USABuffaloFan Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Let me start by saying that I am not threatening not to be a Bills fan if there is a lockout. I grew up in Buffalo so it is in my very being. What I am saying is I will care less about the NFL as a whole if they lock out. I will stop following the league and pay attention only to my team. Today we wake up to see Brady, Bree's and Manning will be plaintiffs for the players in a anti-trust suit representing the players after de-certification. Come On Man!!!! Who are they kidding. The top paid players in the NFL will go up against their bosses and tell them they are unfair and breaking labor rules. I say go ahead and lock the players out because I would love to see this happen. I bet none of those guys will have free passes during training camp anymore. This whole argument isn't about fair business, it is about huge egos and lawyers who are feeding both sides crap to make alot more money. I feel sorry for no one but the little man who may not have their $10/hr job soon because of this. The NFL owners and players are all making me sick! If I thought this was about protecting the retired players, medical benefits, 16 or 18 games, rookie salary caps it would be different. This is just plain egos and money. I am definitely against any players union demanding any money out of these owners. They can't help spending money on players, they need stars. It is in their best interest to do this. No one is forcing the Red Sox and Yankees to spend over the limit, they want to win. Personally I think there should be no cap, no free agency till a player hits 8 years in the league unless their salary is in the bottom 40% at their position after 5 years. You can add 6 years with restricted free agency for any player in the bottom 75% pay at their position. Each team has to spend at least 60% of the TV revenue on players, scouting departments, and coaches. I hate that teams lose players that are well played after 4-5 years, if they aren't well paid they probably aren't that good. If the rich teams want to spend huge dollars on 8 plus years players let them do it. I would add that all contracts are guaranteed for the first 8 years of their career if signed. Good teams stay good and economically good because they pay less for rookies (drafted later). Having good coaches and scouting departments would mean more if free agency was a bit later in a players career. Players would make sure they only sign if they have good contracts to start because they will be with their teams for a while. The NFL worked great before free agency hit, they should back things up again. Edited March 4, 2011 by USABuffaloFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Let me start by saying that I am not threatening not to be a Bills fan if there is a lockout. I grew up in Buffalo so it is in my very being. What I am saying is I will care less about the NFL as a whole if they lock out. I will stop following the league and pay attention only to my team. Today we wake up to see Brady, Bree's and Manning will be plaintiffs for the players in a anti-trust suit representing the players after de-certification. Come On Man!!!! Who are they kidding. The top paid players in the NFL will go up against their bosses and tell them they are unfair and breaking labor rules. I say go ahead and lock the players out because I would love to see this happen. I bet none of those guys will have free passes during training camp anymore. This whole argument isn't about fair business, it is about huge egos and lawyers who are feeding both sides crap to make alot more money. I feel sorry for no one but the little man who may not have their $10/hr job soon because of this. The NFL owners and players are all making me sick! If I thought this was about protecting the retired players, medical benefits, 16 or 18 games, rookie salary caps it would be different. This is just plain egos and money. I am definitely against any players union demanding any money out of these owners. They can't help spending money on players, they need stars. It is in their best interest to do this. No one is forcing the Red Sox and Yankees to spend over the limit, they want to win. Personally I think there should be no cap, no free agency till a player hits 8 years in the league unless their salary is in the bottom 40% at their position after 5 years. You can add 6 years with restricted free agency for any player in the bottom 75% pay at their position. Each team has to spend at least 60% of the TV revenue on players, scouting departments, and coaches. I hate that teams lose players that are well played after 4-5 years, if they aren't well paid they probably aren't that good. If the rich teams want to spend huge dollars on 8 plus years players let them do it. I would add that all contracts are guaranteed for the first 8 years of their career if signed. Good teams stay good and economically good because they pay less for rookies (drafted later). Having good coaches and scouting departments would mean more if free agency was a bit later in a players career. Players would make sure they only sign if they have good contracts to start because they will be with their teams for a while. The NFL worked great before free agency hit, they should back things up again. ... I appreciate your passion but I'm not sure I'm following the flow here. You are anti-NFLPA and are on the side of the owners (I think?) but also want no cap (something the players would LOVE) and guaranteed contracts (something the Owners feel would ruin the game). I'm not sure really what you're trying to say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts