NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : "But most of us are more replaceable than NFL players."   Are you kidding me?????? 
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]


    Yeah, QBs like Manning and Brady are just a dime a dozen . . . you can pick one up bagging groceries at Wal-Mart anytime. 

    If there are so many good players out there, why are there so many busts in the top rounds of the draft?  Those brilliant owners and their staffs can't be that inept can they?

    Sorry, AZPat, these guys have way more talent and skills than you like to admit. They're paid a lot because the supply of top NFL players is very short and demand is very high. Market economics. No more. No less.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : Actually, this is not about being "enamored" with either side.  I couldn't care less who makes more money, but, this is an issue of a group of people who are trying to divide a multi billion dollar pie and, in my view, the owners own the pie.  The players wouldn't have a job if it weren't for owners and the fans who shell out the bucks to see them.  As I said in my post, no one is forcing the players to play football, they are chosing their path and make darn good money, too!
    Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE]

    And just what exactly do the owners have without the players? 

    You equate the players as the workers, but you seem to forget that the players are actually the product, too.

    That is the product I tune in to watch. People say these parts are easily replaced. That isn't true. You can replace the players with sub-par players and the game is diminished. The NFL has thrived because the players are replaced with equal or better players. I would not tune in to watch the owners play cards or to see guys like me playing.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dont-hate. Show dont-hate's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    I stand on the side of the fan. We are the real owners. We pay for all these clowns. Dont know why we dont have a seat at the table..
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    i dont see any good that comes from being unionized... maybe they were useful at one time...but today its just about them getting paid

    the players are greedy period...  the owners ...the majority of them dont need money...they are already good at making it...and will make it one way or another... the players dont seem to understand how good they have it...

    im sick of the whole thing...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hagen910. Show hagen910's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    SCREW THEM BOTH.  We pay for the stadiums the players play in and the owners use to make their money and this is the crap they give us.  shut up and play.  both the players and owners need to remember they are making money by playing a kids game for a living and tone down the greed and get a deal done. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    While I am not normall a pro-union guy, I have to side with the players in this because of way they help 'redistribute' the wealth to the little people, which can only help the overall econony. Some examples are Pacman Jones making it rain in Vegas. He obviously truely cares about those girls to give so freely of his own money so they can make a better life for themselves. Mike Vick employing many people to run his stables and care for his dogs and train them so well, a true humanitarian. And Ben Rothlisberger, how many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers were able to pick up overtime hours after he ran his motorcycle into the side of a truck? Not to mention the State Troopers he hires as body guards, all the money he gives to bartenders and waitresses, and all of the law enforcement personnel who get OT investigating his latest act of drunken lewdness.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]While I am not normall a pro-union guy, I have to side with the players in this because of way they help 'redistribute' the wealth to the little people, which can only help the overall econony. Some examples are Pacman Jones making it rain in Vegas. He obviously truely cares about those girls to give so freely of his own money so they can make a better life for themselves. Mike Vick employing many people to run his stables and care for his dogs and train them so well, a true humanitarian. And Ben Rothlisberger, how many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers were able to pick up overtime hours after he ran his motorcycle into the side of a truck? Not to mention the State Troopers he hires as body guards, all the money he gives to bartenders and waitresses, and all of the law enforcement personnel who get OT investigating his latest act of drunken lewdness.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]


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

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]While I am not normall a pro-union guy, I have to side with the players in this because of way they help 'redistribute' the wealth to the little people, which can only help the overall econony. Some examples are Pacman Jones making it rain in Vegas. He obviously truely cares about those girls to give so freely of his own money so they can make a better life for themselves. Mike Vick employing many people to run his stables and care for his dogs and train them so well, a true humanitarian. And Ben Rothlisberger, how many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers were able to pick up overtime hours after he ran his motorcycle into the side of a truck? Not to mention the State Troopers he hires as body guards, all the money he gives to bartenders and waitresses, and all of the law enforcement personnel who get OT investigating his latest act of drunken lewdness.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]
    Did you tongue poke a hole in your cheek??!!!  We certainly do have some altruistic football players out there to keep our local authorities fully employed!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    I think both act like babies, but I don't expect players to know how to run a business either.

