per PFT - point the decertification finger at Jerrah

[K Gun Special]

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. They have no need to see all the revenues and financial records of a private company. Hopefully on april 6th, the judge will backhand de smith, declare the decertification a sham, state that the NFLPA still exists (as it does) and force the players back to the table to accept a deal.

 

I'm not sure why any Bills fans are on the side of the players. the bigger cut the players get means a higher salary cap, and we'd soon be at the point where the "cap" was meaningless. Whats the good of a 200 million dollar salary cap if onyl Dallas and Washington can spend to it? the cap needs to be like it was before 2006, when it actually had meaning and teams actually got penalized for bad contracts and not managing the cap wisely.

 

I'd be fine if the players were going to put more money towards safety and post-career health benefits for retired players, but the NFLPA doesn't give a crap about them. they want to line their own pockets and thats it.

 

 

The players want rookie money shifted to retirements. They arent asking for more of the pie either. Not sure how you think that even if they did it would necessarily mean higher caps.

[JohnC]

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. They have no need to see all the revenues and financial records of a private company. Hopefully on april 6th, the judge will backhand de smith, declare the decertification a sham, state that the NFLPA still exists (as it does) and force the players back to the table to accept a deal.

 

I agree with you. The players don't trust the owners numbers and the owners want to limit as much data as possible from being revealed. The solution is as you stated. The judge in the end will determine what is to be revealed and what is not. I still contend that the data request is as much as negotiating tool for the union as it is a substative issue for them.

 

If the judge issues the lockout injunction then the players go back to work. It is the owners who locked out the players, not the reverse. Whether there is a decertification, sham or not, the players would still be training at the facilities. Again, it is the owners who have locked out the players. In a prior de-certification the players continued with their normal preparations and played on for years before the union was officially re-certified, sham or not.

 

I'm not sure why any Bills fans are on the side of the players. the bigger cut the players get means a higher salary cap, and we'd soon be at the point where the "cap" was meaningless.

 

The players are not asking for more. They are simply asking to maintain their current status.

 

Whats the good of a 200 million dollar salary cap if onyl Dallas and Washington can spend to it? the cap needs to be like it was before 2006, when it actually had meaning and teams actually got penalized for bad contracts and not managing the cap wisely.

 

The owners and players have made more money under this current agreement than it did with the prior agreement. As far as bad contracts--what does that mean? The owners negotiate the deals on their behalf. If it is a bad contract then it is their mistake and miscalculation. When the Bills signed Dockery and Langston Walker to those stupid contracts whose fault was it? There was not one team in the league other than the incompetent Bills who would have offered such largess to such mediocre talents. How does one write a CBA to account for an organizational incompetence?

 

I'd be fine if the players were going to put more money towards safety and post-career health benefits for retired players, but the NFLPA doesn't give a crap about them. they want to line their own pockets and thats it.

 

This is a case where both sides at the table are trying to do a better job for the retired players.

[JohnC]

That's not true. When you're talking about revenue sharing, which is the deal that the Owners agreed to, you need to see more than just profits because guess what, profits don't tell the whole story.

 

Put it in other terms -- in my business studios pay back end (a cut of a film's revenues) to writer's and actors. It's in every contract that's signed. Yet, studios are notorious for hiding money and finding creative ways to show that a film hasn't made money. Best example, the studios claim Spider-man 2 didn't turn a profit. The movie made $370,000,000+ just in the US ...

 

So yeah, you need to see more than just the "profits" if you want to see the real picture.

 

The corporate jet that Danny Snyder uses to fly in his draft prospects and free agent prospects is of course expensed to the organization. Why not just pay for a first class airline ticket for the prospective employee? When he flys in his chopter from the training facilities in Virginia to the stadium in Maryland (about 20 miles) for the draft party the expense is put on the franchise ledger sheet. He simply is putting on a show for the common folk.

 

Dan Snyder takes being profligate to another level. A little padding is one thing but the level he does it is absurd. What Snyder has clearly shown is that spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee success on the field. It comes down to not how much you spend as much as how you spend your money.

