I am telling you guys the owners are not going to back down, if the players dont back down, we defintely go to a lockout. The sooner the player give up the cash the owners want the sooner we get back to football. I know at the end of the day the players are going to have to save face when they back down, but at the end of the day there will be little difference from what the league is offering now and what the players will wind up signing. A majority of the players live paycheck to paycheck, and arent paid like superstars. What are they holding out for the SUperstars to get ridiculous over inflated salaries that are ten to twenty times what most guys are making. 90 percent of the guys the $ in contention dont really affect. This is a battle that affects the agents, the superstars and the owners. Yet the bulk of the players will pay the price and not benefit. Lets get real about it.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A
> majority of the players live paycheck to paycheck,
> and arent paid like superstars.

You're kidding. The minimum salary in the NFL is $285,000. I WISH I made that much money!! Paycheck to paycheck? What the hell are these guys doing?

I dont know, with my understanding of that ruling its that if theres no football, the owners dont get paid. That would tell me that the owners are now behind the 8 ball and are going to want to get a deal worked out.

Just because there loaded doesnt mean they wont miss that TV salary money, there greedy and they want paid.

"It's been fun to get the reaction of visiting coaches to the color of their locker room. Most don't notice it, but those that do are in trouble. . . . When I talk to an opposing coach before a game and he mentions the pink walls, I know I've got him. I can't recall a coach who has stirred up a fuss about the color and then beat us.” Hayden Fry

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> They'd be very happy to maintain things the way
> they are. They are being LOCKED out because the
> owners want even more than they are getting.
> .... Once that happens, the players will get whatever they want.



So by this logic, you think at the end of the day the owners will sign the same deal they currently have. I promise you as much as you want to believe that to be the outcome of this. You have to admit it is a bit dillusional wishing. No? You cant honestly believe the owners are just going to maintain status quo.

Crowder, they wouldn't be collecting checks till Sept even without a lockout, so I highly doubt this report is true. Come Oct they may need money but if they're borrowing now they have bigger problems then this lockout.

Dolphaholic- Sure they collect money before that, most guys have different offseason roster bonus and different workout bonuses, weight bonuses etc. That they expect to help get them through the offseason. They rely on those checks, not many guys skip out on workout bonuses



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2011 05:34PM by Crowder52.

Phinsfan-
I think the owners are more longsighted then the players. They will lose 50 million or more this year to make sure they make an extra 50 million a year for the next ten or twenty years.

The average NFL players career is 3.5 seasons. If they give up a year, the average players are giving up more then 25% of their career salary. Olders player might be forced out early. And younger guys might have only gotten one season of paychecks. The owners on the other hand have a much longer shelf life then the players. They will stick it out and look at the long term big picture. The players by the nature of the job, will want to get back to work and stop wasting away what little playing time they have in their careers. Owners still have the upper hand. Billionaires have access to money, they will out wait the players IMO. This is nothing but a losing situation for the players the longer it goes on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2011 03:42AM by Crowder52.

Mia1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just give the owners what they want.
>
> No min wage, would make players work harder to
> play, therefore increasing talent abroad.
>
> Give the rookies a rookie wage scale, again make
> them play hard to get any money on any team, or
> they fall out.
>
> Expand rosters to 63.
>
> Give the players and the dirty union 45 percent of
> the money.
>
> Thats what I would do.
>
> I would also cut back on the fine's. Add another
> team each conferance to the playoffs, to not only
> allow for expansion of more teams, but better the
> chance of our team making post season.
>
> Just some irrashional banther from me?

I must be irrational too. I actually agree with you!

I put a h, lol...Irrational, wow man I'm not awake yet.

I agree Dolphaholic-

The DOlphins business needs a more favorable CBA as much as any team in the League. That is why they will wait it out. Ross's immediate loss this year would not even be a fracion of a much greater loss in value, and as you pointed litte operating income and debt ratio. That is what this whole things is about. The debt service associated with buying, selling and owning one of these teams. They are out of wack, which means no team can be bought or sold until this is workouted out. If it is worked out unfavorable fo the owners people like our MR Ross would take a huge hit in value of several hundred million dollars plus plus with no way or sign of ever recuperating those cost. That is why I promise the owners will not back down. The player are only hurting themselves. If they hired someone to explain the reality of this huge business problem of the owners that is not going to go , they would realize they are in a losing battle. That does nothing for 95 percent of them. They are being cowtailed around by the Agents in my opinion. And the agents should have zero impact on these negotiations yet they are probably the key party in fighting the Owners. It should be called the NFL agents union not players union..lol

Well, the intent of me linking that article was to show that some owners can't afford a lockout anymore then some players. I still contend that Judge Dotys ruling last night lit a fire under the owners arses, Sports Illustrated is reporting that 9 owners showed up to todays negotiations (1 showed up yesterday and before that zero had shown). And again I don't really care which side wins or loses as long as it's over soon and it's best for the long term viability of the NFL. I mean we're still talking about how to split up 9 Billion dollars, could there really be a loser in that?

