I don't understand this "lockout" talk

[SpartaChris]

Well, if it weren't for capitalism and greed, there probably wouldn't be an NFL. In fact, most companies that provide millions of jobs wouldn't even exist if it were for capitalism, so I wouldn't be so quick to point a finger.

As for ticket prices, sales and marketing 101 tells you prices are about right. If they were too high, you'd have almost every stadium facing blackouts situations, rather than just the same teams who get blacked out every year.

 

[Forget Favre]

Well, if it weren't for capitalism and greed, there probably wouldn't be an NFL. In fact, most companies that provide millions of jobs wouldn't even exist if it were for capitalism, so I wouldn't be so quick to point a finger.

No NFL?
Well, that is what we are used to, and most of us grew up with, isn't it?
But if we hadn't had the NFL then we would have loved whatever other sports there would be.

I don't really know too much about other "isms" (Comm, Soc.) and there are pros and cons with those as well.
No system is perfect and for now we are stuck with capitalism, but I think it could be better for all.
Hopefully someday soon it will be.

As for ticket prices, sales and marketing 101 tells you prices are about right. If they were too high, you'd have almost every stadium facing blackouts situations, rather than just the same teams who get blacked out every year.

I dunno jack what prices are (Are good seats triple digits?) or economics.
So I'll take your word for it on this one.

 

[SpartaChris]

Unfortunately there is no one style of economic system that is fair to everyone. Capitalism is arguably the most fair of all, since more people benefit from it than not. Capitalism is the only economic system where people can truly benefit from the fruits of their labor. Yes, rich people get richer under capitalism, and yes it can foster greed. But it also provides living wages, free markets, and allows anyone with an idea, passion, desire and a willingness to make sacrifices and work hard to become successful.

Socialism creates a disincentive for success and achievement. What happens with socialism is the rich people at the top are forced to forfeit the majority of their income so the people at the bottom can have a better living. This seems all fine and dandy, but ultimately those who worked hard to get rich realize they're getting the shaft so they give up and stop working so hard. Less money taken in means less money to go around, and eventually the government runs out of other people's money. Look at Greece for an example of people living off the government run amok.

Then there's communism, which doesn't really favor anybody but a few select people. There's no competition for products and services, which means there's no quality of life. There's no freedom. Your news is censored, you buy what they tell you to buy, watch what they tell you to watch, and basically just do what your told.

RE: ticket prices, It's simple supply and demand. If a product is too cheap and everyone can afford it, demand is increased which means there's not enough of that product to go around. If it's too expensive, it won't sell.

In the case of NFL tickets, if demand is too high, there will be a waiting list for every game, which means fewer fans will actually be able to go to the games. You'll get that one guy who would ordinarily just buy one or two tickets for one or two games to buy 4 or 5 tickets for 4 or 5 games. Likewise, if they're too expensive, no one will be able to go. There's a fine balance between fair pricing, and over or under pricing. Right now I believe tickets are priced fairly. If they were too high, you'd have more supply available and as a result, more blackouts.

 

[GreenGoldAngel]

Let me ask one question of those of you who say the owners are greedy.

Who owns the Packers?

Case closed.

 

[SpartaChris]

Let me ask one question of those of you who say the owners are greedy.

Who owns the Packers?

Case closed.

That's the one exception to the rule, which makes it hard to prove whatever point you were trying to make. None of the other 31 teams in the NFL are publicly owned.

 

[PFanCan]

Thank you very much aaron qb for explaining some details on what the lockout means and providing links that explain it.

I don't blame players or owners in all of this.
I blame capitalism and greed.

Think about it.
Everyone could get along just fine without as much money.
Treat each players salary as others in the working world.
Have a set starting amount for each and every player (300-450k) that increases with time and has bonuses based on performance and how far the team goes that year. (Are the Yikes! really getting their $ worth this year with Burnt Fail? They did more so last year.)
Players and owners would have to learn to live within their means.
There could still be some lavish spending (One new Lexus instead of 10. A very nice house instead of a mansion. Etc etc.)
Sell tix at $10-$30 per game.
Reduce merchandise prices.
Etc.
That would be nice but it ain't gonna happen because of capitalism and greed.

Rather than ranting on your opinions, I offer two quotes that I believe in and enjoy:

1. Socialism works right up until you run out of the other person's money.

2. Capitalism is the worst economic system possible, but it's better than all the others.

 

[PackersRS]

It this really gonna turn into socialism x capitalims?

 

[SpartaChris]

It this really gonna turn into socialism x capitalims?

Hope not, or at least that wasn't in intent. I was more trying to inform, though I know I didn't do a great job of hiding my particular bias.

 

[GreenGoldAngel]

Rather than ranting on your opinions, I offer two quotes that I believe in and enjoy:

1. Socialism works right up until you run out of the other person's money.

2. Capitalism is the worst economic system possible, but it's better than all the others.

Nice quote from Margaret Thatcher. Thumbs up on your post.

 

[PFanCan]

I don't support either side more than the other (NFLPA or owners). It's a business-- their business. If they choose to shut down rather than find a solution, that is their decision.

We, the customers can then choose to spend our money elsewhere, or wait, or both. Some argue that MLB never recovered from the strike in the '80s and gave the opportunity to the NBA to prosper in it's place. No doubt the NFL organizations know this history lesson, and it certainly weighs on their decisions.

Several folks commented that this is all about greed. Yes, it is. I believe greed is a good thing. Without greed, civilization does not happen. Ask yourself, if you thought you could get a pay raise at work, would you not try for it? Of course you would. That is all that is happening with the NFL right now.

Lastly, several folks questioned why "millionaires" or "billionaires" need more money? My answer is that just because those people are wealthier than most others, doesn't mean that they don't want more money. Consider the following: Did you answer "yes" to my question above (the one about wanting a raise)? If so, consider that most of the world consider the average salary in the USA as being "rich". Why would anyone making so much money want more, they would ask? It's all relative.

So, speaking of greed: I want LOTS OF TOUCHDOWNS scored by the Packers today against the Cowboys. LOTS and LOTS!

Go Pack!

 

[JBlood]

Thank you very much aaron qb for explaining some details on what the lockout means and providing links that explain it.

I don't blame players or owners in all of this.
I blame capitalism and greed.

Think about it.
Everyone could get along just fine without as much money.
Treat each players salary as others in the working world.
Have a set starting amount for each and every player (300-450k) that increases with time and has bonuses based on performance and how far the team goes that year. (Are the Yikes! really getting their $ worth this year with Burnt Fail? They did more so last year.)
Players and owners would have to learn to live within their means.
There could still be some lavish spending (One new Lexus instead of 10. A very nice house instead of a mansion. Etc etc.)
Sell tix at $10-$30 per game.
Reduce merchandise prices.
Etc.
That would be nice but it ain't gonna happen because of capitalism and greed.[/QUOTE]

Greed is "a sin against God" Thos. Aquinas
"For the love of money is the root of all evil" Timothy 6:10

Millionaires against Billionaires--enough said.

 

[SpartaChris]

I don't support either side more than the other (NFLPA or owners). It's a business-- their business. If they choose to shut down rather than find a solution, that is their decision.

We, the customers can then choose to spend our money elsewhere, or wait, or both. Some argue that MLB never recovered from the strike in the '80s and gave the opportunity to the NBA to prosper in it's place. No doubt the NFL organizations know this history lesson, and it certainly weighs on their decisions.

Several folks commented that this is all about greed. Yes, it is. I believe greed is a good thing. Without greed, civilization does not happen. Ask yourself, if you thought you could get a pay raise at work, would you not try for it? Of course you would. That is all that is happening with the NFL right now.

Lastly, several folks questioned why "millionaires" or "billionaires" need more money? My answer is that just because those people are wealthier than most others, doesn't mean that they don't want more money. Consider the following: Did you answer "yes" to my question above (the one about wanting a raise)? If so, consider that most of the world consider the average salary in the USA as being "rich". Why would anyone making so much money want more, they would ask? It's all relative.

So, speaking of greed: I want LOTS OF TOUCHDOWNS scored by the Packers today against the Cowboys. LOTS and LOTS!

Go Pack!

Finally, someone who gets it! Very well said.

EVERYONE who seeks a raise at their job without taking on more responsibility and additional duties is being just as greedy as the football players and franchise owners who are also seeking more money without taking on more responsibility, risk or additional duties.

 

[Incubes12]

Finally, someone who gets it! Very well said.

EVERYONE who seeks a raise at their job without taking on more responsibility and additional duties is being just as greedy as the football players and franchise owners who are also seeking more money without taking on more responsibility, risk or additional duties.

I still don't see how this applies to the owners. That's like saying that if a business does really well, the owner(s) of said business don't deserve the increase in earnings, simply because they may already have a lot of money.

They've invested in the team, if it prospers, then it's their profit to reap. They don't "owe" it to the players or anyone else. If they choose to spend it on players, or stadiums, or fans, then so be it, that's their choice.

 

[SpartaChris]

I still don't see how this applies to the owners. That's like saying that if a business does really well, the owner(s) of said business don't deserve the increase in earnings, simply because they may already have a lot of money.

They've invested in the team, if it prospers, then it's their profit to reap. They don't "owe" it to the players or anyone else. If they choose to spend it on players, or stadiums, or fans, then so be it, that's their choice.

Oh no, please don't misunderstand my position. You and I are in 100% agreement here. I firmly believe most people deserve what they get, whether that be failure or success. As you said, NFL franchises are a business. There is no reason to think NFL owners shouldn't expect some kind of return and profit for their investment, and it's unreasonable to expect them not to do everything they can to increase those profits.

The point of my post was to identify and point out the utter hypocrisy of the people who insist that the only people who are greedy are rich people, whether they are football players, franchise owners, CEO's or other business owners, especially when your average American is just as greedy.

 

[Incubes12]

Oh no, please don't misunderstand my position. You and I are in 100% agreement here. I firmly believe most people deserve what they get, whether that be failure or success. As you said, NFL franchises are a business. There is no reason to think NFL owners shouldn't expect some kind of return and profit for their investment, and it's unreasonable to expect them not to do everything they can to increase those profits.

The point of my post was to identify and point out the utter hypocrisy of the people who insist that the only people who are greedy are rich people, whether they are football players, franchise owners, CEO's or other business owners, especially when your average American is just as greedy.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

I have to agree with that. That's what gets me irked about this whole lockout situation. I just think the NFL players are being your "average greedy Americans" but on a much greater scale. I think it's absurd to believe that the players aren't adequately compensated for what they do.

 

[JBlood]

PFfanCan: "I believe greed is a good thing."

Then obviously you see no problem with a few financiers gambling--and losing--10 times the GNP of the world. You, along with all tax payers will be repaying their debt for the rest of our lives. Yeah, greed is good.

 

[SpartaChris]

PFfanCan: "I believe greed is a good thing."

Then obviously you see no problem with a few financiers gambling--and losing--10 times the GNP of the world. You, along with all tax payers will be repaying their debt for the rest of our lives. Yeah, greed is good.

I don't want to steer this too political, but don't you believe much of the blame resides on the homeowner who bought a $500,000 house while making $50k a year, knowing full well they couldn't really afford it but were hoping for a quick pop in property values so they could profit? Or is it only people on wall street who can be greedy?

As far as the lockout goes, both sides are trying to increase their portion of the pie. The difference is the players are demanding more money while not providing more in terms of productivity or services while the owners want to keep a little more of their money so they can use it to create additional income though things like stadium expansions, partnerships, etc. BTW, portions of the additional income the owners would create would wind up going back to the players in the form of higher salaries, longer term health and retirement benefits, etc.

 

[ivo610]

As much flak that al Davis gets, I have heard he sets up a retirement fund for ALL players he has or had

Al Davis wont get the respect he deserves until after he passes, which is sad. Ftball genius for the majority of his life.

 

[JBlood]

I don't want to steer this too political, but don't you believe much of the blame resides on the homeowner who bought a $500,000 house while making $50k a year, knowing full well they couldn't really afford it but were hoping for a quick pop in property values so they could profit? Or is it only people on wall street who can be greedy?

As far as the lockout goes, both sides are trying to increase their portion of the pie. The difference is the players are demanding more money while not providing more in terms of productivity or services while the owners want to keep a little more of their money so they can use it to create additional income though things like stadium expansions, partnerships, etc. BTW, portions of the additional income the owners would create would wind up going back to the players in the form of higher salaries, longer term health and retirement benefits, etc.

Yeah, they're part of the problem. But 4 banks in the U.S. control 90% of the derivatives market, where the really serious money was lost. It is estimated that the value of derivatives trades is ~600 TRILLION dollars. The GNP of the world before the collapse was ~60 Trillion.

The value of subprime mortgages was probably in the range of 2 Trillion dollars.

So I blame the financiers who gambled 10 times the world's money, and lost.

Go Packers.

 

[PFanCan]

PFfanCan: "I believe greed is a good thing."

