DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Players trying to oust NFLPA Boss Gene Upshaw

From the things i have seen him do and the way he displays himself i never got the impression he was for the rank and file. It was more of a your dealing with me I am the union. When you get to that point it's time for you to be replaced.

nordawg

Upshaw has been trying to kill the Golden Goose for years. He doesn't see the value of the eggs, he just wants a billion goose liver sandwiches.

Fantastic and overdue. In about three years all hell's going to break loose if this guy stays. Time to go Gene!!

I don't know a lot about Upshaw, but I did see this in Peter King's Monday Morning QB. It talks about some of the misconceptions, at least from King's perspective, about the labor issues.

And, I'll say this. If the owners hate the CBA so much, why did they sign onto it? Maybe I'm just not seeing something here. Please, anyone, feel free to correct me.

---Begin Article---


I normally hate writing about labor and things like looming strikes. You hate reading about that stuff. But I'm going to write about it here today, and I will make this commitment to you: I won't do it again, at least not at the top of the column, until something really significant occurs that you need to know about.

I'm writing now because I think there's so much misinformation out there, and I want you to have a bedrock of knowledge so you'll be able to rebuke the office know-it-all if he says, "Hey, no more NFL after this year. They're going on strike. Did you hear?''

Now there's a wet-blanket lead for you. But I want you to understand why, a little more than two weeks before the draft, I'm taking the top of the column to cover labor issues. I promise it won't be too painful. Give me five minutes.

First things first: There is no danger of the NFL being interrupted by a labor dispute in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

When NFL owners ratified a new collective bargaining agreement two years ago, it allowed for either the owners or the players' union -- if they were dissatisfied with the new deal -- to opt out of the CBA, beginning in November 2008. That's likely to happen seven months from now. If it does, this season will be wholly unaffected, as will 2009, when teams play with a salary cap of approximately $123 million per club. The 2010 season would be played without a salary cap if a new contract between players and owners is not reached.

And that's where most of the misinformation has come in. The rules for the 2010 season are significantly more restrictive for players than they currently are, so players and agents waiting out the next two years for a pot of gold in the uncapped year are going to be disappointed. The 2010 rules for player movement:

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free-agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency. And I can tell you from talking to a few traditionally good teams at the league meetings last week, they're not happy about it.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back. This is a good system for the players?

Five of the eight richest players in free agency this year would not have been unrestricted free-agents in an uncapped system requiring six years of service. Defensive lineman Tommy Kelly (Raiders) had four years of service and would have been restricted, as would five-year vets Jeff Faine (Bucs), Lance Briggs (Bears), Calvin Pace (Jets) and Asante Samuel (Eagles).

In 2011 and beyond? Murky times. The union could disband and try to rewrite the rules of engagement with the NFL, as it did in the '80s to try to break a labor stalemate. The league could try to unilaterally adopt bargaining terms. There could be a strike. That season is three-and-a-half years away, and to think the two sides couldn't figure out some way to divvy up $8 billion or $9 billion a year ... There's a better chance of Brett Favre quarterbacking the Bears this year.

Now, the fear around football is that some very rich man -- Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Woody Johnson -- will grab hold of the free market in 2010 and make it their personal playground. Jones especially, because his new stadium, with personal-seat license fees as high as $150,000 per seat, will put his revenue stream far above other owners. I asked Jones whether he'd ever be a Steinbrenner if the market allowed it.

"I am so grounded in the thinking that higher payrolls don't win Super Bowls,'' Jones said. "Remember -- one year when we won the Super Bowl [in the '90s], we had the second-lowest payroll in football. I've never experienced success throwing money at players. I never see myself doing that [being a Steinbrenner].''

He's right. After seeing the Patriots win three Super Bowls this decade with a fairly anonymous team, there's no proof that big spending means big wins.

As to how we got to this point, I won't get too technical on you, but the previous CBA was very owner-friendly. Because of all the ancillary revenue (like luxury box fees) that wasn't included in revenue-sharing, the players, who theoretically were supposed to be getting 60 percent of the gross revenue the game produced, were getting about 54 percent. So on March 8, 2006, owners approved a deal that would allow owners to skim 5 percent off the top of gross revenues, with an increasing percentage scale (60.75 percent this year) of the remaining 95 percent of the revenue going to the players. Seems easy enough, but for some owners, it was like going to bed and waking up to find their mortgage rate had gone up four points.

In the last few months, as the economic climate in the country has worsened, teams that need to borrow money for either new stadium financing or major stadium renovations (Giants, Jets, Cowboys, Panthers, Dolphins) have found the NFL's lending branch has run dry. So teams needing money are looking increasingly toward private financing and bond issues.

For teams that don't have the revenue of a New England or a Dallas, it's imperative to get that $87 million check, as the NFL passed out for network TV dough in 2007. But with the salary cap $29 million higher than that this year, and rising $7 million next year, struggling markets like Buffalo and Jacksonville and New Orleans are playing in a different league than the haves right now. And it's getting worse each year.

Back to reality. The system needs to change. But the landscape has three years of business-as-usual before the sky really does fall ... if it ever does. I don't think it will.

link

---end article---

I know a former Browns player, and he says that what Gene Upshaw has done to the former players is awful. A lot of guys have way too many heath problems, and Gene gives them almost no money from the millions they rake in.

I hope that Gene Upshaw is gone very, very soon.

When NFL Leadership changed from Tags to this new guy, was it the new guy that Bryant Gumble beat up or was it Upshaw? I don't remember.

I can also understand the need for a change at the top of the NFLPA....It may be true that Upshaw has done a Good job , however IF I am correct he has held that post since around 1989....Taking in to considersation his longevity , that alone should warrant at least a possibility of a change happening , regardless of his performance....

This could turn real ugly and a work stoppage is something no one wants. Remember what the latest player-strike did to baseball?

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't there a movement afoot a year or so ago because of the way the NFLPA has allowed the older players to be left out in the cold in terms of health services?

That's Upshaws responsibility in my eyes... maybe that's just another reason to get him out of there.

j/c
Before anybody accuses me of it; I don't know Jack or Gene or Matt either. As a representative of the more uninformed fans regarding this subject all I see is that Upshaw has negotiated the expansion of the revenue pool and also grabed the biggest piece of that revenue for the players. There was no mention of any substantial issues in Stover's statement. On the surface and again that's all I can see, it seems to be about ego and personality.

Am I mssing something ?

I'd like to think it's because retired players are getting neglected but I can't say I've heard many active players speak out on the subject.

Gene Upshaw has been a blessing to any current player who pays into the NFLPA.

Gene Upshaw is the biggest impediment to any retired player who is associated with the NFLPA.

There in lies the rub.. current players are empowered but the retirement system of the NFLPA is biased toward when you played.

Players from the 60's and 70's who were not prolific earners, or need medical assistance from the NFLPA do not get the assistance.

To change this system would require approval of current player. Retired players have no say.

Yep, unions are a great safety net. The NFLPA wants owner to fund thier issue.

http://www.bloodequity.com/

The NFL is now facing many embarassing problems with former players. Many are not even able to walk and they are not that old. Football is not good for you but how do you fix that? Better team doctors or better training or revise the rules? More benefits for current and former players especially thoes players that played before the 70s and 80s.

I don't want to watch players destroy their health for money. I wold like to see some type of real assistance for injuries and injury prevention. The recent rules on concussions is an improvement (players have to sit for several weeks if they have a head injury). Protecting the QB and WRs is also an improvement.

The Union should help the players and not just promise them more money. What good is money if you are not able to spend it?

Maybe I am missing something here, but it sure seems to me like all he is trying to do is start the process of finding Upshaw's replacement for when his contract runs out at the end of the 2009 season.

By narrowing the list of candidates by next offseason, they can have their next leader learn the ropes by the current establishment during the 2009 season and then take over in 2010 (when the real labor war will be rearing its head).

This memo just seems like Stover is being an intelligent and prudent member of the union (since it has seemed like a foregone conclusion that Upshaw will not get a new contract).

Quote:

---

Am I mssing something ?

---

The conference call that Stover was apparently on. We all missed that though.

Quote:

---

Stover's actions could be viewed as an attempted coup given this fact.

---

A coup is generally run by the person who wants to be put in office. What he's suggesting is a nationwide job search, not upgrading immediately to someone else. I dont see how this is a coup?

I see it as some players are afraid he's overstepping his bounds and pushing too hard against the hand that feeds them. Theyre afraid that his pigheadedness is going to the end the whole league in dire straights, all for the almighty dollar.

Ok if you object to coup that's fine by me. I have no interest in a discussion of semantics. But to be as discriptive as possible what is being attempted is to revmove Upshaw from his position before the end of his contract.. Essentially to fine him. If the players wish to do so that is their right. Some posters seem to accept on its face that the players have cause for this with no explanation for it from the faction supporting the effort. Again, I accept that no explanation is owed to me or anyone else on the outside looking in.

In the absence of an offer of explanation some responders here have eagerly offered thier own rationale. I'm guilty also, without an offer of explanation from the principles I fall back to a clash of egos and personality. What I won't believe is that there is any substancial explanation until somebody seeking Upshaw's ouster states one.

If ,as you suggest. that cetain players feel that Upshaw has overreached and created a financial enviornment that is unstable for the league then one practiical way that indvidual players' who feel this way can counter the dangers of the current collective bargining agreement is to instruct their agents to stay within the parameters of the previous agreement.

NFLPA leaders urge Upshaw to pick successor


April 11, 2008

By David Elfin - With 25 years as executive director of the NFL Players Association, Gene Upshaw is the longest-tenured labor leader in sports.

The Hall of Fame guard has outlasted two NFL commissioners, all of the players and coaches and all but five owners. The 62-year-old has endured strikes, lockouts and a decertification of the union, but he has never seen a threat to his leadership like the battle that has erupted over his succession.

A group of NFLPA leaders led by Baltimore Ravens player representative Matt Stover want Upshaw, who's supposed to become a lame duck in March and retire a year later, to name a successor.

That was supposed to be Troy Vincent, who just stepped down as NFLPA president. Instead, Vincent, whose playing career ended in 2006, is out of a job at NFLPA headquarters. Upshaw responded to the uprising by naming Clark Gaines, seen by some as a figurehead, as his No. 2. The new NFLPA president, Tennessee center Kevin Mawae, also isn't seen as a threat to Upshaw's imperial rule like predecessors Vincent, Trace Armstrong and Mike Kenn might have been.

"No one is looking to oust Gene," a longtime NFL player said. "A lot of players just want someone to be there to learn the job. Gene said in 2006 that he wouldn't be around for the next [collective bargaining agreement] extension, but now he's sounding entitled. Gene's disregarding his reps. That has upset a lot of players. There's serious unhappiness with how Gene has handled some things like the retired players' issue. He has a lot to do to dig himself out of this one."

The anonymous player believes that seven of the 10 members of the NFLPA executive board and a third of the reps are in Stover's camp with just two board members and a third of the reps behind Upshaw. The other board member and a third of the reps are undecided.

That dissension is a radical change for the NFLPA, which has remained in near-lockstep since Upshaw negotiated free agency with then commissioner Paul Tagliabue in 1993, six years after many players had crossed the picket line to play in management's replacement games during the last labor stoppage.

Instead of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell trying to keep his multimillionaire owners — some of whom have blasted the 2006 CBA extension — in line, it's Upshaw who's suddenly dealing with a rebellion in the ranks. That's somewhat fitting considering Upshaw obtained his job by leading a virtual coup against predecessor Ed Garvey in 1983, not long after he retired from the Oakland Raiders.

Ironically, the NFL owners could come to Upshaw's rescue in November by voting to opt out of the CBA. That's because the undecided player representatives will be less likely to want an untested hand in charge of the negotiations if labor peace is disintegrating. Upshaw wants to remain on the job until a new deal is hammered out, and he could well get his way, making the rebellion of 2008 a mere footnote.


Link

We'll see... IMO, GU has been good for the players and the game. GU has been doing this for a very long time. The owners need to be kept in check just like we all do. GU has facilitated that very well. Most of the players credit GU for doing an outstanding job. The host of issue is always present... GU and the players association have made many improvements/changes and dealt with many issues that needed to be, during his tenure.

No one can please everyone all the time. I read two articles and heard an interview yesterday, from former players and current player of whom are/were pro-bowlers that refute much of what has been presented in this thread.

To insinuate that GU will be solely responsible for a work stoppage in the next few years is subjective at best. Negotiations are what they are and will run thier course. We shall see...

I don't know a thing about Upshaw but I'm getting a bad feeling the NFL is moving toward a MLB free agent style system were the rich get richer and it's rationalized by spouting "spending money does not guarantee anything yada yada......

Sources: As labor unrest looms, Upshaw seeks to strengthen his camp

By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: April 11, 2008, 2:43 PM ET


NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has reached out to former players Trace Armstrong and Robert Smith about rejoining the union in a significant advisory capacity that will strategically fortify his front during unrest within the player ranks and a looming confrontation with NFL owners, sources said Friday.

Armstrong is a past president of the NFLPA and Smith served on the union's executive committee before both players retired. Both were active in post-career union committees until they were phased out.

Armstrong expressed a willingness to accept Upshaw's invitation, which he said would "not be a full-time job, simply make myself available on an as-needed basis."

"Gene and I had a great conversation [Thursday]," Armstrong said. "He's aware of my support for him and the organization. I spent 14 years of my playing career as an active member and officer of the union. So my heart has never left the building and I strongly support the cause of players now and going forward."

Smith was unavailable for immediate comment, but other player sources said that Upshaw's moves could create more controversy for the union members who want to accelerate a succession plan for Upshaw's eventual departure as its leader. One player noted that outgoing NFLPA president Troy Vincent, who is considered as an eventual candidate to succeed Upshaw, was instrumental in removing Armstrong and Smith "from the building" during their post-playing days when they served on the agent-disciplinary committee.

Upshaw also was unavailable for immediate comment.

Matt Stover, player representative for the Baltimore Ravens, had little reaction to Upshaw's plans other than label them "interesting" and reiterated his position that "I have no intention of ousting Gene prematurely."

Stover sent an e-mail to player reps and the NFLPA executive committee earlier this week that outlined a plan to identify Upshaw's successor. Though Upshaw is not scheduled to leave office at least until the end of 2010, Stover urged his group to name a successor by March 2009.

"I'm not here to oust Gene and I can't emphasize that enough," Stover said. "I simply want to have some urgency to get a process going, plan for a successor and create stable leadership for the union long past the time I'll be playing. Gene would remain in authority."

Upshaw has publicly opposed an accelerated succession plan, even though he laid out a process during a conference call among his executive committee and player reps last week. However, when he internally promoted Clark Gaines to assistant executive director on Monday, it created some concern from Stover and other player reps that Upshaw was trying to influence the process.

Upshaw denied that he is doing it, saying that anybody "who has carried the title of assistant executive director will tell you they never felt like they were the successor-in-waiting or a true No. 2. Under our constitution I have full authority to hire anybody I want in our building. And with what we're facing on the labor front, we don't need to send a signal to owners that they can get a backdoor deal with a No. 2 guy."

Stover concurred, saying, "We need Gene to be in full authority through the next CBA, even if it means going beyond his current contract. I just think we can have a orderly process that still gets his successor in place without undermining Gene. That's where my heart is."

Armstrong believes Upshaw will proceed to surround himself with some "old hands, guys that have been in the fights and have some insight ... guys who may be able to explain to player reps how to handle their locker room, because if there is a looming owners' lockout, a strike, a de-certification, whatever, it will be useful because none of these players have ever truly been through it. And that kind of stuff does make players nervous."

Upshaw's primary goal at last month's NFLPA annual meetings was to "educate our committee and reps" about a potential labor battle when owners are expected to exercise an option in November to end the current collective bargaining agreement by 2010. Several player sources said that Upshaw briefed the players about "a new extension, a lockout, a strike and de-certifcation as a union."

One executive committee member said Upshaw's position is that "a strike doesn't work in the NFL because player careers and earning opportunities are short. But he's fully versed on the subject and it was very fruitful for the membership to get educated so that we can educate the players in our locker room. He's a very strong leader in that respect and even though he's not for a strike, he won't be pushed around, either."

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

Quote:

---

IMO, GU has been good for the players and the game

---

I think if you check, you won't find too many that disagee with you that Upshaw has been good for the game, and he's also been good for the current players..

But what he hasn't done is fight for the older players that are getting financially ruined. These are guys that didn't get the big bucks when they played. Today, many of those older players can't afford the medical attention they need to deal with ailments caused by the injuries they received whle playing the game.

From my standpoint, because a players career is so short to begin with and thier lives can be ruined by medical issues brought on by the game later in life, something needs done to address it.

Now, let me say this, players today are making a heck of a lot more money then the guys I'm referring to. They get signing bonuses, they get at least league minimum which is pretty hefty to begin with.

So if they last 4 years or so and if they are smart, they could have done things to secure thier future. And if I'm not mistaken, there are things in place to help these kids that are playing today should thier careers end suddenly.

SO, while I agree with you that Upshaw has done some good things, he appears to have completely ignored the older, less fortunate players..

That's no way to treat people that built the league IMO.

Quote:

---

The guys that are playing today earned their money why should they share it with anyone? To heck with the less fortunate. Let em eat cake.

---

First of all, I'm assuming that your kidding around..

But, without those guys of yesteryear, the kids today would not even have a game to play.

To ignore them is lunacy of a high order.

Thanks... But and however, GU and the players association have made improvements and added benifits to/for the benifits of the older players. They havn't made all the changes requested. But IMO, not all of the requests should be or can be made. Maybe the points that haven't been agreed upon can be re/addressed in the future.

So I'll have to agree and disagree with you on a few of your views. Which is cool!

No one told these former players to play - no one forced them to play a game for a living. No one. They made a choice to do it, and I have a feeling the guys playing in the 70's, 80's, etc were making more than the average american. And, even if they weren't, they had a choice.

Even by todays everyman standard NFL players of the 70s and 80s made alot of money .Their bodies took a beating for sure but I'm not convinced it was that much more than a Joe Bagadonuts with a physical job.The average NFL player worked about 6 months a year for maybe (I'm guessing) 6 years. Joe floor installer worked 12 months a year for 40 years. Who took the most punishment?

Matt Stover must have intercepted my post. With this additional information, I have to say Stover's position seems reasonable.

This ESPN article provides some clarity from the principle party in this controversy.

Link

Editor's note: ESPN on Tuesday obtained an e-mail sent by Ravens kicker Matt Stover to members of the NFL Players Association that outlined steps toward replacing Gene Upshaw with new union leadership by March 2009. On Wednesday, Stover sent a letter to ESPN NFL reporter Chris Mortensen that sought to clarify his stance on the matter.


Chris,

I wanted to write you to clarify my leaked e-mail to you. As my intentions are clear to many of my fellow reps, it has come to my attention that some clarity is needed to ensure a public accurate accounting. The following are some points that I believe will make clear my original intentions in writing this memo to my fellow reps and the Executive Board.

It is not, and has never been, my intention to "oust" Gene Upshaw. Gene has done a remarkable job in leading the players for over 2 decades. My goal is to be prudent and have a process intact to allow the Executive Committee the ability and confidence to offer various options to the Board of Reps as a whole. The inevitability of the end of Gene's tenure is approaching this generation of players, which may create some uncomfortable issues to deal with. This suggested process was originally supposed to aid in dealing with those issues by taking some of the pride, emotion and ego out of all parties involved, and empowers the Executive Committee to follow guidelines with benchmarks and aid in producing a majority backed consensus.

This topic of succession within the NFLPA has been discussed for the past 2 years, at the minimum. I have been witness to other Reps. broach this subject with Gene and past Executive Committee members, and the issue garnered zero traction toward a satisfactory answer. Thus, my secondary goal for this e-mail was to create immediate dialogue between Gene, the Executive Committee and the Board of Reps in the search of that satisfactory answer.

My involvement as a Player Rep. and Executive Committee member for the past 16 years has always been about what is best for our organization, and nothing else. You have to remember, I represent the guys who have voted me in over the years, my fellow Ravens/Browns teammates. Further, I have always supported my fellow players, reps. and NFLPA staff in the hopes of adding to our cause. There is no ego, selfish agenda or an overabundance of pride associated with my suggestion for a succession process. This is what I feel, as the Player Rep. for the Baltimore Ravens, is best.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

-- Matt Stover