Official CBA Thread

[N51_rob]

Re: Official CBA Thread

If I were the union, pushing for teams to honor signing bonuses would be a priority. Unless a player is imprisoned or banned for an illegal substance, teams shouldn't be able to touch money that's already been paid out.

That already happens. Hell the Atlanta Falcons lost out on about $20 Million in Mike Vick's bonus money even after he had pleaded guilty. In most cases teams can't get that money back with out going to court. The Owners want wording in the new CBA that makes getting the money back easier in the future in the even of felony conviction.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

That already happens. Hell the Atlanta Falcons lost out on about $20 Million in Mike Vick's bonus money even after he had pleaded guilty. In most cases teams can't get that money back with out going to court. The Owners want wording in the new CBA that makes getting the money back easier in the future in the even of felony conviction.

Atlanta got some of that money back; IIRC they won a civil suit against Vick for breach of contract which entitled them to the entire amount, but the amount was reduced in Vick's bankruptcy settlement to around $7M.

[N51_rob]

Yes. They got 3.75 million back.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Assuming this is accurate (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/...ns_Income.html), Tom Brady's $18 million/year salary is bigger than the operating incomes for 9 NFL owners. I know the owners are rich people and have other sources of income... but it still has to bother them that some of the "workers" are making more than the "boss".

Maybe some of those owners need to sell their teams to investors that can afford a NFL team. We get stuck on the year to year but the value is the worth of the team.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Maybe some of those owners need to sell their teams to investors that can afford a NFL team. We get stuck on the year to year but the value is the worth of the team.

I'm not seeing the link here, or are you suggesting owners should run a business in the red for the greater good or something, and if they won't "investors" would? There isn't exactly a line of people anxiously waiting to buy Blockbuster video.

[kjcheezhead]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I'm not seeing the link here, or are you suggesting owners should run a business in the red for the greater good or something, and if they won't "investors" would? There isn't exactly a line of people anxiously waiting to buy Blockbuster video.

The list does suggest some of the teams are being mismanaged imo. The Bills and Jaguars are middle of the pack and the Cincinnati Bengals are 5th on the list while 3 of the bottom 5 (Giants, Jets and Raiders) are large market teams with a larger fan base.

[grunt]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I'm not seeing the link here, or are you suggesting owners should run a business in the red for the greater good or something, and if they won't "investors" would? There isn't exactly a line of people anxiously waiting to buy Blockbuster video.

No, I am saying that some owner who need the year to year profits may struggle in the NFL. Even if the concessions are made there will always be owners who will mismanaged and can't afford ownership in the league.

How do we define being in the 'red' because the wealth is the worth and value of the team and stadium. When those owners do "cash out" many of them will turn a very high profit. If owners decide to stay the cost of doing business and keeping the league competitive among owners will impact their year to year profit margins.

[grunt]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The Steelers are pretty low on the operating profits but Rooney made a statement that his organization didn't need anymore money.

[SPTO]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The Steelers are pretty low on the operating profits but Rooney made a statement that his organization didn't need anymore money.

Yeah they're probably making a killing on jersey sales and other ancillary revenues. Do the Rooneys own Heinz Field?

[MattUMD224]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I have to write a paper on this subject in the players perspective. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What are some reason the players:

1. Wouldnt want the 18 game schedule

2. Dealing with the rookie pay-scale, would they be for or against

3. The issue with revenue sharing and why players dont want it. (this is the biggest one im having issues with)

Thanks for help

[N51_rob]

I have to write a paper on this subject in the players perspective. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What are some reason the players:

1. Wouldnt want the 18 game schedule

2. Dealing with the rookie pay-scale, would they be for or against

3. The issue with revenue sharing and why players dont want it. (this is the biggest one im having issues with)

Thanks for help

1. $1,000,000/16=62,500
$1,000,000/18=55,555

So under current deals, they would play more and make less per game.

2. For, only if the money saved on rookies went to veteran players.

3. Players are for revenue sharing at it's current rate. 60% of all NFL revenues after the owners get their $1 billion off the top. Players offered a 50/50 split of ALL revenues (no $$$ off the top for owners.) Basically the same as 60% of adjusted revenues.

That's how I understand it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I have to write a paper on this subject in the players perspective. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What are some reason the players:

1. Wouldnt want the 18 game schedule

2. Dealing with the rookie pay-scale, would they be for or against

3. The issue with revenue sharing and why players dont want it. (this is the biggest one im having issues with)

Thanks for help

Some additional perspective:

1 - the health concerns of the players that there's been some back-and-forth about across this forum. The assertion is that more games leads to more injuries, which is a double-standard particularly given the NFL's recent emphasis on player safety over the second half of the 2010 season as well as all the negative headlines regarding retired NFL players and the effects of concussions.

2 - the particulars of the rookie contracts come into play. The NFL wants the rookie contracts to be locked at at least four years in length. The average NFL player's career length is less than four years. The issue is that guys like Chris Johnson will become league stars, not be able to cash in while they are stars, and then get injured before they cash in and significantly reduce or eliminate their ability to make money. Players would prefer a three-year contract length.

3 - N51_rob gave a good rundown of this point. Basically, the NFL owners are asking for money back, but aren't providing the players with adequate financial data to support their asking for money back, thus the players' reluctance to agree to that.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

This is the first thing I've read that would make me less of a fan of football if it happened. Obviously it's the players asking for everything so that they're in a position to be negotiated into a lesser position, but it's more than excessive.

From PFT this morning: Ten things to know, right now, about the labor situation

6. The Brady case could change the game dramatically.

The players generally believe that the antitrust lawsuit filed with men like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees serving as named plaintiffs has one primary goal — to end the lockout. And they’re right.

But.

The allegations in the lawsuit also attack time-honored tools for ensuring competitive balance, like the salary cap, the franchise tag, and even the draft.

Let’s assume, then, that the lawyers continue to drive this bus toward the cliff, earning hundreds of dollars per hour along the way. If the players’ lawyers prevail, the end result will be an NFL with no rules of any kind that apply to the 32 teams.

No draft. No limits on free agency. No limits on compensation.

That comes with a risk. With no union to protect their rights — and no mandatory minimum salaries — certain players will be paid peanuts. Long snappers will be lucky to get six figures. Punters, kickers, and plenty of second-stringers will see their total dollars go down.

Stars, on the other hand, will make even more. Eventually, five percent of the players could be making 95 percent of the money as teams budget to pay their big-ticket players and make up the difference by squeeze the vast majority of lunchpail guys who have benefited from collective bargaining.

Thus, if the players win the battle on April 6, the players and the fans will benefit. If the players win the war, however, everyone will lose. Except for the star players, and their agents.

And the lawyers.

[TheShizNo1]

I'm to a point where I honestly don't care for the NFL at this point.

Don't use my NFP app anymore.
Don't watch NFL network anymore.
Turn the channel when talks of NFL come.

[SPTO]

Re: Official CBA Thread

This is the first thing I've read that would make me less of a fan of football if it happened. Obviously it's the players asking for everything so that they're in a position to be negotiated into a lesser position, but it's more than excessive.

From PFT this morning: Ten things to know, right now, about the labor situation

If that happens than expect the NFL to see a rapid decline in fan support down the line. Maybe not 5 years from now but a decade and a half into that kind of set up and you'll see less teams in the league and competitive balance thrown completely out of whack.

I sure as hell hope it doesn't come to that.