Albert Breer alleges VJax and Mankins stand strong on 10 million! (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football

Please tell me the players locked out the owners. Please.

lol

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You guys act as if he's burning your houses down.. He'd be stupid if he had not asked to be compensated.

Fixed.

How poignant and insightful... Weren't you just giving fatness a hard time for 1 liner shtick? Why don't you explain why he shouldn't ask to be compensated, and what real repercussion there are for him asking? Maybe trying leaving out the exaggeration this time.

It all has to do with getting fair value for your services. You don't just give 6 years of your life away. You do that in hopes of being compensated. And in all things, there is some market rate, or some expectation as to what the fruits of your labor and effort will bring. What he was offered, and what he received, what no where close to the going rate, or what any WR who produced the way he had the last several years would or should expect.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

VJax was underpaid by at least 70% last year. Unless you seriously want to argue that he's somehow worth $11m this year, and wasn't last year.

I'd do the same thing he's doing if someone screwed me for no good reason except they saw the opportunity. Back at you - first chance I get.

That's because you're a winner in life.

I'd say so, because only a loser would get f'd over and walked on, and not do or say anything about it..

Yeah, I understand there are some folks here who totally support holding everybody else hostage to your demands because you feel you got effed over and walked on.

What if it were you? You willing to throw away 50-70% of your salary for a year because some yahoo on a message board wants to watch pre-season games?

So, you advocate that, because you feel you didn't get a fair shake, you should sabotage everyone else--owners, other players, message board yahoos--until your personal demands are met? Got it.Not to mention, he's not even being honest about it. Man up. If that's what you're doing, at least don't try to back pedal and say that's not what you're doing when that's exactly what you're doing.

At least Logan Mankins gets what you, wdcrob, and Vincent Jackson don't seem to have figured out.

"Sabotage"... LOL, why are you being so dramatic? Every demand, every issue on the table, has the ability to be negotiated. Would be pretty stupid for him to not ask for it, seems like the right time to ask to me.

Why don't you explain how you think he should be handling it.

If your employer pinched 50% of your income for the year, would you just shut up and take it on the chin?

You don't seem to like to answer these questions...

Why would Cobalt or anyone answer these questions? They are dumb as heck, no offense. How can you compare the NFL contracts to anything an average person deals with?Also, remember these arrogant players do not HAVE to play football, they CHOOSE to.

These arrogant owners don't have to hire/pay these players. They can pay Arena and Canadian League players and see how much TV money they get and fans in the stands. Everything is a choice.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football

Please tell me the players locked out the owners. Please.

No, but please tell me that you have any valid point besides just trying to be the guy with those schtik one liners?This is the Owners league, the players just playing in it, who are they to say what goes on...they are getting paid for their services.Que an unfunny one-liner from Fatness Please.

What? You can't have quality football without these players. You can have quality football without these owners.I've paid money to watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play. I've never paid money to watch Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson or any other owner do anything.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What? You can't have quality football without these players. You can have quality football without these owners.I've paid money to watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play. I've never paid money to watch Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson or any other owner do anything.

These arrogant owners don't have to hire/pay these players. They can pay Arena and Canadian League players and see how much TV money they get and fans in the stands. Everything is a choice.

's

 

[fatness]

What? You can't have quality football without these players. You can have quality football without these owners.I've paid money to watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play. I've never paid money to watch Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson or any other owner do anything.

These arrogant owners don't have to hire/pay these players. They can pay Arena and Canadian League players and see how much TV money they get and fans in the stands. Everything is a choice.

's

 

[GregR_2]

VJax was underpaid by at least 70% last year. Unless you seriously want to argue that he's somehow worth $11m this year, and wasn't last year.

I'd do the same thing he's doing if someone screwed me for no good reason except they saw the opportunity. Back at you - first chance I get.

That's because you're a winner in life.

I'd say so, because only a loser would get f'd over and walked on, and not do or say anything about it..

Yeah, I understand there are some folks here who totally support holding everybody else hostage to your demands because you feel you got effed over and walked on.

