- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NFL-NFLPA Labor Talks | NFLPA has filed for decertification
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:40 pm to nosaj56
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:40 pm to nosaj56
quote:
Jeff sounds pissed
He did a good job of glossing over tge fact that they only agreed to keep it to 16 games for 2 more years. That along with Smiths stance last night makes me believe the 18 games was the sticking point.
Owners: 18 games or give us extra $1 billion
Players: 16 games and prove u need an extra billion.
This post was edited on 3/11/11 at 4:41 pm
1
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:42 pm to nosaj56
Good. Move some college games ( not lsu) to Sunday instead of piling all the good games on tv at once. More college football which is better.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:44 pm to Hemlok
The big east should play on sundays instead of thursday & saturday. All non BCS confrences play sundays
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:44 pm to Hemlok
quote:
Message
Posted by Hemlok
Good. Move some college games ( not lsu) to Sunday instead of piling all the good games on tv at once. More college football which is better.
People keep saying that but a new deal could theoretically happen at any time. What happens if u schedule Sunday games then 2 days before they start we get a new CBA?
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:47 pm to jacks40
quote:
People keep saying that but a new deal could theoretically happen at any time. What happens if u schedule Sunday games then 2 days before they start we get a new CBA?
They aren't just gonna start playing 2 days after an agreement I wouldn't assume. They would need more notice to get the players up to speed, in practice, etc.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:48 pm to CunningLinguist
how does this effect the draft? to they just go along as normal but just don't play games
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:49 pm to jacks40
quote:
He did a good job of glossing over tge fact that they only agreed to keep it to 16 games for 2 more years. That along with Smiths stance last night makes me believe the 18 games was the sticking point.
Owners: 18 games or give us extra $1 billion
Players: 16 games and prove u need an extra billion.
it's worse than that even (they are further apart probably). I think after the 2 billion off the top the owners want a greater % of the take (If I understand the profit sharing atm)
2010 Agreement: what to do with 9 billion
Owners: first billion and 40% after that - take home 4.2 billion
Players: 60% of the 8 billion - take home 4.8 billion
The owners want a double whammy - more money off the top to start and then a greater percent of the remainder... all while their teams increase in base value anyway (and their stadiums are typically funded by taxpayers)
Hypothetical 2011 Agreement: what to do with 9 billion
Owners: 2 billion plus 50% of remaining 7 - take home 5.5 billion
Players: 50% of remaining 7 - 3.5 billion
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:49 pm to jacks40
thats why i think it will never happen, but its still fun to talk about the possibility of it happening.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:50 pm to NJ El Tigre
quote:the draft will go on as planned. However, I dont know if they are allowed to sign any players.
how does this effect the draft? to they just go along as normal but just don't play games
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:52 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
They aren't just gonna start playing 2 days after an agreement I wouldn't assume. They would need more notice to get the players up to speed, in practice, etc.
Right but how far in the future is CFB willing to schedule Sunday games? Up into Oct? Nov? Just seems hard to plan for something when the NFL is such a variable. I guess if switching back to Saturday would be easy then who cares
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:52 pm to J Murdah
there's a strong possibility IMO of no football this year
Anyone who left college early would be stuck wondering if they should have stayed in school another year
Anyone who left college early would be stuck wondering if they should have stayed in school another year
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:53 pm to molsusports
quote:
owners want a double whammy - more money off the top to start and then a greater percent of the remaind
Yeah I'd be a little pissed if I was a player too
Posted on 3/11/11 at 4:54 pm to molsusports
quote:
it's worse than that even (they are further apart probably). I think after the 2 billion off the top the owners want a greater % of the take (If I understand the profit sharing atm)
2010 Agreement: what to do with 9 billion
Owners: first billion and 40% after that - take home 4.2 billion
Players: 60% of the 8 billion - take home 4.8 billion
The owners want a double whammy - more money off the top to start and then a greater percent of the remainder... all while their teams increase in base value anyway (and their stadiums are typically funded by taxpayers)
Hypothetical 2011 Agreement: what to do with 9 billion
Owners: 2 billion plus 50% of remaining 7 - take home 5.5 billion
Players: 50% of remaining 7 - 3.5 billion
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The players need to learn their roles. They need the owners, not the other way around.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:00 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
The players need to learn their roles. They need the owners, not the other way around.
I would LOVE to see the Jerry Jones suit up and get nailed on a delayed linebacker blitz.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:00 pm to GamecockAlum
it's a lot of money either way but the owners in the NFL run the risk of going the way of the owners in MLB
If you throttle the golden goose and you owned the goose you are the one making a mistake
If you throttle the golden goose and you owned the goose you are the one making a mistake
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:01 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The players need to learn their roles. They need the owners, not the other way around.
Mind telling me at what point the revenue sharing would have to be in order for u see something wrong with it?
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:06 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The players need to learn their roles. They need the owners, not the other way around.
Replacement players beg to differ.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:10 pm to jacks40
quote:
Mind telling me at what point the revenue sharing would have to be in order for u see something wrong with it?
Do you dictate how much of your employers revenue is shared with you and your coworkers?
The Owners are the employers, they dictate what they pay, not the employees.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:11 pm to angryslugs
both sides were ready to go to court most likely. The owners did come out with an offer, that basically met them halfway, of course they didn't present it till noon, not giving the players much notice. However, the players gave the owners a grand total of 10 minutes on their demands. players hadn't budged an inch
Posted on 3/11/11 at 5:14 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:I do not agree with this. It is a mutual relationship between the two. If the star athletes aren't playing then who will go see the games? If you were to tell me that this year the NFL would have replacement players my Saints season tickets would go unused. The organization will still get my season ticket money, but that is also millions being lost in concessions and merchandise.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The players need to learn their roles. They need the owners, not the other way around.
This post was edited on 3/11/11 at 5:15 pm
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News