Jump to content

Uncle Sean going for the NFLPA head?


Matt39

Recommended Posts

I'm sure there is some spill-over benefit to the city/state, but I'm also sure it ain't nearly what they calculate it to be.

It's absurdly lower than what pundits argue it is. This has become a pretty popular area of study in urban affairs and almost every model constructed thus far puts the effects at minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There have been many studies that show the net effect of building a new stadium in a city does not benefit the stadium economically. I remember having to write a paper on it five years ago when I was still in school. It is largely a myth that a new stadium benefits the stadium. Yes it creates jobs, but they are temporary and low paying jobs with high turnover. There are very few people who benefit in the long term from a new stadium and it creates massive costs for the city.

It depends. Certain cities over time are able to package the stadium with pseudo-renewal dream packages along with convention centers, shopping, hotels, museums...etc. There are instances of cities being able to mitigate the negative effects with strategies along those lines. Not putting them in the black per se, but not going further into debt either. That's essentially what the Jets and Giants tried to do with Xanadu, but failed miserably for a laundry list of reasons that are so mind-boggling once you start digging into the case; way beyond the ridiculous aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends. Certain cities over time are able to package the stadium with pseudo-renewal dream packages along with convention centers, shopping, hotels, museums...etc. There are instances of cities being able to mitigate the negative effects with strategies along those lines. Not putting them in the black per se, but not going further into debt either. That's essentially what the Jets and Giants tried to do with Xanadu, but failed miserably for a laundry list of reasons that are so mind-boggling once you start digging into the case; way beyond the ridiculous aesthetics.

 

Thats true to an extent. But all you can do is minimize the loss to the taxpayer because even if you recover the amount of the debt, there are debt servicing costs because of the debt the city/state acquire. Plus if there are surpluses (if there ever are) there is the cost of what they could have gained if these were invested in assets that got a return and so on.

 

Usually the city/state and by extension the taxpayer always left get holding the bag. If there was any money to be made funding these stadiums believe me private funding would want a direct piece of the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole CBA was between owners and players. And i said Woody did not go bankrupt paying more for the player he wanted that means he could afford to pay him. As i said I do not have sympathies for the owners.

 

Bankruptcy has nothing to do with it.  No one gives a crap how much money Woody Johnson saves. So it's for the owner to keep paying until he goes bankrupt, as though that's the only appropriate ending? C'mon.

 

Honor or lack of it goes out of the window once lawyers get involved in anything. And it works both ways. Teams do not honor their contracts and there are multiple instances every year where players are asked to restructure and if they dont they are cut away forcing the player to restart the process of seeking employment.

 

The contract is terminable by the team but not by the player.  That is the contract.  The team is operating within the framework of the contract if they cut the player; the player is not if he holds out.  

 

Any GM knows that if they pay upfront the risk is always there that a player comes back for more if the player has the leverage. Most don't have the leverage but when they do they hold out. Its the GM fault for agreeing to pay upfront. Its also the GM's fault to being willing to negotiate again. At the end of the day ask any lawyer or GM about a contract and they will tell you if you wanted to prevent something from happening than you should have put it in the contract.

 

When a player holds out and then gets paid a lump sum up front on a 5-6 year deal, and then holds out after only 2, that is beyond the reasonable risk.  That is dishonorable.  I could have sided more with Revis if he was a 7th round pick who made $600K total his first 2 years and was then due another $300K for year 3.  But that wasn't the case at all.

 

That's a rant i will never understand. First of all these have some skills that has a great market which everyone doesn't and thats why they get paid. That's true for any sport. But just because you are making more than the average guy does not mean they should not want to earn more than they already do specially when their window of playing is very short.

 

There's a market for it in large part due to the promotion of the sport by those who are not players.  If you have no sympathy for the owners who paid a lot for the team, and are seeking return on their investments, why would you have sympathy for players who are taking advantage of a framework put in place by others? If Revis quit the game, no one would notice.  If he feels he is underpaid, he has the right to quit football and seek out a job that he feels rewards him more justly.

 

CBA does have everything to do with it. You missed the part of owners saving 2.5 bill in salaries since the start of the CBA and 768 mill just this year. If that money was available the cap would have been a lot higher and nobody would have to sacrifice as you put it.

 

Specific to Revis situation a lot of it was the mismanagement from the JETS GM in not being able to negotiate. You cannot blame a player's representative(s) for knowing their leverage and being great negotiators.

 

So what if they "saved" $2.5B? It's theirs. You're making it sound like it belongs to the players and the owners are somehow robbing from them.  

 

When Revis holds out he is taking money that would have otherwise gotten spread around to the poor saps he cares nothing about: his teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean benefits the state? You wrote "benefits the stadium" multiple times.  Assuming that's what you meant, it's not surprising.  Things don't exist in a vacuum; where you gain in one area (stadium) you're probably just shuffling around from another area.  Unless literally all the jobs created went to previously-unemployed people (which, as you say, are mostly low paying jobs and temporary at that, meaning the state isn't getting much income tax revenue from them).  And football in particular is 10 games a year.  Sure there are concerts, but L.A. has places to have concerts (or conventions or whatever) with or without a new football stadium.  Construction jobs? Meh. You don't pay to create a $1000 job so you can collect $200 or so on it for one year.

 

If you have a copy, where you did research on it, I'd love to read it.  I promise not to post it anywhere or email it around if you don't want.  But I'd definitely be interested in reading it.  

Yea you were right I meant the state (well really the city). Didn't really edit what I was writing. Sperm I also did find the paper that I wrote, I can send it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats true to an extent. But all you can do is minimize the loss to the taxpayer because even if you recover the amount of the debt, there are debt servicing costs because of the debt the city/state acquire. Plus if there are surpluses (if there ever are) there is the cost of what they could have gained if these were invested in assets that got a return and so on.

 

Usually the city/state and by extension the taxpayer always left get holding the bag. If there was any money to be made funding these stadiums believe me private funding would want a direct piece of the action.

 

Absolutely. The best that taxpayers can hope for at this point is that policymakers don't get taken to the cleaners, like Chicago did with the parking meters fiasco or Orlando getting schooled by Disney with road repair and whatnot. There's really not much of an economic benefit for the city other than people want their sports and incumbents would prefer not to get blamed for an absence of it; or they're simply trying to feed the image of being a tourist city and needing the juice to promote it. Culturally, sure, but that's a whole other framework. And for global firms it's become pointless to even bother at the preliminary stages when they can just cash in later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So what if they "saved" $2.5B? It's theirs. You're making it sound like it belongs to the players and the owners are somehow robbing from them.  

 

 

Fairness.

 

 

 

So what if they "saved" $2.5B? It's theirs. You're making it sound like it belongs to the players and the owners are somehow robbing from them.  

 

 

CBA.  Bad for the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it because it's dishonorable to sign a contract that says "I will play out my contract IF you pay me some of it up front." And then after getting the up-front money, saying (in effect) "I quit unless you give me more."

Dishonorable? It's business. You guys are positively goofy with this stuff. In no other context does anybody get emotional about efficient breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a player holds out and then gets paid a lump sum up front on a 5-6 year deal, and then holds out after only 2, that is beyond the reasonable risk. That is dishonorable. I could have sided more with Revis if he was a 7th round pick who made $600K total his first 2 years and was then due another $300K for year 3. But that wasn't the case at all.

So it's not a matter of principle but rather one of degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that the plight of the NFL player is pretty low on most people's lists. For the vast majority of observers, this is a battle of millionaires vs. billionaires that the rest of us all wind up losing.

 

 

#proleshateproles

 

I don't like it because it's dishonorable to sign a contract that says "I will play out my contract IF you pay me some of it up front."  And then after getting the up-front money, saying (in effect) "I quit unless you give me more."  Cutting a player early isn't the same, because a player got money up front to compensate in advance.

 

 

What Revis did was a long overdue, smart and aggressive, counterattack on how player contracts work in the NFL. All he did was go on the offensive and take charge of how his money and his career went. He could have been a good boy and signed with Jets for a significant period of time waiting for them to casually cut him (like Ware and the Cowboys) when he slipped. No one one would notice or care too much because that is the way it has always been. Players are expected to take paycuts from FA price if they extend, and from that point in they last until guarantees are up rather than the years announced. IF they get far into their contract its extremely often because they restructured at least once.  People were saying Revis would swamp his team with guarantees - claiming he walked away with at least 32 million from that deal (which would be a 1/3 of the announced deal in the first place lol). He walked away with 16 million (none guaranteed) and immediately took less money from someone else - though Belichick awesomely threw in that 20 million option (I assume a little **** you to the machinations of the league).

 

All Revis did was exploit a system that has exploited players for decades. Someone was going to do it eventually, and he pulled it off as aggressively and with the kind of talent that it required. NFL contracts suck, and it's either going to keep going until the sport craps out or the owners will agree to a more sustainable model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Encouraging someone to hold out for a higher up-front bonus, and then after getting it, encourage that same under-contract player to hold out? Turd.

 

No. The guaranteed money in contracts are the only reason players stick on rosters so long. If this is dishonorable then so is having the press announce a deal as 6 years when it's really for 1 year with a bunch of option years for the team with no burden to their future caps. You really have your bad guys mixed up in this. I'm very confused by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The guaranteed money in contracts are the only reason players stick on rosters so long. If this is dishonorable then so is having the press announce a deal as 6 years when it's really for 1 year with a bunch of option years for the team with no burden to their future caps. You really have your bad guys mixed up in this. I'm very confused by that.

 

It's a trade-off.  Everyone knows the guaranteed portions are the guaranteed portions and the non-guaranteed portions are the non-guaranteed portions.  If the player is not ok with these terms, then he shouldn't sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#proleshateproles

 

 

What Revis did was a long overdue, smart and aggressive, counterattack on how player contracts work in the NFL. All he did was go on the offensive and take charge of how his money and his career went. He could have been a good boy and signed with Jets for a significant period of time waiting for them to casually cut him (like Ware and the Cowboys) when he slipped. No one one would notice or care too much because that is the way it has always been. Players are expected to take paycuts from FA price if they extend, and from that point in they last until guarantees are up rather than the years announced. IF they get far into their contract its extremely often because they restructured at least once.  People were saying Revis would swamp his team with guarantees - claiming he walked away with at least 32 million from that deal (which would be a 1/3 of the announced deal in the first place lol). He walked away with 16 million (none guaranteed) and immediately took less money from someone else - though Belichick awesomely threw in that 20 million option (I assume a little **** you to the machinations of the league).

 

All Revis did was exploit a system that has exploited players for decades. Someone was going to do it eventually, and he pulled it off as aggressively and with the kind of talent that it required. NFL contracts suck, and it's either going to keep going until the sport craps out or the owners will agree to a more sustainable model.

 

Nah, we just don't agree on that front.

 

In a contract, both parties are supposed to be getting something in exchange for something.  What's the point in awarding a player a new contract with new guaranteed money, before the old one is over, if he's just going to hold out again?

 

You bring up that a player takes a little less to get a deal done early? There's risk on both parts.  The player wants to eliminate the risk of getting permanently injured (or sucking) in the future, in exchange for guaranteed money today.  The team wants to eliminate the risk of the player reaching full free agency and then being more expensive later.  Then enter a Uncle Sean type.  He wants to get a new deal early, and signs a contract that pays a little less in exchange for this security.  Except once that portion is over he then doesn't want the team to get their end of the deal (where they get him for a discounted amount in exchange for this).

 

In essence, someone like Revis wants the #1 money every year with the long-term security of resetting that #1 money every year AND guaranteeing him that #1 money even if he's injured or if his production slips.  Except that isn't the market for him.  Or anyone.  If you want the top money for your position every year, then only sign a 1-year deal (which he's doing now).  I have no problem with that.  He's assuming risk in exchange for top dollar.  I have an issue with it if he signs a deal where the first 2 years pays $32M and the last 2 pays $14M and he holds out after 2 years as though the team would have made an offer that purely pays him $16M/year every year. If that's what he wants then don't sign the contract for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dishonorable? It's business. You guys are positively goofy with this stuff. In no other context does anybody get emotional about efficient breach.

 

I think it is, yes.

 

It's not emotional.  I think it's sucky.  You think it's sucky the other way. 
 
