DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum CBA changes

If this goes through, I'm going to sell rastafarian NFL gear.

That's an interesting idea...

That's fine and all if he is referring to the $250,000 extra game check cap as it doesn't meet his per game avg. But I wonder what the lower-end roster guy thinks or practice squad player, knowing he only has a few years in the league and would like that extra game check for himself and his family while the getting is good?

Guys like Watt and others making multi-millions might not like this in the short-term but I'd be curious to know what the general NFL player thinks if it means getting one more paycheck....perhaps their final NFL paycheck ever.

Maybe I am off base but hundreds of other players not named Watt, Wilson, Brady, etc. might look at this differently. I don't know.

And future contracts would reflect a 17-game structure I would imagine. And who knows, some owners may restructure contracts for some players. I'm interested to see where this goes.

Agreed.

Based on Gordon's past, if the NFL no longer suspended over marijuana he would stop smoking it.

That would require a time machine.

I get why the big guys would put their foot down on the whole 17th game but tiny paycheck issue.... but isn't that an easy thing to work out with their respective teams?


Also, I have a hard time believing the folks putting this CBA out for a vote didn't realize this and plan for it already.

I like all of those proposals, although I would still prefer that all players be eligible to be active on game days.

j/c:

Hearing NFL players are being told that there’s not much negotiation here. That this is the deal the owners are presenting and if they don’t take it, it’s strike/lockout next year. Billionaires are in a better position than millionaires. Do the players fold?
https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1230918700296962050

I've been told the same. We shall see how this vote goes. Maybe it's a bluff from the owners? Only time will tell
https://twitter.com/geoffschwartz/status/1230919942704373760

Wow....that was a pretty close vote.

Tells the 32 players committee that there isn't a uniformed decision from top brass. Depends on who each of them trusts the most among the 11 already voted.

Is it simply a majority win? 2/3 to pass?

Yeah, the starting salvos are usually not indicative of the final agreement. No matter what Twitter guys say.

It would be good to hear the primary reasons behind the No votes.

Players balking at owners offer so far ... Via NFL Network

Yes. 22 votes to pass.

It shouldn't come as surprise the first deal was rejected. First offer rarely the best offer. Just a negotiating starting point.

Never let your people vote on something if you're unsure of the outcome. Haha.

Side note: The NFLPA needs to update that logo.

That is too long of an offseason for me.

This could be a problematic...

Do they really do contracts based on 16 games?
Or are they based on an annual amount that is payed out in 16 divisions?It would be interesting to know the true language versus the commonly excepted language.

I’m surprised they’d go to that MNF game considering it’s the NCAAF title too

Dave I believe there is an NCAA reg prohibiting professional teams from using college football stadiums. A few years ago the bears got a papal exclusion to use the Illini stadium while soldiers field was being renovated. Something would have to be worked out probably involving greenbacks.

A few notes on NFLPA reps voting overnight to pass along proposed CBA to all players:

- Vote was 17-14 (1 abstained)

- Owners agreed to remove $250K cap on 17th game check for existing contracts, but rejected proposal to shorten offseason

- Timing of final vote to ratify TBD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1232643796778782722

When the
@NFLPA
votes today, don’t underestimate the factor of the $100,000 increase to minimum salaries in 2020. B/c this increase impacts so many (mostly unheralded) players, it could make the difference in a new CBA being approved, despite the concerns about a 17 game season.
https://twitter.com/RealTannenbaum/status/1232634374119657472

So lemme get this straight....the executive committee, who negotiated the deal, voted down the proposal 7-4 this time but the player reps voted to pass it. Owners appealed to the back end of the roster & won apparently

https://twitter.com/damienwoody/status/1232644404877373440

Way to go Tretter!

*In a related story, the Browns FO has announced that they are "moving on" from JC Tretter. The team thanked him for his services and wish him well in his future endeavors.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


*This is not real.

I hope
@JCTretter
won in a landslide. If there's such a thing as a perfect candidate, he's it. A
@Cornell
alum with a degree in industrial labor relations. (Also, an ex-#Packers center and one of the smartest guys we've ever gotten to talk with in the locker room.)

https://twitter.com/jasonjwilde/status/1237422942834876421

Degree in industrial labor relations?!?! Talk about a perfect fit.

congratulations JC Tretter !

If the players agree to that CBA they are nuts!

The demands the owners are making are unreasonable and obtuse. If I was guys like JJ Watt and others if that agreement went thought I'd just resign and quit Barry Sanders style and tell the NFL to stuff it!

Essentially, the players get 1% and slightly easier practices in return for a much longer season, a much longer playoffs, and a shortened offseason...would have to be nuts to accept that deal!

If they are smart they reject it, and sit...strike if need be...the deal only enriches the owners and no one else.

If striking means we get to see half a seasons worth of a team as talented as the one in The Replacements, it'll be worth it! I love that movie

I'll bet mac got excited for a split second reading this.

Only enriches owners? I see you have no clue what has been offered. The 60% of players that are not top dollar salaries get a significant increase in pay. The players will get 48% of the revenue, which is an increase. Rosters will be increased which means a couple more guys will make the team and extra on practice squads.

The only guys complaining are the top dollar guys, the rank and file guys will make out big time.

You suggest the owners being greedy, IMO, it looks like the multi-millionaire athletes at the top are being greedy.The minimun salary is going from somewhere around 650K to about 900K. A majority of players on the roster will benefit big time immediately.

There are more guys closer to the bottom of the NFL's monetary scale than there are near the top. If you are close to the bottom, you get an entire extra game check. Who cares if a guy making more for one game than you get for an entire season isn't getting the same bump?

I agree w/some of you in that I think the new CBA is a pretty good deal for the majority of the players. It's better than previous agreements.

I said this before, but I would think that many teams will look to take care of those top players that might be missing out on some bucks. Seems like a weird situation to just let happen.

I'm listening to a discussion on the new CBA and this deal seems very favorable for the majority of the players and retired guys. I also heard the owners aren't going to sweeten the deal if it is defeated.

Given the information being presented about the CBA, it sounds like a very good deal for the players and they should pass this.