• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Schefter tweets - Stay granted, lockout is on, complete win for owners

Washington Taylor beat Panthers

servumtuum

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
0
Points
116
Location
Raleigh, NC

Indiana

Oh, and Serv, let me clarify. I don't think you shouldn't have posted that, just that that kind of nonsense is indicative of why the owners will ultimately win, unless there is a staggering reversal in the courts.

Nice find, and very enlightening. And depressing.
I know-I agree it's just one more "shooting yourelf in the foot" item in the negative column of the players ledger.
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


Sad. Unfortunately, to me it demonstrates that there are too many players who just don't know any better or just don't care. Foolish. They happily let a guy take total advantage of them. He's their "friend". No matter what financial experts say to them, they've already been sold.

DeMaurice Smith appears to have his own agenda and also appears to work the same way. He's continuing to "sell" to the players and fans, banking on the same type of personality and/or level of intellect.

“This is the first league in the history of sports that has ever sued to not play their game.”

“When we reach a time or a moment in history where a professional sports league is suing to not play football, we are in a bad spot.”

“What do you think as a fan when you learn that the league that you write a check to, the teams that you have done nothing but cheer for years, are now suing to not play the game that we all love?”

“You are the first league in history to go to court to sue that people should not be able to enjoy the game that you put on.”

Total dishonesty in public comments, aimed to steer the foolish.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
I have no idea how anyone can stand behind the owners in this dispute. The main reason we will probably miss football is because of revenue sharing. The owners made their bed, and now are pissed that they have to sleep in it.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,948
Reaction score
530
Points
1,143

Florida State

I have no idea how anyone can stand behind the owners in this dispute. The main reason we will probably miss football is because of revenue sharing. The owners made their bed, and now are pissed that they have to sleep in it.

I understand you POV, don't agree but understand. Can you tell me after reading through this entire situation you cannot see the agenda the DeMaurice Smith has?

We could go back and forth through the particulars all day and still disagree on the substance of the Lockout, but over the last 2 years can you not see that DeMaurice Smith is in this for himself more than the players?
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
I understand you POV, don't agree but understand. Can you tell me after reading through this entire situation you cannot see the agenda the DeMaurice Smith has?

We could go back and forth through the particulars all day and still disagree on the substance of the Lockout, but over the last 2 years can you not see that DeMaurice Smith is in this for himself more than the players?
Of course he has an agenda - to get the best possible deal for the players. That's his job.

FACT: The owners initiated this stoppage by opting out of the current agreement, that THEY ratified by a 30-2 landslide. THEY started all of this, the players did not hold a gun to their heads to sign that CBA.

Whether or not Smith has his own agenda is pretty irrelevant in my opinion, since the owners started this whole mess.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,948
Reaction score
530
Points
1,143

Florida State

Of course he has an agenda - to get the best possible deal for the players. That's his job.

FACT: The owners initiated this stoppage by opting out of the current agreement, that THEY ratified by a 30-2 landslide. THEY started all of this, the players did not hold a gun to their heads to sign that CBA.

Whether or not Smith has his own agenda is pretty irrelevant in my opinion, since the owners started this whole mess.
I told you I was not getting into the particulars of the argument between the players and owners. That is something we will have to agree to disagree. You say the owners are at fault, I say the players are! We are not going to change people's minds.

What I will discuss with you is the huge turd that De Smith is! If you cannot see his self interests here, then we will just have to agree to disagree on that point as well. When I first heard the story that Smith is using this as a platform to a political career, I was skeptical. The more I read or hear about this situation the more it makes sense.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
I'm not discussing particulars, I'm talking about the CBA in general. You have to take into account that the owners are directly responsible for the work-stoppage. That, my friend, is fact. They opted out of the current agreement and locked out the players. The players would be happy with the previous agreement as ratified, 30-2, by the owners.

In my opinion, and we may have to agree to disagree, whatever Smith is doing to further his own personal agenda is irrelevant in light of this fact.
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


I'm not discussing particulars, I'm talking about the CBA in general. You have to take into account that the owners are directly responsible for the work-stoppage. That, my friend, is fact. They opted out of the current agreement and locked out the players. The players would be happy with the previous agreement as ratified, 30-2, by the owners.

In my opinion, and we may have to agree to disagree, whatever Smith is doing to further his own personal agenda is irrelevant in light of this fact.
Not sure I understand that point of view. The owners opted out, using an option that both sides agreed to. You appear to be saying that since the owners used that option, which was a part of the previous agreement, the players representative, DeMaurice Smith, can do whatever he wants, regardless of the impact on the players and the league?
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
Not sure I understand that point of view. The owners opted out, using an option that both sides agreed to. You appear to be saying that since the owners used that option, which was a part of the previous agreement, the players representative, DeMaurice Smith, can do whatever he wants, regardless of the impact on the players and the league?
I am saying the only reason we are even in this mess because of the owners' action. This is indisputable fact; and DeMaurice Smith's actions are irrelevant to this fact. Is he using the stage created by the owners to further his own political agenda? Maybe, but who can blame him? He's got the spotlight right now, and that's what lawyers do.

EDIT: Let me repeat - the players are not at fault here. Did they agree to the opt-out clause in the CBA? Sure, but I'm pretty sure that's standard language in all Union contracts.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,948
Reaction score
530
Points
1,143

Florida State

I'm not discussing particulars, I'm talking about the CBA in general. You have to take into account that the owners are directly responsible for the work-stoppage. That, my friend, is fact. They opted out of the current agreement and locked out the players. The players would be happy with the previous agreement as ratified, 30-2, by the owners.

In my opinion, and we may have to agree to disagree, whatever Smith is doing to further his own personal agenda is irrelevant in light of this fact.
No I don't! It is not fact, it is your opinion! Try to play semantics on this all you want, but if the players agreed to the offer in place, this would all be over! What don't you get about that? The responsibility lies on both sides.

You are not going to change my point of view on that and I will not even attempt to change your mind.

What I attempted to do was see how you stood on the DeMaurice Smith being a piece of scum issue, but I think I see it now.

If I get this right you are saying that it is not relevant that the man the players put in charge to negotiate a new CBA, in other words hired to fight for the players, could be fighting for his own ambitions and not the best interest of the players?

Is is absolutely relevant!
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


If I get this right you are saying that it is not relevant that the man the players put in charge to negotiate a new CBA, in other words hired to fight for the players, could be fighting for his own ambitions and not the best interest of the players?

It is absolutely relevant!
Only to the NFL and the players and anyone interested in watching games though.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
No I don't! It is not fact, it is your opinion! Try to play semantics on this all you want, but if the players agreed to the offer in place, this would all be over! What don't you get about that? The responsibility lies on both sides.
It is most certainly fact. The players did not opt-out of the current CBA, the owners did. They are directly responsible for the work-stoppage. That is irrefutable FACT.

What I attempted to do was see how you stood on the DeMaurice Smith being a piece of scum issue, but I think I see it now.
He is a lawyer, so naturally he is a piece of scum (no offense :D). Its kind of their business.

If I get this right you are saying that it is not relevant that the man the players put in charge to negotiate a new CBA, in other words hired to fight for the players, could be fighting for his own ambitions and not the best interest of the players?

