Malazan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Let's see ... The owners are guaranteed 7 Billion (w a B) from tv money -- 1 billion of that from Directv which is theirs to keep. They don't guarantee any of their employee contracts, impose a salary cap on it's players limiting the amount they can earn, they don't provide healthcare for retired players, a large chunk of their employees are dead by 55 thanks to the strains imposed on their bodies for playing this game ... The players offer a 10% reduction in their cut of the revenues and propose a 50/50 split when the owners assume ZERO risk in this venture and yet the owners walk away. Man the owners are f'ing scumbags who's greed is going to cost them. They think the product is bullet proof -- it ain't. But 1 billion of that is theirs w no need to pay it back if there is no 2011 season .... There's a number on inaccuracies in the post. I'm curious why you're so in favor of the players? Neither side is representing fan interests. Edited February 11, 2011 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Or they cancel the season and Ralph doesn't make it to the 2012 season and we have seen our last Bills game. Always look on the bright side of life. do do. Step away from the edge of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 There's a number on inaccuracies in the post. I'm curious why you're so in favor of the players? Neither side is representing fan interests. And it really seems like many of the players are not even working in their own interests. The younger guys who were signed in the draft with guaranteed contracts and last the average 3.5 years in the NFL will be struggling. League minimum is what, $300k? I would bet, without much knowledge, agents make about 20-30% while taxes take away another 30%+. That leaves around $100,000 for an NFL player to survive on for a year and that is not as easy as you think. And spare me that you survive on less. I make it on spending less then $12,000 year, so I know it is possible. Also, I am not on either side but believe that the owners are the ones who have the right to do whatever they want, even if it destroys their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) TReg, this is the 2nd time you said this. How/Why? Each owner is sitting on a ~$700m asset. Granted, they are currently rcving a good income stream from this. However, I suspect that for some/most of the owners, that investment is leveraged. It's sorta like saying buying/owning a house w/ a mortgage isn't a risk. How's that worked out recently? That asset can decrease in value. That's SUBSTANTIAL risk. That's not true and not realistic. The NFL is the number 1 entertainment business in the country. It trumps movies, television any other sport. The TV ratings, TV money, merchandising let alone ticket sales parking and concessions make it perhaps one of the only can't miss business ventures in the world. There is not a single NFL team that loses money. Not one. Of course, the owners are crying poor -- yet they won't open their books to show their revenues. Why? Because unlike the NBA owners (who need to contract to survive) they can't prove they're losing money because they just aren't. Thinking otherwise is just being naive. Tgregg has a one track mind regarding the evil owners He continually misstates the facts to push his position I don't know about misstating facts ... I fully admit I don't know everything, no one does, because the owners won't open the books. However you're implying I'm intentionally misleading folks and that just ain't true. Oh boo hoo, if you don't like the terms don't take the job. No one forces you to play the NFL. Prove the dead by 55 compared to the rest of the population. I want to see it Of course no one forces you to play in the NFL. But that's not the point. You're a fan of the game right? Why are you a fan? I bet it's not because of how savvy the owners are in the way they manipulate the legalities of the business. I bet it has nothing to do with the earnings reports the owners see at the end of each quarter. I bet it has nothing to do with how much money each owner pockets ... but I bet it has everything to do with the quality of the athletes on the field. Right? Let's get another thing straight. THE PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. If given the chance for the current deal to continue, they'd take it no question. There would be football tomorrow and no one would say a word. But the OWNERS don't want to play football. So you can't put this on the players -- this work stoppage that (may) come is 100% on the owners. There are plenty of studies that show the average life span of an NFL player is far shorter than the rest of the population. A lineman who has 10 years in the league lives, on average, to 55. Again, it's their choice to play. But with how much money the NFL makes and how much money the Owners pocket, how can you honestly say that it's okay to provide virtually no benefits to retired players? Especially when those same players are the ones that MADE the owners their money and built their palaces? It's just wrong. One of many ... just google it. There's a number on inaccuracies in the post. I'm curious why you're so in favor of the players? Neither side is representing fan interests. Other than the 10% number which Mike pointed out, what are the inaccuracies in the post. Check out this Forbes article posted earlier. It backs up the numbers and shows pretty coherently why the claim of economic hardship of the owners is absurd. You ask why I'm on the side of the players, I'll tell you. Because in this time and place, they're right. The owners are wrong. In nearly every other labor dispute in sports I've never been on the players' side. The current fiasco going on in the NBA? Totally on the owners side because I see first hand how many half full arenas there are. But that's not the case in the NFL. Not even close. There's so much money to be made, by both sides, but the owners want more. More than they're entitled to in my opinion. They run a business where they don't provide any long term care for their employees, they provide virtually no benefits for their retired players, they don't guarantee contracts, and young men give up their lives to play for them. Yes, it's a choice for the players to play. They certainly don't have to. But at the same time, the owners should have some responsibility to act like human beings. There is more than enough money to go around ... Also, ask yourself this, what is it that makes the NFL great? It's not the owners. It's the players on the field. You think scabs are going to provide as much entertainment as the best athletes in the world? I sure don't. You think America will continue to turn in to a product that puts less than the best on the field? Nope. I love football. I love the NFL. I don't want to see it tarnished -- but a lockout will do exactly that. Get it straight here, this is about greed. That's all this is. The owners are currently printing money -- but it's not enough for them. They know they have the players over a barrel and are going to take everything they wish when all is said and done. You might think that's cool. You might think that's the American way. I personally think it's unconscionable considering how profitable the league is right now for the owners. Edited February 11, 2011 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brand J Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 And it really seems like many of the players are not even working in their own interests. The younger guys who were signed in the draft with guaranteed contracts and last the average 3.5 years in the NFL will be struggling. League minimum is what, $300k? I would bet, without much knowledge, agents make about 20-30% while taxes take away another 30%+. That leaves around $100,000 for an NFL player to survive on for a year and that is not as easy as you think. And spare me that you survive on less. I make it on spending less then $12,000 year, so I know it is possible. Also, I am not on either side but believe that the owners are the ones who have the right to do whatever they want, even if it destroys their business. While I don't know much about these CBA talks, I DO know that NFL agents only charge around 3 percent of a contract. Could you imagine if they did make 20% on each multi million dollar contract? They would literally be swimming in money! Recently, athlete agents have received a lot of notoriety but we are no different from agents who represent entertainers, artists, journalists, authors. A lot is made of our fees, but at 3 percent in the NFL it's miniscule compared to the 15-20 percent that I had to pay to my agent for my book. I don't think there will be a trend away from agents; our significance is well established and I'm supremely confident that we will continue to make contributions to sports. Drew Rosenhaus Also, if he had to pay his literary agent 15-20%, then shame on him for being stupid. The standard take for agents on the entertainment side (acting, publishing, etc) is 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Get it straight here, this is about greed. That's all this is. The owners are currently printing money -- but it's not enough for them. They know they have the players over a barrel and are going to take everything they wish when all is said and done. You might think that's cool. You might think that's the American way. I personally think it's unconscionable considering how profitable the league is right now for the owners. oooohhhh...kaaay. *backs away slowly* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 While I don't know much about these CBA talks, I DO know that NFL agents only charge around 3 percent of a contract. Could you imagine if they did make 20% on each multi million dollar contract? They would literally be swimming in money! Drew Rosenhaus Also, if he had to pay his literary agent 15-20%, then shame on him for being stupid. The standard take for agents on the entertainment side (acting, publishing, etc) is 10%. Amazing. 3%? Where does the rest of the money go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Without the players, that 'asset' isn't worth dick......... Without the owners those players would be back home, and many of them not even with a degree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Without the owners those players would be back home, and many of them not even with a degree... But that's the rub ... and where you're off. If any owner left the league, 1000 others would be lining up to take their spot that would bring as much to the league in terms of quality as the current owners do. The same can NOT be said for the players. If the players leave, there would be 1000s willing to take their place. But the quality of their play and the entertainment value they bring to the fans would NOT be the same. oooohhhh...kaaay. *backs away slowly* Not sure what in that statement is scary to you ... the owners are printing money right now. They will get everything they want from the players in this negotiation because they have all the leverage. But that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that there won't be ramifications on their business. Edited February 12, 2011 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 The 'right thing to do' is a concept that is unfortunately lost in 21st. century corporate America. Blind greed is the order of the day regardless of the ultimate cost to the future of this country..... That's certainly true -- but as has been pointed out during this whole thing, the NFL right now is untouchable. But a prolonged work stoppage will have an adverse effect on their business. The NBA took a huge hit after the 98 strike that they're still recovering from. Ditto with MLB. The owners are banking on being able to outlast the players -- they certainly have the war chest to do so. However, if there is no football in 2011 -- or even if it's just a portion of the season -- the American public will not tolerate it as many here seem to think they will. Ratings will drop. Revenue will suffer. They'll rebound, most likely, but who knows how long it will take. The owners, not the players, are playing a very dangerous game of chicken here. And it's the fans who suffer. The people here who are on the owners side are just not seeing the forest through the trees. The current CBA benefits the players yet the owners are STILL making record profits. Going to a 50/50 split would be a win for the owners and make them even MORE money, yet they refuse to do so. They want more than their share because they know they can get it. When you factor in how poorly the owners treat their employees AND their fans (10 dollar beers?!), it's nuts that there are people here defending them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) That's not true and not realistic. The NFL is the number 1 entertainment business in the country. It trumps movies, television any other sport. The TV ratings, TV money, merchandising let alone ticket sales parking and concessions make it perhaps one of the only can't miss business ventures in the world. There is not a single NFL team that loses money. Not one. Of course, the owners are crying poor -- yet they won't open their books to show their revenues. Why? Because unlike the NBA owners (who need to contract to survive) they can't prove they're losing money because they just aren't. Thinking otherwise is just being naive. I don't know about misstating facts ... I fully admit I don't know everything, no one does, because the owners won't open the books. However you're implying I'm intentionally misleading folks and that just ain't true. Of course no one forces you to play in the NFL. But that's not the point. You're a fan of the game right? Why are you a fan? I bet it's not because of how savvy the owners are in the way they manipulate the legalities of the business. I bet it has nothing to do with the earnings reports the owners see at the end of each quarter. I bet it has nothing to do with how much money each owner pockets ... but I bet it has everything to do with the quality of the athletes on the field. Right? Let's get another thing straight. THE PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. If given the chance for the current deal to continue, they'd take it no question. There would be football tomorrow and no one would say a word. But the OWNERS don't want to play football. So you can't put this on the players -- this work stoppage that (may) come is 100% on the owners. There are plenty of studies that show the average life span of an NFL player is far shorter than the rest of the population. A lineman who has 10 years in the league lives, on average, to 55. Again, it's their choice to play. But with how much money the NFL makes and how much money the Owners pocket, how can you honestly say that it's okay to provide virtually no benefits to retired players? Especially when those same players are the ones that MADE the owners their money and built their palaces? It's just wrong. One of many ... just google it. Other than the 10% number which Mike pointed out, what are the inaccuracies in the post. Check out this Forbes article posted earlier. It backs up the numbers and shows pretty coherently why the claim of economic hardship of the owners is absurd. You ask why I'm on the side of the players, I'll tell you. Because in this time and place, they're right. The owners are wrong. In nearly every other labor dispute in sports I've never been on the players' side. The current fiasco going on in the NBA? Totally on the owners side because I see first hand how many half full arenas there are. But that's not the case in the NFL. Not even close. There's so much money to be made, by both sides, but the owners want more. More than they're entitled to in my opinion. They run a business where they don't provide any long term care for their employees, they provide virtually no benefits for their retired players, they don't guarantee contracts, and young men give up their lives to play for them. Yes, it's a choice for the players to play. They certainly don't have to. But at the same time, the owners should have some responsibility to act like human beings. There is more than enough money to go around ... Also, ask yourself this, what is it that makes the NFL great? It's not the owners. It's the players on the field. You think scabs are going to provide as much entertainment as the best athletes in the world? I sure don't. You think America will continue to turn in to a product that puts less than the best on the field? Nope. I love football. I love the NFL. I don't want to see it tarnished -- but a lockout will do exactly that. Get it straight here, this is about greed. That's all this is. The owners are currently printing money -- but it's not enough for them. They know they have the players over a barrel and are going to take everything they wish when all is said and done. You might think that's cool. You might think that's the American way. I personally think it's unconscionable considering how profitable the league is right now for the owners. nah, you're wrong. if you want to say it's all about greed, than you have to include the players in that. if it's about integrity and doing the right thing, of course, it depends on what side of the fence you are on as to what the right thing is. for every argument detailing what the owner's should do for retired players, you can make the same argument about current players with massive salaries as well. they could help retired playersmore. when you talk about revenue sharing, the players could agree to more evenly distribute whatever revenue they get collectively into, say, a series of tiers. if brady, manning et al would take less, the poor bastards at the bottom of the wage scale could get a lot more. maybe there should be a high-end cap of $2m per season, and a series of lower tiers starting at say $450k. agent's too, could cut their fees half. and, of course, the owner's could give more to retired players, and in fact give back to the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices. the 'us v. them' strategy employed by the union is brilliant, because the players on the lower end of the scale don't see themselves propping up the higher end players who bank millions and millions, not including endorsement deals they pick up on the side. when you think about it---the players with rich endorsement deals benefit from the lower wage earners in the regard, too. that money could be divided up for the retired players as well, instead of lining the pockets of tom brady. for instance--tom brady the player is really tom brady, the brand---benefiting from his stature as a marquis player on the greatest stage on earth. why does he retire with tens of millions, just because he can exploit lousy cornerback play 16-19 Sundays a year? in fact---i see the lousy cornerback of today as the exploited heathen chinese railroad worker of yesteryear. i say "rise up!". someone's always got it better than someone else. the players (and fans with your perspective) think they are the dog and the owner's the tail. i've been watching football for decades, and the game goes on regardless of who's playing where. there's no loyalty to fans, cities or teams anymore----so whatever happens, happens. no need to see one side or the other as the victim here, neither side really cares too much about us, do they? by the way--i don't take that personally, and that's just the point. for every player who signs a rich contract with a new team and says "i have to take care of my family", there's an owner who has to take care of his. oh---and i'll tell you what---lower the collective standard of play and who would really notice? people have been loyal to college football teams forever. do i want to see it happen? no, of course not. but i'm a bills fan first, everything else comes after that. Edited February 12, 2011 by timmo1805 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But that's the rub ... and where you're off. If any owner left the league, 1000 others would be lining up to take their spot that would bring as much to the league in terms of quality as the current owners do. The same can NOT be said for the players. If the players leave, there would be 1000s willing to take their place. But the quality of their play and the entertainment value they bring to the fans would NOT be the same. Not sure what in that statement is scary to you ... the owners are printing money right now. They will get everything they want from the players in this negotiation because they have all the leverage. But that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that there won't be ramifications on their business. some points i will make that i dont fully stand behind but will throw out there for discussion its said that greenbay turned about a 20-30 million profit this year, elite qbs will be turning 20-30 million in profit this year. i think thats a little out of whack with the investment that owners make. if you put a billion in the stockmarket that would be like a 2% dividend. i dont really know how fast resale value goes up to on the franchises, but you cant tell me theres any real liquidity as far as assets go. when you look at it as an investment its nice, but not a knockout. also, i think you will see a lot of the burden of stadiums fall back on owners in the coming years. if the structure is anticipated to change, it wont reflect in the past numbers and your average fan probably will just hear de smith trumpet the profit number, and not everything that goes into it, and may in the future. i think the owners are trying to get out in front of the stadium issue, and dont trust de smith for a second. just like he did to you, an educated person with his 50-50 offer, he will do with the owners books should they turn them over. they have nothing to gain unless they are losing money hand over fist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 nah, you're wrong. if you want to say it's all about greed, than you have to include the players in that. if it's about integrity and doing the right thing, of course, it depends on what side of the fence you are on as to what the right thing is. for every argument detailing what the owner's should do for retired players, you can make the same argument about current players with massive salaries as well. they could help retired playersmore. when you talk about revenue sharing, the players could agree to more evenly distribute whatever revenue they get collectively into, say, a series of tiers. if brady, manning et al would take less, the poor bastards at the bottom of the wage scale could get a lot more. maybe there should be a high-end cap of $2m per season, and a series of lower tiers starting at say $450k. agent's too, could cut their fees half. and, of course, the owner's could give more to retired players, and in fact give back to the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices. the 'us v. them' strategy employed by the union is brilliant, because the players on the lower end of the scale don't see themselves propping up the higher end players who bank millions and millions, not including endorsement deals they pick up on the side. when you think about it---the players with rich endorsement deals benefit from the lower wage earners in the regard, too. that money could be divided up for the retired players as well, instead of lining the pockets of tom brady. for instance--tom brady the player is really tom brady, the brand---benefiting from his stature as a marquis player on the greatest stage on earth. why does he retire with tens of millions, just because he can exploit lousy cornerback play 16-19 Sundays a year? in fact---i see the lousy cornerback of today as the exploited heathen chinese railroad worker of yesteryear. i say "rise up!". someone's always got it better than someone else. the players (and fans with your perspective) think they are the dog and the owner's the tail. i've been watching football for decades, and the game goes on regardless of who's playing where. there's no loyalty to fans, cities or teams anymore----so whatever happens, happens. no need to see one side or the other as the victim here, neither side really cares too much about us, do they? by the way--i don't take that personally, and that's just the point. for every player who signs a rich contract with a new team and says "i have to take care of my family", there's an owner who has to take care of his. oh---and i'll tell you what---lower the collective standard of play and who would really notice? people have been loyal to college football teams forever. do i want to see it happen? no, of course not. but i'm a bills fan first, everything else comes after that. You make some excellent points about the issues within the NFLPA. And I agree with you. But they're not really relevant to the current CBA negotiations. The NFLPA has a whole bunch of issues it needs to sort out, no argument from me on that point. But that's not relevant to the current CBA negotiations. What is relevant is the 2011 season and beyond. At the end of the day, the players want to play and the owners don't. Why? Because the owners want a bigger share of the pie. It's one thing to hold a lockout when the fate of your league and livelyhood are at stake (as can be argued is true with the NBA's current labor dispute). But the NFL is making money. Record breaking money. For both sides. Players and owners. And for it to come to an end, even for 8 games, is a slap in the face to the fans. As I said earlier, in nearly every other labor dispute in the past few decades that I've been a fan, I've never been on the players' side. But this is different. People don't care because at the end of the day it's billionares fighting with millionares. They don't care about the fans (on either side). I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners are capable of preventing a work stoppage if they really want to. But they don't. And that, as a fan, pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 A lot of people act like the owners are immortal. Like they do not have any risks in their life. Look at the Mets, they're in trouble right now from an owner making bad business moves. Sure, the NFL is more stable today then it was when Ralph bought them but that's my point. Imagine if the AFL would have folded to the NFL and Ralph would have been left with nothing, he wouldn't have the NFLPA assisting him, nor would we care. Making a profit in the NFL today is easier then it was but they still much invest millions to earn millions back. It is a major risk and this is a free market driven society, all the power does, and should, rest with the owners. If the union cannot work out a deal with their management then they should look to sell their product elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I love going to the games,and supporting the team. (This is my 23rd year as a season ticket holder) but I'm having a harder time with it as the years pass by. I stopped buying anything at the concessions inside the Stadium a long time ago. (nine bucks for a Heiniken? C'mon.) It's still a relatively expensive proposition to go and see the team with the cheapest seats in the league for an 'out of towner' like me. I'm on the side of the players, but that being said, I think the owners are right to pursue a rookie salary cap. Revenue sharing, and the salary cap as we all know will be essential to the survival of the Bills, and the other small market teams. I'm hoping against hope that that those items are on the CBA agenda for both sides. I don't want to see the entire NFL go to the Jerry Jones model of $80 pizzas,and outrageous ticket prices, but if it does, there are plenty of other things that I can do with my time on a sunday afternoon As long as people keep buying $200 seats in the upper deck and pay $20 for a beer and a hot dog, the owners are going to keep raising prices. I'm not sure who these fans are who are willing to drop a thousand dollars to bring the family out for a day at the