So, who's side are you on now?

[Sam Mills Fan]

I mean, I could just as easily say that if players truly offered what they said they offered, then shame on the owners and Goodell right?

[SCP]

I have yet to see an independent journalist come out with what really was offered on both sides. I've seen the owners' side and I've seen the players' side. What I haven't seen yet is the actual truth. Taking one side or the other as complete gospel is just being really biased towards one side or the other.

100% agree. But my anti-union beliefs influence my feelings and right now I am on the side of the owners. I have no sympathy for the players. Most players average a 3-5 year career in the NFL, make a sh*t ton of money, and if they are smart go on to a normal career. Owners have to look at the picture long term. From strictly a business standpoint, owners are the ones who take on the real risk.

[Skew]

That poll is from March 4-7. I bet it would be different now

That's why I waited until it was official, and everyone could see what was offered and how each side would view the other's offer, and their reaction to it.

[MattB]

I'm on neither side but it seems like the Owners offered a pretty reasonable deal and conceeded on a number of issues. Bottom line is there's a lot of greedy people on both sides.

[OneBadassCat]

Tea Party

[Jaxel]

I think he is saying that the owners are the ones that backed out of the expiring deal (3 years ago), not the players. The owners will be getting a better deal and the players will be getting a worse deal. How much worse is what is being negotiated.

Was bound to happen with the economic downturn, players didn't want to negotiate and walked out.

[Lords0fPain]

With the owners on this one, expect prices to go waaaay up if Doty abuses his power..again. This happens in every business, where the unions have a death grip on companies. The regular guy can't afford their products, anymore. Then they whine that companies go overseas or unfair competition/prices. Thorough the NFL doesn't have to worry about "outsourcing", it's the same losing mentality.

And no business owners should not have to open their books to their employees (unless they are investing their own monies, then they are shareholders).

[mountainpantherfan]

Like SouthCak, I'm fundamentally anti-union so I am biased towards the owners.

With that said, I would like to point something out. I do not feel that either the players or the owners are actting in greed. Greed is by definition a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. I have not seen one report where either the owners or the players are taking a standpoint that in their defense isn't in the best and long term interest of themselves and their organization.

The fans, who most posters have said to be the real victims, are the true greedy party in this debate. It is we who just can't get enough of all things NFL. While fans say we don't want 18 games they also make the scouting combine the highest rated program ever on the NFLN, higher than regular season games!

While I support the owners, I respect the view and actions of the players. Perspective is realitive. If any of us who are anti-union were to be a player, we would asking for the owners to open their books ASAP. And if any of the anti-owners were an NFL owner, you would be just as opposed to the union as the owners are now.

[civilizedgrit]

Definitively and unequivocally, the owners.

The union exists for one reason: its continued existence. It doesn't care about the future of the league, it only cares about taking care of 1) itself, and 2) current benefits and income. Current players and union leadership don't give a poo if the league fails in 5 years, they are out to get the maximum return for as long as it lasts.

The owners, by contrast, have, to varying degrees, invested in their business to sustain them for the long term. Like all GOOD business owners, they will sacrifice the short term for long term gains. This is because they risk their own equity to achieve that return.

This dichotomy is why fans should hope that owners prevail. There are too many lessons in our recent history where unions strangled off future cash flow for lavish benefits: the auto industry, airlines, steel, etc. should be classic case studies for what can happen if you lose your long term vision.

Don't think the owners' costs are increasing? Anyone tried to get a mortgage lately, much less a small business LOC?

I heard some player rep for the Titans on Sirius today; he went on to state that the financials the owners provided weren't detailed enough. He said that showing net profits wasn't enough, that they wanted expense reports to see where the money was going. Why? What gives them the right to say how much the owners are allowed to pay, and which expenses do they think are "proper"?

I don't think the players union (i.e. D. Smith, atty.) ever intended to negotiate. Hiring an attorney was their first mistake; I think as this drags out, more of them will realize he believes his litigious nature has cost them dearly, both short and long term.

[JJT]

We are the ones who are going to suffer while they bitch and moan about how to split OUR money.

Once you give it to them, it's no longer your money.

[JawnyBlaze]

Just read something interesting on PFT:

We’re told that, for 2011, the NFL had offered a per-team cap of $131 million and the players had asked for $151 million. The $20 million cap represented the $640 million difference that existed before Friday.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/

Should shed some light on the question of salary cap, since there seems to have been some disagreement around here about that. Some people have been saying it'll be lower than $120 mil, some people saying around $130 mil. If the league was offering $131 mil for starters, and the players were asking for $151 mil, you can bet when it's all ironed out it'll probably settle somewhere between $135 and $140 mil.

[Stumpy]

Should shed some light on the question of salary cap, since there seems to have been some disagreement around here about that. Some people have been saying it'll be lower than $120 mil, some people saying around $130 mil. If the league was offering $131 mil for starters, and the players were asking for $151 mil, you can bet when it's all ironed out it'll probably settle somewhere between $135 and $140 mil.

It seems I remember saying almost the exact same thing in this thread and getting blasted for it by a couple people on here. :eek: I'm looking at you Squirrel ;)

[JawnyBlaze]

Yea, I remembered that conversation. That's what motivated me to make that post.

The "meet them in the middle" that the league was talking about was their offer to have a cap at $141 mil (the PFT article goes on to say the offer wasn't as rosey as they made it sound, some other stuff they were holding back on while giving in and "meeting half way" on the cap). Obviously the players turned down the $141 cap and probably blew their shot at a cap that high, but I doubt it will fall much from that figure.

[Mvp2014]

still with the owners, still hate unions