BronxRik Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 OK, so I just don't get it. I know the players want a bigger share of the revenue and the owners want to keep more. It's money, I get it. What I don't get is, why would the owners lockout the players? It seems to me that if no CBA is reached, the owners would say "Hey, T.O., our team pays $100,000 for a wideout. Not good enough for you? Oh well, try the Raiders". I could understand the players saying "F You, we're going on strike. Try having a season without players". What sense does it make for the owners to stop having any revenue at all? Why lock them out? I just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 OK, so I just don't get it. I know the players want a bigger share of the revenue and the owners want to keep more. It's money, I get it. What I don't get is, why would the owners lockout the players? It seems to me that if no CBA is reached, the owners would say "Hey, T.O., our team pays $100,000 for a wideout. Not good enough for you? Oh well, try the Raiders". I could understand the players saying "F You, we're going on strike. Try having a season without players". What sense does it make for the owners to stop having any revenue at all? I just don't get it. to me it's all a big yawn. i don't know why mike and mike spend every waking moment talking about it. maybe because big mike only knows football. owners want more money and they would still get revenue because the tv contracts pay even if there's a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue25 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's already become Lockout Gate 2011 DA DA DUN!!!!!!!!! The NFL is all they talk about on Mike and Mike all year around every year, I knew we would get up to minute status of where the players and owners stand. Well I least have Nascar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lubeck Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 OK, so I just don't get it. I know the players want a bigger share of the revenue and the owners want to keep more. It's money, I get it. What I don't get is, why would the owners lockout the players? It seems to me that if no CBA is reached, the owners would say "Hey, T.O., our team pays $100,000 for a wideout. Not good enough for you? Oh well, try the Raiders". I could understand the players saying "F You, we're going on strike. Try having a season without players". What sense does it make for the owners to stop having any revenue at all? Why lock them out? I just don't get it. The players don't want a bigger share they are happy with the current system. The owners gave them too much in the last CBA to preserve labor peace is the owners position. And they still are going to get revenue because in their last TV contracts they got the networks to still pay them, though not the same level, if there was a lockout. It is one of the issues the NFLPA is pissed about because part of the whole labor dispute issue is who can outlast the other side. Like you assumed the teams wouldn't be getting any revenue so how long could they exist without players...but like I said that is not the case. And the players don't have that fallback they aren't getting checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 echo echo echo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 to me it's all a big yawn. i don't know why mike and mike spend every waking moment talking about it. maybe because big mike only knows football. owners want more money and they would still get revenue because the tv contracts pay even if there's a strike. The players don't want a bigger share they are happy with the current system. The owners gave them too much in the last CBA to preserve labor peace is the owners position. And they still are going to get revenue because in their last TV contracts they got the networks to still pay them, though not the same level, if there was a lockout. It is one of the issues the NFLPA is pissed about because part of the whole labor dispute issue is who can outlast the other side. Like you assumed the teams wouldn't be getting any revenue so how long could they exist without players...but like I said that is not the case. And the players don't have that fallback they aren't getting checks. Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks. Still stinks we may not have football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Like you assumed the teams wouldn't be getting any revenue so how long could they exist without players...but like I said that is not the case. And the players don't have that fallback they aren't getting checks. This is something I am curious about. Don't the players have to pay the NFLPA union dues? Wouldn't it be in their best interest then to strike before being locked out so that they would get paid? I thought the whole point of having a union is you pay dues so that you can strike and not starve while striking. Seems pointless to have a union if they don't pay you when your not playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It will be interesting to watch multimillionaires publicly fight with other multimillionaires over who deserves more money in the current job/political climate. Everyone is being asked to sacrifice but these clowns want to cry because they're only making 4.56 million instead of 5.67 million. I can't imagine either the owners or the players coming out of this looking good... they're all going to look like what they are... a pack of greedy assholes completely disconnected from the plight of ordinary people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 This is something I am curious about. Don't the players have to pay the NFLPA union dues? Wouldn't it be in their best interest then to strike before being locked out so that they would get paid? I thought the whole point of having a union is you pay dues so that you can strike and not starve while striking. Seems pointless to have a union if they don't pay you when your not playing. There isn't a player on the Giants making less than 300,000/year. These are players that are already aware that their careers aren't going to last forever, so my guess is they aren't exactly buying mansions. They were also told to save "a couple of game-checks" by the NFLPA--if they did, they'll run with about $37,000 during the strike; assuming they saved no other money. Which would be ridiculous, considering that they already know their careers will be limited. So I don't think "starving" is going to be much of a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Good Article on Yahoo Sports by Mike Silver. Apparently there is a bad guy in this: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-richardsonnfl021411 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 There isn't a player on the Giants making less than 300,000/year. These are players that are already aware that their careers aren't going to last forever, so my guess is they aren't exactly buying mansions. They were also told to save "a couple of game-checks" by the NFLPA--if they did, they'll run with about $37,000 during the strike; assuming they saved no other money. Which would be ridiculous, considering that they already know their careers will be limited. So I don't think "starving" is going to be much of a concern. Well the stat is that about 75% of athletes are bankrupt within 5 years of their career's ending. So money mamangement is not these guy's talent. Anyway my real question is that aren't unions supposed to pay you while you aren't working? Is this why it's a lockout instead of a strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Well the stat is that about 75% of athletes are bankrupt within 5 years of their career's ending. So money mamangement is not these guy's talent. Anyway my real question is that aren't unions supposed to pay you while you aren't working? Is this why it's a lockout instead of a strike? I've never heard of any union paying you while you aren't working. Besides this isn't a union- it's a player's association. (NFLPA) It's a lockout instead of a strike because the owners want a change in the CBA, not the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I've never heard of any union paying you while you aren't working. Besides this isn't a union- it's a player's association. (NFLPA) It's a lockout instead of a strike because the owners want a change in the CBA, not the players. I have heard of unions paying their members during a strike... it wouldn't be anything close to what they'd receive from their employers, but this is something that is standard practice for unions. BTW blu, the NFLPA is the name of the their union. It is most certainly a union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I have heard of unions paying their members during a strike... it wouldn't be anything close to what they'd receive from their employers, but this is something that is standard practice for unions. BTW blu, the NFLPA is the name of the their union. It is most certainly a union. Yes, there is a strike fund for those in dire need. I had written that and then erased it because it wasn't in the flavor he was asking. I think I was remembering this:After a lost strike in 1987, the union was formally decertified, converting into a professional association in order to pursue antitrust litigation designed to win free agency for its members. When that tactic worked it reformed as a union and resumed collective bargaining with the league in 1993. Thanks for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Yes, there is a strike fund for those in dire need. I had written that and then erased it because it wasn't in the flavor he was asking. I think I was remembering this:After a lost strike in 1987, the union was formally decertified, converting into a professional association in order to pursue antitrust litigation designed to win free agency for its members. When that tactic worked it reformed as a union and resumed collective bargaining with the league in 1993. Thanks for the correction. No prob. I didn't realize they ever decertified.... so I learned something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balloonknot Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Now you know, And Knowing is half the Battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Isiah Thomas bought the CBA, then he ran it into the ground. Somewhere, someone is saying karl Malone didn't hit him hard enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*SDMF* Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 to me it's all a big yawn. i don't know why mike and mike spend every waking moment talking about it. maybe because big mike only knows football. owners want more money and they would still get revenue because the tv contracts pay even if there's a strike. They most likely talk about it because baseball and basketball sucks a big dick and no one wants to talk hockey. Man I wish hockey was more popular so sports talk would cover it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now