Welcome to PatsFans.com

If it does not get done, its the owners fault

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Sean Pa Patriot, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. Sean Pa Patriot

    Sean Pa Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,226
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    If the deal gets done its the fault of the owners, and not Jerry Jones , Mr Kraft nor Daniel Snyder. Its the fault of old school owners like the rooney's ,wilsons and others who still want to run the leauge like its 1970 all over again... They need to spend time with the franchise's that know how to run thier buisness. These owners better not kill the golden goose which is the NFL, because its a lose lose situation...
  2. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,189
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +276 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    Sorry Sean. Gotta disagree with you. If a deal doesn't get done its the fault of Gene Upshaw and the Players Union. All they do is take, take, take, thinking that they are owed something and its BS. If they want their cap pool to come out of the entire Gross Revenue, then the f'in players need to start paying some of the expenses as well. For things like their uniforms, laundry service, trainers, team doctor, etc, etc. Otherwise, they need to STFU and be happy with the millions they are getting.
  3. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Right now I have to say it is Upshaw and the NFLPA...Upshaw leaves...Mr Gloom and Doom...left last weekend...left the other day..It's hard to take him seriously...yesterday heard that players were trying to reach him and he was UNAVAILABLE... Sounds like a very responsible leader??? This one is all on him..and if he bungles it up..I predict Upshaw's folly will be out of a job.
  4. Macleod77

    Macleod77 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Some owners have some good points....

    Hey Guys,

    First post here.

    While I don't like the filthy bastards (Kraft aside), some owners may have a legitimate beef. I caught Robert Smith (ex-RB Minnesota) on the Dan Patrick radio show on ESPN radio. He made some good points about why the owners disagree. He pointed out that owners like Snyder and Jones have a reason to be upset, especially with the so called "small market" teams. They are being asked to share every ounce of revenue they make, which for example includes stadium naming rights. Compare this with the Bengals owner who names his stadium Paul Brown Stadium. In the eyes of Snyder and Jones that is lost revenue. Why then should Jones and Snyder who negotiated deals with companys contribute that money??
  5. jeffd

    jeffd Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Thats the general attitude of almost ALL modern labor unions. They feel that they deserve more at each negotiation without giving anything back.

    If the players really wanted to solve the cap problem, not just make more money, they would be increasing the vet min. and creating a rookie salary cap. The rookie cap would make more money available to pay the higher vet min. without increasing the cap.
  6. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,867
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +56 / 2 / -0

    Its everyone's fault - everyone needs to compromise

    I don't fault the NFLPA for asking for more money - the NFL is doing well and they want a bigger piece of the pie.

    What I do fault them for is requiring Total Football Revenues as a formula, knowing full well of the potential for stalemate among the owners on how to split the revenues

    It seems to me that a fair compromise is impossible if indeed Total Football Revenue is the formula

    Owners with higher debt service on stadiums and other costs should be able to have such costs deducted from their revenues

    But the other owners won't hear of that either

    Everyone can and should compromise - starting with the NFLPA on the definition of TFR
  7. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I have no problem with the Krafts, Snyders, etc. sharing their naming revenue, as long as the teams with taxpayer funded stadiums kick in the share of public money. After all, that's revenue for the owner. Snyder raised 10 million or whatever by selling naming rights to FedEx. Sure, throw it in the pot. And the Brown family can throw in the equivalent amount to the millions in taxpayer money used to finance Paul Brown stadium.

    I have zero tolerance for owners with publicly funded stadiums crying that they're not getting a fair shake.
  8. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    The problem is the union is being influenced heavily by agents. In what other union are rookies, newcomers to the union treated like kings?? The idea of slotted amounts of money for rookies is a great one, but that will never happen because of the agents and the want need of their greed. Makes sense to get more money to vets, but the union cares less about them. Makes one wonder about it all.
  9. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I guarantee the next CBA will feature a slotted pay scale for rookies. The Vets demand it, and they're the ones who vote on the CBA. It was a big part of the reason Vince Young is in the draft.
  10. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I really doubt that slotted rookie salaries are in there..the agents won't stand for that..thus a no-go by the NFLPA...I agree it is the vets who vote on it..but they won't have a shot of that this year. Makes a ton of sense to me. I really think the NFLPA needs an overhaul...but that will be up to the players.
  11. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I have to laugh at threads titled like this.

    Imagine if the place where you all worked said, "Hey, you know, we're making a lot of money here and it is all because of you workers. From on we are going to give you 56% of our revenues. The rest we will for our operating expenses and profit. A small amount of revenues will be excepted, but overall this deal will give all of you pays of at least half a million a year."

    And you and your coworkers all band together and say, "NEVER! You will give us 60% or we won't work for you. And no expcetions. All revenues or we won't work! "


    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
  12. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I have to totally agree...unions don't get close to anything like that...FAR from it..No we wnat 60% of it all...a bit ridiculous...but..in the larger picture they may end up with squat if there is an uncapped year....I think these last 10 years will be the good old days...
  13. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,189
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +276 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    There is a rookie cap, but it applies only to salaries and not signing bonuses. And that is part of the issue.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>