Marsh was trying to get the world record for crapping. (measured in Courics--- HAHAHAHAHA)

she doesnt like butthead either? how is this so?

She doesnt that excited to drive around country roads, drink beer, and listen to old rock.

and she wont pee outside, if there's an indoor restroom available nearby.
What kind of people would rather pee indoors?

women. whats up with them?

She does however care about the Saints just like I do-- and she dresses up nicely for the games.

Hahaha! Alright then. Whatever keeps y'all entertained during the lockout. :mrgreen:

This isn't all together completely true. Just because someone busts their ass doesn't mean they are going to get their due. You can't honestly believe that. Ideally that is how it should work, but that's being optimistic. I can say to you, from experience, that I have seen more than 10 instances of workers being let go for less than substantial reasons. I live, and have almost always lived in Texas, an at will state. That means that you can be fired, at any given time, for no given reason, and you'd be surprised how often people get canned for no other reason than the managers don't like the people.

I won't disagree that some unions are leeches, because that would be a foolhardy thing to say. However, there are many that are not. To the same effect, as you stated, that while many companies are not unfair to their workers, some actually are. You have good and bad with anything. Personally, I support unions. That doesn't mean that I WOULD support EVERY union, especially the ones that I know are dirty. Objectively, unions are supposed to promote fairness and job security. Objectively, employers should take care of their employees, assuming they aren't terrible workers. How often are people objective though. Optimism and even pragmatism take a quick backseat to pessimism in this country. I try to stay optimistic and pragmatic.

To argue against unions fundamentally is just a bit wrong in my opinion. Any level headed individual can see that more often than not, it is the worker being screwed. Both sides do get screwed, just workers more often than not. Also, I feel that it is worth noting that RARELY would you have a PRIVATE company that would deal with unions. More often than not unions are there to combat corporations. Corporations elect leaders whose primary, and often only goal is the maximization of profits, without promoting well being in the workplace, worker incentive, or job security.

Lastly, without completely researching the EXACT statistics I would say that the 88.1% number you gave isn't because 88.1% of people are COMPLETELY fine without union support. There are a whole list of reasons why some people won't associate with unions, many of which aren't an ideological distaste. If you would have me elaborate on some, I could. And, truth is, Reagen went around in the 80's busting up most of the unions like Ryu against a car in a bonus stage. There just aren't nearly as many unions today as there were when America was more industrial. Lastly, to my last paragraph, America outsources so much freakin' work that many would form unions for, therefore we also see a drop in statistics. There just aren't as many industrial jobs in the states as their used to be.