Maybe not colusion... but...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Maybe not colusion... but...

    Very interesting article here and just about confirms what I posted a week or so ago...
    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/14/free-agency-activity-drops-in-2010/

    Here is a taste of the article...

    In prior years the first wave of free agency, during which the money flows more freely, typically lasted a full week.  This time around it lasted a weekend.  And there simply were fewer teams paying market value for the available players, despite the absence of the salary cap.

    Perhaps Wilner's point is that everyone expected for years that free agency in an uncapped environment would result in reckless and frenzied acquisitions, and that in reality nothing has changed.  The actual reality, in our view, is that the process has changed, due in part to the absence of more than 200 players who in any other year would have been unrestricted free agents and in part to the use of artificial salary caps known commonly in the business world as "budgets."

    Meanwhile, you can bet that the NFLPA is tracking all of the signings very closely and comparing the dollars committed to the money spent in 2009 and previously.  And unless the market for restricted free agents picks up quickly, it's safe to say that the union at some point will be claiming that most of the teams have agreed, expressly or implicitly, to engage in a uniform belt tightening.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    Anything that sticks it to a Union is okay in my book. I'm glad if collusion is the case here as it will bring some of the prices down to where the Patriots might sign a couple of decent guys.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    I agree with you on hating unions but it is hard for me to include any of the professional sports players organizations in the same breath as the IBEW for example. And I don't think they need to outlaw Unions, they were needed years ago to bring safety and fairness into the business world... but not needed as much now and can be linked to many jobs lost to outsourcing.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3839316. Show user_3839316's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    In Response to Re: Maybe not colusion... but...:
    I agree with you on hating unions but it is hard for me to include any of the professional sports players organizations in the same breath as the IBEW for example. And I don't think they need to outlaw Unions, they were needed years ago to bring safety and fairness into the business world... but not needed as much now and can be linked to many jobs lost to outsourcing.
    Posted by DaBlade
    Unions really helped the working man buy got greedy and forced or helped companies to outsource manufacturing jobs destroring the US economy.IF you read released NSA documents everything is fixed behind closed doors.They just feed you crap like they did with Iraq to keep the average american dumb but happy.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    It's not colusion. We've seen 3 record contracts handed out this year so far (Peppers, Robinson, Wilfork). On top of that this is a very weak FA class so I wouldn't expect very much money being tossed around. In reality the only player I saw that took below fair market is Jones. But of course the Union is going to try to spin it that way and call fault.

    I can't stand most Unions as I think a majority of them are a leech on society but there are a couple that are absolutely needed. For example the miners Union. This is a union that doesn't fight for over inflated wages but for the safety of the members and plans in place for the families in case of a tragidy. It hard to go after certain unions without hurting the ones that are really needed. Now saying that I wouldn't think twice and prob would even do a little dance if I wook up today and heard that the unions in MA broke up.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    Fiscal responsibility does not necessarily indicate "collusion," but it's a nice catch-22 for the unions. As long as the owners continue to throw retarded amounts of money at players, market forces are at work, but if the owners look up and say what everyone with two eyes and a brain can clearly see -- that salaries are out of control -- then they are "colluding" to low ball the players. Salaries simply cannot continue to escalate forever. Somebody has to pay for that -- somebody meaning you and me. Do you like paying $40 to park your car near the stadium? How's that nine dollar beer? $200 to sit in the endzone? My favorite is the personal seat license -- paying for the privilege to pay. The owners are going to have to go a fair country distance to top that gem. Where does it all end?

    Now, I'm not saying that every cost-cutting measure must needs-be acceded by the players, but the owners are correct in assuming they have a bullet-proof product. We've got Pats fan right here on this board discussing the merits of bringing in a guy like Ladanian Tomlinson. He obviously doesn't care who's wearing the logo -- he's rooting for the corporation . . .  and the moment he decides rooting for the corporation costs too much, well, just check him off and pluck the next guy on the waiting list.

    Personally, I think collusion makes sense . . .  except when you consider that any money the owners save on player salaries isn't going to save us, the customer any money. I rooted for horrible Pats teams for years. It was fun and it was cheap and the Sullivans didn't care very much how drunk you got. Then the Pats caught lightning in a bottle and stumbled into the Super Bowl and that was the end of the $8 endzone seat and $3 parking. The team was soon horrible again, but prices didn't come back down, did they? I imagine somewhere there's a limit on how much even the wealthiest and most image-conscious among us will pay to appear to be part of something as wildly successful as the Pats have been in the last 10 years or so -- but I don't think NFL owners in successful markets are anywhere near that limit.

    Meanwhile, out here on the prairie rabid NFL fans fret over something called the Los Angeles Vikings.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from arodrambone. Show arodrambone's posts

    Re: Maybe not colusion... but...

    Unions created the middle class that has been systematically dismantled since 1980.

    Low wages, high unemployment, unchecked corporate influence on both parties?

    NAFTA and other pro-oligarchs trade agreements?

    Pensions replaced with 401k's?

    Keep racing to the bottom.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Maybe not collusion... but...

    In Response to Re: Maybe not collusion... but...:
    If it's done by the union it's right, but if it's done by the owners it's wrong?  Unions were not needed for safety and fairness because the market and competition did more for both; all unions did was inflate wages, and GM and Chrysler are the most graphic examples of the economy paying the price for that; in sports the MLBPA is an even more graphic example with player salaries inflated to levels beyond preposterous, and people wonder why so many teams stick wtih $40 million payrolls.  The NFLPA seems to think that 59.4% of total revenue isn't too much, but economic reality now shows it is.  The idea that the players will somehow be gipped if the percentage is cut is ludicrous.  Of course it will be said, "The owners agreed to this in the first place."  They agreed because they were trying to avoid the potential of a lockout in 2007 or '08; I remember during the 2007 negotiations that it got rather worrisome that a new CBA might not be agreed to and it was scaring everyone. 
    Posted by STP43FAN


    STP  +1.. The number 1 reason why companies have had to out source jobs to China and other 3rd world nations.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share