IT AIN'T OVER, PLAYERS WON'T SIGN Yet!!!

Saint_LB · 07-25-2011, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

When any of the players accumulates enough through their own business savvy to actually buy a team THEN you two can high five each other, or whatever else you wanna do together. Until then you're both pissing in the wind...

Well...I know somebody pissed in your cornflakes but it wasn't us.

Why would they have to buy a team...why not just start a new team. My halfway serious post involved new teams starting with new names, etc...not purchasing old teams where you would have to buy the name.

Anyway...under my proposal you would have to start another team because there would be nothing left to purchase if you bought an NFL team. Remember, we are trying to get away from the NFL.

saintfan · 07-25-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Saint_LB

Well...I know somebody pissed in your cornflakes but it wasn't us.

Why would they have to buy a team...why not just start a new team. My halfway serious post involved new teams starting with new names, etc...not purchasing old teams where you would have to buy the name.

Anyway...under my proposal you would have to start another team because there would be nothing left to purchase if you bought an NFL team. Remember, we are trying to get away from the NFL.

I don't understand the logic of "we don't need the owners". Who's going to fund everything that needs to be funded? Somebody or some thing has to own. And any way you slice it, the players will necessarily have to be subservient to that entity. That's just the way the world works.

The players aren't going to bolt from the NFL. It's their cash cow. Owning is risky. Ask any one who attempted to own a team in any of the defunct former football leagues.

My assessment all along has been and will forevermore continue to be that the players have it made. This seems to make people think that I believe the owners are without fault. This isn't the case as we all know, but some have to polarize because they can't approach it from a realistic point of view.

Over and above all the benefits, 88k, which is the lowest of the low, 5200 a week, it MORE than fair. I find it challenging to come down on the side of the players, and the general argument seems to be "the owners are making SO much money that the players should be making much more". I disagree, up to a point.

As I have said in every thread that touches this topic. The players are the product, and I am all for them making as much as they can, but that's only up to a point where I, the "fanatic", don't miss any games.

The owners own. They employ people. They provide jobs. Are they uber rich? Yes. So what? It's seems the people that are willing to hold that against them - those who blame the owners for the price of a ticket - don't seem to be willing to hold the players to an equal level of responsibility, even when those players are lying to the media, just as they accuse the owners of doing. It's a two way street.

A player-owned league (still, there's that 'own' word again) would fail miserably. I can't prove that because there is no point of reference, but the fact that other leagues have failed coupled with the fact that so many players AREN'T business people and lose everything they made in the NFL should be evidence enough.

We don't need kings and queens. The citizens should govern themselves. LOL Welcome to America.

ALLSAINTS66 · 07-25-2011, 02:13 PM

>>The citizens should govern themselves. LOL Welcome to America.<<

Mmmm. And "Welcome To The Real World" where "It Doesn't Really
Work That Way". But it sure is a nice illusion. *shrug* Onward! Upward!

07-25-2011, 06:16 AM	#21
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Originally Posted by saintfan When any of the players accumulates enough through their own business savvy to actually buy a team THEN you two can high five each other, or whatever else you wanna do together. Until then you're both pissing in the wind... Well...I know somebody pissed in your cornflakes but it wasn't us. Why would they have to buy a team...why not just start a new team. My halfway serious post involved new teams starting with new names, etc...not purchasing old teams where you would have to buy the name. Anyway...under my proposal you would have to start another team because there would be nothing left to purchase if you bought an NFL team. Remember, we are trying to get away from the NFL.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

07-25-2011, 02:11 PM	#22
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Saint_LB Well...I know somebody pissed in your cornflakes but it wasn't us. Why would they have to buy a team...why not just start a new team. My halfway serious post involved new teams starting with new names, etc...not purchasing old teams where you would have to buy the name. Anyway...under my proposal you would have to start another team because there would be nothing left to purchase if you bought an NFL team. Remember, we are trying to get away from the NFL. I don't understand the logic of "we don't need the owners". Who's going to fund everything that needs to be funded? Somebody or some thing has to own. And any way you slice it, the players will necessarily have to be subservient to that entity. That's just the way the world works. The players aren't going to bolt from the NFL. It's their cash cow. Owning is risky. Ask any one who attempted to own a team in any of the defunct former football leagues. My assessment all along has been and will forevermore continue to be that the players have it made. This seems to make people think that I believe the owners are without fault. This isn't the case as we all know, but some have to polarize because they can't approach it from a realistic point of view. Over and above all the benefits, 88k, which is the lowest of the low, 5200 a week, it MORE than fair. I find it challenging to come down on the side of the players, and the general argument seems to be "the owners are making SO much money that the players should be making much more". I disagree, up to a point. As I have said in every thread that touches this topic. The players are the product, and I am all for them making as much as they can, but that's only up to a point where I, the "fanatic", don't miss any games. The owners own. They employ people. They provide jobs. Are they uber rich? Yes. So what? It's seems the people that are willing to hold that against them - those who blame the owners for the price of a ticket - don't seem to be willing to hold the players to an equal level of responsibility, even when those players are lying to the media, just as they accuse the owners of doing. It's a two way street. A player-owned league (still, there's that 'own' word again) would fail miserably. I can't prove that because there is no point of reference, but the fact that other leagues have failed coupled with the fact that so many players AREN'T business people and lose everything they made in the NFL should be evidence enough. We don't need kings and queens. The citizens should govern themselves. LOL Welcome to America.
	C'mon Man...

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-25-2011, 02:13 PM	#23
ALLSAINTS66 Bless You Boys! Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: In mah hause. Posts: 319	>>The citizens should govern themselves. LOL Welcome to America.<< Mmmm. And "Welcome To The Real World" where "It Doesn't Really Work That Way". But it sure is a nice illusion. shrug Onward! Upward!