White Linen Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. It seems to me if we were leaving our owner would know. In saying that, getting new uniforms - new turf - and on the verge of signing a new lease with the city, aren't exactly signs of a team getting ready to move. Edited February 17, 2011 by Triple Threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Bruce Smith, Jack Youngblood send letter to Goodell Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Bruce, now go back to sleep. If a work stoppage does occur, it could never be to the players striking. It would be a "lock-out". That is, the owners would be barring the current players from playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Bruce, now go back to sleep. If a work stoppage does occur, it could never be to the players striking. It would be a "lock-out". That is, the owners would be barring the current players from playing. The las t work stoppage was a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The las t work stoppage was a strike. The difference is that this time, the players want the status quo and the owners want changes. But if the league declares an impasse and imposes terms, the players could still strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Why does the NFL need a new stadium in LA when they have no team there? Guess its pretty obvious they are getting a team from somewhere. This thought hit me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 It seems to me if we were leaving our owner would know. In saying that, getting new uniforms - new turf - and on the verge of signing a new lease with the city, aren't exactly signs of a team getting ready to move. Ok thats the optomist thought. Here's the reality. New unis cost nothing but will add money to Ralph's fat wallet. Ralph's fat wallet wont be paying one dime, not one dime for a new field. And any new stadium clause will probably come with an out clause if he meets his demise so any new owner is not encumbered by the lease and will move the team. Perhaps paying the county 50 million or something as a token gesture by Ralph's fat wallet from the grave. Thanks for playing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPhan Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Distributed to newspapers around the country I know the athletes are world class and entertain us. I know they are worth the money because the demand is obviously there. But I still don't understand why they have a "union" and every 5 years or so they think the millions of dollars they earn is never enough. Let's face facts here. If the NFL were to go out of business tomorrow, the players would suffer more of a reality shock without it then the owners would. Does anyone think there is one single owner whose quality of life would suffer if they had to fold up their stadium tents? I certainly don't. And some of the players may even not have to work the rest of their lives if they've been in the league long enough and been smart with their money. But while I think most of the players should have some savings which will last for 5 maybe even 10 years, they will still only be in their late 30's and then have to find real jobs the rest of their lives. Why on earth would they ever want to risk that, when all they have to do is shut up and continue playing football and earning from hundreds of thousands up to multi millions of dollars per season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Too bad Goodell and the Governor of Wisconsin can't be switched. I think the story for both would be much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts