Felger on the owners: I have to agree with him!

[A.C Vegas]

The whole idea that this is about taking money away from the players just touches the border of the issue. For three years the ownwers have been telling the players that the CBA wasn't working. They have been informing the players that they were unhappy and that they would like to get something done

The is one major issue with that statement. The Owners may not have liked what was going on but thye still went out and paid Headcases Like Haynes worth 100+ million dollars. The owners could have easily offered weaker contracts and as long as they did it independanly of other owners there was nothing illegal about but they did not cause some owners didn't care.

I personally think that the players and Owners for 2-3 years take a wage freeze no one gets more money and there is a set rookie scale for that year. for htose 2-3 years every single penny that goes in and out of the business for players and onwers including spounserships and ad revenue get accounted for. For thos 2-3 years all Profits and put in escrow (after the owners that a salery that is agreed on by the players and owners) after the 2-3 years up everyone how much everyone has and can make a fair choice everyone wins and shuts the hell up.

 

[Sicilian]

The is one major issue with that statement. The Owners may not have liked what was going on but thye still went out and paid Headcases Like Haynes worth 100+ million dollars. The owners could have easily offered weaker contracts and as long as they did it independanly of other owners there was nothing illegal about but they did not cause some owners didn't care.

I personally think that the players and Owners for 2-3 years take a wage freeze no one gets more money and there is a set rookie scale for that year. for htose 2-3 years every single penny that goes in and out of the business for players and onwers including spounserships and ad revenue get accounted for. For thos 2-3 years all Profits and put in escrow (after the owners that a salery that is agreed on by the players and owners) after the 2-3 years up everyone how much everyone has and can make a fair choice everyone wins and shuts the hell up.

How much they pay one player is kind of irrelevant when there is a salary cap. They're contending that paying to the cap is unsustainable for the league as a whole, but how they choose to use that cap doesn't change anything. Snyder was stupid for putting that much into Haynesworth from a football standpoint, but it didn't change how much he spent on player salaries overall.

 

[plk]

Just so I understand your point here.

When Steven Ross purchased half of the Dolphins for $550,000,000 he did not earn the right to make as much money as he could on his investment?

I read about as far as the quote above, and I stopped reading. As I thought about the situation, I had a little revelation which I would like to share. (I have not read the rest of the thread, so I do not know what other people have said.)

If a sports franchise is just a profit-making operation like a soft drink manufacturer, a beer brewer, or a carmaker, why should I feel any more loyalty to a particular franchise than I do to a particular soft drink or beer or car? Why don't I just choose my sports teams the way I choose everything else, i.e., based on whether or not it is giving me what I want now?

On the Internet, you can follow just about any major sports team about equally easily. There is no reason to be stuck with the local team; you can choose any team you want.

That is the logical conclusion I draw from the above quote.

 

[mojocaster.com]

I actually agree with you and couldnt have said it better myself, was just trying to be funny, guess it wasnt

Oh well, never mind, then

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

I actually agree with you and couldnt have said it better myself, was just trying to be funny, guess it wasnt

Naw it was funny and on target. Some of these posts seems like they were written by owners.

WFAN had their take on it at lunch today and they were also amazed that so many fans were siding with the owners (they were not).

Sigh I guess it is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things (after all Honshu and Hokkaido are about to become uninhabitable) but I just cannot see how the owners can justify giving the players a pay cut when business is booming.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by cmasspatsfan
I actually agree with you and couldnt have said it better myself, was just trying to be funny, guess it wasnt

Oh well, never mind, then

I thought everyone heard Jerry Jones rant, I dont remember word for word something to the effect is they're offering the players the best they're gonna get and they just dont get it. Sounds like hes a hardliner and is digging in his heels.

 

[DEVIOUS 1]

Naw it was funny and on target. Some of these posts seems like they were written by owners.

WFAN had their take on it at lunch today and they were also amazed that so many fans were siding with the owners (they were not).

Sigh I guess it is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things (after all Honshu and Hokkaido are about to become uninhabitable) but I just cannot see how the owners can justify giving the players a pay cut when business is booming.

You sound like you suffer from class envy Fred.

There is blame on both sides. But I find it amusing that you seem to hate on the owners for being greedy, but back the players for the same thing.

At least the owners aren't stupid enough to keep talking about how bad they feel for the fans, and then turn around and negotiate selfishly.

Their plan all along was to decertify. But put us all through a dog and pony show for 2 weeks to TRY to curry PR favor. Yeah, I'm feeling the love.

Also, stop acting like Felger or anyone on WFAN are unbiased observers. They have a radio show to run, which occasionally has (gasp) professional football players as guests. You don't think there is a conflict of interest?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Why is it that virtually every "Fred" post has something to do with Felger? It's uncanny.

Either Fred is Felger or he's going to end up boiling Felger's bunny.

I'm 50/50 on it.

Has FredFromDartmouth ever called into Felger's radio show? Probably not. Just like you never see Clark Kent and Superman together.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Has FredFromDartmouth ever called into Felger's radio show? Probably not. Just like you never see Clark Kent and Superman together.

Me calling in? He would disembowel me on the air; he is a professional talker after all and adept at such things. Best not to deal with the lion in his own den. Maybe I would meet him for a beer; we would probably get along--I am very easy going in person. I will send you all a photo of us if it happens.

Anyway here is to hoping that Randy Moss comes back to the Patriots as a player or coach ; it would drive Felger to madness.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The is one major issue with that statement. The Owners may not have liked what was going on but thye still went out and paid Headcases Like Haynes worth 100+ million dollars. The owners could have easily offered weaker contracts and as long as they did it independanly of other owners there was nothing illegal about but they did not cause some owners didn't care.

They kind of did just that in 2010. Made sense considering where we are now. Except to the NFLPA who filed a collusion suit that is also still pending over that. Said the lack of big ticket deals last year smelled fishy to them because they'd been selling their members on the panacea the uncapped year was going to be for 4 years and it turned out to be a big fat contractual disappointment. See, you can't win when dealing with a millionaire's union. These are the same people who filed a grievance against the Falcons when they tried to recoup $20M of Vick's signing bonus attributable to the years he was going to be a guest of the Feds... They got an arbitration ruling that said if a player screws up none of his signing bonus or roster bonus once paid can't be recouped, even if he goes and commits a DUI fatality the next day...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I read about as far as the quote above, and I stopped reading. As I thought about the situation, I had a little revelation which I would like to share. (I have not read the rest of the thread, so I do not know what other people have said.)

If a sports franchise is just a profit-making operation like a soft drink manufacturer, a beer brewer, or a carmaker, why should I feel any more loyalty to a particular franchise than I do to a particular soft drink or beer or car? Why don't I just choose my sports teams the way I choose everything else, i.e., based on whether or not it is giving me what I want now?

On the Internet, you can follow just about any major sports team about equally easily. There is no reason to be stuck with the local team; you can choose any team you want.

That is the logical conclusion I draw from the above quote.

I draw the logical conclusion from posting on the internet that a lot of fans here these days are already choosing their teams the way you suggest. We often label them bandwagon or frontrunner fans, although increasingly chronic malcontent fans seem to be drawn here.

 

[slim2120]

I'm kinda of amazed how overwhelmingly pro-owners this forum is. Fans always side with owners in these things. I know that going in. I'm a pro-player guy so I know I'm in the minority but I didn't expect it to be this lopsided.

As to the labor dispute. I don't think either side has done anything wrong. In any type of market economy management and labor have the right to negotiate over wages.

The owners found the old CBA unacceptable and decided to opt out. That was their right. I don't think you can criticize the owners for finding the old CBA unacceptable. It was understood that when the old CBA was negotiated both parties had the right to opt out if they were unhappy. Well guess what players the owners are unhappy. They have the right to fight to make as much money as possible. Thus, it is perfectly fair to opt out and negotiate for a better deal.

But the players also have the right to fight to make as much money as possible. The players have decided that the demands of ownership was unacceptable. That is their right. They have decided the labor union no longer serves their interest. That is their right. They have decided to decertify their union and sue the NFL for anti-trust laws.

That is their right as employees to sue the NFL under anti-trust law. The NFL knew their was a high probability of the law suit happening and decided to opt out. The players aren't doing anything wrong by suing them in court.

Ultimately, I think this will be settled in the Fall. The NFL will miss a few games but there will be a super bowl. No replacement players will be used for fear of anti-trust damages.

An agreement will be reached that will be a lot closer to the old CBA than what the owners wanted after they realize they're likely to lose in court over the anti-trust issues.

Both sides aren't doing anything wrong. Labor and management have the right to battle over how the profits will be distributed.

The problem for us fans is the monopoly the major sports leagues have over their respective sports. There isn't a viable competitor for the NFL, so owners feel confident that they can cancel games and get the fans back. They also know the players really can't go anywhere else. The players know there aren't replacement players as good as Brady out there. This makes them confident the fans will always comeback. Players also know the absence of adequate replacement talent gives them significant leverage in there battles w/management.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm kinda of amazed how overwhelmingly pro-owners this forum is. Fans always side with owners in these things. I know that going in. I'm a pro-player guy so I know I'm in the minority but I didn't expect it to be this lopsided.

As to the labor dispute. I don't think either side has done anything wrong. In any type of market economy management and labor have the right to negotiate over wages.

The owners found the old CBA unacceptable and decided to opt out. That was their right. I don't think you can criticize the owners for finding the old CBA unacceptable. It was understood that when the old CBA was negotiated both parties had the right to opt out if they were unhappy. Well guess what players the owners are unhappy. They have the right to fight to make as much money as possible. Thus, it is perfectly fair to opt out and negotiate for a better deal.

But the players also have the right to fight to make as much money as possible. The players have decided that the demands of ownership was unacceptable. That is their right. They have decided the labor union no longer serves their interest. That is their right. They have decided to decertify their union and sue the NFL for anti-trust laws.

That is their right as employees to sue the NFL under anti-trust law. The NFL knew their was a high probability of the law suit happening and decided to opt out. The players aren't doing anything wrong by suing them in court.

Ultimately, I think this will be settled in the Fall. The NFL will miss a few games but there will be a super bowl. No replacement players will be used for fear of anti-trust damages.

An agreement will be reached that will be a lot closer to the old CBA than what the owners wanted after they realize they're likely to lose in court over the anti-trust issues.

Both sides aren't doing anything wrong. Labor and management have the right to battle over how the profits will be distributed.

The problem for us fans is the monopoly the major sports leagues have over their respective sports. There isn't a viable competitor for the NFL, so owners feel confident that they can cancel games and get the fans back. They also know the players really can't go anywhere else. The players know there aren't replacement players as good as Brady out there. This makes them confident the fans will always comeback. Players also know the absence of adequate replacement talent gives them significant leverage in there battles w/management.

Interestingly you consider yourself pro-player, and I am being accused of being pro-owner,(I understand why, and its just because I see many flaws in the anti-owner argument being expressed and I dont see many anti-player diatribes) but I agree 100% with what you just wrote.

 

[slim2120]

Interestingly you consider yourself pro-player, and I am being accused of being pro-owner,(I understand why, and its just because I see many flaws in the anti-owner argument being expressed and I dont see many anti-player diatribes) but I agree 100% with what you just wrote.

I think it is probably because you recognize what I do: neither side is doing anything wrong but are just acting on behalf of their interests.

Some people I know who are pro-player really think the owners are evil for what there doing. That is silly. The owners are just fighting for what they perceive to be their interests.

There are a lot of people who are pro-owner who feel the players are bastards for what they're doing. That is also silly. The players are just fighting for what they perceive to be their interests.

Both sides are using the legal system to advance their interests. The owners by arguing decertification is a sham and trying to keep the thing in labor court were they have the advantage. The players by trying to shift it to anti-trust law were they have the advantage.

I can't begrudge them for trying to use the legal system to fight for their rights. That is why we have a legal system: so people can peacefully solve their disagreements.

What sucks for us as fans is that them fighting over their interest screw us over because there isn't a comparable product to the NFL. If it was we would just all become fans of "other football league" the same way you switch detergents when your old brand isn't in the store.

But I won't blame either side for fighting for their interests. I would do the same if I were in their shoes.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I think it is probably because you recognize what I do: neither side is doing anything wrong but are just acting on behalf of their interests.

Some people I know who are pro-player really think the owners are evil for what there doing. That is silly. The owners are just fighting for what they perceive to be their interests.

There are a lot of people who are pro-owner who feel the players are bastards for what they're doing. That is also silly. The players are just fighting for what they perceive to be their interests.

Both sides are using the legal system to advance their interests. The owners by arguing decertification is a sham and trying to keep the thing in labor court were they have the advantage. The players by trying to shift it to anti-trust law were they have the advantage.

I can't begrudge them for trying to use the legal system to fight for their rights. That is why we have a legal system: so people can peacefully solve their disagreements.

What sucks for us as fans is that them fighting over their interest screw us over because there isn't a comparable product to the NFL. If it was we would just all become fans of "other football league" the same way you switch detergents when your old brand isn't in the store.

But I won't blame either side for fighting for their interests. I would do the same if I were in their shoes.

I agree with everything you just said and its why I havent backed either side. Now if they miss games Ill be anti-player and anti-owner, if these clowns cant agree with the game enjoying an economic windfall how to slice up billions then you'll see a lot more pissed off people. If they dont miss a game who cares.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Media people siding with the players ... how original.

Must make the players feel good - even though the opinions are way less than honest.

 

[rabthepat]

LOL...I love reading and hearing people defending the team owners by using some "business" mumbo jumbo logic. "If I spent $500,000,000 on a business...blah, blah blah,..." and "No business owner has to show the employees the books...blah, blah, blah..."

None of that logic and reason apply here because the NFL is a monopoly/syndicate. The normal business rules DO NOT apply to the NFL. The relationship between the owners and players is more like a marriage than a business and as any of you guys who have been married know, "what the wife (players) wants the wife gets even though the money comes out of the husband's (owners) pocket."

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sigh I guess it is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things (after all Honshu and Hokkaido are about to become uninhabitable) but I just cannot see how the owners can justify giving the players a pay cut when business is booming.

They're not giving the players a pay cut, they're giving the owners a pay raise.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about the owner's position - football operation costs are up and they gave too much money to the players in the last round of negotiations. That's it.

The players basically want the same or more money - and slightly different ways of distributing it (although the NFLPA long ago could have taken more of the available money and negotiated it to go to retired players if they wanted to - but they specifically said at the time they didn't want to. Now they're blaming the owners for not providing enough benefits for retired players. But that's negotiations in the public eye - truth is the first casualty.)

 

[PatsFanNM]

Where has slim2120 been in all these discussions? What a voice of reason!

Thank you.

 

[plk]

Not sure what is so hard to understand about the owner's position - football operation costs are up and they gave too much money to the players in the last round of negotiations. That's it.

Exactly. But the owners have to to demonstrate it. Only a real idiot would simply take the owner's word on what they need.