Author Topic: Adrian Peterson refers to the NFL as "modern day slavery"  (Read 5025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chisox17

  • MemberPF
  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10056
    • http://www.ninerreport.com
el em eff a oh.


Discuss.
2010 NNN POSTER OF THE YEAR


jfickett

  • Guest
Reply #1 on: March 16, 2011, 11:37:15 am
AP's comments were way off base.  However, Simmons pretty much nailed the owners side in this article.  Great read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304


49or bust

  • MemberPF
  • Athletic Director
  • *****
  • Posts: 9235
    • Name Confusion Log
Reply #2 on: March 16, 2011, 11:42:43 am
What a f***ing idiot.

Say NO MORE to our slave name!

"But so many people are so condescending to all things 49ers. Hope Charlotte sticks it to 'em." - Tom Sorensen


CharSFNiners

  • MemberPF
  • Athletic Director
  • *****
  • Posts: 7723
Reply #3 on: March 16, 2011, 11:49:41 am
Yea, I saw that go across the bottom line on ESPN last night and just thought what a b****.


49RFootballNow

  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 11398
  • Kwisatz Haderach
    • http://www.myspace.com/stanton4949
Reply #4 on: March 16, 2011, 12:24:26 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?


jfickett

  • Guest
Reply #5 on: March 16, 2011, 01:00:12 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?

Is this commonplace among other unionized workers?  I honestly do not know and am asking.


Iron9er

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 3269
Reply #6 on: March 16, 2011, 01:01:41 pm
Both sides are making PLENTY of money, owners and players.  Not a good deal at all for the fans.  I paid for Panthers season tix once, I can't ever imagine paying for them again...I'm just amazed at how many middle and lower income fans the NFL can draw for what they charge for tickets, parking, concessions, etc.  I'd rather watch from home.
 
That being said, AP's comments is....well, stupid. 
 
"Congrats. You guys beat our ass last night and it was a pretty pathetic performance on the glass and downlow." - StillJonesing - December 2, 2012.


N1NER

  • Junior
  • *
  • Posts: 1263
Reply #7 on: March 16, 2011, 01:11:51 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?

Couldn't have said it better myself.


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #8 on: March 16, 2011, 02:01:46 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?

This is an absolutely idiotic statement. The NFL is a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption. The players are the league, not the owners. Otherwise, the XFL, etc would have been successful.
 
That said, I guaranty you that the players actually handling the negotiations wish players like AP would shutup with the ridiculous slavery comments.
 
As we already hashed out in the shoutbox, this is nothing more than a contrctual negotion - an assignment of value. Since the Owners are asking for concessions, they need to back it up. If it were the players asking for concessions, I would expect the same from them. None of this should be happening in public though, including if the owners do elect to share the books with the players. That can safely stay behind closed doors.
 
Also, if I were the players, I would hire and pay for an indepedent auditing firm to go over the books. I would do the same if i were the owners and the players were presenting figures to justify additional concessions.


49RFootballNow

  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 11398
  • Kwisatz Haderach
    • http://www.myspace.com/stanton4949
Reply #9 on: March 16, 2011, 02:47:49 pm
The players should be glad they make anything. They play a game for a living and unless they're completely stupid most can retire after a 10 year career and never have to work again. I have no sympathy for them what so ever. I wish the owners would hire replacement players and agree never to hire anyone who has ever been a member of the NFLPA to play another game. In 5 years they would be mostly made up of college grads from the 11-16 graduating classes who would have been in the NFL anyway. This way the owners break the union and never have to deal with it again. Of course they'll face challenges to their current staus from some attempt at a modern day USFL maybe but not one that will overtake them.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 02:49:32 pm by 49RFootballNow »


9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
Reply #10 on: March 16, 2011, 02:55:14 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?
"Know their role?" What do you mean by this? Shut up and agree to be paid whatever the owners choose, whether it's millions or a hundred dollars or zero without asking for an explanation? Maybe you think it really should be like slavery.

If this is so unfair to the owners, they can walk away and replace their stars with new people ("scabs"). They are arguing with the players that these concessions are necessary, the players can ask to see the books before agreeing to sacrifices, and either side can walk away if they don't like the terms.  You can do the same thing if you have a boss who comes up to you to tell you the company is cutting your pay due to financial realities: demand to see the company's books, refuse to take a pay cut depending on what the books say, and threaten to quit if they refuse. You might end up without a job, but then maybe you aren't as valuable to your company as the players are to the owners or as powerful without a union to help with negotiations.

I think the owners are making a serious miscalculation, but we'll see what happens. They can probably outlast the players in a long standoff, but there's a huge risk they'll also alienate enough of their fanbase in the current economy that it will kill the golden goose.


9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
Reply #11 on: March 16, 2011, 02:59:55 pm
AP's comments were way off base.  However, Simmons pretty much nailed the owners side in this article.  Great read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304
Simmons also nails what I think is the real danger to the future of the NFL and football in general: concussions and their potential for causing degenerative brain disorders. The new research is making me pretty confident my kids won't be playing football growing up, until new technology or rules changes limit the risks of concussions.


49RFootballNow

  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 11398
  • Kwisatz Haderach
    • http://www.myspace.com/stanton4949
Reply #12 on: March 16, 2011, 03:00:52 pm
I seriously doubt the people who currently watch football will quit just because of this. Its not boring ass baseball where the average fan only has a passing interest. We'll ALL be back the second the first NFL game is back on. The owners know this and have the leverage. The players better recognize they are employees and not partners. The owners do have only themselves to blame for letting the players thinking they are partners and not employees, but now they are correcting that oversight. Good for them I say.


Universal

  • Senior
  • **
  • Posts: 1783
  • I floss regularly
Reply #13 on: March 16, 2011, 03:02:06 pm
I mostly agree with 49rfootballnow. But I'm biased because I think Athletes earn way more than they are worth anyways.
“All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not what is national in them, but what is universal”


C49erMoose

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 433
Reply #14 on: March 16, 2011, 03:51:58 pm
The owner's took all the risks in buying their franchises in the first place. The players need to learn their role and STFU. What other business can the employees go up to the boss and say "You aren't paying me enough! Open your financial books so I can determine how much I deserve"?

This is an absolutely idiotic statement. The NFL is a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption. The players are the league, not the owners. Otherwise, the XFL, etc would have been successful.
 
That said, I guaranty you that the players actually handling the negotiations wish players like AP would shutup with the ridiculous slavery comments.
 
As we already hashed out in the shoutbox, this is nothing more than a contrctual negotion - an assignment of value. Since the Owners are asking for concessions, they need to back it up. If it were the players asking for concessions, I would expect the same from them. None of this should be happening in public though, including if the owners do elect to share the books with the players. That can safely stay behind closed doors.
 
Also, if I were the players, I would hire and pay for an indepedent auditing firm to go over the books. I would do the same if i were the owners and the players were presenting figures to justify additional concessions.

Which part are you saying is idiotic?  The owners, after all, did have to put up the money to make the franchise possible.  Players had to risk what?  Not being good enough and getting a job like the rest of us?


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #15 on: March 16, 2011, 04:32:07 pm
They put their bodies/futures at risk every game, unlike you and I do behind a desk or on sales calls.
 
The owners also take tax subisdies for their product - right out of your pockets, and then say they are entitled to a profit with YOUR risk capital.
 
The adulation of the owners is as insipid as adulation of the Wall Street Investment bankers who screwed us all.
 
These are two parties negotiating a contract. In this case, unlike prior years, the owners want something but are unwilling to justify it. That's a losing proposition. They may, however, have a large enough war chest for the siege, though as Ken pointed out, at significant damage to the brand/product. They'd better be very careful here, lest public sentiment really turn against them. That's why we are seeing all these PR statements. They're trying to buy time.
 
The players, aside from stupid comments like AP's, are this time willing to give on some concessions, but they are asking to owners to justify their claims. That is common sense and par for the course and you'd better believe if the roles were reversed that the owners would be demanding the same.


9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
Reply #16 on: March 16, 2011, 04:58:30 pm
Which part are you saying is idiotic?  The owners, after all, did have to put up the money to make the franchise possible.  Players had to risk what?  Not being good enough and getting a job like the rest of us?
Well, the owners and the taxpayers that helped build the stadiums they play in (with rare exceptions).

I think it's pretty clear why they don't want to open their books. They are making more money than they are saying publicly. Owners have always had the option of not paying the players what they demanded before.


NinerWupAss

  • MemberPF
  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 13333
Reply #17 on: March 16, 2011, 05:01:22 pm
They put their bodies/futures at risk every game, unlike you and I do behind a desk or on sales calls.
 
No different than police, firemen, oil rig workers, airline pilots, military and any host of other dangerous professions.  NFL players are not unique in the fact that they face violence.  In fact the fact that they only have to face it for a short time horizon and walk away with a ton of cash puts them ahead of other dangerous professions who don't pay nearly as well.

The owners also take tax subisdies for their product - right out of your pockets, and then say they are entitled to a profit with YOUR risk capital.
 
SOME owners - not all and remember the overall impact that that investment can have.  Down town Charlotte pre stadium and downtown Charlotte post stadium are like two different worlds.  Your fault there should also be as much on the munis allowing as you do on the owners for asking it. 
 
The adulation of the owners is as insipid as adulation of the Wall Street Investment bankers who screwed us all.
 
I would say this is a fair statement for both the athletes and the owners to some degree.  There is a limit to adulation that should be shown for either side.  Many of the owners are sleazy and many of the players are poor role models who squander their fortune.
 
These are two parties negotiating a contract. In this case, unlike prior years, the owners want something but are unwilling to justify it. That's a losing proposition. They may, however, have a large enough war chest for the siege, though as Ken pointed out, at significant damage to the brand/product. They'd better be very careful here, lest public sentiment really turn against them. That's why we are seeing all these PR statements. They're trying to buy time.
 
They should open up some of their info.  They should release financials similar to any public company (even though the NFL is not a public traded corp).  They should not have to show detailed reports club by club.
 
The players, aside from stupid comments like AP's, are this time willing to give on some concessions, but they are asking to owners to justify their claims. That is common sense and par for the course and you'd better believe if the roles were reversed that the owners would be demanding the same.
 
They SAY they are willing.  We have no idea if they are or not or what amount of financial problems are deemed a problem in their eyes, which could be very different from an owners POV. 
 
With that said they are both crazy, but doing what comes natural - trying to get the most for their side.  They both have to becareful though and not allow the fans to tune them out.  If they can't get this solved and we miss a portion or all of next season people will realize that in the end the NFL is not important.  It is a luxury not a need and we can all live without it.  That hurts them both and would take a bite out of that 9 Bil pie.
Mahna Mahna


C49erMoose

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 433
Reply #18 on: March 16, 2011, 11:22:21 pm
Which part are you saying is idiotic?  The owners, after all, did have to put up the money to make the franchise possible.  Players had to risk what?  Not being good enough and getting a job like the rest of us?
Well, the owners and the taxpayers that helped build the stadiums they play in (with rare exceptions).

I think it's pretty clear why they don't want to open their books. They are making more money than they are saying publicly. Owners have always had the option of not paying the players what they demanded before.

This reminds me of a lesson in greed...
 
If I told you that I had an investment opportunity - you give me $20k, and I will return your principle $20k + $10k earned in 6 months.  You agree and all works out well. 
 
You made 50% in six months.  You're happier than a three peter billy goat.  You think I'm the greatest guy in the world for giving you such an amazing opportunity.
 
Then you find out, with your principle, I made $50k and only returned $10k to you (just as we agreed).
 
You are now pissed off and you want a bigger piece of the pie.  You think I'm an asshole - out to screw you.  You start telling me things like, "without my money, you wouldn't make a dime."
 
Who's greedy, the one making a 400% return on someone elses capital or the one who feels entitled to make more?
 
Everyone may not behave this way, but the majority of people sure do.
 
I don't think the owners should be required to open their books for anyone - they own the business.  The players are free to walk and the owners should be free to replace them (albeit, with lesser talent in this case).
 
The real problem with this whole situation is the lack of competition.


C49erMoose

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 433
Reply #19 on: March 16, 2011, 11:31:55 pm
They put their bodies/futures at risk every game, unlike you and I do behind a desk or on sales calls.
 
No different than police, firemen, oil rig workers, airline pilots, military and any host of other dangerous professions.  NFL players are not unique in the fact that they face violence.  In fact the fact that they only have to face it for a short time horizon and walk away with a ton of cash puts them ahead of other dangerous professions who don't pay nearly as well.
 
NWA is right, just because a job is dangerous, does not mean it will pay higher.  If I were you, I would have highlighted the fact they are unlike police, firemen, etc. in that they have a unique talent or ability that is not trainable.
The owners also take tax subisdies for their product - right out of your pockets, and then say they are entitled to a profit with YOUR risk capital.
 
SOME owners - not all and remember the overall impact that that investment can have.  Down town Charlotte pre stadium and downtown Charlotte post stadium are like two different worlds.  Your fault there should also be as much on the munis allowing as you do on the owners for asking it. 
 
Again, NWA is spot on.  Also, are the owners to blame for this?  What kind of businessman would an owner be if he turned down subsidies (not saying he wouldn't earn a special spot in my heart for it)?

 
The adulation of the owners is as insipid as adulation of the Wall Street Investment bankers who screwed us all.
 
I would say this is a fair statement for both the athletes and the owners to some degree.  There is a limit to adulation that should be shown for either side.  Many of the owners are sleazy and many of the players are poor role models who squander their fortune.
 
Yes, Wall Street Investment Bankers screwed us all.  Now go back and smack your teachers for robbing you of the education you deserved.
 
Really, I can agree with you - owners are put wayyy up on a pedestal, but so are players.  It's hard to have much simpathy for ether party when it's an argument between millionaires and billionaires.

 
These are two parties negotiating a contract. In this case, unlike prior years, the owners want something but are unwilling to justify it. That's a losing proposition. They may, however, have a large enough war chest for the siege, though as Ken pointed out, at significant damage to the brand/product. They'd better be very careful here, lest public sentiment really turn against them. That's why we are seeing all these PR statements. They're trying to buy time.
 
They should open up some of their info.  They should release financials similar to any public company (even though the NFL is not a public traded corp).  They should not have to show detailed reports club by club.
 
The owners made too many concessions on the last contract (their own fault).  However, what gives the players the right to demand more in the first place?

 
The players, aside from stupid comments like AP's, are this time willing to give on some concessions, but they are asking to owners to justify their claims. That is common sense and par for the course and you'd better believe if the roles were reversed that the owners would be demanding the same.
 
They SAY they are willing.  We have no idea if they are or not or what amount of financial problems are deemed a problem in their eyes, which could be very different from an owners POV. 
 
With that said they are both crazy, but doing what comes natural - trying to get the most for their side.  They both have to becareful though and not allow the fans to tune them out.  If they can't get this solved and we miss a portion or all of next season people will realize that in the end the NFL is not important.  It is a luxury not a need and we can all live without it.  That hurts them both and would take a bite out of that 9 Bil pie.
 
Agree with NWA.
 
As should be pretty obvious, I typically side with the ownership in disputes like this.  One thing that does irritate me with the ownership in this case, is that even if the players made MAJOR concessions, the price of tickets, concessions, jerseys, etc. would not drop a dime.  The fans are truly the only party without a seat at the table here.



9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
Reply #20 on: March 16, 2011, 11:40:01 pm
I don't think the owners should be required to open their books for anyone - they own the business.  The players are free to walk and the owners should be free to replace them (albeit, with lesser talent in this case).
 
The real problem with this whole situation is the lack of competition.
Not sure anyone is arguing these points. The municipalities are making the decision to fund these stadiums to lure or keep teams, though I think many cities make poor decisions to use the taxpayer's money to give owners such sweetheart deals and the cities should also put pressure on the owners to provide a good product in exchange.

The owners don't have to open their books. But the players are free to make this a condition of their negotiations. The owners are then free to replace them. The players are then free to join a brand new league that will make a lot of money in the NFL's absence. The owners will then lose lots and lots of money. Both parties get to decide how far down that road they want to go, but I don't see why anyone needs to act like the players should shut up and take it because they have it so good already. The owners have it good too, but are claiming a lower number than we all suspect is the case to try to help pressure the players into accepting their demands. They are free to use these tactics too, but don't expect to get sympathy for such transparent dishonesty.


contemptor

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 903
Reply #21 on: March 17, 2011, 09:12:06 am
Screw the players and the owners. The fans should go on strike in protest of the absurd ticket prices to games and cut the salaries of both sides.


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #22 on: March 17, 2011, 09:34:49 am
I don't think the owners should be required to open their books for anyone - they own the business.  The players are free to walk and the owners should be free to replace them (albeit, with lesser talent in this case).
 
The real problem with this whole situation is the lack of competition.
Not sure anyone is arguing these points. The municipalities are making the decision to fund these stadiums to lure or keep teams, though I think many cities make poor decisions to use the taxpayer's money to give owners such sweetheart deals and the cities should also put pressure on the owners to provide a good product in exchange.

The owners don't have to open their books. But the players are free to make this a condition of their negotiations. The owners are then free to replace them. The players are then free to join a brand new league that will make a lot of money in the NFL's absence. The owners will then lose lots and lots of money. Both parties get to decide how far down that road they want to go,but I don't see why anyone needs to act like the players should shut up and take it because they have it so good already. The owners have it good too, but are claiming a lower number than we all suspect is the case to try to help pressure the players into accepting their demands. They are free to use these tactics too, but don't expect to get sympathy for such transparent dishonesty.

Exactly. The problem with these arguments is that no one really reads/listens. They just jump straight to ideologue talking points.


stonecoldken

  • Chancellor
  • ******
  • Posts: 12934
Reply #23 on: March 20, 2011, 02:15:02 am
I like what contemptor said. 
 
AP is an idiot.
 
If the owners have nothing to hide, open the books.  If I wanted to see my company's 10-K report I could.  I wouldn't understand it, but I could see it.  It wouldn't do me any good, but I'm not in an athlete union either.
 
Any NFL team, which is about all of them, should be told by the muni that gave them $ they aren't allowed to lock out & must negotiate or pay back muni $.
 
And the NFL contract to get paid by TV deals if they want a NFL contract is BS.
 
And how is the NFL contract to have games on Direct TV, but not on other cable & satellite providers, not an illegal monopoly?
 
And how can the NFL dictate to the networks to black-out games that aren't sold out, or not to show 2 games in a row on certain weekends?  Doesn't the customer get whatever candy bar they want when they go to the store?  How can the seller tell the buyer what to do?
CHP sold out.  I declare Nick McEntyre our Chancellor-In-Exile!

JFelt quote about CHP.  "Stake your claim.  As long as UNC-CH doesn't want it first."

Taylor Swift, Jewel, Katy Perry, SE Cupp, Jennifer Garner, Gwen Stefani, Jessica Alba, & Eva Mendes are my Baby Mama's.


EE9er

  • Assistant Coach
  • ***
  • Posts: 3622
Reply #24 on: April 19, 2011, 04:02:10 pm
This seems to be the unofficial lock out thread so I'll put this here.  It's about the non AP's which is half the league.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6388708
"No more excuses, no more apologists, no more anything.... time to win or GTFO. 
NWA - 5/8/13


 

* Charlotte 49ers News

* State of Charlotte

* Videos