Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Richardson ...Lockout Article


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
49 replies to this topic

#46 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,537
  • Reputation: 2,255
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:15 PM


Personally I want to see football this year


The only thing of relevance you said. As for your analogy, it was totally off base. This isn't a car sale but an employment negotiation. They have nothing in common.

#47 ElIngeniero

ElIngeniero

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPip
  • posts: 78
  • Reputation: 1
ROOKIE

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:13 AM

You are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are EMPLOYEES who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, I suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their JOB.

End of story.


No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.

#48 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,537
  • Reputation: 2,255
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:47 AM

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.


The owners are asking for concessions and the players are refusing so there is an impasse. The issue is that the owners want a fixed cap and the players want a moving one. The major issue is that players want their salaries tied to the league revenue and the owners want it to be tied to a fixed rate of increase. The only reason it is perceived as a pay cut is because the cap has increased way in excess of expectations when the last deal was done. And owners want more money excluded from this "split pot" to account for current and expected increased costs.

As for increased wear on the body that is not true, they have largely abandoned the 18 game season and are willing to cut down on OTAs, offseason training and some other issues.

THe point here is that the players don't want any changes and aren't negotiating for a deal. This last owner proposal is a negotiating point not a final offer, which the players could use to continue to negotiate. But from I have seen they have taken the position of litigating to avoid any concessions and gain leverage not work to make the best deal. Opening the books has been a major deal but it really isn't. They didn't lose money and everyone knows it. That isn't the point really. They aren't at the point of needing to renegotiate to survive but are looking to gather a bigger piece of the pie. So the players need to make the best deal they can and see what concessions they can get. There is a lot the players can do to protect their interests.

#49 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Gonna live and die as a faithful Panther Fan

  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,637
  • Reputation: 902
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 09:07 AM

you are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are employees who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, i suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their job.

End of story.



bam
we have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#50 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Gonna live and die as a faithful Panther Fan

  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,637
  • Reputation: 902
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 09:11 AM

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.


I think 6.5 million dollars as you put it, is more than enough...

I also believe the cuts would come in Rookie Salaries. You have a problem with a Rookie making more than a VET. I DO!!!!