Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Ken Meringolo's Lockout Diary: Day 1

Dear Diary,

This is total horseshit.

We are not even a full day into the lockout and I am already extremely angry. Not quite "Shaun Suisham just missed a 23-yarder" angry. But definitely more than "Did we really just run the same fake field goal twice" angry. Not since the advent of the fist pump have I been so upset. On one hand, the lack of football games on Sundays will present less opportunities for me to look like an idiot switching between high five and fist pump in the milliseconds leading up to hand contact with my fellow fans. But without the necessary practice, millions of white fans will lose all the progress that has been made in the celebratory field.

Both the owners and the players want for us fans to care as passionately about their separate sides as they do. Their constant collective struggle for the support of the fans of the NFL and the battle for public opinion at least displays a slight understanding that this thing involves more then them.

Star-divide

It is difficult at this stage in the game to direct too much anger at the players as they are the ones strapping on the pads and working for their money. Then again, after a year of watching Fat Albert half-ass his way to tens of millions of dollars, the case of the players is at least partly maddening. Nice going Haynesworth...your lack of effort and dedication has muddied the good names of the players for many fans.

Today I am mostly angry because I officially believe that this thing was NEVER going to end up in a different place than where we are now. I foolishly believed that the extensions represented real hope that a deal was imminent. Instead, both the NFL and the NFLPA have been calling plays out of a playbook that pretty much guaranteed this thing would end up here.

In the days ahead, perhaps the owners will prove to be the complete d-bags that the players are painting them out to be. Or perhaps the fear of having embarrassing financial disclosures paint them in a negative light will cause them to negotiate a settlement with the players in time to get the NFL calendar back on track.

On Day 1 of the lockout though, I am disappointed in everyone involved.

Comment 34 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Preach on Brother...

I’m gonna miss being off-season champs…. :(

by TheFuzzy on Mar 12, 2011 3:39 PM EST reply actions  

Yes Haynesworth and T.O. bring a high level of douchebaggery to the players names

but what are the owners hiding. Why can’t they be “transparent”. If they want some money back why not show why for Christs sakes.

by vjessejamesv on Mar 12, 2011 3:41 PM EST reply actions  

Because they won't even be honest with each other

because the real crux of the issue is very few of them are happy with the revenue sharing between teams. The lower level teams think they don’t get enough. The higher revenue teams think they share too much. Thats’ why the extra billion was required, so there was more scratch for all the owners.

Your First Ever Pinstripe Bowl Champions- The Syracuse Orange

by bigbluethruandthru on Mar 12, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Greed on greed.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Mar 14, 2011 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

The owners and players are both guilty and both deserve anger hurled their way

In names of good, respectable players like London Fletcher and Drew Brees, I feel sorry that they have to deal with owners like Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Al Davis. Then again, there are selfish, greedy players like Haynesworth and T.O. who make you want to shit all over the players’ case for this lockout. However, I’m more angry at the owners because of what they represent. Whether or not the players claims are true/valid, we all look at Dan Snyder (the petulant child who wants to put a small newspaper out of business), Jerry Jones (no, I don’t care that he fucks up the Cowboys, but he’s the same type), or Al Davis, and think, there has to be some sort of valid grievance here. I’m not taking sides because I’m blinded by the prospect of no football in 2011. That doesn’t sit well with me as a fan. Right now, I could care less who’s right and who’s wrong. I want some fucking football, and I’m not prepared to live without it.

"We have a winner. You lost me at salad." - duck, z"l

by DCO'sfan on Mar 12, 2011 4:49 PM EST reply actions  

I want football too

 but this whole mess is starting to take on alot of facets. I cant see how something can get done in time for a 2011 season.

by vjessejamesv on Mar 12, 2011 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I can live w/o a year of football if it turns out that the owners are making ridiculous claims while sitting on huge profits made in stadiums paid for with public tax money

if it turns out the owners are right and the players aren’t compromising, so be it.

but fairness for players (or owners) is more important to me than 1 season of football

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 12, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't quit you NFL.

I consider myself a one man wolfpack..Diesel__44 on twitter.

by Diesel44 on Mar 12, 2011 7:33 PM EST reply actions  

Today I am mostly angry because I officially believe that this thing was NEVER going to end up in a different place than where we are now. I foolishly believed that the extensions represented real hope that a deal was imminent. Instead, both the NFL and the NFLPA have been calling plays out of a playbook that pretty much guaranteed this thing would end up here.

In the days ahead, perhaps the owners will prove to be the complete d-bags that the players are painting them out to be. Or perhaps the fear of having embarrassing financial disclosures paint them in a negative light will cause them to negotiate a settlement with the players in time to get the NFL calendar back on track.

Why put all your angst on the owners? Isn’t the decertification what the union planned all along as their strategy? Isn’t the fear of anti-trust litigation their weapon? So maybe the owners bargained in good faith and it’s the union that was playing hardball with good old Judge Doty in their back pocket. Maybe…. maybe not. The hard truth is the players wanted this to play out exactly as it did. Even if the owners had turned over their financial records it would have gone this route. Do the UAW negotiators get to see the books of GM, Ford and Chrysler? I doubt it.

by DudleyDoright on Mar 12, 2011 8:09 PM EST reply actions  

like I said

They were both running their playbooks. All kinds of nasty on both sides.

by Ken Meringolo on Mar 13, 2011 12:48 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I think UAW does actually.

Public businesses have to disclose financials to shareholders. If any union member is one (and you know they are) then those financials are available.

GM, Ford and Chrysler didn’t pretend to be broke while making record profits. That is the charge, at least, against the owners.

Check out these games:

Multiplayer Baseball: http://www.mmobaseball.com/createaccount.aspx?ref=9687

Multiplayer Football: http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=16986650

by matthiasstephan on Mar 13, 2011 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

The owners made extreme new demands, not the players

You can’t blame the players for their tactics w/o blaming the owners who created this conflict over revenue percentages completely on their own

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 13, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't blame the owners as much as I do the players

I’m extremely sympathetic to the players normally, but not this time. I agreewith some of the players amanda, but I truly think that some of the changes, such as rookie salary caps, is on the players self interest, and year round drug testing is in the leagues best interest (not the owners, the league).

In this case, the players association want bargaining in good faith. I’m kind of wondering if we will see replacement players part deux, though, before this is solved.

No Danny, Nooooooo - Tom Landry, 1982., and Washington Redskins fans, 1999-

by BillWard on Mar 13, 2011 8:27 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

There's plenty available on the streets

Just as back 24 years ago when the players walked out there are plenty of wannabe NFL’ers available to fill out rosters. It gives these guys a shot at showing what they can do as well as allowing regular players to cross the picket line as they did back then. I wouldn’t put it past the owners to do something similar to the last walkout. It certainly added a push to get the union back to the bargaining table.

by DudleyDoright on Mar 13, 2011 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

you're ignoring by far the single biggest demand the owners are making.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 13, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

AGREED

The rookie salary cap suits the players just fine. They also know the bad press they’d get if they opposed drug testing so that’s certainly not an issue…but giving back $1 billion of a $9 billion pie just because ownership wants them to would be just plain stupid.
Let’s face it, none of the owners flew coach to get to the negotiating sessions and they didn’t head out to dinner piled into the back seat of a Ford Fiesta.

by Tee L on Mar 13, 2011 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Give me a break....
Let’s face it, none of the owners flew coach to get to the negotiating sessions and they didn’t head out to dinner piled into the back seat of a Ford Fiesta.

Give me a break…neither did the players.

by DudleyDoright on Mar 14, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hold that thought-I read your earlier comments and I believe I understand that revenue percentage is what you feel to be the problem.

I have to say that I disagree, the last proposal that I heard about, had that revenue locked at 1.5 billion-yes, a 50% increase but as we all know, costs will go up for the owners and we are talking about A period of about 10 years I think.
I also think that this is a fair compromise, it is only taking theoretically $500 million out of the player’s pockets; in return for this they get some kind of help for the retired veterans, better healthcare for themselves after their career is ended, and a rookie pay scale that everyone knows is needed.
I don’t think that’s a bad deal for the players at all. I really feel like the owners gave up more with that last proposal than the players did.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 14, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

The rookie pay scale isn't a benefit for the players

It’s a tool to try to split rookies versus veterans.

The union is playing it correctly by treating all player salaries as equal. A pay scale is only in the players interest if the money is spent on other salaries.

Otherwise the owners are just paying less collectively to salary. That benefits the owners, not the players.

in return for this they get some kind of help for the retired veterans, better healthcare for themselves after their career is ended,

This isn’t much of a bargaining chip. It’s basic decency that should have been in place a long time ago.

