Skip to content

Foxworth says players are being “kind of dragged through the mud”

Foxworth and Mawai depart with Smith after a day of negotiations with football team owners as they seek an agreement in Washington Reuters

Earlier today, in an appearance on ProFootballTalk Live, Seahawks guard and NFLPA* player rep Chester Pitts pointed out that he’s a football player, not a lawyer, which makes it hard for him to comment in detail on the pending legal actions between the players and the league.

That said, Pitts does a pretty good job of breaking it all down.

Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a member of the NFLPA* Executive Committee and likely the group’s next president, made similar — yet more colorful — remarks on Monday night, per Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News.

“I’m not a business man.  I’m a football player,” Foxworth said after participating in a panel discussion at Rutgers-Camden Law School.  “I want to play football.  All these media wranglings . . . it’s not what we do.  It’s not something we’re comfortable with.  We want something that’s fair to continue to play.  That’s what stresses me out the most.

“We get kind of dragged through the mud in this whole thing.  It [seems] like we’re doing this media wrangling and tricking.  I’m not.  The Executive Committee is not.  We’re trying to get a deal done.  We want to play football.  The [owners] don’t play football.   They’re businessman.  They’re lawyers.  They’re strategists.  That’s who they are.  And that’s what they’re doing.

“We’ve made the mistake, I think, of getting sucked into it at times,” Foxworth added.  “No one cares.  No one wants to hear this.  No one wants to read about, ‘We said this.  They said that.’  We recognize that.   It’s embarrassing to be a part of that. . . .  But it pisses me off.  We just want to play.  The audited financials got built up as this kind of dead end that we set up.  But we also said we can continue with the way the deal was and you don’t have to show us anything.  Let’s keep it going.  So we’ve tried every avenue short of selling out every former and future player in the National Football League.”

That’s a bit of an overstatement.  The players have tried two avenues — demanding 10 years of audited financial statements or sticking with a status quo that the owners clearly don’t intend to follow.  There’s a broad middle ground between those two positions that, for whatever reason, the players refuse to explore.

Actually, Foxworth’s comments on the financial transparency issue confirm his concerns regarding the players’ inability to secure victory in the court of public opinion.  In too many instances, the players are parroting talking points that overly simplify the issues.  Though men like Pitts are capable of delving into the details and the nuances, hyperbolic comments describing the league’s offer as “the worst deal in the history of sports” will do nothing to win over the fans.

The league, on the other hand, has a pre-existing P.R. apparatus, honed by years of having to clean up messes caused by players who find trouble, or vice versa.  The players as a group rarely have to worry about P.R. issues, and NFLPA* spokesman George Atallah simply has too many balls to juggle, given that he has more than 1,800 players who may decide at any given moment to say or do something that undermines the cause.

Indeed, Foxworth’s commentary about the imbalance in the P.R. operations undermines the cause by giving the NFL even more reason to believe that, eventually, the players will decide that the time has come to do the best possible deal and get back to their comfort zone — playing football.

We’ve got a feeling that, if the NFL wins the hearing on the motion to lift the lockout, that time could come sooner rather than later.

Permalink 93 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Baltimore Ravens, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
93 Responses to “Foxworth says players are being “kind of dragged through the mud””
  1. hawks12 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:22 PM

    the fans are the ones being dragged through the mud.. he is full of crap

  2. ravenator says: Mar 29, 2011 7:24 PM

    Well in this case, maybe you all should’ve accepted the “worst deal in history.”

    Seemed pretty fair to me though…

    Greed will destroy us all.

  3. domeunit says: Mar 29, 2011 7:25 PM

    I really wish Foxworthless would just shut up. I’m a Ravens fan and I can’t stand this guy, all he does is run his mouth off the field and give up huge plays on it

  4. gforce90 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:25 PM

    Note to players, nobody cares what you think. If you don’t like the deal the owners are offering go get another job. Nobody is making you play football. The job market is great these days, check it out!

  5. jabroni1 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:31 PM

    Agreed, The players have a huge disadvantage when it comes to PR. But its by there own making each player is represented by an agent that tries to create a larger than life profile of them. Unfortunately through perhaps collusion or other legal wranglings the agents have been persona non grata in this whole debacle. the @sterisk NFLPA would be well served to take some advice from all the brilliant agents that keep the 330 pound hinies (butts) out fo the negative media when they show up to the mall with pants on the ground. a loaded weapon. DUI, Smackdown on the ex. Purple drank. This is a very talented pool that I dont see being tapped (to easy) especially when they are in the stall all together

  6. ruckinfidiculous says: Mar 29, 2011 7:32 PM

    “NFLPA* spokesman George Atallah simply has too many balls to juggle, given that he has more than 1,800 players”

    Not exactly the wording I would’ve picked for that sentence.

    Seriously, if the players really want to just play football, why don’t they keep their mouths shut and stop making themselves look like idiots with comments like those likening their situation to slavery.

  7. toad8572 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:32 PM

    With players like Dez & Aquib dragging down the collective IQ of the NFLPA, there’s virtually no chance that the owners won’t get exactly what they want, whether it’s “fair” or not. The level of stupidity within the players’ group is certainly unmatched in the owner’s group. The players, as a group, are competing in a financial battle, on an unfamiliar field, against a group of financial assasins. It might not be “fair” but they’ll make far more than their worth in the real world.

  8. nflfan101 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:33 PM

    You finally hit the nail on the head when you wrote:

    “That’s a bit of an overstatement. The players have tried two avenues — demanding 10 years of audited financial statements or sticking with a status quo that the owners clearly don’t intend to follow. There’s a broad middle ground between those two positions that, for whatever reason, the players refuse to explore.”

    The truth is that there is middle ground on which to reach a deal, but the players’ “leaders” do not want to make a deal – yet.

  9. smacklayer says: Mar 29, 2011 7:35 PM

    I think the players are doing a pretty good job of dragging themselves through the mud lately.

  10. lodan60 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:35 PM

    Sorry Foxworth, no sympathy, I think me and my fellow fans are being dragged through the mud!

  11. thevikes85 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:36 PM

    No,what is really dragging them through the mud,is the rash of arrests since the lockout,these guys can’t stay out of trouble without help of the advisors on the team,yet want to be seen as partners with the owners?good way to prove you are responsible enough to be viewed as partners.good god.

  12. dirtybirds24 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:37 PM

    Foxworth no one feels sorry for you guys..

  13. saberstud75 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:43 PM

    I think it is funny how the players always portray themselves as the victims.

    The players are being dragged throught the mud….. or are they throwing out buzz words without knowing the meanings.

    Mel Kiper made me spend too much money…. or did you spend money you didn’t have

    I am a modern day slave….. or the only thing I am good at is playing football.

    These guys have been catered to far too long, I hope the lockout continues until these clowns come back to reality.

  14. ny82jy says: Mar 29, 2011 7:52 PM

    So annoying I wish both sides would just stfu with all their bs! Both sides are greedy bottom line . Nothing will happen till the April 6 hearings. Until then I’m just sick of the back and fourth I have a hard time reading these articles. Stop talking to the press and start talking to eachother and get a dam deal done for us fans!!

  15. rpiotr01 says: Mar 29, 2011 7:52 PM

    Foxworth shouldn’t complain about lawyers considering that he and his ilk not only turned over the reins of their leadership to one in electing De Smith, but later turned over their entire negotiating operation to lawyers by decertifying.

    There’s a thousand miles of middle ground between “give us what we want” and “give us what we want.” It would help their P.R. cause greatly by trying to find even a square inch of that ground in good faith.

  16. Deb says: Mar 29, 2011 7:55 PM

    Combine the NFL’s PR machine with the nation’s current anti-union sentiment and a backlash against huge player contracts during a global recession, and it’s not surprising public opinion is with the owners. But it is surprising how many PFT commenters don’t understand why public opinion matters.

    Few people have the mental fortitude to carry on in the face of overwhelming disapproval. The owners are 32 rich, savvy businessmen. Opposite them are 1700 athletes, few of whom have deep pockets or a deep understanding of these issues. They’re not being paid. They’re afraid of losing a year from already short careers. Now the fans are against them?

    Which group is more likely to break first?

  17. Deb says: Mar 29, 2011 8:01 PM

    @ravenator …

    Maybe that deal seemed pretty fair to you because you didn’t understand all the details. I love how the guys on here keep talking about the fairness of a deal they knew nothing about. Among other things, that deal required players well beyond their rookie season and into their prime earning years to still be playing under the new rookie salary cap. Things aren’t always what they seem.

  18. 2011to2020lions says: Mar 29, 2011 8:06 PM

    Enough with poor pitiful me, just quit playing games and send a counter offer from the one that was sent to you, and make it public like the owners did, and then we will see if the owners are really the snakes you say they are

  19. iknowfootballandyoudont says: Mar 29, 2011 8:07 PM

    Dear Mr. Foxworth;

    You and your fellow players are being drug through the mud for very good reasons. You all are blindly following a career ambulance chaser down the path to financial ruin. You all are doing this because either your too greedy, are too gullible, are too stupid, or are influenced too easily. My opinion is that you are all of the above.

    You and your fellow players are being drug through the mud also because you all are ungrateful, selfish, greedy, pompous, egotistical, spoiled, pampered, unaccountable, unreliable, undependable, and have HUGE amounts of self entitlement.

    You and your fellow players are also disrespectful and unappreciative to the fans and the league that BOTH of which made you millionaires.

    You and your fellow players act like fools and hooligans while out in public. Wear your pants hanging low like jacka$$es. Run around racking up bills and then refusing to pay. Doing drugs, and dealing drugs. Shooting off guns at people, abusing women, sleeping with 16 year olds(former player), making ridiculou, ignorant, and irresponsible “slavery” comments, and crying about not making enough money, and can’t pay for COBRA insurance when there are tens of millions honest, hardworking, decent, good hearted unemployed people in this country struggling to stay alive.

    Now Mr. Foxworth, you know why your names are being drug through the mud.

  20. ytownie says: Mar 29, 2011 8:11 PM

    In what other profession are you set for life after five years of work???

  21. meekdog78 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:13 PM

    Memo to players….if all you want is to play football, and if the owners last offer was not good enough, then the onus is on you to make a counter-offer. Negotiation is a game that when played well creates two winners. When one side does nothing, but demand a “better offer,” and then another “better offer,” then neither side gets to the bottom line, and no deal gets done. Get back to the table, make an offer, and put it back in the owner’s court. Otherwise, go get a job at McDonald’s where you don’t need to negotiate your salary.

  22. moggy6actual says: Mar 29, 2011 8:14 PM

    Foxworth says the players aren’t businessmen. Fine. Then what makes him think the owners should turn over the books to non-businessmen?

  23. webbrl says: Mar 29, 2011 8:17 PM

    What a joke!?
    So let me get this straight…The players have to work for rich business men? What…And Management/ownship make decisions with their own best interests in mind?!? What an outrage!
    Welcome to the real world players.

    Go ask someone who works for a living and doesn’t make 6-8 figure salaries. No one really likes their boss, their job, thier pay and the decisions made that they have no control over.
    Get real?! Make your money and enjoy the life you have.
    You’ve earned it, but don’t expect it.

    The fans are paying for your petty arguments and whining. Get it together and let’s play some football.

  24. sonmaninva says: Mar 29, 2011 8:20 PM

    Perhaps the players are just out of touch….just listen to Sirius NFL paraphrase
    Randy Cross – ‘so a player gets 5 mil over 5 years…in the end he only get half of that’… and the conversation has no bearing to average people..
    Gary Papa just today….’people don’t get it. A player gets 3 mil over 3 years and he has a 3 year career’…. Again no bearing.
    Get the reality, players get scholarships to schools so no real long term education bills, 3 Mil in the first three years, yes perhaps some physical issues yet some healthcare for another few years. What social strata do you think the working man lives in? Get real.
    Most people don’t make 3Mil in 20 years. Some have jobs that have serious health effects (Miner’s, construction etc) and NO residual health care. Almost every normal person has long term college bills after graduating from a university or college.
    Tell the players to stop crying. We’re (I’m) not listening anymore.
    If I demamded my companies balance sheet I find the address for the unemployment office on the sheet they gave me.
    Hey players…. get back to work and finally let the union leadership know they’ve already turned the wrong corner. Your whining has grated my ears long enough.
    I’m a lifelong fan and believe your wrong. Perhaps you all need a taste of the real life instead of the high life.

  25. txchief says: Mar 29, 2011 8:35 PM

    The players and their idiotic union/trade association representatives aren’t being “dragged” through the mud. They jumped in with both feet and are wallowing in it!

  26. blackuhuru4u says: Mar 29, 2011 8:36 PM

    It sounds to me as if most of you buffoons who comment on this site wish you had the talents to play football…IT’S THEIR PROFESSION…stop making it a “slavery thing” with your hidden bigotry ways. A few bad apples shouldn’t spoil the whole bunch. There are thousands of retired players who are suffering at this very moment for putting their lives on the line and receiving little to none for these very same “billionaire” owners that run the league. The current players will have these same issues 20 years from now while the most of you will still be typing away in great health.

    PS, most of the players in the NFL “aren’t” millionaires; so cut it with this “billionaire vs. millionaire” crap. IT IS BEGINNING TO UTTERLY DISGUST ME!!!

  27. egls7 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:38 PM

    Excuse me, but I feel like we, the fans, are being dragged across the mud because of the players being greedy about this situation

  28. PFTiswhatitis says: Mar 29, 2011 8:47 PM

    Foxworth playing the country-boy card. We just footbal players.
    Nice try but I’m not buying what you are selling. STFU and find some common ground to agree to.

  29. whatsupbb415 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:47 PM

    If I was a football player I would want a better deal than what the owners are offering. People who comment on this blog sometimes forget that football is very dangerous take it from a guy who played and could’ve went somewhere had it not been for to many concussions! The owners offer was unfair nobody is right and it’s going to take maturity to get a deal done but they will. All of this complaining is great but when the season rolls around the NFL won’t miss a beat.

  30. src3346 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:54 PM

    Regarding the NFL’s PR Machine…

    1. They aren’t saying anything
    2. The Players are doing all of the talking and making themselves and fellow players look bad.
    3. If you look at the arrests for the Month of March the Players are on track to double their normal monthly totals.

    That is one heck of a PR Dynamo.

    The only smart thing from a Player that I have heard came from Jeff Saturday regarding having a beer with Roger Goodell. The players would be wise to follow Jeff and quit listening to the Non Union Clown Machine.

    The last CBA was worked out primarily by (2) people with an occasional assist to make sure the I’s were dotted and the T’s were crossed. The players are being led down a path that a good many of them do not agree with. It’s the Large Entourage of “Leaders” that have them all drinking the kool-aid.

    The players should demand that their leadership minus the Legal Machinery contact Roger Goodell or the Owners of their choice, go in to a room, sit down, have a beer and just talk.

    Wake Up People!

  31. mrjumpman23 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:55 PM

    You people on this site are ridiculous, and jealous becuase you can’t be in a professional athlete’s position…. The owners are dragging the fans through the mud, not the players. The players are not being greedy, they just want whats owed to them, and I can definitely understand their position. I guess because the majority of pro athletes are african american, people on this site feel as though they should just shut up and be good slaves and take the deal that was offered to them… Lol, the players sacrifice their bodies and their families, whenever they suit up and take the field, not the owners… All owners do is sit on their lazy asses and make billions of dollars..

  32. crubenst says: Mar 29, 2011 8:58 PM

    “So we’ve tried every avenue short of selling out every former and future player in the National Football League.”

    So they’ve been led to believe that compromising and giving a little back is selling out every former and future player???? PLEASE! Stop the sob story and get back to the bargaining table and accept the fact that the next deal will be not quite as good as the previous and that it is NOT in fact selling out but COMPROMISING.

    ps I guess the incoming rookie class doesn’t count as future players since they “sold them out” and agreed to slash rookie salary.

  33. wtfru2 says: Mar 29, 2011 8:58 PM

    Poor Babies! NOT…..

  34. thefiesty1 says: Mar 29, 2011 9:05 PM

    The players should have thought about this before their union/association walked out of the meetings. They had a good deal before their walkout. When they lose the pending lawsuit they’ll really be in deep s$&t.

    Morons, don’t drown in you own mud hole.

  35. 44kyle says: Mar 29, 2011 9:07 PM

    The players want the owners to open their books. Big demand. I think they need to give up something to expect the owners to comply. Maybe a guarantee. Example, if the books show a drop of X% in revenues, then the players agree to X% of drop in their take. Maybe others have better ideas. Let’s brainstorm. Give your ideas.

  36. flr29 says: Mar 29, 2011 9:16 PM

    There are a lot of bitter people on this blog.

    The owners know that on their side are fans who are bitter that the players are rich.

    The players know that on their side are people who understand business, economics, and the law.

    The owners do not want to go to court, because the law is not on their side. Go to court, let the law win.

    If the owners want to win the PR battle, good for them.

  37. hail2tharedskins says: Mar 29, 2011 9:19 PM

    I must point out that if all he wants is a fair deal and just wants to play football, then he should be screaming at whoever at the NFLPA turned down the last offer before they decertified and went to court. The players’ salaries would not have decreased at all under that deal, in fact they would have continued to increase, and they had some great improvements in non-economic issues. So, if you just want a fair deal and to play football – you had that option. I don’t think anybody in their right mind can say with a straight face what NFL players currently make to play football is not fair. However, their issue is that the owners want a system in place that rewards them more than players as they generate more revenues from their investments (as they should). Under the current deal the player’s salaries increased at a far faster rate then the club’s profits – now is that fair? Let’s be honest this has nothing to do with fair on either side! Both sides are being greedy and want a larger piece of the the growth to come in future years. I’ve heard DeSmith and players talk about rollbacks, but truly their is no rollback in the league’s proposal – just a change in how additional revenues generated in the future gets split. So that nonsense about the deal being the worst in the history of sports is a crock of crap because the deal on the table would have actually paid players more and their salaries would continue to increase every year (just not increase at as fast a rate as they had been increasing). The players just didn’t like the thought that on a % basis the owners would be keeping more.

  38. djstat says: Mar 29, 2011 9:22 PM

    Sorry Foxworth. You knuckleheads made your bed the day you put De Smith in office as your leader. YOU walked away from the negotiating table. YOU greedy players seem to be ignorant to the fact that this country is going through a recession and one of the worst economic times in the history of time and that unemployment is over 10% (reported). You spoiled brats want everything and want to give NOTHING. As a Ravens PSL Owner, i detest you and what your union stands for. I will boo you loudly whenever you do return to the field. BTW, if you have been treated so unfairly, why did you accept that $7 Million signing bonus?

    Hope your knee feels better jerky!

  39. fracas106 says: Mar 29, 2011 9:26 PM

    All this back-and-forthing in these comments (and as an aside, this old-timer is shocked by the lack of writing and spelling skills exhibited herein) makes this gal realize that the owners have been extremely effective in clouding over the REAL factor behind any stalemate.
    I’ve heard from a highly-placed management source that the key obstacle since this brouhaha over the books began is that certain owners just don’t want other owners to see how they conduct business: for instance, how many relatives–doing nothing–show up on the payrolls, how owners pay themselves high salaries, or, the level of non-shared income streams.
    You-all think that owners act in concord. No way! If you believe player ranks are split, that’s nothing compared to groups of owners: three of them, starting with the highest revenue teams (Dallas, New England, Washington), the so-called small market teams (Buffalo, Green Bay, Seattle, Cincinnati) and everyone else in a vast middle group.
    Remember there’s a huge difference between the ability to make decisions by the players and the hurdles faced by NFL negotiators. Roger Goodell is nothing more than a guy hired by owners to represent their (varied) interests. Indeed, Goodell –or any other member of the NFL negotiators does NOT even have the right to okay a $5 increase in meal money or per diem. The NFL operates as a super-majority which means that as few as six “nay” votes can scuttle any proposal.
    As long as owners resist sharing detailed financial information among themselves–and you can bet that certain owners are just drooling to see what others have been keeping out of revenues that must be shared amongst both themselves and the players.
    And as long also that the dust raised in the “battle” between owners and players obscures this even more basic difference, it will take the courts to settle anything and everything.
    Don’t let yourselves be fooled by the mega-rich owners and their battalion of p.r. guys.

  40. tony420 says: Mar 29, 2011 9:27 PM

    Real simple Domonique – call your union buddys and take the deal the owners offered. It was fair.

  41. hail2tharedskins says: Mar 29, 2011 9:31 PM

    I think the reason the players are getting “dragged through the mud” is because they treated the fans like they were stupid! They kept telling fans how the owners were trying to roll back their salaries, well I guess they figure that the fans would understand the offer NFL made – but they did. We can look at that offer and realize, hey there are no rollbacks to your salary (no 18% cut that De Smith kept telling us about for over a year) but rather a modest increase player salaries as well as other improvements. Well people don’t like to be lied to or treated like they are stupid. Initially most fans were against the owners and supported the players, but when they found out the players had been lying about the issues it turned them off. If they had been honest up front and not come with these false statements that intended to generate sympathy and public support they might not have this big of a PR problem now. At least the owners came out and said look we don’t think we are making enough money, we are not keeping enough of the revenue to justify our investments. It didn’t win a lot of public support at the time, but now they don’t have to deal with the backlash of the fans realizing they had been lied to – and this is the reason I think the support has shifted drastically.

  42. bronco1st says: Mar 29, 2011 9:36 PM

    This is a microcosm of what’s happening in America. Big business will give the workers the scraps off the table and the workers will either eat it or starve. Big business will win, they always do. So give the dogs a bone or two and let’s get on with the season. At some point in the future, it will all come crashing down so eat, drink and be merry and let the future worry about the future.

  43. footballisking says: Mar 29, 2011 9:40 PM

    “We’ve got a feeling that, if the NFL wins the hearing on the motion to lift the lockout, that time could come sooner rather than later.”

