Skip to content

The latest labor dispute poll

NFL-Lockout-Miami-Gardens-250x200 Getty Images

The folks who gauge the president’s approval ratings don’t simply do it once.  They do it once a month.  (Or thereabouts.)  And so it should be with the practice of taking the temperature (again, not that way) of football fans regarding the lockout.

It’s May 17.  A lot has happened.  Who do you support?

We’ll ask again in a month, if this mess hasn’t been resolved by then.

In other words, we’ll ask again in a month.

Permalink 93 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
93 Responses to “The latest labor dispute poll”
  1. 7370355q says: May 17, 2011 4:07 PM

    Call me an optimist but I think we get a deal done before we get a ruling from the 8th circuit on the appeal. Here’s hoping.

  2. dixon29 says: May 17, 2011 4:11 PM

    Very small sample size as I am writing this but it shows how the players should definitely concede to some of what the owners want. A rookie wage scale is an absolute must. Without one Cam Newton will be the highest paid player in the league and that makes absolutely no sense.

    College players will be against this but in life you earn what you make, your pay is not based off of what you could do.

  3. asyd1827 says: May 17, 2011 4:12 PM

    The owners are the ones that are locking out the players. The players are the ones that were attempting to lift the lockout so we (the fans) could have NFL football this year.

  4. evrybdyhas1 says: May 17, 2011 4:12 PM

    Most fans think of the NFL as being more then a business. It was part of who we were until the greed of the owners and players have reminded us that it is just a business. The NFL is on the verge of suffering a similiar fate as other great American businesses who forgot that the customer (fan) is just as important as the balance sheet.

  5. mightyleemoon says: May 17, 2011 4:13 PM

    I’m in favor of football remaining as is. Which means I am in favor of the owners.

  6. hoobsher says: May 17, 2011 4:17 PM

    neither. i hate both of them. theyre so caught up in dividing up the money and the laws and rules and semantics that they forgot just what is actually happening. theyre both willing say piss off to the other side and forgetting that WE JUST WANT FOOTBALL, NO MATTER WHICH SIDE WINS.

  7. santolonius says: May 17, 2011 4:18 PM

    i voted for the players. but de smith could have me voting for the owners by next time. if the players don’t offer a counter-proposal and/or if smith keep shooting his mouth off, they will lose me.

  8. vadog says: May 17, 2011 4:18 PM

    I am NOT pro-player, and I am NOT pro-owner. But there is something contrived about the “passion” some people write with on the pro-owner sided. I have a tough time believing that there are THAT many people who want to see billionaires get even richer! That just doesn’t make a bit of sense to me.

    As this lock-out continues, I am beginning to believe that there are some who are writing on behalf of ownership that might have ulterior motives besides saving the season. Just my opinion…I may be wrong…but it just seems weird all this blind loyalty to the owners.

  9. shamburg says: May 17, 2011 4:19 PM

    NEITHER! JUST GIVE ME FOOTBALL!

  10. shieldsisland37 says: May 17, 2011 4:19 PM

    50-50 deal and play football. I do not support either “side” You need two sides to make the baby. Make football. Now. No more excuses.

  11. discostu570 says: May 17, 2011 4:19 PM

    I hope everybody who sees these things takes them with a huge grain of salt. It’s usually split pretty much down the middle, but there’s a pretty good case to be made that the majority of fans who aren’t paying attention to this whole mess will side with the players. We just aren’t going to hear much from them until we start missing actual games.

  12. benyamen says: May 17, 2011 4:20 PM

    The players are the one’s looking to ruin the game altogether by eliminating the draft (competetive balance), eliminating the salary cap (competetive balance) and acting like they deserve an equal part of the money as the owners (what other industry can the employee demand equal shares with the owner?). I’d much rather have to lose one season to a lockout than lose altogether what has made the NFL the great league that it is. If the players win, ya you’ll get football to watch this fall, but in a few years the implications will be seen on field and we’ll all wish that the lockout was still on. Do you really want the NFL to turn into a more an even more stunted version of MLB?

  13. Kaz says: May 17, 2011 4:21 PM

    Until the players at least make an offer/counter offer, I have to support the Owners. At least they’ve made a proposal. Twice.

  14. djstat says: May 17, 2011 4:22 PM

    asyd1827 the players walked away from bargaining and filed a lawsuit. The owners have made 2 offers that the players have not responded to. So before you go saying the players want to play football, perhaps you should recognize that they are not bargaining in good faith and the PLAYERS filed a lawsuit.

  15. sdb0ltz says: May 17, 2011 4:22 PM

    They BOTH need to cut the crap and man up. Stop the petty blame game and cut out everyone thats hindering negotiations.

    Be flexible and willing to give a little. If an issue pops up that is an absolute “No” then offer an alternative until both sides can reach common ground, if that isnt possible flip a damn coin. Youre all still going to be rich in the end.

  16. koop85 says: May 17, 2011 4:24 PM

    Cue the “We can’t believe there are so many commenters supporting the owners, they must be plants!” response posts.

  17. fancyleague says: May 17, 2011 4:26 PM

    @dixon29:

    College players entering the NFL are getting paid for what they did in college. They’ve already earned the money. They just don’t receive it until they get to the pros. The reason they get paid so much is to prevent them from going to a different league. I’m going to giggle if the NFL forces blue chip draftees into $500K contracts, and they go north and take $2M from the CFL. Oops.

  18. vawoody15 says: May 17, 2011 4:29 PM

    I think it comes down to the investment for me. Owners have millions of dollars invested in the teams and the players are out for themselves. If I went in to my boss and demanded a share of the revenue, he’d probably fire me on the spot!
    I may change my position the first time a player returns part of his salary after a sub par season.

  19. southbeachtalent says: May 17, 2011 4:31 PM

    Neither, I want Football!!

    On a side note, thats a picture of Sun Life Stadium. They better open those gates, the Marlins ae still playing!!

  20. fancyleague says: May 17, 2011 4:31 PM

    You guys need to listen to more George Carlin.

    The only people that matter in athletics are the players. That’s it. The fans don’t matter. Neither do the owners. The league *is* the players. Without them it’s just a bunch of wrinkled old men sitting in empty stadiums.

    The players should have challenged the legitimacy of the existing contracts in the absence of a CBA, then strolled over to 1 UFL Drive and signed new contracts.

  21. nj22 says: May 17, 2011 4:38 PM

    The Players and their mouth pieces insult our intelligence every time they open their mouths. You already bragged about the great deal you had before. Great deals are generally not fair deals for both sides. When morons on here say things like the players just want to play, they have to be about 12 years old right?? Of course they want things to stay the same! Wouldn’t you want to go to work tomorrow and tell your boss you want 60% of the company that he built! Sure why not! They have not moved one inch since this whole thing started. I hope it crushes the players for their greed. With guys like D Smith and Mawae at the helm auditioning for their next careers in politics, there is no light at then of this tunnel…

  22. molehillsmountains says: May 17, 2011 4:41 PM

    I’m not pro-owner, and I’m not exactly anti-player. I’m more pro-team. What the players need to realize is that they are just pieces on the team. It was there before they got there (in most cases) and it will be there when they are gone.

    The owners are looking out for the teams — the players aren’t. Sure, they are both just looking out for themselves, but it is the owners’ interest for the teams to be effective. That is why I’m on the owners’ side, even though many of them are just as annoying as the players.

  23. whatswiththehate says: May 17, 2011 4:41 PM

    “May 17, 2011 4:11 PM

    Very small sample size as I am writing this but it shows how the players should definitely concede to some of what the owners want. A rookie wage scale is an absolute must. Without one Cam Newton will be the highest paid player in the league and that makes absolutely no sense. ”
    ———————
    It’s good to see some folks really do pay attention to everything they read.

    I wonder if there was a problem with Sam Bradford receiving 78 million as a rookie? or Matt Sandford, or if even Blaine Gabbert, if he had gone off first receiving 50 million bonus.

    Yes, as long as the media keeps feeding you your own personal prejudices, you will always feel they are right. Some of you folks seriously won’t quite showing your true colors.

  24. buffalohogan says: May 17, 2011 4:43 PM

    In otherwords 80% of us think The players are led by a DeBag…

  25. touchdownroddywhite says: May 17, 2011 4:43 PM

    I get it. The owners want to line their pocket as much as possible and that factor is contributing to this mess. However, their best method of continuing to line their pockets is to keep the NFL operating close to the way that has made it so popular. The players are threatening to change the way NFL operates, and thus I’m more for the owners to come out of this “victorious” than the players because if the owners come out “on top”, pro football as we know it will remain more in tact than with other outcomes.

  26. deadeye says: May 17, 2011 4:46 PM

    I hope the league forces the players to actually miss two or three game checks, then busts their chops at the negotiating table because of it. They should be taught a lesson once and for all to negotiate instead of to litigate all future CBAs.

  27. nfl25 says: May 17, 2011 4:47 PM

    no chance the players negotiate until a few weeks before the season opener. only way they start before that is if they feel they have lost every ounce of leverage they had. the players have nothing to lose until they start missing game checks. they deserve to lose money if i am right.

  28. spikeit2times says: May 17, 2011 4:49 PM

    I support the Owners. How can you not support the owners after the effort they’ve proven to get something done, while the players do nothing but demand things stay status quo, ignore the offers put on the table by the owners, and/or demand the game as we know it is completely and utterly demolished?

  29. malthor says: May 17, 2011 4:49 PM

    I find it interesting that the folks who support the players with blinders on aren’t askin themselves: “why am i in the minority, could i be wrong?”

    they aren’t considering it, i have to wonder about that.

  30. nfl25 says: May 17, 2011 4:50 PM

    fancyleague says:
    May 17, 2011 4:31 PM
    You guys need to listen to more George Carlin.

    The only people that matter in athletics are the players. That’s it. The fans don’t matter. Neither do the owners. The league *is* the players. Without them it’s just a bunch of wrinkled old men sitting in empty stadiums.

    The players should have challenged the legitimacy of the existing contracts in the absence of a CBA, then strolled over to 1 UFL Drive and signed new contracts
    1“““““““““““““““““““`

    so should we just give the 95% of the profits then and worship them? i have a better idea, find the players that are willing to negotiate a new deal and fill the rest of the team with college players. why do some people worship the players?

  31. str82dvd says: May 17, 2011 4:51 PM

    As of 4:49pm

    19.5% love Al Gore
    44.5% have common sense/a decent respect for free market capitalism
    36.2% have low IQs

  32. lpd1964 says: May 17, 2011 4:51 PM

    The players haven’t asked for anything, it was the owners who opted of the deal. Now the owners are saying we signed a bad CBA in 2006. The owners claim they are losing money but won’t support their claims by revealing the books. While I have no time for D. Smith, it’s hard to side with the billionaire owners on this one.

    //

  33. 1liondriven says: May 17, 2011 4:52 PM

    The team ownersvia the league…

    The owners drive the league,

    the owners own the teams,

    the owners hire the players,

    the owners sign the contracts,

    the owners, (most) build stadiums with, in part, public money,

    the owners sell the jerseys,

    the owners own the logos,

    the owners make the rules,

    the owners cut the deals with the media,

    the owners hire the commish,

    the owners hire the refs so…

    … don’t tell me this mess is the players fault.

  34. halo81 says: May 17, 2011 4:54 PM

    I support MLB and the NHL at this point.

    The players are acting like chumps and DeSmith is a clown. Said it back in the day, Troy Vincent. All I have to say.

    Owners aren’t a heck of a lot better, but at least they don’t have a clown at the wheel, although Pash may be the second coming of Stalin.

  35. mnnightowl says: May 17, 2011 4:56 PM

    Both sides have set aside negotiation and been spending their time plotting and employing leverage tactics. Screw ‘em both.

  36. radrhatr says: May 17, 2011 4:58 PM

    I might be a little more sympathetic to the players, if they would actually make a counter-offer, instead of just turning every offer down that the owners make, without a counter. Dee Smith was the worse thing that has happened to football, since Bo Jackson screwed up his hip.

    They are kicking a dead horse, if they think the league is going to give them a full financial disclosure. They AREN’T partners, or shareholders, so they don’t need to know the full details. All they need to know is that the checks clear.

    If they would agree to pay 60% of the expenses, they would probably get the 60% of the profits.

  37. mrpowers88 says: May 17, 2011 4:58 PM

    I side with the players. The only thing I hold against them is that Smith and Kessler are too combative and are not looking at all to work with the owners.

    My main issue with the owners is that they have planned all along to push the players into taking a deal just because they got such a good deal last time. They have planned on there being no football based on how they negotiated TV deals- which are the biggest moneymaker in the sport.

    I have no idea why so many more people support the owners and they cant do anything to convince me to side with them.

  38. smalltownqb says: May 17, 2011 4:59 PM

    I have a tough time believing that there are THAT many people who want to see billionaires get even richer! That just doesn’t make a bit of sense to me.

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

    @Vadog – please go to school and actually learn what this country is all about.

    Amazing how many people are ignorant and bitter because they are not happy with their own lives.

  39. malthor says: May 17, 2011 4:59 PM

    actually after reading these comments the poll makes sense and will end something like this: owners ~45%, neither ~35% players ~20%.

    I get it, it’s the fans interests are the reason for that.

    The fans want football, but the players are not the team any more than the guy who works at mcdonalds is mcdonalds.

    The players are getting horrible PR with their representation, they may deserve it, they may not but they are getting it.

    Add that to the fact that, at the end of the day, the owners can replace the players and the fans still get to root for their favorite teams and it makes sense that the players wouldn’t have support……..

    when they figure this out a deal will get done.

    I suspect the media would have to cover it first, hasn’t happened yet, in spite of the fact that i have not been able to find even one poll supporting the players.

  40. flair1239 says: May 17, 2011 5:01 PM

    I worry about how the players may achieve their victory. In my opinion the league has worked very hard to achieve parity among the teams. They have also balanced this with the fans being able to see a very high level of football each week.

    To me it would be a shame to see the mechanisms of the game change. So I hope the owners are able to maintain the game the way it is. I really resent the players for choosing the tactics that they have.

    Also, buried in all this is that the players seem to think that they have a right to make enough money during their short careers, to insure that they can retire. I would imagine that for the average player, by the time they leave the game, they still have a solid 40 years to fill. A pro career should be regarded as a nice bonus, not the final career aspiration.

  41. deljzc says: May 17, 2011 5:01 PM

    The bottom line is greater union power normally leads towards a less fan-friendly league. Maybe in 1975 I would have been in favor of more free agency and player movement, but not now.

    No one has ever given me recent evidence that a stronger union in any sport has led to a better product on the field.

    So why would I ever think that would be the case in the NFL? When the unions became “partners” in NHL, NBA and MLB, all those sports suffered. And it was never a quick, instant decline. It was slow and painful that happened over years and countless CBAs each time granting more and more power to the union side.

    How could anyone NOT be in favor of the owners? Except for those so short sighted they care more about their fantasy drafts in August or pro-union gung-ho’s that support every union cause no matter what.

    This has NOTHING to do with Week 1 to me. NOTHING to do about preseason. This is all about who I would rather have leverage at the negotiating table based on countless years of watching other sports succumb to pro-player, short-sighted, anti-trust lawyers that have ruined almost everything they touch.

    Why can’t people see this?

  42. adogdc says: May 17, 2011 5:03 PM

    Maybe this site IS pro-owner…

    My original comment was just deleted….

    Are the servers held in Cuba or China?

  43. Southpaw says: May 17, 2011 5:10 PM

    The only people that would support he players, are the ones that think in a simple straight like like:

    “The lockout is stopping football. The owners are enforcing the lockout. The owners are wrong – the players are right.”

    …and the person that thinks like that is a complete moron.

  44. deljzc says: May 17, 2011 5:11 PM

    I have never seen ONE person that is pro-union show me how giving them more power at the negotiating table will lead to a better NFL for me as a fan.

    I can CLEARLY show you how a pro-owner “future” NFL will be better for the fans because the owner’s most recent proposal was GREAT for us. It slightly tweaked the rookie wages (but didn’t impose a terrible system like the NBA), it shelved the 18-game schedule completely, it kept the RFA system and franchise tag system in place, it kept reasonable increases to the salary cap system that has made this league GREAT since 1993.

    What the players propose (and they really haven’t proposed anything except anti-trust litigation) is TERRIBLE for fans, destroys competitive balance, drives a huge wedge between the haves and have-nots, creates even greater disparity between the highest and lowest paid players and allows some owners to spend like kids in a candy store or hide their head in the sand and spend nothing.

    Really, is this that hard to understand?

  45. chapnastier says: May 17, 2011 5:19 PM

    Pretty sneaky changing the wording from the previous three polls. Looks like it didn’t work, people still overwhelmingly blame the players as they should. TWO offers from the owners, NONE from the players.

  46. manderson367 says: May 17, 2011 5:22 PM

    I support the owners. Without the owners, all the players would be looking for real jobs after college and we’d be spending our Sundays doing yard work.
    The owners/teams will still be here in 10 – 20 years. They sign the paychecks.
    The players? Hell, most of them will be gone and forgotten in 5 years.

  47. crumpledstiltskin says: May 17, 2011 5:29 PM

    If you want the NFL to be like the NFL , you want the owners to prevail.

    If you want the NFL to be like the MLB, you want the players to win.

    I can guess what most of us want.

  48. airraid77 says: May 17, 2011 5:32 PM

    I am just amazed that certain websites havent figured out that they are on the wrong side of this argument. And not just from a football standpoint, but politically these views are frighteningly dangerous. More amazing is that there is no, You heard me, NO, NONE, evidence that your view of the world works. ITS a catastrophe every time its tried. The only time the system that we the united states have, has ever been tried, its not been a little successful, its been over the top, flooding the city successful….and you idiots on the left want to destroy it. Destroy it based on envy.

  49. lpd1964 says: May 17, 2011 5:34 PM

    An 18 game season and the owners refuse to increase roster size, what about injuries?? I like football, but I don’t need 18 games and more playoff teams. I guess the fans go to the stadiums to see the billionares in their luxury boxes. Again, the owners opted out of the deal, the players haven’t asked for anything.

  50. buckeye4278 says: May 17, 2011 5:35 PM

    It’s fascinating to me that the more privileged owners garner more support even though they are the ones responsible for the lockout. We always want players to honor their contacts and bash them when they hold out, but when the owners want out of a contact it’s fine. This isn’t about a rookie wage scale, both sides want that. This is about how much money hours into the owners pockets. This isn’t the NBA, no teams are losing money.

  51. jebdamone says: May 17, 2011 5:40 PM

    mightyleemoon says: May 17, 2011 4:13 PM

    I’m in favor of football remaining as is. Which means I am in favor of the owners.
    ———————————————————–

    you also proved that you have no idea what you are talking about in one sentence considering that the players are the ones who want football to remain the way it is. remember, the owners opted out of the CBA that they and the players agreed on a year before its expiration. players have said every step of the way that they are ready to play under the CBA that was opted out of. what is even more alarming is that you have so many ignoramus agreeing with you.

