PDA

View Full Version : the impending lockout



siss
02-13-2011, 04:05 PM
I am fascinated by this lockout. So interested in fact that I have started a blog about it.

This is the URL.
http://nonfllockout2011.blogspot.com/

Anyway I want start something called Letters to Roger. Where fans write to Roger Goodell telling him about how they don't want there to be a lockout. I wrote mine. Its on the blog. Anyway, you can send me a PM on here or an email (nicole_timmer777@yahoo.com (this is an email set up for this, it's not my personal email)) and I will post it on the blog. I don't need your full name, just something to identify you with.

Thank you

Crash
02-13-2011, 04:22 PM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.

siss
02-13-2011, 04:37 PM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.
You need to tell him that. Not being able to extort money from us anymore will get him listening.

aggiebones
02-13-2011, 06:20 PM
I've always been of the mind that the owners need the upper hand or the game will suffer. When the players are fat and happy or have unlimited free agency, etc, they don't have the same desire or ability to learn a system. The game would be a disaster without a salary cap and free agency like MLB.

So I'll be siding with the owners...to a degree.

hawaiiansteel
02-14-2011, 01:00 AM
good news for Sanstonio, as soon as the CBA expires he can start waking n baking again...if he isn't already. :roll:


When lockout starts, league policies go out the window

Posted by Mike Florio on February 13, 2011

http://www.clubhousecancer.com/WindowsLiveWriter/SantonioWeedMonster.jpg

When the NFL endured its last work stoppage in 1987, the league office exerted far less day-to-day control over the players on matters like drug testing and personal conduct.

If/when a lockout is imposed on March 4, the NFL will forfeit the ability to impose discipline on players who use steroids or smoke pot or engage in ill-advised drinking binges in small college towns in the South.

As we pointed out last year, expiration of the labor deal necessarily will short-circuit the substance-abuse policy, the steroids policy, the personal conduct policy, and any other rules and regulations applicable to player conduct away from the field of play.

It means that drug testing will end and that players who are arrested during the lockout won’t be subject to fines or suspensions.

Though we don’t recommend that players get arrested in order to prove a point, the point already will be proven once the CBA expires and the lockout begins and the league loses all power to control men whom the league has grown very accustomed to controlling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... he-window/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/13/when-lockout-starts-league-policies-go-out-the-window/)

jj28west
02-14-2011, 06:42 AM
A the end of the day I hope this does not result in more and longer commercials. The Ravens game had me pacing my living room and then they go to some ridiculous commercial every time someone got hurt, etc like it was the most important thing to get through.

Why not do what soccer does which will also shorten the game?

MeetJoeGreene
02-14-2011, 10:46 AM
If/when a lockout is imposed on March 4, the NFL will forfeit the ability to impose discipline on players who use steroids or smoke pot or engage in ill-advised drinking binges in small college towns in the South.

Cripes. Even when trying to make this point they single out Ben.

I wonder why they didn't say "Carry firearmns into airports", Shoot yourself in the leg in a NYC nightclub, or operate a dog fighting ring.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-14-2011, 11:13 AM
it isn't Goodell, it is the 32 owners he represents. You think Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder have a good guage on the pulse of fans? They want money and Goodell is their mouthpiece.

Oviedo
02-14-2011, 11:23 AM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.

You can say the same thing about Demarius Smith. All he has done since he took over for the players is grandstand and try to build his rep.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.

You can say the same thing about Demarius Smith. All he has done since he took over for the players is grandstand and try to build his rep.

Yeah, I agree. Dude seems like he is trying to be the Boras of the NFL world and him working with Goodell is like putting a puma in a room with a wolf and expecting them to play nice.

Oviedo
02-14-2011, 11:32 AM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.

You can say the same thing about Demarius Smith. All he has done since he took over for the players is grandstand and try to build his rep.

Yeah, I agree. Dude seems like he is trying to be the Boras of the NFL world and him working with Goodell is like putting a puma in a room with a wolf and expecting them to play nice.

My exact assessment to. He will take down the NFL to build his immage as a labor leader.

Get smart, the owners have the money...ultimately they win. It's not like the players have another market for their talents. Especially when they want to be paid large amounts of money for those niche abilities.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-14-2011, 11:52 AM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

feltdizz
02-14-2011, 03:29 PM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

Why would anyone (players) let go of the money they were able to secure during the last negotiations?

The owners screwed this one up when they agreed to the terms last time around.

