Does anyone else find it strange?

[PATSNUTme]

There has been almost nothing heard from the players. No statement of support for Upshaw and no statement of anger toward the owners. Hardly nothing at all from the players.

Yet , it is there salaries and benefits that are on the line.

Very strange indeed.

 

[Pats726]

Yes...in Gene we trust....I think..although I think some players have spoken out..Birk did in Minnie.... I agree it is rather odd ezpecially if it tumbles all apart...their well being is on the line..which all seems to make it very surreal..maybe when it all goes down the tubes they will have more to say.

 

[mtbykr]

well

I don't think that the players really care what's going on. I think they feel that a deal will eventually get worked out, so why bother worrying about it. Besides, i am sure that they like Upshaw about as much as the rest of us:bricks:

 

[Miguel]

Why should the players say anything?? The argument is truly between the owners. The players already know that teams have another $320 million to spend on them this year as compared to 2005. They also know that the owners actually have another 12 months to come to an agreement between themselves. There is nothing to prevent the owners from accepting the players' offer a month from now, 11 months from now.

 

[Murphys95]

I don't think that the players really care what's going on. I think they feel that a deal will eventually get worked out, so why bother worrying about it. Besides, i am sure that they like Upshaw about as much as the rest of us:bricks:

You're right, there is certainly no sense of urgency on their part, but there is a sense of apathy.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Why should the players say anything?? The argument is truly between the owners. The players already know that teams have another $320 million to spend on them this year as compared to 2005. They also know that the owners actually have another 12 months to come to an agreement between themselves. There is nothing to prevent the owners from accepting the players' offer a month from now, 11 months from now.

Disagree- some players are going into FA now and if a deal isn't struck, a lot of them are not going to get the payday that they were looking for. Some players will or have already been cut for cap reasons, if no deal is done.

If they go into and uncapped year in 2007 some who thought that they were FA's are not. And what about the 401K and medical benefits?

There is a lot for them to be concerned about. Yet almost nothing from them.

And if they owners can't agree now, what makes you think that they will agreee 12 months from now?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Why should the players say anything?? The argument is truly between the owners. The players already know that teams have another $320 million to spend on them this year as compared to 2005. They also know that the owners actually have another 12 months to come to an agreement between themselves. There is nothing to prevent the owners from accepting the players' offer a month from now, 11 months from now.

But if they really believe Gene, there is.... Remember his lone card that he's overplayed throughout is if we get to the uncapped year - and he deems that happening on the first day of the 2006 league year in the absence of a new deal - the cap never gets back on the table. Gene has some of them, but not all of them, convinced it's better to roll the dice and take $320M now and no cap ever again than to take $577M now and a guarantee the industry will still be issuing uninterupted paychecks in 2008 and beyond. He also has some of them convinced that ownership fears a capless future more than they fear nuclear winter.

So maybe they just don't believe Gene either, or maybe they're just dumb jock sheep and they not only believe him, they trust he is right. They belong to a union they have no functional control over, so what does that tell you. They increasingly entrust lifechanging decisions to comission agents whose agendas are basically cash driven and are stunned when those decisions backfire and make them miserable. For a 100% college educated workforce it is just mindnumbing.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Let me phrase it another way. Where is the words of support from the rank and file for the unions position.

In almost every other sport where contract negotiations are going on, the player reps are always out front and center supporting the union. Not here, not yet.

 

[Miguel]

Disagree- some players are going into FA now and if a deal isn't struck, a lot of them are not going to get the payday that they were looking for. Some players will or have already been cut for cap reasons, if no deal is done.

A high percentage of the cut players were let go not because of the cap but because the perceived 2006 production was less than their cap value warranted. See Isaac Bruce who was cut even though the Rams were under the cap by $10 million.

If they go into and uncapped year in 2007 some who thought that they were FA's are not. And what about the 401K and medical benefits?



There is a lot for them to be concerned about. Yet almost nothing from them.

If the owners can't agree between themselves, then the only thing that the players can do i to make the deal happen is not to talk but to take a whole less money and to agree to a situation that will limit the number of teams competing for their services in the future. If I were a NFL player, I would not want a system that greatly favors the high-revenue teams becuse that limits the numbers of teams bidding for my services. I do not expect that players to say that we are willing to take less money in order for the ultra-rich owners to continue to maximize their profits. That's a lousy negotiating tactic.

And if they owners can't agree now, what makes you think that they will agreee 12 months from now?

If the owners can't agree now, why should the players speak up now??

 

[PATSNUTme]

If the owners can't agree now, why should the players speak up now??

It's called supporting the union that is suppose to be working in your interest.

Would it do any good in the negotiations? I don't know. But,support of the union would show the public that they are behind it.


Don't get me wrong- I want a deal done. But, I don't want a deal that is going to hurt the Partiots or Bob Kraft.


But I do find it very strange that the most vocal of the players was dissing on Upshaw.

 

[workhorse]

So maybe they just don't believe Gene either, or maybe they're just dumb jock sheep and they not only believe him, they trust he is right. They belong to a union they have no functional control over, so what does that tell you. They increasingly entrust lifechanging decisions to comission agents whose agendas are basically cash driven and are stunned when those decisions backfire and make them miserable. For a 100% college educated workforce it is just mindnumbing.

I find it a little odd that there are no player reps at least sitting in on the talks. Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't the other sports had players more involved in the meetings? I'm in a union and during our contract talks we have our union reps, which are co-workers, negotiators from the union and a union attorney all involved.

 

[hwc]

There has been almost nothing heard from the players.

Very strange indeed.

Yes. The total disengagement of the players has been almost surreal.

It speaks volumes to the fact that Upshaw represents the big-time agents, not the players. All we really need to know is that Tom Condon is Gene Upshaw's agent and is, in all likelihood, dictating the union position.

Ask yourself this. In the last extension, why did the union opt to get rid of the clause in the CBA that forced the vet. minimum salaries to increase at the same rate as the overall CBA?

Answer: because the union doesn't give a hoot about the rank and file. That clause made less money available for big contract scores by the kind of players Tom Condon and friends represent.

That's why we are seeing union demands this time placing limits on the length of contracts that rookies can sign and why there will be no union agreement on any proposal to limit big "cash over cap" signing bonuses

 

[Mike the Brit]

Yes. The total disengagement of the players has been almost surreal.

It speaks volumes to the fact that Upshaw represents the big-time agents, not the players. All we really need to know is that Tom Condon is Gene Upshaw's agent and is, in all likelihood, dictating the union position.

Ask yourself this. In the last extension, why did the union opt to get rid of the clause in the CBA that forced the vet. minimum salaries to increase at the same rate as the overall CBA?

Answer: because the union doesn't give a hoot about the rank and file. That clause made less money available for big contract scores by the kind of players Tom Condon and friends represent.

That's why we are seeing union demands this time placing limits on the length of contracts that rookies can sign and why there will be no union agreement on any proposal to limit big "cash over cap" signing bonuses

That's a very cynical take on the whole thing -- unfortunately, what you say makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Miguel]

Yes. The total disengagement of the players has been almost surreal.

It speaks volumes to the fact that Upshaw represents the big-time agents, not the players. All we really need to know is that Tom Condon is Gene Upshaw's agent and is, in all likelihood, dictating the union position.

Ask yourself this. In the last extension, why did the union opt to get rid of the clause in the CBA that forced the vet. minimum salaries to increase at the same rate as the overall CBA? .

Because they added the vet min exemption at that time. Without the vet min exemption and with vet minimum salaries increasing at the same rate as the overall CBA, veterans like Don Davis would probably cost $800,000 against the 2006 cap and not $460,000. With the vet min exemption, a team could afford to pay 12 veterans at the vet minimum rather than 7 vets making $800,000.

 

[hwc]

Because they added the vet min exemption at that time.

The vet minimum exemption works to reduce the pay for rank and file members. A guy who is probably worth a few bucks over vet minimum, or who might be able to get a little security from a signing bonus, or who might be able to sign a multi-year deal, has no chance of doing so because the teams have a big incentive to hold his deal to exactly vet minimum with no more than a $25,000 bonus.

The benefit of the vet minimum exemption is that it frees up cap dollars to spend on big-ticket contracts that will generate a commission for the agents Upshaw represents.

The vet minimum exemption might keep a few guys employed, but only because the CBA and free agency is structured to encourage teams to eat up as much cap money on big-ticket contracts as possible. If the union wanted to, they could easily force CBA rules that encourage teams to spread the cap dollars more evenly across the roster -- for example, by forcing all vet minimum salaries to increase at the same rate as the cap.

All of the vet minimum guys in the league have essentially been treading water for the last six years while the total cap dollars have gone through the roof. If their vet minimum salaries had increased proportionally, there would have been less cap room available for big-ticket deals.

 

[Miguel]

The vet minimum exemption works to reduce the pay for rank and file members. A guy who is probably worth a few bucks over vet minimum, or who might be able to get a little security from a signing bonus, or who might be able to sign a multi-year deal, has no chance of doing so because the teams have a big incentive to hold his deal to exactly vet minimum with no more than a $25,000 bonus.

And yet the median salary for all players went up a higher rate than the average salary for all players. And yet the median salary for starters went up a higher rate than the average salary for starters.

The vet minimum exemption might keep a few guys employed,

It is not might. It is has.

[quote[
but only because the CBA and free agency is structured to encourage teams to eat up as much cap money on big-ticket contracts as possible. If the union wanted to, they could easily force CBA rules that encourage teams to spread the cap dollars more evenly across the roster -- for example, by forcing all vet minimum salaries to increase at the same rate as the cap.
[/quote]

In other words, the union should pretend that all positions on the 53-man roster have close to equal value.

All of the vet minimum guys in the league have essentially been treading water for the last six years while the total cap dollars have gone through the roof. If their vet minimum salaries had increased proportionally, there would have been less cap room available for big-ticket deals.

If vet min salaries had increased proportionally, there would be fewer veterans in the league.

The big-ticket deals have gone to the most important players on the team - quarterbacks, running backs, cornerbacks, defensive ends. Let's say that the cap goes up to $105 million. Are the Patriots going to spend the $10 million by giving 50 players a $200,000 raise?? No, they are going to give some of the players a huge raise. Why?? Because they valued those few players more.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Why should the players say anything?? The argument is truly between the owners. The players already know that teams have another $320 million to spend on them this year as compared to 2005. They also know that the owners actually have another 12 months to come to an agreement between themselves. There is nothing to prevent the owners from accepting the players' offer a month from now, 11 months from now.

* My guess is the players are pretty happy with the NFLPA's offer. I saw John Lynch on TV say he'd called Upshaw and talked to him on Sunday. Because we don't here about communication between Upshaw and his negotiating team and the team reps and players doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I wouldn't expect players to set up informational picket lines at stadium's anyway. Most are on vacation.

 

[hwc]

It's called supporting the union that is suppose to be working in your interest.

Oh, Upshaw is working hard in the players' interest. In Hawaii, where the union is holding their "executive council" meetings this week...on the players' dime. Sure beats "flying back to Washington" again.

I imagine that the staff of 59 employees at the NFLPA offices can hold down the fort while Gene is sipping Mai Tais in Hawaii waiting for the owners' response.

 

[Miguel]

Because they added the vet min exemption at that time. Without the vet min exemption and with vet minimum salaries increasing at the same rate as the overall CBA, veterans like Don Davis would probably cost $800,000 against the 2006 cap and not $460,000.

Boy, my estimate was way off. In 2001 the cap was 67.4 million. In 2005 the cap was 85.5 million. That is a 26.8 % increase. In 2001 a vet with 10 years of experience had a minimum salary of $725,000. A 26.8% increase equates to $920,000 minimum salary in 2005. A vet with 10 years who qualifed for the vet min treatment had a cap cost of $455,000 in 2005, which is less than half of $920,000. IMO, the only way that the Patriots could have put the same 2005 roster on the field with a 26.8% increase in the minimum salary is for players like Brady, Seymour, and Vrabel to have a lot smaller cap numbers. I just do not see a football union agreeing to a deal where the most important players on the team, a quarterback, takes a lot less in the hopes that a Don Davis gets $920,000 in 2005, instead of $770,000. If a Don Davis costs $920,000 in 2005 and not $455,000, why would not a team just replace him with a much cheaper rookie???