So how greedy are the NFL owners?

[lazlow]

Sounds like the players are happy with their peice of the pie as it stands now and the owners (big surprise) are the big hold-up.
1. Does this thing turn south and go into the reg. season?(I'm sure the players would love to see this thing dip into pre-season....but go no further).
2. Do you really think we get a steady diet of MTSU and N. Illinois on Sundays? Really, how realistic wouldit be to jump through the hops necessary for sunday college pigskins?

 

[lazlow]

Sounds like the players are happy with their peice of the pie as it stands now and the owners (big surprise) are the big hold-up.
1. Does this thing turn south and go into the reg. season?(I'm sure the players would love to see this thing dip into pre-season....but go no further).
2. Do you really think we get a steady diet of MTSU and N. Illinois on Sundays? Really, how realistic wouldit be to jump through the hops necessary for sunday college pigskins?

 

[lazlow]

Sounds like the players are happy with their peice of the pie as it stands now and the owners (big surprise) are the big hold-up.
1. Does this thing turn south and go into the reg. season?(I'm sure the players would love to see this thing dip into pre-season....but go no further).
2. Do you really think we get a steady diet of MTSU and N. Illinois on Sundays? Really, how realistic wouldit be to jump through the hops necessary for sunday college pigskins?

 

[lazlow]

Sounds like the players are happy with their peice of the pie as it stands now and the owners (big surprise) are the big hold-up.
1. Does this thing turn south and go into the reg. season?(I'm sure the players would love to see this thing dip into pre-season....but go no further).
2. Do you really think we get a steady diet of MTSU and N. Illinois on Sundays? Really, how realistic wouldit be to jump through the hops necessary for sunday college pigskins?

 

[beachbumdawg]

they can run their business any damn way they choose....**** the gd union

 

[cb6228]

Can you imagine how much better off this country would be financially without unions? Owners own because they have been successful in life running businesses (minus the few who inherited). Unions do nothing but raise the cost of goods/services in this country. Hell, GM might not have required a bailout if it weren't for the UAW; and the cars they produce might be able to compete with foreign manufacturers (whose cars are made here) if they didn't have such extravagant demands. Pensions for unions will/have destroyed this country's economy. (that and the liberal dream that everyone, regardless of their ability to afford, should own a home)

 

[catvet]

They are the same as employees at McDonalds saying that they should get 50-60% of the profits since they make the burgers. No one makes them play the game-no Adrian Peterson, you are not a slave. They don't pay the team fees, pay stadium employees, provide insurance, build stadiums- not everyone gets a stadium built for them, pay for security, provide transportation, etc.

The players can use their degree-hahahahahaha- if they don't like it. Are you aware that that players turned down a salary cap that would be $185,000,000 in three years?

 

[DerHntr]

</p>

 

[NashvilleBulldawg]

Too much sense and sensibility being expressed here!!!

 

[windcrysmary]

everything is set up so nice for these players today... competition for players amongst the owners has those guys well paid.... and if they don't want to play ball for millions then 17 'em... I have no problem with these guys getting what the fair market provides... but in the end, if they demand more than that, then maybe a nuclear option by the owners will settle the **** once and for all.. I guess this thread has lock potential once our resident dumasses start to chime in...

 

[mstateglfr]

They are the same as employees at McDonalds saying that they should get 50-60% of the profits since they make the burgers. No one makes them play the game-no Adrian Peterson, you are not a slave. They don't pay the team fees, pay stadium employees, provide insurance, build stadiums- not everyone gets a stadium built for them, pay for security, provide transportation, etc.

The players can use their degree-hahahahahaha- if they don't like it. Are you aware that that players turned down a salary cap that would be $185,000,000 in three years?

Mike Brown and the Bengals would like to take this opportunity to thank the city for basically paying every bit of the bill for their stadium and receiving almost nothing per ticket in return.

The union is being a *****, sure.
And unions as a whole have seem to have become more of an inhibitor than a compliment in business, sure. There once was an absolute benefit to their existence and the reason we have decent labor laws is largely due to them. Because we all know before union pressure was around, working conditions could be beyond horrific and oh let's not forget about those little kids that were sweatshopped.
But yes, they seem to now be more of a pain that a push for improved labor conditions.

With all that said, the owners are anything but free of guilt here. They rely on cities/counties to put up hundreds of millions for their team and they reap all the rewards. If they want to actually assume all the risk, then by all means I will not question their decisions. But we all know that isn't going to happen.

