Classy move by Vikings

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

What you're really saying is that fans should have to pay a guy even though he wasn't able to make himself available to play. If a golfer couldn't play in a tournament (for this same reason,) then he wouldn't get paid.He wouldn't consider it punishment.This guy wasn't able to play.It was a personal matter that was involved.He wasn't hurt(which is how most athletes get paid while not producing a product called entertainment.)I think golf got it right(pay athletes based on performance.)Jason Schmidt got paid $15,703,946 for doing nothing this year.He didn't produce a product called entertainment.Does anybody take responsibility for the fans having to pay this guy? No,the G.M. is not punished...Only the fans get punished.So,no,I am not for paying athletes that don't play games.This bullshit is the reason the cost to go to games is out of hand.If they get injured,and it's of course nobody's fault,then why doesn't the athlete have to give up half his money,and the fans pay him half money(for doing nothing.)The Viking player should be allowed to take off whatever time he needs to take off,but don't expect to get paid when ya don't show up.This is a 100% performance based business.Time to start running it that way.This is not a fireman's job.Somebody just as good is not gunna always be around to do the job.We didn't quite have another Jason to pitch.

Scuds...good points...but don't agree with you. With regards to golf...isn't there a medical exemption status however if a guy has a major injury and can't play for an extended period losing his expemtion isn't he given a period where he is allowed to play for a period of time where he otherwise wouldnt' be exempt...for example he is exempt in 2007 but can't play for most of the season due to his injury and would normally lose his exemption in 2008 for lack of winnings, but wouldn't he be allowed to play for a period of time in 2008 when his injury was cured to try to earn some money??

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Scuds...good points...but don't agree with you. With regards to golf...isn't there a medical exemption status however if a guy has a major injury and can't play for an extended period losing his expemtion isn't he given a period where he is allowed to play for a period of time where he otherwise wouldnt' be exempt...for example he is exempt in 2007 but can't play for most of the season due to his injury and would normally lose his exemption in 2008 for lack of winnings, but wouldn't he be allowed to play for a period of time in 2008 when his injury was cured to try to earn some money??

Yes,and like I said,maybe a 50/50 thing for other sports would be a lot better than the players simply taking 15 mil/yr from fans(and not producing due to being hurt.)They give up half their salary when hurt(fans pay them half salary for doing nothing.)That is a lot more reasonable than getting paid full salary ,and not producing anything.As far as this other issue goes(death in the family) I don't know why people think fans should have to pay this guy 25k.They already are going without his services.That's already a sacrifice they are making in order for the guy to do what he needs to do.It is not like they are firing him for not showing up for work.He was healthy,and didn't participate.So,why does he get paid?In the end,somebody is paying him 25k without him giving them anything(that's what you think is correct.)So,keep selling.I ain't buying it.All pro athletes should be paid on performance(actually being present, and willing to play, is a nice minimum.)The problem is you don't give respect for the fact they went without his services(something they had counted on.)