- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:20 pm to KingwoodLsuFan
They can, and they might. Lol, the NFL wouldn't be shite without these players. Picture John Fourcade, instead of Drew Brees, you idiot.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:22 pm to bgtiger
I suppose you think the Owners won't have money without the players? Other events would be scheduled at their stadiums and they would still make great profit on top of their other investments and old money. The owners don't need the players or the NFL to be wealthy.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:22 pm to bgtiger
quote:
PLAYERS! extra games, less rookie money, and a weak arse profit sharing scheme....all players, frick the owners.
Lets see here...according to the last owner proposal..
First.. The extra games were tabled until full agreement..
Secondly... The players have been onboard for the rookie scale and the owners are willing to use their formula which only affects the 1st rounders and means more money for vets.
Third.. They don't share profits they share revenue and it's damn near 50% according to the latest proposals..
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:24 pm to bgtiger
quote:
They can, and they might. Lol, the NFL wouldn't be shite without these players. Picture John Fourcade, instead of Drew Brees, you idiot.
the saints aren't Drew Brees property. The colts aren't peyton mannings property. It's the owners. The owners don't have to give the players anything if they don't want to. The players are asking for all these things but in the end it only matters what the owners decide. So think before you call someone an idiot. 
Posted on 3/13/11 at 7:45 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
go demand to see your company's owners' financial info and see how far you get.
If you work for a publicly traded company, it's pretty easy to do that.
If you work for a privately held company, the ownership will provide adequate justification to its employees before asking them to take a pay cut. Private companies also have quarterly and annual meetings where the financial health of the company is discussed.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 8:00 am to Sophandros
And to all who side with the owners on this with your shallow 'it's their team' reasoning, I hope you continue to enjoy letting your boss walk all over you.
BTW, the dynamic between players and owners isn't employee/employer. Rather, it's a partnership, which is why the negotiations revolve around how to split the revenue. If you are in a business partnership with someone who wants to change the amount of your share, I'm sure that you would demand an adequate explaination.
The owners locked the players out and were planning on doing so since 2007. Thus, they have not been acting in good faith. Hell, remember Jerry Richardson's attack on Manning a couple weeks back?
And the owners aren't taking any risk. The structure of the league assures them of a profit, from the salary cap to the revenue sharing. The next time someone sells an NFL team at a loss will be the first.
The players aren't asking for more money, either. Early on, they made an offer to split revenue 50/50, which is close to where they were before. Instead of treating that as a starting point, the owners stormed out of the room. The owners put a deal out there at the last minute knowing that it would be rejected. The courts will likely save the season, thankfully.
Last point: the fans aren't the ones who suffer the most in this. The people who work in and around those stadiu ms and who rely on that revenue will suffer the most. Communities will suffer.
BTW, the dynamic between players and owners isn't employee/employer. Rather, it's a partnership, which is why the negotiations revolve around how to split the revenue. If you are in a business partnership with someone who wants to change the amount of your share, I'm sure that you would demand an adequate explaination.
The owners locked the players out and were planning on doing so since 2007. Thus, they have not been acting in good faith. Hell, remember Jerry Richardson's attack on Manning a couple weeks back?
And the owners aren't taking any risk. The structure of the league assures them of a profit, from the salary cap to the revenue sharing. The next time someone sells an NFL team at a loss will be the first.
The players aren't asking for more money, either. Early on, they made an offer to split revenue 50/50, which is close to where they were before. Instead of treating that as a starting point, the owners stormed out of the room. The owners put a deal out there at the last minute knowing that it would be rejected. The courts will likely save the season, thankfully.
Last point: the fans aren't the ones who suffer the most in this. The people who work in and around those stadiu ms and who rely on that revenue will suffer the most. Communities will suffer.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 8:32 am to guttata
quote:
It's their fields,
no its not. its the taxpayers fields.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 9:12 am to angryslugs
And the taxpayers and politicians need to remember that these owners are potentially costing them a lot of income and tax revenue.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 11:00 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
go demand to see your company's owners' financial info and see how far you get.
and that's fine... just don't be surprised when the union you employ decides to play hardball.
This post was edited on 3/13/11 at 11:01 am
Posted on 3/13/11 at 11:33 am to Sophandros
quote:
BTW, the dynamic between players and owners isn't employee/employer. Rather, it's a partnership, which is why the negotiations revolve around how to split the revenue. If you are in a business partnership with someone who wants to change the amount of your share, I'm sure that you would demand an adequate explaination.
It functions more as a partnership because of the threat of the owners violating antitrust and the players waiving right to sue for certain provision (e.g. salary cap). But a true partnership means the partners take on liabilities as well as revenue. Players do not incur any of the liabilities, hence not a true partnership. This is what erks me a bit. If they are going to make demands on owners as if they were TRUE partners then go ahead and take on all the financial risks the owners take. You can try to have your cake and eat it too, but don't be shocked if the other side eventually says enough is enough-- we'll do it only if forced to do so.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 11:34 am to LSUIEGRAD13
so sick of hearing about it, i dont care
Posted on 3/13/11 at 12:48 pm to classictiger
quote:
It functions more as a partnership because of the threat of the owners violating antitrust and the players waiving right to sue for certain provision (e.g. salary cap). But a true partnership means the partners take on liabilities as well as revenue. Players do not incur any of the liabilities, hence not a true partnership. This is what erks me a bit. If they are going to make demands on owners as if they were TRUE partners then go ahead and take on all the financial risks the owners take. You can try to have your cake and eat it too, but don't be shocked if the other side eventually says enough is enough-- we'll do it only if forced to do so.
Yeah, literally putting your life and well being at risk is not taking on any liability. Sweat equity is still equity.
Also, for the owners who inherited the team, what have they invested? And again, there is no risk involved in a system that assures profitability for franchise owners. I'll repeat: the next NFL owner who sells his team for a loss (or who has to be taken over by the league) will be the first.
That the owners want to change the deal is fine. The players were willing to negotiate, but they realized that the owners were dead set on locking them out and had been since 2007.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 2:16 pm to Sophandros
I'm w the owners. Its absolutely ridiculous what the players are tying to do.
I see no way the owners cave to the players demands at this point. I think the owners are much more likely to say frick off and not have a season next year just so the players can see how truly F'd they are without football.
I see no way the owners cave to the players demands at this point. I think the owners are much more likely to say frick off and not have a season next year just so the players can see how truly F'd they are without football.
Posted on 3/13/11 at 2:46 pm to LSUIEGRAD13
owners
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News