Reed Doughty Facebook page - The owners have decided not to continue players health insurance past march 4.

[Conn]

The players are definitely not against a rookie cap. What they're against is where that additional money eventually goes. Apparently, there's no clear plan for reinvestment back in to Veteran contracts/income.

:2cents:

Ah, okay. I can see the thinking in that, since lowering the "price" of rookies would probably, inevitably, lower the cost of veterans on the market during FA, since their second and third contracts would be coming after smaller rookie deals.

[addicted]

I don't see why the players are being viewed as whiny or cry babies here. The majority of these players are not coming from silver spoon backgrounds. They are supporting a lot of people, and putting their bodies and health on the line to entertain you all. A lot of money is going into the NFL. Other than some of the really small markets, I don't buy excuse that the teams are losing money. The owners are being greedy imo, and it's just like everything else in this country, the people at the top want more and more while the rest of us scramble for their crumbs. Just because the player salaries are public, many of your perceptions seem to be that they are lucky and should just figure out how to make it work. But for comparisons sake, if you all knew how much those guys up in the press boxes sipping champagne were making off of the players, your perception might change a bit. It's really a bigger issue that I see across the board with our nations mentality, but I will leave it at that since this is the Stadium. I won't comment on this topic anymore. Just my opinions

In all walks of life the owner of the company will make much more then the employees. And rightfully so. Every business that's a for profit business is there to make money and NFL teams are no different.

My opinion wouldn't change on anything if I knew what a player was making. Knowing that this is a choice these men make to play this game, knowing that these men went to college and hopefully for their own sakes to get an education, knowing how the real world works where everyone has options if they want more coverage, knowing that employers don't pay benifits to employees who refuse to work, none of these things can be ignored simply because you think that this isn't "Fair" or "Right" or that the owners don't deserve it. If it weren't for the owners there wouldn't be an NFL to watch. Sorry my opinion wouldn't change at all

[GoCommiesGo]

I don't see why the players are being viewed as whiny or cry babies here. The majority of these players are not coming from silver spoon backgrounds. They are supporting a lot of people, and putting their bodies and health on the line to entertain you all. A lot of money is going into the NFL. Other than some of the really small markets, I don't buy excuse that the teams are losing money. The owners are being greedy imo, and it's just like everything else in this country, the people at the top want more and more while the rest of us scramble for their crumbs. Just because the player salaries are public, many of your perceptions seem to be that they are lucky and should just figure out how to make it work. But for comparisons sake, if you all knew how much those guys up in the press boxes sipping champagne were making off of the players, your perception might change a bit. It's really a bigger issue that I see across the board with our nations mentality, but I will leave it at that since this is the Stadium. I won't comment on this topic anymore. Just my opinions

The owners should make the most, since they are in fact the owners. They have huge debt loads for salaries, stadiums and other expenses and should have the highest compensation since again they do own the teams. I have no problem with owners making a large amount as long as they do reinvest into their teams, if they don't do that then I understand the resentment like the Cards, Bills and Bengals get.

[The Tris]

The bottom line is they want to strike, then they should be prepared for the consequences

And under all that anger directed to me, you reveal that you don't know the first thing about this labor dispute.

It's called a "lockout" for a reason - the owners are prompting this stoppage, not the players.

[Elessar78]

I don't see why the players are being viewed as whiny or cry babies here. The majority of these players are not coming from silver spoon backgrounds. They are supporting a lot of people, and putting their bodies and health on the line to entertain you all. A lot of money is going into the NFL. Other than some of the really small markets, I don't buy excuse that the teams are losing money. The owners are being greedy imo, and it's just like everything else in this country, the people at the top want more and more while the rest of us scramble for their crumbs. Just because the player salaries are public, many of your perceptions seem to be that they are lucky and should just figure out how to make it work. But for comparisons sake, if you all knew how much those guys up in the press boxes sipping champagne were making off of the players, your perception might change a bit. It's really a bigger issue that I see across the board with our nations mentality, but I will leave it at that since this is the Stadium. I won't comment on this topic anymore. Just my opinions

Why do they need to support a lot of people? A family of 4 can live comfortably on the $100K in the DC area, and moreso in places like Pittsburgh, Cleveland. Maybe not San Fran or NY/NJ.

I think all that's being argued here between owners and players is how the pie is split up. I think how much the owners are worth is irrelevant. It's their money. As Mr. Tony says, Labor identifies with labor and management with management. Most of these owners bought in when the success of the NFL was still in doubt. The NFL hasn't alwas been this juggernaut, so don't they get to reap the rewards of their foresight?

[Voice_of_Reason]

If the two sides can just agree before March 4th, this becomes completely a non-issue.

[Kostaskins]

thats what usually happens when any worker goes on strike. this was to be expected when dealing with union negotiations. this is a retaliation towards the union by the owners

[The Rook]

thats what usually happens when any worker goes on strike. this was to be expected when dealing with union negotiations. this is a retaliation towards the union by the owners

I am surprised by the number of people who keep refering to this as a player "strike". :doh:

But I am not surprised these people sort of back the owners.

:helmet:The Rook

[jflow78]

I agree with most others, this isn't a surprise. If the owners aren't paying them salaries, why would they be providing any other monetary benefit. It's kind of the definition of a lockout and the NFLPA's leader should have seen it coming and let his players know to expect it. Now, it looks like they were left in the dark and suddenly are going to be in a panic.

I'm glad the news came out now that the owners are going to do it, it means that players and owners might be able to sit down together and figure something out before this starts affecting the next football season.

[addicted]

I am surprised by the number of people who keep refering to this as a player "strike". :doh:

But I am not surprised these people sort of back the owners.

Player strike, labor union rift, work stoppage...who the hell cares? Its all the same thing.

I guess if you can't seem to get your head wrapped around the idea that 31 other team owners aren't the jerkoff owner that we have and actually are running a business that's been destroyed by lawyers, sports agents, and greedy players and you just think the NFL is some "right" for a player to have or believe the idea that an uneducated person making 30k a year can have financial responsibility but a educated millionaire is incapable of demonstrating personal responsibility then of course I'd understand comments like yours :doh:

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 10:19 AM ----------

And under all that anger directed to me, you reveal that you don't know the first thing about this labor dispute.

It's called a "lockout" for a reason - the owners are prompting this stoppage, not the players.

If the players weren't for this "lockout" then it wouldn't go down or happen.

You really believe that the issue is the owners just being dicks to the players and not letting them work? Come on man tell me your not serious :doh:

[TimmySmith]

Player strike, labor union rift, work stoppage...who the hell cares? Its all the same thing.

I guess if you can't seem to get your head wrapped around the idea that 31 other team owners aren't the jerkoff owner that we have and actually are running a business that's been destroyed by lawyers, sports agents, and greedy players and you just think the NFL is some "right" for a player to have or believe the idea that an uneducated person making 30k a year can have financial responsibility but a educated millionaire is incapable of demonstrating personal responsibility then of course I'd understand comments like yours :doh:

You did not include the word "lockout", which is what this is going to be. Not quite sure I understand the rest of what you are trying to convey. But here is some food for thought. The owners, who are the catalysts behind this, have indicated that they will stop benefits on March 4. That says to me that March 4 is a drop dead date for the procession of next season. Have those same owners indicated that they will not accept ticket orders past March 4? Have they indicated that they will refund ticket orders after March 4? What does this say to you?

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 04:25 PM ----------

If the players weren't for this "lockout" then it wouldn't go down or happen.

You really believe that the issue is the owners just being dicks to the players and not letting them work? Come on man tell me your not serious :doh:

The players have a legal agreement in place that the owners do not wish to honor. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Stadium-Armory]

What's the league minimum, $325k? I can't muster up a ton of sympathy for guys making hundreds of thousands of dollars who are in a labor dispute. COBRA for a couple months and get over it. How much will it REALLY cost, a few hundred, maybe a few thousand dollars?

[SkinsWarrior81]

What's the league minimum, $325k? I can't muster up a ton of sympathy for guys making hundreds of thousands of dollars who are in a labor dispute. COBRA for a couple months and get over it. How much will it REALLY cost, a few hundred, maybe a few thousand dollars?

Took the words out of my mouth. They should try making 28k a year and have to figure out how to buy a house and pay for college along with insurance.

[addicted]

You did not include the word "lockout", which is what this is going to be. Not quite sure I understand the rest of what you are trying to convey. But here is some food for thought. The owners, who are the catalysts behind this, have indicated that they will stop benefits on March 4. That says to me that March 4 is a drop dead date for the procession of next season. Have those same owners indicated that they will not accept ticket orders past March 4? Have they indicated that they will refund ticket orders after March 4? What does this say to you?

First that says to me your grasping at straws here in hopes of placing the blame of this at the owners feet and that you have a lack of an appreciation for the business of selling tickets. Do you think the owners have a right to not fullfill the committments they've made to the ticket purchasers? They have to get the tickets out there to the public with as much time for the public to pay for the customers benefit. Are you suggesting that these owners since they haven't come out with an announcement of a refund in your mind plan to not refund the ticket prices if there isn't a season or something? I mean come on. If you buy a ticket to see a concert ticketmaster only tells you when you can buy them, they don't tell you when you "might" get a refund in case the need arises that you need one. Why would they? Ticketmaster wants the concert to go on. Just like the owners want the season to go on. Why would they be interested in a "lockout".

BTW, lockout is something that both sides agreed to in the last negotiation, not just some fairy tale made up **** about the old greedy owners wanting to keep the innocent players from working...that's a bunch of bullspit. This was an agreement made by the players and owners. The common thread here with most of the people rushing to the side of the players is that you guys don't hold the players accountable for their own actions and just think the only side who needs to be responsible is the owners. Wrong answer, try again. Both sides are wrong, the problem is if the players want to play like we all want them too then they will come to the table and agree to the ownership demands. If not they are out of work and I'll blame the players for that, not the ownership. All the owners are trying to do is protect there own investments.

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 10:43 AM ----------

Took the words out of my mouth. They should try making 28k a year and have to figure out how to buy a house and pay for college along with insurance.

No doubt, how can we the regular people figure out how to do this so easily but these people making so much more with these college educations can't? For that matter why are there so many people defending these players? This whole situation is crazy

[TimmySmith]

First that says to me your grasping at straws here in hopes of placing the blame of this at the owners feet and that you have a lack of an appreciation for the business of selling tickets. Do you think the owners have a right to not fullfill the committments they've made to the ticket purchasers? They have to get the tickets out there to the public with as much time for the public to pay for the customers benefit. Are you suggesting that these owners since they haven't come out with an announcement of a refund in your mind plan to not refund the ticket prices if there isn't a season or something? I mean come on. If you buy a ticket to see a concert ticketmaster only tells you when you can buy them, they don't tell you when you "might" get a refund in case the need arises that you need one. Why would they? Ticketmaster wants the concert to go on. Just like the owners want the season to go on. Why would they be interested in a "lockout".

BTW, lockout is something that both sides agreed to in the last negotiation, not just some fairy tale made up **** about the old greedy owners wanting to keep the innocent players from working...that's a bunch of bullspit. This was an agreement made by the players and owners. The common thread here with most of the people rushing to the side of the players is that you guys don't hold the players accountable for their own actions and just think the only side who needs to be responsible is the owners. Wrong answer, try again. Both sides are wrong, the problem is if the players want to play like we all want them too then they will come to the table and agree to the ownership demands. If not they are out of work and I'll blame the players for that, not the ownership. All the owners are trying to do is protect there own investments.

Where on earth are you coming up with this stuff? Is it a joke?

Without taking sides, we know that:

1. The Owners are instigating a lockout.

2. The contents of the CBA are public knowledge, but only one (1) owner has open books.

3. The owners get a BILLION dollars this year, season or not. Most teams stand to make MORE money if there is no season.

[addicted]

Where on earth are you coming up with this stuff? Is it a joke?

The only thing I thinks funny is that you've put this on the owners for the lockout. Its as if you don't think that the owner of a company should enjoy the most profits from the company and that it should be handed to the employees which I don't agree. The root of capitalism is to get the most, to have the most, and love excess. Why would I have any problem with an NFL owner wanting the same things?

