Official CBA Thread

[King_B_Mack]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Didn't the owner just do what they chastise players for? You have a contract that you signed. A few years later you feel like you got a bad deal. So a player would "Hold out" for a better deal. Well the owners are "holding out" right now. Seems hypocritical to me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Ding Ding Ding Ding You are correct sir.

[SPTO]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I will never watch another NFL game or buy anything related to the NFL

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JwP0K6Aw3pg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Didn't the owner just do what they chastise players for? You have a contract that you signed. A few years later you feel like you got a bad deal. So a player would "Hold out" for a better deal. Well the owners are "holding out" right now. Seems hypocritical to me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

The union decertified before the NFL locked them out.

Also the ability to opt out of the previous CBA, which by definition was collectively bargained between the union and the league.

I don't see the the owners really holding out here, I see them trying to negotiate and the players just saying 'no, no, and no' over and over without making any reasonable attempt to negotiate and just waging a PR battle because all along they expect to get whatever deal they want via litigation. I have no idea where the status of this 'extra billion off the top' is because all I can find is information on is what the NFL is offering. Instead of concise arguments and statements out of the former union all we are seeing as fans are statements like 'this is the worst offer in the history of sports' from their leader which I am sure we can all agree isn't constructive.

[kjcheezhead]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The union decertified before the NFL locked them out.

Also the ability to opt out of the previous CBA, which by definition was collectively bargained between the union and the league.

I don't see the the owners really holding out here, I see them trying to negotiate and the players just saying 'no, no, and no' over and over without making any reasonable attempt to negotiate and just waging a PR battle because all along they expect to get whatever deal they want via litigation. I have no idea where the status of this 'extra billion off the top' is because all I can find is information on is what the NFL is offering. Instead of concise arguments and statements out of the former union all we are seeing as fans are statements like 'this is the worst offer in the history of sports' from their leader which I am sure we can all agree isn't constructive.

I think your over looking how the NFL is bargaining. From what I can tell, we had a CBA in place the players were happy with. After 13 years, the owners decided they weren't happy and opted out of that deal. They said they were losing money, asked for an additional $1 billion dollars, a rookie wage scale, and 2 additional regular season games from the players.

Every time the NFL makes an "offer", to me it appears to be a variation of those demands and something much less than what the players are getting now. Without proof the owners are losing money there is no reason for the players not to keep saying no to the offers the owners have made.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I think your over looking how the NFL is bargaining. From what I can tell, we had a CBA in place the players were happy with. After 13 years, the owners decided they weren't happy and opted out of that deal. They said they were losing money, asked for an additional $1 billion dollars, a rookie wage scale, and 2 additional regular season games from the players.

Every time the NFL makes an "offer", to me it appears to be a variation of those demands and something much less than what the players are getting now. Without proof the owners are losing money there is no reason for the players not to keep saying no to the offers the owners have made.

The 18 game season was taken off the table, and written into offers as something that would not happen for at least 2 years and would then only happen with the agreement of both the league and the union.

The rookie wage scale was believed to be agreed upon during mediation. Ironic that the NFLPA is trying to influence what's going on with players at the draft while at the same time agreeing to ensure that the top half of the first round will be paid millions less. Also keep in mind a rookie wage scale is a raise for veterans.

The CBA that ended was the one agreed upon while negotiating the extension in 2006. It was said numerous times that this past CBA was very player friendly (by the players).

The NFL offers only come across as demands and not negations because they're not getting a response from the NFLPA. As fans we can all agree that's bad.

My problem is that the owners made what appears to be a concession-laden offer, and the union hasn't countered with what they want to make it happen. If all that's needed is to open the books and the offer is accepted, then include that in a counter-proposal.

To borrow from a recent league quote:

"...In the face of that proposal, the union is now saying that instead of further negotiations the best thing to do was walk out of mediation, pretend to no longer be a union, and file a lawsuit. Those actions simply make no sense."

Walking away = everyone loses. Owners, players, and fans.

[p_rushing]

Re: Official CBA Thread

You're actually ok with retroactively punishing players during a period when they were essentially fired, unemployed, and not paid?

If they are still in the union and haven't filed retirement paperwork, yes they should be punished for their actions.

I don't think these interviews helps the players all that much. They voted on leaders, they should let them do the talking.

He made himself sound like an idiot. The first quote about changing the game and fining players is good, but the rest isn't.

"If a guy has a drug problem, give him an alternative, don't just say, 'Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games.' ... You put them in a drug program," he said. "OK, anybody can stick somebody in a nuthouse, but what else are you doing? What programs are you putting in place?"

Apparently he wants the NFL pay for programs for players so they can work on their drug problems. How about this, the players need to fix themselves. Stop looking for someone else when you need to handle the problem. No team should pay for that and my employer would fire me, not send me to a "nut house" for 6 weeks and wait for me to comeback.

"Because they suspend players outside of playing football. Is that their responsibility? No. They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well," he said. "In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. ... That's what bothers me."

What like provide you a free car service to take you out to have fun at night, to practice, or whatever. They already have the car service, but don't use it. Do you want teams to assign someone to follow you around 24/7 because you can't keep yourself out of trouble?

[kjcheezhead]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The 18 game season was taken off the table, and written into offers as something that would not happen for at least 2 years and would then only happen with the agreement of both the league and the union.

The 18 game schedule, just like pretty much all of the owners proposals don't really favor the players at all. What incentive was there for the players to risk their health for 2 additional games the fans didn't even want?

The rookie wage scale was believed to be agreed upon during mediation. Ironic that the NFLPA is trying to influence what's going on with players at the draft while at the same time agreeing to ensure that the top half of the first round will be paid millions less. Also keep in mind a rookie wage scale is a raise for veterans.

I agree. I don't like the NFLPA trying to keep the rookies from draft day. Poor choice on their part.

The CBA that ended was the one agreed upon while negotiating the extension in 2006. It was said numerous times that this past CBA was very player friendly (by the players).

This is irrelevant. We don't really know who came out better from the 2006 agreement. It was a deal the owners were willing to give tho and the league is as popular as it has ever been so the players have no reason to concede anything they gained off this deal.

The NFL offers only come across as demands and not negations because they're not getting a response from the NFLPA. As fans we can all agree that's bad.

They come across as demands because most of what I read is owners asking the players to give back something from the last CBA and aren't really doing an equal amount giving of their own.

My problem is that the owners made what appears to be a concession-laden offer, and the union hasn't countered with what they want to make it happen. If all that's needed is to open the books and the offer is accepted, then include that in a counter-proposal.

Again, it appears concession-laden compared to where they started with these negotiations, but quite a ways from what was offered with the 2006 deal. The players have said numerous times that for them to agree to current offers the NFL's books need to be opened.

Walking away = everyone loses. Owners, players, and fans.

Walking away completely does equal everyone losing, but showing every sign that you are willing to walk away isn't the same thing. Ever bought a car before? Sometimes the best deal comes after you start to walk towards the door.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The 18 game schedule, just like pretty much all of the owners proposals don't really favor the players at all. What incentive was there for the players to risk their health for 2 additional games the fans didn't even want?

Irrelevant because it's not an issue anymore. It's an entire thread of discussion by itself. That being said, just calling it 18 games and saying there's nothing in it for the players and ignoring the opportunity for changes to workouts, offseason programs, additional rules to govern injuries and injured reserve, the additional revenue to split with the players, etc is really misrepresenting the issue. Again, it's more than 'lol2moregames' and is more complex than that. So are you saying the league putting this off for 2 years and then only implementing it with union approval is unreasonable?

This is irrelevant. We don't really know who came out better from the 2006 agreement. It was a deal the owners were willing to give tho and the league is as popular as it has ever been so the players have no reason to concede anything they gained off this deal.

It's relevant because you were painting the old CBA as something that's been around for 13 years in an attempt to make the owners look bad for opting out. We know the players made out well, because they've said so a number of times over the duration of it.

They come across as demands because most of what I read is owners asking the players to give back something from the last CBA and aren't really doing an equal amount giving of their own.

What are the players giving other than this 'billion off the top' drum that everyone keeps beating yet the media isnt? Link this to me, thanks. All I am seeing is owner proposals, and the players representatives almost literally with their fingers in their ears waiting for the doors to open in front of a courthouse so they can litigate their way to whatever they want.

