The players are at fault. They didn't negotiate in good faith.

[VEfreak]

Hmmm... my 2 cents on this.

I want the Raiders to win a Superbowl. I don't care who's on the damn team when we win one. Bring in the scabs from the UFL.

First of all, the owners don't need to tell you how much they make. That is BS. Go ask your boss for a raise and compare how much he made as your bargaining chip. See if you have a job tomorrow ;).

Imagine the business you work for appears to be making record amounts. They operate as if they are printing money. And then one day they ask you to take a pay cut because operating costs are too high.

Unions ask for financial records all the time. If they didn't corporations would be able to force their workforce into pay cuts at will by lying and saying they are losing money.

[dnalkaO naF]

Most of the posters blaming the union have their own personal agenda against unions. Period. All the facts in the world proving that the owners are at fault mean nothing.

Undisputable fact: the owners opted out of the old CBA and are preventing the players from continuing to play NFL football by locking the doors and refusing to LET them play NFL football.

No amount of anti-union propaganda wil ever change the above fact.

Dude. Has the Wisconsin non-debate hangover seeped in here.
You're making a narrow minded and idealogical blanket statement by essentially saying that if you're not in favor of the players, you're automatically anti-union.
Grow up.

The "without any culpability" NFLPA is now saying they're going to boycott the draft.
Sources: NFLPA tells players to boycott draft - ESPN
I'm going to make my own "blanket statement" and say that if the NFLPA does this, then they will lose pretty much all fan support they previously experienced.

[als_shadow]

Dude.

You're making a narrow minded and idealogical blanket statement by essentially saying that if you're not in favor of the players, you're automatically anti-union.
.

I used the word "most", not "all". A blanket statement would use the word "all".

The players and the union are the same thing, or, they were while the union operated. If you attack the players, you attack the union, by definition. players=union.

I believe that you have criticized the union NFLPA in another post in another thread. I ain't goona look, so if I'm wrong, just say so and I'll apologize for confusing you with somebody else - who is anti-union and who is bashing the players now that the union is gone under the guise of being against rich people.

[HorrorSCope]

I'm not goimng to take the time to explain it here, but your issue seems to be that you don't understand the term "monopoly" and the related argument against letting a "monopolist" dictate labor wages.

First I leave the fantasy world of "Monopolies are illegal" as we were taught in H.S. history at the door. It has to be a running joke these days.

But to compare NFL Owners to owners in that past when these laws and institutions were created is a total slap in the face to them. This is when people were making 10 cents a day, work 12 hours and 7 days. It's when there were no labor laws at all. To compare NFL players to general labor for when these laws were created is incredulous.

The NFL also has allowed competing leagues to form and they have not illegally interfered with their business. They actually televise Arena League games. But at the same time pro sports has gone up against congress scrutiny and they have been given special privileges being a sport.

So the other day you said I don't understand economics. Today you say I don't understand what a monopoly is. From you I consider it a compliment since you don't know your bum from a pretty face.

[als_shadow]

First I leave the fantasy world of "Monopolies are illegal" as we were taught in H.S. history at the door. It has to be a running joke these days.

But to compare NFL Owners to owners in that past when these laws and institutions were created is a total slap in the face to them. This is when people were making 10 cents a day, work 12 hours and 7 days. It's when there were no labor laws at all. To compare NFL players to general labor for when these laws were created is incredulous.

The NFL also has allowed competing leagues to form and they have not illegally interfered with their business. They actually televise Arena League games. But at the same time pro sports has gone up against congress scrutiny and they have been given special privileges being a sport.

So the other day you said I don't understand economics. Today you say I don't understand what a monopoly is. From you I consider it a compliment since you don't know your bum from a pretty face.

Maybe my bum is pretty?

Your post is utter nonsense.

Briefly: The NFL has a "legal" monopoly. If the NFL refuses to employ a player, he has no other profession football league which competes directly against the NFL where he can become employed.

A "legal" monopoly entitles the NFL owners to monopoly profits which are considerably higher than they would be (the owners have made the argument that they couldn't make any profit at all [if I remember correctly] and that any other league would only make the whole football league situation less better off for the players and fans too).