    I'd have to choose the owners in this one. 

    They opted out of the last deal because they had to. 

    The health of the league is the important thing, not how much money the players think they are deserved based on entire league revenue.

    I find it hilarious the union has to de-certify to try to negotiate.  Shows the union is worthless and a scam.

    As previously mentioned, I don't think it's a good thing to see the inmates run the asylum unless there is proof of abuse somewhere and reason to have issues with the owners.

    I have yet to hear the sticking point be pensions and health insurance for players for life, etc.  I don't see that as a complaint in the new CBA. It's long overdue and I think the owners know that.  That's a huge win for the union for both honoring pllayers of years gone by, now and the future.

    The 18 game thing should able to be resolved with $$ going back to the players somehow.

    The movement of the money pot should be resolved if the players just looked at it rationally.

    The players have nothing to do with what tv deals are done, marketing, adversioting, etc.

    They get endorsement deals for stuff like that.  They reality is, they haven no leverage here or reason to be unhappy, yet they are.

    Go figure.

    NFL Players are paid like the best because they are the best. It's not like they are losing players to the CFL here.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from allancrain. Show allancrain's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    The owners are concerned that if the TV Networks lose money broadcasting games the TV contracts may go south.  (NBC lost $300 million a few years back on their NBA contract).  Most cities have sellouts and large waiting lists for season tickets.  If we have a double-dip recession clothing sales and advertising may go south.  Fans should not complain about ticket prices if the games are sold out (supply and demand).  $50 for parking is robbery (car pool anyone?).

    I understand that ESPN brings in 275 people just to do a Monday night football game.  What they pay the announcers is staggering.

    What do football stadiums pay in Real Estate Taxes, Sales Tax, Meals Tax, Amusement Tax, Payroll Tax to State and Local Governments?  Federal Income Tax?  GOVERNMENTS ARE GREEDY. 

    Please remember the Union signed the contract giving the owners an option to end the contract now.  The Snyders of the world have screwed up the system.  If we are paying guards $7 million per year, what would you have to pay skill position players?  I do believe that there should be a higher pay base for 2nd through 5 years with a minimum salary based on minutes played. Those moneys should not be counted against a lower cap.  It is certainly true that Mankins and players similar to him were underpaid for his performance over the years on their Rookie contract.  Leave the schedule at 16 games and everyone in a division should have identical schedules.  Screw parity.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    While I am not normall a pro-union guy, I have to side with the players in this because of way they help 'redistribute' the wealth to the little people, which can only help the overall econony. Some examples are Pacman Jones making it rain in Vegas. He obviously truely cares about those girls to give so freely of his own money so they can make a better life for themselves. Mike Vick employing many people to run his stables and care for his dogs and train them so well, a true humanitarian. And Ben Rothlisberger, how many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers were able to pick up overtime hours after he ran his motorcycle into the side of a truck? Not to mention the State Troopers he hires as body guards, all the money he gives to bartenders and waitresses, and all of the law enforcement personnel who get OT investigating his latest act of drunken lewdness.

    Forever Pacman will be the Rainmaker in my mind.


    Thats beautiful. Don't forget Deion Sanders and Randy Moss running down metermaids. That helps fund the court systems.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]While I am not normall a pro-union guy, I have to side with the players in this because of way they help 'redistribute' the wealth to the little people, which can only help the overall econony. Some examples are Pacman Jones making it rain in Vegas. He obviously truely cares about those girls to give so freely of his own money so they can make a better life for themselves. Mike Vick employing many people to run his stables and care for his dogs and train them so well, a true humanitarian. And Ben Rothlisberger, how many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers were able to pick up overtime hours after he ran his motorcycle into the side of a truck? Not to mention the State Troopers he hires as body guards, all the money he gives to bartenders and waitresses, and all of the law enforcement personnel who get OT investigating his latest act of drunken lewdness. Forever Pacman will be the Rainmaker in my mind. Thats beautiful. Don't forget Deion Sanders and Randy Moss running down metermaids. That helps fund the court systems.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]

    Agreed!! And we haven't even hit on the 'trickle down' economics these kind men produce. I am sure the strippers who get rained on are not using that money to maximize their 401K contributions, they are out spending their cut on new stage outfits and costume jewelry, and helping fund the lifestyle of the club managers, doormen, and coke dealers they are associated with. Ripple and rib sales are down significantly around Newport News since the Bad Newz Kennels closed its doors. Who can even guess as to the negative economic impact the 'New Ben' will have?

    I dont think the owners fully understand how much they will affect millions of lives by taking a billion dollars away from the 'play-ers' and their entourages...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expertmike. Show expertmike's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : I agree, but why is all the animus directed at the players? Aren't the owners just as greedy as the players?   What really strikes me as weird, though, about America right now is how every put-upon worker seems to support "owners" while at the same time wanting to see other laborers take wage cuts.  Don't American workers understand that it's the owners who are making the really big money while they're cutting your pensions and shipping your jobs to China?  Why do you think these owners are such noble and admirable heros?  No, they're the greediest of the greedy, making the most money, and doing things (like sending jobs overseas) that hurt America and hurt average working Americans.  Yet, we treat these "owners" and CEOs like gods, vote to give them bigger tax cuts, and talk about what virtuous risk-takers they are.  Meanwhile we attack auto workers and teachers who are making middle class wages and demand instead that they make the poverty wages we apparently think they deserve. It's nuts.  It's like we want more than anything to bend over and take it up the backside from our "owners" . . .  and we especially hate seeing other average people not bending over with us.  It's a slave mentality: the mentality of weaklings who hate to see others rise above their own station and be strong. Average Americans have become doormats who hate it most when some other average American isn't a doormat. It's really pathetic. And it's generating a spiraling race to the bottom.  I simply don't understand it. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    -------------------------------------------------

    Bravo Prolate!

    Even more, the owners "own" a franchise. They don't invent or discover anything. They don't face competition with each other, in fact they cooperate with each other - with socialist revenue sharing agreements. They are nearly the only feasible employer for adult football players (and coaches), yet their big goal is capping employee pay. 



     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    The people that are for the players, why are they so to speak required to be a"patriots kind of player, or take the patriot way, or a home town discount". If the big bad owners are so wrong.

    What about Mankins for example, I don't see a lot of people in his court. Moss was another one. not a whole lot there. Ty Law anyone? Lawyer Milloy? Terry Glenn? The list is endless. When it comes down to it what I've read here the consensus seems to be make your contract cap friendly, study your play book and s t.f.u.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : ------------------------------------------------- Bravo Prolate! Even more, the owners "own" a franchise. They don't invent or discover anything. They don't face competition with each other, in fact they cooperate with each other - with socialist revenue sharing agreements. They are nearly the only feasible employer for adult football players (and coaches), yet their big goal is capping employee pay. 
    Posted by expertmike[/QUOTE]


    Thanks Expert -- and you bring up a good point.  Standard & Poor's in reporting on the NFL's financial strength yesterday said this:

    “We believe that the current NFL CBA, along with the league’s constitution and bylaws, provides the league a level of cash flow stability not typical in other corporate entities,” 

    What a lot of fans don't realize is that collective bargaining helps the owners because it is the only thing that legally allows them to do things like share revenue and have salary caps.  Believe me, the last thing the owners want is for the union to decertify and stop collective bargaining. Sure they want a CBA that is favorable to them, but they still want a CBA.

