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!

     

Proposed CBA approved by owners


panther4life

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bull123 said:

this is a good deal...of course the players will say no

they want LESS games and more cash

owners should push for reduction in guaranteed contracts

players should push for big increase in salary cap & expanded rosters

and get rid of the Thursday game...just injuries waiting to happen

if players balk, replace them

Replacement players is about the NFL's worst nightmare. It would send advertisers fleeing and TV partners suing the league or attempting to break the TV deals. You found the one thing the NFL is petrified of, replacement players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Not that simple.

There are some genuinely bad provisions in this agreement, the 17th game being one of them.

What really strikes me funny though is that the 17th game was already unpopular among players and then the owners throw in something like this?

Slick move :eyeroll:

Just a negotiating tactic.  Always ask for more than you really won't.  Throw in something that will be outlandish and use to as a bargaining chip for what you really want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFLPA Executive Committee votes 6-5 against recommending CBA proposal to membership
 

Quote

That’s just a recommendation and the 32 player reps are also expected to hold a vote Friday. That will also serve as a recommendation as the NFLPA will submit the proposal to the full membership whether or not the player reps vote in favor of the deal.

If more than 50 percent of the membership votes for the proposal, the deal will be approved.

FYI: Our rep is Greg Van Roten.

Florio pointed out that the proposal isn't typically sent for a vote to the rank and file unless the Executive Committee recommends it, but Player Association leadership is sending this one to the members anyway.

It's starting to sound like some of the Players Association brass want this agreement even though the members seem largely against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm honestly looking beyond DC at this point. He's too green and is making too many simple mistakes. I think he's gone after next year. I think the intention in LV was to use Mayer and Bowers similar to Gronk/Hernandez in NE. That's never really struck me as Carroll's MO though after watching him for years out here in Seattle.  He's talented enough and I think he just got lost behind the phenom that is Bowers because he couldn't develop in Carroll's system. I'm surprised Bowers is used as much as he is, though they really don't have anyone else. TE's don't really exist as focus receivers in Carroll's offense. I live in the PNW so I've been subjected to a lot of Seahawks football.  Coaches other utilize their TEs. We should too. Tremble is OK, but he's always been a project as a receiver. Again, all this is of we could get him at the right price. I wouldn't pay a lot because we need to spend on defense. 
    • David. Hey, money talks.....it has been acknowledged that Tepper isn't shy on spending. He's had the NFL equivalents of used car salesman after used car salesman line up to grift him of a big chunk. Canales is one of them.  Until that changes, it's gonna be tough to build anything to last.
    • Well it's who they tied themselves to for at least another year but i agree. They will be lucky to find a useful contributor but until I see the DC situation change I am presuming it's SSDD. Well it sounds like maybe in 2027. 
×
×
  • Create New...