King: CBA negotiations "couldn't be going any worse"

[jsull87]

Re: OT: Well not really, but pretty sombering news...

If I were a pro athlete, I'd stick to baseball. You'll make a lot more money and put your body at less risk. The owners are ridiculous asking the players to take a pay cut. Maybe they should stop wasting land and disgusting amounts of public money building these "high-tech" stadiums that do little for anyone other than them.

The market value of the NFL is far higher than any other American sports league, and the players, who literally are the product, deserve their share of it. That's what the free market is all about. After all, it's their dedication and willingness to put their bodies on the line that makes the NFL as profitable as it is. But just wait for some miser to argue that the elites deserve to have literally everything achieved on the backs of the people who do the real work.

do you understand that without the owners and stadiums and facilities they provide the teams woudn't be there? i agree the players are the product and deserve their share. But if you look at the bare facts of here is the situation and the profit margin when the public pays for the stadium and now our costs are X% higher now it is privatised... the owners are in a worse situation now that they have to pay for the upkeep... therefore they need the responsability to be shared by the whole organisation... players included. You can't expect to reap the benifits of the NFL then when there is an expense to be "shared" you say no i will keep my benifits but pay none of the costs. it is unrealistic.

and you don't think the owners do "real work"... please

 

[WhoaDirty]

right...calling a team's fans "stupid" and "foolish" for attending games live really makes sense though...got it

From a financial standpoint it kinda does. I pay $140 for Sunday Ticket and less than $2 per can of beer. I don't get to see the game with a live audience, but hey, I hate the cold anyway ...

 

[furley]

Okay, what could this mean in relation to the Patriots acquiring Oakland's first round pick in 2011? Would the Raiders be off the hook for owing New England that pick, or would they be required to compensate the Patriots financially for the worth of the pick. I know, how can you place a value if there's no season, no regular season record to base it on. I don't know, I'm throwing out possibilities, that's why I'd asked.

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season.

 

[spacecrime]

I understand this. Major sports leagues rely upon the financial stupidity of their fans

I don't think you do understand. If you don't care about profesional football, then it is indeed stupid to spend money and time watching it. But it isn't stupid if you have a great interest and passion for the game (i.e., are a fan).

But this post of yours explains so much about your other posts. Sometimes it is all about where you are coming from.

Like baseball, where you say you never came back, you probably won't return after an NFL strike. And there will be others like you. But since as you say, what difference would it make to the NFl or the players if you stay away?

My guess is that the NFL may not miss you because most fans will be back, as we came back after the last NFL strike. We even watched the replacement games. Whoo hoo!

 

[upstater1]

I honestly believe that a strong union could combat the NFL owners easily if the stars of the league agreed to play in their own league.

If everyone signed on, they could have 32 franchises playing college stadium starting in early October when the college conference schedules kick in (this is when the top teams stop playing home games against weak OOC opponents).

The money would be generated through ticket sales, a TV deal with ABC that was pay-for-play (i.e. the league would take a % of the rating points), and the money would go straight to the players and, say, a 20% team insurance policy in case of injury.

They'd be missing all the sales of team jerseys, luxury boxes, DirectTV, but if the stars agreed to play, I bet a lot of people could watch on TV. And they could get creative by having an interactive online draft where the fans got to choose the players from their respective city. This would create a lot of hype.

The owners would soil their pants.

 

[upstater1]

Okay, what could this mean in relation to the Patriots acquiring Oakland's first round pick in 2011? Would the Raiders be off the hook for owing New England that pick, or would they be required to compensate the Patriots financially for the worth of the pick. I know, how can you place a value if there's no season, no regular season record to base it on. I don't know, I'm throwing out possibilities, that's why I'd asked.

All the picks would be rolled into a superdraft in 2012, a 14 round draft. The great thing about the Patriots' first rounder is that you could trade down and grab several first rounders, since the 64th pick would effectively be a first rounder. Heck, start trading for 5th rounders right now if you think there will be no football in 2011 because a 2011 5th rounder will be the equivalent of picking in the early 3rd round.

 

[Deus Irae]

right...calling a team's fans "stupid" and "foolish" for attending games live really makes sense though...got it

Context, Joker. You might read up on it.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

All I know is.. I love football , I love this team.. I was to young and involved in 82 with basketball.. But still missed pro football.. 87 sucked as well, because it cost the pats a playoff birth... I would be dissapointed if there is no football in 11.. I dont want to say I wont come back, but it will be hard too..

 

[Miguel]

But then we would have two years of players to choose from - the older 2011 class and the younger 2012 class in that draft.

We would already have those classes to chose from in 2011.

However for the 2011's - should then lots of juniors come out this year??

Given how the owners want to lower the amount of money going to rookies and the growing possibility that there will be no football in 2011, if I were a junior, I would come out this year.

 

[Miguel]

Okay, what could this mean in relation to the Patriots acquiring Oakland's first round pick in 2011? Would the Raiders be off the hook for owing New England that pick, or would they be required to compensate the Patriots financially for the worth of the pick. I know, how can you place a value if there's no season, no regular season record to base it on. I don't know, I'm throwing out possibilities, that's why I'd asked.

The CBA says:
"There shall be an Annual Selection Meeting (the “College Draft” or “Draft”) each League Year during the term of this Agreement and in the League Year immediately following the expiration or termination of this Agreement, with respect to which the following rules shall apply:"

which I take to mean as that there will be a draft in 2011 even if the owners lock out the players.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think you do understand. If you don't care about profesional football, then it is indeed stupid to spend money and time watching it. But it isn't stupid if you have a great interest and passion for the game (i.e., are a fan).

I think it's pretty obvious that I care about football to post about it quite often on message boards and to follow more than just one team at a time, and to learn the players and coaches, strategy, draft, etc.... However, I think shelling out the amount of money it costs for parking, food, drink, tickets, programs, souvenirs, etc... is stupid. I can stay home and watch the game for free on television. With the money saved, I can go do something that isn't available on television. A refusal to be financially screwed over when there are alternatives has nothing to do with passion for the game.

But this post of yours explains so much about your other posts. Sometimes it is all about where you are coming from.

If you mean taking a rational approach rather then giving in to slavish devotion, I agree.

Like baseball, where you say you never came back, you probably won't return after an NFL strike. And there will be others like you. But since as you say, what difference would it make to the NFl or the players if you stay away?

Actually, I stopped following baseball not because of a strike, but because of the timing of the strike. If the groups involved didn't feel that the sport was important enough to play the World Series before letting fights about money and the like shut things down, why should the fans? A strike at the beginning of a season is less onerous, because there's been no emotional investment in anything to that point.

As for the difference it makes to the leagues, you may have noticed that things began to decline enough in baseball that the sport looked the other way while steroid-enhanced goons shattered the most beloved records in all of sports, just so they could get more asses in the seats. The fans are the most vital part of big business sports. It's just that they are too disorganized, and too willing to be screwed over, to generally be an effective force.

My guess is that the NFL may not miss you because most fans will be back, as we came back after the last NFL strike. We even watched the replacement games. Whoo hoo!

Indeed, you watched the replacement games. The people who attended those games paid the NFL money for a product that was at times below college standards, which was stupid. However, the reality of the replacement games is quite enlightening:

10. The Replacement Football League (Oct. 4, 1987)
Less than two weeks after NFL players went on strike, NFL stadiums were open for business, but the real pros were outside the stadium, picketing. Who was inside? Not too many fans (there was record-low attendance at almost every game), and a bunch of guys who not too long ago were tending bar, selling stocks or cashing unemployment checks. A few "real" pros also crossed the picket lines to play.

Mercifully, the strike ended after 24 days; one of the replacement games was stricken from the record, though the other three counted in the final standings.

ESPN.com - Page2 - Shocking moments in NFL history

The fans didn't all fall into lockstep, despite your post. It's not about "great interest and passion for the game (i.e., are a fan)", it's about having a breaking point.

 

[furley]

which I take to mean as that there will be a draft in 2011 even if the owners lock out the players.

See, it makes more sense to me to have the draft as normal as oppose to putting it off. Why punish the college players if the lockout had nothing to do with them. If you're the Patriots, it's business as usual with the assumption that the season will resume the following season.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

John Mara of the Giants reinforces some of what King says. There is nothing terribly new just more numbers that we've heard (maybe some we haven't?) and the key talking points are repeated: rookie pay scale, more money for retired players and veterans, cutting up the $8.5 million pie, etc.


LINK

Seeing this from a second source makes me start to get a little nervous about March 1, 2011.

 

[spacecrime]

If you mean taking a rational approach rather then giving in to slavish devotion, I agree.

No, I meant that if you stop watching games because owners and players disagree, then you were not as interested in the game to begin with as those who anxiously awaited its return. You can call a low interest 'rational' or you can called it anything you want to make yourself sound more right than everyone else, but all it is is a lowered interest. You don't care all that much.

You keep calling people stupid who like the game more than you do. Just because some people are more interested and have more passion for the game than you does not make them stupid or you smart.

Believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around your dislikes. You are just one more data point with no more or no less meaning than any other data point. You just think you are smarter than the rest of the world and those who don't think like you do are stupid.

But if you are so willing to dump watching football if there is a strike, why are you spending so much of your life posting on a football site. The rest of us are "irrationally' interested in football. Why are you here?

 

[spacecrime]

Re: OT: Well not really, but pretty sombering news...

do you understand that without the owners and stadiums and facilities they provide the teams woudn't be there? i agree the players are the product and deserve their share. But if you look at the bare facts of here is the situation and the profit margin when the public pays for the stadium and now our costs are X% higher now it is privatised... the owners are in a worse situation now that they have to pay for the upkeep... therefore they need the responsability to be shared by the whole organisation... players included. You can't expect to reap the benifits of the NFL then when there is an expense to be "shared" you say no i will keep my benifits but pay none of the costs. it is unrealistic.

and you don't think the owners do "real work"... please

Good point.

It is easier for the owners to get different players than for the players to get new stadiums to play in.

And the owners would make money with replacement players. Not as much as before, but still would have income coming in. And of course, stadiums can be used for venues besides football.

Players on strike earn no money. Thirty year old players who go on strike are likely not to play again. They will be 31 after a year on strike and out of condition. And some of the replacement players will turn out to be decent enough to be projects compared to old players.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I meant that if you stop watching games because owners and players disagree, then you were not as interested in the game to begin with as those who anxiously awaited its return. You can call a low interest 'rational' or you can called it anything you want to make yourself sound more right than everyone else, but all it is is a lowered interest. You don't care all that much.

You keep calling people stupid who like the game more than you do. Just because some people are more interested and have more passion for the game than you does not make them stupid or you smart.

As usual, you get it wrong. You've made the mistake of equating a willingness to be taken for a ride with having passion.

Believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around your dislikes. You are just one more data point with no more or no less meaning than any other data point. You just think you are smarter than the rest of the world and those who don't think like you do are stupid.

I never claimed to be anything more than one person. As for how smart I think I am, that's irrelevant, as is how smart I might believe you to be.

But if you are so willing to dump watching football if there is a strike, why are you spending so much of your life posting on a football site. The rest of us are "irrationally' interested in football. Why are you here?

Your inability to grasp the idea that liking something, even liking it a great deal, is not a 1:1 correlation with a willingness to be hosed if that's what it takes to get a 'fix', is on you, not me.

 

[Miguel]

I understand this. Major sports leagues rely upon the financial stupidity of their fans, who are foolish enough to drop hundreds of dollars between tickets, parking, food and drink, to go watch something when they could watch the same game at home for free and use those hundreds of dollars for other entertainments or for necessities.

I do not consider myself stupid. I think that the view from my seat is better than what I can see on TV. I can see the entire play develop.