An interesting dynamic to me, that I did not realize, is that the agents are expecting full access to the owners books as well. Drew Rosenhaus was on with Ross Tucker on Sunday. And everything he talked about was a collective we in regards to DSmith, the players, and the agents. He said specifically that Smith had gone over the strategies with him and how to handle the cba/lockout issues.

Can you imagine the agents in negotiations with all the owners books. Ugghhh

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Am I missing here? Aren't agents an extension of players?

Player: Get me paid!
Agent: Roger that!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Players would have been happy with the old deal. The owners wanted more money without showing the proof. All owners on this one.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;788959]I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:[/quote]

Accounting fraud is hot.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;788959]I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:[/quote]

Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;788961]Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.[/quote]A classic case of fine ignorance and bad analogies here.

What publicly held companies show to auditors is everything that one learns in ****ing financial accounting. Grasp that first, then worry about the books.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_accountancy]Financial accountancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Also, the "see you in court" is the threat of [I]anti-trust[/I] litigation against the NHL. Anti-trust laws prohibit the monopolization--"natural monopolies" do not count because the agents don't perform the act of monopolization-- of a market. The employees of the ****ing Kennedy Center or McDonalds have no chance of proving that their respective employers are monopolizing the market nor does it have any ****ing relevance to their welfare of reduced benefits, etc.

Your analogies are caricatures. Do realize that the owners want to take 1 BILLION dollars for themselves because of "rising players costs", mean that they're claming that in their books, a good chunk of their books have journal entries that credit Cash and debit Players' Salaries Expense A LOT.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I'm feeling the kindness here thanks. No I'm not an ACCOUNTANT but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time :)

Ok, so your telling me that the steel industry has to show their books to the unions, the oil companies have to show their books to the unions, the coal companies have to show their books to the unions? Every cent is accounted for?

As I also said, in the 80's There was a monopolization because the NFL didn't want any other league football to come in and take viewer ship away which would cost money. Now there is the indoor league, UFL, and CFL which is shown also.

I provided bad analogies perhaps but it wasn't I who started saying that Rock stars are shown what the stadium makes that they played in in order to pay the Rock star. Basically what was stated was People that provide entertainment are entitled to see the books because they get paid a percentage of the total take for their performance. No it was not stated today or yesterday so I can see your confusion, but after putting their analogy to thought for a while and it really not holding water I figured out how I wanted to say that their analogy was BS. All you did was prove my point by saying they are bad analogies. But remember I was trying to tell others their analogy was idiotic also.

The whole point of a union is to protect the employee. Whether it be through health insurance, payment, safety rules and so forth. I don't have a problem with the union trying to get what they can for the employee. I have a problem with each individual player and their agent dickering out millions of dollars to get the most for the player yet the union wants to know what the books to make sure their not getting screwed. Trust me the players are not getting screwed if they are agreeing to the contracts.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788969]The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.[/quote]

Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem, I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Original post was deleted because it would have resulted in a threadjacking.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=freddyg12;789000]Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. [B]Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem[/B], I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.[/quote]

Most likely. If I have to hear another caller on NFL Radio compare the CBA situation to walking in to your boss and asking to see their books I'm prolly gonna choke someone.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

You may claim the market determines what's fair, in terms of player salaries, but that goes back to my original point that pro football does not operate in a free-market environment.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;788960]Accounting fraud is hot.[/quote]

Taxes are lame.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=hooskins;789005]GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.[/quote]

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I feel like DeMaurice Smith deserves an "F Demaurice Smith" thread.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

What if the NFL says that they are not a monopoly based on the UFL/CFL and other opportunities that the players are given. I am not saying that the NFL isn't the best football, but certainly the owners could make the argument that other options are now available. (I am thinking along the lines of when Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they were threatened with antitrust, but made the case that other players had come into their market share - HD Radio, Wifi, etc. and the courts accepted that Sirius XM could merge due those competing brands)

If they did, and the NFL were to move away from the CBA system to just open market, I wonder how the players would respond to no salary floor, no draft, no guaranteed benefits of a CBA.

I don't expect that this will happen, but it's not impossible either. Also, this is just a hypothetical based on the Sirius XM case.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;789056]We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.[/quote]

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;789056]We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.[/quote]

Was hooskins talking about the fans? It may be a luxury to them, but this isn't about them

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;789063]Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?[/quote]

I believe only on whether they can be locked out

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an [URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Adrian-Peterson-gives-readers-a-8220-Double-Ta?urn=nfl-wp206"]interview with Yahoo
[/URL]
[QUOTE]SC: We're talking about 15 minutes after the NFLPA sent in the paperwork to decertify, so the lockout's on everybody's minds. I've talked to a lot of players about this recently, and I always ask the same question — what is the message you want to get out to the people who love the game and are tired of hearing all the labor talk?

AP: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night — we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too — every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' [B]But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are.[/B] The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

SC: It's nothing that I haven't heard from other players, believe me.

[B]AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? [/B]People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

SC: It seems to most of the players that if the owners had nothing to hide financially, and if the current business model was as unsustainable as they claim, they'd have no trouble opening the books and showing audited profit and loss per team. Is that your impression?

AP: Exactly! It's like … 'Well, show us.' We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there's a lot to hide -- these guys are professionals, and they're maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it'll be right out there for everyone to see. It's a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums. The people working at the facilities, you know?

SC: Do you feel that you're represented well by DeMaurice Smith and George Atallah and what now used to be the Players' Union?

AP: Yeah, I think so — they're doing a good job. And with the veteran guys on board, and the player reps, they give us a lot of confidence.[/QUOTE]

The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789065]I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?[/quote]

Owners

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

*Players. The owners are making a lot of money as they should be. The players are also...enough to be financially secure for the rest of their lives after a relatively short career that also opens a lot of doors for them after their playing days are over. I don't see many guys turning down a chance to play in the NFL. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. It's a pretty good gig, if they don't think so....find another line of work and see how "fair" you think that is.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789071]Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an [URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Adrian-Peterson-gives-readers-a-8220-Double-Ta?urn=nfl-wp206"]interview with Yahoo
[/URL]


The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)[/quote]

The part about modern-day slavery is ridiculous, I agree. Players don't have to play. And, if slaves get paid $5 mil. a year, sign me up for slavery!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789065]I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?[/quote]

I would say players, but only because they didn't take the deal the owners proposed & opted to decertify, which may hurt them in the long run. Time will tell of course. i.e. at this point in time, I see the players taking a bigger risk here and I'm not convinced that its worth if for them. If they get less than what the owners last proposed, they will indeed wear the title of "slightly bigger idiots." (in terms of sheer mass they are more than 'slightly bigger' though)

Overall, though, the owners must accept blame for agreeing to that deal in 06 knowing that it wasn't acceptable to them long-term. That IMO has created this mess, which could've taken place in 06 rather than now. So to answer the question, I'll say players, but that in no way should mean I'm blaming the players moreso than the owners, that's why I voted 'both.'

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788969]The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when [B]people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballp[/B]ark.[/quote]

How so?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

A coal miner or auto factory worker is easy to replace; nfl caliber football players .. not so much.

To clear up my confusion re. the great offer the NFL says the NFLPA walked away from . .that great offer was about concessions the NFL had made to the extra 1 bil they originally demanded in their initial offer?

I dont blame the NFL for trying to start negotiations at their artifically unreasonably high initial offer (i.e. we want 2 bil off the top before we agree on how the other 7 bil gets split), but to only make concessions as to that extra arbitrary 1 bil you demand does not make a great or fair offer and to present that to the NFL fans as the NFL's good faith effort is insulting to me from what lil I know.

No wonder negotiations went nowhere. Did the NFL really believe the NFLPA would count their blessings that the NFL would consider reducing their extra 1 bil demand? If that was the starting point, its no wonder they never got anywhere.

I still think this thing gets resolved in the next 4 months. Each sides dream scenario is out the window now, off the table and hopefully they can start to make honest concessions and not cling to pie dreams.

everything is of my opinion.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789076]I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.[/quote]$1B was the initial bargaining point. They came way down from that. The owners have provided a lot more financial data than "Just trust us".

The NFLPA knew the owners weren't going to give them the financial data they've requested. The owners would be insane to do that. The owners have never provided that level of financial data before. D. Smith wanted to get this into the courts all along. It's where he's comfortable and where the NFLPA thinks they have the best chance for success. That's probably why the NFLPA elected Smith in the first place. They know they can't survive a lockout once game-checks get missed, the players will crack at that point.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Good article before all this mess

[url=http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/nfl_labor_agreement.html]The NFL's Win-Win Labor Agreement: Why Collective Bargaining Works Well[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Business owners have never had to tell me how much money they make or why. I sure as hell don't tell my employees how much I make. I pay them a competitive wage and if they can do better somewhere else God bless them. Some of these players have degrees in fields that they could turn into very lucrative careers. Why do they choose the NFL? The love of the game can only carry you so far. Loads of money, fame, sex, whatever.....like I said before, not a bad gig.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789076]I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.[/quote]

First of all the owners arent asking for any money back. They are asking to pay the players less in the future. And Who cares whether the owners "need" the more money in a future deal or not? It's a negotiation and both sides have the right to ask for more of the pie. Finally, according to the league, they offered the union even more than what they asked for in terms of financials and the union didn't even look at it...