The NFL is REQUIRED to let the players UNIONIZE to keep it's "legal" monopoly status. The sole purpose of the player's union is to put the players on a better status to bargain player salaries. You see... if the owners did not have to bargain with a union, they could spend as much money as they wanted on lawsuits against individual players seeking fair compensation under this "legal" monopoly. And still have higher profits than without their "legal" monopoly.

This makes this situation a much better example to discuss: suppose you were Peyton Manning, OK, suppose you were Bruce Gradkowski and there was no union. HC Tom Cable asks Al to sign him... Al signs him, then says Gradkowski you're a piece of garbage I'm not going to pay you a dime, after he plays some of the season. And then Al renegs on his contract and doesn't pay Gradkowski anything more than 1 week's game check. What chance would Gradkowski have, without any union, to sue Al Davis in court and win? Remember the realities of the American legal system. Al could tie his case up in court for more than 5 years. How would Gradkowski be able to pay his legal fees without having Al's money that was owned in the first place? He wouldn't. Al would ALWAYS WIN in court against his former player's lawsuits.

How much money would Al spend on player salaries then? You want to say the same amount... OK, but would any other owner spend the same amount? Probably not. The Colt's could pay Peyton Manning $50 million and everybody else put together $20 million. The current salary cap is much higher than that.

This is why there is a union and why "legal" monopoly is the issue. Your business is NOT a "legal" monopoly! Even if you work for the goverment you are not considered a "legal" monopoly, although it certainly is a monopoly in economic terms for some government workers.

[HorrorSCope]

Your post is utter nonsense.

Well sure it is living your bizzaro world.

That said, I don't disagree with all you wrote afterward, it did ramble on a bit and not totally sure what you are getting at overall. You act as if there was no union there would be some serious underpaying (perhaps minimum wage even) and next to know securities and benefits. As I mentioned, I'm not in a union but have all the things unions have because my company wants to stay competitive in the market place, not say as good overall, but competitively close. Even with no union the NFL would still be a handsomely paid job. If Grads had a contract and Al illegally canceled it, Grads would have solid chance in court, fwiw. You don't have to be in a union to have rights in this country.

The NFL structure is what it is. No one is against the players being in a union. They have to work out their differences, each side is able to play the cards they have if they choose.

Next question.

[als_shadow]

You act as if there was no union there would be some serious underpaying (perhaps minimum wage even) and next to no securities and benefits. 1 As I mentioned, I'm not in a union but have all the things unions have because my company wants to stay competitive in the market place, not say as good overall, but competitively close.

Even with no union the NFL would still be a handsomely paid job. 2

If Grads had a contract and Al illegally canceled it, Grads would have solid chance in court, fwiw. You don't have to be in a union to have rights in this country. 3

The NFL structure is what it is. No one is against the players being in a union. 4

Next question.

1- You usually start off on the right track.
2- Then, you start heading off on a tangent. Without a union and with a "legal" monopoly status, teams could pay players minimum wage. Do you consider $7.25 an hour a "handsome wage"?
3- Obviously you have never tried to sue a business for a contract dispute. Your "rights" don't mean squat in the legal system if you are trying to sue an entity which has more money and better lawyers than you do. But you can take the idealistic view which isn't reality and use it anyway. It's YOUR opinion.
4- "No one" is against the players being in a union? This is where you end up making a foolish conclusion. This isn't even a fact. It's your opinion. And, there are numerous examples of posters on this site alone who DO have serious issues with the player's being allowed to have a union.

You are a frequent poster... but you also post facts which are not facts at all. And, then use them to conclude that your opinion is correct.

[kennyrat923]

I just hope this lockout doesn't last too long and we are able to watch quality football next season and not replacement players.

I just read this information below. Is this true?

Currently, the NFL grosses approximately $9 billion annually. Of that, $1 billion is given to the owners off the top for expenses. After that, the remaining $8 billion is split with 60 percent ($4.8 billion) going to the players and 40 percent (another $3.2 billion for a total of $4.2 billion) going to owners


If this deal was already in place, why would the owners change it and if the owners are to blame for the changes that have caused this dispute, why are some of you saying this lockout is the players fault?

[HorrorSCope]

1- You usually start off on the right track.
2- Then, you start heading off on a tangent. Without a union and with a "legal" monopoly status, teams could pay players minimum wage. Do you consider $7.25 an hour a "handsome wage"?
3- Obviously you have never tried to sue a business for a contract dispute. Your "rights" don't mean squat in the legal system if you are trying to sue an entity which has more money and better lawyers than you do. But you can take the idealistic view which isn't reality and use it anyway. It's YOUR opinion.
4- "No one" is against the players being in a union? This is where you end up making a foolish conclusion. This isn't even a fact. It's your opinion. And, there are numerous examples of posters on this site alone who DO have serious issues with the player's being allowed to have a union.

You are a frequent poster... but you also post facts which are not facts at all. And, then use them to conclude that your opinion is correct.

1. And most likely finish out ok.

2. There is zero threat that if the union disolved that the NFL owners would be thinking minimum wage for the players or anything even remotely in that realm. You had fears that are not grounded in reality.

3. Business's do lose in court, they win some to, having money does help, but having an overwhelming case in your favor is even better, yes still. I have no idea where you think the common folk always loses. We have plenty of examples of common folk being over-compensated for frivolous things.

4. When I mention "No One", I meant no one that plays a factor in this setlement. There is no talk about breaking them, all the talk to me just assumes there will be a union, why? Because there will be an union when it's all done.

As to random fans on the site pro or anti-union, I'll say this, the overwhelming majority of fans just assume there is a players union on the other side of this to and they accept that as ok.

[gil03]

IMHO for the last few years have thought the NFL employees (players) make an obscene amount of money when compared to the average american with similar risks like say the military members for example. Now having been in the service and a veteran i would not have ever dreamed of going up to a general and telling him you know what..you make too much money and i want you to share it with me on top of my pay and i want you to show me why you make that much money and i don't care how many people or things your in charge of because you see i've been doing this for 3 years compared to your 20+ years and i know just as much as you! LMAO. It doesn't work that way.

I know it's not just about money to the players but to say that the owners are greedy when you see a Fat waste of space like Russell get roughly 30 mil for doing nothing really?? mansions, cars, vacations are the norm for these players and it's still not enough? Health concern?? how about not buying that $10 mill house and go with a $5mill house and save the other 5 for potential health problems..

maybe it's just me but i don't feel too sympathetic to players when i see them on MTV's cribs showcasing one of the many bentley's in the garage..nor do i get the feeling that the owners are being greedy with their employees.

I'm sure their is a lot to running an NFL franchise, a helluva lot more than a player has to worry about (Catching a damn ball DHB) so of course i would expect a good majority would go to the Owners/Investors. And if all that's left over for the employees is enough for Mansions, Bentley's, Exotic vacations and a secure financial future for your family then i only have one question...Where the hell do we sign up?? JMHO..

[VEfreak]

IMHO for the last few years have thought the NFL employees (players) make an obscene amount of money when compared to the average american with similar risks like say the military members for example. Now having been in the service and a veteran i would not have ever dreamed of going up to a general and telling him you know what..you make too much money and i want you to share it with me on top of my pay and i want you to show me why you make that much money and i don't care how many people or things your in charge of because you see i've been doing this for 3 years compared to your 20+ years and i know just as much as you! LMAO. It doesn't work that way.

I know it's not just about money to the players but to say that the owners are greedy when you see a Fat waste of space like Russell get roughly 30 mil for doing nothing really?? mansions, cars, vacations are the norm for these players and it's still not enough? Health concern?? how about not buying that $10 mill house and go with a $5mill house and save the other 5 for potential health problems..

maybe it's just me but i don't feel too sympathetic to players when i see them on MTV's cribs showcasing one of the many bentley's in the garage..nor do i get the feeling that the owners are being greedy with their employees.

I'm sure their is a lot to running an NFL franchise, a helluva lot more than a player has to worry about (Catching a damn ball DHB) so of course i would expect a good majority would go to the Owners/Investors. And if all that's left over for the employees is enough for Mansions, Bentley's, Exotic vacations and a secure financial future for your family then i only have one question...Where the hell do we sign up?? JMHO..