Then obviously you see no problem with a few financiers gambling--and losing--10 times the GNP of the world. You, along with all tax payers will be repaying their debt for the rest of our lives. Yeah, greed is good.

You have made an incorrect assumption, JBlood. If you wish to discuss further, PM me.

Go Pack!

 

[TheGiftedApe]

at first I thought, no way there will be a lockout, until I heard this from Troy Polamalu"

"He's got all the power, and that may be part of the problem. There needs to be some type of separation of power, like our government," Polamalu said. "I don't think it should be based totally on what two or three people may say that are totally away from the game. It should be some of the players that are currently playing."

This makes me think, Lockout is coming, even if it isnt for a full season.

 

[NFLLockout]

Speaking to the issue of greed, I think there is a little confusion about what these labor negotiations are all about. This is a lockout and not a strike, which means it's not the players holding out for more $$. What the players do want (and rightfully deserve) is better healthcare and other similar benefits. Right now, the players are not receiving sufficient healthcare during and following their careers. Did you know the average NFL career is only 3.6 years and it takes 3 accredited years to get just 5 years of post career healthcare? On top of that, the NFL has also noted they will not continue offering healthcare for current players during the 2011 season should there be a lockout next year. Please take a minute or two to read the portion of NFLLockout.com where we outline what the lockout is really about (nfllockout.com/what-is-this-lockout-about/)...It will clear up several misconceptions about the negotiations.

 

[SpartaChris]

Speaking to the issue of greed, I think there is a little confusion about what these labor negotiations are all about. This is a lockout and not a strike, which means it's not the players holding out for more $$.

********. The owners are asking the players to take a pay cut since the players aren't responsible for the increased costs that come with new stadiums or expansions. They also aren't responsible for generating new revenue through partnerships or other business investments. These are all things that costs money, none of which the players have to pay. By refusing to take a pay cut to help the owners grow the pie, the players are essentially holding out for more money.

What the players do want (and rightfully deserve) is better healthcare and other similar benefits. Right now, the players are not receiving sufficient healthcare during and following their careers.

So their health care costs aren't covered during their playing career?

Whether the players deserve it for the rest of their lives or not is debatable. My thought is if the teams want to provide it, great. It shouldn't be required though.

Did you know the average NFL career is only 3.6 years and it takes 3 accredited years to get just 5 years of post career healthcare? On top of that, the NFL has also noted they will not continue offering healthcare for current players during the 2011 season should there be a lockout next year.

Did you know that every single player in the NFL chooses to play football rather than do something else? And spare me the "But careers are short" nonsense. Every single player knows what they're signing up for. Every. Single. Player. If they want a longer career, find something else to do.

As for no health care being offered in 2011, so what? They're not at work, so why should the league be forced to provide it? How about the players save their money and pay for insurance for when they're out of work? Sorry, but when players like Dez Bryant can drop $52,000 on dinner, it's hard to gain my sympathies.

Please take a minute or two to read the portion of NFLLockout.com where we outline what the lockout is really about (nfllockout.com/what-is-this-lockout-about/)...It will clear up several misconceptions about the negotiations.

You mean what this lockout is all about from one perspective, right? Because your information isn't impartial by any means. It doesn't address any of the owners concerns, nor does it address the fan concerns. So lets call it what it is: An NFLPA authored propaganda piece.

 

[aaronqb]

Speaking to the issue of greed, I think there is a little confusion about what these labor negotiations are all about. This is a lockout and not a strike, which means it's not the players holding out for more $$. What the players do want (and rightfully deserve) is better healthcare and other similar benefits. Right now, the players are not receiving sufficient healthcare during and following their careers. Did you know the average NFL career is only 3.6 years and it takes 3 accredited years to get just 5 years of post career healthcare? On top of that, the NFL has also noted they will not continue offering healthcare for current players during the 2011 season should there be a lockout next year. Please take a minute or two to read the portion of NFLLockout.com where we outline what the lockout is really about (nfllockout.com/what-is-this-lockout-about/)...It will clear up several misconceptions about the negotiations.

greed is good

 

[Packerfury]

Players are getting screwed so bad. People just don't realize. People apparently don't care about the health and well-being of players. I support the players, not the owners. People sit here and blame players for being greedy when they aren't. If I broke my hand doing my job, I would fully expect my employer to pay for it. Yet the nfl won't do so. Just because you want football next year (everyone does including me), don't overlook the players... I'm kind of appalled how many people on here seem to be doing so.