Skip to content

PFT Planet gets a little notice for lockout comments

PadlockAP AP

Drew Magary of Deadspin and other online joints recently mentioned to me something I’ve noticed regularly over the past several months:  A lot of the folks posting comments in response to our stories seem to be squarely, and almost zealously, behind the owners in the ongoing labor drama.

We don’t delete or edit comments based on point of view, and we have no control over the whole thumb’s-up, thumb’s-down dynamic.  From an editorial standpoint, we’ve tried to play this complex and emotional issue down the middle, which of course has prompted folks on each side to claim we’re biased against their side because we haven’t declared ourselves to be on their side.  (The fact that some NFL writers, and you know who you are, are openly and almost admittedly biased makes it a lot harder for those of us who are trying to be objective.  So thanks for that.)

Magary has fashioned a post based on the comments from some of our commenters, and it’s hard to disagree with a lot of what he writes.  As football fans, we should want football, and whatever is required to give us football is what we should want.  That means we should want the lockout to be lifted by court order, with the league respecting the ruling and not responding by shutting down the whole sport.

That said, the long-term stability of the league would best be served by a labor deal that is negotiated without one side or the other having a high degree of leverage.  Otherwise, we could be back in this mess within the next few years.  Eventually, the push-and-pull could become part of the new reality for NFL fans, like showing up two hours early to fly on a plane and being sure to wear socks that don’t reek.  But if we have football, that other stuff is tolerable.

So, yes, we should all want football.  Though the players aren’t doing what they’re doing for the fans (indeed, the players weren’t trying to give the fans football when they went on strike in 1982 and 1987), we should want the outcome that gives us football, sooner rather than later.  And if the parties aren’t going to work out a new CBA before the middle of June (the ideal solution), then we should all want the next best thing — and order from the Eighth Circuit lifting the lockout.

Frankly, after 62 days of this crap, that’s precisely what I want; a new deal by the middle of June first, an order ending the lockout second.

Still, it’s shocking that so many people support shutting the league down, and it makes Magary — and us — wonder whether some of the pro-owner posts have been posted by some of the team and league employees who have a lot of free time on their hands right now.

If so, we’ll be hearing from them soon.  What else do they have to do right now?

Permalink 137 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Union
137 Responses to “PFT Planet gets a little notice for lockout comments”
  1. savocabol1 says: May 12, 2011 1:39 PM

    You claim you are down the middle with the lockout, yet when rulings go down you jump on the players bandwagon.

  2. vahawker says: May 12, 2011 1:49 PM

    Is this Drew Magary a Jerry Springer reject? Maybe he couldn’t cut on one of those “news” programs with everyone yelling and no one saying anything? He sure isn’t anything resembling a journalist or professional writer. Just another hack with a blog…nothing of interest here.

  3. jaggedmark says: May 12, 2011 1:50 PM

    F the owners.

  4. steelerlady43 says: May 12, 2011 1:51 PM

    I seriously doubt the players or league employees give a squat what PFT or Deadspin have to say to post comments….don’t flatter yourselves…..

  5. dasboat says: May 12, 2011 1:53 PM

    I listen to PFT Live daily, and I find the coverage right down the middle. Personally, I blame both sides. It’s tougher to get behind the owners: they won’t open their books and they won’t share any revenue above the projected growth rate. Those two things make it hard for me to be in the owners’ camp.

  6. thephantomstranger says: May 12, 2011 1:53 PM

    I’m not on the side of the owners or the players, but I tend to be more pro-owner because they seem to be more interested in maintaining the game as we’ve come to know it. When the players took it into the courts, it opened up a pandora’s box of possible changes that could come, including the end of the draft. I don’t want the lockout to end if it means we’ll have football this year but the long-term viability of the game is threatened. I’d like something to happen so that neither side has a huge advantage and both sides are motivated to come to an agreement that makes sense for everybody, but I don’t know if that can happen at this point.

  7. joshuavkidd says: May 12, 2011 1:54 PM

    i am not on the players side because their argument makes no sense to me. We all know the whole decertification thing is a joke yet its the basis for their position. Then they want the league to open up for business but when they do any rules the league has in place is in danger of anti-trust violations. Not to mention this notion that the owners have to open the books…last time i checked with my boss, he and the rest of management don’t own me the right to exam their books.

    At least I understand the owners logic… “we want more money” “We want a rookie cap”, ” We want draft and free agent rules”. Whether i agree with these or not, at least they make sense to me.

  8. buffalohogan says: May 12, 2011 1:54 PM

    I am not an employee of any team.

    I am a Bills season ticket holder.

    If the players win their lawsuit, the game as we know it will be changed dramatically and in my oppinion as an NFL fan and Bills Fan – it will be for the bad. If the players win their suit the Bills will cease to exist in a few years – they can not compete with out a cap, without revenue sharing, etc. So who do you think i would want to win?

    Also, the changes to the game the owners want i agree with. I like the rookie wage scale, i like increased drug screening, i like paying for less preseason garbage and more real games, i like revenue sharing, agian it helps my small market team stay competitive.

    I dont think the players will budge until the owners agree to extend the current CBA or are in a situation where the have no choice. Unfortunaetly that wont happen in May…or June…or July, or august…it will only happen until September when they start missing checks…

    so, if the NFL cant get to September in the courts, then I say shutdown the league until (in the words of Jason Whitlock) the players cry bitch.

  9. tigerdactyl says: May 12, 2011 1:56 PM

    I can only speak for myself, but when siding with the owners on most things it’s because I want this to be settled long term. I don’t want a one year fix, only to be back here again next year. The only way that happens is if everyone gets away from the courts and back to negotiating. If that means no football for a year, so be it.

    And for the record, this site is COMPLETELY pro-players.

  10. smacklayer says: May 12, 2011 1:58 PM

    Ok so if most people diagree with your point of view, it is a conspiracy? The fact is that we have no dog in this fight other than to have a long term NFL that thrives. We do not make money from there “being” football, whatever that means. You make money on this site, so your dog is to get “footbal” back, no matter what the long term health is.

    The players are trying to destroy what makes the league great. Isn’t it painfully obvious that most people side with the owners because of this?? Pull your head out of your a$$ and think long term. We all want “football”, but not at the cost of destroying the league.

  11. azbroncos says: May 12, 2011 1:59 PM

    The players pulled out there nuclear weapon and blew up the union, why can’t the owners do the same?? Not saying I don’t want football, but what I don’t want is an NFL with no draft, no salary cap, and basically going to MLB rules of free agency. And thats what the players are pushing for, whether its just a threat or not it still scares the @#%! out of me. And i must be a employed by the league though right???LOL

  12. tonyinmd says: May 12, 2011 2:01 PM

    Here is where I am.

    I TOTALLY agree with the owners that this system needs to be reworked. I feel that it’s rediculous for the players to basically say “we aren’t really negotiating with you unless you open 10 years of your books to us”. I feel that professional athletes are the only people in this country to not feel the pinch of a struggling economy. That yes, the revenues have gone up, but all you have to do is go to the local gas station to see that expenses are getting out of control.

    All that being said, I am rooting for this lockout to be lifted because, well, I want to watch football, and that’s it. I think the players are pathetic, lame and I’m tired of the tired and old name calling they I read about every other day.

    It just so happens that their strategy will give us football, and really, that’s all I’m really concerned with right now…the middle of June is one month away.

    So go to hell players…I can’t stand your views/opinions/childish name calling, but just in order to watch football, this is the one thing I hope is successful.

  13. hooky40 says: May 12, 2011 2:01 PM

    I’m glad to hear that most people are backing the owners in this mess. The players are the ones who walked out of mediation and decertified, not the owners. The league needs to publicly re-engage the players (and mean it)to get mediation going again. A “fair” deal can be had by both sides, but they both need to realize that they aren’t going to get everything they want. Personally, I would love a new deal to be reached with a stipulation that any future decertification by the NFLPA* would result in the permanent or severly extended disqualification of the union leadership that is in place at the time of decertification. The current decertification is clearly a sham for litigation purposes only, clearly circumventing the spirit of the laws and dancing on the letters of the law. Honestly, thinking about the whole mess makes me sick…

  14. duster1982 says: May 12, 2011 2:01 PM

    Or maybe it’s because the true fans of football have been following this closely, and know that for the league that they love to survive, the owners MUST win.

    Nice “unbiased” article, saying we’re employees of the league.

    If the players win, the league will become garbage, and youll be out of a job. Ever think of that??

  15. malgorthewarrior says: May 12, 2011 2:02 PM

    I’m always surprised to see all the pro owners posts. Somehow over the last 30 years people have been convinced that it’s bad for laborers to demand more rights from owners in any situation. Anti-union bias is pervasive. We ostracize teachers for trying to get better pay etc (something that would attract more qualified candidates) and wonder at the same time why the America has such a poor educational system.

    Americans work more than any other population in the developed world, and still lag behind in innovation and productivity. Why? Because the public demonizes workers when they create unions and fight for their rights.

    The most common objection is “they get too many benefits” which is just another way of saying “my boss screws me, and misery loves company, so screw unions.”

    Let’s all work more hours than the rest of the globe, for less pay, and complain about people that wanted to be treated fairly. That will get things set right!

  16. kyleortonsarm says: May 12, 2011 2:07 PM

    Who cares what Deadspin thinks anyway. I love the owners. They’re the glue that keeps the NFL from crumbling to pieces. If I had the opportunity to play football I’d do it for $30,000 a year. If they’re poor and destitute then it’s their own fault for being stupid with their money. They get payed to play a children’s game and the owners are the ones who allow them to receive money for it. Unions are past their usefulness in the real world and it’s time to move on. America has gotten along fine without it. Same as when we got rid of monarchies. I like Wal-Mart Associates too because they help me locate things and are the public face of their company, but I don’t believe they have the right to strong arm the corporate headquarters into getting more money and benefits. I assume most NFL players who came after college have a degree in something that interests them so if it’s so awful working for the NFL owners, then I suggest they go with plan B and hopefully don’t take their fast and loose idea of how employees and management interact to their new work place. That doesn’t fly in the real world, but they sure seem to think it’s acceptable in the fantastical and magical world of playing a game almost anyone with arms and legs could also do, except for more money than people who apply themselves to fields that require actual skill sets that contribute to society.

  17. cscfriarbob says: May 12, 2011 2:08 PM

    “What else do they have to do right now?”

    Use this site as an escape from their real jobs. Many of which are boring or at least less interesting/enjoyable than the NFL… even in a lockout.

    You “claim” — and yes those ARE sneer quotes — to be on the side of “just play football”. Sorry, there is no such thing. You can lie to yourself if you want, but you’re not deceiving anybody else out here with a brain. There are only two options — either the owners cave or the players actually start to negotiate in good faith. The players took advantage of a situation that gave them a ton of leverage last time and demanded huge additional concessions. They got them. Now the league says that deal doesn’t work for them and they want part of it back — not ALL, not even MOST, just PART.

    The union, in turn, said, No, we aren’t giving a millimeter, and if you don’t cave to our demands this time we’ll illegally decertify and then sue you and demand even MORE! And when the league called them on it before the NLRB, they went through a farce of negotiating in which they grudgingly gave a few millimeters while constantly demanding info they simply had no right to have (financial statements). Yes I’m sure the NFL made mistakes too. Some of what they said or did obviously offended the players far more than they probably intended. But the onus is on the players, because this ENTIRE situation IS their fault because of their tactics and demands back in 2006.

    Until the union has enough pressure put on it to at least get it to negotiate in good faith and be willing to make an agreement in which they do genuinely give up at least SOMETHING, we will not have football. The owners would be fools to do anything different. And while many of them are in fact greedy jerks with little or no good qualities, they aren’t fools. I’d actually prefer the league NOT shut down. But if it does, then it does. My preferences mean jack squat. These people are businessmen who must make the best decision they can for the health of their business, and I have exactly ZERO say in the matter.

    I’m sure there will be plenty of people come on soon enough to call me an owner shill (despite my insulting them above). They’ll claim, like you, that I’m employed by the NFL in some fashion. Bull crap. Total and complete bull crap. I’m a contract software engineer for the advertising industry, and not one of our clients that I’m aware of has even any second-hand relationship with the NFL.

    And then there will be people who come and claim that those people are player shills. And most of them will be wrong too.

    It’s completely and totally possible to have an honest opinion on this matter without having to be employed by either side. Hell, you should know that. You even have an opinion on baseball and college football and you in no way get paid for that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of your commenters that you just got finished insulting.

  18. jdvallee says: May 12, 2011 2:09 PM

    Well, I am not affiliated with the league in any way, shape, or form (except that I am a NFL Fan). I am “more” aligned with the owners than the players for simple reason, The owners have to ensure for the long-term health of the NFL to continue generating profits. The players are interested in the short term health of themselves and their bank accounts. I have no problem with the players being concerned with themselves. But if anyone thinks for even a second that they (the players) would give back a single dollar of their income to ensure the continuation of the league, they are naive at best. The owners have a vested interest in ensuring the NFL “product” remains the best in professional sports. As soon as it is not the best product anymore, we the fans will spend our dollars elsewhere. Ask MLB how healthy their business structure is in relation to the NFL.

  19. stevesabato says: May 12, 2011 2:11 PM

    You’d have to be out of your mind to think that the owners or team executives don’t think that comments on a site that generates as much traffic as much as PFT does are irrelevant. A lot of the pro-owner comments on this thing are very obvious, rhetoric-based, contrived statements. It shows a shocking amount of indiscretion from the owners side in general, whether or not they’re behind it. If nothing else, it shows the fact that they don’t read enough into the depth of the situation to grasp a functional understanding of how this all works. There have been some pretty bad pro-player statements as well, but the comment section had become very obviously spammed by pro-owner rhetoric. That’s kind of disappointing for those of us who understand that there are two groups to blame here, and really just want to be able to watch football again.

  20. footballfan292 says: May 12, 2011 2:11 PM

    Majority of football fans are likely conservative and/or Republican and therefore despise the unions. Republicans NEVER side with labor in these types of battles. They always side with the rich.

    Just look at what’s been going on in Wisconsin. Republicans declared war on labor. They support a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is exactly what is slowly happening in America today.

    Look at how they are fighting to protect tax breaks for Big Oil companies even though they are posting record profits with sky-high prices at the pump. Jobs? What jobs? Those companies arnt using the tax breaks to hire people. That money is going to executives and shareholders. Like I said…the rich get richer.

  21. scudbot says: May 12, 2011 2:11 PM

    >As football fans, we should want football, and whatever is required to give us football is what we should want.

    That would be a new CBA that doesn’t put teams like the Packers in the red by 2012 and a dismissal of Brady et al.

  22. roygreenunderrated says: May 12, 2011 2:13 PM

    So the only reason there are more comments favorable to the owners is because of a conspiracy? Thats a good one…….

    Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, more people are siding with the owners in this mess and the comments are reflective of that. Probably because in the long run it would be better for the sport for the league to “win” and I think most people realize that.

  23. deadeye says: May 12, 2011 2:14 PM

    Why would so many posters stand behind the owners position? Here are a few possibilities:

    1) We understand how poisonous unions are to businesses and detest the fact that liberal judges dictate pro-union verdicts regardless of merit.

    2) We see how spoiled athletes have become in our society, starting in high school, through college, and into the pros. Far too often these clowns have a sense of entitlement and a serious detachment from reality. They wine about “pensions”, and other benefits not realizing that if they had two functioning brain cells they could simply put their first million dollar check in the bank and be set for life. No, can’t do that, gotta have the bling for the hoes.

    3) Many (if not most) NFL owners have worked hard for their money. They know how to build businesses (which employ thousands of people) and in all this mess they inexplicably get depicted as the bad guys.

    4) Many of us understand that if the owners can’t run their business the way they want to (thanks to unions and liberal tyrants), we won’t get to run our businesses the way we want to. Infringing their rights will infringe on our rights. We don’t want that.

    5) Many of us have our priorities straight. I would rather see the NFL shut down and go away instead of having the government put a gun to the owners heads forcing them to run it against their wishes. It’s just entertainment, not life and death. Principles are a thousand times more important than entertainment.

    6) We understand that regardless of what people think the NFL is on paper, it is in fact a single business. Whatever the league needs to do to maintain a competitive balance is good for the league. The only competition is on the football field. If ompetitive balance goes away, it turns the NFL into baseball. Thus it would become a crappy, boring, game won by the owner with the highest payroll. The players want that of course, but fans don’t.

    The fact that you are suspicious about those who post on PFT leads me to think that you are either detached from reality or pro union. I’m not sure which it is.

  24. kindbass says: May 12, 2011 2:16 PM

    Drew is the man. The owners are just middlemen to give our (the fans’) money to the players, who earn it. Sorry, but it’s true. Sure, their vast amounts of wealth can keep the league humming along (OR NOT), but what has someone like Dan Snyder ever actually contributed to the game of football? I would even say the owners HARM football by giving guys like Haynesworth $100mil contracts, which results in this lockout. And you people argue that they’re superior businessmen? A third of the owners INHERITED their teams, in other words, didn’t do jack to be the owner of a golden-goose NFL franchinse. And what kind of idiot would offer Albert Haynesworth a $100mil contract to play in a system he is uncomfortable/doesn’t want to play in? Savvy businessmen?

    This lockout is 100% on the owners. If you don’t like it, then have fun rocking your Al Davis/Jerry Jones/Bob Kraft jerseys this season.

  25. pilonflats says: May 12, 2011 2:17 PM

    I think that drew guy is like al gore – he just says idiotic things to get attenion. its called ochocinco syndrome.

  26. jlinatl says: May 12, 2011 2:17 PM

    When a blog is that caustic, there is no use trying to discuss or debate an issue.

    I certainly don’t feel like I want anyone to win for the sake of winning. I just believe that if the player’s win, the long term implications to the game and professional sports could be very negative to fans. Because the teams I follow are big market well financed teams, it could actually help my teams but I would rather see balance.

    Any idiot can write an inflamatory blog article or post a comment… and many have. I’m just trying to see the long term best interest of the game served. That seems most likely to happen at a bargaining table which seems most likely to happen if the stay is upheld. If it happens another way, I’m fine with it and think most others would be as well.

    I think any argument that the league will just pick up where it left off if the judge lifts the stay is naive. I also think taking the stance that the players are workers is shortsighted. Professional athletes don’t view themselves as like a union tradesman. The best run companies usually have a positive management-employee relationship. You know, like this one used to.

  27. kindbass says: May 12, 2011 2:21 PM

    Who wants to join my 2011 Fantasy Owners league? You gain points for assets (current and long-term), returns on investments, and revenues and you lose points for liabilities, costs, and expenses.

    It’s gonna be AWESOME.

  28. minnesconsin says: May 12, 2011 2:22 PM

    For fun, I went back to the original article, “Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown,” and started jotting down the usernames of the people who are posting the most blatantly pro-owner comments. Many of those usernames are non-clickable, but of the ones that were, their WordPress accounts were almost always initiated between Jan 2011 and April 2011. For the ones that were not clickable, I used google’s advance search to look for that word on this website, then sorted by date to see results of their comments. For the few that I searched whose posts actually dated back further than the labor dispute of this spring, the vast majority of posts were pertaining to league issues, nothing an actual fan would care about.

    This took me a half hour or so. If someone actually cared to track this with a more advanced system, I doubt it’d take long to be convinced that there are most certainly planted comments at PFT.

  29. duncancaper51 says: May 12, 2011 2:25 PM

    Way to play it down the middle by throwing your support completely to one side. It’s not that people support the owners or players. Its that most people with real jobs cannot believe what is required to get these guys to play a game. Millions aren’t enough? The NFLPA, or whatever they are calling themselves now, are seeking changes to the entire structure of the draft and free agency. If that’s what it takes for football, I say bring in the replacements. It’s more than whether or not we want there to be football. Thats a dumbed-down and midirected argument. And seriously, do you really believe that employees for the NFL are on here trying to create the appearance of owner support? If anyone would be bored enough to do that, and niave enough to believe that it would make any difference, it would be the players.

  30. hobartbaker says: May 12, 2011 2:26 PM

    “Marg!”. LOL.

    Where this guy learn English in juvenile detention?

  31. benh999 says: May 12, 2011 2:26 PM

    No one in their right minds thinks you are biased toward the owners or playing it down the middle. I wonder if you were as critical of the players when they went on strike for “taking our football away”.

  32. cdaws84 says: May 12, 2011 2:26 PM

    Wow. I know you make money off of the NFL and reporting on their players and team moves. But to suggest those who are pro-owner are either non-fans or the staff of NFL owners is pretty disgusting. Rather than calling out pro-owners or for that matter the owners….and if you were truly in the middle…wouldnt you also be begging the players to return to the negotiating table? You lost my respect.

  33. bigbluetruck says: May 12, 2011 2:27 PM

    Wow. I can’t even fathom how anyone without an ownership stake can support the owners. Ownership are locking out the players not because, as they’ve admitted, they are not profitable, but because they are not profitable ENOUGH. So their message is, “Player’s we need you to take a haircut to make us more profitable”. What world does that work in?

    Two related points that say everything about this situation. First, the unwillingness of the owners to open their books (both sides of the ledger, not just income), speaks volumes about the state of the NFL’s control over their own team’s strict adherence to the covenants of ownership. Would anyone doubt that at least 75% of teams are WAAAAY over their leverage covenants? Wanna guess that short of the players themselves, that there is not a single tangible asset that an owner like Dan Snyder doesn’t have a mortgage on? I would not be shocked one iota to find that there are teams like the Redskins, Oakland, Buffalo that are leveraged over 100% of their book value. Second, is that if you doubt me, ask why exactly we know about the LA Dodgers financials. It sure isn’t MLB releasing it. If you want to live in a faiery world where the preponderence of NFL teams are not in exactly the same state you are delusional.

  34. chace1986 says: May 12, 2011 2:28 PM

    This deadspin guys is a joke…I would type his name but….I wont give him the satisfaction of having name typed one more time than it should be. He couldnt think of any other way to express himself than dropping the F-bomb 500 times…his whole arguement came off as trashy and thrown together with emotion. I wouldnt say that people are pro-owner as much as I would say anti-player in this matter. Most of these players will be out of the league in 10 years and I want the game to be tainted because of the selfishness of the players and their agents. We dont expect much less out of the owners than greed…we dont want to see the same from teh players….simple fact.

  35. squabguy says: May 12, 2011 2:29 PM

    how can the players not be blamed?

    They didn’t pay a cent of the millions to buy the business.

    They are paid VERY VERY well by US and sports standards. Check incomes of them before and after football to compare. Not those of others compared to them. But the actual incomes of the players, same talent, real-world jobs.

    But they want more? A fault? No, but the union sham and the walking away to force the court to take over was greed exemplified.

    My life will be fine in 2011 with or without football. Life goes on, although we would all enjoy it more watching our games we pay so much for (insert more reason to be ticked at the rediculous salaries that our tickets provide).

    I’m a much happier fan knowing this is in line and not being ruined if it takes a seaosn sitting out. C’mon, now we are challenging the legitimacy of the draft, too, or threatening the such?

    Tell me, how similar do you think this game is going to be when our kids take over as the ones financially supporting this league as fans?

    Free agency ruined the hometown loyalty and the thrill of a loyal and rooted group of guys to a town and fanbase. That was huge for so many fans.

    Greed. File it under any other name you want, but greed is greed and it nevers benefits anyone outside of the ones seeking it for themselves; players.

    Shoot, maybe the grocery baggers can start doing juggling acts, improvs, and other forms of entertainment with their jobs. Then they’d have the right to join and claim that their performances are what helps bring in customers. Hey, we’re entertainers, not just a common work force! We want a return on each of these cans of beans we bagged with our flair!!! If it wasn’t for us, they’d be shopping elsewhere (or in this case, paying ticket prices to watch another sport).

    No wonder the world is always bashing this country for it’s greed.

  36. scudbot says: May 12, 2011 2:30 PM

    malgorthewarrior says: May 12, 2011 2:02 PM

    I’m always surprised to see all the pro owners posts. Somehow over the last 30 years people have been convinced that it’s bad for laborers to demand more rights

    “Laborers”? Really? I thought they were “partners” and “professionals”.

    I’ve been a union member. My posts are pro pro football. This wouldn’t be the first time that the “laborers” win and cripple the business that allows them to work. It’s simple, really. The last CBA puts the Packers in the red by 2012. If Brady et al is successful, kiss the Steelers, Packers and a bunch of other teams goodbye and go find journeyman players willing to cripple themselves for peanuts.

  37. thartnine says: May 12, 2011 2:34 PM

    This is really simple, I side with the owners because I saw what the players did to baseball. I am sure that the players are pretty good guys and all, but for football to survive in anything close to its current incarnation the owners have to win, and win BIG!

  38. cgarsmoker says: May 12, 2011 2:36 PM

    I own my own business so I can empathize with the owners. Everybody knows the players got a great contract in the previous CBA so now the owners want to reel those numbers back in. I understand that… I get it. They own the league and they have every right to do that. The players are employees, not partners. I might have more sympathy for the players if I thought they were not going to be fairly compensated but that is far from the case.

    I love football and I would rather the owner totally shut down and force negotiations rather than change the game to conform with antitrust laws. I want a labor agreement and u
    I think a temporary shutdown will push the players towards negotiations.

    The link you provided that basically says for anybody with a different opinion to “go f****ng die” is ignorant and extremely shallow. I can’t see how insulting a portion of your loyal readers because they offer a different opinion can possibly help anything.

  39. nfl25 says: May 12, 2011 2:37 PM

    This site wants football asap because business want profits asap. The level headed people wants whats best for football down the road. Whats best for football down the road is a fair deal that the owners are cool with. Not one where the owners have to give in.

  40. Burritto says: May 12, 2011 2:39 PM

    How are the perspectives of A) simply wanting football and B) blaming one side or the other in conflict whatsoever? These suggestions imply that supporters of the owners or the players are saying “I want football, but only if my side wins in the negotiations.” NO ONE is saying that.

  41. gtisme says: May 12, 2011 2:42 PM

    How can you tell if its cold outside? DeMaurice Smith has his hands in his own pockets.

    Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest NFL Owner, and an old drunk were walking along when they simultaneously spotted a hundred-dollar bill laying in the street. Who gets it?
    The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures.

    What do you call A lawyer gone bad? A Circuit Court Judge

    …. wonder whats going on in Major League Baseball tonight?………….ack…just kill me.

  42. itsallaboutmee says: May 12, 2011 2:42 PM

    squabguy says: May 12, 2011 2:29 PM

    how can the players not be blamed?

    They didn’t pay a cent of the millions to buy the business.

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

    Neither did Rooney. Mara, Irsay, McCaskey, etc etc etc etc.

  43. possiblecabbage says: May 12, 2011 2:43 PM

    Generally speaking, the Players’ interest in the game extends forwards less than 10 years in the future. After they get their money and get out, they could care less about the economics of the league. The owners on the other hand have an interest in the game that extends forward in perpetuity. The fan’s interest in the game is much more in line with the owners in this respect, than the players. I don’t know if I’ll still be interested in football ten years from now, but I expect to be and I hope that the game is a growing, competitive, and stable game next year and every year after.

    To be honest, I just don’t see the players as caretakers of the game, I see them as caretakers of themselves. Which is reasonable, but I see no reason that I should support them. I certainly don’t support the owners in all things, but generally their long-term approach does coincide with mine. I would rather miss an entire season and have labor peace for the next two decades than have a court order football to begin and then we have to go through this same mess every five years in perpetuity.

  44. diealreadyralphwilson says: May 12, 2011 2:44 PM

    Look, it is odd that so many people support management. Might have a bit to do with the rightward trend of thought in America. Honestly, are we with the billionaires in favor of the millionaires? I’ll refer the planet to Chris Rock… don’t mistake rich for wealthy.

    The league is not above posting things, nor would the teams be. PFT should get tons of repect for their honest attempts to be objective, without being the perpetual “PC” gargabe then one would expect from say… the mothership.

  45. footballrealist says: May 12, 2011 2:45 PM

    I accept that players get paid millions for the talents they posses. I can not accept that they don’t make enough. Nor do I accept that it is a partnership between owners and players.

    If it were truly a partnership, then players would accept contract language that allows teams to fine, and discipline players whose conduct is injurious to the joint venture. It isn’t a joint venture. The players are looking out for number one.

    The owners are business men who have the right maximize the profit of their investment, as well as the long term viability of it, and potential future changes and manifestations of the licensing and distribution of the product.

    The players have demonstrated that they are primarily concerned with ‘their ‘ personal short term gain. They were not fighting for increased pay-out to retired players who built the game despite several years of pleas for support from disabled veterans.

    Their interest in a ‘rookie’ wage scale has nothing to do with maintaining competitive teams by not penalizing the bottom team with huge salaries. It has everything to do with increasing the pay of veterans. The players UNION does not truly look out for equitable distribution of the player salaries across all starters. They are more than comfortable with a Left Tackle earning more than a Left Guard based on market forces. Yet they want the owners to accept a socialist ‘partnership’ which does not share the revenue to players equally.

    Players are well compensated for being able to run faster, hit harder, or being born bigger than a lot of people who would gladly do their job at a fraction of the pay. They enjoy league minimums that ensure that the worst player in the NFL is paid more than any teacher in the world, and more than many doctors.

    The owners aren’t ulruists, but, they do have a higher stake in managing the golden goose that the players are currently strangling .

  46. footballfan292 says: May 12, 2011 2:45 PM

    People forget the owners approved the last CBA by a vote of 30-2. That deal was not forced on them. They agreed to it.

    So would someone PLEASE explain to me why it’s the players fault that the owners got a bad deal? And don’t give me the Tagliabue-Upshaw crap. Those two negotiated a deal and the OWNERS APPROVED THAT DEAL! If that deal made it impossible for football to work, why did they approve it? Sorry folks, whether you are on the owners side or not, this this their fault for approving that deal.

    And sounds more like Tags was a dang good commish and this Goodell clown is a freakin joke. I think everyone agrees with that.

  47. roygreenunderrated says: May 12, 2011 2:47 PM

    For fun, I went back to the original article, “Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown,” and started jotting down the usernames of the people who are posting the most blatantly pro-owner comments. Many of those usernames are non-clickable, but of the ones that were, their WordPress accounts were almost always initiated between Jan 2011 and April 2011. For the ones that were not clickable, I used google’s advance search to look for that word on this website, then sorted by date to see results of their comments. For the few that I searched whose posts actually dated back further than the labor dispute of this spring, the vast majority of posts were pertaining to league issues, nothing an actual fan would care about.

    This took me a half hour or so. If someone actually cared to track this with a more advanced system, I doubt it’d take long to be convinced that there are most certainly planted comments at PFT.

    Very scientific of you I must say LOLOL! I would further comment on this but since I’m a plant I’m awaiting further instructions from Roger, oops, I mean Mr. Goodell.

  48. alexanderisland says: May 12, 2011 2:47 PM

    The union leaderships position is just plain greed. They are telling the whole world that the owners want to give them an 18% ‘haircut’ despite the monetary amount increasing year after year. There was no posturing or actual salary reductions ever to take place. The owners are finding it increasingly difficult to get public money to fund stadiums, so from here onwards they will have to fund them themselves – hence the percentage ‘haircut’.

    I recall the union leader, DeMoronice Smith scoffing at the fact that the Packers had turned a $9 million profit stating that it was a good and fair amount. However, put into perspective, if the ‘owner’ (the Packers are the only publicly traded franchise, and it is valued at $1 billion) would take the value of his franchise and put it into a bank savings account that gave a 2% APR, they would be able to reap $20 million per year in interest; no risk, no prima donna players, no payroll, etc, etc. In other words, why would anyone in their right mind even want to entertain having the headache of dealing with a bunch of biological entities if he could stash his lolly in a bank and just retire on the interest?

    I am not advocating to pay the players 5 dollars an hour, but they have to understand that the time for freebies from local, county and state governments has ended, and now the owners have to pony up lolly in order to maintain the league’s growth. Actually, if the players win and the league is forced to succumb to their wimps, don’t be startled if the individual franchises are ‘sold’ to the NFL, who would incorporate them as ‘branches’ of the same NFL Inc. By doing this, the players can kiss goodbye to all and any anti-trust lawsuits, because there would not be any individual businesses to lump together and sue.

