Jump to content

Brees loses most of my respect


ThunderCookie
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

After being given information about the league that isn't even normally shared with the individual teams, the NFLPA is still putting up road blocks to the 2011 NFL season.

And Drew's plea to fans to think other wise shows he cares about his endorsements but not the league. The NFLPA only came to the table in earnest after the NFL filed with the NLRB.

As for the other face of the players, Manning has at least kept his mouth shut since. (Well, to my knowledge.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

After being given information about the league that isn't even normally shared with the individual teams, the NFLPA is still putting up road blocks to the 2011 NFL season.

And Drew's plea to fans to think other wise shows he cares about his endorsements but not the league. The NFLPA only came to the table in earnest after the NFL filed with the NLRB.

As for the other face of the players, Manning has at least kept his mouth shut since. (Well, to my knowledge.)

Brees can't "lead the way to lock out". He's not an owner and that is an owner's threat tactic when they want something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brees can't "lead the way to lock out". He's not an owner and that is an owner's threat tactic when they want something.

Ummm.... It takes both parties to sign. And the players are the ones who want to destroy the league as we know it. If you don't believe it, look up the ramifications of decertifying the union. They have been pushing for that since last year.

Breesus claiming "we just want what's fair" is bs. And he knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm.... It takes both parties to sign. And the players are the ones who want to destroy the league as we know it. If you don't believe it, look up the ramifications of decertifying the union. They have been pushing for that since last year.

Breesus claiming "we just want what's fair" is bs. And he knows it.

The players don't have to sign what is being forced upon them. They are not threatening a stike. It's the owners with all the demands and threats. Decertifying the union to take it to court is a reactionary measure, whcih is fully within their rights to do.

The onus is on the owners to prove their demands are justified.

Your frustration is misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm.... It takes both parties to sign. And the players are the ones who want to destroy the league as we know it. If you don't believe it, look up the ramifications of decertifying the union. They have been pushing for that since last year.

Breesus claiming "we just want what's fair" is bs. And he knows it.

You couldn't be more wrong. It was the OWNERS who in 2008 agreed to void the current cba. The Owners are the ones trying to change the cba and hence "change the league as we know it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jb aka johnnybuc

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

After being given information about the league that isn't even normally shared with the individual teams, the NFLPA is still putting up road blocks to the 2011 NFL season.

And Drew's plea to fans to think other wise shows he cares about his endorsements but not the league. The NFLPA only came to the table in earnest after the NFL filed with the NLRB.

As for the other face of the players, Manning has at least kept his mouth shut since. (Well, to my knowledge.)

I thought Drew has been very sympathetic to the fans. He's not the one causing this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm.... It takes both parties to sign. And the players are the ones who want to destroy the league as we know it. If you don't believe it, look up the ramifications of decertifying the union. They have been pushing for that since last year.

Breesus claiming "we just want what's fair" is bs. And he knows it.

you don't know what you are talking about

1)The owners opted out of the CBA, not the players

2)the owners are claiming they are in severe financial distress and want the players to take a $1 billion cut from their collective pay.

3)The players asked for proof and the only proof they have been given is 'the bottom line'

I come from a family of accountants and can tell you that the 'bottom line' (net profit or loss) is many times complete crap. For example, look at the Green Bay Packers books which are the only ones with full disclosure as they are a public owned corporation. They claim a low net profit which makes it sound like they are hurting. Upon closer examination, one sees that the 'bottom line' is very skewed since many teams, including Green Bay, restructured a lot of contracts last year to pay more money to players to take advantage of the lack of salary cap. In addition, Green Bay claimed at least $100 million in expense as a result of bad investments including a $75 million dollar land deal that went south. Why should the players take a player cut because the owners make bad investments?

The truth is that the owners are afraid to show their books to each other because of the revenue sharing agreement where the richer teams like Washington and Dallas share more of the media money with the poorer teams. Rumor has it that Cincinnati does everything they can to make their net profit look like nothing to get more money through this agreement. Potentially, if all the teams showed their books there would be a civil war among NFL owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

furthermore, the fact that the players are well payed is irrelevant. There is not one industry with a labor union that could demand the employees take a pay cut in the 15% range without showing proof that it was necessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does all this mean? potentially the owners are screwed if they can't block the decertification. the odds are that the courts will allow the NFLPA to decertify which means the NFL can't have a lockout since it would be a non-union industry. If the injunction the players are filing on the NFL goes through, there will be no work stoppage and the NFL would continue under the previous CBA while the players handle their class action lawsuit against the NFL

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/making-sense-of-the-coming-litigation-storm/

Furthermore, the NFL owners are at a severe disadvantage because the NBA owners did pony up their books to prove they were losing money in their current CBA negotiations. That sets a precedent if the government steps in and forces mediation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The players don't have to sign what is being forced upon them. They are not threatening a stike. It's the owners with all the demands and threats. Decertifying the union to take it to court is a reactionary measure, whcih is fully within their rights to do.

The onus is on the owners to prove their demands are justified.

Your frustration is misplaced.