Is is absolutely relevant!
How is he not fighting for the best interest of the players? The owners (aka greedy bastards) want to take back a huge chunk of player salaries to distribute to failling franchises, because they're tired of supporting them themselves. Smith does not want this to happen. Sounds like he's acting in their best interest to me.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
Only to the NFL and the players and anyone interested in watching games though.
So, the players and Smith are supposed to just say "okay, the CBA that we both agreed to, that the owners ratified by a 30-2 vote, SUCKS. We'll gladly give up a huge chunk of our salaries to make you happy!"
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
El and SNF - are you guys saying that its in the players' best interest to cave to the owners demands and give up money? Is that what I'm hearing?
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
63
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

You can find fault on oth sides, and i can understand why both sides are doing what they are doing. Lanky, the owners agreed to the CB agreement, then experienced what it was like, decided they did not like it with that new information, and changed their minds. Happens all the time. Are we not allowed to change our minds now? El, most of us have around 40 years to enjoy our careers; the majority of NFL players have three. If their salary totals $3M over their career, and you take away half for taxes and agents, is that 1.5M supposed to last them 37 years? I can completely understand the players not wanting to give back any more money to the owners, why would they?

I side with the players on this, but narrowly. I do not lke the way Smith is handling things at all. I understand part of negotiation is to come up with an offer that is a lot further away from what youre willing to accept at first, but the stuff his is pushing for would damage the league. Most fans just want football to be played, but we need to pay attention to this stuff, because there will be more problems down the road if some of this stuff isn't resolved.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


El, most of us have around 40 years to enjoy our careers; the majority of NFL players have three. If their salary totals $3M over their career, and you take away half for taxes and agents, is that 1.5M supposed to last them 37 years?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Sorry for butting in here again. Just shoo me away if necessary. That whole career argument just doesn't hold water, at least in my opinion. If the players are forced to never earn money again once their NFL career is over, than I would agree, but that's just not the case. Late twenties, free college education, free to choose to enjoy a second career with ~ $1.5 million in the bank, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I'm not for either side. I'm for both sides getting back to the table and banging out a new agreement. My strongest feelings on the issue are that DeMaurice Smith is not working for an agreement, or for the players' benefit, he's focused on himself.
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


El and SNF - are you guys saying that its in the players' best interest to cave to the owners demands and give up money? Is that what I'm hearing?
Nope. I'm saying that they need to negotiate a new agreement. The old one is gone. DeMaurice Smith does not appear to be interested in negotiations. He appears to be interested in the future of DeMaurice Smith, not the players or the NFL.
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
63
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

Not butting in at all, even though you're wrong. :)

If that's the case the NFL needs to mandate a four year degree for all player before entering the league. You and I both know most players don't get a degree and don't have anything to do for a career once they leave the NFL.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

SNF

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Reston, VA; Sect 141


Not butting in at all, even though you're wrong. :)

If that's the case the NFL needs to mandate a four year degree for all player before entering the league. You and I both know most players don't get a degree and don't have anything to do for a career once they leave the NFL.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
:)

I'd say we also both know that there is a huge workforce out there without a college degree and without a $1.5 million head start, or any preparation for a specific career. Not taking advantage of the gift of a free degree doesn't tip my opinion of these "poor" guys. They're not prohibited from getting a job once their NFL career is over, degree or not.

Again, I'm more of your standard "I don't have sympathy for either side's arguments" type. I'm for getting a deal done and getting on with football. The only way for that to happen is for them to get back to the table and negotiate.

Putting the blame solely one side in this seems to be popular, since we don't have much else of substance to discuss, but it's short sighted in my opinion. And to try to paint the players as deserving sympathy from the general public for their "situation" after their NFL career is over seems silly to me also.
 
Last edited:

Lanky Livingston

Guest
You can find fault on oth sides, and i can understand why both sides are doing what they are doing. Lanky, the owners agreed to the CB agreement, then experienced what it was like, decided they did not like it with that new information, and changed their minds. Happens all the time. Are we not allowed to change our minds now?
Of course they are - my only point is that it was the owners who changed their minds, and therefore the stoppage is on them.

El, most of us have around 40 years to enjoy our careers; the majority of NFL players have three. If their salary totals $3M over their career, and you take away half for taxes and agents, is that 1.5M supposed to last them 37 years? I can completely understand the players not wanting to give back any more money to the owners, why would they?
More than half - I think they only get to keep around 45% of their money.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friend 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you Sandy ❤
    Top