Burgold Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Ur reason to not believe them is what? And you know this how? However, I do agree that the tweets are unprofessional. They need to lay off during this process. However, to play devils advocate. U have the NFL media machine saying that the lockout was over, it wasn't... So.... In a way, the NFL is being a bit less than honest in the way they came off. What I heard was them the declare the lockout was over if the player's agree. Nothing wrong with that statement. It's entirely accurate. Edit: What's interesting is that they say stuff has changed, but they haven't had time to read it... well, how do you know stuff has changed if you haven't read it? Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The fact that now hours and hours later no one has leaked what those changes were. I'm sorry sir but that's not a good reason. There's tons and tons of stuff about the CBA that isn't confirmed or has yet to be unearthed. They've been very tight lipped through the process up to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The fact that now hours and hours later no one has leaked what those changes were. Pretty much. All I've heard regarding changes has come from over emotional player tweets. NONE of the NFL reporters are reporting it as even remotely true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Now, let's take guys that actually suit up. So if a guy makes $500K for 3 years, and 200K of that get taken out in taxes and agents fees that adds up to 900K for three years of service. Lets say he spends 100K per year on living. That leaves him with 600K at the end of the road. That's a nice chunk of change but he is by no means living high on the hog for the rest of his life. Is he set for life? No. He has to get a job like everyone else. Except he has a supposed college education, a degree, and a half a million dollar head start to get him into the next career of his choosing. Who wouldn't jump all over an opportunity like that and be damn grateful for the chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST21 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I do not understand the bait and switch argument. I mean couldn't the players have voted on a new CBA on Wednesday and add their ommissions as they are saying the owners have done. My thoughts are that they missed their opportunity and then the owner's picked up the ball and ran with it. The player's had the opportunity to put this in the owner's court on Wednesday and failed to do so and now they are pissed when actually they could have had the upper hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 What I heard was them the declare the lockout was over if the player's agree. Nothing wrong with that statement. It's entirely accurate. Indeed but these men are not dumb. LOL. They know how it'll be run in the media and they know what public perception will be. Hell, this thread is a perfect example. You have people who aren't well versed in these situations and all they see is that the players need to sign. Was it a purposeful tactic? #shrug. But these are the same men who had billions in TV revenue stocked up so that they could survive a season without games. So really, it's not beneath them to do anything that aides their cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [/color] I do not understand the bait and switch argument. I mean couldn't the players have voted on a new CBA on Wednesday and add their admissions as they are saying the owners have done. My thoughts are that they missed their opportunity and then the owner's picked up the ball and ran with it. The player's had the opportunity to put this in the owner's court on Wednesday and failed to do so and now they are pissed when actually they could have had the upper hand. Is that true? I'm not disputing, just curious? It was a lockout, so wouldn't the owners have to vote first? Or is that irrelevant? Edit: according to PFT (I know it's just PFT) http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/making-sense-of-the-last-12-hours/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Exactly! And no I haven't seen them. But why does everyone just automatically assume that these people are lying? I'm just taking their word. They said stuff changed, they needed to properly inspect this 10 year agreement. Ok. That sounds reasonable. lol I get that people want football, emotions are running high but I'm not the type of person that lets my emotion precede common sense. Well I will give you one reason I dont belive the players version. Before the owners vote last night the NFLPA sent an e-mail to all the reps saying there were questions about the legality of the latest proposal. Then they come out after the vote and say they did not have a copy of the proposal the owners voted on. So the NFLPA either lied to its reps in the e-mail before the vote or they lied after the vote. Either way it makes me question what they are saying right now. ---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 09:21 AM ---------- But these are the same men who had billions in TV revenue stocked up so that they could survive a season without games. So really, it's not beneath them to do anything that aides their cause. What you mean like the NFLPA taking insurance out for the players to pay out in the event there is no season. Yep what can you expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not saying that it's chump change, but 80-100K per year for a PS player is lower than the median household income of 110K in Loudoun County where the Skins practice. They are also not in this for the long haul. These guys do not make it for that long. Now, let's take guys that actually suit up. So if a guy makes $500K for 3 years, and 200K of that get taken out in taxes and agents fees that adds up to 900K for three years of service. Lets say he spends 100K per year on living. That leaves him with 600K at the end of the road. That's a nice chunk of change but he is by no means living high on the hog for the rest of his life. That guy, if he wisely invests and lives within his means is set for life. If he lives extravagantly, he's not. Mind you, are you really arguing that any job should after three years make it such that you should never have to work another day in your life and live in unending splendor? It doesn't work that way. Even a minimum paid player who works for three years is set up to live a good life if they invest well and take advantage of their opportunities. That's not to say that if you are an idiot you won't wind up broke regardless of how much you make. Donald Trump went from billionaire into bankrupsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well I will give you one reason I dont belive the players version. Before the owners vote last night the NFLPA sent an e-mail to all the reps saying there were questions about the legality of the latest proposal. Then they come out after the vote and say they did not have a copy of the proposal the owners voted on. So the NFLPA either lied to its reps in the e-mail before the vote or they lied after the vote. Either way it makes me question what they are saying right now. ---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 09:21 AM ---------- What you mean like the NFLPA taking insurance out for the players to pay out in the event there is no season. Yep what can you expect. I'm not one to comment on something that I haven't read about, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll check it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST21 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [/color]Is that true? I'm not disputing, just curious? It was a lockout, so wouldn't the owners have to vote first? Or is that irrelevant? I am assuming it is true b/c the original vote by the players was suppose to have occurred on Wednesday according to what ESPN was reporting at the time. If I were the players, I would have wrote in what I wanted to happen for the remaining issues and voted. Then you have the chance to send it to the owner's for their vote on Thursday. That's the problem with not getting your act together!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I would say that most people are smart enough to not sign something before reading it but then again there was the housing market fiasco.... So it doesn't shock me to see people wanting the players to just shut-up and sign. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm sorry sir but that's not a good reason. There's tons and tons of stuff about the CBA that isn't confirmed or has yet to be unearthed. They've been very tight lipped through the process up to this point. I have to give you credit for sticking to a positon. If I was the NFLPA and the NFL and changed up some terms and then announced it all on TV I guarantee I would have some tame reporter well briefed on what those changes were by now. ---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 09:26 AM ---------- I'm not one to comment on something that I haven't read about, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll check it out! Read away. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/nflpa-rep-we-didnt-see-owners-proposal-before-conference-call/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I would say that most people are smart enough to not sign something before reading it but then again there was the housing market fiasco.... So it doesn't shock me to see people wanting the players to just shut-up and sign. lol Lol good point! We've seen first hand what happens when you don't read what you sign. I honestly don't see what the big deal is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Indeed but these men are not dumb. LOL. They know how it'll be run in the media and they know what public perception will be. Hell, this thread is a perfect example. You have people who aren't well versed in these situations and all they see is that the players need to sign. Was it a purposeful tactic? #shrug. But these are the same men who had billions in TV revenue stocked up so that they could survive a season without games. So really, it's not beneath them to do anything that aides their cause. Right here is the major problem with a majority of your arguments. You villify people for not having knowledge of a situation, then throw out the misperception that the owners were given a big pile of money (roughly $4 billion) by the networks regardless as to whether there was NFL football on TV or not. Wrong. The owners were not GIVEN that money, it was a LOAN so that they would not be hard hit if the players were to balk at negtiating a new CBA. Lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. The owners were just being smart businessmen, but would have had to pay that money back. As to the current situation, the CBA agreed upon by owners is essentially the same one that has been negotiated by ALL parties for the past 120+ days. The owners are saying they had a handshake deal with the players reps on this deal, the players are saying the owners added things. Who do you believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I have to give you credit for sticking to a positon.If I was the NFLPA and the NFL and changed up some terms and then announced it all on TV I guarantee I would have some tame reporter well briefed on what those changes were by now. ---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 09:26 AM ---------- Read away. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/nflpa-rep-we-didnt-see-owners-proposal-before-conference-call/ I understand but really, that's just turning it back into a pissing match again. Hopefully they decided not to do that so that they can just focus on the matter at hand. Any reaction from the players end is just gonna look like whining at this point, even if they are justified in how they feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 That guy, if he wisely invests and lives within his means is set for life. If he lives extravagantly, he's not. Mind you, are you really arguing that any job should after three years make it such that you should never have to work another day in your life and live in unending splendor?It doesn't work that way. Even a minimum paid player who works for three years is set up to live a good life if they invest well and take advantage of their opportunities. That's not to say that if you are an idiot you won't wind up broke regardless of how much you make. Donald Trump went from billionaire into bankruptcy. I agree with you for the most part. That 600K could buy a nice house that could be free and clear and they don't have to worry about a mortgage payment ever in your life. That gives you a pretty good leg up in life. A lot of people seem to be under the perception that these guys are all millionaires and can retire and do nothing after football. It seems like they are jealous because they get compensated better than they do when they do not have the skill set necessary to perform the task of being a NFL player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTR F Dallas Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not saying that it's chump change, but 80-100K per year for a PS player is lower than the median household income of 110K in Loudoun County where the Skins practice. They are also not in this for the long haul. These guys do not make it for that long. Now, let's take guys that actually suit up. So if a guy makes $500K for 3 years, and 200K of that get taken out in taxes and agents fees that adds up to 900K for three years of service. Lets say he spends 100K per year on living. That leaves him with 600K at the end of the road. That's a nice chunk of change but he is by no means living high on the hog for the rest of his life. I'd love to get paid $100k/year to just work out and practice.... they shouldn't even be getting paid that.. they don't do anything.. Now for those making $300k+ year, they should be wisely investing and situating themselves for a decent financial future if they're that concerned about it. IMO a football player that plays 5 years and makes $1.5M+ doesn't deserve to have the rest of his life paid for... he played football until he was 27..way to go... now join the real world and let's see how much complaining you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 For anyone interested, 49ers player rep takeo spikes will be on mike and mike at 9:45 to discuss the rumours and whatnot. Should help settle some of this argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Right here is the major problem with a majority of your arguments. You villify people for not having knowledge of a situation, then throw out the misperception that the owners were given a big pile of money (roughly $4 billion) by the networks regardless as to whether there was NFL football on TV or not. Wrong. The owners were not GIVEN that money, it was a LOAN so that they would not be hard hit if the players were to balk at negtiating a new CBA. Lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. The owners were just being smart businessmen, but would have had to pay that money back. LMAO, I figured that it was common knowledge that it was a loan. I apologize for assuming the obvious. In regards to my point, that's a moot point. They would have had money to get them thru a season long lockout. It was backhanded and that's why the judge ruled the way he/she did. LMAO at "villify" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 LMAO, I figured that it was common knowledge that it was a loan. I apologize for assuming the obvious. In regards to my point, that's a moot point. They would have had money to get them thru a season long lockout. It was backhanded and that's why the judge ruled the way he/she did. LMAO at "villify" Sorry, I should have said "belittle?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not "against" the players or the owners. I think they both have every right to strike or enforce a lock out or opt out of a CBA they aren't happy with. My main issues come with a group of 1,500 people making assumptions and spouting off about things without being informed. There are 32 owners and 1,500+ players...so in a situation like last night 99 times out of 100 the overreactions and emotional responses are going to come from the looser-knit group. Ultimately, things like that hold up this process and that's what I'm annoyed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Luva Luva Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Sorry, I should have said "belittle?" We already addressed my condescending attitude a few pages back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 We already addressed my condescending attitude a few pages back. You sound like MassSkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 For anyone interested, 49ers player rep takeo spikes will be on mike and mike at 9:45 to discuss the rumours and whatnot. Should help settle some of this argument Between his multiple "dis"s and "dat"s I'm hearing nothing but talking points likely given to him by someone else. His talking points, however, are spot on: don't sign something until you've read it, and certainly don't sign something for which you haven't bargained. That said, I am among those that take issue with some of the conflicting player/player rep accounts of the offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.