Pyrite Gal Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I thought that I was impressed with Upshaw's work on behalf of the NFLPA that I thought it only approrpriate to acknowledge by giving him some props in the discussion. However, my thoughts are nothing compared to the love fest of compliments he seems to be giving from members of the national press. For example, Pete Pasquarelliowitz of ESPN wrote and article which said among other things: "Still, no matter what happens, it appears Upshaw has scored big points. " I think he proves himself to be a cool due only if the team owners agree to the deal, but Paspatootee is willing to declare him as having done a good job regardless of the outcome. While folks who declare him a tard mostly just show how little they seem to understand about this situation with this kneejerk reaction, i think it goes way to far to declare him a winner when if this gamble does not work a lot of money is going to be left on the table for a lot of players. It will be worse for the team owners if there is no deal or gosh forbid a work stoppage year after next, but the NFLPA outcome should not be judged simply by whether it is better than the outcome for the owners but by some real measure of whether players get to play the game they love and get paid for it as well. The articles is at > http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2356568 <
Ramius Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 So because i think upshaw is a moron and disagree with your point of view, then i dont understand the situation, huh? What happens if the owners reject this proposal and the players get locked out in 2008. One thing in a lockout. The players stop making money. But people will still buy NFL stuff, so the owners will still be making some (albeit not much) income. Upshaw is playing a dangerous game here. He may come out looking liek roses. But theres also a chance he comes out looking like another one of his colleagues who was going to "stick it to the owners", Bob Goodenow. You sure showed the owners Bob. And gene, you shoudl have studied history a little bit more before making such a one sided proposal.
2003Contenders Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 It is too soon to call Upshaw either a moron or a genius. If no deal gets done, the players wind up losing portions of their 401K, have to wait 6 years to file for free agency rather than 4, and head into the 2008 season with no CBA in place, then Upshaw looks like a fool for being too combative. On the other hand, if the owners end up coming to an agreement and signing off on the deal that is on the table now, then Upshaw deserves all of the accolades he's getting.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 So because i think upshaw is a moron and disagree with your point of view, then i dont understand the situation, huh? What happens if the owners reject this proposal and the players get locked out in 2008. One thing in a lockout. The players stop making money. But people will still buy NFL stuff, so the owners will still be making some (albeit not much) income. Upshaw is playing a dangerous game here. He may come out looking liek roses. But theres also a chance he comes out looking like another one of his colleagues who was going to "stick it to the owners", Bob Goodenow. You sure showed the owners Bob. And gene, you shoudl have studied history a little bit more before making such a one sided proposal. 621147[/snapback] No, I have no isue at all with you or anyone disagreeing with my point of view. What I do tale issue with is someone not having a basic understanding of the facts and making hard edged interpretations based on their misunderstanding. I agrre completely with the post above which says it is way too early to call anyone a moron based on their handling of the strategy here for the reasons which you laid out in your post. It could work out well or it could work out poorly. Personally, I think it would be cool to talk with Upshaw and get his insights in how this works and the situation because he clearly understands the risks he is taking and has decided to role the dice. I could see declaring him a moron if he lost the bet, but he has not lost it yet. I could see declaring him a moron if he demonstrated he did not understand the bet he is making, but it is clear he is aware of the stakes. I could even potentially see one declaring him a moron because one feels he has not represented the interests of his constituency in the past (but given the growth in the NFL and the wealth the players have accumulated during his tenure I think this would be silly to maintain. Folks may prefer the billionaires over his millionaires, but to simply label him a moron or a tard makes the poster look like a moron or a tard. Your own words in terms of asking folks to look at what happens during a lock-out simply demonstrates that you really haven't thought the implications of your own thinking through very well. Sure the team owners would get whatever $ they would get from sales of NFL gear during a lockout, but this is mere pennies of their revenue stream compared to the big money which is TV. The big hit the ownwers would take in a lockout is that the nets have already said that they would want a major readjustment in the cash they pay to the NFL if their was a lockout. This revenue stream would dry up to zero if the game stopped and be significantly reduced if they maintained the game with replacement players who simply are college level talent at best. The individual players do take a hit as their income is reduced, but the owners take an even bigger hit. The other thing though which your posts do not show a full understanding of is what shape these sides are in o take this hit. It varies. Some player are Travis henry and cannot manage their money even with huge income. Some though are Troy Vincent or Takeo Spikes who are busily using their off time to attend business classes at Wharton. The thing is that all the playears are making more $ than they thought possible in their young lives.With a two year run-up til a lockout occurs, and with a range of options from trying to start an alternative league to sell to the networks, Europe, the CFL and Arena ball, and saving their NFL minimum salary I do not worry about these greedy fools. The owners though vary from Ralph who paid 10K to get in and owes nothing for the stadium named after him and Roooney who Dad paid 2500 bucks to get in. On the other hand, even some of the large revenue owners who paid $400 million to get in are leveraged out the wazoo to the banks to buy in even if they are personally rich. Believe me, a work stoppage hits some of the owners a lot harder than it hits the players. With the wealth they have accumulated, the wealth they would accumualate in the two year run up to a work stoppage, and the driving fact that the players will have to answer to their Mom, Dad and wives if they do not bring 300K/year home, but leveraged owners will have to answer to the banks. This is why the NFLPA has a fighting Paul Tag boo-boo endorsed fighting shot at getting a 59.5% share of the income of the NFL. You do understand this don't you? Do you feel that the owner;s are at the advantage economically here?
Recommended Posts