Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal

can we just "off" these owners, and go about the season.. lol... but, seriously this is retarded...how greedy do they have to be....the poorest owner is probably still worth $750 million. do they really need more? No, it's just pure avarice.

Actually, no. Labor law stuff is mostly beyond my ken. I have a passing knowledge but not much - you and CRed have given much better summaries of the legal situation than me.

I can understand the resistance of some owners. Those who thought the last deal was a bad one aren't going to be thrilled with one that gives more to the players. I would imagine it's the "poor team" owners (Brown, Richardson) rather than the rich team (Snyder, Jones) that are upset by the deal.

While universal agreement is not likely, these guys need to be somehow "on board" with the deal or we're just gonna be revisiting this again in another few years. It's that whole "history repeating itself" lesson.

Well, if you are Jerry Jones, or the Giants and Jets owners, and you just shelled out a ton to build a new stadium (and now are charging mega psl's to diehard fans) you may not be happy with the level of revenue sharing included in any final CBA. How happy do you think Snyder and Jones are to be sending buckets of money over to Cinci or Bidwell just because those owners' franchises don't do the same volume of business?

I think the high revenue teams are more likely to acquiesce, but that's because they need the revenue to be coming in. The low rev teams just like to complain...

Well, if you are Jerry Jones, or the Giants and Jets owners, and you just shelled out a ton to build a new stadium (and now are charging mega psl's to diehard fans) you may not be happy with the level of revenue sharing included in any final CBA. How happy do you think Snyder and Jones are to be sending buckets of money over to Cinci or Bidwell just because those owners' franchises don't do the same volume of business?

I think the high revenue teams are more likely to acquiesce, but that's because they need the revenue to be coming in. The low rev teams just like to complain...

My understanding is that revenue sharing isn't a provision of the CBA. It is a separate item to be negotiated amongst the owners. It certainly is a major factor in the current situation though.

Because we've been trained to feel that way

And here I was thinking it was because he was an impulsive little prick who mismanaged the Redskins from day one.

Lemme guess...Ralph Wilson, Mike Brown, and Jerry Richardson are resisting...

Please God release the names. They deserve to be ostracized publicly.

Someone said here back in March (maybe it was me, but I think it was someone like FRPLG maybe) who said when it really came down to it we'd see that the owners have their own problems within their own ranks, because there's such a division between haves and have-nots. Or better said, the spends and spends-nots

Someone said here back in March (maybe it was me, but I think it was someone like FRPLG maybe) who said when it really came down to it we'd see that the owners have their own problems within their own ranks, because there's such a division between haves and have-nots. Or better said, the spends and spends-nots

It may or may not have been me but the revenue sharing issue is the elephant in the room that the owners ignore. In fact there's a pretty good argument to be made that they've perpetrated this entire lockout in an attempt to not have to work out the revenue sharing. Maybe not consciously, but out of necessity because the divisions on revenue sharing are deep seeded, insidious and maybe impossible to fix. Not sure I blame owners like Jones, Snyder and Kraft when the Ralph Wilsons of the world refuse to even try to make extra money by perhaps selling the naming rights to his stadium instead of being vain enough to just keep his own name on it. Why should Jerry and Danny split the money they got for selling the naming rights when Wilson won't?

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

Keep in mind a lot of people were simply siding with whoever they felt could end the lockout early. When the players started pursuing a more court driven strategy and didn't seem interested in negotiating people started siding with the owners.

Technically its the owners fault to begin with, seeing as how they decided to lock the players out but for now the fans in general will side with whoever seems more likely to end bring an end to this tragedy of an offseason (ie whoever's not avoiding negotiations and working through the courts).

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

Many of these fans also love the mantra that playing is a privilege not a right and if players don't like it they can find another line of work. Well guess what, so is owning a team. If you don't like what your peers are choosing to do in order to keep a $9 BILLION industry going, then sell your team. If not then STFU and sign on the dotted line.