Rick Reilly shreds the owners (1 Viewer)

[shader]

Unbelievable

 

[healthpellets]

Unbelievable

That's some damn fine work right there.Eta: and I can't usually stand reilly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Same sentiment, just more profane and funnier.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I mean, how dare Jeffery Lurie try to run a business to be as profitable as possible when he owns an 18 bedroom estate?

The nerve of that guy.

 

[belljr]

can someone post the text of the article

 

[shader]

Unbelievable

That's some damn fine work right there.Eta: and I can't usually stand reilly.

I agree. On both points. I haven't really liked Reilly's articles in awhile, but this one hits home. Nothing wrong with being rich, but it's clear that these owners are greedy.There is a fine line in trying to maximize profit and greed.

 

[hooptd]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.

Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.

People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

 

[VTjkru]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

 

[Trump Tight]

That was an awful piece of work.

The examples he uses of owner greed and avarice aren't based on NFL profits. Paul Allen doesn't have a gigantic yacht from money made off the Seahawks. Allen made his money from Microsoft. Snyder may be a putrid-peanut peddling piker, but he too derived his income from non-NFL sources. Reilly excoriates the owners for having too much money, while glossing over the fact that wealth allowed the majority of the owners to purchase the teams.

The NFL owners that actually use the team as a sole source of income are labelled as inheritance beneficiaries. The Rooneys treat the Steelers as a business, not as a toy. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for Pittsburgh's success. Does Reilly believe it is wrong to make a profit from a football team? Is he turned off by the thought of maximizing one's earning power? It rings hollow seeing how he jumped from the pages to SI when ESPN came calling with a bigger contract. Should he be asking for a smaller salary to allow ESPN Insider rates to drop?

The transparency issue is a smokescreen. Forbes (I believe) stated that about 95% of the money can be traced easily. The players have been trumpeting the issue because it reflects negatively on the owners, not because there are billions of dollars in question.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players. With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownershipLurie - Hollywood ProducerSnyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra BroadcastingAllen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan IncKronke - Family is WalMartGlazer - Pres / CEO First Allied CorpAdams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car SalesFord - ObviousKraft - Obvious

 

[Heatman]

Read it and all it says is that because the owners have a lot of money they should give the players more money. What a bunch of garbage. Business owners are in business to make money, not to break even or to lose money to their "employees" If you think it's fair that the players get 60% of the TV revenue then I ask to do one simple task to prove to me why it's fair.

Find another business... ANY business where the employees get 60% of the gross profits. That means off the top before any expenses are paid.

Good luck.

My opinion is that players get paid very well. Yes they risk injury, some say their lives but that a bunch of crap.

Point: If you think people should get paid a lot because they risk their lives write your local congressman and tell them to give them men and women in our military HUGE raises because most of them make less than you or I and they are REALLY risking their lives. Risking their lives for YOU weather you think it's right or not.

Problem is most of you who say the players "deserve" a larger piece of the pie could care less about them getting hurt. You simply "get" them because they are not owners. You want the "little guy" to get as much as possible which is great but take what is "fair" and do something with it instead of #####ing that you can't "feed your family" on more money in a year than most Americans make in 5 or 6 years (meaning NFL League minimum of $285,000 as of 2007: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_league_minimum_salary_for_the_NFL&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_minimum_salary_of_an_NFL_player And the average national American salary I used the $56,078 number for persons 25 or older with a Bachelors degree or higher, seemed to be a decent median: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States).

I think the owners are right on the point that 60% is way too much for the players to get, especially right off the top. I think the players are right on the point that more of the money players get needs to go towards retired and disability benefits. Getting hurt is one thing, financial irresponsibility is yet another.

People say the owners are shady because the set up the TV deal the way they did, maybe but it's actually good business. I would guess those same people think that the unions plans to decertify is not shady at all, really it's the same strategic move the owners made.

