SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Mar 31 2011 01:00 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else want to see this last through what's supposed to be the whole season? I'd be thrilled to see a "The Replacements"-like situation develop out of this. The only people that this thing will really hurt is the fans and the cities that depend on the teams' revenue stream.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 02:23 pm

Yeah, I love the NFL but I find myself hoping they lose the entire season out of greed. The owners are fucking assholes. It would have an economic impact, so logically I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it's fucking ridiculous that the owners are locking out the players when the players aren't even asking for anything. It's the millionaire/billionaire owners who are making all the demands.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 02:30 pm

I agree, it's definitely the owners. Contractually speaking, football gets the most raw sort of deal, at least as is comparable to baseball or basketball players. Considering how much it tears their bodies up as comparable to the other sports, they're actually the one group of professional US athletes that I think are somewhat underpaid.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 05:43 pm

Klimbatize wrote:

Yeah, I love the NFL but I find myself hoping they lose the entire season out of greed. The owners are fucking assholes. It would have an economic impact, so logically I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it's fucking ridiculous that the owners are locking out the players when the players aren't even asking for anything. It's the millionaire/billionaire owners who are making all the demands.

Wasn't it the Players Association that walked out of talks and decertified immediately? It's also pretty clear the players union had no real interest in ever signing a new CBA because the deal the NFL proposed seemed very reasonable to me. The owners have to lock out the players because there's no CBA.

I'd like to see a lost season because it'll punish those players and the players union who think the whole league hinges around them. No, just like in 1982 when the players came crawling back, the owners and the NFL will just find different players and the game will continue.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 07:55 pm

Panda, the NFL wanted to add games to the schedule /and/ shift one billion dollars of earnings towards them, change free agent rules to give even fewer choices to players, and some other bullshit demands. They've been planning this for a while, as all the owners have saved up enough money to endure an entire season without earning a penny.

You know what the players wanted? Nothing. The players wanted to keep it the way things are. That's why it's a lockout, and not a strike. Sure, the players walked out of a meeting, but they're not walking out on the season. The owners are. For the amount of money the league brings in, NFL players are some of the most underpaid professional athletes in the country. Asking to keep their salaries where they are isn't asking too much in my opinion.

That offer the owners put forth was not a good deal, and they knew it would be rejected by the players. They want to lose a season and break the players. Owners can sustain a work stoppage far longer than players can. In the end, the owners will win, and earn even more money than they already do.

I can understand if you think the players are being greedy, but how can you say the owners aren't as well?

Posted: Mar 31 2011 08:29 pm

My take on it: The players are complaining that the season is going to be extended by two games. Which will lead to more injuries and greater chance to lose there chance to play the game earlier then desired. The want more money to compensate for this. The also want health benefits for retired players. So yea they are making some demands. The owners want 2 billion off the top before the money is split. In essence the owners would receive $62.5 million a piece for business affairs. Which is about the price of drafting two #1 draft picks.

The players would still be recieving their checks if they agreed. Tom Brady is still going to make almost $1 Million a game. Do I feel bad for NFL players? Sure don't! It's there faults for living in the moment and thinking the money will always be there. Do I feel bad for the former players. Yes! They had to play the game with inferior padding and less money.

The Starters on the NFL teams are already playing roughly 6-7 quarters during the preseason, That's almost 2 games, and they aren't complaining. It's not like the speed isn't there because people are vying for spots. These guys are getting paid millions to play a game they have played their whole lives. I don't feel bad for a guy who goes bankrupt after leaving the NFL when he has 10 Luxury vehicles and 2-3 Mansions.

I can see an agrument that they should be getting more money based on the fact that they signed contracts for a 16 game regular season, but like I stated earlier they aren't really playing more than 2 extra quarters.

My solution to this whole ordeal would be this...
Enforce a rookie salary cap. Reward your veteran players for achievements on the field. Provide Health care to retired players. If every team put at LEAST $10 Million a year into a healthcare pool you got $320 Million to pay for medical bills. Make the season 18 games and drop two preseason games. Give the owners $1.5 Billion off the top the other .5 Billion in to the healthcare, and play the damn game.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 09:16 pm

NFL owners obviously have won the message war and have a much better PR department.

Douche, players may have wanted health care for vets, but they've already dropped that demand and just want what they already have. Owners will wait them out. I love how everyone bitches about the players wanting more money when the owners are already billionaires and get cities to build their stadiums, and yet they demand more.

Posted: Mar 31 2011 10:03 pm

I'm not saying the owners are in the right, but none of us know what the costs of running an NFL Team are. We can blame the owners on that because they refuse to open their books. The whole NFL has gotten out of hand imo. Owners have a right to seek more money. That is like a company asking it's employees to increase production and work overtime with out increasing their wages, or benefits. The fact of the matter is they can always find people willing to do the job. The big concern that they simply don't care about yet is, what we the customers think.

Posted: Apr 01 2011 06:40 am

Yeah, I'm with Douche on this one. As far as I knew, the NFL took the 18 game season thing off the table relatively quickly as that was probably just a ceding point anyway to make it look like they were willing to negotiate. NFL.com published their final offer to the NFLPA and again, it looked very reasonable to me as an impartial observer and didn't include the 18 game season.

Here was their offer; from NFL.com:

» Only an additional $325 million off the top for the owners rather than the $1 billion they initially asked for.

» Maintaining the 16 regular-season games and four preseason games for at least two years, with any switch to 18 games down the road being negotiable.

» Instituting a rookie wage scale through which money saved would be paid to veterans and retired players.

» Creating new year-round health and safety rules.

» Establishing a fund for retired players, with $82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years.

» Financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that isn't even shared with the teams. That was proposed by the NFL this week, and rejected by the union, which began insisting in May 2009 for a complete look at the books of all 32 clubs.

The owners are just businessmen so of course they're going to try to get as much profit as possible from their teams, especially those who own bad teams in small cities. I don't blame them for being successful businessmen like the rest of Socialist America. On the other side of that token though, they are businessmen and most likely won't be very keen on just not playing an NFL season at all and losing potentially $6 billion worth of revenue so I highly doubt that's their goal here.

If the players want to be greedy, shoot down a reasonable deal, start suing people and hold out, the game will be played without them I'm afraid. The fans will watch scrubs play football.

Posted: Apr 26 2011 03:58 pm

For anyone who cares and didn't know, a judge ordered the lockout ended in the players' favor. Now we can have another year of beer shilling and terrible Super Bowl halftime shows.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Why does a judge get to determine the outcome of this?