Thank you. I don't understand the reasoning behind thinking the players are some how at fault for this lockout.

Since the last cba, the players union has stressed profit oversite. NOT Revenue.

Profit. Sure the owners made an initial investment but when the return is quadrupled, do the players deserve some of the profit? **** Yes! They knew that before the last cba and don't want to lose out on millions, possible billions, over the course of the next cba agreement.

Can't fault them for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing for sure jb, they both need each other. This is quite the conundrum, how does this get resolved? Which side blinks first?

2011-january-8-18-35-12_medium.jpg

all depends on if the players get an injunction against the lockout. if that occurs the owners are screwed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a decent summary lifted from SR:

For those who simply wish to know "What's Next?" without getting lost in the argument over who do we blame or go through the lengthy arguments detailing every press release, here's what you need to know:

The NFLPA (aka Union, Players, or Player Association) has filed decertification papers in the courts.

The NFL (Corporate NFL representing the Owners) have filed lockout papers.

The players are decertifying so that under the language and cases cited in their decertification (and due to language in the expiring CBA associated with above mentioned), the NFL will not be allowed to lockout. In essence, they've done this in order to file an antitrust lawsuit and gain an injunction that both prevents a lock-out (by doing so allowing football games and offseason activity such as free agency and trades to continue) AND brings the CBA negotiations before a court so that it (new CBA) will be decided through the courts (while business continues as usual).

The Owners are trying to institute a lock-out and challenge the decertification as a sham-- preventing the players from taking them to court and basically suing for a CBA in antitrust court.

Here's the bottom line: you can't have a lock-out if there is no union to lock out. It violates antitrust laws. So either a judge rules for the decertification and grants an injunction, or a judge rules for the lockout and discounts the decertification. Most think we will know the answer to this on Monday

If the judge rules for the players, the NFL (owners) can appeal, but while that process plays out, an injunction will be in place allowing all the normal offseason activity such as free agency and trades. This has the best chance of happening. This is what will most likely occur early next week.

Thanks to previous rulings, it is unlikely the Owners will be win their case against a decertification, nor the following appeal. For better or worse, the legal proceedings will almost surely wind up in anti-trust court where the next CBA will be decided, without lock-out, while the NFL offseason and regular season (depending on how long it takes) operates under injunction.

Edited by joe horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but I am not sure if that happens. Is dissolving the union taking a risk in hope of rebuilding a new and stronger one? Stay tuned!

2011-january-8-18-35-12_medium.jpg

has nothing to do with making a stronger union. the players couldn't bring an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL while there was a union

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and people who are siding with the owners need to stfu because they would be pissed too if their boss came to them and asked them to take a 15%-18% pay cut so that the owner could make an extra $31.25 million per year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and people who are siding with the owners need to stfu because they would be pissed too if their boss came to them and asked them to take a 15%-18% pay cut so that the owner could make an extra $31.25 million per year

But how do you expect the owners to make it when one of their sources of income is only getting them a little over 131 million per year per owner? I mean thats barely 2.5 million per week to live on. Who can live off that? Hopefully the owners other income sources are better than the nfl because they are definately being mistreated and probably have no food in their cabinets because of the greedy players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how do you expect the owners to make it when one of their sources of income is only getting them a little over 131 million per year per owner? I mean thats barely 2.5 million per week to live on. Who can live off that? Hopefully the owners other income sources are better than the nfl because they are definately being mistreated and probably have no food in their cabinets because of the greedy players.

I'm tearing up over here. I might start a fund for them. Let's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

After being given information about the league that isn't even normally shared with the individual teams, the NFLPA is still putting up road blocks to the 2011 NFL season.

And Drew's plea to fans to think other wise shows he cares about his endorsements but not the league. The NFLPA only came to the table in earnest after the NFL filed with the NLRB.

As for the other face of the players, Manning has at least kept his mouth shut since. (Well, to my knowledge.)

I never liked the guy. Thinks way too highly of himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't side with either players nor owners. I doubt the owners are as broke as they are claiming, but on the other hand they are allowed to make money without having to share every penny with the players. If making a profit was an automatic pay raise for workers, workers for the oil companies would be making millions, wouldn't they? I side with players tho as far as being against a longer season. With so many preseason games, it's already too long iMO.

Jerry Jones probably pays more in profit sharing each year than Jerry Richardson pays for his roster. I kid of course... barely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please tell me that is sarcasm

I don't do this with most Saints fans, but I have WAY more respect for you as a poster and human being based on some of what you have told me.

These are the reasons for my statement above.

Breesus: He just ate it up

"I could stab someone and no one would care"

The whole player unity thing before a game in front of fans(Holding up the number one...that was his idea).

Dude is and always has had a very arrogant demeanor.

I could go on Dago, but no matter what you'll give a rebuttal. That's fine. He led NO to their first SB and does a lot in YOUR community. Most players do and there are some who are not famous nor even has any real ties who has contributed. That's what good people and most celebrities do. Dude thinks way too much of himself and loves to talk about what he does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...