Jump to content

Official FIRE KEVIN COLBERT Thread


43M

Recommended Posts

Like everyone else here, I am disgusted by this trade.  However, at least one person here has already said it: this happened because Art II said make it happen. I have to believe Colbert may have tried to talk Art II out of it, but at the end of the day, he did what his boss told him to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chieferific said:

Its more about hierarchy. Players seem to think they are on equal ground with the owners as if they were coworkers. But its clear you have a different opinion and that's ok. 

i would love to see the league expand at least 2 maybe 4 teams. the new teams can be 'owned' by the players.

if they didnt have the resources, they could also reach out to nba players, hollywood types and anyone else who goes on record saying these players make the league, owners are 'slave owners', they should get guaranteed money...........you know, all the stuff that we here often.

these team than can have the best of both worlds. they get to be owners and they get to give out huge guaranteed contracts to everyone on their team

they can hire the coaches they want

they can determine how much or how hard they practice

they could turn a blind eye to rule violations and hide it from the league. they wouldnt have to discipline anyone

this would be a great opportunity to give these individuals a skill above and beyond just being a player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

This is an entertainment industry.  It is looking like Hollywood of the 30's and 40's with the studio system.  If you read up on that era, the studios had exclusive contracts for the actors/stars.  It was broken by challenging it via anti-trust laws.  I can easily see the players going  in that direction for the next CBA and thus would be the end of the NFL.

I've said this time and time again and I get that it is the nature of the industry but these players are vastly overpaid. When you give a guy who's already getting millions of dollars more money do you know what he truly crave? You would be correct if you said more money. Now people like Le'Veon Bell and Antonio Brown has pushed the system as far as the system can be pushed and they won. There's no turning back from this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chieferific said:

Players cannot do what they do without the Owners. Owners may not either but they have an infinite amount of others things they could be doing. Players do not. In short, the players need the Owners more then the Owners need the players. Therefore, there is a hierarchy. At least imo. 

This is the part that I don't understand. Because owners have rich backgrounds, they win? They don't own teams out of the goodness of their heart to give others employment -- they own teams to make money. How much would their team be worth with no players? 

In 2017, the NFL reported $14.2 B in revenue. Which was up $900M YOY. The NFL doesn't make that money with bad players. They don't continue to grow bigger TV deals because people just love to see Arthur Blank in the owner suite. If you switched the AAF and the NFL talent, the league goes into the tank. Owners team values increase because of better athletes, better games, more excitement -- all worker driven features of their business. 

I have circled around how to say this, but please just know it has no intentions of trying to sound rude, but I know it probably does. Was your uncle a second string tight end or was he Aaron Rodgers? Because Tom Crabtree has a super bowl ring too, but there is only one player that truly made that happen. Again, not in anyway trying to be rude, but was your uncle someone who was replaceable across the nation to his contributions or was he one guy the project gets nowhere without. Thats the power I agree with the players. The power for the players who cannot be replaced and are the driving force behind league popularity. 

The Packers make more money if they make the playoffs. They make more money the more popular (ie: Good) their team is. Aaron Rodgers is the only reason they have been good the last few years. He makes them good, despite ownership almost seemingly trying to make them bad. He puts them in prime time spots. Its his jersey people buy. Why is it that Aaron Rogers should have less say because of a hierarchy in which he is actually the most powerful member of the organization? He literally has the power to make the organization money. 

And again, again -- in no way trying to be rude though I am sure it comes off that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

This is the part that I don't understand. Because owners have rich backgrounds, they win? They don't own teams out of the goodness of their heart to give others employment -- they own teams to make money. How much would their team be worth with no players? 

In 2017, the NFL reported $14.2 B in revenue. Which was up $900M YOY. The NFL doesn't make that money with bad players. They don't continue to grow bigger TV deals because people just love to see Arthur Blank in the owner suite. If you switched the AAF and the NFL talent, the league goes into the tank. Owners team values increase because of better athletes, better games, more excitement -- all worker driven features of their business. 

I have circled around how to say this, but please just know it has no intentions of trying to sound rude, but I know it probably does. Was your uncle a second string tight end or was he Aaron Rodgers? Because Tom Crabtree has a super bowl ring too, but there is only one player that truly made that happen. Again, not in anyway trying to be rude, but was your uncle someone who was replaceable across the nation to his contributions or was he one guy the project gets nowhere without. Thats the power I agree with the players. The power for the players who cannot be replaced and are the driving force behind league popularity. 

The Packers make more money if they make the playoffs. They make more money the more popular (ie: Good) their team is. Aaron Rodgers is the only reason they have been good the last few years. He makes them good, despite ownership almost seemingly trying to make them bad. He puts them in prime time spots. Its his jersey people buy. Why is it that Aaron Rogers should have less say because of a hierarchy in which he is actually the most powerful member of the organization? He literally has the power to make the organization money. 

And again, again -- in no way trying to be rude though I am sure it comes off that way. 

Those billionaires are also the ones putting their money on the line. If the league goes under for whatever reason, the players don't get money that they theoretically could have earned. The owners in that scenerio would lose all future potential profits, PLUS whatever they put in to buy the team and run the organization (not all of the team's profits go to the owner, there are a lot of hands in that cookie jar). Financially, the owners risk much more, the league will not always be increasing in value.

