View Poll Results: Would you support the Broncos any less if a lockout costs games?

134. You may not vote on this poll
  • Heck no! Theyre the Broncos baby!

    63 47.01%
  • No, Id still support them but Id feel jilted by the lockout

    48 35.82%
  • YES! I would boycott the league!

    9 6.72%
  • Yes, Id still watch the games but wouldnt spend any money on Broncos or NFL merchandise

    14 10.45%
Page 2 of 289 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 4323
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardedWonder View Post
    I'm beginning to hate unions more and more everyday
    Agreed! I know its a cliche comment but it makes you wonder how many of these guys realize they are getting paid to play a game and at one point I am sure they were on a playground somewhere wishing they could make the league minimum and get paid to play football just like every other little kid in america.
    [B][COLOR="Blue"]TEAM TEBOW #92[/COLOR][/B][/CENTER]

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2003

    Report: CBA talks broke down after union proposed 50-50 split

    Posted by Mike Florio on February 10, 2011, 10:56 AM EST

    So much for optimism.

    Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Thursday’s bargaining session between the NFL and the NFLPA was canceled after the two sides hit a wall regarding the most important aspect of the deal, the formula for splitting up the money.

    Mort reports that the NFLPA proposed a split of roughly 50-50 between players and owners, and that the owners walked away from the table in response.

    Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.”

    Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport.

    The league’s misinterpretation of the proposal is a bit surprising, since a 50-50 split of total football revenue would have reflected the much-debated 18 percent reduction that the owners’ reportedly have asked the players to take. Then again, the union’s decision to propose essentially a 50-50 sharing of all revenue is equally surprising, given that the players currently get roughly that amount under the current deal.

    According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent. In 2004, it was 52.18 percent. In 2005, 50.52 percent. In 2006, it was 52.74 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2007, it was 51.84 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2009, it was 50.06 percent.

    Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all.

    That said, we think it was unreasonable for the league stormed out. We assume the proposal reflected an opening offer from the union under an “all revenue” model, and opening offers implicitly contain room to move. With the league refusing to open the books to justify the desire to cut the players’ share, it’s not unreasonable for the players to say, “Look, let’s quit bickering about the league taking money off the top and let’s just work out a formula based on every dollar that comes in. Our first move is to ask for roughly what we currently get. Feel free to counter.”

    If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.

    It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter.

    That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably.

    Either way, the outside lawyers who are handling the negotiations (Jeffrey Kessler for the union and Bob Batterman for the league) continue to bill by the hour, and every hour of effort expended on the negotiations and a lockout and whatever comes next will serve only to fatten their coffers.

    So maybe, just maybe, Robert Kraft — and Shakespeare (possibly a/k/a John Florio) — were right.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Tallahassee, Fl.
    I was thinking this new round of meetings would heat up and get a deal done. Oh well. We are getting too close to the deadline for the sides to be this far apart.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by CoryWinget81 View Post
    It's gonna be a huge mistake if there is no football.

    ...ask the NHL. They STILL haven't recovered from their lockout.
    I think it's more because it's hockey than anything else. Hockey's a tough sport to watch on TV. Live, hockey's pretty awesome. But I don't think it will ever appeal to the masses.

    Major League Baseball had a lockout and they recovered nicely. Can you honestly say you would never watch a Broncos game again if there was a lockout? I can't.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Granada Nicaragua
    Quote Originally Posted by Mount-n-Groan View Post
    Maybe they don't want a deal.

    Maybe they want the TV money without having to pay players and staff.

    Could this all just be an opportunity for a huge money grad, and the owners are taking advantage of that opportunity? I hope not, but it sure looks like it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Gurnee, IL
    Quote Originally Posted by PowderAddict View Post
    Maybe they don't want a deal.

    Maybe they want the TV money without having to pay players and staff.

    Could this all just be an opportunity for a huge money grad, and the owners are taking advantage of that opportunity? I hope not, but it sure looks like it.
    i can definitely see this, they want an extra 1 billion right off the top to get caught up on "expenses" (what that means we dont know) but the players wont give that up, funny that they really have NO room to negotiate

    employees should not make more than owners IMO so i other than the fact that there may be no football i have no problem with how the owners are handling this

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by PowderAddict View Post
    Maybe they don't want a deal.

    Maybe they want the TV money without having to pay players and staff.

    Could this all just be an opportunity for a huge money grad, and the owners are taking advantage of that opportunity? I hope not, but it sure looks like it.
    That could be. At the very least it looks like the league actually wants the lockout - which could lead to a strike. If the players strike then chances are that the fans/public support for them (the players) would diminish... and thus they might be more willing to accept what the league offers. I've already seen (based on comments' likes/dislikes) a slight shift in support from the players to the league.

    Personally, I'm disgusted by the whole thing. If either side thinks that they're going to gain the majority of support from the fans by prolonging this thing then they're terribly mistaken.

    But, that begs the question: Do they even care about the fans?

    They should because ultimately it's the fans that support the whole damned thing.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Aberdeen,South Dakota
    Quote Originally Posted by the0rangecrush View Post
    Well, that means we get the number 2 pick twice in a row.
    ...And more draft Luck threads

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneBlaze23 View Post
    Well no football in 2011, this is gonna be different,plus the boards might die down. With no football, what is there to speak of on here.

    However on a positive note, I think there will be a meeting between the 2, just not any time soon.
    A year long Orton Tebow thread. Can't wait!!!
    [COLOR="DarkOrange"]2011 Adopt a Bronco: The Beast off the Bench Adam Weber!!![/COLOR][/SIZE]

    [QUOTE=Jay3;3909374]Yes. For two Super Bowls I would be willing to carpet bomb Canada.[/QUOTE]

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    hmm... so maybe we'll have replacements?

    hope we get Shane Falco

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Roddoliver View Post

    If it wasn't for this small detail... The current CBA would be good for the next season and the sides would have plenty of extra time to reach a new deal.
    No they wouldn't. Everyone knew this was coming since 2008. They had 3 years to get a deal done. 1 more wouldn't have changed a thing.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Spokane, WA

    More "To-Do's" for the lockout season

    Quote Originally Posted by jgod654 View Post
    Bahh just great!

    I really cant get my head around this. It is so obvious that they are trying to do too much too fast. If you start a revolution there are bound to be adversaries.

    Now - being danish, our whole society is based on labor unions chiseling out agreements with employers and if they tried to do what is happening with the NFL CBA - we would have a gerneral strike every year.

    The only recipe for success is Regular Baby steps.

    - Oh lets fix the rookie salary cap
    - Ohh and while we are at it lets expand the season with two games
    - Double Ohhh why dont we remove the franchise tag
    - And the list goes on...

    Dear Mr. Goodell. Go fix the rookie salary cap now. Make that agreement valid for 1-2 years. Then look at the expansion....then look at the franchise tag...

    No wonder these negotiations are hard...
    Add to your list: -While we are at it let's move Buffalo to Toronto so the NFL will be truely international
    - Put a team back in LA (either JVille or Minn)
    - Finally put a team in San Antonio (either JVille or Minn)

    I'm not a businessman so I don't know how this would work out but I know there has been talk about the Bills and LA.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    IMO this is where the major battle is fought. A cold war between the owners and players with posturing and a stair down of nucear proportions.

    Have no worries there will be a 2011, we just have to wait and see who will blink first.

    Remember the Darrel Revis stand of? Both sides were swearing up and down that they werent going to blink... but when push came to shove they had to get the job done. The players know that they have all the leverage and the league for all of thier bluffing knows it cannot allow a full lockout. Way too much revenue would be lost.

    At worst they will push back the parts of the deal they cant agree on until next year and keep things as is for this one. Or at absolute worst case they may miss 2 games or so to show the players that they are serious but i dont think that will happen.

    Whoever blinks first is at a HUGE disadvantage going to the table, so thats all this is right now just... posturing for the bargaining table.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    If this happened i would retire if i was Brian Dawkins... The guy would be close to 70 by the time the 2012 season rolled around.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Edge of Orange
    Get ready for the long haul, boys. This is going to take some time. I got flamed for predicting the lockout will last until September. But I really believe this will happen. If regular season games do not get played, the NFL will lose $1 billion dollars. Trust me, they will somehow get a deal worked out to not lose that billion. I don't think either side will budge until the September deadline.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts