Sisyphean Bills

Which could be good for the superstars like Peyton and Brady, guys that could jump ship to the Redskins for 3x their current salary because Dan Snyder is who he is. Meanwhile, it would most likely be a disaster for the majority of players. Why would you pay a kid $250K to run down on kick-offs or play on the scout team in practice if you can find another kid for $30K? Another aspect is that it could be a disaster for some owners. If the NFL couldn't act as a single entity at any bargaining table, a team like Jacksonville would have to make it on their own. While the Dallas Cowboys get an exclusive deal with CBS or whatever, the Jaguars would have to try to get their games on the Oxygen channel. They would face either going defunct, moving to a new city, a draconian slash of their costs, or some combination of the former. Speaking of which, who really profits if the NFLPA wins and the owners cave and allocate a bigger slice of the pie to player salaries? Does anyone seriously think guys 20-53 on the roster are going to see the bulk of that new money coming their way?

I think you mean the University of Oklahoma. They're just dyslexic.

So far, no one in this thread has said he doesn't have a right to say stupid things. Nor does his right to freedom of speech mean others don't maintain the right to judge what he says and conclude he's immature and/or stupid.

Perhaps. This is essentially how "losing the lawsuit" could be turned into a huge win for the owners, at least in the short term. Let's say that the decertified sham formerly known as the NFLPA wins their anti-trust case. They break the backs of the ownership, right? They force the owners to make them partners in the business so they and their handler agents can make the decisions, right? Not so fast. An anti-trust judgment could spell the death of the NFL as it is currently structured, but it falls short of forcing the owners to sell interest in their private companies to the employees. It could mean the end of the NFL draft, the end of a salary cap, the end of a salary floor, the end of player roster quotas, the end of the pension plan, the end of player's health insurance, the end of NFL brokered TV contracts, and on. Football players become free-agents and part-time employees for 32 independent organizations, where a few stars may (or may not) be paid $100M by either Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones while 2/3 of the NFL is just happy to put the lowest-cost team on the field and maximize the ROI for its ownership and pay its players $30K a season. The restraint on trade, the anti-trust exemption, is what fuels the ultra-lucrative business of the NFL for both players and ownership. Under an NFL-busting free-for-all scenario such as above, both players and owners would lose in the long run (and the fans would get a non-competitive baseball-style product with most teams becoming wholly irrelevant chumps) but each owner would be free to spend or not spend as he sees fit. On the other hand, one could easily see how the threat of the above scenario and the hugely negative impact it would have on the vast majority of the NFLPA membership could be used to bust the union leadership and force the players to accept a deal favorable to the owners and where the players would willingly give up some ground (which is what the owners are seeking) in order to salvage the situation.

Don't forget the NFL Network.

Not to mention that these phantom new owners would have to be willing to flush billions of dollars into starting up a new league. Where would they play? NFL owners aren't going to offer their facilities and don't be so sure college programs want to pick up the tab either. What networks are they going to sign up to televise their games? What pricing can these vapor networks sell advertising for? How many years would it take to cut into the NFL's market position? It's been tried before in various ways and almost all attempts have failed -- only the AFL has "succeeded" and that was ancient history and bending the premise a bit because the AFL was absorbed into the NFL.

It's called a euphemism. From the working Joe's perspective, yes, being laid off isn't necessarily a great thing, hence the use of a euphemism. Still, this is reality for middle-class America. Businesses are doing this and it is even encouraged by our government. It is perfectly within their rights under the law to find cheaper labor. There are plenty of "partners" (employees working for the man) out there that get downsized right out of jobs rather than receive stock and control over the company they once worked for. There are plenty of people that have taken pay cuts and not received any raises as well.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the incontrovertible fact that the general economy of the entire world has changed rather dramatically from where it was 6 or 7 years ago. A billion doesn't go as far. Any business has the right to manage its labor costs. In my business, we do that by hiring cheap labor in Asia and freeing North Americans to "pursue other interests".

Dude. I'm not saying the owners are completely in the right here. I don't think they are. And I hardly think the NFLPA is without fault no matter how you choose to paint the picture with your posts. Both sides share the blame. Well stated.

Yeah. The Bills will draft Mark Ingram.

Here's another article. This one actually does try to ride the fence and calls a spade a spade. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0313-haugh-nfl-labor--20110312,0,7161607.column

Sounds like the argument is that the players are special employees ("partners" -- the reason for the usage of this term becomes crystal clear) that deserve to sit in the driver's seat as explained by someone that makes his money as an attorney for player's agents. The article states unequivocally that the all revenue comes from the players when he says that the $1B held back in the old CBA was "the player's investment" in the business. Good to know that the owner, front office, coaches, scouts, medical, trainers, marketing, ticketing, concessions, stadium maintenance, and other employees have no revenue contribution in the NFL business, nor do other corporate and public sponsors that invest your tax money and so forth. It's not hard to see where he is going with this as he says explicitly that the players deserve "stock" in these privately held companies. His argument is that the players are and should be ownership of the league. This is a distinctly different model of ownership and one that has any number of implications that are not considered. PS: I wonder if he'd favor star players sharing the money they make off endorsements back to the league? Certainly they are trading on their status as ownership partners.

On the other hand, there are plenty of articles that say the owners did make offers and that the players filed class action lawsuits to stop the lockout before the owners had even put the lockout in place. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-farmer-20110313,0,1165646.story?track=rss Welcome to spin control.

Seems like Nix' is always happy with individuals and much less so in his vague general comments. "We need to get better" is quickly followed by "he's a real good player."

It's sort of like a debate about an old man that wears his polyester slacks and batik shirts every day and drives his Ford Taurus to the drug store to buy his super-expensive heart medications and serves steak to his dog. Is he thrifty or extravagant?

I'm not convinced there is such a tug-of-war, but Ralph's list of replacement GMs of Football has no more names on it so Nix getting himself fired might not help things much.

Well, there is the Jerry Jones approach. Indianapolis built a new palace stadium albeit in a smaller market, as well, not so long ago. Still, there are other approaches for smaller markets and not aimed at squeezing the little guy. http://www.lambeaufield.com/stadium_info/history/ http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=13683482 FWIW, I wasn't taking sides for or against stadium improvements / new stadiums, etc. Simply stating that just because Ralph won't do it (a negative premise), doesn't really prove a hypothetical stadium improvement couldn't be done without raising taxes, etc.

I don't think one should put much stock in any source that overestimates the number of players in the NFL by roughly 14,000 players or over 700%.

You're correct. Why indeed would Ralph want to take on a $375M (or larger) debt at this stage of his life? On the other hand, just because he isn't going to do it doesn't mean that no one would do it. Someone who is not risk averse like Jerry Jones (or in the final stages of his estate planning in general) might see a stadium investment as a means of growing the business.

Bad for everyone? It might give some guys a gig pouring some concrete.

Sounds like he did resign ... as owner of the puppies.

One scout put it this way, "Kaepernick's footwork is atrocious."

I don't think he'd be interested. From what I've heard, he wants out of Cincinnati because he is tired of the systemic dysfunction of the organization and wants to go to an organization and environment committed to winning, and/or move back to the West Coast. The Buffalo Bills don't really fit either of those criteria.

Still, he's a rousing success story with all the jack he made.

The two teams are in entirely different modes, no? The Bills, as they've said publicly more than once, are building for the future, 3 or 4 years from now. The Patriots time is the present. I'm sure they are thinking about the future as well, but they also are looking to win championships right now. An aging 33 year old, 3-technique DT doesn't really figure prominently in the plans of the Bills 3-4 D down the road 3 or 4 years, but at the right contract he could be a real asset for a team that's willing to spend a little money on insurance as they make yet another run at the Lombardi. (At the right contract, they give him a chance, and if he is totally done then just cut him and move on.)