Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NFL: Player wish list for the next CBA


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

The Athletic: Players wish list for the next CBA

(subscription required)

Our old buddy Thomas Davis is one of the people interviewed here.

Basically, the most common wants are as follows:

Lifetime health care (pretty much every player interviewed mentioned that in some form)

A bigger slice of the pie (looking for a 50-50 cut on revenues, or at least something closer to it)

More guaranteed money (not necessarily fully guaranteed contracts but more so than now)

No expanded schedule (that discussion is pretty much a non-starter for the players)

FYI: It's referenced several times in the article that the NFL has pretty much given up on the idea of an 18 game schedule, but they're still trying to push for 17. Doesn't really sound like players are up for that idea either.

As always, I recommend reading the full article if you've got a subscription. If you don't, trust me it's worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to look it up.

I'm going to guess they'd have to set a minimum qualifying criteria for that, maybe three to five years or something.  Wouldn't make sense to offer lifetime healthcare to somebody who sat on a team's practice squad for six months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will be lucky to get even half that. The only bargaining chip they really have to play is expanding the schedule. I suspect they use that to get another point or two on the revenue and the health care and we end up with a 17 game season where the extra game is an international game. That doesn’t even get into Goodell’s absolute power in disciplinary matters, relaxing marijuana testing or the franchise tag. They aren’t getting guaranteed salaries written into the CBA. No league actually has that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bartin said:

They will be lucky to get even half that. The only bargaining chip they really have to play is expanding the schedule. I suspect they use that to get another point or two on the revenue and the health care. That doesn’t even get into Goodell absolute power in disciplinary matters, relaxed marijuana testing or the franchise tag. They aren’t getting guaranteed salaries written into the CBA. No league actually has that.

The NFL has already dropped the 18 game proposal.

Doesn't really sound like 17 games is going to fly either. They tie that in to the healthcare / player safety thing, their point being that asking them to play more games than they already are is detrimental to their well being.

(and they're right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The NFL has already dropped the 18 game proposal.

Doesn't really sound like 17 games is going to fly either. They tie that in to the healthcare / player safety thing, their point being that asking them to play more games than they already are is detrimental to their well being.

(and they're right)

That’s all fine and dandy, but they are going to the negotiating table with literally nothing else to offer and a list of demands a mile long. Something has to give. An extra game, an extra bye(so two total extra weeks of TV money) and a few more points on the revenue is going to translate to a ton of money to the players. Money usually talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bartin said:

That’s all fine and dandy, but they are going to the negotiating table with literally nothing else to offer and a list of demands a mile long. Something has to give. An extra game, an extra bye(so two total extra weeks of TV) and a few more points on the revenue is going to translate to a ton of money to the players. Money usually talks.

I mean it's expected to be a typical bargaining thing. They'll go in asking for the moon in the hope of coming back with the stars and the NFL will do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The NFL has already dropped the 18 game proposal.

Doesn't really sound like 17 games is going to fly either. They tie that in to the healthcare / player safety thing, their point being that asking them to play more games than they already are is detrimental to their well being.

(and they're right)

They could expand rosters. More players to rotate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I mean it's expected to be a typical bargaining thing. They'll go in asking for the moon in the hope of coming back with the stars and the NFL will do the same.

Do you expect them to get anything major without giving up something significant in return? At best, I can see some sort of relaxation of marijuana and possibly some health care expansion just because it’s a PR win for the owners but I really can’t see anything else without conceding on an extra game.

The owners will always win in a lockout situation. I don’t care how much the NFLPA says they have saved. The rank and file on minimum and rookie contracts far outnumber the stars who have enough money to wait out the storm and each vote counts the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Do you expect them to get anything major without giving up something significant in return? At best, I can see some sort of relaxation of marijuana and possibly some health care expansion just because it’s a PR win for the owners but I really can’t see anything else without conceding on an extra game.

The owners will always win in a lockout situation. I don’t care how much the NFLPA says they have saved. The rank and file on minimum and rookie contracts far outnumber the stars who have enough money to wait out the storm and each vote counts the same.

They got more out of the last negotiation than I expected them to.

Whether they will or not this time? Don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, My Goodness My Guinness said:

How is healthcare provided for players currently? The lifetime healthcare aspect is probably the most important of all of these and something that I have frequently wondered about, given how much of a beating the players take. 

Currently, a vested player (3 accrued seasons) can receive healthcare for 5 years after they stop playing.  You want to see all the current benefits check the link.

https://www.playsmartplaysafe.com/resource/nfl-benefits/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

They got more out of the last negotiation than I expected them to.

Whether they will or not this time? Don't know.

Well they had plenty of things to give up in 2011. The big ones being the rookie scale contracts and expanded disciplinary powers.

Maybe they can get contracts that are more guaranteed since that doesn’t really affect the owners bottom line. With a hard salary cap, all guaranteed contracts will do is redistribute the money from good and healthy players to washed up and broken players since teams will just have to carry the guaranteed money of guys that can’t play on their cap which will reduce the money effectively available to be spent on the active players. That will really screw over the already thin middle class in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • He has been a starter most of his career.  Why does anyone thing he would willing come here to be our 3rd TE?  
    • I've liked him since his rookie year as a prospect, but when he's been asked to play in a large capacity, he has simply not done well.   He does not really add anything, rather muddies up the room.  Fant is TERRIBLE as a blocker, a pure receiving TE.   Let's just put Tremble aside since he's PUP (although I still like him as a TE2, but yeah he's not our future starter)... Sanders has already shown better receiving skills than a Fant and has a nice ceiling.  Not to mention, he's got in-line run blocking skills.  I really want to see what he's capable of this year.  Also has a year+ experience now in Canales' offense, not to mention legit chemistry with Bryce. And after Sanders, I also imagine our staff is waiting to see how Mitchell Evans looks in camp as he's got the in-line blocking skills.  If he looks fully capable of filling in behind Sanders, then I don't see a need.  Overall, keep an eye out on early August moves.  They are usually soft indicators of how staff's view their rookie late rounders and roster overall.  This is a wait and see what the market presents and how they think their unit looks in camp.  
    • Every team has different needs of the backup QB.   On some teams a young hopeful makes sense and on others an old worn out dude makes sense.  We are a little more in the in-between IMO where you probably would prefer a Fields, Pickett, Howell type IMO.   So a young disappoint that you there is still some hail mary hope in.....given BY essentially was benched both seasons for performance (I know that's not the official line going into Seattle but I think most would agree he got a break and should of been benched later that year).  I know we want Bryce to be the week 17 guy all season this upcoming year.  But it's still in the reasonable thought process that the other dude could show back up. 
×
×
  • Create New...