RkFast Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Goodell is a whore. Hed have the Super Bowl played in Afghanistan if it meant he could squeeze an extra three bucks out of the game.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't see it posted. Dear NFL Fan, When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution............ Yours, Roger Goodell Translation: Fat Bob Capri Sun I'm spending my wife's money Kraft, Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder are too busy trying to screw all the small market teams all the way to Los Angeles for some temporary $$$$$$$$$ that they didn't really have time to put together a comprehensive plan for the players. There is really nothing to worry about here. Once their bloated egos have managed to completely take the wheel and they have pointed the ship inexorably toward the waterfall, then we will give the players more than they could ever ask. See you in September.
1billsfan Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 It used to be that there was true profit sharing in the NFL (pre Jerry Jones era). The NFL owners need to go back to some semblance of that so the small market teams don't feel like the Kansas City Royals of the NFL. How much are Bills tickets? How much are Cowboys tickets? That's what this whole thing is about. The NFL is slowly becoming MLB in team disparity and the Jones' of the league don't want to share their profits with the teams that can't raise their prices of tickets and merchandise. I think the key to this whole thing is that the NFL owners need to go to the original idea that made the league what it is today. They need to share with each other again.
jumbalaya Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Hopefully some enterprising cities get together and start a pro football league. Let's blueprint the Green Bay Packers and get this game away from a big rich boys club. It is time for the proletariat to take over.
Roger Goodell Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Screw the players. Who needs those greedy SOBs? There's more where they came from and we know you fans are rooting for the laundry anyway. p.s. You'll be back the second this is over, just like the baseball fans.
CodeMonkey Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 p.s. You'll be back the second this is over, just like the baseball fans. For better or for worse, this is clearly true.
JohnC Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) This whole thing is a mess. I say the owners show them a pay chart of how much they make to shut the players up, but it wont matter cause the players will always want more. To begin with thank you for your service. No amount of thank you is adequate to balance out your sacrifices. You hit on the central issue that is the roadblock to a solution. It is the owners who refuse to document their profit margins. The players aren't asking for a full audit of their contrived books to be exposed to the public. That is a canard. What they want is an accounting of their books that is meaningful to the negotiation. It basically wants to know what is the profit level and how has it changed over a certain period of time. The reason why the owners are so steadfast against such a financial disclosure is that it will undercut their bogus claim of being financially distressed by the current CBA. What if it is determined that the profit levels have exponentially gone up during the current CBA? Then what do the owners say? Are they capable of blushing? I doubt it because they are shameless. The Green Bay Packers are required to open their books because they are a publicly owned franchise. It's not surprising that their books are tight and the franchise is well run from a management and on field performance standpoint. However, that isn't the level of financial detail the union wants from the owners. They want a level of disclosure that adequately tells what their profit levels are so they have a basis to negotiate from. Edited March 12, 2011 by JohnC
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I think I'm gonna go ask my boss to show me how much he's making before I work for him another day.
K Gun Special Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I think I'm gonna go ask my boss to show me how much he's making before I work for him another day. Yea i've seen this argument tossed around this board too many times. Good go ask him, you are easily replaced. HOF players like Peyton Manning who help the league generate billions in revenue arent easily replaced. So the two really arent the same. The players are a unique product. You are not, neither am I. Thats the difference.
Bob in STL Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 thats not true. The players would receive audited team financials under the latest offer. Players got a great deal and everything they wanted. They look like real amateurs walking away from this. And how about the "professional" owners and their lawyers. They hastily took the last deal and they are backing out of it. The players are not as well organized but the seem smart enough to not make the same mistake the owners did. They have time to get comfortable with the offer. I think I'm gonna go ask my boss to show me how much he's making before I work for him another day. You have the right to do that. It may not be your best move. The players must feel that they have nothing to lose buy requesting the additional information. Do you? To begin with thank you for your service. No amount of thank you is adequate to balance out your sacrifices. You hit on the central issue that is the roadblock to a solution. It is the owners who refuse to document their profit margins. The players aren't asking for a full audit of their contrived books to be exposed to the public. That is a canard. What they want is an accounting of their books that is meaningful to the negotiation. It basically wants to know what is the profit level and how has it changed over a certain period of time. The reason why the owners are so steadfast against such a financial disclosure is that it will undercut their bogus claim of being financially distressed by the current CBA. What if it is determined that the profit levels have exponentially gone up during the current CBA? Then what do the owners say? Are they capable of blushing? I doubt it because they are shameless. The Green Bay Packers are required to open their books because they are a publicly owned franchise. It's not surprising that their books are tight and the franchise is well run from a management and on field performance standpoint. However, that isn't the level of financial detail the union wants from the owners. They want a level of disclosure that adequately tells what their profit levels are so they have a basis to negotiate from. Well said John. I cannot understand why the people on this board are against the players getting comfortble with the deal. For decades they have been shorted. The next step is to improve the pension fund for the players from the 50's, 60's, 70,s and 80's. Talk to Joe D about this. some of the great players are broken down and poor. I doubt this will ever happen but I think it should.
