View Single Post
09-12-2004, 12:35 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Astaroth
The only reason the NFL has this is because they crushed the Union back in their last labour dispute. That being said the NFL is healthy only because of the massive TV contract that they enjoy but trust me when 2007 rolls around, the s*** is going to hit the fan to say it lightly. I am totally against non-guaranteed contracts, say what you want about the players' earning power but a contract is a contract. Unless of course you let the players have the same privilege and negociate when he wants and can leave when he wants?
If you are so against non-guarenteed contracts, obviously siding with the players, then where do you sit on the issue of players sitting out, trying to get more money and more years when they still have a contract in place. By not guaranteeing the contract, the player has the incentive needed to play the game to the best of his ability, and not drag his ass for 82 games. Gone would be the excuse that the player needs the right motivation...How about not getting paid? I think that would stoke the fires of some lazy players who play good enough to get the big deal, and then dissapear for the duration, only to start the cycle again in their last year of the deal. It would greatly increase production, while keeping the game intact. No need to widen the nets, get rid of the lines, make bigger arenas...Just get the players to live up to their god given talents. It should be a privelege to make your living playing a game, not a right.

Puckhead is offline