I don't like unions but to some extent they used to serve a service to those working for rights on the job however now some go to far. Like the NFL labor union. What they need to understand in this day and time everyone is expendible except the owners and manangement. Do you think Sparano is with the players or the owners who signs his checks. The players need to get their asses back to the negotiating table and work out a suitable deal before Tom Brandstater is our starting QB next year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 12:02PM by Finshady.

I'm done arguing unionism over non-unionism, but would everyone please STOP acting like this is a union issue! This is a bunch of rich assholes on both sides that are arguing over how to split 9 BILLION $$$$$. These players are no more union then George Bush. There's alot of real sh.t going on in this country with anti-unionism and these AAAAA holes decertifying aren't helping matters.

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Cheyren: There are two ways you can make money
> when you sell a product. You can either increase
> prices or reduce costs (obviously when you choose
> one, you keep the other the same).
>
> I think this is the basis of the problem for us
> the fan:
>
> I propose that we actually reduce both! Yes
> radical and unlikely, but one way to increase
> satadium attendance and get an affordable product
> for the family again would be to:
>
> 1. Cut salaries to sonething reasonable, thus
> reducing costs - We have priced the average family
> our=t of actually attending games
>
> 2. Cut the prices to the fan attendees (leave the
> TV revenue as is)
>
> 3. Hopefully these moves increase fan attendance
> and makes up for revenue, but evenif it doesn't
> the profit margins for owners is enough to keep
> the game profitable, and with lower salaries,
> profits are acceptable.
>
> What's the problem here? Player / and perhaps
> owner greed to continue a spiraling cost that
> keeps the average family proced out of it.


RESPONSE: But I am afraid you don't realize that you walked out of the front door of the house wandered around the building and then re-entered the back door thinking that you have entered a new building.

Yes, your plan would be great for the fans. And probably making it less expensive for the fan would be a great idea.

Yes, the owners would profit by getting more volume on the sales end.

However, the players would not only get nothing but would lose.

Your plan would cut their salaries but they would not be able to make it up by virtue of the increased sales.

NOW, if you amend your plan to provide that the increased revenues would first go to the players to make up any CUTS and THEN AFTER THE CUTS ARE MADE UP FOR, BE SHARED ON SOME EQUITABLE BASIS BETWEEN THE PLAYERS AND THE OWNERS I would agree.

As a matter of fact, I would have the increased revenues go first to the journey NFL players and then to the rookies and then to the high paid vets.

I think the journeyman NFL player who is not the big star and not the high priced rookie is the most sympathetic player. I agree that something should be done to stop the skyrocketing amounts paid to rookies who have yet to demonstrate that they will not all turn out to become Ryan Leafs, etc.

I'd vote Phinsfan "King for a day" with that proposal, sounds good to me.

I think it is reasonable to have a lower salary ceiling for a star player and a higher salary floor. And a majority of players would benefit, just not the agents and superstars, which is the problem with NFLPA>
I think it would be great if that was dealt with. I think if the money was more fairly distributed amongst players, the NFL would improve.
I obviously agree certain players deserve more money then others, but not to the absurdity that it has become. The problems is, the big shot players and especially agents, want the absurd contracts and want them to keep growing. This makes it bad for the fans IMO. The game has priced itself out of the family game it once had been. That needs to change to some degree.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:

> Under the old agreement, teams couldn't go over
> $120 mill but teams could keep their payroll at
> $100 mill and pocket the difference. Under my
> system, any team that isn't at the cap cuts a
> check to its players at the end of the year for
> the difference between the cap that year and what
> their payroll actually was. Whatever the amount
> of that check is, it will be distributed evenly
> amongst all the players making under $10 mill per
> year.


That's an interesting idea. But let's suppose some teams are under the cap, here are some questions:

Would a player making 1 million per year who starts every game and makes the Pro Bowl get the same end of year bonus as a player who makes a million while sitting on the bench all year?

What if the players perform very poorly and haven't really earned the extra money at the end of the year?

Will the owner of a 3-13 team have to pay out the same amount of player salary as the team who wins the SB?

Will the owner who finishes the year with a net profit of x pay out the same in salaries as the owner who nets 50x?

What about a team that decides to go with a complete rebuild; gets rid of all of its veterans and goes with a complete cast of inexperienced players? Will he pay out the same amount as the owner who has many seasoned veterans on his team?

Could an owner decide to put some of the extra money into college scouting, CFL scouting, etc if he feels that this will help his team more in the long run?

Now the union wants the top players available in the draft to boycott their attendance, and the owners are the ones not being resaonable. I said from the beginning that if the league wants to stay viable they have to remember the pecking order. Its the league then the owners. Then the players and then the fans. Not the players then the owners. That is a recipe for disaster.

The equitable distribution of surplus funds at the end of the year doesn't seem like a good system. Players should be given an incentive to perform. I understand that many people want to see the underpaid players compensated fairly. I agree with that; but in particular I am thinking of the underpaid players who actually play and play well. A guy who makes $600k and sits on the bench really has nothing to complain about.

I don't think Goodell is the problem as he has to be ring leader for the circus that the NFL is with their badly behaving spoiled athletes. The players are the ones to blame they want more of what exactly money of which nearly all who play could not earn in the private sector. Here is one example Dez Bryant buying 244,000 worth of jewelry then not paying the bill when due. Clearly Bryant being the math whiz that he is could go work in simi valley or wall street give me a freaking break. This is clearly the inmates trying to run the asylum.

Ghotirule,
The players will lose, and you can take that to the bank. The players will get no more then they were already offered. The owners already lost...lol that is a joke right. THe players have no power and they cant say the right thing to the fans if the right things slapped them in the face. The players have nothing, they would work at MCdonalds with out this job, the owners were majorly successful before they ever got involved in football. The owners will wait it out until they get their way. When the judge rules gainst the players in this next court case, the players goose will be cooked and they will begged for the offer that was already presented to them. Do you care to take a bet and put your money where your mouth is Ghoti?

The owners will win because they're a hell of alot smarter than most of the players. Just watch and see what transpires.

Lets tell them who they have to interview for a head coach. Next Lets tell them how much they need to share the profits of their buisness. What a bunch of horse shit. News flash, just becuase you can run fast doesn't mean you are entitled to anything. Get a job like the rest of us you greedy SOB's!

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> When the judge rules gainst
> > the players in this next court case, the
> players
> > goose will be cooked and they will begged for
> the
> > offer that was already presented to them.
>
> Thats the major key in all of this Crowder, it's
> not gonna be the owners winning or players
> winning, it's gonna be how the courts decide


You are right Dolphaholic, sorry sometimes this issue gets me worked up.
I just think that just about everybody agrees that the Union decertification is BS, so I would be extremely surprised if a judge were to validate it. That is just using commone sense IMO. I also agreed with the Judge Dotty ruling against the owners because that was common sense as well. I just find the hole thing odd, you have an NFLPA who's major power brokers are agents, young NCAA potential rookies who currently make nothing, and they really dont represent the NFL Alumni.
Then you have the owners and the NFL Alumini on the other side. It woud seem to me the NFLPA is grasping, and represent the smallest group of overpaid people in the whole equation.

Its BS that a union can decertify like it did.

That is the problem with the US of Assholes. Too many of them working the system every system to get around the law's or extract the s.it out of the law's.

It makes me sick to my stomach about all the BS.

You know I might stop watching the NFL, I would much rather play for, and watch the average schmoe football league, than a bunch of whiney over payed babies that compose of the new NFL.

I think that everyone perfere's the old NFL over this new poopies any day of the week, and you know what I hope there is no football this year, hell for two year's.

F.ck all these a..holes especially teh NFLPA they can royaly kiss it.