Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2010, 03:18 AM    (permalink
Stranger
Veteran
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,075
Reputation: 15798
Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default NFLPA memo regarding CBA negotiations

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/C...to-All-Agents/

Found it interesting that the players union wanted to make this year capped while the negotiations continued. Seems to late for that to happen now.
Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 07:45 AM    (permalink
wicket
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Posts: 8,867
Reputation: 249836
wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wicket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

I still dont get why a 18% paycut would be reasonable.

yeah the top players make to much money and high first round draft picks make to much money but that can (and should) be handled in a different way.

But hell this has been discussed over and over and there is no reason for the uncapped year to be the way it is
__________________


Saints 2014 draft wish list:
- No pass rusher till the fourth round (or preferably at all)
- Corner or Wideout in the first
- No reaching
- No Kelvin Benjamin
wicket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 09:42 PM    (permalink
wogitalia
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 3,952
Reputation: 449621
wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Found it interesting that the players union wanted to make this year capped while the negotiations continued. Seems to late for that to happen now.
Of course the players want it to be capped.

People have totally missed the point, an uncapped year is bad for the players. The biggest part of the cap is the salary floor, not the cap. There are going to be probably 10+ teams that take full advantage of the floor not being there. I'm looking at the Bengals, Browns, Cards, Jags, Rams, Panthers and Lions amongst others. If you aren't a contender this year, uncapped is great news.

Plus, on top of that, with the restrictions in place Dallas and the Jets who are two of about five teams who might actually exceed what would have been the cap otherwise are effectively out of the market and are capped. That leaves about three teams who are likely to actually spend extra money. I wouldn't be surprised if 20 teams spend less next year than this year and that at least 10 of those go under what the salary floor would have been.

I still stand by my original comment that this CBA holdout is owner related, not player related and the owners are loving that the players are sharing some of the heat and will continue to allow that. The players will take 10% plus paycuts, they will have rookie scaled contracts and they will certainly be worse off in general. That much is guaranteed because the players have absolutely nothing the owners want from a bargaining stand point, nothing. This CBA battle is big owners vs little owners over revenue sharing, stadium deals and the like and could very well be drawn out because this isn't an issue of haves(owners) and have nots(players) like it traditionally has been, where the players lose far more by not playing, this is haves vs haves and that is what makes it dangerous.
__________________


Props to BK on the sig!
wogitalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 11:52 PM    (permalink
Stranger
Veteran
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,075
Reputation: 15798
Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Stranger is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wogitalia View Post
Of course the players want it to be capped.

People have totally missed the point, an uncapped year is bad for the players.
The biggest part of the cap is the salary floor, not the cap. There are going to be probably 10+ teams that take full advantage of the floor not being there. I'm looking at the Bengals, Browns, Cards, Jags, Rams, Panthers and Lions amongst others. If you aren't a contender this year, uncapped is great news.
Pretty much why I mentioned it. The players gain nothing under the new rules coming in. Look at the 200 plus players that were scheduled to hit free agency and suddenly are stuck as RFAs. Plus it's not like the cap was stopping the top free agents from getting paid, only now they will have to wait until they have played for 6 years (plus a likely franchise tag) and are about to hit their 30s.

Quote:
I still stand by my original comment that this CBA holdout is owner related, not player related and the owners are loving that the players are sharing some of the heat and will continue to allow that. The players will take 10% plus paycuts, they will have rookie scaled contracts and they will certainly be worse off in general. That much is guaranteed because the players have absolutely nothing the owners want from a bargaining stand point, nothing. This CBA battle is big owners vs little owners over revenue sharing, stadium deals and the like and could very well be drawn out because this isn't an issue of haves(owners) and have nots(players) like it traditionally has been, where the players lose far more by not playing, this is haves vs haves and that is what makes it dangerous.
I agree with most of this and to be honest I think it means a lockout is pretty much guaranteed. I think in the end alot of the player related issues are secondary to the big market owners trying to get the ball rolling on getting rid of the revenue sharing system.

I saw this on PFT today as well.

Quote:
If the owners lock out the players, the union would then be in position to attempt to wreak havoc through the political connections of Executive Director De Smith, who already has suggested mutually harmful strategies like attacking the NFL's broadcasting antitrust exemption and the tax-exempt status of the league office.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...rce-a-lockout/

I can understand the players wanting some leverage but this seems like a bad idea. If you bite that hand that feeds you and end up reducing the revenue the NFL generates there is going to be even less for the players in the end.
Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 07:50 PM    (permalink
wogitalia
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 3,952
Reputation: 449621
wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.wogitalia is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
I agree with most of this and to be honest I think it means a lockout is pretty much guaranteed. I think in the end alot of the player related issues are secondary to the big market owners trying to get the ball rolling on getting rid of the revenue sharing system.
I'm not so sure it is a get rid of thing as much as it is a refine and scale back. Right now as a big money team you basically are distributing all your money to the players and the revenue sharing system, I don't think it is entirely unfair that those teams that generate most of the revenue want to keep a higher portion of it.

That said, if the players are willing to take a pay cut a lot of the other issues will go away. Drop the player portion to say 40% of the revenue and all of a sudden there is a lot more for the owners.

Quote:
I can understand the players wanting some leverage but this seems like a bad idea. If you bite that hand that feeds you and end up reducing the revenue the NFL generates there is going to be even less for the players in the end.
Just seems like a horrible idea. NCAA Football is comparative to the NFL and often times a better product. This isn't like the other sports where there is no competitor sitting there ready to pounce. The NBA offers a vastly superior product, due to it being far more player centric rather than system, over NCAA basketball. MLB has no competitor, ditto for the NHL. NFL will lose market and it will lose it rapidly if they aren't protected by their anti-trust exemption. You have a holdout combined with letting NCAA football play on Sundays and you are opening a big can of worms. I know many people who already prefer to watch college, I also know a lot of people that from listening to them, would prefer college if they watched it instead of the NFL.

The players right now should basically just negotiate to take about a 10% cut on the revenue, institute the rookie scale contract and then sit back and shut up because from that point they can only harm themselves and the product they profit from. The owners are going to war with each other, you don't really want to be Vietnam when Russia and the USA are fighting, see how it ends being the little guy in the middle of a big battle, it never ends well. Cut your losses and let them fight on their own soil.
__________________


Props to BK on the sig!
wogitalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.