NFL....modern day slavery?

[Mr Natural]

Of course not. But I'd still expect market rate compensation.

And that's exactly what pro athletes get.

Exactly! YOU ******* MORON!

So what were we arguing about again?

I don't know, you're the one who started it.

 

[manifold]

And that's exactly what pro athletes get.

Exactly! YOU ******* MORON!

So what were we arguing about again?

I don't know, you're the one who started it.

nuh uh.

 

[Mr Natural]

Exactly! YOU ******* MORON!

So what were we arguing about again?

I don't know, you're the one who started it.

nuh uh.

Yeah eah!

 

[whitehall]

Ironic that the same people who argue that multi-million dollar salaried CEOs earn every penny they negotiate for themselves, and decry any notion of a ceiling, are the first to opine that athletes are overpaid and should just shut up and play.

Your manifolds are nice but your reasoning is a bit skewed manifold. "The same people" actually think that CEO's should not be penalized by the government for being "overpaid". Where would the spoiled overpaid steroid head football players be without the CEO's who take the risks and build the parks for them to play in? Six year old kids can play football. Can they build financial empires?

Even more ironic is your seeming obliviousness to your own hypocritical reasoning.

PS: Six year olds also play monopoly dipshit.

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Thanks to the football union the next NFL season is uncertain.

The Players didn't end the CBA, the owners did, that makes them responsible for the lockout.

The issue is the owners want a bigger share of the pie. They claim they are going broke but it's just "Fox talk" as they won't open their books to back up the claim.

 

[Mr Natural]

Your manifolds are nice but your reasoning is a bit skewed manifold. "The same people" actually think that CEO's should not be penalized by the government for being "overpaid". Where would the spoiled overpaid steroid head football players be without the CEO's who take the risks and build the parks for them to play in? Six year old kids can play football. Can they build financial empires?

Even more ironic is your seeming obliviousness to your own hypocritical reasoning.

PS: Six year olds also play monopoly dipshit.

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

But it's the players who put "the asses in the seats" .

 

[Nic_Driver]

Your manifolds are nice but your reasoning is a bit skewed manifold. "The same people" actually think that CEO's should not be penalized by the government for being "overpaid". Where would the spoiled overpaid steroid head football players be without the CEO's who take the risks and build the parks for them to play in? Six year old kids can play football. Can they build financial empires?

Even more ironic is your seeming obliviousness to your own hypocritical reasoning.

PS: Six year olds also play monopoly dipshit.

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

 

[whitehall]

Even more ironic is your seeming obliviousness to your own hypocritical reasoning.

PS: Six year olds also play monopoly dipshit.

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

 

[Mr Natural]

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

Without the players, there'd be no team.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

'

This is not about individual salaries for either owners or players, this is about division of the profits between the players and the owners. The owners want to keep a bigger share of the pie than the previous CBA allowed. They claim this is necessary because they are going insolvent but they refuse to open their books to verify this claim. They can freely hire any replacement to work for them and pay them any salary the employee accepts. This would reduce the pie to levels not acceptable to the owners so they will need to work with the union that provides value to the NFL and work out an equitable share of the profits.

Why should the players receive anything less than what they are worth to the value of the NFL?

The NFL will die without the players but it can go on without the owners, look at Green Bay.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Why do you think the owners are due more money than they got with the previous CBA?

 

[Mr Natural]

Why do you think the owners are due more money than they got with the previous CBA?

It's a conservative thing.

They hate to pay for labor.

Shit, they even went so far at one point as to secede from the union to assure their supply of cheap labor.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Well, I for one am pissed at the owners for potentially taking the football season away for their own greed.

Like 9 billion isn't a big enough pie and their take of that pie wasn't enough, they want more than the billions they already make off of someone elses sweat equity.

 

[whitehall]

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

'

This is not about individual salaries for either owners or players, this is about division of the profits between the players and the owners. The owners want to keep a bigger share of the pie than the previous CBA allowed. They claim this is necessary because they are going insolvent but they refuse to open their books to verify this claim. They can freely hire any replacement to work for them and pay them any salary the employee accepts. This would reduce the pie to levels not acceptable to the owners so they will need to work with the union that provides value to the NFL and work out an equitable share of the profits.

Why should the players receive anything less than what they are worth to the value of the NFL?

The NFL will die without the players but it can go on without the owners, look at Green Bay.

First it was "disproportionate salaries" and now it's what? "Division of profits"? Unless Chairman Mao's revolution succeeded in this Country while I wasn't looking there is no such thing as "division of profits" unless the employee owns stock in the company. Are football players resopnsible for the condition of the stadium or are they concerned with hot dog sales or scouting results? Not unless they have a substantial investment in the company.

 

[Mr Natural]

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

'

This is not about individual salaries for either owners or players, this is about division of the profits between the players and the owners. The owners want to keep a bigger share of the pie than the previous CBA allowed. They claim this is necessary because they are going insolvent but they refuse to open their books to verify this claim. They can freely hire any replacement to work for them and pay them any salary the employee accepts. This would reduce the pie to levels not acceptable to the owners so they will need to work with the union that provides value to the NFL and work out an equitable share of the profits.

Why should the players receive anything less than what they are worth to the value of the NFL?

The NFL will die without the players but it can go on without the owners, look at Green Bay.

First it was "disproportionate salaries" and now it's what? "Division of profits"? Unless Chairman Mao's revolution succeeded in this Country while I wasn't looking there is no such thing as "division of profits" unless the employee owns stock in the company. Are football players resopnsible for the condition of the stadium or are they concerned with hot dog sales or scouting results? Not unless they have a substantial investment in the company.

And without the players, there is no game.

Let's see how many fans come to the stadium to watch a bunch of suits run around on the field.

 

[Nic_Driver]

First it was "disproportionate salaries" and now it's what? "Division of profits"? Unless Chairman Mao's revolution succeeded in this Country while I wasn't looking there is no such thing as "division of profits" unless the employee owns stock in the company. Are football players resopnsible for the condition of the stadium or are they concerned with hot dog sales or scouting results? Not unless they have a substantial investment in the company

So why do you think the owners deserve more of the profits than the provious CBA?

 

[whitehall]

First it was "disproportionate salaries" and now it's what? "Division of profits"? Unless Chairman Mao's revolution succeeded in this Country while I wasn't looking there is no such thing as "division of profits" unless the employee owns stock in the company. Are football players resopnsible for the condition of the stadium or are they concerned with hot dog sales or scouting results? Not unless they have a substantial investment in the company

So why do you think the owners deserve more of the profits than the provious CBA?

Where does the word "deserve" enter into it? The CEO's run the company. Would you rather have the government run it? They can't even run a post office without stealing stamps. The point is that the fans want to see professional football next year and lowest paid player is guaranteed to make a lot more than a typical fan just by warming the bench with their ass. It doesn't matter what CEO's make, the players are on strike and evidence indicates that they make an incredible salary already. When Americans start making up quasi-socialist slogans like "disproportionate salaries" and "division of profits" it's time to reorganize the education system.

 

[Nic_Driver]

First it was "disproportionate salaries" and now it's what? "Division of profits"? Unless Chairman Mao's revolution succeeded in this Country while I wasn't looking there is no such thing as "division of profits" unless the employee owns stock in the company. Are football players resopnsible for the condition of the stadium or are they concerned with hot dog sales or scouting results? Not unless they have a substantial investment in the company

So why do you think the owners deserve more of the profits than the provious CBA?

Where does the word "deserve" enter into it? The CEO's run the company. Would you rather have the government run it? They can't even run a post office without stealing stamps. The point is that the fans want to see professional football next year and lowest paid player is guaranteed to make a lot more than a typical fan just by warming the bench with their ass. It doesn't matter what CEO's make, the players are on strike and evidence indicates that they make an incredible salary already. When Americans start making up quasi-socialist slogans like "disproportionate salaries" and "division of profits" it's time to reorganize the education system.

So you can't come up with a single reason other than your capitalist rant?

Well, there you go…that was easy.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The point is that the fans want to see professional football next year and lowest paid player is guaranteed to make a lot more than a typical fan just by warming the bench with their ass.

No, that's not the point, not even a good try.

 

[manifold]

Here's my reasoning boob-breath. It ain't monopoly. The CEO's employ the players. The players get at least $300.000 before taxes to sit on the bench every game and show up for practice. Pretty sweet. What do they want? A half a million?. The "stars" get a freaking million or five or six a year to play for six months. What do they have to complain about? The CEO's create the teams and keep them solvent so that the home city can glean some benefit. CEO's ain't your enemy.

So why should the owners get to keep a disproportionate amount of NFL money?

The owners make millions a year from the sweat of the players, without actually having to perform any function that puts them at risk, what do they have to complain about? They locked the players out because they want more money, why do they deserve more money?

What the hell is going on when Americans think there is some sort of "proportionate" salary that company owners owe their employees? Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao? CEO's create the business and run it and pay the salaries of thousands of employees. If a player wants to make 25 Million instead of only 5 Million per year let him invest in a team. You ignorant lefties are begining to scare me.

Athletes negotiate their salaries with the team. The team typically pays them according to the market. You ignorant, market hating lefties in denial are beginning to scare me.