Is De Smith willing to do a deal?

[Kleckineau]

gotta read between the lines, D Smith is actually brilliant.

the owners want to lean on the players, and say they want first refusal on 6 years of free agency. so Smith holds a call with pro bowlers where he says a deal isn't close. the details leak out (of course) and it lets the owners know that Smith is not just gonna cave.

it's a negotiation. I think the way it's set up now, the vets are in no hurry to have a training camp or a preseason and certain owners like Jones and the Wood-man can't even lose 1 preseason's game worth of business because of their crippling stadium debts. Smith is doing a great job looking out for his side of the negotiation.

it's funny how the richest people are also the cheapest but here we are. PLayers are more willing to miss game checks than owners are willing to miss games.don't forget this is a lockout not a strike, the onus is on the owners to prove why the last deal was unsustainable or why exactly they needed to lock out. they never actually did that.

we could get mad at the players for hiring someone who knows how to play hardball to lead them... I guess that's one way to look at it... the NFL has a team of sharks, the players wanted a strong leader too.

Do people become rich because they are "cheap" as you say or does the cheapness occur after they achieve wealth?

FWIW, The owners are dealing from strenght. Its their industry to run as they see fit. From their point of view they can sit tight and the lost revenue from a season without football would be an investment with a high return moving foward creating a greater profit margin in the years to follow.

BTW this Smith guy is no Alvin Keels.

[Sperm Edwards]

Do people become rich because they are "cheap" as you say or does the cheapness occur after they achieve wealth?

Whichever way paints them in a worse light. From the school of "In any conflict, the party who has more is always benighted scum and the party who has less is always a virtuous underdog/victim."

Personally, I think both sides have behaved like first class a-holes.

[T0mShane]

Whichever way paints them in a worse light.

[Bleedin Green]

Whichever way paints them in a worse light. From the school of "In any conflict, the party who has more is always benighted scum and the party who has less is always a virtuous underdog/victim."

Personally, I think both sides have behaved like first class a-holes.

Ding ding ding! Tell him what he's won.

[Bleedin Green]

Yes you are. Shocking, too, because that's totally unlike you.

Please tell joebaby the players wouldn't've decertified without the impending lockout then. You're gonna confuse him.

Well that was just uncalled for, now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

[Larz]

the longer this goes, the more likley it seems to me that if the owners don't get their deal, they will wait and make the players miss a few game checks to squeeze it out of them

I remember being told in the beginning the lock out wouldn't stand, and the player held all the cards

lol

32 billionaires won't be taken to the cleaners

[madmikeisback]

These scumbag owners are playing chicken with the players and sadly they will probably win but only after we all lose by missing games.

[Kleckineau]

Whichever way paints them in a worse light. From the school of "In any conflict, the party who has more is always benighted scum and the party who has less is always a virtuous underdog/victim."

Personally, I think both sides have behaved like first class a-holes.

Agree.

However, like poker players at the table the ahole with the best skills and the biggest stack of chips will have time and odds in their favor.

The owners are billionaires because this is what they do.

I just cant see the players or anyone they hire to represent them prevailing in negotiations with the likes of a Jerry Jones, Pat Bowlen, Kraft etc.

The owners seem willing to lose this season and X sum of money to leverage significantly higher future revenue which would recoup all lost revenue from this season and guaranty signifcantly higher earnings moving foward..

Gonna be hard to beat that.

[Sperm Edwards]

Agree.

However, like poker players at the table the ahole with the best skills and the biggest stack of chips will have time and odds in their favor.

The owners are billionaires because this is what they do.

I just cant see the players or anyone they hire to represent them prevailing in negotiations with the likes of a Jerry Jones, Pat Bowlen, Kraft etc.

The owners seem willing to lose this season and X sum of money to leverage significantly higher future revenue which would recoup all lost revenue from this season and guaranty signifcantly higher earnings moving foward..

Gonna be hard to beat that.

Without the players - THESE players currently in the players' union - the NFL won't be anything anyone cares to watch for 5+ years (if they're lucky) & each team owner will lose more than their negotiated savings. They have these special privileges because of the existence of the NFLPA, not in spite of it. Somehow I doubt they want to be subject to regular companies' requirements like offering job applications to any citizen of any age who says he - or she - wants to be an NFL RB. They would be subject to changing rules of the game to allow for the existence of 100-lb female nose tackles, or TE's with prosthetic legs, because their league rules creates an unequal earning opportunity for all citizens. Even if they "prevail" in locking these guys out forever, the only way to have a league anyone wants to watch - due to current US law - is to have a unionized base of players. They hate that the players are unionized but want to maintain privileges that would be illegal without a unionized player base.

On the flip-side, these players do not personally own anything the owners haven't paid them, yet want to reap benefits as though they do. Most have sham college degrees that follow sham HS degrees and couldn't handle negotiations for more than a dimebag of weed on their own, let alone successfully market the league as the NFL has done and negotiate well enough for their product to be worth $9B/year in the first place. The NFL has always had the world's best football talent but it wasn't always this profitable. The difference in why, like it or not, is due to people who wear ties not people who wear helmets and shoulder pads. In 5 years there will still be an NFL and most of these irreplaceable players will have been replaced with or without a better-negotiated CBA.

Both sides are acting like spoiled babies.

[madmikeisback]

Without the players - THESE players currently in the players' union - the NFL won't be anything anyone cares to watch for 5+ years (if they're lucky) & each team owner will lose more than their negotiated savings. They have these special privileges because of the existence of the NFLPA, not in spite of it. Somehow I doubt they want to be subject to regular companies' requirements like offering job applications to any citizen of any age who says he - or she - wants to be an NFL RB. They would be subject to changing rules of the game to allow for the existence of 100-lb female nose tackles, or TE's with prosthetic legs, because their league rules creates an unequal earning opportunity for all citizens. Even if they "prevail" in locking these guys out forever, the only way to have a league anyone wants to watch - due to current US law - is to have a unionized base of players. They hate that the players are unionized but want to maintain privileges that would be illegal without a unionized player base.

On the flip-side, these players do not personally own anything the owners haven't paid them, yet want to reap benefits as though they do. Most have sham college degrees that follow sham HS degrees and couldn't handle negotiations for more than a dimebag of weed on their own, let alone successfully market the league as the NFL has done and negotiate well enough for their product to be worth $9B/year in the first place. The NFL has always had the world's best football talent but it wasn't always this profitable. The difference in why, like it or not, is due to people who wear ties not people who wear helmets and shoulder pads. In 5 years there will still be an NFL and most of these irreplaceable players will have been replaced with or without a better-negotiated CBA.

Both sides are acting like spoiled babies.

How are the players spoiled babies for not wanting to take a paycut? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the players that have made the NFL the most profitable sports league in the history of the world should have to take a paycut. This lockout is the brainchild of 5-7 greedy pigs who own NFL teams in smaller markets. These scum are willing to destroy the league without reguard for the public or the country in the middle of a terrible economy for a few extra million a year to build themselves a new stadium or a few more luxury boxes. It's the most disgusting display of greed I've ever seen.

[Sperm Edwards]

How are the players spoiled babies for not wanting to take a paycut? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the players that have made the NFL the most profitable sports league in the history of the world should have to take a paycut. This lockout is the brainchild of 5-7 greedy pigs who own NFL teams in smaller markets. These scum are willing to destroy the league without reguard for the public or the country for a few extra million a year to build themselves a new stadium or a few more luxury boxes.

You didn't read. The players didn't make the league as profitable as it is. There have been talented football players for nearly a hundred years. Why is football more popular and profitable than lacrosse? It certainly isn't because of the athletic prowess of the players.

And not for nothing, but they're fighting over top-end salaries for the richest among the players. I have seen no proposal from the NFLPA to create a minimum NFL salary of $1M (which the league could easily sustain if the top-end players accepted less for themselves), or 10% of the league proceeds going to crippled or poor retired players instead of 60% of that 10% going to current players' pockets.

Both sides are greedy and are acting like entitled, spoiled babies. Quit acting like the players are more righteous simply because, while they're rich, they're not as rich as those who are paying them.

Just like the owners, the players could end this strike at any time.

[slats]

Just like the owners, the players could end this strike at any time.

It's a lockout. The players and the owners had a deal that the owners opted out of.

If rumors are to be believed, the players have already agreed to accept an overall paycut moving from @ 52% of total revenue to 48% - a number that could be adjusted down to 46.5% if the league exceeds projections. The owners apparently still want exemptions before that 48% cut is handed out, effectively making it a 45% cut. Sales tax figures aside, it sounds to me like the owners are being more problematic than the players in getting this deal done.

[Larz]

Just like the owners, the players could end this strike at any time.

that's what worries me. all the issues have been discussed by now. both sides have a good idea what the other side wants. both sides know what they are willing to concede. there have been multiple proposals, counter proposals and tweeks I'm sure

I think both sides want to take this as far as they can to inflict some pain on the other party.

if I'm not mistakem missing pre-season games is worse for the owners, but regular season games is worse for the players ?

[Sperm Edwards]

It's a lockout. The players and the owners had a deal that the owners opted out of.

If rumors are to be believed, the players have already agreed to accept an overall paycut moving from @ 52% of total revenue to 48% - a number that could be adjusted down to 46.5% if the league exceeds projections. The owners apparently still want exemptions before that 48% cut is handed out, effectively making it a 45% cut. Sales tax figures aside, it sounds to me like the owners are being more problematic than the players in getting this deal done.

They had a deal that included an opt-out clause.

And I'm not in the owners' corner. They not innocent. It takes 2 to tango and you're plenty old enough to know that. There is no all-good side any more than there is an all-bad side.

And rumors are not to be believed. You were the champion of citing rumor offers as being total nonsense when it pertained to Darrelle Revis. Yet now you are citing them as examples worthy of sides being taken. Once upon a time there were also rumors of Leon Washington turning down $6M per year. People leak out parts that they want leaked out and withhold other parts.

[Sperm Edwards]

that's what worries me. all the issues have been discussed by now. both sides have a good idea what the other side wants. both sides know what they are willing to concede. there have been multiple proposals, counter proposals and tweeks I'm sure

I think both sides want to take this as far as they can to inflict some pain on the other party.

if I'm not mistakem missing pre-season games is worse for the owners, but regular season games is worse for the players ?

I think so. Even this CBA will have a term length to it. When that time comes each party wants the current negotiation to serve as a reminder as to who is the dog and who is the tail. I'm sure you're right that there is an element of spite on both sides. Human nature, I suppose, to an extent. You don't get to **** with me for 6 months then have me pat you on your head and smile in your face. Both sides probably feel that way.

[madmikeisback]

You didn't read. The players didn't make the league as profitable as it is. There have been talented football players for nearly a hundred years. Why is football more popular and profitable than lacrosse? It certainly isn't because of the athletic prowess of the players.

And not for nothing, but they're fighting over top-end salaries for the richest among the players. I have seen no proposal from the NFLPA to create a minimum NFL salary of $1M (which the league could easily sustain if the top-end players accepted less for themselves), or 10% of the league proceeds going to crippled or poor retired players instead of 60% of that 10% going to current players' pockets.

Both sides are greedy and are acting like entitled, spoiled babies. Quit acting like the players are more righteous simply because, while they're rich, they're not as rich as those who are paying them.

Just like the owners, the players could end this strike at any time.

Yeah they could end it by taking a massive undeserved paycut at a time when the industry was thriving. I know I wouldn't do that at my job. Would you? Any worker can end a labor dispute by bending over and taking it from their employer. You have yet to explain why they deserve that paycut. The argument that both sides are being greedy ignores the fact that the owners are the ones who picked this fight in the first place. This is a LOCKOUT. I also couldn't disagree with you more about high end players. Those guys are ALWAYS going to be paid. The revised revenue split that the owners are asking for would effect the low end player much more.

[Sperm Edwards]

Yeah they could end it by taking a massive undeserved paycut at a time when the industry was thriving. I know I wouldn't do that at my job. Would you? You have yet to explain why they deserve that paycut. The argument that both sides are being greedy ignores the fact that the owners are the ones who picked this fight in the first place. This is a LOCKOUT. I also couldn't disagree with you more about high end players. Those guys are ALWAYS going to be paid. The revised revenue split that the owners are asking for would effect the low end player much more.

They didn't pick a fight at all. They signed a prior agreement that they regret signing and don't see a prior deal as the new minimum benchmark that you see it being. This is why any agreement - like the prior CBA - has a term length. Further, the prior agreement had an clause for an early opt-out if one of the parties didn't want to continue. Not to mention their only legal option was to lock the players out. The union publicly boasting that they were going to de-certify saw to that. As I mentioned to slats, it takes 2 to tango.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains this is about those players who make the most. There have been zero proposals from the NFLPA to up the minimum salary by a significant amount, because that would take away from those at the top. There have also been zero proposals to have them lose any revenue to retired players. They want to live off the windfall of money the league generates, which was enabled by prior players and past-and-present suits, and stick their fingers in their ears when it pertains to anyone else's issues. Hence, they are acting like spoiled babies just like many (if not most or all) of the owners.

