NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    And that's false. That's why I said that.

    BB TRADES for his veterans, usually. 

    Christ, you're dumb. See, I knew what you were implying there and I caught you in the act.

    You're trying to say Polian does it without FA signings and BB does.  That's false.

    Each looks for cheap FA signings that complement the system, traditionally.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    You are such a dum bass.  I wasn't originally implying anything about the pats. 

    I'll bet you're a conspiracy theorist. 

    First of all, di pshit, I wasn't even addressing you when I brought it up.  I was addressing the falsehood of prolate's assumption.  You stuck your nose in with a completely different assumption that my comment had something to do with pats but it didn't.  You are so blindly pathetic that you think any word out of my mouth is an intended slight at the pats.  It wasn't. 

    At best, you are an idiot Russ.  If you could pull your head up a foot it would still be stuck another foot deep up your as&. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Yeah, right. You're here as a Colts fan constantly looking for our praises just by accident, you little backwoods tool.

    Go bang a farm animal.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : So you're arguing that if I'm not a ho someone else will be one so I may as well go ahead and be a ho?  Ha!  No wonder the taxpayers get continually screwed in these stadium deals!  (And despite what Rusty claims, the evidence that stadiums provide significant and lasting financial benefits to the local community is weak. Also, if communities weren't such "hos," then owners would be forced to build their stadiums with their own money where the stadiums would be most economically viable. The communities that got the stadiums would therefore get whatever benefits accrue for free, without paying any extra tax money at all.)  See elsewhere . . . it's actually a fairly common practice in labor negotiations and protected by law. Yeah, there are always new good players coming into the game. But to be a championship team you need the best players available NOW.  And those best players on the market now will always get high pay.  It's simply supply and demand.  Brady gets his money, because all past and future great QBs aren't on the market right now.  There are only about two or three great QBs available right now.  So those two or three make big money. You jealous? 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid

    Many people of Arlington, TX. hate Jerry Jones. Having to be displaced for a football stadium to be built in your backyard and having to help some arrogant billionaire pay for it has left a foul taste in many Arlington residents mouths. 

    But, they did vote for it so I guess they got what they deserve.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    Yeah, right. You're here as a Colts fan constantly looking for our praises just by accident, you little backwoods tool. Go bang a farm animal.
    Posted by BBReigns


    Thanks for the unrelated - junior high school - I don't have anything better to say - retort. 

    You make pats fans look bad. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    No, I say what everyone here says to you, in so many words.

    Jr High retort or not, the point stands.  Go do something other than post here.

    Get it?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : What's interesting is that you've got public statements by players and former players that the players got the best end of the deal in the last negotiation.

    Because they liked the most recent deal doesn't mean they need to accept a bad deal (for them) this time around.  They have (from what's been rumored) offered some concessions (like a rookie pay scale and a different revenue-sharing schedule that might benefit the owners long term, though not as much as the owners want to be benefitted).  But it seems to me when your negotiating partner is demanding concessions, you are not obligated to meet him halfway. In fact, the players have every right to demand even more money then they get now, and as far as I can tell they haven't done that. Instead, they've agreed to some minor concessions and asked to see financial information before agreeing to any more. That's a fair response, I think, when your partner opens the negotiation by demanding very large concessions.

    The players have requested 10 years of fully audited financials.  They want the details.  Why is that necessary?
     

    This gets right to the heart of the matter. The owners have said all along that they need concessions because of long-term expense trends. It's pretty hard to judge what those trends are if the owners won't show expenses over multiple years to establish a trend. 

       The owners reluctantly agreed to provide financials well beyond their desire but significant enough to justify their request.  

    But without expense detail it's hard to judge the owners claim that the long-term finances of the teams are precarious.  Revenues are growing quite well. The owners have to show that expenses are growing even faster if they want to make a serious case for why large concessions are necessary for the health of the league.  They refused to do that. So the players decided to change the game.  I see nothing wrong with that. They aren't required to play the game by the owners' rules. 

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : I'd ask the same with you.  No offense, buy you sort of come off like you don't have a clue or experience with it and think some bizarre set of rules apply to one party over the other. Not once, have I ever, ever asked to see my customer's books before quoting a price and negotiating a contract.  It's irrelevant. I know the market, know where my product fits, know what price I need, etc. Either it's a match and your serious about negotiating or it's not and you aren't.
    Posted by BBReigns


    The rules around labor negotiations are what they are and the dynamics are very different from you trying to sell a product to a customer.  Under labor law, a union can ask for financials before agreeing to wage concessions.  And they would be silly to forego that right. 

    Let's say, though, that you had agreed to sell what you sell to your customer for a fixed price for seven years and then two years into the deal you realized the agreement you had made was driving you bankrupt. You wanted to renegotiate for a higher price.  If the customer said, "Okay, I'll renegotiate but only if you show your books to prove you are really going bankrupt," would you show your books?  Or would you say "No way--accept the higher price or I'll stop delivering the product."  You could try the second approach, but if you did, I hope you wouldn't follow crafty Bob Kraft's advice and leave your lawyers at home, because you're going to be sued . . .

    I've been in situations like the above and, yes, when pushed, we opened the books and successfully renegotiated a deal that we had agreed to but was hurting us. 

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    Pro - I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.  Chemistry matters.  Fit to scheme matters.  Coaching matters.  Attitude matters.  The colts have been near the top of the league for many years, but with all of the big name free agents available over the last 10 years, I'd bet you a dollar you can't name 5 that the colts have picked up. 
    Posted by UD6

    Yep more matters than raw talent, but the players who have talent and all the other stuff make the big bucks. The Colts would not be what they are without Manning. That's why they pay him so much.  Believe me, a guy like Manning doesn't make the money he does because of the CBA--he makes it because of his rare talent.  Take away a CBA and the salary cap that can only be implemented through a CBA and a guy like Manning might make even more than he does now.  These guys will do just fine without a CBA.  The question is whether the owners can live without it.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from isurfvb35. Show isurfvb35's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    never going to happen. like the article says "just a threat". i smell a huge smokescreen here.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : The rules around labor negotiations are what they are and the dynamics are very different from you trying to sell a product to a customer.  Under labor law, a union can ask for financials before agreeing to wage concessions.  And they would be silly to forego that right.  Let's say, though, that you had agreed to sell what you sell to your customer for a fixed price for seven years and then two years into the deal you realized the agreement you had made was driving you bankrupt. You wanted to renegotiate for a higher price.  If the customer said, "Okay, I'll renegotiate but only if you show your books to prove you are really going bankrupt," would you show your books?  Or would you say "No way--accept the higher price or I'll stop delivering the product."  You could try the second approach, but if you did, I hope you wouldn't follow crafty Bob Kraft's advice and leave your lawyers at home, because you're going to be sued . . . I've been in situations like the above and, yes, when pushed, we opened the books and successfully renegotiated a deal that we had agreed to but was hurting us. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    Hey dude, I agree with you wholeheartedly but you're just pissin' into the wind trying to get your point across to these j*rks.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Because they liked the most recent deal doesn't mean they need to accept a bad deal (for them) this time around.  They have (from what's been rumored) offered some concessions (like a rookie pay scale and a different revenue-sharing schedule that might benefit the owners long term, though not as much as the owners want to be benefitted).  But it seems to me when your negotiating partner is demanding concessions, you are not obligated to meet him halfway. In fact, the players have every right to demand even more money then they get now, and as far as I can tell they haven't done that. Instead, they've agreed to some minor concessions and asked to see financial information before agreeing to any more. That's a fair response, I think, when your partner opens the negotiation by demanding very large concessions.


    No, accepting a previously acknowledged great deal the last time does not mean they need to accept a bad deal this time, but as I noted they really haven't even begun to negotiate, and from a group that claims to want "partnership" they clearly haven't demonstrated much of that.  Accepting a wage limit for players who are not currently a part of the union(rookies) for the benefit of those that are is not a concession in my book nor I think in most. 

    And no, the players are not obligated to accept the concessions the owners have requested, but that doesn't really make them partners now does it.  Remember, these partners said they got the best of the deal the last time.  The owners want some back and the players have yet to give an inch. 

    This gets right to the heart of the matter. The owners have said all along that they need concessions because of long-term expense trends. It's pretty hard to judge what those trends are if the owners won't show expenses over multiple years to establish a trend. 

    And yet the owners offered something up but the players without at least giving the offered information a chance disregarded it.  And 10 years is ridiculous.  Trends can be established with 3 years of data. 

    But without expense detail it's hard to judge whether the owners claim that the long-term finances of the teams are precarious.  Revenues are growing quite well. The owners have to show that expenses are growing even faster if they want to make a serious case for why large concessions are necessary for the health of the league.  They refused to do that. So the players decided to change the game.  I see nothing wrong with that. They aren't required to play the game by the owners' rules. A
    I disagree.  If the players were interested in a deal then they'd agree to look at the information offered by the owners decide what was deficient then ask for additional specific information.  If the owner concede to offer significantly more than they ever have (which I understand was previously nothing) what purpose does it serve the process to dismiss it out of hand if the players are looking for a partnership?  Is the only partnership they seek one that is only on their terms?  At this point the only terms by which the players appear to wish to play is their own.  Partnership indeed. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Sure those players make the big bucks but 50% of the colts roster makes the league min.  Remember those concessions you said the players agreed to make re: rook salaries.  Those min vets are chomping at the bit to get a little more for their services given that they've proved themselves. 

    Lets suggest that the CBA is eliminated, the union is eliminated, there is no draft, etc.  Can you explain to me exactly how the league is improved by this scenario? 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : Hey dude, I agree with you wholeheartedly but you're just pissin' into the wind trying to get your point across to these j*rks.
    Posted by Salcon



    I know, but it's an excellent way to waste time when you're just relaxing on the couch.  Most enjoyable over a cold beer.

    (Plus, I learn a few things even if they don't, because I actually research stuff like the labor laws and read the legal filings before I post so I may be pissin' into the wind but at least I'm not talking out my as*!)




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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    @UD6

    1. What makes you think the owners have been more cooperative than the players in the negotiation? Tossing out a bunch of bad offers and not just threatening a lockout, but actually trying to set aside a reserve to fund it, is cooperative?  The owners (or at least Goodell and his team) have tried to strong arm the players.  That's not "partnership" at all. 

    2. As far as the information the owners offered, let's get a few facts straight. The owners have always shared revenue information. It's necessary to set the salary cap, since the salary cap is based on revenues.  The only additional information they offered was some kind of "profitability" information.  The players' financial advisers said that what was offered was useless information. The owners claim is that expenses are growing too fast.  So seeing the expense data is absolutely essential to judging their claim. The owners may just as well have offered to show the players their golf scores. They would be about equally useful for judging their claim that the business's future was in jeopardy. 

    3. As far as the future of the league without a CBA, I have mixed opinions. As I've said all along, I think a CBA is a good thing if one can be negotiated that all parties believe is fair.  But I don't think the lack of a CBA is necessarily a disaster. It probably would mean less competitive balance, but the top teams would likely be extremely good--even better than they are today--and some of the small market teams might fold, giving us a more "concentrated" league with fewer teams, but with better teams overall.  Remember, some of the big-market owners (like Jerry Jones) have already gone on record saying that they don't like the current revenue sharing arrangements and are trying to change the way revenue sharing happens or whether it happens at all. So it's hard to say that all the owners are great advocates for "competitive balance."  Some would be very happy with an arrangement that gave them bigger profits and left some of the small market teams struggling to survive.  A few might even like a CBA-less environment.  It's more like typical capitalism . . . something Jones is quite comfortable with.  


    ___________________

    Further comment on revenue sharing

    One thing that a lot of fans don't understand is that a lot of the dispute over the CBA is really all about how revenue sharing works and about the rich teams not wanting to share any more of their revenue with less rich teams (and preferring to cut player pay rather than share any more).  Right now, the salary cap is set based on total revenue.  But only some of that total revenue is shared between teams.  The remainder is retained by the teams that earned it.  It turns out that a few teams (mostly big market) have big and rapidly growing retained (unshared) revenue while a larger number of (mostly small market) teams have smaller retained revenue and rely more on the shared revenue.  But salary expenses grow for all teams proportional to total revenue, not merely shared revenue. This means the teams without a lot of retained revenue are pinched, because their salary cap is growing based on total revenue, but they don't actually get much of the portion of total revenue that isn't shared.  The pressure on these smaller revenue teams could be eased if big money teams just shared more of their currently retained revenue with the smaller revenue teams.  But the rich owners like Jerry Jones don't want to do that. Rather than sharing any more money with poorer owners, he'd like to force the players to take a big pay cut.  It means a heck of a lot more money in his pocket.  In other words, the NFL has plenty of revenue to share with players if it also shares more money with small market teams.  But the big market piggies don't want to give anything up to the small market piglets.  Rather than sharing more money with other teams to preserve competitive balance, they've decided to take the extra money from the players.  That makes the big market piggies even richer (and the small market piglets a little richer).  And of course, it makes the players less rich.  The players understand that a lot of what's going on in this renegotiation of the CBA is that the wealthy owners are trying to avoid paying more to less wealthy owners by forcing the players to take a pay cut.  The players naturally don't want to cooperate in letting Jerry Jones avoid revenue sharing by cutting player pay.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

         For all of you who support the players in this labor mess...I don't want to say, "I told you so"...but: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

         The NFLPA, a/k/a "the players side", has been hijacked by the sports agents...who care nothing about anything, except lining their pockets. Recently, player reps such as Mike Vrabel are acknowledging this...and are trying to break away from the litigation path to hell...that would destroy the draft, and the NFL as we know it. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
         For all of you who support the players in this labor mess...I don't want to say, "I told you so"...but: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/      The NFLPA, a/k/a "the players side", has been hijacked by the sports agents...who care nothing about anything, except lining their pockets. Recently, player reps such as Mike Vrabel are acknowledging this...and are trying to break away from the litigation path to hell...that would destroy the draft, and the NFL as we know it. 
    Posted by TexasPat3



    There's no draft in European soccer and it's the most popular sport in the world. 

    And why shouldn't the Pats just be able to go out and sign the best rookies if they can afford them?  Why should they have to wait in line behind crappy franchises like the Lions and Bills?

    And why should top players be forced through a draft system to go work for those crappy franchises if a great team like the Pats would be willing to sign them?  

    You don't believe the free market is the end of the world, do you?  


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fishers5. Show fishers5's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Regardless is your a UNion sympathizer or not...The whole thing is about MONEY and Control...The unions got a great deal in the last negotiations and the owners screwed up agreeing in it..BUT there was a clause that allowed for a Do OVER..

    Just use common sense and put yourself in an Owners shoes...You pay for almost everything....and took the short end of the stick... The Unions want what they had and will want more ...I know pretty much what the owners pay for..BUT
    what iN THE HE-- does the unions do with their proceeds that they think they deserve that share and maybe more.....

    cmon..all you union lovers...please explain....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : There's no draft in European soccer and it's the most popular sport in the world.

    RESPONSE: It's the most popular sport everywhere, except in the U.S.. American sports fans are generally of the opinion that soccer succks! Watching a soccer match is like watching paint dry. But, to each their own, I guess.
     

    And why shouldn't the Pats just be able to go out and sign the best rookies if they can afford them?  Why should they have to wait in line behind crappy franchises like the Lions and Bills?
     
    RESPONSE: I can't believe what I'm reading! Do you want the NFL to be composed of super teams from NY, Chicago, and Dallas? The so-called "crappy teams" would increase exponentially. Teams like the Green Bay Packers would cease to exist. Who would want to go play in Green Bay? For that matter, who would want to play in the New England winters? What makes the NFL great is that it's such a competitive league. Good scouting and good coaching is rewarded...not how much a team can spend. 

    You don't believe the free market is the end of the world, do you?

    RESPONSE: No...but it would be the end of the NFL as we know it.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Well, if you think socialism is better for NFL players, why not for NFL owners too? The whole problem could be solved by more revenue sharing just as easily as lower player pay.  Why do you think the players should sacrifice pay to benefit the game but not billionaire Jerry Jones?

    In my mind, they all play by the socialist rules--which means a salary cap, draft, and more revenue sharing.  Or they all play by the capitalist rules which means none of that stuff. 

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    Regardless is your a UNion sympathizer or not...The whole thing is about MONEY and Control...The unions got a great deal in the last negotiations and the owners screwed up agreeing in it..BUT there was a clause that allowed for a Do OVER.. Just use common sense and put yourself in an Owners shoes...You pay for almost everything....and took the short end of the stick... The Unions want what they had and will want more ...I know pretty much what the owners pay for..BUT what iN THE HE-- does the unions do with their proceeds that they think they deserve that share and maybe more..... cmon..all you union lovers...please explain....
    Posted by fishers5

