Bell done in Pittsburgh
-
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Oh yes what a volitile mix also could be "egotistical billionaire owners battling spoiled millionaire players over game".
Fighting over millions of dollars, how childish.
-
I think the owners next time around should say
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
Should the players threaten a strike, take a look at Spotrac or over the cap. Sure, plenty of players (LOL Le'veon Bell) are already set for life financially, and could afford to sit out a year. But plenty of them are not. And I doubt more than a few of the top earning players are going to be willing to piss away $10 million or so like Bell just to prove a point.
-
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
Well, no one has said Bell didn't have the right to do what he did. But by far the majority opinion is he's a complete jerk for doing so.
-
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
. Owners have the cash
but but but art modell
-
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
You mean that the players don’t hold a gun to the owners head for more money?
-
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
Except for GB and unusual relatives they're all billionaires or multibillionaires.
What they earn from owning the NFL team is nice pocket change......in the tens of millions HOWEVER the ROI is actually staggering for some of them on buying/net worth on the teams. Some paid mere millions and the teams are worth $1 to maybe $4 billion each.
....... I'm sure we can all relate to that.
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.
-
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.
I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.
Had such a rager for her back then.
-
I mean....that was a real Alicia Silverstone moment...Crazy to Clueless.
Had such a rager for her back then.
Had such a rager for her back then.
Who didn't? Her and Liv Tyler did that Aerosmith video together.
-
-
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
-
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
The thing is....it is only strange for one person.....for the rest of us, it is a delight. So, maybe he had us all in mind.
-
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
And age should not matter either..... I'm sure Mick Jagger among others would agree.
-
There's absolutely nothing strange about having your daughter play a sexpot in your own music video. Not at all. ?
And age should not matter either..... I'm sure Mick Jagger among others would agree.
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose. Because it's not their cash.
If the players went on strike, how quickly do you think those TV contracts would be cancelled because the owners weren't delivering the product they had asserted [to ESPN, to CBS, etc] they could? ESPN doesn't care one iota about Jerry Jones. They care how Ezekiel Elliot and Sean Lee perform on Sundays. ESPN isn't Desperate Dallas Octogenarians.. they care about sports.
NFL owners have nothing other than their own egos unless the players are out there playing. Of course "owners" stick a straw in the hose of cash coming from ESPN, but the ultimate destination of that cash isn't Jerry Jones - it's the players.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown
Refuse to ChHello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login