The Media has Officially Picked a Side

[DaveThePanther2008]

Those that side with the players should realize, the owners gave in for the sake of the game in 2006. In two years they realized it was a bad idea and opted out and the players knew it was a bad deal for the owners. Now instead of being more reasonable the players don't want to give anything back that they should have never gotten in the 1st place.

I still don't get why the owners allowed the players to dictate what percentage of the teams income they would get. NO other company does it. As long as the league sets a reasonable salary cap then who really gives a rats a$$ how much money the owners make.

[Delhommey]

Seriously??

Srarving the players? Highly unfavorable terms? The lowest player in the league will still make 300000 a year for 6-8 months work. No matter how it works out, they are not going to starve or be bad off. They will still share 50% of available revenue. The hyperbole is ridiculous.

A) the owners are threatening to cut off 100% of the player's income. That is starving someone out.

B) the players offered to take 50% and the owners walked out so either you are spouting a complete lie in order to bolster your argument or you are not familiar enough with the situation to have a position.

[DaveThePanther2008]

A) the owners are threatening to cut off 100% of the player's income. That is starving someone out.

B) the players offered to take 50% and the owners walked out so either you are spouting a complete lie in order to bolster your argument or you are not familiar enough with the situation to have a position.

Good for the owners. Players don't want to deal they need to be shown you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Please post for me the link where the Players offered to take a 50% share of the revenue. I have been following this as close as I can and I have yet to see where this was offered and if it was offered it was probably with some ridiculos other clause which was the rejection clause not the percentage.

BTW if the NFL sets a minimum salary and a team salary cap. What difference does it make what percentage of the revenue is given to the players.

[Delhommey]

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=NFL%2C+players%2C+50%25+revenue

I'm watching this event LIKE A HAWK!1!!!

[DaveThePanther2008]

Thanks for the link, being overseas I don't get everything which is why I said "as close as I can"

However, the 50% was the title but the meat of the argument was the Rookie Salary Cap and DeMaurice "I WANT MY NAME IN THE HISTORY BOOKS" Smith making an argument that the NFL is trying to impose a Veteran Salary cap. WTFever. Most players don't develop into "Superstars" Until year 3.

MOST... READ and COMPREHEND MOST!!!! (for all those that want to say "Not True Look at Bradford and Ryan")

D. Smith knows that a salary cap will put a hard hit on the Agents and god knows they can't go broke.

Wow 1/4 million MINIMUM salary. Damn that is just poor man wages. That player that Plays about 10-15 plays a game is making 1/4 million dollars. Next thing you know we will be using sweatshops in Pakistan for special teams players.

Thanks for the link but I still think you are taking only a piece of info and making an argument.

the ESPN link is good one too.

Answer me this all you fans that are on the players side. If there is a league Minimum of $285,000 per season MINIMUM and Team Salary Cap. What is there to argue. The Rookie Scale. The league average might be three years because many MANY rookies only last a year or so. If you are good enough to get to the 4th or 5th year then you have a right to cash in. IMO the NFLPA only want the players to remain rich. The hell with the people that made it possible in the first place.

IN-Fvckin-credible

[carolinarolls]

agreed

self interest

no surprise

..this is getting good

[MadHatter]

Those that side with the players should realize, the owners gave in for the sake of the game in 2006. In two years they realized it was a bad idea and opted out and the players knew it was a bad deal for the owners. Now instead of being more reasonable the players don't want to give anything back that they should have never gotten in the 1st place.

I still don't get why the owners allowed the players to dictate what percentage of the teams income they would get. NO other company does it. As long as the league sets a reasonable salary cap then who really gives a rats a$$ how much money the owners make.

Exactly.

The wages of ANY other company (including consulting firms and IT firms where, like the NFL, the employees are the product) are not tied to the revenues of the company.

The players want to be treated like owners (with all of the financial rewards) when they have zero of the investment and risk of owners.

[carolinarolls]

Thanks for the link, being overseas I don't get everything which is why I said "as close as I can"

However, the 50% was the title but the meat of the argument was the Rookie Salary Cap and DeMaurice "I WANT MY NAME IN THE HISTORY BOOKS" Smith making an argument that the NFL is trying to impose a Veteran Salary cap. WTFever. Most players don't develop into "Superstars" Until year 3.

MOST... READ and COMPREHEND MOST!!!! (for all those that want to say "Not True Look at Bradford and Ryan")

D. Smith knows that a salary cap will put a hard hit on the Agents and god knows they can't go broke.

Wow 1/4 million MINIMUM salary. Damn that is just poor man wages. That player that Plays about 10-15 plays a game is making 1/4 million dollars. Next thing you know we will be using sweatshops in Pakistan for special teams players.

Thanks for the link but I still think you are taking only a piece of info and making an argument.

the ESPN link is good one too.

Answer me this all you fans that are on the players side. If there is a league Minimum of $285,000 per season MINIMUM and Team Salary Cap. What is there to argue. The Rookie Scale. The league average might be three years because many MANY rookies only last a year or so. If you are good enough to get to the 4th or 5th year then you have a right to cash in. IMO the NFLPA only want the players to remain rich. The hell with the people that made it possible in the first place.

IN-Fvckin-credible

THIS!

Anyone who sees it differently may have serious issues with work ethic IMO

[mountainpantherfan]

The deal the players offered was BS and they knew that going in. Their offer was exactly the same deal they had under the old CBA, just with different %'s. And they did this just to be assholes or they actually thought they could pull one over on the owners.

That's the reason the owners walked out of the room.

Basicly the owners are really only fighting for two big issues.

