Irsay Frustrated with Manning

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    Why is the situation better in Minn? They have a better defense, a better RB and a pretty good group of WR's. They have a puss puss former Dungy coach running that team as well so thats not much better then your puss puss head coach and they play in a dome so he would like that oh and they are in the NFC where he would clean up each year cause the level of play in the NFC is way lower then the AFC. So thats why the Vikes would be a good fit.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life


    Tas - Manning is what, 35?  You want him (a noted prepaholic) to leave the colts without an offseason to gain any kind of knowledge of his new team's system or players.  I'd say if there is a knock on Manning it could be that he is too much of a creature of habit.  How in the world is he going to get up to speed on the offensive system and his teammates without the time to do it? 

    Add to that that GB just won the SB and Chicago looks to be in good shape and Detroit moving in the right direction, why would he want that aggravation.  In his current situation, he has nearly full authority, tennessee is in shambles, and there are questions in Jax and Houston.  Why go somewhere else?  Doesn't make sense to me. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Tas - never played in a strong division?  You did know that since the AFC South was created, they have sent more teams to the playoffs than the AFC East, right? 

    In fact, I am sure you were aware that the AFC South, since its creation has sent more teams to the playoffs than any other division in the AFC. 

    Never played in a strong division?  You are a funny guy, Tas.  If you are looking for weak divisions, the AFC East is only outdone by the AFC West in terms of weakness.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Traditionally, the AFC South is a weak division.  Houston has never made the playoffs.

    Jax and Tenn seem to be incredibly inconsistent taking turns every year who makes it.

    It's rated behind the AFCN and AFC E, only beating out the AFCW.

    It's true.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    Traditionally, the AFC South is a weak division.  Houston has never made the playoffs. Jax and Tenn seem to be incredibly inconsistent taking turns every year who makes it. It's rated behind the AFCN and AFC E, only beating out the AFCW. It's true.
    Posted by BBReigns


    And yet the AFC South has sent more teams to the playoffs than any other division in the AFC since its inception.  This doesn't really fit your logic russ, does it? 

    Houston has been in the league since 2002 and although it hasn't been to the playoffs, it has more 500 or better seasons than the Bills since that time.  Buffalo hasn't made the playoffs since 99. 

    Jax and Tenn are no more inconsistent than Miami and the Jets. 

    Russ, the AFC South has been the toughest division in the AFC since it came into existence.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Baloney. AFC North bests the AFC South.  You're such a homer.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Go look up the teams who have made the playoffs since the last division realignment.  You will find that the AFC South has placed more teams there than any other AFC division. 

    Can't make this stuff up.  Too easy.

    But thanks for realizing how soft the AFC East is.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    That means the division is easier, stupid.  Houston gets walked all over, just like Buffalo has.

    Meanwhile, Miami and the Jets have at least made the playoffs, at times, in the last 10 years.

    The only thing too easy, are your panties when your boyfriend rips them off your bum-bum.

    You act like the AFC South is a juggernaut, when it's really only been Indy.

    At best the AFC S and AFC E are totally comparable.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : Keep acting like you know everything including what I think and the name continues to fit.  I do side with owners, but I understand the players side, and have stated more than enough that the owners have no one to blame but themselves for this mess.  I don't begrudge them doing what they must to get what they think they need.      As for Manning, I think Irsay may have screwed up.  If he had done what he said he was going to do, which is negotiate in the offseason, then he might have gotten a deal done and might not currently be in a lawsuit against his player.  Ultimately, I am not highly emotional about this.  When the dispute is resolved, and regardless of who gets the best of the other side, I expect Manning will get a top contract (appeasing the union) that he will do in a way that allows Colts management to sign the players they need as they requested.   If it doesn't get resolved.  Bring on the scabs!!!!
    Posted by UD6

    Really? From the outside you seem really charged about it? You seem to keep insulting people, using exclamation marks. You seem kind of touchy as a matter of fact. Who knew?

    Again, why are you 'for the owners'?


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    what means the division is easier, that the AFC South has more teams that have reached the playoffs than any other division in the AFC?  Explain this Russ.  

    Russ, here's another one for you.  Since the division realignment, all division teams combined, the AFC South has more wins than any other division in the AFC.  Exactly how does that make the AFC south weaker.  

    The fact is when you look at wins and losses within a division you have Net 0 gain.  As many wins as losses.  The fact that the AFC South has more wins than any other division in the conference means that the AFC south beat more teams outside their division than any other division.  The AFC South is clearly the best division in the AFC since 2002.  

    There is simply no other way to see it.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    It means those teams beat up one another every other year, like I said.

    Tenn and Jax repeatedly go from 10-6 type teams to 6-10 type teams, rotating every other year.

    They aren't consistently good.

    Get it?

    And Houston is akin to Buffalo, but not quite as bad. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : Really? From the outside you seem really charged about it? You seem to keep insulting people, using exclamation marks. You seem kind of touchy as a matter of fact. Who knew? Again, why are you 'for the owners'?
    Posted by zbellino


    Really.  The whole thing is actually pretty interesting. 

    I am for the owners because its their business.  The risks of ownership are afforded the gains of success and the losses of failures.  teams aren't publicly traded companies where cozy boards of directors on a compensation committee decide to give the CEO huge pay for underperformance.  These are private entities. 

    That said, just as I don't begrudge the owners doing what they need to do to get contracts where they need to be, I don't begrudge the players doing what their doing to try to retain it. 

    I don't see the players' plight like those of janitors making just above minimum wage.  These players do just fine.  And if the NFLPA thinks the Rank and File should make more, then it can do its own wealth redistrubtion among its members.  Thus guys like Manning and Brady making 18-20 mill per year can pay into the redistribution fund so that players like Blair White and Ben Jarvus Green Ellis don't have to sweat their 300k league minimum salary.  That'll go over like a Led Zepplin.   

    The fact is the players know how good they have it now.  Mawae said so.  Warner said so and said the NFL players have the best deal in professional sports.  Ritchie Incognito said the players kicked the owners a** the last time.  Without requiring a look at private financials, this tells me the players need to give back a little.  The players aren't going to move an inch until they are forced to. 

    I try to be pragmatic about my thoughts on this, but if I was going to be an idealist, the ideal thing would be to find a way to make tickets cost less (or no more).  If players salaries continue to squeeze the profits that the owners want, the owners are going to raise prices where they can (tickets/parking/concessions).  If the owners can hold the line on players salaries to earn what they want, then in my ideal world, they won't raise prices to the fans which are already too high for much of the general public.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Russ, Houston has had more 500 or better seasons since 02 than Buffalo.

    The afc south has more teams in the playoffs and a better record than any other division in the AFC because they have done a better job than any other division beating teams outside their division.

    The AFC South since inception is the best division in the AFC.  Better record, better record against non-divsion opponents, more teams in the playoffs. 

    Case closed.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Really, because your other posts seem a lot more jaded than how you are stating it now. I recall this post in particular: "I see no problem with the NFL attempting to make what they feel are necessary changes in order to ensure that they don't have to do the same thing.  But labor doesn't like that.  Labor prefers to bring industry to its knees before its considers giving an inch. If the players think the owners approach is unfair, I suggest they use their well earned college degrees and sizeable bank accounts created by the league these owners own and drop out of football and build their own businesses.  Then their income opportunity won't be incumbered by these greedy owners."

    That sounds pretty far off from what you are writing now, doesn't it? It sounds like someone who is painting the players as 'greedy,' which is why after you stopped to ask me about Manning's contract, I found it incredibly curious that a player demanding the largest contract in his sport ever kind of falls out of the pack in this scenario ... 

    No they aren't corporations, but they do routinely fail their way into massive profits like many corporations do. And the 32 teams do act as if they were one corporate body with individual shareholders. They leverage their football monopoly against cities to get tax funding for whatever they can. I don't recall Ben Jarvus Green Ellis or Blair White getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers. 

