HOF44 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Looks the like they are again doing all they can to get that cap number as high as possible. NFL Players' Performance-Based Checks For '13 Season To Be Deferred Two Years The NFLPA recently informed NFL players and agents that players’ performance-based pay checks for the ‘13 season will be deferred for two years, NFLPA Assistant Exec Dir for External Affairs George Atallah confirmed. Players will receive the payment in March ‘16 instead of March ‘14. Atallah noted the reason for the deferral was to provide more salary cap room this year. For example, a player like Redskins RB Alfred Morris who was a sixth-round draft pick last year, would receive a very large performance-based paycheck and Broncos QB Peyton Manning would receive a very small check, even though both players started and participated in a significant number of plays in the ‘12 NFL season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Next headline: All performance-based checks to come out of the Redskins salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 If I'm a player who was due one of those payment checks that just got deferred I'm REALLY pissed off right now. The NFLPA screwed up on the CBA and no amount of papering over the cracks is changing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 That doesn't seem right or fair at all. I mean what's the point in having incentives if they can put off paying the reward for years. In all honest, this move by the NFL feels like an actual violation of the spirit of the salary cap. We know we promised you this money, but we just won't count it or pay it until it is more convenient. Sure, it helps teams with a tight payroll now like the 'skins and giants, but it's a pretty crooked way to do business because if I don't get my money for two years I'm losing two years of interest, two years of investment growth, money that could make a big difference in the house I can buy, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Is the actual agreement just whatever the **** they feel like doing whenever they feel like doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Is the actual agreement just whatever the **** they feel like doing whenever they feel like doing it? I bet the player's union regrets not backing us now. They set a mighty poor precedent and the NFL now feels like a bully that can get away with pretty much anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I bet the player's union regrets not backing us now. They set a mighty poor precedent and the NFL now feels like a bully that can get away with pretty much anything. Its not just the NFL at play here its the NFLPA as well. The NFLPA leadership are probably catching a lot of flack from members who are seeing the salary cap staying lower than they expected and having to sign for deals a lot lower than they would like, being asked to take actual pay cuts or losing their jobs totally. They are scrambling to try to keep the cap as high as they can until the bigger TV money kicks in - but they are effectively borrowing against that money already so when it does arrive the cap might not rise as much as many expect. Trying to keep the cap as high as they could was why the NFLPA signed off on our cap penalty in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 This is almost something worth striking over. Sure... there is a "no strike" clause in the CBA... but **** my hat if this isn't headed that way and it's going to be ugly when it gets there. Dee Dee Dee Smith... you are an idiot, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martytheman Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 wow.. they completely ****ed this whole thing up from start to finish. If I were a player I would be PISSED beyond words at having to wait 2 freakin years to get paid for money I earned.. Things are gonna get ugly soon I think. At the very least hopefully this is enough to get deedee ****canned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 So if they get cut or retire, they still get the money right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 So if they get cut or retire, they still get the money right? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Yes. Good. Because if they didn't, that would be messed up. It's still messed up, but at least they get to see it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 This is almost something worth striking over. Sure... there is a "no strike" clause in the CBA... but **** my hat if this isn't headed that way and it's going to be ugly when it gets there.Dee Dee Dee Smith... you are an idiot, sir. Can the players strike against their own Union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 The fact De Smith still has a job is a freaking miracle to me. The CBA he negotiated is horrible. He caves to whatever the NFL wants for the appearance of competence while actively screwing players out of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Can the players strike against their own Union You'd think there'd be some kind of malpractice suit that could be filed... I'm more watching and waiting for the other shoe to drop. You joke, but I'm all in on something major happening before this CBA is up. We still have several years to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I just noticed the article is dated 2 months ago. I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger story. I decided to google it and see if anything else was written on this. Apparently it's not a one time deal, it's from now going forward that this will be done, the money will be held in escrow for 2 years and they're claiming it's to prevent players from being broke the moment they retire since some spend like the checks will never stop coming and retirement hits them like a brick wall. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/21932292/union-measure-to-hold-onto-some-player-monies-controversial-but-smart Edit : Just want to be clear, I don't agree with the move. You're holding everyone's money hostage under the premise that some other players are stupid with their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Can you imagine the outrage if a regular company like say Microsoft decided to hold everyone's annual bonus 2 years because some people had made poor financial decisions with it. That actually wouldn't even be as bad since the bonuses of a regular company aren't written into a signed contract for every employee like NFL players. But the NFL literally has all the power and authority it could ever want and nobody wants to rock that boat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommDownMan Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I just noticed the article is dated 2 months ago. I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger story.I decided to google it and see if anything else was written on this. Apparently it's not a one time deal, it's from now going forward that this will be done, the money will be held in escrow for 2 years and they're claiming it's to prevent players from being broke the moment they retire since some spend like the checks will never stop coming and retirement hits them like a brick wall. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/21932292/union-measure-to-hold-onto-some-player-monies-controversial-but-smart Edit : Just want to be clear, I don't agree with the move. You're holding everyone's money hostage under the premise that some other players are stupid with their money. I have to say this was one of my first thoughts. I feel like educating players would be a better starting point. This plan seems like a double slap in the face if this is the reason. You can't be trusted with your money, so we are going to withhold the money you earned for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 The whole deferring it for the good of the players is just pure unadulterated spin. I think the real thing behind all this is the NFL wants to keep Smith in office. He has served the players sooooo poorly and benefited the owners so much they don't want to see him kicked out and a replacement brought in. If you think about it the NFL has no real incentive to do anything which would increase the cap, heck most don't even spend up to the cap. So them agreeing to all this is to keep the cap rising so Smith won't look like the idiot he is and be replaced by someone shrewd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 This is almost something worth striking over. Sure... there is a "no strike" clause in the CBA... but **** my hat if this isn't headed that way and it's going to be ugly when it gets there.Dee Dee Dee Smith... you are an idiot, sir. This could get ugly right quick. The players average about 4 years of earning power and the NFL, the owners unlimited growth. This is smelling like a monopoly or collusion for sure. Spirit of the Cap, what a ****ing line of crap that is. ---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 11:29 AM ---------- Should we start a **** the NFL thread? Or is it too late since the NFL ****ed us already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick7423 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I have to say this was one of my first thoughts I feel like educating players would be a better starting point. This plan seems like a double slap in the face if this is the reason. You can't be trusted with your money, so we are going to withhold the money you earned for a few years. Isn't this exactly what Joe Gibbs was doing for the Skins? He held mandatory seminars at Redskins park for players on financial stability and money management. Did he extend that program to other teams, and is he still doing so now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Right to enter into private contracts? "Never heard of it," say the bigwigs upstairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I have to say this was one of my first thoughts. I feel like educating players would be a better starting point. This plan seems like a double slap in the face if this is the reason. You can't be trusted with your money, so we are going to withhold the money you earned for a few years. Ha, ha, ha....you don't think they already try to educate these guys? Come on. Hell, within a few months we will read about some rookie that has violated a rule he was just told not to violate at the Rookie Symposium (and they tell them about finance there also). I'm not saying this is the right answer, but let's not pretend like these guys aren't given the basic tools necessary to live off of $30 million the rest of their lives. You can lead a horse to water....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 For those players who may be cut in the interm, this actually seems like it could be an OK deal. If those players are making the most they will ever make, and the bonus doesn't put them in the highest tax bracket, then couldn't the deferment leave them paying less in taxes? Now whether that makes up for 2 years of investment gains...depends. Are we talking about 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I have to say this was one of my first thoughts. I feel like educating players would be a better starting point. This plan seems like a double slap in the face if this is the reason. You can't be trusted with your money, so we are going to withhold the money you earned for a few years. Because that is something they already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.