Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email from Kevin Mawae "Let us play"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by CoryWinget81 View Post
    Technically, no one is "forced" to work at their current job.

    Everyone crying that both sides make too much money? Well, this is really gonna piss you off...

    THE OWNERS, TEAMS AND PLAYERS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU.

    You can preach the "there is no game without us fans!" stuff, but you're in the minority. There's always someone right behind you willing to take your place.
    There is always some football player right behind the current players to take their place, too.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Spartan82 View Post
      Im on the owners side. If the players dont like it, maybe they can go out and get a REAL job with real WORK (not game), and work a full 2 years just to earn half of what 1 game check would be....before taxes of course. They can also pay for their own heathcare. Yeah, my heart just hurts for the players. Maybe they should sit in a foxhole in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they can complain about their pay and whether or not they get enough.
      Ok, then lets talk about it from the players viewpoint.

      Do you go to the games to watch ANYONE play football? If so, then it doesn't matter who is on the field for the Denver Broncos and Pat Bowlen can go out and hire 53 scab athletes to put the uniform on and come entertain you.

      And if you DO want to see particular athletes play, especially the best at their positions doing their best to win games and not just put in time, then it IS important.

      The owners in the NFL are all billionaires. The NFL is a very safe bet so risk is minimal in most cases. The players are the ones that the fans want to watch, and the players are getting about 60% of the revenues and the players take the risk to their life and limb, the players are the ones who end up dealing with early-onset alzheimers and parkinsons disease for the concussions they endure and they are the ones who get the knee surgeries and in their later years have trouble walking, even around their own homes.

      The owners want to break the back of the union so they can force the players to play for a lot less money, which isn't going to lower ticket prices at all, it will simply enable the billionaires to make a lot more money much more quickly.
      You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
        Owners buy the teams and therefore are entitled to a fair return on their investment.

        Players are drafted and if they are lucky enough, play for the big bad owners for money accepted via contract by the player.

        So quit the "woe is me" crap and play.
        Define "fair return on their investment."

        Players earn their money - ok, well except for the rookies under the old system, but that will be changing in the new CBA.

        Owners fight for the chance to buy teams. There are only 32 of them and there are more billionaires who would love to have one - it's a relatively safe investment in most markets. Teams will only increase in value and the NFL is more popular than any other sport in America today.
        You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
          There is always some football player right behind the current players to take their place, too.

          This is really why the NFL players and owners need to get themselves out of this mess. Theres another league that can grow, and theres always college ball for fans to get in to. Baseball and hockey really didnt have to worry about others usurping their share of their sport. The NFL does.
          sigpic

          I think Ben Tate will be the best back taken in the 2010 draft. (5/3/10)
          SportsXPicks, check out the Rants and Opinions section

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Spartan82 View Post
            Im on the owners side. If the players dont like it, maybe they can go out and get a REAL job with real WORK (not game), and work a full 2 years just to earn half of what 1 game check would be....before taxes of course. They can also pay for their own heathcare. Yeah, my heart just hurts for the players. Maybe they should sit in a foxhole in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they can complain about their pay and whether or not they get enough.
            winner!!!!!
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
              Define "fair return on their investment."

              Players earn their money - ok, well except for the rookies under the old system, but that will be changing in the new CBA.

              Owners fight for the chance to buy teams. There are only 32 of them and there are more billionaires who would love to have one - it's a relatively safe investment in most markets. Teams will only increase in value and the NFL is more popular than any other sport in America today.
              The players choose to play and all of them know the risks involved. They are offered a dollar amount and except it. If you don't want to take the risk, then take that free degree and go get another job.

              The owners are rich and everyone knows it. So What. The only thing players need to worry about is making the dollar amount they agreed to and not worry about how much the owner is raking in. Quit thinking that you deserve a piece of the "pie".

