Superstars are far more greedy than the owners

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Every player is free to form their own league.

Is this seriously an argument you're trying to make? 

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Every player from the '80s is gone and I am still watching.

Because new ones replace them. The draft process is one of the biggest aspect of pro football - the transition of a college player going pro. It's part of the larger infrastructure, and in many cases, it creates new fans out of people (see how many Deshaun Watson Texans jerseys were sold in South Carolina after Watson went to Houston, or how many Manziel Browns jerseys were sold in College Station after Johnny Football went to Cleveland, or how many VY Titans jerseys were sold in Austin). 

New players replace the old, like clockwork. New fans come in to replace the old ones as well.

7 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

How many of you watched and played Fantasy Football 15 years ago? There are like 5 guys left if that and you are still watching and playing.

You don't care who the players are as long as they are playing.

I also don't care who owns the team said player plays on, so this is a red herring at best. This doesn't prove or disprove anything.

8 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

No one wants a bad product but Aaron Rodgers is not affecting the other 15 games each week

If Aaron Rodgers was the only player worth tuning into, the NFL wouldn't exist. Lucky for us, he's not the only one.

[Danger]

2 minutes ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

They make personnel decisions, sure. Whether many of them are actually doing material work that adds value to the league or even their franchises as a whole is a different story, and looking out across the league there aren't many owners that can honestly say they are. For the most part they're in this particularly because the NFL prints money regardless of what they do. 

Yeah and what business owner isn't going to continue to do everything to ensure that their business yields better returns? You know who else benefits from yielding better returns? The players who want more money. If the Owner's didn't do anything, then the Salary cap would still be sub $100M because they would have been content with where the league was 20 years ago.

[SalvadorsDeli]

Just now, Danger said:

Yeah and what business owner isn't going to continue to do everything to ensure that their business yields better returns? You know who else benefits from yielding better returns? The players who want more money. If the Owner's didn't do anything, then the Salary cap would still be sub $100M because they would have been content with where the league was 20 years ago.

Sure, I don't think I've ever said the owners shouldn't be out there bargaining to get a better deal on their side, even if I generally want to see these deals become more favorable to the players. For some reason people forget that as soon as we're talking about labor pushing for better compensation though, so instead we get people talking the players needing to be protected from themselves, that they're 'greedy' for pushing for concessions, etc. etc. which just seems off base to me. 

[SkippyX]

2 minutes ago, Danger said:

Case in point Alliance of American Football, XFL, etc. 

Hardly anyone here tunes in on a weekly basis to watch the XFL or did so for the AAF

That is a case in point for my argument.

The NFL was the AAF or the XFL.

College Football was #1 by far.

 

The league built itself to be what it is. I am a loyal fan and consumer for CBS, NBC, FOX, NFL.com, Sling TV, and Red Zone to watch The NFL.

I am that way because my dad was as well and his dad before him.

I am that way because of players like Reggie and Randall and Wilbert but they did not own the league and they do not control my viewership.

I do not watch the Eagles for Concrete Charlie even if I think he was awesome.

 

The 50-80 players who think they are the league can all leave tomorrow and I will still watch.

The other 1800 guys don't hold their point of view.

Its not that those 80 guys are not important. Its that they have no say in ownership and no rights to have a say in ownership.

They are replaceable to a man.

 

 

Who is a bigger personality or difference maker than Gronk?

He left, we kept watching.

 

 

 

[Danger]

1 minute ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Sure, I don't think I've ever said the owners shouldn't be out there bargaining to get a better deal on their side, even if I generally want to see these deals become more favorable to the players. For some reason people forget that as soon as we're talking about labor pushing for better compensation though, so instead we get people talking the players needing to be protected from themselves, that they're 'greedy' for pushing for concessions, etc. etc. which just seems off base to me. 

I'm not arguing that the owners aren't greedy (or the players because they all are greedy, it's just human nature). What I'm arguing is that the owners aren't just some lazy layabouts and that people who just believe that since they can't visually see the contributions they make they assume that they're just collecting money.

It's like saying the people who work the registers and grills and McDonalds are the only ones doing any real work at that company. Hello? 

[SkippyX]

It doesn't matter if I watch for Lurie or not (I don't) Its his team.

Anyone arguing against that is a closet communist.

 

The lame argument is that the contributions of 5-10 players on a team are worth the same monetary value as the other 42-47 guys.

Unless you have Brady in that first list, the answer is always the same: They are not! (I don't think its true even with Brady)

 

Their anger at the grunt players getting their share is pathetic.

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

It doesn't matter if I watch for Lurie or not (I don't) Its his team.

So, it Lurie were to sell to someone, anyone tomorrow... You'd stop watching?

Yes or no.

[SkippyX]

8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

So, it Lurie were to sell to someone, anyone tomorrow... You'd stop watching?

Yes or no.

That new person would still be the owner and the workers would still not be repressed.

Lurie would cash out on a huge profit from the great job he did and the incredible job Jerry Jones did.

• Madden helped.
• Tony Romo on CBS helped.
• All the players helped.
• The people who came up with Fantasy Football helped.
• The genius who came up with Red Zone helped.
• Berman and Jackson on Prime! Time! Helped.
• We the fans helped by supporting them and bringing new fans along

All of those people get paid a contractually negotiated share of the pie (including the owners) (except us, but its worth my money)

ONLY Rodgers and his pathetic greedy one-percenter player cronies are crying about the limitations on their greed.

 

 

[ET80]

Just now, SkippyX said:

That new person would still be the owner and the workers would still not be repressed.

Lurie would cash out on a huge profit from the great job he did and the incredible job Jerry Jones did.

• Madden helped.
• Tony Romo on CBS helped.
• All the players helped.
• The people who came up with Fantasy Football helped.
• The genius who came up with Red Zone helped.
• Berman and Jackson on Prime! Time! Helped.
• We the fans helped by supporting them and bringing new fans along

All of those people get paid a contractually negotiated share of the pie (including the owners) (except us, but its worth my money)

ONLY Rodgers and his pathetic greedy one-percenter player cronies are crying about the limitations on their greed.

 

 

You didn't answer my question.

14 minutes ago, ET80 said:

So, it Lurie were to sell to someone, anyone tomorrow... You'd stop watching?

Yes or no.

 

[Xmad]

15 hours ago, KingOfTheDot said:

The more money you have the more expenses you have? Because people live beyond their means. This isn't a we dont make enough money issue when it comes to players going bankrupt.

Chris Tucker once said I bought 6 houses, what the hell do I need 6 houses for.

You're just projecting my man. 

Also it kind of is, once you're used to spending X amount of money it's hard to just NOT spend money when you've budgeted for things. Like for instance you make 1 million a year, oh crap now you got let go and work for maybe 50k/yr if you finished college. 

[Malik]

People are conflating owners writing checks with them helping the business of the NFL. Like each advertising department doing a stellar job at marketing their individual team and the NFL as a whole has more effect than what most owners do.

[candyman93]

I’ll probably catch heat for this, but here’s a cold reality.

 

You as a consumer, benefit more from a company when the labor force for said company gets screwed and financially taken advantage of. 
 

Think about these elements that screw over players, but make your team better:

1. Salary cap 

2. Franchise tag

3. Rookie salary cap

4. The draft

Edited March 10, 2020 by candyman93

[KingOfNewYork]

1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said:

You're just projecting my man. 

Also it kind of is, once you're used to spending X amount of money it's hard to just NOT spend money when you've budgeted for things. Like for instance you make 1 million a year, oh crap now you got let go and work for maybe 50k/yr if you finished college. 

I’m saying the cost of living doesn’t vary based of class but more on region, area, etc...

You can control the amount money you spend. If I make a million doesn’t mean I have to live that way. 

Fiscal responsibilities are taught at very young ages. What did our parents teach us? Save your money, do buy that it’s a waste of money, etc...

Dudes get paid and start spending ridiculous amounts and then it’s gone and if they had earned more to begin with then they just would have lost more because it’s the impulse of having money and feeling like you need to spend it that causes people to go broke. 

[ET80]

9 minutes ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Dudes get paid and start spending ridiculous amounts and then it’s gone and if they had earned more to begin with then they just would have lost more because it’s the impulse of having money and feeling like you need to spend it that causes people to go broke. 

If you've ever seen the 30 For 30 "Broke" episode, you'll hear about how "keeping up with the Joneses" and how everything is a competetion with these guys:

- If Player A gets a $65,000 truck with $10,000 rims, Player B will get a $70,000 truck with $15,000 rims.

- If Player B gets a $50,000 watch, Player A will get a $75,000 watch.

- Player A will then buy a pair of limited edition Jordans for $20,000; This will prompt Player B to buy a pair of $30,000 Jordans.

This will go on for a while between two players, until one of the two dropped their entire years' salary on frivolous stuff like this. Spending money like this is INCREDIBLY stupid and very unnecessary. But, it happens on a weekly basis.

And there is absolutely... positively.... no justifying such behavior.

[ET80]

2 hours ago, SwoleXmad said:

You're just projecting my man. 

Also it kind of is, once you're used to spending X amount of money it's hard to just NOT spend money when you've budgeted for things. 

Reading this reminds me why the majority of this country is in crippling debt and has no savings to account for.

2 hours ago, SwoleXmad said:

Like for instance you make 1 million a year, oh crap now you got let go and work for maybe 50k/yr if you finished college. 

Well, you have to reduce your spending in this scenario. Nobody LIKES to reduce their spending - regardless of why you have to do it - but that doesn't absolve you from HAVING to do it. I mean, what sort of logic are you trying our here?