Bugg Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I love how people cry foul but then act like we should not care about someone because they have more 0's on the end of their annual income. Look in the mirror, you say the JETS are "bleeding us white" and the owners are greedy. You are treating them the exact way you think they are treating you. If Woody offered you $10 off per ticket would you smile and say OK? Now if Woody asked for $10 more per ticket you would cry foul... You are making yourself a mirror image of the horrible owners your draw out... just with less money. When someone says "But it's not about the money!", it absolutely is about money. The owners are making a tidy profit. And as a fellow capitalist, good for them. Guys gotta eat. As a payer of a PSL(or as Woody Johnsonan investor...right! brilliant marketing there!except I cannot sell this investment because no sane person would so invest), the owners reap what they sow. How many more $10 hikes are there before a sensible person says enough? Yet some among themn would like to make even more. And don't much care if they damage their product or piss off their customers. They have crossed a line from wanting to make money(which is fine) into greed and avarice (which is bad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 When someone says "But it's not about the money!", it absolutely is about money. The owners are making a tidy profit. And as a fellow capitalist, good for them. Guys gotta eat. As a payer of a PSL(or as Woody Johnsonan investor...right! brilliant marketing there!except I cannot sell this investment because no sane person would so invest), the owners reap what they sow. How many more $10 hikes are there before a sensible person says enough? Yet some among themn would like to make even more. And don't much care if they damage their product or piss off their customers. They have crossed a line from wanting to make money(which is fine) into greed and avarice (which is bad). None of this is fact... it is simply your jaded perspective. You are being just as greedy as you claim they are... you want more... handed out to you... because you do not make enough so that the JETS would be an expendable income choice for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I love how people cry foul but then act like we should not care about someone because they have more 0's on the end of their annual income. Look in the mirror, you say the JETS are "bleeding us white" and the owners are greedy. You are treating them the exact way you think they are treating you. If Woody offered you $10 off per ticket would you smile and say OK? Now if Woody asked for $10 more per ticket you would cry foul... You are making yourself a mirror image of the horrible owners your draw out... just with less money. This might be the single worst analogy ever used on a message board, anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 This might be the single worst analogy ever used on a message board, anywhere. You just don't like getting robbed because you can't afford to be robbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I think NFL is going down the tubes when even Kim Kardashian starts ditching NFL players for NBA players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I love how people cry foul but then act like we should not care about someone because they have more 0's on the end of their annual income. Look in the mirror, you say the JETS are "bleeding us white" and the owners are greedy. You are treating them the exact way you think they are treating you. If Woody offered you $10 off per ticket would you smile and say OK? Now if Woody asked for $10 more per ticket you would cry foul... You are making yourself a mirror image of the horrible owners your draw out... just with less money. Tell us how you really feel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 You just don't like getting robbed because you can't afford to be robbed. You cannot whine and cry about how the owners are ripping the fans off, and then in the same breath talk about all the things you want for free from the owners. You are doing the same thing you are accusing them of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 This might be the single worst analogy ever used on a message board, anywhere. I am no English major... but the ideas are awesome in my head before I type them... Think about it... who are you to claim more of a right to that $10? Just because you make less money does not make you entitled to a better deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I am no English major... but the ideas are awesome in my head before I type them... Think about it... who are you to claim more of a right to that $10? Just because you make less money does not make you entitled to a better deal. It's not a right, it's a consumer decision, and one a smart businessman has to consider when you set a price point. The demand for any product is at some print point limited, and thereafter demand declines. If you keep hiking your price point $10, and then another $10, and then another $10, and so on, at some point your customers will stop paying it. And then pretty soon you lose more and more customers. All fine and good to beat us off the head with the Ayn Rand unfettered capitalist stick, but pretty soon customers get tired of overpaying for an inferior product. Keeps coming back to Goodell being a stooge for greedy owners who do not apprecaite how much they have alienated their customers and might damage their product long-term with this lockout. Some humor at least that Goodell is worried about preseason games that NOBODY wants to pay for, and players couldn't care less about either. If such important games are "in jeopardy", then possibly we won't have to pay for these 2 team practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 It's not a right, it's a consumer decision, and one a smart businessman has to consider when you set a price point. The demand for any product is at some print point limited, and thereafter demand declines. If you keep hiking your price point $10, and then another $10, and then another $10, and so on, at some point your customers will stop paying it. And then pretty soon you lose more and more customers. All fine and good to beat us off the head with the Ayn Rand unfettered capitalist stick, but pretty soon customers get tired of overpaying for an inferior product. Keeps coming back to Goodell being a stooge for greedy owners who do not apprecaite how much they have alienated their customers and might damage their product long-term with this lockout. Some humor at least that Goodell is worried about preseason games that NOBODY wants to pay for, and players couldn't care less about either. If such important games are "in jeopardy", then possibly we won't have to pay for these 2 team practices. I am not arguing whether or not I like the prices... I am comparing how similar the owners and those who criticize them are... Both sides want want want want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Anyway, I think Smith has a new battle now on his hands. I think this is now the time where agents start to get involved. I think they are very antsy about what is going on. The lost mega free agent dollars last season and are in a position to lose alot more now. Since the court sided with the owners and the union did not get back to the table they have a real fear about losing significant money since they only get paid once the player gets paid. I know of a few who have been quoted as saying that Smith has done a terrible job of keeping everyone in the loop since the court loss. They said the players and team reps are clueless and the agents are basically told nothing when they ask about it. Those agents will have the ears of the players far more than Smith, any fan, or any owner. The agents are a wildcard and often have their clients' ears. NFL agents have to be deeply concerned about a real rookie cap/wage scale system that takes them out of the loop entirely. The way the NBA installed maximum contracts, and players started ditching agents altogether because they were getting the maximum no matter who did the negotiating. NFL contracts are more complex because of the whole not being guaranteed thing, but it gets a lot easier to get a deal done when you know the max number up front. I love how people cry foul but then act like we should not care about someone because they have more 0's on the end of their annual income. Look in the mirror, you say the JETS are "bleeding us white" and the owners are greedy. You are treating them the exact way you think they are treating you. If Woody offered you $10 off per ticket would you smile and say OK? Now if Woody asked for $10 more per ticket you would cry foul... You are making yourself a mirror image of the horrible owners your draw out... just with less money. This is why I never complain about gas prices going up, because I'm always willing to have them lower the price at the pump. Benevolent souls they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The agents are a wildcard and often have their clients' ears. NFL agents have to be deeply concerned about a real rookie cap/wage scale system that takes them out of the loop entirely. The way the NBA installed maximum contracts, and players started ditching agents altogether because they were getting the maximum no matter who did the negotiating. NFL contracts are more complex because of the whole not being guaranteed thing, but it gets a lot easier to get a deal done when you know the max number up front. This is why I never complain about gas prices going up, because I'm always willing to have them lower the price at the pump. Benevolent souls they are... I complain about gas prices all the time, but I do not try and pretend to be better than the oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 It's interesting how people are taking sides in the Owners vs Players fight. Me? I could care less. I just wish one of them would get crushed so we can get on with football. When Nelson ruled in favor of the players I was really hoping that it would stand in the 8th circuit. It didn't. The judges have made it clear nothing is going to change on June 3rd. Now I have to root for the owners to crush the players quickly so we can get some football going. I doubt that will happen. it's hard to believe that these dopes would leave $9,000,000,000 on the table, but it looks like egos are really going to get in the way. Players should never have elected a lawyer head of the union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJetsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 God NO!!!! Please don't cancel a PRE SEASON GAME!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I am no English major... but the ideas are awesome in my head before I type them... Think about it... who are you to claim more of a right to that $10? Just because you make less money does not make you entitled to a better deal. Hang it up man. Terrible, terrible analogy. If they are offering tickets at x price to everyone, it really...ah, nevermind. Just retire this analogy and try another one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visajets Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Cancel a preseason game and lose money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Cancel a preseason game and lose money? It is a weird premise. Cancel something that 30,000 people would attend but 75,000 would have paid for. Just doesn't seem likely when you think about it like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 guys like Jerry Jones and Woody will be in pain servicing their stadium debt without a season. similarly Matt Slauson is living with parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 guys like Jerry Jones and Woody will be in pain servicing their stadium debt without a season. similarly Matt Slauson is living with parents. I still find it extremely hard to believe that Jerry Jones, Woody Johnson, Tisch, Mara or any owner that still owes money on a newer stadium is going to let there not be a season. These guys stand to lose significantly more money than any player if the 2011 season doesn't happen. And even though they can afford to withstand the loss, none of them got into the position they are in by giving up billions in potential revenue to make a point. I'm starting to think the big market-big revenue teams ******* over the small market teams is our best bet for salvaging 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I still find it extremely hard to believe that Jerry Jones, Woody Johnson, Tisch, Mara or any owner that still owes money on a newer stadium is going to let there not be a season. These guys stand to lose significantly more money than any player if the 2011 season doesn't happen. And even though they can afford to withstand the loss, none of them got into the position they are in by giving up billions in potential revenue to make a point. I'm starting to think the big market-big revenue teams ******* over the small market teams is our best bet for salvaging 2011. If the players can hold out long enough, you'd think it'd reach a point where the owners start losing a million bucks for every thousand a player loses. And there are only 32 owners. If six of them start losing their shirts, they'll run back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I'm starting to think the big market-big revenue teams ******* over the small market teams is our best bet for salvaging 2011. Shortly after the new CBA, there will be a scramble for some teams to be the one that gets to move to LA. They all publicly tell their fans that they're loyal to their home city, but something's gotta give. Jaguars, Panthers, Bills, Vikes, Chargers, etc.; someone's gonna make that move, and make a lot of money in the process. The teams that didn't pull the trigger will be kicking themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 If the players can hold out long enough, you'd think it'd reach a point where the owners start losing a million bucks for every thousand a player loses. And there are only 32 owners. If six of them start losing their shirts, they'll run back to the table. Technically there are only 32 majority owners but more than that in total since not every owner owns 100% of their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 If the players can hold out long enough, you'd think it'd reach a point where the owners start losing a million bucks for every thousand a player loses. And there are only 32 owners. If six of them start losing their shirts, they'll run back to the table. Im not sure about that. There are a handful of teams (Bills and Bengals immediately come to mind) who basically want to hold out forever in order to get a long term deal that swings things majorly in favor of the owners. I think those type of owners are willing to make the short term sacrifice for the long term gains, especially since most of them arent swimming in debt from new stadiums. I just cant see the loss of any revenue really killing the owners unless someone whispers in their ears that the value of the team itself is declining. I think what appeals to the Jones and Johnsons is the thought of losing a "window year" for winning. If the Jets think they can win it all this season the loss of any games I think kills the competitive nature of certain owners. Id imagine that would make Woody and guys like him push for reopening negotiations (though the word was that Woody wants to prove he is a good old boy and stand very firm on this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Im not sure about that. There are a handful of teams (Bills and Bengals immediately come to mind) who basically want to hold out forever in order to get a long term deal that swings things majorly in favor of the owners. I think those type of owners are willing to make the short term sacrifice for the long term gains, especially since most of them arent swimming in debt from new stadiums. I just cant see the loss of any revenue really killing the owners unless someone whispers in their ears that the value of the team itself is declining. I think what appeals to the Jones and Johnsons is the thought of losing a "window year" for winning. If the Jets think they can win it all this season the loss of any games I think kills the competitive nature of certain owners. Id imagine that would make Woody and guys like him push for reopening negotiations (though the word was that Woody wants to prove he is a good old boy and stand very firm on this) I hear you. I was basing my presumption on the idea that the owners probably planned on the players position breaking down as a result of financial attrition--the players not having as much in reserve as would the owners. I figured that the scales might start tipping back as the season got closer and the owners started to take a beating in terms of lost revenue coupled with their massive in-season bills coming due. Their vendor/sponsorship deals have to be shrinking even now. How many lost millions will Jones and Woody incur before they turn to Ralph Wilson and say, "Shush"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 If the players can hold out long enough, you'd think it'd reach a point where the owners start losing a million bucks for every thousand a player loses. And there are only 32 owners. If six of them start losing their shirts, they'll run back to the table. The owners want to be at the negotiating table. It was the Players who walked away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 The owners want to be at the negotiating table. It was the Players who walked away The owners only want to be there to get the deal that they want and nothing less. If I were I player I wouldn't want to be at that table either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 The owners only want to be there to get the deal that they want and nothing less. If I were I player I wouldn't want to be at that table either. They don't come to the table we probably won't have football. 8th Circuit is going to again rule in favor of the lockout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 They don't come to the table we probably won't have football. 8th Circuit is going to again rule in favor of the lockout And three days later the NFL is supposed to respond to the players' antitrust lawsuit, a case they say they will pursue no matter what happens with the 8th District Court. While the players would certainly like to have the lockout lifted so they can collect their pay while they sue the owners, their real leverage comes from the antitrust case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 And three days later the NFL is supposed to respond to the players' antitrust lawsuit, a case they say they will pursue no matter what happens with the 8th District Court. While the players would certainly like to have the lockout lifted so they can collect their pay while they sue the owners, their real leverage comes from the antitrust case. Which will be appealed by whichever side loses, which could take months. Personally I don't care which side wins. When the players won the first two cases I hoped they would steamroll. They didn't. Now we are in a mess. As I said I don't care who wins. It doesn't put any money in my pocket either way. I just want to watch football not the Golf channel in the fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Which will be appealed by whichever side loses, which could take months. Personally I don't care which side wins. When the players won the first two cases I hoped they would steamroll. They didn't. Now we are in a mess. As I said I don't care who wins. It doesn't put any money in my pocket either way. I just want to watch football not the Golf channel in the fall. I think that if the players make real headway in the antitrust case, the owners will be more apt to put some meat on the bones of the deals they're offering. They can't risk losing their anti-trust exemption. The whole league would go to sh*t if they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.