1. The Owners are instigating a lockout.

The agreement which expired in 2008 called for this. Both sides agreed to it. The owners are just fullfulling a threat to the players. Why wouldn't they? They stand to lose more over time if the words they used aren't followed up.

2. The contents of the CBA are public knowledge, but only one (1) owner has open books.

The crux of the issue is the owners want a paycut from the players. Why would the players deserve to see these owners books? If they don't agree they will just not have a job. If that's what they want then so be it. The players association could give in the demands since really there is so much to go around and stick the paycut on the rookie salaries and to change the game to have 2 more regular season games. To me if you want to play the game you need to follow the rules. Or don't and then go look for another job. Them not opening books to the players lawyers is them showing who's boss here. Not to mention in Hockey and Baseball the players got owners to open the books and that didn't stop a long lockout for them. What difference does that make?

3. The owners get a BILLION dollars this year, season or not. Most teams stand to make MORE money if there is no season.

This isn't true. If they get the TV contract money they have to pay it back once there is another season. The owners who get ticket money will pay that back too. Everyone stands to lose if there is a lockout. The difference is the players are going to hurt first and then they will go back to the bargaining table and give in to the owners demands which I think with the spiraling cost to go to games, cost of the player contracts, etc that it makes the most sense to me. If you can control the cost and salaries it makes for an easier succession of future years. Or on the other hand the union gets too much, costs too much, and in a few years the whole thing folds. Either way no business profits when it's shut down, the NFL is no different.

[grantarchy]

I'm sure that most of the people here who are anti-player and OK with them losing their benefits would sing a different tune if it was THEIR company that decided that they were going to lock them out come March and health benefits would be discontinued. And if they expressed any concern over their OWN families health coverage, I'm sure they would appreciate others coming on and saying "you make enough, just deal with it".

[The Rook]

The only thing I thinks funny is that you've put this on the owners for the lockout. Its as if you don't think that the owner of a company should enjoy the most profits from the company and that it should be handed to the employees which I don't agree. The root of capitalism is to get the most, to have the most, and love excess. Why would I have any problem with an NFL owner wanting the same things?

The agreement which expired in 2008 called for this. Both sides agreed to it. The owners are just fullfulling a threat to the players. Why wouldn't they? They stand to lose more over time if the words they used aren't followed up.

The crux of the issue is the owners want a paycut from the players. Why would the players deserve to see these owners books? If they don't agree they will just not have a job. If that's what they want then so be it. The players association could give in the demands since really there is so much to go around and stick the paycut on the rookie salaries and to change the game to have 2 more regular season games. To me if you want to play the game you need to follow the rules. Or don't and then go look for another job. Them not opening books to the players lawyers is them showing who's boss here. Not to mention in Hockey and Baseball the players got owners to open the books and that didn't stop a long lockout for them. What difference does that make?

This isn't true. If they get the TV contract money they have to pay it back once there is another season. The owners who get ticket money will pay that back too. Everyone stands to lose if there is a lockout. The difference is the players are going to hurt first and then they will go back to the bargaining table and give in to the owners demands which I think with the spiraling cost to go to games, cost of the player contracts, etc that it makes the most sense to me. If you can control the cost and salaries it makes for an easier succession of future years. Or on the other hand the union gets too much, costs too much, and in a few years the whole thing folds. Either way no business profits when it's shut down, the NFL is no different.

Although I DO NOT take the players' side, there has been too many inaccurate details in your rants.

The "agreement in 2008" did not call for a lockout. It only said the owners could opt out of the CBA.

Simmer down now.

:helmet:The Rook

[jflow78]

If the players really wanted to play football, they could make concessions. If they owners really wanted to have football they could make concessions.

The point is, both these sides are being ******* idiots because they're both making an *** load of money and they both need to stop crying about how wronged they've been and just talk and trade priorities.

Both sides want a rookie cap. Done.

The Owners want 2 more games, 2 less preseason games, and a salary cap.

The Players want more money, would be happy with 2 less preseason games, and are using the salary cap as a bargaining chip.

How about, 1 extra regular season game a year, 1 less preseason game a year, rookie salary cap, regular salary cap league wide that has a higher ceiling, where teams can pay over the cap to keep their "franchise players", meaning people that they drafted or an extra player that they tag (which would be awesome, because suddenly we'd see more players stay with their team throughout their careers plus teams could no longer use the salary cap as a reason to cut their "franchise" vets at the tail end of their contracts because they made too much money), raise up minimum wage for vets.

With so many educated people who are so highly paid, you'd think they could sit down and figure something out like this pretty easily. Instead, they refuse to talk to each other and they are upset when one side takes a shot at the other.

This whole thing is stupid, grow up you bunch of rich *******.

[The Tris]

Actually, the players are only asking for better benefits. No additional money.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is unfortunate, but not surprising.

The owners' best hopes of winning this battle is the fact that many of the players cannot afford to not get a salary and benefits for a year. For as many millionaires out there as there are, there are many guys who are barely off the practice squad who cannot afford a lockout. These players may well put enough pressure on the union that eventually they start conceding to the owners.

It's not the lower-end players who are going to run into money problems. It's the guys with the multi-million dollar contracts. Does Antonio Cromartie strike you as a man with a rainy day fund? The first time one of his eight kids needs tubes in their ears, he is going to be screwed. And come October, when he is missing child support payments...it's on.

[TimmySmith]

The crux of the issue is the owners want a paycut from the players. Why would the players deserve to see these owners books? If they don't agree they will just not have a job.

The NFL owners are not asking players to take a paycut. They are claiming are very low profit margin while providing absolutely no hard evidence (except for the books of one public franchise located in the smallest market in the NFL). Based on that claim, they wish to negotiate a new CBA. Only when the owners issue an actual proposal could it possibly be said that the players have a hand in this.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If the players really wanted to play football, they could make concessions. If they owners really wanted to have football they could make concessions.

The point is, both these sides are being ******* idiots because they're both making an *** load of money and they both need to stop crying about how wronged they've been and just talk and trade priorities.

Both sides want a rookie cap. Done.

The Owners want 2 more games, 2 less preseason games, and a salary cap.

The Players want more money, would be happy with 2 less preseason games, and are using the salary cap as a bargaining chip.

How about, 1 extra regular season game a year, 1 less preseason game a year, rookie salary cap, regular salary cap league wide that has a higher ceiling, where teams can pay over the cap to keep their "franchise players", meaning people that they drafted or an extra player that they tag (which would be awesome, because suddenly we'd see more players stay with their team throughout their careers plus teams could no longer use the salary cap as a reason to cut their "franchise" vets at the tail end of their contracts because they made too much money), raise up minimum wage for vets.

With so many educated people who are so highly paid, you'd think they could sit down and figure something out like this pretty easily. Instead, they refuse to talk to each other and they are upset when one side takes a shot at the other.

This whole thing is stupid, grow up you bunch of rich *******.

I don't think you can do a fair schedule with a 17-game season. And you are completely missing the big sticking point which is the share of the revenue between the players and the owners.

The owners feel like they gave too much to the players during the last negotiation.

Here is what you are asking the Players Association to accept:

1. A rookie salary cap.

2. One more game.

3. Less money.

[SKINSFAN87]

I'm sure that most of the people here who are anti-player and OK with them losing their benefits would sing a different tune if it was THEIR company that decided that they were going to lock them out come March and health benefits would be discontinued. And if they expressed any concern over their OWN families health coverage, I'm sure they would appreciate others coming on and saying "you make enough, just deal with it".

Well unfortunately that is the nature of being in the spotlight and making millions of dollars playing a kids game. The sympathy card isn't played the same when you make alot of money playing professional sports vs. the everyday "joe the plumber". If the players are truly concerned about health insurance ending, then stop bickering about wanting more money, sign a new cba and get on with it. It's really that simple.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Here is the other thing to consider: The NFL is the most popular, highest-revenue generating sports league in the US. And its players are the worst compensated athletes with the least job security - despite facing the greatest physical risks.

If I am the head of NFLPA, I am willing to give back a percentage point or two of revenue for contracts guaranteed for three years.