PDA

View Full Version : Maybe us fans should boycott!



SMASHMOUTHFOOTBALL
09-11-2010, 04:43 AM
I am a true football fan, NFL fan and Steelers fan for over 25 years. I get paid notta, get the package each year, go to a Steeler game once every other year (cause I'm in FL) and watch about every game I can, because I love the game.
To that I say I feel majorly disrespected. To Imagain that these greedy players and owners who in this economy are fighting over their millions of dollars they make, can't come to an agreement and might not play next season, makes me SICK!
The NFL is in its Prime...Never been more popular and to speak of a lockout, speaks to Godell's inablity as the Commish to do his job, the selfishness of these people and the disrespect of the fans.
Can you imagine game one all across NFL stadiums each fan held up 1 finger at 1pm and just walk out of each game...not returning until this deal got done.
The NFL doesn't exist without us suckers overpaying for game tix, NFL Package, Jersey's an so forth.
I know we are the nobody's but it just makes me sick that this has come this far and I can't imagine a year without NFL football because of GREED. WORK IT OUT! Your all making tons of money.
Maybe we are the nobody's because the above will never happen. Their is very little fan unity and we probably love the game too much to boycott it. What else would we do with our Sunday afternoons.

It just makes me sick!

Snatch98
09-11-2010, 05:06 AM
Drinking tonight?

steelblood
09-11-2010, 08:26 AM
I agree with your general sentiment. But, we've lost no football yet. If anything, I think it would be appropriate to send a message that if they mess with our 2011 season, then there will be repercussions. I'm not sure how to do that though. Signs at games. Turning our backs for the kickoffs. Emails to league offices and NFLPA (each of us here could contact another board (even from other teams) and give them the necessary tools to email the commissioner). I'd be happy to organize an email, mail or phone call thread. Other thoughts?

fordfixer
09-11-2010, 09:24 AM
roger.goodell2@nfl.net

Jooser
09-11-2010, 10:37 AM
Drinking tonight? http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p262/jooser73/doggy.gif

He does make some good points though, sober or not....

BURGH86STEEL
09-11-2010, 11:50 AM
As of today, I tend to fall on the side of the players. The players take the biggest risk. The players are the people the fans go to see.

I believe there should be some give and take on both sides. The owners will probably have to open up their accounting books for that to happen. The players will have to give up a % of money. I don't know how that's gonna happen if the owners want to expand to 18 games. They will probably have to expand rosters. That means mo money. Not sure if adding 2 regular season games will bring in that much more money.

Ultimately, the fans will foot the bill. I don't have season tickets. Nor will I buy them with seating licenses and season ticket prices at current prices. The money spent and joy received just does not add up to spend for season tickets. Especially, when I can watch at home with friends or have the same feeling with fans at a bar. IMO, football translates much better on tv then live.

It appears that the NFL is turning into an unreasonably over priced league for what they provide.

SteelAbility
09-11-2010, 12:28 PM
As far as ticket prices - basic economics - supply/demand. Low supply and high demand = high price. The ticket prices are set at what the market will bear, because if I don't buy them, then the next guy will because the aggregate demand level allows the owners to set the high price.

But there are many good points there for sure. I think the unity issue is the big one. Large scale fan unity just ain't happenin'. Owners and players. That's a different story. The fact of the matter is that there is power in unity. The owners can achieve it and so can the players. Therefore, there is a position of strength from which to operate.

But a counterpoint here is that the overall ecosystem is best when everyone acts in their own best self-interest (barring dirty dealings).

RuthlessBurgher
09-11-2010, 01:54 PM
I bet after Al Michaels explained that the players altogether on both teams raising one finger to signify "We are One" in the upcoming labor negotiations/potential lockout, that we will not see that again. The players will likely still do it before every game, but I'll bet that owners are getting together to mandate that network cameras do not show it, that network announcers don't discuss it, and that even within the stadium, as soon as a camera catches the players with the one finger raised on the Jumbotron, they cut to something else immediately.

stlrz d
09-11-2010, 03:34 PM
The players are not asking for more money. They are fighting to keep what they have. It's the owners who want the players to take a lower % of the money.

This is not a strike. The owners would be locking the players out. Hence the term "lock out".

DukieBoy
09-11-2010, 05:20 PM
The players are not asking for more money. They are fighting to keep what they have. It's the owners who want the players to take a lower % of the money.

This is not a strike. The owners would be locking the players out. Hence the term "lock out".

Plutonomics has become the way of the NFL, where a few will benefit greatly, most others including "the small people" (such as the fans) will lose out.

NKySteeler
09-11-2010, 06:37 PM
Regardless what you wish to call it, and yea, it would be "lock out", it is bad for everyone involved... The players want a more legitimate cut of the pie (from what I've read, as well as post playing benefits/healthcare) while the owners want to accumulate more profits... What will happen if they cut two preseason games and add two regular season games? Should this further divide the two groups?... The sport is at a pinnacle from a fan's basis, but I would argue that it was close to the same position before the last work action... It will survive because of folks like us, and message boards like this, and will be minimally effected in the long run... I personally do expect some sort of work stoppage barring a miracle of some point because both sides are hard-headded... Yea, it will effect our viewing, but I'm willing to bet that we all will be drooling and chomping at the bit once they return... Minimal damage will be inflicted from their point of view... This is not MLB.

... Talk all you want, threaten to walk out of a game, and thump your chest like the ignorant monkeys that don't know any better... But 9 out of 10 will not give the sport up... I know that I won't... It's just a sad fact of business that us fans will have to deal with... Period.

Crash
09-11-2010, 06:39 PM
The players are not asking for more money. They are fighting to keep what they have. It's the owners who want the players to take a lower % of the money.

And I think the owners are right. If the players want a % of ALL REVENUES, they need to pitch in for stadium financing and upkeep.

Captain Lemming
09-11-2010, 10:28 PM
The players are not asking for more money. They are fighting to keep what they have. It's the owners who want the players to take a lower % of the money.

This is not a strike. The owners would be locking the players out. Hence the term "lock out".

You are sooo right D.

When you compare the NFL to other sports that have guarateed contracts NFL owners should have no complaints.

The players have short careers so the owners are betting the players cave.

The owners can lose a season even two and wind up ahead, once the players cave in to a bad deal, which they will have to do.

If there is a lockout, the owners are the villians in this one.

ikestops85
09-11-2010, 11:07 PM
These are not the economic times for millionaires to whine about who is getting more millions. I don't care who gets what as long as we don't have a stoppage of games. Many of the players and owners have their heads up their arses regarding what goes on in the real world. Times are tougher now economically than they have been for decades so both the players and owners better tread lightly or they might get a backlash the likes of which they hadn't dreamed about.

I haven't spent a cent on MLB since the strike in the mid-90s. The year before the strike I took the family to a game at what was then brand new Camden Yards in B-more. The night cost me over $200 for a family of four when you add up tickets, parking, food and drink at the park and souvenirs. To me back in those days it was just too expensive. Then they have the nerve to strike/lockout. F'em.

I grew up a huge Pirate fan. I attended opening day from 6th grade on. My friends and I would take the streetcar down to Liberty Ave where we got off and walked across the bridge to the stadium. We bought $1 general admission tickets and had a blast at the park. We used to sit in right field so I could watch my favorite player, The Great One, until he was no more.

I wanted my son to have that same experience. Instead I took my son to Single A ball 10 minutes from my house. We sat right behind home plate for $6 a ticket and Hooter girls brought me my $3 beers. The players loved any attention from the fans and would sign whatever you put in front of them.

I would hate to give up my Steelers like I did my Pirates. I just hope the players and owners know that some fans feel this way.

Captain Lemming
09-12-2010, 01:05 AM
These are not the economic times for millionaires to whine about who is getting more millions. I don't care who gets what as long as we don't have a stoppage of games. Many of the players and owners have their heads up their arses regarding what goes on in the real world. Times are tougher now economically than they have been for decades so both the players and owners better tread lightly or they might get a backlash the likes of which they hadn't dreamed about.

The players point is that they DONT want a stoppage of games.

Players lose more than anyone if that happens. Only the owners can benefit from a stoppage.

papillon
09-12-2010, 07:07 AM
Regardless what you wish to call it, and yea, it would be "lock out", it is bad for everyone involved... The players want a more legitimate cut of the pie (from what I've read, as well as post playing benefits/healthcare) while the owners want to accumulate more profits... What will happen if they cut two preseason games and add two regular season games? Should this further divide the two groups?... The sport is at a pinnacle from a fan's basis, but I would argue that it was close to the same position before the last work action... It will survive because of folks like us, and message boards like this, and will be minimally effected in the long run... I personally do expect some sort of work stoppage barring a miracle of some point because both sides are hard-headded... Yea, it will effect our viewing, but I'm willing to bet that we all will be drooling and chomping at the bit once they return... Minimal damage will be inflicted from their point of view... This is not MLB.

... Talk all you want, threaten to walk out of a game, and thump your chest like the ignorant monkeys that don't know any better... But 9 out of 10 will not give the sport up... I know that I won't... It's just a sad fact of business that us fans will have to deal with... Period.

This is probably all very true NKy; however, I still believe that a lot of fans (myself included) will begin to miss games that they are not emotionally tied to. That is, I watch Steeler games as often as possible, but, unless I have nothing to do at all I won't watch a game not involving the Steelers. The NFL has the Golden Goose, but they need to be careful, IMO.

Pappy

feltdizz
09-12-2010, 11:39 AM
The players are not asking for more money. They are fighting to keep what they have. It's the owners who want the players to take a lower % of the money.

And I think the owners are right. If the players want a % of ALL REVENUES, they need to pitch in for stadium financing and upkeep.

Why should the players pitch in for stadium upkeep and financing if they aren't guaranteed a long career with the same team? They are pitching in by playing the game that attracts people to the stadium... people don't go to football games to take in the architecture and stare at the owners box. They go to watch the players play the game. If they don't perform well they are traded or cut.. and if the owner is really an idiot he may even reward failure with more money.

Taxpayers pay for the stadium most of the time anyway.

Crash
09-12-2010, 11:52 AM
Why should the players pitch in for stadium upkeep and financing if they aren't guaranteed a long career with the same team?

Then why should the players get a % of all revenues? If the players don't want to help pay for new stadiums they shouldn't get a cut of the revenues from them.

PSL money and luxury suite money should stay with the owners then.

Problem solved.

feltdizz
09-12-2010, 02:38 PM
Why should the players pitch in for stadium upkeep and financing if they aren't guaranteed a long career with the same team?

Then why should the players get a % of all revenues? If the players don't want to help pay for new stadiums they shouldn't get a cut of the revenues from them.

PSL money and luxury suite money should stay with the owners then.

Problem solved.

people aren't paying for luxury suites to watch the owners. The owners want more than they are making right now and honestly... outside of rookie contracts I think the league is in a great place. No one is losing money unless they have an inferior product on the field.