AZ54 Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 I understand the players wanting to see the books but to me the entire decertification and the way it was all handled was a total sham. Then we have players telling us they are slaves and now HH telling us how great it would be to work for Southwest Airlines. Hunter...you have the option to go work for Southwest or any other publicly held company but YOU chose to work for a privately held company where you don't get to see the books. If you want to negotiate as a union, then fine, holdout and negotiate. It is your prerogative and if the consequences of that action cause the league to lose revenues then you too are assuming that risk. Same goes for the owners and their choice to lockout players. Both sides are assuming the risk. Now your actions as players of forcing this into federal court are wasting tax payers' money solely for your own "private" benefit and there is no public need for the NFL. We make private decisions to support the league. Man up HH, AP, Mendenhall, Manning, Brees, et al...if you don't like the offer of the league don't accept it but spare me the expense of paying for you to prove your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 That's really hard to argue against! Man up HH, AP, Mendenhall, Manning, Brees, et al...if you don't like the offer of the league don't accept it but spare me the expense of paying for you to prove your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyBear Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 I understand the players wanting to see the books but to me the entire decertification and the way it was all handled was a total sham. Then we have players telling us they are slaves and now HH telling us how great it would be to work for Southwest Airlines. Hunter...you have the option to go work for Southwest or any other publicly held company but YOU chose to work for a privately held company where you don't get to see the books. If you want to negotiate as a union, then fine, holdout and negotiate. It is your prerogative and if the consequences of that action cause the league to lose revenues then you too are assuming that risk. Same goes for the owners and their choice to lockout players. Both sides are assuming the risk. Now your actions as players of forcing this into federal court are wasting tax payers' money solely for your own "private" benefit and there is no public need for the NFL. We make private decisions to support the league. Man up HH, AP, Mendenhall, Manning, Brees, et al...if you don't like the offer of the league don't accept it but spare me the expense of paying for you to prove your point. Totaly agree, Cant argue that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Seriously. It's not like the 2 groups of Richie Riches can't figure it out. Now more of my tax money is going to go to this... Really, unbelievable. It sickens me. I'd rather try to help some humans in real need. I swear us fans need to boycott. It's impossible I realize...but damn, if only. Totaly agree, Cant argue that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fudgeripple2000 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 The whole point of this lockout is that the teams were crying poor. They wanted the players to give back a billion dollars in earnings per season relative to last year. They are saying that their profitability has deteriorated over the last few years. It has. We are in a recession. If I am Jerry Jones (it sickens me to think) and I have this enormous loan for my stadium and my team is making some serious cash and at the end of the year I have to write a check to those teams that don't make as much. His profitability goes down. In business a good investment has a 3:1 return to invested ratio. His return is decreased because of this current agreement. Peyton Manning doesn't have to write a check to John Kitna every year. Here is what they are fighting over. Instead of getting (assuming a 10 billion revenue) 5.4 billion. The players will get 4.56 billion. Really? I have a hard time believing players like Urlacher (500k workout bonus), Jay Cutler (500k workout bonus), Lance brigs (250k) and Devin Hester (250k) are going to continue to be united with guys that make 10k workout bonus, for very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 It has. We are in a recession. If I am Jerry Jones (it sickens me to think) and I have this enormous loan for my stadium and my team is making some serious cash and at the end of the year I have to write a check to those teams that don't make as much. His profitability goes down. In business a good investment has a 3:1 return to invested ratio. His return is decreased because of this current agreement. Peyton Manning doesn't have to write a check to John Kitna every year. Here is what they are fighting over. Instead of getting (assuming a 10 billion revenue) 5.4 billion. The players will get 4.56 billion. Really? I have a hard time believing players like Urlacher (500k workout bonus), Jay Cutler (500k workout bonus), Lance brigs (250k) and Devin Hester (250k) are going to continue to be united with guys that make 10k workout bonus, for very long. This is a risk that both players and owners are taking here. So far both groups are united and honestly I don't see the player cracking any time soon until the season nears and they start missing checks. We need to remember that players only get paid during the 17 week season. Not before and not after. Sure they get a workout bonus and stuff but most of these players could live without it. Its those game checks that they can't do without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 QUOTE @AdrianPeterson is correct in his anology of this game. It is a lot deeper than most people understand. Rashard Mendenhall This shows me that Rashard Mendenhall is just as stupid as Adrian Peterson. The analogy is utterly ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 The players are doing a lot of damage control with their recent appearance on ESPN asking us fans to support their lawsuit as it will force the owners to forego the lockout. That in itself is an interesting tactic because essentially it's a judge forcing a business to open up and run like normal. How do you make someone open a business if they don't want to? I can see where the league will lose it's antitrust exemption. Again, that too would hurt the players long term as the mage contracts the stars sign would likely be reduced if there is more competition for the football $$$. So the players took a middle ground and I'm curious to see how this plays out. Also, the players have now changed their position, based on their interview, where they said they'd also like to be at the draft to welcome the new players into the league. Clearly fan opinion has a big effect on both sides. Hopefully that gets them back to the negotiating table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 I also think the players asking the college guys to skip the draft is very selfish move. Why would you not want a guy who is going to join your ranks to celebrate one of the best days of his life with his family and friends on that stage? Few people get that opportunity in life and to try to deny them that experience solely for your own priorities is wrong. I realize negotiations will affect them but they have no control over it whatsoever. IMO they should be encouraging them to enjoy that moment and welcoming them with open arms into the union. Not directed at you specifically, just using this post as a segue. People were correctly annoyed with the Union suggestion that the players not attend the draft. The owners are now asking draftees to do the exact same thing regarding the NFLPA's events. They're just doing it surreptitiously, through agents, rather than publicly like the union did. The NFL is holding the draft later this month. The NFLPA, in direct competition, is holding its own series of events in which the rookies meet past and present NFL greats including names like Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk and Warren Moon. There's just one problem and that's where the sabotage comes in. Multiple sources tell CBSSports.com that team scouts, personnel men and assistant coaches are informing agents that their draftees should stay away from the NFLPA event. The effort to ask the rookies to boycott the former union's draft events has infuriated several agents who spoke on the condition of anonymity to CBSSports.com out of fear of reprisal from the league. One thing in particular has angered agents as well as members of the trade association. One of the lead draft analysts for NFL.com, which is league-owned, has contacted multiple draft prospects and told them not to attend the NFLPA event. The analyst has called prospects, in some cases, six and seven times, telling them that if they attended the NFLPA event they would not be allowed to attend the NFL Draft and walk on stage with commissioner Roger Goodell. An NFL spokesman said he was unaware of such accusations and added that players are allowed to make whatever decision they'd like regarding the draft. Agents believe this is a coordinated effort by the league to undermine the NFLPA event and is a direct response to the NFLPA once threatening to withhold rookies from the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Not directed at you specifically, just using this post as a segue. People were correctly annoyed with the Union suggestion that the players not attend the draft. The owners are now asking draftees to do the exact same thing regarding the NFLPA's events. They're just doing it surreptitiously, through agents, rather than publicly like the union did. But that's COMPLETELY different. The NFL wants the rookies to attend the event that is held every year (i.e. the draft and all that comes along with it). The NFLPA is attempting to create a rival product to persuade the rookies away from the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Yes, we all know the players are making a half-assed attempt to upstage the NFL Draft presentation. If the owners are trying to sabotage that event they are just as wrong as the players are. I'm ok if they publicly state they would like the players to attend the draft but going behind the scenes to influence agents makes no sense. Why would you want to do that anyway via the agents? Do I trust anonymous agents with these accusations? Not really. They might be just currying favor with some of their clients and / or future clients by way of saying they are supporting the union. For all I know this is nothing more than team reps expressing their personal feelings that the players should attend the draft if invited. I'll wait for more details on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Yes, we all know the players are making a half-assed attempt to upstage the NFL Draft presentation. If the owners are trying to sabotage that event they are just as wrong as the players are. I'm ok if they publicly state they would like the players to attend the draft but going behind the scenes to influence agents makes no sense. Why would you want to do that anyway via the agents? Do I trust anonymous agents with these accusations? Not really. They might be just currying favor with some of their clients and / or future clients by way of saying they are supporting the union. For all I know this is nothing more than team reps expressing their personal feelings that the players should attend the draft if invited. I'll wait for more details on this one. Yeah, there is really no reason for any agent to publicly support ownership. It's in their best interest and legal obligation to serve the players at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.