  52. straitalk says: May 17, 2011 5:41 PM

    The sheeple are at it again. Advice to real fans of the game.., continue going against the grain of unsophisticated butt pillow types who can only see the all and powerful OZ (owners) doing wonderful things for the game, and only see the players as the bad guys doing ruination to the earth. Us grownups understand that the real answers lie somewhere between, and that the root of the problem resides in who gets the biggest slice of the 9.5 billion dollar a year pie. So, ignore the no draft cry, the free agency nightmare, the unbalanced league wail, and the negative long affects on the game obfuscation. Follow the money, and let the sheeple continue to flog themselves in self rightiousness on behalf of the owners. Keep your eye on the ball, but don’t forget to keep your sense of humor and chuckle at the naivete of some of the arguments above and below on here.

  53. wetpaperbag2 says: May 17, 2011 5:46 PM

    mightyleemoon says: May 17, 2011 4:13 PM

    I’m in favor of football remaining as is. Which means I am in favor of the owners.
    ————————————–
    You are contradicting yourself. The reason why the owners opted out of the then current CBA was that they did not want to continue the game of NFL football “the way it is now” because their claim is that teams will suffer/have suffered under the current system/CBA.

  54. danfitzger says: May 17, 2011 5:52 PM

    “If I went in to my boss and demanded a share of the revenue, he’d probably fire me on the spot!”
    ——————–

    I’m not pro-player but I’m tired of this ridiculous line of thought. There is a gigantic difference between you and an NFL player. You are infinitely replaceable while there is an extremely limited supply of NFL-level athletes.

    Guess what happens if a world-class chef (or any member of an extremely rare and highly sought skill group) demands a share of the revenue from their boss? Something a lot different than what happens to everyone else.

  55. bringbackorange says: May 17, 2011 5:54 PM

    Here’s the things that have me on the owners side on this…

    #1 – I want the league rules to be the same or very similar to what we have now. I like the draft (even moreso with a wage scale, and even moreso beyond that if it was one that prevented rookies from being able to hold out of training camp because that is the thing that pisses me off above all else), and I like free agency as is (pre non-salary cap rules, not 2010 rules)… it keeps the league balanced.

    #2 – I think the owners DO need more money, but not to put in their pockets. Maybe I’m nieve, but I am envisioning a future NFL where the league doesn’t rely on public funding for stadiums… or at least minimally. This would allow franchises to stay put as long as it’s possible to do so without any of the garbage we see going on with the Vikings. I’m not even remotely a Vikings fan, but I think it would be a travesty to move such a good franchise with such great fans just because of a gap in taxpayer money to support the new stadium. With the extra money taken off of the top the league and owners could in theory support their own projects and continue to grow the game I love. If that money goes into the players pockets I see no long term benefit to the quality of my favorite game…

  56. jakek2 says: May 17, 2011 5:55 PM

    The Pro-Owners “arguments” are so ridiculous and laden with racial undertones it’s not even funny. Here’s a summary:

    1) NFL Players make enough. I make $5.75 an hour stocking kitty litter. Since I can’t ask my boss for money, neither should players.

    2) I can’t think of an intelligent argument against DeSmith so I will call him names (that are lame to boot! get some originality you tards)

    3) The NFL negotiates but the players don’t. OK mental midgets. If I keep coming back to you offering to buy your car for $1…that offer does NOT constitute negotiating and does NOT merit a counteroffer.

    If you people just said, “Listen, I am a redneck republican and whatever n—gers get, they should be happy with”…we pro-players would actually respect you.

  57. wetpaperbag2 says: May 17, 2011 5:56 PM

    benyamen says: May 17, 2011 4:20 PM

    The players are the one’s looking to ruin the game altogether by eliminating the draft (competetive balance), eliminating the salary cap (competetive balance) and acting like they deserve an equal part of the money as the owners (what other industry can the employee demand equal shares with the owner?). I’d much rather have to lose one season to a lockout than lose altogether what has made the NFL the great league that it is. If the players win, ya you’ll get football to watch this fall, but in a few years the implications will be seen on field and we’ll all wish that the lockout was still on. Do you really want the NFL to turn into a more an even more stunted version of MLB?
    ————————————-

    Removing the salary cap and NOT instituting a draft/rookie cap is actually more along the lines of purist capitalism. What it essentially means is that the (former) players union wants a more “free market system” for the NFL. Meaning, if a team wants to pay only a little bit or a lot of money for a player, then they are free to do so…without limits or restrictions.

    Oddly, it’s the owners who want a spending cap, pay restrictions, and parity.

    What’s funny now is hearing all the anti-union rhetoric thrown towards the players who want a bit more money, but is willing to side with the fundamental fiscal principals this country was founded on; Capitalism.

    Yet, no mention of “socialist” rhetoric thrown at the owners who want to cap and restrict player’s money and spread the wealth to the 32 team/organizations.

    These are strange days we are living in my friends.

  58. ubummer says: May 17, 2011 5:58 PM

    This isn’t hard to figure out. Neither side cares anything about the fans, but the members of one side are in the NFL for an average of about 5 years, while the members of the other side are in the NFL for 20 or 30 years. Which side is going to be more interested in the long term stability and health of the NFL?

  59. airraid77 says: May 17, 2011 6:03 PM

    The Pro-Owners “arguments” are so ridiculous and laden with racial undertones it’s not even funny. Here’s a summary:
    1) NFL Players make enough. I make $5.75 an hour stocking kitty litter. Since I can’t ask my boss for money, neither should players.
    2) I can’t think of an intelligent argument against DeSmith so I will call him names (that are lame to boot! get some originality you tards)
    3) The NFL negotiates but the players don’t. OK mental midgets. If I keep coming back to you offering to buy your car for $1…that offer does NOT constitute negotiating and does NOT merit a counteroffer.
    If you people just said, “Listen, I am a redneck republican and whatever n—gers get, they should be happy with”…we pro-players would actually respect you
    ————————————–
    talk about uneducated? 5.75? Minimum wage is 7.25.
    If the players made a counter proposal? that is negotiations. what the players are doing is acting like a child. stomping their feet because daddy needs to cut the allowance….ala litigation.

  60. sgt50 says: May 17, 2011 6:04 PM

    Who builds the stadiums, who pays for the outrageous ticket prices, who pays for the outrageous parking, food, drink and sports wear, WE THE FAN, that is who I side with THE FAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  61. semperfi24 says: May 17, 2011 6:05 PM

    asyd1827 says:May 17, 2011 4:12 PM

    The owners are the ones that are locking out the players. The players are the ones that were attempting to lift the lockout so we (the fans) could have NFL football this year.
    ________________________________

    Atleast we know where De Smith was at 4:12 PM, leaving comments on PFT, LMFAO

  62. tmaleman says: May 17, 2011 6:06 PM

    here’s all you need to know about the turds on this website:

    Call me an optimist but I think we get a deal done before we get a ruling from the 8th circuit on the appeal. Here’s hoping.

    38 thumbs up, 58 thumbs down

    who gives a thumbs down to someone hoping for a deal before litigation runs its course?

  63. endzonezombie says: May 17, 2011 6:08 PM

    Even PFT suspects that the league sends posters here to support their propaganda. Why do you even bother to feature a poll – the outcome is predetermined.

  64. idriveamoped says: May 17, 2011 6:12 PM

    you also proved that you have no idea what you are talking about in one sentence considering that the players are the ones who want football to remain the way it is. remember, the owners opted out of the CBA that they and the players agreed on a year before its expiration. players have said every step of the way that they are ready to play under the CBA that was opted out of. what is even more alarming is that you have so many ignoramus agreeing with you./………………………………………………………………….

    Are you kidding me with this crap? You honestly think the players want to keep football the way it is? With statements like this, I can see why you are pro player….because you have no F&^** clue what is going on. Who ever made the comment about people that are pro players think like this.
    Owners forced the lockout, Players want lockout lifted, Players want football Woohooo go football, nailed it right on the tee with you. Congrats, go watch baseball, cause if everyone thought like you, that is essentially what we will be watching.

  65. roynp3 says: May 17, 2011 6:14 PM

    According to a recent Suffolk University poll, when asked which side they blame in labor dispute, 32% of respondents said owners, 19% players, 30% undecideds.

    I think the numbers on your survey lend credence to the theory that there are management shills commenting/voting on this site.

  66. jakek2 says: May 17, 2011 6:15 PM

    talk about uneducated? 5.75? Minimum wage is 7.25.
    If the players made a counter proposal? that is negotiations. what the players are doing is acting like a child. stomping their feet because daddy needs to cut the allowance….ala litigation.
    —————–
    1) Sorry. I make 6 figures and haven’t made minimum wage in over 20 years. You countering my post in a shade under 10 mins tells me that you are very familiar with what min wage is.

    2) Like I said, a crummy offer does not merit a counterproposal. Read before you write.

  67. Deb says: May 17, 2011 6:18 PM

    @dixon29 …

    Small sample size? No sample size at all is involved here. In professional polling, samples are carefully chosen based on precise criteria to ensure they are representative of the larger population being studied. It’s an intensely scientific process. Internet respondents could be anyone using any means to vote any number of times for any number of reasons.

    All we know is this result is in line with PFT comments, which skew conservative by at least two to one. But PFT’s comments represent less than 7 percent of the site’s unique monthly visitors, so we don’t even know if they reflect PFT readers, let alone whether they’re indicative of football fans in general.

    I’d guess “neither” would poll higher in a more balanced audience.

  68. nahcouldntbethat says: May 17, 2011 6:23 PM

    I voted neither (again.)

    I want free market capitalism to assert itself here. End the draft. End any type of contractual restrictions on player movement after the expiration of contracts. Allow nobody to breach a contract once it has been signed, meaning nobody gets cut without seeing the terms of their contract fulfilled (that contract to include the conditions under which it can be terminated early by either side).

    Let the market decide the value of a player.

    Then we don’t need a CBA or any other crutch undermining free enterprise and the right of individuals to choose their employer.

    In short, I want the Brady suit resolved.

  69. fancyleague says: May 17, 2011 6:26 PM

    @ str82dvd:

    Free market capitalism?

    Collusion, revenue sharing, anti-trust exemption, collective bargaining, dancing on the line between being 1 company and 32 companies, coercing governments to pay for stadiums.

    You’ve got an interesting definition of “free market”.

  70. fancyleague says: May 17, 2011 6:31 PM

    1) Sorry. I make 6 figures and haven’t made minimum wage in over 20 years. You countering my post in a shade under 10 mins tells me that you are very familiar with what min wage is.

    ———

    LMAO! Well played, sir.

  71. fancyleague says: May 17, 2011 6:43 PM

    nfl25 says:

    so should we just give the 95% of the profits then and worship them? i have a better idea, find the players that are willing to negotiate a new deal and fill the rest of the team with college players. why do some people worship the players?

    ——————————-

    95%? Worship them? Having fun with your jump to conclusions mat today?

    Why are you worshipping the owners? They’re the guys making it expensive to go to a game. They’re the guys making it expensive to watch a game. The minute the owners stop grabbing for every last dollar I’ll consider not despising them. You berate the players for being greedy but ignore the owners doing the exact same thing.

  72. monkeesfan says: May 17, 2011 7:09 PM

    Once again the anti-owners arguments have zero factual basis.

    1 – It is the owners who spend the money to make the money – for themselves AND the players. The players invest nothing in the game, otherwise they’d manage their money better and would help solve a lot of the issues of retired players etc. better than has been done so far.
    2 – It is the market that makes it expensive – NOT the owners. The market will dictate when prices go up and when they will go down – ripping the owners will not make the market change.
    3 – The NFLPA BY THE ADMISSION OF KEVIN MAWAE AND RICHIE INCOGNITO tricked the owners into signing a CBA that made the cost of doing business too high.
    4 – The cap shot up by some $50-plus million per team in just three or four years under this CBA.
    5 – It is DeMaurice Smith who has been the one stonewalling real negotiations because he is clueless about economics and is not in this for a new deal, he is in this to “punish” the owners – it continues to show in his threatening rhetoric even in defeat in the courts.
    6 – The so-called “slush fund” was a loan from the networks in case of a lockout – it was not some sinister preparation for something the owners can’t afford to have (a lost season).
    7 – The reality of sports economics dictates that players will not lose out on a new CBA – the arguments by DeMaurice Smith make no economic sense, best shown by the 18% pay cut myth debunked by PFT. The players will make the money they make now and will make more in the future – in a more sensible economic structure than what the last CBA had.
    8 – The players group can solve this issue right here – sign a new CBA and call off DeMaurice Smith’s war on economic reality.

  73. jebdamone says: May 17, 2011 7:11 PM

    idriveamoped says: May 17, 2011 6:12 PM

    you also proved that you have no idea what you are talking about in one sentence considering that the players are the ones who want football to remain the way it is. remember, the owners opted out of the CBA that they and the players agreed on a year before its expiration. players have said every step of the way that they are ready to play under the CBA that was opted out of. what is even more alarming is that you have so many ignoramus agreeing with you./………………………………………………………………….

    Are you kidding me with this crap? You honestly think the players want to keep football the way it is? With statements like this, I can see why you are pro player….because you have no F&^** clue what is going on. Who ever made the comment about people that are pro players think like this.
    Owners forced the lockout, Players want lockout lifted, Players want football Woohooo go football, nailed it right on the tee with you. Congrats, go watch baseball, cause if everyone thought like you, that is essentially what we will be watching.
    ———————————————————-
    your comments would make complete sense except that %75 of it was just bashing and the other %25 had nothing to back it up. what don’t you understand about this whole deal? if the owners hadn’t opted out of the contract that they signed there would still be football. the players were happy with the CBA and where/are still willing to play under it. the history and future is far more complex than that but i don’t know how i can make the basic arguement any more simple for you.
    i am assuming your baseball references are in regards to the threats the *NFLPA has made about the possible future of football, specifically the draft and free agency. but i hardly see that happening. it was done more as a leveraging tool (when the players had the leverage), is besides the point and quite frankly would also be the fault of the owners. some of whom i am sure would love the future you describe as well.

  74. sdiegosteel says: May 17, 2011 7:24 PM

    In other words, lets have NBC do some market research. What, 46% support the owners? Expect banner ads from Rolex, Cadillac, and Mitt Romney. Enjoy your country club and lockout, majority!

  75. zanadude says: May 17, 2011 7:27 PM

    The owners have been paying for a player-biased deal that happened before the economy dropped, and they have to invest in the past, present, and future of their teams while the players mostly have expenses that are voluntary.

    To me, the players lost most of my sympathy when D-Bag Smith walked away from the table, did the obvious B.S. decertification, and has been increasingly inaccurate in every quote since then. I love my team and its players, but the asshat representing them is a poor choice.

    Goodell’s not helping, but Smith and all the lawsuits are the bigger problem.

  76. liontomyself says: May 17, 2011 7:39 PM

    jakek2 says:May 17, 2011 6:15 PM

    2) Like I said, a crummy offer does not merit a counterproposal. Read before you write.

    ________________

    Who is paying you six figures for that logic????

    It is not a job interview…….it is about negotiating a new CBA / contract (no matter what the courts ruling is…a CBA will eventually be n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-e-d)……..no counteroffer means you get no football until there is one……

    In regards to negotiating, ANY counter offer is better than NO counter offer.

    So, um, yeah, an offer does merit a counter offer genius.

  77. str82dvd says: May 17, 2011 7:41 PM

    @fancyleague

    Free market = somewhat free to do business without tools in corny fedoras able to grind everything to a halt with sham decertifications, endless litigation and cheesy retorical talking points.

    Thinking of the 32 teams as individual businesses is like expecting Wendy’s in Boston to compete with Wendy’s in Buffalo.

  78. mick730 says: May 17, 2011 7:45 PM

    “I’m not pro-player but I’m tired of this ridiculous line of thought. There is a gigantic difference between you and an NFL player. You are infinitely replaceable while there is an extremely limited supply of NFL-level athletes.”

    Really? I didn’t notice that during the Packers’ Super Bowl run last year. Hell, they plugged in players right off of the street. Look at the outside linebacker position opposite Clay Matthews as a good example.

    Players come and go; that’s all there is to it. Sure, the die hard fans of most teams will remember who the left guard was or who the reserve strong safety might have been, but the average fan won’t remember many of todays players five years from now.

    And there are thousands of college players who would give their right arm to play in the NFL. At one time, the NFL draft was 30 rounds long; today it is only 7.

    You could replace the entire roster of every NFL team this seaon, and in two or three years, nobody would know the difference.

    It is the league, it is the individual teams which are lasting and important. The players are just interchangeable pieces.

    Don’t believe me? How many Packer fans miss Brett Favre today?

    Not me.

  79. mick730 says: May 17, 2011 8:13 PM

    “We’ll ask again in a month, if this mess hasn’t been resolved by then.”

    My guess is that you will be conducting several more of these monthly polls and that the support for the NFLPA will continue to shrink…..fast.

  80. jebdamone says: May 17, 2011 8:23 PM

    3 – The NFLPA BY THE ADMISSION OF KEVIN MAWAE AND RICHIE INCOGNITO tricked the owners into signing a CBA that made the cost of doing business too high.
    ————————————————————-

    was it the ol’ coin out of the ear trick, or the disappearing dove trick that got them do you think? seriously, this comment is still cracking me up because of its complete insanity. the fact that you state it as factual just makes it even better.

  81. kevin says: May 17, 2011 8:35 PM

    3) The NFL negotiates but the players don’t. OK mental midgets. If I keep coming back to you offering to buy your car for $1…that offer does NOT constitute negotiating and does NOT merit a counteroffer.

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

    You are right. That is not negotiating. That is called an *offer*. Negotiating begins when the other side then has an intelligent discussion about the offer and what they think it is worth and why the *offer* is agreeable or not. What the NFLPA is doing is just summarily rejecting it and giving no reason(s). Keep in mind that you can’t negotiate with yourself, it takes at least TWO parties.

    I’ve seen some cars that are worth $1. If the NFLPA thinks their “car” is worth more maybe they should explain why it’s worth more and make a counter instead of just assuming it has great value and everyone will want to buy it. The market dictates the price and I don’t see anyone else in the market chomping at the bit to buy their (NFLPA*) products/services.

    Your logic and statement fails… and you think I (and others) are mental midgets.

  82. semperfi24 says: May 17, 2011 9:01 PM

    fancyleague says:May 17, 2011 6:43 PM

    nfl25 says:

    so should we just give the 95% of the profits then and worship them? i have a better idea, find the players that are willing to negotiate a new deal and fill the rest of the team with college players. why do some people worship the players?

    ——————————-

    95%? Worship them? Having fun with your jump to conclusions mat today?

    Why are you worshipping the owners? They’re the guys making it expensive to go to a game. They’re the guys making it expensive to watch a game. The minute the owners stop grabbing for every last dollar I’ll consider not despising them. You berate the players for being greedy but ignore the owners doing the exact same thing.
    _________________________

    To play devils advocate, here is a thought for you to ponder:
    If the players made less money, the owners could charge less for tickets, beer, parking….. Isnt that what makes it “expensive to watch a game”? In 1991 the average ticket price was $25, in 2009 it was $72, an increase of almost 300%, which pisses me off, making me less likely to side with the owners

    In 1991, the average nfl salary was $422,000. In 2009 (18 years later) the average salary has increased to $990,000. In 18 years, the average salary has increased more than 200%. I think the players have it good, lol. Since the average cost of tickets went up 300%, and the average nfl salary went up 200%, I dont think either side can bitch about money. However, Randall Cunningham was the highest paid player in 91, making $2.25 million. In 09 it was Julius Peppers, making $16.63 million. How are the players not making enough? lol

    I am not picking a side, but if the draft goes away, and if the salary cap goes away, NFL football will be a joke. I have no interest in that.

    Another point to ponder (for the “pro player” side of the argument), stop bitching about the lock out. This is the way it works. When the owners feel like they are getting jobbed, they lock the players out. When the players feel like they are getting jobbed, they strike. Stop acting like this is a one way street, both sides have an option to take if they dont like the deal, it just so happens that this time, its the owners that took action. Were you pro owner in 1982, or again in 1987 when the players went on strike?

    It sucks, we all want football, and we want it the way it is right now (or was last year, lol). How the owners and players divide up revenue, has no bearing on the game on the field. When you start talking about taking away the draft, or eliminating the salary cap, you are no longer arguing about money, but trying to change the game

  83. sakatak says: May 17, 2011 9:12 PM

    jakek2 says:
    May 17, 2011 5:55 PM
    The Pro-Owners “arguments” are so ridiculous and laden with racial undertones it’s not even funny. Here’s a summary:

    1) NFL Players make enough. I make $5.75 an hour stocking kitty litter. Since I can’t ask my boss for money, neither should players.

    2) I can’t think of an intelligent argument against DeSmith so I will call him names (that are lame to boot! get some originality you tards)

    3) The NFL negotiates but the players don’t. OK mental midgets. If I keep coming back to you offering to buy your car for $1…that offer does NOT constitute negotiating and does NOT merit a counteroffer.

    If you people just said, “Listen, I am a redneck republican and whatever n—gers get, they should be happy with”…we pro-players would actually respect you.

    Warren Moon, is that you?

  84. bgfootballfan says: May 17, 2011 9:49 PM

    … and just why haven’t the poorly treated players beaten a path to the UFL, CFL, AFL or whatever else ‘FL they can pawn their wares off to? Because they are living off of the popularity of a league that was built before any of them were born. By owners who invested in it with their own money. Who pay to maintain the league year after year after these players are gone. These dudes are are stoned to think they have the right to look into the owners books. I could see it if they were partners in the business, but partners don’t just share in profits, they share in expenses. When was the last ime Tom Brady cut a check to the Patriots for team travel expenses. When was the last time Drew Brees whined about his share of the stadium maintenence. When did Peyton Manning pay his share for the training staff…. or the marketing budget.

    The truth is when they’re playing days are done, nobody cares what they’re doing. We as fans will be cheering on whoever takes their place. That’s a cold hard reality. And when that happens, will the players have to be paying to maintain the team they played for?? The owners have an obligation to maintain annual viability for their franchise. Do they make a ton of money for this? yep, and why shouldn’t they, if it wasn’t their money thought bought the franchises, the players would not have the means to market their abilities at astronomical figures.

    And don’t get give me this ..”we put our lives on the line” crap. If you don’t like the risk of your profession, get out. If you don’t like being a ..”slave”, get out. I hate to tell you this players, but before you guys came along , we enjoyed other people playing the game, and after you leave, the cycle will continue. If you guys want to cut off your collective noses to spite your face and abandon the league and there’s no more NFL, so be it. I’ve been a football fan for 40 years and the day when players played for passion and love of the game are gone. It’s a business, pure and simple. Just because I flip the burgers doesn’t mean I deserve a cut of Ronald’s business.

    Reality check, you’re employees… not partners, when you start shoveling out cash for expenses, then we’ll think about considering you partners.

    … And PFT, stop being the player’s prostitute. You look stupid claiming to be covering it down the middle, when everyone can see by your posts where your opinion sides with.

  85. sparky900 says: May 17, 2011 10:10 PM

    I wonder if the players have any idea what they are after. Do they realize that should they win, most of them will lose in a huge way? Yes, the extraordinary players will command huge salaries, but most of the players will be part of the completely replaceable NFL, with salaries well below what they are now. Parity will be gone, and likely, some teams will fold after time – while it will be great to take in loads of cash and not have to pay it back in wages, eventually the fans will catch on (although they never did in Green Bay – my favorite team – in the 70′s and 80′s). Don’t get the thought process of the players, although I do sense the incredible danger in turning the negotating over to someone whose career is likely to span longer than the four years yours averages. Don’t much care anymore (I know that isn’t the attitude PFT wants), and would much rather spend my time – and have – thinking about more important issues than pro football. Ultimately, it’s men playing a game. What possible difference does it make?

  86. rabidmike says: May 17, 2011 10:36 PM

    I’ve read alot of these comments and while compelling, a lot of people are missing a critical point of the players argument. There is no free market for their services with in the NFL. You have 32 businesses acting like one, they are only competitive on the field. A player doesnt get his market value whenever an opportunity arises. Im free to leave my employer for a better deal whenever I want. So, the CBA has to account for this, allowing them to maximize their compensation in an unfree market. If on the otherhand, all 32 teams were competitive in business and could “buy” players whenever they wanted. Things would be very different, but all 32 owners agree to abide by the same rules making them partners. The players also agree to these rules so they to believe themselves to be partners and not employees. That is why I think both sides are to blame. They both seem to be trying to maximize their profits at the expense of the other.

  87. thefiesty1 says: May 17, 2011 11:56 PM

    Still at 19% for the players. Looks like the hand writing is on the wall. Give it up, your pimp boss (DeMo) has caused all of this mess.

  88. Deb says: May 18, 2011 12:10 AM

    @mick730 …

    Yeah … every time a player went down, the Pack held a cattle call in the parking lot at the local Wal-Mart. Truck drivers, dishwashers, pizza chefs, and a few burger flippers from Mickey D’s showed up. Mike and Ted played spin-the-bottle and just plugged in the replacements. Then Green Bay brought home the Lombardi with a their collection of scrubs.

    Gee, makes you wonder why those brilliant owners and player-personnel guys you worship spent the last two decades bidding the salaries of guys like Favre into eight figures. Why didn’t they just run a cattle call every weekend?

    Guess desperate envy of well-paid athletes makes some men stupid.