[madmikeisback]

They didn't pick a fight at all. They signed a prior agreement that they regret signing and don't see a prior deal as the new minimum benchmark that you see it being. This is why any agreement - like the prior CBA - has a term length. Further, the prior agreement had an clause for an early opt-out if one of the parties didn't want to continue. Not to mention their only legal option was to lock the players out. The union publicly boasting that they were going to de-certify saw to that. As I mentioned to slats, it takes 2 to tango.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains this is about those players who make the most. There have been zero proposals from the NFLPA to up the minimum salary by a significant amount, because that would take away from those at the top. There have also been zero proposals to have them lose any revenue to retired players. They want to live off the windfall of money the league generates, which was enabled by prior players and past-and-present suits, and stick their fingers in their ears when it pertains to anyone else's issues. Hence, they are acting like spoiled babies just like many (if not most or all) of the owners.

I can't believe you're arguing that the owners didn't pick a fight when they opted out of the CBA during a period where the league is doing better than any league in the history of professional sports. Thats a mind boggling position. What did you expect the union to do when the greedy pig owners asked them to take a 9% paycut when the league is having amazing success like this just becuase they want to ad MORE money to their windfall profits? Bend over, say yes massa and take it? Give me a break. You just admitted yourself that the league is making windfall profits. There is no problem with the NFL business structure whatsoever. Everyone is making money but apparently that isn't enough for some of these pigs. And they could give a crap about screwing over the fans to get a little more money.

[Sperm Edwards]

I can't believe you're arguing that the owners didn't pick a fight when they opted out of the CPA during a period where the league is doing better than any league in the history of professional sports. Thats a mind boggling position. What did you expect the union to do when the greedy pig owners asked them to take a 9% paycut when the league is having amazing success like this just becuase they want to ad MORE money to their windfall profits? Bend over, say yes massa and take it? Give me a break. You just admitted yourself that the league is making windfall profits. There is no problem with the NFL business structure whatsoever. Everyone is making money but apparently that isn't enough for some of these pigs. And they could give a crap about screwing over the fans to get a little more money.

lol - It must be amazing to live in Neverneverland where the only conflicts that occur are between the righteous and the unrighteous.

I agree with none of what you've said. No matter which side you look at, you are looking at a financially privileged group of people vying for more. One side paid for and owns something and the other side does not. This disgusts you.

Invoking slavery and/or Jim Crow stuff with your "yes massa" idiocy, to attempt some cheap point on behalf of rich and privileged NFL players, does not lend any credence to the notion that you know the difference between right and wrong.

Still, you're cute when you're lashing out from your soap box. But you're supposed to use a wooden crate type, not the thin collapsible cardboard my bar of Dial came in. The point is to not look small.

[T0mShane]

There is no problem with the NFL business structure whatsoever.

I agree with everything you've said, except maybe this. The current system will be problematic in 2014 when the TV deals get renewed and billions in new revenue falls into the pot, especially when most television viewing becomes web-based and people in China/France/Guatemala can pay a fee to watch Steelers-Packers on their laptops. At that point, the players' cut gets huge and you're looking at paying Tom Brady $40 mil per year. Granted, the owners would cash in as well, but the $40 mil free agent scares the sh*t out of small-markets who don't have access to outside revenue streams. Imagine the Packers losing Aaron Rodgers to Dallas because they couldn't afford to pay him? Of course, the owners could protect against such an occurrence by not letting Jerry Jones and his ilk move toward circumventing profit-sharing, but they don't want to do that.

[madmikeisback]

lol - It must be amazing to live in Neverneverland where the only conflicts that occur are between the righteous and the unrighteous.

I agree with none of what you've said. No matter which side you look at, you are looking at a financially privileged group of people vying for more. One side paid for and owns something and the other side does not.

Invoking slavery and/or Jim Crow stuff with your "yes massa" idiocy, to attempt some cheap point on behalf of rich and privileged NFL players, does not lend any credence to the notion that you know the difference between right and wrong.

Still, you're cute when you're lashing out from your soap box. But you're supposed to use a wooden crate type, not the thin collapsible cardboard my bar of Dial came in. The point is to not look small.

This is not actually an argument. The fact that the players make more money than most people has really nothing to do with anything. This is about a group of people who are being asked to take an unjustified paycut. You have yet to come up with one good reason as to why the players should have to take a 9% paycut when the league is doing as well as it has. In this situation and this situation only it's clearly the owners who have picked this fight. You just said that we're looking at 2 parties who are looking for more. Thats just factually false. The players would play right now under the same revenue split as last season so how are they vying for more than they had been getting? The Owners are the only group looking for more in this situation.

[madmikeisback]

I agree with everything you've said, except maybe this. The current system will be problematic in 2014 when the TV deals get renewed and billions in new revenue falls into the pot, especially when most television viewing becomes web-based and people in China/France/Guatemala can pay a fee to watch Steelers-Packers on their laptops. At that point, the players' cut gets huge and you're looking at paying Tom Brady $40 mil per year. Granted, the owners would cash in as well, but the $40 mil free agent scares the sh*t out of small-markets who don't have access to outside revenue streams. Imagine the Packers losing Aaron Rodgers to Dallas because they couldn't afford to pay him? Of course, the owners could protect against such an occurrence by not letting Jerry Jones and his ilk move toward circumventing profit-sharing, but they don't want to do that.

If the revenue grew the cap would adjust in size according to that growth in revenues. I don't see why the best players wouldn't continue to take up about the same percentage of payrolls as they do now... The amounts really don't matter.

[Kleckineau]

Without the players - THESE players currently in the players' union - the NFL won't be anything anyone cares to watch for 5+ years (if they're lucky) & each team owner will lose more than their negotiated savings. They have these special privileges because of the existence of the NFLPA, not in spite of it. Somehow I doubt they want to be subject to regular companies' requirements like offering job applications to any citizen of any age who says he - or she - wants to be an NFL RB. They would be subject to changing rules of the game to allow for the existence of 100-lb female nose tackles, or TE's with prosthetic legs, because their league rules creates an unequal earning opportunity for all citizens. Even if they "prevail" in locking these guys out forever, the only way to have a league anyone wants to watch - due to current US law - is to have a unionized base of players. They hate that the players are unionized but want to maintain privileges that would be illegal without a unionized player base.

On the flip-side, these players do not personally own anything the owners haven't paid them, yet want to reap benefits as though they do. Most have sham college degrees that follow sham HS degrees and couldn't handle negotiations for more than a dimebag of weed on their own, let alone successfully market the league as the NFL has done and negotiate well enough for their product to be worth $9B/year in the first place. The NFL has always had the world's best football talent but it wasn't always this profitable. The difference in why, like it or not, is due to people who wear ties not people who wear helmets and shoulder pads. In 5 years there will still be an NFL and most of these irreplaceable players will have been replaced with or without a better-negotiated CBA.

Both sides are acting like spoiled babies.

Good points, especially your take on the players off field capabilities.

These players are trying to use strong arm business tactics against some of the sharpest toothed buisness sharks in the USA.

They are in over their heads and will have to cave whether it be this year or next year. Disagree with your 5 yr example. Its just too far off the probabilty scale for me,.

[Sperm Edwards]

This is not actually an argument. The fact that the players make more money than most people has really nothing to do with anything. This is about a group of people who are being asked to take an unjustified paycut. You have yet to come up with one good reason as to why the players should have to take a 9% paycut when the league is doing as well as it has. In this situation and this situation only it's clearly the owners who have picked this fight. You just said that we're looking at 2 parties who are looking for more. Thats just factually false. The players would play right now under the same revenue split as last season so how are they vying for more than they had been getting? The Owners are the only group looking for more in this situation.

You are equating percentage with dollars. Players make dollars, not share of revenue. They are looking to make more than they did. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

Previously they negotiated a CBA that would reap a certain amount of dollars based on a certain percentage. The same percentage, or even a little lower percentage, will now lead to more dollars because it is a percentage of a larger pie. They want more dollars. The owners want more dollars. They both want more dollars.

The players are only agreeable to keeping the same percentage, or a slightly lower one, because the owners have negotiated their commodity to throw off more money than it used to.

So "unjustified" is a matter of point of view. The owners feel, whether you like it or not, that they gave up too much with the prior split. They have decided that they don't want to double-down on what they perceive to be a prior financial mistake.

And your second sentence has to take the cake. "The fact that the players make more money than most people has really nothing to do with anything." Then you go on to demonize the other side because they have and make more money. Too funny. And I didn't think it was possible to make less sense than to infer that millionaire players are akin to slaves who were born into miserable lives of servitude based on skin color. What a class act.

[madmikeisback]

You are equating percentage with dollars. Players make dollars, not share of revenue. They are looking to make more than they did. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

Previously they negotiated a CBA that would reap a certain amount of dollars. The same percentage, or even a little lower percentage, will now lead to more dollars because it is a percentage of a larger pie. They want more dollars. The owners want more dollars. They both want more dollars.

And "unjustified" is a matter of point of view. The owners feel, whether you like it or not, that they gave up too much with the prior split. They have decided that they don't want to double-down on what they perceive to be a prior financial mistake.

And your second sentence has to take the cake. "The fact that the players make more money than most people has really nothing to do with anything." Then you go on to demonize the other side because they have and make more money. Too funny. And I didn't think it was possible to make less sense than to infer that millionaire players are akin to slaves who were born into miserable lives of servitude based on skin color. What a class act.

