Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Posted on: February 15, 2011 3:57 pm
 
Posted by Will Brinson

On Sunday, a report leaked out that Panthers owner Jerry Richardson had some, um, interesting words for NFL stars Peyton Manning and Drew Brees during a meeting of NFL and NFLPA personnel in Dallas.

Turns out, he might have said some more stuff, too -- according to Yahoo! Sports' Mike Silver, Richardson had a little advice for Sean Morey when the retired player tried to cite some statistics about player safety.

"You guys made so much [expletive] money – if you played three years in the NFL, you should own your own [expletive] team," Richardson reportedly told Morey.

Another player present for the sessions described them as a nightmare to begin with before taking a potshot at the performance of Richardson's Panthers in 2010.

"It was bad from the start," said one player who attended the session. "[Richardson] opened the meeting by describing how he was almost annoyed how we would ask for that meeting on their busiest weekend of the year. And I’m thinking, 'Your team finished 2-14. You shouldn’t be that busy. Why are you worrying about how busy you are during Super Bowl weekend?'"

Boam, roasted, etc. But what does the guy who originally got dogged, Drew Brees, think about Richardson's comments? (Those comments, by the way, were classified as "" by the Panthers PR staff.)

Well, he appeared on Mad Dog Radio on Sirius XM recently, and downplayed the significance of Richardson's comments.

"Well, I mean, this is all I can say is, yeah, I was in that meeting and obviously anytime there’s negotiations I think there’s some back and forth to those," Brees said on Mad Dog Radio, via Pro Football Talk. "And I wouldn’t say that things were disrespectful but what I would say is that there’s are a lot of issues to get through and we’re obviously not going to agree on everything and so it's a process and there are a lot of things to consider here. So hopefully we can continue to make progress here from now until that March fourth date. I think we're all hopeful that a deal will get done but if it doesn’t then we will deal with that."

The NFL has Richardson's back too -- Greg Aiello told the Herald Online's Darin Gantt that "absolutely nothing has changed" with respect to Richardson playing the role of lead negotiator for the league.

That sentiment was echoed by his colleagues.

"There is no more respected owner in the league than Jerry Richardson," New York Giants president and CEO John Mara said Tuesday. "In his role as the co-chair of the owners' negotiating committee, he brings integrity, the desire to always do the right thing and he has the full respect of all the owners."

Richardson's role probably won't change, but it's fairly obvious that he's not exactly making the NFLPA and its members too happy with negotiations (to say the least). Perhaps that's part of a longer-tailed plan to improve the league's bargaining position, or perhaps it's simply putting the most stringent negotiator at the forefront of the labor talks.

Either way, Richardson doesn't appear to be stepping back from the negotiations and that could mean things get a little ugly before we even get a glimpse at the light at the end of the labor tunnel.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 10, 2012 2:45 am
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

I actually better to appreciate you this amazing great page .I really it goes without saying most pleasurable almost all very small slice of it. I have one added any saying encompassing net sale how does someone decide the most up-to-date belongings you specified.



Since: Jul 31, 2009
Posted on: February 17, 2011 12:19 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

2-14 dude

Yes, I am aware.  You do actually watch the NFL, right?  Panthers were 1-15 in 2001, lost SB by last second Pats FG in 2003.  Dude.

And yes, there will be no free agents headed your way.

I hope you are right, at least with the big money ones. 

No one outside of Carolina agrees with you, especially about Richardson being "likeable

So his fan base likes him, which makes him a bad owner, according to his fanbase...?  Lol, that is some bizarre logic, but ok.  And that must be why the current Mara in charge just called Richardson the most respected owner in the league.

Of course, then there is Michael Silver, who does owner rankings, going back to 2006.  Here are some

2006 - Richardson, 6th overall


2007 - 3rd overall


2008 - 4th overall


And a quote from one owner in this article:

He is, as one owner describes it, a consigliere to Goodell. “Whenever there are ugly, messy disputes behind-the-scenes, Jerry’s one of the guys Roger uses to go settle it,” the owner says. “He doesn’t shoot his mouth off, he treats people with respect and everyone likes him.”

2009 - 3rd overall


2010 - 3rd overall


You were saying???

No one made him give Delhomme all that cash, and now he wants rules to save him from himself.

What are you babbling about?  1) Hurney, the GM, was behind that contract.  Richardson signed off on it, but it's not like it was his idea.  And you might have heard, John Fox was quite partial to Delhomme.  2) If you think the CBA negotiations are about Richardson saving himself from himself, you might officially be retarded, excuse me, handicapable.






Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: February 16, 2011 4:33 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Does anyone else see the irony in the owner of football's worst franchise commenting upon the intelligence of others?

I would love to know how you figure the Panthers are the worst franchise in football...

 This is the guy that said Rae Carruth was innocent

I don't remember that at all, and have followed the Panthers closely since their inception.  He still refuses to go after low-character players because of how badly they were burned by the Carruth situation.

At least he won't escape repurcussions - the Panthers can say goodbye to any chance of signing a free agent for the next 5 years or so

So we won't have Dan Snyder, that's fantastic, imo.  And btw, most players really like him, because he is the only owner to have actually played in the league.  Don't take my word for it, ask Steve Smith, possibly the most hot-headed player in the league.  Amazingly, almost no one likes and respects JR more...

Richardson is one of those guys everybody hates, and now everyone else knows why. 

You have obviously never read an interview with any former Panther player.  I would say current, but no way they bash the boss.  But every single player that has left has had nothing but great things to say about him.  Even those like Peppers who left under less-than-pleasant circumstances.

He is bitter, mean, and doesn't no squat about football

Yes, the only owner to have ever played the game, who played with Johnny Unitas, no less, "doesnt (k)no(w) squat about football."  LOL

But being a Saint's fan I love the way he just killed his franchise, a division foe, for the foreseeable future.

Yet, ironically, your franchise was founded in 1966, and did not make it to a championship game for 44 years.  The Panthers were founded 29 years later, in 1995, and made a SB in 8 years.  44 vs 8 - yeah, JR is the one who mismanages franchises...
2-14 dude.  Now put the pipe back down.  And yes, there will be no free agents headed your way.  No one outside of Carolina agrees with you, especially about Richardson being "likeable".  No one made him give Delhomme all that cash, and now he wants rules to save him from himself.



Since: Jul 31, 2009
Posted on: February 16, 2011 12:03 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Does anyone else see the irony in the owner of football's worst franchise commenting upon the intelligence of others?

I would love to know how you figure the Panthers are the worst franchise in football...

 This is the guy that said Rae Carruth was innocent

I don't remember that at all, and have followed the Panthers closely since their inception.  He still refuses to go after low-character players because of how badly they were burned by the Carruth situation.

At least he won't escape repurcussions - the Panthers can say goodbye to any chance of signing a free agent for the next 5 years or so

So we won't have Dan Snyder, that's fantastic, imo.  And btw, most players really like him, because he is the only owner to have actually played in the league.  Don't take my word for it, ask Steve Smith, possibly the most hot-headed player in the league.  Amazingly, almost no one likes and respects JR more...

Richardson is one of those guys everybody hates, and now everyone else knows why. 

You have obviously never read an interview with any former Panther player.  I would say current, but no way they bash the boss.  But every single player that has left has had nothing but great things to say about him.  Even those like Peppers who left under less-than-pleasant circumstances.

He is bitter, mean, and doesn't no squat about football

Yes, the only owner to have ever played the game, who played with Johnny Unitas, no less, "doesnt (k)no(w) squat about football."  LOL

But being a Saint's fan I love the way he just killed his franchise, a division foe, for the foreseeable future.

Yet, ironically, your franchise was founded in 1966, and did not make it to a championship game for 44 years.  The Panthers were founded 29 years later, in 1995, and made a SB in 8 years.  44 vs 8 - yeah, JR is the one who mismanages franchises...



Since: Jul 31, 2009
Posted on: February 16, 2011 11:50 am
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Dude, don't you think Panther fans have it bad enough?  Why you dumping on them -- they can't control what moron owns the team.  I wouldn't wish their situation on anyone

The irony here is that most Panthers fans really like JR.  He is routinely listed as one of the best owners in the league.  Hell, we have only had a team since 1995, have made 2 NFC Championships, and were a hair away from winning a SB.  So direct your pity towards Cleveland, Detroit, oh can't forget the worst, OAKLAND, lol.  JR knows what he is doing.  The Panthers fans that piss and moan about him mostly want him to sign more big-name free agents...  Do you really think they want Dan Synder? And the big-time free agents the Panthers have signed turned out to be just... ok - Mike Wahle, Ken Lucas, and Keyshawn Johnson were all highly touted, were all highly paid, and all performed like players making fractions of their salaries. 

The issue is really that a large number of Panther fans have been bandwagon jumpers their entire lives, before the Carolinas got a team.  There are still tons of Cowboys and Skins fans throughout the state (I live in NC, venture to SC as infequently as possible, lol).  They never really followed football, they don't understand that teams are not built through free-agency, and plenty, judging by message boards, etc, still think one big free agent can make or break a team.  And, of course, those people that are the angriest, shout the loudest.  Rarely do I feel the need to get online, and post about how great this organization is, and it is, especially for one so young.

The Panthers dumped a long-term QB before last season - that equates to hitting the "reset" button for any team.  But calling JR a "moron" for this event - which was apparently blown waaay out of proportion by some offended players - after he built a food empire to get the money to fund a team from next to nothing, fought like hell to bring an expansion team to a smaller market, and has largely left the football decisions to the football guys... well, what more do you want from an owner? 

Panther fans put on their 89 jerseys, tailgate, and toss back beers like everyone else, all because they love football, just like fans in Chicago, Philadelphia, Kansas City, etc.  Pull for your team, but quit hatin' on them.

Hell yeah we do, and we have better BBQ too, lol.  I appreciate the comments, and was certainly not trying to be insulting or anything here.  I just wanted to let ya'll (you know I'm from NC now, lol) know that JR is not the idiot he is portrayed to be by many Panther fans.  I am not trying to say that they are not "real" fans, only that their football IQ is not particularly high.  Oh, and there are still a ton of 90 and 17 jerseys around here too....  Now let me have it, lol. 



Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: February 16, 2011 10:21 am
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

AES, Thanks for the correction!
Thats even better, lock em all out until the can appreciate what they have.




Since: Jan 10, 2011
Posted on: February 15, 2011 10:06 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Dude, don't you think Panther fans have it bad enough?  Why you dumping on them -- they can't control what moron owns the team.  I wouldn't wish their situation on anyone.  Panther fans put on their 89 jerseys, tailgate, and toss back beers like everyone else, all because they love football, just like fans in Chicago, Philadelphia, Kansas City, etc.  Pull for your team, but quit hatin' on them.



Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: February 15, 2011 6:31 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Of course the real issue here is the absudity of the owners wanting to make laws to save them from themselves.  Why can't they simply negotiate, one player at a time, salaries like evryone else does?  Why do the owners fear free-markets and capitalism so much?  Jerry Jones can sell non-existsnet seats, hold the city of Arlington up for a $350 million dollar ransom, but claims he needs salary caps because he is gong broke?  Puh-lease.  Revenue is skyrocketing, owners are getting more tax breaks than ever before, and top prevent any of these windfalls from going to "greedy players" they seek to block the most basic of all employment rituals - salary negotiations .

1.  Nobody held the City of Arlington "for ranson" -- Arlignton volunteered to get the Cowboys, and the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars the team will generate for the city over the next 20 or 30 years.
2.  The CBA is not done unilaterally by the owners -- it involves the agreement of the players too.  If the players want to decertify their union then, yes, salaries will be negotiated on a player by player basis, but so will things like pensions, guaranteed money, health care, etc and the league could then also unilaterally introduce a 18, 20 or 22 game schedule and the players only option would be play or no job/no pay.  Also, things like veteran MINIMUM salaries would go away.  Don't try to pretend that the CBA only protects the owners, if it did, the players would never agree to bargain collectively.
3.  Quit using Jerry Jones as the scapegoat..I have not heard anyone claim the Cowboys are losing money.  Obviously, larger revenue teams like the Cowboys are not losing money.  If anyone is losing money it would be smaller market teams AND THERE ALREADY IS A SALARY CAP genius, the question is how big is the cap going to be -- what percentage of revenue is guaranteed to the players versus the owners.
4.  What "tax breaks" are you referring to?  To my knowledge there are no special tax breaks for NFL owners that would not apply to millionair players as well.  And if an owner, say Jerry Jones since you like him, invests 100s of millions of dollars into a team and a billion+ dollars of his own money into a stadium, why is it a "windfall" if he earns a profit on his investment (after paying the players (employees) tens of millions of dollars in salary?  Is it a "windfall" that should be given to employees if GM, Ford, AT&T or any other business earns a profit -- you yell "communism" but then seem to think we should force the owners to divest their profits to the worker, that is communism.
5.  Nobody has said salaries would not be negotiable...they always have been always will be.  The issue is only a rookie scale and the total salary cap number.

It is amazing how protected the owners are.  In almost every state, in almost every industry, work-at-will exists.  That means an employee can quit or be fired for any reason.  Not in football.  They seek to prohibit working for who you want and for what you can negotiate.  Sincde when is the NFL a microcosm of communism and why is it a good thing?

Employment at will only applies where there is no contract.  If I sign a contract with my employer it gives us both rights and obligations.  The NFL players elected to have a CBA with the owners....doing so they AGREED to the draft, the only mechanism that acts to "prohibit working for who you want" and a salary cap that prohibits, to some extent, working for "what you can negotiate".  If the player does not like having his options limited, sign only a 1 year contract -- of course that means no huge guaranteed signing bonuses which you get no matter how bad a year you have.  Having collective bargaining with a union is not communism -- I defy you to show me a truly communist state with labor unions trying to dictate the terms of their employment. If it were communism every player would make exactly the same amount of money, after all they all do the same job, but no-they are free to negotiate their salaries within the confines of the AGREED salary cap.

We can disagree on terms in a CBA are fair or not -- that is what the players and owners are doing now -- but to insinuate that the CBA benefits only the owners and somehow constitutes communism is just ridiculous.
Nevermind, I just saw that you are a Cowboys fan.  Your response was nothing but pure homerism...



Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: February 15, 2011 6:30 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Of course the real issue here is the absudity of the owners wanting to make laws to save them from themselves.  Why can't they simply negotiate, one player at a time, salaries like evryone else does?  Why do the owners fear free-markets and capitalism so much?  Jerry Jones can sell non-existsnet seats, hold the city of Arlington up for a $350 million dollar ransom, but claims he needs salary caps because he is gong broke?  Puh-lease.  Revenue is skyrocketing, owners are getting more tax breaks than ever before, and top prevent any of these windfalls from going to "greedy players" they seek to block the most basic of all employment rituals - salary negotiations .