    Most importantlty, you are talking about this as if it is straight business/ employee deal when it is not. I cannot emphasize this enough, because in both the post I quoted and your most recent, you keep saying something that is completely unfactual. The NFL is not owned by the owners.  (bold here is to make it stick out, not to indicate that I am yelling) An owner owns the intellectual rights to a team logo, and sometimes part or all of a stadium, and some other essential offices that belong to the team usually. They don't own the NFL. 

    The NFL as it exists now is a non-profit meant to promote the business of football for the players and the owners alike.  When it negotiates contracts for selling rights to TV etcetera, it does so on behalf of 33 parties, the 32 teams and the NFLPA. In exchange it is tax exempt, it can keep funds locked up to help owners pay for their investments, it can control the draft coming out of college, it can impose a salary cap on earnings to depress a labor market that would otherwise earn a lot more money, etcetera. All things that are illegal under United State's law. 

    So far, in this partnership, one side has lied twice to the other partner, and we know which side that is. Without needing to look at the financials, as you said, that makes me pretty sure that they are not telling the truth. 

    As far as the players having a great deal, the NFL has the worst revenue split among professional major sports, it has zero guaranteed contracts, it is flat out the least favorable deal in major sports. 

    Any CBA with a salary cap is a far better deal for the owners than it is for any player. Period. There is no way around that UD. The owners want to shrink that cap some more. If I am the NFLPA, given how the NFL has acted against me, I am doing what I can to eliminate the cap. 

    In this case, I am not only hoping the union doesn't give in (though they will likely ultimately concede something just to keep palying) but I sincerely hope the court revisits the SSA to remind the owners of the fact the they do not own the NFL and they cannot use it's monopolistic power to gain unfair advantages over the players. 

    Ultimately, I would much, much rather just be done with the NFL structure alogether and have cities put up VC to start GB Packer type organizations that are non-profit sports franchises in their own right. Then localities in the U.S. wouldn't be held hostage by 32 teams at once to pay up for a stadium or else, and some teams could play out in functional but older venues like Lambeau.  

    They could run the teams like NCAA teams are run. Not for profit, but with any remaining profit turned back over to the state/city as extra funding. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from datdude401. Show datdude401's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    Really, because your other posts seem a lot more jaded than how you are stating it now. I recall this post in particular: " I see no problem with the NFL attempting to make what they feel are necessary changes in order to ensure that they don't have to do the same thing.  But labor doesn't like that.  Labor prefers to bring industry to its knees before its considers giving an inch. If the players think the owners approach is unfair, I suggest they use their well earned college degrees and sizeable bank accounts created by the league these owners own and drop out of football and build their own businesses.  Then their income opportunity won't be incumbered by these greedy owners." That sounds pretty far off from what you are writing now, doesn't it? It sounds like someone who is painting the players as 'greedy,' which is why after you stopped to ask me about Manning's contract, I found it incredibly curious that a player demanding the largest contract in his sport ever kind of falls out of the pack in this scenario ...  No they aren't corporations, but they do routinely fail their way into massive profits like many corporations do. And the 32 teams do act as if they were one corporate body with individual shareholders. They leverage their football monopoly against cities to get tax funding for whatever they can. I don't recall Ben Jarvus Green Ellis or Blair White getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers.  Most importantlty, you are talking about this as if it is straight business/ employee deal when it is not. I cannot emphasize this enough, because in both the post I quoted and your most recent, you keep saying something that is completely unfactual. The NFL is not owned by the owners.  (bold here is to make it stick out, not to indicate that I am yelling) An owner owns the intellectual rights to a team logo, and sometimes part or all of a stadium, and some other essential offices that belong to the team usually. They don't own the NFL.  The NFL as it exists now is a non-profit meant to promote the business of football for the players and the owners alike.  When it negotiates contracts for selling rights to TV etcetera, it does so on behalf of 33 parties, the 32 teams and the NFLPA. In exchange it is tax exempt, it can keep funds locked up to help owners pay for their investments, it can control the draft coming out of college, it can impose a salary cap on earnings to depress a labor market that would otherwise earn a lot more money, etcetera. All things that are illegal under United State's law.  So far, in this partnership, one side has lied twice to the other partner, and we know which side that is. Without needing to look at the financials, as you said, that makes me pretty sure that they are not telling the truth.  As far as the players having a great deal, the NFL has the worst revenue split among professional major sports, it has zero guaranteed contracts, it is flat out the least favorable deal in major sports.  Any CBA with a salary cap is a far better deal for the owners than it is for any player. Period. There is no way around that UD. The owners want to shrink that cap some more. If I am the NFLPA, given how the NFL has acted against me, I am doing what I can to eliminate the cap.  In this case, I am not only hoping the union doesn't give in (though they will likely ultimately concede something just to keep palying) but I sincerely hope the court revisits the SSA to remind the owners of the fact the they do not own the NFL and they cannot use it's monopolistic power to gain unfair advantages over the players.  Ultimately, I would much, much rather just be done with the NFL structure alogether and have cities put up VC to start GB Packer type organizations that are non-profit sports franchises in their own right. Then localities in the U.S. wouldn't be held hostage by 32 teams at once to pay up for a stadium or else, and some teams could play out in functional but older venues like Lambeau.   They could run the teams like NCAA teams are run. Not for profit, but with any remaining profit turned back over to the state/city as extra funding. 
    Posted by zbellino

    />
    @zbellino

    Great f%king post. I cant wait to here his comeback to that 1, =D
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    I understand your point, but really I my position is no different than it has been.  Understanding the players position doesn't at all detract from my support for the owners.  At the same time I wrote what you have cited and before, I have also said the owners got themselves into this mess.  I personally don't believe that unions are interested in give backs.  And Manning doesn't fall out of the pack.  He is squarely in it.   

    Fail their way to massive profits?  Please elaborate.  The 32 teams act as one corporate body in order to put on games and negotiate deals.  Its been proven in leagues time and again that acting as one entity in a league can benefit the entire league.  Look at the big ten.  Prior to the big ten network, each team had its own small local tv deals.  With the launching of the league network distributed nationwide, it has raised the boats of all schools.  I've heard that the SEC is considering copying it.   I can't speak for Green Ellis because I don't know the pats situation, but by extension you can absolutely say that Blair White is being paid by taxpayers, because everything that increases revenues to the team also increases payroll for the players.  Don't think for one minute that if every owner had to fully fund its entire operation including stadium development that the salary cap would be where it is.  No way. 







    And while there are cities willing to provide help to teams for stadiums they do it because they find benefit themselves.  I can't speak for other cities, but in Indianapolis' case, the colts have helped create a vibrant downtown.  Their initial stadium was attached to the local convention center and helped bring big convention business here to the non-chicago  midwest.  There are larger cities, but conventions have frequently chosen Indianapolis as a site because of our amenties that have been associated with having a dome attached to the convention center.  The NFL combine is one.  Ultimately, the conventions got bigger and needed more space than was available and in some cases the dome didn't fit their needs.  The colts wanted a new stadium and the city had reason to want to help.  By building a new stadium they freed up landlocked space to expand the convention center whichwas willing to build a new stadium with them because the convention business had outgrown the size of the convention center.  Since the area was landlocked

    Most importantlty, you are talking about this as if it is straight business/ employee deal when it is not. I cannot emphasize this enough, because in both the post I quoted and your most recent, you keep saying something that is completely unfactual. The NFL is not owned by the owners.  (bold here is to make it stick out, not to indicate that I am yelling) An owner owns the intellectual rights to a team logo, and sometimes part or all of a stadium, and some other essential offices that belong to the team usually. They don't own the NFL. 
    The NFL as it exists now is a non-profit meant to promote the business of football for the players and the owners alike.  When it negotiates contracts for selling rights to TV etcetera, it does so on behalf of 33 parties, the 32 teams and the NFLPA. In exchange it is tax exempt, it can keep funds locked up to help owners pay for their investments, it can control the draft coming out of college, it can impose a salary cap on earnings to depress a labor market that would otherwise earn a lot more money, etcetera. All things that are illegal under United State's law. 

