The Lockout Debate: Which Side Are You On?

Obviously this is a very emotional subject, not only for the owners and players, but also for the fans. I'm hesitant to open up this discussion right in the middle of the season when we are all enjoying the sport that we love, especially considering we may not have the NFL next season. But, it is a part of all of our lives and some may want to express their opinions.

In simplistic terms, the owners want the players to take a pay cut, including drastic cuts in rookie contracts.

The players want to keep veteran salaries the same, but are willing to restrict rookie compensation (but not as much as the owners want). The players are also pushing for more health and retirement benefits from the owners.

It's difficult for the typical NFL fan to know for sure if some of the owners are indeed losing money, as they claim, since their books are not open. Personally, I feel pretty confident that there are some teams that are barely breaking even or possibly losing money (for example, I don't see how the Jaguars are making any money). However, I think that some of the owners are making money hand over fist.

And these salary issues are not immune to just the NFL right now. The NBA is suggesting that they need the players to take a 38% pay cut just to "get profitable" according to David Stern. Otherwise, they may have a lockout next summer also.

So, where do you stand on this subject?

 

This is a battle between millionaires (the players) and billionaires (the owners). Is either side thinking of the average NFL fan? I bet not.

I haven't picked a side yet. I just want both parties to sign on the dotted line.

In your issues in this struggle listed above, don't forget that the owners want the players to play an 18-game season, while the players will want to be paid for the two extra games.

 

I agree on the undecided. It's stupid to not get this worked out considering how well the NFL is doing for all parties. Watching all the injuries piling up, I'm definitely not favoring 2 more games adding to that.

 

personally, i don't think the owners actually want the 18-game schedule. They threw it into the debate almost as an afterthought. I think it's just a negotiating ploy. The players don't want it and the owners needed something to negotiate with since they won't open their books.

 

Undecided, it's not my money just make sure there's football in 2011 by any means neccessary.

 

I'm on the motherfreaking side that doesn't lock out my motherfreaking football next year... and heck your 18 game schedule (to anyone who wants it).

I'll always lean towards the players side (just give me a rookie cap).

*goes to get coffee*

Good morning. :icon_smile:

 

i am on the fan's side. heck both the owners and the players.

 

IMO, there will be an 18-game schedule eventually. Goodell wants it, the owners want it, and the players union isn't strong enough to fight it.

 

eh, i think the owners and the league are just throwing it in there so they don't have to open their books to the players. the owners and league make tremendous money off of the pre-season games. they don't need to turn 2 of those into 2 regular games. there's not a huge financial benefit to the owners but it is something that the players REALLY don't want so if it doesn't happen, the owners haven't really lost anything but they may be able to get the players to sacrifice some salary, so it's a win-win for the owners.

 

both sides are making money. Both sides are greedy. And if they have a work stoppage it will have a serious blow to the game. I remember the two work stoppages in the 80's. Fans are too flighty now. If the game goes away now, some fans may not come back.

 

Plus, there is a lot more technological advances now than there were back then. People will just call their local DirecTV company and get the NFL Sunday Ticket and just stay home.

 

what I meant to say is that if fans stay away then the money available to the teams will be less as in tv revenue. Baseball was hurt by the workstoppage. If the NFL thinks it is too strong to be hurt like that then it could get real ugly fast.

 

The NFL needs to look at what happened to MLB when they had a strike. Some fans got so pissed at MLB, they never came back.

 

It's just like politics. None of the greedy heckers give a crap about us, so heck both sides.

 

congrats on the beat down your team gave us last week.

 

good point. one of the main reasons people left MLB is because they were so pissed at the owners and players and wouldn't support them any longer. i think there would be a similar backlash for the NFL.

 

I have what is probably a stupid question.

When you talk about TV revenue, does that count everything, including DirecTV? Or, is it just the free major networks and cable?

 

i believe they would include all of the different contracts when they talk about their total tv revenue package because each one is unique but gets split among the 32 teams.

 

IMO, NFL fans are not as committed as MLB fans are. Should a strike happen, and the season is disrupted, the average NFL fan may stay out of the stadiums for a week or two, but not a whole season.

 

MLB was the national past time and KILLED the NFL. I honestly think if there is a lock out, it will REALLY affect the NFL. I can see fans staying out of a stadium an entire season. But it kind of goes to, how far does the lock out last and what is the impression it leaves?

As far as where I stand, heck the NFL and heck the NFLPA. They're all greedy mother heckers who don't deserve what they have. As I pointed out before, where would Chris Johnson be if he wasn't a great RB? Where would Brett Favre's hick butt be if he wasn't a whiny, ball showin' QB? The owners are making monopoly money at this point just piling it up and the players want more than they deserve. How to stop it? Beats me. Give me some!