Roger Goodell is ruining the NFL

[Scott Dierking]

When are workers (in America) not allowed to sign contracts for as much as the can, and control the terms of their contracts?

They are absolutely allowed to sign for whatever they want, within a limit

[#27TheDominator]

They are absolutely allowed to sign for whatever they want, within a limit

What limit? The one that is based on the books that the owners refuse to share?

[PFSIKH]

When are workers (in America) not allowed to sign contracts for as much as the can, and control the terms of their contracts?

What NFL player isn't?

I disagree with Scott. There is no limit.

Manning could demand a 30 million a year contract. He could demand a 50 million a year contract. The Colts or another team could sign him to those demands.

Now, the practicality of the contract is obviously not smart for the team.

There is no mechanism in place to restrict what they can receive. Now, there is a mechanism in place in place to restrict how much a team can spend.

The NFL may not have the highest team salary, but they probably have the most at or above 110 million than any other league.

I get your opinion whichever way it may lie, but you talk like players are earning minimum wage.

[Scott Dierking]

What limit? The one that is based on the books that the owners refuse to share?

Their game, they get to call the rules

[#27TheDominator]

What NFL player isn't?

I disagree with Scott. There is no limit.

Manning could demand a 30 million a year contract. He could demand a 50 million a year contract. The Colts or another team could sign him to those demands.

Now, the practicality of the contract is obviously not smart for the team.

There is no mechanism in place to restrict what they can receive. Now, there is a mechanism in place in place to restrict how much a team can spend.

The NFL may not have the highest team salary, but they probably have the most at or above 110 million than any other league.

I get your opinion whichever way it may lie, but you talk like players are earning minimum wage.

No. I don't talk they are earning minimum wage. I just think the fact that they can earn a decent living at the lower levels is irrelevant. The owners are ALL making a killing, but we are supposed to feel sorry for them? Nobody here is starving and IMO the owners are getting a much bigger piece of the pie than they deserve.

LOL at more $110M contracts. They aren't guaranteed, so they can make them for $500B. The guy is getting cut at the owners whim. Only guaranteed money counts.

Their game, they get to call the rules

You are like a very wrong and very silly broken record. They don't get to call the rules because their arrangement is violating the laws of the United States of America. The only way they get to continue that is by having an agreement with the players. That means they had better stop popping off and start sucking up. Understand?

I own my house. I get to call the rules there. If Max comes over I can't just bend him over the table and spank him. I need his consent. In order to get that consent I have to do what it takes - Diet Coke, mortadella, Twinkies. The owners don't want to come up with the mortadella.

[T0mShane]

If players have a right to look at books, owners have a right to test chemistry.

Tit for tat,and that's how they play.

Right. Because HGH use is relevant to percentage shares of revenue.

[Scott Dierking]

Right. Because HGH use is relevant to percentage shares of revenue.

It is relevant to negotiations of a CBA. This is a pact between owners and players that covers everything relevant between the relationship of employee and employer.

Included in that is an understanding by the employer that the employee that he is paying performance for, has obtained that performance through legal means.

Yes, that is very relevant

[Scott Dierking]

No. I don't talk they are earning minimum wage. I just think the fact that they can earn a decent living at the lower levels is irrelevant. The owners are ALL making a killing, but we are supposed to feel sorry for them? Nobody here is starving and IMO the owners are getting a much bigger piece of the pie than they deserve.

LOL at more $110M contracts. They aren't guaranteed, so they can make them for $500B. The guy is getting cut at the owners whim. Only guaranteed money counts.

You are like a very wrong and very silly broken record. They don't get to call the rules because their arrangement is violating the laws of the United States of America. The only way they get to continue that is by having an agreement with the players. That means they had better stop popping off and start sucking up. Understand?

I own my house. I get to call the rules there. If Max comes over I can't just bend him over the table and spank him. I need his consent. In order to get that consent I have to do what it takes - Diet Coke, mortadella, Twinkies. The owners don't want to come up with the mortadella.

Nobody forces college players to play football in the NFL if they are fortunate enough to get drafted. They could play in the AFL or CFL, among other leagues.

They have a choice.

[Matt39]

Nobody forces college players to play football in the NFL if they are fortunate enough to get drafted. They could play in the AFL or CFL, among other leagues.

They have a choice.

What is your beef with athletes?

I don't get the fascination with most of these owners who's biggest life accomplishment was being born.

