Ynot Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Where are the concessions from the NFLPA. If this does not get worked out, wait when all the veterans and other high paid players are released or traded for low price rookies!!!!! How will the players then feel about the NFLPA. WHere is the NFLPA asking its players for concessions. When a player signs lucrative contracts with advertisers for local and national monies. Why doesn't the NFLPA ask for a cut of that. More over since they want more from the owners, the owners should ask for a cut of that since the NFLPA wants a cut of everything from the owners. Why not make the Players give back more! Why not make the lower paying owners raise the base minimum! Why not learn from the owners making money, why doesn't the NFL and the NFLPA do more to help promote those areas and help get those local contracts. Would love to see the voting on these things from the owners stand point based on what there team salary was, how far below or above the cap they were! Also would love to see how the team NFLPA representive voted on the same lines as above based on team salary and the cap! Does any one know if that information is available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Please consider revising the thread title as it is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 See article below from March-1st-2006, 10:17 PM #9 fdarugar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 No cap will only benefit us. I really don't give a you know what if the other teams are worried about their no cap. Start spending money to make money. That is the rule Bill Bidwell. You should know that by now instead of collecting corporate welfare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Is the NFL the only major league that still doesn’t have guaranteed contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Is the NFL the only major league that still doesn’t have guaranteed contracts? Yes in fact it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Is the NFL the only major league that still doesn’t have guaranteed contracts? Yes......I believe so. INMO Players in the NFL take to much bodily damage to not receive a guaranteed money. No revolt!! Just give the players what they deserve or guarantee their money like everyone else in Pro sports. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50GutCheck Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 ...hmmmm, I smell "lockout"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Its funny this thread came up... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSHAW FACES UPRISING With roughly eight hours of windshield time on Wednesday to work the phone lines, a clear theme is emerging from our discussions with league insiders. The NFLPA has left the players in the dark regarding the status of the discussions regarding a CBA extension, and the players are getting pissed. Very pissed. We're told that there has been little or no communication from NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw and/or NFLPA president Troy Vincent to the rank-and-file regarding the status of the discussions. With rampant media reports of a looming massacre of veteran players (and the blood already is flowing), guys are getting nervous. But yet the players are getting no information. So while Upshaw is being praised by some in the media for digging in his heels against the NFL, many of his constituents would like to dig their toes into his ass. With that said, we continue to believe that this whole exercise in high drama is a well-orchestrated act between Upshaw and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get a deal done at the eleventh hour. If it isn't -- and if free agency launches without a new CBA in place -- we predict that there will be open calls at the annual meeting of player representatives for Upshaw to be fired. Why? Because guys who are in line for decent money will end up, absent an extension, with low-money deals. Take Steelers running back Verron Haynes, for example. With a new CBA, he'd likely get a deal averaging $1.5 million or so a year. Without a new CBA, he's looking at the one-year minimum, at best. But we shouldn't feel bad for him because he'll be a free agent in 2007, when there's no salary cap, right? Wrong. Too many players and media types simply don't realize that, in the uncapped year, only guys with six years of credited service will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Guys with three to five years will be subject to the restricted free agency rules. So if Haynes rips it up in 2006, his reward will be one of the three levels of RFA tenders. Bottom line -- Upshaw is taking a hell of a gamble. If a deal gets done, the players quickly will forgive and forget. If it doesn't, Upshaw might want to take out a lease on Saddam Hussein's spider hole. ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 fdarugar Great article, i hope the Player representatives, send him out!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Anyone closely following the story would know that the players aren't the culprits, but rather, the small market owners...the ones only willing to share more money with the players IF the large market teams share their revenues with the small market teams. Know who the bad guys are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Anyone closely following the story would know that the players aren't the culprits, but rather, the small market owners...the ones only willing to share more money with the players IF the large market teams share their revenues with the small market teams.Know who the bad guys are. Thank You!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 They are willing to share more money wiht the Players because they will make more money if they get the money from Owners who know how to promote and sell there teams and there stadiums. The owners of the small teams should be made to spend more monies on there stadiums, the markets, and the players! The owners already pay out more than 50% of the revenue sharing to the NFLPA. I thought this was a partnership? Maybe some of the High dollar players who get lucritive deals from advertisers should look at the team and be willing to take less from the owners. Look at what Michael Jordan did for the Bulls!!!! I am in the mind of survival of the fittest. Why should Owners give more money to Team owners like Pittsburgh when they win superbowls!!!! If the owners cannot make there market work, why did they buy the team. A team in LA did not make with an incredible market share. Do you think it was from not having a base to support the team! Or did the owner want something for free like a new stadium built for her team by tax payers in St. louis. She did not want to spend the Money Like Daniel Synder and spend money to make money!!!! Maybe the teams that are not making money should move to LA, Or just cut two teams out, there were talks not long ago about cutting two teams. That would increase the amount teams would get as two less teams would split the monies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Lets