NFL and NBA Lockouts - Whose side are you on?
- Thread starter Seinfeld
- Start date
I think I saw that something like 22 nba teams were losing money, that's pretty bad. I take the owners side there. I could be wrong, but I dont think as many nfl teams are having that much trouble, so i'll go with the players there.
With the NFL I probably side with the players slightly simply b/c the sport continues to grow and they want to take money back from the players. I haven't seen a great rationale for this except it's because of payments for new fancy stadiums, etc. etc.
I'd side with the owners if they wanted money back on the basis that games are becoming too expensive for casual fans to really attend with their families b/c they agree that $7 for a lukewarm beer is absurd and they want to give back to the fans but losing that revenue has to be absorbed somewhere.
With the NBA I side with the owners but honestly they did this to themselves. Stupid long term contracts and such have crippled many of the teams. That's why they're pushing for that amnesty deal where eat team can jettison one bad contract. Shorter term contracts and a more strict salary cap would do the league a world of good.
Expensive to go to those games too and odds are unless you go to a marquee matchup, most players aren't exerted themselves fully. I'd love for them to scale down to something like a 60 game schedule to make the regular season a tad more important.
I'd side with the owners if they wanted money back on the basis that games are becoming too expensive for casual fans to really attend with their families b/c they agree that $7 for a lukewarm beer is absurd and they want to give back to the fans but losing that revenue has to be absorbed somewhere.
With the NBA I side with the owners but honestly they did this to themselves. Stupid long term contracts and such have crippled many of the teams. That's why they're pushing for that amnesty deal where eat team can jettison one bad contract. Shorter term contracts and a more strict salary cap would do the league a world of good.
Expensive to go to those games too and odds are unless you go to a marquee matchup, most players aren't exerted themselves fully. I'd love for them to scale down to something like a 60 game schedule to make the regular season a tad more important.
Even crappy NBA players make a ton of money and too many teams are currently in the red so something has to be done to keep the league viable.
An NFL players career is pretty short and after they are done many times they are practically disabled so the NFL needs to do a better job taking care of former players and bringing up the lower end of the salary scale.
An NFL players career is pretty short and after they are done many times they are practically disabled so the NFL needs to do a better job taking care of former players and bringing up the lower end of the salary scale.
It's hard to feel sorry for owners that can't resist overpaying for players and that were stupid enough to agree to a business model that would fall apart if there was ever a drop in revenue, but it's hard to fathom what the players are thinking there.
The NFL owners and players are fighting over splitting up a growing pie. I'd side with the players there simply because of the owners wanting to extend the season two more games.
The NFL owners and players are fighting over splitting up a growing pie. I'd side with the players there simply because of the owners wanting to extend the season two more games.
IF the NBA is having $ problems, then the first thing they should do is fix the draft. 3 year limited contracts? all that does is guarantee huge paydays for the ones that pan out, driving up FA contracts for everyone else. I still love the proposal that draftees should have 7 year contracts, minus 1 year for each year of college completed. With longer draftee contracts, teams that draft right will only need FAs for the bench. Salaries would drop as a result. But the owners don't want teams to succeed or fail based on their managements competence, they just want to pay the players little enough that all owners are guaranteed of financial success.</p>
NFL - Players
ownersprint their own money already
NBA - Owners
regardless of how hot his wife is, the Grizz paid Marko Jaric $7.625 Million dollars this season, 3rd highest salary. I don't think he was even in the country at any point last season. They need what hockey got, ahard cap and floor.
ownersprint their own money already
NBA - Owners
regardless of how hot his wife is, the Grizz paid Marko Jaric $7.625 Million dollars this season, 3rd highest salary. I don't think he was even in the country at any point last season. They need what hockey got, ahard cap and floor.
NBA-I wouldn't notice if they never played another game, so neither. Forced to choose, I would go players.
Regarding the NFL, in spite of the attendance continuing to decline over the last few years, league revenue continues to skyrocket due to new tv deals and advertising. The popularity of the sport has made it to where they practically are printing their own money. One thing that I do agree with the owners about is that there needs to be a rookie payscale which I think is inevitable, but I do not agree with taking more money from the players if it is to simply line their own pockets with more $$$. As you mentioned, if they want to take some of that money to lower ticket/concession prices, that's one thing but not so they can go buy another private jet.
With the NBA, on the other hand, I'm convinced that the players' union is made up of a bunch of imbeciles. They are working for an organization that is bleeding money left and right, yet they want to create a multitude of new opportunities for teams to spend even more money by signing/trading players. At this point, the only thing that the players have reportedly conceded is that they'll accept a small paycut to be spread over the next 5 years, but the new opportunities for signings/trades along with a continued soft cap that they want will easily offset those cuts. At this point, I'm not expecting an NBA season this year and unfortuntely, I think there are several owners that would be fine with that rather than continuing at the current pace.
With the NBA, on the other hand, I'm convinced that the players' union is made up of a bunch of imbeciles. They are working for an organization that is bleeding money left and right, yet they want to create a multitude of new opportunities for teams to spend even more money by signing/trading players. At this point, the only thing that the players have reportedly conceded is that they'll accept a small paycut to be spread over the next 5 years, but the new opportunities for signings/trades along with a continued soft cap that they want will easily offset those cuts. At this point, I'm not expecting an NBA season this year and unfortuntely, I think there are several owners that would be fine with that rather than continuing at the current pace.
No reason to have a nearly 7 month long regular season. That is why I quit watching the NBA because in any given game that isn't a big matchup or a playoff game, sucks because no one gives a ****. Might as well be a church league pick-up game with the lack of defense. No single game really matters, so why should they care?Irondawg said:
the players can form their own league. heck, they won't even need outside funding!
the owners tried usings scrubs before. didn't work. people will only pay top dollar to see top players.
the owners tried usings scrubs before. didn't work. people will only pay top dollar to see top players.
And quit threatening to leave town when taxpayers refuse to buy them new stadiums, I will side with the owners.
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
Rashard Lewis makes 20 million a year???? Peja Stojokovic makes 15 million a year???? I think the owners are stupid to pay these type of salaries to guys that not superstars but I don't see where the players have anything to complain about other than the length of the season.
Rashard Lewis makes 20 million a year???? Peja Stojokovic makes 15 million a year???? I think the owners are stupid to pay these type of salaries to guys that not superstars but I don't see where the players have anything to complain about other than the length of the season.
They are employees, if they want profit sharing are they also up for loss sharing? I doubt it.
Just b/c your boss is making a **** ton of money doesn't give the guy on the line the right to part of the profits.
17 the players, bring on the scabs. I really would like to see the how long it would take for players to start crossing the line.
Just b/c your boss is making a **** ton of money doesn't give the guy on the line the right to part of the profits.
17 the players, bring on the scabs. I really would like to see the how long it would take for players to start crossing the line.
NFL - I'm with the players. But BOTH the players and the owners should kick in dollars for the former players health insurance. Many of these guys played before free agency, didn't make much moneyand they have lousy health (life expectancy of an NFL player with 5 years experience is the mid-50s).
Anybody that can make a three point shot, or Score a TD and hit you in the mouth at the same time, should run the world.
Oh, why are they not the owners? Because that is just something they can not do. Without 'The Game"the players ain't ****.
If the owners can not make a reasonable profit, why should they ...be owners?
Most of these guys (players) would be working stiffs, just likemany of us without "The Game". Most of them make damn good $.
Players win...ticket prices just go higher.
Oh, why are they not the owners? Because that is just something they can not do. Without 'The Game"the players ain't ****.
If the owners can not make a reasonable profit, why should they ...be owners?
Most of these guys (players) would be working stiffs, just likemany of us without "The Game". Most of them make damn good $.
Players win...ticket prices just go higher.
The NFL one is easy - players.<div>
</div><div>For the NBA its a little more complicated. You're right in that obviously 22 of 30 teams losing money is terrible and needs to be fixed. The NBA salary cap and entire wage system is totally screwed up which you would think would obviously mean you side with the owners on the lockout due to this. However, the reason all these teams are losing so much money is because they are so poorly run and they have been handing out multi-million dollar/multi-year contracts like its Halloween candy to any and every player that can figure out how to lace up his shoes. Its not Marco Jaric's fault he got paid $9+M this year. Its not Elton Brand's fault that someone thought it was a good idea to pay him $17+M for 5 years after he had serious health issues for most of his career. You could go on and on about contracts that were handed out that were terrible ideas at the time and have only gotten worse as the years have gone one. So all that to say its kinda hard to feel bad for the owners when they have put themselves in this position. The players have admitted that things need to change and have agreed to make concessions. They just don't want to be punished for the owner's screwups while the owners get off without much backlash which is exactly what the amnesty clause that the owners want would do. All that to say I side with the players while recognizing the owners have a point, but its kinda like Larry Templeton saying our athletic dept. needed to make changes while he was still in charge.</div>
</div><div>For the NBA its a little more complicated. You're right in that obviously 22 of 30 teams losing money is terrible and needs to be fixed. The NBA salary cap and entire wage system is totally screwed up which you would think would obviously mean you side with the owners on the lockout due to this. However, the reason all these teams are losing so much money is because they are so poorly run and they have been handing out multi-million dollar/multi-year contracts like its Halloween candy to any and every player that can figure out how to lace up his shoes. Its not Marco Jaric's fault he got paid $9+M this year. Its not Elton Brand's fault that someone thought it was a good idea to pay him $17+M for 5 years after he had serious health issues for most of his career. You could go on and on about contracts that were handed out that were terrible ideas at the time and have only gotten worse as the years have gone one. So all that to say its kinda hard to feel bad for the owners when they have put themselves in this position. The players have admitted that things need to change and have agreed to make concessions. They just don't want to be punished for the owner's screwups while the owners get off without much backlash which is exactly what the amnesty clause that the owners want would do. All that to say I side with the players while recognizing the owners have a point, but its kinda like Larry Templeton saying our athletic dept. needed to make changes while he was still in charge.</div>
and quit wasting the money they do have as if they were 3 years old (yes I know most of them do in fact have the intelligence of a 3 year old), and therefore demanding even more money so that they can "feed their families", then I'll side with the entitled brats they call players.
In other news, when lazy mother 17ers lose their sense of entitlement that no matter how much they 17 up, I'll pay my tax dollars to bail them out, then I'll side with the 17ing welfare masses.
In other other news, when I am asked as a 17ing employee how to best spend my employer's money (even when I'm one of the ones bringing in the damn money to begin with), then I might be more inclined to side with the players.
In other other other news, when the 17ing federal government comes and asks me how best to run its operations since I'm one of the ones paying them, then I might be inclined to side with the players.
Why the 17 are athletes entitled to demand **** be run how they want it run? If I feel I can run a business better than my employer, then I have the right to go out and form my own damn business. If the players don't like it, please get together and go form your own league. I'd literally pay thousands to watch live feed of the train wreck that would result from these dumb 17s trying to run an actual business. Do I sound angry? 17 yes. We the fans spend millions (collectively) to watch a bunch of (mostly) overgrown 10 year olds play games that every one of us would be happy as a pig in **** to play. And then they whine about it.
**as a side note, I do actually believe that there should be better health benefits for some of these guys. These guys do get beat up. But at the same time, If you pay me $16 million per year, I'm pretty sure I'd have enough left over when I'm 50 to pay the medical bills.
In other news, when lazy mother 17ers lose their sense of entitlement that no matter how much they 17 up, I'll pay my tax dollars to bail them out, then I'll side with the 17ing welfare masses.
