NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

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

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    If the owners were really suffering financially so much, why didn't they agree to open their books fully?  They are asking for massive financial concessions from the players.  But they aren't willing to show the players the numbers.  I don't see why the players should agree to a whole bunch of anti-competitive practices (like drafts and restrictions on free agency) that are available only through a CBA--plus agree to salary concessions in the CBA--if the owners aren't going to show them why the concessions are necessary.  If the owners don't want to show the numbers, then why should the players grant them any financial concessions at all or especially allow them to continue anti-competitive practices that are possible only with the players' agreement through a CBA?  The decertification and lawsuit are merely the players saying: "Look owners, if you're going to demand big concessions and are not going to share the numbers with us, then there's no reason for us to grant you all the good things the CBA gives you either. We'll just eliminate collective bargaining altogether and go to the same free market system that works in just about every other industry."  TP seems to think this is some kind of "ultra liberal" conspiracy, but since when is abandoning unionization and collective bargaining and embracing the free market liberal?  It seems to me that the players, in getting rid of their union and calling for a free market approach, are being not just conservative, but downright libertarian.   Personally, I do think a CBA is beneficial to everyone, but I don't see any reason for the players to grant the owners all the goodies that the CBA gives the owners--and also accept a big pay cut--unless the owners step up to the table and show the players why all these concessions are necessary. The fact that the owners are so adamant about not opening the expense side of their ledgers suggests to me that there's something on that expense side that doesn't help their case.  I suspect a lot of those "expenses" are really big payments to the owners--and some of those payments might not only outrage the players, but more important, might outrage ordinary taxpayers who have been subsidizing the owners' stadiums.* Jerry Jones, after all, got conservative Arlington, Texas,   to raise taxes to help build his football palace. If it turns out that Jones could have paid for that palace all by himself without the help of the Texas taxpayers, I wonder how Texas Pat and his fellow ultra conservative citizens would feel?  Maybe a bit like suckers? Personally, if we're going to raise taxes, I'd like to see the money going to something like education or even reducing the deficit . . . not to a giant video scoreboard.  But this is the way the owners operate. They threaten that football will go away if their demands aren't met . . . and then all the little scaredy-cat sucker fans rally around saying "yes, massa owner, whatever you want, we'll give you."  The owners must laugh a lot over cigars and cognac . . .    *From Wikipedia: To aid Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent. The City of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding,
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    Do you realize how much money his stadium will bring into that area, not just with the Cowboys, but with other events?

    It's an enclosed stadium, so obviously you are talking about year round economic opportunities that trickle down into the community.   It's a good investment for that area, no doubt.

    325 million is nothing considering it cost over a billion to build.  That % isn't close to what the state of MA granted Kraft, but what example was?

    It's a good investment for the community. They benefit from that, too.  In fact, most stadiums are built with some semblance of public funding acknowledging that the public does have something at stake for having a local team that brings in that kind of revenue.

    Also, please stop saying they didn't open their books.  They opened their books, the union just feels its entitled to see everything.

    Also, what are these "massive financial concessions" for the union?

    If anything, they should be embarrassed Mark Sanchez made more than Brady in 2009.

    Everywhere you turn, the union struggles to make sense.  

    Unless they say "the owners refuse to help us structure a post career healthcare plan", I am not buying a word from the union.

    They left more beneficial aspects off the table in the last deal and acted like they won, because they were being selfish and looking short term only.  They just thought they'd get 60% and be happy forever, if not more than 60%, apparently.

    FAIL

    I believe the owners want to provide a post career healthcare program that works.  

    Bring down the 60%, start it out at maybe 54% in 2011 to reflect the sluggish economy and the 2008-2010 lack of return from the last deal, and draw it up higher by 1% each year of the deal.  Every 2nd year, take 1% and move that cash into a the players' fund.

    Players' Cut:

    2011 - 54%
    2012 - 55% (donate 1% into fund)
    2013 - 56% 
    2014 - 57% (donate 1%)
    2015 - 58%
    2016 - 59% (donate 1%)

    2017 - Owners Opt Out/Renegotiate based on economy.

    This formula will reflect cost of living increases and the idea that the players still get the majority of the revenue over the life of the deal.

    Take a 1% (every other year) and put it into a pot. 

    That pot is the post career healthcare/pension fund for vested players who have at least 5 years of service (post rookie deal).

    A committee (former players who volunteer) will preside over said pot and control the funds to the former players who need assistance outside of a base stipend for retirement.

    Every new CBA will have one of these.  Pretty simple.

    Cap rookie deals based on position. 

    This will give more money to vested veterans who have a resume. 

    There's your deal.


     
  3. 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:
    If the owners were really suffering financially so much, why didn't they agree to open their books fully?  They are asking for massive financial concessions from the players.  But they aren't willing to show the players the numbers.  I don't see why the players should agree to a whole bunch of anti-competitive practices (like drafts and restrictions on free agency) that are available only through a CBA--plus agree to salary concessions in the CBA--if the owners aren't going to show them why the concessions are necessary.  If the owners don't want to show the numbers, then why should the players grant them any financial concessions at all or especially allow them to continue anti-competitive practices that are possible only with the players' agreement through a CBA?  The decertification and lawsuit are merely the players saying: "Look owners, if you're going to demand big concessions and are not going to share the numbers with us, then there's no reason for us to grant you all the good things the CBA gives you either. We'll just eliminate collective bargaining altogether and go to the same free market system that works in just about every other industry."  TP seems to think this is some kind of "ultra liberal" conspiracy, but since when is abandoning unionization and collective bargaining and embracing the free market liberal?  It seems to me that the players, in getting rid of their union and calling for a free market approach, are being not just conservative, but downright libertarian.   Personally, I do think a CBA is beneficial to everyone, but I don't see any reason for the players to grant the owners all the goodies that the CBA gives the owners--and also accept a big pay cut--unless the owners step up to the table and show the players why all these concessions are necessary. The fact that the owners are so adamant about not opening the expense side of their ledgers suggests to me that there's something on that expense side that doesn't help their case.  I suspect a lot of those "expenses" are really big payments to the owners--and some of those payments might not only outrage the players, but more important, might outrage ordinary taxpayers who have been subsidizing the owners' stadiums.* Jerry Jones, after all, got conservative Arlington, Texas,   to raise taxes to help build his football palace. If it turns out that Jones could have paid for that palace all by himself without the help of the Texas taxpayers, I wonder how Texas Pat and his fellow ultra conservative citizens would feel?  Maybe a bit like suckers? Personally, if we're going to raise taxes, I'd like to see the money going to something like education or even reducing the deficit . . . not to a giant video scoreboard.  But this is the way the owners operate. They threaten that football will go away if their demands aren't met . . . and then all the little scaredy-cat sucker fans rally around saying "yes, massa owner, whatever you want, we'll give you."  The owners must laugh a lot over cigars and cognac . . .    *From Wikipedia: To aid Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent. The City of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding,
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    Prolate - what private entities open their books for the sake of labor negotiations?  At the very least I'd expect you to understand the concept.  Just because someone cuts your lawn doesn't mean that he has a right to sleep in your bed. 

    As for asking for massive financial concessions, the owners have been very upfront about the fact that they made a mistake in the last negotiation by giving away too much, and at least 3 players or former players including the president of the NFLPA have publicly stated that they got the best of the owners the last time. 

    If the players are going to play the "partnership" game while knowing that they've currently got the best of the partnership, then why be so obstinate about working toward a better option?  Have we heard of any concession the NFLPA has been willing to give in the negotiations to date?  I can't remember any.  

    All we know from the NFLPA is that they want 10 years of fully audited financials before even considering any give backs.  IMO this is the ultimate power play.  The players want to turn the salary cap around and put it on the owners.  Why own a business if the employees dictate your profit - and that is exactly what the NFLPA wants.  If the NFLPA gets what it wants they will be working toward a player owned league.  NFL ESOP anyone.  Goodbye goose.  

    As for the draft and free agency restrictions you don't like, the reason for their existence is that the league is not an industry in the same way, for example, the auto industry is an industry.  The league uses the "player movement/placement" rules (no other way to describe it) as a way to attempt to maintain competitive balance within the league.  Without it there is some strong feeling that the league would become competitively imbalanced thereby ultimately killing the goose again.    

    I know that I am going to get your soccer league take again, so I'll attempt to stop it before it begins.  Soccer is the biggest game in the world.  It is more of an industry than the NFL is.  If a player can't get the money he wants in England, he can go to Spain or Italy or Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, US, etc.  Due to the small size of the NFL, there must be some control to player placement, movement, and compensation. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    To speak to the original point of this thread (as I understand it) I'd be astonished if the draft were eliminated.  It would make for a totally chaotic labor market and eliminate any semblance of competitiive balance.

    And count me among those who really don't care who shot John; let's just get him well so that we can have an NFL season this year worth watching.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    "Draft Beer, Not Men" -- Mike Vrabel
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from arodrambone. Show arodrambone's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    negotiating ploy. If you want a good deal you ask for the moon. If you want a bad deal because you are paid off elsewhere, you do like obama did and take the public option off the table before negotiations even start. I dont think the owners ever expected an 18 game schedule. But starting from that point is just good negotiating. I truly hope the players and owners are smart enough to realize that a less even playing field will hurt the game and their wallets. I had a hard time getting jazzed about the sox this year because of the gross disparity in payrolls, even if its not paying off yet for the sox. Who wants to pay big money to watch 75-3 pro football games, which also render player stats virtually meaningless.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns'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 could be wrong but i thought he meant helps the owners to want to get back to negotiating. Meaning they do NOT want no cap. Same for when he said no accrued time for players helps them. Again I think he means help them want to go back to negotiating.
    Posted by Low-FB-IQ


    Well, the ball has been in the union's court the whole time.  They took it upon themselves to not make any concessions or simply agree that their 2006 deal was a little out of whack.

    They played the victim role this whole time and just have made continous boneheaded moves that make them look bad.

    Mike Vrabel strolling out of a casino, half drunk, charged with a felony doesn't help the union's case either.

    I think we can agree the owners opting out of the last deal symbolizes the idea the owners were not thrilled with the way the deal unfolded in the backdrop of an economic meltdown and a current sluggish economy.

    We're past that point.  2 years past it.

    So, that leads us to where we are now, with the union walking away, decertifying and acting desperate, stumbling back to the ropes swinging wildly.

    They can pretend this gives them leverage, but it won't, even if the judge rules in their favor. It just delays the process.

    This is a last dtich effort to try to somehow maintain the 2010 uncapped season, but as long as the owners maintain discipline, it doesn't change the reality.

    That reality is a new, fair CBA has to happen for the league to remain healthy.

    Until the union comes back in and accepts the fair movement  of the owners, there will be no negotiating.

    The players do not get paid until there is a deal.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    Equal leverage? I am pretty sure the owners have no issue with that concept and would sign a new CBA today if that was actually true from the union's perspective. But, alas, with decertification and this lawsuit, it isn't.  That's their version of "equal leverage". The players owned the last deal because it was a glorious, union-favored deal that lost its legs due to the economy and the bank problem. Hence, the Lockout. All this legal rhetoric is nothing more than a prop for lawyers to make money off this supposed problem. As Kraft said, "throw the lawyers out and we have a deal".
    Posted by BBReigns



    "throw the lawyers out and we have a deal".

    What? You can't be serious! Throw out the lawyers?

    Where have you been? Are you the guy in the new Geico ad, that crawls out from under his rock now and then? Cripes, if that happened, it'd be the worst mismatch in the history of the entire world!

    NO WAY the owners match up with the players and their dilligently worked for, highly valued, 2 year degrees (PHd's and Masters all, no doubt) from those  integral, beyond any kind of reproach, bastions of higher learning! Those owners will run like roaches once the light switch is flipped on! 