What if it were you? You willing to throw away 50-70% of your salary for a year because some yahoo on a message board wants to watch pre-season games?

So, you advocate that, because you feel you didn't get a fair shake, you should sabotage everyone else--owners, other players, message board yahoos--until your personal demands are met? Got it.Not to mention, he's not even being honest about it. Man up. If that's what you're doing, at least don't try to back pedal and say that's not what you're doing when that's exactly what you're doing.

At least Logan Mankins gets what you, wdcrob, and Vincent Jackson don't seem to have figured out.

"Sabotage"... LOL, why are you being so dramatic? Every demand, every issue on the table, has the ability to be negotiated. Would be pretty stupid for him to not ask for it, seems like the right time to ask to me.

Why don't you explain how you think he should be handling it.

If your employer pinched 50% of your income for the year, would you just shut up and take it on the chin?

You don't seem to like to answer these questions...

I replied to you in post 28 and I don't believe I saw a reply. Why is it the owners should have to pay Vjax/Mankins as opposed to it being something the NFLPA settles within themselves? As I pointed out in my post, the lopsided deal the players pushed through is the reason that the owners opted out. The players knew they had a lopsided deal and expected the owners to opt out. If the players were the root cause of this, why should anyone expect the owners to pay off players who received the negative consequences agreed to in the CBA? Is the NFLPA going to force players to pay back extra money they got because the year was uncapped to be a negative consequence to the owners?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I replied to you in post 28 and I don't believe I saw a reply. Why is it the owners should have to pay Vjax/Mankins as opposed to it being something the NFLPA settles within themselves? As I pointed out in my post, the lopsided deal the players pushed through is the reason that the owners opted out. The players knew they had a lopsided deal and expected the owners to opt out. If the players were the root cause of this, why should anyone expect the owners to pay off players who received the negative consequences agreed to in the CBA? Is the NFLPA going to force players to pay back extra money they got because the year was uncapped to be a negative consequence to the owners?

I don't think I've ever said who should pay or how much... My point is that V-jax is not out of line for asking to be compensated. Maybe the players should pony up for him.. But he is well justified in asking for compensation, he's not the "selfish" "knucklehead" he's being portrayed as in this thread.And reading back, I see many have already made this point...In order, I fault:AJ Smith - he really made the decision to screw over V-jax after several years of good service, and being the good solder.NFLPA - for not sticking in harder and insisting more, or working out some compensation for him. He didn't have anything to do with the rules and details of the previous CBA, but the NFLPA as an association did, and should have done a better job making sure their players didn't get screwed over this way.The owners - as an association, for allowing the practices. There should be a "lets do the right thing" mentality, that just isn't there in the association, all though some of the owners are great people, they are part of a larger group who together have the power to right the wrongs..

 

[T J]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

 

[massraider]

Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football

Please tell me the players locked out the owners. Please.

No, but please tell me that you have any valid point besides just trying to be the guy with those schtik one liners?This is the Owners league, the players just playing in it, who are they to say what goes on...they are getting paid for their services.

Que an unfunny one-liner from Fatness

Please.

The valid point is the owners aren't the ones trying to "give us football". They are the ones that took it away. Whatever the reason, that is a fact. Also:

Schtik=Shtick

Que=Cue

And I haven't heard a thing on ESPN about this vote or anything else being held up because of Mankins of VJax. From what I can see, Albert Breer is/was wrong, thus making your entire outraged thread pointless. But since you tend to believe everything you read, look forward to my new blog post:



Mankins and Vjax demands apology from NFL Network hack and bitter, jealous online misspeller!!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

 

[massraider]

Dude was under contract.

No, he wasn't.Dude was NOT under contract. Dude had played out his contract.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

Why is it ok for Vincent to be underpaid, but in this other thread you seem to be defending the wage ratio for other veterans? Is it only about money in that thread? Dude? This is kinda "Whack"...

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Can we stop treating these guys like they are hard honest working people....they are not, they are selfish, arrogant people, who think they are entitled.

Owners or players?

Both really, but the Players have no leg on this! lolThe owners have earned their money, by paying for the franchise....hence OWNERS! Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football, you claim the players should be trying to make every dime they can, but the owners are not allowed?PEOPLE DEFENDING VJAX AND PLAYERS, WITH THIS ANGLE, ARE HYPOCRITES.Also for people saying "What if your Job did this" type questions, trying to compare the NFL to real life... Go to your boss and ask for 10 million or you want to be a FA, see what he says to you.

So the players haven't earned their money? lol wow, Most players put their entire lives into perfecting this craft. Most owners have other avenues to make money, and in general are wealthy through no fault of their own. Sure some people are self made millionaires, but really, are you going to try saying the owners put fourth more effort towards the sport than the players?

No, I'm saying they owners, own the teams, the players don't.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football

Please tell me the players locked out the owners. Please.

No, but please tell me that you have any valid point besides just trying to be the guy with those schtik one liners?This is the Owners league, the players just playing in it, who are they to say what goes on...they are getting paid for their services.Que an unfunny one-liner from Fatness Please.

What? You can't have quality football without these players. You can have quality football without these owners.I've paid money to watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play. I've never paid money to watch Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson or any other owner do anything.

The owners allow for you to watch these players!How would these players play if no one paid them, last I checked they are crying over money they really don't deserve. They earn what their contract says, why do they deserve any revenue other then that...they don't.Also, Jerry Richardson played football....lmao!

 

[JuSt CuZ]

VJax was underpaid by at least 70% last year. Unless you seriously want to argue that he's somehow worth $11m this year, and wasn't last year.

I'd do the same thing he's doing if someone screwed me for no good reason except they saw the opportunity. Back at you - first chance I get.

That's because you're a winner in life.

I'd say so, because only a loser would get f'd over and walked on, and not do or say anything about it..

Yeah, I understand there are some folks here who totally support holding everybody else hostage to your demands because you feel you got effed over and walked on.

What if it were you? You willing to throw away 50-70% of your salary for a year because some yahoo on a message board wants to watch pre-season games?

So, you advocate that, because you feel you didn't get a fair shake, you should sabotage everyone else--owners, other players, message board yahoos--until your personal demands are met? Got it.Not to mention, he's not even being honest about it. Man up. If that's what you're doing, at least don't try to back pedal and say that's not what you're doing when that's exactly what you're doing.

At least Logan Mankins gets what you, wdcrob, and Vincent Jackson don't seem to have figured out.

"Sabotage"... LOL, why are you being so dramatic? Every demand, every issue on the table, has the ability to be negotiated. Would be pretty stupid for him to not ask for it, seems like the right time to ask to me.

Why don't you explain how you think he should be handling it.

If your employer pinched 50% of your income for the year, would you just shut up and take it on the chin?

You don't seem to like to answer these questions...

Why would Cobalt or anyone answer these questions? They are dumb as heck, no offense. How can you compare the NFL contracts to anything an average person deals with?Also, remember these arrogant players do not HAVE to play football, they CHOOSE to.

These arrogant owners don't have to hire/pay these players. They can pay Arena and Canadian League players and see how much TV money they get and fans in the stands. Everything is a choice.

Seriously, thats your response? People pull for the helmets, people still pull for the 49ers even though Rice or Montana don't play anymore.

I would pull for anyone who wears a Saints or a Lions helmet when they play. Owners are the only constant, not the players, half the players are forgotten once they leave the league...that the owners control.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.

He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

I'd guess most people still would be, with the exception of those who need a driver's license to do their job.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.

He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

I'd guess most people still would be, with the exception of those who need a driver's license to do their job.

Wow, I work in a field where if they got popped....they would be canned....Dont you need a vehicle, for the most part, to get to work?

ETA: Link to VJax finally saying he will not seek 10 million, not that there was every any proof that he wanted it according to Hustler --- > http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/jackons-wise-decision-comes-better-late-than-never/

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

Plenty of people are employed who have had 1, 2, even 3 DUI's.. what are you talking about?

 

[GregR_2]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Rules that work exactly as intended are not loop holes. The 2006 CBA extension was written to have nasty terms for both sides in order to encourage them back to the negotiating table. What happened to VJax wasn't written in intentionally to be a consequence for the players of not negotiating. It wasn't a loop hole.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.

He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

I'd guess most people still would be, with the exception of those who need a driver's license to do their job.

Wow, I work in a field where if they got popped....they would be canned....Dont you need a vehicle, for the most part, to get to work?

ETA: Link to VJax finally saying he will not seek 10 million, not that there was every any proof that he wanted it according to Hustler --- > http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/jackons-wise-decision-comes-better-late-than-never/

I never said he didn't want it, on the contrary, I said he did want it and would be well within his rights to ask for it.

You claimed that by simply asking to be compensated for this nonsense brought on by nothing he did, but by the act of the owners opting out of a cba, completely arbitrary to A-Jax and what he is worth, he was "greedy", and was "holding the entire league for ransom"... Which is ridiculous.

If the CBA was still in place, and the owners hadn't opted out, he would have gotten paid. His pay, hinged solely on a decision that had nothing to do with him, while it had virtually no effect on the rest of the league in that magnitude..

BTW, people who get DUI's are eventually eligible to have an un-restricted license again, also are typically given driving privileges until then so they can continue to work and support their families.. Don't be so daft.. That 'ADD REPLY' button actually makes all you type visible to the rest of us after you click it, fair warning...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Who says he deserves to be treated the same, the degenerate got caught twice drinking and driving...if you like to campare the NFL to real life...tell me how many people would be employed after that?Ahhhh, another question you wont answer...to use your line.He deserves and gets what someone is willing to pay him, not what he thinks he is worth.

Other teams were willing to pay him more, are you saying they weren't? And obviously even the Chargers conceded that he's worth much more as they are willing to give him 11 million this season..Really? What are you talking about?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Rules that work exactly as intended are not loop holes. The 2006 CBA extension was written to have nasty terms for both sides in order to encourage them back to the negotiating table. What happened to VJax wasn't written in intentionally to be a consequence for the players of not negotiating. It wasn't a loop hole.

Not sure what you intended to type here, did you mean to say, that what happened to V-Jax was intended to be a consequence of not negotiating? This was an intended result by the owners in the previous CBA? You mind providing a bit of insight? A link or brief explanation? Never heard that one before. And I've actually read through the portion of the CBA that is in effect here.. During the V-Jax thread last year. Pretty sure you're mistaken on this one, but I'm open to hear you out..

 

[JuSt CuZ]

at this thread, people defending VJax...even though everything that happened to him happened by the rules. Nothing he is doing here is a rule, or needed, he is trying for something he don't deserve. He should not of joined the union if he didnt like the rules the negotiated. Like someone said above, everything is a choice.

People who are anti-owner are just anti-owner. No one is antiplayer, if they were they would not watch football. Some are just about right and wrong, and others think they are entitled.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why is anyone even attacking the owners, they are the ones trying to give us football

Please tell me the players locked out the owners. Please.

No, but please tell me that you have any valid point besides just trying to be the guy with those schtik one liners?This is the Owners league, the players just playing in it, who are they to say what goes on...they are getting paid for their services.Que an unfunny one-liner from Fatness Please.

What? You can't have quality football without these players. You can have quality football without these owners.I've paid money to watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play. I've never paid money to watch Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson or any other owner do anything.

The owners allow for you to watch these players!How would these players play if no one paid them, last I checked they are crying over money they really don't deserve. They earn what their contract says, why do they deserve any revenue other then that...they don't.Also, Jerry Richardson played football....lmao!

The size of their contract is dependent upon the amount of revenue they get. So they aren't "crying" over money they don't deserve. They are negotiating to get a fair deal.I repeat. I've never paid a cent to see Jerry Richardson do anything. Did I say he never played football? Learn to read. It will serve you better in life.

 

[GregR_2]

...

Seems to be about money to him V-jax doesn't it? It also seems to be a point of contention for Justcuz who says I'm "Siding with Millionaires wanting more money"... It doesn't matter if he's a millionaire or not. He deserved to be treated fairly, rather than exploited because of the loophole.

AND, he WAS NOT under contract, he played out his entire contract.. And was then bound by a loop hole in the CBA. He was supposed to be a free agent, and would have been a free agent if the owners hadn't opted out of the CBA.

Rules that work exactly as intended are not loop holes. The 2006 CBA extension was written to have nasty terms for both sides in order to encourage them back to the negotiating table. What happened to VJax wasn't written in intentionally to be a consequence for the players of not negotiating. It wasn't a loop hole.

Not sure what you intended to type here, did you mean to say, that what happened to V-Jax was intended to be a consequence of not negotiating? This was an intended result by the owners in the previous CBA? You mind providing a bit of insight? A link or brief explanation? Never heard that one before. And I've actually read through the portion of the CBA that is in effect here.. During the V-Jax thread last year. Pretty sure you're mistaken on this one, but I'm open to hear you out..

I'm saying that the owners and players, in the 2006 CBA extension, intentionally wrote in terms and conditions that would apply in 2010... terms that both sides would not like as incentive for them to negotiate and agree on a new CBA extension rather than play out 2009/2010 under those terms.This was fairly widely reported back when the owners were opting out. I.e. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true

Uncapped years would actually limit free agency

Pat Kirwan By Pat Kirwan | NFL.com

Senior Analyst

Now that NFL owners have voted unanimously to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, they still have all of 2008 and 2009 to negotiate a new CBA before the "trigger" points that are in place to encourage negotiations would fire and things wouldn't be as we know them today.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2009-03-04/uncapped-year-may-mean-less-money-free-agents

Uncapped year may mean less money for free agents

PUBLISHED Wednesday, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:39 pm EST

Mike Florio Sporting News

For years, NFL players have been dreaming of the "uncapped year," the final season under the labor agreement that was engineered to create a strong incentive to get a deal done well in advance of the expiration of the contract.

There were a number of terms which are viewed detrimental to one side or another.

Free agency goes from 4 to 6 years - detrimental to players

Uncapped year - detrimental to owners

No salary floor - players

Extra transition tag - players

Top 8 teams cannot sign free agents until they lose a free agent - owners

Salaries cannot increase more than 30% per season - players

Probably some more I'm not aware of, those are ones off the top of my head.

I'd argue the 2009-2010 terms are a little more detrimental to the players than to the owners. And as it turned out, one could argue the 2006 extension was so lopsided towards the players that the terms for 2010 were probably not much worse for the owners.

But in any event, this is why I mostly shrug my shoulders about VJax and Mankins. The terms they 'got screwed by' (to use other's language, not necessarily yours) were terms the NFLPA agreed to and designed to get the NFLPA back to the bargaining table. I personally think they didn't want to get back to the bargaining table as a whole because the players were more interested in cashing in on an uncapped season. They weren't worried about the negative ramifications to a subset of players. Which is why I think if anyone owes a VJax some compensation it is the other players, not the owners.

Though having said that, I have to admit maybe VJax and Mankins are more justified to say FU to the rest of the 1900 players and hold up the deal than I'd originally thought. Not that I want them to, nor would I if I were them... I just don't think any compensation from them is owed by the owners.

I'll also add, I think AJ can be a schmuck when it comes to negotiations, and I wouldn't view VJax negatively for leaving for another team soon as he can. I also won't necessarily blame AJ for following the rules either though, same as I won't blame the NFL players who cashed in on the uncapped year once it was clear it was going to happen.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

at this thread, people defending VJax...even though everything that happened to him happened by the rules. Nothing he is doing here is a rule, or needed, he is trying for something he don't deserve. He should not of joined the union if he didnt like the rules the negotiated. Like someone said above, everything is a choice. People who are anti-owner are just anti-owner. No one is antiplayer, if they were they would not watch football. Some are just about right and wrong, and others think they are entitled.

Please, explain why "he don't deserve" it.. Then maybe explain how you determine what players do deserve.BTW, when the rules screw someone over, the rules are wrong...

 

[T J]

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

Why is it ok for Vincent to be underpaid, but in this other thread you seem to be defending the wage ratio for other veterans? Is it only about money in that thread? Dude? This is kinda "Whack"...

Jackson got caught in a situation that wasn't favorable to him. Sucks for him. He has NEVER been underpaid in my book. And I don't see how my two posts are in conflict.... dude. Thay all make way too much money and I was frankly hoping ownership was going to absolutely crush the union in the negotiations. That's not gonna happen. I'll get over it. I love NFL football, but do not support the players on any of this. None.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I can't believe anybody is actually siding with these two.

If you were better informed, you would too..

Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol

Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

This is so ridiculous it's comical at this point.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

at this thread, people defending VJax...even though everything that happened to him happened by the rules. Nothing he is doing here is a rule, or needed, he is trying for something he don't deserve. He should not of joined the union if he didnt like the rules the negotiated. Like someone said above, everything is a choice. People who are anti-owner are just anti-owner. No one is antiplayer, if they were they would not watch football. Some are just about right and wrong, and others think they are entitled.

LOL at the guy who started the thread and based his opinion on an assumption that was 100% untrue. Then when how wrong he was starts to sink in 30 or 40 posts later, he shifts to new tactic even more comical than the original one. Bravo, my man. I didn't think it could be done, but you did it.Honestly, I think you are doing more for our side of the discussion than we are. I get the impression a lot of the folks who originally thought more or less the same way you did are starting to look around at their "allies" and wondering if they should switch sides.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That wasn't necessarily all about money. It was about principle. Dude was under contract.

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

Why is it ok for Vincent to be underpaid, but in this other thread you seem to be defending the wage ratio for other veterans? Is it only about money in that thread? Dude? This is kinda "Whack"...

Jackson got caught in a situation that wasn't favorable to him. Sucks for him. He has NEVER been underpaid in my book. And I don't see how my two posts are in conflict.... dude. Thay all make way too much money and I was frankly hoping ownership was going to absolutely crush the union in the negotiations. That's not gonna happen. I'll get over it. I love NFL football, but do not support the players on any of this. None.

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

 

[AmosMoses]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

 

[fatness]

The owners allow for you to watch these players!

Actually, no they don't. Demand to see the players' performances, and money paid from customers to broadcasters, allow that. The owners reap benefits from this. Demand for the product is in charge, not the team owners.

 

[fatness]

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

Much of the denouncing of the players on this board during the lockout is directly due to resentment of the money the players make.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

 

[cobalt_27]

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

Much of the denouncing of the players on this board during the lockout is directly due to resentment of the money the players make.

That seems sort of strange. Wouldn't that resentment apply to the owners, given the money they make?Personally, I think a lot more of it has to do with the issues and what they felt they were entitled to that made me, and a lot of others, side more with the owners' position.

 

[AmosMoses]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

 

[captbly]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

Boy you are really insecure arent you? and also WRONG! It doesnt have anything to do with Jews."gypped"It's reference and origin is from "gypsy". They were known around the world for their scams and theft. I get a little tired of people streaching this politically correct type of sayings.Heck kids cant even play smear the queer anymore.

 

[Sebowski]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

Boy you are really insecure arent you? and also WRONG! It doesnt have anything to do with Jews.

"gypped"

It's reference and origin is from "gypsy". They were known around the world for their scams and theft.

I get a little tired of people streaching this politically correct type of sayings.



Heck kids cant even play smear the queer anymore.

 

[AmosMoses]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

Boy you are really insecure arent you? and also WRONG! It doesnt have anything to do with Jews."gypped"It's reference and origin is from "gypsy". They were known around the world for their scams and theft. I get a little tired of people streaching this politically correct type of sayings.Heck kids cant even play smear the queer anymore.

I think I'm just going to let you marinate in that post for a while.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

Boy you are really insecure arent you? and also WRONG! It doesnt have anything to do with Jews."gypped"It's reference and origin is from "gypsy". They were known around the world for their scams and theft. I get a little tired of people streaching this politically correct type of sayings.Heck kids cant even play smear the queer anymore.

I think I'm just going to let you marinate in that post for a while.

It really makes me hope that he's trolling.

 

[fatness]

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

Much of the denouncing of the players on this board during the lockout is directly due to resentment of the money the players make.

That seems sort of strange. Wouldn't that resentment apply to the owners, given the money they make?Personally, I think a lot more of it has to do with the issues and what they felt they were entitled to that made me, and a lot of others, side more with the owners' position.

It's the typical anklebiting that goes on a lot during a bad economy. People view others further up the income ladder with resentment, whereas they see owners as the teat that must be suckled.I said 'teat'. Heh.

 

[fatness]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

Yup. My bad. Pretty ignorant on my part. I even had this weird feeling when I wrote it...but I honestly had no idea the etiology of the word and was bad form on my part not to look it up. I have since and sincerely apologize. Irony here is...I am Jewish...but obviously very disconnected and ignorant about my religious/cultural background.Alright, back to the thread...

Boy you are really insecure arent you? and also WRONG! It doesnt have anything to do with Jews.

"gypped"

It's reference and origin is from "gypsy". They were known around the world for their scams and theft.

I get a little tired of people streaching this politically correct type of sayings.



Heck kids cant even play smear the queer anymore.

 

[GregR_2]

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

Much of the denouncing of the players on this board during the lockout is directly due to resentment of the money the players make.

That seems sort of strange. Wouldn't that resentment apply to the owners, given the money they make?Personally, I think a lot more of it has to do with the issues and what they felt they were entitled to that made me, and a lot of others, side more with the owners' position.

It's the typical anklebiting that goes on a lot during a bad economy. People view others further up the income ladder with resentment, whereas they see owners as the teat that must be suckled.I said 'teat'. Heh.

You're not even close to describing whatever resentment I have about the players in this situation. It has nothing to do with jealousy of how much they make.Any initial resentment I had for them stems from my belief they are abusing unions out of greed. I think unions can be a good thing and have a good place in labor as they are a mechanism for correcting unfair situations. I think the changes in the NFL in the 1990s that came about by court order and union-negotiated CBAs are examples of good changes... there was a disparity between the player's situation and what I think could be said to be fair. The players weren't making enough, and they did deserve some sort of free agency at some point in their careers, and collusion to keep them on a team was unfair.However, that isn't the case anymore. I think in the 2006 CBA the players went past fair and ended up with an unfair situation that favored the players. Instead of being the people who were using a union to get a fair shake, they became more analogous to the autoworkers who used the power of a union to get more than the business should have to give up to them. Luckily they aren't as bad as the autoworkers by a longshot yet, but still, what the NFLPA was after this time wasn't about getting a fair shake for the most part. It was just plain greed.If they'd limited what they were pushing for to be better injury compensation, transferring some of the money at the top of the rookie draft to lower drafted rookies and to minimum-pay veterans, I think those would have been good and fair things to go after and I'd have supported them. Instead they were mainly about holding onto a chunk of the salary pie that history had shown was too much, a view which has been vetted by the fact the players eventually gave it back this time.Part of my resentment for the players originally was because this lockout didn't need to happen. If the players had been reasonable, a new agreement could have been reached without it being necessary. I think the owners were entirely justified in locking them out given what the situation was.The players deserve salaries on the order of what they are making, but they got too greedy. I resent the autoworkers unions too, and it's obviously not money jealousy because I make more than they do. (Every FBG does, right?) It's because they were willing to hurt their own industry through their greed, same as here, if it happened to a lesser level in the NFL.I say my initial resentment. Watching the players behave like a bunch of petulant children over the last 4 days ramped up any resentment I had.

 

[crnerblitz]

I'm sorry VJax feels he got jipped here

Please don't use "jipped". It would be the same as if you said "I'm sorry if VJax feels he got jewed here", only targeting Romani people. Thanks

actually 'jipped' is rooted from the televison phenomena of a program being 'joined in progress' thus resulting in you having been jipped.You may take issue with the word 'gypped' as that is clearly a slur.

 

[cobalt_27]

So you say it's not about money, but about principle, and now you out yourself as to having an undisclosed bias against how much the players make..

Much of the denouncing of the players on this board during the lockout is directly due to resentment of the money the players make.

That seems sort of strange. Wouldn't that resentment apply to the owners, given the money they make?Personally, I think a lot more of it has to do with the issues and what they felt they were entitled to that made me, and a lot of others, side more with the owners' position.

It's the typical anklebiting that goes on a lot during a bad economy. People view others further up the income ladder with resentment, whereas they see owners as the teat that must be suckled.I said 'teat'. Heh.

You're not even close to describing whatever resentment I have about the players in this situation. It has nothing to do with jealousy of how much they make.Any initial resentment I had for them stems from my belief they are abusing unions out of greed. I think unions can be a good thing and have a good place in labor as they are a mechanism for correcting unfair situations. I think the changes in the NFL in the 1990s that came about by court order and union-negotiated CBAs are examples of good changes... there was a disparity between the player's situation and what I think could be said to be fair. The players weren't making enough, and they did deserve some sort of free agency at some point in their careers, and collusion to keep them on a team was unfair.

Absolutely. The issues pre-1993 were completely different than now and warranted remedy in the players' favor.

However, that isn't the case anymore. I think in the 2006 CBA the players went past fair and ended up with an unfair situation that favored the players. Instead of being the people who were using a union to get a fair shake, they became more analogous to the autoworkers who used the power of a union to get more than the business should have to give up to them. Luckily they aren't as bad as the autoworkers by a longshot yet, but still, what the NFLPA was after this time wasn't about getting a fair shake for the most part. It was just plain greed.

Agree to an extent, but I don't fault the players for wanting to maximize their financial position, just as I don't fault the owners doing so either. Greed exists, and both sides have a lot of it. I'm actually ok with this, however...

Part of my resentment for the players originally was because this lockout didn't need to happen. If the players had been reasonable, a new agreement could have been reached without it being necessary. I think the owners were entirely justified in locking them out given what the situation was.

...this was the problem. They players abused, in my opinion, the spirit and purpose of decertification to maximize their profit margin rather than negotiating with the owners. In the end, I don't think the anti-trust litigation served any purpose, as neither the players nor the owners expected that the players would hold out for an entire year to take this to court. It could have forced the owners to lift the lockout, but as we saw, that strategy ultimately failed. The real motivator here was time--the fact that the season was so close to being washed away. And, that was completely independent of the anti-trust suit. They needed to agree to something before the season started one way or another. But, they decided to waste time by arguing in court at the expense of time spent negotiating a ####### CBA. The NFLPA used decertification as a bargaining ploy, which is legally allowable so long as they say and do all the right things. But, clearly the intent was a negotiating tactic--not because they were dissatisfied with the union. And, I think it now encourages decertification as a future strategy, which is unfortunate, given what it really was intended for in the first place.

Watching the players behave like a bunch of petulant children over the last 4 days ramped up any resentment I had.

And, herein lies the rub. They're an obnoxious group. I have no resentment toward the players for making millions. I've long-since abandoned the idea that what one makes in life should be proportional to what they "deserve." It doesn't apply in real life. They make a lot, that's fine. But, it is the entitlement mentality, it's that lack of cooperation, it's the abandoning of the negotiation process and dishonest decertification ploy, the hubris, the histrionics, the "slavery" comments...all of it was nauseating.