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

The players want rookie money shifted to retirements. They arent asking for more of the pie either. Not sure how you think that even if they did it would necessarily mean higher caps.

The players want the "rookie money" to go to the veteran players. The NFL agreed to this.

 

 

I agree with you. The players don't trust the owners numbers and the owners want to limit as much data as possible from being revealed. The solution is as you stated. The judge in the end will determine what is to be revealed and what is not. I still contend that the data request is as much as negotiating tool for the union as it is a substative issue for them.

 

If the judge issues the lockout injunction then the players go back to work. It is the owners who locked out the players, not the reverse. Whether there is a decertification, sham or not, the players would still be training at the facilities. Again, it is the owners who have locked out the players. In a prior de-certification the players continued with their normal preparations and played on for years before the union was officially re-certified, sham or not.

 

 

 

The players are not asking for more. They are simply asking to maintain their current status.

 

 

 

The owners and players have made more money under this current agreement than it did with the prior agreement. As far as bad contracts--what does that mean? The owners negotiate the deals on their behalf. If it is a bad contract then it is their mistake and miscalculation. When the Bills signed Dockery and Langston Walker to those stupid contracts whose fault was it? There was not one team in the league other than the incompetent Bills who would have offered such largess to such mediocre talents. How does one write a CBA to account for an organizational incompetence?

 

 

 

This is a case where both sides at the table are trying to do a better job for the retired players.

The players decertified in 1987 after they went on strike and players started crossing picket lines.

 

As far as I know, the 59.5% number would still exist---the owners just want to up the exption from the previous 1 billion under the old CBA to 1.35 billion. That's it--out of 8.2 billion (after the deduction).

 

As for the renegotiated TV contracts, D Smith had no problem when they were signed--he thought it was the best thing in the world! He didn't seem to think they were suspiciously low....

[papazoid]

please...blaming Jerrah is silly......it's about the money.....it's all about the money.....it will continue to be about the money......

 

if the owners had made an offer that kept the money exactly the same......the players would have rolled and agreed with the owners on every single other issue !!

 

the players are simply hiding behind the other issues because they don't want to be perceived as being only about the money.

[JohnC]

The players want the "rookie money" to go to the veteran players. The NFL agreed to this.

 

This rookie salary issue is an issue both sides agree to. It basically affects the players at the top of the first round, maybe 15 players or so. How is it fair, for the owners and players, when a high draft pick who hasn't played yet get more money than Manning or Brady get? Even with a diminution of salary to the top tier draftees they will still be making a good deal. This is an issue that works for both sides of the table.

 

 

 

The players decertified in 1987 after they went on strike and players started crossing picket lines.

 

I'll go back to my original point. As it stands the owners have locked out the players. With a decertification or not the players would go back to work. It is the owners who have locked them out.

 

As far as I know, the 59.5% number would still exist---the owners just want to up the exption from the previous 1 billion under the old CBA to 1.35 billion. That's it--out of 8.2 billion (after the deduction).

 

Your math is very different from my math. When more is deducted before the percentage is applied then you get less.

 

As for the renegotiated TV contracts, D Smith had no problem when they were signed--he thought it was the best thing in the world! He didn't seem to think they were suspiciously low....

 

Where do you get your information from? You are absolutely wrong on this issue. The union took the matter to court and got a favorable ruling. It was the union who took the legal action to contest the owners' shenanigans on the TV deal. Do you think that at the time the owners negotiated the TV deal he was aware that the owners could have gotten more? Why in the world would Smith be agreeable to a deal in which TV money would go to the owners in a lockout situation and not to the players? Maybe at the time of the signing he wasn't aware of this nefarious aspect to the deal?

[papazoid]

please...blaming Jerrah is silly......it's about the money.....it's all about the money.....it will continue to be about the money......

 

if the owners had made an offer that kept the money exactly the same......the players would have rolled and agreed with the owners on every single other issue !!

 

the players are simply hiding behind the other issues because they don't want to be perceived as being only about the money.

 

here ya go....proof it was about the money:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

[Mr. WEO]

This rookie salary issue is an issue both sides agree to. It basically affects the players at the top of the first round, maybe 15 players or so. How is it fair, for the owners and players, when a high draft pick who hasn't played yet get more money than Manning or Brady get? Even with a diminution of salary to the top tier draftees they will still be making a good deal. This is an issue that works for both sides of the table.

I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll go back to my original point. As it stands the owners have locked out the players. With a decertification or not the players would go back to work. It is the owners who have locked them out.

The players walked away from the bargaining table at 4:45 PM last Friday. They decertified before 5 PM. The CBA expired at midnight, the lockout then followed the expiration of the CBA.

 

 

 

Your math is very different from my math. When more is deducted before the percentage is applied then you get less.

 

John, the expired CBA allowed for the players to receive a maximum or "total league revenue" after a $1 billion deduction for owner/league "expenses". Of course, they never, in any year of the 2006 CBA, got even close to 59.5% of total revenue. But the last deal the NFL had on the table was to increase the exemption to $1.35 million--regardless of the total revenue in the future. It gives the owners a buffer in case there was a down year (crazy, huh?) and revenues significantly dropped across the board. That's only 10 million of cap money per team per year. It did NOT prevent the cap from increasing anyway as long as revenues went up. It baffles me why the union wouldn't take this deal. They are guaranteed to make more money, as long as total revenues continued to rise. It was a good offer--with the rookie wage scale and the money for the retirees, it was as good as their previous deal in real terms (not imaginary cap maximums, which never exist league-wide).

 

 

 

 

Where do you get your information from? You are absolutely wrong on this issue. The union took the matter to court and got a favorable ruling. It was the union who took the legal action to contest the owners' shenanigans on the TV deal. Do you think that at the time the owners negotiated the TV deal he was aware that the owners could have gotten more? Why in the world would Smith be agreeable to a deal in which TV money would go to the owners in a lockout situation and not to the players? Maybe at the time of the signing he wasn't aware of this nefarious aspect to the deal?

So you're saying that D Smith didn't know the value of the original contracts, didn't know the value of the renegotiated contracts so he didn't bother wondering if the new contracts were a bit lower than they should have been? How on earth is that possible??

 

To qoute the league, quoting Smith:

 

"The television contracts that the union attacked today were agreed to during the worst economy in our lifetimes. Far from failing to maximize revenue, the contracts grew league revenue to fund higher player salaries and benefits. No wonder DeMaurice Smith said publicly this year, 'My hat's off to Roger Goodell. Television is locked up until 2014 to the tune of about $5 billion a year.'

 

I'm guessing he knew (just like Upshaw knew on the day the 2006 CBA was signed that the owners were going to end it early, that it was only a temporizing contract) all about it and was going to pull this ace in the hole out if he couldn't get a deal to his liking in future (current) negotiations---just like the owners got the network insurance just in case they couldn't get the deal they wanted in future (current) negotiations.

 

You seem to ignore tha fact that the 2006 CBA is history. The owners own their teams. The players are employees, not owners. That deal is gone--the contract has expired/

[MattM]

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point.

 

"The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

 

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative.

 

Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."

 

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html

 

Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

[CosmicBills]

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point.

 

"The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

 

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative.

 

Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."

 

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html

 

Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

Of course it does. Which has been the issue all along. It's about money. The owners are greedy SOBs and want more money. The players are asking to keep what they've gained (but they also only care about the money).

 

The Owners did not negotiate in good faith. The players didn't either. Both sides knew a lockout was inevitable. And they were right. But at the end of the day it's he said, she said. Both sides have their own stories. It's about who you choose to believe. I for one believe the players more than the owners who have been shown to be untrustworthy and clearly shown they're willingness to screw the fans over by forcing a lock out to line their own pockets rather than have an honest negotiation.

 

The players would be playing today, without a raise in pay. The owners will only play if they get a raise. That's the bottom line. But WEO doesn't want to admit that because he's more interested in being "right" than having an honest discussion about matters. But that's cool. It's his right.

[JohnC]

 

The players walked away from the bargaining table at 4:45 PM last Friday. They decertified before 5 PM. The CBA expired at midnight, the lockout then followed the expiration of the CBA.

 

There is no requirement to lock out the players, even with a decertification. Each side is chosing it's own tactics. So be it. The next step is in the legal arena. A judge will make a determination to issue an injunction against the lockout or not.

 

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you or I are on. We both should want the judge to order the injunction and then "encourage" the squabbling parties to get back negotiating. That is also an outcome that the owners should desire, as they have recently stated.

 

John, the expired CBA allowed for the players to receive a maximum or "total league revenue" after a $1 billion deduction for owner/league "expenses". Of course, they never, in any year of the 2006 CBA, got even close to 59.5% of total revenue. But the last deal the NFL had on the table was to increase the exemption to $1.35 million--regardless of the total revenue in the future. It gives the owners a buffer in case there was a down year (crazy, huh?) and revenues significantly dropped across the board. That's only 10 million of cap money per team per year. It did NOT prevent the cap from increasing anyway as long as revenues went up. It baffles me why the union wouldn't take this deal. They are guaranteed to make more money, as long as total revenues continued to rise. It was a good offer--with the rookie wage scale and the money for the retirees, it was as good as their previous deal in real terms (not imaginary cap maximums, which never exist league-wide).

 

The multi-faceted deal you are alluded to was a last minute proposal that was put on the table while the other side was walking out. You make it sound as if the negotiations were on the verge of being completed. That is far from the case. The exlusion issue is not settled, no matter how much you claim that it is.

 

The added "just in case increase" in the excluded dollars before the percentage kicks in is offered in a scenario where the owners are making more money now in a very fragile economy. What happens when there is more discreationary $$$ floating around? The owners are going to certainly have a greater haul in a better economic climate.

 

Instead of making a "just in case proposal" why not wait for the economic climate for the businss to actually change (falter) before re-doing a deal that is working for everyone.

 

So you're saying that D Smith didn't know the value of the original contracts, didn't know the value of the renegotiated contracts so he didn't bother wondering if the new contracts were a bit lower than they should have been? How on earth is that possible??

 

To qoute the league, quoting Smith:

 

You can quibble about Smith saying this or that over the TV deal. It's pointless. The union took the owners to court over the treacherous deal and they won their case. At the time of the deal I'm sure that Smith was not aware that the owners could have negotiated a better deal for the players. Are you trying to suggest with a straight face that he would have been happy about a deal that shortchanged his members? There needs to be no further debate on this aspect of the issue because the judge has made a common sense determination on this matter. This issue is mostly settled. The judge still has to make a decision on how to handle the money that the networks were supposed to give the owners.

 

Let me remind you that when the deal was made and the terms of the TV deal were revealed that you jubilantly chortled how the union got out hustled and that they had no recourse. The Ronald Reagan appointed and republican judge has spoken on this matter. It is a settled matter. You need to move on with respect to this issue.

 

WEO, You need to let it go. I know you find it difficult to take when the peasants impertinently talk to the royal owners. The days of ruling by fiat are long gone. Just let it go. I know you have an ability to adapt to the changing world. Just let it go. LOL

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[JohnC]

You seem to ignore tha fact that the 2006 CBA is history. The owners own their teams. The players are employees, not owners. That deal is gone--the contract has expired/

 

WEO, What bothers royalists like you the most has little to do with the money issues. That is inconsequential. What drives you crazy is the thought that employees have the ability to collaborate on how a business is being run. In your world view you see the asylum being run by the inmates.

 

Eventually the owners and players are going to sign an agreement. The process is going to be very rancorous and turbulent. But it is going to get done. You are going to be disappointed because the knights in armor didn't totally vanguish the insolent and treasonous peasants.

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[Ramius]

Of course it does. Which has been the issue all along. It's about money. The owners are greedy SOBs and want more money. The players are asking to keep what they've gained (but they also only care about the money).