    Talk about your unfair advantage....... 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    If the owners were really suffering financially so much, why didn't they agree to open their books fully?  They are asking for massive financial concessions from the players.  But they aren't willing to show the players the numbers.  I don't see why the players should agree to a whole bunch of anti-competitive practices (like drafts and restrictions on free agency) that are available only through a CBA--plus agree to salary concessions in the CBA--if the owners aren't going to show them why the concessions are necessary.  If the owners don't want to show the numbers, then why should the players grant them any financial concessions at all or especially allow them to continue anti-competitive practices that are possible only with the players' agreement through a CBA?  The decertification and lawsuit are merely the players saying: "Look owners, if you're going to demand big concessions and are not going to share the numbers with us, then there's no reason for us to grant you all the good things the CBA gives you either. We'll just eliminate collective bargaining altogether and go to the same free market system that works in just about every other industry."  TP seems to think this is some kind of "ultra liberal" conspiracy, but since when is abandoning unionization and collective bargaining and embracing the free market liberal?  It seems to me that the players, in getting rid of their union and calling for a free market approach, are being not just conservative, but downright libertarian.   Personally, I do think a CBA is beneficial to everyone, but I don't see any reason for the players to grant the owners all the goodies that the CBA gives the owners--and also accept a big pay cut--unless the owners step up to the table and show the players why all these concessions are necessary. The fact that the owners are so adamant about not opening the expense side of their ledgers suggests to me that there's something on that expense side that doesn't help their case.  I suspect a lot of those "expenses" are really big payments to the owners--and some of those payments might not only outrage the players, but more important, might outrage ordinary taxpayers who have been subsidizing the owners' stadiums.* Jerry Jones, after all, got conservative Arlington, Texas,   to raise taxes to help build his football palace. If it turns out that Jones could have paid for that palace all by himself without the help of the Texas taxpayers, I wonder how Texas Pat and his fellow ultra conservative citizens would feel?  Maybe a bit like suckers? Personally, if we're going to raise taxes, I'd like to see the money going to something like education or even reducing the deficit . . . not to a giant video scoreboard.  But this is the way the owners operate. They threaten that football will go away if their demands aren't met . . . and then all the little scaredy-cat sucker fans rally around saying "yes, massa owner, whatever you want, we'll give you."  The owners must laugh a lot over cigars and cognac . . .    *From Wikipedia: To aid Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent. The City of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding,
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    Funny stuff!

    So, if you had no stadium in your market, you'd have no home team. Or, if you had a BAD team in your market, and they wanted but didn't get a new stadium, you'd have no team. Some city out there wouild prostitue itself to attract a NFL team. Phoenix did with the Cardinals. Hartford did with the Pats, Los Angeles did it once, but got fat/ugly soon thereafter. Stop kidding yourself.

    Also stop kidding yourself as you apparently support these players who seem to have an overinflated value of themselves. Name me any other indusrty where labor DEMAND ownership open it's books? If they want that information, then turnabout is fair play. Let the players opene THEIR books completely to shed light on how they spent their bonuses/salaries. Do you think either side would ever accept the information "shown"? Again, you're kidding yourself if you think they do. Plus, I'll go on record that these playing Einsteins haven't got a clue as to how to read a ledger sheet, and will claim understanding the meaning of teh words "reading between the lines" when looking at any entry.  

    The NFL owns the game, and it scalds the players. They want to be the game. I again ask these base questions of any player-sided poster, but have gotten NO reply:  1) Did the NFL roll up and die after the early Packer dynasty died? What about their great teams in the 60's? How about after the Steelers and Fins teams of the 70's retired? 2) Anyone recall how the NFL teetered on financial ruiniation after Montana, Rice, LT, Marino, Elway, Kelley, etc, retired from playing? I seem to recall the leagu chugged along, not skipping a beat.  3) When Jim Brown and Unitas retired, did the NFL take down its shingle?

    There will ALWAYS be players, They will eventually play up to their own level of overall competition. It won't matter one iota who plays 2-3 years from now/ Anyone saying different is a fool. Remember, drafted rookies and undrafted FA's do play in the NFL. Some catch on right away and are good, heading to great. Others are overrated and die out like a sprinkler on a rainy 4th of July. There is absolutely no guarantee that ANY player coming into the league will perform at any level of any kind. Go no further than one Tom Brady for that fact.

    I say let the players whine and wither in the wind. if they don't like eh "slave like conditions" of HAVING to accept an average $2.5million/year salary for 5 years (avg career), then I say let them use their highly valued degrees they obtained while metriculatinglong hours at those bastions of higher education and learning, to make the same income over the rest of their lifetimes. They did get educated there, right?

    They play, they get ample compensation. Demanding 60% of the revenue is absolutely insane, while not risking anything. Don't get me going about the threat of injuries. These guys know EXACTLY what they're getting into when they play the game. Remember: those yahoos are hurting themselves, in order to make the POD on TV highlights. Another fine example of using those degrees of higher learning. (They all graduated, right?)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    It comes down to this. 

    If the NFL wins the game stays competetive and worth watching. 

    If the players win the game becomes like baseball and you can buy yourself a championship every year. 
     
  11. 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:
    Good grief...blah-blah-blah:  Do we really need ANOTHER thread in which the Far Right makes grandiose claims that the Players alone are greedy and everyone apparently on earth is on the side of the poor billionaire misunderstood, deserved their empire b/c they started in the sock-room NFL owners, and the far left says that both parties are to blame but end up turning towards the dipsh#t jetsetting sport's playing players because the bible-thumpers won't ShutTFU, and we ALL get in to a shouting match about ObamaCare and Reaganomics and The Republicans tell the Democrats to magically find another job, and The Democrats tell The Republicans to adopt an inner-city child who's whole family was evicted from their cardboard box because they couldn't afford a stick of masking tape for the upkeep...?  I'm sure we'll all come to the same mutual understanding regarding our political leanings that we'd like the owners and players to come to, when all's said and done on this thread here.
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium


         Glad to see that you made it back safe from Mars again, Laz.
     
  12. 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 : Prolate - what private entities open their books for the sake of labor negotiations?  At the very least I'd expect you to understand the concept.  Just because someone cuts your lawn doesn't mean that he has a right to sleep in your bed.  As for asking for massive financial concessions, the owners have been very upfront about the fact that they made a mistake in the last negotiation by giving away too much, and at least 3 players or former players including the president of the NFLPA have publicly stated that they got the best of the owners the last time.  If the players are going to play the "partnership" game while knowing that they've currently got the best of the partnership, then why be so obstinate about working toward a better option?  Have we heard of any concession the NFLPA has been willing to give in the negotiations to date?  I can't remember any.   All we know from the NFLPA is that they want 10 years of fully audited financials before even considering any give backs.  IMO this is the ultimate power play.  The players want to turn the salary cap around and put it on the owners.  Why own a business if the employees dictate your profit - and that is exactly what the NFLPA wants.  If the NFLPA gets what it wants they will be working toward a player owned league.  NFL ESOP anyone.  Goodbye goose.   As for the draft and free agency restrictions you don't like, the reason for their existence is that the league is not an industry in the same way, for example, the auto industry is an industry.  The league uses the "player movement/placement" rules (no other way to describe it) as a way to attempt to maintain competitive balance within the league.  Without it there is some strong feeling that the league would become competitively imbalanced thereby ultimately killing the goose again.     I know that I am going to get your soccer league take again, so I'll attempt to stop it before it begins.  Soccer is the biggest game in the world.  It is more of an industry than the NFL is.  If a player can't get the money he wants in England, he can go to Spain or Italy or Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, US, etc.  Due to the small size of the NFL, there must be some control to player placement, movement, and compensation. 
    Posted by UD6


         Prolate is a soccer fan, Dog(gggg). Need more be said?? LOL!!!

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    If the owners want me to agree to a lower cap on my salary, there's no reason in the world why I can't demand to see their financials before agreeing to it. If they don't want to show the financials, then there's no reason I need to agree to the lower cap. This is a completely reasonable demand and certainly not unprecedented in labor negotiations.  And actually, it's fully protected by law. In NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing the Supreme Court held that during labor negotiations unions do have the right to request financial information.  From the preamble to the Court's opinion:

    In the circumstances of this case, where the employer claimed that it could not afford to pay higher wages but refused the union's request to produce financial data to substantiate this claim, the National Labor Relations Board was justified in finding that the employer had not bargained in good faith and, therefore, had violated 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pp. 149-154.


     
  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 : Funny stuff! So, if you had no stadium in your market, you'd have no home team. Or, if you had a BAD team in your market, and they wanted but didn't get a new stadium, you'd have no team. Some city out there wouild prostitue itself to attract a NFL team. Phoenix did with the Cardinals. Hartford did with the Pats, Los Angeles did it once, but got fat/ugly soon thereafter. Stop kidding yourself.

    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.) 


    Also stop kidding yourself as you apparently support these players who seem to have an overinflated value of themselves. Name me any other indusrty where labor DEMAND ownership open it's books?

    See elsewhere . . . it's actually a fairly common practice in labor negotiations and protected by law.

    The NFL owns the game, and it scalds the players. They want to be the game. I again ask these base questions of any player-sided poster, but have gotten NO reply:  1) Did the NFL roll up and die after the early Packer dynasty died? What about their great teams in the 60's? How about after the Steelers and Fins teams of the 70's retired? 2) Anyone recall how the NFL teetered on financial ruiniation after Montana, Rice, LT, Marino, Elway, Kelley, etc, retired from playing? I seem to recall the leagu chugged along, not skipping a beat.  3) When Jim Brown and Unitas retired, did the NFL take down its shingle?

    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.

     if they don't like eh "slave like conditions" of HAVING to accept an average $2.5million/year salary for 5 years (avg career), then I say let them use their highly valued degrees they obtained while metriculatinglong hours at those bastions of higher education and learning, to make the same income over the rest of their lifetimes. They did get educated there, right? 
    Posted by AZPAT


    You jealous? 


     
  15. 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 : Prolate - what private entities open their books for the sake of labor negotiations?  At the very least I'd expect you to understand the concept.  

    See elsewhere. I understand both the law and typical practice perfectly well. 


    As for asking for massive financial concessions, the owners have been very upfront about the fact that they made a mistake in the last negotiation by giving away too much, and at least 3 players or former players including the president of the NFLPA have publicly stated that they got the best of the owners the last time.  

    I don't know what kind of negotiation you do, but I like to ask for proof of necessity before I make financial concessions. If you accept your negotiating partners' claims on faith, you'll get eaten alive.


    I know that I am going to get your soccer league take again, so I'll attempt to stop it before it begins.  Soccer is the biggest game in the world.  It is more of an industry than the NFL is.  If a player can't get the money he wants in England, he can go to Spain or Italy or Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, US, etc.  Due to the small size of the NFL, there must be some control to player placement, movement, and compensation. 
    Posted by UD6

    Actually, if what you are saying is true, then the NFL is truly a monopoly, which would only strengthen the players' arguments--or maybe force a break up of the league to end the monopoly!



     
  16. 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:
    If the owners want me to agree to a lower cap  on my salary, there's no reason in the world why I can't demand to see their financials before agreeing to it. If they don't want to show the financials, then there's no reason I need to agree to the lower cap. This is a completely reasonable demand and certainly not unprecedented in labor negotiations.  And actually, it's fully protected by law. In NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing the Supreme Court held that during labor negotiations unions do have the right to request financial information.  From the preamble to the Court's opinion: In the circumstances of this case, where the employer claimed that it could not afford to pay higher wages but refused the union's request to produce financial data to substantiate this claim, the National Labor Relations Board was justified in finding that the employer had not bargained in good faith and, therefore, had violated 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pp. 149-154.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    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.  So the players 1) know they are currently in the better position, 2) expected an early termination of the agreement, 3) are also subject to bargaining in good faith. 

    What have the players done to show any good faith to date? 

    The players have requested 10 years of fully audited financials.  They want the details.  Why is that necessary?  The common refrain is that the players want to take the owners to task for paying uncle freddie 500k who does less for the team than a walmart greeter does for walmart.  The fallacy of this arguEment (whoops rusty) is that even if owners were irresponsibly spending a couple million per team, in total that's 64 million leaguewide when the owners are asking for 1 billion. 

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

    So, I'll ask again as I did before what have the players given to this process?  What concessions have they made?  As I see it, they are willing to sit at the table only in body but not in spirit until their demands of full accounting are met.  Until then they refuse to budge one inch. 

    Its the ultimate power play by the players.  They seem to want what the owners have.  Ownership and power.  I am starting to wonder Prolate if you are more of a CFL fan.  The more labor strife the NFL has certainly can't hurt the CFL. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Pro - just as you may be able to cite studies that show stadiums don't produce economic benefits to the areas in which they reside, I'll be happy to provide studies that tell exactly a different story. 

    So which is true?  Probably both, and it depends on how that stadium is used beyond its known use and who is managing that use.  Why does Indy have a retractable roof stadium and a dome before then?  So that it can use the facility year-round. What other uses?  NFL Combine, NCAA basketball tournaments,   High School Football state championships, college football, National band competitions, Concerts, Various convention purposes. 

    Without Indianapolis building its initial dome, we would have never had an NFL team.  What has that done for us?  We've seen downtowns in other cities succumb to urban blight.  Not Indy.  Indianapolis' downtown has managed to avoid it and become even more of a commercial, social, and cultural center for the city.  Whether or not you wish to believe it, the colts and the stadium - and at least as importantly, the people charged with managing them have bear some responsibility for its viability.  Why?  Because the colts and the stadium were first. 

    Why the new stadium?  The old stadium was connected to the convention center and landlocked to future growth.  Indianapolis is a convention city because of its tight downtown.  But Indy began to lose growing conventions due to limited convention space.   Building a new stadium helped the colts get what they wanted while providing an additional benefit to the city allowing it to expand the convention center through the destruction of the initial dome. 

    What would Indianapolis be without the colts - probably worse than Louisville which is just now working to pull its downtown out of the dregs.  In the late 70's people said Louisville was 10 years ahead of Indy.  As indy made a focused push to reinvigorate its urban center, it left Louisville in the dust.  Only now partially due to two stadiums (AAA baseball, and an arena for L'ville BBall) does it appear that Louisville's city center is on its way back to the modern ages.  

    Large market people will never understand the value of a team in the way small markets do.  Large markets easily survive without them (LA anyone?).  Small markets thrive with them.   

    Finally, you may wonder what the city may have been able to do by spending its money elsewhere - 1.  I'd tell you that they've recovered that money through hotel and restaurant use taxes.  2. I'd say that politicians with money to spend but without an idea how to spend it would find very unproductive uses for it.  I can't speak for other cities, but Indy'd be worse off without the colts. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    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.

    Pro - I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.  SD is frequently touted as one of the most talented teams in the league but has yet to win anything.  Normally I'd attribute that to a bad QB, but not the case.  Rivers is one of the best. 

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Brandon Stokely, Adam Vinatieri, Domenic Rhodes, Ken Hamlin, Dexter Reid.  That's just 5 off the top of my head from various periods in the last 10 years.

    I am sure if I went back and looked we'd find many more.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns'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 : See elsewhere. I understand both the law and typical practice perfectly well.  I don't know what kind of negotiation you do, but I like to ask for proof of necessity before I make financial concessions. If you accept your negotiating partners' claims on faith, you'll get eaten alive. Actually, if what you are saying is true, then the NFL is truly a monopoly, which would only strengthen the players' arguments--or maybe force a break up of the league to end the monopoly!
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    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.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    You and I have very very different ideas of what a big name free agent is. 

    Dexter Reid - big name?  The guy started exactly 3 games in a 3 year career.  Yep, he's big time. 

    Stokely - Never caught more than 24 passes in a season for the Ravens where Qadray Ismail (Qadray Ismail???) was the leading receiver in 2 of those 4 seasons.  The reason that Stokely became a colt was because he worked at Manning's passing camp in Louisiana.  Stokely's from LA also.  The colts made stokely a big time receiver, just as Brady did for Welker.  

    Dominic Rhodes is a colt.  He's not a big time FA.  Never was.  Has never been productive outside of the colts system.  In fact, he took more money to play with the Raiders, ran for less than 400 yds and was released the following year by the raiders.  The bills tried him out but cut him before the start of the season.  He is such a big free agent name that no NFL team wanted him so he played in the UFL. 

    Ken Hamlin - Ken Hamlin is a player who's career is over.  A big name player is one who is at or near the top of their career when the come to a team and wanted by many teams.  Hamlin was released by 2 teams in 2010 and then sat at home before the colts picked him up because their secondary was decimated by injuries.  Ken Hamlin did not start for the colts. 

    That leaves Viniateri - and you've got that one right.  That's one. 

    You could suggest Corey Simon who ended up being a bust for the colts but was expected to be one of the few missing links to ultimate success. 

    Those are about the only 2.  If a 3rd had to be considered (but his career was done after his 1 year with the colts, I'd say Anthony (booger) McFarland. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    I wasn't going by "big name". I was going by FAs that Indy signed where they thought those signings would help their team.

    Also, those were literally off the top of my head. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Russ - once again you never cease to amaze me. 

    Once again you've demonstrated that you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  You call out people incessantly for missing contexts (frequently incorrectly I might add) yet here you are again missing one yourself. 

    You say you don't proofread.  That's obvious.  Obviously, you don't read either. 
    The point was that the colts don't pick up big timeFA's.  Prolate was suggesting picking up big time FA's were necessary to teams being championship caliber.  In staying with the context, I pointed out that he couldn't name 5 big time free agents the colts have picked up in the last 10 years, yet they've been at the top of the league and the SB twice. 

    His theory doesn't fit and you missed the point. 

    Buck up Russ, reading comprehension and critical thinking are a part of next year's curriculum.  You'll be up to speed in no time. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    I don't really care what your definition of "big time" free agents is.

    Like I said, if we went back and looked at all of Polian's FA signings, I am pretty sure we could find more than Stokely, Vinatieri, Cory Simon, etc.

    What is your definition of "big time"?  Please don't pretend you can use this opportunity to try to show me up, because it won't work.

    Your premise stinks.  Indy has signed plenty of key free agents in the past.

    In fact, I can only think of one "big time" FA NE signed after ROdney Harrison, and the irony is Harrison was considered washed up.  His nams is Adalius Thomas.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Please feel free to go back and find all of those big time FA's that the colts have signed. 

    Again - stokely doesn't apply.  The colts made him what he became.  Prior the colts he'd never caught more than 24 passes in a year. 

    And as for "showing you up", I don't need to try and do that.  You do it to yourself, all by yourself, on a daily basis on this board.  We all know it.  My only reason for pointing it out is to make sure you know it.  Consider it a gift from me to you. 

    A big time free agent is a player desired by many teams.  A player who commands a big salary due to prior play and expectations of future play for multiple years.  Adalius Thomas would fit that bill for the pats.  Viniateri for the colts.  Simon for the colts. 

    I didn't say the pats took big time FA's.  Seems to me that Belichick prefers to get them just outside of their most productive and expensive years when he thinks they may have 2 or 3 good ones left. 

    The only difference between the pats and the colts on the free agent front is that Belichick does seem to like to play in it while the colts generally attempt to avoid it. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share