Daniel, A True Liberal. Maybe Socialist?

[cemo76 0]

Whats up Daniel. First and foremost congrats on a great run in January. (excluding Australia of Coarse) You played great poker and had most of us cheering you on more then ever. Regarding the NFL blog, I can totally agree with your points. Now mind you that the NFL does do a great amount of Charity Work it usually is done through individuals or their teams. For a league that is the richest by FAR in North America they should definately step up and pay all the retired players what is Owed with regards to disability. I mean in Europe soccer players are treated the same even after they retire and get great pensions and even better Disability coverage. Daniel, Being Canadian myself I think you have the alot of Liberal Views when it comes to Equality, Justice and Capatilism. I totally agree with Competition and teh NFL has None by far. The owners know that the product is so great that they will always make a sick amount of CASH. I am sure there is enough to spread around to retired players. Especially with disabilities. The owners would never get away with that if they were in Canada, Sweden or Great Britian. Sometimes Capatilism allows the Very Rich to Screw over the poor. My 2 Cents.PS. Indianopolis 31 - Chicago 14

[Livaso 0]

I come[came] from the part of Canada where the poor get screwed over by 15% sales tax on top of the 40% tax rate.Its capitalism for the government ;)Give up 48% of your Christmas bonus every year before you get too in support of our government system.

[Balloon guy 158]

Although I hear what you are saying Cemo and DN, and in this case the example you show are good ones for your point, there is the truth that the philosophy that it's someone elses job to take care of you is where I disagree. The really good players who are getting the maximum for their talents aren't expected to take a cut so that past employees get what they should. But the owners are? Because they have more money? If the team fails to fill seats, then the owners lose money ( not often I agree), but if they do sell out they make out. They take the risk, they get the rewards.If you chose to go to work for a company that offers no medical help, but requires you to risk your health every day at work, then what right do you have to complain later?If the people paying the tickets don't object, then nothing will be done. The only other choice is to have the government get involved. They're doing such a good job with online poker, the dmv, the VA and the war, let's invite them into our healthcare system too.

[11 to 1 0]

Although I hear what you are saying Cemo and DN, and in this case the example you show are good ones for your point, there is the truth that the philosophy that it's someone elses job to take care of you is where I disagree. ...

It's everyone's job to take care of everyone. However, philosophy aside, where do you think the retirement money comes from in the avarage Joe's job that does not include Superstars who get more money to do the same thing? That is, where does the retirement money come from for factory workers and cops and life insurance salesmen? And how long do you think the court would ponder before ruling in favor of the guy who didn't get his benefits just because the company decided it didn't want to pay?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Although I hear what you are saying Cemo and DN, and in this case the example you show are good ones for your point, there is the truth that the philosophy that it's someone elses job to take care of you is where I disagree.

Balloon, it appears that there is a contractual obligation for the NFL to provide full disability benefits. If that's the case, you and I can argue the philosophical points of disability, but a contract is a contract.

[Livaso 0]

It's everyone's job to take care of everyone. However, philosophy aside, where do you think the retirement money comes from in the avarage Joe's job that does not include Superstars who get more money to do the same thing? That is, where does the retirement money come from for factory workers and cops and life insurance salesmen? And how long do you think the court would ponder before ruling in favor of the guy who didn't get his benefits just because the company decided it didn't want to pay?

How does that make up for the amount of taxation (especially in Canada)?My dad's a retired roofer. Feel free to ask him, "The workin' man" how he feels about the taxes he was forced to pay in Atlantic Canada. and what its like needing surgery on his leg and waiting 3 months for the surgery line to get to him while he missed work and made less money on EI than he would have if he was allowed to pay for the surgey to get back to work, which he could afford in the first place without the tax rate.

[Balloon guy 158]

Balloon, it appears that there is a contractual obligation for the NFL to provide full disability benefits. If that's the case, you and I can argue the philosophical points of disability, but a contract is a contract.

If that is the case then I am wrong.That's twice this year, I'm not really liking 2007 so far

[Balloon guy 158]

It's everyone's job to take care of everyone. However, philosophy aside, where do you think the retirement money comes from in the avarage Joe's job that does not include Superstars who get more money to do the same thing? That is, where does the retirement money come from for factory workers and cops and life insurance salesmen? And how long do you think the court would ponder before ruling in favor of the guy who didn't get his benefits just because the company decided it didn't want to pay?

I'll let the bolded part go. That's too scary.But where does the money come from? The consumer through higher prices.

[Jam-Fly 8]

Although I hear what you are saying Cemo and DN, and in this case the example you show are good ones for your point, there is the truth that the philosophy that it's someone elses job to take care of you is where I disagree. The really good players who are getting the maximum for their talents aren't expected to take a cut so that past employees get what they should. But the owners are? Because they have more money? If the team fails to fill seats, then the owners lose money ( not often I agree), but if they do sell out they make out. They take the risk, they get the rewards.If you chose to go to work for a company that offers no medical help, but requires you to risk your health every day at work, then what right do you have to complain later?If the people paying the tickets don't object, then nothing will be done. The only other choice is to have the government get involved. They're doing such a good job with online poker, the dmv, the VA and the war, let's invite them into our healthcare system too.

yup, I agree

[Loismustdie 0]

Balloon, it appears that there is a contractual obligation for the NFL to provide full disability benefits. If that's the case, you and I can argue the philosophical points of disability, but a contract is a contract.[/quote No. You can apply for them- if you noticed, medical was already taken care of. These guys aren't worried about ther medical bills. They want to not work now, not any kind of job. Not saying they should have to,but there are definitely 2 sides. These guys made money- if some of that money would have been invested what would it be now?

[cemo76 0]

Guys, lets not kid ourselves. We are not talking about a small town local variety store. Lets put this in the proper scope of things. We are talking about the biggest Sports Business in the world. NFL is thh King of Sports. The argument (I believe) that Daniel is making is that the owners are just outright greedy. There are only a certain percentage who are filing for disability and it would in no way have a drastic effect on the owners pockets to pony up and pay what is owed to the players who have sacrificed their health for the game in the past. Even Joe Namath (who was considered one of the greatest players to ever play) can be credited with bringing the NFL to a larger market is suffering drastically. He has severe arthritis and two replaced knees. Shouldn't he get disbility and compensation for that? (he may be , only using him as an example)" This year the average NFL team is worth $898 million, 211% more than when Forbes began calculating team values eight years ago. Look at it this way: Football team values have increased 11 times more than the S&P 500 since 1998. Profitability? This year the average NFL team posted $30.8 million in operating income " A couple dollars to take care of the past veterans is not too much to ask.Ps. Daniel I'll take Indy and the points.....Want to bet?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Not quite. Owners are often greedy, but the real problem lies with the head of the players union, and frankly, the current group of players. It's the players, and the players union that should be responsible for making sure that their players futures are being looked after. One great step is negotiating contracts that guarantee that retired players will be looked after. That has been done, but it isn't being enforced, and that goofball who is the head of the NFLPA could care less about that fight. He is the man in charge, and should be the person fighting for the retired players. His comments were sickening, "They don't pay me," it's so selfish and ignorant. He doesn't have the players best interests at heart and should step down or be fired. Agents are greedy, owners are greedy, players think they are invincible at 24 years of age and don't look to the future, the head of the NFLPA is an evil man, doctors are asked to lie... lots of people are responsible.

[MemBirdman 0]

Agents are greedy, owners are greedy, players think they are invincible at 24 years of age and don't look to the future, the head of the NFLPA is an evil man, doctors are asked to lie... lots of people are responsible.

This is why everyone needs to be a Green Bay Packer fan. No owner, Agents aren't kowtowed too (see: Javon Walker/Drew Rosenhaus), Jerry Kramer and Ken Ruttgers.

[Loismustdie 0]

Not quite. Owners are often greedy, but the real problem lies with the head of the players union, and frankly, the current group of players. It's the players, and the players union that should be responsible for making sure that their players futures are being looked after. One great step is negotiating contracts that guarantee that retired players will be looked after. That has been done, but it isn't being enforced, and that goofball who is the head of the NFLPA could care less about that fight. He is the man in charge, and should be the person fighting for the retired players. His comments were sickening, "They don't pay me," it's so selfish and ignorant. He doesn't have the players best interests at heart and should step down or be fired. Agents are greedy, owners are greedy, players think they are invincible at 24 years of age and don't look to the future, the head of the NFLPA is an evil man, doctors are asked to lie... lots of people are responsible.

DN- I don't think you quite understand the concept of spin,and what Gumble's number one job was here. He doesn't give a **** about former players- he can't stand Gene Upshaw, and really,Upshaws comment was correct. He doesn't work for former players,he works for current players. Clearly the NHL model is not working, baseball is out of control with salaries and market disparity. The NFL is the model of how to do it correctly,and deliver product where really almost every game is watchable. To rant and rave because it isn't perfect is to miss the big picture completely.

[MemBirdman 0]

The NFL is the model of how to do it correctly,and deliver product where really almost every game is watchable. To rant and rave because it isn't perfect is to miss the big picture completely.

You're focusing on the product; he's focusing on the people behind the product. You're not arguing along the same lines.And for everybody: quit implying that the other side is a bunch of morons. "To rant and rave because it isn't perfect is to miss the big picture completely" implies that you are enlightened and that the other person is dense. Make a better argument or stay out of it...no need for name calling, even if it's only implied.

[socalpoker_j 1]

Not quite. Owners are often greedy, but the real problem lies with the head of the players union, and frankly, the current group of players. It's the players, and the players union that should be responsible for making sure that their players futures are being looked after. One great step is negotiating contracts that guarantee that retired players will be looked after. That has been done, but it isn't being enforced, and that goofball who is the head of the NFLPA could care less about that fight. He is the man in charge, and should be the person fighting for the retired players. His comments were sickening, "They don't pay me," it's so selfish and ignorant. He doesn't have the players best interests at heart and should step down or be fired. Agents are greedy, owners are greedy, players think they are invincible at 24 years of age and don't look to the future, the head of the NFLPA is an evil man, doctors are asked to lie... lots of people are responsible.

Upshaw was a 16-year veteran of the league and played in the days where the money isn't comparable to what it is today, you'd think he'd have some sympathy for the same men that were along side him in "the trenches"... but it seems like he can't put himself in their shoes and sympathize.

[llou 0]

If the people paying the tickets don't object, then nothing will be done. The only other choice is to have the government get involved.

Actually, there are lots of other choices. The problem with many complex situations is that people see only 1 or 2 possible choices. If those are unattractive, they through up their hands and give up. The challenge is to come up with additional options. That's where true genius lies. That's what great leaders do.I'm very good at coming up with brilliant solutions, but here are my first thoughts:1. Public exposure through well-placed news stories, a 60-Minutes piece, etc. could educate the public and the players about the issue.2. Comedic skits, etc. could help expose the hypocracy of a league that brags about its charitable work but doesn't take care of its own retirees. I can easily imagine a Saturday Night Live type skit that would shame the owners and current players.3. Activists and the former players could protest publically outside the stadiums -- causing an "unpleasantness" on game days. Fans of the former players might also get involved in the crusade.The whole idea of activities such as those described above would be to educate the public, educate the current players, educate future players, and embarrass the current players and owners. The current players might push for better enforcement of current contract provisions and push for better care in the future. The current players have the power to fix this. Most are not bad people. They just need to be pushed in the right direction through education and public pressure. The government does not have to do it. The fans do not have to do it. Former and current players who still have influence within the football community can do it.

[Loismustdie 0]

You're focusing on the product; he's focusing on the people behind the product. You're not arguing along the same lines.And for everybody: quit implying that the other side is a bunch of morons. "To rant and rave because it isn't perfect is to miss the big picture completely" implies that you are enlightened and that the other person is dense. Make a better argument or stay out of it...no need for name calling, even if it's only implied.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It's a gentle shove in a different direction,pointing out that there are 2 sides to this, and it's irresponsible to just look at one side. What do you think a guy like Brett Favre or Peyton Manning would tell Dan if he threw this line of thought at them? That's easy to answer- they would say that he wasn't getting the whole story, to look at the source. I'm focusing on the big picture,and in that picture, often in big buisness decisions are made where a percentage gets hurt. That's just buisness. Corporations get away with murder daily,the average CEO makes 400 times what you do. The NFL is no different,it's a buisness as well.

[Loismustdie 0]

Actually, there are lots of other choices. The problem with many complex situations is that people see only 1 or 2 possible choices. If those are unattractive, they through up their hands and give up. The challenge is to come up with additional options. That's where true genius lies. That's what great leaders do.I'm very good at coming up with brilliant solutions, but here are my first thoughts:1. Public exposure through well-placed news stories, a 60-Minutes piece, etc. could educate the public and the players about the issue.2. Comedic skits, etc. could help expose the hypocracy of a league that brags about its charitable work but doesn't take care of its own retirees. I can easily imagine a Saturday Night Live type skit that would shame the owners and current players.3. Activists and the former players could protest publically outside the stadiums -- causing an "unpleasantness" on game days. Fans of the former players might also get involved in the crusade.The whole idea of activities such as those described above would be to educate the public, educate the current players, educate future players, and embarrass the current players and owners. The current players might push for better enforcement of current contract provisions and push for better care in the future. The current players have the power to fix this. Most are not bad people. They just need to be pushed in the right direction through education and public pressure. The government does not have to do it. The fans do not have to do it. Former and current players who still have influence within the football community can do it.

Think about this- I saw this special 2 weeks ago I believe,and I surf the net daily for sports news.and it hasn't even registered as a blip. Why do you think that is? Because they don't care,or because the story is biased?

[llou 0]

Think about this- I saw this special 2 weeks ago I believe,and I surf the net daily for sports news.and it hasn't even registered as a blip. Why do you think that is? Because they don't care,or because the story is biased?

The purpose of my post was not to support or question the validity of the report. I personally do not know whether it was true or not -- and make no claims one way or the other. My purpose was to point out the limits of thinking only in terms of the ticket-buying fans and the government. Such thinking prevents us from exploring all the possibilities.

[Loismustdie 0]

The purpose of my post was not to support or question the validity of the report. I personally do not know whether it was true or not -- and make no claims one way or the other. My purpose was to point out the limits of thinking only in terms of the ticket-buying fans and the government. Such thinking prevents us from exploring all the possibilities.

Hmm. I would say researching the validity of the report may be a neccesary step. That's just me, though.

[llou 0]

Hmm. I would say researching the validity of the report may be a neccesary step. That's just me, though.

Most people would want to take action only if they believed the report to be valid. But as I said, the report itself was not the focus of my post. The report's validity or lack of validity was irrelevant to my topic.

[Tiltinagain 973]

While I agree that it is truly sad that the older players are not being fully taken care of, blaming the owners as just being "greedy" is typical socialism.As BalloonGuy said, the people that stick their necks and wallets on the line to start and operate a business have every right to profit handsomely for doing so. Every owner has used that money not just to line their pockets but to create jobs, bring positive economic imact to the entire area around the stadiums (look at all the restaurants, bars etc... that spring up when a new stadium is built) and national publicity to the city where they are located.The players in pro sports all work under contract (unlike us average joes) that provides for their retirement, health care, work environment and, in most cases, guarantees their salaries (though not in the NFL asside from signing bonuses) even if they are no longer producing and get cut (fired). I was employee of the year last year but if my production drops off they would drop me in a heartbeat and I would have zero recourse and my salary, health care, 401k etc... would stop immediately.My point is, their contracts are negotiated every few years and they have the ability to have provisions written into their contractsto provide for their long term security, both financially and health wise. Because there are very few people in the world that can play professional sports at the level necessary to compete and excell, the players are in a strong position in regards to bargaining power to ensure they are taken care of after they are out of the game.Personal responsibility is key here and it's up to the players to provide for themselves. Either through their own investments or through their contracts.

[11 to 1 0]

Agents are greedy, owners are greedy, players think they are invincible at 24 years of age and don't look to the future, the head of the NFLPA is an evil man, doctors are asked to lie... lots of people are responsible.

"The love of money is the root of great evil." No kidding, huh? But Daniel, this is endemic in our society. In all kinds of jobs, maybe every job everywhere. Doctors are pressured to lie, employees are forced to work under unsafe conditions and while injured or ill. Everyone seems to think this doesn't happen because "they could get sued." But just try it, try to get paperwork or proof. There are millions of these stories in this country. There are worse stories in other countries.

[tipster1964 0]

http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/PlayerBenefits.aspxI have read this and no where can I see where a non-active player is to receive anything for a disability that occurs years after play (12 or more years), even though the diability may stem from active play. Maybe I have over-looked it. Hey, if I smoke, I quit and 20 years later I can hardly move without oxygen and can't work. Can I hold the tobacco companies responsible? I think not, even though cases may be successful in court. I think cases like this are unreasonable. Anything that is obviously destructive to the human body, how could you possibly retaliate monetarily years down the line. Lawyers will always find an angle, but the fact of the matter is, you knew what you were getting into and you knew the possible chance of physical injury was high. Now, if it was a contractual agreement, that is a different story. But, in reveiw of the website for the benefits of the NFLPA ( http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/PlayerBenefits.aspx ), I can only see line of duty benefits within 12 years post retirement.