    If the judge rules in the players favor the lockout would end right then

  44. Cowboys-Forum says: Mar 29, 2011 9:40 PM

    These players cant keep their mouths shut and they want to blame everyone else, typical spoiled brats IMO

  45. goodbyenfl says: Mar 29, 2011 9:45 PM

    @blackuhuru4u

    I for one work in one of the MOST DANGEROUS jobs in the world, otherwise known as a professional truck driver. I will and already have serious health issues (for the rest of my life) from a job that I “CHOSE” to do and love (this nation can’t last 3 days without truck drivers, unlike spoiled NFL players).

    I have 2 degrees, but chose a profession making less money, because I LOVE MY JOB. I am now off on LTD policy that I PAID FOR, not my employer. I pay MY cobra insurance, and you expect me to feel sorry for players that make more in three years than I make in 20 years. And you want people that work real jobs feel sorry for NFL players.

    We fans that have real jobs, live in the real world, pay real bills, and we have no pity at all for guys making 330k up to 10 million a year.

  46. danderoo says: Mar 29, 2011 9:50 PM

    Stupid is as stupid does. Players are taking a public beating because they are coming across as the belligerent party. Demanding 10 years worth of company accounting audits doesn’t play well to average fans who don’t have similar leverage with their own bosses. The NFL has more practice in presenting a calmer, smoother perspective. Having said the above, neither side is winning the PR war. Everybody looks bad to us fans.

  47. liontomyself says: Mar 29, 2011 9:59 PM

    @mrjumpman23

    Sounds like someone is “ridiculous, and jealous becuase you can’t be in a” owners position…….

    See, I can just say the same stupid thing when you don’t agree with my opinion…..

  48. packa7x says: Mar 29, 2011 10:06 PM

    Blackuhuru4

    Who picked this career for players? Nobody is asking them to do this to themselves. Football is not necessary. I feel sympathy for miners, firefighters, police officers, soldiers…all of whom have a greater risk of dying or getting seriously injured. I don’t have any sympathy for someone who’s less intelligent than me getting a free education because it makes the school more money…I don’t have any sympathy for someone who will be able to market their own name because they were above average in their profession…you can side with the players…that’s fine…but to show them SYMPATHY? I can’t see how anyone could FEEL BAD for either side.

  49. packa7x says: Mar 29, 2011 10:10 PM

    Mrjumpman

    …your comment intrigues me. The players want what is “owed” to them? Tell me, what is owed to them?

    Actually if you want I’ll give you my email and we can talk there, I don’t like your attitude and the racial alarmism used in your post. Let me know if you’re willing to talk.

  50. liontomyself says: Mar 29, 2011 10:12 PM

    Deb says:Mar 29, 2011 8:01 PM

    @ravenator …

    Maybe that deal seemed pretty fair to you because you didn’t understand all the details. I love how the guys on here keep talking about the fairness of a deal they knew nothing about. Among other things, that deal required players well beyond their rookie season and into their prime earning years to still be playing under the new rookie salary cap. Things aren’t always what they seem.
    ________________

    Things are exactly what they seem (when exactly were YOU part of the “negotiations” and KNOW what was offered and what happened????).

    The owners published an offer…..fact.

    The players walked away without countering…..fact.

    It wasn’t a (done) “deal” requiring anything…..it was an offer……fact (it’s called negotiating).

    I agree, it seemed pretty fair to me…..the only thing the players have published is it’s the worst offer in the history of sports……..so? make it better with a counter offer maybe? NO reason why they couldn’t extend the CBA another week or more while they negotiated…….they want to spend (more of) your money on litigation.

    Shouldn’t you be down in Alabama harrassing their auto workers to unionize while Rapistberger is on vacation?

  51. hobartbaker says: Mar 29, 2011 10:18 PM

    Is that the notorious “Brady Gang” the owners spoke about in the picture? Or a rival gang? Either way, I hope no innocent bystanders are hurt if gunfire erupts.

  52. Deb says: Mar 29, 2011 10:30 PM

    @iknowfootballandyoudont …

    That post was ridiculous. “All” of the league’s 1700 players don’t go around abusing women and sleeping with 16-year-olds and all the other guff you’re blathering about in your over-the-top hatred of these athletes. As I pointed out to you the other night, many of these athletes have started charitable foundations and spend their time helping to better their communities. Many have families and simply do their jobs, go home, and stay out of trouble. Your problem–and the problem of a lot of men posting here–is that you don’t share their skills or ability to earn at their level. That doesn’t make them the scum of the earth or unentitled to fair treatment from their employers.

  53. oldhamletman says: Mar 29, 2011 10:44 PM

    NFL Players… umm I mean player lovers commenting on this thread like
    blackuhuru4u
    mrjumpman23
    whatsupbb415

    The problem we have with you Players is that you are, well….. playas…. you twist the facts, circumvent, obfuscate, avoid responsibility, commit felonious acts, in general, you try to get away with everything that you can get away with…

    and then you have the unbelievable arrogance to act and whine as if you are like us…. and we see right through you.

    I say Air Traffic Controller them… there’s an average of $1.3M per year by average 2 year contracts by 1700 players outstanding… that’s $4.4B… settle all the suits at 50% is $2.2B… the owners can write the check…. use $2B to hire 1700 new guys… and be ahead….

  54. thetooloftools says: Mar 29, 2011 10:45 PM

    I never liked Foxworth’s you might be a redneck jokes anyway.

  55. bcvv says: Mar 29, 2011 10:52 PM

    The perspective of the players is rather insulting to me, someone who is struggling in this economy. I am not a fan of corporate greed either. Good thing I love the game of football. I don’t like what the NFL has become.

  56. prrbrr says: Mar 29, 2011 10:57 PM

    Forget it Foxworth n crew, you will never ever get a shred of sympathy from me. You knew what you were getting when DeSmith came on board. You had options that were not so stand offish, and now you give the reigns to more attorneys. The world needs ditch diggers too. Just know this, when the first game is played after this mess, the fans will be applauding for the game not the players or owners. Your all overpaid leaches.

  57. fground says: Mar 29, 2011 11:32 PM

    the problem with the internet is the same problem with democracy – every idiot gets to have input.

    As for this idiot – I see the whole thing in economic terms. I think this battle mirrors the biggest problem in America. The business owners and the senior employees are all taking too much of the pie for optimum economic performance. The owners represent the very rich in American society that pay ridiculously low taxes (top 400 richest paid something like 16%). The few stars in the league are the equivalent of CEO’s – taking an inordinate amount of the pie – far beyond their actual contribution to wins and losses.

    When to few take too much of the pie – things end badly.

  58. CKL says: Mar 30, 2011 12:00 AM

    fracas106 says: Mar 29, 2011 9:26 PM

    I’ve heard from a highly-placed management source that the key obstacle since this brouhaha over the books began is that certain owners just don’t want other owners to see how they conduct business: for instance, how many relatives–doing nothing–show up on the payrolls, how owners pay themselves high salaries, or, the level of non-shared income streams.
    _______________________________________
    I have no doubt in my mind that owners don’t want other owners to see their books. Matt Light hinted at it when he mentioned something recently about not worrying about players agreeing with each other, it’s the owners who can’t. I personally don’t think they care that much about what dopey relatives each other has on their payroll who play golf for their “job”. I would bet they are like all other big business people I have ever encountered: at some point they pad their payroll with ne’er do well relatives and cronies. I think it’s more of your last point they are worried about..non-shared income streams. And since Jerry Jones is just about the king of that, I bet he’s the most irascible.

    The way the NFL is set up now doesn’t allow full market freedom/competition for either side, owner or player (and in this case I think it works for the good of the sport). So any little edge each owner could find they would likely want to guard it like Fort Knox from the others.

  59. goldsteel says: Mar 30, 2011 12:16 AM

    Well Mr Foxworth if the choice were mine, I would put you in charge of the NFPLA as opposed to Mr. Smith. You seem more level headed and pragmatic than the current boss who is prone to hyperbole.

  60. txchief says: Mar 30, 2011 12:33 AM

    fground, you have no grasp on how much more others than your 1040ez financial empire brethren pay in taxes. you are an idiot socialist.

  61. tcdun says: Mar 30, 2011 12:37 AM

    fground:
    Actually you couldn’tr be any more wrong about taxes
    The fact is that the top 10% of earners in the USA pay about 65% of all the taxes. The top 50% of earners pay about 89% ! The bottom 20 % pay around 0% !
    —————————————
    Reprint !
    Millionaire players crying poverty. Wanting what is “owed” to them.
    What is owed? They got paid for their services ending with the 2010 season. They haven’t played in 2011 yet, so they are not “owed” anything yet.

    Millionaire players claiming they are slaves.
    Millionaire players dressing like urban punks.
    Millionaire players beating women.
    Millionaire players dealing dope.
    Millionaire players using dope.
    Millionaire players deadbeating on their bills.
    Millionaire players spitting out illegitimate kids all over the country and needing loans from their employer to pay support.
    Millionaire players shooting guns at others, and themselves.
    Millionaire players having affairs.
    Millionaire players not paying support.
    Millionaire players getting DUI’s
    Millionaire players using HGH and PED’s
    Millionaire players forgetting that the fans and league are the reason they are millionaires.

    How many owners have done just one of the above ?
    How many players do at least one of the above daily?

    I hope the owners crush the players

  62. vahawker says: Mar 30, 2011 1:08 AM

    George Atallah must be wiped out trying to juggle 3600 balls.

  63. bpross01 says: Mar 30, 2011 1:34 AM

    Bring on the Replacements. I’d seriously rather watch Keanu Reeves right now than any of these guys. A local guy I might know who goes out there and plays his heart out for $90k a season would be much more palatable for me at this point.
    Wouldn’t hurt if they dropped ticket prices then, too. Hey, a guy can dream….

  64. bpross01 says: Mar 30, 2011 1:38 AM

    “We’re just football players”. Exactly. And you wonder why Jerry Richardson treated you like you didn’t belong at the negotiating table. Because you didn’t. Because, again, you’re just football players.

    Seriously, when a grocery store negotiates with it’s union, how many baggers and stock boys are sitting at the Big Boy table? I doubt very many.

  65. truthserum4u says: Mar 30, 2011 2:41 AM

    @ packa7x –

    Well said! Saved me the time of typing it myself.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    flr29 says:
    Mar 29, 2011 9:16 PM
    There are a lot of bitter people on this blog.

    The owners know that on their side are fans who are bitter that the players are rich.

    The players know that on their side are people who understand business, economics, and the law.

    The owners do not want to go to court, because the law is not on their side. Go to court, let the law win.
    ——————————————–

    It has yet to be determined on whose side the law will fall. The owners don’t seem to be too worried none-the less.
    By the way, those who understand business and economics would have a tendancy to side with the owners, not the players.

  66. vetdana says: Mar 30, 2011 5:40 AM

    . Otherwise, go get a job at McDonald’s where you don’t need to negotiate your salary.

    Mcdonalds wont hire you because they have 300 applications on file now ! [Job Mkt.is in the Tank ]

  67. chapnastier says: Mar 30, 2011 7:17 AM

    I think it is funny how Foxworth is changing his tune. After a failed attempt to actually drag the owners through the mud, which failed miserably, he is out trying to get us to feel bad for him and his comrades. Sorry chief. We know you guys are to blame and your tasteless, unprofessional PR approach blew up in your face. Read this site more often and see you have about 5 people in your corner and 3 of them write for this site.

  68. moseszd says: Mar 30, 2011 7:20 AM

    Worst deal in history? No, the worst deal in history is the one that destroys the league from the loss of competitive balance and bankrupts the future of the league for a bunch of greedy players most of us won’t remember in a decade.

    There’s a reason I no longer follow baseball or basketball. Small market teams struggle to compete and, therefore, my teams generally don’t. And, on the occasion the do put together a good team for a few seasons, their good players are sniped in FA, leaving me with another bottom-half team.

    With the NFL, I always have legitimate hope. Heck, even the long-suffering Lions fans have hope. One good GM, a few good drafts, and they could be completive behind that fine young QB they have in Stafford.

  69. fground says: Mar 30, 2011 7:46 AM

    tdcun – in actual fact the top 400 in the US in 2010 paid roughly 16%. It’s not the tax bracket it’s how their wealth is taxed.

  70. eagleaniac says: Mar 30, 2011 8:22 AM

    I am in support of the players. But they haven’t been dragged through the mud, they have dragged themselves through the mud with stupid comments.

  71. zaggs says: Mar 30, 2011 8:43 AM

    I dont recall any owners being busted for gun crimes. Seems the players are perfectly capable of dragging themselves through the mud.

  72. igor1984 says: Mar 30, 2011 9:32 AM

    If you “just want to play” then MAKE A DEAL!

    Agree to what’s been offered – which is not really bad … if you “just want to play” take the $$$$ that is on the table and GO PLAY!

  73. melikefootball says: Mar 30, 2011 9:49 AM

    Foxworth’s batteries in his I Pod must of gone bad and can’t stand it tha the NFL doesn’t them for him. I have stood outside all morning with a robe around my waiste waiting to be dragged threw the mud as these selfrighteous players feel they are. Please let me stand in line to buy his jersey.

  74. brainsmasher says: Mar 30, 2011 12:04 PM

    This is not like your job. There is no NFL without the players. The players are the game. If all of the workers at your job quit they could train new workers and not skip a beat. Nobody would miss you.

  75. flr29 says: Mar 30, 2011 12:06 PM

    truthserum4u says: Mar 30, 2011 2:41 AM

    By the way, those who understand business and economics would have a tendancy to side with the owners, not the players.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There has not been one, not one, cogent economic argument in support of the owners.

    No one who understands the concepts of price floors and price ceilings supports the owners.

    No one who understands basic supply and demand supports the owners.

    No one who understands that the NFL will not break if individual teams are given more flexibility in their individual budgets supports the owners.

    No one who understands the United States Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in the American Needle case supports the owners.

    The main argument in support of the owners is “The players are rich–be jealous!” That’s it.

  76. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 12:48 PM

    censors … to liontomyself is allowed to call me out all over the place, but I’m barred from answering in a civil way. And you don’t find that sexist, among other things? Please man up and let the grownups talk :roll:

  77. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 1:11 PM

    Perhaps you could tell us all what is objectionable about the post. He called me out all over the place and I politely answered. Is it women you hate, minorities, players, or all three?

    Censoring people ideas for no reason is not respectful so it’s difficult for me to respond respectfully.

  78. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 1:24 PM

    @liontomyself …

    Speaking of Alabama … check out the most recent Bama article on CFT. Think you’ll find it interesting.

  79. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 1:33 PM

    NOTHING in that post warrants censoring. You just do it because you can. There’s no obscenity. There’s no nastiness. He was nastier to me. It’s on topic. This is ridiculous … and childish.