1) That their personnel costs be at or under 55% of total revenue. Currently player salaries are at 50% but this does not include other personnel cost associated with the players or the other salaries and personnel costs related to operating an NFL team. For comparison the players are estimated by Forbes to have a total player personnel cost that is 60% of the teams total estimated revenue and again that doesn't include other personnel cost for front office, grounds, coaches and stadium staff.

2) They want a new cap system in place that better rewards proven players and controls the spending of rookies, especially first round picks. Basicly they want two cap systems in place, one that governs the spending of each team for players eligable for free agency and one that is for players not eligable for free agency.

The owners knew going in that in order to get the players to accept a deal where the % of revenue was going to go down they had to offer a way that would ensure that the player's total cash flow would stay the same or go up. They did this by proposing the 18 game regular season. Essentially, the 18 game regular season would allow the owners to operate at 55% personnel costs and at the same time allow the total amount of cash paid to players to go up.

The players response has been that they don't believe that non-salary and non-player personnel cost should be considered in the discussions. They also want additional pay for additional regular season games.

So that is now where the bypass is and why negociations aren't going anywhere. The owners and players don't agree one very big issues that is at the heart of the matter; what is included in personnel costs? Once they get past that they will then have to work out the pay structure for adding additional games.

Once those two issues are figured out, agreeing on a new CBA will be easy. But figuring out those two issues aren't easy and will probably end up being decided by outside parties but that will take time to get to that point.

[DaveThePanther2008]

The deal the players offered was BS and they knew that going in......QUOTE]

I have heard this more than once. The statement the other day that the players were at the table but not bargaining in good faith. Lock em out. I truly think the game will be better when the player play and owners own.

Get the big market teams to stop being such pricks and realize that the Carolinas, KCs, Tennessees are the teams that make the NFL as great as it is. Sure Dallas and NY and Washington are big money but if they think they can make between without the small market teams they are crazy.

I hate D. Smith... I did from the day the made him head of the NFLPA. I felt back then he wanted a lockout to happen. Then when they right the history books his name will be stamped forever in the LOCKOUT 2011 chapter. His sorry ass face will be all over it and his great grandkids can admire the prick.

Good Post Mountain Panther Fan

[Montsta]

I personally thought you negotiate with someone to come to some common ground when you both have some leverage in the situation? It may seem callous, but I don't negotiate with people when I hold all the chips. My daughter doesn't get a say in what's for dinner, my wife and I do. When going to buy a car when I didn't have one, I negotiated with the dealership on price, options, etc. Why? Because I needed the car. But when I went to buy a car because I felt like buying a new one, I didn't negotiate. I said I want x, y, z at this price period. They tried to haggle and I made it clear I wouldn't. Why? I didn't need to. When the DA has a video of you committing a crime along with 5 eyewitnesses, they don't negotiate a plea deal with your attorney for less time, because they don't have to. And when my company implemented a mandatory 10% across the board cut in pay back in '07, they didn't negotiate because they didn't need to. Again, you negotiate to come to mutually beneficial terms when both parties have some leverage. The players have none, so anything the owners sacrifice to them should be seen as a bonus IMO.

[carolinarolls]

I personally thought you negotiate with someone to come to some common ground when you both have some leverage in the situation? It may seem callous, but I don't negotiate with people when I hold all the chips. My daughter doesn't get a say in what's for dinner, my wife and I do. When going to buy a car when I didn't have one, I negotiated with the dealership on price, options, etc. Why? Because I needed the car. But when I went to buy a car because I felt like buying a new one, I didn't negotiate. I said I want x, y, z at this price period. They tried to haggle and I made it clear I wouldn't. Why? I didn't need to. When the DA has a video of you committing a crime along with 5 eyewitnesses, they don't negotiate a plea deal with your attorney for less time, because they don't have to. And when my company implemented a mandatory 10% across the board cut in pay back in '07, they didn't negotiate because they didn't need to. Again, you negotiate to come to mutually beneficial terms when both parties have some leverage. The players have none, so anything the owners sacrifice to them should be seen as a bonus IMO.

rep...how is this not clear to some people?

[Jangler]

I personally thought you negotiate with someone to come to some common ground when you both have some leverage in the situation? It may seem callous, but I don't negotiate with people when I hold all the chips. My daughter doesn't get a say in what's for dinner, my wife and I do. When going to buy a car when I didn't have one, I negotiated with the dealership on price, options, etc. Why? Because I needed the car. But when I went to buy a car because I felt like buying a new one, I didn't negotiate. I said I want x, y, z at this price period. They tried to haggle and I made it clear I wouldn't. Why? I didn't need to. When the DA has a video of you committing a crime along with 5 eyewitnesses, they don't negotiate a plea deal with your attorney for less time, because they don't have to. And when my company implemented a mandatory 10% across the board cut in pay back in '07, they didn't negotiate because they didn't need to. Again, you negotiate to come to mutually beneficial terms when both parties have some leverage. The players have none, so anything the owners sacrifice to them should be seen as a bonus IMO.

[Delhommey]

I have heard this more than once. The statement the other day that the players were at the table but not bargaining in good faith. Lock em out. I truly think the game will be better when the player play and owners own.

Get the big market teams to stop being such pricks and realize that the Carolinas, KCs, Tennessees are the teams that make the NFL as great as it is. Sure Dallas and NY and Washington are big money but if they think they can make between without the small market teams they are crazy.

I hate D. Smith... I did from the day the made him head of the NFLPA. I felt back then he wanted a lockout to happen. Then when they right the history books his name will be stamped forever in the LOCKOUT 2011 chapter. His sorry ass face will be all over it and his great grandkids can admire the prick.

Good Post Mountain Panther Fan

Wait, so you didn't know about the deal till I pointed it out and now you've "heard that more than once?"