DM72 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?mod=WSJ_article_onespot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Not a small detail but the article is written by one Roger Goodell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Wish I didn't agree with the article. I am having a harder and harder time finding sympathy for the players side as the weeks go by. It seems they are arguing more and more for the death of the NFL. The competative balance now enjoyed by the NFL is the golden goose. Without the current agreements, the NFL may as well shrink to a dozen teams. They will be the only competative ones. When that happens, the TV ratings will shrink in non NFL towns which will drive down ad revenue and future tv deals. All of this will lower what the remaining teams are willing to compensate the remaining players. This is the sprial the players seem to favor. Why? I know this is Goodell's side, but is it implausable? What protections are the players arguing to keep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Collective bargaining? A Rupert Murdoch owned rag (yes, I called the WSJ a rag - cause it is these days) is backing collective bargaining? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The full title of the article: Football's Future If the Players Win There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams. As a Skins fan, I support the players now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 **** Roger Goodell. It's the goddamn owners that opted out of the CBA. If his fear is the death of the NFL as we know it, he could have continued with the status quo until the end of time. Instead, he opted out of the system in place and demanded a billion more dollars. Now that he has lost the PR battle and has lost nearly all the court battles, he is trying to make the players the scapegoats for this. ---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 01:51 PM ---------- I know this is Goodell's side, but is it implausable? What protections are the players arguing to keep? The players wanted to keep the old CBA - which is the general structure that has governed the league for a generation. Goodell wanted the old CBA but with the owners getting about 25 percent more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 **** Roger Goodell.It's the goddamn owners that opted out of the CBA. If his fear is the death of the NFL as we know it' date=' he could have continued with the status quo until the end of time. Instead, he opted out of the system in place and demanded a billion more dollars. Now that he has lost the PR battle and has lost nearly all the court battles, he is trying to make the players the scapegoats for this.[/quote'] Can't believe I agree with the off-the-wall LKB. I don't know who's changed - me or him :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Additionally, the owners screwed the players out of a lot of money on the latest tv deal. That hardly is ever mentioned though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Its such crap... How do I know? Because the players were fine with the current CBA. It was the OWNERS who ended it (They excersised a option to not basicly renew it). So in fact - the players were not the ones that want end football as we know it...if fact, they were fine to keep it EXACTLY the same.... EDIT - Sorry LKB - Didn't read when I posted. But needless to say, I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 ICome on, it's great news. This will be the first season in how long, that the Redskins will have a .500 record or better ? (at 0-0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 This article is 6 weeks old. It was discussed a while back Roger's doomsday scenario was desperation at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Can't believe I agree with the off-the-wall LKB. I don't know who's changed - me or him :paranoid: Mickalino calling somebody "off-the-wall? :cool: hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Great article. When I want accurate perspectives on ownership-vs.-labor disputes, the very first thing I do is consult the WSJ opinion pages. First thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 How about we just get a damn season. Agree on something that keeps the draft, 16 game season and all 32 teams... Both sides need to compromise. Let's see some football. As far as I'm concerned this whole thing is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.