    If the owners are doing so badly, why aren't they trying to sell their franchises? The problem with the old CBA is that it didn't work well in a league where there's only partial revenue sharing. The high-revenue teams are doing very well under the old CBA, but the low-revenue teams are not doing so well. Under the CBA, though, revenue grows with total average revenue. So teams with slow revenue growth have salary growth outpacing revenue growth while teams with high revenue growth have the opposite.  Sharing more revenue would solve the problem.  So would limiting salaries.  But if I'm a player why would I agree to limit my earnings just so Jerry Jones doesn't have to limit his?  That's why there's a dispute.  Owners like Jones want to be able to keep all their earnings and not share any with teams like the Packers.  So instead of sharing more revenue, they want to change the salary cap so that player salaries are limited to what poor teams can afford.  But why should the players agree to a system that limits their wages to what the poor teams can afford?  The players have no obligation to limit their earnings so Jerry Jones can be even richer!




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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Sorry, it may be really simplistic but how many owners are there? 32. How many players? 1888. To me if the owners are getting more than 40% they are exploiting their employees to the point of slavery and I don't care how many millions the 10% of the highest paid players get. The players have a gripe.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kickwax. Show kickwax's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    I haven't read every post thoroughly as much as I'd like to, but is it too simplistic to think that eliminating the draft would dramatically favor the haves (Boston, NY, larger markets) and that the NFL would become more like MLB?  It would shift the competitive balance toward teams in larger markets and would marginalize some good teams in lesser markets (KC, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Indianapolis, Green Bay, Tampa bay).  It would make coaches like BB even more effective since he would have greater resources than most teams to team build and he could hand pick his talent.   As much as I believe the draft will never go away, I think it would hurt the league in a bad way if it did.  And I also laugh at the thought of some of these guys buying suits and carrying their resumes with them to 10 different cities looking for a job.    
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn


    As long as a salary cap is kept, the sport will be fine.  Each owner can decide to blow his salary on rookies or veterans...the winners will be emulated, but over time it will be the teams that manage their entire cap against the pool of players that will thrive...it won't matter if they are large or small market, and the fans will continue to get good games. 

    Unfortunately teams like  the Skins will still suck because their owner doesn't get it...he wants to buy a champtionship not build it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NotPickinPeyton. Show NotPickinPeyton's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Well it has always been my belief that "THE STUPID SHALL BE PUNISHED"....
    I am hoping that the NFL and the greedy sons of b's that are part of it will suffer as the MLB/NBA/NHL have all suffered immediately following this kind of BULLDUNG.

    I "WAS" on the side of the players.... and I at times have been able to understand the arguments of the owners....   HOWEVER.... No player is a SLAVE.... and that asinine statement turned me off completely to those prima donnas....    The OWNERS have all the skin in the game....  every penny invested is there, and they even offered a medical program for their players (including retirees) that is better than OBUMMER-CARE...   Seems to me when a man has to invest millions (Billions?) and then gets to keep approximately 40% of the revenues generated... he too may be upset....  However....  I just help all the STUPID SONS OF a B get what they deserve... and No one goes to see them...  Leave the stadiums empty for a few weeks.... BOYCOTT buying any official products of the NFL.... that will lower their revenue.... and well then they will at least feel like if they (Players) are the slaves.. then we shall have some stake in their ownership.

    BOTH SIDES ARE A$$ES
    In Response to NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
         For the all too many of you who are rooting for the players in this ugly labor war, you need to be aware that they seek the destruction of the NFL draft, and seek unfettered free agency. If they are successful, they will destroy the competitive balance in the league...and the already exorbitant price for tickets will skyrocket.      The short-sighted owners and their overbearing, micro-managing, arrogant political stuffed shirt of a Commissioner are partially to blame for why the game is heading down this road to destruction. But, the players' agenda, as concocted and directed by the sports agents, amounts to a poison pill for football fans: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/05/pondering-a-future-without-the-nfl-draft/      
    Posted by TexasPat3
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    Sorry, it may be really simplistic but how many owners are there? 32. How many players? 1888. To me if the owners are getting more than 40% they are exploiting their employees to the point of slavery and I don't care how many millions the 10% of the highest paid players get. The players have a gripe.
    Posted by rtuinila


         The players' position has been usurped by the agents. So...what we really have here is the owners vs. the player agents. If the agents get their way, they'll be baseball style free agency, and no draft. that's what all those lawsuits that the players/agents filed, are about.

         Slavery?? Making millions every year?? Please make me a slave, too!! LOL!! 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share