Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CatMan72

JR condescending to Peyton Manning during CBA meeting?

598 posts in this topic

Products are bought, sold and traded. Players are bought, sold and traded. Have you ever seen any other "employees" bought, sold or traded? Me either. Next question.

:ee:next question...

so you are trying to make an argument for players being slaves?

utterly ridiculous altogether

thanks for repping that side of the argument so solidly. Now go back to worship your trading card and jersey collection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They used to play for and charge peanuts for people to watch these games until savvy and creative owners built the large intinwhat it is today. Thhey built and maintain the system that allows us to see all these games and pay for the talent.

Players did not turn football into the industry it is. Players don't build stadiums or negotiate tv contracts.

Television and technology used to market the NFL built the NFL into what it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL is a league. Does everyone understand this? There are 32 individual companies that all work for the same organization with the same objective.

There are measures taken to insure equality and the only reasons trades occur is to offer employment to players who become less useful when regime changes amongst the coaching staff take place. Trades hardly ever happen anymore. Why? Because individuals represent too large an investment these days which can never be recouped.

The players are no more a part of the product in the NFL than in any other league that is regularly aired on television.

yes. The only reason you nimrods worship the players is because the NFL marketed them. But just like racehorses, they are a means to a financial end. Do yoiu really want a list of great players with huge numbers and awesome jersey sales cut or released because they ceased to contribute?

Here's a hint...It's ALL of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ee:next question...

so you are trying to make an argument for players being slaves?

utterly ridiculous altogether

thanks for repping that side of the argument so solidly. Now go back to worship your trading card and jersey collection

It depends on what you call a slave. They have a contract that they must fullfill or face monetary and legal ramifications. They are indeed a slave to the contract that they signed. If they walk away from the contract, then they may or may not get to participate in the game that they have dedicated their lives too. So, yes, they are voluntary slaves and this is why Richardson is so upset. The slaves want more money and he's upset, so he lashes out at them and treats them like hired hands.

The National Labor Relations Act gave these men the right to fight for wages, benefits and fair labor practices. The owners may not like the fact that they must negotiate with the hired help, but they must. It's the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he walked away from his NFL career over $250 and called it principle.

Yes. Some people know what that word means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Products are bought, sold and traded. Players are bought, sold and traded. Have you ever seen any other "employees" bought, sold or traded? Me either. Next question.

No different that a Software Consulting company where the services of the employees are bought, sold, and traded.

Nice try....keep playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you call a slave. They have a contract that they must fullfill or face monetary and legal ramifications. They are indeed a slave to the contract that they signed. If they walk away from the contract, then they may or may not get to participate in the game that they have dedicated their lives too. So, yes, they are voluntary slaves and this is why Richardson is so upset. The slaves want more money and he's upset, so he lashes out at them and treats them like hired hands.

The National Labor Relations Act gave these men the right to fight for wages, benefits and fair labor practices. The owners may not like the fact that they must negotiate with the hired help, but they must. It's the law.

Dumbest fuging arguement that I have EVER seen made here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL is a league. Does everyone understand this? There are 32 individual companies that all work for the same organization with the same objective.

There are measures taken to insure equality and the only reasons trades occur is to offer employment to players who become less useful when regime changes amongst the coaching staff take place. Trades hardly ever happen anymore. Why? Because individuals represent too large an investment these days which can never be recouped.

The players are no more a part of the product in the NFL than in any other league that is regularly aired on television.

yes. The only reason you nimrods worship the players is because the NFL marketed them. But just like racehorses, they are a means to a financial end. Do yoiu really want a list of great players with huge numbers and awesome jersey sales cut or released because they ceased to contribute?

Here's a hint...It's ALL of them.

When McDonalds put "the McRibb" on the menu I always go get one. I love "the McRibb", but I really don't like McDonalds. I go to McDonalds simply to get "the McRibb". Would you call "the McRibb" a product?

When the Viking aquired "the Farve" and put him on the field 100s of thousands of fans followed and supported the Vikings. Many people love "the Farve", but don't really care for the Vikings. They watch and support the Vikings simply because "the Farve" is on the field.

Tell me you understand this. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Television and technology used to market the NFL built the NFL into what it is today.

thanks for contradicting your own argument dipshit,

who do you think negotiates these TV contracts? I love Julius Peppers as a DE but I have my doubts about him in the FOX boardroom. How about Dan Morgan? You wanna say you think the TV contracts are as big as they are with him negotiating the payouts, time-slots, hybrid scheduling, and region airing? Maybe you think some of the stars like Headcase Terrell Owens or a guy who changed his own last name to an incorrect translation of his jersey number to be in charge of how TV money is distributed and allocated around the league.

Not me pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of what you are paying to see when you buy an NFL ticket or turn on the TV is the player. The player has to be there for the game to happen, better players make for more revenue and you physically see the players.

Given that an owner can trade a player for another player, a draft pick or cash (?) then the player is indeed an asset with monetary worth.

This is why it is silly to try to compare the NFL to your typical boss/employee scenario in a typical company such as Wachovia or Starbucks

Compare this to Ford where you are paying for the vehicle and the human that helped make the vehicle is immaterial to your decision and not necessarily critical to the process of making the vehicle.

Actually you can't trade a player, you can only trade the contract. The player and employee have the right to do whatever they want to. These players are not slaves, they have the right to walk away or go to another football league if they choose to do so.

The contracts are assets/debts, the players are employees. Now, I think you can make an arguement that the players are actually employees unto themselves and they are actually individual businesses, thus making the arrangement between owners and players more of a partnership between each team and each individual player. But then the players would have to give up their ability to organize into a union and also puts them into a completely different type of tax brackets ect.

I could be wrong, but I think the players want to be seen as employees, not products or assets or partners, because they are the ones trying to use the rules and laws that govern Ford, Starbucks and Wachovia to their advantage. Because if they are truely seen as partnering businesses, along with the freedom (no more RFA, franchise tags, ect) and reduction in restrictions the players would recieve, the owners would also recieve additional freedom (no salary floor) and reduction in restrictions (vet. min., insurance, retirement).

I, for one, would support this type of agreement. I personally feel that both the owners and players need more freedom. But that is something neither side wants.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article on this, with more detail about what actually happened (according to sources):

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-richardsonnfl021411

Beyond anything else, I'm wondering how good it is for a 74 year old man with a heart replacement to be losing his temper like this (assuming that's what happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Some people know what that word means.

Throwing away your NFL career over a couple dollars is not principle. It's either very stupid, very greedy or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites