|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
These "older" players did get paid well for the period in which they played.
Depends on what era you are speaking of. Players as recently as the 70's worked off season jobs cause they had to.. Doug Diekin never came close to the kinda money, not even adjusted for inflation that a Joe Thomas will make. Not even on the same planet.
so there is some validity to the need to take care of the older retired players....
#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: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
These "older" players did get paid well for the period in which they played.
Depends on what era you are speaking of. Players as recently as the 70's worked off season jobs cause they had to.. Doug Diekin never came close to the kinda money, not even adjusted for inflation that a Joe Thomas will make. Not even on the same planet.
so there is some validity to the need to take care of the older retired players....
I don't understand. Why does anyone have to take care of people that voluntarily played a game? They played because they liked it. back then. And why does the nfl need to take care of guys that played 2 years, 6 years, 10 years? They voluntarily traded their play for the money they got. No one forced them to play.
Is it just because the nfl has a lot of money? That's the only reason I can think of for people that say what you are saying.
Here's a little hint: the U.S. of A. used to have a lot of money. "taking care" of everyone has made us a bankrupt nation. We are not rich - we are bankrupt.
The nfl players made a choice. To play. They got paid well. Now it's up to the nfl to take care of them?
If so, see ya nfl - ya won't last more than 5 to 8 years........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
I understand what you are saying Damon, but when Deiken played the league wasn't taking in the money they do now.
My buddy has worked for the same company I do for 15 years longer than I have. When he started he made about half of what I started at. The company was smaller, and their bottom line was too.
The players today make plenty of money. The problem is the union keeps wanting a bigger piece of the pie. Just like in other job sectors. Unions come in and demand high wages. Nothing wrong with that. The membership signs a contract and are paid well. The contract ends, the union comes in and demands more money, which they usually get. Again no problem. The membership dues then grow and the union bosses get powerful. Just like politicians, which they basically become, they use rhetoric to turn the membership against the company.
The owners are billionaires. Most made their money elsewhere. By having the money they can afford to buy a team. The problem is now you have union leaders telling the membership that it isn't fair that the owners are making so much money, sort of like the class envy game politicians use. Now players who are being paid handsomely feel like they are more deserving of the profits than the owners. This is where the problems start. The profits of a company are first and foremost the property of the owner. He has the right to set the salary of the employer. The unions have convinced the members that they are entitled to a bigger chunk of the profits. This is not how it works.
The owners and the league provide employment for the players. They also provide a place for the players to work. They pay to advertise the sport. They pay the media to cover the sport. Basically they foot the bill so the players can make money. IMO, they hold all the cards, and rightfully so.
If the union doesn't give in, they will be locked out. This hurts them the most, since unless they play they have no income. The teams can still make money on merchandise and other things.
IMO, if the league doesn't due something about escalating salaries, eventually all will suffer, even the fans. Look how much it cost now to go to a game. Anybody who doesn't think that the player salaries have a huge part in these costs are kidding themselves. High labor costs have killed many a business in this country. The NFL is riding the same train.
I saw the Steelers live when Bradshaw played. I payed about 20 bucks for my ticket. That wouldn't even pay for parking anymore. We used to ride a bus from Steubenville to Cleveland to see the Browns play. It cost about $45 bucks for the bus and a seat in the endzone, it wasn't called the Dawgpound then.
Times change, Deiken and Bradshaw are both pretty well off, them whining about todays salary means nothing to me. Rookies who get multi million dollar signing bonuses should be the ones footing the bill for the "old guys". Even at league minimum, giving up 1% to a legacy fund would hurt none of them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Quote:
2 preseason games 19 game schedule.
1 game will be played in a foreign country for each team
Players are only allowed to participate in 16 regular season games.
Rosters are extended to 65.
No offense .... but yuck.
2 teams are fighting it out for the final playoff spot .... the Colts and the Patriots for example.
They are tied going into week 17. Somehow they are the onlt 2 teams in contention for the final spot.
Both Manning and Brady have played their 16 games .... so the fates of these 2 teams will be decided in the final 3 weeks by the compelling battle between QBs Brian Hoyer and Curtis Painter. 
Not only that, but do you "rest" all of your starting players during the same game? Do you thrown your backup QB in with a backup line, giving him almost no chance to win, or do you weaken your OL for your starting QB?
I do like a fairly decent sized expansion of the rosters, with all players available on gamedays. I do think that 65 is too many, becaus eit will dilute the salaries of the "midrange" players too much. I would say maybe 58 players per team, with no more inactive lists. I would change the IR rules so that a team could place 2 players on IR and bring them back at some point during the season, while leaving the provision that the rest would be "season ending". Tems would receive a 1 week roster exemption where players could practice after being reactivated before another player is dropped. The team would not have to declare which player fall into which category, but rather once they activate 2 players from IR, they cannot activate any more players. I think that this would be a decent compromise, and would make IR a useful tool for teams, instead of making it a death sentence for the year for a player.
I would stay with 20 total games, 18 regular season and 2 pre-season. If I needed to "sweeten the pot" for players, I would go to 3 bye weeks during the season. This would allow for a bye week in each third of the season, and would allow for some minor bumps and bruises to heal.
I don't think that there are any issues that can't be ironed out with some creative thinking by teams. I don't know that a team can. for example, ever spend 100% of their cap. What if they need to sign a player to replaced an injured player later in the season. I would haye to see the billions of idiotic exemptions and such like the NBA has. They should have a minimum salary floor though to go along with a maximum cap. It could be something like 85% - 100%.
PS. I hate the idea of every team being forced to play a game overseas.
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: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
18 games are too much wear and tear on the players who do not want it. when is enough enough the greed is unbelievable. Both sides may need to learn the lesson THE FANS FEED THEM. The money spent on the NFL is discretionary income in an age when many fans are hurting. there is ZERO sympathy for either side.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
I would like to see two preseason games ...
I am completely open to opinion here, but from what I understand this could be one of the worst things.
Preseason game #2 is about getting the backup's feat wet and #4 is all about who makes the roster. The only thing that would scare me with this is that with only 2 games, you either get your starters play time, or you figure out which draft picks and rookies will make the team ....(for the Browns this has often been both  )
But if a coach has 85 players and has to get down to 53... I'm just not sure thiÏ two games is enough time ... and I have actually heard a coach state that he wish he had more than 4 weeks of preseason to figure out what he had.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
The owners and the league provide employment for the players. They also provide a place for the players to work. They pay to advertise the sport. They pay the media to cover the sport. Basically they foot the bill so the players can make money. IMO, they hold all the cards, and rightfully so.
First, the television media pays the NFL to be allowed to cover the games. Secondly, tax money pays a huge percentage to build the stadiums where the players work. The owners do foot a lot of the bill but a lot of the bill is paid by others as well.
The percentage the players receive is figured on a lesser amount than the total revenues. Much of the expenses you mention above are taken off the top before the percentage split.
Players do make a lot of money. Some of them anyway. Sure they play a game that they choose to play. But they have been playing that game since they were 8 years old. They've dedicated their entire lives to the game. By the time they're 25-30 years old they have dedicated some 17 to 22 years of their life learning to play the game. For the NFL owners, that is exactly the kind of players they need in order to offer the quality of football that has become the most popular sport in the country by a long shot. The NFL needs employees who have dedicated their entire lives to what the NFL needs.
I don't mind my boss making a lot more money than me. I work for a wage and he works for a profit. He takes the risks, I do the work. I haven't dedicated my entire life to be exactly what he needs from an employee and he isn't the only company for whom I can work.
Granted, there has to be some dang limit on how much the players make. But at the same time there has to be some dang limit on how much the owners make as well. The argument that this is a disagreement between millionaires and billionaires says something. It says the owners have 1000 times more money than the players. How freaking greedy does an owner have to be to demand 2 extra games for 18% less money? Pretty damn greedy if you ask me.
And how dang greedy do the owners have to be Ïo orchestrate a lockout that would severely damage the economy and job situations of the cities who have NFL teams just so they can pull one over on the players? Pretty damn greedy if you ask me. Remember, were talking about billionaires here who are enjoying possibly the highest profits from their teams in league history. It's not like they're hurting at all for money.
And there's a large group of retired players who played a game they chose to play for the money they were offered and are now physically and mentally impaired due to their injuries they suffered in those games, which, by the way, served to put those billionaires in the fortunate situation they find themselves in presently of enjoying possibly the highest profits from their team in league history. It's no like they're hurting for money while the retired players who the NFL was built on and by are hurting just to buy food and medical care. How dang greedy do the owners have to be to ignore those people who put them in their lofty status? Pretty damn greedy if you ask me. And they still show films of those old, retired players as a means to promote the current NFL and those old, retired players get nothing for that.
I agree the players make a lot of money. But so do the owners. But there has to be a balance in it somewhere. Not equal money, it is the owners who make it happen. But it is also the players who make it happen. Someone said above that the players can be replaced, but those playing are the best of the best so who do you replace them with, the best of the second best?
Owners and players need each other. Just like any business and it's employees need each other. And just like most other businesses, the owners will do anything they can to screw their workers out of the little money they have so they can put it in their own over-stuffed pockets.
I once worked at a small place that the owner was paying me full time, another guy only 25% of his wage as the government covered the rest and he had 2 more employees to whom he paid nothing as the government covered all of their compensation in the form of food stamps, a small monthly check and a medical card. (They had to work somewhere for their benefits). These were all good people and good, hard workers.
The owner bitched about the amount of coffee he was buying since 5 people, (including himself), were drinking from the pot. He wanted to start a system wherein everyone contributed to a "coffee fund" because he felt he was spending too much money on coffee. WTF?! He had 3 good employees to whom he was paying 25% of 1 employee's wage and had the audacity to bitch about the amount of money he was spending on coffee!
This is the type of which the NFL owners remind me of with their billions of dollars, a bright future with no competition, and still looking to their employees to make concessions. They've got more money than they can spend, more money than anyone needs to leave a legacy of a fortune behind when they're gone. The game of making money simply takes some people over to such a degree that anything other than their won coffer is of little regard to them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
I listened to quite a bit of the NFL "State of the Union" presser today with Goodell and the media. There was one thing that snapped my head around and made me really pay attn. Goodell was asked about owners opening the books to the union / players.
He responded that the union / players were going to have to get past that "ploy" and "thats all it is.. a ploy" That right there told me the owners are going to dig in their heels and the union is going to hang their hat on that issue.
I did NOT come away from that exchange feeling good about things.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
who made up the date that this had to be signed by?
It's called a contract. (Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the NFLPA (union)
That's when it expires.
It hasn't been a secret....and now it comes in less than 4 weeks and I've been warning about this for 2 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
who made up the date that this had to be signed by?
It's called a contract. (Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the NFLPA (union)
That's when it expires.
It hasn't been a secret....and now it comes in less than 4 weeks and I've been warning about this for 2 years.
Yes sir you have.....
Since the owners opted out in 2008 not to keep the current CBA in place threw 2012.
Thanks for the up dates along the way.
Rookie contracts have been sky rocketing since 2007 and I think the owners and players both have to see that it has gone out of control, but on the other issues like the 18 game season and giving up the players union current % of the revenue.
I think the revenue sharing could be offset to a degree by a rookie wage scale as far as the players are concerned.
The 18 game schedule I think is a more complex issue.
Just a thought.....what if the 1st two games after (2) preseason games where inter Conference games that although would count towards the overall standings, the Divisions and Conference records (standings) would not be effected.
*Edit: The 1st two games would have meaning because of home field advantage and overall record, but the Divisional games will still be decided within the Division and would increase the value of those games more so then they already are /Edit.
Add a scrimmage game as most do anyways and move up the start of training camp one week.
The other factors like an extra bye week, (weather being a factor with the North and Northeastern teams) increased roster sizes and increase revenue sharing towards the players pension fund might be sticking points, but with any contract negotiation there will be posturing on both sides.
I am already soured with MLB and the NFL has been able to endure and prosper in their stead.
I think they have because they have given the fans the game and the balance they need to keep us interested for the most part.
Don't screw this good thing up.
That's my hope and that it will continue to grow.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 02/05/11 02:46 PM.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
I listened to quite a bit of the NFL "State of the Union" presser today with Goodell and the media. There was one thing that snapped my head around and made me really pay attn. Goodell was asked about owners opening the books to the union / players.
He responded that the union / players were going to have to get past that "ploy" and "thats all it is.. a ploy" That right there told me the owners are going to dig in their heels and the union is going to hang their hat on that issue.
I did NOT come away from that exchange feeling good about things.
The thing about this is, the owners own the teams.. it was thier money that either bought or started those teams..
I don't see where it's the players business what the leagues profit margins are.
I understand that without players, there isn't a league,,, but without the owners that were willing to pony up the bucks to begin with, there isn't a need for players... No league, no need for players..
The owners have already proven they can get other guys to play.. have the players ever found a replacement for the owners?
#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: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
The owners have already proven they can get other guys to play.. have the players ever found a replacement for the owners?
Great point. I believe the owners have the leverage. Even if it gets to the point where they use replacement players, regulars eventually cross because they see the games going on without them, and their window to play is shorter than an owners window to own.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
The thing about this is, the owners own the teams.. it was thier money that either bought or started those teams..
I don't see where it's the players business what the leagues profit margins are.
I understand that without players, there isn't a league,,, but without the owners that were willing to pony up the bucks to begin with, there isn't a need for players... No league, no need for players..
True the NFL is the best business in the business of football.
They players are also the best in their profession, so they do have a leg to stand on, But only one leg 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,293
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,293 |
Quote:
Goodell was asked about owners opening the books to the union / players.
He responded that the union / players were going to have to get past that "ploy" and "thats all it is.. a ploy"
Well Roger, if it's only a ploy, then NFL owners should be more than willing to call the union's bluff and open the books.
Unless there's a reason they don't want to. 
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Quote:
Goodell was asked about owners opening the books to the union / players.
He responded that the union / players were going to have to get past that "ploy" and "thats all it is.. a ploy"
Well Roger, if it's only a ploy, then NFL owners should be more than willing to call the union's bluff and open the books.
Unless there's a reason they don't want to.
Why should they? They own the business,, the Players aren't partners, they are employees..
Does your employer open up the books to you? I mean, if it's a privately held business. of course, publically held business have to open up the books.
But the NFL is private..
#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: 13,293
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,293 |
Of course they don't have to, but if they're asking the players to take less then maybe they should show them why. Since it's only "a ploy" and all.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I don't see where it's the players business what the leagues profit margins are.
I don't think it's necessarily the players' business, but when all of the owners' arguments are predicated on their assertion that they're not making enough money then the onus ought to be on the owners to back up their claim. The simplest way for them to do that is to open up their books and show them the bottom line. Expecting the players' union to just take it at face value that the owners are being on the up and up in this sort of negotiation is a bit absurd, if you ask me. I think the bottom line just might not be as bad as the owners want everyone to believe.
As for "replacement owners", I said last fall that it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL had some plans in the works in anticipation of a lockout. There will probably be a good number of mid-tier NFL players that will be looking for a payday, and the AFL can only benefit from an infusion of NFL-caliber talent. Granted, the top-tier guys will probably just ride out any work stoppage, either living off the money they've banked or knowing that they'll be able to cash in big once play resumes. But the older guys, journeyman types and players on the cusp are going to be looking for work wherever they can find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
So why wouldn't many of those player "looking for a payday" cross over and rejoin their old teams? That is, by far, their best payday.
Also, with leagues like the UFL, AFL, CFL, and every other FL imaginable out there playing games, there is a lot of "developmental" type talent to go along with reclaimation type talent. There's not a lot of great talent, but there would almost certainly be better talent available than there was during the last players strike when the NFL fielded replacement games.
Also, if the NFL went to replacement players and played games, it would make sense for a lot of those mid tier guys who don't want to lose their job to some guy who shows up and flashes some talent during a replacement game to get their butts in. Then you would be missing the stars ..... and the really young up and comers. (like Ward, Haden, etc) The younger players would probably be the next to go as they generally have played football for most of their lives, and not playing football while they would have the ability to do so would probably drive them nuts. If it then becomes star players vs everyone else, the owners win, hands down.
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: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see where it's the players business what the leagues profit margins are.
I don't think it's necessarily the players' business, but when all of the owners' arguments are predicated on their assertion that they're not making enough money then the onus ought to be on the owners to back up their claim. The simplest way for them to do that is to open up their books and show them the bottom line. Expecting the players' union to just take it at face value that the owners are being on the up and up in this sort of negotiation is a bit absurd, if you ask me. I think the bottom line just might not be as bad as the owners want everyone to believe.
As for "replacement owners", I said last fall that it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL had some plans in the works in anticipation of a lockout. There will probably be a good number of mid-tier NFL players that will be looking for a payday, and the AFL can only benefit from an infusion of NFL-caliber talent. Granted, the top-tier guys will probably just ride out any work stoppage, either living off the money they've banked or knowing that they'll be able to cash in big once play resumes. But the older guys, journeyman types and players on the cusp are going to be looking for work wherever they can find it.
I think in that case it would have to be a unilateral decision by the players union and they would be risking injury with a company that they might not have the same security with as with the NFL in the past.
For a vested Veteran to work outside of their union could be detrimental to their future if injured with no compensation from their pension fund.
It's not as simple as finding a new League to work for imo. At least not this year.
Remember the NFL has contracts with the networks as they do with other sports events already and then there's the NCAA games. It's not enough to merely have a stadium to host games.
If there is a lock out, then because the NFL is bound contractually with the networks, we would then see replacement players.
That's not a good thing for either party, but the media and networks a like have befitted (together) from putting the best product out on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Of course they don't have to, but if they're asking the players to take less then maybe they should show them why. Since it's only "a ploy" and all.
Again, it's the owners business.. the players are JUST employees..
Do you work for a privately held company? Do they tell you what thier profits are? My guess is, no, they don't.
Why should the NFL?
Everyone around here is so "freedom" minded.. why is it that the owners of the league are being asked to reveal thier earnings?
that's NOBODYs business but thiers...
What's funny is, the players are more than well aware of what the revenue is from TV. it wouldn't take a mental giant to figure out what the revenue is from stadium operations and from sales of apparel.
Bottom line, I agree with the commish, it's a ploy. And just because someone issues a challenge, doesn't mean anyone has to pay attention to it.
I love football, it will most likely drive me nuts not to have it, but if I'm an owner, I would vote to find replacement players.. certainly allowing current players to return at some substantial drop from thier last years income.
I subscribe to the golden rule.. Thems that got the gold, RULE!
#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: 14,511
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,511 |
With the TV contracts the owners will not be hurting next year.... they will survive... most of the players will be fine... who will be hurting is all the midlevel people who work for the teams and the game day staff...
I think someone said earlier that the 18 game schedule might be a ploy... just the owners saying the want it but then getting rid of it to say they 'lost' something... maybe... I still think there will be a 18 game schedule next year but we'll see...
in terms of the owners showing their numbers... will never happen... IIRC the Packers numbers are open to the public because it's a publically owned franchise.
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
So why wouldn't many of those player "looking for a payday" cross over and rejoin their old teams? That is, by far, their best payday.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. NFL teams can't negotiate contracts with free agents without a CBA in place. If you meant something else, I apologize...just really not sure what you're getting at.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I think in that case it would have to be a unilateral decision by the players union and they would be risking injury with a company that they might not have the same security with as with the NFL in the past.
I'm not sure why you think it would have to be unilateral...plenty of players have played in different leagues. I actually misspoke in my previous post...I said AFL but meant UFL. Might be a source of some confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think in that case it would have to be a unilateral decision by the players union and they would be risking injury with a company that they might not have the same security with as with the NFL in the past.
I'm not sure why you think it would have to be unilateral...plenty of players have played in different leagues. I actually misspoke in my previous post...I said AFL but meant UFL. Might be a source of some confusion.
I am not saying some won't wander. Some even crossed the Pickett lines during the last stoppage of play, but what I am saying is that they would be on their own unless it was a unilateral decision and even then the players union has limited resources without the NFL.
It really doesn't matter what League they would play for, to me it's
irrelevant.
There is only one NFL and in the long term, they offers a player more then any other would be League could, because of their wealth and power and world wide appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Quote:
Quote:
So why wouldn't many of those player "looking for a payday" cross over and rejoin their old teams? That is, by far, their best payday.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. NFL teams can't negotiate contracts with free agents without a CBA in place. If you meant something else, I apologize...just really not sure what you're getting at.
I am sure that players who are under contract will cross a picket line, should there be one.
I am also sure that there will be some provision for those who want to play but are unsigned free agents. I'm not sure how that part would work out, but I would guess that there will be some sort of methodology worked out.
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: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
The issue pertaining to FA's and UDFA rookies are supposedly off limits to teams with no new CBA between the NFL and the players union. Why? UDFA's have never been in the players union.
I think it has to do with anti trust statute, but the teams will sign replacement players if there is a lockout.
The pool from witch they will fill their rosters will have to come from somewhere.
They all can't come from players under contract that cross the pickett lines.
My guess is that they will have to come from other leagues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,334
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,334 |
J/C
If it came right down to it, couldn't the owners just start over? If the owners feel the players and union are asking for the world and not budging, couldn't they just start over with the college players for 2012? Basically retiring all of the current NFL players. Sure they could go to the UFL or CFL but it would never be the same for them, would it? How many players would come back and play with no union?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
wow.. that would be crazy..
So no more Colt McCoy? that was quick.. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
J/C
If it came right down to it, couldn't the owners just start over? If the owners feel the players and union are asking for the world and not budging, couldn't they just start over with the college players for 2012? Basically retiring all of the current NFL players. Sure they could go to the UFL or CFL but it would never be the same for them, would it? How many players would come back and play with no union?
Not 100% sure, but without a contract in place and without any thing resembling a CBA, I'd say yeah.. I'd think they could do as they did in the late 80's with replacement players...
I'd also guess that if they have a player under contract, say,, Colt McCoy as an example.. If he crossed the line, showed up for camp,, then I'd guess they'd have to honor his contact. I mean, if he's honoring it, wouldn't they have to also? I mean unless there is something written somewhere prohibiting it...
So the next question is, can free agents (those no longer under a contract) go out and get a deal with another team? I'd say the league wouldn't allow it.
#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: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
J/C
If it came right down to it, couldn't the owners just start over? If the owners feel the players and union are asking for the world and not budging, couldn't they just start over with the college players for 2012? Basically retiring all of the current NFL players. Sure they could go to the UFL or CFL but it would never be the same for them, would it? How many players would come back and play with no union?
Not 100% sure, but without a contract in place and without any thing resembling a CBA, I'd say yeah.. I'd think they could do as they did in the late 80's with replacement players...
I'd also guess that if they have a player under contract, say,, Colt McCoy as an example.. If he crossed the line, showed up for camp,, then I'd guess they'd have to honor his contact. I mean, if he's honoring it, wouldn't they have to also? I mean unless there is something written somewhere prohibiting it...
So the next question is, can free agents (those no longer under a contract) go out and get a deal with another team? I'd say the league wouldn't allow it.
I believe that these rules pertaining to FA were written into the last CBA upon completion that is, so both parties will be in know mans land a sort of limbo...it's going to be strange.
Well at least we have the Draft to look forward to and the Combine is just around the corner starting on the 23rd.
I can't wait to get past all this drama *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
J/C
If it came right down to it, couldn't the owners just start over? If the owners feel the players and union are asking for the world and not budging, couldn't they just start over with the college players for 2012? Basically retiring all of the current NFL players. Sure they could go to the UFL or CFL but it would never be the same for them, would it? How many players would come back and play with no union?
Not 100% sure, but without a contract in place and without any thing resembling a CBA, I'd say yeah.. I'd think they could do as they did in the late 80's with replacement players...
I'd also guess that if they have a player under contract, say,, Colt McCoy as an example.. If he crossed the line, showed up for camp,, then I'd guess they'd have to honor his contact. I mean, if he's honoring it, wouldn't they have to also? I mean unless there is something written somewhere prohibiting it...
So the next question is, can free agents (those no longer under a contract) go out and get a deal with another team? I'd say the league wouldn't allow it.
I believe that these rules pertaining to FA were written into the last CBA upon completion that is, so both parties will be in know mans land a sort of limbo...it's going to be strange.
Well at least we have the Draft to look forward to and the Combine is just around the corner starting on the 23rd.
I can't wait to get past all this drama *sigh*
you and me also,, this is getting sticky and I only see it getting worse.
#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: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
Quote:
J/C
If it came right down to it, couldn't the owners just start over? If the owners feel the players and union are asking for the world and not budging, couldn't they just start over with the college players for 2012? Basically retiring all of the current NFL players. Sure they could go to the UFL or CFL but it would never be the same for them, would it? How many players would come back and play with no union?
My guess is the first year not many the second year more the third year ..what union?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
J/C,
Sides meet to talk CBA, promise more frequent sessions
CBSSports.com wire reports
Feb. 5, 2011
DALLAS -- The NFL and its players union met for two hours Saturday to talk about a new labor deal, their first formal bargaining session in more than two months.
The meeting was at a Dallas hotel, one day before the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers play in the Super Bowl at Cowboys Stadium. The full negotiating teams last sat down face-to-face on Nov. 22.
NFL willing to bend on 18-game schedule -- and it should be
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
Feb. 4, 2011
DALLAS -- With NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Friday saying that "the status quo is not acceptable," it doesn't look as if the league will drop its idea for an 18-game regular season anytime soon. But at least it has admitted that 18 games is negotiable -- and that's a start to a conversation, folks.
Look, players have made it clear where they stand on the subject. They don't like it. In fact, when Pittsburgh linebacker James Harrison this week was asked if he knew someone, anyone, in the NFL who embraced the idea, he shook his head.
Well, now the NFL has. Or, more accurately, NFL vice president of labor/league counsel Jeff Pash has, and he's the guy in charge of leading the NFL's negotiating team.
"We have not drawn a line in the sand on 18 games or anything else," Pash said in a private session after the commissioner's annual Super Bowl news conference. "Realistically, it's an easier deal to make, but it is not the only deal to make."
"Does that mean 18 games is negotiable?" I asked.
"Very much so," Pash said.
Good. Because it should be, and it should because from the moment the 18-game proposal was floated, players have been outspoken in their opposition. Like Harrison, I haven't met or heard from a player who favors the idea, mostly out of concern for injuries and pay. Essentially, they wonder: What's in it for us? And the idea of increased revenues isn't enough to gain their approval.
So they have been strong in their opposition to the idea, with Harrison this week describing it as "absolutely ludicrous." While I understand Harrison doesn't speak for the rank and file, he does reflect the opinion of a majority of players -- and "majority" is conservative. I have yet to encounter an NFL player who endorses the plan.
But that's not all. Pittsburgh president Dan Rooney, one of the moderates among NFL owners and, historically, one of their leaders, last month opposed the idea of an 18-game schedule, saying, "I would rather not have the money."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Quote:
DALLAS -- The NFL and its players union met for two hours Saturday to talk about a new labor deal, their first formal bargaining session in more than two months.
Two whole hours? Holy Moly, we should have a deal any second now.
What a crock of manure. 2 hours is about enough time to introduce everyone at the bargaining table and enough to order one beer.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Yeah, they had to have a meeting to make plans for another meeting  How covenant the day before the SB. By Gregg Doyel CBSSports.com National Columnist Feb. 4, 201 DALLAS -- The NFL doesn't care about you, and if you're reading this, yes, I'm talking to you. The fans. Players. Coaches. All of you. The only people the NFL truly cares about are its owners -- none of whom care enough to read actual people like me as I dispense a real-world opinion on what the hell is going on in their league. The NFL doesn't care about the real world. The NFL cares only about NFL World, which is why the Super Bowl is being held this week at Jerry World, and will be held next year at Indianapolis and in two years at New Jersey. Those cities win, and as a Midwesterner myself I'm happy for Indianapolis -- but everyone else loses if the weather does what it does in cold-climate regions in late January. Dallas isn't Duluth, but it does get cold here in late January, and the snowstorm that crippled this region has denied tens of thousands of fans their Super Bowl experience. They'll get here by kickoff, I'm sure of that, but they weren't here when their plane tickets and their hotel reservations (three-night minimum) said they would be here. Fans are spending a fortune for an experience they're not even experiencing, and why? Because the NFL wanted to scratch Jerry Jones' back -- not protect yours. With luck this won't happen again next year or in 2014, but given the winter weather in Indianapolis and New Jersey, that's speculative. This is factual: The NFL doesn't care whether your NFL experience gets snowed out, because the NFL knows those tickets will sell out, those parking spaces will fill up, the beers and hot dogs will fly out of concession stands -- and the NFL will clean up. But that's what the NFL always does. It cleans up. Capitalism is good, but at the same time, let's be honest here. The NFL has taken capitalism to profoundly fan-unfriendly levels, starting with the threat to black out any regular-season game that doesn't sell out. Those games are blacked out only in their local market, so if you love the Bengals or Chargers or Buccaneers or Lions, you could drive two hours to watch the game at a sports bar. The game won't be blacked out where you're not. They're only blacked out where you are. It's legalized blackmail. And even if the games aren't blacked out, you might not be able to watch them. Not if your cable company has been unable to come to terms with the NFL Network, which is currently available in roughly half the households in this country. That's great, if you're in the right half. If you're in the wrong half -- as I am in Cincinnati -- you're screwed. So, I'm screwed. Half the country is watching a game we can't see, so it feels like we're missing some fabulous joke. All we know is this: The joke's on us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
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?
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Unfortunately, they probably didn't accomplish anything in the meeting, but I bet they each got a chance to lay out their agenda and set up a timetable for what they want to do from here on. At least they got the ball rolling...?
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 747
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 747 |
That article makes me feel like a junkie, a crack addict.
We the fans are the crack heads, and the powers that be are the dealers, who don't give a damn about the junkie as long as they get their money.
[color:"white"]I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane -Waylon Jennings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
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. 
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective
Bargaining Update
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