1.  Nobody held the City of Arlington "for ranson" -- Arlignton volunteered to get the Cowboys, and the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars the team will generate for the city over the next 20 or 30 years.
2.  The CBA is not done unilaterally by the owners -- it involves the agreement of the players too.  If the players want to decertify their union then, yes, salaries will be negotiated on a player by player basis, but so will things like pensions, guaranteed money, health care, etc and the league could then also unilaterally introduce a 18, 20 or 22 game schedule and the players only option would be play or no job/no pay.  Also, things like veteran MINIMUM salaries would go away.  Don't try to pretend that the CBA only protects the owners, if it did, the players would never agree to bargain collectively.
3.  Quit using Jerry Jones as the scapegoat..I have not heard anyone claim the Cowboys are losing money.  Obviously, larger revenue teams like the Cowboys are not losing money.  If anyone is losing money it would be smaller market teams AND THERE ALREADY IS A SALARY CAP genius, the question is how big is the cap going to be -- what percentage of revenue is guaranteed to the players versus the owners.
4.  What "tax breaks" are you referring to?  To my knowledge there are no special tax breaks for NFL owners that would not apply to millionair players as well.  And if an owner, say Jerry Jones since you like him, invests 100s of millions of dollars into a team and a billion+ dollars of his own money into a stadium, why is it a "windfall" if he earns a profit on his investment (after paying the players (employees) tens of millions of dollars in salary?  Is it a "windfall" that should be given to employees if GM, Ford, AT&T or any other business earns a profit -- you yell "communism" but then seem to think we should force the owners to divest their profits to the worker, that is communism.
5.  Nobody has said salaries would not be negotiable...they always have been always will be.  The issue is only a rookie scale and the total salary cap number.

It is amazing how protected the owners are.  In almost every state, in almost every industry, work-at-will exists.  That means an employee can quit or be fired for any reason.  Not in football.  They seek to prohibit working for who you want and for what you can negotiate.  Sincde when is the NFL a microcosm of communism and why is it a good thing?

Employment at will only applies where there is no contract.  If I sign a contract with my employer it gives us both rights and obligations.  The NFL players elected to have a CBA with the owners....doing so they AGREED to the draft, the only mechanism that acts to "prohibit working for who you want" and a salary cap that prohibits, to some extent, working for "what you can negotiate".  If the player does not like having his options limited, sign only a 1 year contract -- of course that means no huge guaranteed signing bonuses which you get no matter how bad a year you have.  Having collective bargaining with a union is not communism -- I defy you to show me a truly communist state with labor unions trying to dictate the terms of their employment. If it were communism every player would make exactly the same amount of money, after all they all do the same job, but no-they are free to negotiate their salaries within the confines of the AGREED salary cap.

We can disagree on terms in a CBA are fair or not -- that is what the players and owners are doing now -- but to insinuate that the CBA benefits only the owners and somehow constitutes communism is just ridiculous
Laughable response really, as laughable as inaccurate.  If controlling where an individual will work, and then not allowing said individual to even have a say in his salary isn't communist, then nothing is.

Yes, Jones held the city for ransom (maybe look up ransom).  He said build me my monstrosity or I will leave.  He demanded payment in return to keep the team there - textbook definition of ransom.  If it such a great economic deal, why did the city raise taxes across the board to pay for it?  The citizens pay, but get little in return, also known as losing money.

You can't say various things are okay because the CBA says so on on hand, and then on the other say that the players have no right to negotiate a CBA. Huh?

But you really miss the point, which is that reveunes have soared, tax breaks are abundant (if you aren't aware of the huge tax breaks owners get in building these new stadiums then you haven't been paying attention), and as the owners hit new levels of wealth they plead poverty.

Again, so why are NFL owners afraid to simply negotioate contracts one on one as capitalism dictates?  There is no need for the draft and salary caps (almost like slavery really, and yes genius, of course I realize they already exist - that is my point, that the current CBA so favors the owners that it would insane to blame a work-stoppage on the players.  The owners have all the advanatges and yet are still locking out the players, please keep up) if the owners have an inkling of a clue as top what the players are really worth.

So the owners unilateraly make an 18 game schedule (like they were doing anyway).  The players can unilaterally all get sick for those two games as well.

I never said force the owners to divest their wealth, I said prevent the owners from blocking negotiations or capping them in any way.  An owner should be able to spend as much or little as they like.  Artifical regulatory caps prevent that from happening.

 As any reasonable individual can see, a strike will be on the owners.  Stop treating players as property, and treat them as labor instead.  Any good manager knows that peopel are his top assets.  To treat them this poorly belies poor management (see Richardson - ehxibit A)



Since: May 17, 2008
Posted on: February 15, 2011 5:58 pm
 

Was Richardson exchange with players even worse?

Of course the real issue here is the absudity of the owners wanting to make laws to save them from themselves.  Why can't they simply negotiate, one player at a time, salaries like evryone else does?  Why do the owners fear free-markets and capitalism so much?  Jerry Jones can sell non-existsnet seats, hold the city of Arlington up for a $350 million dollar ransom, but claims he needs salary caps because he is gong broke?  Puh-lease.  Revenue is skyrocketing, owners are getting more tax breaks than ever before, and top prevent any of these windfalls from going to "greedy players" they seek to block the most basic of all employment rituals - salary negotiations.

1.  Nobody held the City of Arlington "for ranson" -- Arlignton volunteered to get the Cowboys, and the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars the team will generate for the city over the next 20 or 30 years.
2.  The CBA is not done unilaterally by the owners -- it involves the agreement of the players too.  If the players want to decertify their union then, yes, salaries will be negotiated on a player by player basis, but so will things like pensions, guaranteed money, health care, etc and the league could then also unilaterally introduce a 18, 20 or 22 game schedule and the players only option would be play or no job/no pay.  Also, things like veteran MINIMUM salaries would go away.  Don't try to pretend that the CBA only protects the owners, if it did, the players would never agree to bargain collectively.
3.  Quit using Jerry Jones as the scapegoat..I have not heard anyone claim the Cowboys are losing money.  Obviously, larger revenue teams like the Cowboys are not losing money.  If anyone is losing money it would be smaller market teams AND THERE ALREADY IS A SALARY CAP genius, the question is how big is the cap going to be -- what percentage of revenue is guaranteed to the players versus the owners.
4.  What "tax breaks" are you referring to?  To my knowledge there are no special tax breaks for NFL owners that would not apply to millionair players as well.  And if an owner, say Jerry Jones since you like him, invests 100s of millions of dollars into a team and a billion+ dollars of his own money into a stadium, why is it a "windfall" if he earns a profit on his investment (after paying the players (employees) tens of millions of dollars in salary?  Is it a "windfall" that should be given to employees if GM, Ford, AT&T or any other business earns a profit -- you yell "communism" but then seem to think we should force the owners to divest their profits to the worker, that is communism.
5.  Nobody has said salaries would not be negotiable...they always have been always will be.  The issue is only a rookie scale and the total salary cap number.

It is amazing how protected the owners are.  In almost every state, in almost every industry, work-at-will exists.  That means an employee can quit or be fired for any reason.  Not in football.  They seek to prohibit working for who you want and for what you can negotiate.  Sincde when is the NFL a microcosm of communism and why is it a good thing?

Employment at will only applies where there is no contract.  If I sign a contract with my employer it gives us both rights and obligations.  The NFL players elected to have a CBA with the owners....doing so they AGREED to the draft, the only mechanism that acts to "prohibit working for who you want" and a salary cap that prohibits, to some extent, working for "what you can negotiate".  If the player does not like having his options limited, sign only a 1 year contract -- of course that means no huge guaranteed signing bonuses which you get no matter how bad a year you have.  Having collective bargaining with a union is not communism -- I defy you to show me a truly communist state with labor unions trying to dictate the terms of their employment. If it were communism every player would make exactly the same amount of money, after all they all do the same job, but no-they are free to negotiate their salaries within the confines of the AGREED salary cap.

We can disagree on terms in a CBA are fair or not -- that is what the players and owners are doing now -- but to insinuate that the CBA benefits only the owners and somehow constitutes communism is just ridiculous.


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