    The other point, though, is this whole idea of owners as "risk takers."  As you say, a large number of the owners weren't around when these leagues formed. Most were wealthy men who bought teams that were already "going concerns."   Bob Kraft is a perfect example.  The Patriots were an underperforming business located in a region where sports teams can have phenomenal success. Bob Kraft saw an opportunity to buy something that he loved (he's a big football fan) and also make money. Kraft is an excellent business manager who knows how to make businesses succeed. Personally, I'm glad he bought the team.  It made me a paying and happy customer because the quality of the product increased so much.  No disparaging Bob Kraft here. 

    But really, how much risk was Kraft taking?  Bob Kraft isn't some sole proprietor who is scraping together his life savings to start a roofing business or something.  I don't know the details of how Kraft financed his purchase or how the Patriots are structured as a business, but I'm sure of two things: (1) Kraft wasn't putting his whole fortune at risk and (2) the deal and business would have been structured in a way that limited Kraft's possibility for loss.  There's nothing sinister here.  Any good businessman would (and should) do the same.  But let's not go overboard talking about Kraft as a risk taker.  He's much more a risk limiter.  That's why he's so successful.

    People who think of these wealthy financiers as "risk takers" need to ask themselves the question how is it that (for instance) Donald Trump's business go bankrupt so often and yet he's still so rich?  What kind of risk taking is that when your business collapses and yet you still end up in the money?  Let me give you a hint: it ain't risk taking, it's risk limitation.  It's structuring deals so you personally aren't devastated if the business collapses.  Yeah, you may lose money--but you're not going to end up on the street with a tin cup in your hand. Far from it.

    One other thing I hear repeatedly on this site:  It goes something like this: "Players shouldn't complain about the risk they're taking.  They go into this knowing the risks and do it willingly. No one's forcing them to play football."  We'll true enough--but let me tell you something: the owners go into it willingly too--no one forces them to buy the businesses they buy.  Any risk they take, they are taking willingly.  When Kraft (and numerous other owners) bought their teams they knew how football worked, what the players made, how the union worked, what the revenue streams were, what the market was like--all of that was known, and they made their decision accordingly.  Yes, some risk was taken.  But believe me, all of these owners who bought teams recently went into it eyes wide open--and rather than embracing risk, they did everything they could to minimize it. That's what good business owners do.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    If the players work 2 more weeks they should be paid for the 2 extra weeks. Raise the salary cap proportionately. I'm against the 2 extra games. I think they should keep 16 weeks and dump 2 preseason games and replace those games with 3 inter-league scrimages. This way they can play the starters as well as test the draft picks at somewhat of a game speed.

    I'm not against the cap going up but if it does then the league minimum should go up as well. Also the NFLPA needs to do a better job taking care of retired or injured players. Thats why they have an NFLPA, isnt it?

    Your employer offers to let you buy health care, he doesn't buy it for you. I'm speaking private sector. The NFLPA needs to do a better job.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : Thanks Expert -- and you bring up a good point.  Standard & Poor's in reporting on the NFL's financial strength yesterday said this: “We believe that the current NFL CBA, along with the league’s constitution and bylaws, provides the league a level of cash flow stability not typical in other corporate entities,”  What a lot of fans don't realize is that collective bargaining helps the owners because it is the only thing that legally allows them to do things like share revenue and have salary caps.  Believe me, the last thing the owners want is for the union to decertify and stop collective bargaining. Sure they want a CBA that is favorable to them, but they still want a CBA. The other point, though, is this whole idea of owners as "risk takers."  As you say, a large number of the owners weren't around when these leagues formed. Most were wealthy men who bought teams that were already "going concerns."   Bob Kraft is a perfect example.  The Patriots were an underperforming business located in a region where sports teams can have phenomenal success. Bob Kraft saw an opportunity to buy something that he loved (he's a big football fan) and also make money. Kraft is an excellent business manager who knows how to make businesses succeed. Personally, I'm glad he bought the team.  It made me a paying and happy customer because the quality of the product increased so much.  No disparaging Bob Kraft here.  But really, how much risk was Kraft taking?   Bob Kraft isn't some sole proprietor who is scraping together his life savings to start a roofing business or something.  I don't know the details of how Kraft financed his purchase or how the Patriots are structured as a business, but I'm sure of two things: (1) Kraft wasn't putting his whole fortune at risk and (2) the deal and business would have been structured in a way that limited Kraft's possibility for loss.  There's nothing sinister here.  Any good businessman would (and should) do the same.  But let's not go overboard talking about Kraft as a risk taker.  He's much more a risk limiter.  That's why he's so successful. People who think of these wealthy financiers as "risk takers" need to ask themselves the question how is it that (for instance) Donald Trump's business go bankrupt so often and yet he's still so rich?  What kind of risk taking is that when your business collapses and yet you still end up in the money?  Let me give you a hint: it ain't risk taking, it's risk limitation.  It's structuring deals so you personally aren't devastated if the business collapses.  Yeah, you may lose money--but you're not going to end up on the street with a tin cup in your hand. Far from it. One other thing I hear repeatedly on this site:  It goes something like this: "Players shouldn't complain about the risk they're taking.  They go into this knowing the risks and do it willingly. No one's forcing them to play football."  We'll true enough--but let me tell you something: the owners go into it willingly too--no one forces them to buy the businesses they buy.  Any risk they take, they are taking willingly.  When Kraft (and numerous other owners) bought their teams they knew how football worked, what the players made, how the union worked, what the revenue streams were, what the market was like--all of that was known, and they made their decision accordingly.  Yes, some risk was taken.  But believe me, all of these owners who bought teams recently went into it eyes wide open--and rather than embracing risk, they did everything they could to minimize it. That's what good business owners do.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Kraft really didn't take a risk.  He did early on, but long term he knows the market here very well. Boston fans are great support for any organization that is serious.  Sort of a no brainer.

    Even the Bruins' Jeremy Jacobs has bounced along for 35 years of mediocrity here because of the fan support in this region.

    Slam dunk market if you even just want to run it as a business.

    That's why I appreciate Kraft so much. He took the worst franchise in this area and made it the best. Pretty incredible considering the untapped upside of the Sox, the Celtics leverage of their tradition and the Bruins consistency of at least putting out a solid product.

    Kraft has singlehandledly put the pressure on the other 3 owners in Boston.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : Kraft really didn't take a risk.  He did early on, but long term he knows the market here very well. Boston fans are great support for any organization that is serious.  Sort of a no brainer. Even the Bruins' Jeremy Jacobs has bounced along for 35 years of mediocrity here because of the fan support in this region. Slam dunk market if you even just want to run it as a business. That's why I appreciate Kraft so much. He took the worst franchise in this area and made it the best. Pretty incredible considering the untapped upside of the Sox, the Celtics leverage of their tradition and the Bruins consistency of at least putting out a solid product. Kraft has singlehandledly put the pressure on the other 3 owners in Boston.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]


    I agree completely on this.  And you're right, not only has Kraft improved the Pats, he's sort of forced the owners of the other teams to step up to the plate (pun intended, I guess) too. He's really a fabulous business man.  That said, like most good business men, he will maximize profits first and foremost, which is why I think it helps for the players and other employees to have the best support in their negotiations with him. It wasn't widely noticed, but when it became possible for NFL teams to freeze pensions for front-office staff and assistant coaches, Bob Kraft was one of the first to opt out of paying for pensions for his employees. This issue is a big one with the lockout coming for assistant coaches who are non-unionized and more vulnerable.  Here's a report from the Milwaukee Journal:

    This issue is fairly interesting because it involves NFL assistant coaches, who are caught in the middle of the fight between owners and the NFL players union.

    Assistants are not unionized, and a number of teams have dropped them from the NFL pension program and are planning to lay them off or reduce their salaries by as much as 25% if their is a lockout. The assistants all have contracts, but many of them have lockout clauses that give the team the option of reducing salary or laying them off completely.


    "There's enough stress in coaching already that now we're going to be docked 25% of pay," said Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Association, a professional organization dedicated to the interests of assistant coaches.  "We have nothing to do with that (the impending lockout)."


    Since March of 2010, teams have been opting out of the league's bountiful pension plan, choosing to let yearly salary stand as the coaches' only option for saving for retirement. There are now 11 teams who have opted out of the pension plan and there will be a 12th declaring so soon, Kennan said.


    The pension opt outs have nothing to do with the lockout, which is of even more concern to Kennan and his group, because it is permanent.


    Some of the teams that have opted out are among the most wealthy: New England, Dallas, Houston, Washington, Tampa Bay and Atlanta.


    On the other hand, there are a handful of teams who have remained committed to the pension and they include the Green Bay Packers, Philadelphia Eagles, Indianapolis Colts and Pittsburgh Steelers.

    Kennan said that group not only plans on keeping its pension benefits in place, but it also appears committed to paying its coaches fully during the lockout.  . . .

    Just another side of this whole NFL debate. Interesting to note which franchises, given the choice, cut pensions and which kept them.  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    I hate to go into another level of disagreement here, but pensions are more so a part of the public sector. When I hear that, I think "police officer" because they aren't private.

    I am not sure if they need to call it a "pension" other than providing some sort of vested option for employees like corporations do.

    I am assuming they have 401K plans, maybe profit sharing, etc, for employees who aren't players?

    Is this not the case?  I just assumed private NFL teams under a larger corporate umbrella provided the basics (401K, health insurance, etc).

    I am all for some version of a pension plan, but I am not sure I agree with a traditional pension plan.  The concept is ok, but I think it needs to be something different than what you see in the public sector.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from j24m1. Show j24m1's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]If the players work 2 more weeks they should be paid for the 2 extra weeks. Raise the salary cap proportionately. I'm against the 2 extra games. I think they should keep 16 weeks and dump 2 preseason games and replace those games with 3 inter-league scrimages. This way they can play the starters as well as test the draft picks at somewhat of a game speed. I'm not against the cap going up but if it does then the league minimum should go up as well. Also the NFLPA needs to do a better job taking care of retired or injured players. Thats why they have an NFLPA, isnt it? Your employer offers to let you buy health care, he doesn't buy it for you. I'm speaking private sector. The NFLPA needs to do a better job.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]

    Actually, the players would be paid proportionally and the salary cap would be raised implicitly. The cap is a function of total revenue, which obviously would be higher from playing 2 extra games. They could raise that percentage of revenue that computes the yearly cap to make up for the extra work they are looking to burden the players with. That is one part of the CBA negotiations, the percentages to the players / owners. 

    They are also looking at increasing the value of pensions and post retirement benefits for players. Of course they want more money and value for that, and the percentage of revenue, etc.. Owners see it differently, hard to work that out.  Additionally, changes like the Franchise tag, rookie caps and so forth need to be negotiated. 

    2 extra games seem to be un-neccessary, but the players saying their pay should be different for the games are lying or ignorant for not realizing it would increase through the implicit cap raise and consequently through negotiations on individual contracts inside that cap.. Of course you still have current contracts to handle, so I guess you could make that point. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]I hate to go into another level of disagreement here, but pensions are more so a part of the public sector. When I hear that, I think "police officer" because they aren't private. I am not sure if they need to call it a "pension" other than providing some sort of vested option for employees like corporations do. I am assuming they have 401K plans, maybe profit sharing, etc, for employees who aren't players? Is this not the case?  I just assumed private NFL teams under a larger corporate umbrella provided the basics (401K, health insurance, etc). I am all for some version of a pension plan, but I am not sure I agree with a traditional pension plan.  The concept is ok, but I think it needs to be something different than what you see in the public sector.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    First, love the new avatar.  Much nicer than that awful picture of Sanchez!