If owning an NFL team were a bad idea, they would be on the market everywhere. But when the Bengals DOUBLE in value during last decade while providing a **** product, I don't have much sympathy as a whole for owners.

I don't have sympathy for either side as neither seems to be reasonable and we all should be able to recognize that both sides need one another. Without the players, the level of talent will be crap, and the league would drop like a rock in popularity. And without the owners, the league wouldn't be around.

 

[tossedoff]

tell them they have 4 hours to decide on an agreement and have it signed by both parties or we release the rabid honey badgers at 4 hours and 1 second. I think they would come to an agreement then.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...I know if I played a sport where every game I played I risk the potential of full body paralysis, shortened life span due to getting the 17 knocked out of me for 3 hours straight & excruciating pain that would haunt me everyday for the last 50 years of my life, I would be depending on the warm-hearted kindness of my billionaire owner to have my best interests in mind.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/11599/11599

If any of you (or me) ever played in the NFL, after you see the inner machinations of whatever organization you sign with, you would be begging to join the player's union.

 

[shsdawg]

millionaires over money. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with greed, on both sides.

 

[gringodawg]

Go work at a bank and you dont have to worry about getting the 17 knocked out of you. I would risk getting the 17 knocked out of me for much less

 

[thatsbaseball]

aren`t there are a lot ofless dangerous occupations that they could take their free educations and make a living at ?

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

..which has nothing to do with being a part of the player's union.


Nobody is making the billionaire owners milk the players for all they are worth.


So should the billionaire owners also go work in banks?

 

[LandsurveyorDawg]

ku

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

to make a good living. Without the owners there is no league. Spare me the "without the players there is no league" argument because there is no shortage of players who would love to come play in the NFL. Sure the taxpayers help pay for the arenas, but I'm pretty sure that those dollars are spent because of the economic benefit it brings to the area. It's not like cities/taxpayers are just giving free money to billionaires, though I'm sure some see it that way.

The owner pay the players to work for them, much as my bosses pay me to work for them. If the players don't like the risks involved in their chosen profession, then perhaps they should have chosen another one. As I mentioned before, there are no shortage of other guys willing to take those risks to play.

It's silly in the NFL and even more silly in the NBA that the players think they get to call the shots. I've said this before, if you don't like it then get together and form your own league. It'll fail and I'll get to laugh and say I told you so. In the meantime the owners will still be billionaires if there is no season. I'd be willing to bet not getting paid hurts the players just as much if not more.

 

[mstateglfr]

aren`t there are a lot ofless dangerous occupations that they could take their free educations and make a living at ?

And nobody made the owners own a team.
Both sides willingly chose their profession.

If a group willingly decides to collect together to be heard as 1 voice to management, then fine. Management should be able to choose to deal with that group or not.
Both sides should have that choice and not be forced.

 

[DerHntr]

injury while on the job the you haven't looked around at the rest of the known world of employment.ask the military, the offshore drillers, the fishermen in Alaska, or any other people indangerous jobs out there what their thoughts are on your shortened life span argument.

how would you handle theDodgers currently going bankrupt? Would former and current players be required to give some money back to the owner? It would only be fair that they share the risk too.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

As a good business practice it would be wise to preempt the direction of the economy with a new CBA while the getting is still good. Teams like the Jaguars have valuations below the average while others like the Cowboys are of courseway above it. The revenue sharing of the league TV contracts are supporting several of these poorer franchises. The thing is the recession we're in may be the new economic reality for longer than we anticipate. In that case certain owners are going to continue to want additional incentive to take long term risks. And the league is going to back them each and every time. That being said we all want to watch the best players in the world on Sunday...one CFL in the world is quite enough. Both sides are greedy but the owners of certain teams are feeling the pinch more than some of the fans might realize.

 

[TBonewannabe]

If all the employees at McDonalds changes, would you notice? There are plenty of people in arena leagues that would love to play in the NFL, how much are you willing to pay for a ticket? NFL players get payed very well but also shorten their life span and put their bodies through a lot in the short time they play. I heard Johnnie Cooks had to have hip replacements but the NFL didn't pay for it.

 

[TBonewannabe]

personal expenses.

