....The Stay is granted. ....Players bummed.

[Crew]

Appellate court grants NFL owners permanent stay - ESPN

Owners want (and have proposed) a deal.

League calls for a deal to be done now | ProFootballTalk

[Slydell]

Not surprised. F the owners, btw.

[milohimself]

**** this ****.

[NewToVolCountry]

I put a lot of blame on the players of today's age. Greedy, greedy, greedy. Millions upon millions to play the game you love and you still hold out for more. Baseball is the worst for this.

[milohimself]

There is absolutely no evidence for that. The previous NFL CBA heavily favored the owners compared to all other major north American sports, and the only thing that happened was that the owners wanted a bigger piece of the pie without opening their books to justify why. Saying this is because of the players being greedy is completely ridiculous and absurd.

[JTrainDavis]

Originally Posted by NewToVolCountry

I put a lot of blame on the players of today's age. Greedy, greedy, greedy. Millions upon millions to play the game you love and you still hold out for more. Baseball is the worst for this.

Baseball has guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. Simpletons view to compare, you're smarter than that.

[tvolsfan]

Players are going to win, and they should, so it would be nice if the owner would stop dragging this out.

[tvolsfan]

Originally Posted by NewToVolCountry

I put a lot of blame on the players of today's age. Greedy, greedy, greedy. Millions upon millions to play the game you love and you still hold out for more. Baseball is the worst for this.

Yeah, it's really ridiculous that they want more of the money they earned.

[GreveHaller]

Originally Posted by tvolsfan

Yeah, it's really ridiculous that they want more of the money they earned.

yet dont want to take any of the risk associated with the business. Pay them on performance like the real world does.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by tvolsfan

Yeah, it's really ridiculous that they want more of the money they earned.

I would have a hard time backing this statement after watching the Haynesworth saga

[justingroves]

Originally Posted by GreveHaller

yet dont want to take any of the risk associated with the business. Pay them on performance like the real world does.

The contracts aren't 100% guaranteed money.

They are the only professional sport in America that is anywhere near "pay on performance"

[GreveHaller]

Originally Posted by justingroves

The contracts aren't 100% guaranteed money.

They are the only professional sport in America that is anywhere near "pay on performance"

Matthew Stafford $41.7 million guaranteed. Worth it?

Haynesworth $41 million

Peyton $34.5 million (ok, worth that)

JaMarcus Russell $31.5 million. Worth it?

Pay them like the rest of America gets paid - on performance. That's what businesses do every single day. You make the company money, you get paid big bucks. You want a flat rate then you'll get paid small pennies. Back to basics.

[TOP]

Good.

Owners have every right to decide what they pay their employees as long as they are meeting the minimum wage requirements. If the employees don't like it, goodbye. Nobody is forcing them to play football in the NFL. The only reason the players won before was because the NFL was essentially the only league in the country. Now they have the options of Arena Football or UFL. They can try their hand at that if they don't like what the NFL is offering.

What's the point of taking a risk and investing your money into a business if the employees and courts are going to try and run it for you? That's b.s. and that's why the NFL chose to shut it down. I would too.

The owners may be greedy but the players would be making a lot less without them. If you're going to bite the hand that feeds you, expect to get nothing.

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by GreveHaller

Matthew Stafford $41.7 million guaranteed. Worth it?

Haynesworth $41 million

Peyton $34.5 million (ok, worth that)

JaMarcus Russell $31.5 million. Worth it?

Pay them like the rest of America gets paid - on performance. That's what businesses do every single day. You make the company money, you get paid big bucks. You want a flat rate then you'll get paid small pennies. Back to basics.

all kinds of major companies pay sign on bonuses for employees, I got one for joining the freaking Army. The difference is, in the NFL Peyton Manning can be cut at any time and as far as yearly salary goes, he's only guaranteed what he earned up to that point in the year. Same with every other player in the NFL.

[tvolsfan]

Originally Posted by The_Orange_Pearl

Good.

Owners have every right to decide what they pay their employees as long as they are meeting the minimum wage requirements. If the employees don't like it, goodbye. Nobody is forcing them to play football in the NFL. The only reason the players won before was because the NFL was essentially the only league in the country. Now they have the options of Arena Football or UFL. They can try their hand at that if they don't like what the NFL is offering.

What's the point of taking a risk and investing your money into a business if the employees and courts are going to try and run it for you? That's b.s. and that's why the NFL chose to shut it down. I would too.

The owners may be greedy but the players would be making a lot less without them. If you're going to bite the hand that feeds you, expect to get nothing.

Yeah, shutting down the league would be a great business move. It's not like they have to pay for those stadiums or anything.

It's funny watching you try to compare this to some other business. This isn't some normal company canning all their employees and hiring a bunch of illegal immigrants to replace them without much setback. If the players are gone, the league fails. Both sides have the right to negotiate for money, but in the end, the players will win, and they should.