This Lockout is all about the Greedy Owners

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Owners are all making profits. Show me one that is losing money.

Players aren't seeking more money. They are fine with the current deal.

This is more about Smaller market owners like Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville wanting more profits after seeing bigger markets like Dallas, Washington, New York making HUGER PROFITS. There is no Small Market teams in the NFL, just SMALLER Market teams. This is all about GREED. So they see the best way to grow there profits by taking money from the players.

[Forward_Lateral]

I agree the owners are more to blame, but the players are almost as greedy. I can't sit here and fault the owners 100%.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

I agree the owners are more to blame, but the players are almost as greedy. I can't sit here and fault the owners 100%.

How are they greedy by not seeking more. They are happy with the current situation and are fine with the rookie scale going down. I feel the owners are far, far more to blame. I do feel 100% there will be a season in 2011, too much money involved.

[justasportsfan]

They are greedy for running a business? They wouldn't be multi millionaires or own a team if they didn't make business-wise moves.

Like I said in a different thrad thead greenbay , the world champs only made 4 million last year. Something needs to be done by such teams and it's not greed. It's business. If greenbay wants to survive, they need to do something and if that means they are greedy then so be it.

[Forward_Lateral]

If you don't think the players are seeking more, you are on crack. They want a bigger piece of the television revenue, for one, which is billions of dollars. Let's not skew facts here. Anyone who thinks the players don't want more is fooling themselves.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

They are greedy for running a business? They wouldn't be multi millionaires or own a team if they didn't make business-wise moves.

Like I said in a different thrad thead greenbay , the world champs only made 4 million last year. Something needs to be done by such teams and it's not greed. It's business. If greenbay wants to survive, they need to do something and if that means they are greedy then so be it.

I don't believe that for a second. TV money, merchandising and all. Not a second.

[justasportsfan]

I don't believe that for a second. TV money, merchandising and all. Not a second.


It's been publicly reported on the radio and no one refuted it. If you don't blelieve that theres nothing I can do.

Players want more as do the owners.It's called a business.

[Night Train]

All the issues now should have been taken care of when the original deal was signed, but Tags told the Owners " Trust Me " and they signed the deal without reading it... except Ralph & Mike Brown. Now all the same issues exist ( overpaid rookies, too much for the players etc. )

This is Paul Tags fault and the owners would shoot him if he walked past.

[ddaryl]

open the books owners otherwise I don't believe it.

[PTI]

I agree a little with Cowherd, he said something like when the owners have power they can offer us more, like better a better stadium experience, when the players get more we as fans get no benefits and maybe even have higher ticket prices.

[justasportsfan]

open the books owners otherwise I don't believe it.



The Green Bay Packers released their annual report today and it showed a net profit of $5.2 million, an increase over the $4 million the team made last year.

According to team officials, while player costs have gone up 11%, revenue has only gone up 5.5%.
“Player costs are growing at twice the rate of revenue,” Murphy said. That, he said, helps explain why the league, with the Packers in full support, agreed to opt out of the current contract and go to an uncapped salary season in 2010.



http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/

[HAMMER]

http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/

If this doesn't make people like Blitz understand nothing will. Certainly some owners are making more than others but if I'm an owner and I am netting less than my rookie QB I am not happy. Makes no sense.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Owners need to stop being losers. Listen to Charlie like the players. Winninggggggggg

[justasportsfan]

If this doesn't make people like Blitz understand nothing will. Certainly some owners are making more than others but if I'm an owner and I am netting less than my rookie QB I am not happy. Makes no sense.


a rookie whose done squat in this league. Thats what sick about the whole thing. I can understand that players want more protection out of the new cba for when they retire like better insurance, but what the hell do they do with their money when they are active and making all those millions?

Middle class america also want better retirement benefits but they sure aren't making millions to begin with. So does that make players greedy? :idunno:

[SABURZFAN]

This is more about Smaller market owners like Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville wanting more profits after seeing bigger markets like Dallas, Washington, New York making HUGER PROFITS. There is no Small Market teams in the NFL, just SMALLER Market teams. This is all about GREED. So they see the best way to grow there profits by taking money from the players.


how much more does Wilson want? he only paid 5 figures for his football team.

[better days]

how much more does Wilson want? he only paid 5 figures for his football team.

Yeah, but those were 1960 dollars. Gas was about .15 cents a gallon & milk was about a quarter a gallon.

[better days]

Owners are all making profits. Show me one that is losing money.

Players aren't seeking more money. They are fine with the current deal.

This is more about Smaller market owners like Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville wanting more profits after seeing bigger markets like Dallas, Washington, New York making HUGER PROFITS. There is no Small Market teams in the NFL, just SMALLER Market teams. This is all about GREED. So they see the best way to grow there profits by taking money from the players.

Of course the players would be happy to keep the currant deal, why wouldn't they be? It was a GREAT DEAL for them. The owners agreed to a bad deal & now want out of it.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

They shouldn't have signed it. Hell I feel the players still get killed with No guaranteed contracts in a sport where they can be Finished on one play.

[better days]

They shouldn't have signed it. Hell I feel the players still get killed with No guaranteed contracts in a sport where they can be Finished on one play.

They get guaranteed money in the form of a bonus. NOBODY is putting a gun to their head & forcing them to play football.

[SquishDaFish]

Blitz thats the only thing I agree with the players on and thats the contract. But that works both ways. They sign the contract and should honor it also. They shouldnt be able to demand release OR like Palmer now Saying hes going to retire. But the owners should def have to honor the contract also

[BuffaloBlitz83]

They get guaranteed money in the form of a bonus. NOBODY is putting a gun to their head & forcing them to play football.

noone is putting a gun to owners. sell it if you're unhappy

[Extremebillsfan247]

Oh, so now it's the fault of the smaller market teams that owners and players couldn't find a way to reach an agreement after 2 years of discussions? lol

[SquishDaFish]

This problem is the result of the greed on BOTH sides. Blitz if you own a team or business you want the most money for yourself as possible seeing its YOURS. I can see both sides arguments on certain things but the money should mainly be on the owners side seeing its their TEAM.

[better days]

noone is putting a gun to owners. sell it if you're unhappy

Owners do not have to sell if they are unhappy. They can fix their business until they are satisfied with it. Players are employees not partners of the owners & if they think they are partners, they are deluding themselves.

[Dujek]

This is 99% down to the players and 1% down to the owners. Given the year on year increase in revenues the fact that the owners want to take an extra $1billion off the top prior to the revenues being split will mean that the players will still be getting paid approximately the same amount next year as they were this year, and a rookie salary cap would ensure the veteran players (the current members of the union) would end up better off as there would be more money to divide among them as the ridiculous wages paid to rookies would be cut out overnight.

Quite frankly in a time of a global economic downturn everyone working in every industry has been affected, and sportsmen need to realise that they live in the real world too.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Damn Straight Dujek... If you ask me, the players are getting too much money. As a result, I can't afford tickets, parking, consession, jerseys, etc.

The other point with the rookie pay scale... It increases the vets worth to the team... Less money for Maybins, more time for Merrimans. The only losers are the agents.

[naugem]

I think the agents end up the same, just instead of getting the big cut from rookies they'll get it from the veterans. Though, if less money is spent on players in general, the agents also get less.

[Dujek]

If the overall salary cap is at the same level then it doesn't matter whether it's rookies or veterans getting paid more money, the agents will still get the same slice of the pie.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Unbelievable... But I think agents get somrthing like 30-40%.

I'm gonna asign blame as follows...

50% agents
30% players
20% Jerry Joneses

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Unbelievable... But I think agents get somrthing like 30-40%.

I'm gonna asign blame as follows...

50% agents
30% players
20% Jerry Joneses

Blaming guys like Jerry more than jealous owners like Smaller market guys. Don't hate guys that are in better markets. They don't owe you ****. Socialism bull****

[Yasgur's Farm]

SOCIALISM BULL****??? Yup... And I'm the guy with perception issues!:mehmeh:

[alohabillsfan]

I think Blitz is like 11.

[Night Train]

I think Blitz is like 11.

I just welcomed him to my Ignore list. At least his posts are consistently terrible.

[Michael82]

This is 99% down to the players and 1% down to the owners. Given the year on year increase in revenues the fact that the owners want to take an extra $1billion off the top prior to the revenues being split will mean that the players will still be getting paid approximately the same amount next year as they were this year, and a rookie salary cap would ensure the veteran players (the current members of the union) would end up better off as there would be more money to divide among them as the ridiculous wages paid to rookies would be cut out overnight.

Quite frankly in a time of a global economic downturn everyone working in every industry has been affected, and sportsmen need to realise that they live in the real world too.
Great post! :bf1:

[justasportsfan]

I think blitz is saying owners should be in it for charity and not profit.THey should do it from the goodness of their hearts.

[Jan Reimers]

While I think there is greed on each side, some of the posters on here need to realize that "profit" is not a dirty word, and that there is nothing evil about an owner earning a return on his investment.

Many of the older owners, including Ralph Wilson, took a risk investing in a fledgling football league. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the risk was well worth it. In 1960, however, no one knew whether the AFL would flourish, or fold after a couple of seasons.

Many of the newer owners paid dearly for the opportunity to own a team, and now have significant amounts of debt and substantial operating costs.

While the players should be well paid for their talent, their ability to put fannies in seats, and the risks and physical abuse that usually result in short careers, the owners also need to be compensated for what they have contributed.

[better days]

While I think there is greed on each side, some of the posters on here need to realize that "profit" is not a dirty word, and that there is nothing evil about an owner earning a return on his investment.

Many of the older owners, including Ralph Wilson, took a risk investing in a fledgling football league. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the risk was well worth it. In 1960, however, no one knew whether the AFL would flourish, or fold after a couple of seasons.

Many of the newer owners paid dearly for the opportunity to own a team, and now have significant amounts of debt and substantial operating costs.

While the players should be well paid for their talent, their ability to put fannies in seats, and the risks and physical abuse that usually result in short careers, the owners also need to be compensated for what they have contributed.

Even in the 1960's many players needed a job in the off season to supplement their NFL salary. Today if a player is not foolish with his money, he can live very well for the rest of his life after even an average NFL career.

[TacklingDummy]

If the players don't like it then they don't have to play in the NFL. They can go get a real job hoping to make $50k a year.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Blaming guys like Jerry more than jealous owners like Smaller market guys. Don't hate guys that are in better markets. They don't owe you ****. Socialism bull**** Funny that you should mention socialism being that this entire CBA issue was a by-product of organized labor to begin with. Without a players union, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Just saying. Unions were created by socialists according to your average O'Reilly Conservatives. lol

[Turf]

They need only not cap rookies but player positions so the existing money can be more evenly distributed to the "lesser" positions and bigger rosters. $10 million/yr not good enough for the best QB in football? There are some really nice accounting jobs available.
What they really should be negotiating is what each player position should be capped at. Remainder of the money could be distributed between both sides.

[ct bills fan]

The players are just as greedy - case in point, if they weren't they'd be allocating more money to their retired players. Ask Joe D about that - the pension/health care that retired players get is embarassing.

[ddaryl]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304

I agree the owners are playing a shady game here

i like this article above. kind of sums it up nicely

The players don't get much love either but if I had to choose a side I'm sticking with the players.. Why???

Jerry Jones and his PSL's

The TV deal designed to funnel leverage money to the Owners.

The fact the owners won't open up the books but are screaming bloody murder in regards to not making money.

FACT that I will never buy a jersey with an owners name on it, nor will I ever buy a ticket to the games to watch the owner sit in his box.

[ddaryl]

If the players don't like it then they don't have to play in the NFL. They can go get a real job hoping to make $50k a year.
right....


The owners could also not over pay for franchises and uber stadiums then complain when they ain't getting richer for it. Nobody twisted an owners arm to pluck down $100's of millions for a team. NOBODY... You make a bad business deal you have to pay a price. Most of these owners knew the score when they bought over the last 2 decades. They have to right to admit they screwed up.

I guess NFL owners are the new bankers in the eyes of some of ya's Too big to fail. They get to shoulder plenty of blame themselves

[justasportsfan]

right....


The owners could also not over pay for franchises and uber stadiums then complain when they ain't getting richer for it. Nobody twisted an owners arm to pluck down $100's of millions for a team. NOBODY... You make a bad business deal you have to pay a price. Most of these owners knew the score when they bought over the last 2 decades. They have to right to admit they screwed up.

I guess NFL owners are the new bankers in the eyes of some of ya's Too big to fail. They get to shoulder plenty of blame themselves


I think TDummy was making apoint that it goes both ways. No one put a gun to the owners head and no one put a gun on the players' head either.

Owners are businessmen. They do things for profit. Players are employees. They also do things for higher wages. Don't we all ask for a raise at some point? Does that make us greedy?

[psubills62]

I think TDummy was making apoint that it goes both ways. No one put a gun to the owners head and no one put a gun on the players' head either.

Owners are businessmen. They do things for profit. Players are employees. They also do things for higher wages. Don't we all ask for a raise at some point? Does that make us greedy?

No, but I'd love to see how many other "normal" jobs have increased salaries by about 1000% over the last 20 years or so.

[Extremebillsfan247]

No, but I'd love to see how many other "normal" jobs have increased salaries by about 1000% over the last 20 years or so.I think it's safe to say that being an NFL employee is anything but a normal job.

[psubills62]

I think it's safe to say that being an NFL employee is anything but a normal job.

I know, that's why I put "normal" in quotations. justa was comparing NFL players to people with normal jobs asking for raises.

[Extremebillsfan247]

I know, that's why I put "normal" in quotations. justa was comparing NFL players to people with normal jobs asking for raises. Since the normal employee thing came up, I found this article about wage scales over the last 25 years for the average worker vs the average CEO. I found it an interesting read, but that's just me. Here's the link, http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html In my opinion it does bare some what of a resemblance, or relevance to what is going on in the NFL right now. Maybe I'm completely off base here, but if you have time, read it, and tell me if I'm wrong.