 

[TBonewannabe]

If the players were like any other job then Sam Bradford wouldn't have gotten 60 million with like 40 guaranteed. The owner would have said go work at McDonalds while I go get JP Losman to start.A lot of what owners are buying isfans interest in the players. How many jersees didMarc Bulger sell last year compared to Sam Bradford?Not one single owner was forced to sign a contract with a player.</p>

 

[eurotrash]

as though this is simply some morality play about good and evil. Not surprised that mostly southerners think unions are awful. I'm not much of a fan of them and I think public unions in particular should be illegal. But the NFL is different. The players are the product. That's who I watch and cheer for. The owners by and larger are crony capitalists who demand taxpayer money for stadiums, subsidies and special deals for projects near stadiums, control over concessions, parking ... I could go on. And the economic impact of having an NFL team is vastly overrated. New stadiums rarely pay for themselves. And the owners hold cities and states hostage. Don't pay high prices to see the team in a taxpayer-funded stadium, then we won't let you watch it on TV (it's an agreement the league made). And if fans don't regularly fill the taxpayer-funded stadium, the owner will look to move the team elsewhere, especially another city that's willing to hand over taxpayer cash. The owners are a bunch of welfare capitalists who also want rules (rookie salary cap) to keep themselves from spending too much money on marginal talent. I'm with the players and not because I favor unions. I'm a business owner myself but I'm also tired of having my taxpayer money given not just to the lazy poor but also to the greedy wealthy.

 

[EAVdog]

how does this new CAB stop the Owners from milking the taxpayers in their cities for new stadia, site improvements, etc... These negotiations seem to be fixed only ontaking money from the Owners and reallocating it to the Players.

I live in Atlanta and the last thing I want to do is have moreof mymoney taken from me so Arthur Blank can build a new stadium one block away from the Georgia Dome. But it seems to me that the if the Owners have to share profits with the Players it will just leave them even hungrier for tax dollar revenue. I feel 100% certain you won't see players coughing up any money for a new stadium. The Owners will not change their bottom line they will just pass on whatever additional costs they incure to fans and taxpayers, period.

Maybe though it's just my Southern hatred for Unions clouding my judgement.

 

[eurotrash]

You simply disagree but you don't disprove anything I've written. Are you saying that owners aren't welfare capitalists? The players aren't the product? Southerners by and large aren't anti-union? (BTW, I'm a southerner and I generally don't support unions.) Even with the agreement, the owners will reap huge profits. The NFL does well financially. They don't need any taxpayer money.

You are the one with a false argument. Taxpayers are under no obligation to hand over money simply because NFL owners demand it. Stop the taxpayer gravy train.

"Just reread your submission where you state that you're against taxpayer support of owners."

 

[GloryDawg]

catvet[/b]]They rely on cities/counties to put up hundreds of millions for their team and they reap all the rewards. If they want to actually assume all the risk, then by all means I will not question their decisions.

If it was a bad thing for the city or county they would not put up the millions. They put up the money because of the tax revenue it generates for them, from Hotels, food, and anything else the fans who come to town buys. One other thing, the owners are assuming the risk. They spent the money to buy the team. They spend the money to pay for the salaries. All expensefor the team are paid by the owners such as uniforms, equipment, travel, trainers, work out facilities and so on. It is a business, the players are the employees, if they don't like their job, they can do what we have to do, find another. I have never had any respect for Professional athletes. They are eithera bunch of rich babies or rich thugs.Adrian Peterson said, "It's modern -day slavery". Does he know just howout of tonchthat sounds? Screw the players!

 

[EAVdog]

But it doesn't make me want to side with the players. My belief was that you werestating that somehow siding with the players will have the effect of stopping the way the Owners lean on cities and their weak leaders to extort Millions of taxpayer dollars for new facilities etc..

The Players would not be able to enjoy those huge salaries if the Owners werehaving to incur the costs thatin many cases fall on the taxpayers. This happens in the NFL, MLB, and NBA quite often. Florida Marlins, Washington Nationals... just to name 2 recent stadia built with almost 100% public funds.

My opinion is that the players just want their hand even further in the goodie bag the Owners are currently enjoying. I guess that means I begrudgingly side with the Owners but still think they are giant douchebags.

 

[GloryDawg]

Looks like to me the owners made that choice.

 

[jacksonreb1]

1e

 

[lazlow]

how can you eff up this deal? It's already proven to be recession proof.....seriously, name an NFL team that's struggling financially now or ever.

Yea, baseball et al is a different deal.</p>

 

[VegasDawg13]

You pro-owner guys seem to be preaching free market as a way to take up for the owners. Free market would mean no salary cap. So, I guarantee you the players would be just fine with a free market, but the owners never would.

 

[VegasDawg13]

These negotiations seem to be fixed only ontaking money from the Owners and reallocating it to the Players.

That is unequivocally false. The players were fine with the agreement that was already in place. The owners locked them out because they were the ones who wanted more money.

 

[NashvilleBulldawg]

Even with taxbreaks for owners, the cities in which the teams occupy reap HUGE benefits from the presence of the teams. Have you thought about the property taxes? The sales taxes? The revenue brought in for each game? There's hotels, food, gas, tourism, etc. The taxpayers get their fair share or else the city wouldn't put skin in the game for bringing in a team. <div>The taxes that the millionaire players and owners bring in from living in the area benefit the city even more!</div><div>I'm in no way saying the owners are flawless. I imagine they're saavy business people who do everything they can to reduce their costs and risks. Now, if a player doesn't think he's getting paid enough, it's his own damn fault for not negotiating a higher check!</div><div>As far as the argument that they deserve a higher check for the risks they put themselves at for injury: that's such a bogus claim. How many of us would LOVE to go out there and make money playing football? EVEN if it was for the money we're making now???? I'd say 80-90% of us. If all I had to do was workout, exercise, and practice football? Come on. Yeah, they make good money playing football, but I don't feel sorry for them if they get hurt. They're making millions as it is. They should do like 30% of this country does and save for a rainy day. Just because they make millions doesn't mean they have to spend it all!</div>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

These negotiations seem to be fixed only ontaking money from the Owners and reallocating it to the Players.

wow. just wow. time for you to go read up on the current labor issues in the NFL. the owners wanna keep their books closed AND demand the players give them an extra $1 BILLION dollars of revenue off the top AND wanted the players to decrease their % take in the remaining money. <div>
</div><div>not to mention the owner's are making money on nfl franchises because they have elite athletes. if you think they'd continue to make this much money with arena league players, then you are a fool.</div><div>
</div><div>as for unions, yeah unions can be pains at times, but the actual affect unions have on a company's downfall is vastly overblown. gm and ford and chrysler needed govt help because they made ****** products, not only because they were on the hook for pensions. but it plays a lot better to public to spin it like the unions are sucking you dry and that's the only think preventing the company for being successful, not that ford and gm focused on poorly built cars and gas guzzlers for much of the last 20-25 years while foreign auto makers outpaced them in quality and efficiency vehicles. and no talk of trade deregulation increasing the ease and decreasing the cost with with foreign autos can be sold in the USA.</div><div>
</div><div>issues are complex and the anti-union crowd for the sake of being anti-union is buying into what the billionaires want you to think while they are trying to save a few grand to invest in their own personal portfolio while telling the public that without unions they'd be able to hire more workers and expand the business.</div>

 

[EAVdog]

Some like Jerry Jones put up almost completely privately sourced funds and others rely heavily on public provided sources. The Atlanta Spirit ownership group comes to mind for a terrible owner!Some ownersbuy into their league and simply seem to just milk the system. Others really are the great business people we expect them to be.
There have been a number of studies that show jurisdictions almost always lose out when they end up funding the cost for constructing a new arena and the infrastructure involved. It's not a total loss by any means but it's not lucrative as it would seem. Most funding deals also come with delayed or exempted property/sales tax provisions as well. The limited number of home NFL football games also reduces the impact tourist inflow has financially. And if the sports franchise is a particularly bad one like the Washington Nationals then you can't really count on much in the way of visitors spending money to see games.

 

[MStateFan22]

You pro-owner guys seem to be preaching free market as a way to take up for the owners. Free market would mean no salary cap. So, I guarantee you the players would be just fine with a free market, but the owners never would.

wanting to pay the players more. The salary cap has risen just about if not every year of it's existence. And the only reason the salary cap was created in the NFL was to keep the financially superior teams (90's cowboys) from getting all the top players.

 

[MStateFan22]

I wasn't real sure until Adrian Peterson compared NFL players to slaves. That's what really put me on the owners side. The players are making millions playing a game that they love. To me, the health concers that the players are talking about is just an excuse to try to get more money. Nobody forces the players to put their health on the line. The only NFL players with a decreased life expectancy are the fat lineman (which could be corrected by going towards the lighter more athletic lineman that played the game years ago). And if players health was really a concern then wouldn't more players stop playing the game for so long? Make a few million and get out instead of trying to play the game as long as they can and putting their bodies at a further risk.