eball Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Good for you, Ralph -- the old boy knew a thing or two after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billadelphia Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I love it. Who knew, old world experience beats out new world business. Score 1 for the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Good for you, Ralph -- the old boy knew a thing or two after all. As did the bald-headed skinflint from Cincinnati. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honda Rider Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 GLOOM & DOOM for the NFL and the BUFFALO BILLS. Ralph will pass away, the team will be sold to the Toronto Money. There is no way the NFL will pass on that cash cow. The Bills will move to Toronto...Does the Toronto Bills have the same ring... The NFL will not have an agreement with the players so the 2010 or 20011 football season will be screapped. They will all see that they can't live without each other (players and owners want that good cash). Fans will tell them both to "stick it" (I already have). There's no one smart enough to solve the upcoming labor agreement. Ralph's family will already have their cash so they won't care. The NFL will slide like the NHL and lose all respect. Basket ball has none and who cares about the doped up baseball players. It's all down hill... Bring on college football. At least the players are paid less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 GLOOM & DOOM for the NFL and the BUFFALO BILLS.Ralph will pass away, the team will be sold to the Toronto Money. There is no way the NFL will pass on that cash cow. The Bills will move to Toronto...Does the Toronto Bills have the same ring... The NFL will not have an agreement with the players so the 2010 or 20011 football season will be screapped. They will all see that they can't live without each other (players and owners want that good cash). Fans will tell them both to "stick it" (I already have). There's no one smart enough to solve the upcoming labor agreement. Ralph's family will already have their cash so they won't care. The NFL will slide like the NHL and lose all respect. Basket ball has none and who cares about the doped up baseball players. It's all down hill... Bring on college football. At least the players are paid less. This post has all the earmarks of a one and done post. I wonder, was it worth it for the guy to register, take a dump ,and then leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 This post has all the earmarks of a one and done post. I wonder, was it worth it for the guy to register, take a dump ,and then leave? As long as he leaves..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Bring on college football. At least the players are paid less. Overall, quite a hissy fit....Great closing line, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 This post has all the earmarks of a one and done post. I wonder, was it worth it for the guy to register, take a dump ,and then leave? He's a one pump chump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billadelphia Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Not to mention Honda's suck and bragging about riding Honda's really sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Unless a new deal is reached before 2009, the 2010 season would be uncapped. I wonder how much Snyder and Jones would spend? Would Ralph open the wallet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otisly00 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Unless a new deal is reached before 2009, the 2010 season would be uncapped. I wonder how much Snyder and Jones would spend? Would Ralph open the wallet? Peter King from CNNSI wrote about this in a recent MMQB, i believe about a month or so ago. He doesnt think that it will ever get close to an uncapped year, there are so many technicalities that would prevent it. heres the link http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...abor/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 This really only shows Ralph didn't know what he was voting for. He voted against the deal because he thought it would hurt small market teams long term. Didn't he know that they could opt out after two years? The other owners didn't worry in '06 because they knew that they could make a decision based on actual numbers in '08. I'm just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Unless a new deal is reached before 2009, the 2010 season would be uncapped. I wonder how much Snyder and Jones would spend? Would Ralph open the wallet? There are other provisions in an uncapped year. The big one is that it would take 6 years to get to UFA. Players will not like that. Also, teams would get 1 franchise and 2 transitions tags per year. Another things players would not like. These 2 things would slow the increase in salaries and player movement. Maybe this would not be so bad. You could keep players you draft for at least 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 From the article; The league provided the issues they have with the current CBA in a statement released by the NFL office this morning, which read in part. A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides. If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal.(1) The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues - almost $4.5 billion this year alone -- on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs' incentive to invest in the game is threatened. The league also stated that there are other parts of the 2006 extension of the CBA that they feel must be rectified including the inability for club to recoup bonuses paid to players who later breach their player contract or refuse to perform. The statement also mentioned that NFL clubs have a problem with the rookie pay scale in which most of the top selections secure contracts that pay them more than some of the top proven veteran players in the league. The relase closed by saying. Our objective is to fix these problems in a new CBA, one that will provide adequate incentives to grow the game, ensure the unparalleled competitive balance that has sustained our fans' interest(2), and afford the players fair and increasing compensation and benefits. (1 and 2) What are all of the people who defended the rich teams keeping their riches gonna say now? I argued that the competitive balance of the NFL is what has always made it more popular than the other leagues. So now that the owners all agree with that what are the Snyder, Jones and Kraft apologists gonna say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 This really only shows Ralph didn't know what he was voting for. He voted against the deal because he thought it would hurt small market teams long term. Didn't he know that they could opt out after two years? The other owners didn't worry in '06 because they knew that they could make a decision based on actual numbers in '08. I'm just saying He voted against it because it was a long, complex agreement that he didn't have time to comprehend or understand its ramifications. What he did know was that it smacked of inequality for small market teams. If the other owners pushed back and did their due diligence, they wouldn't be opting out now. They realize that he was right for wanting more time to understand what it really meant. This is not about hindsight 20/20 with Ralph, and more about this doesn't sound good and I don't want it rammed down my throat until I have time to analyze it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 This is not about hindsight 20/20 with Ralph, and more about this doesn't sound good and I don't want it rammed down my throat until I have time to analyze it. Bingo. The moral of the story is, you should never try to force an 89 year old to do ANYTHING quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Bingo. The moral of the story is, you should never try to force an 89 year old to do ANYTHING quickly. Is that an Anna Nicole quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Bingo. The moral of the story is, you should never try to force an 89 year old to do ANYTHING quickly. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I recall that there was a vote of the owners to agree to Giants Stadium as a Super Bowl site...At that point in the country's history, it was a no brainer, right? Revitalize a broken city, show the spirt of NYC, etc etc etc etc....The owners voted 31-1 in approval, with Ralph as the lone dissenter. I remember people calling out Ralph's patriotism and such, calling him a lost, senial old man. [Even with owners' approval, I believe league officials eventually cited weather concerns and did away with the idea.] All Ralph said was something to the effect of, "Hey, we vote on potential Super Bowl sites every year. The cities go all out, make a huge presentation, have a thick binder with their entire Super Bowl week event planning, entertainment, restaurants, lodging, and on and on. For the New York proposal, there was no presentation, no information provided, they just told us to vote on it. Without any information provided, I voted no." Very similar situations. Ralph just wants to know what he's voting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Don't you guys listen to your mothers? Didn't she tell you to never sign anything you didn't read or understand? It's the same case with Ralph. They had 45 minutes to sign the old deal. The clubs got scared at the 12th hour and said 'yes" to stop any potential stoppage of work. Ralph still said no way in face of that fact. It just goes to show that he has more balls then the Bob Krafts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Unless a new deal is reached before 2009, the 2010 season would be uncapped. I wonder how much Snyder and Jones would spend? Would Ralph open the wallet? teams aren't spending to the cap now. by 2010, the cap will be so high nobody will be close to it, especailly owners looking to control player salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts