PDA

View Full Version : Owners reject latest proposal from NFLPA


montrose
02-27-2010, 09:20 AM
The NFLPA made one last pitch to the owners to extend the old rules, remaining under a salary cap and making all the fourth- and fifth-year players who are slated to be restricted free agents unrestricted. The owners shot the proposal down on Thursday. The owners reiterated their stance that going into the uncapped environment was fine with them, and have moved on from the proposal.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/02/unions_pitch_fo.html

Hercules Rockefeller
02-27-2010, 10:01 AM
Making those 4th and 5th year guys UFAs this offseason in a new CBA hasn't been realistic for months. IIRC, it was something like 20% of the league and at least one guy from every team fall into that category. The teams aren't going to agree to something that would turn all these guys loose in a week.

Kaylore
02-27-2010, 12:57 PM
The union's pitch to the owners was twofold.

First, the NFLPA brass questioned why the league players should willingly go into a year of such uncertainty while the game is so prosperous. Second, the union pushed the idea that remaining in the current environment would "take the pressure off" of negotiations on a new CBA, since said uncertainty would be lifted and teams wouldn't be forced to step so softly into 2010.


::) What a lame attempt at a "request" to keep the cap. This is just so the union reps can go back to their constituents and make it look they're doing something.

HEAV
02-27-2010, 04:17 PM
Enjoy the 2010 season folks.

*WARHORSE*
02-27-2010, 04:40 PM
Let me say what no one wants to say:



The draft goes through. The rookies get signed. The free agents get signed. Training camp begins..........preseason begins................then the players strike on gameday number one.


Including LONDON.


Its the only strongarm tactic I see.

gyldenlove
02-27-2010, 04:48 PM
Let me say what no one wants to say:



The draft goes through. The rookies get signed. The free agents get signed. Training camp begins..........preseason begins................then the players strike on gameday number one.


Including LONDON.


Its the only strongarm tactic I see.

The players can't afford to strike. They would eat through the strike emergency fund in a month.

Hogan11
02-27-2010, 05:14 PM
The players can't afford to strike. They would eat through the strike emergency fund in a month.

That's right.....reason #1 to play the 2010 season is to beef up the warchest

SoDak Bronco
02-27-2010, 06:24 PM
what happens next year with the draft and stuff if they don't have a deal by then? Do you think players will stay in school with all of the uncertainty?

Drek
02-27-2010, 06:29 PM
And come the end of the 2010 season the owners will actually look to make a legitimate deal with the players.

I didn't know the full details of the new CBA when it was signed, but when I heard that you couldn't be an unrestricted FA without six years of service time if the owners voided it and went uncapped, I knew that was coming. No way the owners would pass up that kind of additional control and leverage, even for one year.

Teams can shed dead weight contracts without nearly as much financial ramifications and smaller market clubs can go well below the previous salary floor for a season. Its too beneficial for the owners not to take an uncapped 2010.

I think they know the importance of not striking/locking out again with how much the NFL has grown, but they'll worry about a new deal once the massive benefits of this year are already guaranteed and in hand. When players are facing a legitimate strike year the owners will have much more muscle to push rookie wage scaling and the like down their throats.

TexanBob
02-27-2010, 08:28 PM
Extending the current contract is merely kicking the can down the road.

I don't want to see another strike/lockout (NBA is another story - they can strike for the decade and I won't miss them) but the lesson of the 1987 strike was that there were a ton of guys willing to step in for striking players and many of the stars would rather play even with scabs than miss their paycheck. The union is just not on very firm footing.

*WARHORSE*
02-27-2010, 08:53 PM
The players can't afford to strike. They would eat through the strike emergency fund in a month.

It would put a whole lot of pressure on some people wouldnt it though?


If the television networks and stadiums and sponsors were all there for gameday, only to have them walk out.....wow.

That would be horrendous.:~ohyah!:

Drek
02-27-2010, 09:38 PM
It would put a whole lot of pressure on some people wouldnt it though?


If the television networks and stadiums and sponsors were all there for gameday, only to have them walk out.....wow.

That would be horrendous.:~ohyah!:

The networks and whatnot can get as riled up as they want, their contract still stipulates that they pay the owners.

It would also give the owners a massive PR edge against the players, since there would be paying fans sitting in those seats waiting for them.

Basically, what you describe is exactly how NOT to run a public labor dispute.

SoCalBronco
02-27-2010, 09:54 PM
The union will get owned in this negotiation.

gunns
02-27-2010, 10:22 PM
The union will get owned in this negotiation.

Agreed.

El Jué
02-27-2010, 10:43 PM
The union will get owned in this negotiation.

They've earned it. The NFLPA's primary concern is, and always has been, the NFLPA itself. Not the players, certainly not the former players, and never the game of football.

SoCalBronco
02-27-2010, 10:56 PM
They've earned it. The NFLPA's primary concern is, and always has been, the NFLPA itself. Not the players, certainly not the former players, and never the game of football.

I don't know if they've earned it....not that's its relevant, anyway. The present dynamic is simply not favorable to the union/players. The owners are upset about giving up a somewhat richer deal than the norm last time. The players are getting 59-60% of revenues, about 4%-5% higher than the norm for major pro sports leagues. 4-5% might not sound like alot...but in a multibillion dollar industry, its worth a hefty amount. The owners have got that guaranteed 5 billion coming in for TV whether there's football or not, so that will make it easier to stomach a lockout. Also, I suspect one reason some owners have been spending well under the cap lately (I think DEN in particular is like 30-40m under the present cap...it might be more) is that they've been saving in anticipation of this. They could survive..at least economically with a lost season or more. The players could not. While DeMaurice Smith has advised them to save a certain portion of their yearly earnings in anticipation of a work stoppage...I highly doubt many of these players are taking this advise. These people live a very lavish lifestyle. In many instances, they live an even more lavish lifestyle than what their large salaries warrant...which is sometimes hard to believe....but when you see guys buying $50,000.00 diamond earrings and having these posh parties ALL THE TIME...you can see why many are often broke despite having career earnings of several million. Trevor Pryce is a great example of this. He's made tens and tens of millions, but he was notorious for spending it faster than he made it. A large cross-section of the players have no financial discipline. They don't know how to tighten belts, how to avoid going to Vegas and buying hundreds of bottles of champagne on a whim and strip clubs, avoid getting a 3rd Bentley and other stupid stuff. I think the owners know they have the players by the shorthairs. They've got the financial war chest to survive. The players don't...especially those who were only making 750K-1 million a year and were living it up. How are they going to support themselves? It's certainly not going to be interest on their investments in this economy.

The owners are pissed. They saw how the NHL was able to break the NHLPA. They absolutely broke them. They instituted a salary cap for the first time in history of hockey and got a number of other concessions. I don't think the owners are afraid of a lockout. The NFL watched the NHL very closely and saw how the lockout benefitted the owners in the long term so I don't think they'll hesitate to lock the players out unless they get a good deal. They've even hired the NHL point man on the labor dispute.

I don't think the union knows how much its ****ed......DeMaurice Smith might because he's pretty clever, but I don't think Kessler or the rank and file do.

Kaylore
02-27-2010, 11:52 PM
The players lack the money and the public sympathy to handle anything long term. Also with Gene Upshaw gone, there could be a feeling of disconnect with the new union head. There's no real loyalty or familiarity there. Some of the things the union is fighting for the players don't agree with. Rookie salary caps are a perfect example. Veterans resent it, owners hate it and the public thinks its idiotic. And in a bad economy players holding out for more money is going to look really bad.

It's hard to see where the union makes out with any leverage going forward in this.

Bronco Yoda
02-28-2010, 12:16 AM
I heard a stat the other day that 78% of football players go bankrupt or are in serious financial trouble after only 2 years leaving the game.

Durango
02-28-2010, 01:09 AM
I, for one, want something done about the soaring salaries, and I don't know if any new agreement will even start to get a handle on that. I had to start sharing my season tickets two seasons ago because the seats became so incredibly expensive and they've been in the family since the mid 1960's. I just can't handle much more in the way of price increases and am grateful Pat Bowlen decided to leave them unchanged for 2010, but that's not the issue of the end game in all this and I get that. This union basically screwed itself. Good riddance, whatever it takes.

TheChamp24
02-28-2010, 06:43 AM
Personally, both sides need to give and take some.
I think I heard the owners want to decrease the % the players get by roughly 18%, which is ridiculous IMO to ask that big of a decrease. I'd wager to drop it down to around 50-55%, instead of down to 40%.
Second, the players don't realize how much they need to really think about things and come up with a fair compromise to the owners to see if both sides can get a little of what they want. However, it seems like the players won't budge which is killing them.

Play2win
02-28-2010, 06:57 AM
As a fan, I would have NO PROBLEM going without football for a couple of years, if it would correct the players salaries. I am having more and more of a problem with how much these guys are making, and how much they are b****ing about not making "X" amount of millions of dollars a year-- especially in this economy.

Sure the superstars should be making a million or more a year, but when most players are making multiple millions every year, there is something seriously wrong. There should also be a severe penalty for holding out, all it does is hurt the game.

Give all these prima donnas a couple of years without a paycheck, and see how grateful they would be for what they got, instead of b****ing about how much they are continually being disrespected...

chadta
02-28-2010, 07:05 AM
The owners are pissed. They saw how the NHL was able to break the NHLPA. They absolutely broke them. They instituted a salary cap for the first time in history of hockey and got a number of other concessions. I don't think the owners are afraid of a lockout. The NFL watched the NHL very closely and saw how the lockout benefitted the owners in the long term so I don't think they'll hesitate to lock the players out unless they get a good deal.

i dunno about that man, how many teams were in trouble financially before ? no big deal they spent less and were bottom dwellers, now that they have to spend up to the floor not only are they forced to lose money, but with revenue sharing they are losing other peoples money too. what happens if the dollar ever swings back to 70 cents or worse and the 6 canadian teams cant carry all the dead weight in the south ?

salaries are right back where they were before the lockout, the only people that lost are the middle of the road players, the stars still get money, and the schmucks still dont, the inbetween guys dont now either.

bettman has kissed nbcs ass with scheduling games just to fit on network tv, then we end up missing a game six playoff overtime because of 2 hours of pre horse race talk ? really you had to break away from overtime to talk about a horse race that started in 2 hours ?

any league that looks to the nhl for anything is doomed to fail.

Lev Vyvanse
02-28-2010, 07:07 AM
As a fan, I would have NO PROBLEM going without football for a couple of years, if it would correct the players salaries. I am having more and more of a problem with how much these guys are making, and how much they are b****ing about not making "X" amount of millions of dollars a year-- especially in this economy.

Sure the superstars should be making a million or more a year, but when most players are making multiple millions every year, there is something seriously wrong. There should also be a severe penalty for holding out, all it does is hurt the game.

Give all these prima donnas a couple of years without a paycheck, and see how grateful they would be for what they got, instead of b****ing about how much they are continually being disrespected...

This is a fight between millionaires and billionaires. If you can't stand to see people make money you shouldn't be on either side.

That One Guy
02-28-2010, 08:14 AM
The first thing people can do to stop the fighting is stop pouring money into the teams. You complain about what the players make but then you dump $100+ to wear a shirt like he wears. For what? To show that you can afford it? Doesn't the company usually pay for advertising? Since when did you shell out large amounts of money to do the advertising for someone?

Stop buying the gear that says, "Look at me, I'm a better fan than you." I was as bad as everyone else. For years every Christmas for me was Bronco themed. Now I ensure everyone knows not to do it.

Also, if you enjoy the tailgate parties, go for it... but you don't necessarily have to visit the game inside if you don't want to. People are already coming around and seeing that the game is better experienced from home but there are benefits to the gameday *experience*. Well.. just try to incorporate both.

The NFL has us brainwashed in this effort to be the best fan. Stop competing, it's just costing you lots of money for a moral victory where only the billionaires and millionaires win.

Play2win
02-28-2010, 08:32 AM
The first thing people can do to stop the fighting is stop pouring money into the teams. You complain about what the players make but then you dump $100+ to wear a shirt like he wears. For what? To show that you can afford it? Doesn't the company usually pay for advertising? Since when did you shell out large amounts of money to do the advertising for someone?

Stop buying the gear that says, "Look at me, I'm a better fan than you." I was as bad as everyone else. For years every Christmas for me was Bronco themed. Now I ensure everyone knows not to do it.

Also, if you enjoy the tailgate parties, go for it... but you don't necessarily have to visit the game inside if you don't want to. People are already coming around and seeing that the game is better experienced from home but there are benefits to the gameday *experience*. Well.. just try to incorporate both.

The NFL has us brainwashed in this effort to be the best fan. Stop competing, it's just costing you lots of money for a moral victory where only the billionaires and millionaires win.

Right, just enjoy the games, and have fun. :thumbsup:

Meck77
02-28-2010, 08:38 AM
The owners have got that guaranteed 5 billion coming in for TV whether there's football or not, so that will make it easier to stomach a lockout.

Death and taxes are guaranteed. Contracts in this economy are not guaranteed anymore. Everything is being renegotiated no matter how iron clad the deal was.

Play2win
02-28-2010, 08:52 AM
Death and taxes are guaranteed. Contracts in this economy are not guaranteed anymore. Everything is being renegotiated no matter how iron clad the deal was.

Right. That is why (imho) players should take a step back. I think all salaries should take at least a 15-20% cut. If there has to be a stoppage, even for a couple of years, so be it. There needs to be an equalling of the scales.

Tombstone RJ
02-28-2010, 09:24 AM
The players lack the money and the public sympathy to handle anything long term. Also with Gene Upshaw gone, there could be a feeling of disconnect with the new union head. There's no real loyalty or familiarity there. Some of the things the union is fighting for the players don't agree with. Rookie salary caps are a perfect example. Veterans resent it, owners hate it and the public thinks its idiotic. And in a bad economy players holding out for more money is going to look really bad.

It's hard to see where the union makes out with any leverage going forward in this.

Really, I thought the vets wanted a rookie cap. As long as the money saved goes into vet contracts...

Tombstone RJ
02-28-2010, 09:25 AM
Death and taxes are guaranteed. Contracts in this economy are not guaranteed anymore. Everything is being renegotiated no matter how iron clad the deal was.

If the TV networks don't honor those contracts then the only way out is to buy out the contract, correct? Otherwise the owners can sue the networks, I'd imagine...

bronco militia
02-28-2010, 09:35 AM
Death and taxes are guaranteed. Contracts in this economy are not guaranteed anymore. Everything is being renegotiated no matter how iron clad the deal was.

the networks will continue to pay, but the owners will have to pay it back if there's a lockout or strike at the end of the contract



"It is hardly the first time that a television contract has had that type of provision in it," Pash said. "That goes back in my experience at least to the early 1980's. More to the point, it is nothing more than a financing mechanism. The networks aren't going to hand over large amounts of money to us, and if they don't get a product [in return] tell us to go ahead and keep that money. We will have to give it back to them and take reductions about what we get from them for future years. I am quite certain that the networks will make sure that they are made whole and then some if we are not able to televise games. It is not a payment, it is a financing mechanism. It is no different than borrowing on a home equity line. You still have to pay it back."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/22/league-reiterates-position-on-5-billion-lockout-fund/

Tombstone RJ
02-28-2010, 09:40 AM
As a fan, I would have NO PROBLEM going without football for a couple of years, if it would correct the players salaries. I am having more and more of a problem with how much these guys are making, and how much they are b****ing about not making "X" amount of millions of dollars a year-- especially in this economy.

Sure the superstars should be making a million or more a year, but when most players are making multiple millions every year, there is something seriously wrong. There should also be a severe penalty for holding out, all it does is hurt the game.

Give all these prima donnas a couple of years without a paycheck, and see how grateful they would be for what they got, instead of b****ing about how much they are continually being disrespected...

The thing is, contracts are very lopsided. Take Julias Peppers as a prime example. They franchised him last year and he bitched and moaned and made $17m in one freaking season. That's one contract for one year on a team with a salary cap. Now he stands to make even more as a UFA with his next team. That's the lopsided crap about the current situation. Add to that that a top five draft pick will take a huge chunk of money without playing one snap in the NFL and you can see why the owners don't like how the land lays.

The problem with the NFLPA is they don't care that a guy like Peppers makes so much money and a vet who has been in the league for 10 years is making $400 thousand or the vet minimum.

Add to that how FA works and you have a few players taking up most of the revenue of all the players and the owners having to field a competitive team based on trying to spread the cap money around plus paying huge contracts to the coaches.

If I was the owners I have a few priorities. One would be a rookie cap, two would be 50% split in gross revenue, three would be extending contracts of players on the team (RFA after 6 years, UFA after 7 years so teams can keep core players longer).

If I was the NFLPA I'd shoot for some core things like making sure there is a 50% split, making sure that guranteed money is paid weather the player gets cut or released due to things like injury, making sure the cap increases every year and that the owners have an absolute minimum cap they have to pay every year, long term health insurance for vets paid for by the NFL (make it available at little to no cost for older retired vets with medical conditions due to playing football), things like this.

That One Guy
02-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Really, I thought the vets wanted a rookie cap. As long as the money saved goes into vet contracts...

He worded it funny. What he said was:

Some of the things the union is fighting for the players don't agree with. Rookie salary caps are a perfect example. Veterans resent it

Saying vets resent that the NFLPA is fighting against a rookie cap as they (vets) want one in place. In that position, the NFLPA is representing part of the group where the group has conflicting interests.

That One Guy
02-28-2010, 12:05 PM
The thing is, contracts are very lopsided. Take Julias Peppers as a prime example. They franchised him last year and he b****ed and moaned and made $17m in one freaking season. That's one contract for one year on a team with a salary cap. Now he stands to make even more as a UFA with his next team. That's the lopsided crap about the current situation. Add to that that a top five draft pick will take a huge chunk of money without playing one snap in the NFL and you can see why the owners don't like how the land lays.

The problem with the NFLPA is they don't care that a guy like Peppers makes so much money and a vet who has been in the league for 10 years is making $400 thousand or the vet minimum.

Add to that how FA works and you have a few players taking up most of the revenue of all the players and the owners having to field a competitive team based on trying to spread the cap money around plus paying huge contracts to the coaches.

If I was the owners I have a few priorities. One would be a rookie cap, two would be 50% split in gross revenue, three would be extending contracts of players on the team (RFA after 6 years, UFA after 7 years so teams can keep core players longer).

If I was the NFLPA I'd shoot for some core things like making sure there is a 50% split, making sure that guranteed money is paid weather the player gets cut or released due to things like injury, making sure the cap increases every year and that the owners have an absolute minimum cap they have to pay every year, long term health insurance for vets paid for by the NFL (make it available at little to no cost for older retired vets with medical conditions due to playing football), things like this.

The only way you allow for longer periods before UFA is to increase the penalties for holdouts. Many times a team will try to lock up a young player early but when the player eventually feels he isn't making enough, the team can't do a whole lot. Make it 7 years before a player is able to force a big money FA contract and you'll just have more holdouts at the 3-4 year mark.

El Jué
02-28-2010, 12:19 PM
I don't think players' salaries are out of line. I don't think owners profit unduly. The only reason I'd like to see either side get less money is because I'd hope that it might have a positive impact on ticket prices.

On the other hand, if the stadium is already sold out, ticket prices are probably too low.

rastaman
02-28-2010, 12:50 PM
I, for one, want something done about the soaring salaries, and I don't know if any new agreement will even start to get a handle on that. I had to start sharing my season tickets two seasons ago because the seats became so incredibly expensive and they've been in the family since the mid 1960's. I just can't handle much more in the way of price increases and am grateful Pat Bowlen decided to leave them unchanged for 2010, but that's not the issue of the end game in all this and I get that. This union basically screwed itself. Good riddance, whatever it takes.

Do want something done about the obscene revenue and increased franchise values the owners are realizing and enjoying? Remember the fans fill the stadiums and buy team merchandise b/c they come to see the players perform. The fans don't fill the stadiums and buy team merchandise to come watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes.

Welcome to the corporate world of NFL ownership.

