Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NFLPA Files Charges Against Owners


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#121 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 03:26 PM

Depends on what you consider winning.

Next year the owners will have more games and will be paying the players less.

They didn't even have to do anything to win favor because idiots did it for them.

Sounds like a win to me if you're a fan of rich white dudes.


Yes, damn those evil white bastards! How dare they expect to make a certain amount of money!! Who gives a poo that they produce the most exciting sport in the world, which is the most watched, and most popular sports content in the entire country. Who gives a fug that they promote ethnic diversity within the organization, and give minorities a chance at fame and fortune through their talents through their younger years and later on as coaches and assistants. fug all that. Those greedy bastards. They asked to have active rookies make a minimum of $254,000 a year instead of $310,000. Those greedy poo bags.

#122 KJDaniel31

KJDaniel31

    The Realist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 03:37 PM

Depends on what you consider winning.

Next year the owners will have more games and will be paying the players less.

They didn't even have to do anything to win favor because idiots did it for them.
Sounds like a win to me if you're a fan of rich white dudes.


Well, I'm definately a fan of rich white dudes, naturally.

Win favor with whom? That part is confusing.

#123 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 03:47 PM

Well, I'm definately a fan of rich white dudes, naturally.

Win favor with whom? That part is confusing.


The owners are shamelessly exploiting a real economic crisis to opt out of a contract they signed by lying about their personal finances to squeeze more labor out of the players at less pay. They've gone about this by essentially telling the players tough poo, take it or leave it.

And people are defending this.

#124 KJDaniel31

KJDaniel31

    The Realist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:31 PM

The owners are shamelessly exploiting a real economic crisis to opt out of a contract they signed by lying about their personal finances to squeeze more labor out of the players at less pay. They've gone about this by essentially telling the players tough poo, take it or leave it.

And people are defending this.


Well, truth is if they can get away with it, it's probably smart business, given the fact that no matter how dispicable it is, the fans will come right back and spend money.

That says nothing of the moral side, however. My main problem is their refusal to show their books WHILE enjoying anti-trust exemption and using taxpayer money for various projects. I'm not a financial/law expert in the least, but something about that doesn't add up. I'm just curious if the real blame should fall on the voters who have given them the power to do these things.

#125 DR_DIGH

DR_DIGH

    Insta-poop!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 08:11 PM

After reading Fiz's and BlackCatGrowl's war of words :boxing_smiley:, I have to ask you a few questions. Do you want football next season? Do the owners and players think they'll make a lot of people mad and give them a reason to hold a grudge towards the NFL and it's owners and players? Is this good business to act like overpaid babies and not share (give in) a little so the sport isn't affected? It's human nature to want more but eventually, when all of the politics fade away, it's going to come down to both sides giving in. The players will give in more I believe because every year there are new prospects coming out of college and you either accept the terms that the owners give you and play by their rules, or you go out and give up your dreams of becoming an NFL athlete and go apply for a normal job like everyone else. I can't see the future NFL players giving up on declaring for the draft because the league minimum is dropping to an amount that is still considered a hefty sum of money by today's standards. I also can't see them applying for a normal job because they have to play 2 extra regular season games. Regardless of who's side you're on, in the end, the owners will win. Money talks.

#126 jtm

jtm

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 09:05 PM

Well, truth is if they can get away with it, it's probably smart business, given the fact that no matter how dispicable it is, the fans will come right back and spend money.

That says nothing of the moral side, however. My main problem is their refusal to show their books WHILE enjoying anti-trust exemption and using taxpayer money for various projects. I'm not a financial/law expert in the least, but something about that doesn't add up. I'm just curious if the real blame should fall on the voters who have given them the power to do these things.


They don't have complete anti-trust immunity. They were sued last year for violating anti-trust laws and lost (American Needle v. NFL). Every professional sports league has the same immunity.

Just because you have some sort of anti-trust immunity doesn't mean you have to show all of your employees your profitability. NFL is not a public company. As I have said many times, if the players don't like go play in Canada or Europe. Plenty of others will be willing to get paid millions to chase a leather ball around.

#127 jtm

jtm

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 09:09 PM

The owners are shamelessly exploiting a real economic crisis to opt out of a contract they signed by lying about their personal finances to squeeze more labor out of the players at less pay. They've gone about this by essentially telling the players tough poo, take it or leave it.

And people are defending this.


And you are defending people that get paid more than most people make in a year in one game. At the end of the day I don't care how they divide their big bag of money, but rest assured, the employees will not make this decision.

#128 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 09:33 PM

i wasn't aware i was defending anyone

#129 KJDaniel31

KJDaniel31

    The Realist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 12:09 AM

They don't have complete anti-trust immunity. They were sued last year for violating anti-trust laws and lost (American Needle v. NFL). Every professional sports league has the same immunity.

Just because you have some sort of anti-trust immunity doesn't mean you have to show all of your employees your profitability. NFL is not a public company. As I have said many times, if the players don't like go play in Canada or Europe. Plenty of others will be willing to get paid millions to chase a leather ball around.


I dont care that they have anti-trust exemptions (total or partial), and I dont care that they wish to keep their books a secret. I care that they have each of these, and demand my tax dollars to build new stadiums, all the while claiming they need said money to stay profitable.

It doesn't add up. If they didn't demand my tax dollars, I would care very little about their practices, but I am beginning to distrust them. That doesn't mean I've taken a side, as it appears I'm one of the few who is willing to admit massive ignorance on this subject. It just smells fishy.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com