Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    "and the players have NO right to set their own salary! Who do they think they are?"

    These are two more go-to arguments I'm hearing more of lately, and basically ... please stop it. I don't know whether people are saying this because they think it's what a good capitalist should say, or because they are simply applying the wrong set of rules to the situation, but either way, all it does is demonstrate a total lack of comprehension about what's going on.

    It's the same principle as the "if they don't like it, they can get other jobs" line. All three of these involve the logic you would use in disputes over BLUE-COLLAR jobs, primarily involving UNSKILLED LABOR, or at the very least, semi-skilled labor for which there is an essentially unlimited supply of qualified workers. When you try to apply them to the NFL, which involves jobs in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, all you end up with is a stupid argument.

    If you are making these kinds of arguments, please get this simple fact through your head: In the entertainment business, which includes professional sports, the employers do not occupy the same status as they do in a "regular" job. The employers are far more dependent on the employees, because of the scarce commodity they bring to the table, which is the ability to ... well, entertain people in some form. "Putting up the money and taking the risk" does not make the owners any less dependent on the players for that scarce commodity, which is why you can throw most of these conventional arguments right out the window.

    Put it this way -- should Johnny Depp just take whatever the studio decides because "you or I would be happy to do his job" for $200K a year? And if he doesn't like it, he should go get a job at Safeway? Somehow, I don't think so. You or I couldn't do his job, and neither could very many people at all, duh.

    What if you were the CEO at Universal Studios, and one day you decided you were unhappy at actors making $10 million a picture, so for your upcoming blockbuster film, you banned any actor currently making more than $500K from playing a part. Would there be "plenty of other actors who would be happy to have the opportunity?" Of course there would. Would as many people be willing to pay to watch it? Of course not.

    Studios are willing to pay Johnny Depp more for a single film than most people make in a lifetime because he sells more movie tickets than you or I could in a lifetime. Whether you think it's rewarding work or useful work, or think he's a good actor is irrelevant; he generates far more revenue for his employers than some bozo off the street ever could, and even substantially more than other professional actors could. Entertainers are paid to put butts in seats and eyeballs on TV screens, and to be a national-level entertainer, you have to be very good at it.

    That is the reason why Peyton Manning can dictate his own pay, Johnny Depp can dictate his own pay, U2 can dictate their own pay, Stephen King can dictate his own pay -- and you, Ron at the Shell station, cannot. They control a scarce resource that the public demands, and they are paid accordingly, getting the best deal they can for themselves. It is completely fair. And THAT is capitalism for you.

  2. #2
    Administrator Array title="Texasteel has a reputation beyond repute"> Texasteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Gender
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Players do not have the right to set they own pay scale. They have the right to negotiate a pay and benefit. Then they have a right make the pay and benefits that they have agree upon. Like it or not this is just like the lowly blue collar workers. By the way, there are as many highly skilled blue collar workers that work many years to obtain and maintain that level of skill. True no one whats to come to our job sight and watch us work, but your idea that a player is more the same as an actor is just as ridiculous. One big name actor can carry a movie or TV show just by being there. Many fans will will watch a movie just because they are there. That may work for player for a short time, but after a big name RB is stopped at the line of scrimmage over and over, day after day, he would not be a big name much longer. Plus if you want to compare football with acting I believe that a great many actors would love to have what the lowest of players are making.

    I don't really care what a player or an actor is making. I do care that neither side, player or owners, seem to be serious about talking to one another. I am leaning towards the owners side mostly because I think the players are working from the position that they have a right to this and that, and they don't have a right to anything till it is in the new contract. Plus some of the statements that I have see a few players make.

    Still I see no reason to talk down to each other just because we see this in a different light.

    AML

  3. #3
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    "What if you were the CEO at Universal Studios, and one day you decided you were unhappy at actors making $10 million a picture, so for your upcoming blockbuster film, you banned any actor currently making more than $500K from playing a part. Would there be "plenty of other actors who would be happy to have the opportunity?" Of course there would. Would as many people be willing to pay to watch it? Of course not.
    ok you are confusing a "proven" commodity with a "scarce" commodity. I reject your premise that there are no other actors who can provide the same service as one earning $20 mil. There TONS of actors who would jump at a chance for a career in hollywoodland, Depp, Cruise and others did not start out making the big bucks, they starred in some awful movies, acted really badly,played the starving actor game then had some success that were in large part due to great scripts, directors, editors etc. Once they proved that they were bankable they could ask for larger salaries.