They don't get paid huge amounts for the risk they take, they get paid huge amounts because their talents are in high demand. Supply/demand. The market sets the price. Probably less than 1% of the population has the talent to play NFL football, so there is no where for you and me to sign up. Because they possess such rare talent the players will continue to make enormous wages and frankly I think it is fair. I'm absolutely fine with it because I embrace capitalism and the free market. In my opinion anyone who embraces capitalism should not think it is unfair at all.

[Marlo Black]

They don't get paid huge amounts for the risk they take, they get paid huge amounts because their talents are in high demand. Supply/demand. The market sets the price. Probably less than 1% of the population has the talent to play NFL football, so there is no where for you and me to sign up. Because they possess such rare talent the players will continue to make enormous wages and frankly I think it is fair. I'm absolutely fine with it because I embrace capitalism and the free market. In my opinion anyone who embraces capitalism should not think it is unfair at all.

I agree. As I said NFL football players are rare and have a rare talent compared to a laborer or a 9-5 person. The common working person does not compare to a pro athlete.

[signal]

They don't get paid huge amounts for the risk they take, they get paid huge amounts because their talents are in high demand. Supply/demand. The market sets the price. Probably less than 1% of the population has the talent to play NFL football, so there is no where for you and me to sign up. Because they possess such rare talent the players will continue to make enormous wages and frankly I think it is fair. I'm absolutely fine with it because I embrace capitalism and the free market. In my opinion anyone who embraces capitalism should not think it is unfair at all.

Got to love it. I think people would embrace almost any sticky stupid idea just to make sure that capitalism does not get a black eye. Talent?!? How about saving lives, (fireman, policeman, doctors, nurses...) Of course, brain surgeons grow on trees.

But of course you are right, catching a leather oblong object, well that is talent that must be rewarded. Wait! Do not think about it! Simply answer YES, of course: the market states that is the case so that is the way it should be.

The NFL is treading dangerous waters right now. More people are waking up to the reality that just because something happens to be the case it does not mean it ought to be the case. Hence, your precious little market (which is not exactly free...not at all) does not make things right or wrong.

[als_shadow]

If this deal was already in place, why would the owners change it and if the owners are to blame for the changes that have caused this dispute, why are some of you saying this lockout is the players fault?

Yes, this is the real issue, not wether or not the union was negotiating in good faith. Why should the players have to give money back? The owners should open up their books... OR ELSE! agree to the players demand of the old CBA money. Fair is fair and was fair before too.

[DarkLordAlDavis]

I just hope this lockout doesn't last too long and we are able to watch quality football next season and not replacement players.

I just read this information below. Is this true?

Currently, the NFL grosses approximately $9 billion annually. Of that, $1 billion is given to the owners off the top for expenses. After that, the remaining $8 billion is split with 60 percent ($4.8 billion) going to the players and 40 percent (another $3.2 billion for a total of $4.2 billion) going to owners

If this deal was already in place, why would the owners change it and if the owners are to blame for the changes that have caused this dispute, why are some of you saying this lockout is the players fault?

Yes its true. To quote Kurt Angle its damn true.....

The owners originally wanted another billion a year off the top.....

I think some are jealous of the players and what they make......

They don't get paid huge amounts for the risk they take, they get paid huge amounts because their talents are in high demand. Supply/demand. The market sets the price. Probably less than 1% of the population has the talent to play NFL football, so there is no where for you and me to sign up. Because they possess such rare talent the players will continue to make enormous wages and frankly I think it is fair. I'm absolutely fine with it because I embrace capitalism and the free market. In my opinion anyone who embraces capitalism should not think it is unfair at all.

^^^This^^^

Its no different then a great surgeon or anyone else with a special talent.....

If R. Mayweather would ever agree to fight Manny Pacquiao they could make 50 million. They have a special talent.....

I dont have time for that AssClown Charlie Sheen. Never watched any of his shows. But he makes (or did) make 2 million an episode. He wanted 3 million. He has a talent some enjoy watching so thats why he can make what he does.....