The league operates under a salary cap.  It operates this way because there's revenue sharing and it helps keep the league intact.  Absent that, the larger market teams would get the good players and the smaller market teams would stink. Like in baseball, where the Royals will never win another World Series. Ever.  The salaries for the top players has gotten SO high relative to others, that only certain teams can afford them. The rest need to try Moneyball or otherwise operate at a permanent disadvantage.  So a salary cap with revenue sharing is better for the league, and therefore for the fans.  If the Raiders suck every year it's because they're run poorly not because they don't have the money to compete adequately.
 
I don't see players giving back money when they're terrible or when their personalities do a 180 from the year before.  Think if Santonio Holmes acted in 2010 the way he acted in 2011, that the Jets would have offered him $20M guaranteed? Of course not.  Was anyone advocating that Holmes must pay the team back? No.
 
 

So it's not a matter of principle but rather one of degree?

 

How many things are ever purely black and white?

 

If a player signs a deal with many millions up front and then holds out it is not the same as a low-money rookie, who had no say in the contract being offered (it's either sign this or you are not permitted to play in the NFL period), and playing out for $300K/year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is, yes.

It's not emotional. I think it's sucky. You think it's sucky the other way.

The league operates under a salary cap. It operates this way because there's revenue sharing and it helps keep the league intact. Absent that, the larger market teams would get the good players and the smaller market teams would stink. Like in baseball, where the Royals will never win another World Series. Ever. The salaries for the top players has gotten SO high relative to others, that only certain teams can afford them. The rest need to try Moneyball or otherwise operate at a permanent disadvantage. So a salary cap with revenue sharing is better for the league, and therefore for the fans. If the Raiders suck every year it's because they're run poorly not because they don't have the money to compete adequately.

I don't see players giving back money when they're terrible or when their personalities do a 180 from the year before. Think if Santonio Holmes acted in 2010 the way he acted in 2011, that the Jets would have offered him $20M guaranteed? Of course not. Was anyone advocating that Holmes must pay the team back? No.

How many things are ever purely black and white?

If a player signs a deal with many millions up front and then holds out it is not the same as a low-money rookie, who had no say in the contract being offered (it's either sign this or you are not permitted to play in the NFL period), and playing out for $300K/year.

How is it not the same? Has a contract, won't perform. DISHONOR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How is it not the same? Has a contract, won't perform. DISHONOR.

 

k

 

Totally no difference between a multi-millionaire who held out, holding out again, and then threatening to hold out yet again (until he realized he couldn't, but still is surely grumbling to anyone on the team who will listen), and a low-round player making league minimum, being a superstar QB like Wilson.  Not that Wilson is holding out either.

 

WIlson didn't pocket a bunch of guaranteed money up front in exchange for future security long-term.  He signed the only contract available to him as a short QB coming out of college, with no track record to show he will be a stud QB.

 

Holding out for a contract, and getting it, and then holding out again, getting another contract again, and then holding out a 3rd time (which Uncle Sean's nephew surely would have) is not nearly the same to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't like it because it's dishonorable to sign a contract that says "I will play out my contract IF you pay me some of it up front."  And then after getting the up-front money, saying (in effect) "I quit unless you give me more."  Cutting a player early isn't the same, because a player got money up front to compensate in advance.  Also if the player is still performing he will not get cut (or he'll find work paying the same or more from someone else).  If a player gets cut for not being worth $5M anymore, why should someone be forced to pay him $5M?

 

 

Agree. This has always been my issue w/holdouts after the Bonus money drawing interest for the player in his account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

k

 

Totally no difference between a multi-millionaire who held out, holding out again, and then threatening to hold out yet again (until he realized he couldn't, but still is surely grumbling to anyone on the team who will listen), and a low-round player making league minimum, being a superstar QB like Wilson.  Not that Wilson is holding out either.

 

WIlson didn't pocket a bunch of guaranteed money up front in exchange for future security long-term.  He signed the only contract available to him as a short QB coming out of college, with no track record to show he will be a stud QB.

 

Holding out for a contract, and getting it, and then holding out again, getting another contract again, and then holding out a 3rd time (which Uncle Sean's nephew surely would have) is not nearly the same to me.

 

 

Again, I think you overestimate the options players have. The league consistently chooses not to honor their contracts - extremely few players last through their whole contract extension. There is zero reason why players should feel compelled to act more honorable than the league they work for, honor has nothing to do with this sh*t. If anything there is an immense honor in what Revis did, the players need more guys like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're advocating the team should bet on a player by paying him a high salary (in particular, with high guarantees).  Or in the case of the best college prospects, bet on a player by using their top draft pick(s) on them, which also carry higher starting salaries with more guaranteed $ than lower ones.  I'm with you; so far so good.
 
If they "lose" on the deal by getting less than they paid for, despite ponying up guaranteed $, they're never going to get value for under their cap.  If the player is a bust, the team doesn't get the draft pick back. That is the risk to the team.  If you the team don't want to assume that risk for that player, then don't sign him in FA or don't draft him if he's a college prospect. Go with someone else. Don't sign or use a high draft pick on a high-risk player and then cry about not getting what you thought you were.  We're still in total agreement.
 
If they "win" (player is living up to the deal and maybe more) they should also lose in the form of the player holding out.  This is where we diverge.
 
I think it stinks.  You don't have to agree.  The day I become a Revis fan more than a Jets fan, or an individual player fan more than a fan of watching the NFL in general, I will then think otherwise.
 
Where there IS a gray area for me and why it's not all black & white - and there is presently no adequate remedy in the CBA, nor has the PA put forth a suggestion - is when a player is making SO little (relatively) and is performing like one of the league's best (like a Russell Wilson or a young Tom Brady who win superbowls and make less than a backup making the veteran minimum), it's overboard.  There's something thrown in there I think, but it's not much and it's not enough.  
 
Where does that gray area come into play -- at what level pay vs production? I don't know, and the reality is a CBA requires this to be defined in exact terms.  I think it exists in some obvious places (a QB like Wilson) and other people think it exists in other places (a CB like Revis, or it seems any player at any time whenever the player feels like it).  I do think it's dishonorable to hold out for a big contract, pocket the guarantees that were only in there in exchange for the latter non-guaranteed portions later, and then hold out again 2 years into it like Revis wanted to.  To me, if you want that top dollar every single year, you sign 1-year contracts and bet on yourself.  He's doing that now, and have no issues with it.  I think it's ridiculous to have the team bet on a player, and if the team loses their bet they lose, and if they win their bet they should also lose, and say that satisfies a sense of fairness with the reasoning being that it doesn't literally bankrupt the guy who owns the team.
 
I'll feel differently when these same people start advocating for high-priced players to return or otherwise void guaranteed/bonus money when they're not living up to their deals.  Then someone can cry about the lack of fairness in the situation and reasonably expect it to stick.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I think you overestimate the options players have. The league consistently chooses not to honor their contracts - extremely few players last through their whole contract extension. There is zero reason why players should feel compelled to act more honorable than the league they work for, honor has nothing to do with this sh*t. If anything there is an immense honor in what Revis did, the players need more guys like that.

 

That is part of the contract.  That is how it is constructed.  The team gets freedom to get out early in exchange for more money in the first 2 years than the average of the contract over its lifetime.  

 

Eric Decker is getting paid $10M this year.   In Revis's last Jets contract he got $25M in year 1.   Yet their contracts were never intended to be for $10M per season nor $25M per season respectively.

 

Also, if the player is worth it, the team won't cut him early.  Why should a team continue to pay a player who isn't worth what his contract pays.  Look at DeSean Jackson.  Philadelphia cut him early.  Another team felt he's still worth that $ and paid it to him.  What's wrong with that? Why should he continue to get paid if he isn't worth it? The team could - and should - use that cap space on a player who is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a trade-off.  Everyone knows the guaranteed portions are the guaranteed portions and the non-guaranteed portions are the non-guaranteed portions.  If the player is not ok with these terms, then he shouldn't sign.

 

Yes, and everyone knew Revis would hold out, so all good. I had no idea you had such simple criteria to be OK with sh*tty situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is part of the contract.  That is how it is constructed.  The team gets freedom to get out early in exchange for more money in the first 2 years than the average of the contract over its lifetime.

 

 

Then announce the terms as such, call the contract what it is. It's not a 6/96 deal - it's 1/16 with a bunch of team options. It's not 2 years, it's 1 year with a team option. It's not 4 years, it's probably 2 years with two team options...Players have a right to react to such a stupid system, that is all that happened. I really just don't get your point of view on this at all, it's contradictory and one sided as ****. So you're OK with teams being able to pull out early but if a player does the same thing (in the almost the EXACT same way by taking his guarantees and holding out) it's wrong? Horsesh*t, which is why it's going to change sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is part of the contract.  That is how it is constructed.  The team gets freedom to get out early in exchange for more money in the first 2 years than the average of the contract over its lifetime.  

 

Eric Decker is getting paid $10M this year.   In Revis's last Jets contract he got $25M in year 1.   Yet their contracts were never intended to be for $10M per season nor $25M per season respectively.

 

Also, if the player is worth it, the team won't cut him early.  Why should a team continue to pay a player who isn't worth what his contract pays.  Look at DeSean Jackson.  Philadelphia cut him early.  Another team felt he's still worth that $ and paid it to him.  What's wrong with that? Why should he continue to get paid if he isn't worth it? The team could - and should - use that cap space on a player who is.

 

Earned it, as more than 2/3 of that was an option bonus. Decker's 10 is just salary and bonus...that's basic, and actually his contract does call for it. He doesn't make that much the rest of the way through, probably incentive to sign with a team many perceive to be bad and far off.

 

If the player is worth it the team won't cut him early, they'll likely ask him to restructure on the back end (you'll say this benefits the player, really it's a nuisance - notice no player ever offers to restructure before they have to to stick around). I mentioned this before. Why would a team offer a contract they don't plan to honor? Why is this only an issue for you when it works against the owners? The Jackson deal is a 2 year deal announced as a 3 year deal just in case the team decides they want that third year - like every other NFL contract the final years are option years for the team. That is an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're advocating the team should bet on a player by paying him a high salary (in particular, with high guarantees). Or in the case of the best college prospects, bet on a player by using their top draft pick(s) on them, which also carry higher starting salaries with more guaranteed $ than lower ones. I'm with you; so far so good.

If they "lose" on the deal by getting less than they paid for, despite ponying up guaranteed $, they're never going to get value for under their cap. If the player is a bust, the team doesn't get the draft pick back. That is the risk to the team. If you the team don't want to assume that risk for that player, then don't sign him in FA or don't draft him if he's a college prospect. Go with someone else. Don't sign or use a high draft pick on a high-risk player and then cry about not getting what you thought you were. We're still in total agreement.

If they "win" (player is living up to the deal and maybe more) they should also lose in the form of the player holding out. This is where we diverge.

I think it stinks. You don't have to agree. The day I become a Revis fan more than a Jets fan, or an individual player fan more than a fan of watching the NFL in general, I will then think otherwise.

Where there IS a gray area for me and why it's not all black & white - and there is presently no adequate remedy in the CBA, nor has the PA put forth a suggestion - is when a player is making SO little (relatively) and is performing like one of the league's best (like a Russell Wilson or a young Tom Brady who win superbowls and make less than a backup making the veteran minimum), it's overboard. There's something thrown in there I think, but it's not much and it's not enough.

Where does that gray area come into play -- at what level pay vs production? I don't know, and the reality is a CBA requires this to be defined in exact terms. I think it exists in some obvious places (a QB like Wilson) and other people think it exists in other places (a CB like Revis, or it seems any player at any time whenever the player feels like it). I do think it's dishonorable to hold out for a big contract, pocket the guarantees that were only in there in exchange for the latter non-guaranteed portions later, and then hold out again 2 years into it like Revis wanted to. To me, if you want that top dollar every single year, you sign 1-year contracts and bet on yourself. He's doing that now, and have no issues with it. I think it's ridiculous to have the team bet on a player, and if the team loses their bet they lose, and if they win their bet they should also lose, and say that satisfies a sense of fairness with the reasoning being that it doesn't literally bankrupt the guy who owns the team.

I'll feel differently when these same people start advocating for high-priced players to return or otherwise void guaranteed/bonus money when they're not living up to their deals. Then someone can cry about the lack of fairness in the situation and reasonably expect it to stick.

It's not about fair. It's about business. Profit is what motivates both parties to contract in the first place, profit is what induces one party to breach, and profit is what induces the other party to pay the ransom in lieu of pursuing other remedies. Fairness, honor, and your feelings have zip to do with any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about fair. It's about business. Profit is what motivates both parties to contract in the first place, profit is what induces one party to breach, and profit is what induces the other party to pay the ransom in lieu of pursuing other remedies. Fairness, honor, and your feelings have zip to do with any of it.

what are you? A Ferengi? ;)

 

320x240.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and everyone knew Revis would hold out, so all good. I had no idea you had such simple criteria to be OK with sh*tty situations.

 

Your opinion of anything related to Revis carries about as much potential objectivity to it as mine does on all things Pennington.  Let's not forget, just one year ago you were singing a very different tune until you found out that your argument in defense of Revis was predicated on a series of incorrect assumptions you had made about his demands, even despite what every report on the subject had said.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can more than freely admit to being quite actively involved in those debates, so I'm not going to pretend to be overly objective on the matter or bother arguing over the same details we've discussed many times before, but we all know your position is based on your hard-on for one player, and your criteria of what's "right" changes any time his actions deem it necessary.

 

Guys like Revis might be able to get away with this kind of stuff on occasions (although you're kidding yourself if you don't see how it clearly impacted his interest around the league), but nothing good will come of trying to have an entire league function this way.  If players cannot be trusted with long term contracts then they will simply not get them anymore, and don't be surprised when that means the already short careers of NFL players become that much shorter, and the rate of injuries being a player's immediate ticket out of the league only increases.  Sure, there will always be players good enough to overcome those things (mainly QBs), but that's not what makes up the vast majority of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about fair. It's about business. Profit is what motivates both parties to contract in the first place, profit is what induces one party to breach, and profit is what induces the other party to pay the ransom in lieu of pursuing other remedies. Fairness, honor, and your feelings have zip to do with any of it.

 

Oh, how much easier things could be if people would act like our textbooks say and play within the rules of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinion of anything related to Revis carries about as much potential objectivity to it as mine does on all things Pennington.  Let's not forget, just one year ago you were singing a very different tune until you found out that your argument in defense of Revis was predicated on a series of incorrect assumptions you had made about his demands, even despite what every report on the subject had said.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can more than freely admit to being quite actively involved in those debates, so I'm not going to pretend to be overly objective on the matter or bother arguing over the same details we've discussed many times before, but we all know your position is based on your hard-on for one player, and your criteria of what's "right" changes any time his actions deem it necessary.

 

Guys like Revis might be able to get away with this kind of stuff on occasions (although you're kidding yourself if you don't see how it clearly impacted his interest around the league), but nothing good will come of trying to have an entire league function this way.  If players cannot be trusted with long term contracts then they will simply not get them anymore, and don't be surprised when that means the already short careers of NFL players become that much shorter, and the rate of injuries being a player's immediate ticket out of the league only increases.  Sure, there will always be players good enough to overcome those things (mainly QBs), but that's not what makes up the vast majority of the league.

 

Massive waste of words, none of this is right. I am a little emotional, but like LonelyHearts says - this is about the player fighting for profit using a system the league continually exploits to **** players. It has nothing to do with some boner for Revis, it's that what he did made sense, was well within his rights and within the rules of the game, and it was all for his money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive waste of words, none of this is right. I am a little emotional, but like LonelyHearts says - this is about the player fighting for profit using a system the league continually exploits to **** players.

I said no such thing, but while we're turning our attention to the system, I'm wondering why it's considered dishonorable for Revis to hold out but not equally or even more so for the Jets to pay him off. The reason teams keep rewarding holdouts is that it's cheaper than collectively bargaining for protection. The idea that teams would be better off if players couldn't hold out ignores the reality of what it would take to bring about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said no such thing, but while we're turning our attention to the system, I'm wondering why it's considered dishonorable for Revis to hold out but not equally or even more so for the Jets to pay him off. The reason teams keep rewarding holdouts is that it's cheaper than collectively bargaining for protection. The idea that teams would be better off if players couldn't hold out ignores the reality of what it would take to bring about.

 

At least a little due to because they benefit so greatly from the other side of that and players would ask for protections on their end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...