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: Can Owners Get New CBA Without Players Approval?


Anybodyhome

Recommended Posts

This could be an interesting tactic. The owners decide to install their version of the CBA, call it a done deal and let the players take the heat for going out on strike...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...or-a-surprise/

The NFL Players Association has been operating under the express assumption that the owners will implement a lockout at midnight on March 4, the moment the current labor agreement expires. Last week, NFL outside labor lawyer Bob Batterman said that the union wants to force a lockout, so that the union may then unleash strategies aimed at forcing a deal via litigation and political pressure.

Last year, lawyer David Cornwell was the first to suggest that the NFL’s plan won’t be to launch a work stoppage. Instead, Cornwell explained that the league will declare an impasse in the talks and impose on the players the terms of the last, best offer made by management. The players, who have been accusing the NFL of trying to take football away from the fans, would then have to decide whether to accept the rules or to go on strike, which would amount to the players taking football away from the fans.

Before the NFL can implement its last, best, pre-impasse offer, there has to be an impasse. And it’s starting to look like the owners will soon be able to declare that an impasse exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It has always been that way. The owners can put that last, best offer on the board and either they take it or strike. If they strike then we will put draft picks and scrubs on the field. You can bet your ass owners are going to play ball this year.

MAKE THEM STRIKE!

Goddell has already said we won't be using replacement players as we did in the 80s. Plus draft picks can't play unless they are signed, once they sign they become part of the union which is on strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
    • 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...