    I am more than willing to accept that the NFL is unique.  It is not an industry in the same way the auto industry is an industry.  That doesn't change my feelings, and I disagree that without the unique imunity it has from the law that without it the players would otherwise earn a lot more money.  Plain and simple, if an industry is upside down on the labor/profit scale then wise businessmen are not going to choose to operate within it.   

    I see things differently here.  I agree the owners tried to play a game with the TV revenue.  Even they can be stupid.  The players have decertified as a union which is a card played before only to recertify after they accomplished their goal.  The owners believe Smith was hired because he's a courtroom guy as opposed to a negotiator and the players were expected to decertify which they have.  Just because there are maneuverings doesn't mean the owners are lying about profits.  They've agreed to share what the players have asked for in terms of showing their profits, but the players want to look at audited financials.  They want the opportunity to dig into the expense details of every team to see what dirt they can find.  Its obvious. 

    As for the contracts, if they are so bad, why would Kurt Warner say they have the best deal in professional sports.  While the contracts may not be guaranteed, that is why the signing bonuses are so important.  They are guaranteed and they are large.  Sam Bradford 45-50 million signing bonus.  Oh, but he doesn't have a guaranteed contract. 

    Any CBA with a salary cap is a far better deal for the owners than it is for any player. Period. There is no way around that UD. The owners want to shrink that cap some more. If I am the NFLPA, given how the NFL has acted against me, I am doing what I can to eliminate the cap. 

    I accept that salary caps are good for owners.  They are competitors, too.  Without the cap you have MLB where parity is a joke.  As a fan, I want to see teams crawl out of the cellar and win. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    That is a long post, so I'm not really going to itemize next to a quote, it is handy to read, but that would be too much for anyone to go through. 

    First, you cannot possibly reject that a 'capless' NFL would have a higher revenue split. The NFL owners are fighting to bring the cap down right now to reduce costs. Right off the bat, that tells you that in a 'capless' NFL total labor costs would be much higher. It's common sense. I'm not sure how it can be rejected given everything that has happened over the last 20 years. Free agency put NFL ownership over a barrell. The only way they contained costs before that was by basically forcing a player to negotiate solely with one team. The cap was a compromise insisted upon by the owners to control costs. 

    Business owners will jump into an 'upside down' market. They do all the time. Heck, all of hollywood is an upside down market. Entertainment, for a number of reasons but particularly the inimitable nature of the people working, is labor first all the time. That isn't a bad thing, considering the other 99% of labor in the world is always purchased at a discount. 

    I'm not so sure caps improve the parity, as some people like to state. There are perennial winners in the NFL, perhaps not as often as baseball. There are certainly perennial losers as well. And in both the MLB and NFL there are cellar dwellers who creep up ... I mean the MLB over the last decade has had teams from all market sizes win. Sports are not the same as other businesses. They tend to be immunized against poor climates, and simply spending more money doesn't mean you do better.

    All the salary caps in the world won't help Buffalo or Cincy or Washington be competitive clubs, yet between the three of them, they made a fortune last season. Because of revenue sharing, tax funded operations, and an extremely favorable deal that controls costs, NFL teams can win zero games and still turn profits. 

    Basic question: who is worse ... the Detroit Lions or Pittsburgh Pirates or L.A. Clippers? Every sport has a team with absolutely terrible track records and dismal prospects. 

    Also, you can't possibly reject that the NFLPA has the worst deal in pro sports. No guaranteed contracts, unlike the NHL, NBA and MLB. And the worst revenue split. I think they have slipped to 49 percent last season. The NHL is guaranteed 57%, the NBA has 57%, and baseball fluxuates because there is no fixed cap, but gets as high as 63% and hasn't fallen beneath 52% for decades. I'm not sure on what grounds you can argue that it is the best, besides a quote from a few people that might not be apprised of what other players in other sports get as a total percentage of the revenue. 

    While it is dubious that caps result in parity, and perhaps you like a cap because you think it does (the issue could be debated both ways in this case although I see little evidence to support the old hat) I for one LIKE that Baseball has no cap. It forces the owners to actually compete against one another. I like the ownership of the Redsox. Why? Because they have in the past operated at a loss (although they make a lot of money cyclically) to win a championship. All of these owners, every one of them, can afford to run red for a season to take a crack at it, and it becomes as if they are actually a part of the community for a minute, which is extremely alien to how businesses usually operate as someone inimical toward the community. 

    The owners, who are apparently making a lot of money, are asking for a revenue split that will, in the end, be something like 40%. And no guaranteed contracts still. And they are justifying it with artificially low earnings and growth projections that do not match up with anything Wallstreet has come up with for the future of the product. Both Moody's and Forbes have the NFL continuing to grow at 8-10%. The owners are trying to peg growth to something like 4.5% with the owners (conveniently) getting any growth over that amount. This has been the trend in every business over the last 30 years. I will always, always stand against that. Both owners, CEO's, workers, etc, should realize the 'same' increase in profits when business does better, because they always realize the same decrease in profits. The fact that Americans have stopped fighting for it is deeply disturbing and goes so far beyond a bunch of jocks playing a game. But I digress. 

    That would be, categorically, the worst deal in major sports. Given that the NFL is the most lucrative sport, AND the most training intensive, I can't see how that is justified. At least not without financial transparency.

    Truthfully, I am not against a salary cap. I am not against a rookie cap either. I think a rookie cap on the first season with MLB style arbitrated salaries after that point would be a great way to see both sides benefit. Heck, I'm not even against a 'give back', as I can guarantee that union wouldn't be either if they knew that the NFL was operating at a loss -- considering the success rate of unions giving back in cases where the actual business was threatened is 100%, knowing that everyone will choose a job over no job every time. 

    But the evidence, to just about everyone watching except the small percentage of people that would side with the owners either way, is that the NFL is making tons of money. The evidence we see is that they already engineered this 'lockout' before the recession. And the evidence shows that they have already tride to 'hide' money. I'm sorry, but if you take their word for it, god bless you, but a fool and his money ... as the saying goes. 

    I AM against owners still jockeying for power in an 'upside down' market that is artificially turned back around, by hiding behind the NFL shield that according to its mandate represents both halves of the partnership although in reality doesn't. 

    And no, being an association versus being a union isn't shady in the least. I have been in both. They do everything the same. Dropping the 'union' moniker merely gives the players recourse to suit. You cannot start a class action lawsuit if you are part of the NFLPA as a union, because that union is a.) a unified body, and b.) part of the NFL structure the players are suing. Taking the right to sue the NFL away is hack anti-worker stuff. Just because the law mandates that they need to change the official function to sue for damages doesn't mean that there is trickery involved. You can buy the NFL ownership's claims, but the truth is that there may never be a formal NFLPA as a union again. You don't know how this is going to turn out, but the NFLPA, given the skill inherent in the business, doesn't need to collectively bargain at all. All it needs to do is advise. It's formation as a union was at the behest of the owners so they could follow the SSA.

    And yes, if the owners don't find those terms agreeable, then I fully support the NFL players' class action lawsuit to seek an injunction that forces play or withdrawal of the anti-trust exemption for a true "open market."

    And yeah, just because Kurt Warner says something without thinking doesn't make it true. Adrian Peterson likened playing in the NFL to slavery, but I am sure you consider that untrue. 

    And finally, because of the exemptions the NFL gets, I sincerely hope they come to their senses and just open their books. If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't worry. But you know, as well as I do, that there is something they want to hide. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hiding it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    Russ, Houston has had more 500 or better seasons since 02 than Buffalo. The afc south has more teams in the playoffs and a better record than any other division in the AFC because they have done a better job than any other division beating teams outside their division. The AFC South since inception is the best division in the AFC.  Better record, better record against non-divsion opponents, more teams in the playoffs.  Case closed.
    Posted by UD6


    Terrible case.  Period.

    The AFC S is not stronger than the AFCN, year to year. FACT.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    Really, because your other posts seem a lot more jaded than how you are stating it now. I recall this post in particular: " I see no problem with the NFL attempting to make what they feel are necessary changes in order to ensure that they don't have to do the same thing.  But labor doesn't like that.  Labor prefers to bring industry to its knees before its considers giving an inch. If the players think the owners approach is unfair, I suggest they use their well earned college degrees and sizeable bank accounts created by the league these owners own and drop out of football and build their own businesses.  Then their income opportunity won't be incumbered by these greedy owners." That sounds pretty far off from what you are writing now, doesn't it? It sounds like someone who is painting the players as 'greedy,' which is why after you stopped to ask me about Manning's contract, I found it incredibly curious that a player demanding the largest contract in his sport ever kind of falls out of the pack in this scenario ...  No they aren't corporations, but they do routinely fail their way into massive profits like many corporations do. And the 32 teams do act as if they were one corporate body with individual shareholders. They leverage their football monopoly against cities to get tax funding for whatever they can. I don't recall Ben Jarvus Green Ellis or Blair White getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers.  Most importantlty, you are talking about this as if it is straight business/ employee deal when it is not. I cannot emphasize this enough, because in both the post I quoted and your most recent, you keep saying something that is completely unfactual. The NFL is not owned by the owners.  (bold here is to make it stick out, not to indicate that I am yelling) An owner owns the intellectual rights to a team logo, and sometimes part or all of a stadium, and some other essential offices that belong to the team usually. They don't own the NFL.  The NFL as it exists now is a non-profit meant to promote the business of football for the players and the owners alike.  When it negotiates contracts for selling rights to TV etcetera, it does so on behalf of 33 parties, the 32 teams and the NFLPA. In exchange it is tax exempt, it can keep funds locked up to help owners pay for their investments, it can control the draft coming out of college, it can impose a salary cap on earnings to depress a labor market that would otherwise earn a lot more money, etcetera. All things that are illegal under United State's law.  So far, in this partnership, one side has lied twice to the other partner, and we know which side that is. Without needing to look at the financials, as you said, that makes me pretty sure that they are not telling the truth.  As far as the players having a great deal, the NFL has the worst revenue split among professional major sports, it has zero guaranteed contracts, it is flat out the least favorable deal in major sports.  Any CBA with a salary cap is a far better deal for the owners than it is for any player. Period. There is no way around that UD. The owners want to shrink that cap some more. If I am the NFLPA, given how the NFL has acted against me, I am doing what I can to eliminate the cap.  In this case, I am not only hoping the union doesn't give in (though they will likely ultimately concede something just to keep palying) but I sincerely hope the court revisits the SSA to remind the owners of the fact the they do not own the NFL and they cannot use it's monopolistic power to gain unfair advantages over the players.  Ultimately, I would much, much rather just be done with the NFL structure alogether and have cities put up VC to start GB Packer type organizations that are non-profit sports franchises in their own right. Then localities in the U.S. wouldn't be held hostage by 32 teams at once to pay up for a stadium or else, and some teams could play out in functional but older venues like Lambeau.   They could run the teams like NCAA teams are run. Not for profit, but with any remaining profit turned back over to the state/city as extra funding. 
    Posted by zbellino


    This doesn't change the fact that 60% revenues go to players is not a good deal, especially in this economy.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : Terrible case.  Period. The AFC S is not stronger than the AFCN, year to year. FACT.
    Posted by BBReigns


    Russ - Thanks for providing nothing to refute my facts.  Come back when you actually have something more than "I am right, you are wrong". 

    Z - I will get back to you but yours is a long post, and I'd like to respond as best I can, which I did not do last night.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from datdude401. Show datdude401's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : This doesn't change the fact that 60% revenues go to players is not a good deal, especially in this economy.
    Posted by BBReigns


    You talk about then you the players getting 60%. Your wrong their percent was less than 53%, look it up.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : You talk about then you the players getting 60%. Your wrong their percent was less than 53%, look it up.
    Posted by datdude401


    That's due to the economy.  

    I love how when I have asked staunch union supporters if there was an economic meltdown in their world, of any kind or level, they don't answer it.

    The owners got less than the 40% they were supposed to get. Please take an Economics course so you can understand what ROI means.

    Good god.

    If the tv deals aren't producing the revenue they were expected from 2007-2009 (this period is key) during an absolute economic meltdown, where do you expect this to come from?

    Thin air?

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/kurt-warner-echoes-kevin-mawaes-comments-about-quality-of-2006-cba/

    The NFL also included a congratulatory letter — dated May 27, 2009 — from NFLPA boss DeMaurice Smith to Goodell after deals were done with CBS, Fox and Comcast.

    "On behalf of the players I applaud your efforts. Despite the economy, the news continues to be positive regarding the NFL's financial future," wrote Smith, who also asked for copies of the new contracts to review for an upcoming bargaining session."


    With this quote from Smith, just two years ago, in a worse economic environment, he seemed happy with the deal.

    "Financial FUTURE".  Yes, "future", Mr. Smith. Not past or finances in a completely different economic environment.

    What he didn't expect is the opt-out to create a different position from the owners.

    His naive thinking, as an entitled union head, clearly says that the 2006 deal has no impact on future negotiations.  How obtuse can you get? Or, is it just a laywer tactic?

    What planet is Smith on?  Anyone know? Planet Lawyer?  Probably.

    He reminds me of Scott Boras. More concerned about lining his pockets than the game he represents.

    In a perfect world, that 60% was meant to roll over into a new deal.

    Guess what? It didn't work, which proves  itself in the 53% return. Duh.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning : Russ - Thanks for providing nothing to refute my facts.  Come back when you actually have something more than "I am right, you are wrong".  Z - I will get back to you but yours is a long post, and I'd like to respond as best I can, which I did not do last night.
    Posted by UD6


    Your "facts" conveniently leave out contexts. What a shock!

    Baltimore and Pitt make the playoffs almost every year. Name the two teams in the AFC South that accomplish this.

    We know one is Indy, but Tenn and Jax haven't been as consistent as wither Pitt or Balt in this area.

    Glad I could dispel your "facts".

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    What contexts? 

    1)The afc south has won more games than any other division in the AFC since its inception. 
    2) The afc south has won more games against opponents outside its division than any other division in the AFC. 
    3) The afc south has sent more teams to the playoffs since its inception than any other division in the AFC. 
    4) The Texans - the south's bottom dweller, has had more 500 or better seasons than the east's bottom dweller, the bills.  The bills haven't been to the playoffs since 99. 
    5) The Texans have more 500 or better seasons since its inception than the Browns.  The browns went to the playoffs in the Texans first season (02) but not since. 
    6) the Texans have more .500 or better seasons since its inception than the Raiders.  The raiders went to the playoffs in the Texans first season (02) but not since. 

    Conclusion - As a competitive division, from top to bottom, none has been better since 02 than the AFC south. 

    Your arguement focuses only on 2 teams in the AFC North, and yes they are good, but they are only half the division.  We are talking about the entire division. 

    Talk about leaving out contexts.  You are the king, russ.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    Learn to spell.

    "Argument". Not "arguement". Your troll buddy, Phatty, doesn't know how to spell a 3rd grade word either.

    The context of two teams making the playoffs more consistently from one division (AFC N) over your division.

    That context.

    Facts hurt.

    At one time Tenn was a team like Balt, but since McNair left and they tried to retool, Tenn only had that recent miracle season of 12-4.

    Jax popped in to the playoffs a couple times in the last 5-7 years, but overall they are no better than what a Miami had done in that time span, reaching the playoffs. Or a NY Jets, for example.

    Or even Cincy in the AFC N.

    But, any objective fan acknowledges Pitt and Balt as the class of the AFC N, making that division the strongest.

    Don't look now, but you just got tooled on this topic.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    LOL Russ - keep looking for grammatical and spelling errors.  It's all you have. 

    Answer me this - When since 2002 have 2 teams comprised the entirety of a divsion? 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share