Could you turn down 3 million dollars?

[dreamcastrocks]

And what does the team do when the player tanks it as they no longer need to care ?

Offer shorter, cheaper contracts. Get rid of these huge signing bonuses that help contribute to that attitude.

 

[earthsci]

Offer shorter, cheaper contracts. Get rid of these huge signing bonuses that help contribute to that attitude.

You think that the players will want that?

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Offer shorter, cheaper contracts. Get rid of these huge signing bonuses that help contribute to that attitude.

There has been talk about this situation.

At least when it comes to the draft. Slotted positions with maximum 3 year lengths.

The idea is that the rookies get what they get for thier draft position, no haggling on the contract. Also, this goes by the philosophy that in three years you know what you have with a drafted player.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Have-nots?
Minimum NFL salaries are $300K plus for players with no experience.

I know it's relative, but it's difficult for the average joe ( ) making about 50K per year (non-guaranteed) to have any empathy.

Agreed.

And 300K min. for one year is a huge advantage over every person in your age range.

You play one year, and walk away with around 200K, you are then in your early twenties and have 200K already in the bank.

The term, "You have to have money to make money" comes to mind.

Without a doubt, when talking relative to average Joe, these guys are making out extremely well.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You think that the players will want that?

Probably not as much as receiving all of their money in yearly installments.

People like taking the lump sum out of the PowerBall too.

 

[football karma]

I might accept ignorance -- but greed?

easy for you to say.

A player has only so long to make his money in the NFL. He has only a couple contract periods where he can max out his compensation --- I dont begrudge them wanting to make what they can while they can

 

[RugbyMuffin]

I dont begrudge them wanting to make what they can while they can

That is not what makes them and the owners greedy. What makes them greedy is that they are willing to kill the golden goose over what in relative terms is petty cash.

Regret:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb...-ordered-shortcut-on-day-of-blast-153363.html

It is a terrible thing to feel. When you are worrying about 750K at one point, and in the rush to save that small amount of a money you risk, and LOSE everything.

Both the owners and players should think about that, really, really hard. If they both think the worse that could happen is what happened to the NHL then they are really really short sighted and ignorant.

Not only is the NFL a different beast, unlike the NHL, there is televised college games to compete with, and of course, World Cup Rugby 2011.

They could lose fans to college, and Rugby and NEVER get them back because they have decided on sports that are strike resistant.

 

[kerouac9]

That is not what makes them and the owners greedy. What makes them greedy is that they are willing to kill the golden goose over what in relative terms is petty cash.

Regret:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb...-ordered-shortcut-on-day-of-blast-153363.html

It is a terrible thing to feel. When you are worrying about 750K at one point, and in the rush to save that small amount of a money you risk, and LOSE everything.

Both the owners and players should think about that, really, really hard. If they both think the worse that could happen is what happened to the NHL then they are really really short sighted and ignorant.

Not only is the NFL a different beast, unlike the NHL, there is televised college games to compete with, and of course, World Cup Rugby 2011.

They could lose fans to college, and Rugby and NEVER get them back because they have decided on sports that are strike resistant.

Hogwash. All around. No American is going to care for rugby any more than they're going to care about soccer once the world cup is over. And no NFL fan is going to care about college football (any more than they already do, anyway). It's an entirely different animal.

It's not like the NBA lockout migrated millions of NBA fans to Wells Fargo arena to watch low-quality college basketball. At the same time, you'll have millions of NFL fans who are pissed off, but they're going to find something else to do on Sundays, not suddenly start settling in for 480-minute games on Saturdays (seriously--college football games are interminable). Also, with NFL games there's always an equal footing. On those Saturday games, you're looking at 90-95% of the games being lopsided affairs with a handful of competitive games (few between top teams, though) and the occasional major upset.

I don't understand why you're mad at the players. It's the owners who voided the CBA because they couldn't get revenue sharing in order, and they don't want to go back to the table with the players. The owners know that the players haven't been saving money for a rainy day. The owners also already know that most of the players are going to be unable to survive for long without any pay, while the owners are getting the television money whether or not they hold games in 2011.

The labor situation in the NFL is far from perfect, but it's 100x better than in any of the other major professional sports in America.

 

[joeshmo]

I don't understand why you're mad at the players. It's the owners who voided the CBA because they couldn't get revenue sharing in order, and they don't want to go back to the table with the players. The owners know that the players haven't been saving money for a rainy day. The owners also already know that most of the players are going to be unable to survive for long without any pay, while the owners are getting the television money whether or not they hold games in 2011.

Note that it was the players labor union that wanted that void out in the CBA. It was also their idea for the uncapped year. Both idea's both on the players and it backfired. Thus I still blame the players union far more then the owners in this situation since they are the ones who backed themselves into a corner. You cant blame the owners for legally taking part in the stipulations the players agreed to.

 

[kerouac9]

Note that it was the players labor union that wanted that void out in the CBA. It was also their idea for the uncapped year. Both idea's both on the players and it backfired. Thus I still blame the players union far more then the owners in this situation since they are the ones who backed themselves into a corner. You cant blame the owners for legally taking part in the stipulations the players agreed to.

