sweatpantsjoe Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 one word: scab superbowl as i said before, you can't use replacement players in a lock out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2010 Author Share Posted June 12, 2010 No, you're concrete because you dwell on minutiae and can't see the forest for the trees. You sound like my youngest son ("but you said 'all' and then said 'not every'"). I'd like to chalk it up to a stalling/deflecting technique on your part when you've got nothing else, but you've done it so many times now... You see, the central issue isn't whether EVERY SINGLE PLAYER got more money, but how much more money the players as a whole extracted from the owners with that last CBA. You continue to be in denial over just how much more they made because you've cast your lot with the owners' crafting of this "good deal...until the situation changed." I even gave you the numbers and it still doesn't register. Well go back and add-up the team payrolls from 2005 and 2006, look at what the caps were/were supposed to be and ended-up being, compare them, and THEN try to continue to claim that the difference was "well, it was going to go up anyway." And then go back and add-up 2009, compare it to 2006, and realize how laughable your claim that the league spent about as much in those years was. Then do it for 2007 and 2008. It's right there at your fingertips, chief. The point about us fans knowing that the owners would get paid if there were no games, since, well, it's been included in every TV contract for the past decade or so, is that the NFLPA obviously already knew about this, years ago. So your thread laughing at the NFLPA for suddenly coming to this realization, based on them wanting the TV money to be put in escrow (I fail to see how you made the leap from that request to "they didn't know the owners would get paid..") was all in vain. Again, it's a negotiating tactic which, while not as huge a victory as the NFL winning the ANI case (which I predicted wouldn't happen) would have been, would be a significant step towards the players forcing the owners to give up more than they want to at present since they would lose that (for lack of a better term) "war chest." That's not to say they'll win, but it's still worth pursuing since if they lose, they lose nothing, and it won't cost anything, much less what the NFL spent on the ANI case. At worst, some more worthless threads on message boards will be created. Look, you said what you said. A clear contradiction. Pointed that out, that's all. I can't fix it for you. You can't spend a billion more than you would have spent AND have hundreds of millions left over unspent. The NFLPA "obviously already knew about this, years ago"? The NFLPA is arguing that the league essentially set up a 2011 lockout protection fund with the structure of its TV deals. When, "decades ago"? It was there all the time, wasn't it? The league's television contracts for the 2011 season provide for the networks to pay the league even though there would be no games during a lockout. The union argues that this agreement was made to the detriment of the players and is, in fact, a weapon to be used against the players in the lockout. Why did they agree to this in the last CBA if they "already knew" it was "a weapon to be used against the players"? Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteski Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 QUOTE (Meathead @ Jun 12 2010, 04:12 AM) *one word: scab superbowl That's two words. Actually it is three words. Super Bowl should really have a space in between it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 It might work out in the Bills case! Bills could be competitive with the replacement players, everyone on the same level. and could be Superbowl bound come 2011, can't wait for the lockout Yes. This. Scabs plus pistol offense = super bowl glory. The Bills haven't put a team on the field that could stand toe-to-toe with a winner in so long that scab football really wouldn't bother me if it meant not having to play "not to lose". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Look, you said what you said. A clear contradiction. Pointed that out, that's all. I can't fix it for you. You can't spend a billion more than you would have spent AND have hundreds of millions left over unspent. The numbers are what they are and I trust them more than hearing about "hundreds of millions left over unspent." There was a HUGE jump in league-wide payrolls between 2005 and 2006, and it wasn't because of TV revenue since those contracts had already been figured-in. The NFLPA "obviously already knew about this, years ago"? When, "decades ago"? It was there all the time, wasn't it? Why did they agree to this in the last CBA if they "already knew" it was "a weapon to be used against the players"? Explain. There was an article that said that the owners have had the provision in the TV contracts about getting paid in the case of a lockout for a decade, if not longer. I'll try to find it. But even if it was just written into the last TV contracts in 2004-2005, the players, or at least the heads of the NFLPA, have known about it since around that time. You make it sound like they just found out about it very a week ago. But as I said, if we knew about it a year ago, they obviously knew about it before then. Why did they agree to it? Because they were getting 4.5% more in total revenues from the owners. Why ruin that good thing arguing about a potential lockout 5 years later, when the owners weren't going to force a lockout at that time, but should have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts