RolandDeschain":4gpmlk90 said:
The same reason you're saying player should be exempt from less choices as us. It's your argument.
And again, I need to know why its only okay of the owners use leverage and not the players.
Archie Manning
- Thread starter Jazzhawk
- Start date
The same reason you're saying player should be exempt from less choices as us. It's your argument.
And again, I need to know why its only okay of the owners use leverage and not the players.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
The players can freely use whatever leverage they want that doesn't violate things they have legally agreed to.
RolandDeschain":31gl2eze said:
But, you said they should be suspended for that, in Eli's case? But, the owners can back out of legal contracts with no repercussions?
I think both sides have a right to do what they want. And, I don't want either side punished for negotiating with their own best interests in mind. You seem to only want one side to be able to do that. I've never seen you post anything saying an owner should be suspended for forcing paycuts. But, Eli's a punk for using his leverage?
My overall point is, people can only see one-side of the argument. Most fans get on the owners side in a holdout or contract dispute, but they don't play their own logic through when the roles are reversed, ala Michael Robinson.
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
There is a lot of talk about what is right and wrong. I think the only thing that applies here is what you can and can't do. People can talk about where they refuse to play. Teams can believe them if they want to. They can use that talk to then draft the player anyway and force draft picks out of the team that wanted that player to begin with.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
pehawk":3trkbruj said:
Definitely not what happened during the lockout. The vast majority of Internet talk all over the place was comprised of people ragging on Goodell and the league; most fans supported the players.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
pehawk":1ai6ktcv said:
Well, from the perspective of Eli helping Eli, of course he wasn't wrong. That doesn't mean that everything you do that benefits yourself is right, or legal, or justified. Geez, if you believe that, go rob a bank; ethically earn that stolen cash! You got away with it, so you deserve it!
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
Yeah, we've never seen you do that............
Right and wrong are not always subjective.
Right and wrong are not always subjective.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
I never said suspend him retroactively or anything like that, I'm just saying, if a player wants to refuse to fulfill his end of the bargain with the team that drafted him, he should be forced to sit out of the league for a while.
You know, like a timeout for a naughty kid that won't eat his peas.
Oops, I forgot; I'm not a parent, I can't use an analogy involving children. I won't make that mistake again, I swear!
You know, like a timeout for a naughty kid that won't eat his peas.
Oops, I forgot; I'm not a parent, I can't use an analogy involving children. I won't make that mistake again, I swear!
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
That agreement never guaranteed the full duration and pay under all circumstances from the employer to the employee. You're not making a proper comparison. The owners aren't on the hook for as much as the players are.
For instance, if I get you to sign a piece of paper that says I'll give you a dollar for every papaya you bring me, and you are obligated to do this at a rate of one papaya per day for five straight years, and I have a clause in that contract stating I can terminate it at will for no reason, I can do just that and tell you to go away anytime I want, but you can't do the same to me unless you manage to get me to sign that contract with a similar clause in it benefiting you.
I really don't understand why you're arguing this. Employment contracts almost always benefit the employer more than the employee. The employer has more at stake. (Look at the local machinists union's role in pissing off Boeing to the point of moving clear across the country for some evidence there.)
For instance, if I get you to sign a piece of paper that says I'll give you a dollar for every papaya you bring me, and you are obligated to do this at a rate of one papaya per day for five straight years, and I have a clause in that contract stating I can terminate it at will for no reason, I can do just that and tell you to go away anytime I want, but you can't do the same to me unless you manage to get me to sign that contract with a similar clause in it benefiting you.
I really don't understand why you're arguing this. Employment contracts almost always benefit the employer more than the employee. The employer has more at stake. (Look at the local machinists union's role in pissing off Boeing to the point of moving clear across the country for some evidence there.)
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
San Diego turned that first overall pick into Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding. They didn't miss Superbowls because of not having Eli.
I will say it again, if there is no rule, there is no right and wrong. Does it make Eli and his dad a couple of Douches? Yep. But being a douche is not against the rules. And I say this knowing that douchbaggery is how come I had to watch Elway in Denver.
I will say it again, if there is no rule, there is no right and wrong. Does it make Eli and his dad a couple of Douches? Yep. But being a douche is not against the rules. And I say this knowing that douchbaggery is how come I had to watch Elway in Denver.
Roland, I know full well how things work. So, I don't complain about one particular side. You do, not me.
Go ahead and complain about what Eli did. But, be intellectually honest and play that logic forward and critique owners for similar use of leverage. This isn't sexuality, you gots to pick a side. Now, it took me 30 years to pick one, but I did.
Go ahead and complain about what Eli did. But, be intellectually honest and play that logic forward and critique owners for similar use of leverage. This isn't sexuality, you gots to pick a side. Now, it took me 30 years to pick one, but I did.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
pehawk":3gdpecay said:
Actually, you do by your own admission. You said earlier in this thread you support the players side of negotiations no matter what until they get what you deem to be a fair CBA by whatever arbitrary thoughts are floating in your head on the subject. You don't complain about a particular side my ass, Ryan; you've started anti-Goodell and anti-NFL threads and participated in more, every single time backing whatever side the players are on regardless of the issue. That is your history on this forum.
Also, what in the new CBA inhibits big-dollar second contracts? Once they're eligible to get a new deal, what are the restrictions? Point them out. Here's the CBA for your convenience: http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/201 ... 1-2020.pdf
RolandDeschain":7k6b4nqg said:
I don't say Goodell or owners should be suspended though. That's the difference. I'm not here saying "suspend John Schneider for leveraging Michael Robinson". That's the difference. I understand the game, both sides.
Yes, I think the NFLPA's weak, very weak. When compared to their peers, NFL players get a less fair shake. The CBA doesn't say big contracts are prohibited, its just working out that way. Tough luck for the players, they realize they got taken, yet again. That's not news. Delving into the CBA saying "show me where it says that" is weak, really and intellectually dishonest.
If you've paid attention, my criticism has been laid at the feet of the NFLPA.
My hate for Goodell is well-documented. I think he's a puppet for certain owners. I don't like his blindness to "due process" in terms of suspensions. I hate how he preaches player safety one week, then the next week lobby's for an 18 game schedule. That's really not germane to the discussion.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
Accusing me of only looking at one side while you do the same on the other side of the spectrum and me calling you out on it with you denying it isn't germane?pehawk":31cqozg2 said:
I...see. Sort of. Not really. Carry on, deflect away.