In other other news, when I am asked as a 17ing employee how to best spend my employer's money (even when I'm one of the ones bringing in the damn money to begin with), then I might be more inclined to side with the players.
In other other other news, when the 17ing federal government comes and asks me how best to run its operations since I'm one of the ones paying them, then I might be inclined to side with the players.
Why the 17 are athletes entitled to demand **** be run how they want it run? If I feel I can run a business better than my employer, then I have the right to go out and form my own damn business. If the players don't like it, please get together and go form your own league. I'd literally pay thousands to watch live feed of the train wreck that would result from these dumb 17s trying to run an actual business. Do I sound angry? 17 yes. We the fans spend millions (collectively) to watch a bunch of (mostly) overgrown 10 year olds play games that every one of us would be happy as a pig in **** to play. And then they whine about it.
**as a side note, I do actually believe that there should be better health benefits for some of these guys. These guys do get beat up. But at the same time, If you pay me $16 million per year, I'm pretty sure I'd have enough left over when I'm 50 to pay the medical bills.
Thank you. I am freaking amazed at the number of people that would side with the NFL players (I could give two ***** about the NBA, and the NFL will be the same way in 10 years). Without the owners 65% of the players would be rotating your tires if they were lucky and another 30% would be in jail. Maybe the other 5% would be useful in society, maybe. Watching the players try to form a league would be disastrous and hilarious. I wish they would try it.NewTweederEndzoneDance said:
how many 17ing businesses would survive if they shared half of their profits with the employees? It'd be safe to say very few, until the government stepped in and subsidized them back into the game. These players already make a ****-ton of money and should be grateful that they don't have to go to some ****** job they hate and make $40-60k a year. They would all go nuts if they were all forced into salaries like that. No more diamond earrings, car lot garages, etc... At least the owners have to invest in stadiums, facilities and other business type endeavors to maintain winning franchises. What do the players invest their money in to maintain a franchise? ****, the players hop to the next highest bidder and are as loyal as the next offer. At least these owners (most of them) are committed to the cities they are in and invest their profits to enable them to remain in business, in turn providing opportunities for these ungrateful players to play and make tons of money to play a child's game.
I'd take $30k a year to wake up every day and go play a game, instead of deal with the ******** I do on a daily basis.
I'd take $30k a year to wake up every day and go play a game, instead of deal with the ******** I do on a daily basis.
RougeDawg said:
I'm nsin saying I side with the players here, but damn your argument is ignant.
The number of businesses that could survive giving half the profits to the employees is irrelevant here. What does that matter? The situation is so far beyond what any typical business does or operates, that to compare it when convenient is simply pointless at best and dishonest at worst.
The players are the entire reason why people give a **** about the teams the owners own. Well, not really the players as much as their specific abilities which are coveted and envied by most all of the sports loving developed world. They can do things that 98% of the population can't even attempt, much less pull off. And we covet and value that.
Without the top talent the NBA becomes the Adriatic League. Cool...pay em less and lesser talent will show up. Fans will also care less and spend less.
The elite will go elsewhere because some league will capitalize on the NBA's mistake and will pay them more than what they could get stateside.
The demand for such talent exists, and someone will pay for it if the NBA won't.
With that said, I think many of the top 20% of players in terms of salary are overpaid. WTF is with Odense getting an 8.8 mil quality offer? He hasn't proven **** yet, other than that is he injury prone. Those sort of moves blow my mind.
Lower the years a contract is good for, lower the salary ceiling per player, do something because it's obviously needed.
And the players need to work at a compromise.
You would take 30k, and that would probably be overpaying for you. Who wants to pay to see no talent *** clowns play basketball? Nobody. If there are 5 people watching the Sunday rec league games I play in, that's a lot...and they should be paid to watch.
It's like people don't even consider the unique balance between ownership and talent.