Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 I'm not adding neither fuck millionaires vs billionaires argument, I agree that I have a hard time feeling sorry for either but am curious based solely on the notions in the argument of the contract and negotiations of that contract itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Show who voted for what, I want to know who on this board I hate with my entire soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Owners. The players are more than fairly compensated for their work, and as long as that's happening the owners have every right to maximize their profits. If the players weren't being paid fairly, it'd be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305736486' post='993329'] Owners. The players are more than fairly compensated for their work, and as long as that's happening the owners have every right to maximize their profits. If the players weren't being paid fairly, it'd be a different story. [/quote] That's because your still stuck on dollar amounts and not percentages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305736558' post='993330'] That's because your still stuck on dollar amounts and not percentages. [/quote] because that's what matters. Are they well compensated? Yes. Do they make more than what "employees" in rival businesses make? Yes, much more. The players aren't being treated unfairly. Stop pretending they are. They make crazy amounts of money, were offered healthcare for life, and were offered increased retirement benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305736713' post='993331'] because that's what matters. Are they well compensated? Yes. Do they make more than what "employees" in rival businesses make? Yes, much more. The players aren't being treated unfairly. Stop pretending they are. They make crazy amounts of money, were offered healthcare for life, and were offered increased retirement benefits. [/quote] There is no rival businesses, if there were there would be no need for a anti-trust exemption. The UFL/CFL are not viable if they were there would be no anti-trust exemption. Stop putting that into your arguments because it's simply a fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305737004' post='993332'] There is no rival businesses, if there were there would be no need for a anti-trust exemption. The UFL/CFL are not viable if they were there would be no anti-trust exemption. Stop putting that into your arguments because it's simply a fallacy. [/quote] whatever lies help your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 why is there no talk of current players only looking out for themselves and screwing over future and former players? They balked at healthcare for life and increased retirement benefits for ALL players ever. Why? It doesn't help them in the now. They have agreed to a rookie wage scale that will take roughly $350 million from rookies so that vets can put that money in their own pockets. There's greed and lack of loyalty on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 I think it is a little overboard on both sides. The hard labor disputes are when people are going to lose their jobs or be laid off.... This game is at it's pinnacle and they are fighting who gets the slightly larger piece of a enormous pie. My only problem with the entire negotiation is the owners want to claim some sort of fiscal problem then refuse to open the books to the union to back it up. Sounds slightly shady and crooked to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305737212' post='993333'] whatever lies help your argument. [/quote] There is no lie in that at all and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305737638' post='993337'] There is no lie in that at all and you know it. [/quote] then why did you delete the second paragraph to your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Personally I think the best thing they can do is bring in an arbiter and let he or she have complete access to the books then they could say 50% of all revenue to the owners 50% of all revenue to the players and how you want to dole that out is up to your negotiations.[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305737699' post='993338'] then why did you delete the second paragraph to your post? [/quote] To keep politics out of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305736713' post='993331'] because that's what matters. Are they well compensated? Yes. Do they make more than what "employees" in rival businesses make? Yes, much more. [/quote] Wow this is Corky level retarded. Paying them a max of 250k a season would satisfy the criteria of both of your statements. If you're just being a troll, then bravo, you win. If you believe this... Jesus Christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1305737500' post='993336'] I think it is a little overboard on both sides. The hard labor disputes are when people are going to lose their jobs or be laid off.... This game is at it's pinnacle and they are fighting who gets the slightly larger piece of a enormous pie. [color="#FF0000"]My only problem with the entire negotiation is the owners want to claim some sort of fiscal problem then refuse to open the books to the union to back it up. Sounds slightly shady and crooked to me.[/color] [/quote] x2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305738169' post='993340'] Wow this is Corky level retarded. Paying them a max of 250k a season would satisfy the criteria of both of your statements. If you're just being a troll, then bravo, you win. If you believe this... Jesus Christ... [/quote] boy are there some rich pot and kettle comments in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305738606' post='993342'] boy are there some rich pot and kettle comments in there. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1305737500' post='993336'] My only problem with the entire negotiation is the owners want to claim some sort of fiscal problem then refuse to open the books to the union to back it up. Sounds slightly shady and crooked to me. [/quote] I agree with this. They are hiding something, but it's their right. Why should they show what they are making/losing? It's none of the player's business UNLESS it's a partnership (and unless I missed something, the players are considered employees, am I right?). Why should the players make more than what they are making now? They don't own the business. They signed a contract to work for a certain amount and that's what they need to keep doing or find employment elsewhere. What the players want here is money from a business they didn't create. Think about this... you start a business selling t-shirts. It catches fire and you're making 1 million a year but you're only paying your employees who run your store $100,000 for the year. They then ask you for a percentage of WHAT YOUR COMPANY MADE. Now that's bull shit and that is exactly what is happening here. It's not their company. They work for their per hour/weekly/contract wage and life goes on. Start your own business if you want more of the pie. Owners > Players in this regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305739189' post='993344'] What the players want here is money from a business they didn't create. Think about this... you start a business selling t-shirts. It catches fire and you're making 1 million a year but you're only paying your employees who run your store $100,000 for the year. They then ask you for a percentage of WHAT YOUR COMPANY MADE. Now that's bull shit and that is exactly what is happening here. It's not their company. They work for their per hour/weekly/contract wage and life goes on. Start your own business if you want more of the pie. Owners > Players in this regard [/quote] Logic fail. In your example, the players should be represented by the t-shirts, not the register monkey. Demand of t-shirts goes up, so should the price. You forget that the owners were the ones who were driving the price of the players up with stupid contract offers. Players can't offer themselves stupid deals. The owners have themselves to blame. You just got your ass SERVED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305739189' post='993344'] I agree with this. They are hiding something, but it's their right. Why should they show what they are making/losing? It's none of the player's business UNLESS it's a partnership (and unless I missed something, the players are considered employees, am I right?). Why should the players make more than what they are making now? They don't own the business. They signed a contract to work for a certain amount and that's what they need to keep doing or find employment elsewhere. What the players want here is money from a business they didn't create. Think about this... you start a business selling t-shirts. It catches fire and you're making 1 million a year but you're only paying your employees who run your store $100,000 for the year. They then ask you for a percentage of WHAT YOUR COMPANY MADE. Now that's bull shit and that is exactly what is happening here. It's not their company. They work for their per hour/weekly/contract wage and life goes on. Start your own business if you want more of the pie. Owners > Players in this regard [/quote] Collective bargaining makes it a partnership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Time Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305739470' post='993346'] Collective bargaining makes it a partnership. [/quote] Not much collective bargaining can happen when the union decertifies and then files a ridiculous lawsuit. The decertification itself was a sham and shows that the players are trying to force the owners into a deal that doesn't benefit anyone but the players. Doesn't sound like much of a partnership. The whole thing is a joke on both sides. However, the owners simply must win this CBA battle or the NFL becomes one step closer to MLB...the haves vs. have nots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Who Dey Time' timestamp='1305739936' post='993348'] Not much collective bargaining can happen when the union decertifies and then files a ridiculous lawsuit. The decertification itself was a sham and shows that the players are trying to force the owners into a deal that doesn't benefit anyone but the players. Doesn't sound like much of a partnership. The whole thing is a joke on both sides. However, the owners simply must win this CBA battle or the NFL becomes one step closer to MLB...the haves vs. have nots. [/quote] The decertification happened as a result of the owner actions. Further I dont think the owners have to win for this to not be baseball, please clarify why you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Owners. The players want to call the shots and in a normal world it doesn't work that way. The owners have offered fair compensation for them playing a game that most people have to give up to get a real job. The owners make billions and they should because that's how a business works. The guy at the top taking all the risk gets the most reward and the people below him get what they get and if they aren't happy with that they can quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Time Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305740069' post='993350'] The decertification happened as a result of the owner actions. [/quote] Bullshit. You cannot call yourself a union and then all of a sudden you aren't because you refuse to negotiate. The owners gave the players an offer. If it wasn't acceptable then negotiate and don't pull off this sham and run to the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305740246' post='993352'] Owners. The players want to call the shots and in a normal world it doesn't work that way. The owners have offered fair compensation for them playing a game that most people have to give up to get a real job. The owners make billions and they should because that's how a business works. The guy at the top taking all the risk gets the most reward and the people below him get what they get and if they aren't happy with that they can quit. [/quote] Im curious, what do you view as the risks of the owners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Who Dey Time' timestamp='1305740286' post='993353'] Bullshit. You cannot call yourself a union and then all of a sudden you aren't because you refuse to negotiate. The owners gave the players an offer. If it wasn't acceptable then negotiate and don't pull off this sham and run to the courts. [/quote] At what point are negotiations not fruitful and courts needed though? Your point would be valid if they were not [b]at all[/b] negotiating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.