Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[bobblehead]

So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?



Who despises them for getting really rich? You seem to have this view about what everyone else thinks, but I for one don't think you have a good bead on what most posters are trying to say. Can you point to why anyone is despising people for making lots of money?

It is interesting to note that neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs designed Windows 7 or the iPod, the most significant thing they did to make all their money was develop a business/marketing plan that put a premium cost on Windows 7 and the iPod so that they are more expensive for us all to buy. Smart moves that brought in a lot of money that allowed for more investment in other innovations, but just maybe they aren't as irreplaceable as all that.

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

[swede]

Hell, I used to waste entire Sundays watching guys like Dave Roller, Jim Carter, Mike Hunt, and Jim Del Gaizo play football. Somehow we survived their passing from the game.

[bobblehead]

Hell, I used to waste entire Sundays watching guys like Dave Roller, Jim Carter, Mike Hunt, and Jim Del Gaizo play football. Somehow we survived their passing from the game.

Heh Heh......you said Mike Hunt.

[Pugger]

I think everybody realizes that the NFLPA is still operating as union. They just want to avoid saying this where the NLRB might hear them.

Isn't this (the decertification of the union being a sham) what the league wants the courts to declare so it will take this out of the legal system and back to the bargaining table?

[sharpe1027]

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

[Tony Oday]

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

If he goes bankrupt that means they have already lost the popularity.

[Pugger]

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

[bobblehead]

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

well, that depends on the billionaire and what attributes he brings to the table. The blanket assumption you have that one billionaire is as good as the next speaks volumes about where you are coming from. I am guessing that you think that if suddenly the posters at packerrats took over the 32 teams it would be a smooth transition.

[bobblehead]

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

You also are making my point for me. Thank you. The teams are what we are fans of. The teams have built up the loyalty over the years. Sharpe asks if I think the NFL will lose popularity if another billionaire takes over the cowboys. I ask you this. If another billionaire spends a billion to purchase the cowboys, should he NOT get a good return on his money because the teams popularity was built up over generations? He is PURCHASING that infrastructure and brand name. It isn't being given to him. The players are employees and deserve some solid compensation for being the best at what they do, but to somehow claim that they have as much rights to the profits of the NFL's brand that the guys who invested in it and reinvest in it to keep it popular....well, I don't know what to say.

If I buy an Arby's, do the existing employees have more of a claim to the profits than me?

[Tarlam!]

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

You're right, Pugger. Packers, Bills even Detroit fans shouldn't be used as the measuring stick, IMHO.Why? They aint fickle. I just read the Saints sold out this season's tickets. But I wonder about many franchises that contribute, when halfway successful, to the entire colouer of the NFL.

It is such a great product and so well balanced. Last SB was the most watched USA TV event of all time. It aint broke!

[sharpe1027]

well, that depends on the billionaire and what attributes he brings to the table. The blanket assumption you have that one billionaire is as good as the next speaks volumes about where you are coming from. I am guessing that you think that if suddenly the posters at packerrats took over the 32 teams it would be a smooth transition.

I never said "one billionaire is as good as the next." Did I accuse you of saying that "one QB is as good as the next" with your identical argument regarding the players? No. If you think that most fans watch football because of what the owner's bring to the table, and that they don't watch because of what the players bring, then you have a point. I don't see that, but maybe I just don't know the same fans as you do...

[sharpe1027]

If I buy an Arby's, do the existing employees have more of a claim to the profits than me?

The problem is you either bought the Arby's knowing full well that the existing employees already had an agreement to share profits, or you negotiated the agreement yourself. If you did not factor that into your decision to purchase the Arby's or negotiate a better deal in the first place, its your own fault.

[bobblehead]

The problem is you either bought the Arby's knowing full well that the existing employees already had an agreement to share profits, or you negotiated the agreement yourself. If you did not factor that into your decision to purchase the Arby's or negotiate a better deal in the first place, its your own fault.

I am not arguing that. The owners were well within their rights under the CBA to void the rest of it and lockout the players.

This fundamental argument comes down to who we are backing going forward. Whereas I don't want the players fucked back to the stone ages, I do back the owners to use more of the revenue to improve the brand going forward. I will be a fan for long after Aaron Rodgers and Clay Mathews are gone and I want MOST of the money going towards the owners and infrastructure that will be around with me.

[sharpe1027]

I am not arguing that. The owners were well within their rights under the CBA to void the rest of it and lockout the players.

This fundamental argument comes down to who we are backing going forward. Whereas I don't want the players fucked back to the stone ages, I do back the owners to use more of the revenue to improve the brand going forward. I will be a fan for long after Aaron Rodgers and Clay Mathews are gone and I want MOST of the money going towards the owners and infrastructure that will be around with me.

That's not an unreasonable position. I wish I had more confidence that the owners would use their increased revenue to my benefit. For example, Jerry Jones has done everything possible to circumvent the profit sharing of the NFL so that he can keep more money. I don't think much of what he has done is in the long-term interest of the league so much as his personal gain.

As I was trying to point out from the beginning, the only issue is how much each side ends up with. It's way to complex for me to know what is in the best interest of the fans. I don't think I can say with any confidence that one side is more right than the other right now.

[mraynrand]

That's not an unreasonable position. I wish I had more confidence that the owners would use their increased revenue to my benefit. For example, Jerry Jones has done everything possible to circumvent the profit sharing of the NFL so that he can keep more money. I don't think much of what he has done is in the long-term interest of the league so much as his personal gain.

I think you get both. The guy has invested a lot in the product. Not everyone is psycho for the game the way we are here. Many are just there for the spectacle and the amenities. Jones is providing that and more. He wants to make money doing it. I don't blame him. What I don't like is when he goes too far to undermine the integrity of the league. But from his perspective, he as to deal with both players who want more and owners who are perfectly happy to let him pay for improvement in the NFL brand - and he's supposed to want to pay players more, let some owners get a free ride and be happy about it, taking less revenue?