  80. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 2:52 PM

    Fine. That post didn’t contain anything provocative, no obscenities, nothing nasty, nothing obscene. It was a simple post responding to some questions about the players’ position. No rational person in the universe would censor that post. I’m going to forward the original post and my response to some sports columnists to see if they can figure out why it’s being censored. Maybe they’re short on blog material and would like something to grouse about.

  81. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 7:19 PM

    @liontomyself …

    Shouldn’t I be in Alabama harassing autoworkers to unionize while R***berger is on vacation? Why didn’t you just go for the triple by throwing in a reference to me baking a cake? :lol:

    To answer your relevant question: No, I was not in the negotiations. I’m thrilled the owners’ proposal seemed fair to you. That will be important when you become an NFL player.

    If you’d taken time to read up on the issues, you’d understand why it didn’t seem fair to the players. You’d also know they were already working under an extension. The league procrastinated until that extension was set to expire, then produced a proposal that failed to address the chief area of dispute and went backward on other areas under discussion. The players felt the owners were not negotiating in good faith. By wasting a week and coming in so late with their proposal, the owners left them no time to craft a counterproposal. They had only a few hours to make their move or they would have lost their option to decertify–the only card they could play that might stop a lockout.

    The only person saying the proposal was the worst in history is De Smith. He’s got a great resume, but he wasn’t my first choice for that position. You can’t blame all the players for every over-the-top thing he has said anymore than you can blame all the owners for every nutso thing Jerry Jones has said.

    The players aren’t spending my money on litigation. The owners charge fans what the market allows for tickets and merchandise. If players’ salaries were suddenly reduced to $50,000 a year, the owners would still keep raising ticket, PSL, and merchandising prices. Oh, they might play at price cuts temporarily. But they’ll hike prices again no matter what happens with the players.

    When the banks got those bailouts, did you notice them cutting fees on any of your services? No. They just gave themselves big bonuses and carried on with business as usual. But you keep right on, um, “lion” to yourself ;)

  82. truthserum4u says: Mar 30, 2011 8:25 PM

    flr29 says:
    Mar 30, 2011 12:06 PM
    truthserum4u says: Mar 30, 2011 2:41 AM

    By the way, those who understand business and economics would have a tendancy to side with the owners, not the players.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There has not been one, not one, cogent economic argument in support of the owners.

    No one who understands the concepts of price floors and price ceilings supports the owners.

    No one who understands basic supply and demand supports the owners.

    No one who understands that the NFL will not break if individual teams are given more flexibility in their individual budgets supports the owners.

    No one who understands the United States Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in the American Needle case supports the owners.

    The main argument in support of the owners is “The players are rich–be jealous!” That’s it.
    ———————————————

    You’re comparing profesional sports to regular businesses when it’s a completely different ballgame (pun intended). Competitive balance is a key component to the NFL’s popularity thus being a factor in it’s success. The Cowboys aren’t looking to put the Eagles out of business; they need them to insure their own success, unlike regular business. Flexibility in individual team’s budgets won’t break the NFL, but it most certainly could damage it severly.

    Please answer me this: If there isn’t an economic argument in favor of the owners, why then was everyone saying the previous CBA was signed to avoid a work stopage at the time but clearly wasn’t a sustainable longterm model?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Deb,

    Last minute proposals are typical in negotiations, so why are the owners being bashed for using a commonplace practice?

    The players made a demand (open the books or else) and a proclamation (no 18 game schedule) and then walked away when their demand wasn’t met up to their expectations. That wasn’t negotiating at all, so they too weren’t negotiating in good faith. D Smith had every intention of moving this to court regardless of what was presented from the other side. You would be naive to think otherwise, and you don’t strike me as naive.

  83. liontomyself says: Mar 30, 2011 10:08 PM

    Deb,

    Summer, Donna……no reason to get all “excited”.

    I implied you were a union lover because, in a post a few weeks back, you accused me of being a socialist without knowing me and ONLY because I did not agree with your opinion. I brought up the “berger’ because you also accused me of being an owner shill who was new to the site…..I was also “censored” for my response to that post…..so, I found a way to respond without offending the censors (as in, I know you are a Pittsburgh fan who stood up for Ben all last year……just because I speak now and not before does not make me a “newbie”. And how does pointing out that you are a Pitt fan and a union lover mean that I think you should be baking a cake……make up your own conclusions much???). I’m sure you don’t recall every person you rant at / put down / call socialist that does not agree with your opinion…….but, I successfully turned that table on you based on all of your rants above (dish it out but can’t take it, etc., etc.)….I’m sexist? the censors hate women?……lol…..classic and UNFOUNDED rants.

    Now, to get back on topic with your coherent responses :

    _____________

    Deb says:

    The players aren’t spending my money on litigation. The owners charge fans what the market allows for tickets and merchandise. If players’ salaries were suddenly reduced to $50,000 a year, the owners would still keep raising ticket, PSL, and merchandising prices. Oh, they might play at price cuts temporarily. But they’ll hike prices again no matter what happens with the players.

    When the banks got those bailouts, did you notice them cutting fees on any of your services? No. They just gave themselves big bonuses and carried on with business as usual. But you keep right on, um, “lion” to yourself

    =============

    Umm, what? I was talking about tax dollars being wasted in court.

    ______________________

    Deb says :

    The only person saying the proposal was the worst in history is De Smith.

    =====================

    Umm……he works FOR the players, if he said it, THEY said it (you should know that lawyers represent / are their clients since you have stated you are related to lawyers). A lawyer should never say something which is not in the best interests of his / her client. He was speaking FOR THEM……so, no…..they ALL said it…..so, in rooting for the players, you should be calling for them to fire him for misrepresentation….you know….since you “take the time” to know exactly what is going on (just mirroring another one of your attacks, see the next comments below).

    _______________

    Deb says :

    No, I was not in the negotiations. I’m thrilled the owners’ proposal seemed fair to you. That will be important when you become an NFL player.

    ==============

    More ranting……..but I only point it out because I have no idea how you got to such a ridiculous conclusion based on my response to your “things aren’t always what they seem comment”……as if you knew something that ravenator didn’t (he “knew nothing about” the negotiations….another example of attacking someone who does not agree with you).

    The rest of my OPINION…..which I am sure you will attack….because you can’t debate, only attack…..is in line with what truthserum4u said in his response to you……….The players made a demand and walked away. They never intended to negotiate…..status quo (we like things the way they are) is not negotiating…..and status quo was bot going to continue…..the CBA expired (the players ALLOWED it to expire)….you (they) NEGOTIATE a new one…..it’s that simple.

  84. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 10:56 PM

    @truthserum4u …

    I don’t believe the players wanted to pursue lawsuits. It will be hard to persuade 1700 members to hold ranks through a lengthy litigation if they don’t get the injunction to lift the lockout. Smith represents the players, so their agenda is his agenda. But Upshaw wasn’t a lawyer, so he tried to avoid the courtroom. As a litigator, Smith loves the courtroom. I don’t think he had the intention of going so much as he was happy to go when push came to shove.

    The owners started this process long ago by hiring Bob Batterman, the attorney who managed the NHL’s lockout. Then they conspired to improperly funnel millions from the TV revenues–which are supposed to be divided with players–into a lockout fund. They’ve been planning their lockout strategy a long time and blew off negotiations for months.

    Weeks ago, players came in with a proposal that eliminated the demand to open the books, but owners rejected it. They already skim a significant amount from the top before revenues are divided. They wanted to double that amount, claiming profits are down when all indicators show revenues have increased. And while cutting the players’ portion, they wanted to increase their season by 1/8. Remember, the owners opted out of the current CBA. The players didn’t go to them demanding anything. They said they didn’t want to go to an 18-game season because of safety concerns. The never said it was completely off the table. And if they said if they were expected to give up a large portion of revenues, they wanted to see proof of hardship. After all, owners also earn huge revenues from their stadiums, and players don’t touch that.

    Decertification was the only tactic players could use to stop a lockout, but a deadline was attached. If they missed the deadline, they were out of options.

    Both sides need to give. But don’t underestimate the owners. They are powerful businessmen and they’re not hurting because of the players. They know exactly what they’re doing.

  85. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 11:17 PM

    @liontomyself …

    Summer, Donna? Put down the crack pipe, love. Being an unabashed liberal, I’ve never called anyone a “socialist” as an insult. You have me confused with a ranting Tea Party woman. How many ranting women have you inspired?

    I know why you brought up the “berger.” My opening line about the cake was a joke, silly. You know … unions in Alabama, R**berger … add go bake a cake and you have a triple. (Some men love to tell me to go bake a cake or make a sandwich when they have nothing else.) But it turns out that pitiful little joke is why they deleted my post All Day Long. We’re not supposed say R**berger. Of course, since you said it and got posted and I was only repeating what you said, how could I possibly have guessed that’s why they kept deleting my post?? But the night moderator cleared you, and the day moderator wouldn’t clear me. I just thought I was being censored the old-fashioned way–for my opinion–and it was making me nuts.

    All the other rants–including the sexist one–was directed at the censor. And, baby … if you could see the list of ridiculous things that people like me have been censored for on this site, you would know the rants weren’t UNFOUNDED.

    As a matter of fact … if the wrong moderator gets this, I will be censored for calling you “baby” and “love” because the viciousness of calling a man “baby” or “love” in a sarcastic tone might cause him to have a heart attack and drop dead at his computer, and God knows, we can’t have that on PFT, now can we? :roll:

  86. Deb says: Mar 30, 2011 11:32 PM

    Well, liontoyourself, as for the rest of your post …

    You were talking about tax dollars? Yes, then, they’re spending my money. But if they weren’t, someone else would. We can’t choose which court cases claim our taxes.

    You, ravenator, and others keep saying the players turned down a good deal. That is their decision, not yours. They’ve explained their issues with the proposal.

    All I’ve done is answer the questions and comments put to me. I haven’t said anything as snarky to you as you’ve said to me. But apparently anytime someone disagrees with you, it’s a rant or an attack. Sorry, but if me agreeing with you is the only way to keep you from feeling attacked, better buy a flak jacket.

  87. liontomyself says: Mar 31, 2011 1:49 AM

    Deb,

    Summer, Donna = Simma down na…..not a fan of SNL I take it?

    umm…..”Litigation”?……of course I meant tax dollars……..but you can’t choose how your tax dollars are wasted / spent? I’m curious…..why was your right to vote taken away?

    You never have “Snarky” comments? Yes, you did….and continue to do…..but, don’t worry about terms like “doll” and “love’……I’m a knuckle dragging man…..I take it as a compliment and as you hitting on me……not really…lol….but it’s “share us” Hilton hott….but, I still don’t understand the progression from Union bashing, to Big Ben Bashing to, per you, telling you to bake a cake….the first 2 are not “sexist” comments that equal the “sexist” concliusion you came to…..please enlighten me on the progression to that conclusion……

    As to some other things you have said, but not directed towards me :

    Deb says :

    Smith represents the players, so their agenda is his agenda.
    _______________

    EXACTLY. So, you agree now that, when he said “it’s the worst deal”, he was saying it because that is what the players said. So, you will no longer say “The only person saying the proposal was the worst in history is De Smith”, correct????

    =========

    Deb says :

    Remember, the owners opted out of the current CBA.
    ___________

    ummmm, so did the players. They signed the last CBA, right? The last CBA had an opt out clause, right? Always assume in a contract that, can use = will use….therefore, they players agreed that the owners could = would opt out of a bad deal……so, they share the blame in the CBA expiring. They blame on the players doesn’t just go away because you keep blaming it on the owners. The players signed the same CBA……or they really as dumb as they are making themselves appear to be?

    ==============

    Deb says :

    They said they didn’t want to go to an 18-game season because of safety concerns. The never said it was completely off the table.
    __________________

    Ummm, yes the players did say that it was off the table. I thought you were the one telling people they don’t “know” and to read???

    =============

    Deb says :

    Weeks ago, players came in with a proposal that eliminated the demand …….

    Ah, we agree…they both made offers….but the last offer by the owners was not counter offered and the players walked and decided that spending your tax dollars in litigation would benefit them more. You agree with that…..Congratulations on your “victory” of using your money to try to give players millions (don’t say the players want nothing…the CBA expired because the players allowed it….they want something out of the new negotiations / CBA….they want the new CBA to be the same as the last CBA…..won’t happen….why have an expiration date if status quo is good for everyone???)……they still may lose….but, trust me, to them, it is worth your tax dollars to ensure a millionaire loses as little as possible.

    Again, I don’t care who wins….I can’t relate to a millionaire…..nor a billionaire (and, if as you have told me before that I am jealous of players because they are millionaires…..shouldn’t I be that much MORE jealous of an owner who does NOT risk his health and just rakes in money????).

    The players are wrong…..er, and they will lose (my opinion).

    Signed,

    Your “love” doll”

  88. liontomyself says: Mar 31, 2011 2:15 AM

    But Deb,

    At least THIS fun. You seem to be joking more about some of your comments during the discussions (“silly”, love”, “doll”….but then again, I am a guy….those could be put downs that I am “appreciating”…..cuz, I am liontomyself….LOL). We all have opinions, blah, blah, blah.

    It’s fun to debate those opinions instead of being accused of being a baker, socialist, etc.

    but “silly” love” “doll” is still “share us” Hilton Hott…LOL

  89. truthserum4u says: Mar 31, 2011 6:05 AM

    Deb says:
    Mar 30, 2011 10:56 PM
    @truthserum4u …

    I don’t believe the players wanted to pursue lawsuits. It will be hard to persuade 1700 members to hold ranks through a lengthy litigation if they don’t get the injunction to lift the lockout. Smith represents the players, so their agenda is his agenda. But Upshaw wasn’t a lawyer, so he tried to avoid the courtroom. As a litigator, Smith loves the courtroom. I don’t think he had the intention of going so much as he was happy to go when push came to shove.

    [The players don’t need to worry about lengthy litigation if the lockout is lifted. They were counting on Judge Doty to see to that. Of course they decertified and then found out the case didn’t land in his lap. I’ll just agree to disagree on Mr. Smith. He’s leading them, not following.]

    The owners started this process long ago by hiring Bob Batterman, the attorney who managed the NHL’s lockout. Then they conspired to improperly funnel millions from the TV revenues–which are supposed to be divided with players–into a lockout fund. They’ve been planning their lockout strategy a long time and blew off negotiations for months.

    [*Agree 100% except the blowing off of the negotiations – it’s a common practice to wait. *You neglect to say why they’ve been planning a lockout. You don’t ever seem to address the fact the owners agreed to a one-sided deal in favor of the players during the last CBA to avoid a work stopage. That they knew then it wasn’t a sustainable long term model, so they included the opt-out clause they had every intention of using. The owners agreed to take a hit for a few years (compared to what was previously established) to avoid labor strife, but weren’t willing to keep it that way forever. They were going to try to make the new CBA not so one-sided. The players had to have some inkling to this. Personally, I think the owners were foolish thinking they could give so much and then expect to be able to take it back.]