  49. farmermonkey says: May 12, 2011 2:48 PM

    Don’t understand the argument that the owners’ interests are more closely aligned with the fans’ because they’re concerned with the long term health of the league, and the players aren’t. I could maybe see that argument holding water with the Rooneys or Maras, but really, as businessmen, the owners’ interests are just as self-serving as the players’. Teams change ownership all the time. I don’t think an Joe Q. Owner loses any sleep if he maximizes profit for five years then sells his share of the team to move on to something more profitable.Look at how new stadiums are laid out. Is the emphasis on the fans, or on the luxury boxes and corporate partners?

  50. itsallaboutmee says: May 12, 2011 2:48 PM

    It looks like the Deadspin piece hit WAY too close home for some folks on here. Oh well….

    As Leo said in ‘Millers Crossing’..”Twist a pigs ear and watch him squeal”.

  51. nahcouldntbethat says: May 12, 2011 2:49 PM

    Rush Limbaugh’s crowd tend to be very conservative. And in this economy they have a lot of time on their hands.

    Any board that gives an opportunity to rant against liberals who are ruining America is going to be well served by them.

  52. jethro007 says: May 12, 2011 2:49 PM

    If we attempt to post an opinion regarding the “author” of this diatribe–the post doesn’t show up.
    Interesting!

  53. nfl25 says: May 12, 2011 2:51 PM

    What a joke. Must be a conspiracy. I have never commented on a website in my life. Then I was reading about the lockout and read people talking about how their favoritest player in the whole wide world deserved more money and the owners are greedy. After that I had to say something, so I signed up and wrote a comment.

    I am an eagles fan, a fan of my organization, I am not a cheerleader for certain players. I like the players, but they come and go. I back my team. I have no need to get the players filthy rich at the expense of the Game. Or maybe I am really Jeff Lurie sitting on my yatch writing comments with you bums

  54. bigbeefyd says: May 12, 2011 2:51 PM

    @bigbluetruck (and a few others) – the players are worried about themselves, right now and for the duration of their careers. The owners have no choice but to be worried about the future of the league. Long after Ochocinco has been forgotten as a has-been bullrider/soccer player/boxer/infomercial star, ownership will be worried about building new stadiums, league expansion, and all of the other stuff that is necessary to allow the league to exist in perpetuity. As such, they know that they have to be as profitable as possible. Last year the top 32 draft picks got over a half billion in guaranteed dollars before they ever played one play. That’s insanity, and the owners have to stop insanity like that.

  55. manonfire71077 says: May 12, 2011 2:54 PM

    Mike,

    Nice job stirring the hornet’s nest. My love for pro football is stronger than any political feelings or grand ideas that I harbor. Although I live in a red state, I generally find myself on the blue side of things. And one of my favorite players is one of the leaders of the players union/trade group.

    That said, I couldn’t be more supportive of the owners and less of the players. Setting aside whether you like or hate unions generally or like or hate the owners generally, the players decided to take a private negotiation to the courts in an effort to ramp up their leverage. That strategy does two inexcusable harms to the fans: (1) it puts the league as we know it, in the form of competitive balance mechanics such as the draft and free agency structure at real risk, and (2) even if you say that’s just a stratagem that will never really damage those institutions (ignoring that the stratagem might find legs in the wrong court and open up a Pandora’s box, which is unimaginably reckless), the litigation strategy extends the time without football and puts at very real risk the 2011 season.

    You don’t have to have any view on the players or the owners to see whichever side throws this thing into the court system in order to gain the upper hands in negotiations is the bad guy – because it is ultimately that party that puts the league structure and the fans experience of the league most at risk.

    Finally, assume arguendo that the players win on every level of litigation. Having nuked the owners in court, can anyone really be surprised or outraged if the owners do decide to take their balls and go to their various oppulent homes? The gruesome reality of wars of attrition born in the court system combined with the fact that, in the end, these are privately owned businesses that can be shut down by their owners for any reason or no reason makes the players strategy myopic at best. So I side with the owners. I think that’s how many people feel.

  56. koop85 says: May 12, 2011 2:55 PM

    Did that go like you thought it would?…
    Nope.

  57. xxxfixxxerxxx says: May 12, 2011 2:57 PM

    @ buffalohogan

    As Bills fan myself I could not agree more.

    I’m not from Buffalo, I’m not even from the U.S. and I probably will never attend a game at the Ralph but I would hate to see such a great fanbase without a pro football team.
    We love our Bills and if the Bills moved or ceased to exist I would not follow (being fanatic about it) the NFL as I do now.

    The last CBA forced the Bills to sell games to Toronto. I don’t even want to speculate how much worse will the next deal with the Rogers group will be if the last CBA stands in court.

    I’m not pro-owner or anti-player. I’m pro-fan and I’m as greedy as they are, not for money but for my entertainment.

  58. zerored78 says: May 12, 2011 2:58 PM

    “The last CBA puts the Packers in the red by 2012. If Brady et al is successful, kiss the Steelers, Packers and a bunch of other teams goodbye and go find journeyman players willing to cripple themselves for peanuts.”

    Yeah, because it’s simply impossible to think these teams could actually increase their revenue. Like they have for every year for decades…. Want one simple fix for the Packers? Actually sell naming rights for Lambeau Field like many other teams have done with their stadiums.

    This actually gets to the root cause of why the owners have chosen to go down this route. The owners can’t agree on a new method of revenue sharing. You have some owners that are doing everything they can to find new revenue streams for the teams and eventually the league. Others are stuck in the past and are happy to collect checks from the other owners. Instead of figuring this out, they all agreed they could go after the players’ money.

  59. hlmatty1 says: May 12, 2011 3:01 PM

    Maybe the pro-union posters are shills for the NFLPA*!? What a joke. Take malgorthewarrior for instance, with his “ooohh the bad capiatalists hate unions speech.” Maybe people are made at teachers because they get paid very well, work only nine months, they cannot be fired, and our kids cannot read! In NY, teachers caught sleeping with students could not be fired for at least a year while the union wanted them back teaching in the meantime! Some “rights” these unions are fighting for.

    And who exactly does the union here represent? not the “real” worker, i.e., the minimum salary player who needs the job and the money, but the multi-millionaire players who need more stuff (or Antonio Cromartie who needs to pay child support for the 9 or so children from numerous women). Is there really a need to have players who never did anything get $50 Million guaranteed so that he can spend more than $300K for jewelry in his first year alone?! Did you see, as Jared Allen pointed out, the huge diamond earrings, necklaces and watches the rookies at the Draft had on — and they were supposed to be poor scholarship players. That is the poor impoverished player your heart bleeds for?

  60. zerored78 says: May 12, 2011 3:01 PM

    @bigbeefyd

    The players already agree to a rookie pay scale. That’s never been much of an issue between either side.

    I just want to know why people are so trusting of the owners? If the league is in such dire financial straights (even though they are the most profitable league in the world and players make less money than those in MLB or the NBA) it shouldn’t be that hard to prove it. I haven’t seen one shred of real evidence that the league HAD to go this route for the long term future of the league.

  61. demons87 says: May 12, 2011 3:02 PM

    The only thing I care about is making it as cheap as possible to go to a game. If the players win, there is a good chance that salary costs will go up and that cost will be passed on to the people that attend the games.

  62. ajtexans says: May 12, 2011 3:03 PM

    Fan and season ticket holder for 30 years. I’m for the long term health of the league and recognize the significance of the current business model to it’s success. I have also read the class action suit filed by Brady, Brees, et al. and to me its message is clearly counter to the ‘all we want to do is play’ propaganda being spewed by the PA and the players and counter to what’s good for the long term health of the league. If that makes me pro owner then so be it.

  63. mawbrew says: May 12, 2011 3:05 PM

    I don’t doubt that PFT has tried to play this down the middle, but it’s not really possible unless you are only going to report facts and that’s sort of inconsistent with the whole blog concept. Based on what been posted the PFT guys have a clear financial incentive to want football back under the ‘old’ rules (under almost any circumstances really).

    But, in fairness, PFT has also acknowledged that a system close to what MLB has evolved to would not be in the long term interests of the game. Where I clearly differ from the PFT POV is in the belief that continueing under the ‘old’ rules (i.e. lifting the lockout) would be much more likely to result in an MLB type system. Given that I believe that, why on earth should I want the lockout lifted?

    The NFL sees their businesses heading down the path of MLB and the NBA. They are doing the right thing to change things now rather than to wait too long.

  64. radrhatr says: May 12, 2011 3:08 PM

    “Still, it’s shocking that so many people support shutting the league down, and it makes Magary — and us — wonder whether some of the pro-owner posts have been posted by some of the team and league employees who have a lot of free time on their hands right now.”

    Beleive me. You’re not that important. I see where you would support the player’s sense of entitlement now, since you also have one.

  65. johnnyoclock says: May 12, 2011 3:09 PM

    It sounds like you’re in a roundabout way trying o discourage comments not supporting the players: “That said, the long-term stability of the league would best be served by a labor deal that is negotiated without one side or the other having a high degree of leverage.”

    Personally I don’t think comments are a shill for teams. I think it’s a case where people are tired of seeing spoiled children complain they’re not spoiled enough. And I think people are tired of these same overgrown children declare war on an entity that saves half of these players in life from their own self. It’s really not unfair to call that disgusting.

    People care about one thing: Are you a business who takes care of it’s workers? Yes, the NFL is, given these players’ paychecks. People believe as long as an owner of a business is taking care of his employees, especially to the tune of millions, then people don’t really care how much goes in the owner’s pockets. That’s the fact that some are still having trouble grasping.

    But nope, you have to go insist some comments have to, just have to, be some conspiracy because like a lot of people, you just don’t seem to believe anything can be actually authentic if it’s not in your favor of what you may personally believe. People have to stop that attitude. It’s called self-critique Mr. F. Please engage in it. Once people stop that attitude, then your eyes open up.

    Why is it so impossible that it could just be simply the players are the ones who are wrong? Why do you and others have to find that absolutely incredulous?

  66. maddog111 says: May 12, 2011 3:10 PM

    footballfan292 says:
    May 12, 2011 2:11 PM
    Majority of football fans are likely conservative and/or Republican and therefore despise the unions. Republicans NEVER side with labor in these types of battles. They always side with the rich.
    ————————————————
    The majority of football bans are likely convservative Republicans? You base ths on what exactly?

    Now that I think about it, you are probably right. The guy sitting at me in the upper deck the last game I went to, who threw up on my shoes was most likely the President/CEO of Bank of America. And the two dudes duking it out in the parking lot, Doctor and Lawyer, without question.

  67. madlithuanian says: May 12, 2011 3:11 PM

    I think the majority of responses are pro-owner because it makes logical sense. Both players and owners ae responsible for this current mess. But all I see from the players is a money grab. From the owners, I also see a money grab, but I also see a desire to keep the league competitive. Becasue of that reason, I personally side more with the owners.

  68. capslockkey says: May 12, 2011 3:19 PM

    Why do you think the fans are siding more towards the owners than the players? Because it’s in the fans’ best interests if they want to keep seeing the same quality of product without their ticket prices skyrocketing even more.

    You don’t need a set of league wide open books to see that the profitability of teams is trending downward even though revenues continue to climb. Just look at the Packers whose profits have have continued to slide the last 4-5 years, and they just won the Super Bowl. The owners aren’t going to operate at a loss, no business will, so if the players refuse to budge on slowing down the insane rate of inflation on their salaries, the cost is going to get passed on to the fans.

    Just from the 2009 season, the Packers brought in 10 million more in revenues from the previous years. Yet, their players salaries went up over $20 million. Add on the fact non-players costs are probably inflating as well, it’s no wonder the team has gone down from $34 million in profits to less than $10 million in just four years.

    Putting the money aside, now you have the players threatening to force rule changes that would drastically affect the competition level between teams, why on earth should I be on the players side?

    At least the owners are humoring us ticket holders and fans by talking to us and telling us they understand we are upset and this affects us. All we ever hear from the players is how great of a vacation they are having while at the same time they are a bunch of million dollar “slaves.”

  69. scudbot says: May 12, 2011 3:20 PM

    zerored78 says: May 12, 2011 2:58 PM

    “The last CBA puts the Packers in the red by 2012. If Brady et al is successful, kiss the Steelers, Packers and a bunch of other teams goodbye and go find journeyman players willing to cripple themselves for peanuts.”

    Yeah, because it’s simply impossible to think these teams could actually increase their revenue.

    Packers books are online. Revenue has increased, but net revenue is down 76% since the last CBA kicked in. Selling naming rights? How much would you like to see Pierre Cardin on Brady’s helmet when the Pats play at historic Facebook Field?

  70. crunchyclam says: May 12, 2011 3:21 PM

    The one constant I keep hearing from the pro-owner camp is that the owners must get their way in order for the league to survive. And I’ve yet to see ANY information to back up this assertion. Do people in the pro-owner camp have access to NFL financial documents that the rest of us don’t?

    There’s currently no way to prove how much the owners are making/losing so talking about ensuring the ‘long term health’ of the league is silly. All we know is the league generates well over $7 billion a year with the owners getting 40.5% in addition to $1 billion off the top. How does this information make people think the health of the league is somehow threatened? Because that’s all the info to go on at this point.

    The health of the league is threatened more by incompetent and inept owners than anything else. Guys like Ralph Wilson and Jerry Richardson have done such a poor job running their franchises that they find themselves making much less money than their peers. The NFL is the most egalitarian of all professional sports when it comes to managing a team and yet these guys still can’t compete. Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re capable. These fools prove that.

  71. rad312 says: May 12, 2011 3:22 PM

    Who is Drew Magarty and why do we care?

    He like PFT is attempting to garner attention and drive site traffic but taking a contrarian view as the it appears that the greater majority of folks lean towards a pro-owner view of the labor issue.

    Maggarty’s editorialized comments called ‘facts’ are incomplete and slanted which makes for a better story.

    What’s the old saying, let’s not the facts get in the way of a good story.

  72. thetechnocrat says: May 12, 2011 3:24 PM

    This site does not play it down the middle. Even pro owner type stories usually have back handed comments.

    I want the long term football viability option. I know if the players win, my ticket prices and everything else will continue to skyrocket until I’m priced out like a lot of my friends have already been. It’s no coincidence that the Packers, one of the best supported teams country-wide in jerseys, tickets, etc, only made 14 million after all expenses last year.

    No one rooting for the poor players wants to admit that if they get the 60% they want a ticket will be $200 for nosebleeds within a decade.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, 30% is an average of over $1.5 million per player (1700 players) That is plenty.

  73. joe6606 says: May 12, 2011 3:32 PM

    I completely agree.

    My spidey sense has been blasting that some of the outrageously over the top pro-owner comments are being written by the owners or people closely associated with them.

    Shut it down? Really???? Really????

    No football fan in their right mind supports a decision by the owners to just shut down the NFL. There is no reason that the NFL and players can’t continue to negotiate if the lockout is removed, even if there is no NLFPA, except for the stubborness of the owners.

  74. eagiants says: May 12, 2011 3:35 PM

    You know…I used to be more pro-player than pro owner just because it was the owners who walked away from a previously agreed upon deal; but now that I read some of the inciteful posts written here my stance has switched. While I still don’t want an 18 game schedule, I like all other things the owners are fighting for. A game where each team can be competitive, and make enough money so that our ticket prices don’t continue to go through the roof. Yes, I want football as bad as anyone here does. (I attend at least 1 Giants game a year and work as an extra hand at the Buffalo Bills Training Camp just so I can be closer to the game that I love.) That being said, I don’t want football to be back this season if it means we have to blow the system up. The NFL draft (which should go back to all day Saturday and Sunday if you ask me) is one of my favorite events the NFL has going. If the players win that could go…teams like Buffalo, KC, Cincy, etc would die as they would not be able to compete with the “Giants” payrolls…pun intended (Royals, Pirates and Padres anyone?)

    I want this stupid lockout over but the more I think about it…the more I want the owners to win on most counts.

  75. sarcasticks says: May 12, 2011 3:36 PM

    The comments concerning long term league viability have been tremendous reasons to side with the owners, but my reasons are honestly more emotional. I’m appalled that athletes believe that they are even worthy of unionizing. Unions were formed to give workers a chance at fair wages, humane working conditions and other benefits that without union leverage would not be granted by ownership. Union workers were not asking for tickets to becoming millionaires. They were asking for enough money to survive, and a clean place to earn that money. The fact that athletes are arrogant enough to think that they are on the same planet as traditional union workers makes me sick to my stomach. That viewpoint is an insult to all those workers who fought for their rights to earn a decent standard of living. And now the players think they can simply sham decertify and take their fight to the courts?! How could I possibly support these hypocrites? I’m not mad that athletes are rich. I’m mad that they think they are anything “like” me, or the average worker. I’m mad that they are disrespecting the union concept. I’m just happy to have a job that pays me enough to eat and pay rent. I can’t relate to someone making 100x my wage suing their employer and claiming they are being exploited by a monopoly. Athletes are a joke. They should be happy with what they have, as it’s orders of magnitude more than 99% of this country.

  76. ukniner says: May 12, 2011 3:42 PM

    If you genuinely suspect comment rigging (which I tend to think there is probably a case ) then you could easily find out if there is evidence for it.

    Check out the join dates for pro owner comments vs join dates for pro player comments. If either side has a mean join date significantly later than the other it suggests an attempt to cheat.

  77. crunchyclam says: May 12, 2011 3:44 PM

    Also, how does the owners getting their way somehow make the league more competitive? You think because Ralph Wilson has more money in his pocket he will magically stop hiring bad coaches and GMs who never give his team a chance to compete? The salary cap (and floor) already makes the playing field even enough. The Rooneys have one of the smallest fortunes of all the NFL owners yet it doesn’t prevent their team from being successful and making money.

  78. nflfan101 says: May 12, 2011 3:47 PM

    Who in the world has ever accused PFT of being pro-owners? Every chance you get you blame the owners. FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, and did not attend at least one court ordered mediation session. Yet, YOU BLAME THE OWNERS. How?

    You say that you want football NOW, yet you support every legal decision that gives the players “leverage” and an unfair advantage and causes the NFL to appeal and prolong this mess.

    You refuse to even hint that D. Smith needs to get his butt into negotiations. You apparently believe that the owners need to give D. Smith whatever he wants.

    It is obvious from your post that you believe that it is perfectly OK for the players to use their nuclear option (decertification), but somehow it is totally wrong for the owners to use theirs (shut down operations).

    Bottom line is that PFT is squarely in the players’ corner and that is fine. I would have more respect for you if you would just admit your bias and stop the BS that you are in the middle.

    I will also give you credit for not deleting comments that counter your bias towards the players.

    PS. I do not work for the owners, don’t make a dime off of the NFL in any way, shape, or form. I just want a fair deal. I don’t see how anyone can eagerly support the one side that will not negotiate and wants to go to court over the other side that is begging to negotiate.

  79. crunchyclam says: May 12, 2011 3:47 PM

    sarcasticks says:
    May 12, 2011 3:36 PM
    The comments concerning long term league viability have been tremendous reasons to side with the owners
    —————————————————–

    Ha, and that’s exactly what they are, “comments”. No facts or numbers to back up any statements about the league’s overall health.

  80. nmking26 says: May 12, 2011 3:48 PM

    Clearly some of you guys don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The players WANT A SALARY CAP. It’s not the just the owners guys. The players want a salary cap because with a salary cap, there must be a salary floor.

    Some owners CHOSE TO BE BELOW THE SALARY FLOOR last year. So if its anyone who doesn’t want a salary cap, it’s the owners. They can still make billions of dollars while not having to pay a lot to the players.

    The lockout was started by the owners. Not the players. The owners are the ones who opted out. The owners are the reason there is no football going on. It’s not like the players just chose to not show up. They had no choice.

    These are the same owners that are claiming to lose money in one of the most successful businesses in the world. There is literally no way they can lose money. They can have blackouts all year but still make money from the tv contracts. Yet they want to take money away from the players? How is that fair?

    The players want a rookie cap just as bad as the owners do.

    The owners are being greedy right now. They make money hand over fist and yet they want to take money out of the players pockets. When their life expectancy is cut down by 20-30 years, then they can complain about not making enough. Their argument makes no sense.

    They are the reason there is no football being played today. Yet people of PFT will continue to be on their side no matter what for some reason.

  81. shiftyvision says: May 12, 2011 3:48 PM

    I’m not a plant. I just find it ridiculous that these players don’t understand who the investors are in this game. I would be fired if I asked my employer to open the books and pay me proportionately… and I make peanuts…. let alone millions.

  82. mike83ri says: May 12, 2011 3:56 PM

    My personal opinion is, in general, that of the side of the owners.

    I’m a fan of football. And what they want to do is make Football in all forms better, without having to pay for the full bill. Maybe that’s just fancy rhetoric used to get me to believe they aren’t just being greedy. Regardless, the facts are facts. They had a CBA both people agreed to, they opted to persue an update to that CBA. They want some money back, and are willing to give up some rights (OTAs, health benefits, rookie wage scale for more veteran money, give up their PREVIOUSLY BARGAINED RIGHT to increase to 18 games, etc).

    At the end of the day, I want football. But if losing a year of football means that I get a better in-stadium experience with my ridiculously expensive season tickets for the next 50 years, I’m all for it. If it takes losing a year of football to see football in the olympics someday, I’m all for it. Ideally, those things could come without losing football. But that’s up to the players, not the owners.

    The owners have 2 options. Lockout for a CBA that allows for the growth of the NFL, or continue on without that growth.

    The players have 2 options. Demand the same amount of money so that the NFL can’t be as good as it could be, or give up a little so I don’t have to keep thinking “Wow, this $1200 a year for season tickets isn’t worth it, I’d rather watch the games in HD in my underwear”.

    If football in 2011 means I’m watching football from my couch in 2015 instead of getting more for my money in a stadium, I’ll sacrifice one year of football from my life.

  83. captainobvious1 says: May 12, 2011 3:56 PM

    People don’t understand that the players are using this whole legal process to secure one thing – leverage to negotiate a new CBA. Getting a judge to strike down the very things that make the NFL so great – the salary cap, the draft, restricted free agency, trades, etc., gives them an incredible amount of leverage over the owners in this situation. You think that the NFLPA* (or whatever you wish to call it) isn’t aware of how much the game (and their salaries) has grown as a result of these things?

    Wake up.

  84. mike83ri says: May 12, 2011 4:00 PM

    Would you pass on sleeping with an 8 one night stand if it meant that all future one night stands would all be 10s? I think you would.

    I’ll give up a year of football if it’s needed to get a deal that allows even better football for the following years to come.

  85. capslockkey says: May 12, 2011 4:04 PM

    @cruncyclam
    “Also, how does the owners getting their way somehow make the league more competitive? You think because Ralph Wilson has more money in his pocket he will magically stop hiring bad coaches and GMs who never give his team a chance to compete? The salary cap (and floor) already makes the playing field even enough. The Rooneys have one of the smallest fortunes of all the NFL owners yet it doesn’t prevent their team from being successful and making money.”

    The owners getting their way may not make it more competitive, but it keeps it from becoming LESS competitive should the players get their way. No draft, no salary cap, free agencypalooza, it doesn’t take long to figure out which teams will be competing for titles every year while the rest of the league becomes their farm system just like how it is in MLB.

    Plus if you stay with the status quo, more and more teams will be striving for that salary floor rather than the cap just to stay profitable while the deep pockets like Jones and Snyder will attempt to buy championships like the Yankess and Red Sox.

  86. cdaws84 says: May 12, 2011 4:04 PM

    mmking….no player would have lost money. Under the last CBA proposal by the owners the salary cap actually would have increased 10mil giving players more money…so please people stop making that argument.

    As for saying owners can’t lose money in the NFL…what about the $1bil stadiums they build and maintain? Operational costs have increased its only fair that the owners receive a larger share of the revenue to account for such increases. Not an owners puppet…I just get it unlike you fan boys who think players deserve everything they ask for.

  87. buffalohogan says: May 12, 2011 4:06 PM

    xxxfixxxerxxx has had the best comment of anyone on this site regarding the lockout:

    I’m not pro-owner or anti-player. I’m pro-fan and I’m as greedy as they are, not for money but for my entertainment.

  88. capslockkey says: May 12, 2011 4:14 PM

    “Ha, and that’s exactly what they are, “comments”. No facts or numbers to back up any statements about the league’s overall health.”

    The Packers are a publicly owned franchise and release a financial report each year. Their profits have gone down every year since the last CBA. I guess that’s not “fact” enough for you. Now maybe if Green Bay was considered a poorly run franchise you’d take those numbers with a grain of salt, but most people consider them one of the BEST run teams in the league, being they won the Super Bowl this past year and all, with primarily young homegrown talent spending over $50 million less in salary than the Redskins.

  89. superbengalfan says: May 12, 2011 4:16 PM

    No doubt in my mind that NFL has planted employees to comment here, some of the comments are just zany if your a football fan. Roger Goodell and league officials take time to appear on PFT LIVE and the league is working very actively to manipulate public opinion, so yeah the NFL plants are filling their days here on line IMO.

  90. 1rnation says: May 12, 2011 4:17 PM

    This is my first post in PFT. I am a middle class citizen making $12 an hour while I finish college. (Which I’m paying student loans out the you know what) I think it’s absolutely ludicrous that anyone with work ethics would side with the players!? American society is creating a culture where citizens feel they have the right and obligation to things. I’m sorry but I back the owners 100% in the lockout. The owners are just that, owners and the players are just a part in a business. If a fan slipped and fell in the stadium b/c of a bad railing who gets to deal with the lawsuit? It’s not out of Tom Brady’s pocketbook. Or in Minnesota is AP helping out with the stadium negations? Doubt it! The NFL is a much bigger “business” then just the players and if the judges give too much to the players the NFL will diminish and will not be as competitive year in and year out as it has been in the past.

  91. derekjetersmansion says: May 12, 2011 4:18 PM

    The owners are not the gatekeepers of the NFL. Any rich guy can buy a team. I’d say only 5 or 6 of them made the league what it is today.

    How come the best in the field are not allowed to make the most money they can? No one complains a lot when Tom Cruise makes $20 million.

  92. capslockkey says: May 12, 2011 4:25 PM

    “How come the best in the field are not allowed to make the most money they can? No one complains a lot when Tom Cruise makes $20 million.”

    When you produce your own films, it’s not hard to pay yourself $20 million dollars. If Tom Brady wants a pay raise, maybe he should talk his wife into buying the Patriots for him.

  93. joe6606 says: May 12, 2011 4:32 PM

    “The Packers are a publicly owned franchise and release a financial report each year. Their profits have gone down every year since the last CBA. I guess that’s not “fact” enough for you.”
    ————————————-
    Maybe you should word your post like this: Over the last 4 years, we have been mired in the WORST depression since the great depression, yet somehow GB and the NFL have managed to earn substantial profits, even though millions of their fans are struggling with reduced salaries and/or unemployment.

    The economy is getting better. Profits will be better. No need for the greedy owners to try to suck more gold from the golden goose, when their employees are literally putting their lifespan on the line.

  94. malgorthewarrior says: May 12, 2011 4:33 PM

    it’s so funny when people blast the players for being greedy workers. Do you people think the owners are poor as they ask for more money?

    The entire concept that labor should not have the power to collectively bargain is one of the things breaking this country. People complain about jobs getting shifted over seas etc, yet since the breakup of unions in the 70s and 80s more jobs have been shifted overseas than ever. Inflation-adjusted wages have not increased meaningfully in thirty years. 400 people in America control 50% of the wealth. It’s not hard to see why when you look at so many comments on this site, that generally frame unions as being filled with lazy people who don’t want to work hard.

    People are working more and making less because labor doesn’t have leverage over ownership in all sectors of society.

    Don’t people think it’s funny that the ‘greatest generation’ fought world war 2 abroad, then they came home and kept unions strong. There was a whole generation of Americans who were able to get to the middle class because of the bargaining power of unions that demanded reasonable hours, family benefits, and wage increases.

    It’s a sad day when these heroes, who created a large middle class that (while being eroded) still allows many of us to enjoy comfortable lives would be chastised by many people on this bored as lazy and unpatriotic.

    The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but nobody seems to be getting smarter.

  95. bradwins says: May 12, 2011 4:35 PM

    “(The fact that some NFL writers, and you know who you are, are openly and almost admittedly biased makes it a lot harder for those of us who are trying to be objective. So thanks for that.)”

    ——————————————
    Silver: you listening, friend?

  96. ICDogg says: May 12, 2011 4:36 PM

    I totally agree with the Deadspin article.

  97. pjofar77 says: May 12, 2011 4:39 PM

    Why does everyone forget that the owners opted out of the negotiated CBA early? They did this at the height of the game’s popularity. What was wrong with the status quo? This started with the owners opting out, not with the players decertifying.

  98. nmking26 says: May 12, 2011 4:44 PM

    1rnation:

    The NFL is a direct product of the players not the owners. Don’t compare it to your job. No offense, but if you left your job, there are maybe millions of people who would be capable of replacing you.

    NFL players are apart of less than 1% of the world who are capable of doing what they do.

    It would be easier to replace an owner than to replace a player. The NFL is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, there are a lot of billionaires who would buy a team if they had the opportunity.

    100+ million people in the united states don’t get together on superbowl sunday to watch the owners.

  99. PFTiswhatitis says: May 12, 2011 4:51 PM

    Thanks for telling us what we ought to want.
    Sometimes there is more to consider than just instant gratification.
    Anyhow, I find it humorous that you actually entertain the notion of pro-league comments being posted by team employees.
    Get a clue.

  100. 1rnation says: May 12, 2011 4:52 PM

    @derekjetersmansion —

    Why is the NFL the most popular sport in America? B/c it’s competitive. The best at their positions do get paid top dollar. I don’t see Jason Campbell making the same as the top tier players like Payton or Tom? The NFL is set to force owners and GMs to pick their poison. Pay here loose some there… That’s why it’s competitive. The labor disputes shouldn’t be about petty things like seeing your boss’s finances (As many people have noted this would not fly in the real world of business.) but about making the NFL better for both sides. For instance I side on the player’s behalf on not extending the season, I think that’s a good argument that should be addressed! The way the players are going about the lockout is what’s aggravating!

  101. crunchyclam says: May 12, 2011 4:58 PM

    capslockkey says:
    May 12, 2011 4:14 PM

    The Packers are a publicly owned franchise and release a financial report each year. Their profits have gone down every year since the last CBA. I guess that’s not “fact” enough for you.
    —————————————————–

    The Packers made $18 million in operating profit for the 2005-2006 league year. In the 2006-2007 league year (1st one after the CBA) the Packer operating profit rose to $22 million and stayed roughly stagnant until 2010. The gradual decline in profits you claim doesn’t exist.

    Profits dropped by half to $10 million in 2010, but you can’t just blame player costs. They rose at roughly the same % each year between 2006-2010, yet the Packers were able to maintain a $20 million profit until the most current year. Other economic factors are at work which are contributing more to their loss in profits.

  102. rosloe62 says: May 12, 2011 5:01 PM

    I used to side for the players, but now I’m totally on the owners side except for an 18 game season. Let them all get regular jobs and let’s see how long it takes before they miss the gravy train!
    Like they say on Wall Street: “Bulls make money, Bears make money, Pigs get slaughtered!”

  103. nmking26 says: May 12, 2011 5:02 PM

    It’s funny. People want football. Yet they’re against the side that is actually fighting for the lockout to be ended. They’re on the side that not only imposed the lockout, but after the lockout was lifted, they AGAIN went to court to impose the lockout a second time.

    It’s baffling at best.

  104. footballrealist says: May 12, 2011 5:04 PM

    footballfan292

    The owners had been working on a CBA close to the deadline. Then at the last minute, Gene Upshaw forced Tagliabue to add revenue sharing to the formula. So with the clock ticking, the owners were forced to vote on a CBA that had a revenue sharing model that they didn’t have enough time to fully analyze and vet. Once it was through, they realized the full implications of the deal. THAT is why they opted out of the deal they agreed to. AND…the provision for ownership opt out was something that the players agreed to.

    As to the guy who concluded that ‘anyone who recently created an account and is pro-owner is a plant’…did you not consider that the labor dispute has become the primary focus of all football fans? In the past I logged on, to read the rumors, news, and went to ‘team specific’ forums to discuss my favorite of 32 teams. Statistically it is logical that this was true of many people. If I wanted to discuss the Dolphins or Steelers, I would find a better caliber discussion on those teams sites than I would on a league wide one. Now that there is no news to discuss about my team; however, my attention is turned to the impediment. And that is why I recently created an account to express my frustration and opinions.

    And to PFT. You have a vested interest in the outcome of the litigation for sure, and you need to appear objective. BUT the long term viability of your site is more significantly impacted by negative relationships with players than it would be by negative relationships with owners. Your site needs ‘sources’ and interviews; you need positive relationships with agents and players to ensure that you remain one of the more informed sites on the web. If the owners hate you and black-ball you it would have some impact…but the reality is that no ‘owner’ is leaking information to you that isn’t being ‘leaked’ for their gain. In my opinion your position is reflected in your editorial tone which pays lip service to objectivity and reflects a pro-player bottom line.

  105. cdaws84 says: May 12, 2011 5:10 PM

    pjofar…no one has forgot…but why did you forget that it was perfectly ok for the owners to do so? Why did you forget that the players gave up on negotiations and took this all to court?

    mmking…wrong. The NFL is a product of the owners. They create, manage, and facilitate the players. When you watch a game you are seeing the entire product that the owners have produced…including coaches, trainers, medical staff, players, and the field/stadium. I have never seen a super bowl ready QB straight from college…they are trained and coached by people hand picked by the owners.

    When you watch the super bowl you are seeing two of the best teams in terms of talent and coaching. Which sadly for you…yes 100+ million people tune in on superbowl sunday to watch what the owners have put together…it isnt a track meet…or an individual contest…its 1 team versus another team…Tom Brady doesnt make the patriots…Kraft who hired Belicheck…who took a flier in round 6 on Tom…have just as much to do with the team performance as Tom does.

  106. nmking26 says: May 12, 2011 5:23 PM

    mmking…wrong. The NFL is a product of the owners. They create, manage, and facilitate the players. When you watch a game you are seeing the entire product that the owners have produced…including coaches, trainers, medical staff, players, and the field/stadium. I have never seen a super bowl ready QB straight from college…they are trained and coached by people hand picked by the owners.

    ————————-

    So what you’re saying is that without these owners, players would never play as well as they do? I disagree.

    You could hire the best training staff, the best coaches and the best everything to coach a UFL team, and that same team would get mopped up and down by even the Buffalo Bills.

    The players mean more to football than the owners. Like I said, you never watch football because of Mara or Clark Hunt, you watch it because of players like Peyton Manning, Ray Lewis, Larry Fitzgerald and Jamaal Charles.

  107. 1rnation says: May 12, 2011 5:28 PM

    @ nmking26 –
    Agreed about my current job and no offense taken; however the NFL is successful because of the way the league is set up. Yes these players have God given talents that anyone would die for and are freakish athletes – but their still just a piece in a system. As I posted earlier the labor agreement should be about bettering the NFL as a whole, not just one side. The salaries the players make now compared to everyone else in the business (except their boss’s, the owners!) is already steep! That’s why the players get millions and the stadium security gets $10/hour!

  108. puregreed says: May 12, 2011 5:35 PM

    Crunchy Clam

    Do people in the pro-owner camp have access to NFL financial documents that the rest of us don’t?”

    Guys like Ralph Wilson and Jerry Richardson have done such a poor job running their franchises that they find themselves making much less money than their peers.
    __________________________________

    I thought no one had access to financial documents, how do you know who makes more or less money?
    FYI the packers financial information is available.

  109. comeonnowguys says: May 12, 2011 5:40 PM

    “Still, it’s shocking that so many people support shutting the league down, and it makes Magary — and us — wonder whether some of the pro-owner posts have been posted by some of the team and league employees who have a lot of free time on their hands right now.”

    Take off your tin-foil hat please. Disagreement != NFL meat puppets flooding your site to spread their propaganda.

    Why aren’t you asking if some of the pro-player posts are done by players, their agents, publicists or other hangers-on?

    I can’t believe you actually typed this and clicked “Publish.” You’re either a) trolling/baiting for comments or b) completely in the tank for the players. Either way, it makes you look like a complete hack.

    Maybe you need to go run a fan site for a CW show or something like that. I hear the new fall season will be announced soon.

  110. commonsense100 says: May 12, 2011 5:43 PM

    The owners are not middle income Americans like most business owners, they are millionaires and in some cases billionaires, so its hard to believe that they are really hurting especially when the sport was as popular as ever before the lockout. Second, if it actually is true that they are hurting, there is no legitimate reason for them not to open their books to the players in order to prove it. Not doing so because they’re afraid that people will second guess many of items is not a valid excuse.

    The reality is that the NFL has it better than any other league in the World. They make a ton of money while not dishing out guaranteed contracts (which the NBA and MLB do), keeping the rights to players they draft for the first four or five years of their contracts (more than the average 3 years that players are actually in the league) and a host of other benefits that NBA and MLB would kill for. Yet for some reason the owners find this deal to be inadequate and so, as people seem to forget, opted out of it thus creating this situation in the first place. What the heck could have changed so much in the last few years (the deal was extended a couple of years ago) to turn the CBA from something completely acceptable for both sides, into something that would have “destroyed the league as we know it” as the owners are fond of saying.

    Its all such bull. The fact of the matter is they wanted more money, they saw an opportunity where they thought they could accomplish that goal, but unfortunately for them the courts have not agreed with their view. All I know is if the ruling comes and the lockout is lifted, and the NFL shuts down, whoever is still on this site writing pro-owner garbage is either a troll or a complete fool.

  111. horsecore says: May 12, 2011 5:46 PM

    LOL. Grasping at straws Mike, grasping at straws.

    I really just don’t care anymore. I have many other things to fill my time than football. Everyone in this case needs to be brought back to reality a little bit.

  112. cdaws84 says: May 12, 2011 5:49 PM

    nmking…you missed the point. But here Ill change it for you so it makes sense. You put Tom Brady on a UFL team and they still won’t beat Bills….Team management is just as important as the players themselves…by your logic players dont need coaches, trainers, or for that matter good players surrounding them. I actually watch football to see Peyton Manning along with his team…and last I checked Peyton didnt build his team…he is a piece of it…but maybe you are just a player fan and only care about the top 5% of the players such as those you listed….which begs the question…why does 100mil+ watch the superbowl while no one watches the probowl….sure its weak…and they dont hit hard…but by your logic they are the best of the best…it should be the best entertainment…but its not

  113. chapnastier says: May 12, 2011 5:52 PM

    So would it be safe to assume that the pro-owner people are paid shills of the NFLPA or players themselves? I for one would love to be getting paud to have my opinion so if there are any NFL owners reading this, hit me up.

  114. bushdoctor504 says: May 12, 2011 5:53 PM

    “I feel that professional athletes are the only people in this country to not feel the pinch of a struggling economy”

    -Really? the NFL Owners maybe?

    GREAT ARTICLE!!!

    I’ve been saying this for several weeks now… Pro Owner clowns have been astroturfing this site for a while!!!

    If you support the Owners, YOU are tripping balls!

    Get a clue! GO watch Al Davis and Robert Kraft go at it on sundays!!!

    Screw the owners and Roger Goodell!!!

  115. crunchyclam says: May 12, 2011 6:07 PM

    puregreed says:
    May 12, 2011 5:35 PM

    I thought no one had access to financial documents, how do you know who makes more or less money?
    FYI the packers financial information is available.

    —————————————————-
    I don’t know the exact numbers because the NFL hasn’t released them. But I do know the Panthers and Bills both struggle to sell tickets and don’t sell as much merchandise as the more successful teams. Wilson and Richardson have also been more vocal about decrying the previous CBA. We can agree that these teams are making less than the Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, etc though. You don’t need the numbers for that.

  116. willycents says: May 12, 2011 6:18 PM

    @ crunchyclam

    run an internet search for forbes rankings of NFL teams and their revenues. Of course, since it is only Forbes, I’m certain that you will not accept that as somewhat valid information. However, there are about two dozen other sites that have very similar information.Of course, to a member of the NFLPA like yourself, that is all false and irrelevant information and you cannot be bothered by it, or you probably would not be able to understand the charts and notes.

    in your address bar type g o o …..

  117. bushdoctor504 says: May 12, 2011 6:29 PM

    I can always tell which comments are GOOD because they have a bunch of Thumbs Down… The pro owner comments are always thumbs up and the pro players posts are always thumbs down… wtf?

    Keep it up free thinking rational people…

    I skip all of the thumbs up comments because they are almost always delusional, pathetic, right wing trolls…

  118. emperorzero says: May 12, 2011 6:38 PM

    I began on the players side. If the owners wnated the players to give money back, I thought it was understandable to question why they shuld give money back. However, once the union waited until the last day to officially ask for the books (which I still don’t think would have changed their minds even if all 32 teams were going broke), decertified, and are now attempting to attack the draft, and asking for more concessions than before – screw them. They aren’t negotiating in good faith. And if people think teachers and union workers live a caviar/champagne lifestyle, what do you think they think of millionaires? If the players are so miserable and “enslaved” then they can go play in the UFL or CFL.

  119. tjrubleysaudible says: May 12, 2011 6:57 PM

    If I threw a dollar bill on the ground between De and Jerry, who would win? My money is on Jerrah that old boy may have lost a step but he is tough. I see him all over that dollar bill like a bum on a baloney sandwich. Let’s solve the dispute in this fashion, I think. Cage match, and the winner even gets to keep the dollar.

  120. johnnyoclock says: May 12, 2011 7:09 PM

    Am I the only one who has noticed there’s no left-wingers on here calling for a windfall tax on players’ obnoxious salaries?

    Isn’t that one of the left wingers big things, windfall taxes? Won’t windfall taxes on the players’ salaries discourage them from gouging what ultimatley are the ticket holders, therefore lowering the price of tickets? Isn’t that a basic left wing argument?

    cricket…. cricket…. cricket……

  121. deconjonesbitchslap says: May 12, 2011 8:22 PM

    Drew,

    i disagree, but don’t be such a prick about it.

    Sincerely,

    A big fan.

  122. madlithuanian says: May 12, 2011 8:24 PM

    footballrealist:

    You stated: “As to the guy who concluded that ‘anyone who recently created an account and is pro-owner is a plant’…did you not consider that the labor dispute has become the primary focus of all football fans? In the past I logged on, to read the rumors, news, and went to ‘team specific’ forums to discuss my favorite of 32 teams. Statistically it is logical that this was true of many people. If I wanted to discuss the Dolphins or Steelers, I would find a better caliber discussion on those teams sites than I would on a league wide one. Now that there is no news to discuss about my team; however, my attention is turned to the impediment. And that is why I recently created an account to express my frustration and opinions”

    ****************

    Perfectly summed up! I never bothered to log in and make comments since I root for one team. I usually make my comments on a forum dedicated just to that. Very rarely was there a league-wide situation where I felt I needed to comment. This issue of the CBA has been the catalyst that brought me to make comments. I don’t work for the NFL. I wish I did. I’m just a lowly accountant trying to make ends meet. And now the pissing contest between owners and players have taken my pleasant distraction away and have made it unpleasant. F you to both. But, in the long run, I’d rather side with ownership and maintain competitive balance.

  123. karumgua says: May 12, 2011 8:30 PM

    So now we cannot even digest the facts? We cannot think for a moment, may be, the common public or the NFL fans are siding with the owners because they are pissed with the players behavior? This is hypercritical thinking at the best ! When Judge Susan rules in favor of players, nobody talks about who nominated the judge (Mr. Obama ofcourse!) whereas when the US court of appeals rules in favor of the league, we start dissecting who appointed the judges? As long as the ruling favors your side, you don’t care who appointed the judges right? Right on Hypocrites !

  124. jagerbmb says: May 12, 2011 8:47 PM

    Break out the tinfoil hat for Mike. He puts up several polls that don’t turn out the way he wanted… Must be a conspiracy.

    PFT reported where several players gloated about how good a deal they had. Also how it was a bad deal for the owners. I don’t hear any owners enjoying this time off.

    Players want as much money as they can get in an industry where they normally don’t have long careers. Owners want a long term sustainable CBA that is good for both sides. They don’t want the players to be where they are now (with a crappy agreement) in a few years.

    The players left the owners at the bargaining table and decertified. The owners response was to lock them out. Let’s not forget who walked away from the table and chose litigation.

    The players are the ones attacking the NFL draft in litigation. And all the other things put in place that has made the NFL what it is today. I think the players have a much shorter long-term view (well, as long as their career lasts), while the owners are looking not only at the current players, but many who are not even here yet.

    The players have decertified twice before, and magically reformed after they got what they wanted.

    Simply put, I trust the League and Owners much more than I do the players on doing what is best for the long-time good of this game we all love.

  125. buzzbissinger says: May 12, 2011 9:33 PM

    Billionaires fighting with millionaires, and this thousandaire just wants football in September.

    Tick tick tick.

  126. jwbelt says: May 12, 2011 10:47 PM

    I’ve been a committed Bengals fan since the ’70s and my team is owned by someone I generally consider to be – kindly – a doof. But I come down primarily on the owners’ side on this. I think they Bungled (get it?!) some stuff during the negotiations in Washington, but I don’t believe the players really intended to negotiate in good faith anyway.

    I’m sick to death of pampered babies & fools pulling out the slavery card or complaining about the lack of respect they get and going into a testosterone puff up. Give me a 6- or 7-figure career for 5 years doing something I love and I’ll be secure enough in myself that I can deal with a little disrespect without being a damned child. Most folks work for significantly less in money, benefits & the accouterments of fame and get no better in terms of respect.

    They’ve been planning on going the litigation route for a long time now and they’re being disingenuous as hell about decertification. Their actions & statements prove it. And if I’m wrong and they really feel that an anti-trust assault against the league is good for the game, I’d just as soon they be fired and second-tier players who did it for the joy of the game be brought in to permanently replace them. I’d miss the stars, but not at the cost of dismantling the structure that’s made it possible for professional football to become America’s game.

    On the other hand, it would have cost the owners nothing to put up a respectful front, even if they don’t feel that way personally. They should have sent someone to the table who was empowered to make a deal without hours of downtime for consultation. They should have come with their final deal earlier. And they could – if only out of common courtesy – have told the players they were going to dinner. Lord, my Nannie would have beat me for pulling that stunt!

    Both sides have boned this and both bear the blame. But the players know they got a ridiculously sweet deal last time around. They don’t have a right to the clubs’ books any more than I have a right to my owner’s books.

    Owners & players: stop being petty fools, act like the men you claim to be, and get to the table and get this fixed.

    This is my game. And if I can be loyal to the Bengals through all these decades, you guys can show a little loyalty to me.

  127. Deb says: May 12, 2011 11:53 PM

    Reading Magary’s rant about some PFT commenters brings out my inner “Annie Savoy.” When Magary ends his post with “So if you’re somehow on the side of management in this NFL dispute, please know that you are wrong and that you are stupid and that I f***ing hate you,” it’s like Costner as Bull Durham’s Crash Davis ending his rant with “and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.”

    Like Annie, I just gasp and drawl “Oh my.”

  128. randolph32 says: May 13, 2011 7:30 AM

    Figured I’d waste some space as well…Yes, there are plants here from both sides…No, I don’t care, as it won’t result in anything….AND I wonder how I should finish this post and have decided I’ll go listen to some early Miles Davis, and he ALWAYS makes me feel good…..have a great day!

  129. ukniner says: May 13, 2011 8:45 AM

    I’m now pretty sure there is vote rigging on this site – my post describing how you could easily determine if cheating was taking place was given a big thumbs down.

    Why would anybody be against that unless they they already new what the result would be?

  130. maddog111 says: May 13, 2011 9:01 AM

    bushdoctor504 says:
    May 12, 2011 6:29 PM
    I can always tell which comments are GOOD because they have a bunch of Thumbs Down… The pro owner comments are always thumbs up and the pro players posts are always thumbs down… wtf?

    Keep it up free thinking rational people…

    I skip all of the thumbs up comments because they are almost always delusional, pathetic, right wing trolls…
    ————————————————-
    You’ll be able to read all of your’s then.

  131. comeonnowguys says: May 13, 2011 9:48 AM

    @bushdoctor504

    For crying out loud. 2012 is going to be awful with hyper-political noise, why the hell are people already turning every post on a football site into some “libtard” and “wingnut” pissing match?

    Am I a “wingnut?” This time around, I think the owners are on more reasonable ground than the players and I would like to see them prevail (without 18-week seasons). I will not lose sleep if they don’t. And I am a notch LEFT of dead center.

    Disagree. Disagreeable. Learn the difference.

  132. aquanorange says: May 13, 2011 10:16 AM

    It’s possible, or even probably, that some shills for the owners post here. Doubtful that the majority of commenters are in that group.

    Politically, I favor labor and its right to bargain collectively. Without that right, we may not like the resulting social conditions, as the chasm between the haves and have-nots will become even wider than it is now. A sensible negotiation ought to bring a result that preserves this common good, while finding a mechanism which allows changes to occur alongside economic realities. And abuses should be able to dealt with quickly-again for the common good.

    That said, the idea that professional athletes are in the same boat as welders and mechanics is a farce. Players unions, when given the opportunity, have consistently ignored the union call for solidarity, either through ignoring calls for work stoppages or participating at events with non-union workers.

    All fans want football next year. Some want it all costs. Others, like me, feel it’s better to come to an arrangement that is sustainable. That means a deal where all parties get enough, but no party can alter the fabric of what made the NFL successful. So first, let’s acknowledge which party has skin in the game and capital at risk. It isn’t the players; if operating losses pile up, do the players eat some of that? No, they will want their contractual obligations met. Give the owners a better deal than they foolishly agreed to last time around.

    Then the owners must address some internal issues. When the Maras agreed to share revenues in the 1960s, for the good of the league, it meant they were not going to be the football version of the Yankees, and it was a game-changer, allowing small-market teams to have a shot at the title. Guys like Jerry Jones, whose franchise value exploded due to the sacrifice of the Maras, wants to abandon that model now that he’s in the driver’s seat with huge revenue streams. The Bills fan who posted it earlier was right. Let the majority of owners clamp down on the few who want to alter the competitive balance that has made the league great. Socialism, you say? It’s just a word. We’ve been living with elements of a socialist system for a century in this country.

  133. billionsvsmillions says: May 14, 2011 12:34 AM

    Im on MY SIDE… the hard working man thats a football fan, and my hard earned money goes to my mortgage, food, kids education etc. The left over portion goes to the tickets to a game… you know… just a FAN of the game that seems to be getting SCREWED out of every bit of this nonsence. Wake up fools, if not for us, you owners would be busy doing something else with your millions, and you players… well hell… you would actually have to learn how to spell cat in college instead of givin money, cars, etc to play a game!! IM on MY side… the FANS side!

  134. yajas says: May 14, 2011 1:05 PM

    It’s the business principle, stupid.

    I want to see football as much as the next fan but the principles are more important than the sport. The players are already paid extremely well and the owners are only trying to decrease the rate at which those players salaries are increasing.

    I am not currently a business owner but maybe when my kids are older and I have more time and am more willing to take financial risks, I might venture in that direction. I dont’ believe that someone I provide an opportunity and steady income for should be able to force me to give them more money or dictate how I run my business.

    So when people say they don’t understand why so many support the owners, it’s not because we are specifically supporting 32 very weathy parties, we are supporting the principle of business ownership.

  135. axespray says: May 14, 2011 8:32 PM

    “If the players win their lawsuit, the game as we know it will be changed dramatically and in my oppinion as an NFL fan and Bills Fan – it will be for the bad. If the players win their suit the Bills will cease to exist in a few years – they can not compete with out a cap, without revenue sharing, etc. So who do you think i would want to win?”

    ^ exactly! I’m a Packer Fan (small market team), and I am SCARED TO DEATH that we won’t exist if the players win this lawsuit!
    We’re talking local businesses based around Lambeau Field, wether it’s motels, nearby houses renting out rooms to out of town fans, etc.
    but not just that, We’re talking history/tradition, my Great Grandfather, his Dad, my parents, my grandma, my aunts, cousins, etc grew up watching the Green Bay Packers.
    I feel if this lawsuit goes in favor of the players and the NFL turns into an MLB like state, we won’t have much of a team to cheer for when The Dan Synder types run around uncuffed buying up our Clay Matthews/Rajis/Rodgers and running our team out of business….

    Right now, the Players need to lose this one for the betterment of the league, it’s their turn to jump on the grenade to keep the NFL alive.

  136. shallowfan says: May 16, 2011 10:32 AM

    “wonder whether some of the pro-owner posts have been posted by some of the team and league employees who have a lot of free time on their hands right now.”

    What? This makes no sense…You post articles on what teams are and aren’t cutting their employees salaries during the lockout. You already know that league employees took a 12.5% pay cut as well as quite a few teams are taking pay cuts…So, you are telling me those ppl that work for teams would benefit from posting pro-owner comments? Wouldn’t team employees want the lockout to end so their pay would return to normal?

    I agree with others on here that for the long term good of the game the player lawsuit needs to fail, but for the sake of all of the employees and businesses that make their living off of the NFL the lockout needs to end asap…and I’m sure league/team employees would agree.

    This entire lockout and litigation is a lose/lose for the game of football and for those who make a living off of the game…the little guy, not the players/owners.

  137. schemefactory says: May 17, 2011 9:12 PM

    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls

Leave a Reply

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