Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382'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 : Europe has 50 countries, possibly dozens of professional soccer leagues of varying skill levels and hundreds of professional teams.  Comparing European Soccer leagues to the NFL is apples and oranges.  I don't recall Russell, Stafford, Bradford, et al complaining about going to the worst team #1.  Further, do you think the Pats or the Colts or Packers or Saints would have signed any of these players for the money they received for going to those crappy teams? The fact is the NFL is not the free market, but for a vast majority of the players it is suspected that it pays significantly better than a free market would.  The left bemoans executive pay as compared to the average in this country.  A free market NFL would be the same way and the opportunity for competitive balance through revenue sharing would likely be eliminated.  Oh, and soccer is the most popular sport in Europe and the world partially because all it requires is space and a ball.  That's it.  Its the most accessible (affordable) sport in the world.
    Posted by UD6



    as usual talking about a sport you know nothing about... and thats in addition to football...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    hey laz....

    your assuming you know my political leaning...dont forget I was born and raised in massachusettes by very liberal democratic parents.. but you dont know me...and when you assume...well you know the rest...

    could you say the same about your leaning..which youve clearly left out in the open....by the way... i prefer not to lean towards the liberal left or the conservative right... i think independantly and go with whom ever I agree with on a praticular issue...

    obviously on this one we do not agree...
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    There is little enough competitive balance in the NFL already so how could the NFLPA destroy much more of it.  I have the Patriots as going 15-1 in the 2011 regular season.  Their average is slightly above 12-4 over a decade.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

     There are two kinds of owners in professional sports.

     The kind that look at ownership from a purely business sense. Their main goal is to turn as large a profit as possible.

     Then there's the Krafts of sports. One time fans who made their money elsewhere and used their money and credit with the banks( since no one pays cash for sports teams ) to buy the team they grew up with and help bring championships to their home town.

     The direction the player's union would like to turn the NFL in would drive away the Krafts and the league would turn more into the WWF
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    @UD

    1. The union made a detailed counter proposal back in October and has made numerous suggestions throughout the negotiations according to press reports. These include, most significantly, agreeing in principal to a rookie salary scale. In the October counter proposal the union even provided a path to the 18-game season that they would have considered.  The idea that the union has been intransigent seems to be a fabrication made up mostly by posters on the internet.  It doesn't make much sense, either, given that federal mediators were involved.  It's unlikely they would have tolerated negotiation in bad faith.

    2. The nature of the teams' expenses is significant.  Two things in particular come to mind: (1) Some expenses could actually be salary payments to owners or firms owned by owners. If a large amount of the teams' profits is being eaten up by salaries paid to owners, then the teams are really much richer than their profitability data would show.  (2) The teams are profitable for the most part and owners have argued that they need concessions because they can't grow the business and because expenses are growing too fast.  To judge the merits of this claim, one needs to see what the expenses actually are and one needs to see them over a reasonably long period to uncover real trends (five or six years at a minimum). 


    3. Many businesses that rely on highly skilled labor pay large percentages of their revenues in compensation. Fifty percent is quite high, but the investment banks, top law firms, and top consulting firms frequently pay percentages in the 40% to 60% range.  More significantly, soccer teams in Europe (which don't have anti-competitive arrangements like salary caps) pay upwards of 60%.  The Premier League, paid 86% of its revenues in salaries according to the accounting firm Deloitte. Of course, salaries in most industries are set by markets, not by trying to adjust salary levels to any "ideal" percentage of revenues. Where businesses rely on scarce talent, salaries will rise. It's simple supply and demand.


    4. Under the most recent CBA salary expenses grew pretty much in lockstep with league wide revenue.  You can't expect the players to agree to a formula that limits their salaries to what poor teams can afford.  If that's the deal the players were offered (and it seems in fact to be what the owners are trying to do), I can't blame them for deciding to go to a free market approach instead.  Remember, the CBA limits player salaries (a salary cap is a limit).  Why would anyone expect the players to agree to a limit on pay (applied equally to both rich and poor teams) that is set based on what poor teams can afford?

    5. A salary arrangement that sets floors, caps, and minimum salaries is indeed a socialist approach that results in limiting the revenue that can go to players and also restricting its distribution within certain parameters.

    6. If the players win their lawsuit and the draft is determined to be illegal under anti-trust law, then teams will just hire players like any other business.  Most other businesses in the world find it possible to hire employees without a draft. Players coming out of college would go for interviews (tryouts really), teams would make offers, and players would accept the offer they most like.  In fact, the NFL hires about half its rookies every year using this exact process. It's called rookie free agency.  And as far as I can tell, it hasn't resulted in the end of the world as we know it or in the corruption of the whole human race . . .
     
  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:
    I would agree that the type of league envisioned by the players would drive an owner like Kraft from the business, but if you are inferring that Kraft doesn't want to profit from the operation, I would challenge that.  There may be owners that do not care about winning, but I don't think any of them want to lose money. 
    Posted by UD6


    Actually, I think Kraft is perfectly capable of operating in a nonunionized, free market environment--especially given the great market for sports in New England. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    So Rusty, is this "Riding with the King" moniker some kind of elaborate pun on BBReigns . . . given that kings reign and Riding with the King is a BB King album? 
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    First of all, there is no NFLPAat the current time. It decertified.

    Second if true, i disagree with the players who want to do away with the draft, but I could buy into unfettered free agency.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    @UD

    1.A rookie wage scale is a give regardless of what you think. It doesn't affect current union members but it will affect all future ones if it goes into effect. And it does limit pay.  If you want to call everything the players have offered meaningless and everything the owners have offered meaningful, then of course you'll find the owners more cooperative than the players. But that's just UD's opinion. The players have made substantive offers--you just choose not to consider them substantive.

    2. The owners could be paying themselves tens of millions too . . . no one knows without seeing expenses.  The players are smart to ask for proof of expense troubles before agreeing to big concessions.  You may think otherwise, but it's not your paycheck at stake. If you wouldn't do the same in the same situation then you're a fool.

    3. Yep, one team went bankrupt.  That happens in a free market. The players do quite well in those teams.  That's why the players in the NFL agreeing to a salary cap is a huge concession to the owners. The owners should have been more appreciative.  Oh well, they weren't.  Now maybe they'll have to actually compete in a free market just like teams in those socialist European countries do.

    4. Revenue sharing will maintain competitive balance just as much as cuts in player pay--maybe even more so.  So why are you against expanding revenue sharing but for cutting player pay?  I think it's just bias.

    5. The NFL may or may not be "unique" but the laws apply to the teams just like they apply to all other businesses. From a legal perspective, NFL teams aren't all that unique.  Again, this is your opinion.  It has nothing to do with the law that actually applies in the real world.

    6. So free markets are good when they reduce wages but not when they increase wages?  Yeah, that would be convenient for the owners wouldn't it? No wonder the players aren't signing up . . .


     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    UD, this is ridiculous.  

    Again, your opinion that the players offers (and they've made a series of them, according to reports) aren't "generous" has no bearing on anything.  They are under no obligation to be generous to the owners. In a negotiation they have the same rights to assert their self interest as the owners do. The players have shown willingness to compromise on many of the owners' demands.  The crux of the dispute (apparently) is that the owners want to significantly limit future salary growth, ostensibly because expenses are unmanageable.  The players--quite reasonably--have asked for proof of expense growth as a prerequisite to signing any agreement that limits their future pay growth.  There's nothing unusual about this. It happens all the time in collective bargaining and in fact is a protected right under various court rulings.  Remember this negotiation is about a salary cap--i.e., a limit on total player pay. Even having a cap is a huge concession on the part of the players--and one they've "given" the owners for many years now.  The reason the players agreed to a cap in the past, however, is because the calculation of the cap allowed them to share in future revenue growth.  From what I've seen of the NFL's proposals (and the information released is admittedly quite sketchy and highly selective), the NFL is trying to cut players out of a large portion of future revenue growth. If I were a player I'd be very reluctant to sign an agreement that limited my salary and didn't give me much upside potential to share in future revenue growth. This sounds like a bad deal to me.  I can't blame the players for being reluctant to go along with it.  And if the owners are going to try to turn the CBA into an agreement that primarily limits player pay, I certainly don't blame the players for giving up altogether on a CBA in favor of free and unrestricted negotiation between players and teams. 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts