NFLPA vs Owners

Discuss your favorite team: the Atlanta Falcons. As well as all NFL and pro football-related topics, including fantasy football.

Moderators: Capologist, dirtybirdnw, thescout

GSUTeke
All-Pro
All-Pro
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:06 am
Location: Augusta, GA

NFLPA vs Owners

Postby GSUTeke » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:29 pm

does anyone else here feel that the NFLPA is severing the necks of it's current rank and file?

these players that get cut won't be earning a dime next year if they don't sign with another team. take the redskins for example, supposedly they will have to play with close to 20 rookies on their squad to even come close to compliance with the 94.5 number. actually some familiar with their cap say it is mathematically impossible for them to comply. anyhow when you cut an extra 10 players that creates a vacuum and in turn a domino effect across the league. 10 veterans are guaranteed to lose their job next season just due to washington's cap situation.

the people who are getting squeezed out in this deal are the same players that have been members of the NFLPA for years. it is insane! does anyone else have a different take on this situation that I do?

User avatar
dirtybirdnw
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4526
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA
Contact:

Postby dirtybirdnw » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:28 pm

IMO unions are bad and this is the perfect example of how the union doesn't work for the people they represent.

The players are getting screwed in this unless the NFLPA pulls off a miracle and gets it's 4% increase. We are now rolling quickly towards a lockout.
Fear the BEARD!

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Postby Pudge » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:16 pm

Well if you think about it though, the players are only going to get screwed for 2006. Once the cap is lifted (if that happens), it actually could wind up benefiting the players, because there will be little to govern just how much teams can spend on players.

For example, if a team wants a player badly enough, they can spend as much or as little as they want on him, without having the ramifications of prorating high signing bonuses and having it impact their salary cap. A lack of a salary cap in one sense helps teams like us and the Colts that have 1, 2, or a handful of players eating up like 75% of their cap space.

The NFLPA's stance is that they want a bigger slice of the pie. They are willing to continue with the salary cap but only if it allows more money to flow into their pockets. A bigger revenue sharing deal would mean players woudl be allowed to get paid more, and also there wouldn't be as much about the mass exodus of players that occurs every year at the end of February and beginning of June.

And the lack of a cap? I really don't see a major downside to it from the players' perspective.

Yes, a lot of players are going to get screwed this year. I mean a lot. But they might come out smiling in future years.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.

GSUTeke
All-Pro
All-Pro
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:06 am
Location: Augusta, GA

Postby GSUTeke » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:18 pm

but in turn when the union decertifies you lose all your anitrust exemptions and the clubs can drive down salaries through collusion and it would and will be perfectly legal. i think you are wrong on the effect on player salaries in the long run.

User avatar
FalconsAreTheBest
All-Pro
All-Pro
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:32 pm
Location: South Jersey
Contact:

Postby FalconsAreTheBest » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:34 pm

Journalist Michael Smith claims the problem is owners vs. owners argueing about how to share local revenues throughout the league.
Yep

User avatar
PB21
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Arab, Alabama

Postby PB21 » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:15 pm

vickisthebest wrote:Journalist Michael Smith claims the problem is owners vs. owners argueing about how to share local revenues throughout the league.


and he's an expert? Don't forget that the NFL is the last pro sport that is controlled by the owners. Tagliabue has no say in anything, only the owners do. To suggest the owners are arguing is ridiculous. They are all wealthy,...and they all are owners because, not of money, but of ego.

To think wealthy owners squabble over revenues is the media's wish.

It's all gonna work out. Mediots.

User avatar
Truman
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:54 am

Postby Truman » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:12 am

PB21 wrote:
vickisthebest wrote:Journalist Michael Smith claims the problem is owners vs. owners argueing about how to share local revenues throughout the league.


and he's an expert? Don't forget that the NFL is the last pro sport that is controlled by the owners. Tagliabue has no say in anything, only the owners do. To suggest the owners are arguing is ridiculous. They are all wealthy,...and they all are owners because, not of money, but of ego.

To think wealthy owners squabble over revenues is the media's wish.

It's all gonna work out. Mediots.
I don't know if it's as simple as that. There are owners around the league (Snyder) who would love to break out the checkbooks and sign whichever free agents they want without the constraints of a salary cap.

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Postby Pudge » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:54 am

Yes, every source close to it has indicated there are 5-9 owners that don't want to give up their shared revenue. Pro Football Talk indicates this group is headlined by Jerry Jones (Cowboys), Bob Kraft (Pats), Daniel Snyder (Redskins), Joe Banner (Eagles), Malcolm Glazer (Bucs). With little exception these are basically the 5 richest teams in the league in terms of their local revenue. Frankly speaking these guys beef is giving up their money to the "small market" teams that generate little extra income in local revenue.

The hope is that something will get done. The NFLPA and owners are apart on the matter of shared revenue by 4 percentage points. Owners want about 56% shared, players want 60%. Hopefully both sides can compromise, but I've been hearing that those owners mentioned above aren't budging.

I believe the league currently shares only 50%.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.

User avatar
FalconsAreTheBest
All-Pro
All-Pro
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:32 pm
Location: South Jersey
Contact:

Postby FalconsAreTheBest » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:03 pm

Joe Banner (Eagles)


Banner isint the eagles owner. Jeff Laurie(sp) is their owner. I believe Banner is GM or president or something.

Jeff Laurie is the awsome guy that brought us the great movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer [/sarcasm]
Yep


Return to “The Huddle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest