Welcome to PatsFans.com

Patriots About to Be Singled Out For Lack Of Labor Interest

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PatsFans.com Article, May 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PatsFans.com Article

    PatsFans.com Article Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ian's Daily Blog - In an upcoming HBO episode airing tonight on Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel, a profile of*new NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith will be the focus of the episode.* Smith, who visited Gillette Stadium back on May 6th, met with several Patriots*players*and according to ProFootballTalk.com less than 20 members of the team were on hand for [...]

  2. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Maybe the players have always thought that their voice did not matter with Upshaw an dcompany...I think it could mean MANY things. It was a day off for players...so bad scheduling for Smith...That they have singled out teh Pats is typical of shows like this..but a GREAT heads up!!
  3. farn

    farn Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    At my place of work - few vote due to union distrust and the overall feeling that our voice means little...

    They obviously have more cash than my co-workers do... maybe they feel they can make a go at it regardless of what's decided.

    Maybe they're more interested in getting better than learning the ins and outs of their contract.
  4. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ratings:
    +90 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

  5. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    Who are the union reps on the team? It is their responsibility to get the players to such meetings.
  6. ddell1

    ddell1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    mike vrable is/was the Pats rep.
  7. mojocaster.com

    mojocaster.com Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Unions are to business what pimples and rashes are to perfectly fine baby butts. :)
  8. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    I believe that the average player is better off with a union than without.

  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    Agreed. Players have more to worry about than what's best for the business owners.
  10. mojocaster.com

    mojocaster.com Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It does not make it the best system - just (arguably) the best one we've come up with so far...
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  11. jczxohn1

    jczxohn1 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    If the Players Union was so great, they would put more emphasis on the well-being of retired players. Gene Upshaw let them down terribly when he denied responsibility for their concerns.
  12. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,926
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Well then maybe we can go back to the glorious past when workers had it better, you know, before the unions.
  13. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    I didn't say that the union was great. It is not. The players deserve a stronger union. HOWEVER, the union thry have is much better than not having one.

  14. sarge

    sarge Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That about sums up my feelings on unions as well!
  15. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Matt Light is the new player rep.....Firstly..I wonder if with other teams it was also scheduled on an Off day..With a new player rep..I would think it MAY take some time to get all on board..who knows about the logistics of the metting?? How far in advamce wa sit known?? Typical to pick on the Pats..just anothe rcheap shot..
  16. E Belichick Unum

    E Belichick Unum Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    The NFL Players Association is a joke. The players are not interested in being a "union", they are interested in collecting a paycheck. Remember the last work stoppage when LT and Doug Flutie crossed the picket lines and broke the back of the work stoppage? Remember the number of players who crossed en mass?

    Let's face it, these guys are treated pretty well, they get paid 6 figure salaries and get per diem. They don't care how much the owners are making, they only want to keep collecting their paycheck. The owners want to make money, and that is what a business is supposed to do. Truth be told, the NFLPA is probably the best union in pro sports at keeping the golden goose healthy. Yeah, you can argue that the past players are not being taken care of, and you can argue that the owners want give backs, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether collectively it is the right thing to do, what matters is what the rank and file think. My guess is that they want to keep the money coming in.

    There are some really easy fixes here that will get this done. The owners are looking at debt and saying that 60% is too much. For an owner like Kraft, 60% really isn't a killer, but for an owner like Wilson in Buffalo, 60% could drive him out of the state. The union will say, let them move, but al that will do is foster bad will in the NFL fan base, in the NFL ownership and in the rank and file. The union will ask to see the owners books, a typical canard, the owners will balk and the union will proclaim "I told you so!", but the fanbase won't be impressed and in the end it is the fan base who will be the judge.

    The end game will be:
    A rookie pay scale
    A lesser percentage of the gross
    A return to sanity in player penalties

    A less restrictive free agency system
    A second bye per season
    Better healthcare for "modern" retirees
    A discipline committee instead of Goodell the God

    There are too many people in the league whose main dialog would be "paper or plastic" if not for football. They need football more than football needs them. This will get settled, I hope. The golden eggs can still be broken, and if that happens, the outcome will be the same as it was the last time there was a strike.
  17. fnordcircle

    fnordcircle tfw not enough helmets PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 2 / -4

    The NFLPA have shown no desire to put an end to the number one problem plaguing their members - ridiculous rookie salaries. Huge first round salaries that cut into the available salary cap are seriously hurting veteran and midlevel players and their ability to earn. I don't have any idea how the NFLPA works in terms of how it collects dues, etc, but for every Jamarcus Russell there are hundreds of vets and guys who are quality role players who become cap casualties to make room for the sexy new first round pick.

