Bell done in Pittsburgh

[flyingfooldoug]

2 hours ago, mjp28 said:

Oh yes what a volitile mix also could be "egotistical billionaire owners battling spoiled millionaire players over game".  

Fighting over millions of dollars, how childish. 

The last time they went on strike, I think they had almost as many cross the line as manned it. 

[hoorta]

10 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.

See how that goes over.

Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season.  Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?

Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.

Might want to read this article.  When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.

Should the players threaten a strike, take a look at Spotrac or over the cap. Sure, plenty of players (LOL Le'veon Bell) are already set for life financially, and could afford to sit out a year. But plenty of them are not. And I doubt more than a few of the top earning players are going to be willing to piss away $10 million or so like Bell just to prove a point.

[hoorta]

4 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.

As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right. 

Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward. 

Well, no one has said Bell didn't have the right to do what he did. But by far the majority opinion is he's a complete jerk for doing so.

[Unsympathetic]

8 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

Owners have the cash and players have the egos. 

Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to.  Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.

Replacement players? Manziel please.  [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?]  Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.

In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply.  Owners need the players to make any money.

The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards.  Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not. 

And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players.  The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..

[ATOM]

9 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

. Owners have the cash 

but but but art modell 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Unsympathetic said:

Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to.  Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.

Replacement players? Manziel please.  [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?]  Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.

In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply.  Owners need the players to make any money.

The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards.  Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not. 

And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players.  The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..

You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work. 

[flyingfooldoug]

7 hours ago, The Gipper said:

You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work. 

You mean that the players don’t hold a gun to the owners head for more money?  

[flyingfooldoug]

9 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to.  Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.

Replacement players? Manziel please.  [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?]  Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.

In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply.  Owners need the players to make any money.

The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards.  Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not. 

And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players.  The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..

When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!

[mjp28]

6 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!

Except for GB and unusual relatives they're all billionaires or multibillionaires.

What they earn from owning the NFL team is nice pocket change......in the tens of millions HOWEVER the ROI is actually staggering for some of them on buying/net worth on the teams. Some paid mere millions and the teams are worth $1 to maybe $4 billion each. 

....... I'm sure we can all relate to that. 

[The Gipper]

8 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!

I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.

[Dutch Oven]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.

Had such a rager for her back then. 

[The Gipper]

11 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

Had such a rager for her back then. 

Who didn't?  Her and Liv Tyler did that Aerosmith video together.  

[The Gipper]

 

[mjp28]

What a refreshing break from steelrz talk. 

[Dutch Oven]

There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. 😝

[The Gipper]

4 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. 😝

The thing is....it is only strange for one person.....for the rest of us, it is a delight. So, maybe he had us all in mind.

[mjp28]

Just now, Dutch Oven said:

There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. 😝

And age should not matter either..... I'm sure Mick Jagger among others would agree.

[flyingfooldoug]

1 minute ago, mjp28 said:

And age should not matter either..... I'm sure Mick Jagger among others would agree.

3 words

Rae Dawn Chong

[gumby73]

Just like Bell...                    Refuse to Ch👀se!!

[Unsympathetic]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:02 AM, flyingfooldoug said:

When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!

And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose.  Because it's not their cash.

If the players went on strike, how quickly do you think those TV contracts would be cancelled because the owners weren't delivering the product they had asserted [to ESPN, to CBS, etc] they could?  ESPN doesn't care one iota about Jerry Jones. They care how Ezekiel Elliot and Sean Lee perform on Sundays.  ESPN isn't Desperate Dallas Octogenarians.. they care about sports.

NFL owners have nothing other than their own egos unless the players are out there playing.  Of course "owners" stick a straw in the hose of cash coming from ESPN, but the ultimate destination of that cash isn't Jerry Jones - it's the players.

[The Gipper]

14 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose.  Because it's not their cash.

If the players went on strike, how quickly do you think those TV contracts would be cancelled because the owners weren't delivering the product they had asserted [to ESPN, to CBS, etc] they could?  ESPN doesn't care one iota about Jerry Jones. They care how Ezekiel Elliot and Sean Lee perform on Sundays.  ESPN isn't Desperate Dallas Octogenarians.. they care about sports.

NFL owners have nothing other than their own egos unless the players are out there playing.  Of course "owners" stick a straw in the hose of cash coming from ESPN, but the ultimate destination of that cash isn't Jerry Jones - it's the players.

How did you get this dumb . The money goes to the owners and the owners and pay it to the players per contract after they keep half of it. End it comes from ESPN ABC NBC CBS Fox etc. etc.

[flyingfooldoug]

23 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose.  Because it's not their cash.

If the players went on strike, how quickly do you think those TV contracts would be cancelled because the owners weren't delivering the product they had asserted [to ESPN, to CBS, etc] they could?  ESPN doesn't care one iota about Jerry Jones. They care how Ezekiel Elliot and Sean Lee perform on Sundays.  ESPN isn't Desperate Dallas Octogenarians.. they care about sports.

NFL owners have nothing other than their own egos unless the players are out there playing.  Of course "owners" stick a straw in the hose of cash coming from ESPN, but the ultimate destination of that cash isn't Jerry Jones - it's the players.

I’m not arguing with you. Wouldn’t make cents. 

[One Post]

On 11/14/2018 at 12:43 AM, The Gipper said:

Well I think it is debatable whether or not Connor is better but he certainly is not much worse. And as I have said it may be more about the system than the players talent it’s self that is the key there

^^^

This

[hoorta]

Lotsa luck Le'veon..... for sure, the Browns aren't paying it...  Not with Chubb's total contract worth $7 million.... 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000988903/article/steelers-leveon-bell-wants-more-than-17m-per-year

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

1) And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose. 2) Because it's not their cash.

3) If the players went on strike, how quickly do you think those TV contracts would be cancelled because the owners weren't delivering the product they had asserted [to ESPN, to CBS, etc] they could?  ESPN doesn't care one iota about Jerry Jones. They care how Ezekiel Elliot and Sean Lee perform on Sundays.  ESPN isn't Desperate Dallas Octogenarians.. they care about sports.

4) NFL owners have nothing other than their own egos unless the players are out there playing.  Of course "owners" stick a straw in the hose of cash coming from ESPN, but the ultimate destination of that cash isn't Jerry Jones - it's the players.

1) Should the players go on strike, they don't get paid got it?  

2) Yes it is, the network cash goes to the NFL- who then distribute it to the owners, who then distribute it to the players- but they get to keep their 1\2 of the pie. Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.  

3) I would bet the NFL already has a contingency plan in place with the networks should the players go on strike. 

4) Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests and are all wealthy enough, the money they get from the NFL is a nice side amusement. Let's start with the recently deceased Paul Allen (Seahawks) one of the founders of Microsoft with Bill Gates- net worth around $20 billion. You seriously think Jimmy Haslam (net worth $3 billion) would sweat it with a players strike having cash coming in from Pilot\Flying J? 

[Unsympathetic]

30 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.

Didn't say that at all.  You're debating your own imagination - and losing.

30 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests.

So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money.  And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.

[hoorta]

4 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

Didn't say that at all.  You're debating your own imagination - and losing.

So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money.  And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.

That's pretty much what you said. 

Not even worth debating you if you think the owners will ever split the revenue 70\30.   

[flyingfooldoug]

4 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

Didn't say that at all.  You're debating your own imagination - and losing.

So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money.  And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.

You should check records. This stuff you’re making up is all wrong. Google a clue already

[The Gipper]

6 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

Didn't say that at all.  You're debating your own imagination - and losing.

So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money.  And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.

Maybe they’ll split ESPN money 7030 year but then they’ll turn around and keep 70% of the NBC and Fox and CBS money 

[Unsympathetic]

6 hours ago, hoorta said:

Not even worth debating you if you think the owners will ever split the revenue 70\30.   

Using your logic of deliberately ignoring words.. it's not worth debating you since you actually think the owners have all the power and the players have none.

It doesn't matter how any owner postures -- it matters what specifically they offer and what the players are willing to accept.  Google a clue - players don't just accept the first or second thing that was proposed. 

And back to what I linked the first time.. players are going over 50% at the end of the current CBA, and they will shut it down until they get it.  The phrase used was "ready for war."  So, yes, they're telling players to save money.

Might want to read the current deal.. there's over 10 pages defining revenue and the calculations by which the salary cap is determined.  The reason the cap keeps going up is.. the media income is going up.  If the owners had all the power.. that cap wouldn't be increasing.