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!

     

PFTLive w/ DeMaurice Smith interview Pt.I & II

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted

Do you know what really bothers me about this? Goddell and smith going without salaries and making that fact public. Hell, they have already made a TON of money dicking around the NFL, they don't need to work again ever. This, to me, is their way of showing the public that it is not about the money, but it tells me it is ALL about the tremendous amount of money everyone associate with the NFL makes.

They are really out of touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urrymonster Newbie

Urrymonster

Posted
Posted

I can't stand him. Generally can't stand lawyers, but he really annoys me. He really comes across as self-righteous and arrogant, not a good combination for negotiating...

The fact is these teams are the owners teams (bar Green Bay), made either by their money or their families money. There is no way that you can give 50% of total revenue to the players, especially considering that some teams are struggling with things like stadium upkeep.

The financial risk is the owners, the health risk is the players.

In my mind, the players are crazy expecting that amount. However they should be expecting more long term health care and pensions.

The thing is, there are some teams that are really struggling financially and it is only the revenue sharing that is keeping them afloat. If the NFLPA push and push for more money, then they will slowly bleed various teams dry.

It's a bit like demanding a pay rise because you know that people have been paid that amount before. Then the company has to close various branches and you refuse to take a paycut to keep your job.

EDIT

Why dont the formerly known as NFLPA come out with what they want in the open. That should give some clarity on everything. Unless they aren't prepared to reveal what they are demanding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twylyght Rookie

twylyght

Posted
Posted

Confirms a lot of my thoughts on how leadership of the NFLPA thinks regarding its relationship with the owners. Even though the interview is clearly a softball batting practice for D Smith, it clearly comes across as a desperate PR campaign prior to a court case designed to create political pressure for the ruling entities involved.

You simply cannot compare players in their 50s and 60s to today's athletes with respect to healthcare and ability to pay for health insurance. If the current NFLPA really cared, then they would have offered real financial help better than the league has offered in the past decade and a half. If the NFLPA actually represented all of its constituents rather than the top 10% of its members, it would have supported a raise in salary minimums in conjunction with actual negotiations on where the cap should be set. If the NFLPA were actually interested in a partnership, there would be a clear and fair proposal for players to actually partake in the financial risk and day-to-day operations of an owner's franchise rather than demand all the security of a guaranteed check.

No. DeMaurice Smith and his interview have faith that the court system will "see things right". He speaks and acts like a trial lawyer as opposed to a businessman. When you hear businessmen speak, they talk about the real indicators of how the league is doing regarding P&L. When the league is staring down nearly four times as many blackouts in the past year as it has from the prior half decade accompanied with more struggling franchises, one doesn't have to interpolate much more to see that the writing is on the wall if the league continues on its present course. Any responsible business would re-assess its business model.

You see that happening in a number of states engaging in that discussion now as it is playing out in WI and OH as it has become a necessity rather than an inclination. When politicians have had their hands forced to have discussions of lowering salaries/benefits, you KNOW that the real fiscal situation of a state or nation is VERY BAD. Businesses are normally WELL ahead of the curve when it comes to making business decisions when compared to political institutions. The NFL is no different.

So you get what we have now. The current union is pushing to make everything that it can while it can at whatever expense to the business as a whole while the business is looking to make the necessary decisions to keep its future viable. If the NFLPA gets their way, don't be surprised to see the smaller market teams like Jacksonville, KC, Carolina, Indianapolis, Buffalo, AZ, Minnesota, St Louis, Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit, Tennessee, and Tampa either fold or move elsewhere in the next 15 years.

At this point, I am not hopeful that the NFL will survive this process over the long haul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urrymonster Newbie

Urrymonster

Posted
Posted

Confirms a lot of my thoughts on how leadership of the NFLPA thinks regarding its relationship with the owners. Even though the interview is clearly a softball batting practice for D Smith, it clearly comes across as a desperate PR campaign prior to a court case designed to create political pressure for the ruling entities involved.

You simply cannot compare players in their 50s and 60s to today's athletes with respect to healthcare and ability to pay for health insurance. If the current NFLPA really cared, then they would have offered real financial help better than the league has offered in the past decade and a half. If the NFLPA actually represented all of its constituents rather than the top 10% of its members, it would have supported a raise in salary minimums in conjunction with actual negotiations on where the cap should be set. If the NFLPA were actually interested in a partnership, there would be a clear and fair proposal for players to actually partake in the financial risk and day-to-day operations of an owner's franchise rather than demand all the security of a guaranteed check.

No. DeMaurice Smith and his interview have faith that the court system will "see things right". He speaks and acts like a trial lawyer as opposed to a businessman. When you hear businessmen speak, they talk about the real indicators of how the league is doing regarding P&L. When the league is staring down nearly four times as many blackouts in the past year as it has from the prior half decade accompanied with more struggling franchises, one doesn't have to interpolate much more to see that the writing is on the wall if the league continues on its present course. Any responsible business would re-assess its business model.

You see that happening in a number of states engaging in that discussion now as it is playing out in WI and OH as it has become a necessity rather than an inclination. When politicians have had their hands forced to have discussions of lowering salaries/benefits, you KNOW that the real fiscal situation of a state or nation is VERY BAD. Businesses are normally WELL ahead of the curve when it comes to making business decisions when compared to political institutions. The NFL is no different.

So you get what we have now. The current union is pushing to make everything that it can while it can at whatever expense to the business as a whole while the business is looking to make the necessary decisions to keep its future viable. If the NFLPA gets their way, don't be surprised to see the smaller market teams like Jacksonville, KC, Carolina, Indianapolis, Buffalo, AZ, Minnesota, St Louis, Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit, Tennessee, and Tampa either fold or move elsewhere in the next 15 years.

At this point, I am not hopeful that the NFL will survive this process over the long haul.

I don't doubt that the NFL will survive, however it might not survive as we know it. Certain markets will become more and more unprofitable and will force teams into designated places. Whilst the NFL will be safe, you could see some franchises being lost in the journey.

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

    • LinvilleGorge
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By LinvilleGorge · Posted

      If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • MHS831
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By MHS831 · Posted

      In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
    • strato
      2026 Mock Drafts

      By strato · Posted

      If everything played out and that last thing happened, I probably just quit. 
×
×
  • Create New...