Bell done in Pittsburgh
-
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 -
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.
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.
How did you get this dumb . The money goes to the owners and the owners and pay it to the players per contract after they keep half of it. End it comes from ESPN ABC NBC CBS Fox etc. etc.
-
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.
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.
I’m not arguing with you. Wouldn’t make cents.
-
It by no means weakens the Steelers. Aside from Connor being better, the Steelers have 14.6 mil in cap space for next year.
That along with Shaziers contract being gone, it can only strengthen the Steelers...they need a top notch DB.
Heard that Jalen Ramsey wans out of Jax !
Well I think it is debatable whether or not Connor is better but he certainly is not much worse. And as I have said it may be more about the system than the players talent it’s self that is the key there
Well I think it is debatable whether or not Connor is better but he certainly is not much worse. And as I have said it may be more about the system than the players talent it’s self that is the key there
^^^
This
-
Lotsa luck Le'veon..... for sure, the Browns aren't paying it... Not with Chubb's total contract worth $7 million....
-
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.
1) And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose. 2) Because it's not their cash.
3) 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.
4) 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.
1) Should the players go on strike, they don't get paid got it?
2) Yes it is, the network cash goes to the NFL- who then distribute it to the owners, who then distribute it to the players- but they get to keep their 1\2 of the pie. Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.
3) I would bet the NFL already has a contingency plan in place with the networks should the players go on strike.
4) Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests and are all wealthy enough, the money they get from the NFL is a nice side amusement. Let's start with the recently deceased Paul Allen (Seahawks) one of the founders of Microsoft with Bill Gates- net worth around $20 billion. You seriously think Jimmy Haslam (net worth $3 billion) would sweat it with a players strike having cash coming in from Pilot\Flying J?
-
1) And what do you think would happen if owners tried paying players $0 for some game? Every owner would get sued - and lose. 2) Because it's not their cash.
3) 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.
4) 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.
1) Should the players go on strike, they don't get paid got it?
2) Yes it is, the network cash goes to the NFL- who then distribute it to the owners, who then distribute it to the players- but they get to keep their 1\2 of the pie. Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.
3) I would bet the NFL already has a contingency plan in place with the networks should the players go on strike.
4) Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests and are all wealthy enough, the money they get from the NFL is a nice side amusement. Let's start with the recently deceased Paul Allen (Seahawks) one of the founders of Microsoft with Bill Gates- net worth around $20 billion. You seriously think Jimmy Haslam (net worth $3 billion) would sweat it with a players strike having cash coming in from Pilot\Flying J?
Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.
Didn't say that at all. You're debating your own imagination - and losing.
Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests.
So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money. And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
Keep dreaming all the TV money goes directly to the players.
Didn't say that at all. You're debating your own imagination - and losing.
Nfl owners have enough cash from their other business interests.
So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money. And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.
Didn't say that at all. You're debating your own imagination - and losing.
So what? This has ZERO bearing on negotiations regarding new money. And if they won't sweat it, then they'll quickly give the players 70% of ESPN's money.
That's pretty much what you said.
Not even worth debating you if you think the owners will ever split the revenue 70\30.
Refuse to Ch
Hello! 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