Hercules Rockefeller
02-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Do want something done about the obscene revenue and increased franchise values the owners are realizing and enjoying? Remember the fans fill the stadiums and buy team merchandise b/c they come to see the players perform. The fans don't fill the stadiums and buy team merchandise to come watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes.

Welcome to the corporate world of NFL ownership.

Yeah, screw the owners, they didn't make huge initial investments to buy their teams. Why should they be able to benefit from increased franchise value and revenues? I mean, it's not like they did anything to bring fans into the stadiums, like hire the right front office guys to scout talent, draft well, etc to put a product on the field that fans want to come watch. Those guys just sit on their asses with nothing on the line and are making money.

Tombstone RJ
02-28-2010, 01:34 PM
The only way you allow for longer periods before UFA is to increase the penalties for holdouts. Many times a team will try to lock up a young player early but when the player eventually feels he isn't making enough, the team can't do a whole lot. Make it 7 years before a player is able to force a big money FA contract and you'll just have more holdouts at the 3-4 year mark.

If a player is outperforming his rookie contract than let the first 4 years of his contract be guaranteed. After that, the player has a right to hold out, with financial cosequences. Point being he won't be a RFA until year 7 and an UFA year 8. That's a lifetime in NFL football years.

The players have to have some leverage. Rookie contracts can easily be outperformed. Yes, is sucks when a rookie signs a big contract and then doesn't live up to that contract, hence a rookie salary cap on the first 10 picks of the draft. Once those contracts are set, all the other contracts will fall into place. Since the overall salary cap is increasing every year, so will the minimum salarys of vet players because there's more money coming in but its being more evenly distributed. Rookies get less, vets get more. The contracts are longer so the bulk of the contract does not have to be front heavy, which is what every player wants.

rastaman
02-28-2010, 01:49 PM
Yeah, screw the owners, they didn't make huge initial investments to buy their teams. Why should they be able to benefit from increased franchise value and revenues? I mean, it's not like they did anything to bring fans into the stadiums, like hire the right front office guys to scout talent, draft well, etc to put a product on the field that fans want to come watch. Those guys just sit on their asses with nothing on the line and are making money.

So Herc who exactly is the Golden egg here is it the owners or is it the players? Fact is I would argue that both the owners and the players are both the golden egg layers and both can't do w/o each other...correct?

The only difference however that as a corporation, NFL owners are in position to realized 100's of millions of dollars over the ownership of their teams. Whereas players only have a 4-15 year window to realize their $10s of millions before the game no longer needs them and thats if the players do not suffer career ending injuries along the way.

NFL owners still make money the the value of their franchise continues to increase even their teams have loosing records for 10 plus years nor are NFL owners threatened or are endanger of having their teams taken away or sold out from under them for not putting a winning product on the field over a certain period of time or with any consistency.

So thats why the owners don't need anyone feeling sorry for them....they make their 100's of millions whether they win or loose and never need to spend endless nights wondering they will loose their franchise b/c they suck as owners when they can't put a winning product on the field. The fans of the city an NFL owner lives in can't just vote in the off season to FIRE the owner and take their franchise from them.

But for the players it is totally different. Teams can cut a player when they are no longer useful or a player suffers a season ending injury....and there goes their salary and income......puff all can be over on one single play.

RhymesayersDU
02-28-2010, 03:41 PM
As a fan, I would have NO PROBLEM going without football for a couple of years, if it would correct the players salaries. I am having more and more of a problem with how much these guys are making, and how much they are b****ing about not making "X" amount of millions of dollars a year-- especially in this economy.

Sure the superstars should be making a million or more a year, but when most players are making multiple millions every year, there is something seriously wrong. There should also be a severe penalty for holding out, all it does is hurt the game.

Give all these prima donnas a couple of years without a paycheck, and see how grateful they would be for what they got, instead of b****ing about how much they are continually being disrespected...

Really disagree with your post here.

I'm unsure how you got your seemingly arbitrary number of a "million or more" but either way I disagree. The players bring in the revenue, and they should get a good chunk of it. Now, I do think that there should be a rookie salary cap, but not because these guys are overpaid. More because it's getting to the point that getting the #1 pick is a potential death sentence when it should be there to help struggling teams. If a player doesn't pan out from the top 10 it can really set you back even further financially.

As for the bitching over money... That's a touchier issue for me. I agree that it's somewhat ridiculous... On the other hand, we've all asked for raises at some point in our lives, and I can guarantee that if in your job somebody who did the same work (or even less work) was getting paid more there'd be an issue, right? I mean, there would be for me. So even though I understand these guys make a lot of money, if you're doing better work then somebody who is getting paid more, I think it's normal to be unhappy.

Play2win
02-28-2010, 04:06 PM
Really disagree with your post here.

I'm unsure how you got your seemingly arbitrary number of a "million or more" but either way I disagree. The players bring in the revenue, and they should get a good chunk of it. Now, I do think that there should be a rookie salary cap, but not because these guys are overpaid. More because it's getting to the point that getting the #1 pick is a potential death sentence when it should be there to help struggling teams. If a player doesn't pan out from the top 10 it can really set you back even further financially.

As for the b****ing over money... That's a touchier issue for me. I agree that it's somewhat ridiculous... On the other hand, we've all asked for raises at some point in our lives, and I can guarantee that if in your job somebody who did the same work (or even less work) was getting paid more there'd be an issue, right? I mean, there would be for me. So even though I understand these guys make a lot of money, if you're doing better work then somebody who is getting paid more, I think it's normal to be unhappy.

Actually the amount of money they want, knowing the current climate, is starting to really turn me off from the sport... not to mention if the exponential aspect of it continues, it could completely break the system...

The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

Cito Pelon
03-01-2010, 07:47 AM
And come the end of the 2010 season the owners will actually look to make a legitimate deal with the players.

I didn't know the full details of the new CBA when it was signed, but when I heard that you couldn't be an unrestricted FA without six years of service time if the owners voided it and went uncapped, I knew that was coming. No way the owners would pass up that kind of additional control and leverage, even for one year.

Teams can shed dead weight contracts without nearly as much financial ramifications and smaller market clubs can go well below the previous salary floor for a season. Its too beneficial for the owners not to take an uncapped 2010.

I think they know the importance of not striking/locking out again with how much the NFL has grown, but they'll worry about a new deal once the massive benefits of this year are already guaranteed and in hand. When players are facing a legitimate strike year the owners will have much more muscle to push rookie wage scaling and the like down their throats.

Interesting points, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Looking at it that way gives me some hope that 2011 will bring an agreement.

Seems to me the owners made the big concession last time, giving in to the players' demand that 60% of total revenue be guaranteed to the players.

Now it's the players' turn to make the concession come 2011. Namely a rookie salary cap along with some other give and take by both sides.

strafen
03-01-2010, 07:54 AM
Really disagree with your post here.

I'm unsure how you got your seemingly arbitrary number of a "million or more" but either way I disagree. The players bring in the revenue, and they should get a good chunk of it. Now, I do think that there should be a rookie salary cap, but not because these guys are overpaid. More because it's getting to the point that getting the #1 pick is a potential death sentence when it should be there to help struggling teams. If a player doesn't pan out from the top 10 it can really set you back even further financially.

As for the b****ing over money... That's a touchier issue for me. I agree that it's somewhat ridiculous... On the other hand, we've all asked for raises at some point in our lives, and I can guarantee that if in your job somebody who did the same work (or even less work) was getting paid more there'd be an issue, right? I mean, there would be for me. So even though I understand these guys make a lot of money, if you're doing better work then somebody who is getting paid more, I think it's normal to be unhappy.Man, that's very true.
Heck, even last year one of the reasons perhaps we decided not to keep the two-first round pick we've got was because it was going to cripple us financially.
I'm definitely in for a rookie salary cap.
You can't pay unproven players that kind of money and not pan out

lostknight
03-01-2010, 08:13 AM
The NFLPA is starting to realize just how screwed they are. It's a tough environment to bitch and moan that the players on only making X million, not Y million given the huge amount of money they make, and the number of Americans out of work. The NFLPA's attitude and shafting of previous players is a disaster, and it has led some to conslude that the NFLPA thinks the players work for them, not the other way around.
Not to mention logisitcal issues like the awful wretchedness that is the draft system.

However, a work stoppage by management would be about the worst possible thing that could occur to the Broncos. Unlike days of yore when the Broncos were the only sports team in town, the Broncos have real competition from other Colorado franchises that are having considerably more success then the Broncos are right now. Fans will gladly spend their sports dollar on the Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. A lock out will etch away market share.

strafen
03-01-2010, 08:30 AM
The NFLPA is starting to realize just how screwed they are. It's a tough environment to b**** and moan that the players on only making X million, not Y million given the huge amount of money they make, and the number of Americans out of work. The NFLPA's attitude and shafting of previous players is a disaster, and it has led some to conslude that the NFLPA thinks the players work for them, not the other way around.
Not to mention logisitcal issues like the awful wretchedness that is the draft system.

However, a work stoppage by management would be about the worst possible thing that could occur to the Broncos. Unlike days of yore when the Broncos were the only sports team in town, the Broncos have real competition from other Colorado franchises that are having considerably more success then the Broncos are right now. Fans will gladly spend their sports dollar on the Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. A lock out will etch away market share.We're still a football town.
We're a well-rounded sports town and we definitely support all of our sport teams.
The Broncos are still the team in Colorado.
More people would be willing to buy a Broncos ticket than a Nuggets, Avs or Rockies ticket if given the choice.

Anybody here remembers the lockout in 1987?
I'm not sure if it was 1987 or not, the point is, when we brought in all those scab players, I remember the Broncos we one of the few teams still selling out for those game. lol!

Garcia Bronco
03-01-2010, 08:33 AM
Let me say what no one wants to say:



The draft goes through. The rookies get signed. The free agents get signed. Training camp begins..........preseason begins................then the players strike on gameday number one.


Including LONDON.


Its the only strongarm tactic I see.

I hope they do strike as opposed to a lockout. Then we can get scab football.

Garcia Bronco
03-01-2010, 08:35 AM
And come the end of the 2010 season the owners will actually look to make a legitimate deal with the players.

I didn't know the full details of the new CBA when it was signed, but when I heard that you couldn't be an unrestricted FA without six years of service time if the owners voided it and went uncapped, I knew that was coming. No way the owners would pass up that kind of additional control and leverage, even for one year.

Teams can shed dead weight contracts without nearly as much financial ramifications and smaller market clubs can go well below the previous salary floor for a season. Its too beneficial for the owners not to take an uncapped 2010.

I think they know the importance of not striking/locking out again with how much the NFL has grown, but they'll worry about a new deal once the massive benefits of this year are already guaranteed and in hand. When players are facing a legitimate strike year the owners will have much more muscle to push rookie wage scaling and the like down their throats.


The main part of the current CBA was 1/2 to 1 percent of all revenue went to the players and was gioven up by the owners. Now the owners are trying to get that back and a few other things. I would like to see a rookie cap and put a stop to this nonsense of get 30 mill and never having played a professional down.

Garcia Bronco
03-01-2010, 08:37 AM
I heard a stat the other day that 78% of football players go bankrupt or are in serious financial trouble after only 2 years leaving the game.

Getting a great deal of money after having little is tough to deal with.

Florida_Bronco
03-01-2010, 09:09 AM
I hope they do strike as opposed to a lockout. Then we can get scab football.

Why the hell would you want that?

Beantown Bronco
03-01-2010, 09:17 AM
Why the hell would you want that?

I think he's just saying that, given the two choices, a strike would be better. Obviously, scab football isn't better than real football, but it's better than no football, which is what a lockout would bring.

strafen
03-01-2010, 09:18 AM
I heard a stat the other day that 78% of football players go bankrupt or are in serious financial trouble after only 2 years leaving the game.

That's sad.
They should hire accountants to help them with his financial matters.
A lot of people don't realize than when you buy super expensive houses and cars, that you still have to pay a higher amount of taxes every year, and when the money stops rolling in, that's when you start getting into trouble, and taxes and stuff ilike that would eat up whatever you have left just to maintain the things you still got.

Nowadays, all NFL rookies, especially those drafted high, go thru a professional orientation to teach them about finances and how to manage the changes in their lives because of the money they will be getting...