CosmicBills

Dallas Clark -- Actor.

Failing to Meet Expectations Since 1999! How To Sue Your Season Ticket Holders Insider! ... I need my coffee.

I'm very late to this game, but where did Pegula's money come from? What's his background other than being a local? (I'm just curious)

This has had me cracking up all morning. The baby's look of sheer terror (especially the second time) is kinda how most of the women look when they wake up next to me and realize the horrible, horrible mistake they just made.

Dynamite drop in, Marty.

You're not alone. I loved Brand in Sarah Marshall. I think he's great as a side/supporting character. I didn't LOVE Get Him To The Greek, but it was better than I expected it to be. I think Brand is pretty hilarious overall, I just prefer him in small doses rather than being the lead.

It's funny, at the Battle LA showing I went to there were a lot of previews. Fast Five got a loud ovation and plenty of laughs. Ditto for Conan. Arthur got mixed silence. Sucker Punch got one person, way in the back, who clapped when that trailer ended -- and then everyone laughed.

This is certainly a valid point. And I think something to be more concerned about than your OP. But it only applies if there are any games played in 2011. I for one think that there won't be -- but I hope to God I'm wrong. If the lockout lasts into the early summer and OTAs, and part of camp (or even a few games) are missed, than any rookie is going to face a significant learning curve. I hear your fears, but I think they're short sighted. You can't pass on a franchise QB (if you believe one of them truly is) because they might not have enough practice time to contribute in 2011. You have to think of the next 10 years, not just 1. But that's just me.

Okay, I know this isn't the topic but ... Let's say I write a pilot. It gets bought by a studio for $50,000. That studio then makes the pilot and shops it to the networks -- one of which buys the pilot and puts it on their fall schedule. I continue to work on the show, writing episode after episode with a staff of writers and that show becomes a hit. Both critically and in the ratings. It generates millions of dollars for the network and studio in advertising revenue, VOD, DVD, merchandising and syndication rights. The entire premise of the show was created by me -- you are saying that I am not entitled to a fair share of those revenues simply because I'm a writer? You could argue that I'm not owed anything more simply because without the network, I'd have no outlet for my product. The network and studios could air anything they wish -- however my show generates far more revenue than anything else they have or could have had that year. Without my show the network and studio would still make money from advertising. Viewers would still watch -- just not as much. With my show, the network and studio would generate MORE money than without it. The show is a product (yes, creative material in all its forms is still a product like any other widget) and my product makes more money for the studios and networks than they could make without it. But I shouldn't be given my fair share? How is that right? How can you justify that? How does expecting to be fairly compensated for the work that I created constitute being a leech? The problem with being a writer is that because everyone can speak and knows the alphabet, everyone assumes what we do it easy. It ain't. Writing material is hard work. It's a muscle you have to work to improve. But even then you have to have talent. Some people have it, some don't. Just like any other profession where you work hard and deliver, writers deserve to be fairly compensated. Fair in relation to the revenues generated. You may think 50,000 is a lot of money (and it is) but if my material generates 100 million, 50,000 isn't exactly fair compensation. It's easy to overlook the impact a writer has (or actor, director, producer, or even athlete) until you see (or read) a bad script/show/movie/play/game. We've all seen them. We all loathe them. The NFL players are in a very similar boat. The NFL can exist without the current players as many on this board have pointed out time and time again. The 32 owners can go out to any field in the country and find 55 players to fill out their rosters. They won't be nearly as talented as the current players. The product they produce won't be nearly as good or compelling. But there will be games played. If the NFL continued to use replacement players (and no NFL players crossed the line -- hypothetical of course), some fans would watch. Some would leave. Ratings would drop. Revenue would fall. It certainly wouldn't bottom out and it might even still make a killing in revenues -- but clearly the NFL would not be the entertainment giant it currently is without the talents of its current players. Ask yourself, would you pay for season tickets or for the Sunday Ticket if you knew you were going to be watching replacement players? Certainly there are those that would. But not as many as there are now. Now, if you were to replace all 32 owners and keep all the current NFL players, the product on the field would have a far better chance at remaining profitable and compelling. Because, after all, it's about the product on the field not how much money each owner generates. Sure, they're related, one can't exist without the other, but at the end of the day what draws fans to the game and what increases revenues is the quality of the product on the field. It's the same with entertainment, you could replace Warner Brothers with Farmer Brothers and not notice a drop off in the quality of the product if the talent stayed (the writers, actors, directors, producers and crew). NFL Players, like writers, actors, directors create the product that generates the revenue. Everyone is replaceable of course, and you could find diamonds in the rough that have the talent and abilities to create compelling entertainment. But overall, the quality of the product would drop significantly without these people. Far more so than if you replaced the ones who write them the checks. So I guess the question you have to ask yourself is what you as a fan really care about. Maybe you care more about watching the entertainment product produced by the men with the best fiscal bottom line, regardless of quality. Call me crazy, but I'd rather spend my entertainment dollars on the best possible product. Maybe that makes me a leech.

Well, realistically, they will reach a deal before any draft picks are signed. There will be a cap and a floor. Also, while it's difficult to tell what is really going on behind the scenes since both the owners and players are doing spin control -- it seems like a Rookie Cap in some form will be a part of any new CBA. All your concerns, while valid in the worst case scenario, shouldn't really play out. A new deal will get done and most likely there will be a Rookie Cap in some form.

But unless I'm mistaken I don't think anyone in the NFLPA wants the cap removed? The floor is worth more to the majority of their membership than the ceiling is. What's at issue is exactly what story of the building is that floor and ceiling on.

I'm serious, Mark. The only way I can describe it is this: It's a movie from the '50s. Written by dudes from the '80s. Made with CGI from the '90s.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm just not certain that Cam or Gabbert are truly elite QB prospects. Cam certainly has all the tools, but I echo a lot of the same fears that people on here have expressed -- mainly the one season of D1 ball. Still, if the Bills do take Gabbert or Newton, I'd be excited for all the ways an elite QB can impact a club as you listed above. However, the one thing I will disagree on, mainly for the sake of discussion, I don't think upgrading the defense is the way to get a more immediate impact on the team's W-L record. In fact, I think if the team wants to make a quick jump to 6 or 7 wins, offense is the way to go. The defense has a ton of holes to fill just to be competitive. The offense actually has far less holes and are maybe a play maker or two away from being able to jump from 4 wins to 7 wins. That doesn't mean you can ignore the defense, but plenty of teams lately have shown their ability to win games (sometimes a lot of games) with a sub standard defense.

I hear ya. I am still hoping for either Darius, Fairley or Quinn personally, but I wouldn't mind them taking Cam (or Gabbert) if only because I'd kind of hate it if they pass on either and they wind up being stars. But that's a gunshy mentality I guess.

I went Friday night to go see Battle LA with a bunch of people from work. Theater was PACKED. Lots of industry folks there, so it's always a bit different. But it was AH-MAH-ZING! Seriously, a work of cinematic greatness. Forget the critics, they just straight up hatin'!!!! Seriously, there's a scene where one character gives not one, not two, not THREE but FOUR monologues! Then caps it off by saying, with a straight face, "but none of that matters right now". :worthy: Everyone should go see this movie. Twice.

That's just not true. His first reaction was rarely to run "when it's not needed". Watch some film on the guy before you make blanket statements. He had plenty of running plays CALLED for him. He absolutely scrambled when plays broke down. But he also threw the ball down field on broken plays when he could have run. There's a lot to question about Cam. But this isn't one of them. Stick to your other points, you'll get farther.

It's not that simple -- but if it came to safety and benefits of retired players it's secondary to total money. That's always been the case. The players are going to take care of themselves first (the active players). No ... let me clarify. You're talking about two different points (I think). The owners agreed to pay the players a percentage of total revenue. That's reflected in the salary cap per team. Teams are not required to spend to the max of their cap (and some don't). But it limits the total amount that the players can earn as a group, not individually. The money they're talking about cutting wouldn't be reflected in current contracts, but in the amount of money owners are forced to allocate to their players. It would have a trickle down effect (for lack of a better term since it's Friday and I'm a few beers in) over the course of the league's existence. Right now the owners skim 1B from the total revenue stream and then split the rest roughly 60/40. The Owners want to take another 1B off the top (somewhere in the neighborhood of 22% cut from the players pool -- but that final number is impossible to know because no one knows how much total revenue the owners are making). So that 1B could represent a 22% cut -- or it could represent a 12% cut. What it does is allow the owners to take 2 billion off the top, then set the salary cap for that coming year. As for the finer points of anti-trust law, I have no clue. I have a background (limited) in contract law but am by no means an expert. I think there are others on here that are and I'd love them to chime in because I'd like to know the answer to your Drew Brees scenario too.

Without a CBA there can be no trading of future picks. Which makes any deal to trade down in the first round far less valuable.

+1 Well said. I hear ya, Joe. But Smith was put into a no-win situation. The owners were always going to lock the players out. There was always going to be a work stoppage because it's the only way for the Owners to get what they want. I actually think Smith did everything he could given the scenario. No matter who was in there, we'd still be in the same spot we're in now as fans. Without football in 2011.

Wow, you sound so hateful it's painful. And also very uninformed. The players' intelligence has nothing to do with this. Nor does the owners. It's about what's right and fair. You can't just "pay attention" and expect to know how much your employer makes. You'll be guessing. That's all. It might be an educated guess, but are you willing to bet your livelyhood on a guess? Should you have to? Of course not. You don't know the cow is thin. Because it's not. The NFL is the most popular form of entertainment in the country. Bigger than movies, TV or music. It KILLS in the ratings. Networks throw money at teams to get their product. As do fans. Despite the recession the NFL broke records in terms of profit, ratings and income. Look at it another way. I work in a business that operates much the same way. The big bosses (studios and networks) are brilliant at hiding money in obscene budgets as a way NOT to pay the creators their fair share. It's a business filled with very very smart people. But not even those smart people can "pay attention" and know what the actual numbers are. It just doesn't work that way. If the recent economic downturn has shown us anything, it's that corporations are always out for themselves first and foremost. They will screw over their own employers to get a better bottom line. The NFL is a corporation. The union is needed to keep it in check. It isn't "I want more money". It's "I don't want to take a pay CUT". The players are NOT asking for more money. The Owners are trying to cut their pay by 1 billion dollars. That's the difference. You're missing the big picture. The players have EVERY right to ask for this since the Owners designed a system that pays the players based on a percentage of total revenue earned. How else can the players know they are getting paid according to the rules both parties agreed to if the owners refuse to show them how much revenue is actually generated? That's like saying this ... I hire you and agree to pay you 50% of all the apples I sell. I come to you at the end of the year and hand you 100 dollars and say I only sold 200 dollars worth of apples. You're telling me you think you don't have a right to ask to see my books to prove that I only sold 200 dollars worth?

No one forced the owners to agree to pay their employees a percentage of total revenue. That was their choice to do. Yet now they refuse to show how much revenue is actually being generated. You cannot get an accurate financial picture with one year. Or two. Or three. You need to see the current trends and the big picture. Without doing that, the owners are essentially saying "just trust us". But would you trust that? This is a league that runs a slaughter house. Players average 3 years. Don't have guaranteed contracts. Are one play away from being out of the league for good. They live an average of 55 years and don't receive fair benefits post retirement. And you expect them to take these owners at their word? Their business doesn't work without the players. And as said above, they agreed to pay their employees based on total revenues. That makes them partners. Whether you like it or not. Now, if the owners want to change that, that's their right. But why do so when the league is making record profits? How much is enough? If there is a dire financial future ahead, then prove it. Show the books. They won't. Because this is about making as much money as possible. For both sides. Yet the fans are the ones who suffer. Both MLB and the NBA never really recovered from their last work stoppages. That time it was the players who caused the turmoil. It took a decade for them to bounce back -- if they ever have. The NFL thinks they're invincible. But they aren't. They will lose fans and jeopardize the sport's status as the king of entertainment in the US if they lose this season. So is it worth it? Funny, it hasn't been with the owners yet. I doubt it will either. They could take the high ground by showing the books. But they won't. Why? Could it be because the books don't paint the dreary picture they hope? You bet cha.

That is totally ludicrous. How do you know how skinny the cow is when the owners won't tell anyone? They won't even show the cow in public. They'll show its hind legs. Maybe its udders. But not the whole cow. Why? If it really was that skinny, don't you think it would serve the owners' interests to parade that cow around town??? You're telling me that if your employer paid you a percentage of the revenue the company earns, you'd agree to take a pay cut (which is what they are asking) without asking to see how much revenue is actually being generated? No sane person would do that.

Unlike MLB, the NFL does NOT have a federal anti-trust exemption. They operate in the shadows -- Congress doesn't get involved because by and large the NFLPA and Owners have managed to co-exist rather peacefully. Especially in comparisons to other leagues. Most of that is because the NFLPA is the weakest of all the professional unions. By filing anti-trust lawsuits, legit or not, it guarantees that the process will now be long and drawn out. Filing in Minnesota where the judge is pro-players and the owners filing counter suits in other states where the judges are more pro-owner will only make it MORE of a mess. For the owners, this is a clusterf*&k of epic proportions because now, no matter which side wins, federal judges will determine the structure of the NFL going forward. The Owners have the ability to outlast the players, and they know it. But how they could ever let it go this far is beyond me. It's sheer arrogance that the NFL fans will put up with them not having a season (the owners think they will, and so do the players) -- both are going to end up losing. But no one loses as much as the fans.

The only people saying they offered legit financials are people who work for the NFL. Every other outlet says it didn't happen. Hence Smith's before the deadline demand of audited financials for the past 10 years. Not one or two or three. The owner's contention is that the league's financial future is grim based on the cost of these new stadiums. They were asked to prove it. They refused. Why refuse unless the numbers aren't what they claim? If the NFL had offered, the federal moderator would have come down hard on the players. It was the biggest sticking point. Because that's the only way to actually discuss the numbers.