Is De Smith willing to do a deal?

[Scott Dierking]

Are you trying to say that the median salary, which would be that of a backup player on a given roster, isn't a proper reflection of the total player compensation? You're so silly.

That "median" was slipped into this is downright embarrassing.

[Klecko73isGod]

lol sure they should. Because we all know everybody in the NFL makes the same thing.

So if Revis made $5M or $16M for 1 season it's the same thing then, right? I wonder what all the fuss was about from the Revis camp last summer. All the Jets had to do was show him that he was making above the median. 1 for 1. Jeff Cumberland canceled him out so he didn't need a raise.

When Tannenbaum does his cap maneuvering every offseason does he have to keep the total under the hard cap limit or does he merely need to prevent 26 of the players from making $850K in new money (since past bonus money doesn't count in those figures cited)?

The "problem" as you put it, Mike, is that it insinuates that the average salary is something that it is not. The average salary is the mean, not the median. The two figures are not interchangeable. Hell, even on the web page there is a column with a column header in all caps that clearly states "AVG SALARY" but for the purposes of slanting a point of view, that number was conveniently ignored and instead a median salary was used.

Also, there is a finite "bottom" that a team cannot go lower than. There is a minimum salary in the NFL (as there should be). But there is no maximum (nor should there be). In that situation, the median will always be significantly lower than the mean unless a team signs no players at the league minimum and no players who make even 2rd-tier money.

If the players' issue is that half the players make under the woefully low number of $850K then they could raise the minimum salary. There would be zero resistance from the owners (since the cap limit is the cap limit no matter how much the lowest-paid player makes). Yet the players remain silent on that front. Strange how the NLFPA doesn't do this; they have the audacity to believe that superstars should get paid more than scrubs and that starters should get paid more than backups. Weird people.

Easily the best post in the thread right here.

The average salary is $2.3M. My point was in response to a post that stated the average NFL salary was whatever the median NFL salary is.

Plenty make less than that, but it's only right. Erik Ainge should not be making as much as Mark Sanchez, and part-time players should not be making as much as starters or superstars despite madmike's silly "1 for 1" comment

Anyone who has an issue with this theoretically should be in favor of a top-end salary limit for any individual player because it robbed junkie scrubs like Erik Ainge from the opportunity to make an average NFL salary and also keeps the pay for the average player lower. Personally I don't care how much or how little any of them make. I just want to watch football.

Football season needs to start so that Sperm can post more and about football.

[Scott Dierking]

Football season needs to start so that Sperm can post more and about football.

Sperm is correct in this, don't lose sight of that. Introducing the "median" as a starting point for a salary discussion was inappropriate

[Sperm Edwards]

Your average college grad is going to earn about four times the amount of money over his career than the player I used in the example will make in his NFL career. The average NFL player also has a sham degree and isn't really qualified to do anything and can barely walk.

Utterly ridiculous and 100% completely false.

The average salary for a college graduate is under $50,000. So an average NFL player, in your example and using your figures, makes $1.75M over his brief NFL career. That means it would take 35-40 years of working full-time, year after year, without ever being unemployed for the "average college grad" to earn the same as the "average NFL player" makes in his 3.5-year career,

Plus that average college grad has to actually pay for that college degree, either working while going to school or through student loans that can take decades to pay back. The "average" NFL player went to college for free. If he has a "sham degree" it's his own fault and is not for someone else to compensate him for after his playing career is over. There are plenty of star players from big-time football programs that have college degrees that won't be worthless when they're done in the NFL.

Where do you get this load of garbage that an average college grad makes 4x what an average NFL player makes - which would come to about $7,000,000 - and then state it as though it is some researched fact? Just say, "I have no idea if this is true, but I want to say something to help my argument so I'm just going to spatter off the following self-fabricated nonsense," and then write lies like that. It's an insult to people who paid for their own college education only to find doors to lower- and mid-level jobs available to them, but who still take those jobs and show up to work every day for decades.

[Klecko73isGod]

Utterly ridiculous and 100% completely false.