JohnC Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 And how about the "professional" owners and their lawyers. They hastily took the last deal and they are backing out of it. The players are not as well organized but the seem smart enough to not make the same mistake the owners did. They have time to get comfortable with the offer. You have the right to do that. It may not be your best move. The players must feel that they have nothing to lose buy requesting the additional information. Do you? As you suggest there is still a lot of negotiating to do. There are no angels sitting at the table. It is rough and tumble. A lot of money is at stake. The union's requesting for more financial data is as much, if not more, a negotiating ploy directed at the public as it is to the owners. The owners certainly don't want to reveal their financial status, so the union is using that discomfort to squeeze out a better deal. The paradox is that if the public ignored the the drama and went on their merry way to other interests that would be a greater inducement for all parties to get a deal done sooner rather than later. Sometimes when you over cook the golden goose you end up with less than what you started with.
Bob in STL Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Is it, though? Do we really know what Brady makes? Sure, we see his published reports of making $xx.xx...but that does not mean it is true. Howard Stern makes $100million/year according to some reports but it is not true. I think you're out of your mind. Embarrassing in regards to how much they make by being frugal in Buffalo, perhaps, but also in how much Jerruh has to spend on payments for his new palace. Of course, both must be done in their respective markets to ensure the viability of their organizations. Should the current trend in Buffalo's economy continue Ralph will need all of the money he can to keep the team affloat. Jones down in Dallas needs to sink in lots of money because he is in an area that is still growing and successful with the largest fanbase in the NFL. Walmart, IBM, crApple, Viacom...I do not think any of them publish what they make. Publicly held companies (companies that trade shares in a stock exchange) like Walmart, IBM, Apple, etc., disclose all information yearly in their financial statements. If you have ever owned stock in a publicly held company you would know that because you would have been sent the financial reports for the year. The NFL teams are private, except for Green Bay. I do not think they are obligated to report to the same level as a public company. However, in the case where their employees are requesting the information they can either provide it or not. This disclosure can be part of the negotiation and apparently the players want to see it. Edited March 12, 2011 by Bob in STL
Rob's House Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Yea i've seen this argument tossed around this board too many times. Good go ask him, you are easily replaced. HOF players like Peyton Manning who help the league generate billions in revenue arent easily replaced. So the two really arent the same. The players are a unique product. You are not, neither am I. Thats the difference. That's bull **** man. If every single player in the NFL died and went to hell over the course of the next 3 years, every team would easily fill their rosters with world class talent and some of those players would rise to the top and become stars just as they do today. The only thing unique about these guys is that they are established and we know who they are.
JohnC Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) And how about the "professional" owners and their lawyers. They hastily took the last deal and they are backing out of it. The players are not as well organized but the seem smart enough to not make the same mistake the owners did. They have time to get comfortable with the offer. You have the right to do that. It may not be your best move. The players must feel that they have nothing to lose buy requesting the additional information. Do you? Well said John. I cannot understand why the people on this board are against the players getting comfortble with the deal. For decades they have been shorted. The next step is to improve the pension fund for the players from the 50's, 60's, 70,s and 80's. Talk to Joe D about this. some of the great players are broken down and poor. I doubt this will ever happen but I think it should. Bob, From my observation many people resent the money the players make and don't resent the unfathomable amount of money the owners make. They don't see the NFL as a player/owner collaboration that has enriched both sides. It's an anti-union and anti-worker mentality. You make a keen but sad observation that a lot of people choose to ignore the hazardous and brutal nature of the game. The players know what they are getting into. But the short-life span of the football career and the damaging health affects should be accounted for with assistance when their careers are over. I have heard on numerous occasions Joe D talk about the physcial toll the game has taken on the players. He gets so passionate and even belligerant about it that sometimes he works against his own cause. He and Gene Upshaw had a poisonous relationship over what needed to be done for the former players. It got so hostile that threats were exchanged between the two antagonists. Edited March 12, 2011 by JohnC
BillsBackersChicago Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I am not at all an authority on business, but how many other employees get to see all the financial records of the company they work for to determine if they are getting a fair share of the total revenue? I guess its different since the owner's agreed to pay the players a percentage of the revenues. Anyways, I think the players are ridiculous for needing ALL of the financial records of their employer. If they are being paid a percentage of total revenues, then they deserve a disclosure statement such as those given by publicly traded companies to their shareholders that tells what their overall profits are, but they don't deserve the company's complete financial records! I mean, come on, shareholders of large corporations don't get complete financial records and they literally OWN THE COMPANY!! If the players truly feel like they are being lied to about their companies profits, then they should push for a third party investigation (like the investigation that Enron or these other big companies