8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

He is inferring that Republicans favor big business, ergo, would support the NFL's wishes of the stay of the lockout.

Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)

I don't think most would consider an NFL union in the same light as a union in a "real workforce industry". Something the country must have in order to survive. NFL is entertainment. To Democrats it is not a serious union. To Republicans it is a large part of the big corporate machine that pads many peoples' pockets and in the eyes of many, drives this country's economy. That is all strictly IMO.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

Devil's advocate: Seeing as though democrats favor the rights of unions and collective bargaining, wouldn't they be against the players decertifying and basically walking away from the negotiating table: essentially minimizing the usefullness of CBA's? It could be argued that democrats would rule against the players as well in order to protect the collective bargaining rights for unions (those who actually need it like teachers, tradesman, coal miners, etc.)

No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.

The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.

The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.

To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

You are right, that it has gone down.

question, do you think the players would lower their percentage in order to gain guaranteed contracts?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

Two things:

1st part: I think your right depending on how you look at it. 53% of the total 9 bill, or.... 60% of the 8 bill. I could be wrong so don't ring my neck but it's funny how both sides keep coming up with two different figures in regards to what the players were getting. The players are playing off the fact they only get closer to 50% of total revenue, and the owners seem stuck on the 60% of split.

2nd part: The contracts are not guaranteed but the agents have been able to get money guaranteed for their clients. As in Haynesworths situation he was the 100 mill dollar man but I think only 40 mill was guaranteed. The team could have cut him but they would still owe him the rest to make the 40 mill. Some players have used this system to benifit themselves. Jason Taylor comes to mind. Currently we still owe Cartwright, ARE, T.Collins, Betts, and a ton of others.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.

Yup but so has everything else,TV contracts, ticket prices,concessions....what was the pice of beer 15 years ago,parking is twice what it was.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yup but so has everything else,TV contracts, ticket prices,concessions....what was the pice of beer 15 years ago,parking is twice what it was.

Plus if you look a the history of the NFL, the owners have been making out like bandits while the players were under paid. Russ Grimm made $60,000 base salary in the 83 Sb year. He was a 2nd or 3rd round pick, so he shouldn't not have been considered bottom of the barrel and making such a little amount.
This deal is really about the owners wanting to pay themselves a few million a year off the top. Despite the fact that their teams value doubles and triples over time. Greedy.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.

I agree with this statement. Though I would revise to "owners, players and greed".