Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 OK, let me just get some things out there. I'm not in the owners corner, I just thought the article was hokey and unrealistic. are there any billion dollar businesses that aren't about growth and profit over "dignity, relationships, long-term plans, or even preserving the fragile relationship between a customer and a provider" ? when I say risk I am referring to the financial side of the current negotiations obviously, and what I am saying is if the players want to be essentially equal partners in the revenue side, they should be equal partners in the expenses side as well. I sure as hell wouldn't give them a 50/50 split without a major concession on their part. the owners need to step up and open the books to the players here, to be fair. it wouldn't surprise me at all if the compromise is something like a 50/50 split for a rookie cap and 18 game schedule the players assume an injury risk when they play for booster money in college, or for nothing in high school, so that argument really doesn't carry to much weight with me to be honest with you. if they don't want to assume that risk, they don't have to put their name in for the draft And where else do the players have the opportunity to make the kind of money they can make in the NFL? Your premise is broken right there. They take a humongous risk for the opportunity to make a lot of money. Actually, the players assume a much greater financial risk than the owners. There are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL. If a player gets hurt and his career ends, he makes no more money. The liklihood of a player getting hurt and losing out on millions is much greater than an NFL owner losing a dime by owning a football team. Claiming the players take no financial risk is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 And where else do the players have the opportunity to make the kind of money they can make in the NFL? Your premise is broken right there. They take a humongous risk for the opportunity to make a lot of money. Actually, the players assume a much greater financial risk than the owners. There are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL. If a player gets hurt and his career ends, he makes no more money. The liklihood of a player getting hurt and losing out on millions is much greater than an NFL owner losing a dime by owning a football team. Claiming the players take no financial risk is ridiculous. Yes, but it's high risk/high reward, but to a point. Jets had a Keith Fitzhugh turn down a roster spot to pursue a long-term union job with a railroad. It may have seemed crazy to many of us, but the guy had thought it through and figured he was better taking a decent blur collar job with benefits, steady pay, job security and a pension rather than be roster spot#53 in a collision sport. And anyone who has played a down of football in Pop Warner knows that football is going to beat the hell out of you physically. The owners are greedy bastards, and they are pushing their luck. This is not news, and it doesn't require wasting this much bandwidth. May be Simmons can get back to overanlyzing the 2nd unit of the Portland Trailblazers for 40 pages with 22 mentions of "The Karate Kid". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 I don't choose to do it, I'm not trying to make anyone appreciate anything, and I'm not particularly brilliant. I just don't know any other way to write. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 based on what ? the super bowl being the highest rated TV show ever ? they haven't even missed an OTA yet if cancelling the world series didn't kill baseball, they would have to miss 2 entire seasons to kill football, and we'd stil be here arguing about gholston and martin the whole time The game won't be killed off in a decade. Maybe not even 20 years. But if they continue on the path they're headed there's going to be a backlash from consumers. When prices go up on a product, people adapt and always have. When gas prices skyrocketed, people traded in their vehicles for bikes, carpooled, or just drove slower so they had to be less dependent on paying for gas. Otherwise, for many, the water bill wouldn't get paid. People don't NEED to buy PSL's to survive. So those who can't afford it simply watch the game from home. At some point the NFL is going to piss off enough people that they won't go to games anymore. Then what? The same pot of money they're arguing over right now, i.e. OUR money, will be much smaller the next time a new CBA comes around. There was a reporter who recently mentioned on Mike & Mike that one unnamed owner for a big market team has literally sat in a room LAUGHING at the fact that fans are so stupid that they'd be willing to buy a PSL to support their team. I'd be willing to shell out good money that that man was Woody Johnson. No owner more represents the evil greed that is going on than Woody. The abortion of a stadium and the skyrocketing costs he's given us just shows the disdain he has for people like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The game won't be killed off in a decade. Maybe not even 20 years. But if they continue on the path they're headed there's going to be a backlash from consumers. When prices go up on a product, people adapt and always have. When gas prices skyrocketed, people traded in their vehicles for bikes, carpooled, or just drove slower so they had to be less dependent on paying for gas. Otherwise, for many, the water bill wouldn't get paid. People don't NEED to buy PSL's to survive. So those who can't afford it simply watch the game from home. At some point the NFL is going to piss off enough people that they won't go to games anymore. Then what? The same pot of money they're arguing over right now, i.e. OUR money, will be much smaller the next time a new CBA comes around. There was a reporter who recently mentioned on Mike & Mike that one unnamed owner for a big market team has literally sat in a room LAUGHING at the fact that fans are so stupid that they'd be willing to buy a PSL to support their team. I'd be willing to shell out good money that that man was Woody Johnson. No owner more represents the evil greed that is going on than Woody. The abortion of a stadium and the skyrocketing costs he's given us just shows the disdain he has for people like us. I disagree. How homerrific to assume that Woody is the most evil owner. Woody doesn't come close to guys like Bill Bidwell, Al Davis and John York. I would put money on it being Jerry Richardson a.k.a. The Father of the PSL. This guy is pure scum. He's the same douche who was being condescending to Brees and Manning in the early negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 I disagree. How homerrific to assume that Woody is the most evil owner. Wouldn't saying my team's owner is evil be the opposite of being a homer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Wouldn't saying my team's owner is evil be the opposite of being a homer? Not really. Some Jets fans have this bizarro homer thing going where everything the Jets do or touch is the absolute worst simply because its the Jets (i.e. Gholston is the biggest bust in history, Woody is the most evil and greedy owner, the Jets have the worst draft history of any team, the Jets are the most embarrassing franchise in all of sports) despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (i.e. ever heard of Akili Smith or Ryan Leaf? Bill Bidwell? I mean, really now. Ever look at the Lions draft history? Have you ever heard of the L.A. Clippers?) Its really a sick disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Not really. Some Jets fans have this bizarro homer thing going where everything the Jets do or touch is the absolute worst simply because its the Jets (i.e. Gholston is the biggest bust in history, Woody is the most evil and greedy owner, the Jets have the worst draft history of any team, the Jets are the most embarrassing franchise in all of sports) despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (i.e. ever heard of Akili Smith or Ryan Leaf? Bill Bidwell? I mean, really now. Ever look at the Lions draft history? Have you ever heard of the L.A. Clippers?) Its really a sick disease. The "mountains of evidence" point to the Jets, historically, being a minor league operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The "mountains of evidence" point to the Jets, historically, being a minor league operation. Case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Case in point. Which disease is it that would make one choose Mark Sanchez over Tom Brady because Sanchez is "nine years younger"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Which disease is it that would make one choose Mark Sanchez over Tom Brady because Sanchez is "nine years younger"? That wouldn't be a disease, that would be that person's opinion. However, if I were starting a franchise today and could pick any QB in the league, I'd have to go with Sam Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Which disease is it that would make one choose Mark Sanchez over Tom Brady because Sanchez is "nine years younger"? Pedophilia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 That wouldn't be a disease, that would be that person's opinion. However, if I were starting a franchise today and could pick any QB in the league, I'd have to go with Sam Bradford. <3 you, Joey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Pedophilia? +1 no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 <3 you, Joey. Hey, you gonna come to our JN dinner at Carmine's when Bergen and I are in the city next month? An appearance by Tom Shane would make this thing epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Did Dave Duerson know the risks associated with playing in the NFL when he first strapped on a Bears helmet in the early 80s? this is a very good question... and I would follow that up by asking if you had a kid would you want him to be an NFL football player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Hey, you gonna come to our JN dinner at Carmine's when Bergen and I are in the city next month? An appearance by Tom Shane would make this thing epic. For a volume of reasons, I can no longer attend JN functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 +1 no doubt That was an easy one since the American Psychological Association determined that homosexuality is not a disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.