Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email from Kevin Mawae "Let us play"

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Da Swerski View Post
    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.
    Doesn't mean the owners need to share the profit, even if it is true.
    Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 01-30-2011, 08:39 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
      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.
      And here is where we disagree. If you are the reason the owners are making that ungodly profit to begin with, yes you are entitled to some more of it.

      It works that way with the entertainment industry. Robin Williams makes a lot more doing standup than Gabriel Iglasias. Why? People are more willing to buy tickets to see Robin Williams than they are Gabriel Iglasias.

      It works that way in almost every industry, in fact. Law firms pay more money to well known lawyers who act as "rainmakers" and bring in more dollars than a less well known lawyer.

      So, since fans don't buy jerseys with Bowlen's name on it, but they DO buy jerseys with Tebows, when Tebow's contract is up, if he decides that he wants to make more money than Bowlen wants to pay him, he's entitled to negotiate a higher contract salary.

      That's how capitalism works. Your viewpoint is precisely why labor unions were formed in the first place, to protect workers and get them a better wage.
      You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
        Doesn't mean the owners need to share the profit, even if it is true.
        It is if they want to have the big names selling tickets.

        Tell ya what: you go with your plan and the players don't play. The owners decide to hire a bunch of replacement (scab) players, none of which is a big name.

        Owners still want to charge the same ticket price. How many people are going to buy tickets to see Broncos games in Denver with replacement players, ya think?
        You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

        Comment


        • #49
          I can't speak for everyone, but I don't go to games to watch the BIG names; I watch High School games to this day.

          I really enjoy the Wichita Wingnuts and watched the Wichita Wranglers when Johnny Damon was a nobody.

          I pay to watch National Baseball Congress games played here, too.

          Don't need much to enjoy it either. Just a bag of peanuts, maybe a dog or 2, and a beer in hand. That would cost about 50 dollars at Invesco Field.

          The point is, I don't like the Ocho Cincos and TO showboating types that have been nothing but over paid babies.

          I know that I'll live without the NFL for a while; I did it before. The question is can they live without us. I did go to LA Express games and watched Steve Young play. It was fun.

          The GAME is what it's all about. Players come and go. Remember, Bo Jackson? He hardly crosses my mind now. It's all about the game, the game makes us love the players. Then they fade away and another player comes along to replace them.

          By the way no matter what happens, the owners will, most likely, always be rich.
          Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 01-30-2011, 11:06 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
            It is if they want to have the big names selling tickets.

            Tell ya what: you go with your plan and the players don't play. The owners decide to hire a bunch of replacement (scab) players, none of which is a big name.

            Owners still want to charge the same ticket price. How many people are going to buy tickets to see Broncos games in Denver with replacement players, ya think?
            How about starting a Fan Union then. I help make the NFL money. I want a piece of the pie, too.

            Seriously, like I said in the above post, I did go to LA Express games and watched Steve Young play. It was fun. Hershal Walker, Flutie, man that was entertainment. Somehow, they found some good players to play and I watched.
            Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 01-30-2011, 11:02 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
              I can't speak for everyone, but I don't go to games to watch the BIG names; I watch High School games to this day.

              I really enjoy the Wichita Wingnuts and watched the Wichita Wranglers when Johnny Damon was a nobody.

              I pay to watch National Baseball Congress games played here, too.

              Don't need much to enjoy it either. Just a bag of peanuts, maybe a dog or 2, and a beer in hand. That would cost about 50 dollars at Invesco Field.
              That's just you though. There's a reason High School football is a cheap ticket. It's not something everyone wants to see. A lot of us enjoy seeing the best in the world competing. Depending on what results from the lockout, what if the players get a bad deal? Maybe a future hall of famer decides to play basketball or baseball instead.

              Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
              The point is, I don't like the Ocho Cincos and TO showboating types that have been nothing but over paid babies.

              I know that I'll live without the NFL for a while; I did it before. The question is can they live without us. I did go to LA Express games and watched Steve Young play. It was fun.

              The GAME is what it's all about. Players come and go. Remember, Bo Jackson? He hardly crosses my mind now. It's all about the game, the game makes us love the players. Then they fade away and another player comes along to replace them.

              By the way no matter what happens, the owners will, most likely, always be rich.
              Remember John Elway? He was willing to play baseball instead of playing for the Colts. Would you rather he have played baseball? You'd trade in all your memories of one of the best ever?

              Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
              Seriously, like I said in the above post, I did go to LA Express games and watched Steve Young play. It was fun. Hershal Walker, Flutie, man that was entertainment. Somehow, they found some good players to play and I watched.
              Somehow? Walker went to the USFL because he was too young for the NFL. He wanted to get paid so he went. Steve Young signed one of the best deals in pro football to go to the USFL over the NFL. They found those really good players with $$$. So paying top dollar to steal players away from the NFL by your own words was "man that entertainment."

              If the NFL, the richest sport, doesn't want to pay their players. There's 3 other major sport leagues that probably wouldn't mind a talent boost.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Atwnbroncfan View Post
                Its annoying the players keep pulling this poor me crap. They keep trying to get the "sympathy" vote.
                Exactly! I read Jermicheal Finnleys Twitter and he said he is working his butt off 5 hours a day to get back in shape for the fans. Maybe it was just me but the thought went through my head "5 hours a day? I work 10+ am I supposed to feel impressed?" They need to quit the bickering and get this thing worked out. From the sounds of it the NBA is on the same course and from a marketing standpoint, the NFL could clean house (not like it isnt already) if the NBA doesnt have a game next season.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
                  I can't speak for everyone, but I don't go to games to watch the BIG names; I watch High School games to this day.

                  I really enjoy the Wichita Wingnuts and watched the Wichita Wranglers when Johnny Damon was a nobody.

                  I pay to watch National Baseball Congress games played here, too.

                  Don't need much to enjoy it either. Just a bag of peanuts, maybe a dog or 2, and a beer in hand. That would cost about 50 dollars at Invesco Field.

                  The point is, I don't like the Ocho Cincos and TO showboating types that have been nothing but over paid babies.

                  I know that I'll live without the NFL for a while; I did it before. The question is can they live without us. I did go to LA Express games and watched Steve Young play. It was fun.

                  The GAME is what it's all about. Players come and go. Remember, Bo Jackson? He hardly crosses my mind now. It's all about the game, the game makes us love the players. Then they fade away and another player comes along to replace them.

                  By the way no matter what happens, the owners will, most likely, always be rich.


                  I think this sums it up for me. I loved John Elway and he will always be one of my favorite Broncos, BUT when he retired? I STILL watched my Broncos play the sport I love. Twenty years from now there won't be a single player left on our roster who is playing today. If I am living and have my eyesight, I will STILL be watching the games. In twenty years my favorite player may be my son, your son, or perhaps one of our grandsons. Unless they ARE related to me, or part of my network of friends and acquaintances, they will be my favorite player because they play for the Broncos and I admire their athleticism, ability, and usefulness to my team.

                  I realize an average player's career is much shorter than mine. I realize they have a higher likelihood of dealing with physical issues later in life due to their time spent playing the sport. I understand that they don't want to see their incomes decreased or even their opportunity of higher future income curtailed. I understand that Unions were originally created to protect exploited workers who were inadequately compensated for their labor, and required to work excessive hours under unsafe conditions. These are ALL things I have a reasonable understanding of.

                  I also realize that any given player in the NFl will probably make more money in their shortened career than I will in my LIFETIME. AFTER their NFL career is over, most of them will still have their degrees to fall back on and due to name recognition they will STILL have an opportunity to CONTINUE to make more annually than many of us would make in a decade.

                  I also realize that MANY people work in fields that put them at a higher health risk than others. Many of these people ALSO make less in their lifetimes than an NFL player.

                  I also realize that NONE of us want to see our wages cut (whether due to wage freezes, lay-offs, or even an actual cut in pay) but aside from the entertainment industry (sports, movies, TV programming) most of our wages AREN'T inflated to the point that we immediately move up several income brackets just by taking a job.

                  Finally I "believe" that Unions in America have become something completely different than what they were originally intended to be. "Most" employers or trades that have unions already pay a fair wage with a set amount of hours and safety is so scrutinized that the safeguards become redundant. "IF" extra hours are required, then the employee is well compensated by being paid 1.5 times their original pay rate or even 2.0 times their pay rate in some cases. "IF" the employee is NOT willing to abide by company rules, unwilling to work extra hours, etc, they have the option of finding another job. END OF STORY

                  As quoted above, the owners will most likely always be rich. This is true in a factory, a retail store, a Doctors office, or anywhere else. The amount of money may be dictated by the specific trade, career, or value of what they own, but they will ALWAYS make significantly more than their employees. In most cases I believe the owner would probably make 4-10 times more in a year than an "average" employee and 2-5 times more than even an executive in their company (I based these numbers from two specific trades that I knew the approximate amount of money made by the owner and employees of varying importance in their organization.)

                  Do I completely support the owners in this case? Strange as it may sound after making this case, NO. I don't support EITHER faction. I empathize with the "fans" who will suffer if there is no football, or if football is delayed to the point that their teams can't make the transactions they believe need to be made in order to be successful.

                  If I were NOT a fan, and didn't care if there was football, then my sympathy would be with the owner, in this case. NO employee has the right to DEMAND that the owner make changes to accommodate them. If the employee doesn't like it? Find another job. Go to work tomorrow and demand that you get higher pay, a better insurance package, and see how that works for you.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by knoxman36and2 View Post
                    [/B]

                    I think this sums it up for me. I loved John Elway and he will always be one of my favorite Broncos, BUT when he retired? I STILL watched my Broncos play the sport I love. Twenty years from now there won't be a single player left on our roster who is playing today. If I am living and have my eyesight, I will STILL be watching the games. In twenty years my favorite player may be my son, your son, or perhaps one of our grandsons. Unless they ARE related to me, or part of my network of friends and acquaintances, they will be my favorite player because they play for the Broncos and I admire their athleticism, ability, and usefulness to my team.

                    I realize an average player's career is much shorter than mine. I realize they have a higher likelihood of dealing with physical issues later in life due to their time spent playing the sport. I understand that they don't want to see their incomes decreased or even their opportunity of higher future income curtailed. I understand that Unions were originally created to protect exploited workers who were inadequately compensated for their labor, and required to work excessive hours under unsafe conditions. These are ALL things I have a reasonable understanding of.

                    I also realize that any given player in the NFl will probably make more money in their shortened career than I will in my LIFETIME. AFTER their NFL career is over, most of them will still have their degrees to fall back on and due to name recognition they will STILL have an opportunity to CONTINUE to make more annually than many of us would make in a decade.

                    I also realize that MANY people work in fields that put them at a higher health risk than others. Many of these people ALSO make less in their lifetimes than an NFL player.

                    I also realize that NONE of us want to see our wages cut (whether due to wage freezes, lay-offs, or even an actual cut in pay) but aside from the entertainment industry (sports, movies, TV programming) most of our wages AREN'T inflated to the point that we immediately move up several income brackets just by taking a job.

                    Finally I "believe" that Unions in America have become something completely different than what they were originally intended to be. "Most" employers or trades that have unions already pay a fair wage with a set amount of hours and safety is so scrutinized that the safeguards become redundant. "IF" extra hours are required, then the employee is well compensated by being paid 1.5 times their original pay rate or even 2.0 times their pay rate in some cases. "IF" the employee is NOT willing to abide by company rules, unwilling to work extra hours, etc, they have the option of finding another job. END OF STORY

                    As quoted above, the owners will most likely always be rich. This is true in a factory, a retail store, a Doctors office, or anywhere else. The amount of money may be dictated by the specific trade, career, or value of what they own, but they will ALWAYS make significantly more than their employees. In most cases I believe the owner would probably make 4-10 times more in a year than an "average" employee and 2-5 times more than even an executive in their company (I based these numbers from two specific trades that I knew the approximate amount of money made by the owner and employees of varying importance in their organization.)

                    Do I completely support the owners in this case? Strange as it may sound after making this case, NO. I don't support EITHER faction. I empathize with the "fans" who will suffer if there is no football, or if football is delayed to the point that their teams can't make the transactions they believe need to be made in order to be successful.

                    If I were NOT a fan, and didn't care if there was football, then my sympathy would be with the owner, in this case. NO employee has the right to DEMAND that the owner make changes to accommodate them. If the employee doesn't like it? Find another job. Go to work tomorrow and demand that you get higher pay, a better insurance package, and see how that works for you.
                    This was my point as well. You just said it a little more articulately
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Just think of how many more arrests are going to happen IF they have a lockout.

                      Guys having that kind of cash, and nothing to do all day.... MAN.

                      Look for two things to happen next year:

                      Birth rate for Skanks to go up
                      Criminal attorney hires skyrocket
                      Paroled after 8 long years living in Denver

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by knoxman36and2 View Post
                        [/B]
                        NO employee has the right to DEMAND that the owner make changes to accommodate them. If the employee doesn't like it? Find another job. Go to work tomorrow and demand that you get higher pay, a better insurance package, and see how that works for you.
                        But the players aren't the ones demanding changes. In this case, the owners are the one's saying "I know we agreed on this but I don't want to do it anymore and I want to pay you what I want to pay you. Take it or leave it."
                        You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The players should refuse the 18-game proposal. It's a very bad idea. If there must be a lockout to make this point clear, so be it.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                            But the players aren't the ones demanding changes. In this case, the owners are the one's saying "I know we agreed on this but I don't want to do it anymore and I want to pay you what I want to pay you. Take it or leave it."
                            The players/agents have been making demands every year for more money. It got to the point where the owners couldn't keep with the demands and thus opted out of the current CBA which was their right. In 2007, the #1 overall pick was JaMarcus Russel. He signed for 6 years for $61M and $32M guaranteed. 3 years later Bradford signs a 6 year deal for $78M and $50M guaranteed. That's a 28% increase in salary and a 56% increase in guaranteed money. In 3 years. Darelle Revis didn't like his contract, which he still had 3 years on, so he held out and re-signed for $46M/$32M guaranteed, more than double his original contract. This year, the first after signing his big deal, he had an average season at best. You don't see a problem with this?

                            I don't think what the owners are asking for is unreasonable.

                            1. Rookie salary cap. Everyone seems to agree on this, players and owners

                            2. 18 game schedule. If the players want more money than there has to be an increase in revenues. I don't know of a better way to increase revenues, do you? If they don't want the extra 2 games then they should have a pay cut or a pay freeze until revenues increase.

                            3. Percentage of revenue split. I am unsure where each side stands on this.


                            Items 1 and 2 seem fair to me. I don't know how you get the take it or leave issue.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
                              The players should refuse the 18-game proposal. It's a very bad idea. If there must be a lockout to make this point clear, so be it.
                              If they don't want an 18 game season, which is reasonable, what should they give up to get it? I think they should give up some pay. There are a few ways to do that imo:

                              1. shorter contracts so bad players can get off the books and so good players can get raises
                              2. Slotted rookie pay scale with a cap, top guy gets $10-$20M salary
                              3. Players play out their contracts, no more holding out to renegotiate
                              4. higher minimum salary for vets
                              5. Salary cap based on revenue either up or down
                              6. Potential lower salaries with Higher percentage guaranteed
                              7. Low base salaries with big incentives for all players based in performance and playing time. You do well, you get a huge payday, you do bad, you get the minimum. Money not paid due to underpeformance could go into a general fund or into player retirement fund. Clauses for injuries could be included.

                              Number 7 is my favorite. That would help eliminate players taking plays off. No more sitting guys at the end of the season. All out effort every time, not just before a contract year. No more showing up out of shape for TC. Plus others I can't think of right now.
                              Last edited by broncos SB2010; 01-30-2011, 07:27 PM.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
                                If they don't want an 18 game season, which is reasonable, what should they give up to get it?
                                Nothing. That's something that can't be imposed and then force the players to give up something to make it go away. I'm done with Goodell. The random fines, the safety rules that ruin the game (and the amount of injuries just increased), the idea of a franchise in London and the 18 games. Just horrible. The NFL was good the way it was before Goodell started messing around.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X