NFL lockout -- NFLPA will work through weekend, sources say - ESPN

I'f I'm an owner I'm done too. I'm about ready to pull a Reagan when he told the air traffic controllers to get back to work or lose their jobs. If I'm an owner, at this point, it's, "Report to training camp with THIS deal or go bag groceries."

Now look, I can understand if the players aren't happy seeing some items in the deal the owners ratified they hadn't seen previously, but what ARE those things?

From my chair, it looks like the players, who IMO already had a damn sweet deal, are getting an even sweeter deal, and they STILL aren't happy?

C'mon guys. Y'all don't OWN the teams, okay? Sign the effing deal and get your asses back to work already...seriously...

Apples and gorillas. The Air Traffic Controllers were holding an illegal strike. The players did not walk out of the old CBA. The owners prematurely terminated it, getting out just very first moment that they could.

Not "apples to gorillas" in the spirit, which was my intent. I am well versed on the difference between that strike and this lockout, but thanks anyway

Does it matter? Would you sign a 10 year contract that you haven't read, no matter what's in it?

No, and I'm not suggesting the players do either. I want to know the specifics of why the players seem so miffed by the deal the owners ratified.

In my view, the very fact that the owners signed on this deal 31-0 means that it cannot be sweet to the players. It's not a compromise unless both sides have some pissed off constituents.

In fact it was 31-1, right? In any case, you are suggesting that because the owners were nearly unanimous that there's a fox in the hen house? Paranoid much? I get where you're coming from, but at the end of the day, that tally alone does not a bad deal make. Revenue has already been agreed to, and we both know it's about money, so WHAT ELSE has them so miffed? What the players had before this drama, by ANY MEASURE, was beyond sweet. With that 31-1 vote they get to make MORE and work LESS. Sounds pretty damn sweet to me.

I totally disagree. While the players do not own the teams, NFL teams do not exist without these players. These players are close to singularly unique. They collectively do things that no other human beings on the planet can do. This isn't grocery bagging or making boxes. These owners cannot just fire this set of players and get some other set of folks to come in and do the job. Trust me, if they could put out the same product with cheaper labor, they certainly would. It would certainly be easier to come up with 32 different owners, than to come up with 1700 more players that can play this game at this level. You remember what happened in 1987 when the NFL tried to use replacement players?

These players make up the current rosters, but I can assure you the NFL will go right on going on if every damn one of them never plays another down, and if the owners are TRULY done - if they've really put down their pens as I hope they have, then you'll see a lot of players changing their tunes, but fast. The owners know they need the players. I don't argue that. I'm just not so sure the players are fully aware of the fact that they need the owners. If I'm an owner I'll cut my expenses and lower the quality of play if that's what I have to do. 11 million dollars a year to play football is insane, and prices are only going to go up. The least paid and seldom played are making well over 6 figures.

So this is a partnership. Owners provide resources. Players provide talent. They share the $9 billion/yr in revenues. Both have the right, if not the obligation, to try to get best deal they can get. This CBA is going to be 10 years. I'd rather wait a couple of weeks and have two side come up with the best deal possible, that creates reasonable happiness and stability on both sides for the next 10 years, then to complain about one side or the other signing right now so we can see a couple of completely meaningless preseason games with players who will in fact be bagging groceries and making boxes in a month or two.

This CBA is going to be 10 years with a player-sponsored 'out' clause at 7 years...you know...the same type of 'out-clause' those players bashed the owners for exercising this year? They're talking about both sides of their collective ass. The owners may have just embarrassed them in public. Good. And if you can't define 'reasonable happiness' at their salaries then I don't know what to tell you. PRACTICE SQUAD players made 88 THOUSAND DOLLARS with the previous agreement. FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS a week. No, they've been living under a sweetheart deal. Anybody who says differently isn't living in the real world.

Remember that it was the owners unhappiness with the last deal, which they got strongarmed into by mounting public pressure, that caused this lockout to begin with. Keep complaining, and you'll see players striking after the next CBA runs its course.

If you were an owner you wouldn't like it either. They took the deal and bailed when they could, which is more than I can say for the players used-to-be-union who wants to have it's cake and eat it too.

They both need each other. They both need to come out of this with some things they want. They both need to give up some things too. It takes time to get done.

They do. They do. And they are. So WHAT is it about this latest agreement that has these players saying they've been 'hookwinked'? Woudn't you like to know? I'd like to know, because from my chair they've got it made in the shade with ice cold lemonade. No, they HAD that deal, the offer on the table right now is EVEN BETTER because they're going to make more and work less. Hello?

I can almost guarantee you that no matter what happens, our Saints will be trotting on the field September 8th to stomp on the Packers. So what does it really matter what happens until then?

SFIAH