Blog Entry

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Posted on: April 22, 2011 4:42 pm
 
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell challenged the former union in a wide ranging interview with USA Today . Pro Bowl running back Steven Jackson read what Goodell said and wasn't happy about it.

First, a portion of Goodell's comments. "They're challenging fundamental aspects that have made the league successful and popular with the fans," Goodell said. "They're going after the draft, as an example, pursuing the draft as illegal. They're pursuing free agency restrictions as illegal. They're pursuing aspects of the salary cap as illegal. That's what they're saying. We don't believe that. It's been negotiated. We think they've been good for the players, the clubs and most importantly, the fans. It's what's created a successful product. So the union attorneys are attacking everything that we think has made the league successful."

Basically, what Goodell is saying is that the former union doesn't want the draft, free agency or the salary cap. Now, Goodell doesn't directly say that but that's the impression he leaves with readers. None of those things, of course, are true. It's the opposite. The former union, of course, doesn't want free agency restrictions.

When Jackson saw Goodell's comments he responded quickly saying Goodell wasn't telling the entire story.

"The glaring omission from the commissioner's comments is the truth," said Jackson in a statement obtained by CBSSports.com. "We are challenging his lockout of players and fans. How could he miss that?"

It's likely Jackson won't be the lone player to respond to Goodell.



Category: NFL
Tags: Lockout
 
Comments

Since: Jan 20, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:33 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

I am not sure profitability is in question is it? I think that the owners are basing a lot of what they are doing on increasing costs. The costs are rising disproportionately to the profit. I know that the NFL makes billions and has made mroe and more every year. However, that will plateau and good businessmen know that (take a look at NASCAR....different but you get my point). You can only raise hotdog and beer prices so much before the law of diminishing return kicks in. You raise prices enough+great tv's and covereage+crazy player salaries+increased gas prices to get to the game=fans watching at home and getting to the bathroom and back before the next play starts. Someday fans will wise up. The owners know this. They didn't become gazillionaires and become owners because they didn't plan for 15 years out. They are not ready to make a deal. When they are ready it will happen and it will be quick because both sides know what they have to give for what they want.




Since: Jan 20, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:33 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

I am not sure profitability is in question is it?  I think that the owners are basing a lot of what they are doing on increasing costs.  The costs are rising disproportionately to the profit.  I know that the NFL makes billions and has made mroe and more every year.  However, that will plateau and good businessmen know that (take a look at NASCAR....different but you get my point).  You can only raise hotdog and beer prices so much before the law of diminishing return kicks in.  You raise prices enough+great tv's and covereage+crazy player salaries+increased gas prices to get to the game=fans watching at home and getting to the bathroom and back before the next play starts.  Someday fans will wise up.  The owners know this.  They didn't become gazillionaires and become owners because they didn't plan for 15 years out.  They are not ready to make a deal.  When they are ready it will happen and it will be quick because both sides know what they have to give for what they want.



Since: Oct 3, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:30 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

IT AMAZES ME WHEN THE GENERAL PUBLIC THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON WITH THE NFL WHEN MOST DONT EVEN KNOW WHATS GOING ON IN THERE OWN HOUSES,THERE OWN JOBS OR LIVES. IF THE OWNERS WERE SO CLEAN AND ON THE UP AND UP AND THEY ARE WILLING TO SPEAK OUT LOUD WHAT THE FACTS ARECONCERNING THERE PROFUITS AND LOSES THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEMS OPENING UP THE BOOKS , IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF I DONT HAVE TO SHOW YOU MY BOOKS, RIGHT NOW IT IS A LOCK OUT AND NOT ANLY ARE THE OWNERSHIP MISSING OUT THE PLAYERS ARE ALSO AND MOST OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR ALL THIS STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE THE FANS !!! YOU SEE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING OR NOT DO SOMETHING IT MAY NOT BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH IT TO BRING ABOUT RECONCILLATION AND AGREEMENT.



Since: Oct 18, 2006
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:20 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

 I think the reason the owners wont open the books has nothing to do with the players. It has to do with the fact that a franchise like Dallas or N.Y. doesn't want to have to explain to Cininnati, Cleveland or K.C. why they're making so much more. That might open the large market teams up to a revenue share with the smaller market teams - a la baseball. I doubt they'd like that.

You are aware that the NFL already revenue shares or teams like the Packers and Bills would have folded decades ago?
There is no reason to open your books to your emplyees, if you don't want to work for what I'm willing to pay you then go somewhere else to find a job. Still, restrictions on free agency do seem to be open for wider interpretation. If part of the reasoning in allowing franchise tags and other restrictions to NFL clubs was to let them protect their considerable investments in high paid players then if rookies are limited in the rookie contracts, does that make the investment a club has made in a rookie preclude clubs from using franchise tags on players in their rookie contracts because the clubs can't have invested that much in them? You pay a rookie $100 million when he hasn't played a down, I don't want to lose him in 4 years. You pay a rookie $12 million over 4 years, I don't see where he should be restricted. Maybe the franchise and transitional tags need to reevaluated by both sides alike given the liklihood of limits on rookie contracts. Thoughts anyone?



Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:18 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

I'm a total advocate of unions. However, what a union is supposed to do is to represent its members in terms of negotiating fair compensation and treatment of it's employees and safe working conditions.
To me, it's a little strange to call this collection of millionaires a "union", but let's not digress.
A union has no right to be privy to managements internal reports regarding costs and profitablity. Management has decided that it's paying too much in salaries and wants to renegotiate its deal. They also want to add games. 
There seems no basis whatsoever to these claims from management and the extra games carry additional injury and safety concerns for the players. If I'm a union leader, I say no to any concessions and in exchange for the extra two games, I'd request additional compensation in the area of 10%, should the players even agree that playing the extra two games is in their best interests.
The owners crying poor is a ridiculous argument, and for the players to capitulate would be ridiculous as well. 
The players simply need to hold their ground and insist on no concessions to management. If management can present a compelling case of declining profitability, there would be reasons to have dialogue about concessions. However, there's simply no reason to believe this is the case. In fact, far from it. 
I have no idea of what managements' true intentions are. The league is more profitable and popular than ever. These are extremely rich men making considerable money, watching the value of their investments grow exponentially, that simply think they can wear down the players due to their lack of financial discipline.
There's no chance of this ending quickly as long as management is seeking concessions. 



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 8:52 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Why is it such a stretch to ask what NFL teams (companies) are making? Other than the fact that fans probably don't want to know how much their team is making off of them. Then you might question those ticket prices at $7 beers.

The league already made a very fair offer to the union.  They are willing to allow a 3rd party both sides agree upon to open their books.  But that wasn't good enough for the union becauses how the LEAGUE IS DOING isn't enough.   They want to know how each and every team is doing.. they want to know exactly what Jerry Jones spends his money on.   It's not good enough for a professional 3rd party to analyze the books, listen to both sides and then help bring the two sides closer together.  The union or whatever is left of it is a joke.....
But this is what we do know has happened so far......  10 percent of these fools they call athletes have already arranged for high interest loans because they already can't afford to make ends meet when in reality they haven't even missed a check yet.   And another 20 percent of these idiots we call athletes are in the process of acquiring the same high interest loans if and when it becomes  officially that paychecks will be missed.  We also know that a group of about 70 NFL players have supposedly retained a lawyer because they want access to the negotiations. They want to be at the table but even their union doesn't want that to happen.......  once again, this so called union is a joke. 
What union supporters on these boards and elsewhere fail to see is until the players are willing to share in some of the risk they shouldn't have the right to open anybody's books.   You want 50 percent of the team profits?  Fine.  Then if things go wrong you share in 50 percent of the losses.  Why should a player on a team losing money share in league profits he has nothing to do with and contributes nothing to?    Your argument that the players are the product and without them the owners have nothing is extremely weak to say the least.  The owners could start a new league today with much lower salaries and their own rules in place and get the same talent they have today from the same place these buffoons came from... the NFL draft.   These owners also have very profitable businesses in their lives and will be successful with or without the NFL.... the players can't say the same. 




Since: Apr 11, 2008
Posted on: April 22, 2011 8:17 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth


I got it!   If the players want to share than share in everything.   When you become part of a team you share in the profit and the loss.

So your playing in Carolina and the Panther organization takes a bath in 2011.   The players and owners would all share in the loss based on the percentage they are earning.   So the higher paid players have to pay the most back when the team is losing money.   Oh by the way since they are now sharing their is no free agency for 6 years.   Since owners and players all have a say in the running of the team they can all decide on how much a player is worth (That should be fun to read about).  The only thing that would not change is the draft.   There still would be one.   However, there will be a minimum salary that will be in effect for two years, but no max amount.   If the player being drafted does not sign he will not play.  A player drafted is owned by that team for two years.  If a drafted player turns into an MVP the players can always vote to have his salary increased.   That should be fun.   Guess when the player want to dip into the owner's pocket things are cool, but i can't want for a 5 year vet to vote a second year stud running back money that is comint out of his pocket.

Come on lets start thinking out of the box.   Do NOT stirke!  The NFL will start standing for "not for long" if they don't figure out that a strike is going to hurt a lot of people who do not play football that make a living from it while also helping to make the trip to a game an experience.

I love football.   I look forward to the fall every year.  I think the league is fantastic and the product they have put together a joy to watch.   However, in today's economic chaos to go out and strike is selfish.   WHY?   Is a few Billion such a bad deal.   How about instead of salaries you focus on health care and retirement?  I just get pissed when I think that an average player in 3 years will make more than someone making $100K and working 30 years.  Than I have to read all about their antics, lack of integrity and disrespect for the game.  Granted I guess most people who get $100M to play would come into camp and not be able to practice because they might kill themselves they are so freaking out of shape.

I can't see striking when the lowest paid player is making at a minimum $100K.   Specially when there are so many people working at McDonalds just to have a place to sleep.

How many more people will be out on the street because of a strike?  A lot of small business count of the NFL.

Greed is not good no matter how many times Gordon Greko says it is!




Since: Dec 7, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 8:11 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Basically, what Goodell is saying is that the former union doesn't want the draft, free agency or the salary cap.

With apologies to Mike Freeman, that should say what Goodell is saying is that the former union doesn't want the draft, restrictions on free agency, or the salary cap.  It makes a little difference...



Since: Sep 7, 2007
Posted on: April 22, 2011 8:03 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Secret42: does your boss open his books to you
I work for a publicly traded company, and own stock in said company. So... YES. "A company listed on the NYSE Alternext US is required to publish and furnish to its shareholders an annual report containing audited financial statements prepared in conformity with the requirements of the SEC." http://www.nyse.com/regulation/nyse

alternextus/1232065810717.html

Why is it such a stretch to ask what NFL teams (companies) are making? Other than the fact that fans probably don't want to know how much their team is making off of them. Then you might question those ticket prices at $7 beers.




Since: Sep 10, 2008
Posted on: April 22, 2011 8:02 pm
 

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Yep, Plenty of College players that are spoiled and expecting more money that any other rookies in NFL history. I'm not saying its the college players fault. It's to fall on the owners that are throwing those BIG dollar figures out there TO ENTICE!!! This is not the point. Without performers (players) there is no show........Period. If you think the owners are not doing the math to understand the BOTTOM LINE...then think again. The players need a agent....Not the one they have. THIS GUY IS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF.. Is an idiot. You guys need to understand the reason why the question is ASKED open the books is because the average Joe can't!


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com