Ike Taylor talks about Wallace contract situation

**cbrunn** · 05-31-2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by TarlsQtr

Question. After costs, where does the rest of the "$30 billion" go? Could it be to the people that invested THEIR hard-earned money into the company by buying stock? Could it be to those who I assume you consider not greedy, that have mutual funds, pension plans, and 401ks with Wal-Mart stock in it?

It is not about "rich" Wal-Mart versus the "poor." It is about granny who invested her hard-earned money into the company via her pension versus someone with little or no skills wanting to earn $50,000 per year to stock shelves. Granny risked her money (she would lose some/all if the stock tanked) and deserves the reward.

I could honestly answer this question for you if i looked at their annual reports like their return on equity and how much they paid to stock owners ... but don't feel like it ...

and yes big companies are needed ...and it don't matter how much skill is required , it's not needed for them to HOLD THEIR MONEY...instead of paying the ppl that our PAYING THEM, THEM BIG BUCKS...nothing ever get's back to us regular ppl even though WERE the ones that make Walmart and such their money (no higher wages or raises, no lower prices only risen prices even though they're already making billions) ...

but anyway this isn't football talk lol

**NorCalSteel** · 05-31-2012, 05:18 PM

are you done preaching yet...yawn it is funny to me that you think your opinion is the only one that counts. I have seen you miss on a bunch of your posts..Nobody has ever said the word hate I have read? but you assume..are you just the best fan out there because you say so? get over it...Your "I love me" under your name clearly states your biased opinions..

**coldrolled** · 05-31-2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by cbrunn

pay half(or matches) of what the employee pays for FICA ...

In a logical way the employer pays twice, if i dont hire a person because things are tight i save twice the fica...

If i layoff folks i pay again... for unemployment plus your tax payer dollars pay for that too.

But my main point was football, you went off in a tangent, should the players pay for the 57% of the stadium, they get 57% of the profits..???

**cbrunn** · 05-31-2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by coldrolled

In a logical way the employer pays twice, if i dont hire a person because things are tight i save twice the fica...

If i layoff folks i pay again... for unemployment plus your tax payer dollars pay for that too.

But my main point was football, you went off in a tangent, should the players pay for the 57% of the stadium, they get 57% of the profits..???

Thanks for the knowledge... i'm almost done the 2 year accounting degree , so i'll store this in my mind

but to answer your question no i don't think they should pay for 57% of it ... because they have no say in how big or what gets put in the stadium to decide the cost ... but i have no problem with say like a 500 a week contribution to a future stadium fund ... 500x52=26000 x 16 = 416000 a year x say 20 = 8320000 from the players seem like a fair amount or something like that , but of course that's all hypothetical

**Callax** · 06-01-2012, 06:09 AM

unless he puts up 85+ catches, 1400+ yards 10+ TD's he will NOT get LT money! deal with it he is not THAT GOOD!

**BlitzburghRockCity** · 06-05-2012, 08:36 AM

Just figured I'd toss this out to ya'll..

For those that maybe didn't hear the show where Ike was talking about Mike Wallace, in the beginning he mentioned that #17 that Wallace told him that he wants paid like Rice and Moss because he's got better stats after 3 years.

When his career is all said and done, who knows what me might accomplish but no player after just 3 years in the league, and one that disappeared in the 2nd half of 2011, should have the jewels to compare himself to anyone just yet.

Wallace this and Wallace that, blah blah blah...but hey 17, if you are worried about injuries then sign your damn contract and get to camp already. Ok I'm done now, really....

From John Harris at the Trib..

If restricted free-agent receiver Mike Wallace is paying attention, no way he shows up at the Steelers’ facility until he signs his free-agent tender for 2012 or signs a new long-term contract.
What if Wallace injures himself like Nicks did during voluntary workouts? Will the Steelers still sign him to a new deal? Will they insist he rehabilitate his injury first?

I interviewed Smith for an article about NFL back injuries that appeared in Sunday’s Tribune-Review. Most telling for me was how Smith, once the ultimate team player, now tells players to put their own needs ahead of the team’s.

..will the Steelers hold it against Wallace if he remains a no-show for voluntary workouts, which conclude this week?

Wallace has until June 15 to sign his free-agent tender of $2.742 million. The Steelers can reduce their offer after that date.

That’s a lot of money to play football, Steelers fans will tell you. Wallace should be grateful the Steelers are willing to pay him nearly $3 million to play a sport fans would play for free, the chatter goes.

Wallace must play to get paid. But he can’t play without a contract.
The Steelers want Wallace to show good faith and report so the two sides can negotiate a deal.

In his first three NFL seasons, Wallace averaged more yards per catch than Jerry Rice and Randy Moss did in their first three years. He wants to be paid like one of the top receivers in football.

Players are paid for their performance. Wallace doesn’t have to attend voluntary workouts to prove his worth. But if he reports without a contract, what’s to prevent him from becoming another Hakeem Nicks, who took one for the team but ended up taking one in the foot?