Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
lockout/decertfication
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 362421" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">I blame both sides for this impasse and think part of the problem is the leader on both sides is new to the process. Neither Goodell nor Smith were in their current positions during the last CBA extension so both have to “prove” themselves to their respective employers. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">I agree with SpartaChris and think the union is wrong to ask for 10 years of financial records and don’t know where they came up with that number since the most recent CBA extension is 5, not 10 years old. As far as owners releasing financial data I believe there is a distinction between NFL owners and private businesses. I think there is a valid argument that every NFL franchise that is the beneficiary of a ballot initiative to help fund a new stadium or renovate an existing one should open its books. That’s not specific to the CBA but if that had been done, it wouldn’t be much of an issue now. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">I also disagree with the idea that “many” individuals are capable of doing the job of NFL owners. The main qualification for a new NFL owner is the ability to write a check with 8 zeroes that doesn’t bounce. Although some inherit great wealth, for most to get to that point in life requires unique talents. And I disagree with the idea that just because one side requests something there must be a logical reason for it. Why not give both sides that benefit of the doubt? </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">IMO the players like the current deal and the owners think they gave away too much in the previous CBA extension. From that point of view saying the players don’t want <em>more</em> money rings hollow. I believe under the current deal the players get $4.98B and the owners get $4.32B of the $9.3B pie. The owners also have revenue that is not shared. How about extend it one or two years, 50/50? Somehow I think $4.65B for each side ought to be enough.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 362421, member: 4300"] [FONT=Verdana]I blame both sides for this impasse and think part of the problem is the leader on both sides is new to the process. Neither Goodell nor Smith were in their current positions during the last CBA extension so both have to “prove” themselves to their respective employers. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I agree with SpartaChris and think the union is wrong to ask for 10 years of financial records and don’t know where they came up with that number since the most recent CBA extension is 5, not 10 years old. As far as owners releasing financial data I believe there is a distinction between NFL owners and private businesses. I think there is a valid argument that every NFL franchise that is the beneficiary of a ballot initiative to help fund a new stadium or renovate an existing one should open its books. That’s not specific to the CBA but if that had been done, it wouldn’t be much of an issue now. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I also disagree with the idea that “many” individuals are capable of doing the job of NFL owners. The main qualification for a new NFL owner is the ability to write a check with 8 zeroes that doesn’t bounce. Although some inherit great wealth, for most to get to that point in life requires unique talents. And I disagree with the idea that just because one side requests something there must be a logical reason for it. Why not give both sides that benefit of the doubt? [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]IMO the players like the current deal and the owners think they gave away too much in the previous CBA extension. From that point of view saying the players don’t want [I]more[/I] money rings hollow. I believe under the current deal the players get $4.98B and the owners get $4.32B of the $9.3B pie. The owners also have revenue that is not shared. How about extend it one or two years, 50/50? Somehow I think $4.65B for each side ought to be enough.[/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
tynimiller
weeds
Latest posts
G
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: GleefulGary
Today at 3:30 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 3:00 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 2:51 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: rmontro
Today at 2:03 AM
Draft Talk
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
Today at 12:51 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
lockout/decertfication
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top