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!

     

CBA 2011 Thread

Anybodyhome

By Anybodyhome,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
Posted

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5879654

"The NFL and its players' union can't seem to agree on much when it comes to their labor talks, including the possible economic impact of a lockout.

The union estimates an average of about $160 million in local spending and 3,000 jobs would be lost in each league city if the full 2011 season were wiped out. Player salaries account for 30 to 50 percent of that $160 million, the economist who analyzed data for the union said Friday."

Key words here being, "...the economist who analyzed data for the union..." Just another case of getting numbers to make your case.

"NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote Friday in an e-mail to The Associated Press: "The fairy tales continue."

And, of course, the owners follow up with their response...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mother Grabber Grand Master

Mother Grabber

Posted
Posted

Player salaries account for 30 to 50 percent of that $160 million, the economist who analyzed data for the union said Friday."

Translation:

While that $160M will still be in those cities, the owners will sit on it, or perhaps bathe in it, rather than spend it on new cars, strippers and homes for their mamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlandfire Newbie

Highlandfire

Posted
Posted

Translation:

While that $160M will still be in those cities, the owners will sit on it, or perhaps bathe in it, rather than spend it on new cars, strippers and homes for their mamas.

See, Car dealerships going under, the Housing industry going tits up, Ho's on walfare, Dogs and cats living together..... MASS HYSTERA!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicbsbll2 Newbie

Nicbsbll2

Posted
Posted

I think it's pretty clear that the majority of owners, led by our one and only Fat Cat, are doing whatever it takes to ensure there is a lock-out.

The league will never be the same.

The only thing that really irks me over this whole lockout thing is that it appears that JR is more concerned with forcing a lockout to put the players union in their place rather than trying to compromise to get a new CBA done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The only thing that really irks me over this whole lockout thing is that it appears that JR is more concerned with forcing a lockout to put the players union in their place rather than trying to compromise to get a new CBA done.

That's what I've been saying since before the season started. Yes, without a salary cap and with no repercussions of future salary cap hits, it made perfect sense to start dumping contracts left and right, just as the Panthers did. And my contention has always been that it wasn't just about the money, but that a lot of the salary dumping and personnel cuts were made as more of a preemptive move toward the lockout. Jerry Richardson went 'all in' betting on the lockout before training camp even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtm Rising Star

jtm

Posted
Posted

At the end of the day, the NFL and the league owners need to do what's best for the NFL. There has been a lockout before and if there is one everything will be fine. You can't run your business in fear of a lockout.

One of the biggest gripes the players have is they want the owners to open up their books so they can see how profitable they are so they can set a cap based on that. I don't want a lockout any more than the next person, but hell will freeze over before the owners open up their books to the employees.

If the players don't like what the owners are offering, go play in Canada or Europe. Let me know how that works out for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtm Rising Star

jtm

Posted
Posted

That's what I've been saying since before the season started. Yes, without a salary cap and with no repercussions of future salary cap hits, it made perfect sense to start dumping contracts left and right, just as the Panthers did. And my contention has always been that it wasn't just about the money, but that a lot of the salary dumping and personnel cuts were made as more of a preemptive move toward the lockout. Jerry Richardson went 'all in' betting on the lockout before training camp even started.

I don't think the owners want a lockout any more than the players, but the reality is they realized they were heading for one regardless. Makes good business sense to prepare for the inevitable. Need to keep in mind that an uncapped year as we have this year was suppose to be a "penalty" or "incentive" for owners to get a deal done. This was something written into the contract by the players in an attempt to strike fear into the owners at the thought of an uncapped year. The union actually thought that players would be able to demand outrageous salaries and teams would pay it in an attempt to buy a Superbowl. Instead, owners have done just the opposite and cut players they didn't feel were worth the $. The players still haven't gotten the message.

No doubt this has backfired and the owners have definitely behind closed doors worked together on this. At the end of the day this all comes back to who runs the league; the players or the owners. The players are about to learn a very expensive lesson about who runs the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtm Rising Star

jtm

Posted
Posted

The biggest issue here and one that the players union should be focusing on is the antitrust issue. The NFL was recently shot down by the Supreme Ct. for a federal antitrust exemption. There is no question that the NFL owners are "colluding" and working together to price fix. This is a huge no no and many industries have been brought down for such infractions. The cable industry got hit years ago big time for similar infractions. Instead, the players union is trying to market to the fans instead of going at the owners with a bat. I would file this suit and then watch how the owners start to give in....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CarolinaCatBrigade Newbie

CarolinaCatBrigade

Posted
Posted

I think when the scrubs come out to play, that we should bring back Nick Goings and make him the lead back. Bring Vinny out of retirement, and fill the roster through "open tryouts" like the Eagles did decades ago.

Of course that's a joke, but how close is it from the truth? Could you imagine the mass numbers of practice squad players starting if there's a lock out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...