Again, it appears concession-laden compared to where they started with these negotiations, but quite a ways from what was offered with the 2006 deal. The players have said numerous times that for them to agree to current offers the NFL's books need to be opened.

Where are you getting this? It appears concession-laden because it is. Many of the points posted in this thread over and over change workouts, increase salaries for current and retired players, increase money going to players, having all steroid and substance control appeals handled by an outside 3rd party, and the stuff coming out today about the 90% cash spent against the cap that prevents teams from using contracts to soak up minimum salary requirements only to cut those players at a later date and not having to spend that money. All of these things are improvements over what the players currently enjoyed under the previous CBA... so where do you get what you said in bold?

What has the union said in response to any of this? Show us the books. Who's demanding of whom here?

I'd like a link or more information on the bold part there, what helped you come to that conclusion?

Walking away completely does equal everyone losing, but showing every sign that you are willing to walk away isn't the same thing. Ever bought a car before? Sometimes the best deal comes after you start to walk towards the door.

The union has ceased to be a labor union. We're well beyond the 'getting my keys out and about to walk out the door of the dealership' phase.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I can't imagine working for a company where I am the highest producing employee, then having them tell me they need to cut my salary with no proof that they are losing money.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I can't imagine working for a company where I am the highest producing employee, then having them tell me they need to cut my salary with no proof that they are losing money.

Who is having their salary cut?

The 2009 salary cap was $128 million, the NFL's last proposal had the cap hitting $161 million by 2014. In addition the rookie cap would keep more money of the salary cap for existing players.

[kjcheezhead]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So are you saying the league putting this off for 2 years and then only implementing it with union approval is unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable but the owners shouldn't get pats on the back for it either. 18 game schedule was never popular with the fans and it was a proposal asking players to do something they aren't being asked to now.

It's relevant because you were painting the old CBA as something that's been around for 13 years in an attempt to make the owners look bad for opting out. We know the players made out well, because they've said so a number of times over the duration of it.

The owners made out well too. The NFL is making more money than it ever has. Why should players be expected to give $1 billion back.

What are the players giving other than this 'billion off the top' drum that everyone keeps beating yet the media isnt? Link this to me, thanks. All I am seeing is owner proposals, and the players representatives almost literally with their fingers in their ears waiting for the doors to open in front of a courthouse so they can litigate their way to whatever they want.

Here is a link by the way..http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...hannelsections The additional $1 billion would result in a reduction in players salaries.

Where are you getting this? It appears concession-laden because it is. Many of the points posted in this thread over and over change workouts, increase salaries for current and retired players, increase money going to players, having all steroid and substance control appeals handled by an outside 3rd party, and the stuff coming out today about the 90% cash spent against the cap that prevents teams from using contracts to soak up minimum salary requirements only to cut those players at a later date and not having to spend that money. All of these things are improvements over what the players currently enjoyed under the previous CBA... so where do you get what you said in bold?

Again the players only want what is already in place. The owners are asking for changes to the current deal

What has the union said in response to any of this? Show us the books. Who's demanding of whom here?

Look at the deals that the NFL has made since 2006, and it want the players to give money back. Originally the figure was $1 billion, but that may have changed. When a partner wants you to give up that much of a percentage, any reasonable person would want to know why. Especially when you see deals like the Budweiser one being made.

The union has ceased to be a labor union. We're well beyond the 'getting my keys out and about to walk out the door of the dealership' phase.

They haven't even gotten to the draft. The season is 6 months away. The labor union has just gotten up from its seat now.

[snepp]

Re: Official CBA Thread

If they would put that billion per year into a stadium fund they could stop extorting tax payers.



[/pipe dream]

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Who is having their salary cut?

The 2009 salary cap was $128 million, the NFL's last proposal had the cap hitting $161 million by 2014. In addition the rookie cap would keep more money of the salary cap for existing players.

So where is this billion dollars coming from if not the players?

[Chrisksaint]

Re: Official CBA Thread

That last proposal was all BS it was just so the NFL could say they offered something, I mean they proposed this big proposal on the last day with little time to examine it nonetheless make negotiations

[King_B_Mack]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Two good reads on the subject

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=6232635