In Light of Recent Developments... (draft convo)

[THESMEL]

maybe

the rookie pay scale carries more weight than that on both sides.
But I still think the Owners are gonna break this union. too greedy oo long.
the golden day of the NFL player union is over.

franchises are not gonna triple in value like the cards have in this new economy.

Owners voided the option and forced this, their war chest are set. started at 40% and I don't think they'll go a dime above 50%.

they'll hire non union players until union players cross,

a 50/50 prtnership across the board, equal risk and reward would be sustainable forever. setting the tone for all negotiation on trival stuff and the future.

but players leaders worth their salt won't take it, will fight for more, and hence die. Who's gonna pay whos house payments after a year?

players are too selfish to survive as a union. throw me the damn ball.!

Its the fans paid money they argue about, but the fans will be nuthin more than an afterthought, how can we suck out the most and provide the least, that is their object.

but the Owners protect the fanbase more than the players. even expansion won't do as well in this saturated market. it aint about game attendence, even international.

how many Mexicans, Canadians, and Englsh will buy $300 jerseys? worth about 10 bucks.

$ 300 jerseys, oops we already got that!

I'm putting the odds against a rookie pay scale at more like 80-20. The owners have far more important items to them on their agenda, and so they'll be willing to bargain this away in favor of a greater percentage of revenues or the 18 game season. The Players Union doesn't want a rookie pay scale, either, so they'll happily take that and give up the 16-game schedule.

Even you're revising your estimate of the existence if a rookie pay sale from "likely" (which seems to me to be 70% probable) to 50/50.

As I've said multiple times already, you only hear about a rookie pay scale in April and August. Russell Okung was the last healthy rookie signed, and he was in camp August 7. Teams are probably more protected under the current system (with roster bonuses and voidable years) now than they were in the Leonard Davis/L.J. Shelton years when it was basically just signing bonuses that teams had to live with. The bite of the rookie salaries is only felt by teams drafting in the Top 5, and there are 27 other owners every year who are more than happy to keep a larger percentage of the TV money than bargain away something marginally valuable for the 5 losers at the table.

 

[Hypothesis]

they'll hire non union players until union players cross,

There won't be any replacement players if there is a lockout.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm putting the odds against a rookie pay scale at more like 80-20. The owners have far more important items to them on their agenda, and so they'll be willing to bargain this away in favor of a greater percentage of revenues or the 18 game season. The Players Union doesn't want a rookie pay scale, either, so they'll happily take that and give up the 16-game schedule.

Even you're revising your estimate of the existence if a rookie pay sale from "likely" (which seems to me to be 70% probable) to 50/50.

As I've said multiple times already, you only hear about a rookie pay scale in April and August. Russell Okung was the last healthy rookie signed, and he was in camp August 7. Teams are probably more protected under the current system (with roster bonuses and voidable years) now than they were in the Leonard Davis/L.J. Shelton years when it was basically just signing bonuses that teams had to live with. The bite of the rookie salaries is only felt by teams drafting in the Top 5, and there are 27 other owners every year who are more than happy to keep a larger percentage of the TV money than bargain away something marginally valuable for the 5 losers at the table.

So in earlier threads you were criticizing and 'refuting' my opinion that there would be a rookie scale because you say, and I quote,

I'm putting the odds against a rookie pay scale at more like 80-20.

 

[LarryStalling]

There won't be any replacement players if there is a lockout.

I am not very knowledgeable on matters concerning labor law, but I think I know of instances where unions have been locked out and scabs brought in to take their place. I am not 100% certain of it of it being a lockout though. Why can't scabs be brought in for a lockout?

 

[DoTheDew]

I'm putting the odds against a rookie pay scale at more like 80-20. The owners have far more important items to them on their agenda, and so they'll be willing to bargain this away in favor of a greater percentage of revenues or the 18 game season. The Players Union doesn't want a rookie pay scale, either, so they'll happily take that and give up the 16-game schedule.

Even you're revising your estimate of the existence if a rookie pay sale from "likely" (which seems to me to be 70% probable) to 50/50.

As I've said multiple times already, you only hear about a rookie pay scale in April and August. Russell Okung was the last healthy rookie signed, and he was in camp August 7. Teams are probably more protected under the current system (with roster bonuses and voidable years) now than they were in the Leonard Davis/L.J. Shelton years when it was basically just signing bonuses that teams had to live with. The bite of the rookie salaries is only felt by teams drafting in the Top 5, and there are 27 other owners every year who are more than happy to keep a larger percentage of the TV money than bargain away something marginally valuable for the 5 losers at the table.

Blablabla. Don't believe anything you read from the owners or the players union about what they do and don't want right now. It's all posturing. Fact of the matter is that a rookie pay scale is in the interests of both parties. Whether they say that they want it or not is irrelevant. It may or may not get done but putting odds on it is pure speculation and entirely baseless in fact as all we have to base anything on is posturing and speculation.

 

[Mulli]

So in earlier threads you were criticizing and 'refuting' my opinion that there would be a rookie scale because you say, and I quote,

recap:


DCR: players union wants rookie pay scale

K9: players union doesn't want rookie pay scale


proceed...

 

[kerouac9]

Blablabla. Don't believe anything you read from the owners or the players union about what they do and don't want right now. It's all posturing. Fact of the matter is that a rookie pay scale is in the interests of both parties. Whether they say that they want it or not is irrelevant. It may or may not get done but putting odds on it is pure speculation and entirely baseless in fact as all we have to base anything on is posturing and speculation.

How is it in the player's interests to get a rookie scale? Lyle Sendlein isn't going to get a better deal because Levi Brown is capped. Players know that owners will pocket whatever savings there are. Each team only gets 53 players on the roster, so it's not like there will be more union members if there's a scale. It's not a priority for owners either because every rookie outside the top 5 is still a bargain compared to a high profile veteran free agent.

 

[earthsci]

How is it in the player's interests to get a rookie scale? Lyle Sendlein isn't going to get a better deal because Levi Brown is capped. Players know that owners will pocket whatever savings there are. Each team only gets 53 players on the roster, so it's not like there will be more union members if there's a scale. It's not a priority for owners either because every rookie outside the top 5 is still a bargain compared to a high profile veteran free agent.

If they kept the salary cap the same but had a rookie scale then the money would have to go to the vets.

 

[kerouac9]

If they kept the salary cap the same but had a rookie scale then the money would have to go to the vets.

Why? Teams don't spend to the salary cap all the time. Further, there isn't even a discussion of an NBA-style rookie pay scale. The discussion is limiting the length of rookie contracts to three or four years, which would eliminate the bigger salaries and option bonuses that come at the end of contracts for Top 10 rookies currently.

There is a salary cap for rookies right now. Teams circumvent it with option bonuses that don't apply to the rookie cap in the player's second season. Even if they are reforms to the rookie compensation system (and I don't think that there will be), it won't effect year 1 or 2 of rookie contracts, it'd just force teams to release or Franchise players earlier into their careers.

Truth be told, even Top 5 rookie contracts aren't the albatrosses around franchises' necks that people think they are when the deals are signed between April and August. Having underperforming Levi Brown on the roster hasn't hindered us, but having multiple Pro Bowler Larry Fitzgerald became a problem in Year 5, when his incentives kicked in.

Vets like high rookie salaries because it puts upward pressure on the Franchise Tag and on all later free agent deals. You don't think that Troy Polumalu is going to be pointing at Eric Berry's contract when his deal comes up next? You don't think that Haloti Ngata's contract extention talks begin with Ndamukong Suh's deal?

 

[THESMEL]

your wrong

Must been the players union that told you that. And I'm not so sure its a bad thing long term. No Business can function paying 60% to labor and 40% to taxes? plus picking up the tab on everything else.

The franchise value has increased making it worthwhile, but the market is saturated and merchandise and ticket sales are maxed and declining. there is not enough new money coming to sustain moderate or high growth.

The Owners have the fans back more than the players association. Players come and Go but Fans and Bowtie are here forever.



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5773846/nfl_lockout_looms_for_2011_season.html?cat=14

When there is a labor disagreement, the players can go on strike or the owners can simply lock out the players. By locking out the players, it doesn't mean the league shuts down, but rather nobody that is in the NFL Players Association can take the field. If you have seen the movie The Replacements, you have seen that teams can replace their players with anyone that will cross the lines.

There won't be any replacement players if there is a lockout.

 

[WildBB]

the rookie pay scale carries more weight than that on both sides.
But I still think the Owners are gonna break this union. too greedy oo long.
the golden day of the NFL player union is over.

franchises are not gonna triple in value like the cards have in this new economy.

Owners voided the option and forced this, their war chest are set. started at 40% and I don't think they'll go a dime above 50%.

they'll hire non union players until union players cross,

a 50/50 prtnership across the board, equal risk and reward would be sustainable forever. setting the tone for all negotiation on trival stuff and the future.

but players leaders worth their salt won't take it, will fight for more, and hence die. Who's gonna pay whos house payments after a year?

players are too selfish to survive as a union. throw me the damn ball.!

