The CBA: The NFLPA and Players Are Greedy and/or Dumb

[dmek25]

saden i agree everyone has the right to maximize their earnings.where we disagree is that the players hold the upper hand.while they are considered to be the product,5 years from now the whole product line changes.meaning me and you and everyone else here will still be cheering for whomever is donning the burgendy and gold,not arrington or anyone else.in 1982 when the scabs played 3 games,did you still want the skins to win?of course you did.because of the length of a normal nfl career is so short,the players are trying to squeeze every penny they can out of the owners.in most normal circles,this definitly could be construed as greed.those players,like any other employee,have the right to look for employment elsewhere,but we all know the nfl is the goose that keeps laying the golden age.

[Luxorreb]

There wouldn't be players if there wasn't the game.

The game should always be viewed in higher reguard than any player ever to play the game. Everyone is making plenty of money...

I am afraid that Snyder is probably involved in this owners sharing profits problems. I can't blame him as a business moves, but we're talking the NFL and this non agreement could cost the NFL most of their loyal fans, but makes it more profitable. Profitable for the short term. NFL will turn into MLB or XFL within 5 years if these peeps on both sides don't realize what they're messing with!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Microsoft is a terrible comparison because Bill Gates and a handful of bright computer geeks were the firsts to patent an operating system (windows) that revolutionized the computer world. Bill Gates generated this income by producing and patenting Windows, not some average Joe that works for him. See the difference?

actually, they sold DOS to ibm for $2million and THEN went out and bought it for $50,000 from some guy that programmed it himself in his basement.

windows and apple both ripped off windowed interfaces and inventions (like the mouse) from PARC labs (owned by xerox) who's board didn't think that the research and development would ever be useful.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I know country folk, and while country folk care about paying their rent and bills like everyone else there is a difference between country folk and non-county folk. The big difference being the fact that they think 500K for a house is a lot. They don't care what kind of house it is or where it is located. The truth is once you get beyond a certain monetary amount country folks will be overwhelmed. They can't grasp the value of money in relation to the value of property, the cost of goods and lifestyle. Most of the current players are country folks who have worked hard to earn their keep. Some players have grasped the value of money while others are still country and are spending it as if it's monopoly money.

that's not a sweeping and derogatory generalization by any means...

maybe we can get bac on topic without pointlessly insulting each other?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Luxorreb

There wouldn't be players if there wasn't the game.

The game should always be viewed in higher reguard than any player ever to play the game. Everyone is making plenty of money...

I am afraid that Snyder is probably involved in this owners sharing profits problems. I can't blame him as a business moves, but we're talking the NFL and this non agreement could cost the NFL most of their loyal fans, but makes it more profitable. Profitable for the short term. NFL will turn into MLB or XFL within 5 years if these peeps on both sides don't realize what they're messing with!

it won't turn into the XFL the 80+mill a year will continue to be shared, the sharing just won't be expanded. some teams might go clippers and have a 10-15mill payroll each year and pocket the rest, but the nfl has survived without a cap before... it could turn into MLB, but the bad teams would be able to be pretty decent (talent wise) and still be profitable if the owners choose.

[dmek25]

that guy,ive been thinking about this angle.to try and keep the league semi competitive,why not try a minimum cap,saying each team has to spend at least x amount of dollars according to the tv contract.that way the bidwells and some of the other cheap owners have to at least have some quality players on the roster.do you think this would work?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by dmek25

that guy,ive been thinking about this angle.to try and keep the league semi competitive,why not try a minimum cap,saying each team has to spend at least x amount of dollars according to the tv contract.that way the bidwells and some of the other cheap owners have to at least have some quality players on the roster.do you think this would work?

i don't think the cheapo's would agree to a min cap unless there was also a max cap.

[skin4Life28]

just heard on espn that they are close to signing a deal today or in the next couple of days. something with the owners changed over night and which may allow the deal to get done. they may push back the deadline again to get everything done. but gene upshaw said that he is very optimistic that they'll get it done. which is very good news.

[RiggoRules]

I think it is a mistake to view either the players or the owners as a monolithic group.

Teams like MIN, SEA, AZ & CIN have very different interests, needs and pressures from those like WAS, DAL, HOU, PHI. Then there are teams like PIT, CLE, NYG, KCC who face entirely different issues.

The same is true among players. Just looking at the WR position, what is good for someone like Reggie Wayne is different from James Thrash needs which is different from Antwon Randel El would like.

Is it really greedy for people to look out for their own interests? Is it fair to call an owner greedy for not being willing to buy into a deal that puts his franchise into the red. Just like attacking a player for being upset at a deal (or lack of a deal) that will take millions out of his pocket doesn't seem very balanced.

But I will go as far as to say there has been some real stupidity here. Especially on the part of Upshaw. He is not being reasonable and is overreaching and I don't find his public statements to be real honest. The position he is taking is going to hurt far more players than it helps at 12:01 A.M.

BTW, the uncapped year will be a total boondoggle for both the players and the Redskins -- not the bonanza most people are counting on for both.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

lifetimeskin
Give it up. Football is an entertainment bussiness, like movie stars or musicians we pay to see the talent. Certain star individuals are responsible for generating Billions of dollars in sales of Jerseys, shoes, movies, pictures and TV rights.
Stars like Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, U2 or Rolling Stones get paid MILLIONS just to show up and do their thing because people want to see THEM.
Same goes for NFL football, I watch football to see the talented players. They are the show. I do not pay to see Dan Snyder or anyother owner. The owners realize that and that is why they pay big salaries to keep certain players.

lifetimeskinsfan is dead on the money, your off base on this one defensewins ( just my opinion )

i could care less you is in a movie, if the movie looks to be good i'll go see it, if it looks to be bad i wont go see it. i could care less who "stars" in it.

football is the same, i'll go see or watch on tv, every redskins game regardless of the players. i watch football because i love it not because i want to see sean taylor or clinton portis.


football players are way over paid as it is.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by skin4Life28

just heard on espn that they are close to signing a deal today or in the next couple of days. something with the owners changed over night and which may allow the deal to get done. they may push back the deadline again to get everything done. but gene upshaw said that he is very optimistic that they'll get it done. which is very good news.

In an e-mail to the Washington Post, Gene Upshaw said the two sides were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

[That Guy]

screw it, nuke the deal... let's try armaggedon for a while

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

I think it is a mistake to view either the players or the owners as a monolithic group.

Teams like MIN, SEA, AZ & CIN have very different interests, needs and pressures from those like WAS, DAL, HOU, PHI. Then there are teams like PIT, CLE, NYG, KCC who face entirely different issues.

The same is true among players. Just looking at the WR position, what is good for someone like Reggie Wayne is different from James Thrash needs which is different from Antwon Randel El would like.

Is it really greedy for people to look out for their own interests? Is it fair to call an owner greedy for not being willing to buy into a deal that puts his franchise into the red. Just like attacking a player for being upset at a deal (or lack of a deal) that will take millions out of his pocket doesn't seem very balanced.

But I will go as far as to say there has been some real stupidity here. Especially on the part of Upshaw. He is not being reasonable and is overreaching and I don't find his public statements to be real honest. The position he is taking is going to hurt far more players than it helps at 12:01 A.M.

BTW, the uncapped year will be a total boondoggle for both the players and the Redskins -- not the bonanza most people are counting on for both.

That's probably the best post I've read so far on the issue. I totally agree. The players, owners, and union officials all have different interests, they are all rich, and they are all trying to do what is in their own best interests. I don't blame any one of them for beeing "greedy" and they all are - just like the rest of us.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

lifetimeskinsfan is dead on the money, your off base on this one defensewins ( just my opinion )

i could care less you is in a movie, if the movie looks to be good i'll go see it, if it looks to be bad i wont go see it. i could care less who "stars" in it.

football is the same, i'll go see or watch on tv, every redskins game regardless of the players. i watch football because i love it not because i want to see sean taylor or clinton portis.


football players are way over paid as it is.

For everyperson like you there are 20 people that will go see a movie just because their favorite star or director is in it. I never said I agreed with it but that is the way people are. People will see a Ron Howard or Stephen Speilberg directed movie just because they directed it. Plain and simple that is what drives up their demand and thus their salaries. You are usually going to have bigger revenues if you attach a certain amount of name recognition and star quality. It is all about money. I am not saying the other way will not work, on occasion a movie with no stars will do very well, but that is not as common.
I agree with you that in a perfect world athletes, movie stars and musicians should not getting more money than say a doctor that saves lives everyday. But the fact is the 4 members of U2 (for example) will generate more revenue than than any 4 doctors. It is sad but true.

[That Guy]

the original stars had no stars (lauched HF), and i think ET as well (lauched DB). donnie darko didn't either (lauched JG). good movies make stars