In my opinion all the evidence points toward the union negotiating in bad faith.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;789108][B]First of all the owners arent asking for any money back.[/B] [B]They are asking to pay the players less in the future.[/B] And Who cares whether the owners "need" the more money in a future deal or not? It's a negotiation and both sides have the right to ask for more of the pie. Finally, according to the league, they offered the union even more than what they asked for in terms of financials and the union didn't even look at it...

In my opinion all the evidence points toward the union negotiating in bad faith.[/quote]

Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

The owners feel as if the CBA they agreed to was not a good deal for them, so they used their out in the contract to get what they consider a more fair deal. Regardless of if you agree with the owners or the players, the owners aren't taking money from anyone. They sucked it up until they were able to change the CBA and took their opening. I don't see any issues with that.

I agree with an above poster who said the players really had no intention of coming to an agreement. They have one team with open books, the rest aren't. Deal with it. At this point, I hope the owners play hardball and take even more than they offered at the table. Would be a good lesson for next time bargaining happens.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789095]Good article before all this mess

[url=http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/nfl_labor_agreement.html]The NFL's Win-Win Labor Agreement: Why Collective Bargaining Works Well[/url][/quote]


[quote]The owners argue that the current collective bargaining agreement signed in 2006 did not serve them well—despite the rising value of their franchises—and that the cost of building new stadiums and the upkeep of league-owned assets are eating into their bottom line. [B]These specific claims are hard to evaluate because only the publicly owned Green Bay Packers release any detailed financial information[/B]—details that show the team is quite profitable, though somewhat less so during the Great Recession.[B] The NFL hasn’t released data on any other teams[/B], including those likely to be much more profitable, such as the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins.[/quote]

I really don't get how any rational person can side with the owners. If they are going to tell the players we're going to give you 50% of the revenue one is left to wonder 50% of what? If they want to get away from that system of sharing that's fine but don't tell the players we won't show you all the financial details in light of the current structure in place.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;789094]$1B was the initial bargaining point. They came way down from that. The owners have provided a lot more financial data than "Just trust us".

[/quote]

The 1 bil referred to as the starting point . .is that the orig 1 bil the owners have gotten to take from the top under the expiring CBA or are you referring to the second 1 bil the owner want to take off the top before they start to negotiate how to split the remaining profits (7 bil)?

This is textbook, ask for an extra 1 bil that you dont really believe you will get at the start, then make concessions only to that extra 1 bil and claim the other side walked away from a great deal. "Hey we came down from 1 bil to 240 mil but that still wasnt enough to satisfy the players." In reality, the players would be giving up 240 mil, not gaining 760 mil b/c the NFL has no right to that extra 1 bil just cuz they asked for it, just like the NFLPA has no right to all 9 bil just b/c they may ask for it.

The NFL's impression of the strating point was not the same as the NFLPAs i suspect.

I thought the initial starting point should be based off the orig agreement, then each party makes concessions/modifications based off that.

What stops the NFLPA from demanding that the intial starting point is they want 57.5% of 9 bil? (the NFLPA probably started at 50/50 of the whole 9 bil imo).

I just find the NFL's stance that the initial starting point of how to split 7 bil (and not 8 or 9 bil) was in bad faith. This isnt some car accident or accounting being fired. There are alot of smart people in the room and they can see tactics for what they are. Starting unreasonably and artifically high, then making concessions only to that unreasonableness is an obvious and petty negotiating tactic.

If I was the NFLPA I wouldnt have responded either, it was just such an unreasonable demand it doesnt deserve a response b/c once you start responding/rebutting you find yourself negotiating ... and negotiating from their orig unreas starting point the other side tried to force upon you.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/ryan-grant-takes-issue-with-adrian-petersons-slavery-comment/]Ryan Grant takes issue with Adrian Peterson’s slavery comment | ProFootballTalk[/url]