 

The Owners did not negotiate in good faith. The players didn't either. Both sides knew a lockout was inevitable. And they were right. But at the end of the day it's he said, she said. Both sides have their own stories. It's about who you choose to believe. I for one believe the players more than the owners who have been shown to be untrustworthy and clearly shown they're willingness to screw the fans over by forcing a lock out to line their own pockets rather than have an honest negotiation.

 

The players would be playing today, without a raise in pay. The owners will only play if they get a raise. That's the bottom line. But WEO doesn't want to admit that because he's more interested in being "right" than having an honest discussion about matters. But that's cool. It's his right.

 

Tough crap for the players. Pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy. The players can deal with it. It doesn't matter what they got in the past, because there is no more CBA, as WEO said. And its not as if individual players are being asked to make pay cuts. They will all still make what they were before, and salaries will still rise on a yearly basis. They just won't rise as much as they were before, and there's nothing wrong with that. Happens all the time.

 

I'm all for going back to the pre-2006 conditions where there were fixed players costs (with fixed yearly increases) and not this % of revenues crap.

[CosmicBills]

Tough crap for the players. Pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy. ...

That's a silly thing to say. The NFL has suffered no fall out from the economy. In fact, even in the greatest economic crisis of this country has faced since the great depression (caused by giant corporations like the men who run the NFL teams), the NFL has made record breaking revenues. It's flourished. So why should the people who made it flourish (the players) be forced to take a cut while the owners get a raise?

 

In reality, the owners are asking for a RAISE while CUTTING their employees' pay. So why is it okay for the owners to ask for a raise when "pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy" but it's not okay for the players not to ask for a cut?

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

Edited March 18, 2011 by tgreg99

[Mr. WEO]

There is no requirement to lock out the players, even with a decertification. Each side is chosing it's own tactics. So be it. The next step is in the legal arena. A judge will make a determination to issue an injunction against the lockout or not.

 

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you or I are on. We both should want the judge to order the injunction and then "encourage" the squabbling parties to get back negotiating. That is also an outcome that the owners should desire, as they have recently stated.

 

 

 

The multi-faceted deal you are alluded to was a last minute proposal that was put on the table while the other side was walking out. You make it sound as if the negotiations were on the verge of being completed. That is far from the case. The exlusion issue is not settled, no matter how much you claim that it is.

 

The added "just in case increase" in the excluded dollars before the percentage kicks in is offered in a scenario where the owners are making more money now in a very fragile economy. What happens when there is more discreationary $$$ floating around? The owners are going to certainly have a greater haul in a better economic climate.

 

Instead of making a "just in case proposal" why not wait for the economic climate for the businss to actually change (falter) before re-doing a deal that is working for everyone.

 

 

 

You can quibble about Smith saying this or that over the TV deal. It's pointless. The union took the owners to court over the treacherous deal and they won their case. At the time of the deal I'm sure that Smith was not aware that the owners could have negotiated a better deal for the players. Are you trying to suggest with a straight face that he would have been happy about a deal that shortchanged his members? There needs to be no further debate on this aspect of the issue because the judge has made a common sense determination on this matter. This issue is mostly settled. The judge still has to make a decision on how to handle the money that the networks were supposed to give the owners.

 

Let me remind you that when the deal was made and the terms of the TV deal were revealed that you jubilantly chortled how the union got out hustled and that they had no recourse. The Ronald Reagan appointed and republican judge has spoken on this matter. It is a settled matter. You need to move on with respect to this issue.

 

WEO, You need to let it go. I know you find it difficult to take when the peasants impertinently talk to the royal owners. The days of ruling by fiat are long gone. Just let it go. I know you have an ability to adapt to the changing world. Just let it go. LOL

 

 

WEO, What bothers royalists like you the most has little to do with the money issues. That is inconsequential. What drives you crazy is the thought that employees have the ability to collaborate on how a business is being run. In your world view you see the asylum being run by the inmates.

 

Eventually the owners and players are going to sign an agreement. The process is going to be very rancorous and turbulent. But it is going to get done. You are going to be disappointed because the knights in armor didn't totally vanguish the insolent and treasonous peasants.

John, your populist take on this is becoming comical. "peasants" "royalists". Come on! It's simply company owners and employees. Every compnay in the country is free to make as much money as it can. These employees are paid crazy money for what they otherwise did for free most of their lives--entertain themselves and others. Since the players don't share in the financial risk of the company, they don't get to share in it's profitablity. That's a pretty basic concept in this country. The players aren't owners in any way at all.

 

Also, the exemption would remain only $1.35 billion--even if there was 10, 15, 20 billion in revenue. So why would the players reject it?

 

As for the the "treachery" of the TV deal, yes, I am suggesting that Smith knew how these things are done--otherwise he would have asked immediately why the renegotiated contract value didn't increase.

[JohnC]

John, your populist take on this is becoming comical. "peasants" "royalists". Come on! It's simply company owners and employees. Every compnay in the country is free to make as much money as it can. These employees are paid crazy money for what they otherwise did for free most of their lives--entertain themselves and others. Since the players don't share in the financial risk of the company, they don't get to share in it's profitablity. That's a pretty basic concept in this country. The players aren't owners in any way at all.

 

Where we fundatmentally (respectfully) disagree is that I believe the players are also stakeholders in this entreprise. You don't see it that way. That's fine. That is the crux of the conflict between our views. That is not going to be resolved. But that is okay.

 

lso, the exemption would remain only $1.35 billion--even if there was 10, 15, 20 billion in revenue. So why would the players reject it?

 

The figures and terms of the excluded money you refer to are going to be negotiated. What the players give up will be balanced out by what the owners add in. That is part of the process. Imposing one's position doesn't work. You hash it out and come to a common ground. Both sides are using tactics that they feel give them leverage in the negotiation. Don't let it bother you. It is part of the theatrics of negotiation.

 

As for the the "treachery" of the TV deal, yes, I am suggesting that Smith knew how these things are done--otherwise he would have asked immediately why the renegotiated contract value didn't increase.

 

Who gives a dam what Smith knew or didn't know about the contrived TV deal. What counts is that he challenged the deal in court and won a resounding victory. Your position that Smith favored the deal makes absolutely no sense. Even if he did it is immaterial because he fought the deal in court and won. The TV issue is settled. Don't waste your efforts trying to analyze what was in Smith's head regarding the deal. It is a moot point because he took it to court. Common sense tells you that you don't challenge a position in court when you favor it. That is not only illogical, it is outright weird.

 

I'm simply pooped out on this topic. Everyone has different perspectives when observing an intense owner/labor conflict. The bottom line is that the parties have to work out a deal. I've said many times that there are no angels in this unseemly conflict. Let both sides posture and bluster trying to appeal for sympathy from the paying fanbase. When it gets done it gets done. I don't have anything further to add to this subject matter.

 

Howver, ff you want to talk about the draft my position is clear: Not getting a franchise qb in this draft when in position to do so would be another mistake made by this very laughable organization.

[rockpile]

It is hard to know if this report is accurate. Aside from this incident I see Jerry ruining the NFL for the average fan. His Taj Mahal of a stadium and pricing practices make it nearly impossible for the average family to attend games. There is a loss of understanding that the community also has a stake in the team.

 

It has been very difficult, if not nearly impossible, for the average family to attend an NFL game for a very long time. I had four children, so the choice was basically to take the family to a football game, tailgate, buy some souvenirs and come home, OR go tent camping for a week at a NY state park.

 

That was even back when end zone seats were about $20 each and a non-electric campsite was $10 a night.

 

Agreed - today Buffalo tickets are a bargain when compared to most of the league.

 

Since all of the people who are heading the "labor dispute" likely make more money in a season than I will make for the rest of my life, I have no pity on either.

 

As was said earlier, I enjoy watching NFL players in an NFL game. Go ahead and strike, I will learn to appreciate college football more.

 

The players who were screwed played BEFORE there was a player's union. Many of those idiots played because they enjoyed the game. Go figure!