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!

     

If I were an Owner


Recommended Posts

If I were an owner.

I would invite the whole team in for a discussion. I would lay out the proposal that was submitted to to the player association/Union. I would listen to what the they had to say about the situation. Maybe even write down minor changes.

Then I would put the deal on the table. This is where we are. Negotiations can happen if they want it to. The majority of the players want to play. I believe once you BREAK the union or alliance or association or WTFever. The deal will get done.

What is the problem

1. If there is a cap on spending. (agreed upon and raised or lowered based on the previous season)

2. If there is a minimum a team can spend

3. If the rookie salary cap is addressed

4. If the veterans are cared for

5. The owners can improve their stadiums and enjoy the profits of the game and the players get their dues.

There isn't a Union (or is there?) so the teams could have a discussion with individual players.

If the owners invite a bunch of players and they all decline then the owners could use that as proof the the players are still unionized. Make their point even stronger in the upcoming June 3rd ruling.

Either way.. The owners can break this player association but simply inviting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

union or not...players and owners aren't allowed to talk.

As per the owner imposed lockout? Couldn't they allow it, if the owners all agreed to it.

Don't you agree that The starters that worked their way into a starting position, backups, special teams and practices squad guys make up the majority of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a nice idea.

won't happen. would really only serve to muddy everything up. both sides have strength in numbers. it isn't a team by team issue. they aren't individual entities. the owners need to act as a group as do the players. it's in their best interest to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily agree. I think half the problem is the representatives are not showing the players what has been offered. I think they are being treated like mushrooms.

Kept in a closet and fed $hit.

I think what the owners has offered is more than fair and reasonable. It is the D. Smith and his bunch that are keeping this in the courts instead of at the bargaining table.

Best way, IMO, is to get the players to apply some pressure from their side. BREAK THE UNION..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*owners opt out of the cba*

*owners lock the players out*

*court ends lockout*

*owners fight in court for the reinstatement of the lockout*

goddammit d-bag smith you thug, you're just forcing this lockout and keeping the dispute in the courts. just do the honorable thing and capitulate to the billionaires who opted out of the cba to begin with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should have them hold hands and sing kumbaya.

If I were an owner I would fire allot of attorneys and get this out of the court system and start negotiating.

My opinion is this is headed to August September or longer until the players feel the financial pinch of not receiving a paycheck.The players need to realize that reality.The owners are losing fan base and don't make money w/o football. Somewhere in the middle is the answer and they should find it sooner rather than later.There are some very smart people who should realize that the court system route could be in place for months if not years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I think what the owners has offered is more than fair and reasonable.

It is the D. Smith and his bunch that are keeping this in the courts instead of at the bargai

Best way, IMO, is to get the players to apply some pressure from their side. BREAK THE UNION..

Let's keep this in perspective..

The OWNERS are suing to keep the UNION in place.

They love the exemption to monopoly laws that let them negotiate between each other for players (i.e. the Draft) and for contracts ( officially licensed products, broadcast rights, and trading player contracts). In order to gain these advantages of monopoly the union must exist by law passed in congress to exempt the NFL.

Eliminating the union would end up eliminating free agency, the draft, playing AFC teams, etc..

So freak out as you want, but even DeMarcus Smith is a cooler head on this subject..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OWNERS are suing to keep the UNION in place.

Wrong. The players filed the original suit. Without that filing, there was no mention of the owners intending to bring any suit in court. Are they appealing the lower court's decision? Yes, but why would you not if you lost a suit filed against you. They have always said the best way to handle this is for both sides to negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. The players filed the original suit. Without that filing, there was no mention of the owners intending to bring any suit in court. Are they appealing the lower court's decision? Yes, but why would you not if you lost a suit filed against you. They have always said the best way to handle this is for both sides to negotiate.

they filed the suit to stop the lockout. please tell me who put the lockout into effect again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...