Individual players make dollars. A CBA negotiation is about a share of revenues. You're making a nonsense argument. The percentage of revenues is the ONLY important factor because actual dollar figures are impossible to predict.

You've said before that the league is making windfall profits and in a situation like that a paycut for the players is unjustified.

I'm not demonizing the owners because they have more money. I'm demonizing them because they are making out like bandits and are still asking for more and have shut down the sport because they aren't getting more. The players are not asking for more. Period. Every movement in this negotiation has been towards the owners getting more and the players getting less.

This isn't a black vs white thing. It's a Employer vs union thing.

[Sperm Edwards]

Individual players make dollars. A CBA negotiation is about a share of revenues. You're making a nonsense argument. The percentage of revenues is the ONLY important factor because actual dollar figures are impossible to predict.

You've said before that the league is making windfall profits and in a situation like that a paycut for the players is unjustified.

I'm not demonizing the owners because they have more money. I'm demonizing them because they are making out like bandits and are still asking for more and have shut down the sport because they aren't getting more. The players are not asking for more. Period.

Wrong. Have you seen the players offer to throw percentages out the window and stick with a $130M salary cap? No. Would they be ok with that even though it is a pay RAISE? Absolutely not. They want a percentage that leads to higher dollars, whatever that percentage is.

For the players it is not about how much they make. It's about how much they make in comparison to how much is made by the people who the team franchises actually belong to. That is greed. Both sides are greedy.

When the players seek a deal that nets them less money because they're giving more to the bottom-rung of players or because they're giving more to the retired players (who make up the true unfortunate parties in all this) then you get back to me. Until then it's 2 groups of very well-off people fighting over how much more or less they get than the other.

[Sperm Edwards]

Individual players make dollars. A CBA negotiation is about a share of revenues. You're making a nonsense argument. The percentage of revenues is the ONLY important factor because actual dollar figures are impossible to predict.

You've said before that the league is making windfall profits and in a situation like that a paycut for the players is unjustified.

I'm not demonizing the owners because they have more money. I'm demonizing them because they are making out like bandits and are still asking for more and have shut down the sport because they aren't getting more. The players are not asking for more. Period. Every movement in this negotiation has been towards the owners getting more and the players getting less.

This isn't a black vs white thing. It's a Employer vs union thing.

The league is making the profit it does due to the NFL marketing itself, not due to the superduperness of the current players. Accept it.

And you are demonizing owners because they make more, as you refer to them as "making out like bandits" which insinuates they steal it from the players who are more entitled to it.

The players are most definitely asking for more money than they made before no matter how many colorful (if not classless) ways you find to say otherwise. So the only period is the one you're having.

[madmikeisback]

Wrong. Have you seen the players offer to throw percentages out the window and stick with a $130M salary cap? No. Would they be ok with that even though it is a pay RAISE? Absolutely not. They want a percentage that leads to higher dollars, whatever that percentage is.

For the players it is not about how much they make. It's about how much they make in comparison to how much is made by the people who the team franchises actually belong to. That is greed. Both sides are greedy.

When the players seek a deal that nets them less money because they're giving more to the bottom-rung of players or because they're giving more to the retired players (who make up the true unfortunate parties in all this) then you get back to me. Until then it's 2 groups of very well-off people fighting over how much more or less they get than the other.

WAIIIIIIT. The idea that the salary cap would be the same 130 million no matter what the revenues are is a salary cut for the players. Period. It was negotiated that the revenues would be split and that split would determine what the cap would be. As revenues go up, salaries go up. If they should go down, salaries would go down. They are partners with the owners just like any union-employer relationship. You're making a red herring argument. Why is it so hard to understand that we're talking about a revenue split and not a dollar figure and that a lower revenue split for the players is a paycut? An unjustified one at that.

The fact that many of the many of the players are rich means absolutely nothing in the context of the negotiation. It's something the owners hope that people harp on to ignore fact that they are being greedy pigs in this situation.

[madmikeisback]

The league is making the profit it does due to the NFL marketing itself, not due to the superduperness of the current players. Accept it.

And you are demonizing owners because they make more, as you refer to them as "making out like bandits" which insinuates they steal it from the players who are more entitled to it.

The players are most definitely asking for more money than they made before no matter how many colorful (if not classless) ways you find to say otherwise. So the only period is the one you're having.

It's making a profit because of the NFL marketing AND the players. That's why there is a split of the revenues.

I didn't mean to imply that the owners are stealing. They are making windfall profits leave it at that.

I don't know why you keep making this convoluted point. The revenue split is the only thing that matters in the context of this negotiation.