If I'm a player I play hardball. The only thing I think players should agree to is a rookie cap. I can't see how any vet thinks it's a good thing for a rookie to make more than a proven vet.

feltdizz
02-14-2011, 03:34 PM
Goodell is insane. He could care less what fans want. He has somehow convinced himself that because fans don't want to pay full price for pre-season tickets that means they want more regular season games.

You can say the same thing about Demarius Smith. All he has done since he took over for the players is grandstand and try to build his rep.

Yeah, I agree. Dude seems like he is trying to be the Boras of the NFL world and him working with Goodell is like putting a puma in a room with a wolf and expecting them to play nice.

My exact assessment to. He will take down the NFL to build his immage as a labor leader.

Get smart, the owners have the money...ultimately they win. It's not like the players have another market for their talents. Especially when they want to be paid large amounts of money for those niche abilities.

What can the owners do with empty stadiums? They need the players.
The owners need the revenue just like the players or they wouldn't be so hell bent on these changes.

The niche abilities have made the NFL the #1 product.

Damarius Smith is playing hardball with hard headed owners.

The ring leader sounds like it's Jerry Richardson and that guy comes across like a redneck slave driver. Dude is incredibly rude....

Oviedo
02-14-2011, 03:35 PM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

Why would anyone (players) let go of the money they were able to secure during the last negotiations?

The owners screwed this one up when they agreed to the terms last time around.

If I'm a player I play hardball. The only thing I think players should agree to is a rookie cap. I can't see how any vet thinks it's a good thing for a rookie to make more than a proven vet.

THe owners will have money and the players won't. What leverage do the players have. Fans getting upset. That won't bring this to an end. The players will break ranks before the owners do, they want the money that the owners have.

What they had in the old contract desn't matter except as a starting point for discussions. The economy has collapsed since that contract was signed.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-14-2011, 03:58 PM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

Why would anyone (players) let go of the money they were able to secure during the last negotiations?

The owners screwed this one up when they agreed to the terms last time around.

If I'm a player I play hardball. The only thing I think players should agree to is a rookie cap. I can't see how any vet thinks it's a good thing for a rookie to make more than a proven vet.

Owners have the power. Not the players. Owners have way more money than an individual player does.

Crash
02-14-2011, 04:05 PM
How can the players play hardball?

Where are they going to make their millions? At UPS?

Oviedo
02-14-2011, 04:14 PM
How can the players play hardball?

Where are they going to make their millions? At UPS?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. The whole union and organized labor thing is a joke. Ask the Steelworkers in the 1980s what they think about their great union? Ask the autoworkers what they think about their union? We aren't talking about people working in 19th Century Charles Dickens sweatshops. These guys are millionaires or at the minimum making very nice six figure salaries.

The players have nothing except posturing and the support of some fans who will oppose "the man" no matter what the issue. These players have no other skills and no other place to apply those skills.

I want the players to lose and I want the union to be neutered. No way I want any other sports to become the travesity that Major League Baseball has become. You want to see your last Super Bowl as a Steelers fan, let the NFL union become like baseball where the players have all the power. No thank you.

hawaiiansteel
02-17-2011, 02:29 AM
Ryan Clark Not Shy With His Comments About Potential 2011 NFL Lockout

by Michael Bean on Feb 16, 2011

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/888524/gyi0063338864.jpg


I'm still piecing together my thoughts about the potential for a lockout in 2011. Obviously I'm not interested in seeing the owners and NFLPA engage in a drawn out, nasty negotiation process, and like any fan in their right mind, I dread the thought of no pigskin on Sundays in the early fall. Hell, the impending March deadline to work a new deal out has made my life difficult already as I try to assess what the Steelers might do with their various free agents. That said, I have a theory that I ran by a few people down in Dallas at the Super Bowl. Basically I think it might not ultimately be such a bad thing for us fans if there was a lockout and missed games in 2011. Why? Well, of all the major sports leagues, the NFL in my opinion does the least to reward and engage fans.

For me personally, a lockout might bring about greater access to the teams and players, just to name one example of how the league might try to make amends for their greedy bickering. Anyway, I try to add something fresh to the narrative, so you're not going to see me really just cry and moan about the possibility of a lockout. Nor are you going to see me expend a lot of time and energy with things like petitions. Sorry, that won't get us anywhere.

What will make a difference though if there are missed games is a concerted, organized effort by fans to not watch the games live on television even if just for a few short weeks. Look, not to compare this to the very serious and consequential events happening in the Middle East, but the reason successful revolutions took hold in Tunisia and Egypt is simple: people acted; they put their money where their mouth is so to speak and demanded change. I personally see no way that us fans will ever really be accounted for in the negotiation process until we've proven that we're capable of putting our money where our mouth is and show some discipline by not watching the games live. Sounds ridiculous, but what harm would it really be to read about the games for a month on the internet and settle for just the highlights online. Or, how hard would it be to get a group of ten friends and have just one of you DVR the game. The other nine don't tune in. Then after the game's over, you get together and watch as a big group, skipping through the commercials and seriously stunting the networks' ratings. Not very hard, and seriously, that's the only thing that would scare some sense into the NFL. Because the TV deals are the driving force behind all this insane amount of money the two sides are fighting over.

I suppose by then it would be too late to influence their behavior, but I'd still advocate that measure by us fans as a stern reminder that we were incredibly disappointed by what happened this spring and summer. Come to think of it though, the best way to send an early message might be to not watch the 2011 NFL Draft. I feel obliged to watch, but let's face it, it's pretty damn boring to begin with and I'd have no problem waiting until the picks were posted on the internet somewhere. Tens of millions of us tune in to the Draft in recent years. And what do you know, the NFL has found a way to extract as much TV money from that as possible, drawing the event out in primetime over two days, with God knows how many commercials squeezed in between the picks. How about we resist and put a serious dent into the ratings of this year's Draft. If we all tune in, the NFL will just continue laughing all the way to the bank, whereas if their ratings were slashed dramatically, maybe they'd get the message that we're the true driving force in this industry. No TV audience, no NFL as we know it today.

Anyway, Ryan Clark, the NFLPA player rep for the Pittsburgh Steelers, sees it the same way. At least the part about the TV deals being the Ace in the Hole that the owners possess over the players. It's pretty simple. Remarkably simple in fact: there's zero reason for the owners to be in a hurry to get a deal done. At least not in a timely manner. Why? Because they're all going to get paid beaucoup bucks again in 2011 regardless of there being games or not. Sure, they'd lose ticket revenue, but they'll all be dividing the same insanely large pie of money from the league's massive television contracts.

Let that sink in. Game or no games, all 32 owners still see their pockets lined with television money. So why would they rush even one iota this spring and summer? Why would they make any serious concessions to the players when they just have to patiently wait until the NFLPA caves on just about everything? That's what will happen though. Players will lose their insurance and paychecks, and subsequently panic while the owners just sit back and know that at worst they're still going to have a very profitable year from TV money.

Clark talked about this and other topics relating to the potential lockout during an in-studio appearance with The Morning Show on 93.7 The Fan in Pittsburgh. Here's what he had to say about owners having TV money to fall back on:

When you make deals with networks that say we’re going to pay you even if you don’t play. So what’s my incentive to play when if I’m not playing, I cut my biggest overhead out which is my players, and I’m still going to make my money. So you tell me if there’s any rush for them to feel like they have to have football.

You'll be glad to know that Clark did plenty of Roger Goodell bashing throughout the segments. Here's his pessimistic view of how Goodell can't be viewed as someone who's working for and with both sides:

And with so many players and so few owners, so as the owners, you can get 32 owners together and Roger Goodell — who claims he works for us but when it came up time for him to renew his job, nobody called me, nobody was like hey Ryan is it cool, is this the guy you want? So clearly he doesn’t work for us. I don’t have his cell phone number. I have D Smith’s cell phone number because he works for us. I don’t have Roger’s. Maybe he’ll call me after this because he’s mad at me and make me come to New York or something. I just think it’s a sad deal because it’s not going the way anybody wants it. There’s no way we can back down and give them what they want, and it don’t seem like they want to give us what we want. So I’m going to be a stay-at-home dad and do radio and TV.

Clark did state early on that he thinks there's time for a reasonable agreement to be reached before the scheduled start of the '11 season. Obviously nothing's happening before March, but because there's then six months to get something done between March and September, that's more than enough time for sides to hammer something out.

Clark finished by talking about a potential X-factor in all of this: a certain Ambassador to Ireland named Dan Rooney....Big Rooney as the players call him. Clark was actually asked if he thinks Art Rooney III might be able to play an integral role in the negotiations like other Rooneys did in previous labor talks. Clark didn't downplay Art's ability to help broker a deal, but it was Dan Rooney's incomprable reputation that was more likely to play a big role in bringing the two sides together:

"Art can definitely step into that role, but Mr. Rooney is definitely still there. It’s not a situation where Mr. Rooney is gone and out of the picture to the point where Art can assume all that power that Mr. Rooney has. The respect is still going to go to…we call him Big Rooney…to Ambassador Rooney. And he knows it. I think Mr. Rooney partly knows that he has to settle this, he’s the voice of reason, he’s the voice that is respected on both sides. But you become the voice of reason because doing things in a way that’s fair for everyone. It’s not a situation where he wants the owners to get everything, but he’s also not going to let the owners be duped, he’s not going to let the owners be taken advantage of. But he does the same for the players…It’s about, come on guys, it’s about revenue sharing. But they feel like they’re not going to win that battle. So you try to fight the battle that you feel that you can win, which is against the players. Some of them don’t budget their money right, some of them haven’t had long enough careers to have enough money to sustain through a whole year of no football. Whereas owners, first of all they’re rich. But also as owners we’re going to get paid whether there’s football or not. So that’s where I feel like they think they can win because they know they’re not going to get the Buffalo Bills and the Jacksonville Jaguars to say we don’t want revenue sharing. They’re not going to win that battle. So we feel like, you fight the battle you can win and that’s against us. So the biggest thing — we have our NFLPA meetings in March — is everyone as much as we can, if they get this type of forum, they need to be able to talk about it intelligently."

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/20 ... fl-lockout (http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2011/2/16/1998169/ryan-clark-not-shy-with-his-comments-about-potential-2011-nfl-lockout)

Crash
02-17-2011, 02:32 AM
Ambassador Rooney was asked about the lockout during Super Bowl week.

His response? "Talk to Goodell, that's his job"

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
02-17-2011, 11:07 AM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

Once again Mr. P, I will tell you how the NHL handled their previously signed contracts. We must keep in mind that the NHL went from no cap to a cap, but what they did was institue a one-time reduction to all current contracts - 20% IIRC, plus extra to those who were over the individual player salary max.

They also allowed each team a one-time player buyout, but that would not apply here as NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Something they might consider is allowing teams in a certain period of time after signing the CBA to release players without having to account for the remainder of their pro-rated bonus against the cap.

FWIW, in the NHL lockout the players were considered to be the big losers after the deal was signed and the head of the union resigned within a week.

RuthlessBurgher
02-17-2011, 05:26 PM
If the owners want less money to go to the players, will this then lower the cap to levels of 5 or more years ago? And if this happens, could there be teams cutting bigtime players more than usual to make it under the cap once football starts again?

Also, how many teams went well over what the cap used to be, since there wasn't one this past year?

Why would anyone (players) let go of the money they were able to secure during the last negotiations?

The owners screwed this one up when they agreed to the terms last time around.

If I'm a player I play hardball. The only thing I think players should agree to is a rookie cap. I can't see how any vet thinks it's a good thing for a rookie to make more than a proven vet.

THe owners will have money and the players won't. What leverage do the players have. Fans getting upset. That won't bring this to an end. The players will break ranks before the owners do, they want the money that the owners have.

What they had in the old contract desn't matter except as a starting point for discussions. The economy has collapsed since that contract was signed.

The players won't start losing checks until the Fall, though. They don't get paid in the offseason in normal years, so it is no different for them now. They won't experience any sort of money crunch until games start getting cancelled. Hopefully, we don't get that far.

hawaiiansteel
02-17-2011, 05:44 PM
a step in the right direction... :Clap


League, union agree to federal mediation

Posted by Mike Florio on February 17, 2011


Last March, Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal first raised the possibility of federal mediation as a solution for the current labor mess.

“We have no plans for mediation,” NFL spokesman Greg Aielli told Mullen at the time, “and we are a long way from having to even consider it. The goal is for our negotiations to be successful before reaching that point.”

And they’ve now reached that point.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has announced that the league and the NFLPA have agreed to allow the agency to be involved in the process.

“I have had separate, informal discussions with the key representatives of the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association during the course of their negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement,” agency director George H. Cohen said in a written statement, according to Mark Maske of the Washington Post. “At the invitation of the FMCS, and with the agreement of both parties, the ongoing negotiations will now be conducted under my auspices in Washington, D.C., commencing Friday, February 18.

“Due to the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations and consistent with the FMCS’s long-standing practice, the Agency will refrain from any public comment concerning the future schedule and/or the status of those negotiations until further notice.”

Mediation is a non-binding process, which has become increasingly popular over the last three decades as a tool for resolving civil litigation. Basically, courts require the parties to give it a try, and that they proceed in good faith. In this case, the parties have decided to do it on their own.

A mediator has no power to issue rulings or resolve disputes or otherwise say or do anything to force an agreement. But a mediator has the ability to speak candidly to the parties about the weaknesses of their position and the realities of the predicament and to serve as a devil’s advocate of sorts in order to get each side to be more objective.

Last year, Cohen helped Major League Soccer strike a deal with its union.

There’s another huge benefit to the process. The presence of a mediator will make guys like Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler less inclined to say or do things that could be viewed as problematic or belligerent.

The fact that the two sides have agreed to allow a third party to be involved indicates a willingness to try to strip away the personalities and the other impediments in the hopes of finally getting to the issues and getting a deal done. And it allows the mediator to, if necessary, ask someone who acts up to leave the room.

Cohen’s first task? Finding a solution to the parties’ apparent impasse regarding whether and to what extent the league will open the books.

The process begins tomorrow. Whether or not they’ll ever agree, the fact that they’ve agreed to use mediation means that they at least agree on something.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... mediation/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/league-union-agree-to-federal-mediation/)

hawaiiansteel
02-19-2011, 07:52 PM
NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides

By Sally Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 17, 2011


I'm not sure why NFL players and fans should pay the estate taxes for Daniel Snyder's children, along with the little Bidwills and Maras. That's one way to think of the current NFL labor dispute. The owners are worried that $9 billion isn't enough revenue growth, and their heirs might someday have to fly commercial. So they're demanding that everybody pony up.

That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.

They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own. They contend the players are overpaid, and they are threatening to lock them out as of March 4 if they don't agree to a significant cut. They say this is a necessary step to ensure future profitability.

But in what other industry do business owners act so entitled to make money every year into the limitless future? According to Forbes, the NFL's revenue has increased 43 percent since 2006 to $9.3 billion. Under the current agreement, the first billion goes to the 32 owners right off the top, while players receive a 60 percent split of revenues after that. Now the owners are demanding another billion off the top.

Who exactly is more overpaid? To repeat, the argument is over money that comes out of the fans' pockets. The only question is who should get more of it, the owners or the players that the fans pay to see? After all, they don't pay to see Snyder smoke a cigar, or consult with media advisors.

The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars. Pete Rozelle's wife once observed that, "every owner I ever met thinks he's just two players from winning the Super Bowl."

The cost argument really should be an internal quarrel between the owners. If some of them aren't making enough money, or are even losing money - if some of them built sports palaces and some didn't - whose fault is that? Maybe they don't need a better collective bargaining agreement. Maybe they need a budget.

Yet the owners quite clearly want the players to pick up the tab for some of their excesses - and the fans, too. On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums." But bigger stadiums may well mean more expenses shifted to the fans.

What's more, they appear to be digging in, judging by their latest actions. Last week; they walked away from a bargaining session; this week; they filed a charge against the players' union with the National Labor Relations Board. One day, they refuse to talk; the next, they accuse the other side of not negotiating; and then, the next say that the season could be in jeopardy if a deal isn't reached soon.

What's really going on? The suspicion here is that the league owners are simply tempted to see if they can do as well in labor negotiations as the NHL did in improving its financial condition with a lockout a few years ago. But there is a big difference between the NFL and the NHL: Hockey is not nearly so profitable, and the lockout and the accompanying risk of alienating their fans were therefore worth it.

As long the NFL is raking in $9 billion and so many owners are clearly making money, it's pretty difficult for them to claim to be on the high ground, or to cry poor.

It's not like they're the airline industry, or even hockey.

So far they have utterly failed to make the case that they are so financially imperiled that players should make sacrifices for them, or fans either. For one thing, they continue to refuse to open their books, presumably because the results could be embarrassing.

Disclosure of their real conditions might reveal just how ungenerous they are with the players they claim to care about. Or it might reveal just how mercilessly hard they are working to strip every dime out of the fans.

The next time a league official claims the players make "outrageous sums," as Goodell does, fans should ask themselves the following questions: How much are owners making? And how much of that is due to government subsidies?

Are teams really in danger of losing money - or do they merely crave unlimited "growth?" Would a new labor agreement work for or against the interest of the ticket-buyers? If the owners win a billion-dollar concession from players, what will they do with the money? Will prices go down?

Do they really need a new deal - or have they been getting a sweetheart one all along?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03846.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html)