that falsified their financial records got). It should be noted that even after those companies were investigated, their complete financial records were not made completely open to their shareholders and/or employees. A third party investigator simply concluded that there was impropriety and what the financial impact of that impropriety was and what damages should be paid out as a result. Anyways, at the end of the day, if a shareholder does not deserve the entire financial records of the company he/she literally OWNS, an employee of that company certainly does not deserve it. The players need to get over themselves. If they don't want to play for a company/industry that makes them into millionaires, or if nothing else gives them 6 figure salaries that the average person works their entire lifetimes to achieve, they should stand aside and let people who will work for less. God forbid, you make 5 million over 5 years not 17 over 6. I know they have limited work life spans in the NFL, but should a person who makes 35-50K for their entire life really feel bad for a person who got to work for 5-7 years making millions and didn't learn how to save that money in a way that would hold them for the rest of their life? Its like feeling sorry for someone who one the lottery for 10 million dollar and didn't learn how to invest and save that money so that they don't end up bankrupt. Lastly, I know the owners are fat cats who make millions too, but they OWN THE INDUSTRY. Are you mad a Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs or for that matter, Golisano, for building an industry or business that is successful and made them extremely wealthy? Anyways, just my opinion. I am just shocked that everyone wants to tear down the owners who built this league up into the amazing industry it is, and feel sorry for players that B word about the millions of dollars they make as a result of the industry being made so successful by the owners. If you want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for the smaller sports leagues, like skiing, swimming, even soccer. The players in those leagues dedicate just as much of their lives, work just as hard, and in some cases have just as short of a work lifetime, but since their sport's "industry" is not as successful as the NFL, they get paid pennies compared to what even the lowest paid NFL players make. wow that was quite the rant. I am going to just go watch college hoops until these idiots figure it out. BTW, if I don't get to watch Bills football this fall, there's a distinct possibility I will be forced to kill myself.
cåblelady Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Up Yours Roger Goodell There. I feel a little better now. Edited March 12, 2011 by cåblelady
8-8 Forever? Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 PR spin control. The main issue is money. Always has been. Always will be. And the owners decided to create a system where they pay their employees a percentage of the total revenue. When they did that they created a partnership. But they expect the players to take their word on what that total number actually is. On trust alone. Now, there isn't a business in the world that would agree to sign a new deal based on this principle without seeing the books. The fact that the NFL is insisting that they met the players' finical demands is a bold faced lie since the desired number is a percentage of a number the owners refuse to acknlowdge. If the owners didn't have anything to hide they would show the books. If the leave was really not making record profits and generating record revenues, they'd show their books because it would take whatever leverage the players have away. Unions sign contracts setting wage and benefit levels with private businesses all the time without being able to examine the private business' books. the Construction industry being the largest example of this. My sense is the owners don't want to reveal that family members are on the payroll, drawing salaries and how much they are, etc etc. Think of Mary Wilson, for example. The numbers would inevitably leak and a media circus would ensue. The teams probably lend money (on an arm's length basis) to other of the owners businesses, etc. All kinds of largely above board stuff, but would create a media circus the owners don't need. they hold all the cards. they can wait the players out indefinately.
Bob in STL Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Bob, From my observation many people resent the money the players make and don't resent the unfathomable amount of money the owners make. They don't see the NFL as a player/owner collaboration that has enriched both sides. It's an anti-union and anti-worker mentality. You make a keen but sad observation that a lot of people choose to ignore the hazardous and brutal nature of the game. The players know what they are getting into. But the short-life span of the football career and the damaging health affects should be accounted for with assistance when their careers are over. I have heard on numerous occasions Joe D talk about the physcial toll the game has taken on the players. He gets so passionate and even belligerant about it that sometimes he works against his own cause. He and Gene Upshaw had a poisonous relationship over what needed to be done for the former players. It got so hostile that threats were exchanged between the two antagonists. Thanks. I basically feel that the players have a responsibility to get the best deal they can and in turn, there is a responsibility to support the players of the past that are in such need. The financial resources are there. I clearly understand that today's players know what risks they take and sure, they make a lot of money to play a game. Still, with so much money being made on both sides, it would be fantastic to see a little help provided to the players that did so much to build the league. Many of my favorite players from the 70's were fantastic ambassadors for the game and now they have serious health issues to overcome with very little means to do it. Joe D may not have the best skills to negotiate this point but his point is still very valid. I find it hard to support the owners. They hasitly botched the last deal and now they are bringing it back to the table. Owners like Jones, Synder and Kraft have no interest in what made the league so great in the past. The NFL will become like baseball if these guys continue to sway the others. They will ruin the game if left unchecked.
Recommended Posts