CosmicBills

Thanks for that well thought out, well articulated and educated response. If I might make a suggestion, it would be to actually research what you're ranting about before making blanket statements that make you look ... well, silly. The overwhelming majority of current owners did nothing to build the NFL. They bought in AFTER men like Wilson, Davis and Rooney built the league into what it currently is. The overwhelming majority of current owners in fact contributed nothing to the league's success.

You're better than that, Pete. I said 31, not 32 for a reason. Do you really think there's a single professional athlete in the NFL that makes more than any of the 31 owners? There isn't. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and boulders.

You don't really believe that do you? There isn't a single player in the league who comes CLOSE to earning more than the owners do. You're talking about 31 of the richest men in the country. Professional Athletes are rich. Owners are a different class of rich. There's no comparison. Any owner in the NFL could crush Brady or Peyton with their wallets. Stop being silly.

The NFL is a cash machine for the owners, it is as close to a risk free investment as one can find in modern America. The only catch is you need to have 600b of spending money to play. With the exception of a small contingent of owners like Ralph who bought into the league when it's future was in doubt, most of the owners came into the league after it was established as a can't miss investment. Most sports teams are not investments at all. They are toys for the super rich to play with without worrying about the ror. That's not the case in the NFL. The league will never fold over night, the country is too addicted to it. Is it possible? Sure. Likey? Not a chance. Thus, in a ery realistic sense, the owners assume little to no financial risk. The tv contracts alone cover their expenses AND provide a profit before a single ticket or concession is sold. The players do not have guaranteed contracts and are one play away from being unable to earn another game check in the league. So yeah, I stand by what I said.

Stop right there. The answer is because this isn't "any other company or business". The NFL isn't GM, it isn't Blue Cross, it isn't Kodak or Wegmans or Zerox or Bausch & Lomb. It's not Apple, a Law Firm, Hospital or a McDonalds. The NFL Owners do not make anything nor do they provide any sort of service. The owners make money because people want to pay them to watch their players who are independent contractors. Yet the players assume virtually all the risks. Stop thinking the NFL is like any other business. It's not. If you replaced the entire workforce in virtually any other business, chances are you could find replacements for all of them without much fallout in your profit margins. But when your product is your employees, and your business operates under a system in which those employees assume all the risk financially AND physically, the traditional employee/employer relationship goes out the window. With that being the case how is it justifiable in any way shape or form for the Owners to risk losing control of their business, or forcing the players to take a massive pay cut when despite signing a deal that favored the players AND the worst economic crisis this country has faced since the '40s, the Owners made more money than they ever have in the history of the league? Especially without providing any reason for the need to do so other than "trust us."? It's not fair to the players who's talents built and define the league. And it's certainly not fair to the fans of the league who spend billions of dollars a year of their disposable income to the Owners. For the Owners it's just greed and arrogance. For the players it's just stubborness and principles. For the fans it just sucks.

This weekend saw two things many thought would never happen: Bin Laden killed and The Bills have a good draft. It's a good weekend for all.

No real surprise ... though this probably isn't good foreshadowing for the Players. Or, it means nothing at all. Either way, it's just further proof of how poorly both sides have handled this issue. That they've let it spiral this far out of control is a testament to the stupidy of greed and arrogance. This news has darkened what should have been a very bright weekend for the League and more importantly its fans. Bummer.

This is the most hilarious post of the week! Already making excuses and he hasnt even been fitted for his uniform yet. Who says the Patriots aren't in our heads.

Bowers is certainly a tantalizing possibility -- just like Mallet would be (to me anyway). But I think the team might be best served by avoiding both at this pick. The team has invested heavily in DL in the past two drafts; other positions are in more desperate need of help. Like the LBs, the DBs, and of course the TEs. Good lord this team hasn't had a true TE in over a decade. Point is, for my money, you have to look for the BPA at LB, TE, CB, OL first. Just me though.

That was a cool video.

Wait ... so they're happy they opted out of a deal that made them more money than they ever have before DESPITE revenue sharing? Even now when so far they have lost every battle they've fought so far and there is a looming threat that a federal court will decide how they run their own league? That makes TOTAL sense. Good grief. THINK about what you write before you write it. Please please please! And the Owners ARE still talking about a pay cut. They're talking about taking an extra billion off the top before revenue sharing. That's a pay cut -- no matter how you define it, my friend. The players are a group, just like the owners, a group comprised of individual members. While the individual members may have contracts that aren't immediately affected by losing 1 BILLION dollars off the top, taking money from the group is a pay cut. It's certainly not a raise ... Even if you believe the numbers the NFL released in their alleged 12th hour offer, it was still a 325 million dollar cut (roughly). But, as anyone who understand negotiating can tell you, NEITHER side negotiated in good faith prior to the decert AND the Judge's ruling. Just like no one will negotiate in good faith until St.Louis makes their ruling. Why? Because there's no reason to do so before then. Which means, any number you throw out that was allegedly offered by the NFL wasn't a real offer. The players know it. The owners know it. And so do the fans. It's all posturing. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Oh, right ... because you don't care about facts. You just like hard line stances and refuse to engage in a real conversation where (gasp) you might have to admit you don't know everything.

Shhh ... Youre wasting your breath. WEO doesn't care about little things like "facts" or "logic" ... He is a blowhard who offers nothing to this conversation or any other conversation from what I can tell. ha! Do you ever think about what you're posting? The people who feel the NFL made a bad deal in '06 are the OWNERS -- you know, the ones youre blindly trumpeting day in and day out here. The players and most everyone else realizes that the league and everyone in it made more money than ever before in its history under the old deal. That's kind of the whole point of the debate ... there was no reason for the Owners to cry poor and cause a work stoppage over the deal because, in reality, EVERYONE was making more money than they ever had before. So to recap you are now arguing with yourself (and making fun of yourself apparently) in this post. F$@?ing hilarious.

Once again you make a post that offers nothing but restating what someone already said but yet find a way to argue against it. Do you ever read what you post before you post it? Please try offering something of substance to the conversation.

Be honest ... Did you even read the article?

Please provide a link where a GM is quoted as saying this...

It's less than weak. It's absurd. Less than half of the current owners actually TOOK a financial risk when they bought into the league. The majority of owners bought into the league after the NFL was established as THE entertainment business in the country. There was NO risk when they bought into the league. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. "But they put up their own money! That's taking a risk! Who knows what the future holds! The game could change!" Bullsh*t. Owning an NFL team is like buying your own bottomless cash register. And the men who own teams are savvy enough to realize that. I work in the entertainment industry, and the NFL is by far the biggest earner in the entire industry. It kills movies, TV, music, games -- it's massive. Any owner who bought in post 1985-'90 (roughly), knew they were buying into the safest 500b investment fund in the history of man. Proof of just how successful and profitable the business is evident over the past few years. Despite the worst economic crisis the country has faced since the '40s and despite a CBA where the players clearly had the upper hand, the league and the owners made RECORD PROFITS. That is not hyperbole or even taking a side. That's just the facts of the matter. Now there is a serious threat to the upcoming season because the Owners want even more. That's the bottom line. As a fan, I don't care who "wins" when the deal is finally made (and it will get made), I care about not losing out on games. Others here are far more concerned with being right or seeing the owners crush the players. Even though for the Owners to "win" it virtually guarantees that we the fans will miss out on some, if not all, of the 2011 season. If the players "win" there is a far better chance of a deal getting done quick enough to avoid losing ANY games in '11. That's all I care about. But I'm aware that not everyone feels this way. In fact, there is a wide spectrum of opposing views. From the absurd to the very rational and well articulated. Some of the thinking on this board is ridiculous -- on both the owner's side and the player's. There are people here (like WEO) who shouldn't be allowed to carry anything sharper than a butter knife (which is still sharper than his IQ) based on the deluded logic and verbal douche-baggery displayed in these threads. But I understand where the crazy arguments come from. 90% of the people who are on the owners' side wrongly think the NFL is a traditional business model where the owners rule and the players are just employees. That's just not the case. As much as people want to make it about that, it isn't. The NFL, like almost every element of the entertainment industry, is a partnership. You can't have good football without good players. You can't have good movies without good actors. Most of the anger spewed on here (on both sides) comes from the mistaken belief that the NFL operates under the traditional business model and they refuse to open their minds to the reality that it just doesn't. Not even the owners think it does. Still more of the crazy responses are rooted in the mistaken belief in the myth of the American Dream. You know what I mean when you read the posts. The posters who feel the Owners have to win because one day, when they get that rich they don't want to have to take crap from their "employees". Or, "I'm an employee and I'd never stand up to my boss". Those types of posts and posters are so common and so tough to rationally debate because deep down they believe in the myth that if you work hard enough in this country one day you'll be as rich as the owners. I got news for you, that ain't gonna happen. Ever. Never in a million years. NFL Owners aren't rich. They're a different CLASS of rich. There isn't a single person on this board that will ever accumulate the type of wealth these 32 people have (unless they have it already). Hell, even if you're a millionaire right now (which I'm sure some people on here are) you won't ever reach the level of these guys. Heck, there is more of a chance of getting hit by lightning twice on the same day you win the lottery. I'm not a politics guy at all, but there seems to be a very conservative and very American under current that comes to the surface in these types of posts. It's fascinating to witness. That's not to say there aren't some very informed posters who have taken the owner's side. There are plenty. And there are some fantastic debates that have gone on here between both viewpoints that have opened my eyes to things I haven't considered before (Ramius's and Doc's take on the small market clubs for instance). But the majority of arguments here (on BOTH sides) are so reactionary and irrational it makes for hilarious entertainment. The reality of the situation is that a deal will get done. One side will "win" but that victory will have no impact on us the fans. None. Football will continue, the Players will still be rich, the Owners will still be richer. The world won't end if the players win. The world won't end if the owners win. Everything between now and when a deal gets done is just posturing by BOTH sides and academic masturbation for the rest of us. Politics and business models aside, at the end of the day you'd think fans would want the same thing: Football in '11. It's my opinion that the fastest way for that to happen is for the players to win as much leverage as possible because of the two sides, they NEED a resolution quicker than the Owners do. Hence, any victory for the players right now I see as a step towards there being an NFL season in 2011.

I respectfully disagree. What's best for the long term health of the league is to avoid missing any games in 12 period. The NBA and the MLB all suffered dips in ratings, attendance and relevance due to their prolonged labor issues. Contrary to what some here believe thud NFL is not immune to a similar drop that could take years to recover from and would, in the short term, hurt the Bills chances of staying in Buffalo more because it might scare away some of the deep pockets who are allegedly circling. And regardless of what you think, this CBA will have little impact on the Bills future in Buffalo. The majority of the owners don't care about small market issues and won't try hard to protect their interests. It's the big money clubs leading the charge here. The Bills future depends entirely on who buys the team when it's finally for sale. As stated above, the loss of games in 12 will have a negative impact on the league's bottom line and could well do more damage than even continuing to operate under the old CBA. There is little chance that the new CBA will be as one sided as the last so again it's more important for a deal to get done quickly than it is for the owners to "win" ... At least when it comes to whether or not the Bills stay in WNY. And finally you keep saying the players started this. They didn't. If it were up to them they'd still be playing under the old CBA which had some years left to it. But that's besides the point ... Let's say you're right and the players need to get "smacked back to the table" ... What makes you think a deal will get done quicker with the owner having more leverage?! It won't. Never in a million years because if te owners get leverage now they will trybtobdrag out negotiations INTO the season because the players will be that much weaker once game checks are missed. So, the quickest way to get football back without threatening the long term viability of the Bills in Buffalo is to get an agreement made before games are lost. The only way that happens is if the owners are forced to negotiate. The only way that happens is if the lockout is lifted and the appeal is upheld. Neither side is in a hurry to truly negotiate here. But the players need a deal to happen sooner than the owners do. I know you have a thing against Smith but look through that to the other side ... It's about not missing games. The league posted record profits and ratings under the last CBA ... Make no mistake, this isn't about the long term viability of the league for either side. It's about the money. The owners want more. The players don't want to give back the gains they've fought for. End of story. This has nothing to do with the long term health of the league.

While this move was expect (by most sane people on this board) and is certainly a step in the right direction (read:saving the upcoming season), nothing will get done until after the appeal in St.Louis. Still, for anyone who is a football fan this is a much better decision than had she ruled for the owners. That would have signaled a long drawn out process where all the power shifted to the owners and they would sit on things until players got desperate -- in other words, started missing game checks. This should speed up the process regardless of the final outcome. Thats all fans can hope for now.

... That's only because there won't be any games next year.

Rob said it himself last night, he has to figure out who to make public enemy number 2. Taking Philip with him to the finals is a no brained but he can't look like he chose Pholip over some of his other loyal soldiers without risking losing jury votes ... If he takes Philip over grant or Natalie it will look really bad to the rest of his tribe because it will be such a transparent attempt to win jury votes. He needs to find someone else for people to hate so they forget about Philip for a bit ...

Even if the Bills believe in Fitz, if they have a franchise grade on Gabbert or Newton (and if either are available at 3) they will take him. Fitz has one year left on his deal and is not a young buck. As we all know, finding a franchise QB is not only the most important position to fill in the NFL, it's also the most difficult to find. Having 2 on your roster is never a bad thing when one has a deal about to expire. If their goal is just to find a "solid" QB because Fitz is the man, then you do that in Free Agency. If they don't think there are any Franchise QBs in this draft (which is very possible) then taking a "solid" rookie QB at 34 (or even in round 3) is a waste of a pick when this team has so many holes to fill. QBs are the most scouted, the most sought after position in the NFL. I find it very hard to believe the Bills would have a franchise grade on a QB, they wouldn't be the only team. Thus, there's no way one would slide to 34. Now, that does NOT preclude the possibility that teams have a QB graded wrong and there IS a franchise QB who slides out of the first round (or the first several like Brady) since this is not an exact science. I just find it silly to think any GM or Coach would bank of 31 other teams "missing" a grade on a diamond in the rough. Like I said, IF the Bills think there is a Franchise QB in this draft, he will be the pick at 3. I do not want the Bills to take a QB past 3 (even if they trade BACK into the first round -- ESPECIALLY if they trade back into the first round OR trade DOWN) and frankly don't think they will. Of course, this front office has a less than stellar track record so that doesn't mean they won't. (That part is totally an opinion).

Which is what most people expected to happen from the beginning. St. Louis Appellate will be the primary battle ground.

Again, it 100% depends on how they grade Newton and Gabbert. If they grade either as a Franchise QB and either are available at 3 they will take them REGARDLESS of any other needs or how they feel about Fitz. This is the NFL and when there is a chance to get a franchise QB you take it. That's not an opinion, that's just a fact. The question, that no one but OBD can answer, is whether or not they have either of those two guys graded as a Franchise type QB. If they don't think either is a franchise guy, well then the odds are it'll be defense and maybe they'll take a flier on a QB in round 2 or 3 -- though I'd prefer them to avoid taking a QB entirely if they don't take one at 3. Because honestly, if they do that they're admitting that whoever they take isn't a franchise type guy. And we've had too many of those lately. We will find out exactly how the Bills feel about Gabbert (and possibly Newton) in a week.

I didn't think you overreacted ...

Absolutely correct. I'm surprised more here don't understand this principle. If either Gabbert or Newton (or both) are available at 3 and the Bills have them rated as a franchise guy, they're the pick. Great post.