|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Oooohhhhh.....you hit me with the  However will I heal from that hit.......
What's next? Plugging your ears and screaming, "Nanananananananana...."
Now that is funny.
If you were any more clever, your IQ would climb to 10
And here we go again.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Sorry, when I see something as ludicrous as some of the stuff I've seen in this thread I can only wait so long before I respond. In my defense, my IQ actually is above 10. Although it drops a few points each time I respond to Daman or FL Dawg so it could get down to that level soon...... 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Just a curiosity here, with the union decertified, i.e., no longer an active part of the players lives, how is it the NFLPA is going to form their own event or party for the draft and as some agents go, suggesting that high draft potential players not go to the NFL draft event but instead attend the event of a defunct entity as based on the players vote. Or is their decertification just a sham as the owners have speculated?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
They're not a union now as they cannot negotiate for the players. But they are now instead a trade association which is something I don't understand. I'm guessing that as a trade association they can form any event or party for the draft that they wish just as we all can.
I'm only guessing.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
If they can't negotiate for the players, why is De Maurice Smith in all the negotiations? I understand there are player reps there as well but this guy is certainly the front man in the negotiations, or as least before they stopped last week.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
If they can't negotiate for the players, why is De Maurice Smith in all the negotiations?
There are no negotiations right now.
Quote:
I understand there are player reps there as well but this guy is certainly the front man in the negotiations, or as least before they stopped last week.
Yes, "before they stopped" being the key words. Now that they decertified, the next step is in the court's hands on April 6th to rule on the legality of the lockout.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Weren't they were negotiating after the decertification?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Weren't they were negotiating after the decertification?
Nope, hasn't been any negotiations since Friday.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Weren't they were negotiating after the decertification?
Nope, hasn't been any negotiations since Friday.
So, when negotiating begins again, unless the union has re-certified, DeMaurice Smith won't be a part of those negotiations?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Not sure how it will proceed from here. Guess we wait out the court process.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
If they are de-certified, doesn't that mean they can't negotiate as a unit?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Oooohhhhh.....you hit me with the However will I heal from that hit.......
What's next? Plugging your ears and screaming, "Nanananananananana...."
Now that is funny.
If you were any more clever, your IQ would climb to 10
Daman you are giving Crazy about 9 points too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No??
The players weren't in talks, but they didn't have to be I suppose. They had a deal they wanted to keep.
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
Nice post. also listen to this jerk agent named Silver on Profootballtalk.com. he sums up what i have always thought. Agents are in risk of losing their biggest cash cow, the millions that go to untested college kids in the annual beauty contest known as the NFL draft. losing all those bloated salaries and bonuses and preying on gullible fish in a barrel(college athletes) these whores are now after the BIG KAHUNA.
They stonewalled the talks because they want the league to LOSE its antitrust exemption and they want the free agency uncapped free for all that has ruined any competitive balance in baseball. In this new set up jerry Jones and the maras would ruin any semblance of competitive balance. This would RUIN fan interest in small markets and make them like "farm clubs" to develop stars to be stolen by the big franchises. The lawyer agents want to use the courts to press their case and the entire league will LOSE, but the lawyers are losing the draft and now are after bigger fish. They are going to the mattresses on this one and the players are too stupid to realize they will KILL fan interest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735 |
I don't think fan interest will be killed.
But to a degree I agree with you on agents.
First, I don't mind agents, nor think them as big a evil as many.
Players are still going to need agents. There is much more to a contract then simply dollars.
Agents also provide multiple services, such as financial services and tax/ estate planning. Most fresh out of college kids don't know much about that.
They also in many cases provide places for these guys to train and work leading up to the draft. It's all a part of the package.
They front them some money in many cases so the kid has nice clothes to wear in the "interview", coach them on what to say, and all that sort of stuff.
Sure, the agent is wanting his payday, but he or she is also working for the client so they get the best deal that helps everybody the most.
These kids don't really know what is a good deal or a bad deal. In most cases the agent has been around and knows how the deal stacks up against other similar deals.
Agents aren't simply bloodsuckers as Eotab always though. They do provide a valuable service to their client.
Deals aren't simply measured in bonus dollars and total contract value.
If people think a player and the owner sit in a room together to hash out a deal, your wrong. It would be the player walking in to a room to talk to a team of professional negotiators with law degrees.
The kid needs someone who knows what's going on, knows what is being said, and knows how to talk back without wondering if he said the right thing.
Now, that said, I agree, a wage scale will hurt agents.
They will do OK though...if they are good and provide a good service, players will really need them the second go around.
The battleground will turn from the first contract to the second contract.
In the end, Peyton Manning is going to make the same amount of career dollars even if his first contract was for 25 mil less. The only guys who make less are the busts...and who really cares about that??
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: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
Quote:
Now, that said, I agree, a wage scale will hurt agents.
Ive thought about that, and initially it might be true. Bul like you say later in your post.
Quote:
In the end, Peyton Manning is going to make the same amount of career dollars even if his first contract was for 25 mil less.
So eventually big time agents will make the same money, its going to end up happening later in the span of representation though. And even with a cap, there is going to be 20-30 million dollar contracts for that first pick.
Agents will be right back to making the same amount of money within 3 or 4 years.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526 |
This deal will help those players who are star players after 4 seasons, because it will allow them free agency. (whether UFA or RFA is still up in the air) It will help the bottom of the roster, as minimums increase.
It will hurt the overvalued rookie 1-10 picks in the 1st round of any draft who were getting contracts with $10-$40 million guaranteed. That will hurt agents ..... because I would bet that a lot of them make their biggest paychecks off of a first round draft pick.
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: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
actually i think it would hurt them alot....
if around 50% of players drafted pan out from the first round, and it goes down from there, then that really limits the amount of players to capitalize off of. Unproven players are safer for the agents cause you are paying for potential...
I would like to see a rookie pay scale, that pays those that prove to be good, but to an agent, they look at it as there are probably only a few franchise guys from each draft after a few years...the rest get reasonable cash, and the rest get cut.
This is big money out of agents pockets imo...
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,526 |
But is it really?
If the teams have a salary cap and salary floor, then some teams will have to pay more than they have been paying ..... so I think that it will even out .... except maybe for the guaranteed money.
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: 39,735
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,735 |
Right.
Agents will still have plenty of money on the table to be earned.
As I said before, in most cases, the second contract will be where the real posturing begins.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
i think the teams have a minimum now too....maybe my logic is flawed, and the money would just have to be paid to other proven players, so its a wash.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,290
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,290 |
j/c
How long before we hear College Football Sunday?
I hope the NCAA gets a Sunday TV contract for football.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
actually i think it would hurt them alot....
if around 50% of players drafted pan out from the first round, and it goes down from there, then that really limits the amount of players to capitalize off of. Unproven players are safer for the agents cause you are paying for potential...
I would like to see a rookie pay scale, that pays those that prove to be good, but to an agent, they look at it as there are probably only a few franchise guys from each draft after a few years...the rest get reasonable cash, and the rest get cut.
This is big money out of agents pockets imo...
This is an angle that doesn't get much chatter,....these guys are as much the "criminals" when it comes to this mess too (as in owners vs. players).
I am near done with it. I hope they all go broke and there is no NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,996
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,996 |
Quote:
actually i think it would hurt them alot....
if around 50% of players drafted pan out from the first round, and it goes down from there, then that really limits the amount of players to capitalize off of. Unproven players are safer for the agents cause you are paying for potential...
I would like to see a rookie pay scale, that pays those that prove to be good, but to an agent, they look at it as there are probably only a few franchise guys from each draft after a few years...the rest get reasonable cash, and the rest get cut.
This is big money out of agents pockets imo...
All that being said, I still find it hard to accept that a kid like Sam Bradford, who has all the potential in the world, gets 50 million coming right out of college. In no other career can that happen.
If they are the player that everyone thinks they'll be, the money will be there. if they aren't, then it won't., Life doesn't offer much in the way of guarantees.. why is it that players and agents think that the NFL should?
#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: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Nice post,... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
Life doesn't offer much in the way of guarantees.. why is it that players and agents think that the NFL should?
My take is because, up to this point, they COULD think that. If you had the ability to get a guaranteed $50 million, would you pass it up just because you haven't "proven" yourself? I wouldn't.
Now, that doesn't mean it should continue that way. I am all in favor of a rookie salary cap. Not only does it make monetary sense, but it will eliminate the holdouts, which are just frustrating, at least from a fan's point of view.
And, you encourage guys to succeed. Now, a lot of these guys try their hardest. It doesn't mean they're going to succeed, but there aren't too many guys who just quit trying. Some of them just aren't as good as people expected them to be. For example, Kam Wimbley. The guy worked hard, but he just didn't cut it for us.
But, I have to think there are a good percentage of these high pick rookies who would play "harder" if they know that their big payday is 3 or 4 years down the road, and only if they truly earn it.
I think the catch is that you have to make sure you have some protection for these guys if, while playing the game in the first couple years, they have a career-ending injury. Let's face it, these guys just plain don't have a lot of other work skills. Let's not get into it about "oh, they should just go get another job." I don't think that's really a fair comparison.
I don't know what the answer is, but I would think there's a way to set something up, some sort of "escrow" account, where these guys could draw some money from the league, even if it's "only" $100,000 or something like that a year. That's a lot of money for many of us, but not a lot when you think about some of these athletes.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,996
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,996 |
Quote:
My take is because, up to this point, they COULD think that. If you had the ability to get a guaranteed $50 million, would you pass it up just because you haven't "proven" yourself? I wouldn't.
No way I'd pass that up either,,,, LOL
Quote:
Now, that doesn't mean it should continue that way. I am all in favor of a rookie salary cap. Not only does it make monetary sense, but it will eliminate the holdouts, which are just frustrating, at least from a fan's point of view.
Absolutly..
I like your thinking on this BF.. not sure about an escrow account, but the idea is at least worth a look I'd think.
About 16 years ago, a guy that worked for me had an idea. The numbers are just numbers,,
Rookie 1st round, top 10 pick. Sliding scale from 1st to 10th pick. starts at 1 million dollar signing bonus and a 3 mill salary..
The 10th pick would receive 1 million bouus and 2 million. The picks in between would get the same bonus but the salary would drop by 100k with each pick
Do the same thing with lesser numbers through the rest of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round.
Then league min for the rest.. the difference being the bonus amount size.
#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: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Another good past,....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
San Diego Chargers linebacker Kevin Burnett delivered a verbal hit to Roger Goodell earlier this week, calling the commissioner a "blatant liar" in an interview with a San Diego radio station.
Appearing on XX Sports Radio in San Diego, Burnett ripped Goodell when asked to respond to the commissioner's e-mail to NFL season-ticket holders after the NFL Players Association filed to decertify as a union and the NFL owners locked out the players. In the e-mail Goodell outlined the NFL's final offer that was rejected, saying "it was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players".
"Goodell's full of it. He's a liar. You're a blatant liar. 'It's our league, it's we, we love the players, we want the league,' but what have you done for the players? What have you done, in all honesty, to improve the game, besides fine guys, besides take money away from guys, besides change a game that you've never played? ... He's done nothing to improve the game," Burnett said.
The 28-year-old Burnett, who has six years of NFL experience, also blasted Goodell for the NFL's substance-abuse program.
"If a guy has a drug problem, give him an alternative, don't just say, 'Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games.' ... You put them in a drug program," he said. "OK, anybody can stick somebody in a nuthouse, but what else are you doing? What programs are you putting in place?"
He also said that the NFL needs to take care of players outside of football if it wants to punish players for things they do off the field.
"Because they suspend players outside of playing football. Is that their responsibility? No. They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well," he said. "In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. ... That's what bothers me."
Burnett said Goodell doesn't measure up to former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who Burnett said was willing to sit down with the players and reach a compromise. He said Goodell essentially represents the owners' interests, not the players'.
He said that players are criticized for holding out but in this case, it's the owners who are doing the same to the players.
"Owners talk about players that hold out of camp and we talk about players who walk out of camp ... well, the owners signed this deal. They signed this deal. Yeah, it was an opt-out, but they signed this deal and now they want money back. Now they're the player that's holding out."
The NFL declined comment when asked by ESPN to respond to Burnett's remarks.
Link
So lemme get this striaght...
We shouldn't fine guys that break rules... And the NFL shouldn't expect players to be good people...
Oh, and they miss Tagliabue because he and Gene Upshaw were buddy-buddy and the players got the best deal (admittedly) last time...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
"If a guy has a drug problem, give him an alternative, don't just say, 'Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games.' ... You put them in a drug program," he said. "OK, anybody can stick somebody in a nuthouse, but what else are you doing? What programs are you putting in place?"
So, it's the league's responsibility to not only treat the players that use drugs, but to also keep them from using? Sorry dude, but you make enough money to get the best treatment possible. IMO, a lengthy suspension as a deterrant is about the best treatment possible. To whine about having to pay the price when you're caught is asinine.
Quote:
They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well," he said. "In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. ... That's what bothers me."
LMFAO!!! Just gimme my millions and let me be a gangsta. That's all we want.
We're supposed to feel sorry for these guys? Sheesh, somebody ought to put a lid on these players. They're making the owners look like saints.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
It's getting bad,...Burnett talks like he has an obvious drug problem and nothing was done about it.
Last edited by OoooRahJoice; 03/19/11 08:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Funny, that's what I was thinking too. How about the union doing something to help players with substance abuse? How about they use some of your dues, Burnett?
It seems to me that the union is still acting like a union. Also it appears that once the union gets the contract they want, and the dues they want, the players have to rely on the league for everything else. How about the NFLPA putting union dues to work for retired players? How about the union pooling their money and getting these guys a supplemental insurance policy to assist them after they leave the league, somewhat like AARP offers for seniors?
The more these uneducated loudmouths speak out, the more public favor is going to turn against them.
I got an idea Burnett, how about if you fail a drug test you are fired, just like it is in the real world. What a douchebag.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
NFL, players continue back-and-forth words dispute 1 hour, 47 minutes ago tweet93 Email Print By HOWARD FENDRICH AP Pro Football Writer MARCO ISLAND, Fla. (AP)—So this is what the NFL and players are reduced to: Both sides are writing letters and issuing statements to and about each other, disputing “facts” and seeking to frame the back-and-forth about the sport’s first work stoppage since 1987. The locked-out players wrote a letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell on Saturday, responding to an email he sent them Thursday and telling him: “Your statements are false.” In a four-page letter, the 11 members of the NFL Players Association executive committee told Goodell that, during labor negotiations, the league’s owners did not justify “their demands for a massive giveback which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major pro sports.” When Goodell wrote all active NFL players on Thursday, he outlined the league’s description of its last proposal, which was made March 11. That turned out to be the 16th and final day of mediated talks, and the old labor deal expired. Goodell ended his letter by saying: “I hope you will encourage your union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement.” Players were upset by that line, particularly the reference to “your union.” When the NFLPA dissolved March 11, it renounced its status as a union that can bargain on behalf of its members and said it is now a trade association, which allowed players to sue the league under antitrust laws. The league calls that move a “sham.” A hearing on the players’ request for a preliminary injunction to stop the lockout is scheduled for April 6 in Minnesota, and there appears little chance of a return to bargaining before then. In a statement emailed to reporters by the league Saturday, hours after the NFLPA released its letter to Goodell, NFL executive vice president Jeff Pash began: “We are pleased now to have received a reply to the comprehensive proposal that we made eight days ago.” Pash, the league’s lead labor negotiator, also said: “Debating the merits of the offer in this fashion is what collective bargaining is all about. … This letter again proves that the most sensible step for everyone is to get back to bargaining.” As if anticipating that the league would seek to portray the players’ letter as a formal reply to the owners’ proposal, the NFLPA executive committee noted in its final paragraph: “We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of the NFL players. …” Their letter began, “Dear Roger,” and closed with “Sincerely,” followed by the names of Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch(notes), Saints quarterback Drew Brees(notes), Broncos safety Brian Dawkins(notes), Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth(notes), Browns linebacker Scott Fujita(notes), Jets fullback Tony Richardson(notes), Colts center Jeff Saturday(notes), Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), Chiefs guard Brian Waters(notes) and former players Sean Morey(notes) and Kevin Mawae(notes), the NFLPA president. “We were due to respond,” Fujita said Saturday at Marco Island, where the NFLPA is holding its annual convention for players. “The letter gives a true testament to what went on, what the offer was, and what it meant to the players.” The owners begin two days of meetings Monday in New Orleans. In Saturday’s letter, the players went through various parts of the last NFL offer, including saying that the league’s salary-cap proposals “were based on unrealistically low revenue projections.” “You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal,” the players wrote to Goodell. “That proposal did not come until 12:30 (p.m.) on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation.” They concluded their letter by telling Goodell that if he has “any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues” in the antitrust suit filed by 10 players - including star quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Brees
Quote:
We were due to respond,” Fujita said Saturday at Marco Island, where the NFLPA is holding its annual convention for players
Their still holding a convention, but they are no longer a union.......what a joke.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Well, if you saw my PM, that's the second time today we've agreed,.... I am just fed up with players that have been blessed with the economic capability to do things that 99% of Americans cannot, and then have the gall to complain about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
resonding to both of you...
i agree....i don't think bradford should get that money either....he's being paid on potential....it don't work that way in the real world...you start out making less, and as you become more valuable you get more money....
i think a rookie salary cap is needed bigtime...the agents will fight that tooth and nail, because they want the payday off the potential, and then again if the player becomes a star
if you fix the players initial salaries, the agents will lose big paydays on half of the first round players
my biggest beef with the way things are now is that the teams that are picking top 10 every year are at a big disadvantage....they are forced to pay big money on a player that only has a 50% chance of becoming a good nfl player
so the team that picks first has a 50% chance of getting a good player and pays 50 million guaranteed
the team that picks 32nd has the same 50% chance and pays a fraction of that cost...thats why some teams are trapped in that rut like us.....sure you can hit on all your picks and eventually have a super team, but we are talking coin-flips here..and who wagers big money on those odds?
I will always watch the browns.....i just can help it...but they won't get much of my money, even though i like being at the games...i would love to take my 4 kids, but it's not happening because of the costs..
honestly i wish all the fans didn't buy crap, and didn't until prices were cut in half...then the joke would be on all these fools....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Another one? When did I have my first one?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210 |
j/c sort of
I'm not sure what some of you guys are still hung up on. The NFLPA exists only as a trade association.
Do those of you that have a problem with this believe that the NFL players don't have the right to have any organization? Just because they are no longer a union, doesn't mean they lose their rights to have an organization that looks out for their better interests.
Decertifying the Union and filing an anti-trust lawsuit is the only recourse the players have since the owners locked them out. The players aren't demanding more money, never once have they asked for more money. The main issue the players have is they asked the owners to provide some evidence that they are losing as much money as they say they are. This has not happened. I understand that the owners don't have to provide this, but at the same time, if they really are having the problems they say they are, why not provide the information.
Now that some more information has come out about the Owners proposal that so many people on here thought was completely fair, do you guy still believe that. Is it really fair to roll back the Salary cap to 2007 levels and lock that in for the next 4 seasons and give the players an "opportunity" to increase that in 2015?
To what extent should the owners just be able to just tell the players what they can make?
This isn't the only business where the owners make less money than the employees. Take a look at any publicly traded company. Do the stock holders make more money in a year than the CEO and Upper management?
Sorry for the erratic writing here, just had some thoughts I wanted to get into a single post.
LIbertatem Defendimus!!
2010 Dawgtalkers NCAA Bracket Challenge Champ!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Well, I meant another post (not "past") as in good like the one right above it that Daman had made,....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
So, it's the league's responsibility to not only treat the players that use drugs, but to also keep them from using? Sorry dude, but you make enough money to get the best treatment possible. IMO, a lengthy suspension as a deterrant is about the best treatment possible. To whine about having to pay the price when you're caught is asinine.
How about instead of just, "'Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games.", the NFL says, "Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Suspended six games and during that time attend a 30-day detox and drug treatment program agreed upon in advance by the players and NFL, (not some cushy celebrity pajama party). Suspended one game, then the program for four games, then still suspended the sixth game. The program to be completely paid for by the player who had enough money to buy the drugs so can now spend that money on drug rehab in attempt to save his football career."
That is the kind of thing I think he is talking about. I think he is saying It's not enough for the NFL to simply take an unfavorable look on drugs and make the offender sit out six games. With the kind of policy I offered above it also shows that they care about the player enough to force him to do something about his drug problem if he intends to continue a football career. I believe any play who does not use drugs would be fine with such a policy because it not only makes sense but it shows the NFL does care about the players enough to actually do something other than suspend.
It's the same thing he mentioned about the fines for illegal hits. I don't care what anyone says, to fine Harrison $125,000 is to fine one of us $5 bucks. That is not a sincere show of giving a crap by the NFL. If they're going to do something about illegal hits then they have to do something that has some real effect on the repeat offending player.
I think this is the kind of thing Burnett and many players are talking about when they say the NFL gives lip service to player safety but doesn't really do anything about the problem other than to fine them a small amount of money. And for further proof that they don't really care, while not doing anything about the safety of the game they ask the players to play an additional 2 games a season increasing the possibility of more physical injuries.
Same with the drug issue, do they really care if the player whom they pay a handsome salary to contribute to their team really care about extending their career and improving the quality of their life or do they think a suspension solves everything? To care they should do something to prove they really care other than provide lip service.
Some people read what some of these players say and are instantly turned-off by it simply because they make a ton of money and should then just shut up. These things Burnett says makes sense if you look at it with an open mind. To instantly assume they want the NFL to pay for their drug rehab is jumping to a conclusion. For instance, if a player does not do drugs I doubt very much if he is concerned that an offending fellow player has to pay for his own drug rehab. (He knows he's not going to have to do it since he doesn't use). Rather, he would like to see something positive happen for this teammate that might improve his life and prolong his career. Missing a handful of game checks does nothing to address the problem.
That's the deal with both player safety and a drug problem. The NFL does nothing to address the problem. Their only method is to take money from them. There is nothing in place to show they give a damn about either issue but they are quick with the lip service.
These things have to be looked at from some other perspective rather than just choosing a side and then calling anything the other side says as nothing but bullcrap.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Their still holding a convention, but they are no longer a union.......what a joke.
It's not a joke at all. What is a joke is this comment as one more example of calling bullcrap on something that's misunderstood due to taking a stance from no other basis other than choosing one side.
Think people! Don't just choose one side and hate the other. This thread and the one before it and the one before that is full of this kind of blind, misinformed comments due almost completely to a lack of trying to understand.
A player says something and it's, "BS, he's a millionaire, he should be happy, he should just shut up."
The NFL says something and it's. "BS, they're billionaires, they should be happy, they should just shut up."
For God's sake, we're Dawgtalkers. We're some of the most rabid fans on the internet. We should be able to listen to the news and intelligently form an opinion based on facts and information, hell, something, anything other than choosing a side and then automatically disagreeing on anything the other side says.
Last Friday, the union decertified, meaning it declared itself out of the business of representing players. In exchange for giving up their rights under labor law, the players are able to take their chances in court under antitrust law.
Although it no longer represents players, the NFLPA still exists "as a professional trade association with the mission of supporting the interests and rights of current and former professional football players," it said after decertifying.
Adam Schefter is ESPN's NFL Insider. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
link
They are not a union after decertifying. Period. They have no bargaining strength. But as a Trade Association they have all the right in the world to "support the interests and rights of current and former professional football players".
Basically it's the same right we all have, and like us they have no power. Difference between them and us is they've been on the inside so they have a better understanding of what has been going on and they also have the ear of their members and the ear of the media so they get publicity. We don't have the ear of the players or the media so we get no publicity. That's about the only difference.
They have no power but they certainly have the right to hold a convention. We do too if we want. Anybody want to rent a hall and get together to talk about this hoping the media will show up and listen to our opinions? Maybe a local news team will send a reporter and a camera. Hell, we may even go viral! 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
These are grown adults. A suspension is about the best deterrant that the owners can use. I totally agree that the fines for dirty hits are pretty worthless. We need suspensions there also.
If I were to fail a drug test at work, I'd face a suspension (without pay) the first time, and if it happens again I'm gone. That's a hell of a motivational tool. I'd also be expected to seek out my own treatment. Other places aren't as lenient, and the paying fans know that. Welcome to adulthood.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement: Part Three
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
