1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Owners vs Players- Your Choice?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Southbeach, Mar 16, 2011.

  1. Ozzy

    Ozzy Premium Member Luxury Box

    Pretty good way to put it!

    I want the owner of my team happy as hell. Estatic maybe and if he has to rob some of the players til to get there, I gots no problem with it because, more than likely, the owner will outlast the current players.

    I actually think it will come to an end right before the season with players taking less but not nearly what the owners want.
     
  2. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    How are they like bank robbers? Why is it that some people think money is evil or having money means a person must be evil?

    There are many, good, decent players in the NFL. Likewise with the owners. For the most part they are ALL hardworking guys busting their asses in a very competative profession. Of course there are scumbags. There are scumbags in every profession.
     
  3. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    I think you make a very valid point and this post is probably the best post in this thread. However, I wouldn't have used the word "guilty". That makes it seem as if there is something wrong with trying to make money. IMO, there is nothing wrong with making money. As long as it's within the laws of this country, if a person tries to make $1 trillion in their lifetime I have no problems with that. Playing hardball is how big business is done. Nothing wrong with it, IMO.
     
  4. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Well that is a compromise lol
     
  5. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    ...the key elements of the proposal: maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014; free agency for players with four or more accrued season; reduced draft-choice compensation for restricted free agents; extensive changes in offseason workouts; reduction of preseason and regular-season padded practices; increased days off; retention of the 16-game season through 2012 with no change to 18 games without the players’ agreement; expanded injury guarantees, with up to $1 million in the year after an injury occurs; continuing medical coverage for life; immediate increases in pension for pre-1993 players; a new rookie wage scale that would make $300 million per draft class available for veteran pay and player benefits; abd external arbitration of all drug and steroids appeals...

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-to-players-regarding-nfls-most-recent-offer/


    Sounds like a damn good offer to me and this is the reason I side with the owners. Even if the players wanted more, which is their right, this is a GREAT deal and totally worth (at the least) continued negotiations. D-bag Smith needs to smarten up and realize that his grandstanding is not going to make him popular. I have a feeling a lot of the players had no idea what Smith turned down and will be very upset that he did.
     
  6. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    The owners were the ones who ended it.
     
  7. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It is called a metaphor.
     
  8. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Wrong.

    The players and owners agreed, I think sometime around 1996, on the current CBA. They also agreed when it would end. I believe it actually ended in 2008, but the OWNERS agreed to extend it for 3 more seasons with the option of "opting out" at the end of the 2010 season.
     
  9. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Wrong.

    A metaphor is when you create an analogy between two things in order to gain an understanding of something. Calling the players or owners "bank robbers" is far from an anaolgy if neither are stealing money.
     
  10. Coral Reefer

    Coral Reefer Premium Member

    10,281
    5,232
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Back in Miami
    We rarely agree on things but this take I agree with completely.
     
  11. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007


    They had to decertify before the CBA ended or they couldn't. Once they decertified they could no longer negotiate. Both parties had to agree to the slight extension that they got.
     
  12. GRT8

    GRT8 Premium Member Luxury Box

    425
    861
    0
    Mar 24, 2008
    Virgina
    If an investor wants to make a new franchise, in essence a new team, he creates jobs. Without owners there isn't a league. There will always be employees (players) to play the game.
    With that said, shouldn't the employees be treated fairly? Are they already?

    I don't have the answers and honestly think that if I own a business, I should be the one who profits the most. Personally, I think they both are neglecting the fans and w/o the fans....I KNOW there isn't any business or league.

     
    MarinePhinFan likes this.
  13. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I'd be willing to bet Odrick isn't close to 5% body fat. Odrick is in good shape, but 5%? That's getting down to the level that professional bodybuilders compete at.
     
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    You got the metaphor wrong
     
  15. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is wrong. The owners opted out. Therefore, they ended it.
     
  16. krypto

    krypto Banned

    772
    366
    0
    Sep 22, 2009
    Their special "talent" doesnt make the world go round. Its just booming because it keeps us entertained. I'm for the owners because I'm tired of seeing professional athletes make 10's of millions of dollars only to have their house foreclosed 2 years after retirement.
     
    Hurricane likes this.
  17. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010

    I'm willing to bet that he's well over 10% and more likely closer to (and over) 15% BF. I'd guess that DB's and some WR's have a really low BF % and they're still not as low as 5%. Sure, some like T.O. may be, but not most.
     
  18. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Wrong again, but nice try.
     
  19. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Wrong again. The players and owners agreed upon an end date to the current CBA long ago.

    The players, of course, liked the deal so they just wanted the CBA to continue indefinitely which was NOT part of the contract they signed.

    The owners OPTED to not let it continue.

    This is all really simple. If you and I agreed that you'd give me a dollar a day for 1 year, and at the end of the year I wanted it to continue but you stopped paying me, who's in the right? Remember, we agreed upon ONE YEAR. Nothing more. In short, when the CBA was agreed upon in 1996 (?) BOTH sides agreed it would end at a certain point. Understand?
     
  20. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Yeah, screw health insurance; get these guys financial advisors. :smackhead:
     
  21. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    I doubt that their careers, on average, are less than 3.7 years.

    According to the NFLPA, the positions that have the shortest careers are RB's, WR's, and DB's (in particular CB's). RB's take more of a pounding than NT's and WR's and DB's have to be extremely athletic and fast. If the latter two lose even a step they risk getting cut.

    A lot of people assume NFL players have short careers all due to injury. Sure, some of the reason for NFL players having short careers is because of injury, however, a lot of the time it's because they lose their job to someone better.

    You always hear about the O-Lineman or D-Lineman who has been in the league for 10, 13, 15 years. How many 15 year RB's or WR's or CB's do you know about? Very few.

    Here are some starting defensive lineman currently in the league:

    John Abraham- 10yrs

    Jared Allen- 6yrs

    Alex Brown- 8yrs

    Andre Carter- 9yrs

    Phillip Daniels- 5yrs

    Darnell Dockett- 6yrs

    Shaun Ellis- 10yrs



    Admittingly not all of these guys are "nose" tackles, but all play on the defensive line. This trend goes on and on. And as you can see, I didn't cherry pick these players. I simply went in alphabetical order.
     
  22. Southbeach

    Southbeach Banned

    4,154
    1,218
    0
    Aug 22, 2010
    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Rep-John-Conyers-to-target-NFL-TV-antitrust-exemption-031411

    Marine, Here's a link on Congress trying to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption. IF you know something Congress does not, you should let them know that they are wasting their time.
     
  23. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    That's ONLY to TV contracts. Congress are the ones who passed the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. lol...And this Act applies to ALL pro sports leagues.

    The 50-year-old broadcasting exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into an economic powerhouse. The exemption also applies to professional baseball, basketball and hockey, but Conyers' bill would only rescind football's exemption.



    Again, MLB is the ONLY pro sports league with BROAD antitrust protection.
     
  24. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007

    You do realize that the terms of the CBA were renegotiated at each extension right? The CBA of 2006 was not the CBA of 1996. The CBA agreed to was to extend two more years unless one side opted out, the owners opted out thus ending the current CBA two years earlier than agreed on.


    As for why the NFL is the product that it is, read this story:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218



    That's right, it was the players that insisted on revenue sharing for smaller market teams to keep the league competitive.
     
  25. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Thanks for catching that post Marine, I actually missed it lol.

    I'm going to use nice round numbers for the sake of making things easy, and to prove to you how ridiculous you're being (SICK), I'm going to round DOWN.

    There are roughly 100 players on every college football team, and about 100 bowl-eligible teams... we both know that division 2 and 3 players are drafted as well, so let's throw another 25 onto that figure; 125 teams, ergo 12,500 players.

    From those 12,500 players, about 1/4 are seniors and 3/20 will declare early; 8/20 or 4/10 or 40%.

    That leaves us with 5,000 players who either forego their education or graduate from college with football on their mind.

    On the NFL side of things, if you figure 20% of every (~30) team(s) (50 players) is either cut or retires, that leaves us with 300 spots that are available for 5,000 possible incoming players (EVERY YEAR). That leaves 4,700 (94%) of people who won't even get on the field. Hardly a problem since all of them received an education (right?) for FREE on a scholarship.

    So let's step back a moment to make my point. Rosters are huge right now and they're going to only get larger if/when there's a draft. If there's only a 10% success rate (remember my generous rounding! ;) ) of going from college to NFL, don't you think your average career length statistic is a little... skewed? For every George Blanda, there are going to be 10 Keith Zingers.

    If you think that the average career stat that you gave is a product of injury, then you're just delusional--It's because there are 20 men going for 1 spot every year.

    And the notion that they should be compensated for life due to this is exponentially more asinine. As you (and whoever else it was) kept bringing up, these kids require an education (riiiiiiight?). That EDUCATION (that they got for free!) should be able to get them a job, shouldn't it?

    If you're an accounting major in college, and then become a star runningback, play 10 years in the NFL and make 50 million dollars (again, modesty), but your career is stopped short due to a torn ACL, what's to stop you from becoming an accountant when you're done?

    Laziness. That's it.

    For those who go to the NFL before graduating, they KNEW the risk.
     
    MarinePhinFan likes this.
  26. Southbeach

    Southbeach Banned

    4,154
    1,218
    0
    Aug 22, 2010
    First you say there is no exemption. Now you say there is not BROAD exemptions. :)

    ONLY TV CONTRACTS? What the hell do you think provides the billions owners and players are arguing over, t-shirts and hot dogs? I know you are smarter than that.
     
  27. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Wow, that is opting out. It is so simple you finally got it.
     
  28. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010

    This whole thing comes down to ONE major thing. The players want partnership benefits without any of the partnership risks. If you've read what the players just turned down you'd see this is a fact.
     
  29. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    You're still lost.

    Answer this:

    WHO agreed that either side could opt out? WHO made that deal? Was it just the owners or was it both owners and players?

    If it was BOTH, then BOTH had a part in this. Unlike you're trying to say.
     
  30. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010

    You're right. I did mistakenly leave out "broad" in what I wrote. However, my quote specifically stated "broad" exemptions and from what you were writing, it seems as if you were saying that the NFL has antitrust exemption across the board. The NFL generates $4 Billion in TV revenue and $5 billion from other sources. So, and granted that $4 billion is a huge cut, the players benefit from that exemption as much as (if not more than) the owners do. This TV exemption has been around for 50 years. And it's for ALL pro sports teams. Why bring it up or worry about it now?
     
  31. Southbeach

    Southbeach Banned

    4,154
    1,218
    0
    Aug 22, 2010
    The reason is that it now matters. ESPN's legal analyst, Roger ? mentioned it a month ago, is saying the last thing the owners want is for Congress to get into this. They can kill the exemption, which means the 32 teams would have to negotiate individually for TV contracts. This changes the game.

    The US Supreme Court ruled against the NFL, in a T-shirt deal, saying the NFL could not negotiate for the 32 individual businesses. It was 9-0. No judge, other than GOD, can rule differently.

    Although the money differs dramatically, it is the same deal. The courts have to say that the NFL have no right to negotiate ANYTHING for the 32 teams.

    That is why I bring it up, and why there is reason to worry.
     
  32. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Staff Member Club Member

    24,217
    36,005
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Owners winning = Fans winning

    The more money the owners have, the more they are able to put back into the product. Things like NFL Network, stadium perks (like those hand held devices), etc...

    The players getting more money is of no benefit to the fans...
     
    MarinePhinFan and Hurricane like this.
  33. Southbeach

    Southbeach Banned

    4,154
    1,218
    0
    Aug 22, 2010
    One last thing on the partnership debate, with me mostly on one side. :)

    The players are not partners in the NFL. However, they are partners, with the owners, in a CBA. I don't know why this is so hard for some to understand.

    There is no financial liability on ether side. They are attempting to split up GUARANTEED money in THIS deal. Neither can operate without the other. Owners cannot hire new employee's, as per agreement, and Players have nowhere to go.

    They both agree on a new CBA or, go their separate ways, dissolving everything which worked for many years.

    This is a partnership, a bit like a marriage, with a nasty divorce in the wings. JK.
     
  34. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Interesting take. Most of us here have been arguing about who deserves it, but I hadn't thought about it from a fan perespective... how ironic.

    It'll be interesting to see what all of the Pro-Player Dolfans (no pun intended!) have to say about this.
     
  35. Southbeach

    Southbeach Banned

    4,154
    1,218
    0
    Aug 22, 2010
    Comical. NFL Network make a lot of money for both. Deal with yourself on "hand held devices." :)
     
  36. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    I think your quotes got messed up, I'm asuming that your answers were in red.


    I see where you're confused, there wasn't an agreement in 2008 to end the CBA, that is when the owners "opted out" and ended the CBA two years earlier than it would have. The players didn't choose to end it, the owners did. The players wanted it to continue until after the 2012 season as it was originally supposed too. It’s kind of like when a player has the ability to meet certain goals and opt out of his contract to hit free agency earlier. He is the one choosing to end the contract, not the team.


    As for your second point: Revenue sharing was Upshaw's baby and he was the one that pushed it, made it a term for getting a new CBA done. You can say all you want about owners wanting competition etc... but none of it changes the fact that the most important factor for team parity is revenue sharing which was championed by the NFLPA.
     
  37. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Staff Member Club Member

    24,217
    36,005
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Comical? You think the NFL Network makes enough money on its own to put on the production that it gets for shows like NFL Total Access and such? Let alone churning huge profits?

    They have 8-10 days a year where they actually get ratings of significance... the draft and the occasional TNF game. Other than that... none of its shows generate any ratings worth noting. Advertisers are hardly lining up to shell out big money to put their commercials on that network. It is being funded by the NFL and its owners...

    Have you seen what garbage the NBA Network is? Thats b/c the NBA doesnt have the money to invest into it like the NFL does...
     
    Hurricane and MarinePhinFan like this.
  38. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    D. Smith has repeatedly said that he, and the the players he represents, does NOT want Congress involved.
     
  39. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Yes, my answers were in red.

    And you're not "confused", just 100% wrong about everything. I mistankenly wrote that the CBA was extended in "2008". It was actually extended in 2006.

    The following was from an article written in 2008:

    The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, has been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.



    http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true
     
  40. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    WAIT... So everything I wrote was factually correct, and you made a "mistake", but I'm wrong... Ok Charlie Sheen, have fun with this one, I'm done with it.
     

Share This Page