CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Right here, your argument is overly simplistic and childish. Both sides need the other for this to work out. It doesn't actually have to be an adversarial process. In the end, neither will profit without the other one.
NFL: Why i hate the Players Union...(LONG)
- Thread starter KMAC_ATTACK
- Start date
Right here, your argument is overly simplistic and childish. Both sides need the other for this to work out. It doesn't actually have to be an adversarial process. In the end, neither will profit without the other one.
Okay i hear all this stuff - so tell me this one for all you players are getting the shaft and the owners are making all the money.....duh......
1. Tell me one company in the WORLD that the employees make more money then management? The whole basis is the owners take the financial risk of failure and as such if their successful, they should reap the benefits.
2. I fully support some form of regulation of player dismissal because of injury should automatically be on the NFL retired list and therefore open for compensation.
3. Past players benefits should be enhanced. I can fully see how they would send them out to pasture and not care about them anymore....someone has too.....
4. Demaurice Smith - So explain something to me, in yesterdays article on espn, he's talking about their plan to have rookies boycott the draft show and potentially go on another network to have a NFL draft party of sorts just not endorsed or funded by the NFL instead by the Union. two thoughts: If the union disbanded, what voice do they & Smith have? The whole purpose of decertifying is so that they will no longer be a group that could not sue the owners, by decertifying it allows them to file individual lawsuits against the owner which has already begun.
5. Told you if the NFL union boycotted the draft it would not sit well with fans....this was posted on espn after my post earlier...
Multiple league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Monday that the NFLPA is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending the draft. According to the sources, the 17 top prospects who ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft have been contacted and it was recommended that they not attend.
ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter shares the details on the NFLPA urging draft prospects to stay home from the NFL draft.
The NFLPA's plan has not been well-received by ESPN.com poll voters. A SportsNation poll with more than 75,000 votes reveals that 72 percent think the plan is a bad public relations move.
I agree with all you that this is a huge pool of money, and the players deserve some it, but why do they demand to see financials....that would be unprecedented....what other company would divulge such information only to have it used against them for more of what the players want - in Demaurice Smiths mind, he wants 50/50 profit sharing which is intellectually challenged!!!!!
I hope this mess is over by fall, i dont think i could stand a lost season....it sucks to even think about it....hammer out the deal, players reduce your greed, owners reduce your greed and for once in sports, do it for the good of the sport & the fans, the very ones that make your wallets as thick as they are....its not only about them, its about the fans.....
1. Tell me one company in the WORLD that the employees make more money then management? The whole basis is the owners take the financial risk of failure and as such if their successful, they should reap the benefits.
2. I fully support some form of regulation of player dismissal because of injury should automatically be on the NFL retired list and therefore open for compensation.
3. Past players benefits should be enhanced. I can fully see how they would send them out to pasture and not care about them anymore....someone has too.....
4. Demaurice Smith - So explain something to me, in yesterdays article on espn, he's talking about their plan to have rookies boycott the draft show and potentially go on another network to have a NFL draft party of sorts just not endorsed or funded by the NFL instead by the Union. two thoughts: If the union disbanded, what voice do they & Smith have? The whole purpose of decertifying is so that they will no longer be a group that could not sue the owners, by decertifying it allows them to file individual lawsuits against the owner which has already begun.
5. Told you if the NFL union boycotted the draft it would not sit well with fans....this was posted on espn after my post earlier...
Multiple league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Monday that the NFLPA is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending the draft. According to the sources, the 17 top prospects who ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft have been contacted and it was recommended that they not attend.
ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter shares the details on the NFLPA urging draft prospects to stay home from the NFL draft.
The NFLPA's plan has not been well-received by ESPN.com poll voters. A SportsNation poll with more than 75,000 votes reveals that 72 percent think the plan is a bad public relations move.
I agree with all you that this is a huge pool of money, and the players deserve some it, but why do they demand to see financials....that would be unprecedented....what other company would divulge such information only to have it used against them for more of what the players want - in Demaurice Smiths mind, he wants 50/50 profit sharing which is intellectually challenged!!!!!
I hope this mess is over by fall, i dont think i could stand a lost season....it sucks to even think about it....hammer out the deal, players reduce your greed, owners reduce your greed and for once in sports, do it for the good of the sport & the fans, the very ones that make your wallets as thick as they are....its not only about them, its about the fans.....
Bingo. This is just another reflection of corporate greed. It's interesting that people who proclaim they are anti-union would ***** and moan if they were to lose the advantages unions have gained them such as a 40-hour work week.
The difference between pro sports and your average corporation is that the players (the workers) ARE the brand. Sure, most fans are loyal to their team's first, but its the star players who sell the jerseys and put the butts in the seats. To take an example from last year, look at washington nationals attendance when stephen strassburgh pitched vs when he did not. That is all revenue generated by the mere presence of a single individual on the mound.
If the nfl was as simple as CEOs and workers then they would just got canada and the afl and hire replacments.
Did you not read my owners willing to forego the season comment. The owners don't make that much money off of football. They will continue to make money the way they always have, and that is through their other ventures. They are willing to skip this season. The players aren't. Who do you think is more realiant on their being a football season?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I did read it. I don't think they are willing at all. There's more money for them in actually playing the season then in bypassing it.
Do you think those players would be able to sell the brand without all the publicity and marketing that these owners and the networks provide? Without the giant hype train that follows these players, created by owners and networks like ESPN, they are a guy in a uniform. It would be like going to a minor league game. You would go to see the game, but you wouldn't know thing one about the players unless you were a die-hard fan.
How do you know how much money they make off of football? They won't show the books.
I agree that most will pad their incomes with a season, but the vast majority of their income is not dependent on the season being played. They may buy one less yacht than they would without the season.
The fans are the losers here, but the whole sport will take a hit similar to baseball if it doesn't produce a season. I am kind of questioning the owners not opening the books, but the union argument is that the owners are a monopoly. But that is bunk. There are other leagues, and the fact is the NFL is not providing a service that is required for the safety and well being of the people. The president is not going to force anyone to deal.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,752
- 33,772
- 113
The thing I find interesting is that the owners not wanting to open their books is as much about not wanting each other to see their numbers as it is about not wanting the players to see them. There is a lot of mistrust amongst the owners themselves.
One other note, I've seen it tossed around that the players are making more than the owners or that the players want a 50/50 split. That's just not true. The players aren't asking to make more money than the owners, or even a 50/50 split for that matter. The current agreement has the owners taking $1 Billion off the top and then splitting the rest 50/50. The players don't see a need to change that format, as it has been functioning. The league wants to change it, insisting that they aren't making enough money, but they won't show the numbers to prove it.
That's what it boils down to for me. If the league wants a change to the format, citing a decrease in profits, then they ought to be required to prove their case. It would be a terrible business decision for the union to just take them at their word.
One other note, I've seen it tossed around that the players are making more than the owners or that the players want a 50/50 split. That's just not true. The players aren't asking to make more money than the owners, or even a 50/50 split for that matter. The current agreement has the owners taking $1 Billion off the top and then splitting the rest 50/50. The players don't see a need to change that format, as it has been functioning. The league wants to change it, insisting that they aren't making enough money, but they won't show the numbers to prove it.
That's what it boils down to for me. If the league wants a change to the format, citing a decrease in profits, then they ought to be required to prove their case. It would be a terrible business decision for the union to just take them at their word.
It's easy to use "greed" as a cop-out argument for either side. Fact is we are dealing with a multi-billion dollar industry so whatever amount of money is being earned by the players and the owners looks ridiculous to us peasents. Really this isn't much different than sanitation workers negotiating for better pay and working conditions...only the $$$ is much larger.
That being said, I side with the players. It is ultimatly their bodies and even lives that make the NFL sucessful why shouldn't they have a say in how much money they make?
And for those of you arguing that "if they don't like their job they can go find another one," let me ask you this. Imagine your dream job, the one you've worked all your life to get. Now imagine that corporate does something you don't like. Are you going to say, "screw this, I'll go work at Hardees!" ??? Hell no! You're going to fight for your rights...just like the Player's Union.
That being said, I side with the players. It is ultimatly their bodies and even lives that make the NFL sucessful why shouldn't they have a say in how much money they make?
And for those of you arguing that "if they don't like their job they can go find another one," let me ask you this. Imagine your dream job, the one you've worked all your life to get. Now imagine that corporate does something you don't like. Are you going to say, "screw this, I'll go work at Hardees!" ??? Hell no! You're going to fight for your rights...just like the Player's Union.
The thing that gets me is asking the players to take a pay cut while adding games to the season. THAT is stupid, and I don't know how the owners ever thought that would fly. Who would work more for less money? I suppose illegal immigrants. Now what happens if the NFL is forced to use the football equivalent of that?
This is the correct answer. The player's union can pound sand... go play in the CFL or arena league if you don't like it.
The owners are willing to tank the season, seriously... if they wanted to, they could hire scrubs or whatever they wanted. I'd go play for the Rams if they wanted me. Heck, I'd do it for the measly $250,000 even.
I have no idea what is so complicated about this. The players claim they "are the marketable product" - fine... market your Tom Brady in the CFL and make a billion if you can. Jerry Jones can hire a brand new team of scrubs if he wants to...
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
He can. If he thinks that he'll make as much money marketing that team of scrubs, he's free to be wrong.
Both sides need the other.
Go ahead and play one game for $250,000. And when you suffer a severe concussion, or a broken leg, or worse then you can use that to pay your medical bills.
And years ago, Chicago Bulls owner thought he didn't need Jordan, Pippen or any of his stars as long as he put a team out there. He was wrong on that.
Excellent answer.
Honestly, no I don't think millions would tune in to see that. That's not the point.
The point is that he can try if he wants to. Will it succeed? No, but that's his decision to make. HE OWNS the team! If he wants to drive it into the turf... go for it.
It comes down to this. The players perform a service for a paycheck. They have a union that stipulates the minimum's, certain other benefits, etc. Fine. That said, the OWNERS have the right to reject the union's proposals or requests if they don't like them. Fine. Why is that greedy?
The size of the overall pie doesn't change the principal of the argument. Lets say i have 50 dollars in my pocket and you have none. I give you ten. Am I greedy for not giving you 25 or are you greedy for wanting more than 10? What is it?
If anyone thinks the NFL owners can just lock out the NFL players, bring in the "replacements", and be just "fine" from a financial standpoint, they are sorely mistaken. They sang that song during the last NFL shutdown - had it not been for the players caving in because they just don't have the money to compete with the owners it would have been a complete financial disaster for the owners. The fans didn't show up. Quite simply, they didn't want to watch a bunch of nobodies play really bad football. Nobody's that desperate for football.