    Studios routinely find "new" talent that cost less money. This is also why successful tv shows and movie franschises burn out. after there is some success everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie, it then is no longer profitable to produce it anymore. So producers kill the franchise and reboot it later, with "CHEAPER" talent.

    Now what does that have to do with football, not alot unless you want to find some analogies, but I wanted to point out that from a logic standpoint that was a poor comparative arguement.

    oh and as far as football is concerned, maybe only this, if everyone always scrambles for a bigger peice of the pie at some point it will become unprofitable so everyone will lose out. And
    "...the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!

    "and the players have NO right to set their own salary! Who do they think they are?" I assumed this was sarcastic, if so it is another poor arguement. The players do have rights to set expectations for their pay, they have lawyers, agents etc who negotiate for them and their interest. NO ONE is suggesting that Players have to accept any offer that is made. There are ways that players can try to get the best deal for themselves they can or move towards a better deal elsewhere.

    BIGGER issues that I think should be discussed are health care, pensions/retirment, bigger rosters, safety, career training/opprotunities for after football etc. These are some issues that would fundamentally help the players after their careers are over.

    as always only my opinon and not worth very much

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Texasteel View Post
    Players do not have the right to set they own pay scale. They have the right to negotiate a pay and benefit. Then they have a right make the pay and benefits that they have agree upon. Like it or not this is just like the lowly blue collar workers.
    I disagree about it being just like a blue-collar job for a number of reasons, but that's really just a side point. Yes, nominally, it's the same because they're negotiating about salary and benefits. As long as we ignore that the dynamics are completely different, the purpose is different and the balance of power is completely different, which is really what I meant.

    Mainly what's pissing me off is hearing people act like the players don't even have the right to negotiate a favorable salary scale -- how dare they be so audacious. You should be happy to be making more than the rest of us, so just shut up and take your pay cut and move on. Not really convincing me.

    I also hear a lot of stuff that seems to indicate an attitude that owners deserve a profit more because they EARNED the money they used to buy the team, but the players shouldn't complain because they're a bunch of dumb negroes who lucked into it. Well ... no. Both sides have actually been busting their asses for most of their lives to get where they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Texasteel View Post
    By the way, there are as many highly skilled blue collar workers that work many years to obtain and maintain that level of skill. True no one whats to come to our job sight and watch us work, but your idea that a player is more the same as an actor is just as ridiculous. One big name actor can carry a movie or TV show just by being there. Many fans will will watch a movie just because they are there. That may work for player for a short time, but after a big name RB is stopped at the line of scrimmage over and over, day after day, he would not be a big name much longer. Plus if you want to compare football with acting I believe that a great many actors would love to have what the lowest of players are making.
    I think in the highlighted part, you just exactly described the role of a star athlete. If you really want to make a good movie or TV show, you're also going to want a good supporting cast, good writers, a good director, etc. If it was as simple as letting one star actor carry the whole thing, there wouldn't be movies like Gigli or Battlefield Earth.

    As for the money ... yes, a good many actors would like what the lowest-paid NFL player makes. They'd also be happy to make what the 500th-highest paid actor makes. I'm willing to bet that's at least a couple hundred thousand a year too.

    Don't forget -- the NFL minimum isn't the lowest a football player makes. Arena league players used to make about $30,000 a year; after the bankruptcy it's more like $400 a game. So ... while most actors would be happy to make what an NFL player makes, so would most football players. But just like some players are only Arena League talented, a lot of actors are only Arena League talented too. Plenty of people can do both of those jobs, and they are both paid accordingly. THAT'S when "If you don't like it, find another job" makes sense. When it's replaceable labor, get it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok you are confusing a "proven" commodity with a "scarce" commodity. I reject your premise that there are no other actors who can provide the same service as one earning $20 mil. There TONS of actors who would jump at a chance for a career in hollywoodland, Depp, Cruise and others did not start out making the big bucks, they starred in some awful movies, acted really badly,played the starving actor game then had some success that were in large part due to great scripts, directors, editors etc. Once they proved that they were bankable they could ask for larger salaries.

    Studios routinely find "new" talent that cost less money. This is also why successful tv shows and movie franschises burn out. after there is some success everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie, it then is no longer profitable to produce it anymore. So producers kill the franchise and reboot it later, with "CHEAPER" talent.

    Now what does that have to do with football, not alot unless you want to find some analogies, but I wanted to point out that from a logic standpoint that was a poor comparative arguement.
    I think the analogy is that yes, you can find cheaper talent and develop it into something successful -- but not all at once, or it won't work and nobody will watch. It's been tried in more than one sport and failed every time.

    Similarly, if you blacklisted Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt and everyone else, sure, you'd eventually be making movies and shows that people would watch again. But for a few years, the movies and shows that people got fired from would suck and you'd piss off fans of the ongoing franchises. Remember when they used replacement actors for the Dukes of Hazzard? That didn't turn out well either. If you just told the players to go to hell and introduced 53 new members of the Steelers ... well, Steelers fans would probably be pretty pissed off and it would take them a few years to want to watch the team again, if ever. In that sense, the NFL is more like a single ongoing TV series than the entire film industry, which could probably recover piecemeal with movies and shows that were based on new ideas and written well. The NFL would be more like same show, all new actors, and not doing so well.

  5. #5
    Administrator Array title="Texasteel has a reputation beyond repute"> Texasteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Gender
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    I'm not saying that the unions or the jobs are just alike, although there are more similarities that people think. How ever the negotiations are very similar. I have been in negotiations where the posturing does not seem to make sense, but normally have a reason.

    I never hold how much a person can makes against them, but I can not understand when an employee views themselves as equal partners, which it seems to me that the players union is trying to do. The owners are the ones the put up the money for the franchise and are entitle to reap the profits from it. The players are in fact employees and are entitled to what ever their contract says they are, no more, no less.

    Where as I agree that a big name is a drawing point. He doesn't really carry a team. Peterson may have a name that draws a fans attention, but if he keeps running into a wall of defense every time he touches the ball, that name will loose it's luster pretty quickly. I still think that I have seem many bad movies that one big name has made a success. I submit the original True Grit.

    Just a side point. Have you ever been to an Arena Football game? I use to go to them when we had a team in Dallas, they are more fun than you could believe.
    Last edited by Texasteel; 03-26-2011 at 03:55 AM.

    AML

  6. #6
    Geek God Array title="X-Terminator has a reputation beyond repute"> X-Terminator's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    9,152

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    So what you're saying, then, is that because I'm not kissing the players' asses, then I'm stupid, audacious, whatever? Gee, thanks for respecting my and other people's opinion.

    If you want to take the players' side in this dispute, that's fine, and I understand your points. But I still disagree, and I'm FAR from stupid.








  7. #7
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Statistics prove that 80% of the players will be nearly broke within two years of leaving the league, regardless of how much money you give them, so why the hell do I want to see them get more? At least I know Dan Rooney and the majority of the owners wont spend all their money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by X-Terminator View Post
    So what you're saying, then, is that because I'm not kissing the players' asses, then I'm stupid, audacious, whatever? Gee, thanks for respecting my and other people's opinion.

    If you want to take the players' side in this dispute, that's fine, and I understand your points. But I still disagree, and I'm FAR from stupid.
    Thing is, I'm not trying to kiss the players' asses or "take their side" to any extent greater than saying I'm neutral to them. On the other hand, I think the owners' conduct has been despicable, and that some of the arguments used in favor of them just display shocking naivete. The ones dug in the hardest seem to fall back on about two or three go-to arguments that, quite honestly, aren't really worthy of much respect. If you're one of the ones saying them (I really haven't been keeping track on a who's-who list or anything), then unfortunately, yes, that includes you.

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    Statistics prove that 80% of the players will be nearly broke within two years of leaving the league, regardless of how much money you give them, so why the hell do I want to see them get more? At least I know Dan Rooney and the majority of the owners wont spend all their money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
    See, this is another example of how people really just hear what they want to hear. When did I EVER say I think the players should "get more money?" Or for that matter, when did the players say that? That's not what this is about at all; the owners essentially told them to take a pay cut and they were asking for less of a pay cut.

    This is probably about the fifth or sixth time someone has claimed I want the players to "get more money," the guy above you thinks I'm calling him "audacious" when that was the word I used to describe what people were calling the players, and yeah, about half the messages on this subject tend to contain something that's been misinterpreted like that. The fact that so many people seemingly fail to understand such fundamental points make me wonder whether it's even worth arguing over -- or whether this is one of those topics that's just a magnet for the misinformed and/or the people who just don't want to hear it. Kind of like how in an argument about Libya, you'll get a bunch of people saying things like "OMG WERE JUST INVADEING TO 'GET OIL'!!" whatever that means.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Thing is, I'm not trying to kiss the players' asses or "take their side" to any extent greater than saying I'm neutral to them. On the other hand, I think the owners' conduct has been despicable, and that some of the arguments used in favor of them just display shocking naivete. The ones dug in the hardest seem to fall back on about two or three go-to arguments that, quite honestly, aren't really worthy of much respect. If you're one of the ones saying them (I really haven't been keeping track on a who's-who list or anything), then unfortunately, yes, that includes you.



    See, this is another example of how people really just hear what they want to hear. When did I EVER say I think the players should "get more money?" Or for that matter, when did the players say that? That's not what this is about at all; the owners essentially told them to take a pay cut and they were asking for less of a pay cut.

    This is probably about the fifth or sixth time someone has claimed I want the players to "get more money," the guy above you thinks I'm calling him "audacious" when that was the word I used to describe what people were calling the players, and yeah, about half the messages on this subject tend to contain something that's been misinterpreted like that. The fact that so many people seemingly fail to understand such fundamental points make me wonder whether it's even worth arguing over -- or whether this is one of those topics that's just a magnet for the misinformed and/or the people who just don't want to hear it. Kind of like how in an argument about Libya, you'll get a bunch of people saying things like "OMG WERE JUST INVADEING TO 'GET OIL'!!" whatever that means.
    I never said you said that, I just really don't care if the players are forced to take a pay cut. It's a bad economy, that's the breaks dude.

    There are no good guys here. I understand perfectly what the players are saying, but at the same token I think the numbers the owners offered at the end of negotiations were a lot more extensive than the players want us to believe. I've heard a couple accountants say the players wouldn't need to see the entire books of 32 teams to get a fairly comprehensive understanding of what the owners are up against, and that their asking for ten years of books from 32 teams was something they knew they had no chance of getting. Thus they never had any intention of ever considering a give back, and that their strategy all along was litigation over negotiation.

    I'd have a lot more respect for the players position if they were honest and would just say, economy be damned, we're not giving back one cent unless we lose every battle in court from here to enternity. Because that's exactly what their intent is, this public posturing bullshit of their's that "we'd gladly give something back if they would just show us why", is total and complete bullshit!
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  10. #10
    Geek God Array title="X-Terminator has a reputation beyond repute"> X-Terminator's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    9,152

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Thing is, I'm not trying to kiss the players' asses or "take their side" to any extent greater than saying I'm neutral to them. On the other hand, I think the owners' conduct has been despicable, and that some of the arguments used in favor of them just display shocking naivete. The ones dug in the hardest seem to fall back on about two or three go-to arguments that, quite honestly, aren't really worthy of much respect. If you're one of the ones saying them (I really haven't been keeping track on a who's-who list or anything), then unfortunately, yes, that includes you.
    Look, the owners definitely are not squeaky-clean in all of this. Like everyone else, I can't stand Kommissar Goodell and jackhole owners like Dan Snyder, Al Davis and Jerry Jones. Yes, they were the ones who opted out of the CBA 2 years ago. Yes, they have implemented things that have done nothing but stick it to the fans, led mostly by Der Kommissar's lust for money. But for people to act like the players deserve no blame and that they're "just trying to negotiate a fair deal" when they have just as big a jackhole leading them and you have players crying "slavery" when they make $10 million a year...it's a crock, and I refuse to get behind people with that kind of attitude. This situation should be negotiated in the conference room, not the freaking courtroom, but yet that is what Dick-Maurice Smith is doing. The owners are providing them with a very good living at great expense to themselves, and they should be happy with that. I still maintain that without wealthy owners, most of these guys would be stocking shelves for a living, or end up in a drug-related drive-by shooting, and if they want to keep earning that living, the owners need to continue to make money.








  11. #11
    Administrator Array title="Texasteel has a reputation beyond repute"> Texasteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Gender
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    By the way. I wonder now GODell in getting by on his dollar.

    AML

  12. #12
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Texasteel View Post
    By the way. I wonder now GODell in getting by on his dollar.
    think he will get by with the millions he has saved up :P

  13. #13
    Administrator Array title="HometownGal has a reputation beyond repute"> HometownGal's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Da Burgh
    Gender
    Posts
    9,826

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Texasteel View Post
    By the way. I wonder now GODell in getting by on his dollar.
    He's playing Bob Kraft's flute for a couple of extra bucks to get by.






    CANCER - YOU PICKED THE WRONG BITCH!!!

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by X-Terminator View Post
    Look, the owners definitely are not squeaky-clean in all of this. Like everyone else, I can't stand Kommissar Goodell and jackhole owners like Dan Snyder, Al Davis and Jerry Jones. Yes, they were the ones who opted out of the CBA 2 years ago. Yes, they have implemented things that have done nothing but stick it to the fans, led mostly by Der Kommissar's lust for money. But for people to act like the players deserve no blame and that they're "just trying to negotiate a fair deal" when they have just as big a jackhole leading them and you have players crying "slavery" when they make $10 million a year...it's a crock, and I refuse to get behind people with that kind of attitude.
    Yeah, that part doesn't make me terribly sympathetic toward the players either, but really, it was inevitable that out of 1,500 guys, some dingbat was bound to say it. I don't think the players are the "good guys" by any means, just less despicable. But what I don't get is (even before the slavery comment) some people's "who-the-fuck-do-they-think-they-are" attitude, suggesting that the players essentially had no right to push back. Of course they do, and that's what anybody would do if someone told them to take a pay cut.

    Quote Originally Posted by X-Terminator View Post
    This situation should be negotiated in the conference room, not the freaking courtroom, but yet that is what Dick-Maurice Smith is doing. The owners are providing them with a very good living at great expense to themselves, and they should be happy with that. I still maintain that without wealthy owners, most of these guys would be stocking shelves for a living, or end up in a drug-related drive-by shooting, and if they want to keep earning that living, the owners need to continue to make money.
    Yeah, also all true. Except that I believe the owners ARE making money. A shitload of money. So much that there's no reason for them to ask for more either - and in fact, so much money that they're afraid if they tried to use that as a rationale, to explain to you and I why we might not get a football season, it would make us sick to our stomachs. If that's not the case, they could easily prove it. But I have no choice to believe that they're at NO risk of anything except continuing to be insanely profitable. They want to stop the season over a couple percent of MORE profitable, they can go suck a dirty dick.



    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    There are no good guys here.
    ... and THAT is probably the one thing we can all agree on.

  15. #15
    Administrator Array title="Texasteel has a reputation beyond repute"> Texasteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Gender
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Quote Originally Posted by HometownGal View Post
    He's playing Bob Kraft's flute for a couple of extra bucks to get by.
    And I bet he is still overpaid.

    AML

  16. #16
    Well there you have it... Array title="NCSteeler has a reputation beyond repute"> NCSteeler's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Triadl NC
    Gender
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: "... but the owners have EVERY RIGHT to make money!"

    Insider: Tagliabue 'could get deals done'


    Posted March 25, 2011 @ 11:16 a.m. ET
    By PFW staff
    The following quotes are from NFL scouts, coaches and front-office personnel, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    • "I like what (NFL commissioner) Roger (Goodell) has done in a lot of areas, but what we're seeing now (is that) he is nowhere near what (Paul Tagliabue) was. Tags could get deals done. Roger is just the messenger. Jerry Jones and Jerry Richardson are running this deal with Robert Kraft."
    Merry Christmas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •