DaveSpadaro

[News] Early Thinking On Some Roster Battles To Watch

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

California beat me to it

Yeah they lead the way to the trash bin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

Wow.... how many yearbooks did they sell due to your photo? $15 mil?  You must have been quite a specimen?

Hmm 435 sold at 25.00 and then add interest over 45 years compounded daily and I should be pretty close lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

How much of the world cup $$$ for men's.... was due to the US team?  $52.38 ?   Did the men even qualify?  

Bad comparison WNBA or the coworker $10k...  the US mens soccer team is not comparable to USA mens hoops.   Mens basketball is a bigger draw than women's,  and the American players are a big reason.

It's obvious that we aren't gonna ever agree on this.

This compensation has nothing to do with what they are paid by their club teams, it is what they were paid out of the world cup pool.

The USA men aren't good but the mens world cup generated 6 billion 

The USA women are the best but the women generated 1/46th of what the men did.

If the women were paid a lower percentage of what the men were paid i'd be right there with you. They were paid a HIGHER percentage. Where do you think the extra money is going to come from?

Their compensation is based of revenue generated, nothing more, nothing less.

That's true equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ASG15 said:

It's obvious that we aren't gonna ever agree on this.

This compensation has nothing to do with what they are paid by their club teams, it is what they were paid out of the world cup pool.

The USA men aren't good but the mens world cup generated 6 billion 

The USA women are the best but the women generated 1/46th of what the men did.

If the women were paid a lower percentage of what the men were paid i'd be right there with you. They were paid a HIGHER percentage. Where do you think the extra money is going to come from?

Their compensation is based of revenue generated, nothing more, nothing less.

That's true equality.

  This makes sense to me!  Another thing you should mention is the women also get allot more for sponsorship than the men do. Trust me, the women are getting their share....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ASG15 said:

It's obvious that we aren't gonna ever agree on this.

This compensation has nothing to do with what they are paid by their club teams, it is what they were paid out of the world cup pool.

The USA men aren't good but the mens world cup generated 6 billion 

The USA women are the best but the women generated 1/46th of what the men did.

If the women were paid a lower percentage of what the men were paid i'd be right there with you. They were paid a HIGHER percentage. Where do you think the extra money is going to come from?

Their compensation is based of revenue generated, nothing more, nothing less.

That's true equality.

Agreed,do the the last place NFL players make about the same as the SB champs(barring the playoff run) I think they DO.So you can't base pay on what you THINK will happen in a future season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herndon's suspension is first 4 games. Jets matchup is wk. 5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ham, didn't check that lol. Been sporadically checking in on breaks after doing stuff on my truck & around the house. 

I thought maybe you were mistakenly looking at wk. 4 PS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Jets have a bye week 4 😉

Maybe he will be rusty!! Slowing down Bell is still the priority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 9:28 AM, ASG15 said:

It's obvious that we aren't gonna ever agree on this.

This compensation has nothing to do with what they are paid by their club teams, it is what they were paid out of the world cup pool.

The USA men aren't good but the mens world cup generated 6 billion 

The USA women are the best but the women generated 1/46th of what the men did.

If the women were paid a lower percentage of what the men were paid i'd be right there with you. They were paid a HIGHER percentage. Where do you think the extra money is going to come from?

Their compensation is based of revenue generated, nothing more, nothing less.

That's true equality.

Ok... here is something... the US men didn't qualify for the world cup... their share should be zero.   The US women won theirs, they should get the top share... whatever it is. 

Men's soccer could do without a US team.  Not sure women's soccer could.    

Either way... per world cup pay via a national team...  not club team pay for a team that isn't called " team USA"... the US women should make more.  Simply because they participated til the end and won theirs, where the men never qualified to put a product on the field during actual world cup play.  Holla!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Ok... here is something... the US men didn't qualify for the world cup... their share should be zero.   The US women won theirs, they should get the top share... whatever it is. 

Men's soccer could do without a US team.  Not sure women's soccer could.    

Either way... per world cup pay via a national team...  not club team pay for a team that isn't called " team USA"... the US women should make more.  Simply because they participated til the end and won theirs, where the men never qualified to put a product on the field during actual world cup play.  Holla!

I'd be fine with this,maybe they get this now? IDK. Like a % of advertising dollars for each playoff win.I'm sure though with the win,they get attention to be spokes persons for company ads,book deals,show appearances,autographed memorabilia,so they benefit anyway.Noone remembers 2nd place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I missed some earlier comments on this.  I'm surprised that the fans haven't commented on the recent news regarding the Owners wanting a 18 game regular season in the next contract with players only being allowed to participate in a total of 16 regular season games. That ought to be interesting. I told you these NFL owners are some of the greediest people on earth. They want the extra money playing 18 regular season games would generate but don't want to pay the players more for 18 games. How would you like to be the person who is paying 300 for a ticket to a regular season game and when you show up, Wentz and Cox aren't playing that game. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1wrangler said:

Unless I missed some earlier comments on this.  I'm surprised that the fans haven't commented on the recent news regarding the Owners wanting a 18 game regular season in the next contract with players only being allowed to participate in a total of 16 regular season games. That ought to be interesting. I told you these NFL owners are some of the greediest people on earth. They want the extra money playing 18 regular season games would generate but don't want to pay the players more for 18 games. How would you like to be the person who is paying 300 for a ticket to a regular season game and when you show up, Wentz and Cox aren't playing that game. LOL

If they get two more games generating that much more revenue then they can throw a bigger bone towards the players. Because the players want better retirement health care and such. So the owners can give the players more while generating more income themselves. Win/win for the owners. But only allowing the players to play 16 of 18 games is a train wreck of an idea. Watering down a great product is not the way to go. They already have done that with Thursday games. And it seems the idea is get rid of two preseason games to lengthen the regular season. That will hurt the roster bubble players that need to get their game on tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

If they get two more games generating that much more revenue then they can throw a bigger bone towards the players. Because the players want better retirement health care and such. So the owners can give the players more while generating more income themselves. Win/win for the owners. But only allowing the players to play 16 of 18 games is a train wreck of an idea. Watering down a great product is not the way to go. They already have done that with Thursday games. And it seems the idea is get rid of two preseason games to lengthen the regular season. That will hurt the roster bubble players that need to get their game on tape.

The NFL can already throw a bigger bone to the players....Revenue of 8.78 BILLION from the nfl...estimated 274.3 million to each team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also are we really losing two preseason games if the plan is to only make players play in 16 games???? Means two games would be backups playing fans don’t want to see regular season games with backups 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BleedingGreen93 said:

The NFL can already throw a bigger bone to the players....Revenue of 8.78 BILLION from the nfl...estimated 274.3 million to each team

Well there is no doubt there. But I’m just picturing how the owners are thinking. By adding two more games generating extra revenue they can give the players some concessions and still wind up making more in there own pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Well there is no doubt there. But I’m just picturing how the owners are thinking. By adding two more games generating extra revenue they can give the players some concessions and still wind up making more in there own pocket.

I know what the owners are thinking they want more money and they can charge more money for regular season games even if the starters aren’t playing....But just hurts the quality of the NFL overall....Doesn’t sound like a well thought out idea by owners just making them sound greedy and want a way to make more money with no real thought about the players or the game 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would also be curious on how the NFL does the schedule if they added two more games....

Right now seems like a good balance

6 divison games

1 NFC division(4 games)

1 AFC division(4 games)

2 games(vs the same place teams in the other divisions in your conference)

How would you decide the extra 2 games???? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

If they get two more games generating that much more revenue then they can throw a bigger bone towards the players. Because the players want better retirement health care and such. So the owners can give the players more while generating more income themselves. Win/win for the owners. But only allowing the players to play 16 of 18 games is a train wreck of an idea. Watering down a great product is not the way to go. They already have done that with Thursday games. And it seems the idea is get rid of two preseason games to lengthen the regular season. That will hurt the roster bubble players that need to get their game on tape.

Great more prima donnas.I'm old so I recall players making $300.00 a game.I think they all do fine with salary and benefits.I never got close to what they get.Greed by owners,greed by players 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That way they could expand the game the most. Play in plenty of different countries. And they also could play in several other US cities that don’t have a team. Doesn’t sound like a bad idea. I don’t think you could do a divisional game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The Packers suggested adding only one extra game and it being played on a neutral or international stadium.

IDK I would rather see NFL teams have farm clubs,aka minor league.Would help with player development,get money in their pockets,pay a few guys a little to play and have these teams in the outskirt towns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

That way they could expand the game the most. Play in plenty of different countries. And they also could play in several other US cities that don’t have a team. Doesn’t sound like a bad idea. I don’t think you could do a divisional game. 

Don't want this international BS.It is havoc on the players and schedules and since not ALL have to fly overseas,is this really fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GreenbleedinFL said:

Don't want this international BS.It is havoc on the players and schedules and since not ALL have to fly overseas,is this really fair?

The AAF was a good attempt start to this,they simply ran out of money.The NFL has the money to do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now