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!

     

NFLPA Said --VS--NFL/Owners Said

Kurb

By Kurb,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Kurb Newbie

Kurb

Posted
Posted

Instead of making one big clusterfug thread and merging I am making this one.

I will post the two he said she saids and let you fugtards argue.

NFL Head Lawyer dude says :

We incorporated new economic terms to try to bridge the gap. You’ve heard a lot of talk about an $800M gap. Nowhere close. Not close to factual.

We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union’s number. It was the number the union proposed to us and we accepted it. That wasn’t good enough.

We offered to guarantee for the first time in the history of the league, more than one year of injury on player contracts. Apparently not good enough.

We moved off of our wage scale, and we offered to do a rookie compensation system within the context of a hard rookie cap as the union had proposed which would preserve individual negotiations and maintain the role of agents in the process. Evidently not good enough.

We offered, in fact we agreed to the union’s request for a cash team minimum for the first time in league history. We agreed to it at their number and their structure. Evidently not good enough.

We told the union that for 2011 and 2012, we would play within the existing 16-game regular season format, and we committed to them, notwithstanding the rights we have in the current agreement, we would not change to 18 games without their consent. Evidently not good enough.

At the same time, we agreed to implement wide ranging health and safety changes, reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing the practice time in the preseason, reducing the practice time and contract drills during the regular season and expanding the number of days off for players. Evidently not good enough.

We offered to increase the benefits in a wide range for both current and retired players. Under the proposal we had tendered, retired players who left the league before 1993, would experience an increase in their retirement benefit of close to 60 percent and the union, which says it represents former players, walked away from that today.

Comes from here -> http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/nfl-transcripts-commissioner-goodell-jerry-richardson-john-mara-jeff-pash/

NFLPA Says:

The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it.

The NFL’s offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players’ accountants and bankers advised that the “offered” information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year.

The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007.

The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues.

NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.

The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, off-season or pre-season health and safety rules.

The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players.

The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers’ compensation benefits for injured players.

The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans — into players’ fourth and fifth years

From here ->http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/11...being-reached/

Begin now debating the merits of Unions, Capitalism, How right you are, and how awesome I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicbsbll2 Newbie

Nicbsbll2

Posted
Posted

Who gives a damn what the NFLPA has to say now? As of 5pm they no longer exist, so I don't care what they have to say.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this be one of the last times we hear from Smith as well, at least until the "trade association" is allowed to re-certify, since he no longer represents the players? Otherwise, if he is still "representing them" how is that different from what he was doing before today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CatMan72 Enthusiast

CatMan72

Posted
Posted

Yeah, god forbid these players make 1 million per year vs. 1.5 million per year... that would be a real tragedy, my heart goes out to them.

DeMaurice Smith had the audacity to compare this to the civil rights movement the other day... the guy is delusional.

Bring on the replacements and let these guys starve until they figure out just how lucky they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mountainpantherfan Newbie

mountainpantherfan

Posted
Posted

If the owners were smart they would take this opportunity and run with it. Don't lock out. Go forward with no rules governing all 32 teams and let them all act and recruit players as independent businesses. Let the vet min become 7.25 an hour and lets see how long the players continue to act like they are the equals to the owners in the board room.

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

    • 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.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...