[PFSIKH]

No. I don't talk they are earning minimum wage. I just think the fact that they can earn a decent living at the lower levels is irrelevant. The owners are ALL making a killing, but we are supposed to feel sorry for them? Nobody here is starving and IMO the owners are getting a much bigger piece of the pie than they deserve.

LOL at more $110M contracts. They aren't guaranteed, so they can make them for $500B. The guy is getting cut at the owners whim. Only guaranteed money counts.

Shouldn't they get a bigger piece of the pie? Everything that is off the field, the owners assume all the risk and that is 95% of the NFL. The owners are not partners with players. Tom Brady is not giving 5% of his salary for infrastructure improvements or paying off loans for the Razor. That is all on Kraft.

The players do risk their bodies, but we all agree they are well compensated for it. That is why IMHO it should be more about what the NFL is going to do for Tom Brady, Peyton manning or the 53rd man on the roster 10, 20 years after their careers.

What is your beef with athletes?

I don't get the fascination with most of these owners who's biggest life accomplishment was being born.

And this is different from athletes how?

[Matt39]

Shouldn't they get a bigger piece of the pie? Everything that is off the field, the owners assume all the risk and that is 95% of the NFL. The owners are not partners with players. Tom Brady is not giving 5% of his salary for infrastructure improvements or paying off loans for the Razor. That is all on Kraft.

The players do risk their bodies, but we all agree they are well compensated for it. That is why IMHO it should be more about what the NFL is going to do for Tom Brady, Peyton manning or the 53rd man on the roster 10, 20 years after their careers.

And this is different from athletes how?

Serious?

[Scott Dierking]

What is your beef with athletes?

I don't get the fascination with most of these owners who's biggest life accomplishment was being born.

No beef with athletes.

Just showing there are two sides to this negotiation

[Matt39]

No beef with athletes.

Just showing there are two sides to this negotiation

Not to put words in your mouth, but your stance seems to be -the owners can do whatever they want, and that's the way its going to be.

[Scott Dierking]

Not to put words in your mouth, but your stance seems to be -the owners can do whatever they want, and that's the way its going to be.

The sides need to come together for the best mutual interest of each other. This should not end as a one sided deal where one side is not happy with the result. Mediate to the middle is all I ask.

[#27TheDominator]

Nobody forces college players to play football in the NFL if they are fortunate enough to get drafted. They could play in the AFL or CFL, among other leagues.

They have a choice.

This farce is not worth responding to.

Shouldn't they get a bigger piece of the pie? Everything that is off the field, the owners assume all the risk and that is 95% of the NFL. The owners are not partners with players. Tom Brady is not giving 5% of his salary for infrastructure improvements or paying off loans for the Razor. That is all on Kraft.

The players do risk their bodies, but we all agree they are well compensated for it. That is why IMHO it should be more about what the NFL is going to do for Tom Brady, Peyton manning or the 53rd man on the roster 10, 20 years after their careers.

A bigger piece of the pie than the players? Maybe. Not necessarily. This isn't one player we're talking about, it's every single one and that is the product. What risk do the owners take? The television deal means there is NO risk because it pays for everything.

Not to put words in your mouth, but your stance seems to be -the owners can do whatever they want, and that's the way its going to be.

That's not his stance. That's just what he likes to spew to stir up debate. The only place where he and I actually differ is that he would prefer that the deal 100% benefit the fan and I would prefer that the owners get dinged a bit for their stupidity, arrogance and years of getting away with murder. The owners are the ones that killed the golden goose when they opted out and locked out. **** 'em.

[Bugg]

True.

The owners provided more information than ever given before and agreed to give even more to an independent auditor for review. Yet, DeMaurice said it was not good enough.

Demaurice Smith has proven himself to be a stupid arrogant dick, posturing for no reason other than ego.These negotiations sooner or later will move in the player's favor, because they have the law behind them, and the owners will at some point become less united and more divided. SMith would bring that moment closer by simply talking. But the owners have only offered to show redacted books to a 3rd party auditor. Which is total bullsh*t; what would they redact exactly? And after Enron what reputable accounting firm is going to give such an opinion? it would be an invitation to a lawsuit, and worthless.We state that other than the important stuff we did not see and might impact this opinion if we did see it, the owners are kinda, sorta, may be losing money, we think, possibly?. That animal doesn't exist.

[#27TheDominator]

Demaurice Smith has proven himself to be a stupid arrogant dick, posturing for no reason other than ego.These negotiations sooner or later will move in the player's favor, because they have the law behind them, and the owners will at some point become less united and more divided. SMith would bring that moment closer by simply talking. But the owners have only offered to show redacted books to a 3rd party auditor. Which is total bullsh*t; what would they redact exactly? And after Enron what reputable accounting firm is going to give such an opinion? it would be an invitation to a lawsuit, and worthless.We state that other than the important stuff we did not see and might impact this opinion if we did see it, the owners are kinda, sorta, may be losing money, we think, possibly?. That animal doesn't exist.

I think the owners have already admitted that they aren't losing money.

[Scott Dierking]

This farce is not worth responding to.

A bigger piece of the pie than the players? Maybe. Not necessarily. This isn't one player we're talking about, it's every single one and that is the product. What risk do the owners take? The television deal means there is NO risk because it pays for everything.

That's not his stance. That's just what he likes to spew to stir up debate. The only place where he and I actually differ is that he would prefer that the deal 100% benefit the fan and I would prefer that the owners get dinged a bit for their stupidity, arrogance and years of getting away with murder. The owners are the ones that killed the golden goose when they opted out and locked out. **** 'em.

Wait, the owners have been getting away with murder for years? With a deal the players agreed to? With a deal that the players SAY they would be happy to extend?

I will just say that WE don't understand ALL the issues, or have all the evidence.

[Scott Dierking]

I think the owners have already admitted that they aren't losing money.

Exactly what percentage of profit would be fair for the owners? Would that be the same for each owner? How do we arrive at what is a fair profit?

[serphnx]

Wait, the owners have been getting away with murder for years? With a deal the players agreed to? With a deal that the players SAY they would be happy to extend?

I will just say that WE don't understand ALL the issues, or have all the evidence.

You seem to have no problems making broad generalizations and conclusions without evidence to support anything. Why the change now?

[#27TheDominator]

Wait, the owners have been getting away with murder for years? With a deal the players agreed to? With a deal that the players SAY they would be happy to extend?

I will just say that WE don't understand ALL the issues, or have all the evidence.

Because they have been getting away with murder for years. Not the the last CBA. From way back. Decades. Four score and seven years. The owners have counted on the fact that they are dealing primarily with poor people with a very limited career length. While the players could easily sue or have a real strike that would cripple the owners and get them a truly fair market deal, the owners have tradtionally counted on the lower tiered players needing that $50K or $175K or $300K NOW and not being able to risk a full year or two of their 3 year career to get a fair deal for the future.

Exactly what percentage of profit would be fair for the owners? Would that be the same for each owner? How do we arrive at what is a fair profit?

Who gives a flaming **** what percentage of profit would be fair? A percentage of what? What the owners say the profit is? Should we base it on their redacted books?

[Scott Dierking]

Because they have been getting away with murder for years. Not the the last CBA. From way back. Decades. Four score and seven years. The owners have counted on the fact that they are dealing primarily with poor people with a very limited career length. While the players could easily sue or have a real strike that would cripple the owners and get them a truly fair market deal, the owners have tradtionally counted on the lower tiered players needing that $50K or $175K or $300K NOW and not being able to risk a full year or two of their 3 year career to get a fair deal for the future.

Who gives a flaming **** what percentage of profit would be fair? A percentage of what? What the owners say the profit is? Should we base it on their redacted books?

This whole story is about what is a fair percentage.

Therein lies the problem.

You can't go into a negotiation based on what you feel is unfair treatment over prior decades. Negotiation is about what is fair for the future. You can't save the world.

eh.

[#27TheDominator]

This whole story is about what is a fair percentage.

Therein lies the problem.

You can't go into a negotiation based on what you feel is unfair treatment over prior decades. Negotiation is about what is fair for the future. You can't save the world.

eh.

This is moronic. I know you are an a$$ that is doing this for the sake of arguing. I am too, but your stance is untenable. The "problem" is the owners want to change the percentage without letting anybody know what they are taking a percentage from. **** 'em. Whenever you post I think of one thing: Burn the whole ******* thing.

Treatment over prior decades has plenty to do with it because that is why the players are in a hole. I don't expect them to get reparations, but you keep bringing up that the owners get to make the rules - they have been doing it on the edge of the law forever. How about last year? The players got screwed. ANY CBA is a concession by the players because if it goes to court they will win and they can write their own ******* deal.

