CosmicBills

Yup. Well said. Look, it's simple. Everyone knows I think the owners forced this work stoppage unnecessarily and were motivated by sheer greed. But the players could have just simply accepted the Owners' first offer and avoided this whole mess. Both are fighting for what they feel is justified. So many people get caught up on taking sides that have nothing to do with the real issues in play. Just take emotion out of it and look at the facts. 1. The Owners, not the players, opted out of the CBA early. They did so because they felt it was in their best interest to do so. The Lockout insurance gave them leverage over the players and it was their best shot to strike the best deal possible. 2. The players were left with two choices: either take what was offered without a fight or fight for what they feel is their share. They opted for the later. 3. Both parties partook in negotiations, but neither side attempted to reach a deal. Both knew a lockout was inevitable. Each side employed their own spin control in the press. On one hand the Owners say they offered a great deal, on the other hand the players say that's a lie. The truth is always in the middle. But the fact that the federal mediator told the press that he feels both sides are too far apart to warrant further mediation sums it up: neither side was ever planning on budging without a fight -- players or owners. 4. The owners wanted to keep negotiations going as long as possible because their primary weapon in the labor dispute is being able to financially outlast their players. It makes no sense for the Owners to want a quick resolution. They want to drag this out as long as possible -- even at the expense of games in 2011. 5. Knowing point 4, the Players' only chance to get a deal was to go to court as quickly as possible in the hopes of having a federal judge lift the lockout or force the owners back to the table. A prolonged legal battle does not favor the players, so it's a risk. It's the only true weapon in their arsenal. They employed it. The Owners not only expected the players to do this, they hoped for it because a prolonged legal battle helps their cause so long as they prove the decertification is a sham -- which it certainly is. 6. This new lawsuit takes away the Owner's primary line of defense and could be the best shot at forcing an early resolution. If it works, there will be football in 2011. If it doesn't, the Owners will drag this out as long as possible to force the best deal possible. Regardless of which side you favor, that's the situation we're in. The Owners want to drag this out as long as possible and sacrifice games to assure themselves the best deal. The Players want to end this quickly because the longer it goes the worse position they will find themselves in when it comes time to negotiate a deal. A deal will be made. It's just a question of when.

That's not true. The owners opted out of the CBA. The owners started it ... they could have let it expire in two years. The only choice the players had was to force the owners' hands by decertifying and going to court or roll over and take whatever the owners offered. There comes a point when negotiating is stalling -- which is what the owners were doing. You could argue decertifying actually speeds up the process. And this loophole takes away the owner's primary line of defense -- which could make things go even faster. The players want to play. The owners are the ones who benefit the most from a prolonged work stoppage because they have the means to weather the storm. Make no mistake about that. The owners want to drag this out, wear the players down. The owners don't want a season in 2011 because that will strengthen their position. Even if you agree with the owners' stance (which I don't), it's in the owners' best interest to draw this out as long as possible without any games. I know you hate D.Smith but come on, man. Don't let it cloud the big picture. You're mad at the players for being greedy even though they aren't asking for a raise? If the players had their way, they'd be playing right now. The owners chose to start this and demanded the players take a cut. The players aren't asking for more. They're asking to keep things the same.

Or find the quickest resolution possible ... which this would be.

That seems like a mighty big conflict of interest, doesn't it? This is an interesting development I wond if any of the legal minds here can weigh in about it's validity. On the surface it seems like a nice loophole for the players to exploit -- not sure it holds up though.

Great find. Hopefully this ends it this month. If this is allowed to be heard in court, especially in Minny, it's going to be tough for the owners to counter without forfeiting some ground. Not worth the risk if you ask me,

What a delightfully researched and objective interview.

This is absolutely correct. That's why the gamble on the part of the owners to force this work stoppage was so silly. Why would they risk letting a federal judge determine how their league is run? It was a silly risk to take given how profitable the league has been. I know your issues are different and involve small market clubs being able to compete, but at the end of the day the owners have to be a ball of nerves. The owners are letting simple, old fashioned greed force them to play a very dangerous and foolish game. Still, no one, wants the fate of the league to be determined by a judge.

:lol:

Nope. I never said you were wrong. I was simply making sure I understood your claim. It's called giving you enough rope. But it's cool. You admitted that you were wrong in your stance that the players are just employees and thus owners have every right to treat them as chattel. You admitted that the entire success of the league depends one hundred percent on the players' talents. Pretty much you admitted that the league cannot exist without the current players -- or at least be anywhere close go as profitable. That even though the most recent CBA favored the players, it made no sense for the owners to throw it out and cause a work stoppage to get more money despite the fact the league has never been more profitable. And you're right. The players are more important to the success of the league than the owners. They endure more risk physically and should be rewarded and compensated for their efforts. After all, without them the NFL becomes the NBA. Everything else you are bloviating about is moot. You dug yourself into a corner and now are stuck there. Can't go back on it without being a (gasp) hypocrite or just proving that all you really care to do here is argue for the sake of arguing. But don't worry. At least you're finally on the logical and rational side of the debate. Welcome!!!

Now I know you're being silly. No player wants the owners to prove that they, personally, need more money. There isn't a single owner amongst the 32 that needs to make money from their NFL teams to still be in the black personally. We are talking about 32 of the wealthiest men in the country. The players want the owners to prove that the league needs more money to remain viable and sustainable. In other words, the players want the owners to prove that the most recent CBA, under which both the players and the league made more money than ever before in their history, is unsustainable and thus needs to be altered. It has nothing to do with individual finances. Which is why your analogy is not only ridiculous, but insulting to anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex. Come on, you're better than that.

So then it's far to say that players, not owners, are what determines whether a sport is not only profitable but sustainable. In other words, you're arguing that the players are what people pay to watch. That without the players the owners do not have a viable or profitable business. You're saying that fans don't care about watching "crappy teams filled with nobodies". That you yourself, as a fan, would rather watch teams with talented players than teams with amateurs. You're saying that while a standard business can present a "take it or leave it" stance with its employees because they are all more or less replaceable, professional athletes have a skill set that's so incredibly rare and valuable without them the business itself becomes less relevant and profitable. You're arguing that the owners can't just fill their rosters with scrub replacement players like the contractor who can replace his dry waller or his plumber without his business suffering. That rather, it's players with the exceptional talents of a Brady, Brees, Manning, Peterson or Lewis that determine how successful the league is and by extension how much money the owners themselves pocket. That in reality, the owners -- especially the majority of the owners who bought into the league after the NFL had become the giant it currently is and risked virtually nothing financially or personally -- owe the success of the league entirely to the players they employ. After all, the reason the NBA is no longer the sports monster it was a decade ago was because it now has "crappy teams filled with nobodies." Thank you for making my point. It seems to me that a smart business man who was driven by something more than his own personal greed would realize this and instead of trying to take advantage of the people they rely on to make their league profitable; would try to actually negotiate honestly and openly. That they would realize their business does not exist without the players. You would think smart business men would see the big picture: that the league was making money hand over fist despite having a CBA that favored their players. Hell, a smart business man would not want to rock the boat -- at least to the point where it threatens to capsize unless the league was facing dire straights. But it clearly is not facing a grim future. Its future has never been brighter. That is until the owners decided to rock the boat. Thank you for coming to your senses and understanding that the entertainment business, especially sports and the NFL, is NOT a business with a standard employee/employer relationship. No matter how you want to define it, the owners are more dependent upon their workforce than almost any other business in the world. Thank you for understanding that the owners cannot simply replace their workforce with a new one and expect the same record breaking profits and viability. Thank you for realizing that for us, the fans, it's the players who determine whether or not the league is exciting/fun/profitable. At the end of the day, all fans care about, as you said, is watching the best possible players on the field every Sunday. Thank you for realizing and finally admitting that you have been wrong this entire time. Cheers!

this is a great point. If the Bills think anyone outside of Gabbert or Newton has the same caliber tool kit physically and the potential to be a franchise guy that is an excellent plan. Question is are any of those second tier guys really capable of that? I'd rather gamble big than gamble small. But I know that's not a universal (or maybe even the most efficient) mindset. Still, I would hope that if the Bills pass on Newton or Gabbert (and I think they will) that they pass on taking a QB at all and instead pickup a vet to back Fitz up.

What question? I must have missed it, sorry. But are you really saying that the reason why the NBA declined post Jordan was because there were no good players? No icons? The NBA is in serious trouble and probably need to contract two teams to bounce back ... And you think the reason it finds itself in peril is because teams are filled with nobodies? You really, honestly believe that even plays a part in it?

Really? Do you want to rethink that statement?

(1) First, you're choosing to believe the NFL's side of the argument. The side that so far has misled and been dishonest about pretty much every element of this leading up to and throughout the negotiations. Second, even if the numbers they say they offered are true, you're still incorrect because those numbers are fixed. The players want to keep the revenue sharing they fought for and won. Again, it's just like the last strike in Hollywood. The studios say "Hey, we'll guarantee you X million from internet revenues, why do you need 5% of the revenues?" Well, because 5% of x might be millions more. It's slight of hand. The owners are trying to pull a fast one. You cannot put a finite number and say that equals the same thing they'd get from revenue sharing without knowing what the total revenues are. But you know that. (2) Forget the argument for the time being that less than half the owners actually took any risks when it came to buying into the league. Forget the fact that owning an NFL team poses as close to zero risk as you can find in business. And just re-read what you wrote. Revenue sharing is actually the best way to share financial risk. If the league loses money, the players will take less money. If it makes money they make more money. To think revenue sharing is anything OTHER than sharing the financial risk is not being honest. Or not understanding simple vocabulary. But in order to have revenue sharing and share financial risk, the books need to be opened. So, try again. There's a difference between profit and revenue. Also, the reason the NBA stopped printing money was because there was a work stoppage. One that soured the fans. While in that case it was the players who went on strike, it should serve as a warning bell for the owners. They should see what happened in the NBA and MLB -- two sports that lost tremendous amounts of popularity and money when they had prolonged strikes despite being insanely popular prior to that. The owners are risking the same fate for their league for no reason. That's why they're being reckless. They think the league is untouchable. It ain't.

Sounds good to me!

It's tough in WNY to be in your 20s to early 30s and find jobs. I am from Rochester and love that city and the people. But there just weren't opportunities for someone like me in the town. The way I always describe Rochester to my friends here in LA is that it's a great place to grow up and a great place to live and raise a family when you're in your mid 30s/40s -- but everything that comes between those years it's a wasteland. Socially and job wise.

I heard (from friends, couldn't find any info on it) that Philip is actually from Rochester and his brother is a big wig in the Chili or Gates PD. Is that true?

You make excellent points and could well turn out to be right. I still am not sold that they will take a QB at 3, but if they do let's make a fun bet!

You can call it whatever you want, but taking an extra 1 Billion out of the revenue pool is a pay cut. Whether the effects of it are felt immediately or four years from now when current players are renegotiating their deals, it's a cut. But I see your point. It's okay for the owners to make moves when they're concerned about the future but not players. Rock solid logic there. Hard to argue. If that's how you really feel, cool. We're different people. I was born with a backbone, you apparently weren't. It's all good in the hood!

And that is the crux of it all, and was the point of the hypothetical question. How can anyone say that the long term health of the league is in jeopardy? Even with the most recent CBA the league (both owners and players) were making record profits, the game itself has never been more popular, we're coming off of one of the best Super Bowls in recent years and parity flourishes. The league has never been more popular, it's never generated higher ratings or higher revenues. It is the most profitable sector of the entertainment business in the United States. By a long shot. The players aren't asking for more. They are just asking to carry on with business as usual. The owners were the ones who decided, despite how well the league is doing, that things needed to change. But they refuse to say why. As fans, I think we deserve to know. If there was a danger to the long term health of the league, the onus is on the owners to prove it. They refuse to even try. So everyone else is left filling in the blanks as to why they would force a work stoppage at this juncture. If it's not for the betterment of the league, then could it be for the betterment of themselves as individual owners? It sure seems that way. And as fans, that's a sh*&%y pill to swallow. That means we won't get a season in '11 because the Owners simply want more money. I know that your concerns are more geared towards smaller market teams being able to compete in the NFL versus letting the big market teams set up a New York Yankee/Boston RedSox type situation. But I don't even think the owners (or the players) are really arguing about that. Hell, there are only 2 owners that seem to worry about it at all (Ralph and Brown). If the players had forced a work stoppage by striking for more money at this point in time, everyone, myself included, would be up in arms and calling them selfish greedy SOBs. But they aren't asking for more. The owners are. And they're willing to gamble on the long term health of the league -- the very issue you're concerned about -- in order to get more money for themselves. It has nothing to do with the long term success of the league in their minds, only their own individual bottom line. Think about that. The league is generating record numbers despite a massive recession. The league is hugely popular and the games over all have never been more competitive or fun for the fans. The owners are willing to risk all of that, willing to sacrifice a season, in order to get more money for their own pockets. A prolonged lockout WILL have a negative effect on the league. Fans will leave, revenue will drop, and that could cost smaller market teams more in the long run than raising the salary cap. So again, the question is, why now? Why did the owners force the issue at this point in time? Why risk it when things have never been better? Greed. But people think, "hey, that's okay, that's their right to do so as owners". But it's not okay for the players to fight back against this? They didn't start the fight, but people expect them to roll over and take it because "they're owners"? That's such utter and exquisite bull ****. What would you do if your boss came to you and told you that you have to take a massive pay cut because he fears for the long term health of his business even though you KNOW for a fact that he's lying? You'd be pissed off. You'd fight. You'd quit. You'd do anything and everything in your power as an employee to get what you deserve. There isn't a person on this board that would do anything but -- even WEO. But because these guys are rich athletes, somehow the same rules don't apply to them. And that is called hypocrisy. There's right and there's wrong. It doesn't matter how much or how little money someone makes. When someone tries to take advantage of you, it's not only your right to fight back -- it's your duty. Otherwise, you'll be nothing more than a doormat your entire life.

Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that the quickest way to improve the Bills' win loss record is to focus on offense. The offense if further along and has more weapons than the D, plus the league itself is more oriented towards offense than defense (especially the passing game). That doesn't mean the Bills should ignore the D (they need to improve it for the long term health of the franchise) but since the D has more holes, more question marks it's going to be harder (if not impossible) to fix it this off season. Even if the off season is longer than normal. If you want to jump from 4 wins to 8 or 9 quickly, go Offense.

Exactly -- while I'm not against the Bills using the #3 pick on a QB, I still don't think they will.

I respectfully disagree. It isn't that black and white or cut and dry. It entirely depends on the QB they take and whether or not he is ready to be a starter. Big Ben could start right away because the Steelers had a terrific D and a great OL. He could learn on the job without sacrificing wins. Ryan was an NFL ready QB from day one -- not to mention that Atlanta didn't have any other viable options at QB BUT Ryan. The same can be said with Flacco. You could successfully argue that wins won't matter in 2011 (if there is a 2011) since the Bills aren't a playoff contender even if they have the perfect draft, so why not start a young buck. But that's where it comes down to WHO they pick. I don't think either Newton or Gabbert are NFL ready from day one -- plus factor in the lockout which will limit (if not eliminate) all OTAs and a chunk of training camp and it's simply unrealistic to expect Newton or Gabbert to be able to come in on short notice and be day one starters. The veterans on the team won't respect it. And the QBs themselves would be unprepared. Plus, unlike the Steelers, Falcons, Ravens, Rams or Lions -- the Bills HAVE a very good option at QB already. Someone who can ease the transition. Yes, he's not Favre, but the situation in Buffalo is closer to the Packers when they took Rodgers than it is to the other teams mentioned. The worst thing the Bills could do is rush a guy into a starting role simply because he was picked at 3 regardless of whether or not he's ready. That's just not the way to build your team or QB.

Once again you avoid answering the question. It's obviously a hypothetical. Which would you prefer?