NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric2. Show KyleCleric2's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    TexasPat, that player agent argument is BS. The players want to win their anti-trust suit to lift the lockout. Rules for player movement are obvious anti-trust violations if a contract between the players and league isn't in place.
     
  2. 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:
    [QUOTE]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.  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?  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    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.
     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]


    as usual talking about a sport you know nothing about... and thats in addition to football...
     
  4. 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...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6'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. 

    The vast majority of information supplied suggests that the owners have made multiple offers and come off their initial revenue requests substantially.  I don't recall any information publicly released that the players have made any formal offer beyond keeping things exactly where they are or requiring 10 years of audited financials to consider any changes.  We do know however, that multiple current and former players have publicly stated that they were the significant winners in the last negotiation.  That makes it understandable why the players don't want a change and why the owners do.  While I can't disagree that the owners hurt their position by trying to "backdoor" some revenue to them, they may have done this after they realized there was not going to be any movement from the players.  If the players truly want partnership, then a question must be asked, how is it that they currently get a majority of the revenue but don't share in any of the expenses or risk?

    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. 

    If one knows the revenue and knows the profitability then simple math can provide the expense information.  The detailed financials going back 10 years is simply an attempt to gain more leverage over the owners by having the opportunity to challenge every possible expense item they can.  Providing the information doesn't even come close to serving the owners purpose in theory or negotiation practice.  

    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.  

    How much more "fair" does this need to be for the players?  They currently earn more of the revenue pie than the owners while not taking on any of the expenses.  Since you like to bring up the free market, what other business do you know where its labor cost is more 50% of its total revenue?   


    ___________________

    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.

    If I am correct.  The NFL shares more revenue among teams than any other league.  Even as a small market fan, I don't begrudge Kraft or Jones earning their "extras" without sharing.  Its one of the benefits, I suppose, of being in the big market.  I understand that the players want that money, too (it is the very purpose of the union to extract as much for the people it represents as possible).  What you have effectively done here, however, is demonstrate that the expense side of the equation is growing possibly unsustainably under the current structure for a majority of the teams.  I count about 11 franchises as large market (or potential large market) which is only 1/3.  The fact is that under the current structure, until profitability can't be solidified for all markets, then the owners will have to take the necessary steps to get them there.  No business should be run assuming a different set of principals. 
     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]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, a nd more revenue sharing.  Or they all play by the capitalist rules which means none of that stuff. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
    Socialism for the players?  I am not aware of a player revenue sharing program within the players association.  Maybe this was in one of those legal briefs I didn't read and I am just talking out my a**.  

    On the other hand, aren't Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones already sacrificing earnings by sharing revenue among other teams?  Aren't the owners the ones actually already engaging in a form of socialism?

    Heck, if we are going to extend the amount of socialism in the game because as a small league it is not an industry in the same way the auto industry is an industry, then the players are going to have to play in it too.  There will have to be full player revenue sharing with equal pay for all players and the elimination of free agency altogether.  
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : as usual talking about a sport you know nothing about... and thats in addition to football...
    Posted by jcour382[/QUOTE]

        LOL!!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    Russ - the idea of no draft is really a ridiculous one.  The NFL had the foresight to develop a league that attempted to maintain competitive balance through significant ownership revenue sharing, a bottom up draft, and a salary cap. 

    In this limited situation (the real world doesn't work this way),  these ideas work to give each team an opportunity to be successful, whereas without it that opportunity dramatically decreases. 

    The players' negotiators don't care about this.  Their responsibility is to get as much for the players at possible.  Further, with their short careers, they really don't have to care about the long term health of the league. 

    Given the consistent and substantial benefit and salary increases the players have achieved over the last 40 years, its not hard to support the owners in this case at all.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. 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:
    [QUOTE]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.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Over the last 5 years, all but 8 teams have made the playoffs.   I think that is fairly well balanced. 
     
  14. 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
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    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. 
     
  16. 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 . . .
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    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. 
     
  18. 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? 
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6'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.

    The rookie wage scale is not a player "give".  There is simply no way to characterize it as such.  It is well known that vets don't like seeing rookies who haven't proven anything get more money than they have.  Yet, the NFLPA played it as if it was a "give" by then suggesting that rookie contracts be limited to fewer years than are already on the books.  I also don't believe that most players care about the 18 game season, especially if the preseason that they hate and training camp are limited in order to get the 18 game season.  Further the longer season means more pay in each player's pocket which is something they want regardless of whether or not it means two more games.  That said, certainly the players would prefer something for nothing.  Finally, I have to disagree with you about the players willingness to "negotiate".  Sure they've been at the table, but they have offered little. 

    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). 

    Yep, these owners could be spending a million dollars or significantly less by putting Uncle Fred and Cousin Eddie on the payroll.  It's their business, and a million per team doesn't scratch the surface of the owners initial request and is only 10% of the owners last revised request.  I suppose the owners could seek a financial responsibility clause for all current and future players contracts as well to ensure that they have something left to retire on.   

    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.