I'm on neither side of this debate just so everyone knows. I think a happy medium should be reached and imo the owners were bullied into giving up WAY too much last time and now the players need to concede that fact and give a little back to make things right. I think the owners gave up a lot and should have back in the 80's and it has made the game great. Under that CBA EVERYONE was flourishing, players, owners, teams, the game and even the fans. But this whole deal forced through during the last CBA has turned the whole thing into this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6177236

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players. With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownershipLurie - Hollywood ProducerSnyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra BroadcastingAllen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan IncKronke - Family is WalMartGlazer - Pres / CEO First Allied CorpAdams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car SalesFord - ObviousKraft - Obvious

But Mr. Kraft never had a concussion one1!!!11one!uno

 

[Limp Ditka]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players. With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownershipLurie - Hollywood ProducerSnyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra BroadcastingAllen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan IncKronke - Family is WalMartGlazer - Pres / CEO First Allied CorpAdams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car SalesFord - ObviousKraft - Obvious

But Mr. Kraft never had a concussion one1!!!11one!uno

He's also never offed himself which seems to be a problem.

 

[trader jake]

I only care about what will make the game better from a fan prospective. My biggest concern is keeping a level playing field for all 32 teams.

The baseball player's union is the strongest in any sport and it makes for the worst sport to follow due to the disparities between teams. Football has the strongest owner group and is the best sport to follow. There is obviously a lot more to this than what I just wrote but I believe they are the single biggest reasons why baseball is a 8 team league and football has 32 teams that can win a championship.

With that I'll take the owners side and hopefully the game will continue to thrive.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.

Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.

People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players.

With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownership

Lurie - Hollywood Producer

Snyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra Broadcasting

Allen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan Inc

Kronke - Family is WalMart

Glazer - Pres / CEO First Allied Corp

Adams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car Sales

Ford - Obvious

Kraft - Obvious

Bob Kraft does not own Kraft the food company. He owns International Forest Products, trading in like paper and packaging stuff. Exporting/Importing, whatever. Still same point nonetheless, he is independently wealthy outside of owning the Patriots.

 

[shader]

The players don't want more money. The owners are asking for a bigger piece of the pie, trying to up it to an 18 game schedule and refusing to show their profits, when it's obvious that they are making money hand over fist.

If they are losing money, I'm sure that a compromise could be made, but they aren't.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.

Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.

People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players.

With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownership

Lurie - Hollywood Producer

Snyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra Broadcasting

Allen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan Inc

Kronke - Family is WalMart

Glazer - Pres / CEO First Allied Corp

Adams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car Sales

Ford - Obvious

Kraft - Obvious

Bob Kraft does not own Kraft the food company. He owns International Forest Products, trading in like paper and packaging stuff. Exporting/Importing, whatever. Still same point nonetheless, he is independently wealthy outside of owning the Patriots.

Thanks

 

[JamesTheScot]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.

Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.

People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Comeon, need doesn't have anything to do with it on either side.Since when does holding the status quo mean you need it or aren't being greedy? It doesn't. Yet that's pretty much exactly what Reilly is trying to get you to believe. The players aren't being greedy, he infers. How do we know this? Because they only want to keep earning what they already earn and to do no more work than they already do. Oh, and because Reilly says they deserve what they earn. I guess it's settled then. Players aren't being greedy. It's only the owners who are being greedy because they want to make some changes.

Anyone ever ask for a raise? You greedy *******. No, wait, you're an employee, not the employer. It's not greed when labor asks for something. <----That's where the class warfare allegation comes from. Reilly's article is full of it.

 

[Heatman]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.

Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.

People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Comeon, need doesn't have anything to do with it on either side.Since when does holding the status quo mean you need it or aren't being greedy? It doesn't. Yet that's pretty much exactly what Reilly is trying to get you to believe. The players aren't being greedy, he infers. How do we know this? Because they only want to keep earning what they already earn and to do no more work than they already do. Oh, and because Reilly says they deserve what they earn. I guess it's settled then. Players aren't being greedy. It's only the owners who are being greedy because they want to make some changes.

Anyone ever ask for a raise? You greedy *******. No, wait, you're an employee, not the employer. It's not greed when labor asks for something. <----That's where the class warfare allegation comes from. Reilly's article is full of it.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The players don't want more money. The owners are asking for a bigger piece of the pie, trying to up it to an 18 game schedule and refusing to show their profits, when it's obvious that they are making money hand over fist.

If they are losing money, I'm sure that a compromise could be made, but they aren't.

