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 News: Heating Up 1/19/2011


Anybodyhome

Recommended Posts

Here's what it boils down to, and why the players will lose.

For every player today, there is one to take his place. He may not play as well, but he won't command the same salary, either. There are probably as many guys that would do well in the NFL that get passed over by scouts as there are those that were considered 'quality' that fizzle out.

The labor market is much like the housing market right now. Say I'm the only buyer you've seen in 36 months; I can say "you don't like my offer on your house, I'll go down the street and buy that one. Not quite as nice, but I'll spend less on it." Where are the players going to go to get comparable jobs? The UFL?

Right or wrong, that's what the NFL is, a regulated monopoly. Would replacement players be less exciting to watch? Not so sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ZERO reason that they cant get a group coverage health care plan through the NFLPA and even at the low end of the NFL salary spectrum it would be affordable.

Insurance rates for X NFL players would have to be one of the highest out there.....imagine taking on the liability......these guys sacrifice their bodies for the game and I know several players who have horrible physical problems due to the game......

not to slight military service, because it is far more important than the career of an althlete, but they receive medical benefits after serving. If you're career causes permanent damage, then it's the employers responsibility to cover those expenses. Look at the pre 1980s players who can't afford to take a piss today and their bodies are falling apart. These guys didn't make squat for their NFL service, yet they are remembered forever. Those guys deserve lifetime medical benefits from the damage the game caused their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what it boils down to, and why the players will lose.

For every player today, there is one to take his place. He may not play as well, but he won't command the same salary, either. There are probably as many guys that would do well in the NFL that get passed over by scouts as there are those that were considered 'quality' that fizzle out.

The labor market is much like the housing market right now. Say I'm the only buyer you've seen in 36 months; I can say "you don't like my offer on your house, I'll go down the street and buy that one. Not quite as nice, but I'll spend less on it." Where are the players going to go to get comparable jobs? The UFL?

Right or wrong, that's what the NFL is, a regulated monopoly. Would replacement players be less exciting to watch? Not so sure...

I'm not paying to watch NFL lite. No Sunday ticket, no Tommy Maddox jerseys. You can't even give away a ticket for that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ If the injury was sustained while on duty/in service....just to clarify.

wrong.

VA health benefits are open to all Veterans. Family members may also be eligible to receive benefits. There is no monthly premium for VA care, but there may be a co-pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. You'll get no sympathy from me when it comes to a guy with a starting salary of $300,000 a year to play football claiming that he cant afford insurance and even get contempt when it gets to the "super stars" of the sport.

Its called financial planning and anyone who plays in the NFL should have the foresight to put some away for insurance premiums so when its time for those knee replacements hes got his poo together.

Looks like someone is not familiar with the term "Pre-existing conditions"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wrong.

VA health benefits are open to all Veterans. Family members may also be eligible to receive benefits. There is no monthly premium for VA care, but there may be a co-pay.

Sorry I only served for 12 years....you seem to know much more than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The line is already drawn. They have things in place, the limits and such. Players didn't go on a strike. The owners are going to lock them out after throwing away all of the current agreements.

Get it right

The owners are not going to lock out the players. Once the players went around voting to decertify the union if they lockout, they decided to change strategies and are going to impose their best offer and make the players strike.

Secondly the health care desired by the players is in addition to what is in place now so it isn't what is already there.

Try and keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how are the players the bad guys here? the owners are the ones that decided to back out of the CBA.

richardson said the players were wanting to work less and get paid more, but were the players wanting to cut the season back a couple games? were the players wanting a raise?

or...was it the owners that said, "we want you to play two more games a season and also agree to less money"?

sorry, blame for this falls squarely on the owners here. they are asking the players to work more and get paid less. players are being reasonable, imo, in asking that the owners help with healthcare more since they are going to require the players to put themselves at added risk, and with the info coming out about the long term efffects of concussions, it sounds like something that the owners should be doing anyways.

you want a bad guy...look at the owners. it's not the players fault that the owners mismanaged money and have put themselves in a hole and couldn't handle the economy in a downward spiral.

This. I don't know the details, but the owners backing out of the CBA IMO would put them in the wrong. I would think the owners would make sure in the agreement that they couldn't lose money. I understand we are in a recession, but personally I wouldn't sign an agreement without taking into consideration the future economy. I would look at how I would do if the economy was substained, if it went through a boom, and if it went south. If I was losing money in any of those situations, then the agreement wouldn't be in my best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...