- Joined
- Aug 14, 2005
- Messages
- 15,347
- Reaction score
- 1,568
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.mtbykr said: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 said: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.
Miguel said: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.
PATSNUTme said: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 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.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?
Miguel said:If the owners can't agree now, why should the players speak up now??
MoLewisrocks said: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 said:There has been almost nothing heard from the players.
Very strange indeed.
hwc said: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
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 said: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? .
Miguel said:Because they added the vet min exemption at that time.
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.hwc said: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 vet minimum exemption might keep a few guys employed,
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 said: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.
PATSNUTme said:It's called supporting the union that is suppose to be working in your interest.
Miguel said: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.