10 things you need to know right now about the CBA situation

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by PQ

Why not? If the product suffers, you'll have to pay more. And Joe Schmo ain't gonna be playing for long. Manning and Brady will be right back in their when they have to sell insurance for a living.

The problem, however, is that the union got involved in the first place.

and as owners, why go that far? to make a few extra bucks? they have to split 9billion right now. I am 100% confident they wont come close to that with scrubs. so really, they'd lose money the following year, if there is even a season.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by PQ

So, because they aren't going into bankruptcy right away, they should have to risk more?

Wait.... THEY are the owners. Again, players have NO risk that they are not compensted for. Under contract even. Boy, I sure would have liked a contract, instead of a month to month salary or hourly pay when I was working for someone else.

Maybe it's that inmportant to them that their great great grandchildren have a easy and comfortable life? Doesn't matter the reason. It's THEIRS and they should be able to do as they please as far as salary.

nothing is a for sure thing as a player. They may be under contract, but teams can cut players at any point. Why do you think teams back load contracts? players that get a few million dollar contract wont see it until their last year of their contract, and more times then not, they are cut so teams don't have to pay it.

And contract or not, players get paid after each game.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

its not that easy. especially with the job market right now. if you were highering a person to be an accountant (just for example), would you hire a ex football player that hasn't been in school for 4 or 5 years, someone coming straight from college in that field, or someone that got a degree in that field and has 4 or 5 years experience. I'm positive the first choice or the second choice will be the football player.

basically, what i'm saying is that i don't agree fully with the owners because they are fighting for basically nothing. They aren't in any kind of trouble. They were making a great deal of money. Sure, there are some players making a butt load as well, but again, that's not the majority. It was pretty much win/win for everyone as a whole. So why try and screw essentially the hand that feeds them, the fans?

I do see what you are saying and where your coming from. I just disagree.

These guys have more opportunity than 99.9% of the population. And at the end of the day, they have a decision. Play football, or go GET that 4-5 years experience.

I'm all about accountability. I had to make my decisions and live with them. If they choose to play football, they should take the salary offered and if it is unacceptable, go use your edu and be an accountant. I'd still play football myself. So I only make league minimum for 3 or 4 years becaue I'm not that good....... 1.5 mil. for 4 years is pretty good money. Better than ANYTHING you'll make at anythning else with a 4 year degree.

[PoorMansCamaro]

and players can't try and cash in so their kids and grand kids can live comfortably? because they aren't owners, they should be treated as dirt?

[madman2k]

Originally Posted by PQ

I'm with the owners on this one.

+1

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by PQ

I do see what you are saying and where your coming from. I just disagree.

These guys have more opportunity than 99.9% of the population. And at the end of the day, they have a decision. Play football, or go GET that 4-5 years experience.

I'm all about accountability. I had to make my decisions and live with them. If they choose to play football, they should take the salary offered and if it is unacceptable, go use your edu and be an accountant. I'd still play football myself. So I only make league minimum for 3 or 4 years becaue I'm not that good....... 1.5 mil. for 4 years is pretty good money. Better than ANYTHING you'll make at anythning else with a 4 year degree.

I agree 100%. i'd love to play football for 4 years and make the minimum. If it was a for sure thing. The chance of injury is very high, so i understand when players try and get the most they can. Also, if you aren't in the league at least 3 or 4 years, you don't get any kind of pension or retirement or insurance. At least that's what it was with the old CBA.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

and players can't try and cash in so their kids and grand kids can live comfortably? because they aren't owners, they should be treated as dirt?

What did my employees put up when I stuck my neck and our life savings out on the line and started our business? And if it didn't work out and I were to have had to shut the doors, what did the emplyoees lose?

Seems like all the risk was mine. If I fail, I'm out my life savings. They are out nothing. We become the same. Which is perfect, becasue that's what they think they are entitled to.

Players absolutely have the right to try to make as much for their kids etc...... AND THEY DO. Every year there are players holding out for more pay. And GETTING it.

But they risked NOTHING. ZERO. NADA. The owners have assets that exeed anything, even in terms of total net worth percentage, that the players do on the line. If the league were to fold tomorrow, the players would be whole, they go find another job. The owners would be ruined. (In THIS venture) Sure, they more than likely have other businesses but that's irrelevent. But they then lost theri business. Actuall asset.

Or is it? Believe me, the unions would try to hold that against them legaly if they could.

The reason I bring up 'Asset Risk' for your post is because it's legit as far as the percieved greed. The owners made the risk, and and the players now somehow think they are entitled to tell the owners how much of that risk should be for them and their kids.

Oh, and if I wanted to treat my employees like dirt, it's my business. I can if I want. THey can quit if they want. Go start their own business or work somewhere else.

[CJ Man]

I don't really see the players point in this whole argument. They need to shut up and play football. As long as they are called "owners" they can do what they want.

Players are fortunate to make 40% of 9 billion dollars

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by CJ Man

I don't really see the players point in this whole argument. They need to shut up and play football. As long as they are called "owners" they can do what they want.

Players are fortunate to make 40% of 9 billion dollars

You just dont get it. All the players are doing is trying to get a new CBA. I have yet to see any article where the players have been asking for gobs of money. When the negotiations first started, and you saw 50%, it wouldn't have mattered if it showed 1%. the owners didn't even look at the paper...they want a lockout...

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

You just dont get it. All the players are doing is trying to get a new CBA. I have yet to see any article where the players have been asking for gobs of money. When the negotiations first started, and you saw 50%, it wouldn't have mattered if it showed 1%. the owners didn't even look at the paper...they want a lockout...

50% of 9 billion is gobs in my book.

But I think they are just letting everyone know they are done being pushed around with their own businesses.

And trust me, if YOU know what the doc. said, then they do to. If they truly did that, it was symbolic. They know what it said. I've heard way more from that thug union leader than the NFL reps., so we aren't getting the true story anyway.

[PQ]

BTW, based on the numbers, the players (at 50% profit) would be asking for compensation equaling an average of 3 million dollars per player.

Again.

If the players agree to help pay for the advertizing, travel, hotels, equipment, staff, doctors, facilities, insurances, etc.................. Then it would make more sense to me. More risk the owners have. The players DON'T.

Make em' buy their own uniforms, travel, insurance, facilities, hotels, etc............

But, then, of course, the union would want MORE compensation and that's not even to mention stadium and taxes...........

[PoorMansCamaro]

I know you aren't considering the previous CBA, but it's hard not to. I know 50% is a lot, but 60% is even more. Didn't think that was a bad spot to NEGOTIATE from. Lol.

I guess I see this business different from most others. Mainly because it's such a unique and "special" circumstance. You have people playing a game, and the people paying these guys are the fans. As a fan, I want to see the best out there playing each other. In any other business, I could go elsewhere for their products. U can't do that in the NFL. Ufl and cfl are nowhere in the same league. Lol.

They need to split 9billion. If they were still in the last CBA, they'd be giving up over 60% to the players. Had they gone to 50-45%, that's a 10-15% increase. I know full well the maintenance costs and taxes, etc didn't go up that much, and won't go up that much in one season.

[Cbrenthus]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

And the NFL isn't just like any other business with union labor Sure, the structure is probably similar, but you can't just replace your workers with some joe schoe off the street. I pay my hard earned money to watch the best athletes play.

Fixed that for ya . In most fields, unions aren't needed because the employees can't just be replaced by anybody. Unions are only needed these days when people are making more than the going rate for what they do. It cracks me up that you support the NFL union, yet say you want to see the best players play. What, do you think if there was no union the NFL owners would just higher a bunch of 57 th stringers for minimum wage?

Here is a simple, fair, solution: treat the NFL like a normal job, no contracts, agents, etc. A guy gets hired and gets paid a salary. And if he plays real hard, he maybe gets a bonus, which is usually a share oh the profit.

[PoorMansCamaro]

If the players don't feel like they are getting paid enough they can strike, therefore we would see replacement players...hence not the best players on the field.