I, like others have been quite a bit surprised at the huge pro-owner movement we've seen here recently. Today, I log onto PFT and see this poll which is also strongly slanted toward the owners side of the deal. I don't know whether this is extremely short sighted fans who are just frustrated with the litigation process or what. Here's my rant, and I'm sure that I'm wrong on many accounts, but these are my feelings. The players never opted out of the deal they signed. They were perfectly content with continuing the current CBA. The owners were not, and that's fine, that was the option they had. However, they want to take a huge chunk of money with no proof of justification. They aren't required to open their books, no, but if they want to opt out of previously agreed upon contracts and ask for more money, they should have to make concessions as well, which they have yet to do. Now, an argument I've heard that is pro-owner is that "The owners want to go to the table, the players want to litigate". Fine, understandable now, but where was that argument pre-lockout? Prior to the American Needle case and then the subsequent ruling of the television money in March, no negotiations went on because the NFL had no reason to go to the negotiating table. They have the TV money in hand, all the leverage, and no reason to talk. It wasn't until March, once the CBA expired and they were no longer collecting the billions in television revenue that the owners decided to get to the table as fast as possible. They throw out a deal to the players, which we don't really know the details of, the players ignored it, and decertified. Decertification has rubbed, I think, many a fans the wrong way. They only see it as, essentially, a fake breakup in order to gain legal leverage. Which is exactly what it is for all intents and purposes. However, if the players did not do that, they would have absolutely zero negotiating leverage. There wasn't much of another choice. And even though the owners want to get back to the table, with the lockout upheld (remember, the owners and NFL are locking out the players, the players want to work), the players again are without leverage. With all that said, I'm pro-player. I want a deal done, I want the players to win, but I don't want to sacrifice football to see that happen. Cake, and eat it too. Oh, and the option for "Neither" was intentionally omitted. Take a stand.
Just noticed the tail end of the lockout thread touches on this issue. Didn't realize that. Regardless, I'd love to see some tangible numbers from a site I'm certain isn't influenced by outside bodies.
Yeah this surprised me too. It's been like this since the start. I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would support a bunch of rich assholes over the guys who actually play the game. I mean I'm all for compromise but when you look at the racket these owners have going, they should be more than happy with what the players are offering.
This poll is useless without an option for "don't give a shit about either, just give me football". That is a stand, a very clear one - the choice between two sets of dicks is still going to leave you choosing dicks.
I omitted it because it's a silly option that raises no questions into people's perspective. We get it, you don't care about precedence, legality, and the numerous other important issues that this will raise across the sports landscape. There's really nothing to extrapolate from the "I just want football" crowd, other than they just want to see football. It should be said that a vote for "just give me football" should be a vote for the players come June, as the lockout would be lifted and we'd see football. If it's not lifted, lockout continues, no football, no transactions, no news.
I agree, and the op reads like a PFT article, with links to various articles included by changing certain words into links.
The changing of words to links is more blog-specific than PFT specific. It's not a PFT article, but a PFT article is linked.
I'm pro-player. I just don't understand how someone can be on the owners side. The players were fine with the current deal that was in effect. Greedy owners strong-armed them into submission through the courts and cut themselves another slice of the pie.
As long as the regular season stays 16 games, let the revenue sharing be whatever it is. 18 games will destroy the quality of this game.
thats the only reason im pro owner as i think the litigation process is just a big waste of time fact is both are greedy assholes but ill stick with the asshole who wants to sit down and attempt to settle this
The only reason we have litigation at this time was because the NFL went to an appeals court to try an overturn a decision. The NFL really likes do-overs. 'Let's redo this CBA, let's redo this court decision". Given, I don't think it would have been reasonable for the NFL not to appeal, as it would have opened them up to antitrust lawsuits. With that said, it's absolutely absurd to think that a non-unioned NFL would go the route of baseball and forego a salary cap, and then get rid of the draft. The NFLPA didn't decertify to blow up the NFL and all it's rules, it decertified to gain leverage for a reasonable CBA.
I actually would have no problem with the owners waking out of the CBA if it really wasn't working financially. But the fact they aren't willing to show the players the teams net incomes makes me think they were already earning a good amount of money and just wanted to make more. This is why I'm pro players.
Didn't the players ask the owners to open their finance books and the owners refused? I'm pretty sure that they have yet to open them over the course of this whole process starting more than a year ago. The owners unwillingness to reveal their books and show their finances and revenue is what has me "pro-player" throughout the whole lockout. If the owners were to open their books you would find money going to friends and family members and other dirty things like that. That's what makes it so hard to support the owners but just like any other fan, I just want some football at this point.
In defense of opening the books, it's an extremely delicate process that could lead to some serious animosity between owners. If, let's say, Ralph Wilson were to see how much money Jerry Jones was hauling around in those money bags he brings home, the lesser owners may push to try and increase revenue sharing. Owners don't want other owners to know how much they make, and that's understandable. However, as I said, if they want more money from the players, they need to make the necessary concessions and show that they are justified in that request.
