Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Irsay Frustrated with Manning

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to 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.
    Posted by UD6


    Could we have some absolute numbers?  I have a feeling that the AFC South lead in all these categories is minuscule (e.g., the AFC South has won two more games than any other division).  Otherwise, you would be providing them. 
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning

    In Response to Re: Irsay Frustrated with Manning:
    I am not looking for them. You don't know how to spell words you use.  If it was a one-off typo where you can tell someone fat fingered a key, cool. But, it's highly laughable someone thinks they can talk down to me, when they get even spell correctly. Read even half the books I have in my life and maybe you can make it some day, Undies. That's not a typo, either. That's a word people, who don't usually read books, spell incorrectly quite often. I will not answer such a stupid question.  The strength of the AFC N is better than that of the AFC South. Period. Last 10 years: AFCN AFCS/AFCE AFCW Pitt has been to 3 SBs and Baltimore 1.  Each has been to multiple AFC title games. Can't say the same with Tenn or Jax as an option out of the AFC South, can you?
    Posted by BBReigns


    Did you fat finger the incorrect comma after "But"?
     
Sections
Shortcuts