Owners or Players?

I DON'T GIVE A F#CK who is to blame!!!

Right now I despise both sides equally!

I guess when you say it like that xenythx is makes both sides sound bad.

Players, only because the owners are being so shady by hiding their paperwork.

Players. frick the owners. They lost any credibility they had with me when I found out that they negotiated the Direct TV deal to pay them the bulk of the money in this upcoming season, knowing there would likely be a lockout. They are required to bargain in good faith on behalf of the players, and that was shady as all get out. They players are the ones taking the real risk.

Players. The owners are the ones who opted out and the owners are the ones trying to shut down the league.

I posted this in a related thread on the Poliboard:

quote:

---

The owners want the players to "take" less money. They players don't "take" money. The owners offer, and the players accept or decline. If an owner wants to spend less money, why doesn't he just spend less money? An owner is free to pay 53 players the league minimum if he pleases. Of course, he won't get very good players--you have to pay extra for that.

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but...

Let's say it's time for Drew Brees to re-sign. If the owners really need the money they say they need, then Saints mgt will offer Brees less than he's making right now. Drew (through his agent) likely would demand more. The Saints would refuse and move on; so would Drew.

But, if the owners are that strapped for cash, nobody would offer to pay Drew's asking price. Right?

If the owners needed the money they say they needed, you'd start to see a wave of players getting priced out of the market, kind of like Barry Bonds, who was shopping around with an asking price, and nobody wanted to pay for his services.

Definitely the owners. It's their teams, their fields, their league. Aside from GreenBay, the owners have every right to not open their books. If I were an owner, noway would I open my books to my employees. Why would I?

quote:

---

Definitely the owners. It's their teams, their fields, their league.

---

Absolutely.

But if you're not willing to pay the asking price for services rendered, you risk not being rendered said services.

Sure, they own the team, but if they don't want to give the players enough to make them want to keep being players, what do they own?

Many who play owner in threads are saying "It's my team. You're my employee. Here's what I'm paying you. If you don't like it, go somewhere else." Well, that means no football.