The average salary for a college graduate is under $50,000. So an average NFL player, in your example, makes $1.75M over his brief NFL career. That means it would take 35-40 years of working full-time, year after year, without ever being unemployed for the "average college grad" to earn the same as the "average NFL player" makes in his 3.5-year career,

Plus that average college grad has to actually pay for that college degree, either working while going to school or through student loans that can take decades to pay back. The "average" NFL player went to college for free. If he has a "sham degree" it's his own fault and is not for someone else to compensate him for after his playing career is over. There are plenty of star players from big-time football programs that have college degrees that won't be worthless when they're done in the NFL.

Where do you get this load of garbage that an average college grad makes 4x what an average NFL player makes - which would come to about $7,000,000 - and then state it as though it is some researched fact? Just say, "I have no idea if this is true, but I want to say something to help my argument so I'm just going to spatter off the following self-fabricated nonsense," and then write lies like that. It's an insult to people who paid for their own college education only to find doors to lower- and mid-level jobs available to them, but who still take those jobs and show up every day.

Somebody needed to help Angry Michael out.

[slats]

Median salary is a good starting point to discuss the inequities within the player ranks. The NFL really has no middle class. Maybe raising the cap floor helps that. It's probably something that should be brought up at the next union meeting.

In the meantime, it's really derailed this discussion.

Just to be clear, the owners are still the primary scumbags in this situation, regardless of the mean or average NFL salaries involved.

[Sperm Edwards]

Somebody needed to help Angry Michael out.

lol

Median salary is a good starting point to discuss the inequities within the player ranks. The NFL really has no middle class. Maybe raising the cap floor helps that. It's probably something that should be brought up at the next union meeting.

In the meantime, it's really derailed this discussion.

Just to be clear, the owners are still the primary scumbags in this situation, regardless of the mean or average NFL salaries involved.

Median salaries are only a point to discuss if that was a beef that the NFLPA had. It isn't, wasn't, and won't be. Not ever. If anyone things it's bad that the median salary of an NFL player - which includes those who never see the field - is a woefully low $850K, then their angst should be with the players' union not the owners. Just telling it like it is.

Scumbags are scumbags. There is no shortage of them on either side of the negotiating table. Both sides knew this was something that should have - and could have - been hammered out over a year ago. Both sides would have it good no matter what deal is struck, whether that deal is more favorable to the players or more favorable to the owners. And both sides decided to play chicken with each other. I have no sympathy for either side. I want to watch NFL football and in between games I want to read and talk about NFL football.

[T0mShane]

lol

Median salaries are only a point to discuss if that was a beef that the NFLPA had. It isn't, wasn't, and won't be. Not ever. If anyone things it's bad that the median salary of an NFL player - which includes those who never see the field - is a woefully low $850K, then their angst should be with the players' union not the owners. Just telling it like it is.

Scumbags are scumbags. There is no shortage of them on either side of the negotiating table. Both sides knew this was something that should have - and could have - been hammered out over a year ago. Both sides would have it good no matter what deal is struck, whether that deal is more favorable to the players or more favorable to the owners. And both sides decided to play chicken with each other. I have no sympathy for either side. I want to watch NFL football and in between games I want to read and talk about NFL football.

I think he implicitly agreed that the owners are the bigger scumbags here, slats. You go.

[Sperm Edwards]

I think he implicitly agreed that the owners are the bigger scumbags here, slats. You go.

Perhaps. But just like I could - and do - say about the owners, if there was no scumbagginess on the players' side this would all have been over months ago.

[Bleedin Green]

Utterly ridiculous and 100% completely false.

The average salary for a college graduate is under $50,000. So an average NFL player, in your example and using your figures, makes $1.75M over his brief NFL career. That means it would take 35-40 years of working full-time, year after year, without ever being unemployed for the "average college grad" to earn the same as the "average NFL player" makes in his 3.5-year career,

Plus that average college grad has to actually pay for that college degree, either working while going to school or through student loans that can take decades to pay back. The "average" NFL player went to college for free. If he has a "sham degree" it's his own fault and is not for someone else to compensate him for after his playing career is over. There are plenty of star players from big-time football programs that have college degrees that won't be worthless when they're done in the NFL.

Where do you get this load of garbage that an average college grad makes 4x what an average NFL player makes - which would come to about $7,000,000 - and then state it as though it is some researched fact? Just say, "I have no idea if this is true, but I want to say something to help my argument so I'm just going to spatter off the following self-fabricated nonsense," and then write lies like that. It's an insult to people who paid for their own college education only to find doors to lower- and mid-level jobs available to them, but who still take those jobs and show up to work every day for decades.

