ouvan59 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The only thing I'm confident of is that this whole debacle is not going to benefit the fans wallets or fan experience. Everything in business flows down stream. If the owners are required to pay more money to player's contracts, retiree funds, injury settlements, healthcare programs, etc. etc. then the owners are going to attempt to make up that money somewhere. I would predict higher ticket prices, concessions, apparel, and TV blackouts. I think that is why fans feel bitter through this process. We are the unrepresented base that keeps this ship afloat and we will probably be screwed one way or another. It isn't going to change the game experience at all. They will already be charging as much as they think they can get. A fan's willingness to pay is what a fan's willingness to pay is. It may be easier for him to publicly justify his raising prices but that doesn't change what a fan is willing to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Whitlock -- who I usually hate -- nailed it today. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Jason-Whitlock-NFL-lockout-players-should-let-owners-twist-in-wind-072111 this is what I don't understand... why wouldn't the players now play hardball? they could give a damn about the pre-season, most probably wish the lockout would have erased a few games from it... they don't make any real money from the pre-season games, but the owners do, so the owners are the ones now with everything to lose... the players would be foolish to give in an inch now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaught76 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 What do you mean? Can the organization or a team-related outlet report news? Sure, it's a free country. Plus, anything that happened in the past during the time that [insert player name here] was a Redskin is all still valid and real. I guess the only grey area I could see is if a team could "promote" its players during that time. I'm not sure if they are allowed to use Santana Moss images on a publication, but maybe they are as long as it is from a time he played on the team?---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 01:18 PM ---------- Exactly how I understand everything. I agree with you and was thinking the same thing regarding previous seasons, and I get what you are saying about free speech and all; but would it be in violation of the lockout terms for a team associated outlet/group (media/marketing) to financially benefit from a player currently locked out or removed from its organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Will Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 It isn't going to change the game experience at all. They will already be charging as much as they think they can get. A fan's willingness to pay is what a fan's willingness to pay is. It may be easier for him to publicly justify his raising prices but that doesn't change what a fan is willing to pay. No argument. Thats business. We buy their more expensive product or we don't. And the financial outcome of all of this will run it's course. (For better or worse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I agree with you and was thinking the same thing regarding previous seasons, and I get what you are saying about free speech and all; but would it be in violation of the lockout terms for a team associated outlet/group (media/marketing) to financially benefit from a player currently locked out or removed from its organization? I guess I can't give an opinion without knowing what you mean by "team associated outlet/group" and how they'd financially benefit from a player right now? Do you mean that a program like Redskin Nation (on Comcast) shouldn't be able to mention any of the players when discussing the upcoming season? Do you mean the same type of Redskin-owned show not being able to report news about a player? I don't know what type of action you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 this is what I don't understand... why wouldn't the players now play hardball? they could give a damn about the pre-season, most probably wish the lockout would have erased a few games from it... they don't make any real money from the pre-season games, but the owners do, so the owners are the ones now with everything to lose... the players would be foolish to give in an inch now.... Wrong! Every preseason game missed, the players lose that percentage. So hypothetically, if one game is missed and each wee generates 100M, the player will lose 48M from there pool, which will take mone away from individual players per each contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaught76 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I guess I can't give an opinion without knowing what you mean by "team associated outlet/group" and how they'd financially benefit from a player right now? Do you mean that a program like Redskin Nation (on Comcast) shouldn't be able to mention any of the players when discussing the upcoming season? Do you mean the same type of Redskin-owned show not being able to report news about a player? I don't know what type of action you're referring to. Your questions are good examples that relate to my question. My questions, on the most basic level is: 1) Are players locked out from all aspects of the team or just those related to playing football? 2) Are the players the only group subject to the conditions of the lockout OR does the team/organization subject to those same rules (i.e. - no aspect of the Redskins: coaches, trainers, media office, marketing, etc. are allowed to contact and/or benefit from a player)? To use your example questions, if lockout conditions (no communications) apply to both the players and teams, how can Redskins.com conduct an interview with a player that would normally be under contract if not for the lockout? Sorry for any confusion, just wondering about questions 1 & 2. Thanks for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 this is what I don't understand... why wouldn't the players now play hardball? they could give a damn about the pre-season, most probably wish the lockout would have erased a few games from it... they don't make any real money from the pre-season games, but the owners do, so the owners are the ones now with everything to lose... the players would be foolish to give in an inch now....The players stand to make 46.5-48% of $200M each week of the preseason. This BS that they don't lose anything needs to stop being repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 this is what I don't understand... why wouldn't the players now play hardball? they could give a damn about the pre-season, most probably wish the lockout would have erased a few games from it... they don't make any real money from the pre-season games, but the owners do, so the owners are the ones now with everything to lose... the players would be foolish to give in an inch now.... The NFL generates $800M from preseason. The players will get 48% of this under the proposed CBA. The numbers get into the Billions if this eats into the regular season. That's what the players have to lose playing hardball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Wrong! Every preseason game missed, the players lose that percentage. So hypothetically, if one game is missed and each wee generates 100M, the player will lose 48M from there pool, which will take mone away from individual players per each contract. Plus the owners could take some concessions off the table they've already agreed to. So in theory the players could blow up it up back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The players stand to make 46.5-48% of $200M each week of the preseason. This BS that they don't lose anything needs to stop being repeated. This. Also, didnn'tthe players get almost everything they have wanted in the deal? They cant expect to get 100% of everything they ask for... can they? I mean, they do realize at this point there will have to be a compromise on both sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 This. Also, didnn't the players get almost everything they have wanted in the deal? They cant expect to get 100% of everything they ask for... can they? I mean, they do realize at this point there will have to be a compromise on both sides...AND the players lose $3-4M off the salary cap for each week missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 AND the players lose $3-4M off the salary cap for each week missed. Just seems so short sighted on the players part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Just seems so short sighted on the players part. Recently, the players strike me as a group that is responding more out of emotion. It almost seems like they are willing to drag their feet just to fire a shot across the owners' bow even if it doesn't benefit them one bit. I don't get the impression that they are a cohesive unit, operating all too intelligently, or well led at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The NFL generates $800M from preseason. The players will get 48% of this under the proposed CBA. The numbers get into the Billions if this eats into the regular season. That's what the players have to lose playing hardball. good information, thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Add to it what is being reported: “The only thing the players didn’t get is someone else to play for them” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Add to it what is being reported: “The only thing the players didn’t get is someone else to play for them” Really? Isn't it pretty much the case that when all's said and done, the owners made concessions from what they wanted while the players made concessions from what they already had. The players won a reduction in OTAs and such, which doesn't cost the owners a dime. But in the end this is all about money, and who wound up with a larger share of it than they previously had? So who made the concessions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Recently, the players strike me as a group that is responding more out of emotion. It almost seems like they are willing to drag their feet just to fire a shot across the owners' bow even if it doesn't benefit them one bit. I don't get the impression that they are a cohesive unit, operating all too intelligently, or well led at this point. This is why i've been slamming the players. I don't understand what could have been added to the proposal that has them reacting this way. As recently as Wednesday, they basically agreed to it, with conditions. Meaning that they actually did review the document. But since the owners did a "powerplay" and voted on an agreement that may have been tweeked by 1%, all of a sudden they are "hoodwinked and bamboozled"? Excuse me, but wasn't D. Smith and Goodell in communication for like 90 mins yesterday? How come D. didn't relay the info to the reps?....So yeah, i agree, i think the players are trying to spite the owners out of emotion. D. Smith needs to be a real leader put his foot down..