Welcome to PatsFans.com

idle thoughts...500 reasons....

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by patfanken, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,762
    Likes Received:
    326
    Ratings:
    +571 / 16 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    ......why the CBA WILL get done.....and sooner rather than later....and other assorted thoughts.

    1. 500 That's the approximate number of NFL FAs that will hopefully become available on Thursday, and that's 500 critical reasons why the the "union" will have to eventually acquiesce to the great majority of the owners demands.

    Think about it. Strike or lockout, this work stoppage will be the result of a MUTUAL agreed to action (or inaction) by the owners and the players. I don't see how the "union" can be in a strong position when a full THIRD of its membership will be seriously harmed by any kind of long term work stoppage.

    Now I'm not saying something will get done by Thursday, but if it goes past the draft in late April, Many of those 500 guys are going to start to get antsy. And if it goes into August as a lot of media pukes are suggesting, then HUNDREDS of those FAs are NOT going find jobs in the NFL

    Its about time that this so called "union" figures out that they are responsible to the vast majority of its membership, not just to protect the right of the top 10% of its members to extract the last dollar out of owners that are struggling to maintain profitability.

    Their job SHOULD BE a lot more than just getting the maximum amount of dollars. It should be about improving working conditions, expanding job opportunities, and protecting against job LOSSES.

    I'm not saying the owners are totally blameless in this dispute. However the NFL has THRIVED because the players and owners had previously acted in PARTNERSHIP when it came to "labor issues". The results have be incredibly favorable to BOTH parties. Player incomes have simply sky rocketed in the last 2 decades, while the value of franchises have similarly increased many fold.

    Thinking that revenue will simply increase year after year is the kind of thinking that precipitated the last economic bust. It is just NOT realistic. It isn't true in any business let alone professional football, and as we are told so often, "NFL football is a business"

    So lets get back to that 500 number. If there is a long term lockout, NONE of those 500 FAs will be able to get jobs in the NFL in 2011. Again that's ONE THIRD of your membership with a STRONG incentive to want a deal worked out. They know as well as I that if there is a long term lockout, many of them will find themselves without a seat when the music stops.

    So for THAT reason, I can't see any kind of work stoppage going long term.....JMHO

    2. When you look at the moves by the Jets today, its easy to explain what the Pats did when they decided to cut loose Nick Kascur. I liked him as a player, but considering he's coming off a back surgery, you'd HAVE to believe that among the 500 NFL FA's mentioned above, there has GOT to be a player of equal ability who would be willing to come to NE and play for $1-2MM.

    3. On the football side of the 500 FAs, I think the immediate impact of the draft is minimized. First the mere vastness of the players available will definitely keep prices down. Simple supply and demand dictates that..

    THere will be SO MANY NFL players who have started in this league that contract amounts will be depressed, and great values are there to be had. The elite players will STILL get paid, but for the vast majority of FA's the term "reasonable money" is going to replace, "maximum money". If there was ever a year to rebuild quickly, this will be it.

    4. Now how does that effect the draft? I think it will minimize the impact of potential draft picks. It might be the year to take some chances, to go outside the box, simply because you KNOW there will be so many players out there on whom there is lots of film against the best competition. Its a lot easier to evaluate a guy with 4-6+ in the league than some "hot shot" kid playing in the Big Ten.

    5. For the Pats it might mean they will look for quality over numbers for a change. It might mean the opposite, because this will be a year to pick players who you can afford to develop down the road, and get your "impact" players in positions of need from the FA market

    BOTTOM LINE - The Pats pretty much march to the beat of their OWN drummer, so any suppositions we make are just that.....guesses. That way EVERY draft day is really like christmas, where we are ALWAYS surprised when we open up our presents. :D
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  2. peterforpats

    peterforpats Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    if there is a long term lockout no one gets paid, what difference does it make if you are under contract or not? brady, manning, no one gets paid. do you think the free agents are under any more pressure than a signed player who is not getting paid? the union either sticks together or not, but i don't see how the free agents have any more influence than anyone else.:confused:
  3. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,468
    Likes Received:
    526
    Ratings:
    +1,321 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    Point being FAs have more of a mkt before the draft than after once a team spends a high draft pick to fill the need they woulda filled via FA before the draft.
  4. Dufflebagz

    Dufflebagz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If the CBA gets done in....let's say August. There is less of a chance a lot of FA's will be signed, leaving them unemployed.

    What he's saying has more to do with WHEN not IF a CBA gets done. At least I think that's what he means.
  5. peterforpats

    peterforpats Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    does anyone think the news that the owners could go up to 2 seasons without games is an accident. it is so obviously a shot across the bow to intimidate the union. no doubt owners like jerry richardson (who have no clue how to run and market a franchise) want the union to cave and give them back a ton of money. this could be a long work stoppage.........
  6. Sean Pa Patriot

    Sean Pa Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,226
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey


    I was thinking the owners are preparing for the blow up of a empire, but now the lockout fund from the tv ruling has been sided with the players, the owners are going to sweat a little bit now , and i say good for them..
  7. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,252
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +325 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Oops.. Misread this. But I have to disagree with the take on Jerry Richardson also. The Panthers have been one of the better teams in terms of marketing. If you'd said Jacksonville, I'd agree with you.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  8. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,252
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +325 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Where did you see that the Doty sided with players regarding the TV revenue? Last that was announced was that Doty has sided with the teams...
  9. Tucker

    Tucker Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  10. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I was disappointed when I found out I misread Judge Doty as Judge Judy. That would've been great.
  11. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    Jerry Richardson = Carolina Panthers

    Jerry Jones = Dallas Cowgirls

    ;)
  12. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,252
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +325 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    I notice that the NFLPA wants it put into escrow until a new CBA is reached. The problem with that is that, once they decertify, that judgement becomes null and void since the NFLPA will no longer exist and Doty will no longer be able to rule on the CBA.
  13. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,252
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +325 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey


    Thanks for the correction.
  14. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    I think Doty remains if they decertify because that precludes a lockout (unless the NLRB rules that a decertification is invalid). He's gone if the CBA expires as in lockout. That said, the league won round 1 (Special Master Burbank) and the union won round 2 (Judge Doty). The owners claim they were prepared for that outcome, it's one of the reasons they want Doty gone. Whatever he decides will be appealed - and while that could still tie the money up ad nauseum it could ultimately swing the pendulum back in the other direction by midsummer... And the money doesn't become an issue for the owners until September. Unfortunately i think what the decision does is inflate the players belief that they can prevail. Somehow I think the 500 who were expecting new FA signing bonus money in March and the 74 due bonus payments on existing deals in March will realize shortly September is a long ways off. And the majority of owners realize that a bad deal is a bad deal whichever caliber of gun is being held to your head.
  15. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,762
    Likes Received:
    326
    Ratings:
    +571 / 16 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    No, I think you miss the point I was trying to make. Either that or I didn't explain it well. It is true that NO ONE gets paid if there is a work stoppage. But we both know that, one way or another, any work stoppage will eventually end. And when that happens, those 500 FAs will STILL be without pay checks, and no guarantee that another one will ever be coming....at least from the NFL.

    True, hundreds will get jobs, but hundreds more will not, and the long it goes on, the MORE difficult it will be for veteran FA's to get resigned. Right NOW, if you are an unrestricted FA in the 2011 season you DO NOT want a long work stoppage.

    Regardless of what Doty ruled, the leverage is STILL with the owners.

    IMHO the bottom line here is that the players are going to have to make some financial concessions to the owners. The players want the status quo, and they just can't have it. To this point they haven't come close to making any proposal that addresses any of the owners issues

    The owners are going to have to make some concessions as well on non-revenue issues, or at least meet the players in the middle. They BOTH have to remember that the league got this successful primarily BECAUSE the owners and the players put the league ahead of their individual wants. It was a PARTNERSHIP.

    Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe the money has just gotten SO big for BOTH the players and owners that any "partnership" between the 2 isn't realistic....but I don't think so.
  16. Potstickas

    Potstickas Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is exactly why this is doing to drag on. The only middle ground is if the players are willing to give up a big slice of the pie. Feeding the family and egos come into play. Players are not going to easily back down until they start feeling the pinch of not getting a paycheck.

    The owners on the other hand are already prepared to do what it takes to get what they want. They are already dug in and willing to loose a year of play, it does not scare them.

    I'm just glad the red sox look to be an interesting team this year.
  17. patman52

    patman52 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    Of course it is not an issue, IF they are succsessful in de-certifing. However the owners were going to counter sue the union, saying de-certifing it was a negotiating ploy. So if the owners are successful in the suit, now they dont have the slush fund.

    So if Doty rules that it is a slush fund, all the while that they owners are trying to say the union still exists and it was just a ploy they dont have access to the slush fund.
  18. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,762
    Likes Received:
    326
    Ratings:
    +571 / 16 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    No I think there are a lot of non revenue issues the "union" can gain concessions on, IF they make some on the revenue issues.

    1. The "tags" - you know those "dreaded" franchise and transition tags that "force" players into accepting 8 figure salaries :rolleyes:
    2. The length of time to FA
    3. The structure of the 18 game season
    4. Roster size.
    5. Where the savings the owners get on the rookie salary cap go.
    6. Pensions,
    7. Player safety issues

    ....and that's just off the top of my head. There can be a lot of REAL gains players can attain beyond getting even MORE money
  19. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,420
    Likes Received:
    281
    Ratings:
    +750 / 5 / -14

    #61 Jersey

    Why do you label your threads as "idle thoughts"? They seem anything but idle. You should re-name them "deliberate contemplations."
  20. Don Kipines

    Don Kipines Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I'm not sure about your reasoning and I'm not sure you understand the situation very well.

    The players had nothing to do with causing this latest round of labor unrest. Pure and simple, this is the owners collectively deciding that they want more money. There are no major issues about player rights or anything like that. If the league was pulling in $10 billion a year before, and it's now pulling in $11 billion, the owners want 100% of that money -- they don't want to share even a penny of it. Essentially, they are asking to retain 100% of all the league's growth. Which is unreasonable and defies the whole concept of "partnership" that you are talking about.

    Another example of the owners' attempts to skirt the partnership is this hoarding of TV revenue in advance of the lockout. The owners essentially volunteered to earn less from the networks in the last few years in exchange for a promise that the networks would lend them $4 billion during any lockout. This is an outrageous violation of the CBA; what it means is that the owners stole roughly $2.4 billion from the players.

    The players are entitled to 60% of all revenue, but the league gave the networks a "discount" and basically asked them to bank that $4 billion, i.e. keep it out of the league kitty so that it couldn't be divvied up as per the CBA. Had that money been paid in the usual way, the owners would only have received $1.6 billion of it. Now they're keeping all of it, or at least they would have, had a judge not intervened.

    That wasn't just taking money improperly, it was also a blatantly unfair labor practice, in the sense that it both took money the players could have used to save up during the lockout and also gave the owners a war chest they could live on in the event of a work stoppage.

    The whole thing was an Enron-style accounting tactic. The owners were keeping funds that they actually controlled (i.e. the $4 billion) off their books so that their "partners" (the players) couldn't access it. And the amazing thing is that the players didn't even complain about it until now. They weren't going after that money; they were happy to keep playing under the existing CBA. But even absconding with that much money wasn't enough for the owners. They're still trying to opt out of the deal in order to guarantee that they get another billion dollars of new revenue all to themselves.

    If the owners don't blink today, they're fools, because once this gets into the courts, they're not only going to lose their argument for control of new revenue, they're going to have to pay damages for the hidden TV revenue and give up a lot of rights they currently enjoy. Almost guaranteed, if it gets before this current judge, the owners will lose the franchise tag, and who knows, they may even lose the salary cap or their entire antitrust exemption. Which will suck for the fans.

    From what I understand the players are willing to give up some of what they got in the last CBA, but this thing isn't going to get done because a certain clique of owners won't budge at all -- and if it gets to the courts, we'll not only have a work stoppage but the new version of the NFL won't have a franchise tag and fans in small-market cities like Indy and Minnesota will have to live in dread of losing the Mannings and Petersons to, well, the Jets. I don't see how the fact that there are a lot of free agents about to hit the market makes this any more the union's fault than it was, and it was never really the union's fault at all.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>