[Sperm Edwards]

WAIIIIIIT. The idea that the salary cap would be the same 130 million no matter what the revenues are is a salary cut for the players. Period. It was negotiated that the revenues would be split and that split would determine what the cap would be. As revenues go up, salaries go up. If they should go down, salaries would go down. They are partners with the owners just like any union-employer relationship. You're making a red herring argument. Why is it so hard to understand that we're talking about a revenue split and not a dollar figure and that a lower revenue split for the players is a paycut? An unjustified one at that.

The fact that many of the many of the players are rich means absolutely nothing in the context of the negotiation. It's something the owners hope that people harp on to ignore fact that they are being greedy pigs in this situation.

Let's play a game:

Situation A: Workers get 50% of a company's $10M revenue. The next contract they get 40% but the company now makes $20M in revenue. The workers have a lower percentage but end up with $3M more than before.

Situation B: Workers get 50% of a company's $10M revenue. The next contract they get 67% but the company only makes $6M in revenue. The workers have a higher percentage but end up with $1M less than before.

Which one of these is a pay raise for the workers and which is a pay cut? You are arguing that situation A is a pay cut and situation B would be a pay raise.

Just admit the truth. The players are not fighting to prevent any cut in pay. They are fighting to get a higher percentage of that which belongs to someone else. It isn't about how much. It's about more relative to the other party, not more relative to what they made before.

What you fail to accept is they are all greedy. You demonize one side over the other because one has more than the other. To you, one side is David and the other is Goliath. Anyone can see that.

[madmikeisback]

Your example implies that you can know the future. You're talking about inherent risks in every business and the players are exposed to that risk in the CBA just like the owners are. The idea that a lower split doesn't result in the players getting less and the owners getting more in this negotiations is absurd. Everyone is greedy. But in THIS CASE, the owners created this situation by choosing to end a CBA that had resulted in both the players are owners making bucketloads of money and the sport flourishing.

Your logic could be used to say that any worker or any union that fights to maintain a revenue split in times of rising revenues is fighting for money that "doesn't belong to them." The only party than the players share can be compared to is the owners because those 2 groups are partners in the success or failure of the league.

[Sperm Edwards]

Your example implies that you can know the future. You're talking about inherent risks in every business and the players are exposed to that risk in the CBA just like the owners are. The idea that a lower split doesn't result in the players getting less and the owners getting more in this negotiations is absurd. Everyone is greedy. But in THIS CASE, the owners by created this situation by choosing to end a CBA that had resulted in both the players are owners making bucketloads of money and the sport flourishing.

Your logic could be used to say that any worker or any union that fights to maintain a revenue split in times of rising revenues is fighting for money that "doesn't belong to them." The only party than the players share can be compared to is the owners because those 2 groups are partners in the success or failure of the league.

It is you who implies to know the future. What happens if revenue stays static but the cost of business increases? Where is the risk to the players (as a collective unit)? Are they going to agree to a clause that states if expenses and other overhead go up 20% that they will accept a lower percentage of gross revenues? Yeah right. These same innocent victims have demanded a percentage of sales tax collected.

The players are not out for more than they had. They are out for more relative to how much someone else has. That is greed.

If the players negotiate a better deal for themselves than they could have gotten at another time, you say good for them. They are not greedy, or pigs or bandits whatever descriptives you have assigned to the owners. Now that time has come and gone and the next agreement isn't going to net them the same increase that the league itself is netting. They will still make more than ever before, but you see the prior agreement as some baseline from which level and up are the only acceptable directions. The owners feel they caved in on the last CBA and don't want to do that a second time.

You throw around expressions like "bucketloads of money" and "windfalls of profits" to describe the team owners in a derogatory light, and then in the next sentence will take the exact opposite side when it pertains to how much more bucketloads and windfalls a handful of players make compared to others.

What you're missing, in arguing with me, is I don't even fault the players for trying - like the owners - to get as good of a deal as they can for themselves. You have picked one side as being "right" and the other as being "wrong" and stated as much as your slanted summary of the events. But in reality, they are both right and they are both wrong. Both have acted greedily and both have acted less than admirably, and I understand and can sympathize with both sides even as I detest both for every minute of this.

Lockout shmockout. The players knew this was coming for a couple of years and effectively dared the owners to lock them out. They want to play hardball and then when their bluff is called they want to play innocent victim. You seem to have bought into this like a zealot who was raised on propaganda.

They're both out for more. Both of them. There are no martyrs in this situation. There is no side that is wearing the white hat. There is no collective innocent victim in this negotiation except for the fan base that truly funds this whole operation. And the players aren't out for the fans any more than the owners are. They're all out to get paid, and the amount desired is just "more."