    Traditional pensions were once offered by most larger private sector companies as well as by public sector employers. Over the past three decades or so, private sector companies have been freezing and terminating traditional defined benefit pension plans, so they are now much scarcer in the private sector than they were. That said, a number of large employers still have traditional pensions. This is especially true among unionized employers, since unions have fought to keep these plans, but some non-unionized employers have preserved them as well.

    As pensions have gone away, many companies have been replacing them with defined contribution plans like the 401(k).  The 401(k) was orginally conceived as a supplement to a traditional defined benefit pension plan, but employers were quick to treat it as a replacement.  Generally, employers prefer 401(k)s because both risk and cost is lower to the employer.  (In fact, employees end up with all the investment risk and a large portion of the cost--with traditional pensions it was the other way around, with employers taking more risk and paying more of the benefit cost.)  What very few ordinary people realize, however, is that while traditional pensions provided very decent retirement benefits, 401(k)s generally don't.  Workers retiring in the 1970s and 1980s from companies that offered traditional pensions were often able to have a pretty good retirement between their pension and Social Security.  Workers retiring now and in the future, though, are finding their 401(k) balances woefully inadequate and therefore are having to work much longer.  I actually think there's going to be a huge retirement crisis in the US in about 15 to 20 years because consumer and mortgage debt is so high, 401(k) balances are pathetically low, and Social Security may well be cut by the Republicans.  All those things add up to a lot of 70-year olds with no income.  I hope Wal-Mart has a lot of those Greeter jobs available . . . because the country will need them.  Either that, or your generation is going to have to spend a lot keeping your parents fed and housed  . . .  

    As far as whether the teams offer assistant coaches 401(k)s, I haven't been able to find that information.  It seems like it might be inconsistent.  Not sure what the Pats do.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    Apparently, the folks at the NY Times are huge Sanchez fans. They actually banned my avatar.  haha

    Agree on 401Ks being more risky, but so is a pension in a state or municipality also risky like in a situation where we see now?  So many states and cities are struggling to keep costs down and to generate revenue in order to grow.

    Agreed on the bad timing of retirees working longer for less and having to work at Walmart, etc, but can we agree that it doesn't really apply to millioniaires?

    I mean, Jim Smith who worked at various jobs for the past 45 years who deserves to retire, has been lucky enough not to lose his 401K values when he does retire, etc, has some other investments just so he can maybe play golf twice a week and a eat out with his wife one a week, is not Warren Sapp.

    Can we agree to that?

    If the life of an NFL player is 5 years on average, shouldn't it bell known, you aren;'t getting 1 million per year past the age of 30/there is a life you need to have past 30?

    This idea should be old news for NFL players,  but some players are simply dumb blowing it all. That's not the owners fault.

    The NFL needs to just set aside a pot of money for vested NFL players for a "pension"/retirement package alongside health insurance after they retire.

    Just have someone manage it. Many factors are considered like time spent in the league and work done in the NFL after retiring.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    Does any of this matter? It's not like the owners or players are going to pay any attention to what the fans think. The baseball strikes have proven that the fans will come back no matter what. The people who will be truly hurt by the lockout are the employees of teams, stadiums and businesses near the stadiums.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from j24m1. Show j24m1's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : First, love the new avatar.  Much nicer than that awful picture of Sanchez! Traditional pensions were once offered by most larger private sector companies as well as by public sector employers. Over the past three decades or so, private sector companies have been freezing and terminating traditional defined benefit pension plans, so they are now much scarcer in the private sector than they were. That said, a number of large employers still have traditional pensions. This is especially true among unionized employers, since unions have fought to keep these plans, but some non-unionized employers have preserved them as well. As pensions have gone away, many companies have been replacing them with defined contribution plans like the 401(k).  The 401(k) was orginally conceived as a supplement to a traditional defined benefit pension plan, but employers were quick to treat it as a replacement.  Generally, employers prefer 401(k)s because both risk and cost is lower to the employer.  (In fact, employees end up with all the investment risk and a large portion of the cost--with traditional pensions it was the other way around, with employers taking more risk and paying more of the benefit cost.)  What very few ordinary people realize, however, is that while traditional pensions provided very decent retirement benefits, 401(k)s generally don't.  Workers retiring in the 1970s and 1980s from companies that offered traditional pensions were often able to have a pretty good retirement between their pension and Social Security.  Workers retiring now and in the future, though, are finding their 401(k) balances woefully inadequate and therefore are having to work much longer.  I actually think there's going to be a huge retirement crisis in the US in about 15 to 20 years because consumer and mortgage debt is so high, 401(k) balances are pathetically low, and Social Security may well be cut by the Republicans.  All those things add up to a lot of 70-year olds with no income.  I hope Wal-Mart has a lot of those Greeter jobs available . . . because the country will need them.  Either that, or your generation is going to have to spend a lot keeping your parents fed and housed  . . .   As far as whether the teams offer assistant coaches 401(k)s, I haven't been able to find that information.  It seems like it might be inconsistent.  Not sure what the Pats do.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Where did the subject of football go?

    Defined contribution plans didn't start becoming very common until after the 1986 tax act, which really updated the structure of IRAs and employer plans originally enacted through ERISA. The update was substantial enough to really start making that switch to DC plans and start shifting the risk to employees. The (about 15 year) baby boomer generation actually reached the average retirement age last year, so if their will be a retirement crisis it could be sooner than what you have mentioned. A good majority of the 17$ trillion in retirement plans are in that generation however. 

    Additionally, why do you think most people have retirement plans that are not sufficient? They were taught to rely on social security, a social program that is nothing like it was when created today. Like most social programs, it has proven to become a financial and economic burden while enabling people to rely on inefficient government programs.. effectively leading to these issues. It is quite pathetic that the government does not learn from these mistakes.

    There are also plenty of pensions that still exist for current retirees, there just wont be any for retirees in 20 years, as you mentioned. The main problem is that +70% of U.S. pensions are under-funded. If they are 80% under-funded the regulations disallow 50% of the employees lump sum option. 60% disallows the entire amount.

    Can we get back to football now? 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : Where did the subject of football go? Defined contribution plans didn't start becoming very common until after the 1986 tax act, which really updated the structure of IRAs and employer plans originally enacted through ERISA. The update was substantial enough to really start making that switch to DC plans and start shifting the risk to employees. The (about 15 year) baby boomer generation actually reached the average retirement age last year, so if their will be a retirement crisis it could be sooner than what you have mentioned. A good majority of the 17$ trillion in retirement plans are in that generation however.  Additionally, why do you think most people have retirement plans that are not sufficient? They were taught to rely on social security, a social program that is nothing like it was when created today. Like most social programs, it has proven to become a financial and economic burden while enabling people to rely on inefficient government programs.. effectively leading to these issues. It is quite pathetic that the government does not learn from these mistakes. There are also plenty of pensions that still exist for current retirees, there just wont be any for retirees in 20 years, as you mentioned. The main problem is that +70% of U.S. pensions are under-funded. If they are 80% under-funded the regulations disallow 50% of the employees lump sum option. 60% disallows the entire amount. Can we get back to football now? 
    Posted by j24m1[/QUOTE]

    Your post is almost incomprehensible, but what you are apparently saying about social security is completely wrong.  It is extremely efficient, costs very little to administer, and has succeeded in keeping millions and millions of people out of abject poverty.  Moreover, it is fully funded for many more years.  It is the most successful social program in American history.  
     

Share