stadium, but there seem to be at least 50,000 of them in every NFL city. To some extent, it might be some good for the common fan if the NFL gets a lot *less* popular because of a nasty lockout fight. They'll come back playing the same game, except the league will be groveling to win back fans, probably in the form of cheaper tickets and concessions, etc. Of course, I don't think that's worth a whole lost season. On the other hand, the free product the NFL puts out on TV is still really good - the stadium experience is really falling away as an integral part of fandom. It's not like baseball or hockey, where 90% of the fun is being there. I'm not sure where that takes us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You make some excellent points about the issues within the NFLPA. And I agree with you. But they're not really relevant to the current CBA negotiations. The NFLPA has a whole bunch of issues it needs to sort out, no argument from me on that point. But that's not relevant to the current CBA negotiations. What is relevant is the 2011 season and beyond. At the end of the day, the players want to play and the owners don't. Why? Because the owners want a bigger share of the pie. It's one thing to hold a lockout when the fate of your league and livelyhood are at stake (as can be argued is true with the NBA's current labor dispute). But the NFL is making money. Record breaking money. For both sides. Players and owners. And for it to come to an end, even for 8 games, is a slap in the face to the fans. As I said earlier, in nearly every other labor dispute in the past few decades that I've been a fan, I've never been on the players' side. But this is different. People don't care because at the end of the day it's billionares fighting with millionares. They don't care about the fans (on either side). I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners are capable of preventing a work stoppage if they really want to. But they don't. And that, as a fan, pisses me off. well, again, i disagree with much if what you write. taking a step farther back from my initial point, i ask myself---why on earth would the owner's not want a season this year? i suppose the simple answer could be 'greed' as you suggest, but in light of the record-breaking profits you cited, that makes zero sense to me. what does make sense to me, though, is that the owner's are ultimately responsible for the continued well-being of the league. i was making the point earlier that the players see themselves as the dog--i missed the second part of that, which is to me, they are the tail. take the top 10 players coming out of college this year, the one's everyone is talking about on message boards, mock drafts etc. pick a name, any name. let me ask you this--if the top 5 players decided that they wanted to form a rock band and tour the world, would the game go on? of course it would. when ray lewis retires, when favre finally goes away, the nfl remains. and i hate to tell you this, but truly believe it---the nfl = the owners. call them puppet masters if you like, but the machine is what it is. so, i can only derive that the machine has looked at what they got after the last agreement, looked at what they received and what they gave up, and has come to a decision on the how the future should look. their vision is different than that of the player's union. i would be hard-pressed to think the lessons of the economy over the last decade would have them somewhat concerned about the type of agreement they should set in place now---and the next request that will be coming from the union the next time they sit at the table. one thing i've learned in business is that it's awfully hard to get concessions later on once you've given something to someone. the leadership of the nfl has to think in terms of 5, 10, 15 year plans and beyond. i guess what i'm saying is, sure the player's want to play on their terms. if you're suggesting that the owner's don't want a season under any terms, well, that's the first i've heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 pure guesses: -- earliest this gets resolved: July. -- latest it gets resolved and there's still a season: Oct. 1. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 What they need to ask themselves. If we don't get an agreement done and there is a lockout. How much money will I lose out on? And how long will it take to get it back? Usually the answer is, you never can earn it back in your lifetime, so it's not worth the lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I saw in the paper today that the sticking point is that the owners sock away a cool billion to cover expenses etc. and split the rest with the players. Players want a part of that billion. That's just over the top greed and stupidity, pure and simple. These guys are getting bad advice. I wonder if Drew Brees know about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I saw in the paper today that the sticking point is that the owners sock away a cool billion to cover expenses etc. and split the rest with the players. Players want a part of that billion. That's just over the top greed and stupidity, pure and simple. These guys are getting bad advice. I wonder if Drew Brees know about this? I love that they'll compromise from the current 59% not including that billion, down to 51% including it and call it an 8% concession in the media.... Even though dollar for dollar it would be more then they currently get... Yea the owners are the bad guys for scoffing at that. It's not De Smith being a dirtbag by playing that offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts