CosmicBills

Could have come from here ...

I'm just being an ass. But it was written, produced and (largely) financed by UK folks.

To be fair, Paul isn't a Hollywood movie. It's a UK movie.

That's a very simplistic point of view, not to mention false. First of all, if the deal had been allowed to run its course that would have given the players and owners an extra year to negotiate an extension or a new deal. Which means for us fans we'd have a better chance of NOT missing a game let alone a season. I don't care about the finer points of the deal, I care about being able to see football games on Sunday. And what pisses me off is there was no reason for the owners to force a work stoppage at this time. If they were the NBA I'd understand (that league has serious financial issues and I believe needs a lockout to SAVE the league). If that were the case with the NFL you better believe I'd be singing a different tune. But it isn't. This league is a giant and is printing its own currency. The only reason the owners are doing this is because they got greedy. If they waited till 2012 they'd lose a lot of the leverage they assumed they had coming into this lockout (mainly the TV money which they already lost). This was a calculated move by the owners to get the upper hand. They think that they can get away with it and there won't be fallout from the fans because football is king in this country. To me that is arrogant. As a fan that is a slap in the face. We are the reason they have a league. They are making record breaking profits -- but that's not good enough for them. Apparently it is for you. Let's just cut to the chase here, WEO. What would you rather have happen: 1. A deal where the players get everything they're asking for AND a full 2011 season or 2. A new deal where the owners get everything they're asking for but NO games in 2011 Answer honestly.

Thanks for the time you took to write this up. It helps the laymen like myself get a better understanding of the legal issues at bar here. The underlined section is what would scare me as an owner. By allowing things to progress to this point and risk losing control of how their league is governed is a huge gamble to take. One that I don't think is worth it for the owners (or fans) and shows just how arrogant and foolish they are for letting things reach this critical point. I for one hope that a deal is struck BEFORE the courts get a chance to interfere in their business.

Again, you're making blanket statements that are just really naive and unfounded. I don't think you understand how expensive health care is in this country. It's a racket, and if you ask me, evil. But we'll leave that discussion for another day. The fact is you cannot compare your rates to someone else without knowing their needs. You say you keep in good shape, that's admirable. But somehow I'd be willing to bet that the men in the NFL, overall, are in far better shape than you. But their care is going to be more expensive. Why? Because of how risky their profession is. The insurance companies exist to make money. They are not charities. When they have clients that have riskier lifestyles, they sure as hell are going to charge more. These men work in a profession that taxes their bodies in ways your profession doesn't. Thus, these men are more apt to need medical care whether it be from injuries, surgeries or long term care after their careers are done when the arthritis and dementia from reoccurring head injuries kick in. There's a reason the average NFL career lasts under 4 years. There's also a reason why if you log 10 years in the league in the trenches your lifespan decreases to about 55. It's a brutal sport. Thus their BASIC package is going to be much more inclusive (and expensive) than yours in most cases because the insurance companies know the risks associated with covering these athletes. That's not even factoring in the personal matters that people, including rich professional athletes, have to deal with. Like I said with Derek Fisher, his daughter got diagnosed with cancer. The expense for her care without insurance would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars -- if not millions. Even though he's an NBA player, that sort of cost could have crippled him financially just as easily as health care costs can cripple your average Joe -- which happens every day in this country. But you want to label Fisher and those average people who struggle with massive health care debts as idiots because they should have known better? I'm sure there are dozens of similar stories you have never heard about in the NFL because these are people. People with lives and families and just like anyone else they have health issues they cannot control. There is nothing more expensive in this country than fighting a lengthy illness or injury. You can keep beating the "they're rich!" drum all you want, but it's relative my friend. I'm trying to help you out here because so far in your posts on this topic you are coming off as a bitter, ignorant ass. Which, you may be, but I'd like to think you're not.

It's null and void because the owners opted out. They chose to stop playing football in order to get a better deal for themselves. They did so without bothering to show the need for such a drastic move. Again, I'm on the fans' side here. The owners forced the work stoppage. Everyone was making more money than ever before under the most recent CBA. The players were not asking for more. There would still be a season if the players had their way. It's the owners who wanted to sacrifice games. Not the players. But if you think revenue sharing is done, I think you'll be surprised to see what the NFL looks like in 2012 (or whenever the deal is struck). The owners set the precedent -- and generated record profits despite the largest economic crisis since the '40s -- there is no way the NFLPA will agree to anything BUT revenue sharing. And there's no way a federal judge will create anything but a system that is more balanced (i.e. involves revenue sharing). You just cannot apply standard employee/employer models to the NFL as much as you want to. That notion went bye bye the moment the owners agreed to a revenue sharing structure. Revenue sharing is not a thing of the past.

It's a good point -- though it seems to be human nature. They were getting a great deal. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, you know? Now the owners want to take an extra billion off the top before sharing revenues (which is a pay cut any way you slice it) which is their right to request of course. But isn't it also the player's right to ask them to show a reason for this outside of the owners just saying "we want more money"? End of the day it's a sh*&^y situation for the fans. Both sides have blood on their hands. In the end, a deal will be made, the players will get their money the owners will get theirs. It's the fans who lose out. And that sucks.

It's fine for the owners to decrease the amount they share if there's a reason to do so. Look at the NBA -- their current model is unsustainable. But there isn't an NFL owner out there that can show the need to cut costs. If they can, they would. But more importantly, as has been stated by numerous people, the reason the players are asking to see the books isn't just to see where the owners are spending their money. But to determine how much revenue is ACTUALLY being generated. That's the ONLY way for the players to know if they're being paid what they're truly owed or if they're being cheated. The owners HAVE to show their books to prove they are paying the actual amount owed. When the player's salaries are determined by a percentage of revenue sharing (in this case 60%) how can you say X dollars is what they're owed without knowing the total revenue generated? This isn't a model being forced upon the owners by the players, it's the model THEY agreed to in the CBA when they agreed to revenue sharing. That makes any comparison to any other typical owner/employee relationship null and void. It's NOT as simple as "they are the owners and they are the employees". It's a simple point. I'm baffled as to why a poster who I know is as smart as you are (and I'm a fan of yours, Ramius not that that matters but I'm not trying to be a dick at all here) can't see that. I get that you feel the owner/employee relationship is set in stone, but in this case it's NOT a typical owner/employee relationship. It's more akin to what happens in Hollywood in the entertainment business than it is to any other business.

I get you don't like Smith. That's cool. No arguments here. But don't make a mistake, the players are partners (or were under the CBA). The owners made them partners when they agreed to revenue sharing. No one forced the owners to structure the league in that manner. They opened the door themselves. To think otherwise is just ignoring the facts. Whatever the new deal is, it will include revenue sharing. (Well, I'd assume)

The players aren't asking the owners to open their personal books because they think the owners are being frivolous with their money. They want the franchise's books opened because they agreed to REVENUE sharing in the CBA. Your example is not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not in the same league. But you knew that. You're better than that. You're just being silly. They're not just employees. That's the essence of the entire debate. No question ... the players had time to prepare for this. Everyone knew a lockout was looming. I wonder, and if someone with a legal background knows the answer to this please chime in, COULD the NFLPA have set up a group insurance plan knowing that they were going to dissolve to force litigation? Even if they had set up a plan, I'm not sure it would still be allowed to exist once they dissolved. I know that many say (and they're right) that the NFLPA hasn't really dissolved at all and it's a ploy -- but it'd be hard for the players to argue otherwise if they had an active health plan in place through the PA. But maybe I'm wrong.

Again, that's just naive and spiteful. You can't control some things -- especially when it comes to your health or your family's. Look at Derek Fisher on the Lakers. He planned for a family, winds up that his child has a horrible illness that required multiple surgeries and chemo. Without insurance, that would have costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. But you're right. He's an NBA player, he should have planned his life better. Good grief.

That's a very naive statement. Individual healthcare costs is dependent upon one's needs. Just because it's cheap for you doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. It escalates when you have kids as well. I'm single, no kids and carry my own insurance. I pay over double what your rates are. So let's not just throw around blanket statements.

Really? Two pages and NO ONE calls him out for that? It's clear you haven't watched Cam play. Or Young. They do not have similar throwing motions. Not even close. Young has always had a jerky/odd throwing motion. Newton has pretty close to a text book motion. His footwork needs work, but that can be said of most young QBs. Let's be real for a moment, since you refuse to be honest in your posts. This thread (for you) isn't about how much you like Fitz, it's about how much you dislike Newton. That's fine, you have every right to your opinion. But at least be a man and be up front with what you really want to say. Don't hide it. And don't make up ridiculous "facts" like

:huh: This is one of the most ridiculous posts in the entire conversation. I didn't think it was possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4LcoQV3cuQ&feature=related Does this mean Buffalo sucks too?

No. It's not. Football is. But not American football.

That's a silly thing to say. The NFL has suffered no fall out from the economy. In fact, even in the greatest economic crisis of this country has faced since the great depression (caused by giant corporations like the men who run the NFL teams), the NFL has made record breaking revenues. It's flourished. So why should the people who made it flourish (the players) be forced to take a cut while the owners get a raise? In reality, the owners are asking for a RAISE while CUTTING their employees' pay. So why is it okay for the owners to ask for a raise when "pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy" but it's not okay for the players not to ask for a cut? Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course it does. Which has been the issue all along. It's about money. The owners are greedy SOBs and want more money. The players are asking to keep what they've gained (but they also only care about the money). The Owners did not negotiate in good faith. The players didn't either. Both sides knew a lockout was inevitable. And they were right. But at the end of the day it's he said, she said. Both sides have their own stories. It's about who you choose to believe. I for one believe the players more than the owners who have been shown to be untrustworthy and clearly shown they're willingness to screw the fans over by forcing a lock out to line their own pockets rather than have an honest negotiation. The players would be playing today, without a raise in pay. The owners will only play if they get a raise. That's the bottom line. But WEO doesn't want to admit that because he's more interested in being "right" than having an honest discussion about matters. But that's cool. It's his right.

Having lived here now for a bit over 3 years, LA is certainly great. It has a ton to offer, you just have to look for it. In NYC, everything is right there because in terms of mileage, the city is small (hell, it's an island). LA has a TON of great things, they're just really spread out so you have to really want to find them/go to them to appreciate all it has to offer. Still, LA is pretty rad.

That's not true. When you're talking about revenue sharing, which is the deal that the Owners agreed to, you need to see more than just profits because guess what, profits don't tell the whole story. Put it in other terms -- in my business studios pay back end (a cut of a film's revenues) to writer's and actors. It's in every contract that's signed. Yet, studios are notorious for hiding money and finding creative ways to show that a film hasn't made money. Best example, the studios claim Spider-man 2 didn't turn a profit. The movie made $370,000,000+ just in the US ... So yeah, you need to see more than just the "profits" if you want to see the real picture.

You're arguing (and I'm not sure why) about how NYC is run. How it's run has little to no bearing on what opportunities exist in NYC, which is the only point I'm making. I never said, nor meant to imply, that everyone on the planet would want to live in NYC. I did mean to state that while it's not for everyone, the fact is that if you compare the two cities in terms of what they offer their residents, well, there's no comparison really. NYC offers ten times what Buffalo does. That's not taking a shot at Buffalo -- hell, there are few (if any) cities in the world that can offer what NYC can. THAT'S the point I'm making. You're upset because the mayor took a shot at Buffalo -- that's fine and justified. You read it as a shot, and maybe it was (it was certainly tactless) but really the point he was making was that despite it's flaws, NYC is still an amazing city. It was a shi**y choice of words, but trying to make it a big issue just, like what he said was an outrageous slander against the good name of Buffalo, is a battle you won't ever win. This.

Yeah, you're right! It's about the owners wanting to pay the players less in the future -- despite the game generating more money than ever (thanks to the players, not the owners). Why? Because the owners want to make more money.

But they're not distractions -- they're opportunities. You have more opportunity to learn first hand about culture and the arts in NYC than you do Buffalo. There are certainly tremendous differences and trade offs, there always will be when you're talking about a population that is nearly 14 times the size of the city you're trying to compare it to. Again, I don't want to trash my hometown either. I love Rochester and Buffalo. They provide a far different lifestyle than NYC. But they also have trade offs. If I want to go see a world class museum I have to drive 7 hours. In NYC you walk down a few blocks. To think NYC somehow has less to offer than Buffalo or Rochester is just false. It has more to offer in every way -- good and bad -- than almost every other city in the world.

The Met, The Guggenheim, Lincoln Center, MoMa, Carnagie Hall, Radio City Music Hall, Broadway, The Garden, Chinatown, Little Italy, NYU, Columbia, some of the best public, private and charter schools in the country, Central Park, the Yankees, The Mets, The Knicks, The Statue of Liberty -- do I really need to go on? Of course it's different strokes for different folks. But an OBJECTIVE view of the opportunities NYC presents in comparison to Buffalo ... come on. Like I said, I love home town pride, but be reasonable. NYC is one of the best cities in the history of mankind. Buffalo and Rochester are nice. But can't compare.