|
|
SkinzWin 05-28-2011, 03:20 PM What would be best is for folks like Ross and Brees to STFU. Get the negotiating teams from both sides out of the courtroom and over the negotiating table and work this out.
Maybe one of my favorite vintage war related images ever....
And yet, it is essentially universal in its usage.
http://images1.cpcache.com/product/282333201v6_480x480_Front.jpg
Son Of Man 05-29-2011, 01:54 PM He is inferring that Republicans favor big business, ergo, would support the NFL's wishes of the stay of the lockout.
Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)
SkinzWin 05-31-2011, 10:38 PM Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)
I don't think most would consider an NFL union in the same light as a union in a "real workforce industry". Something the country must have in order to survive. NFL is entertainment. To Democrats it is not a serious union. To Republicans it is a large part of the big corporate machine that pads many peoples' pockets and in the eyes of many, drives this country's economy. That is all strictly IMO.
Giantone 06-01-2011, 07:47 AM Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)
No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.
CRedskinsRule 06-01-2011, 08:01 AM No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.
The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.
Son Of Man 06-01-2011, 09:23 AM No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.
I agree with this statement. Though I would revise to "owners, players and greed".
NC_Skins 06-01-2011, 09:35 AM The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.
The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.
CRedskinsRule 06-01-2011, 09:40 AM The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.
To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.
NC_Skins 06-01-2011, 09:51 AM To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.
Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.
CRedskinsRule 06-01-2011, 10:20 AM Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.
You are right, that it has gone down.
question, do you think the players would lower their percentage in order to gain guaranteed contracts?
|