    If the firms you mention are partnerships and the compensation includes profits to the partners then that's an apples and oranges comparison.  As for Euro Soccer, the 5 big  leagues generated 9.4b in rev and paid out 5b in sal or 53% of rev, but what you left out is that a premier league team had to declare bankruptcy and only 2 of the 5 leagues generated an operating profit for the 08-09 year.  Further, of the 98 teams that comprise these 5 leagues 20 of them generate more than 40% of the revenue.  That's a big concentration.  clearly there is not great competition between the haves and have nots.  Is that what you want for the NFL? 

    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?

    Players salaries exceed 50% of total revenue.  The owners say they need to scale that back.  I don't expect the players to want to agree to a formula that cuts their number below that 50%, but that is what is being requested.  Of course, maybe the teams could have the players ride on buses to games less than 5 hours away and stay in motel 6's at away games.  The basis for my feelings is maintaining a competitive balance within the league.  If due to this revenues again skyrocket than the players can demand an opt out like the owners did. 

    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.

    And again, the NFL is a unique entity where such an arrangement actually serves a positive purpose that wouldn't be served if applied by the country, imo. 

    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 . . .

    And we will see the destruction of the NFL as we know it.  Yep, isn't it telling that the NFL has no problem allowing free agency for the players they deemed not good enough to take during the draft?  Retailers call it the clearance rack.  Sometimes you can find gems.  Generally, you understand why they ended up there. 
     
  21. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft : 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. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    I think you missed my point.
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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 . . .


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6'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.
     
    Sorry Pro, I don't agree that is a give if only for the very reason you provide.  The individuals that the current rules support are those who are not yet even in the union.  If we are to agree with Gene Upshaw's statement that he didn't represent retired players, then it is also true that the NFLPA doesn't represent uncontracted draft eligible individuals.  And given that the current membership wants the current arrangement scuttled just as much as the owners do (its not as if the money is being taken away - just redirected) then accepting a change is not a give.  So beyond this, exactly what have the players offered?  They've offered to accept shorter length contracts for rookies.  How generous.  They've accepted, per you, to consider an 18 game season which would pay them more money.  Very giving.  Per your own comments you've read all of this labor material.  What other substansive offers have the players made?

    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.

    So are you suggesting that the players don't think the owners should pay themselves anything?  If not, rather than asking for the books (if this is the problem) the players should tell the owners exactly how much they think the owners should pay themselves.  And I am not sure where you work, but if I tell an employee that I have to cut pay because expenses are too high and they challenge me on this then they may have to find a new job.   

    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.

    As you may recall, my concern is for the effectiveness of the competitive balance of the league.  If marginally limited players wages help ensure that, then I am all for it.  Isn't it amazing how backwards the Euros have it?
    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.

    Well as it seems to me, the owners have already done more than their part through socialist means to ensure competitive balance. Its now time for the players to do their part.  Since their first collective bargaining agreement over 40 years ago, the players have done nothing but take.  If they truly want to take it all the way to entirely free market principals then they cannot attempt to suggest that their efforts to attain such status does anything to benefit the league. 

    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.

    The NFL is very unique.  What the league is allowed to do would not be allowed by nearly any other industry.  Their unique legal status allows them to run a successful league that imo wouldn't be so successful if that status were taken away. 

    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 . . .

    Who said that the reductions the NFL has requested would result in lower wages.  In fact, the NFL said their offer increases 2011 compensation and agrees to the players requested cap # for 2014.  Doesn't really sound like a reduction in wages to me.  The fact is players want nothing more than to maximize their take at the owners expense while the owners having been giving in to their demands for years. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft

    In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft:
    [QUOTE]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...
    Posted by jcour382[/QUOTE]

    Sorry that'cha got in the way jcour...In my heart of heart's, I too, am a moderate; And as I've stated on thread's here RE: this subject, I believe Players & Owners have varying degrees of fault, and coupled with some of their actions & attitudes, one cannot help to see both have been to blame... 

    Yet as always, when I read the sentiments of the righteous Right, in their attempts to bully people further down the social and financial landscape, behind fictionalized & ignorantly conjectured beliefs, ambiguous & cryptic double-talk that together both supports m#ronic lines of generalized deductions of untruths, based off of their specific hypothesises of total untruths.....well, It is then therefore, that rather than seeing these people like the Comic Page characters they are-Comical people saying comical things, I Instead, see them as some sort of Power Broker archetype: corruption, hypocrisy, ignorance, vanity...pretty much all in the name of greater forms of greed & power control. 

    I shouldn't...  But they're loud...Loud and ALWAYS "in the right" (according to their world view).  Which, in turn, always inevitably brings me down from sitting nicely on my moderate fence now on the side of completely militarized Left, So I can try to make them ShutTFU...  There just seems something fully wrong in their total devotion to power hierarchies, whether it be race, religion, money, wealth, and then far more often than not, a healthy number & degree of all these types of controls...oh, and just control, itself... 

    But it never works.  They only shut up for a minute, and I believe now they can at least respect both sides even just 1 degree better... But a minute later they're back up on the pulpit, and now (sigh) I'm getting arrested again, because I punched a moderate with my brass knuckles in the melee who was just tryin' to get a word in or even tryin' to breakup the fight, and they're STILL talking st#pid when I'm get hauled away...and I know when I make bail, I'm just gonna up and do it all over again until the end of time. 
     

Share