View Full Version : NFL CBA: Whose Side are you on?

02-16-2010, 07:59 AM
Since its the Offseason, this is becoming a larger issue than it was originally speculated. From listening to Mike and MIke this morning, the owners are arguing that the players had 60% of revenue this season which is 7% more than originally agreed and the NFLPA is stating that they only made the original 53%.

The economy is in shambles, yet the players want more money and bigger contracts, theyre not too fond of the rookie salary wages and theyre saying the owners are being rude because theyre asking for an 18% wage cut.

Meanwhile the owners are saying that the tickets arent selling as projected, the economy is bad, theyre not getting an even end of the revenue, and they argue that they are the ones who run all the risk if sales dont project, while the players get paid regardless of circumstances.

So any other topics to be brought up would be great, but the main question is: Whos side are you on?

02-16-2010, 08:57 AM
As much as I think Kuhn will be the CBA Saviour, people just don't know of his abilities to work miracles. So I'm going with both of them are greedy and don't care about the fans.

02-16-2010, 10:15 AM
It's an even split between owners and the players union. They're both at fault, not willing to give any ground.

I almost think a lockout needs to happen...players not collecting game checks and owners sitting there with empty stadiums.

02-16-2010, 11:03 AM
Neither, because the parties that will ultimately suffer the most from a lockout/strike are the fans.

02-16-2010, 11:09 AM
Owners are making obsene amounts of money and still asking taxpayers to finance their stadiums...Players work out 3-4 year contracts and then demand bigger money if they have a great year but NEVER give money back if they suck up the field.

I'm on the fans side.

02-16-2010, 11:46 AM
Voted on owners side,as I think our owners do care about the fans.... although this is not the norm.
Owners invested the large amounts of money for the most part, and should be able to reap the profits or losses associated IMO. Players get too much now... and FA will ruin the league if it ever stays on a regualr basis.
We need a salary Cap to keep football different from baseball...so I side with the Owners ..... at least for now :)

02-16-2010, 11:46 AM
There's way more than enough in the pot to make everybody rich, which means if they still can't come up with a deal that lets them keep playing football, they're either the greediest bunch in the world or the stupidest bunch in the world, or both.

Get rid of the rookie contract problem either way, though; that's really running the risk of ruining the game.

Also, Patriots suck and Tom Brady is gay.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-16-2010, 02:34 PM
The entire deal needs a lot of work.

First, I think the Owners and players will benefit from a rookie cap. When Alex Smith and JaMarcus Russell are getting $30-40 million guaranteed before ever taking a snap, while guys like mid level veterans get bounced out of the league because there isnt any cap room.....it makes no sense.

Second, the players probably want guaranteed contracts, so they have some kind of security rather than being cut when they are playing bad and underpaid when performing well. The owners really hold the cards there.

Its gonna be ugly and might even mean a lockout in 2011, but somebody has to take the 1st step and give something up. I think a rookie cap like the NBA is a good place to start, but the PA probably will not budge on that.

02-16-2010, 05:35 PM

02-16-2010, 05:51 PM
Neither, because the parties that will ultimately suffer the most from a lockout/strike are the fans.


i suffred through the hockey lockout by going to chl games yeah chl those guys get paid 2000 dollars a year and all the beer they can drink

02-17-2010, 02:46 PM
I'd like to see a lockout then teams hire random people off the street with tryouts... Teams backs in the day, pree 50's did it all the time, and teams in the 80's did it too...

02-17-2010, 04:20 PM
I'm going with the owners side. Nowhere else, besides pro sports, can you demand a new contract before your current one is up. Players want more money when the economy sucks, but both sides are greedy, no news there.

02-17-2010, 05:42 PM
Neither, because the parties that will ultimately suffer the most from a lockout/strike are the fans.

I disagree. Not that I care about the players, but they lose millions of dollars which trumps the fans "watching a game".

I hope there is a lockout and the owners get replacements that are skilled enough for the players to take a hike, Time to get players who want to make a good living but more importantly play the game.

Screw these whiny little wusses

02-20-2010, 04:03 AM
I voted for the owners. If a union becomes too powerful, then bad things happen. Of all people, Pittsburghers ought to know this. It's exactly what happened to the steel industry, and exactly why two of our three automakers went bankrupt (and the third only avoiding it because they took out a $36B loan in 2006). Besides, with the economy the way it is, and people getting fed up with unions in the public sector, there's a lot of anti-union sentiment in this country right now. Unions have killed the golden goose before, and they're perfectly capable of doing it now too.

02-20-2010, 04:30 AM
Whatever gives us a rookie scale ill take. Salary Cap MUST MUST stay. I dont want this turning into baseball where, the New York teams just dominate FAs and everything.