Sherman/Guarantees/CBA **long**

[Popeyejones]

I'd agree with you if we were talking about teachers or social workers.

But we're not, we're talking about millionaire spoiled rotten pampered professional athletes who for 5-10 years will make more than 99.99% of us will make in our entire lifetime.

We're also talking about *billionaire* spoiled rotten pampered aristocrats who in some cases did nothing more than be born to the right parents.

"Give the money to social workers" isn't one of the options. Either the players get it or the owners do. In no scenario does the NFL kick back part of the revenue to the loyal fans. It's just not gonna happen.

Amen.

You can only want one of two things.

You can want guys who are mostly from very modest means and through their own hard work, talent, and ability have earned a three to five year window to become very wealthy in this country.

You can want guys who mostly come from multi-generational wealth and will continue to have billions on billions of dollars that is too much to even spend no matter what they do or have done to have even more money at the expense of the guys who have worked their tails off, and who you actually root for on Sunday.

If you're more resentful of the players than the owners what you're saying is that peoplebeing financially rewarded for their talent and hard work bothers you more than people being financially rewarded for being born to the right people.

It's insane to me, and it's something I'll absolutely never understand.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'd agree with you if we were talking about teachers or social workers.

But we're not, we're talking about millionaire spoiled rotten pampered professional athletes who for 5-10 years will make more than 99.99% of us will make in our entire lifetime.

We're also talking about *billionaire* spoiled rotten pampered aristocrats who in some cases did nothing more than be born to the right parents.

"Give the money to social workers" isn't one of the options. Either the players get it or the owners do. In no scenario does the NFL kick back part of the revenue to the loyal fans. It's just not gonna happen.

It's not either or, they both get it............a LOT of it. So sorry, but I can't be too empathetic when it comes to who gets more of the billions, the billionaires or millionaires.

My point three posts ago was Sherman is naive if he thinks most fans will "take a stand" against the owners to help the players get more of the pie. In fact, most fans feel the opposite, we're on the team's side first, player second.

 

[Popeyejones]

What is the "team's side" of a revenue split, though?

Seriously, how does it help the team for Paul Allen to have 20.4 billion dollars instead of 20.37 billion dollars? Shave a couple 100K of his profits and redistribute to his employees and he's still going to have well over a billion more dollars more in net worth the next year anyway.

Taxpayers pay for his stadium, and fans and viewers pay for the players salaries.

If you go to games wearing a Paul Allen jersey and your hopes hang on Paul Allen not getting concussed on the job this year I guess I can *kinda* get it, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

If you make $100K a year, a couple hundred thousand bucks going from Paul Allen to his employees each year is the equivalent of you misplacing 50 cents once every twelve months. That's two quarters in your couch cushions. How does that help *the team*???

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What is the "team's side" of a revenue split, though?

Seriously, how does it help the team for Paul Allen to have 20.4 billion dollars instead of 20.37 billion dollars? Shave a couple 100K of his profits and redistribute to his employees and he's still going to have well over a billion more dollars more in net worth the next year anyway.

Allen made very little of his fortune owning a football team, same goes for every other owner. So not sure what your question even has to do with this conversation. So he's rich ENOUGH therefore why not just give his players more?

There's a CBA, there's a hard cap. It's not up to Allen, or any other owner to be more or less generous with their fortunes. There are parameters within the CBA that they all agreed to abide by.

If the players want more, then strike...........or negotiate better when the CBA's are formed. They're certainly rich enough to withstand missing paychecks, unlike other union strikes.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I can't understand why, were I to pick a side, I would be on the team's side of this debate. What has the team ever done for me other than extort tax dollars from me for a stadium that they then price me out of (well, I can afford it, but at that cost, no thanks)?

The people who have done something for me are the players. They entertained me, they won a championship that I enjoyed, they have silly little beefs and comments and rivalries that make for an enjoyable distraction from real life.

On the other hand, the owners and their teams are just middlemen. If the NFL disappeared tomorrow, the cities could pay the players themselves and reap the profits of the league. Or hell, the players could form their own leagues and keep all the money for themselves minus what they pay to other people to set up the infrastructure for the league. They could call their new player-owned team the Seattle Ospreys and I'd be just as happy.

The players are important, not the team.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I get the Team-side thing. Players move from team to team, so when Kreig moves to the Chiefs, we stay loyal to the Seahawks and don't jump ship with Kreig. We wear #12 jerseys because if we buy X player's jersey he'll likely leave the team in the next off-season and we're stuck with a jersey of a player we're pissed at for leaving.

So yes, it's all about loyalty to the team vs any player.

However...

In this case we're not talking about a player. We're talking about players as the collective of current Seahawks players, which in fact makes up the team.

The owner is another concept. The owner is part of the team, but is more like an individual player. He can buy or sell the team, move it to a different city, hold the existing city hostage for an expensive stadium referrendum, etc.

We're a bit lucky in that our owner actually did something to earn the money he has, but let's look around our division:

Bill Bidwell made his money by being adopted by Charles and Violet Bidwell.
Stan Kroenke is married to Ann Walton Kroenke, daughter of James Walton (Wal*Mart)
Jed York is the son of Denise DeBartolo York, and the team passed down to him. He's seen as incompetent and creating "a culture that encourages selfishness, weakness and back-stabbing." (Michael Rosenberg, Sports Illustrated)

There are a few owners who made their wealth through their own hard work or being int he right business at the right time, but most commonly they were simply handed their fortune by their parents.

If I had to pick one side or the other, I side with the team, which is made up of the players.

 

[Popeyejones]

What is the "team's side" of a revenue split, though?

Seriously, how does it help the team for Paul Allen to have 20.4 billion dollars instead of 20.37 billion dollars? Shave a couple 100K of his profits and redistribute to his employees and he's still going to have well over a billion more dollars more in net worth the next year anyway.

Allen made very little of his fortune owning a football team, same goes for every other owner. So not sure what your question even has to do with this conversation. So he's rich ENOUGH therefore why not just give his players more?

There's a CBA, there's a hard cap. It's not up to Allen, or any other owner to be more or less generous with their fortunes. There are parameters within the CBA that they all agreed to abide by.

If the players want more, then strike...........or negotiate better when the CBA's are formed. They're certainly rich enough to withstand missing paychecks, unlike other union strikes.

For sure.

I'm responding to you saying that at the end of the day you take the "team's side" in these negotiations.

I'm arguing that there's really no such thing as a "team's side" to begin with: There is a player's side and there is an owner's side.

In deciding which side to support in the upcoming negotiations, or who we're going to *blame* if things go south in those negotiations, the two sides are the owners and the players. There's not a "teams" perspective in the negotiations, as it's just revenue splits.

Last time the owner's basically went on strike rather than letting the other side of the table have access to their profit margins in those negotiations (the benefits of not being a public company) and somehow escaped scorn for that. We all know what the players make, and the owners locked the players out rather than anyone find out what they actually make.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm arguing that there's really no such thing as a "team's side" to begin with: There is a player's side and there is an owner's side.

The owner's side is the team's side.

If I have to choose, then I'm a Hawk fan first, thus team/owner. So I'm just fine with the owners having more power to control players so that it's easier to entice or even use leverage to make players stay here on longer term contracts (or go if playing poorly).

It's still fair for the players. If they perform at a high level, then they will have the leverage to maximize their earnings...............as we saw with many of our own players during the Schneider/Carroll era. Wilson, Earl, Sherm, Wright, Wagner, Bennett, etc............all got bigtime contracts with huge guaranteed money.

 

[sdog1981]

I do find it interesting when millionaires argue with billionaires people will take the side of the billionaires. These are the same billionaires that will move the team to the next tax haven at the drop of a hat.

 

[Seymour]

I do find it interesting when millionaires argue with billionaires people will take the side of the billionaires. These are the same billionaires that will move the team to the next tax haven at the drop of a hat.

I see this more as a right or wrong issue, not how much $$ you have.

Paul Allen is a billionaire, and he and I'm sure many others would not act you you depict them to. Most people call that stereotyping....

 

[sdog1981]

I do find it interesting when millionaires argue with billionaires people will take the side of the billionaires. These are the same billionaires that will move the team to the next tax haven at the drop of a hat.

I see this more as a right or wrong issue, not how much $$ you have.

Paul Allen is a billionaire, and he and I'm sure many others would not act you you depict them to. Most people call that stereotyping....

This whole argument is based on stereotypes. So what is your point? In fact, all fan message boards are built on innuendo and stereotypes.

 

[Seymour]

I do find it interesting when millionaires argue with billionaires people will take the side of the billionaires. These are the same billionaires that will move the team to the next tax haven at the drop of a hat.

I see this more as a right or wrong issue, not how much $$ you have.

Paul Allen is a billionaire, and he and I'm sure many others would not act you you depict them to. Most people call that stereotyping....

This whole argument is based on stereotypes. So what is your point? In fact, all fan message boards are built on innuendo and stereotypes.

My point should have been obvious. Your stereotype does not fit our teams owner and does not apply to us so it is rhetoric.

 

[Popeyejones]

I'm arguing that there's really no such thing as a "team's side" to begin with: There is a player's side and there is an owner's side.

The owner's side is the team's side.

Okay, gotcha. That's why my response to you was arguing that it doesn't make much sense to treat the owner's side as the team's side:

Seriously, how does it help the team for Paul Allen to have 20.4 billion dollars instead of 20.37 billion dollars? Shave a couple 100K of his profits and redistribute to his employees and he's still going to have well over a billion more dollars more in net worth the next year anyway.

Taxpayers pay for his stadium, and fans and viewers pay for the players salaries.

If you go to games wearing a Paul Allen jersey and your hopes hang on Paul Allen not getting concussed on the job this year I guess I can *kinda* get it, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

If you make $100K a year, a couple hundred thousand bucks going from Paul Allen to his employees each year is the equivalent of you misplacing 50 cents once every twelve months. That's two quarters in your couch cushions. How does that help *the team*???

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I do find it interesting when millionaires argue with billionaires people will take the side of the billionaires. These are the same billionaires that will move the team to the next tax haven at the drop of a hat.

How's that different than the millionaire players who leave and go play somewhere else for a fatter contract?

It's not like they're any more loyal than owners who move their team because they can make more money.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I'm arguing that there's really no such thing as a "team's side" to begin with: There is a player's side and there is an owner's side.

The owner's side is the team's side.

If I have to choose, then I'm a Hawk fan first, thus team/owner. So I'm just fine with the owners having more power to control players so that it's easier to entice or even use leverage to make players stay here on longer term contracts (or go if playing poorly).

It's still fair for the players. If they perform at a high level, then they will have the leverage to maximize their earnings...............as we saw with many of our own players during the Schneider/Carroll era. Wilson, Earl, Sherm, Wright, Wagner, Bennett, etc............all got bigtime contracts with huge guaranteed money.

I disagree - the players make up the team, even though it is a constantly-changing pool of individuals. Owners change as well, just with less frequency. For me, "the team" refers to the group of players who currently belong to the franchise. If someone said the team won the Super Bowl, I don't think Paul Allen did any winning - I think the guys on the field did.

I also disagree that it's fair to the players to make them easier to control by the owners. I agree with longer-term contracts as I think it's good for the fans to see their favourite player stay with the team. However, it would take a crystal ball to match the yearly cap adjustment, and franchises are penalized for overspending, so they must under-estimate the cap increases in order to remain safe. The longer the contract, the greater the accumulated shortfall, and players don't earn market price.

Then there are the players who vastly exceed their contract in terms of performance. Locked into a long contract at a rate well below their fair market value, they will be frustrated and demotivated.

This is where I think there needs to be a third party, being the player's union. I think the salary cap total amount needs to be increased to be on par with other leagues, but split between the players and the union. The owners create straight fully-guaranteed contracts with the players, and the union pays out the entirety of their share to the players on the basis of performance as decided by the union which has representatives from every team.

This creates league-wide competition. If you are a wide receiver and you want to make big bucks, you'll have to be the best *that year*, not just great in your contract year and then take a holiday.

It also allows for undervalued players who outperform their contracts - "late bloomers", or Russell Wilson on his rookie deal - to achieve fair compensation without impacting the salary cap for the franchise, because the performance bonuses would not count toward team caps.

It gives players and owners some security because it creates a guaranteed base portion that can be for a long term, and non-guaranteed performance bonuses satisfy the player's need for reward for being great.

 

[HawkGA]

So if the players all left one year and new players formed the Hawks, you cheer for some other team and not the Seahawks? I'm not saying g I cheer for Paul Allen, but especially since the dawn of free agency, I don't particularly feel allegiance to any player. I may still root for certain players after they leave the Seahawks but I don't root for them against the Seahawks.

 

[semiahmoo]

They should be pushing for a better retirement plan.

The NFL generates billions. The players should have a bigger piece of that longer term pie.

THAT's the pie the league doesn't want to share.

The players deserve it.

They go for the short-term money, though. Won't help them much 10 yrs gone from the game when the medical bills are piling up. And they do pile up.

$4-5k a month might seem like a lot but it don't go far for some dealing with a busted up body and the need for rehab, medications. etc.

The NFL pension plan SUCKS. And most guys in the league only last 3-4 seasons and get less than $3k a month but might still be dealing with the same physical issues of the veterans.

Other sport pensions are up to 300% MORE than the NFL's crap plan.

The league is set to generate 20 BILLION in revenues per season by 2020. For the love of God give some of that $$$ to compensate the men who made that revenue possible for a longer term plan that affords them some much-deserved security.

 

[Popeyejones]

They should be pushing for a better retirement plan.

The NFL generates billions. The players should have a bigger piece of that longer term pie.

THAT's the pie the league doesn't want to share.

The players deserve it.

They go for the short-term money, though. Won't help them much 10 yrs gone from the game when the medical bills are piling up. And they do pile up.

$4-5k a month might seem like a lot but it don't go far for some dealing with a busted up body and the need for rehab, medications. etc.

The NFL pension plan SUCKS. And most guys in the league only last 3-4 seasons and get less than $3k a month but might still be dealing with the same physical issues of the veterans.

Other sport pensions are up to 300% MORE than the NFL's crap plan.

The league is set to generate 20 BILLION in revenues per season by 2020. For the love of God give some of that $$$ to compensate the men who made that revenue possible for a longer term plan that affords them some much-deserved security.

Great, great post, and totally agreed.

 

[Popeyejones]

So if the players all left one year and new players formed the Hawks, you cheer for some other team and not the Seahawks? I'm not saying g I cheer for Paul Allen, but especially since the dawn of free agency, I don't particularly feel allegiance to any player. I may still root for certain players after they leave the Seahawks but I don't root for them against the Seahawks.

I think Kiwi addressed that with his "constantly changing pool of individuals" line.

For contract negotiations it's why I think talk of the "team" sends us down the wrong path, as in reality we are talking about revenue splits between owners and players: there literally is no "team" in that equation.

So, you might just be cheering for whoever happens to be on the Seahawks at one point in time, but contract negotiations, it sounds like the actual people you are cheering for are the players (i.e. hence, nobody walking around in Paul Allen jerseys).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I also disagree that it's fair to the players to make them easier to control by the owners.

I didn't say it was fair to the players, I said it's better for us fans for our owner and GM to have the upper hand and more freedom to do what they need to do to make OUR team the best it can be.

Considering player salaries have skyrocketed during the past 10-20 years of the NFL's popularity boom, I'm not sold on the fact that the players are somehow getting a bad deal.

The reason I love pro sports so much is it's the ultimate meritocracy. You perform, you get paid. Until I see differently, I'm fine with how things are.