  89. chapnastier says: May 18, 2011 7:09 AM

    jakek2 says: May 17, 2011 5:55 PM

    The Pro-Owners “arguments” are so ridiculous and laden with racial undertones it’s not even funny.
    —————————————————-

    What would your argument be against those of us who are pro-owner who bash Drew Bress, Jeff Saturday and Mike Vrabel? Or how about Peyton Manning, Tom Brady etc etc? You see how easy that was to prove you wrong? When you gain the ability to debate something with facts, you might be able to prove us wrong too. Until then, keep your true racist remarks to yourself. We don’t need them polluting this wall.

    I also find it funny how if you are pro-owner you are a republican. I think it would be more that you are pro-the sport of football if you are pro-owner. For the life of me I cannot understand why people interject race and politics into discussions when it doesn’t even belong. I am pro-owner and I voted for Gore and John Kerry. Not very republican-ish huh?

  90. percey12 says: May 18, 2011 11:12 AM

    The NFL teams and the structure of the league is what drives the fan base. I am a fan of the team players come and go year after year, there just a comdity to be used and replaced. I cant beleive these post about how the players are the league and the fans will blindly follow the players where ever they go. In 1987 i was completely satisfied watching replacement players and never missed a game since I am a fan of my TEAM not a group of players.

  91. Deb says: May 18, 2011 11:59 AM

    @percey12 …

    No one is saying you’re a fan of individual players and will blindly follow them where ever they go. I’m a fan of my team … period. But that team is comprised of elite athletes, not guys holding a pick-up game in a vacant lot.

    You may have been happy watching scrubs in 1987, but most fans were not. The quality of play sucked. And the game has evolved dramatically in the nearly 25 years since then. Offensive and defensive schemes today are extremely complex. We’re all accustomed to watching a high level of competition, and you’d be surprised how unappealing you’d find the game if you consistently had to watch more simplified offenses and defenses where players didn’t have the precision timing and skills you’re used to seeing.

    I’m also a fan of college ball, but there’s no comparison to the speed and complexity of the pro game. Only a handful of players from the top tier of college teams are capable of making it in the NFL. And replacement players wouldn’t be those elite college athletes. They’d be players previously rejected by the NFL.

    Players didn’t demand high salaries and get them. Men like Jerry Jones and Paul Allen bid their salaries that high trying to get the best players for their teams so they could win a championship. Without the athletes, they have no product … unless you want to watch Ralph Wilson taking snaps from Dan Snyder.

  92. godofwine330 says: May 18, 2011 2:52 PM

    When I look at polls like this it makes me realize how many owners must visit this site for the numbers to be that out of wack in favor of the owners because I cannot believe that the American public could be this ignorant.

    This is not a strike, this is a lockout.

    Strike = workers holding out from working in hopes for better conditions, benefits, etc.

    Lockout = Owners not allowing workers to work to force workers to accept owners terms for reduction of wages, benefits, etc.

    With a strike, and I have heard fans on SiriusXM NFL Radio use this term in relation to the lockout, the players are to blame for taking football away from the fans. With a lockout, it is the OWNERS who are keeping football away from the fans.

    Fact, the owners signed a deal that was bad for them in 2006. Two owners, the Bengals & Bills, knew this and opted not to sign, but they were overruled 30-2. In 2008, the owners realized they signed a bad deal and opted out of the deal as they were in their rights to do.

    The owners planned this lockout in 2008. In the subsequent 3 years, very little discussion or action was taken by the owners to write up a new CBA that could be seen as advantageous to both sides. The players had a good deal and they were resting on it as a janitor who was offered $100/hr would (not equating players to janitors, but simply saying how someone who by all accounts got a really good deal certainly would not draw up a proposal that would mean they would receive less).

    The owners deemed that a lockout was the only way for them to derail the runaway train that they started. No one forced them to sign that deal in 2006, so they turned the key and took a ride on what became the runaway train. But they didn’t think it all the way through. Without a decent proposal drawn up so the players, the players union, or the head of the players union don’t appear that they are losing, there is no end in sight to this lockout.

    The NFL is deadline motivated, which can be, has in the past and will continue to be a detriment to the league. What do I mean? Look at the procedure that rookie contracts are signed. The NFL Draft is the last week in April, however, 99% of the contracts aren’t even seriously discussed until after July 4th. Every year there are numerous holdouts with rookies not getting in to training camp on time due to their contracts not being completed. Why? Because training camp is the last week of July, and the NFL isn’t motivated until they are up against a deadline and many times they run past the deadline. This is a poor business strategy for a $9 Billion business to have. Three months for 32 clubs to get deals done to get 275 picks into every camp on time and almost all of them wait until the last minute and some 11% of the picks are signed long after the buzzer sounds.

    The question is why weren’t there serious discussions in the 3 years since the owners opted out of the most recent CBA extension? Because the deadline was 2 years away and they figured there was no reason to rush off the tracks when the train was miles and miles away. So like the kids in ‘Stand By Me’ they just kept on walking, and walking, and walking, until the train eventually came right up on them, then, they got a year extension and went BACK to walking until the train was right up on them again and they had to jump off the tracks. They could have, and should have been negotiating a deal or at least terms of a deal during the three years, but they were not. Instead, they looked for unnecessary and unwanted Band-Aids like the 18 game regular season suggestion. The players don’t want it, and a recent PFT poll says the fans don’t want it either (64.99 voted no, vs. 30.29 voted yes in 23,400 votes cast), though the owners continue to push for it. An 18 game regular season will not magically fix a system that is systematically broken, and the “for the fans” rhetoric that the league keeps pushing is further proof that they don’t get it.

    Fans of this game need to understand who is to blame and the reason for the blame. The league for many years has gone by the deadline motivation mindset so long that they don’t even realize that it is bad business and bad for business. They need to realize that getting a deal done as soon as possible regardless of the court’s ruling because losing a year or even a game will be more hazardous to the game as a whole than it will be for either side. Baseball has recovered maybe 70-80%, and hockey has yet to even come close to fully recovering from their work stoppage. Even though I do believe that the owners are to blame for this lockout, I also believe that it is optimum to get a deal done sooner rather than later because it is important to save the training and preparation for the season as much as it is to save the games.

  93. Deb says: May 18, 2011 4:03 PM

    @chap …

    I recall you posting in 2009 or ’10 that you were 26. If so, you’d have been 17 in 2000. So how’d you vote for Gore? ;) Whatever you may have been at 17 or 20, you’re now rabidly pro-Fox and anti-union.

    Politics enters the discussion because most people damning the players have little idea of the issues in this dispute but rant instead about their general hatred for unions, a common Tea Party fixation. And sadly, some people never miss an opportunity to caricature all African-American players as Pacman Jones on his worst day.

Leave a Reply

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