Jerry Richardson, owner of the Carolina Panthers.
Hardliner.
Asshat.
Richardson, according to sources has told Peyton Manning "what do you know about player safety" at a recent collective bargaining session. While the league has backed Richardson publicly, and denied that ol' Jer has anything but sweet syrupy love and respect for the players, something tells me the report is dead balls accurate.
When a player like Manning, with his own $18+ million money machine cranking away as his career sunsets straight into Canton, is willing to stand firm with the rest of the NFL rank and file, then you know he's probably secretly pissed off at owners like Richardson.
It was reported that Richardson said last year "we made a (expletive) deal last time, and we're going to stick together, and take our league back". Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports fleshes out a new round of inflammatory douchebaggery from the Richardson-Manning dust-up, in the eyes of a source who was in the room.
Jerry's stance on player safety and short careers?
Among other things, Richardson became so angry at Sean Morey(notes) after the recently retired player cited a slew of statistics on player safety and average career length that the Panthers’ owner snapped, “You guys made so much [expletive] money – if you played three years in the NFL, you should own your own [expletive] team.”The bottom line on NFL owners - and truly, pro sports owners in general - is summed up nicely in this column by FoxSports.com's Mark Kriegel, even though the topic was about Albert Pujols about to break the bank, not the NFL.
First, the owners cheat worse than the players. Hence, you have stuff like collusion, $8 hot dogs, and, as is currently the case in the NFL, a steadfast refusal to open up the ledgers.
Second, owners like to be known as fearless businessmen, self-made apostles of market law, when, in fact, they really want to be insulated from the consequences of their bad decisions. That’s why you have salary caps and luxury taxes. Owners are laissez-faire when it comes to parking, concessions and, in the case of certain big-market baseball and basketball clubs, television revenues. But most of them are really angling for welfare, the most preposterous form of which is the publicly financed stadium with an overabundance of luxury boxes.
Amen to all of that. It's like the NFL owners are guys who decided to buy huge McMansions with sub-prime credit. They view the players like their housekeepers. "Hey, this new house is bigger, but it makes all of us 'richer.' Don't you like cleaning this new big house for me? Oh, but you do have to clean 2 more rooms. For less money too, because damn, this house is expensive! Somebody gotta pay the rent!"
My wish for the players: walk away March 5th, and tell the owners: "Call us in February 2012, and see how your financial mood is, minus a whole season, and minus a Super Bowl. You wanted this. We're going to give it to you."
I know, it'll never happen. The players, like usual, will crumble. But just once, I'd like to see a good ol' boy like Richardson get the financial ass whippin' of his life, based on an arrogant miscalculation.
I don't understand the logical in the following owners argument, "Our debt payments to build the new stadium are so large that we need concessions from the players". I thought the point of building the new stadium was to increase revenues and make more money. It the new stadium costs out weigh the increased revenue, that what was the point of building the stadium in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThe debt load on most NFL teams must crushing be to say the least. Their payrolls are huge for 5 months and the other 7 months they have lower payroll with no revenue stream. I want to see teams in all 4 leagues(NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL) go out of business and get better over all competition.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the owners won't open up their books is the most telling part of this charade. If you were an owner, and you were really losing money, wouldn't you be happy to prove it?
ReplyDeleteAlso, gotta say that the proposed 18 game schedule is a very bad idea, and will definitely result in some serious injuries
Richardson SHOULD know first-hand about player safety; he used to play for the Baltimore Colts as a WR. When he played, it was A LOT rougher than it is today. But why the posturing and bullying? No wonder NO ONE wants to play for the Panthers!! HAVE YOU SEEN THE PRODUCT THEY PUT OUT ON THE FIELD?? IT'S FREAKING MINOR LEAGUE FOOTBALL!! AND I'M A PANTHERS FAN!!!
ReplyDeleteWhere is it written that a private business has to open its books to its employees? The owners aren't saying they're losing money; they're saying that they'd like to make more. That's their right. If the players don't like it, they don't have to play. They got free educations - go get a real job.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Wally. I'd love to see scrubs come in and play - the reality is the sport is what we come to watch, not the players. Football especially is more of a team game than any other...so superstars are meaningless. As long as the competition is even (which is should be with all scrubs playing), it'll still be entertaining. Of course, with scrubs, I'd expect much cheaper ticket and concession prices too otherwise I might as well go see a similar product (e.g. arena football, minor league baseball, etc).
ReplyDeleteIt's worth mentioning that Richardson didn't ask the taxpayers to build him a stadium. He sold PSL's so that in essence the people that wanted it paid for it. Just sayin'...
ReplyDeleteFirst off, anything from Yahoo has a monstrous liberal leaning, so factor that into any story coming from them. Second, I find it kind of refreshing that someone is speaking plainly and not shading it in twelve layers of BS. What do QB's know about safety, really? Well, Richardson does appear to be an asshat, but I would think dealing with a bunch of spoiled whiny dimwitted athletes can do that to you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Czabe! As much as I would hate to see Indy take it in the ass financially...I would love to see the players bend these greedy owners over and give em a taste! They all make me sick. Holding communities hostage for stadium dollars and then rape the same people on game day with exuberant prices or else your game is blacked out if the seats aren't full...Bleh!
ReplyDeleteSchmoe, you are correct. There is no logic in the building of the new stadiums. In Pittsburgh, they were voted down overwhelmingly in 1997, but the city built them anyway and is now broke. The stadiums were built to pay the exorbitant salaries of the Marvin Miller era (1976-???)
ReplyDeleteSo Boss, you really expect lower ticket prices if scrubs play? You are delusional, you realize that, don't you?
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I'm not weeping for either side, but it is ridiculous that all owners are making a fortune, the product has never been more popular, and they are attempting to kill the golden goose. They don't have to give the players everything, but a lock-out will not be pretty for either side.
Why don't the fans MAN UP and quit f******* paying for this sht. I love football. But, if people just QUIT going to the games, then they take the power back from the owners and the players. Then maybe "Joe Schmoe" can take his family to a game without pimping his wife out for tickets!
ReplyDeleteFuck these greedy fucking owners. If I'm going to pony up the ridiculus money to see football then that money should go to the motherfuckers risking themselves on the field. If anything there should be a strike and not a lockout in football. NFL players are by far the worst treated athletes in professional sports.
ReplyDeleteHow many of you that support the player's union also support the unions protesting in Wisconsin? The owners assume all the risk, that's why they make the money. If fans stop buying tickets they still have to pay the players. Even though their contracts are not "guaranteed" the players still have it better than any of us. If they don't want to accept the owner's terms, someone else would be more than willing to do do their job for less. You talk about "killing the golden goose"? Letting the union hijack the league into unsustainable compensation would do just that. Remember what happened to the automakers? They couldn't afford to pay the crazy benefits that the UAW bullied them into.
ReplyDeleteImho the owners assume a risk alright...the risk in suffocating in the money that piles up from this league and sweetheart deals from their respective communities. How much risk is involved in holding cities hostage for stadiums. The cities build them with tax dollars and the owner gets rich on every event that takes place there. With relatively little investment.
ReplyDeleteIf fans and cities stop paying for it, who loses out? The owners. The idiot politicians that approve taxpayer funded stadiums are the real villains. (idiot voters that keep electing them are pretty bad too) In Richardson's case, by the way, the taxpayers did NOT fund the stadium.
ReplyDelete