@hoorta said:

Duh, Exactly. I'm done, this is all hypothetical posturing until the current CBA runs out. 99.9% of all NFL fans could currently give a rats azz what might happen down the road. The Earth could get hit by an asteroid before it happens. 

It's damn hard to be sympathetic to an athlete that flipped the bird to a one year franchise tag that's at least 5 times more than the average fan will ever make in a lifetime. 

Keep spouting, and I'm locking the thread. 

Unless your name is Unsympathetic.

@the-gipper said:

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

they have a friggin mack truck ol....just about any rb would do well behind it.....

@the-gipper said:

What you foolishly ignore is the fact that all of what you say is a matter of collective bargaining.  The players and owners must negotiate the terms of the various things you refer to:  percentage of revenue that goes to players...increases in salary cap...etc. 

And, as I said....the player's union can strike...or be locked out...all they want.  They still must negotiate....and they will still give up their first born for a slightly larger slice of the pie. 

And if you don't think that "replacement" players would be a possibility.....remember, the  Alliance of American Football is starting up this spring....as may be a new either USFL or XFL.     All propose to be feeder leagues to the NFL....which is exactly what could happen if the players think they can shut the game down.

Didn’t the players actually decertify  their union the last time? Regardless, they’re not exactly a tight knit bunch 

Remember though, Jimmuh sold Pilot/FJ  to Warren Buffett earlier... so he is replete with cash at this point.   Perhaps you heard that he bought the MLS Columbus Crew.

@unsympathetic said:

Using your logic of deliberately ignoring words.. it's not worth debating you since you actually think the owners have all the power and the players have none.

It doesn't matter how any owner postures -- it matters what specifically they offer and what the players are willing to accept.  Google a clue - players don't just accept the first or second thing that was proposed. 

And back to what I linked the first time.. players are going over 50% at the end of the current CBA, and they will shut it down until they get it.  The phrase used was "ready for war."  So, yes, they're telling players to save money.

Might want to read the current deal.. there's over 10 pages defining revenue and the calculations by which the salary cap is determined.  The reason the cap keeps going up is.. the media income is going up.  If the owners had all the power.. that cap wouldn't be increasing.

What you foolishly ignore is the fact that all of what you say is a matter of collective bargaining.  The players and owners must negotiate the terms of the various things you refer to:  percentage of revenue that goes to players...increases in salary cap...etc. 

And, as I said....the player's union can strike...or be locked out...all they want.  They still must negotiate....and they will still give up their first born for a slightly larger slice of the pie. 

And if you don't think that "replacement" players would be a possibility.....remember, the  Alliance of American Football is starting up this spring....as may be a new either USFL or XFL.     All propose to be feeder leagues to the NFL....which is exactly what could happen if the players think they can shut the game down.

@unsympathetic said:

Using your logic of deliberately ignoring words.. it's not worth debating you since you actually think the owners have all the power and the players have none.

It doesn't matter how any owner postures -- it matters what specifically they offer and what the players are willing to accept.  Google a clue - players don't just accept the first or second thing that was proposed. 

And back to what I linked the first time.. players are going over 50% at the end of the current CBA, and they will shut it down until they get it.  The phrase used was "ready for war."  So, yes, they're telling players to save money.

Might want to read the current deal.. there's over 10 pages defining revenue and the calculations by which the salary cap is determined.  The reason the cap keeps going up is.. the media income is going up.  If the owners had all the power.. that cap wouldn't be increasing.

Duh, Exactly. I'm done, this is all hypothetical posturing until the current CBA runs out. 99.9% of all NFL fans could currently give a rats azz what might happen down the road. The Earth could get hit by an asteroid before it happens. 

It's damn hard to be sympathetic to an athlete that flipped the bird to a one year franchise tag that's at least 5 times more than the average fan will ever make in a lifetime. 

Keep spouting, and I'm locking the thread. 

@hoorta said:

Not even worth debating you if you think the owners will ever split the revenue 70\30.   

Using your logic of deliberately ignoring words.. it's not worth debating you since you actually think the owners have all the power and the players have none.

It doesn't matter how any owner postures -- it matters what specifically they offer and what the players are willing to accept.  Google a clue - players don't just accept the first or second thing that was proposed. 

And back to what I linked the first time.. players are going over 50% at the end of the current CBA, and they will shut it down until they get it.  The phrase used was "ready for war."  So, yes, they're telling players to save money.

Might want to read the current deal.. there's over 10 pages defining revenue and the calculations by which the salary cap is determined.  The reason the cap keeps going up is.. the media income is going up.  If the owners had all the power.. that cap wouldn't be increasing.

@unsympathetic said:

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.

Maybe they’ll split ESPN money 7030 year but then they’ll turn around and keep 70% of the NBC and Fox and CBS money 

@unsympathetic said:

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.

You should check records. This stuff you’re making up is all wrong. Google a clue already

@unsympathetic said:

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.   

@hoorta said:

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.

@hoorta said:

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.

@unsympathetic said:

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? 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000988903/article/steelers-leveon-bell-wants-more-than-17m-per-year

@the-gipper said:

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

@unsympathetic said:

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. 

@unsympathetic said:

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.

@flyingfooldoug said:

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.

@mjp28 said:

And age should not matter either..... I'm sure Mick Jagger among others would agree.

3 words

Rae Dawn Chong

@dutch-oven said:

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.

@dutch-oven said:

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.