- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
NoThe problem here isn't the union, it's the greedy owners.
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.NoThe problem here isn't the union, it's the greedy owners.
I find that ridiculous since professional athletes are expected to train on their own and report to camp in good condition.Yes but Football athletes are like machines that teams invest millions of dollars into. Their brain and themselves are only part of the investment. Lets me ask you this. Would you feel the same way if a Formula One driver wanted to take their race car home and try to train on his own, or wanted to drive another race division in the offseason? I assume the answer would be no. When you invest that kind of money, there's a part of you that wants to control, or athleast supervise how these players train and work out. A classic example is, in sports science, they know that around 80% of people don't warm up properly, or at all.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the team's angle on the topic as well.
Take this out of the sports context.I find that ridiculous since professional athletes are expected to train on their own and report to camp in good condition.
How can you take it out of the sports' context without considering that the MacDonald's employee who gets isn't expected to, nor given bonuses for, cooking away from MacDonald's, or that Mac"Donald's pays worker's compensation for such people, which will pay them a sizable portion of their income, or that an injury to a regular employee isn't likely at all to be career ending?Take this out of the sports context.
Why should McDonald's be liable for an employee who hurts themself offsite, even if they get injured practicing egg cooking, burger cooking, or something work related like that?
How can you take it out of the sports' context
Here: I was working as a financial analyst in Concord.Because having it in the sports context has made you miss the obvious. Voluntary offseason work is how you avoid getting injured on your own dime.
A McDonald's employee who has not figured out McDonald's things in an acceptable time will be fired. An NFL player who's too out of shape to be able to do NFL things will be fired. The NFL guy has the added bonus of being able to go do his work under the protective umbrella of the team's insurance by working out at the team facility, if he wants.
NFL teams sometmes pay for guys who get injured away from the facilities, and sometimes do not. It generally depends on how the injury happened.Here: I was working as a financial analyst in Concord.
I hurt my back playing hockey. Didn't know it until the following Monday when i bent over at a filing cabinet and couldn't stand back up.
I had short term disability from the company, which paid me in FULL, so I collected a check for months while rehabbing (I couldn't even walk more than a few steps at a time).
I met with them at my request to learn my options because the doctors had finally agreed I needed surgery. They asked why I didn't have a lawyer - they thought I was going to sue them for getting hurt at work. I told them the first time I realized I was hurt was there, sure, but it had certainly happened at hockey and so, no, I wasn't about to sue them.
Even though the STD had run out, the company told me to go get the surgery and they kept the checks coming until I could return.
So here I was, a mid-level analyst working hard and rising in the ranks, but certainly no one irreplaceable, and they treated me like, you know, a human being.
In things like the NFL and other sports, or other places like publishing (which is going to collapse), the "talent" is exclusive.
IF the guy was working out to be better at his job, which is not in question here, the better choice by the Broncos would be to pay him as if he had been injured at their facility. Things like this may well matter in terms of picking up free agents, for example.
Yes but Football athletes are like machines that teams invest millions of dollars into. Their brain and themselves are only part of the investment. Lets me ask you this. Would you feel the same way if a Formula One driver wanted to take their race car home and try to train on his own, or wanted to drive another race division in the offseason? I assume the answer would be no. When you invest that kind of money, there's a part of you that wants to control, or athleast supervise how these players train and work out. A classic example is, in sports science, they know that around 80% of people don't warm up properly, or at all.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the team's angle on the topic as well.
The union agreed to voluntary workouts. The union tried to strong arm the owners and say we are going to boycott these workouts. The owners say, but we set up these workouts so you would train the best way possible in the best facilities with the best training staff we can provide. The union says screw you we don’t have to come and we can train just as well at home. The player goes home and gets hurt. The team says that is too bad.
So you don't care about CBAs and contracts, and you think owners should be screwed regardless of who's contractually on the hook.1. "Voluntary" is a critical word here.
2. I don't care what the team "says", they can "say" whatever they want. The bottom line is that they signed a contract guaranteeing money to one of their employees, and now want to walk that back because said employee (while training to improve their job performance) was injured at a location outside of a team facility. To void a contract because of the location where a real and legitimate injury occurred is nothing more than manipulation and greed. Show some moral fiber and honor the contract you signed and agreed to.
Mike Klis of KUSA reports that the Broncos placed James on the reserve non-football injury list. He will not be able to play for the Broncos this year as a result.
It specifically ties coverage to location.This alone (if this is all there is) would seem pretty weak to me to overturn all past precedent because of this wording...but again, I may be overlooking something else or misinterpreting it.
It's actually the other way around. The 1-3 year wash outs consistently make more money as they are a majority of the union. It's all the longterm benefits that the vets get screwed out on because they always have to drop their pants for more money for the guys at the bottom.NFLPA has never really been a good union to me. They give up a whole lot of concessions, usually at the expense of the lower-paid players. 17 game season is something they agreed to when they had no business doing so.