It doesn't matter if the players want more money or not. Business isn't static. You can go from being underpaid to overpaid through no action of your own. Using the status quo to define greed is faulty.Trying to turn this into some moral conflict is stupid. It's millionaires vs. billionaires and Reilly wants to convince you that players "deserve" theirs more than the owners deserve theirs.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

I only care about what will make the game better from a fan prospective. My biggest concern is keeping a level playing field for all 32 teams.

The baseball player's union is the strongest in any sport and it makes for the worst sport to follow due to the disparities between teams. Football has the strongest owner group and is the best sport to follow. There is obviously a lot more to this than what I just wrote but I believe they are the single biggest reasons why baseball is a 8 team league and football has 32 teams that can win a championship.

With that I'll take the owners side and hopefully the game will continue to thrive.

From 2001 to 2010 the NFL has had 15 teams total in the SB. NE has been there 4 times, Pitt 3, NYG 2, and Indy 2....12 teams have been there once in that time period.

From 2001 to 2010 MLB has had 14 teams total in the WS. NYY have been there 3 times, Boston 2 times, San Fran 2 times, Philly 2 times, and St. Louis 2 times....9 teams have been there once in that time period.

Please show me how the small market, crappy NFL teams have any better chance of making the championship game than MLB teams.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

I dont think anyone is hating the rich. I think there's a backlash against the owners for saying they "need" this bigger slice of the pie when it's more than obvious that they don't.

Where in Riley's piece does he inform us that it's obvious that they don't need a bigger piece of the pie? All I see is a shameless airing of things these owners have invested in with their wealth. I see nothing to suggest that these investments were made solely on the BS&T of the players. With the exception of the Rooney's and the Bidwell's, each owner that he calls out for having something lavish, or their business practices, or just beckons their name in this piece have significant business ventures outside of sports ownershipLurie - Hollywood ProducerSnyder - Owns **** Clark Productions / Red Zebra BroadcastingAllen - Microsoft co-founder / Vulcan IncKronke - Family is WalMartGlazer - Pres / CEO First Allied CorpAdams - Oil / Natural Gas & Car SalesFord - ObviousKraft - Obvious

But Mr. Kraft never had a concussion one1!!!11one!uno

He's also never offed himself which seems to be a problem.

As a Steelers fan.

 

[Insein]

What a complete tool, Reilly is. Doesn't even have a comments section on his article cause he knows he'd get lit up. People above said it but this elitist, Reilly, is using the old class warfare angle to its fullest here. How dare people keep the money they earn because they have enough in Reilly's opinion. Shamefully, pathetic article.

Owners and players need to find common ground but ripping the owners for wanting a better deal is ridiculous.

 

[Choke]

The owners are greedy.

Its okay to be greedy.

Its okay to hold their greed against them.

The worst part, for me, is the owners have been far less then honest in their negotiations. being deceitful and/or undermining is poor form no matter who does it.

 

[Don Quixote]

I only care about what will make the game better from a fan prospective. My biggest concern is keeping a level playing field for all 32 teams.

The baseball player's union is the strongest in any sport and it makes for the worst sport to follow due to the disparities between teams. Football has the strongest owner group and is the best sport to follow. There is obviously a lot more to this than what I just wrote but I believe they are the single biggest reasons why baseball is a 8 team league and football has 32 teams that can win a championship.

With that I'll take the owners side and hopefully the game will continue to thrive.

From 2001 to 2010 the NFL has had 15 teams total in the SB. NE has been there 4 times, Pitt 3, NYG 2, and Indy 2....12 teams have been there once in that time period.

From 2001 to 2010 MLB has had 14 teams total in the WS. NYY have been there 3 times, Boston 2 times, San Fran 2 times, Philly 2 times, and St. Louis 2 times....9 teams have been there once in that time period.

Please show me how the small market, crappy NFL teams have any better chance of making the championship game than MLB teams.

Over the same time frame, there are 5 MLB teams (out of 30) that never even made it to the postseason. Only 3 NFL teams (out of 32) did not. If you push back the time frame to 1998, those 5 MLB teams still have not been to the postseason. Every NFL team (except the Texans, which did not exist until 2002) has.

 

[texasbirdfan]

Locking out the players now would be unjust, unfair and as indefensible as Al Davis' wardrobe.

LOL

 

[texasbirdfan]

"NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the other day that the owners need this money to build new stadiums. And who profits from new stadiums? The owners. A new stadium doesn't make the team any better. The seat under your butt isn't any bigger. But a new stadium, usually built with vats of your tax dollars, funnels millions more per game into an owner's pocket via luxury boxes, concessions and advertising. That's money that isn't shared 32 ways. What Goodell is saying is, "We need that billion so my owners can buy new Bentleys. Theirs are dusty." "

exhibit A - Jerry's North Texas Taj Mahal. Local taxes here went up. Fans pay 3 times more for parking, seat prices went WAY up and we get to see a big TV screen.

Thanks billion dollars

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

 

[Choke]

The seat under your butt isn't any bigger.

This drives me ####### nuts. So much so, that I have literally scaled back my NFL stadium attendance over the past few years.They have made the seats far more crammed together and smaller to fit more people and get more money. So uncomfortable, borderline miserable. Greedy jerks. (<== not just an nfl owner thing, but most all stadiums private or civic.)

 

[Choke]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they? On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

 

[menobrown]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

Agree completely which is why I've never sided with players in a labor dispute. As much as the money thing bothers me what really bothers me is that the league has to negotiate things such as length of schedule with the union. Can you imagine owning a business were you made a bunch of money but also made your employees more money than they could make doing anything else and how you would react if you wanted to implement certain work hours and they made you negotiate it with them?

 

[Choke]

made your employees more money than they could make doing anything else

Thats not exactly true.

 

[menobrown]

The seat under your butt isn't any bigger.

This drives me ####### nuts. So much so, that I have literally scaled back my NFL stadium attendance over the past few years.They have made the seats far more crammed together and smaller to fit more people and get more money. So uncomfortable, borderline miserable. Greedy jerks. (<== not just an nfl owner thing, but most all stadiums private or civic.)

You sure about this? Only new stadium I've been to in the last 5 years is Cowboys Stadium and the seats there are like movie theater seats. Very roomy. Oldest stadium I can recall being to is the Cotton Bowl which also has the smallest seats I've ever tried to sit in for a sports events which I assume has nothing to do with greed just people being smaller back in the day.

 

[menobrown]

made your employees more money than they could make doing anything else

Thats not exactly true.

Except for the few talented enough to play another pro sport who would make more money not playing in the NFL or from the endorsements the NFL brings? It's been a mighty long time since the days of NFL players holding down part time jobs or quitting all together for a more lucrative non-professional athlete job.

 

[texasbirdfan]

The seat under your butt isn't any bigger.

This drives me ####### nuts. So much so, that I have literally scaled back my NFL stadium attendance over the past few years.They have made the seats far more crammed together and smaller to fit more people and get more money. So uncomfortable, borderline miserable. Greedy jerks. (<== not just an nfl owner thing, but most all stadiums private or civic.)

You sure about this? Only new stadium I've been to in the last 5 years is Cowboys Stadium and the seats there are like movie theater seats. Very roomy. Oldest stadium I can recall being to is the Cotton Bowl which also has the smallest seats I've ever tried to sit in for a sports events which I assume has nothing to do with greed just people being smaller back in the day.

I was quoting the original article.Choke took the quote out of my paragraph. I did not think new Cowboy Stadium seats were any smaller, just harder to reach physically and fiscally.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.

Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

Holy. Crap.

I don't think any person that plays a game for a living is worth what they get, much less 5 times what they get. More power to them for being paid for playing a game and maxizing their earnings but can you really say that Tom Brady deserves $50m a year for being a QB?

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

 

[Heatman]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.

Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

Holy. Crap.

I don't think any person that plays a game for a living is worth what they get, much less 5 times what they get. More power to them for being paid for playing a game and maxizing their earnings but can you really say that Tom Brady deserves $50m a year for being a QB?

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Someone who gets it.

 

[Rockchild]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.

Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

Holy. Crap.

I don't think any person that plays a game for a living is worth what they get, much less 5 times what they get. More power to them for being paid for playing a game and maxizing their earnings but can you really say that Tom Brady deserves $50m a year for being a QB?

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Someone who gets it.

But are they just employees?

 

[Choke]

But are they just employees?

No. They are as much "the product" as anything else. Coaches too.