This is what I never understand about some people's arguments in favor of these players. It's one thing to take their side over the owners or feel they should be paid more or whatever you think, but in what world should we possibly have pity for someone who makes a lifetime worth of wages over the course of a few years? Why, just because a number of NFL players have proven to be complete morons who blow all of their money in no time? Sorry, that's nobody's fault but their own dumb asses. Why does playing a game for a few years suddenly entitle them to be wealthy for the rest of their life without having to work another day? If they manage to save and invest properly that they can get away with that then that's great for them, but if not then it's their responsibility to get a damn job. And to only build off of your point, an NFL practice squad player makes more than 2.5 times what my starting salary at my first job out of college was. And hell, that's a salary in the northeast, which as a general rule is going to be a lot better than what you'll find in a lot of other parts of the country. It's one thing to side with the players in the debate of the rich vs the richer, but it's another thing to try to paint them as these destitute, victimized souls.

[BiF]

You guys should try modeling. Good money in my profession. And dont think you cant be one because you arent beautiful. The male modeling arena needs all shapes and sizes to accommodate to all fashion designs.

[slats]

Median salaries are only a point to discuss if that was a beef that the NFLPA had. It isn't, wasn't, and won't be. Not ever. If anyone things it's bad that the median salary of an NFL player - which includes those who never see the field - is a woefully low $850K, then their angst should be with the players' union not the owners. Just telling it like it is.

That's exactly what I was saying, Crabby.

[Sperm Edwards]

That's exactly what I was saying, Crabby.

That's Mr. Crabson. Only my family and 2 or 3 of my closest friends call me Crabby.

[Bleedin Green]

Median salary is a good starting point to discuss the inequities within the player ranks. The NFL really has no middle class. Maybe raising the cap floor helps that. It's probably something that should be brought up at the next union meeting.

In the meantime, it's really derailed this discussion.

Just to be clear, the owners are still the primary scumbags in this situation, regardless of the mean or average NFL salaries involved.

I agree about the median, but that's not really coming into play in this particular negotiation, which is why it's irrelevant, and bringing it up in this topic was just an attempt of someone to try to justify their stance with numbers that looked good for them, regardless of their relevance. If anything, median salary would be an internal issue within the NFLPA. Which frankly, isn't really the owners problem.

I actually have no problem with the opinion of the owners being the primary scumbags, I just find it ridiculous when people act as though we live in this world of absolutes and there's always one poor innocent victimized side, because the players most certainly do not qualify as such. The funny thing is not only are both sides trying to screw over the other side, they're even trying to screw over each other. Some owners want to kill revenue sharing and the NFLPA is negotiating first and foremost for the superstar players in this CBA and have made an effort to completely shutout the retired players. This is just one giant group of rich douchebags who are arguing endlessly about why they should be getting more of our money than the other guy. The only good thing is that these greedy assholes now all suddenly want to get a deal done because they can't stand the idea that they would lose out on the money from the biggest screwjob of them all, the NFL preseason.

[Klecko73isGod]

lol

Median salaries are only a point to discuss if that was a beef that the NFLPA had. It isn't, wasn't, and won't be. Not ever. If anyone things it's bad that the median salary of an NFL player - which includes those who never see the field - is a woefully low $850K, then their angst should be with the players' union not the owners. Just telling it like it is.

Scumbags are scumbags. There is no shortage of them on either side of the negotiating table. Both sides knew this was something that should have - and could have - been hammered out over a year ago. Both sides would have it good no matter what deal is struck, whether that deal is more favorable to the players or more favorable to the owners. And both sides decided to play chicken with each other. I have no sympathy for either side. I want to watch NFL football and in between games I want to read and talk about NFL football.

Honestly, I was just trying to figure out for my own edification what number more accurately represents what the average (talentwise) player makes. I understand that there will be a wide range of salaries as some guys are overpaid and some are woefully underpaid. But I do remember hearing (think it was the Sports Reporters or NFL Total Access) that the median is closer to what the real average player makes and that the average salary is greatly inflated due to the top end salaries.

I just find it interesting for some reason, couldn't tell you why.

[Bleedin Green]

You guys should try modeling. Good money in my profession. And dont think you cant be one because you arent beautiful. The male modeling arena needs all shapes and sizes to accommodate to all fashion designs.

