OWNERS PUT WORK? They bought, they sell it and everyone else works. He makes decisions and signs checks. GOD only knows how many of these franchises are handed down to junior. So using YOUR logic, that 'nobody is fine with a lockout or litigation', that must ALSO include the players were not happy with walking out the last time right?
I'm not familiar with the circumstances of the previous lockout, nor am I interested in changing the topic to that since we're not talking about a strike. You're the one that said everyone was fine with a lockout and litigation, which couldn't be further from the truth and just another rambling fabrication to try and back your point.
I don't want it both ways at all. Have the owners proposed a 50-50 split? I don't think so, why..because their greed leaves them to believe they are entitled to more. Does anyone come to see Robert Kraft run a post pattern or Al Davis run a sweep behind a pulling guard? NOPE. Yeah, the owners put in the financial investments to improve the team and stadiums, but that is because they have money because they have threaten/held cities hostage to build them a stadium and most did not have to pull out of their pockets. But you obviously do not think the owners are in the wrong here because they must be entitled to more because...they are owners...
The owners have proposed more money, better protection, better benefits, while allowing them the income to grow the league. Where's the problem? There may be one with that proposal, but the problem
currently resides with the players who have chosen to litigate for 3 months as of next week instead of try and resolve this. The owners have even made a second (bullet point) proposal this month. Still no counter. No further discussion.
The ONLY reason the players decertified because they were gonna get locked out. Do you HONESTLY think that if the owners were not threatening to lock out the players, they would have decertify? Really? Seriously?
The owners were threatening to lock out the players. Guess what. They hadn't. Instead they agreed to extend negotiations twice, and rather than try and extend them a third time
THE PLAYERS WALKED AWAY. And sued, you blame the NFL for bringing lawyers into it, but forgive the players for being the ones to actually do it when I correct you?
I just think YOU and most fans that are anti-union put yourselves to sympathize with ownership because HOW can they be wrong.
I've got the ownerships side in the labor issue because of the stupidity of the players to elect DeMaurice Smith. All I've done is discuss the facts that have led me to my opinion. I am by no means 'anti-union', but I am anti-NFLPA at this point. All you've done is twist/ignore the facts I've presented to support a blinders-on pro-players bias.
I think they fair thing WOULD BE a 50-50 split. And yes, I would like a salary cap and similar rules they have for NBA for rookies.
Why should there be a 50-50 split as if it's a birthright, unprecedented in any sport, no? let alone this the most popular one in the US? Answer the question you ignored in the previous post, you really want to see things like 3 year $100m contracts or something? 300mil salary cap, up from the 120m right now? Unchecked and based on overall revenue, that's certainly something that could happen very quickly. And then we end up like the NBA, and the owners proposing a 40% rollback in salaries...
If players are paid more, offered better benefits, better working conditions, better guarantees in the event of injury, 60% boost to retirement benefits, then what's the problem no matter the configuration of the revenue share? The owners aren't looking for a payday, they're looking to be able to better grow the league. An increase of the salary cap to 160m over 4 years (the $160m is a union-proposed number btw), and a reduction in dead cap space that ensures some previously guaranteed money from cut players has to be re-spent on players. A rookie scale, which as a side effect puts more money in the veteran players contracts?
This is all the stuff the NFL has offered already but the union has called 'the worst offer in the history of sports' - that rhetoric is why we are here right now. How do you sell that to players who are only in the league an average of 3.5 years that that deal is not one that you take?
How do you sell to players that is a deal you don't even consider or offer a counter proposal?
This is why I am with the owners on this one, business men making apparently good business decisions, players and their representatives making emotional ones. Emotions ("We're at war") don't win in court, and the players will lose more and more as time progresses, especially as the day nears that they miss game checks and it comes out exactly how prepared they were for this lockout and how 'solid' their crumbling solidarity really is.
salsadancer7 said:
I don't want it both ways at all.
salsadancer7 said:
THERE, I want it both ways. Thank you!
What?
salsadancer7 said:
As far as you being gullible, YOU said it not I.
salsadancer7 said:
Sorry, you maybe that gullible...
What?