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Anyone have any idea why they break up the years like this? And aren't they contradictory? I suspect they simply broke up the agreement into two equal blocks. Within each block they don't have to hit the 95% target every year as long as they reach 95% for the four years as a whole. Not contradictory the way I read it. All the teams combined have to hit 95%, but each individual team can drop below that (to a floor of 89%) as long as there are enough other teams over the target to keep the league as a whole at 95%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 This is why i've been slamming the players. I don't understand what could have been added to the proposal that has them reacting this way. As recently as Wednesday, they basically agreed to it, with conditions. Meaning that they actually did review the document. But since the owners did a "powerplay" and voted on an agreement that may have been tweeked by 1%, all of a sudden they are "hoodwinked and bamboozled"? Excuse me, but wasn't D. Smith and Goodell in communication for like 90 mins yesterday? How come D. didn't relay the info to the reps?....So yeah, i agree, i think the players are trying to spite the owners out of emotion. D. Smith needs to be a real leader put his foot down..... well, thats exactly why i felt like the owners had the upper hand. you have a group of older individuals, most of which have been through this a few times before. who are businessmen that were savvy enough to eventually buy a sports team. on the other side you have young men who's current occupation is playing a sport. their success is (like it or not) based on the rest of the population being crazy/stupid/irrational and spending tons of money to watch/go to/support a sporting event. (i'm a season ticket holder, and am guilty of this. i at least recognize my ridiculous obsession as such). and what you saw last night was just that. a group of experienced people making a PR play, and the other side responding like a bunch of, well, young men with no business acumen, no structure, and no communication skills. the players are outmatched. the only leverage they have is that it's in the owners best interest to keep this out of the court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 This is why i've been slamming the players. I don't understand what could have been added to the proposal that has them reacting this way. As recently as Wednesday, they basically agreed to it, with conditions. Meaning that they actually did review the document. But since the owners did a "powerplay" and voted on an agreement that may have been tweeked by 1%, all of a sudden they are "hoodwinked and bamboozled"? Excuse me, but wasn't D. Smith and Goodell in communication for like 90 mins yesterday? How come D. didn't relay the info to the reps?....So yeah, i agree, i think the players are trying to spite the owners out of emotion. D. Smith needs to be a real leader put his foot down..... I know that was rhetorical, but my gut tells me that he is welcoming the tension between the sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Levi Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The main reason im against the players is because they get paid enough to play a sport that any of us would jump up and do for free. . That's really a brilliant mindset. You too can end up like this guy http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1972285 Or this guy http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/templates/ravens.aspx?articleid=76124&zoneid=5 Or this guy http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-07-20/former-san-francisco-49ers-center-forrest-blue-dies so that a bunch of billionaires can get even richer. You shouldn't have ANY concerns about where the money is going or whether or not you'll be taken care of when you retire. It really boggles my mind how people can have this attitude. It's all about jealousy and pettiness. The Owners do NONE of the real work and take none of the risks. The players do all of the work and take all of the risks in a brutal sport with potentially fatal long-term consequences. And the owners - who are making money hand over fist - want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I suspect they simply broke up the agreement into two equal blocks. Within each block they don't have to hit the 95% target every year as long as they reach 95% for the four years as a whole.Not contradictory the way I read it. All the teams combined have to hit 95%, but each individual team can drop below that (to a floor of 89%) as long as there are enough other teams over the target to keep the league as a whole at 95%. Gotcha, missed the "collectively" part. Makes sense now. Danke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Levi Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Add to it what is being reported: I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that you've taken the owners' side on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 It really boggles my mind how people can have this attitude. It's all about jealousy and pettiness. The Owners do NONE of the real work and take none of the risks. The players do all of the work and take all of the risks in a brutal sport with potentially fatal long-term consequences. And the owners - who are making money hand over fist - want more. to pretend that people who have a problem with the players side simply don't care about the players health is ridiculous. to reduce the CBA discussions to one simply about player health is also ridiculous. furthermore, to say things like the owners take none of the risk and do none of the work is a really uneducated comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.