get the torches lit and the pitchforks out of the barn. Whose with me? :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 They are willing to share more money wiht the Players because they will make more money if they get the money from Owners who know how to promote and sell there teams and there stadiums. The owners of the small teams should be made to spend more monies on there stadiums, the markets, and the players! The owners already pay out more than 50% of the revenue sharing to the NFLPA. I thought this was a partnership? Maybe some of the High dollar players who get lucritive deals from advertisers should look at the team and be willing to take less from the owners. Look at what Michael Jordan did for the Bulls!!!! I am in the mind of survival of the fittest. Why should Owners give more money to Team owners like Pittsburgh when they win superbowls!!!! If the owners cannot make there market work, why did they buy the team. A team in LA did not make with an incredible market share. Do you think it was from not having a base to support the team! Or did the owner want something for free like a new stadium built for her team by tax payers in St. louis. She did not want to spend the Money Like Daniel Synder and spend money to make money!!!! Maybe the teams that are not making money should move to LA, Or just cut two teams out, there were talks not long ago about cutting two teams. That would increase the amount teams would get as two less teams would split the monies. And your points are very valid I am so split on this. I want the players to get what they deserve but the other teams need to pull there weight. Guys like DS are working their buts off to help the welfare team that sit back waiting to get hand fed, thats just not fair at all. They should give the teams with less revenue more air time and choke the funds out of advertisements. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Yes......I believe so. INMO Players in the NFL take to much bodily damage to not receive a guaranteed money.No revolt!! Just give the players what they deserve or guarantee their money like everyone else in Pro sports. :2cents: I agree 100% It is time the players get there, if every other sport can do it why not the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Is the NFL the only major league that still doesn’t have guaranteed contracts? I'm not sure but we all know that the NBA has guaranteed contracts and look at all those slackers...hell you know what guaranteed contracts would do to the NFL? New Orleans would start winning Super Bowls. OTAs would go away, too. And forget about picking up the blitz I'll just tuck it. As Tags (Taglibue) would say "The NFL is best described as contrieved adversity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmw2301 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 That will never happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What? Guaranteed contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Is the NFL the only major league that still doesn’t have guaranteed contracts? WHich is a joke, considering that every team makes money. The NFL is profitable for every owner. You can't say that for hockey or Baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm not sure but we all know that the NBA has guaranteed contracts and look at all those slackers...hell you know what guaranteed contracts would do to the NFL? New Orleans would start winning Super Bowls. OTAs would go away, too. And forget about picking up the blitz I'll just tuck it. As Tags (Taglibue) would say "The NFL is best described as contrieved adversity".Pro football players come out of the league all kinds of destroyed. Yet they still get crappier deals then other athletes - so let's keep that in mind before complaining they don't give up more so things can go as the owners would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Pro football players come out of the league all kinds of destroyed. Yet they still get crappier deals then other athletes - so let's keep that in mind before complaining they don't give up more so things can go as the owners would like. I'm not complaining but we don't need guaranteed contracts and nobody else does either. Those were Paul Taglibues points and there very good ones not mine, but thanks for the feed back. "Contrieved adversity" is Tags talking point not mine; I dont think that deep (Like a 64 yr old NFL commissioner, who's very smart....hell, he right seated Pete Rozell for like 20 yrs, before he (Tags) even took the job). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm not complaining but we don't need guaranteed contracts and nobody else does either. Those were Paul Taglibues points and there very good ones not mine, but thanks for the feed back. "Contrieved adversity" is Tags talking point not mine; I dont think that deep (Like a 64 yr old NFL commissioner, who's very smart....hell, he right seated Pete Rozell for like 20 yrs, before he (Tags) even took the job). I'm thinking that maybe Paul Taglibue should have kept this little secret is his wittle head, because if I were an NFL player and heard of this "Contrived adversity" spew, I would be calling a NFLPA meeting and I would not show up with bubble gum in my mouth. We would be dealing with this situation firmly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm not sure but we all know that the NBA has guaranteed contracts and look at all those slackers...hell you know what guaranteed contracts would do to the NFL? New Orleans would start winning Super Bowls. OTAs would go away, too. And forget about picking up the blitz I'll just tuck it. As Tags (Taglibue) would say "The NFL is best described as contrieved adversity". So you're saying if the players get just compensation they will become lazy? I find that hard to believe. So since the NFL is the ONLY major sport that doesn't have guaranteed contracts, does that mean the players of ALL THE OTHER leagues are lazy? I can't believe that either. Furthermore, if you knew what type of conditioning and work ethic it took to be good enough to play, and play well in the NBA, you wouldn't be call any of those guys slackers. The guys who slack, get outplayed and embarassed, and eventually at home watching the games or playing overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ahhh, PFT . . . good thing to know that they've got their facts in order . . . first of all, union officials aren't "fired", they get voted out of office . . . nice to know that PFT's on top of that little fact . . . also, did PFT forget about the lawsuits filed by Freeman McNeil and Reggie White? . . . both challenged the NFL's free agency system . . . McNeil won his and White was about to file his as a class action . . . this cowed the NFL to agreeing to this form of free agency . . . if the NFL goes back to the old form of free agency it once had, expect another free agency challenge . . . and another loss . . . caveat: Paul Tagliabue used to be one on the finest antitrust lawyers ever . . . if there's away around the antitrust laws, he'll find one . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.