I don't know about void, but the uncapped year was in the previous CBA, as well. Do you think that both sides start from scratch on each CBA?

So it is the players' fault because the owners exercised a collectively bargained clause in the CBA? The NFLPA has come out and said that they'd happily just renew the previous CBA and keep playing. The owners are the ones refusing the come to the table without severe reductions in the share that the players receive (without opening their own books to let the Union know how much money they're really making).

 

[joeshmo]

I don't know about void, but the uncapped year was in the previous CBA, as well. Do you think that both sides start from scratch on each CBA?

N o they don't start from scratch, but lets not pretend they dont negotiate each and every single word in the CBA document. Each item is gone over and negotiated upon from the previous deal, either keeping it, deleting it, or updating it. Then new items are added.

Doesn't matter if they start from scratch or not it is a players union idea, not the owners, so the only ones to blame are the players. Even if it were the owners idea, the players liked it enough to sign the deal, so again how can you fault either side for actually using the contract that both sides liked enough to sign their names to?

So it is the players' fault because the owners exercised a collectively bargained clause in the CBA?

Considering the players agreed to said clause, without a shadow of a doubt I cant fault owners. I cant fault the owners for using a clause the players agreed on. Its like telling someone they can have your car in 5 years then get angry at the them for actually taking it. It was an agreed upon clause, how in the world can you blame the group for actually using it? If it were the other way around I couldnt blame the players either.

The NFLPA has come out and said that they'd happily just renew the previous CBA and keep playing.

They weren't saying that prior to finding out how bad the uncapped year would be for them. They only started to back pedal once they realized just how horrid of a time 99% of the players of the league were going to have in the uncapped year. Even then they didn't even remotely have that stance, in fact they were very combative. When the new union leader came into power he actually told his union reps in his first meeting that they were going to clean house with player contracts in the uncapped year. They only changed their tune Once these players started complaining to their reps after their agents gave them some knowledge.

The owners are the ones refusing the come to the table without severe reductions in the share that the players receive (without opening their own books to let the Union know how much money they're really making).

Yes they are not showing their books of which I don't agree with. They are also not making as much money since the economy crash 2-3 years ago, this isn't even debatable, how much so is in the books. Their profits have gone done, any company, and lets not pretend this isn't a business we are talking about would also be trying to get back to their higher profit margins, again I cant fault the owners for that. Any person here running a business would do the same.

Once again it all comes down to the fact that the players union are the ones who thought they were so smart with these uncapped years, void-outs, and other things. They all thought they were taking the owners to the cleaners. They signed on the dotted line and loved the huge 20% boost in cap they got. What the union did was only see the tree's and didn't see the forest through them. The forest being 3-4 years in the future.

I know first hand what went into the last two CBA's, I know some of the people involved, who were involved, who still are involved on both sides, how their negotiations went for the last two CBA's, the stuff fans don't hear about or want to hear about. I know full well who is to fault, who dropped the ball, how much of an ass the new union leader is and how far over his head he is, how much of a liar he is, the fraternity that is the owners who think they are untouchable, some of the shady things they don't want people or the union to see in their books. With all that I still cant blame the owners. When there is a contract involved agreed upon by both parties I cant blame either side for actually using the stipulations in that contract. How can you blame another party for doing something that both sides agreed on?

Its like the home buyer who bought a house with an ARM loan then blaming the mortgage company for their high interest rate. The Mortgage company told you exactly what an ARM was yet you still signed it for the 4% interest throwing a blind eye to the fact that it could be 10% 1 year from now.

 

[overseascardfan]

My sympathy goes to the fans because we are actually paying the owner's, the NFL and players salaries. But if I had to choose between owners and players, I choose owners. They bought the team and are paying the players, why should the players make all that money. Like some posters have mentioned, who cannot live off of $3M a year. Players are getting paid to play a sport for a living that children and college kids do not get paid for unless you go to USC. Its not like it rocket science or they are in danger of being killed out there. The medical treatment for injuries is covered by the teams and the league. They should try and get all the money they can, how about getting a real job making $60-70K which is upper middle class in today's society, by you know using that education their suppose to be getting while playing in college. What are players b****ing about? Oh yeah I remember, "You know how much it costs to insure a Ferrari?"

 

[RugbyMuffin]

I don't understand why you're mad at the players.

I am frustrated with both sides, it just seems like I am mad at the players only because of the thread topic.

Sidenote: I must admit, I love "hogwash!". Good nomenclature of a message board, IMO. Effective yet civil.

 

[AntSports Steve]

This thread started out about players not agreeing to sign their tender and the Chargers sending letters saying they plan to reduce the tender contracts per the CBA on June 15th.

Many are saying players with 4 years but not yet 6 years they knew the situation they were in and should just get it over and sign their tender.

Now, I agree they (and their agents) knew the situation, and for players like Duce L., it only makes sense that he should sign the tender. But for a player who is a current pro-bowler and their current tender is very low, there is another choice. Here are the choices for a pro-bowl player :


Choices for the Pro-Bowler :

1) Sign the tender now, get underpaid. Pros : make more money by signing now that signing after June 15th. Cons : Have a bad year or get injured and lose your chance at a big signing bonus and contract.

2) Hold out, try to force the teams hand and get your payday. Pros: could get the contract you hoped for despite the CBA screwing you. Cons: bad press, no contract, fines, play for a reduced amount and be unhappy.

3) Screw this Year, wait for the new CBA. A player can only choose this option if they have low expenses or saved their money. Pros : the new CBA will probably go back to the 4 years Unrestricted Free Agent and you can offer up your services to any NFL team. If your tender was 2M per year, you can probably (if you are a probowler) get a signing bonus of $20M (see Dockets new contract for example). Also, no injury risk since you will sit out this year. Note, that you are NOT under contract and do not have to sign a contract for 2010. You are ALLOWed to wait for the new CBA. Cons : The new CBA might not return to 4 years to be a free agent (unlikely). You lose 1 year of earning potiential. Teams might value you lower since you did not play in 2010. (R.Williams WR sat a year between college and the pros and still got a big contract).

Just wanted everyone to know that a players does not have to sign a tender if they don't want to. They can and are allowed to sit out the year and wait to see what happens to the CBA. Players do have choices.

 

[CardLogic]

Just wanted everyone to know that a players does not have to sign a tender if they don't want to. They can and are allowed to sit out the year and wait to see what happens to the CBA. Players do have choices.

While they may not be under contract per se, the respective club(s) still maintains restrictive rights to the player. It's my understanding that if the player sits out an entire year, and is not credited for the year, then the rights to that player are simply extended for another year.

In Lutui's case for example: the Cardinals have restrictive rights to his services for an additional two years (2010 and 2011 seasons). If Lutui were to sit out the 2010 season then the Cardinals still maintain their rights to his services for the following two years (2011 and 2012) seasons.

Is this incorrect?

 

[AntSports Steve]

Not Correct.

Lutui's has 4 years of NFL service. The current CBA says players with less than 6 years of service belong to their current NFL club, in this case, yes the Cards own him for 2 more years.

But, that is because this year is different because it is the last year of the CBA. What the CBA normally said is players are Free Agents after 4 years of service (what Lutui has currently). If there is football in 2011 and there is a new CBA, it most likely will have the rules return to 4 years for a player to became a free agent. If that happens, Lutui does need another year of service from this year, he will automaticly be a Free Agent in 2011.

 

[CardLogic]

Not Correct.

Thanks!

 

[SuperSpck]

Both parties are acting stupidly.

The players need some guarantees, at least something akin to a severance package based on time-in-service.
You quit you get nothing, you get laid off you get something.
They are giving up their bodies in the long term they should get coverage for long care.
They also need to do a better job of planning for the long term. You get the same sympathy for any shumck who can't act like a grown up: none.
Be a man, control your finances.

I seriously doubt a person can amass and sustain the fortune required to own and operate an NFL franchise by being a "good person". They've probably stepped on fingers or crushed lives to get what they have. They're not showing the books because it would hurt their cash flow. That's their right, but if they continue on the path they're on they will hurt their long term revenue.

I want to see the fans exercise more power in what's happening.
If we don't watch the games the advertisers pull out.
If the ads go the networks have less incentive to broadcast the games.
Networks have less incentive to pay the contracts to the league.

The only threat of stoppage that will create any chance of breaking the impasse is that of those watching the games.
That'll never happen.

 

[Buckybird]

Bottom line...most of the players in the NFL are millionaires, all of the owners are millionaires & 99.9% of these people live a differant lifestyle than the majority of Americans. When peiple have $$$ they want more $$$ because what they have is never enough!!!

 

[Sandan]

Offer shorter, cheaper contracts. Get rid of these huge signing bonuses that help contribute to that attitude.

They have to pay the salary and never get the signing bonus back

 

[Duckjake]

They have to pay the salary and never get the signing bonus back

Teams can get the signing bonus back under certain circumstances. See Barry Sanders, Ricky Williams, and Michael Vick.

I believe the courts ruled in the Vick case that Roster bonuses cannot be recovered by the team once earned by the player.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d818acb5a&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Pat Kirwin chimes in.


Oh, and the World Cup of rugby starts in March not in the fall.

 

[AntSports Steve]

Kirwin gets a few things wrong. For example :

If he decides to hold out 10 weeks, which is his right, he will lose an additional $343,520 plus all the daily fines for missing camp practices.

Hey Kirwin, he has no contract and therefore is not a hold out and CANNOT be fined. Kirwin needs to get his facts correct.

 

[Buckybird]

Kirwin gets a few things wrong. For example :



Hey Kirwin, he has no contract and therefore is not a hold out and CANNOT be fined. Kirwin needs to get his facts correct.

I may be wrong, but in reality they are under contract because they are RFA much like the Lutui situation & are the property of that club. I think they could be fined for that reason if they refuse to report. These guys are offered that amount of tender & they can sign or the club can give the the less $ fiqure. I could be wrong but Kirwin's a pretty smart cat who's work in NFL front offices so I think he's right.