You do realize that you stopped being even mildly amusing a solid 20 or so hours ago right? Please stop.

[Bleedin Green]

Honestly, I was just trying to figure out for my own edification what number more accurately represents what the average (talentwise) player makes. I understand that there will be a wide range of salaries as some guys are overpaid and some are woefully underpaid. But I do remember hearing (think it was the Sports Reporters or NFL Total Access) that the median is closer to what the real average player makes and that the average salary is greatly inflated due to the top end salaries.

I just find it interesting for some reason, couldn't tell you why.

Honestly, what you're looking for isn't going to be available in a raw stat. What you're talking about would involve probably taking the salaries of all of your NFL starters, eliminating the outliers, which for purposes of equity would have to be both the super high-end contracts as well as those late-round picks / UDFAs who break the starting lineup while on their first contract, and then calculate out an average. It's definitely true that any average will be inflated by the high end contracts, but given that more than half of the opening day roster is backups (not even accounting for PS players or other people brought in over the course of the season due to cuts / injuries), the median is always going to be an unrealistically low number. That said, that particular issue isn't really the owners problem, because no matter how it's divided up, all they give a crap about (and rightfully so) is how much they are spending in total, which is why the NFLPA would never even bring that up in negotiations. As Sperm said before, all that would happen is the owners would offer to bring up the minimum salary numbers, which the players would want no part of unless it was combined with raising the cap, otherwise that leaves that much less money for the big money contracts.

[slats]

This is what I never understand about some people's arguments in favor of these players. It's one thing to take their side over the owners or feel they should be paid more or whatever you think, but in what world should we possibly have pity for someone who makes a lifetime worth of wages over the course of a few years? Why, just because a number of NFL players have proven to be complete morons who blow all of their money in no time? Sorry, that's nobody's fault but their own dumb asses. Why does playing a game for a few years suddenly entitle them to be wealthy for the rest of their life without having to work another day? If they manage to save and invest properly that they can get away with that then that's great for them, but if not then it's their responsibility to get a damn job. And to only build off of your point, an NFL practice squad player makes more than 2.5 times what my starting salary at my first job out of college was. And hell, that's a salary in the northeast, which as a general rule is going to be a lot better than what you'll find in a lot of other parts of the country. It's one thing to side with the players in the debate of the rich vs the richer, but it's another thing to try to paint them as these destitute, victimized souls.

Who are these strawmen you're debating? I am completely devoid of pity.

These guys are the absolute top of their profession - even the scrubs at the bottom of NFL rosters are the cream of the crop. They are not simply laborers, they are the product. Think about strike football, or the UFL. Those things aren't selling out because it's a low grade game with low grade talent. They certainly deserve half the pie IMHO, as without them there is no pie. Right now it looks like the players have agreed to less than that, and yet they still can't get a deal done.

How they invest their money or live the rest of their lives should only be a concern in how it relates to their career on the field. Former NFL players killing themselves because of impenetrable depression as the result of multiple head traumas is a problem, for instance. I think the league is trying to school these guys on how to be smarter with their money, and I hope some of that sticks. But that's another issue entirely.

The question here is, what value do the players have in the product we call the NFL? Half the total revenue is more than fair, as they are really the whole product. People aren't lining Jerry Jones' Taj Mahal for $100+ or so a pop to watch frisbee dogs.

[Scott Dierking]

Who are these strawmen you're debating? I am completely devoid of pity.

These guys are the absolute top of their profession - even the scrubs at the bottom of NFL rosters are the cream of the crop. They are not simply laborers, they are the product. Think about strike football, or the UFL. Those things aren't selling out because it's a low grade game with low grade talent. They certainly deserve half the pie IMHO, as without them there is no pie. Right now it looks like the players have agreed to less than that, and yet they still can't get a deal done.

How they invest their money or live the rest of their lives should only be a concern in how it relates to their career on the field. Former NFL players killing themselves because of impenetrable depression as the result of multiple head traumas is a problem, for instance. I think the league is trying to school these guys on how to be smarter with their money, and I hope some of that sticks. But that's another issue entirely.

The question here is, what value do the players have in the product we call the NFL? Half the total revenue is more than fair, as they are really the whole product. People aren't lining Jerry Jones' Taj Mahal for $100+ or so a pop to watch frisbee dogs.

This is kind of the crux of the deal, isn't it. And thus the haggling.

But, the risk of financial forfeiture resides with the owners solely. They are the ones that have invested in the infrastructure and carry possible risk.

That certainly plays into dividing the pie equitably.

[Bleedin Green]

Who are these strawmen you're debating? I am completely devoid of pity.

These guys are the absolute top of their profession - even the scrubs at the bottom of NFL rosters are the cream of the crop. They are not simply laborers, they are the product. Think about strike football, or the UFL. Those things aren't selling out because it's a low grade game with low grade talent. They certainly deserve half the pie IMHO, as without them there is no pie. Right now it looks like the players have agreed to less than that, and yet they still can't get a deal done.

How they invest their money or live the rest of their lives should only be a concern in how it relates to their career on the field. Former NFL players killing themselves because of impenetrable depression as the result of multiple head traumas is a problem, for instance. I think the league is trying to school these guys on how to be smarter with their money, and I hope some of that sticks. But that's another issue entirely.

The question here is, what value do the players have in the product we call the NFL? Half the total revenue is more than fair, as they are really the whole product. People aren't lining Jerry Jones' Taj Mahal for $100+ or so a pop to watch frisbee dogs.

This is a stance that I can definitely get behind, and I agree with you on the one point of concern for post-NFL careers should be the effect their playing itself had on them, which is why I find it absolutely disgusting that both sides are, once again, trying to shutout the retired players from this negotiation. Especially when you consider the disparity in player compensation between then and now. Unlike today's players, a lot those older guys didn't even get paid enough to really last them even if they were as smart as could be about their money.

Regarding the distribution of the money, I go back and forth on it honestly. To an extent I hear what you're saying, but the business side of me will always have an issue with the idea of the owners putting up all of the financial risk and the players turning around and taking more than half of the money. While I understand and agree with the concept that the players are the product, that statement holds true for the entirety of the service industry, which is one of the most notoriously poorly paying industries there are. And while the NFL's popularity is tied to the talent level, the fact is that individual talent comes and goes over the years and it never really makes a difference. Ratings don't take a dive when a single uber-popular player retires and I think it needs to be acknowledged that it's the joint relationship that makes it work for both sides. Nobody gave a sh*t about Kurt Warner when he was an Arena Football superstar, but a couple of years later and he's suddenly the talk of the NFL running the Greatest Show on Turf. I don't doubt there are a couple of guys buried in the UFL who could actually be top flight NFL players under the right circumstances, but it just never worked out. Point being, I don't dispute the idea that given the extreme profitability of the NFL that the players deserve to be well compensated, I just think the NFL itself is a more important component than it's given credit for and I can certainly understand the idea that the side putting up all of the money expects to get more of it back than the side that isn't.

Of course in the end, as long as a deal is signed and we get to watch football, I could give less of a crap if one side or the other ends up with only 1% of the profits.

[bitonti]

I dont believe "who is greedier" should be at issue, what my issue is "who started this" and the owners didn't have to opt out of the CBA. the old CBA (under which, the league saw historic growth) had provisions for 2011 and 2012. the owners didn't have to do this. It is their right to do it but it wasn't necessary.

Look at the NBA, that league has locked out its players because they lost 300 million dollars last year (and aren't scared to show the evidence). That I can condone. They are locking out the players for the sake of the league. the NBA was on an unstable track, that would eventually lead to their demise.

meanwhile the NFL owners are locking out the players to get a better deal, and didn't Have to do it. That's the difference from my perspective.

[slats]

To an extent I hear what you're saying, but the business side of me will always have an issue with the idea of the owners putting up all of the financial risk and the players turning around and taking more than half of the money. While I understand and agree with the concept that the players are the product, that statement holds true for the entirety of the service industry, which is one of the most notoriously poorly paying industries there are.

First, I see the financial risk think brought up in this thread a few times, but really don't see a lot of financial risk that the owners themselves don't put themselves in. It's not the players fault that Woody Johnson opted to sign up for Giants Stadium II, and built an even bigger sh*thole in the swamp. It's not on them that Jerry Jones needed to build a shrine to himself. I don't see a huge amount of risk from their side of the table. I didn't see franchise values drop during the recent depression. Small market guys are making tons of money off the TV deal in their crappy little stadiums. This is hardly a start-up at this point in time.

The players on the other hand are literally risking lives. And if that's extreme, they're certainly risking their long term health. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident that the average (not the mean) lifespan of a former NFL player is a lot less than that of the average American. Certainly a lot less than Ralph Wilson.

And you seriously can't compare the service industry to the NFL - unless you go to games purely for the joy that the countergirl selling a $7 hot dog brings to you. Unless I'm at Hooters, I'm in a restaurant for the chef, not the waitstaff, and the chef is usually pretty well compensated.

[Scott Dierking]

I dont believe "who is greedier" should be at issue, what my issue is "who started this" and the owners didn't have to opt out of the CBA. the old CBA (under which, the league saw historic growth) had provisions for 2011 and 2012. the owners didn't have to do this. It is their right to do it but it wasn't necessary.

Look at the NBA, that league has locked out its players because they lost 300 million dollars last year (and aren't scared to show the evidence). That I can condone. They are locking out the players for the sake of the league. the NBA was on an unstable track, that would eventually lead to their demise.

meanwhile the NFL owners are locking out the players to get a better deal, and didn't Have to do it. That's the difference from my perspective.

No one EVER has to do anything. But, in business if you sit idly will you know there is something that you are not realizing out of a contract, you are foolish to let it whither.

Don't just disparage because the owners enacted a clause that was negotiated by both sides. You think there was a "wink-wink" agreement between the 2 sides that the clause would not be exercised? It was common knowledge that it WOULD be exercised. Tagliabue basically gave an extension, when the owners did not really want one.

[Scott Dierking]

First, I see the financial risk think brought up in this thread a few times, but really don't see a lot of financial risk that the owners themselves don't put themselves in. It's not the players fault that Woody Johnson opted to sign up for Giants Stadium II, and built an even bigger sh*thole in the swamp. It's not on them that Jerry Jones needed to build a shrine to himself. I don't see a huge amount of risk from their side of the table. I didn't see franchise values drop during the recent depression. Small market guys are making tons of money off the TV deal in their crappy little stadiums. This is hardly a start-up at this point in time.

The players on the other hand are literally risking lives. And if that's extreme, they're certainly risking their long term health. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident that the average (not the mean) lifespan of a former NFL player is a lot less than that of the average American. Certainly a lot less than Ralph Wilson.

And you seriously can't compare the service industry to the NFL - unless you go to games purely for the joy that the countergirl selling a $7 hot dog brings to you. Unless I'm at Hooters, I'm in a restaurant for the chef, not the waitstaff, and the chef is usually pretty well compensated.

Your premise would be good if the players would take the stance that if because of the risk of those "sh*th*les" they would gladly ignore any new revenues that those atrocities generated.

Think they would do that?

BTW-Franchise values DID drop last year.

[bitonti]

No one EVER has to do anything. But, in business if you sit idly will you know there is something that you are not realizing out of a contract, you are foolish to let it whither.

like I said it was within their rights to do it but there was no justification for it, other than crass profit taking. this isn't like the NBA (or the NHL) where the very survival of the league is at stake. This was a pure money grab... and it wasn't like they weren't making money. they all made tons of money.

[slats]

Your premise would be good if the players would take the stance that if because of the risk of those "sh*th*les" they would gladly ignore any new revenues that those atrocities generated.

Think they would do that?

BTW-Franchise values DID drop last year.

Haha! Shouldn't the asterisk have gone in the first syllable of that word?

Bottom line, I definitely believe the players are worth half the pie. They had a deal in place in which the players share was more than that, it dropped to closer to 50% while the owners colluded (please don't pretend they didn't) during the uncapped year, and now the owners looking to keep even more. If the number has really dropped to 48% for the players -and the players have accepted that- then this deal should be done right now.

[Bleedin Green]

like I said it was within their rights to do it but there was no justification for it, other than crass profit taking. this isn't like the NBA (or the NHL) where the very survival of the league is at stake. This was a pure money grab... and it wasn't like they weren't making money. they all made tons of money.

I'm not sure I would say "no justification", as there's no doubt that the old CBA deal got better for the players and worse for the owners over the few years since the deal was first made. That's not to say that the owners had it bad, as they were still making tons of money, but it wasn't the deal they thought they signed. If it weren't for the fact that the opt-out was negotiated into the old CBA by both sides I would be 100% with you on that and say too bad for them, but it was negotiated into the deal so that was certainly their right, although as you said, it's not something that they necessarily had to do.

