Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lockout 2011: Another Step Closer to Reality


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#61 Snake

Snake

    swagaholic

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,423 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 04:13 PM

Yes. But...

The owners are going to get paid during the lockout (due to TV deals) so have much less incentive than the players who will not get paid.




Yea they can but its a whole lot better to get your whole pay check then just half of it. Some owners need a new deal like say Jerry Jones who has a huge new stadium to pay for then they are some like Kraft that do not need it at all and get a large sum of money every year. The panthers IMO are just greedy cause they dont have anything new to build or have low income value.

Players are part of that equation but not the only problem. Lots of things coming into play in this CBA.

#62 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 23 November 2010 - 04:17 PM

i would add in to this that the players of the NFL take a bigger beating on their body than any other professional team sport. the studies that are coming out about the long term effects of the hits they take means that they are likely going to have a long lifetime of health problems...and we're not just talking stiff back. we're talking parkinsons disease and early onset dementia. the NFL is acting like they are concerned, and i don't doubt that they are, but the owners are saying that even though they understand more the risks involved to the players, that they want them to play two more games.

the players don't like it, but they are willing to do it, if the owners will do more to help prepare the players for the health problems they are most certainly going to be dealing with and to help out those players who can't find work after their short careers are over.

these aren't a bunch of millionaires either. there are a few players that are able to make a substantial amount of money, but the majority of them don't. sure, it's more than the average american makes in a year, but what are these guys going to do afterwards? they won't be able to take on manual labor jobs for very long beacuse their bodies will probably be shot. when you have brain injuries that show up when you are in your early 40s....what exactly are you going to do? also, all of that comes with a huge medical expense attached. how in the world are you going to pay for the kind of care that you will be needing? they are already going to be having high insurance, and which company is willing to take on that kind of risk? you know how hard it is to find insurance if you have pre-existing conditions?

plus, these are kids, a lot of them dumb kids (like most people in their very early 20's are) who are given huge amounts of money....more money than they or anyone in their family has every seen. the temptation is there to blow it all, not jsut on themselves, but their families. they feel like all of a sudden their families won't have to worry about money anymore. before long, it's all gone. that's their fault, for sure, but the league needs to be doing more to prepare them for life after the NFL, and thats one of the thing that the players want. i don't think thats too much to ask.


Serious question, rayzor, because I understand and respect some of what you're saying, but not all. Most of us pay into our health insurance with some of that burden being shouldered by our employers as well. Are you suggesting a different form of health care support be provided and fully funded by the owners and the player has little or no financial responsibility there?

I think what some people are saying is that we all have to make decisions as to how, what, why and when we provide health care for ourselves and our families and the same goes for our 401k or whatever form of retirement we're afforded. The owners and the league provide these opportunities to players as well, so I'm not sure what more the players want.

#63 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 05:58 PM

Serious question, rayzor, because I understand and respect some of what you're saying, but not all. Most of us pay into our health insurance with some of that burden being shouldered by our employers as well. Are you suggesting a different form of health care support be provided and fully funded by the owners and the player has little or no financial responsibility there?

I think what some people are saying is that we all have to make decisions as to how, what, why and when we provide health care for ourselves and our families and the same goes for our 401k or whatever form of retirement we're afforded. The owners and the league provide these opportunities to players as well, so I'm not sure what more the players want.

no. i'm not saying that the owners should pay for all of it.

this is what the players are asking...

• Reduction of the amount of games players need to become vested to qualify for post-career health care and pension benefits."

"Unrelated to the 18-game schedule, also remaining on the table are proposals from each side to include a rookie hard wage scale that could be in effect as early as the 2011 draft. However, whereas the owners want the $200 million on projected rookie wage savings redistributed with $100 million to improved retired player pensions and health care and the remaining $100 million to simply be available in the system with an increased pay-for-performance pool, the union wants the owners to match the $100 million savings on retired players." link

from what i can tell, they just want to be eligible for the benefits earlier. they don't want an increase in the benefits they are getting they just realize that 1) their careers are very short, 2) the demand of the extra 2 games is going to put additional stress on their already over stressed physiques, and 3) new research is coming out about the long term effects of the hits they are asked to take on their bodies and brains.

how long does it take for a player to get enough concussions to knock him out of the game or to cause long term brain damage? how many plays does a player have to be involved in before they have their career ended due to a shredded knee? you don't have to be playing for years to endure those type of injuries, but you do have to be playing for years before the you can take advantage of the long term benefits to former players.

also, it's pretty obvious that if a rookie cap is instituted (something that vet players are also in favor of) that there is going to be huge savings for the league and owners. so what is going to happen with that money? the players want a significant portion to go towards retired players pensions and health care (which probaly takes up most of the players pensions).

the more games they play a year, the shorter their careers are going to be. also, the more games they play a year a year, the greater their chances are of injury. with the amount attention going towards the long term effects of injruy brought to these players and what i would assume is legit concern for the health of these players, that the league and owners would give more than lip service and help out those players who made the owners so much money.

it isn't asking the owners to cater to their every whim for the rest of their lives, it's asking them to make access to health care a little easier to help deal with the problems they have for their service to the league.

#64 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,503 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 06:13 PM

I read somewhere also that players get benefits regardless for like 3 years after retiring, but effects from concussions, brain damage, etc. often doesn't show itself for 6+ years, which is another point of contention.

I'm not understanding the problem if it's simply a matter of where the extra $100 million is allocated. If the owners aren't going to see that money, why do they care where it goes? Am I missing something?

#65 Skew

Skew

    GOLD PREMIUM MEMBER

  • Moderators
  • 6,185 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:20 PM

Watching Fiz take on people over misunderstandings over the CBA disputes is like watching that overgrown bully in fifth grade beat up kids from the slow class at joint recess.


More like watching the know-it-all pitch a fit when no one agrees with him.

what's that? you messed up when you were 18?

heh, sorry. shoulda known your life started then.


Typical Fiz. Insult people when they don't agree with your opinion.

Watch your step little fella.

#66 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,850 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:22 PM

Typical Fiz. Insult people when they don't agree with your opinion.


I would be interested in hearing why you consider that an insult.

#67 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,850 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:25 PM

Serious question, rayzor, because I understand and respect some of what you're saying, but not all. Most of us pay into our health insurance with some of that burden being shouldered by our employers as well. Are you suggesting a different form of health care support be provided and fully funded by the owners and the player has little or no financial responsibility there?


the entire business model of the nfl owners is predicated on their employees partaking in an activity that destroys their bodies at a rate unlike almost any other activity in the world.

whatever you think about the role of privatized v. centrally organized healthcare in the united states, it's hard to argue from either a moral or business perspective that it's not in the interests of the nfl to fully provide for the well being of their players past, present, and future.

#68 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:31 PM

essentially, you take care of the talent that got you the $$.

#69 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:35 PM

no. i'm not saying that the owners should pay for all of it.

this is what the players are asking...

from what i can tell, they just want to be eligible for the benefits earlier. they don't want an increase in the benefits they are getting they just realize that 1) their careers are very short, 2) the demand of the extra 2 games is going to put additional stress on their already over stressed physiques, and 3) new research is coming out about the long term effects of the hits they are asked to take on their bodies and brains.

how long does it take for a player to get enough concussions to knock him out of the game or to cause long term brain damage? how many plays does a player have to be involved in before they have their career ended due to a shredded knee? you don't have to be playing for years to endure those type of injuries, but you do have to be playing for years before the you can take advantage of the long term benefits to former players.

also, it's pretty obvious that if a rookie cap is instituted (something that vet players are also in favor of) that there is going to be huge savings for the league and owners. so what is going to happen with that money? the players want a significant portion to go towards retired players pensions and health care (which probaly takes up most of the players pensions).

the more games they play a year, the shorter their careers are going to be. also, the more games they play a year a year, the greater their chances are of injury. with the amount attention going towards the long term effects of injruy brought to these players and what i would assume is legit concern for the health of these players, that the league and owners would give more than lip service and help out those players who made the owners so much money.

it isn't asking the owners to cater to their every whim for the rest of their lives, it's asking them to make access to health care a little easier to help deal with the problems they have for their service to the league.


Right, I understand, but I'm feeling the same as Monsta. If the Owners are willing to give up the $200M they save with a rookie cap, let the NFLPA decide where they want the money to go. $100M to improved health care and pension and the other $100M to a) an open pool (owners want) or B) retired players (union want).

Seriously, $200M is a drop in the bucket for 32 owners, I don't care how it works out. The owners should just give it up and let the union decide where it goes.

And no, Fiz, I'm not going to argue that the NFL would be better off in the long run in protecting the health and legacy of players after they've left the game. I agree with you on that point.

#70 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,850 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:35 PM

essentially, you take care of the talent that got you the $$.


well that argument won't work here because most of the posters on this website are of the belief that things like labor are actually an expense, an idea that is somehow gaining traction again in this country after being laughed into obscurity in the 1920s.

argue instead that the nfl has to provide incentive for potential employees to choose their league over say the mlb or nba, both of which pay more and are less destructive on their bodies.

of course that argument is water tight as swiss cheese but you gotta know how to relate to your audience.

#71 Skew

Skew

    GOLD PREMIUM MEMBER

  • Moderators
  • 6,185 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:41 PM

well that argument won't work here because most of the posters on this website are of the belief that things like labor are actually an expense, an idea that is somehow gaining traction again in this country after being laughed into obscurity in the 1920s.

argue instead that the nfl has to provide incentive for potential employees to choose their league over say the mlb or nba, both of which pay more and are less destructive on their bodies.

of course that argument is water tight as swiss cheese but you gotta know how to relate to your audience.


Labor is an expense according to GAAP.

But don't let me interrupt, you know it all.

#72 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:47 PM

well that argument won't work here because most of the posters on this website are of the belief that things like labor are actually an expense, an idea that is somehow gaining traction again in this country after being laughed into obscurity in the 1920s.

argue instead that the nfl has to provide incentive for potential employees to choose their league over say the mlb or nba, both of which pay more and are less destructive on their bodies.

of course that argument is water tight as swiss cheese but you gotta know how to relate to your audience.


Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Lowe's Cos., the second-largest U.S. home-improvement retailer, said third-quarter profit increased 17 percent after it controlled labor and other expenses in the housing slump.

This is the company I work for. 3rd quarter profit increased because the company fired a bunch of employees and replaced them with seasonal employees who are not entitled to any benefits from the company. While labor may technically be an expense, most progressive companies and those companies who are of the mindset they will not be successful without a quality workplace see labor as an expense not to be screwed with.

#73 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,850 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:50 PM

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Lowe's Cos., the second-largest U.S. home-improvement retailer, said third-quarter profit increased 17 percent after it controlled labor and other expenses in the housing slump.

This is the company I work for. 3rd quarter profit increased because the company fired a bunch of employees and replaced them with seasonal employees who are not entitles to any benefits from the company.


Posted Image

#74 GritsRgreat

GritsRgreat

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,101 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:51 PM

I think there should be no cap and let the rich owners ( Mr Dan Synder ) buy as
many top players as they (he) can. The chump change cities(owners) can take a hike.

#75 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,850 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:58 PM

I think there should be no cap and let the rich owners ( Mr Dan Synder ) buy as
many top players as they (he) can. The chump change cities(owners) can take a hike.


As evidenced by the successes of the Cowboys and Redskins, limitless money = guaranteed success


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.