    Weeks ago, players came in with a proposal that eliminated the demand to open the books, but owners rejected it. They already skim a significant amount from the top before revenues are divided. They wanted to double that amount, claiming profits are down when all indicators show revenues have increased. And while cutting the players’ portion, they wanted to increase their season by 1/8. Remember, the owners opted out of the current CBA. The players didn’t go to them demanding anything. They said they didn’t want to go to an 18-game season because of safety concerns. The never said it was completely off the table. And if they said if they were expected to give up a large portion of revenues, they wanted to see proof of hardship. After all, owners also earn huge revenues from their stadiums, and players don’t touch that.

    [*Stop saying the owners are skimming off the top; it’s not true. Skimming off the top is a term most commonly used for stealing and that isn’t even close to what the owners are doing with the first billion. They and the players have agreed this money is to help with operating expenses (i.e. stadiums) and promoting the game. *Revenues can increase and profits still can be down depending on expenditures. I know you know that, it’s just your statement implied increased revenues means increased profits. *When one side doesn’t have any demands, when they’re good with the status quo, when they say it’s ok to keep things as they are; that’s when you know the deal is one-sided in their favor. It’s easy to appear magnanimous when the situation is stacked in your favor. It’s disingenuous at best. *Wrong on the NFLPA & the 18 game schedule –

    profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/…/union-says-no-to-18-games/

    *How would the players have reacted if in years past when they complained about not being paid enough – we want more; the owners responded by saying “first we want to see itemized documentation on how you’re spending your money?” How would that have gone over? It’s the same now, just that the shoe is on the other foot. (always try to include one cliche’ every 5 posts)]

    Decertification was the only tactic players could use to stop a lockout, but a deadline was attached. If they missed the deadline, they were out of options.

    [*Actually they weren’t out of options, it’s just that they would have had to wait something like six months before decertifying, but I get your point. I just think they didn’t give much effort to see if the last proposal by the owners offered anything to be built upon]

    Both sides need to give. But don’t underestimate the owners. They are powerful businessmen and they’re not hurting because of the players. They know exactly what they’re doing.

    [Neither side is hurting. In fact, the players weren’t hurting when they were working under the CBA previous to the recently expired CBA. I think that’s what bugs me about the players stance. They knew they got a sweetheart deal. They knew it was one-sided, heavily in their favor. And I believe they knew it was done to avoid labor strife and that it would need to be balanced in the future. Yet they’ve decided to look the other way and claim ignorance when the owners have come to balance out the deal. I’m not saying they should just give the owners that extra billion, but since they know the owners gave them extra the last time, shouldn’t they be open to negotiating on that billion? The owners last proposal included 3rd party arbitration (something I always felt the players should have been demanding) less off-season obligations, better post-football health care, raising of the salary floor for the 1st three years of the new deal as well as a few other perks. Negotiations are give and take, not just take.]

  90. Deb says: Mar 31, 2011 11:53 AM

    @truthserum4u …

    That’s one of the best cases anyone’s made for the owners. Nicely done.

    Mike kept writing they were counting on Judge Doty. I doubt the lawyers would have gambled so much on something so unpredictable. But winning the injunction willl be a game-changer. I’m crossing my fingers. Smith is certainly influencing.

    I addressed your comments about the old CBA on another thread, but here I get a better idea what you’re saying. I think the owners went about this the wrong way, and wonder how much of that was Goodell’s doing. I don’t like or trust the man and have watched him time and again take a circuituous route to arrive at his destination when being honest would have served him much better.

    The owners aren’t hurting now, but they’re concerned about how much will be going to the players 10-20 years down the road as revenues keep increasing. Instead of all the smoke and mirrors about 18-game seasons and hard hitting plus poor-mouthing about their finances when players can see revenues are up, they should have talked about how they wanted to reinvest future revenues to benefit everyone, including the players. Discussing the additional “skim” ;) as a mutually beneficial proposition would have taken them further. As it is, they did seem to be trying to take back what the players had fought to achieve.

    I know skimming is inappropriate, but I’m not sure how to refer to it. I also know revenues can be up but profits can still be down because of expenditures. That’s why I was careful to distinguish between “revenues” and “profits.” What irks me is that people here keep positioning it as though the players have demands and the players have initiated a work stoppage and that’s not the case.

    The situation on showing the books is tricky. I’d probably tell the players to bug off. But I’d say the same thing to the owners if they wanted to rework my deal to take back some of their money. That’s why I think they went about this all wrong. Wonder how much De Smith’s antagonistic personality played into this like Goodell’s into the other areas.

    Six months takes them into the season–that’s why I said they were out of options. They were trying to avoid disrupting the season.

    You’re right about the last proposal. But it didn’t address the disputed revenues. And there were issues with the length of the rookie contract. Those areas were negotiable, but I think by the time the owners came in with the proposal, a lot of bad blood was flowing. I do think the owners wasted a lot of time in the weeks before losing their lockout fund. Upshaw tried to avoid court, and I think they mistakenly believed De Smith would, too. Everyone needs to take a step back now and try again, but they won’t until after that injunction hearing.

  91. Deb says: Mar 31, 2011 12:17 PM

    @Love Doll …

    I’m a lot more fun on the other site that I’m not allowed to mention because I’ll be censored (even thought it’s PFT’s sister site). But here I’m censored whenever I try to speak in my own unique voice, so it kills a lot of my wacky humor. So sad. As scudbot posted last week “The plucky intern is highly sensitive to any potential for an insult to be perceived by someone somewhere sometimes, doesn’t like vibrant writing, or is fulfilling a pluck quota for month’s end.”

    Yes, I love being snarky and sarcastic and goofy and flirty and writing whiplash comebacks. That’s the whole point of commenting on a football blog!! Unfortunately, no one told the moderators, some of whom came here straight from a run playing computers on the scifi network. They haven’t been programmed to understand emotive writing. And since I’m hyper emotional, I fry their circuits ;)

    Yes, you’re right, Smith is speaking for the players … even when he speaks like Huggy Bear. (Can you dig it?) Really wish he wouldn’t say crazy things on their behalf.

    After they said the 18-game season was off the table, some players started talking like they’d consider it in exchange for other concessions. That’s why they should speak with one voice … even if it speaks like Huggy Bear.

    Grew up on SNL, but now usually only watch during election cycles … “I can see Russia from my house.”

    But I love Donna Summer … although my brother suggests I keep that to myself … along with my appreciation for old Van Damme films :)

  92. lanflfan says: Apr 1, 2011 4:09 PM

    The mud you are in was created by your former union head. Nice choice on that one.

  93. juancorsair says: Apr 2, 2011 4:02 PM

    blackuhuru4u says:

    It sounds to me as if most of you buffoons who comment on this site wish you had the talents to play football…IT’S THEIR PROFESSION…stop making it a “slavery thing” with your hidden bigotry ways.

    …and yet another racist crawls out of the woodwork. No big surprise there.

    PS, most of the players in the NFL “aren’t” millionaires; so cut it with this “billionaire vs. millionaire” crap. IT IS BEGINNING TO UTTERLY DISGUST ME!!!

    You are correct. Some of these players do not make millions, but merely hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I never realized they were so underpriviliged.

    You truly are one ignorant individual, sir.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!