Its the fans paid money they argue about, but the fans will be nuthin more than an afterthought, how can we suck out the most and provide the least, that is their object.

but the Owners protect the fanbase more than the players. even expansion won't do as well in this saturated market. it aint about game attendence, even international.

how many Mexicans, Canadians, and Englsh will buy $300 jerseys? worth about 10 bucks.

$ 300 jerseys, oops we already got that!

Bolderdash.

It's the players that are going to disbar the union. They've allready voted on it accross the board. The owners aren't going to do squat to them!

Once the disbaring of the union, the players will take the owners to court, for not negotiating in good faith, and possibly unfair labor practices in the event of a lockout.

Someone once said here, it's hard to have any empathy at all for those raking in billions vs. those making millions.

Check out the Cardinals ownership, and how they've parlayed nothing but a football franchise into a multi-million dollar multi-buisness proposition.

In any event, our ticket prices will not go down at all - reguardless of any concessions made by the players.

 

[Pariah]

Bolderdash.

"Balderdash"
BIM

 

[THESMEL]

there is more to read from 2008, right on target though. like the players and union are dealing "good faith" I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

Trade association rather than Union, give me break, antitrust laws? I laugh in their face. If they are still a union when the Owners lock them out? any judge in his right mind will puke on the players.

It isn't like their manipulation is hiding or anything. Yes the Owners do deserve to make more than 4-10% profit for cutting 123 mill checks to players and more to coaches community and such.

Its our liquid money the Owners are handing out. but they have investment and capital.

3936 Million to players in 2009!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3288568

Beneath the surface of this increasingly rancorous dispute is the bargain the players and the owners made in March 2006, an agreement that provided significant increases for players in salaries and bonuses. Instead of 55.5 percent of NFL revenues, the players now are entitled to 60 percent. The salary cap has jumped from $85.5 million per team in 2005 to an expected $123 million per team in 2009, an increase of 43 percent.


Although the owners agreed to those increases, they are not happy about their decision. A number of owners claim their profits have dropped from 10 percent each year to only 4 percent since the 2006 bargain was struck.


"They think [the current deal] is too rich for the players, and they want to take some back," Upshaw observed.


It is no surprise that the players will decline the opportunity to give anything back.


Although there is some dispute over the owners' claims of declining profits, there is no doubt that what had been 15 years of a mostly harmonious partnership since the historic free agency and salary-cap agreement of 1993 is turning into a brawl. If the fight continues at its current intensity, the owners will seize their first opportunity to terminate the current contract and start the process that will lead to a confrontation and a lockout in the 2011 season.


The first step is to opt out of the contract, a move the owners must and probably will make between now and November.


Under the terms of the player-owner agreement, the owners' termination of the contract will trigger two more years of salary-cap football, then the 2010 season will be played without a cap on salaries. After the 2010 season and the college draft in spring 2011, the players and owners will be at a critical crossroads.


Upshaw and others involved in NFL labor issues expect the owners to announce that the players will be locked out of training camps, putting the 2011 season in jeopardy. An NFL lockout would come six years after the National Hockey League locked out its players, which killed the 2005-06 NHL season.


The NFL's union, according to Upshaw, will counter with decertification, which means it will give up its role as the official labor organization of NFL players and become a trade association.


"How can they lock us out if we are not a union?" Upshaw said.

Jeffrey Kessler, a union attorney who was a leader of the court fight that led to the 1993 restructuring of the NFL, added: "If you lock out players who do not have a union, it is an antitrust violation."

 

[Pariah]

"How can they lock us out if we are not a union?" Upshaw said.

Jeffrey Kessler, a union attorney who was a leader of the court fight that led to the 1993 restructuring of the NFL, added: "If you lock out players who do not have a union, it is an antitrust violation."

I'm not sure how this could be. The owners don't have to run their business. They can say "nope. we're closed for business this year because we don't like our profit margins." Nothing the players--unionized or no, can do. You can't force the NFL to play games if they don't want to.

 

[THESMEL]

thats not it

Its if the NFL teams plays games/season with replacement players,

the union players like DD/AW/Fitz still have a contracts.

If they dissolve the union then they would take the Cards to court for not honoring their current contract as trade association players. (but non union)

If they remain union players they are locked out.

So the players union manipulates to a trade association so they don't have to follow the rules that benefit the owners and NFL as a whole.

I'm not sure how this could be. The owners don't have to run their business. They can say "nope. we're closed for business this year because we don't like our profit margins." Nothing the players--unionized or no, can do. You can't force the NFL to play games if they don't want to.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

How is it in the player's interests to get a rookie scale? Lyle Sendlein isn't going to get a better deal because Levi Brown is capped. Players know that owners will pocket whatever savings there are. Each team only gets 53 players on the roster, so it's not like there will be more union members if there's a scale. It's not a priority for owners either because every rookie outside the top 5 is still a bargain compared to a high profile veteran free agent.

I think it will be negotiaited that if a rookie cap is in place there will X amount of money, I'm guessing some percentage calculated on rookie pay projections, that will go into the vetran pool. Or another way is to raise the minimum salary cap levels which would force more money to the vets. There are many ways to get it done.In the end , i think there will be a rookie scale, an 18 game schedule, and a higher salary cap on both ends.

 

[THESMEL]

top 5-10

its the top 5-10 draft picks players breaking the bank of teams who need more then one player to compete.

It has become a disadvantage to team mates to have 50 Millon bonus promised to an unproven rookie.

I expect them to make bank as a top pick but I expect it to be an average of the top 5 or 10 players at that position.

I think it will be negotiaited that if a rookie cap is in place there will X amount of money, I'm guessing some percentage calculated on rookie pay projections, that will go into the vetran pool. Or another way is to raise the minimum salary cap levels which would force more money to the vets. There are many ways to get it done.In the end , i think there will be a rookie scale, an 18 game schedule, and a higher salary cap on both ends.

 

[Hypothesis]

Must been the players union that told you that. And I'm not so sure its a bad thing long term. No Business can function paying 60% to labor and 40% to taxes? plus picking up the tab on everything else.

The franchise value has increased making it worthwhile, but the market is saturated and merchandise and ticket sales are maxed and declining. there is not enough new money coming to sustain moderate or high growth.

The Owners have the fans back more than the players association. Players come and Go but Fans and Bowtie are here forever.



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5773846/nfl_lockout_looms_for_2011_season.html?cat=14

When there is a labor disagreement, the players can go on strike or the owners can simply lock out the players. By locking out the players, it doesn't mean the league shuts down, but rather nobody that is in the NFL Players Association can take the field. If you have seen the movie The Replacements, you have seen that teams can replace their players with anyone that will cross the lines.

Tell me I'm wrong when and only when you see replacement players take the field. This isn't the movies, and after the debacle that happened in '87 with teams losing more than 3/4th's in ticket sales and massive TV ratings drops, I seriously doubt the NFL will risk it's reputation again by fielding scrubs.

The only reason there were replacement players to begin with in '87, was because the strike happened a couple weeks into the season...if it had happened prior to the start of the season and off season activities, I doubt there would have been replacement players to begin with.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I'm not sure how this could be. The owners don't have to run their business. They can say "nope. we're closed for business this year because we don't like our profit margins." Nothing the players--unionized or no, can do. You can't force the NFL to play games if they don't want to.

if it's all teams working in union with one and other it is a sherman act violation.

 

[kerouac9]

I think it will be negotiaited that if a rookie cap is in place there will X amount of money, I'm guessing some percentage calculated on rookie pay projections, that will go into the vetran pool. Or another way is to raise the minimum salary cap levels which would force more money to the vets. There are many ways to get it done.In the end , i think there will be a rookie scale, an 18 game schedule, and a higher salary cap on both ends.

A higher salary cap in percentage of total revenue or in total dollars?

So you're predicting that the owners totally break the union and the union gets nothing in negotiations. Good luck with that.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

A higher salary cap in percentage of total revenue or in total dollars?

So you're predicting that the owners totally break the union and the union gets nothing in negotiations. Good luck with that.

I do think the owners will be the big winners in the end. The players would be happy to keep things status quo. Everything favors the management here. To me, it's just a matter of how much the union loses and can save face. The owners have the hammer here bigtime. Other leagues have tried to start and proved they can't compete. The owners have TV on their side. The only real hope, like Ouchie mentioned, is if the players can prove the owners acted in concert and bargained in bad faith. Goodell's probablt smart enough to not let that happen. I mean, seriuosly, name one point of contention that the players hold an advantage on. They could refuse to play an 18 game schedule. That's about it. If they withhold their services, they will be replaced. That's already been shown. I don't think it comes to that but I see a lockout and then an agreement by mid-summer and no games missed.

 

[kerouac9]

I do think the owners will be the big winners in the end. The players would be happy to keep things status quo. Everything favors the management here. To me, it's just a matter of how much the union loses and can save face. The owners have the hammer here bigtime. Other leagues have tried to start and proved they can't compete. The owners have TV on their side. The only real hope, like Ouchie mentioned, is if the players can prove the owners acted in concert and bargained in bad faith. Goodell's probablt smart enough to not let that happen. I mean, seriuosly, name one point of contention that the players hold an advantage on. They could refuse to play an 18 game schedule. That's about it. If they withhold their services, they will be replaced. That's already been shown. I don't think it comes to that but I see a lockout and then an agreement by mid-summer and no games missed.

I don't think Goddell wants to miss a single game. Time is the one thing on the players' side. Most fans won't care if training camp or the preseason is missed, but Goddell isn't going to get much more of a pass from the press after the rule changes this season and the embarrassment of the Favre saga and everything else.

And the owners are leveraged up to their eyeballs. The Bidwills are already in foreclosure in Glendale. They'll get TV money, but I don't think it begins to cover the kinds of expenses that a lot of owners have to carry.

The players will play the 18 game schedule and get one or two less minicamps and OTAs. But owners can let the players save face by giving up the rookie salary scale, which they don't really care about, anyway, as I've explained here multiple times.

Owners just don't care about a rookie scale the way that fans do. Even for top picks, they end up a value if they can contribute anything at all.

 

[Duckjake]

if it's all teams working in union with one and other it is a sherman act violation.

http://www.sdma.com/nfl-sacked-by-the-sherman-antitrust-act-07-07-2010/

Very interesting.

 

[THESMEL]

thanks

Thanks Jake Duck

That was very informing, The players would have to sue the team, like the Cards, I used as an example. the contract is between the cards and the player, coach, ect.

The NFL contract is with the networks, the networks hold the power, unlike years before. The NFL raked them for every dollar they could, and still the NFL is the most watched event product on earth. most bang for the buck for advertisers.

But The NFL network and Sunday ticket are the equal to pay per view, that killed professional boxing's popularity in America and around the world. boxing is not close to the community event it was when I was a kid. The NFL has shown its intentions

The dirty dozen in this is the agents. They will lose out on alot of money with a rookie scale. What could an agent do for Deuce, Lyle, Breaston or Patrick this year? threaten to sit out is about it, threaten to move on when possible?

Hypo I think your right but, I don't think the Owners are bluffing. They were losing income at 60% in 2009, They can not expect the growth in this economy and saturated market, They started with a 40% labor offer to the union.

I think 50% shared risk and reward partnership is the long term answer. The Union will kill itself for 51% addicted to more, nature of unions.

As far as Veterans getting the minimum while rookie gets 50 million bonus on a 75 million contract, veteran players want that fixed.
its the top 5-10 rookie contracts and the tp pick should be an average of the top 5 at position cap. and work its way down.

http://www.sdma.com/nfl-sacked-by-the-sherman-antitrust-act-07-07-2010/

Very interesting.

 

[oaken1]

your talking about paying top ten picks like they were franchised smelly, and that is way too much.
I have zero sympathy for the players in all this,.....unless you include guys who have been working hard and paying their dues for the past seven or eight years only to sign a deal for one year at veteran minimum. In my opinion they should have,.....

a drafted rookie pay scale with set amounts for the players based on draft position...1-10 gets the same, 11-22 get the same,23-32 get the same....do this for each of the first two rounds, then have a set amount for each of the following rounds,...ie, every player drafted in the fifth round gets the same deal.
. For the top 10 picks, I suggest a salary in the range of five years, 15 million dollars...they may pitch a bitch,.but they have proven nothing,....in what other profession can you make 15 million your first five years out of college? I would also make this, 10 mil in salary,...5 mil in bonus.
The league should add a mandatory RFA year to the back end of EVERY NFL contract....this way, if a guy wants to try the FA market, he either has to play one last season with his team at a lower salary, or he has to find a team willing to give up tender offer picks to sign him.....this will help keep top veteran players on their current teams,...most will renegotiate before they have to play for a second round tender salary. This will also help teams to recover from their losses of top players......if a player chooses to just tank a season at tender, and fake an injury or something,....it just hurts the contract he will sign with another team.
They need to structure in line items that will encourage players to stay with the team that drafted them, and that will increase trades of players. Too often teams lose players and get nothing,.....losing players makes it difficult for a team to build loyalty, and keep it, within their market....IMO TEAM loyalty needs to come back,...while PLAYER loyalty needs to diminish in the NFL..... I have seen too many youngsters whose loyalty changes every couple years because their favorite player changed teams.