[Bleedin Green]

It is you who implies to know the future. What happens if revenue stays static but the cost of business increases? Where is the risk to the players (as a collective unit)? Are they going to agree to a clause that states if expenses and other overhead go up 20% that they will accept a lower percentage of gross revenues? Yeah right. These same innocent victims have demanded a percentage of sales tax collected.

The players are not out for more than they had. They are out for more relative to how much someone else has. That is greed.

If the players negotiate a better deal for themselves than they could have gotten at another time, you say good for them. They are not greedy, or pigs or bandits whatever descriptives you have assigned to the owners. Now that time has come and gone and the next agreement isn't going to net them the same increase that the league itself is netting. They will still make more than ever before, but you see the prior agreement as some baseline from which level and up are the only acceptable directions. The owners feel they caved in on the last CBA and don't want to do that a second time.

You throw around expressions like "bucketloads of money" and "windfalls of profits" to describe the team owners in a derogatory light, and then in the next sentence will take the exact opposite side when it pertains to how much more bucketloads and windfalls a handful of players make compared to others.

What you're missing, in arguing with me, is I don't even fault the players for trying - like the owners - to get as good of a deal as they can for themselves. You have picked one side as being "right" and the other as being "wrong" and stated as much as your slanted summary of the events. But in reality, they are both right and they are both wrong. Both have acted greedily and both have acted less than admirably, and I understand and can sympathize with both sides even as I detest both for every minute of this.

Lockout shmockout. The players knew this was coming for a couple of years and effectively dared the owners to lock them out. They want to play hardball and then when their bluff is called they want to play innocent victim. You seem to have bought into this like a zealot who was raised on propaganda.

They're both out for more. Both of them. There are no martyrs in this situation. There is no side that is wearing the white hat. There is no collective innocent victim in this negotiation except for the fan base that truly funds this whole operation. And the players aren't out for the fans any more than the owners are. They're all out to get paid, and the amount desired is just "more."

Thank you. I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread Sperm, but the reality is that there's still way too many people in this world who are incapable of dealing with anything but these ridiculous absolutes. Some single group or person must always be to blame, and therefore the opposing side is made completely blameless. In this case since the players are only mere millionaires compared to the billionaire owners, they are the poor innocent victims in this whole scenario against the evil owners. As you pointed out earlier, this is only made that much more obvious by how every single piece of information that comes out that makes the players look bad is immediately dismissed as a negotiating stance, but everything negative about the owners is taken on as indisputable facts that shows their demonic nature. The truth is, this is one giant group of greedy assholes, some wealthier than the others, all arguing over much of our money they each get. I just can't help but laugh at this concept that the employees of a company are poor innocent victims getting treated so unjustly under the circumstances that they might possibly have to collect in pay less than 50% of the total NFL revenues, despite taking on none of the risk or expenses associated with the business. Both sides have it very, very good and neither side is happy with not having even more. That's the definition of greed.

[T0mShane]

Thank you. I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread Sperm, but the reality is that there's still way too many people in this world who are incapable of dealing with anything but these ridiculous absolutes. Some single group or person must always be to blame, and therefore the opposing side is made completely blameless. In this case since the players are only mere millionaires compared to the billionaire owners, they are the poor innocent victims in this whole scenario against the evil owners. As you pointed out earlier, this is only made that much more obvious by how every single piece of information that comes out that makes the players look bad is immediately dismissed as a negotiating stance, but everything negative about the owners is taken on as indisputable facts that shows their demonic nature. The truth is, this is one giant group of greedy assholes, some wealthier than the others, all arguing over much of our money they each get. I just can't help but laugh at this concept that the employees of a company are poor innocent victims getting treated so unjustly under the circumstances that they might possibly have to collect in pay less than 50% of the total NFL revenues, despite taking on none of the risk or expenses associated with the business. Both sides have it very, very good and neither side is happy with not having even more. That's the definition of greed.

Yah! Those stupid players making them owners lock them out over a deal the owners danced a jig over when it was signed! Dummies!

PS Jerry Jones is going to look to force the end of profit-sharing. That'll be amusing, if you're the type who's amused by watching Yankees-Royals.

[madmikeisback]

Yah! Those stupid players making them owners lock them out over a deal the owners danced a jig over when it was signed! Dummies!

PS Jerry Jones is going to look to force the end of profit-sharing. That'll be amusing, if you're the type who's amused by watching Yankees-Royals.

I agree with you. I think this is one of those issues that fall down to whatever your politics are. Though no one would support an end to profit sharing in the NFL.