8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

^ Playing a Childs sport and not investing for their own retirement well enough. I look at it probably from a totally different perspective in that I think of all the Firemen and Policemen who risk their lives everyday for pennies and see grown men playing a game risking their lives one day a week for millions of dollars who don't want to spend their money on retirement or health insurance but would rather the owner pay all that for them and still demand a larger portion of the revenue.

Maybe if the players had to pay for part of their own retirement and health insurance and maybe put some of their own money towards retired players. Don't get me wrong I do feel sorry for the retired players but I look at them like I look at smokers. They knew the risk, and could have taken insurance out on themselves. They also knew in advance that most players only last about 5 to 10 yrs. WTF was their plan for after football? Not to mention the guys who failed to finish college. If they knew they would only last 10 yrs tops then they should have had a plan for what they would do when they turned 30. I don't see how that should be the owners responsibilities. If the current players feel sorry for them then let the players support he older retired players.

On a last note, I'm not stupid enough to not believe the owners are not making more money every year but please don't make me out to be a fool and try to tell me that the owners don't have an increase in costs as well. How about the non players and their raises? Loss of revenue because of the economy and fans failing to renew their season tickets. Yes beer and food has gone up but let's not forget that the small business man who sells it to you also has had a rise in cost for delivery.

I think it was said somewhere that if just one team had to build a new stadium that alone would hurt the owners which is why they are asking for more of the revenue... guess what the Vikings need a new stadium.

But the poor millionaire's can't afford to let the owners keep more of the revenue. Maybe the players should also show their books to show how their portion is being distributed as well.

So if your boss walked in tomorrow and said to everyone "we're going to be taking a bigger portion of your paychecks", without explanation, and without proper cause, you wouldn't be upset?

You probably do plan for your retirement, and you probably pay some paycheck towards social security and towards health insurance. Likewise, the players are instructed to put money away for retirement, pay into a retirement fund through the union, and have to pay some portion of their health insurance as well.

It's not as if the owners are eating all the cost here. A majority of the players in the league aren't millionaires. They lead middle-class to upper middle class lives. They still have to pay bills, pay for child care, and in some cases, have to pay for extended family as well. They're not exactly poor, but when you factor in all their cost, they're not the ballers that the guys who get the endorsement deals and the top tier athletes are.

All the players are asking is to be treated fairly. If the owners stepped forward and showed they had a realistic need for more money, this would be over by now.

But if my boss wants to take more money off the top of my paycheck, and then won't tell or explain to me why they need more money, and then decides to lock me out because I don't want to take the pay cut, that's not really fair.

If he explains why he needs to take more off the top, I'd be more inclined to at least hear him out and maybe negotiate. But it's hard to negotiate with someone who's not being honest with you.

Oooooo....now we're having secret meetings.

Several influential NFL owners meet secretly near Chicago (http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/17397/Several-influential-NFL-owners-meet-secretly-near-Chicago/Default.aspx)

Oooooo....now we're having secret meetings.

Several influential NFL owners meet secretly near Chicago (http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/17397/Several-influential-NFL-owners-meet-secretly-near-Chicago/Default.aspx)

I won't be surprised if this is how things get resolved, boom out of the blue there will be some sort of deal, or a lifting of the lockout.

You are right, that it has gone down.

question, do you think the players would lower their percentage in order to gain guaranteed contracts?

I personally would not like guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Just look at the NBA for the exact reason why. Idiot Orlando Magic give Rashard Lewis a guaranteed max contract and he doesn't remotely come close to earning that money and it makes moving him difficult (if at all). Guaranteed contracts are a horrible idea. (even in baseball)


What the eff?

Punk move by Panthers players to lock out media - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_panthers_moronic_for_locking_out_media_duri ng_workout_060111)

What the **** are they thinking? Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible Horrible horrible move by them.

Deserves the /facepalm of the week, UNLESS it's supposed to be a parody of the owners lockout and what Bud Adams did with the Titans.

More people, it seems, can relate to a billionaire that runs a business than a millionaire athlete that has taken advantage of natural talents. To many, players don't deserve much respect because all they are doing is playing a game.

I think this is from North Dallas 40: "When we say it's a game, they say it's a business. When we say it's business, they say it's a game."

Let me start by saying I have come off a bit from my earlier take on things (still think DeMaurice is just a high priced ambo chaser and douche). Plenty of shady legal wrangling by both sides - players "decertification", owners TV deal. Lots of legal posturing by both sides - to me it's clear both sides prepped for this contingency.

(BTW - For the record, and for all the reasons FRPLG said wayyyy back in the thread the "open your books" argument is a BS argument - just not going to rehash it except to say that the NFL opened its books as much as any employer should be expected to - for more than that, see the much more intelligent articulation that concept by FRPLG).

The players are like any "employees" with a useful talent. Given their ability to generate wealth for others, they, as a group, have considerable leverage in deciding how they will be compensated for this. Maybe the perception that players were just "playing a game" existed in the strikes of the 80's where the NFL was not THE predominant (by far) sporting entertainment business. NFL Football, however, has not been "just a game" for at least 30 years and in the last 10-20, IMHO, even the most ardent "fan of the game" has had any naivete on that issue torn away. The blatant fact is that the NFL is a bazillion dollar entertainment industry and both owners and players are completely removed in sooo many ways from the realities with which you and I deal.

[To me, its comparable to actors. I was an amatuer thespian but I have no illusion that the little theater productions I did are in any way related to the entertainment industry's block buster films. Sure, I was just acting - but Brad Pitt (who is not nearly as attractive as I am) stopped "just acting" a lonng time ago. Similarly, the guys in the NFL stopped "just playing a game" sometime in college.]

Because of that, I am just not sure that the perception that NFL players are "just playing a game" is much of a factor any more.

My own take on the seeming slide of public opinion away from the players (other than those dedicated commies like NC_Skins :silly:) is that (1) D. Smith comes off as an incredible hard line douche; (2) the owners have parlayed the tactical decision to decertify into the public perception that the players (and not the owners) are using shady legal dealings to get the courts involved; and (3) the owners are just flat out playing the public opinion game better - Goodell may be talking out of two sides of his mouth just as much as Smith but the consistent air play is "hey, we're trying - look at our offers" compared to DeMaurice "we're going to the mattresses" Smith.

Look - it's a business. More specifically, it's an entertainment business with billionare owners and millionare employees. Just like any other business, owners will strive to maximize their profits. Just like any other business, the players will strive to maximize their earnings. I am okay with both of these concepts, it's only when owners/players start playing fast and loose with the law or their mutally agreed upon contractaul agreements that I get pissed.

Just read this over - Much like the "negotiations", I sure spent a lot of time saying not much of anything.

More people, it seems, can relate to a billionaire that runs a business than a millionaire athlete that has taken advantage of natural talents. To many, players don't deserve much respect because all they are doing is playing a game.

Bizarre to say the least.

I think this is from North Dallas 40: "When we say it's a game, they say it's a business. When we say it's business, they say it's a game."

Let me start by saying I have come off a bit from my earlier take on things (still think DeMaurice is just a high priced ambo chaser and douche). Plenty of shady legal wrangling by both sides - players "decertification", owners TV deal. Lots of legal posturing by both sides - to me it's clear both sides prepped for this contingency.

(BTW - For the record, and for all the reasons FRPLG said wayyyy back in the thread the "open your books" argument is a BS argument - just not going to rehash it except to say that the NFL opened its books as much as any employer should be expected to - for more than that, see the much more intelligent articulation that concept by FRPLG).

The players are like any "employees" with a useful talent. Given their ability to generate wealth for others, they, as a group, have considerable leverage in deciding how they will be compensated for this. Maybe the perception that players were just "playing a game" existed in the strikes of the 80's where the NFL was not THE predominant (by far) sporting entertainment business. NFL Football, however, has not been "just a game" for at least 30 years and in the last 10-20, IMHO, even the most ardent "fan of the game" has had any naivete on that issue torn away. The blatant fact is that the NFL is a bazillion dollar entertainment industry and both owners and players are completely removed in sooo many ways from the realities with which you and I deal.

[To me, its comparable to actors. I was an amatuer thespian but I have no illusion that the little theater productions I did are in any way related to the entertainment industry's block buster films. Sure, I was just acting - but Brad Pitt (who is not nearly as attractive as I am) stopped "just acting" a lonng time ago. Similarly, the guys in the NFL stopped "just playing a game" sometime in college.]

Because of that, I am just not sure that the perception that NFL players are "just playing a game" is much of a factor any more.

My own take on the seeming slide of public opinion away from the players (other than those dedicated commies like NC_Skins :silly:) is that (1) D. Smith comes off as an incredible hard line douche; (2) the owners have parlayed the tactical decision to decertify into the public perception that the players (and not the owners) are using shady legal dealings to get the courts involved; and (3) the owners are just flat out playing the public opinion game better - Goodell may be talking out of two sides of his mouth just as much as Smith but the consistent air play is "hey, we're trying - look at our offers" compared to DeMaurice "we're going to the mattresses" Smith.

Look - it's a business. More specifically, it's an entertainment business with billionare owners and millionare employees. Just like any other business, owners will strive to maximize their profits. Just like any other business, the players will strive to maximize their earnings. I am okay with both of these concepts, it's only when owners/players start playing fast and loose with the law or their mutally agreed upon contractaul agreements that I get pissed.

Just read this over - Much like the "negotiations", I sure spent a lot of time saying not much of anything.

It definitely is. Even in this thread there have been people commenting on it. For a lot of people, professional athletes were handed a gift to play sports and take it totally for granted. There are many people out there who don't think it takes any effort to be a pro athlete and there are no long term repercussions, or better said, they deserve whatever repercussions there are because hey, they chose to play the game. A game we all wish we could play.

More people, it seems, can relate to a billionaire that runs a business than a millionaire athlete that has taken advantage of natural talents. To many, players don't deserve much respect because all they are doing is playing a game.


Indeed they do. Let me share some gems I've come across the past couple days.


I know that I would side with the owners, just makes sense, these are the guys who hand you your paycheck. As a business owner myself I have been on the side of the owners since day 1. In my business of retail sales and service, if my employees acted like the NFLPA has acted I would not only lock them out, I would fire every damn one of them...

Nah. New NFL players are born every day. Completely replaceable. Negotiation is fine up until the point that the employee starts dictating terms of employment to the employer and then shutting down the employer's business when they can't get what they want every few years. If I were running the NFL, the PA would have one week to come back and negotiate or the union would be busted. Any player who tries to unionize would be playing in Canada from now on.


Yes people, guys like this vote. Wonder why corporate America is raping the middle class? Now you know.

It definitely is. Even in this thread there have been people commenting on it. For a lot of people, professional athletes were handed a gift to play sports and take it totally for granted. There are many people out there who don't think it takes any effort to be a pro athlete and there are no long term repercussions, or better said, they deserve whatever repercussions there are because hey, they chose to play the game. A game we all wish we could play.

SmootSmack - To the extent that people assert players have been handed a gift and should be grateful for it - Well, in the larger sense, they have (I could work my ass off and never ever ever have the ability to make an NFL practice squad) and they should be grateful (just as we all should be for whatever gifts/talents we have that are in no way attributable to anything we did for ourselves). However, IMHO, that is in no way relevant to the argument that the players are entitled to whatever compensation for their skills that they can obtain. It's just business baby.

If the argument that "players are just playing a game" is really being made as to why any one should side with the owners, I would disagree heartily - these are highly skilled employees who must work hard at their craft to maintain employment. Gifted or not, the players (as a whole and a very few in particular) are massive wealth generators for their employers and have a right to be leverage that ability to maximize their earnings.

NC_Skins - Neither of those illustrations are illustrations of players are "just playing a game" and, therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. Rather, it's illustrative of the concept that "players are just employees and business owners have the right to run their own businesses as they see fit." It is simply people who side with employers rather than employees. You hate big corporations, they are always evil, and it is okay to manipulate the law to stick it to them. Two wrongs make a right as long as the second wrong is the little guy wronging a corporation/rich guy. We get it.

I know you think players are the game, sacrosanct, irreplaceble etc. but the bottom line is that they are just employees (incredibly talented and gifted employees, but employees nonetheless - I doubt they could even be considered "independent contractors" under the relevant labor laws), they are not the game (w/out the capital investment, marketing and business plan of the owners - these guys are not splitting up 9.0 Billion), and they are, ultimately, replaceable over the long term (again, did you stop rooting for the B&G when your favorite player left/retired? Didn't think so). If the owners/employers want to cut off their nose to spite their face, that makes them stupid not evil. If players want to do the same, same is true of them.

As has been said, if these two groups can't figure out how to cut 9.0 Billion w/out killing the goose that laid the golden egg, well, then f'em.

I'm not saying you are making the argument the players are just playing a game. I'm just saying there are many people who side with the owners primarily for that reason