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by cgred17 View Post
                Wow! Do you guys really think this is about the players salaries vs. the average working class guy? No! This is about the players wanting their fair share of what the market pays. Do movie stars deserve $5-30 million for a year of work? Not by your definition but YES they do! Because their mere prescence will make the movie that much more! The players deserve that money because THEY are the ones you pay to see. The owners deserve that money because THEY paid to put that team out on the field. The players just want their fair share. Do you want ALL of your money put in the owners' pocket? That's what Roger Goodell and the owners want. As a fan, I'm on the owners' side because I don't want the NFL to ever turn into the NBA where the players can decimate a city of fans. But c'mon, don't compare these guys to doctors or lawyers because they are worth MORE. Like actors, they are the top 1% of their field and you MAKE them more important when you vote with your dollars. Capitalism isn't about who is more valuable to society, its about who can bring in the money!
                I think you fail to see how much more the players are earning than the owners are making. I just saw on NFLTA that last year the Packers made a profit of $9.8M. Aaron Rodgers alone almost made that much. They also said player salaries have gone up 41% since 2007 while revenues have gone up 18%.

                here is a blurb about GB

                The Packers took in a total of $258 million in the last fiscal year, $10 million more than the previous year. But player costs increased sharply to $161 million, up from $139 million the previous year.

                The team said player costs have been increasing 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue increased only 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                  Ok, then lets talk about it from the players viewpoint.

                  Do you go to the games to watch ANYONE play football? If so, then it doesn't matter who is on the field for the Denver Broncos and Pat Bowlen can go out and hire 53 scab athletes to put the uniform on and come entertain you.

                  And if you DO want to see particular athletes play, especially the best at their positions doing their best to win games and not just put in time, then it IS important.

                  The owners in the NFL are all billionaires. The NFL is a very safe bet so risk is minimal in most cases. The players are the ones that the fans want to watch, and the players are getting about 60% of the revenues and the players take the risk to their life and limb, the players are the ones who end up dealing with early-onset alzheimers and parkinsons disease for the concussions they endure and they are the ones who get the knee surgeries and in their later years have trouble walking, even around their own homes.

                  The owners want to break the back of the union so they can force the players to play for a lot less money, which isn't going to lower ticket prices at all, it will simply enable the billionaires to make a lot more money much more quickly.
                  Do you think it's fair for players to hold out for more money than their contract just because they ahd a good season? Do you think it's fair for a player to demand to be the highest paid player at his position because they had a good season?

                  It wasn't long ago that the average fan could afford to sit close to the field, now they can barely afford the top row. Tickets for the Broncos field level are $1100 now. Why is that? Player salaries. They have gotten way out of control. Especially rookies coming in with $100M deals without ever playing a down. The problem the league is having right now is not the owners fault, it is the players for demanding so much money. Well on second thought, it is the owners fault, they should have just benched the first guys who acted like that and put an end to it at the beginning.

                  If it is supposed to be a 60/40 split, how come the Packers made $10M and the players made $100M?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
                    The players choose to play and all of them know the risks involved. They are offered a dollar amount and except it. If you don't want to take the risk, then take that free degree and go get another job.

                    The owners are rich and everyone knows it. So What. The only thing players need to worry about is making the dollar amount they agreed to and not worry about how much the owner is raking in. Quit thinking that you deserve a piece of the "pie".
                    Baseball owners used to think that, until a bunch of players got together to throw the World series because the owners were making all the money for the players work. It was called the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

                    Players don't just "accept an offer," they negotiate for that salary based upon what they can do for the team, and once they get it, they should step up and deliver. The owners lockout is about the owners trying to force the players to take less money so that a bunch of billionaires can make even more. It's also about trying to break the back of the union so they can force even more things down the players throats if they want to get paid for playing a game that beats the bejesus out of their bodies and minds.
                    You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
                      Do you think it's fair for players to hold out for more money than their contract just because they ahd a good season? Do you think it's fair for a player to demand to be the highest paid player at his position because they had a good season?
                      That's not what this is about. That is an individual contract issue and the league has arbitration in place to work with both parties to sort it out.

                      You should get interested in just what this lockout is about.

                      It wasn't long ago that the average fan could afford to sit close to the field, now they can barely afford the top row. Tickets for the Broncos field level are $1100 now. Why is that? Player salaries. They have gotten way out of control. Especially rookies coming in with $100M deals without ever playing a down. The problem the league is having right now is not the owners fault, it is the players for demanding so much money. Well on second thought, it is the owners fault, they should have just benched the first guys who acted like that and put an end to it at the beginning.
                      Again, apples and oranges. The reason that fans can't afford to get tickets has as much to do with new stadiums with tons of luxury boxes, where the money stays with the team and doesn't give as much to the NFL as it does with player salaries.

                      If it is supposed to be a 60/40 split, how come the Packers made $10M and the players made $100M?
                      More apples and oranges. Are you aware that the Packers are the one anomaly in the entire league? They don't have an owner per se. They are owned by the city of Green Bay and as such have requirements as public entities do. And that comes with it's own set of problems.

                      Look, I'm not trying to knock you in any way, but the arguments you are putting up seem to indicate that you aren't really aware of what the lockout is about.

                      Please, find out what the issues are and why the owners are locking out the players in order to get what they want, and find out what the owners really want.
                      You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                        Baseball owners used to think that, until a bunch of players got together to throw the World series because the owners were making all the money for the players work. It was called the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

                        Players don't just "accept an offer," they negotiate for that salary based upon what they can do for the team, and once they get it, they should step up and deliver. The owners lockout is about the owners trying to force the players to take less money so that a bunch of billionaires can make even more. It's also about trying to break the back of the union so they can force even more things down the players throats if they want to get paid for playing a game that beats the bejesus out of their bodies and minds.
                        This is bunk! The many articles posted here tell you a different story. The economy justs sucks. A 200,000 dollar house in 2007 is worth half of that now. That's the reality of it.

                        As far as players or coaches cheating thats because of their own greed. None of the other teams threw the World Series or needed to. The bad ones get weeded out sooner or later.

                        They get to play Football for money! Alot of money. There are alot of players in minor league baseball that play for peanuts because they love the game. Go Wingnuts!


                        Added: Once again you think you need compare what the owners get paid and try to equate that to the players.
                        Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 01-29-2011, 07:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                          That's not what this is about. That is an individual contract issue and the league has arbitration in place to work with both parties to sort it out.

                          You should get interested in just what this lockout is about.



                          Again, apples and oranges. The reason that fans can't afford to get tickets has as much to do with new stadiums with tons of luxury boxes, where the money stays with the team and doesn't give as much to the NFL as it does with player salaries.



                          More apples and oranges. Are you aware that the Packers are the one anomaly in the entire league? They don't have an owner per se. They are owned by the city of Green Bay and as such have requirements as public entities do. And that comes with it's own set of problems.

                          Look, I'm not trying to knock you in any way, but the arguments you are putting up seem to indicate that you aren't really aware of what the lockout is about.

                          Please, find out what the issues are and why the owners are locking out the players in order to get what they want, and find out what the owners really want.
                          Yes, I know GB is one of the anomalies, I used to live 2 hours away. It is that uniqueness that makes them obligated to reveal their revenues as well. Maybe you should enlighten me as to what you think the issues are. I think the main issue is lack of revenue to pay costs and having little left over.

                          The packers are making a 4% profit margin. I am sure there are other teams in the league doing about the same and even others doing worse. A 4% profit margin is ridiculously low. Would you pay out $250M in the hopes of getting $259M back? That is bad business. If the current trend continues player salaries will have doubled in 10 ten years. You don't see that as a problem? About half of all revenues go towards player salaries. If that number doubles, where will the additional revenues come from to cover those expenses?

                          That is what I see as the issue. Players want more and more money but the owners don't have it to give. The owners say, you want more money, play more games. The players so no, we just want the money. Some people argue that the owners own a team worth a $1B so they have plenty of money to give. That is worng, they only have the money if they sell off part of the team to someone else. So should the owners sell off portions of the team only to give that money to the players and have little of it left for themselves? Since when do the workers make all of the money and owners make nothing?

                          I understand that individuals make those silly demands but it increases exponentially. Aso wants to be the highest paid CB, Revis has a great year, he wants a 10% raise over Aso, then it's cromartie who wants revis money, then it's Flowers who wants to be the highest, then it's Alphonso etc....( i just made up names) Yes it's individuals but it is a league-wide problem and one that has pushed the salaries into the ridiculous arena. Peresonally, I think player salaries should be a low base like $200,000 (just a ball park guess) then loaded with incentives like production and playing time that could boost them up to the levels they currently have. Players demand more money when they do great but there is nothing in place to lower their salaries when they tank. Revis just paid to be the highest paid CB last year then came out and had an average season. Jarvis Moss made $8M guaranteed...for what? That doesn't seem quite fair.

                          I would be happy to hear your side of it.
                          Last edited by broncos SB2010; 01-29-2011, 07:18 PM.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
                            The economy justs sucks. A 200,000 dollar house in 2007 is worth half of that now. That's the reality of it.
                            Meanwhile ESPN is reportedly going to be paying $1.8-$1.9 billion a year for Monday Night Football. FOX and CBS pay more if I'm not mistaken as they air a lot more games. Add in the money they get from NBC, and the money is just insane. The ratings for the NFL this year were the best they've been in 15 years.

                            The economy is bad for a lot of people, but the owners are doing better than ever. They have a product EVERYONE wants.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
                              Yes, I know GB is one of the anomalies, I used to live 2 hours away. It is that uniqueness that makes them obligated to reveal their revenues as well. Maybe you should enlighten me as to what you think the issues are. I think the main issue is lack of revenue to pay costs and having little left over.
                              I've already put it out there multiple times, but I will do it again here.
                              1. Rookie salary cap. Not a big issue as the players already have agreed in principal.

                              2. The money the players make. The players right now get 60% of the money, which they believe is only right since it's them that the fans come to see. Nobody buys owner jerseys. Nobody comes to cheer for the owners. Also, the players are the ones taking the physical beating, suffer multiple concussions, have serious debilitating physical problems for the rest of their lives as a result of the play. The owners want to take that amount of money down, even as revenues go up. Last year was a record year for the NFL in revenues. (and because GB is an anomaly, their finances aren't really relevant in terms of how the rest of the league works. They don't make as much money as the rest of the league and yet here they are in the super bowl.)

                              3. Revenue sharing. This is an issue between the small market owners and the large market owners. Large market teams have to share their revenue with the smaller market teams in order to prevent the owners of those smaller market teams from bolting to a Los Angeles or another large city. The problem here is that some large market owners are unhappy that they have their own overhead from big stadium deals while many of the smaller market teams get sweetheart deals on the stadiums that dramatically cut down on their overhead, so that they don't need as much money to manage their teams. The Jerry Jones' of the league are unhappy at paying out money they feel they need in order to support teams that don't really need it.

                              4. The 18 game schedule. I've heard from a couple of people recently that they believe the owners don't really want this, but they are pushing it as a big deal that they will capitulate on if they get some of the other things they are looking for. I'm not certain that's true. But at any rate, the owners want an 18 game schedule, making two preseason games into regular season. Veterans are against this because they will have two more full games to play, but with only two preseason games left, they will also have to play the lion's share of those two preseason games to get ready for the regular season, thus turning an eighteen game season into a 20 game season. Plus, the owners don't want to give up more money for the longer season and will balk at how much the roster will have to be increased in order to support it, as they won't want to increase payroll.

                              I understand that owners want to make more money. At least one team owner has said he's losing money. The players association has said, ok, let's take a look at the books and if you really are losing money, we will be happy to make concessions because everybody has to make money for this to work. The owners, however, refuse to show where and how they are losing money.

                              The packers are making a 4% profit margin. I am sure there are other teams in the league doing about the same and even others doing worse. A 4% profit margin is ridiculously low. Would you pay out $250M in the hopes of getting $259M back? That is bad business. If the current trend continues player salaries will have doubled in 10 ten years. You don't see that as a problem? About half of all revenues go towards player salaries. If that number doubles, where will the additional revenues come from to cover those expenses?
                              And the reason that isn't a big problem is the salary cap. You pay one player too much money and it's less money you can pay another player and the salary cap evens out all teams, so all teams can only pay up to that amount.

                              That's the reason I don't think your argument has a lot of validity. Also, the salary cap is agreed on by the league. I don't doubt that there are some teams not making as much as others, especially those in smaller markets who may or may not have sweetheart deals on their stadiums. Teams that don't manage their salary cap well (hello, Mr. Shanahan on line two) will find all kinds of struggles trying to pay salaries.

                              EDIT: Just wanted to add here that there are teams that don't do well and have trouble getting fans in the seats. I remember that for the longest time the Cardinals had a team where the owner stayed well below the top of the salary cap in salaries, fans saw an owner that was interested only in making money and not in fielding a winner and the fans refused to come buy tickets. That's a problem for an individual team. Cutting player salaries won't help that.

                              That is what I see as the issue. Players want more and more money but the owners don't have it to give. The owners say, you want more money, play more games. The players so no, we just want the money. Some people argue that the owners own a team worth a $1B so they have plenty of money to give. That is worng, they only have the money if they sell off part of the team to someone else. So should the owners sell off portions of the team only to give that money to the players and have little of it left for themselves? Since when do the workers make all of the money and owners make nothing?
                              Really? Yet, by all accounts, this past season has been a banner year for the NFL. NFL profits are up despite the recession. Teams that are having revenue problems filling their stadiums are finding that had they put in less luxury boxes (from which the owners receive all the money) and put in more regular fan seats (some of the revenue of which goes to the league for revenue sharing purposes) they would have more money coming in and fewer empty seats. The owners made their own bed with the luxury box deal, including Bowlen. The new stadium has considerably fewer seats available for the common Joe-Broncofan to buy tickets for, but if he could afford those luxury boxes, there are plenty of those available.

                              Even during the Great Depression entertainment didn't take that much of a hit. Movie theaters lowered their prices and people came in droves to watch the movies and forget their problems. The NFL has found ways to continue to make money AND profits, though in some markets there is more profit than in others.

                              I understand that individuals make those silly demands but it increases exponentially. Aso wants to be the highest paid CB, Revis has a great year, he wants a 10% raise over Aso, then it's cromartie who wants revis money, then it's Flowers who wants to be the highest, then it's Alphonso etc....( i just made up names) Yes it's individuals but it is a league-wide problem and one that has pushed the salaries into the ridiculous arena. Peresonally, I think player salaries should be a low base like $200,000 (just a ball park guess) then loaded with incentives like production and playing time that could boost them up to the levels they currently have. Players demand more money when they do great but there is nothing in place to lower their salaries when they tank. Revis just paid to be the highest paid CB last year then came out and had an average season. Jarvis Moss made $8M guaranteed...for what? That doesn't seem quite fair.
                              I would be happy to hear your side of it.
                              Well, you are all over the place here. Revis demanding a renegotiated contract is different from Moss making money off the old rookie salary system as a first found pick. And the new rookie salary cap will address the things like the Jarvis Moss busts.

                              The league already has a process by which to handle player demands. It's called arbitration. Most team owners find that its' better to keep their best players happy so in many cases, franchise-type players are negotiated with and a new deal arrived at rather than taking the case to arbitration, but owners and team management have that as a way to deal with the things you describe. That's the reason why player salaries as you describe them isn't really the crux of this lockout, IMO.
                              Last edited by rogue719; 01-30-2011, 05:56 AM.
                              You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                My eyes are hurting looking at all those words from rogue719. I hope you didn't stay up all night writing that. Good thoughtful answers to everyone, though. Have to CP you for that.

                                I have a hard time feeling bad for players who get to do want they love and get paid well for it. Plus, as a backup plan, they could take the degree they got for free (if they were smart enough to finish school) and get a real job.

                                If every player got 1 million... scratch that.
                                If every player was told that they are now going to make $500,000 exactly for now on. Take it or leave it. Most would take it.

                                See, the reality of the situation is, that is more than they'll get paid doing any other job out there. Including being a Doctor or Lawyer.

                                For some reason, you still think that the owners are making X amount of profit and therefore I should be entitled to some of it. No, you shouldn't.

                                I agree that there should be an CBA; It needs to be fair. Fair to me, means something entirely different to you. Fair to me would be implementing a Player CAP along with a Team CAP coupled with a rookie CAP. Incentive pay is always a good thing.

                                A player CAP would eliminate the huge payouts to a single player and disburse the money around to the other lesser known heroes that block for the stars. That's something you would like, right? Sort of like, equal distribution of the profits.

                                Popular players would get a percentage of the sales of their jerseys and merchandise. Plus, get to keep any money earned for endorsements along as they don't use a NFL logo during endorsement. If they use an NFL logo item, then they should share the money with the NFL.

                                There should be NO preseason games. That's what practice is for. Nobody wins with regards to preseason games. Owners lose, players lose, and fans lose.

                                There was a time back in the day when players making far less, played through their TURF toe injury, too.
                                Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 01-30-2011, 09:15 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X