|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Set a 115-118 Million Dollar salary cap: Its a drop in salary cap but more money should be making its way to veterans.
And where does all the extra money go with this cap? The cap is based on revenue and is the gist of why we are where we are today......the extra money would go to the owners, and the players would never agree to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
On that note, I got my email today from Big Mike telling me that the Browns are gonna send me my invoice for season tickets in short order. The first thing that goes thru my head is "What happens if there is a lockout?" Do the Browns keep my cabbage and collect interest onnit?
If there is no product on the field why do I have to pay for a product I don't get? Isn't them grounds for a class action lawsuit?
Article X of your PSL agreement: Strikes, Damages, Destruction, covers your question.
To save a bunch of typing, yes, we have to pay for the tickets or lose our PSL standing.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Quote:
On that note, I got my email today from Big Mike telling me that the Browns are gonna send me my invoice for season tickets in short order. The first thing that goes thru my head is "What happens if there is a lockout?" Do the Browns keep my cabbage and collect interest onnit?
If there is no product on the field why do I have to pay for a product I don't get? Isn't them grounds for a class action lawsuit?
The Browns have already stated that if season ticket holders will be refunded or credited (at the ticket holders choice) for any missed games due to work stopage. You will not recieve interest, so if that's a big deal you should probably go with the payment plan.
What they didn't address is what happens if they have "scab" games. Likely, they keep the cash and tell us "you paid for game, and you got a game".
Sadly, a scab team may be our best chance to compete...
I didn't hear that(about the refund) though the credit is spelled out in the PSL agreement in the event of some abatement.
In any event, the account will have to be paid in full by the prescribed time, so a payment plan really isn't a advantage other than it helps some people spread the amount to better fit a more normal cash flow.
I just pay mine in full, so I don't know when the payment option has to be fulfilled, but I am sure it has to be before August when exhibition games start to roll.
It isn't beyond possibility this could go that late before agreement is reached and still kick off the season at the normal time.
We might not get exhibition games...but that would be good. The loss of those 2 games could gladly be credited towards my next seasons invoice.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Things I would suggest:
17 regular season games 3 preseason games up roster to 57: Owners get 1 extra game, teams either have a winner or losing season, and more roster spots for players.
Rookie pay scale: 3 year deals similar to NBA. Move money from rookies to FAs.
Franchise Tag: Once a franchise tag is applied no other tag my be applied the following year.
Set a 115-118 Million Dollar salary cap: Its a drop in salary cap but more money should be making its way to veterans.
1% of every contract signed goes into retirement fund ran by NFLPA.
And I'm done...NFL and NFLPA you know where to find me. 
I don't see a odd number of games. it would require a schedule that flip flops the odd number of exhibition games year to year.
Season ticket holders pay for exhibition games at the same rate as regular season games.
It also sets up some teams playing one extra game at home or one extra game on the road which disrupts competitive balance.
The number will remain a even number. NBA....82 games...NHL...82 games.....MLB 162 games.
Is there any sports league that plays a odd number of games??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Season ticket holders pay for exhibition games at the same rate as regular season games.
Am I just thinking of this wrong, but doesn't that sound a bit like a rip off?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Yes it is a rip off but there isn't a choice - you want season tickets, you pay for 10 games two of which are pre-season. My seats are 70/each so I basically throw away 280 a year in order to see 8 regular season games. I sucks, but if you want the season tickets it's a price you have to pay. I usually end up giving them away.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Yes it is a rip off but there isn't a choice - you want season tickets, you pay for 10 games two of which are pre-season. My seats are 70/each so I basically throw away 280 a year in order to see 8 regular season games. I sucks, but if you want the season tickets it's a price you have to pay. I usually end up giving them away.
I donate them to the Browns Charity. I just got my acknowledgement from them a few days ago, allowing me to deduct the full value of the seats as a charitable deduction.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Thanks a lot Peen. I decided to sleep in for once and I wake up to this crap about Section X in the PSL agreement. I am so gonna have to buy a house and donate the preseason to charity and get the value for those worthless tickets. I throw away 110.00 every year.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
j/c
Yes, it stinks for season ticket holders to have to pay the same full price for pre-season games. It isn't fair.
However, as I back the league and the owners in this whole situation, i.e: it's the players choice to play in the league - they can't "demand" more money..........I also have to back the league and owners on the issue of charging full price for the pre-season.
It is their team. They set the rules, as long as they abide by the league rules.
A couple of things: I do think if I were the owner, I would absolutely discount the pre season tickets. How much can it cost them if they knock $10 or $15 off per ticket?
And what does it do for them if they do? Well, they lose a little revenue on the ticket sales per ticket - but they may get more people in the stands for the pre-season game........which means a bit more in concession revenue, etc..........
BUT, it also enables a good p.r. campaign for the team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Thanks a lot Peen. I decided to sleep in for once and I wake up to this crap about Section X in the PSL agreement. I am so gonna have to buy a house and donate the preseason to charity and get the value for those worthless tickets. I throw away 110.00 every year.
Well, more bad news for you Bubba...if sounds like you only have the one seat unless there are some $27.50 a game seats I am not aware of.
The Browns Charity only accepts pairs of seats, so some kid can go with their Big brother or Big Sister.
I hope you don't have any rope or gun near by. 
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Fork this bad news. I haver an idea. You know how I split my season ticks with my ex bro in law? Well, he has a house and he itemizes. I'm gonna propose we both donate and split the deduction cash.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Quote:
they can't "demand" more money...
Sure they can. Just like I can go to my boss and say I want more money. Just like in either case they can both say no.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
they can't "demand" more money...
Sure they can. Just like I can go to my boss and say I want more money. Just like in either case they can both say no.
Of course - but you knew what I meant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Fork this bad news. I haver an idea. You know how I split my season ticks with my ex bro in law? Well, he has a house and he itemizes. I'm gonna propose we both donate and split the deduction cash.
I still don't think that will work if the seats are in two different names.
Even then, it only impacts what you pay or what you owe. For as little involved...reducing your taxable income $110 isn't going to impact what you owe or what you get by more then a few dollars in real money in or out of the pocket.
The best bet is we get a 18 game schedule and trade one of our two worthless tickets for a real game.
I can live with having to pay for 1 exhibition game.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,068
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,068 |
Shepdawg, is the agenda here to totally ... off fans completely? This is poor judgment and ccould make short money but hurt you for a lonnngggg time. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
You have a choice: they can stick it. To make you Pay in advance for a product that may not be delivered, collect interest...can you put the funds in escrow?
PSLs are a great invention to steal from fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Indeed I have a choice.
I choose to send in my $1404 and not worry about it.
As for interest....what interest?? What am I going to lose, $14??
I mostly agree on the PSL issue. It cost me $3000 to get the seats, and can pass them in the estate if I kick the bucket next week. The seats are also good enough I don't think I will have any real trouble selling them when the time comes. If not full value, I can sell them at a discount and still feel like I just got bonus money. If I can't sell them at all...shrug.
My $3000 was spent long ago and is long gone as far as I am concerned. I don't look at it like I view a stock certificate and include it as part of my net worth for estate planning purposes.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Report: CBA talks broke down after union proposed 50-50 split
February 10, 2011, 10:56 AM EST
So much for optimism.
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Thursday’s bargaining session between the NFL and the NFLPA was canceled after the two sides hit a wall regarding the most important aspect of the deal, the formula for splitting up the money.
Mort reports that the NFLPA proposed a split of roughly 50-50 between players and owners, and that the owners walked away from the table in response.
Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.”
Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport.
The league’s misinterpretation of the proposal is a bit surprising, since a 50-50 split of total football revenue would have reflected the much-debated 18 percent reduction that the owners’ reportedly have asked the players to take. Then again, the union’s decision to propose essentially a 50-50 sharing of all revenue is equally surprising, given that the players currently get roughly that amount under the current deal.
According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent. In 2004, it was 52.18 percent. In 2005, 50.52 percent. In 2006, it was 52.74 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2007, it was 51.84 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2009, it was 50.06 percent.
Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all.
That said, we think it was unreasonable for the league stormed out. We assume the proposal reflected an opening offer from the union under an “all revenue” model, and opening offers implicitly contain room to move. With the league refusing to open the books to justify the desire to cut the players’ share, it’s not unreasonable for the players to say, “Look, let’s quit bickering about the league taking money off the top and let’s just work out a formula based on every dollar that comes in. Our first move is to ask for roughly what we currently get. Feel free to counter.”
If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.
It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter.
That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably.
Either way, the outside lawyers who are handling the negotiations (Jeffrey Kessler for the union and Bob Batterman for the league) continue to bill by the hour, and every hour of effort expended on the negotiations and a lockout and whatever comes next will serve only to fatten their coffers.
So maybe, just maybe, Robert Kraft — and Shakespeare (possibly a/k/a John Florio) — were right.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Being a lawyer who gets involved in negotiations like this, I have a tough time bashing the lawyers. But, that's just me.  This is an interesting development, though. If, like the articles says, the NFLPA was making a demand, but couching it in terms of a "first" offer, with the expectation of counter-offers, and the owners walked out, then that definitely reflects poorly on the owners (and vice versa if it was a "take it or leave it" offer from the NFLPA). I just have to think there's a middle ground that will work for everyone. I guess it all just depends on how greedy each side is. If the owners are coming out and saying "we need more money and we're going to take it from you and we won't back down from our position one cent", then you're not going to have successful negotiations. Same thing if that's the union's stance. I will say I have a tough time sympathizing with the owners here (and I know there are others who have a tough time sympathizing with the players). Well, as much as I can sympathize with the players. I just think the owners are being very greedy here, but they know they can weather this storm much better than the players.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
79...I could understand the owners walking out as a negotiating ploy, but it would seem to me, on the surface, the two sides are not that far apart from where they were with the present agreement.
Each side is going to try to get as many concessions as they can, but I believe the two sides might be closer than the impression they are giving to the media and public.
These types of negotiations get done when the time is right and not before. At this point, it looks like the ball is in the owners court.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a deal is done at the 11th hour. That's just the way things happen. The realities don't become truly apparent until you don't have a choice but to make a decision.
I'm just surprised that the owners are taking the "walk out of the room" approach now. I guess they're just trying to lay down the law early. Usually, you don't see that until things are getting down to the end and one side really wants to solidify its position.
At this point, I'm not sure it really helps their situation.
The NFLPA could take the approach of, if the owners aren't willing to negotiate now, then why should we try?
I'm sure both sides are taking hardline approaches, but that just doesn't yield the best results.
It all just seems so silly since the league has a ridiculous amount of money, and the true sticky issues are pretty few in number.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.”
79...what is the difference between “total football revenue" and “all revenue” ?
That seems to be a point of disagreement today.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
lol, I have no clue.
I'm guessing that "all football revenue" is stuff just related to the game, like ticket sales, etc.
All revenue would include advertising, royalties from merchandise, etc.
Total guess.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Yeah ..... Food sales, PSLs, merchandise sales, parking, etc.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Well, if that's the case, why would the owners be upset that the NFLPA wanted money only from "total football revenue"? Or was it the NFLPA who was upset by that?
I'd have to assume that "total revenue" would be more than "total football revenue."
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
No idea.
It's millionaires fighting billionaires ........ so who knows what's what?
Maybe total football revenue includes all of that stuff then? Maybe it also includes DVDs and such of past games?
I dunno. All I do know is that I hope they get it resolved.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
lol, I have no clue.
I'm guessing that "all football revenue" is stuff just related to the game, like ticket sales, etc.
All revenue would include advertising, royalties from merchandise, etc.
Total guess.
79...maybe someone will take the time to write on this issue...“total football revenue" VS “all revenue”...in a way that an average fan can understand.
If the owners mistook what the players were offering, and there is a substantial difference between to the two amounts of money...it may have po'ed the owners enough to end the session.
Without knowing what the figures are..."total football revenue" and "all revenue"...it's impossible to estimate how close the two sides are..they may not be as close as I think. Like I said, maybe someone with knowledge of the amounts will write a story explaining this issue.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,313
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,313 |
Quote:
Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport.
There ya go Mac they're a billion dollars apart...
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
So, the NFLPA offered to take half of all revenue, and the owners want them to take half of football revenue? That's kind of the way I'm reading it.
Once again, if the NFLPA said "we'll take half of all, but we're open to counteroffers", and the owners didn't counter, then that's not cool. But, if the NFLPA said "we'll take half of all, and that's our final offer", then that's not cool, either.
And, maybe it was "we want half of all, that's our final offer, but we might be a little more open to an 18 game schedule (or something ownership wants)."
Anyway, we're only getting bits and pieces of info.
Once again, it just seems like they really *should* be able to come to agreement on these issues. It's just going to come down to greed; unfortunately, I think both of the sides have that in spades.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111 |
They way I read it, the players currently get about 60% of Football Revenue, they offered to take about 50% Total Revenue, which is about the same. So they basically are asking for the same amount of money, just worded differently.
But as you say, the question is did they "ask" for it, or make it their "final offer".
Crowded elevators smell different to short people...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
This might help some Quote:
Word came out today that the NFL owners and NFL Players Association have cancelled a planned five hour bargaining session. Reasons were not given, but Chris Mortensen indicated some serious disagreements on the revenue issue and Andrew Brandt is tweeting about rejected rookie scale proposals. There was some sort of issue about “total revenue” versus “all revenue” and Joel Thorman defined total revenue as follows:
Currently, “total revenue” is defined as the $9 billion gross, minus $1 billion in credits the league takes off the top. The “players get 60 percent of the pie” argument you hear means 60 percent of the $8 billion remaining. Without the stadium credit — or $9 billion — the players currently get about 50 percent, according to the union.
According to Chris Mortensen, it sounds like the two sides are upwards of a billion dollars apart based on the current proposals up for discussion. Owners are apparently asking for a billion dollar credit towards the total revenues on top of an existing billion dollar credit. Union sources indicate that would cut the players’ percentage of the pie to 40%, which they state would be the lowest among athletes in any of the major sports.
Andrew Brandt of National Football Post has been tweeting about disparities as well in the potential rookie salary scale. Brandt tweeted the following this morning:
- NFLPA proposal on rookies limited length to 4 yrs for rounds 1-3; 3 yrs for rounds 4-7, cap on incentives, savings to vets. Rejected by NFL.
- Proposal on rookies from union formally rejected this week. NFL wants wage scale, no negotiations, 5 yrs for 1st rd, 4 yrs for rest.
- Under NFLPA proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 18M over 4 yrs; under NFL proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 8.6M over 5 yrs.
As Brandt later said, this would seem to show a serious fundamental difference between the two sides. Three weeks of negotiating can in fact be an eternity, but until progress is made on at least one of these issues, it’s hard to get excited about avoiding a lockout.
LINK
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
Under NFLPA proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 18M over 4 yrs; under NFL proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 8.6M over 5 yrs.
NFLPA proposal = $4.5 million/year
NFL proposal = $1.72 million/year
Yeah, I'd say that's a disparity.
On this issue, I can really see where both sides are coming from. The NFLPA want it to be high so the vets contracts can stay high. The owners want things low because these guys are unproven.
What about $15 million/5 years? Or $12 million/4 years?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
By comparison to 2010's contracts Code:
1. Sam Bradford QB St. Louis Signed Six years, $78 million ($50M guaranteed)
2. Ndamukong Suh DT Detroit Signed Five years, $68 million ($40M guaranteed)
3. Gerald McCoy DT Tampa Bay Signed Five years, $63 million ($35M guaranteed)
4. Trent Williams OT Washington Signed Six years, $60 million ($36.75M guaranteed)
5. Eric Berry SS Kansas City Signed Six years, $60 million ($34M guaranteed)
6. Russell Okung OT Seattle Signed Six years, $46.5 million ($29.5M guaranteed)
7. Joe Haden CB Cleveland Signed Five years, $50M million ($26M guaranteed)
8. Rolando McClain LB Oakland Signed Five years, $40 million ($23M guaranteed)
9. C.J. Spiller RB Buffalo Signed Five years, $37 million ($20.8M guaranteed)
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think the owners are really low-balling figures there. Less than $2mil/year for the 9th pick in the draft?
Yeah, it's ridiculous the way it's setup now, but that is equally ridiculous (just in the other direction). There should be some value to having a great college career and positioning yourself for a top10 spot in the draft, no?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,540
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,540 |
I think they should all be paid the MINIMUM until they proove they can play. How you get to that is a mystery...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Under NFLPA proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 18M over 4 yrs; under NFL proposal, 9th pick in Draft would make 8.6M over 5 yrs.
NFLPA proposal = $4.5 million/year
NFL proposal = $1.72 million/year
Yeah, I'd say that's a disparity.
On this issue, I can really see where both sides are coming from. The NFLPA want it to be high so the vets contracts can stay high. The owners want things low because these guys are unproven.
What about $15 million/5 years? Or $12 million/4 years?
...adding to your post a bit
See, I've been saying all along...the NFLPA will fight to keep the rookie contracts high. They don't have the "let them earn the money first" thinking like a lot of the fans do. They know rookie contracts are a driving force when negotiations for vets contracts come up.
Bradford's deal is right there alongside Manning's & Brady's contract. The agents likes being able to say, "A rookie is getting this much, my client is a 5-year vet, he should be getting more" statement.
High rookie contracts are like built-in inflation every year. There's no way the NFLPA will want to lose that chip. I'm sure they're jealous of the rookies making a ton, but they aren't jealous enough to hurt their own paychecks because of it.
I think the NFL owners want an NBA-style salary structure. All the rookies and vets get set values. No big bonuses, no deferred salary cap hits...simple and easy.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”
The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.
“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.
But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.
It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.
There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.
Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)
This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.
But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I think they should all be paid the MINIMUM until they proove they can play. How you get to that is a mystery...
these are kids who are playing for the minimum while in college. you can look at the degrees of success of drafting in each round to see that scouting does work (it's just not nearly as perfect as we wish it was).
the kids drafted in the top10 are generally better than below, etc. I think those years in college should be worth something. And, I don't think $4mil/year is unreasonable for the #10 pick in the draft (while the current $10mil/year is unreasonable as it makes them among the highest paid at their position)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Sources: Sides could talk this week
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter
ESPN.com
Updated: February 14, 2011, 2:42 AM ET
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized their documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counter-proposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words were a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, there are knowledgeable sources that previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next year that are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now, there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Everything I've read tells me that we'll be lucky to see real football before October.
Hope I'm wrong. But I don't have a good feeling that I am.......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective
Bargaining Update
|
|