    Until they do something about this the idea that the NFLPA actually cares about its members instead of catering to the select few at the top of the list of most highly paid players is impossible for me to believe.
  18. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I agree the union has had a better perspective on keeping the golden goose alive... BUT I guess also in this end game would be 18 reg season games...AND with that HAS to be some way to evaluate and develop players...(believe it or not those 2 preseason games WERE helpful for that..) My guess is the league will have to really look at a developmental league for young players
    Also...maybe instead of a 2nd bye week..expansion of rosters, modification of the IR and other ways that teams would be comfortable with added length of the season.
    Not sure about less restrictive free agency I think it is fine the way it is...I totally agree about penalties and having a panel instead of a potentate...To me, the gross has to be lower...esp in these economic times... The largest thing in all of this to me is for tehleague to get serious about a developmental spring league..THAT is needed...OR??? some replacement or way to evaluate talent.
  19. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Wow, the nerve of those workers.
  20. mikegibbons

    mikegibbons Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's one of the flaws with unions. Why should the best players subsidize the inferior players? They're effectively giving up money.

    Secondly, the distrust with unions is also there. Look at the politicking Vincent did. All of those guys are making quid pro quos, handshake deals to further their own interests...not the interests of the players. It's all about power. And by submitting to a union and forking over the fruits of your labor in the form of dues, you lose your voice. Your sovereignty is gone.
  21. mikegibbons

    mikegibbons Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

    Why shouldn't a team spend millions on an unproven guy with HUGE upside? That's the operative word, unfortunately. You're paying for the potential, but you do that in everything. I buy a long position in company X because it has the potential to increase its PPS 50% while paying dividends along the way.

    I wouldn't buy shares in a floundering, old company just because it has the name recognition (GM, Ford). I'd rather invest in the fledgling transportation companies.

    Yes, for every Jake Long you get a Ryan Leaf and an Akili Smith, but everything's a crapshoot. I could create an equally long list of veterans who received big contracts that didn't live up to its billing.
  22. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    I totally agree with this 100%
  23. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Well, when you say "market price", it sounds like you're making the comparison between the NFL market and the general market. Actually, there are significant differences.

    In the NFL market, only 1 team can negotiate with the 1 player after the draft. There is no "free competition" for players (i.e. a team can't decide "pick #5 overall is asking too much, so we're just going to strike a deal with pick #8 who was drafted by team Y"). So, it is a severely constrained market and analogies to a typical market just don't work.

    If NFL teams got together and determined that they were paying too much to rookies and would reduce the amount, then they would be (successfully) sued for collusion, so that option is out.

    The choices are:
    - trade down in the draft (i.e. pass the problem off to someone else). The problem is, hardly anyone else is willing to take this problem on so this solution (which only helps the team trading down) is, from a practical perspective, not available
    - draft the player but refuse to sign him for big bucks. This will likely have the impact of the player refusing to sign and sitting out another year; it's a lose-lose situation. If a lot of teams do this, then they will be (successfully) sued for collusion whether there was collusion or not.
    - draft the player and sign him for big bucks. The team loses, the rookie wins, the veterans (on average) all lose a little
    - change the rules. This is a win for the team and a win for the veterans. It is a loss for the rookies. It is a win for the "pay for performance" philosophy that is (excuse me, was :) ) a foundation of our capitalist system

    Clearly, the last option is the best solution. At least it's clear to the vast majority of us. The new head of the union is acting like most union negotiaters in saying that the union doesn't care about rookie salaries. He's saying this not because the union doesn't care about it (of course they do unless they're dumb which they are not), he's saying this because he's doing hardball negotiating which is what most unions (and businesses) do - we give you something so you must give us something.

    We'll see how it all works out. I'm hopeful now that the NFLPA has actually chosen a leader that negotiations will start and an agreement will be reached without a work stoppage.
  24. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    "Ridiculous rookie salaries" affect a most 10 players a year and a very small percentage of the total cap. Even among these six, sometimes a player turns out to be actually worth the cap space. We drafted Mayo #10. Are we complaining? If the patriots had to pay a bit more at 7 or 8, would Mayo have been a terrible deal? In any case, we are talking about 10 players at most.

    So, who cares?

    This is certainly not an issue for the union. Compensation is genrally working now. Their issues have to do with pensions, injury lists and rules, and including more types of revenue in the total revenue percentages. Yes, they would like to remove the cap, but they can live with it if they get their compensation. Fanchise rules are also low priority affected maybe a dozen players a year. The union is, and should be, concerned with the vast majority of players.

    The owners would like lower rookie salaries, and lower salaries for everyone, and gnerally less revenue for the players. So, what's new? That's called business. Those teams drafting in the top 10 have many options. This will only be a real issues when 10 owners a year are not willing to pay the money and players refuse the lower amounts offered.
  25. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    What??? There is NO market price here..so what you are saying is that a veteran quaterback who may be one of the best in the league isn't worth as much with some college hot shot who hasn't played a MINUTE in the NFL??? Is that what you are saying?? So Stafford is MORE VALUABLE than either Manning or Brady??? Yes...rookie salaries that pay college players that haven't even set FOOT in an NFL game MORE than top vets IS ridiculous.. I think you and the like are part of the wall street crowd that sold the economy down the drain...NO logic at all....
  26. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ratings:
    +90 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

    1.) There's a rookie cap, so it's not a free market.

    2.) The NFL is a Socialist system whereas moneys and players are doled out in such a way as to keep everything close to even. It's not a free market.

    3.) There's an overall salary cap, so it's not a free market.

    4.) The poor structure currently in place has made it so that a top 7 pick that busts can significantly hamstring a team, especially if that top 7 pick is a top 3 pick and a quarterback.

    5.) The NFL players have a union which takes a specific percentage of the revenues, so it's not a free market.


    Other than that, you may have the tiniest scintilla of a speck of a minute percentage of a point. You probably don't, but you might.
  27. mikegibbons

    mikegibbons Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree and disagree. Whenever you have a draft-system for entry into the league, the drafting team has more leverage than the player*. However, we could see more of a system like baseball where players can simply return to college or sit out. This would create a media and fan uproar, but is really to only fair way to give the players some leverage. Isn't this really what the union should be fighting for if it's the champion of the people?

    *I really hate player drafts. Especially in salary cap sports leagues, I think it would be cool to have an open market. Wouldn't that be pretty interesting?

    When has paying for past performance been a pillar of capitalism? Doesn't that retard economic growth?

    I'm so passionate about this, because I see this as a detriment to the game. Vincent and the player reps are going to try and institute changes that benefit the older players. We're going to see more of a caste system where independent of your ability, you can find a better standard of living if you're 30+ years old. Now, I'm not a rigid guy here...I certainly endorse pension/Medicare-like system that Ditka is talking about. But even that I think should be voluntary for the players. Why should a 7th round pick who is the 53rd man on the roster have to pay a dime to that fund when he could be cut after a year and probably not qualify for such a system? So he's now out $x amount while receiving nothing in return.

    I just worry that we're going to see somewhat of a "good ol boy" system. It will certainly affect the game in some way.
  28. mikegibbons

    mikegibbons Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Don't confuse "market price" with me saying the NFL is a free-market system. I never said that, to be clear.

    Market price is referring to the price that the good (a player) will go for in the NFL marketplace.

    He's not more valuable, but certainly worthy of the contract because of simple supply and demand: yes. To the Detroit Lions, they need a quarterback. A lot of other teams this year need a QB. This is the demand. And with the supply being Jeff Garcia, Sage Rosenfels, and JP Losman...that's the price you have to pay.
    Last edited: May 20, 2009
  29. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ratings:
    +90 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

    I'm not sure what part of "no market" you keep missing, though. There is no market for rookie draftees once they've actually been drafted. It's a one-to-one contractual transaction within fairly firmly defined boundaries. There's no "market price" at all. There is a specified floor and a specified ceiling, and the salaries agreed upon must fall within those parameters.

    Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.

    P.S. I have no problem with the players getting every dime possible within the rules. I have a problem with the current rules. So, as a matter of fact, do the players themselves (at least the ones that I've heard on radio/tv read in print and spoken to personally have a problem with it).
    Last edited: May 20, 2009
  30. mikegibbons

    mikegibbons Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.


    Again, I'm not and have never said NFL free agency or rookie contracts are a free-market. Market price refers to the price you'll pay for a good in a marketplace. So with the TV upfronts going on, advertisers are paying a market price for ads, and think of any other industry...

    Please don't confuse the two or put words into my mouth.

    But you talk about the rookie cap and the ceiling. Well when the NFLPA goes to task during the next CBA negotiations, we're just going to see more caps.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page