I understand but what the link really proves is; do the owners want to lose 50 million by having a year long lockout, or lose 3-400 million by not fixing the problem. I dont like the owners either, but the Dolphins will pay one of the heaviest prices by not fixing the CBA. That is why I am pulling for the owners. If the players keep the status quo, Ross is in a crippled assett. and that is very bad for all of us that love the Dolphins. Ross will never recoup the losses and it will eventually affect how he handles the team.

Say you bought an investment assett, and you paid a million dollars for it based on its annual return and long term value.
Now what would happen if that asset no longer had a return and the long term value was crushed. People tell you that if you wanted to sell the assett, you could probably get 60 percent of what you paid and have to come up with the other 40 percent out of pocket to cover the loss , just to get out of the assett. And the prices you are charging for rent are double what the market value really is for the asset. So no room for growth to fix the problems there. THen you are told that your assetts as a comodity have never been so profitable, yet you arent profitable.. ie; the gross income has never been so high, yet teams have never beens so out of wack financially.

Crowder52 Wrote:


> Now what would happen if that asset no longer had
> a return and the long term value was crushed.
> People tell you that if you wanted to sell the
> assett, you could probably get 60 percent of what
> you paid and have to come up with the other 40
> percent out of pocket to cover the loss , just to
> get out of the assett.

Didn't you just describe being the recent purchaser of a home?

Anytime you buy a property or business, you should make your money going IN not speculate on making money going OUT.

If Ross didn't do that then he made a bad decision.

People make bad decisions buying homes all the time because emotions get in the way of good business. It's a shame but it's true.

Dolphaholic- I described buying any commercial assett or stock for that matter, and investment. A house would not make to much sense because it wouldnt have an annual return.
Buying a business with an annuity and a return and or cap value.

Leon In Denver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anytime you buy a property or business, you should
> make your money going IN not speculate on making
> money going OUT.
>
> If Ross didn't do that then he made a bad
> decision.
>
> People make bad decisions buying homes all the
> time because emotions get in the way of good
> business. It's a shame but it's true.


Not all people who buy a home do it for the money.

Some people like the land, or the house, or somthing that they like about it. Not everything is a investment Leon.

Your prob one of these guys that makes a good bit of money, so I don't expect you to get it, you might, just saying not everyone does it for the money.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dolphaholic- I described buying any commercial
> assett or stock for that matter, and investment.
> A house would not make to much sense because it
> wouldnt have an annual return.
> Buying a business with an annuity and a return and
> or cap value.


I was kinda just being sarcastic, especially since my house is worth less now then the day I bought it.

A couple of interesting tweets today

BenVolinPBP RT @dkaplansbj: NFL and NFLPA talking about extending CBA deadline right now, lockout and decertification could be on hold

mortreport Owners made a significant proposal today. Union awaits answers on fundamental core issues to determine whether to extend deadline.

ArmandoSalguero (Big) IF CBA deadline is extended, vets cut by teams -- Shockey, Sanders, others -- likely can continue negotiating deals w/ new teams. #NFL


adbrandt 2 yrs of NFL labor pains led to today. Time to show more cards, owners may have done so.


SI_JimTrotter SOURCE TO SI: If union decertifies & is locked out, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady & Drew Brees will be lead plantiffs in antitrust lawsuit v NFL

SI_PeterKing Seems like when he's said several times, "Everything is negotiable,'' he wasn't just talking to the NFLPA. He's talking to his owners ...

Sn00ki I'm in LA bitch =) ?

I hope both sides stopped posturing and threw out each of the sides true bottom lines. How do we solve the owners concerns reasonably, I know the players accountants have to see the problem the owners are having, and why that is a risk to the NFL. When the practice squad guys are making more money then Mr Ross, Miami has a problem... I mean the concession girl selling peanuts made more on the Dolphins then MR Ross last year...lol. Sorry I find that a bit funny in an odd way. But I defintely dont feel sorry for him. Dont feel sorry for Jerry Jones either, the imbalance in the leauge profits team by team are astonishing to me... the only thing all of these teams have in common is debt and the cost of that debt and its impact on profits........And that essentially is what the owners are trying to fix on the players dime, no team needs it more then MR Ross's Dolphins organization.