The owners definitely got this ball rolling, which is why I take no issue with people seeing the owners as the primary culprits, I just don't think it's realistic to think that since this thing has started the players haven't done plenty to help make the situation what it has since become. After all, the players were the first ones to walk away from the table back in March, which was based on their belief that at the time they could win in court and only came back to the table when the owners managed to get a win with the stay on the lockout issue.

[Bleedin Green]

First, I see the financial risk think brought up in this thread a few times, but really don't see a lot of financial risk that the owners themselves don't put themselves in. It's not the players fault that Woody Johnson opted to sign up for Giants Stadium II, and built an even bigger sh*thole in the swamp. It's not on them that Jerry Jones needed to build a shrine to himself. I don't see a huge amount of risk from their side of the table. I didn't see franchise values drop during the recent depression. Small market guys are making tons of money off the TV deal in their crappy little stadiums. This is hardly a start-up at this point in time.

The players on the other hand are literally risking lives. And if that's extreme, they're certainly risking their long term health. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident that the average (not the mean) lifespan of a former NFL player is a lot less than that of the average American. Certainly a lot less than Ralph Wilson.

And you seriously can't compare the service industry to the NFL - unless you go to games purely for the joy that the countergirl selling a $7 hot dog brings to you. Unless I'm at Hooters, I'm in a restaurant for the chef, not the waitstaff, and the chef is usually pretty well compensated.

I actually agree with you on the stadium issue, and I see no reason that the owners wanting to build a new stadium is the players issue AT ALL. I'm talking more in regards to regular business expenses. People act like it's this simple equation where the players get one chunk and the owners get the other and that's all she wrote. But the owners portion isn't really theirs to keep, as that's the money which then has to cover expenses for a whole lot of salaries for a pretty extensive employee base, both on the football operations side as well as normal business operations. Then the list goes on of expenses that exist for any normal business that certainly add up quickly. I don't dispute the fact that the NFL players deserve a bigger chunk of the pie than employees of your average business, I'm just not sure I agree that more than half is truly reasonable.

As far as the service industry comparison, I certainly did mean the comparison to that extent. More addressing this idea that the NFL is the only business who's employees is the product when really an entire industry is based on that premise. And while wait-staff or counter servers do qualify as service industry, the product in that case is really the food, where I was thinking more of industries that are specifically service-driven, in that what you actually are paying for is this service performed first and foremost. That said, I of course acknowledge the difference between that and the NFL, but was more making the point that from a business standpoint, the players importance to the product doesn't necessarily automatically qualify them for anything. It really comes back to the prior point that fair or not, in the business world those who risk the most money are typically the ones who stand to earn the most as well, which is why I certainly don't blame the owners for wanting to knock the players % below 50. But like I said, in the end I could really care less as long as there's football, but it's something to pass the time with to debate about anyway.

[slats]

And while wait-staff or counter servers do qualify as service industry, the product in that case is really the food, where I was thinking more of industries that are specifically service-driven, in that what you actually are paying for is this service performed first and foremost.

I'll tell you what then, my ex-wife is a massage therapist. She's educated, trained, and licensed. Her service is definitely the product. When she works in a shop for someone else, she gets half the price of the massage plus tips. The owner pays herself and maintains the shop with the other half.

If you want to make that comparison, I think that one is more in line with the NFL than -say- someone soaping tires at the carwash. People in those service industries with specific, difficult to obtain skills should be handsomely compensated.

[Bleedin Green]

I'll tell you what then, my ex-wife is a massage therapist. She's educated, trained, and licensed. Her service is definitely the product. When she works in a shop for someone else, she gets half the price of the massage plus tips. The owner pays herself and maintains the shop with the other half.

If you want to make that comparison, I think that one is more in line with the NFL than -say- someone soaping tires at the carwash. People in those service industries with specific, difficult to obtain skills should be handsomely compensated.

Well I'll tell you what, if an NFL player ever gives me a happy ending maybe I'll change my point of view. Wait... I mean, um... nevermind.

But seriously, I would agree that's definitely a much better comparison and really is actually the kind of thing I had in mind when I was making the comparison. It sounds like that's a pretty good deal she has, but based on my experience it would seem to be outside of the norm, but maybe I'm way off in that regard and that really isn't the case. Of course, I could also argue it costs a lot more to run an NFL team than a massage parlor, but I wouldn't want you to start picking on me for being difficult again.

[Sperm Edwards]

I'll tell you what then, my ex-wife is a massage therapist. She's educated, trained, and licensed. Her service is definitely the product. When she works in a shop for someone else, she gets half the price of the massage plus tips. The owner pays herself and maintains the shop with the other half.

If you want to make that comparison, I think that one is more in line with the NFL than -say- someone soaping tires at the carwash. People in those service industries with specific, difficult to obtain skills should be handsomely compensated.

Thank you for blowing up the idea that having my wife become a massage therapist will cause all marital issues to disappear. It was the trump card I was keeping in my back pocket, you know, just in case. Now my husbanding skills will have to stand on their own merits, feeble as they are.

What do you do for an encore, go to the mall at Christmas time where they're doing pictures and tell all the 3 year-olds that Santa Claus isn't real? You heartless monster.

[Scott Dierking]

Thank you for blowing up the idea that having my wife become a massage therapist will cause all marital issues to disappear. It was the trump card I was keeping in my back pocket, you know, just in case. Now my husbanding skills will have to stand on their own merits, feeble as they are.

What do you do for an encore, go to the mall at Christmas time where they're doing pictures and tell all the 3 year-olds that Santa Claus isn't real? You heartless monster.

Which brings us to a point-How do Mall Santa Clauses' get paid? Do they share in the revenue that the mall brings in that day? Are they equal partners?

[Sperm Edwards]

Which brings us to a point-How do Mall Santa Clauses' get paid? Do they share in the revenue that the mall brings in that day? Are they equal partners?

They should get 60% but no less than 48-50%. But if it's the latter they shouldn't be beholden to that employer for more than 3 years. They should be able to go to other malls to be Santa somewhere else. And that doesn't even take into account dressing up as the Easter Bunny in April. Those bloodthirsty mall owners probably want a new deal for Easter even more slanted than the Santa one or they'll lock everyone out of Christmas shopping.

[Bugg]

First, I see the financial risk think brought up in this thread a few times, but really don't see a lot of financial risk that the owners themselves don't put themselves in. It's not the players fault that Woody Johnson opted to sign up for Giants Stadium II, and built an even bigger sh*thole in the swamp. It's not on them that Jerry Jones needed to build a shrine to himself. I don't see a huge amount of risk from their side of the table. I didn't see franchise values drop during the recent depression. Small market guys are making tons of money off the TV deal in their crappy little stadiums. This is hardly a start-up at this point in time.

The players on the other hand are literally risking lives. And if that's extreme, they're certainly risking their long term health. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident that the average (not the mean) lifespan of a former NFL player is a lot less than that of the average American. Certainly a lot less than Ralph Wilson.

And you seriously can't compare the service industry to the NFL - unless you go to games purely for the joy that the countergirl selling a $7 hot dog brings to you. Unless I'm at Hooters, I'm in a restaurant for the chef, not the waitstaff, and the chef is usually pretty well compensated.

2 thought-no one held a gun to anyone's head to build the new improved Meadowlands sh*tbox. So to complain now how their costs have increased while they depreciate the sh*t out of it each year is a bad joke. It's kind of like buying more house you could ever hope to afford and then bitching because you cannot make the payments. And each of these guys is still easily making the payments.

And as to the evil greedy players-ask Kevin Everett, Mike Utley and Dennis Byrd.

[Scott Dierking]

2 thought-no one held a gun to anyone's head to build the new improved Meadowlands sh*tbox. So to complain now how their costs have increased while they depreciate the sh*t out of it each year is a bad joke. It's kind of like buying more house you could ever hope to afford and then bitching because you cannot make the payments. And each of these guys is still easily making the payments.

And as to the evil greedy players-ask Kevin Everett, Mike Utley and Dennis Byrd.

How is the players union helping the Mike Utley's of the world.

Ask Dennis Byrd how the Jets helped him after his injury. From what I hear, they went above and beyond what they had to. Those are the players that actually get the help. My concern would lie with the players whose injuries ARE NOT publicized. Who is helping them?