In the end, the player's could probably be paid a little more, but that is not to be handled in free agency, but in the CBA agreement anyway where they plan what salary cap should be based on incomes and whether there is a salary floor. A player like Brown winning doesn't mean money out of the owner's pocket (especially for a team like the Steelers that spend near the salary cap every year). That money in the end comes out of other player's contracts because his money is taking up significant cap for the Steelers AND the Raiders now. No matter how you look at this, Brown is the only winner in this, no other players benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

Those billionaires are also the ones putting their money on the line. If the league goes under for whatever reason, the players don't get money that they theoretically could have earned. The owners in that scenario would lose all future potential profits, PLUS whatever they put in to buy the team and run the organization (not all of the team's profits go to the owner, there are a lot of hands in that cookie jar). Financially, the owners risk much more, the league will not always be increasing in value.

So this is my point: If the Owners are super important to the players jobs, but the players are super important to the owners money....why do people continue to push a singular view that the players should have zero power and ownership should be right, because....ownership is right. 

Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys for $150M and his team is now estimated at $5B. He is largely considered a poor football mind in how he runs his team. But he has had a lot of players that have helped drive their success and their popularity to assist in them getting to where they are. So my question would be is Jerry Jones the sole reason the Cowboys are valued where they are, or did Aikmen, Smith, Irving, Romo, Dak, and Zek play a significant role too?

12 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

In the end, the player's could probably be paid a little more, but that is not to be handled in free agency, but in the CBA agreement anyway where they plan what salary cap should be based on incomes and whether there is a salary floor. A player like Brown winning doesn't mean money out of the owner's pocket (especially for a team like the Steelers that spend near the salary cap every year). That money in the end comes out of other player's contracts because his money is taking up significant cap for the Steelers AND the Raiders now. No matter how you look at this, Brown is the only winner in this, no other players benefit.

I have no argument with any of that or disagree at all. Im not trying to be on Browns side. I think what he did and the way he did it is disgraceful. But I will fight the idea that the players shouldn't have power because they are not the owners. They are closer to partners in this than what anyone wants to give them credit for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

So this is my point: If the Owners are super important to the players jobs, but the players are super important to the owners money....why do people continue to push a singular view that the players should have zero power and ownership should be right, because....ownership is right. 

Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys for $150M and his team is now estimated at $5B. He is largely considered a poor football mind in how he runs his team. But he has had a lot of players that have helped drive their success and their popularity to assist in them getting to where they are. So my question would be is Jerry Jones the sole reason the Cowboys are valued where they are, or did Aikmen, Smith, Irving, Romo, Dak, and Zek play a significant role too?

I have no argument with any of that or disagree at all. Im not trying to be on Browns side. I think what he did and the way he did it is disgraceful. But I will fight the idea that the players shouldn't have power because they are not the owners. They are closer to partners in this than what anyone wants to give them credit for. 

It's not that the players shouldn't have any power, but they should have less power collectively than the owners do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

So this is my point: If the Owners are super important to the players jobs, but the players are super important to the owners money....why do people continue to push a singular view that the players should have zero power and ownership should be right, because....ownership is right. 

Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys for $150M and his team is now estimated at $5B. He is largely considered a poor football mind in how he runs his team. But he has had a lot of players that have helped drive their success and their popularity to assist in them getting to where they are. So my question would be is Jerry Jones the sole reason the Cowboys are valued where they are, or did Aikmen, Smith, Irving, Romo, Dak, and Zek play a significant role too?

I have no argument with any of that or disagree at all. Im not trying to be on Browns side. I think what he did and the way he did it is disgraceful. But I will fight the idea that the players shouldn't have power because they are not the owners. They are closer to partners in this than what anyone wants to give them credit for. 

Like @skywlker32 said, Jerruh put his money on the line.  Players obviously helped drive success, but if it had failed, his money was the one in jeopardy.   

Players deserve more power in certain cases, but they shouldn't be able to kick and scream their way out of contracts they willingly signed.  Brown got lucky because our front office is full of ******* cowards and moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Players obviously helped drive success

From 150M to $5B.....thats a lot of help...

If I told you that there were two irreplaceable entities that couldn't thrive without each other....you would consider them __________ ? Superior and subordinate isn't the first thing that pops to my mind. 

16 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Players deserve more power in certain cases

And thats all I am saying, I dont think a backup guard should be able to make requests and have concessions -- but AAron sure should. This started with a comment of "The players have too much power because they are an employee, not an employer", and I just cant wrap my head around that when the league is purely driven by those players and their successes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Like @skywlker32 said, Jerruh put his money on the line.  Players obviously helped drive success, but if it had failed, his money was the one in jeopardy.   

Players deserve more power in certain cases, but they shouldn't be able to kick and scream their way out of contracts they willingly signed.  Brown got lucky because our front office is full of ******* cowards and moron.

Agreed, in the end, AB agreed to the contract that he signed. He complained and got money pushed earlier in good faith by the team. AB then screwed the team by throwing away the good faith shown. If the Steelers hadn't had to push money earlier in his contract, the cap hit for getting rid of him wouldn't have been nearly as rough. They did him a favor and he screwed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...