leh-nerd skin-erd

i don't remember the game, but it sounds like it was exciting. what happened?

well, oversimplifying the issues is part of the problem. you watched the video and saw what you wanted to see, something the supported your point of view. i saw a politician ask a series of questions designed to elicit the answers he wanted to support his point of view. it's done all the time. talk radio hosts make a killing off that. you see a hack, i see a hack, but we both see hacks. as for the concession(s) and corporation(s) arguments, here's the difference. corporations have other options. they can relocate to other states or countries that offer a better business environment, taking their jobs with them. our politicians are charged with finding the balance between tax rates and budgetary needs and have failed miserably in most cases across the board.

why not just tax the tax? cut out the middle man, or in this case, toilet paper.

Interesting read. No mention of what went down in Wisconsin, use of phrases like "Hail Mary", and in one section, this: "Normally, a two-thirds vote of the Legislature is needed for the government to place a question on the ballot, and Republican lawyers say they will challenge any simple-majority measure in court" coupled with a reference to the republicans fighting a simply majority. Is it..."normally" or "legally"? Seems to spin left.

he who does, is. he who does not, well, who can say?

it's like Roots, Part Deux over there.

easy breezy lemon cheesey. side with the players or owners if you want, but take a look at the article. Several anonymous tipsters quoted Jerry Jones exactly the same way? And don't forget the part where the author covers needed ground....If this is accurate... I read somewhere that Tom Brady said "We're going to burn this motha to the ground...". I got to thinking, if what I heard is accurate, it spells trouble for us all. I don't doubt JJ would say something like this, I think he's an arrogant man, but I never discount the potential agenda of the tipster.

Now I see how this works. It's like a netflix commercial: Red is the sound of treason. Prove me wrong, you sons of *&^%Hes.

15 March 2011 Mr. Theodore Dexter Kaczynski c/o ADX Supermax federal Penitentiary Florence, Colorado Dear Ted, Mom told me that they gave you a computer to help pass the time in solitary. Let me know if you get access to the internet. Your loving brother, David

i'd suppose it makes sense a guy like that would have an edge to him at times.

yeah, i read that after seeing another post that he had died. i've really been out of touch with hockey since the early 80's. his tory was pretty sad indeed, given what happened with his father and everything else. tough way to go. RM on the other hand, seemed like a stand up guy. he was fun to watch---

and good Lord, Spencer appears to be cross-checked face first into the goal post. Among the toughest people on the planet, the hockey player.

top players. big contracts. you just described the nfl. maybe in the next life they'll all settle in and sing kumbaya, but i doubt it would be any different.

Really? You forgive a union man betraying his brothers, but find fault with a guy with no allegiance to either? Are you a union member? If you follow the union philosophy, there is nothing worse than a break in the ranks.

If you want to break it down to simple terms, I'd submit that if we were looking at any business that didn't involve professional sports, the vast majority of sports fans would look at a player who makes big money (relative to your 95 percent number) the way you look at ownership. Show me a guy making $400k per year, rolling up in a Lexus/Mercedes/hummer sporting a rolex---I'd be hard-pressed to see many middle-class people identifying with that lifestyle. In fact, as defined by the current political environment, those guys are wealthy. When you get to a guy like ray Lewis, well, how do you identify with that kind of money? Maybe it's just that in a war of big money v. Bigger money, you see the big money as the underdog.

you're wrong here. the players are replaceable, everyone is replaceable. i get your emotional argument about the thrill of watching brady or manning lead the come from behind victory, but if brady blows out a knee the game goes on. even assuming your argument about the next billionare to step up is accurate (and i wonder where all those billionares are who can buy a team, throw it on the field and have the success we see in the nfl), the assumption that somehow the next billionare wants to partner with brady and amnning et al makes no sense. it's a relationship where both side win if they play nicely. but it's not about fairness and equity and should not be. i for one lost a ton of respect for the union and brady/manning etc being the plaintiffs. again, i tactically understand why they did it, but it just confirms my belief that the players are in it for the players, the owner for the owners, and we're an afterthought to both. blow it up, rip it down, whatever happens---they are all a party to it.

fair enough on hyperbole, but suggesting there's zero risk is naive. it's like calling a ship unsinkable. I assure you sir, this ship can sink. in fact, maybe you guys who feel this way are right---owner's greed is pushing you to the edge, closer to the tipping point....it doesn't take much, really,. a little congressional investigation, a little prie fixing scandal, a little change in the tax law... But, I do not dispute it's a great deal for them now.

i can live with most of your thought process. as far as defining the owner's as "greedy"....what point does that serve? why not just acknowledge the players are greedy too? the players are greedy, the agents are greedy, and so on. everyone's greed contributes to the problem. last i checked, no one was volunteering their time. i meant to respond on the psl issue in tgreg's last note---and i concur it's a shameless money grab. personally, i'd surrender my tickets before i paid a fee to secure a place in line to pay for my tickets. and your point on corporate customers is very valid. then again, back to my point, if i don't pay it, i can't be screwed. in your analysis, if you have decided to analyze the problem and leave the player's union out of the mix, i submit your approach is flawed.

No, I got the point of the article. I think it's schoolboy journalism from a guy who can do better. I'm sorry, but I can't jump on board with you on the getting screwed by the owner's argument. We always have a choice, and I'm fine griping about it (Miami-Bills, opening day, in a moment of weakness bought seats in the JK section for me and my 11 year old, drove 500 miles round trip, tolls, parking, etc to watch a team try and win a game without an offense), but in this case you can't be screwed unless you lay down your precious cash. And, frankly, if I get to the point where I can see your point of view, I have to throw the players, and everyone else in on the conspiracy. There is no such thing as a zero risk business. None. Zero.

And I appreciate yours. I have no interest in insulting anyone, my general rule of thumb is to always consider that I may be wrong. Like most people, I assume I'm correct and very reasonable. I especially enjoyed your commentary on insufferable arrogance, I worked hard on that one. And I don't debate the arrongance of ownership or the union, it may well be arrogance driving both ships. Nonetheless, the option was there to proceed in that fashion. Let's hope they meet in the middle. Tim

of all the arguments to make, this is the most pitiful. i generally enjoy reading reilly's pieces but this type of garbage is insulting. "sure, some players are rich beyond their wildest dreams---but paul allen calls his yacht the octopus! i find that incredibly insulting as a football fan. and the 73 years old grandmother's who own season tickets to the redskins are being put on the street! stale peanuts are served at games! think of the peanut alleriges! and worst of all...the suicide approach! my goodness- the NFL is the only thing that keeps 'em going! If you really believe this, rick, why not get serious about the cause? Lobby for the NFL ownership group to donate one game per year, free of charge to all the redheaded 73 year old grandmother's who are out of work and can barely muster the strength to get out of bed and roll their walker(s) down the hall of their nursing home to flip on the television and adjust the rabbit ears so they can watch the people who actually earn their millions by tossing a football around. what an idiot. tgregg, i can understand differing points of view...but how do the owner's screw you out of money? other than the argument about taxpayer dollars going to support a team, i don't see how they could posssibly screw you. and, since you're here, i;m assuming you're a football fan and not a 37 year old single mom who doesn't want her tax dollars going to support pro football.

John---thanks for replying to theB's note. It saves me the embarrassment of trying one of those multi-quote replies all you tech savvy folks apparently know how to do. theB---you were 100% correct in your summary of my initial comments re: brady and manning. John, I don't have an issue with them getting what they can---none at all, in fact. I don't even get to the part where they "deserve" it because that's a whole 'nother debate---they work within the framework of the system, they signed the contract and that's all absolutely 100% ok as far as I'm concerned. Here's the issue though---in the two party system we currently have in the nfl, one party isn't happy with the system. they don't feel like it's a good deal for them~~~~and are legally opting out of the deal. put another way, if i was an owner and felt like i was getting the short end of the stick (and we all know different owners have different thoughts on how to run their franchise), why would i want to continue an arrangement that wasn't in my best interest when i wasn't contractually bound to do so? that goes for players as well, as free agency shows us every year. Allow me to edit your last paragraph: Whatever the owner's get they deserve. They are the financial engine that runs the league and on who's teams guys like brady and manning have experienced extraordinary success. The money everyone gets is the byproduct of their ownership. The bottom line is that the two best players in the game are rewarded handsomely not because of their inherent abilities, but because a mechanism exists that allows them to exploit their unique skill set. Isn't that how the system should work? John, I think you're looking for justification of the owner's decision to opt out. I don't think they owe an explanation if they have the right to opt out. I see the conversation going as simply as this: Owner: We want to excersize our option to opt out of the CBA. Union: Why? Owner: Because we want to. Union: Why? Owner: Because we can. Union: But we like the deal. Owner: Right, that's why we're worried. From there, they have to figure it out. All the emotional b-s thereafter is irrelevant. Perhaps you think I'm anti-union here, and I'm really not. Somewhere, somehow this will work out, or the NFL as we know it will cease to exist. I'd hate to see that happen, and I'd love for it all to work out one way or the other. I guess in the end my loyalty lies with the Buffalo Bills. Some players make boatloads of money. Some don't. Some come and stay. Some go because they can make more, or we don't offer them enough to stay, or they want a shot at a ring, or the tax rate is better in Florida so miraculously $5 million is much more money than $7 million. Finally, one quick thought on decertifying. The players will decertify as a tactical ploy to get as much as they can. So, the union is only the union if they feel like they win, because one can only assume they would ultimately come to an agreement if they didn't decertify. Just like __****__ signs for as much money as he can regardless of where he plays, or how many bright-eyed kids bought his jersey in Cleveland or Boston or Buffalo. I simply don't see that as any different from what ownership is doing, for exactly the same reason. Maximize your take.

I'm not sure what you think I'm joking about? I suggested the unions continue to negotiate to get the books opened--of course it makes sense for them to have as much ammunition as possible to negotiate the best deal they can get for the union. When salaries go up, they win. And, while I have considered the fact that they don't want to open their books, I think it has nothing to do with "embarrassment" at all. It's a negotiation. Let's not kids ourselves, whatever side of the fence you're on----everyone---everyone is out for themselves in this deal. All the emotional garbage tossed in there is just that--garbage. With due respect to you and your opinion--suggesting one side is greedy while neglecting that the other side is aw well cheapens the argument. I find it interesting that you went from my question about players spreading the wealth by reducing their salaries, to blaming the owners for signing haynesworth and portis. these are examples of big swings, and big misses. but what about players respected for their expertise paid enormous sums of money----again i'll cite brady and peyton manning. when you draw lines in the sand, as in "owner's are greedy", how do you as a union supporter (in this case, anyways) reconcile the fact that some players make $10 million a year while others only a few hundred thousand? Good Lord--in your average business negotiation, someone banking $10m a year IS the target. As for making more money today than previously....I disagree that it is simple as that. I mean, I suppose it could be all about the robber barons on big industry trying to snuff out the dreams of the average joe, but my experience leads me to believe it's quite a bit more complex than you've suggested. Maybe they're concerned about the future of the league---and plese, spare me the "it's a money machine and always will be" argument because it's not all that long ago that it would have seemed impossible for companies like GM and AIG to be taken over by the government. there are many more examples, but those two work for now. So, whatever happens, happens.

Sometimes the over-simplifcation of the issue is the problem. The owner's ultimate responsibility is to sustain the viability of the league perpetually. The union's ultimate responsibility is to perpetuate the viability of the union and thus it's members. Each owner has his own issue to deal with in his organization, and each player represented by the union has his own issues to deal with that are important to him. As for leverage----so? Players use the leverage they have every season. I think we'd all agree that the union, given substantial leverage over the negotiations, would use it without mercy to benefit it's members. I've always kind of wondered about the appearance of hypocrisy in the union world. Please note my use of the word "appearance". I truly do not want to paint every player with one broad brush. However---this is a business based on a game. Nothing more, nothing less. It always seems to me that when a fan or player wants to debate the greed of owners, why not include a look-see at the greed of some of the players? Why not get serious about this and recognize that some player are paid a kings ransom to play this game, and it's really not an equitable situation. So--negotiate with the owners, get them to open their books, but also look at spreading some of the additional wealth around that players like Brady and Manning are hoarding to other, more needy players. I think to a large extent players overestimate their value to the game. Don't get me wrong, marquis players are great to watch. At the same time, if the top 5 qb's in the game retired tomorrow, the game goes on. Free agency has done much to make the fans realize that it's a rare player indeed who really gives a second thought about their loyalty to a team/city/fan. Those that display that loyalty---God love 'em. For the rest, well, I enjoy watching them play but try not to get too wrapped up in what they may or may not get. This ruling just reminds me that judges have agendas as well. Whether he's correct or not is largely irrelevant and frankly seems to be at the whim of whatever way the appeals court wants to look at it.