This is not a chip that’s worth dramatically altering the revenue sharing between owners and players, which is what the owners are really after.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 14, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY

I called to the sirius radio NFL show and we were talking about whos side we were on , and i blasted both the PLAYERS AND OWNERS because you have millionaires fighting against the billionaires over FREAKIN MONEY . I asked the talk show guy here we are as fans listening to a bunch of crying babies over freakin money and i asked the man WHO PAYS THERE SALARY ? then i said it was us the fans we pay the owners and the players salary because we pay to see the game , buy there gears , pay for the tickets and so on . Then i said when is the OWNERS & PLAYERS are going to DO SOMETHING FOR THE FANS WHO SUPPORT THERE GREEDY ASSES because the players and owners had 2 full years to get something DONE ON THIS DISPUTE instead of a lockout and i told the guy i WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER TICKET OR ANY TYPE OF GEAR TO SUPPORT THE NFL EVER AGAIN because of this childish acts these owner & players are displaying its a real shame WE THE FANS have to put up with this bullshit then i told him thats all i had to say . Then the talk show hosts said that was a very good comment and he agreed with everything i had said which i was kinda shocked , but he agreed that the FANS are the one who is getting the RAW end of this whole childish thing going on . We the fan pay a shit load of money from anything from tickets to parking to NFL GEAR and so on and so on supporting these sorry for excuses of players and owners BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DAM GREEDY AND THERE IS NO CALL FOR IT . Its funny a friend of mines son went to a baseball game ( pro ) and the kid wanted this player to sign his baseball and this pro player had the DAM NERVE to tell the FATHER that if his SON wanted a AUTOGRAPH he had to pay $25 dollors WHAT THE NERVE OF THIS GUY CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS ? this is what these PRO ATHELETES WE SUPPORT NO MATTER WHAT THE SPORT IS RATHER BASEBALL OR NFL OR NHL , OR NBA . These players and owners have GOTTEN TO DAM GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY . What happened to the sport we all loved to watch ? Can someone explain this ? IN MY OPINION ITS TIME TO START BOYCOTTING THESE GREEDY ASS PLAYERS AND OWNERS and show THEM WHO THE REAL BOSS IS !!!!!!!!!!

by washingtonwin on Mar 13, 2011 6:47 PM EDT reply actions  

Goodell

Should really resign. It is his job to make the NFL work and smoothly. In that regard he has unquestionably failed. Both the NFL and NFLPA have some valid points but it should never have gotten to here. Deadlines should not be the biggest driving force behind negotiations: the commissioner should be

by speddfreak on Mar 14, 2011 12:00 AM EDT reply actions  

NFLPA had an interesting comment today...

By them decertifying guarantees there will be football this year since the lockout is now illegal. 2011 will be like this year…no salary cap and likely no salary floor. No UFAs.

Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.

by Kevin Ewoldt on Mar 14, 2011 9:09 AM EDT reply actions  

Ken, I think you've kind of left the owners side out of this post, and that's not really fair

I’m sure you read about the Offer the owners had made and the players walked away from. It showed some compromise by both sides; the players wanted to keep the 1 billion for the owners at the same level, and the owners wanted 2 billion. They ended up compromising that 1.5. The owners offered the players the profit statements for all 32 teams. The players union wanted full financial disclosure for the last 10 years-anybody who’s been in business knows that is a completely ridiculous request unless you’re going to buy out the owners.

I’ll tell you who I think the biggest blame can be laid with- Roger Godell and more specifically De Maurice Smith. Smith obviously has something else on his agenda that has nothing to do with football.
Why the players collectively have been so poor at choosing their union leader is beyond me. The player representatives from each team are not idiots, they often seem to be the smartest man in the room. So how is it that we get such an NFLPA leaders as Gene Upshaw (absolutely love the guy is a player, but he’s screwed over his colleagues constantly by just rolling over to every owner demand) and De Maurice Smith,, who really doesn’t seem to have a dog in this fight other than his own political.
this thing was set up to be a cluster flock from first moment-I think the only way a deal gets done, is that when the union reforms that they choose a more pragmatic man/woman to represent their interests.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 14, 2011 10:45 AM EDT reply actions  

Letter from the Commissioner about the offer left on the table for the players…

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players’ union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players’ union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union’s actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 14, 2011 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

I still don't see an argument about why the Owners are due a bigger share of the pie.

Great, they compromised on $1,500,000,000. But who says the owners initial demand of $2B was reasonable at all?

Compromise isn’t a goal. Finding a fair solution is. If someone makes an unreasonable demand, you don’t compromise just so that “everyone gets something”.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 14, 2011 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with the reasoning behind your point…

But I’m looking at it this way-$1 billion split 32 ways is roughly 300,000,000 per team. With that amount of money they have to pay salaries ranging from what? 125 million 141 million last year. Depending on the team there is quite a bunch of staff to be paid as well-Scouts, trainers, training facilities, travel expenses, etc. etc.
After all the overhead is paid for, I’m not really sure how much is left from that original 300 million, but I think a profit statement from each team is enough to find out. Smith’s demand for 10 years of financials is completely ridiculous and I think indefensible.

I agree with you that a good contract both protects and provides equally for the principal signers. The only way you get there is by putting out at least a little trust that the other side. I think the owners know just about everything financially about the players. The players seem to be for the most part ignorant about the financial situation of the owners and teams. Whose fault is that? It’s the players fault by not choosing an effective representative for their union. And as you say it’s hard for the owners argue for more money, is also equally hard for the players to argue for more money.
When players like Carson Palmer say after 10 years "… I’ve got 19 million in the bank" and you stopped to consider that he’s in his very early 30s-then I’d say that reasonable intelligence coupled with a somewhat longer career, will provide a player to be set up for life.
Now if there were some numbskulls out there that just go ahead and blow their money on strip clubs and escalates, if you increase their salary 50% they’re just going to go to more strip clubs and buy bigger escalates.
I know there a lot of people who would disagree with this here, but frankly, this is what is wrong with our country right now-we have lost our democracy and instituted a capitalistic society. The labor strife in Wisconsin and in the NFL is just a microcosm of the macrocosm. In a capitalist society a small percentage of people make most of the money at the expense of the larger group of people. Guess where most of us fall in that equation. Sen. McCain described it best by answering the question "what income level defines middle-class Americans today?" His answer-$5 million
anyone of you qualify as middle-class according to Sen. McCain?

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 14, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whose fault is that? It’s the players fault by not choosing an effective representative for their union.

but weren’t you saying Smith is doing a bad job? Or was that someone else?

IMO he’s playing hardball for his clients interests. Seems like he’s doing his job pretty damn well.

When players like Carson Palmer say after 10 years “… I’ve got 19 million in the bank” and you stopped to consider that he’s in his very early 30s-then I’d say that reasonable intelligence coupled with a somewhat longer career, will provide a player to be set up for life.

It’s all relative. The question isn’t whether or not the league minimum is 300,000. The question is if that’s fair compensation based on the revenue they bring in, the damage to long term health, and the risk to their lives.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 14, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I did say that I thought Smith was looking out more for his own interests

Then the players. He seems to have a different agenda-my guess is political.

My reply to the second half of your comment is this-I agree that it is all relative. But the rules and the compensation and the risks are all laid out on the table. It’s the individual players choice as to whether he wants to play in the NFL the way it’s laid out, no one is holding a gun to their head.
Is it fair compensation? I think probably not. But with only 7% of the nation’s workforce still unionized, I really don’t think the NFL PA is going to get their way.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 15, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

But the rules and the compensation and the risks are all laid out on the table.

And if the players don’t like the status quo (or in this case, owners new proposal) they are free to strike, bargain and negotiate through all legal means to get their way.

It’s benefit of collective bargaining.

"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Mar 15, 2011 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I totally agree-but the NFL PA decertified, there is no more union

Just a bunch of individuals now suing the NFL as a monopoly
it’s a whole different ballgame now

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 17, 2011 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you're math's a little crooked
But I’m looking at it this way-$1 billion split 32 ways is roughly 300,000,000 per team. With that amount of money they have to pay salaries ranging from what? 1

How about $31, 250,000 per team? One billion is 1000 million. 1000 divided by 32 is 31.25….not 300.

by DudleyDoright on Mar 14, 2011 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whoops! A small case of a misplaced decimal there, sorry

But it makes my point even stronger I believe.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Mar 15, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Media Requests please email hogshaven@gmail.com

Managers

Superbowl_small Kevin Ewoldt

Riggins_small Ken Meringolo

Editors

Sb_small Parks Smith

Small Steve Shoup

Chalkboard_football-opt403x300o00s403x300_small UkRedskin

Washington_redskins_helmet_small Redskins News

Authors

Badshirt2__2__small fatpickle

Family_in_disney_small Tiller56

Rg3super_small HTTR4LIFE

Hh_small Ronnie Adkins