 

[Choke]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.

Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

Holy. Crap.

I don't think any person that plays a game for a living is worth what they get, much less 5 times what they get. More power to them for being paid for playing a game and maxizing their earnings but can you really say that Tom Brady deserves $50m a year for being a QB?

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Make 'em free agents... dont allow owners of different business' (teams) to collude... and see how much they get paid.Look no farther then what the AFL did. You have history and precedence. Using these players can go so far as to allow you to BUILD a league, history shows us that.

So ya, Manning would get well over 5 times that much if not for the illegal employee distribution methods and the artificial (and unamerican I might add) cap on wages. And so would a host of other players.

And they aren't "playing a game". This is a business. No more playing a game then a wall street guru or hedge fund pro.

Just because they have fun (some of them) and its a competition doesnt change the rules of business.

 

[Choke]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team? How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

 

[GridironMenace]

Another

Obviously, from my posting yesterday with Jason Wood and Matt Waldman, you all know that I'm 100% not on the players side in this. This article is the typical, liberal, hate big business class warfare. The bottom line is this, the NFL is a business. Right? We hear the players, all the time, say "this is a business". Each team is a company. Those companies have a board of directors (owner, GM, CEO, etc...). The players are employees. Last I looked, the players are not a part of the board of directors. They have no right, to the profits of the company. They have no right to demand monies from their employer. They receive a salary. They receive outside endorsements. That is where it needs to end. If the owners don't want to give up a larger piece of the pie, no matter how much money the owners make, they shouldn't have to. Period. End of story. Name another company in which the owner(s) are forced to give up a chunk of their profits to the employees (outside salaries and optional bonus')? There isn't one. Screw the players. Do your job. Entertain me on the football field and shut up. Then go home and blow your cash on alcohol, hookers and drugs for all I care. But you aren't entitled to profits on these businesses.

 

[Choke]

Another Obviously, from my posting yesterday with Jason Wood and Matt Waldman, you all know that I'm 100% not on the players side in this. This article is the typical, liberal, hate big business class warfare. The bottom line is this, the NFL is a business. Right? We hear the players, all the time, say "this is a business". Each team is a company. Those companies have a board of directors (owner, GM, CEO, etc...). The players are employees. Last I looked, the players are not a part of the board of directors. They have no right, to the profits of the company. They have no right to demand monies from their employer. They receive a salary. They receive outside endorsements. That is where it needs to end. If the owners don't want to give up a larger piece of the pie, no matter how much money the owners make, they shouldn't have to. Period. End of story. Name another company in which the owner(s) are forced to give up a chunk of their profits to the employees (outside salaries and optional bonus')? There isn't one. Screw the players. Do your job. Entertain me on the football field and shut up. Then go home and blow your cash on alcohol, hookers and drugs for all I care. But you aren't entitled to profits on these businesses.

The players are part of the product. Go ahead Mr Owner... and lock out the players and hire all new non-collegiate scabs. Obviously the owners will do this if the players aren't part of the product. But they wont. They know better.* again, simply go back and look at he AFL. The NFL #### their collective pants when the best "product" was going elsewhere.

 

[The Captain]

Read it and all it says is that because the owners have a lot of money they should give the players more money. What a bunch of garbage. Business owners are in business to make money, not to break even or to lose money to their "employees" If you think it's fair that the players get 60% of the TV revenue then I ask to do one simple task to prove to me why it's fair.

Find another business... ANY business where the employees get 60% of the gross profits. That means off the top before any expenses are paid.

Good luck.

My opinion is that players get paid very well. Yes they risk injury, some say their lives but that a bunch of crap.

Point: If you think people should get paid a lot because they risk their lives write your local congressman and tell them to give them men and women in our military HUGE raises because most of them make less than you or I and they are REALLY risking their lives. Risking their lives for YOU weather you think it's right or not.

Problem is most of you who say the players "deserve" a larger piece of the pie could care less about them getting hurt. You simply "get" them because they are not owners. You want the "little guy" to get as much as possible which is great but take what is "fair" and do something with it instead of #####ing that you can't "feed your family" on more money in a year than most Americans make in 5 or 6 years (meaning NFL League minimum of $285,000 as of 2007: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_league_minimum_salary_for_the_NFL&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_minimum_salary_of_an_NFL_player And the average national American salary I used the $56,078 number for persons 25 or older with a Bachelors degree or higher, seemed to be a decent median: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States).

