Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by jrd617, Aug 11, 2012.
All the delays are not very interesting.
Why the fuck would the officials cave in at this point? Shit, if I was them I'd be holding out for MORE. Its clearly obvious they have a valuable commodity that can't be purchased elsewhere.
I heard this morning that the spread between the two sides was $32K per team, per year. If that is true, this is a ridiculous war of billionaire egos vs union knuckleheads.
Source? I can virtually guarantee this is not true. No business owner is that dumb.
My understanding is that it is not the money issue, but rather the ref's pensions that is causing this whole kerfuffle. The owners want to move to a 401(k) style of pension and the refs don't want to. Also, the owners want to hire something like 10-15 more refs, but not increase the salary pool for the refs, thereby decreasing each of their salaries.
However, it is the pension issue that is really the problem.
Also best line of the night last night: "Russell Wilson is the only quarterback in the history of the NFL to throw a game-winning interception."
About $100K per team:
I think the person I heard discussing the matter was confusing the dollars per year with dollars over the life of the CBA. Either way it is a trivial amount of money, all things considered.
Yes, it does sound pretty trivial, if that's the gist of it.
But even the article admits some of the divide is philosophical, and not just money - e.g. the full-time issue and the "bench" issue.
Also bear in mind that many of the NFL's full-time emps don't have pension, so sometimes even small monetary issues have larger monetary issues lurking in the shadows.
But yes, it does appear that at least some of this is down to short-sighted stubbornness. Thankfully, it looks like the debacle on Monday may have woken a few people up. For Christ's sakes, I bet the Ravens spent half of $100 grand on *fireworks* before the game on Sunday night.
Well, what is "full time" in an industry where you only play 16 games? I agree that the differences are philosophical and that will change soon enough because we ALL see how important refs are to the game. And then again maybe we do but the owners/Goodell will continue to think otherwise.
yeah, the NFL always takes a hard line in these negotiations and the issue is not just the 100K but rather what lurks in the shadows after they agree to the 100K. The other issue though that they should keep their eye on is, at what point does the NFL suffer monetary damage that is much greater than what they will give up to the refs. A couple of ratings points lower, a few less seats filled etc means a lot more to them than 100K and you hope that the negotiations don't get "personal" where either party decides to cut off its nose to spite its face. I can't remember the last time there was this much disgust with one of the pro leagues, much less the NFL and whether the league is right or not, you'd be hard pressed to find someone to side with the owners on this one. This isn't billionaire owners going up against millionaire players, its owners going against "working class" refs (who make over 100K for part time work, get pensions and are looking for double digit raises )
ESPN is reporting that a deal is close, possibly allowing the regular referees to return this week. Please let it be.
Separate names with a comma.