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!

     

1/14/2011 CBA News

Anybodyhome

By Anybodyhome,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
Posted

Excellent read on the latest CBA news...

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Friday-new-and-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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackcatgrowl Newbie

blackcatgrowl

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BIGH2001 Grand Master

BIGH2001

Posted
Posted

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlandfire Newbie

Highlandfire

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThaJackal Newbie

ThaJackal

Posted
Posted

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthias Proficient

Matthias

Posted
Posted

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jangler Newbie

Jangler

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

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...