I think the owners are right on the point that 60% is way too much for the players to get, especially right off the top. I think the players are right on the point that more of the money players get needs to go towards retired and disability benefits. Getting hurt is one thing, financial irresponsibility is yet another.

People say the owners are shady because the set up the TV deal the way they did, maybe but it's actually good business. I would guess those same people think that the unions plans to decertify is not shady at all, really it's the same strategic move the owners made.

I'm on neither side of this debate just so everyone knows. I think a happy medium should be reached and imo the owners were bullied into giving up WAY too much last time and now the players need to concede that fact and give a little back to make things right. I think the owners gave up a lot and should have back in the 80's and it has made the game great. Under that CBA EVERYONE was flourishing, players, owners, teams, the game and even the fans. But this whole deal forced through during the last CBA has turned the whole thing into this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6177236

Not to split hairs, but I don't believe the players are asking for MORE money than they get now, infact they offered a 50/50 split. Also, the players do not receive 60% of gross off the top. I believe the owners get the first billion off the top, then the players get 60% of the remaining pot.I do not agree that the players should receive 60%, but a 50/50 split is more than fair...especially after the owners take their first billion before splitting the pot.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they? On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

What does your Jesus complex have to do with the discussion?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Another Obviously, from my posting yesterday with Jason Wood and Matt Waldman, you all know that I'm 100% not on the players side in this. This article is the typical, liberal, hate big business class warfare. The bottom line is this, the NFL is a business. Right? We hear the players, all the time, say "this is a business". Each team is a company. Those companies have a board of directors (owner, GM, CEO, etc...). The players are employees. Last I looked, the players are not a part of the board of directors. They have no right, to the profits of the company. They have no right to demand monies from their employer. They receive a salary. They receive outside endorsements. That is where it needs to end. If the owners don't want to give up a larger piece of the pie, no matter how much money the owners make, they shouldn't have to. Period. End of story. Name another company in which the owner(s) are forced to give up a chunk of their profits to the employees (outside salaries and optional bonus')? There isn't one. Screw the players. Do your job. Entertain me on the football field and shut up. Then go home and blow your cash on alcohol, hookers and drugs for all I care. But you aren't entitled to profits on these businesses.

Name me another set of employees that can step in for the current players and sell tickets, Sunday Ticket Subscriptions, tv deals, and all that other cash cow stuff. You entertained by Canadian League?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Another Obviously, from my posting yesterday with Jason Wood and Matt Waldman, you all know that I'm 100% not on the players side in this. This article is the typical, liberal, hate big business class warfare. The bottom line is this, the NFL is a business. Right? We hear the players, all the time, say "this is a business". Each team is a company. Those companies have a board of directors (owner, GM, CEO, etc...). The players are employees. Last I looked, the players are not a part of the board of directors. They have no right, to the profits of the company. They have no right to demand monies from their employer. They receive a salary. They receive outside endorsements. That is where it needs to end. If the owners don't want to give up a larger piece of the pie, no matter how much money the owners make, they shouldn't have to. Period. End of story. Name another company in which the owner(s) are forced to give up a chunk of their profits to the employees (outside salaries and optional bonus')? There isn't one. Screw the players. Do your job. Entertain me on the football field and shut up. Then go home and blow your cash on alcohol, hookers and drugs for all I care. But you aren't entitled to profits on these businesses.

Personally, I think Reilly's piece is garbage. It is his usual terrible writing, peppered with his standard unfunny jokes. That said, I think your opinion shows a severe misconception of the issues involved in a labor dispute. The NFL has a salary cap, restricted player movement, codes of conduct, a draft where players are allocated to teams - there are dozens of more examples of labor restrictions that would be illegal without a CBA and don't / can't exist in any other industry without a union agreement. That's why the players have a right to negotiate their salary.

 

[GridironMenace]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,

You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.

Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.

The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period.

Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

 

[Choke]

they aren't entitled

They earn.

 

[Choke]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period. Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

Are you equivalating microsoft entry levels employees with NFL players? I think you are confusingh the players with peopel who sell concessions.