Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

1/14/2011 CBA News


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 14 January 2011 - 06:16 PM

Excellent read on the latest CBA news...

http://www.nationalf...-note-8329.html

The NFLPA held a conference call this week with two of their important leaders, Domonique Foxworth of the Ravens and Scott Fujita of the Browns. Both players were placed on injured reserve this season, and it was no surprise that the focus of the call was on the health and safety of players and the NFL’s proposed 18-game season.

Interestingly, I came away from the call more optimistic than before it that a deal can and will be worked out. The union never said that the 18-game issue was non-negotiable. There was nothing about that call that suggested to me that the divisions between the two sides were insurmountable.

Bonus info at the end of the article on players' pay during playoffs.

#2 DevilCat

DevilCat

    Two States One Team

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:06 PM

Thanks for the update ABH, let's keep our fingers crossed.

#3 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,380 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:07 PM

thanks for the update on the CBA. + rep

#4 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:08 PM

Err... this is what I took from that article:

Trust is vital, and lacking

As for the back and forth between the league and the union, whether through Twitter, public comments, dueling articles on ESPN.com, or the in-house web sites nfllabor.com (NFL) and nfllockout.com (NFLPA), it is not necessarily a bad thing. Rhetoric is part of the game and has been part of most negotiations.

The deeper concern, however, is trust. Nothing will happen towards a new CBA unless there is trust between the parties.

The NFLPA does not see trust when the NFL refuses to show transparency of their economic concerns. The NFL does not see trust when they read comments in the media about the negotiations and see the union going to Congress to try to leverage their celebrity for potential use in the event of a lockout.

The NFLPA does not see trust when they see a letter to fans from Commissioner Goodell that spins the negotiation as something the league is trying to make happen with an inflexible union. The NFL does not see trust with the NFLPA going on its "Decertification Tour" rather than engaging in substantive negotiations.

The NFLPA does not see trust when they see television contracts that pay through a lockout. The NFL does not see trust when it sets aside days to meet in December that are not taken advantage of.

The NFLPA does not see trust when it sees letters in forums like the Washington Post by team leaders such as Mark Murphy of the Packers. The NFL does not see trust whe it sees letters in forums like the Washington Post by team leaders such as Drew Brees of the Saints.

And the NFLPA does not see trust when it sees the NFL engage Bob Batterman, the attorney who guided the NHL through a lockout, as far back as 2007. The NFL does not see trust when it sees the union have media conference calls spinning a message that is one-sided.

There is a deal to be made here. It will not be made, however, without some vulnerability shown by each side.


That doesn't sound so promising.

#5 Cavscout

Cavscout

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:09 PM

Great info, thanks!

#6 BIGH2001

BIGH2001

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:14 PM

"The players also mentioned the concern of health benefits going away upon the expiration of the CBA in March. As player reps, teammates with pregnant wives have asked them if they should induce labor prior to March in order to insure benefits."

I really have to shake my head when they talk about stuff like this. Have the players ever heard of COBRA? If I made the kind of money these fools make I would have plenty left over to purchase quality health insurance for my family. The average American makes this work on a 5 figure salary. No reason that some millionaires can't do the same.

#7 Brooklyn Bully

Brooklyn Bully

    #1

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,537 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:16 PM

I still laugh that they worry about their health with 18 games, but are pissed they can't hit hard as they used to.

#8 Highlandfire

Highlandfire

    There can be only one.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:24 PM

Lock them out. Just sit out the wave of players whining about not being able to feed their families (and how much can a family eat that takes up a 5 mill per year +salary?). Then have them crawl back to the table and make the employees take the employers offer.

18 games is the issue? WHEN did most of these players go on IR? Can they show me or anyone else that weeks 16-17 are when most of the injuries occur? If so then they might have an arguement. Bottom line the employees don't want to work anymore than they have to, oh well tough poo I say.

#9 Snake

Snake

    swagaholic

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,539 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 10:16 PM

"The players also mentioned the concern of health benefits going away upon the expiration of the CBA in March. As player reps, teammates with pregnant wives have asked them if they should induce labor prior to March in order to insure benefits."

I really have to shake my head when they talk about stuff like this. Have the players ever heard of COBRA? If I made the kind of money these fools make I would have plenty left over to purchase quality health insurance for my family. The average American makes this work on a 5 figure salary. No reason that some millionaires can't do the same.


IDK... White women are expensive. :D

#10 PanthersGuy28

PanthersGuy28

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 10:23 PM

So no Luck? :(

#11 ThaJackal

ThaJackal

    Arschloch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:13 PM

"The players also mentioned the concern of health benefits going away upon the expiration of the CBA in March. As player reps, teammates with pregnant wives have asked them if they should induce labor prior to March in order to insure benefits."

I really have to shake my head when they talk about stuff like this. Have the players ever heard of COBRA? If I made the kind of money these fools make I would have plenty left over to purchase quality health insurance for my family. The average American makes this work on a 5 figure salary. No reason that some millionaires can't do the same.


The more money we come across, the more problems we see.

#12 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:31 PM

I definitely don't want to see two more games added on the regular season for two reasons. One, it's all a money grab, and that is the SOLE reason why they want two more games. If the NFL gets their way on this, just imagine what else they will want to change for the sake of money. (The love of money is the root of many evils)



And two, there will be more players getting injured. The NFL likes to talk about meaningless pre-season games, yet for teams who lock up playoff position, the last two games of the season will be just that. The system is perfect the way it is, why mess with that? Money, money, money will be the downfall of the NFL. (I'm sure within closed doors, the commish is talking about setting up teams in different countries.)

#13 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,184 posts

Posted 15 January 2011 - 03:00 AM

The NFLPA does not see trust when they see television contracts that pay through a lockout.


This makes no sence to me. If the owners are the ones that will be doing the lockout. Can't the networks say the owners are breaching their contract with them? If so, maybe it's time for the 4 networks to speak up.

#14 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 15 January 2011 - 08:10 AM

I definitely don't want to see two more games added on the regular season for two reasons. One, it's all a money grab, and that is the SOLE reason why they want two more games. If the NFL gets their way on this, just imagine what else they will want to change for the sake of money. (The love of money is the root of many evils)



And two, there will be more players getting injured. The NFL likes to talk about meaningless pre-season games, yet for teams who lock up playoff position, the last two games of the season will be just that. The system is perfect the way it is, why mess with that? Money, money, money will be the downfall of the NFL. (I'm sure within closed doors, the commish is talking about setting up teams in different countries.)


For those of us who've been around for awhile, we all heard the same thing when the league went from 12 to 14 games and from 14 to 16 games. It's not a new argument, it's the new technology and the new awareness that is bringing information on injuries to the forefront.

And, as Uptown stated, the same players who are complaining about playing 2 more games will be the same ones bitching about not being able to rip someone's head off.

Look, the owners are not going to plunk down an 18-game schedule without other considerations. There are several associated clauses that will be in the new CBA to help teams with an 18-game schedule. Additional roster spots, additional practice squad players, probably a second bye week, reducing the number of contact drills during training camp and OTAs, additional compensation, etc. Trust me, once the players realize they're going to get paid more for those 2 additional games, the whining will stop.

#15 Soul Rebel

Soul Rebel

    Respect the Rivera

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts

Posted 15 January 2011 - 08:25 AM

Does anyone know if they go to 18 games, if they will cut the preseason back by 2 games? I've always thought 2 games was enough to get the season going, and many injuries occur during what is essentially walk-through games leading up to the season. If they cut it to 2 games, add 2 games onto the regular season, they are still playing 20 total games. Add a bye week, a few roster spots, and I don't really see the issue.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com