[Larz]

This is moronic. I know you are an a$$ that is doing this for the sake of arguing. I am too, but your stance is untenable. The "problem" is the owners want to change the percentage without letting anybody know what they are taking a percentage from. **** 'em. Whenever you post I think of one thing: Burn the whole ******* thing.

Treatment over prior decades has plenty to do with it because that is why the players are in a hole. I don't expect them to get reparations, but you keep bringing up that the owners get to make the rules - they have been doing it on the edge of the law forever. How about last year? The players got screwed. ANY CBA is a concession by the players because if it goes to court they will win and they can write their own ******* deal.

maybe, just maybe, the owners have looked at the state of the economy and decided a 10% increase in labor costs every year is going to get a wee bit out of hand eventually

you should be in the owners corner as well because they are trying to limit costs and player movement. not out of virtue of course, but that is also good for the fans

if the players win, the fans lose

the cowboys will become the yankees

if this comes down to how they carve up the pie, I couldn't care less

if the players go after the draft, the tag, the cap, etc, look out, it's gonna really send the NFL into a tail spin, and clubs like the bills and jags will be in trouble

the NFL go be 24 teams in 10 years if the players win any real concession on the draft and cap

they did bring up the draft in their filings

and this would be terrible for the jets, woody is cheap. look at the furloughs, and the coaches salary cuts as an example. tanny makes him look good, but if there wasn't a miniumum spending floor in the last CBA, he would have gone cheap for sure

root for the owners

[Matt39]

This is moronic. I know you are an a$$ that is doing this for the sake of arguing. I am too, but your stance is untenable. The "problem" is the owners want to change the percentage without letting anybody know what they are taking a percentage from. **** 'em. Whenever you post I think of one thing: Burn the whole ******* thing.

Treatment over prior decades has plenty to do with it because that is why the players are in a hole. I don't expect them to get reparations, but you keep bringing up that the owners get to make the rules - they have been doing it on the edge of the law forever. How about last year? The players got screwed. ANY CBA is a concession by the players because if it goes to court they will win and they can write their own ******* deal.

Funny you mention that...that's pretty much the only way you fix NCAA football and basketball.

But that's a whole other story

[madmikeisback]

Everyone knows that no one cares about HGH within the game. It's just a chip the Owners are using to get the players to give something else up. The main crux of the situation is that I've yet to see any reason that makes any sense whatsoever why the players deserve a paycut and thats what the piggish owners are asking for. Thats the only issue that matters. All this is about the Owners trying to skim more money off the top to build stadiums and get more PSL money. It's the absolute banner example of disgusting greed.

[#27TheDominator]

maybe, just maybe, the owners have looked at the state of the economy and decided a 10% increase in labor costs every year is going to get a wee bit out of hand eventually

you should be in the owners corner as well because they are trying to limit costs and player movement. not out of virtue of course, but that is also good for the fans

if the players win, the fans lose

the cowboys will become the yankees

if this comes down to how they carve up the pie, I couldn't care less

if the players go after the draft, the tag, the cap, etc, look out, it's gonna really send the NFL into a tail spin, and clubs like the bills and jags will be in trouble

the NFL go be 24 teams in 10 years if the players win any real concession on the draft and cap

they did bring up the draft in their filings

and this would be terrible for the jets, woody is cheap. look at the furloughs, and the coaches salary cuts as an example. tanny makes him look good, but if there wasn't a miniumum spending floor in the last CBA, he would have gone cheap for sure

root for the owners

**** TRUTH, JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY! I'M A FAN!

[Scott Dierking]

This is moronic. I know you are an a$$ that is doing this for the sake of arguing. I am too, but your stance is untenable. The "problem" is the owners want to change the percentage without letting anybody know what they are taking a percentage from. **** 'em. Whenever you post I think of one thing: Burn the whole ******* thing.

Treatment over prior decades has plenty to do with it because that is why the players are in a hole. I don't expect them to get reparations, but you keep bringing up that the owners get to make the rules - they have been doing it on the edge of the law forever. How about last year? The players got screwed. ANY CBA is a concession by the players because if it goes to court they will win and they can write their own ******* deal.

We know the ending of this already-The players will give a little back, 18 games go away, they will in a very minor way tweak the drug program, there will be slight concessions by players on rookie salaries, there will be slight concessions on free agency by owners and so on and so forth.

The only story to tell now, is how we get there.

[#27TheDominator]

We know the ending of this already-The players will give a little back, 18 games go away, they will in a very minor way tweak the drug program, there will be slight concessions by players on rookie salaries, there will be slight concessions on free agency by owners and so on and so forth.

The only story to tell now, is how we get there.

We know this how? Look around you. Read the newspaper. It's a great time for a revolution.

[Scott Dierking]

We know this how? Look around you. Read the newspaper. It's a great time for a revolution.

You haven't realized that I am prescient?

There will be no revolution. The owners would rather stick a fork in their eye. They see baseball, and will not allow that to happen.

Football players careers are too short there are no Curt Floods in the bunch. The union will cave before the owners will.

[#27TheDominator]

You haven't realized that I am prescient?

There will be no revolution. The owners would rather stick a fork in their eye. They see baseball, and will not allow that to happen.

Football players careers are too short there are no Curt Floods in the bunch. The union will cave before the owners will.

There is no union. They decertified. A great many players might cave, but without a CBA those that didn't cave will file suits and win. Things will change. If the owners weren't greedy, stupid and/or divided they wouldn't have opted out and could have gotten a couple of more good years in.

[PFSIKH]

Serious?

Instead of being born with a silver spoon, they were born with some genetic (HGH enhanced) gift.

A bigger piece of the pie than the players? Maybe. Not necessarily. This isn't one player we're talking about, it's every single one and that is the product. What risk do the owners take? The television deal means there is NO risk because it pays for everything.

And other than the top 5-10% like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, the rest of them are replaceable parts.

In 5-10 years, Brady will step away from the game and I will still be a fan of the Patriots. I would rather have a financially viable team that can compete with the other 31 teams than Brady with a few extra million in his pocket.

Players are already well compensated. They do not need anymore money.

[Scott Dierking]

There is no union. They decertified. A great many players might cave, but without a CBA those that didn't cave will file suits and win. Things will change. If the owners weren't greedy, stupid and/or divided they wouldn't have opted out and could have gotten a couple of more good years in.

Change to what? I gave my predictions, now give yours.

What does the landscape look like after this is over?

[#27TheDominator]

And other than the top 5-10% like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, the rest of them are replaceable parts.

In 5-10 years, Brady will step away from the game and I will still be a fan of the Patriots. I would rather have a financially viable team that can compete with the other 31 teams than Brady with a few extra million in his pocket.

Players are already well compensated. They do not need anymore money.

Owners are already well compensated. They do not need anymore money.

Change to what? I gave my predictions, now give yours.

What does the landscape look like after this is over?

It probably looks like a mess. If you want my predictions, I don't really have any. I'm shocked the owners had the balls to push things this far. The only reasoning I can understand is basically that they want to ram a new deal home before the next TV contract and maybe they thought that their little hedge about getting paid on the current TV deal without having games would hold up. Oops.

I think the owners will break ranks and start getting antsy. I think there will be a rookie contract scale. As a result, the draft will change a great deal. Limited rounds, limited years on the contract, must less restrictive restricted FAs. I think the cap will rise like it always has. I think the increase will be considerable if the owners aren't going to spit up some serious financial data. I think free agency will get easier for the players. Oh yeah, I think there will be some small pathetic a$$ pension and health benefits which amounts to very little expenditure, but both sides will trumpet as a great advance. 16 games.

[Scott Dierking]

Owners are already well compensated. They do not need anymore money.

It probably looks like a mess. If you want my predictions, I don't really have one. I'm shocked the owners had the balls to push things this far. The only reasoning I can understand is basically that they want to ram a new deal home before the next TV contract and maybe they thought that their little hedge about getting paid on the current TV deal without having games would hold up. Oops.

I think the owners will break ranks and start getting antsy. I think there will be a rookie contract scale. As a result, the draft will change a great deal. Limited rounds, limited years on the contract, must less restrictive restricted FAs. I think the cap will rise like it always has. I think the increase will be considerable if the owners aren't going to spti up some serious financial data. I think free agency will get easier for the players. Oh yeah, I think there will be some small pathetic a$$ pension and health benefits which amounts to very little expenditure, but both sides will trumpet as a great advance. 16 games.

We are actually pretty close in our predictions.