Gart Monk Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I have always believed that there should be a player salary bar relative to the amount of seasons the player has played and a rookie salary bar relative to which round he gets drafted. This would put more emphasis on winning and end ALL contract disputes. Continuing to inflate the players salaries is bad for everyone involved. The owners assume much more financial risk. Some fans live their entire lives without ever getting to go an NFL game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No offense to anyone in particular, but I am getting sick of the opinions that FANS need a seat at the table or they are somehow splitting OUR money. Yes, we buy tickets and merchandise, but I believe that the networks give them much more money than we do. We're not the little wimpy kid watching two bullies argue over our money...we're just fans of a sport and we'll be back to watch the sport when it resumes (if it goes on hiatus). Yep, if you want to use a negative analogy, this is like a pimp (the owners) arguing with his stable (the players) about how to divide the johns' (us fans) payment between them. If they don't agree, the pimp puts out a closed sign and we go find another whore house or do something else. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2011 at 06:56 PM ---------- So you believe that we contribute all $9B that they are splitting? That's your stance? I get the cliche that without fans, there is no NFL...but it's figurative. We aren't literally putting $9B in their pockets every year. I looked it up and it appears that more than $20B was being paid to the NFL by NBC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN through 2013. Do you honestly believe that all of that comes out of our pockets with our monthly subscriptions to cable or satellite TV? We most certainly do pay the full amount. Your own data proves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 We most certainly do pay the full amount. Your own data proves it. can you explain how all nine billion comes out of our pockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I haven't got a raise in about 4 years. The cost of food, gas, insurance, etc. sure hasn't been stagnant either. I may not be making less, but my paycheck definately buys less than it did 4 years ago. Welcome to the real world.I'd also like to point out that if you add all the time the starters play in the preseason games, it adds up to almost 2 games worth of time. The starters would only play an extra couple quarters total over the entire season if 2 of the preseason games were made into regular season games, not 2 entire games as the players would want you to believe. I am not saying that I am pulling for the owners in this case either. The owners/players just need to get it done. Heck, I'd prefer for both of them to take a cut and make it more affordable for the common people to go to the game. If they both took an equal cut then that would be negotiable. However, in this case the owners are saying they want more, and they want the the players to play more and get less but won't open their books to show them why. Also in pre-season games the starters do not go anywhere near as hard as they do in the regular season....unless you are a Raven playing the Redskins of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 NFL revenues have double over the last decade.I don't get the argument that because you aren't making any money' date=' no one should be making any money.[/quote'] You might want to reread what I said and the person I quoted. I never said I don't make any money or that players shouldn't make any money. The point was I am doing the same work, sometimes more, and my money buys less now than it did just a few years ago, much like the players playing a couple extra games for the same money. Sometimes you have to do more work to get the same money. That is life for most any person in the real world. Also if the revenues have doubled in the last 10 years as you have said, the player's salaries should have doubled too, considering they get a percentage of the total $9 billion. I consider myself to be a fairly average person and in my line of work, I haven't seen the average salary double in the last 10 years and I did not think they were underpaid 10 years ago. I am not shedding a tear for the players or the owners. Just figure it out and get a deal done. ---------- Post added February-24th-2011 at 08:51 AM ---------- If they both took an equal cut then that would be negotiable. However, in this case the owners are saying they want more, and they want the the players to play more and get less but won't open their books to show them why.Also in pre-season games the starters do not go anywhere near as hard as they do in the regular season....unless you are a Raven playing the Redskins of course. The owners have a lot more at stake. They should get more in my opinion. If for some reason there is a stoppage, mortgages on the stadiums, utility bills, contracts with vendors, upkeep of the field, etc. still have to be paid. Heck, the players are upset because they expected their "employers" to give them health benefits even if they decided not to show up for "work". Every player's salary is a gamble by the owner. Once the player is paid, it is up to the player to perform to his capabilities and many do not. If a player is injured, on the field or otherwise, the owner is still obligated to pay the player the guaranteed money, even if the player cannot play a single game that season. The player on the other hand has minimal obligation, play hard and show up for practice. Any time a player is on the field he is at risk of getting hurt, whether they are going all out or not. If you are being pushed back, there is a decent chance some one might roll up your leg and you could miss a decent portion of the season. They may not go all out but the risk is the same and the wear and tear isn't much less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggosMohawk Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 In the event of a lockout/work stoppage/lack of football, the non-football world is going to see how many money football gambling (esp fantasy football) pumps into the economy. I bet it is a staggering bucket of cash measured in billions possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallascrushers Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 In the event of a lockout/work stoppage/lack of football, the non-football world is going to see how many money football gambling (esp fantasy football) pumps into the economy. I bet it is a staggering bucket of cash measured in billions possibly. thats a great point....because during the last lockout in the 80s there wasn't all of the fantasy football of course...there was gambling in vegas I believe, but no where near as involved now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.