Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Radical** · 05-14-2011, 04:31 AM

I just don't the vitriol for the union and Smith when the owners are just as culpable for this as well. The owners have been found by multiple judges to be breaking the law, they demand the players take a massive play-cut without providing any justification other than, "because I said so," and they've been just as vicious through the media as anyone from the players union. It almost comes off as nothing more than classifying a situation through a political lens more than an ingenuous response to what's actually going on.

I'm almost certain that there are some people who simply hear the word union and immediately start spewing off political rhetoric and talking points instead of really trying to understand the situation.

Beef · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2011 07:18 AM by Beef.)

(05-14-2011 04:31 AM)Radical Wrote: I just don't the vitriol for the union and Smith when the owners are just as culpable for this as well. The owners have been found by multiple judges to be breaking the law, they demand the players take a massive play-cut without providing any justification other than, "because I said so," and they've been just as vicious through the media as anyone from the players union. It almost comes off as nothing more than classifying a situation through a political lens more than an ingenuous response to what's actually going on.

I'm almost certain that there are some people who simply hear the word union and immediately start spewing off political rhetoric and talking points instead of really trying to understand the situation.

This has been debated at length before and I'll ask again... what is this "pay-cut" you speak of?

These players are under contracts to get paid X amount of money for playing football and those contracts aren't changing. The league minimum salary isn't going down from $428K (or whatever it was at, something close) to $300k. The guys with $50 million contracts aren't suddenly going to have $40 million contracts instead. The players benefits, like health insurance, life insurance, disability, and 401k matching isn't going to be reduced. The stipends they get while traveling aren't going away. The food they don't have to pay for isn't going away. They're not suddenly going to have to start paying for their airfare and hotels.

They will get their contracts and then the owners will pay for everything else that they have always paid for. Those are called "benefits". They are ancillary to player pay and FREE, 100% paid for by the owners already.

So if the players are still going to be making their contracted amounts and the owners are going to be paying for free benefits to them, we're simply talking about siphoning "profits" above contracted pay and benefits for what? So the NFLPA can do what with that extra money? Increase ex-players pensions? Pay more to the NFLPA coffers? For what?

So the amounts the players signed contracts for and all the ancillary free shit the owners give on top of those contracts isn't enough??? Are you fuckin kidding me?

There is no pay-cut.

**Radical** · 05-14-2011, 08:24 AM

The NFL gets a cut off the top of all profits, around 1 billion if I remember correctly. The rest is then divided up amongst everyone else by percentages, including the players. The owners want to increase the size of that cut off the top. So naturally, if the owners get a larger cut before the rest is divided, the amount of money sent towards the players is going to decrease. This means a decrease in the size of the salary cap, which means that overall, players will be making less money.

It isn't really that complex. If you look at the "players" as just the guys who make 10 million a year, yeah, it isn't a big deal. When you start looking at practice squad guys, nth string bench warmers, etc. The players will be losing money. If nothing changed, everything was free, and all the players were making millions, then there wouldn't be an argument to begin with. It isn't the players that are demanding more, it is the NFL owners. The owners backed out, claiming that some of the teams were losing money or the profit margins weren't to their liking. The players called bullshit, demanded proof, and the owners aren't sharing the numbers.

Beef · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2011 09:41 AM by Beef.)

(05-14-2011 08:24 AM)Radical Wrote: The NFL gets a cut off the top of all profits, around 1 billion if I remember correctly. The rest is then divided up amongst everyone else by percentages, including the players. The owners want to increase the size of that cut off the top. So naturally, if the owners get a larger cut before the rest is divided, the amount of money sent towards the players is going to decrease. This means a decrease in the size of the salary cap, which means that overall, players will be making less money.

It isn't really that complex. If you look at the "players" as just the guys who make 10 million a year, yeah, it isn't a big deal. When you start looking at practice squad guys, nth string bench warmers, etc. The players will be losing money. If nothing changed, everything was free, and all the players were making millions, then there wouldn't be an argument to begin with. It isn't the players that are demanding more, it is the NFL owners. The owners backed out, claiming that some of the teams were losing money or the profit margins weren't to their liking. The players called bullshit, demanded proof, and the owners aren't sharing the numbers.

That doesn't make sense. Find documentation that confirms that what players sign contracts for is some how going to be changed as a result of this and I'll believe it.

The league minimum is the league minimum. If you're a UDFA and happen to make the 53 man roster, you will sign a contract for the league minimum and you won't make any less than that amount no matter how much the owners take off the top or no matter what happens to this $1 billion that's being squabbled over.

That's the point, your contract says how much you will get paid, PERIOD. And this includes bonuses for hitting stat quotas, making the playoffs, and incentives for things like attendance at workouts or practices. It's all laid out in every player contract and it can't arbitrarily be changed. Contract law prevents that or people can sue.

Even guys who only make the PS sign a contract for a specified amount they and their organization agrees upon. Those numbers DO NOT CHANGE.

The rest of what players get are "benefits" that cost them nothing. There's piles and piles of free benefits given to them above their contracts. The owners call this "overhead".

The players will not lose pay if the owners take money off the top. The attorney's and staff that work for the NFLPA and god knows what they spend money on, sure, they might be getting less money, but the players signed contracts for a specified amount and it can't be changed. There is no "pay-cut" to the players.

**papachaz** · 05-14-2011, 10:56 AM

the only pay cuts i can really see for any of the players is in the form of the rookie pay scale they're trying to install. my take from what i've heard/seen from a lot of the veterans is they kind of agree with this. when the new guys come in making gazillions of dollars and they're unproven, yeah there should be some kind of limitations put there.

not so sure i agree that it should be 4 year contracts. all the talk every year at draft time is, 'wait three years, then judge_________' (insert player here) so if at three years we have a good idea what he can do, then the rookie contracts should be for 3 years. i'd like to see some provision that at the end of that, the team who drafted and spent the money to coach up or train or develop (what ever you want to call it) should have the first right to re-sign.

the way inflation has hit me buying groceries, what's the costs the owners have to endure to provide all these extra benefits.? and yes the owner of any company has the right NOT to show the books to the employees, and they have a right to expect to make a certain profit level ----- full circle back to the point phocis was making, there are too many $$$$$ to be lost by everyone involved not to have a season this year

Penumbra · 05-14-2011, 06:17 PM

(05-14-2011 10:56 AM)papachaz Wrote: there are too many $$$$$ to be lost by everyone involved not to have a season this year.

It might be going beyond the $,...there is a trend by unions, lately, to demand everything no matter the cost to owners of teams and companies/industries. This rigid view is not held by the owners. Players are making record breaking money and want more?

This is all politics ya'll. Rich owners, rich oil, rich this and rich that are the targets by thugs. They've brought the U.S. economy down. Now they want to ruin our favorite game.

**Radical** · 05-14-2011, 07:33 PM

(05-14-2011 09:38 AM)Beef Wrote: That doesn't make sense. Find documentation that confirms that what players sign contracts for is some how going to be changed as a result of this and I'll believe it.

The league minimum is the league minimum. If you're a UDFA and happen to make the 53 man roster, you will sign a contract for the league minimum and you won't make any less than that amount no matter how much the owners take off the top or no matter what happens to this $1 billion that's being squabbled over.

That's the point, your contract says how much you will get paid, PERIOD. And this includes bonuses for hitting stat quotas, making the playoffs, and incentives for things like attendance at workouts or practices. It's all laid out in every player contract and it can't arbitrarily be changed. Contract law prevents that or people can sue.

Even guys who only make the PS sign a contract for a specified amount they and their organization agrees upon. Those numbers DO NOT CHANGE.

The rest of what players get are "benefits" that cost them nothing. There's piles and piles of free benefits given to them above their contracts. The owners call this "overhead".

The players will not lose pay if the owners take money off the top. The attorney's and staff that work for the NFLPA and god knows what they spend money on, sure, they might be getting less money, but the players signed contracts for a specified amount and it can't be changed. There is no "pay-cut" to the players.

I don't see how the concept escapes you. If you lower the minimum and maximum amount of money all teams dedicate to players across the board, contract sizes in the future are going to decrease and teams are going to mess with their rosters to trim back how much money they're spending.

**Radical** · 05-14-2011, 07:34 PM

(05-14-2011 06:17 PM)Penumbra Wrote: It might be going beyond the $,...there is a trend by unions, lately, to demand everything no matter the cost to owners of teams and companies/industries. This rigid view is not held by the owners. Players are making record breaking money and want more?

This is all politics ya'll. Rich owners, rich oil, rich this and rich that are the targets by thugs. They've brought the U.S. economy down. Now they want to ruin our favorite game.

You have anything worth saying other than generic rhetoric about how unions kick dogs, eat babies, and want to steal your bacon?

**Radical** · 05-14-2011, 07:38 PM

(05-14-2011 10:56 AM)papachaz Wrote: the way inflation has hit me buying groceries, what's the costs the owners have to endure to provide all these extra benefits.? and yes the owner of any company has the right NOT to show the books to the employees, and they have a right to expect to make a certain profit level ----- full circle back to the point phocis was making, there are too many $$$$$ to be lost by everyone involved not to have a season this year

They aren't employees. They are contractors. If I had a group of contractors working for a company and they recently agreed to allocate a certain amount towards keeping everyone contracted, and they opted out of the agreement and demanded that they get a larger chunk of the profit at the cost of your pay, even though all records show that they're making massive profits, I would fight it tooth and nail.

If it was so simple, then the judges wouldn't be finding the actions of the NFL illegal. Que "liberal judges" rant from someone on here...

**papachaz** · 05-14-2011, 08:21 PM

(05-14-2011 07:38 PM)Radical Wrote: They aren't employees. They are contractors. If I had a group of contractors working for a company and they recently agreed to allocate a certain amount towards keeping everyone contracted, and they opted out of the agreement and demanded that they get a larger chunk of the profit at the cost of your pay, even though all records show that they're making massive profits, I would fight it tooth and nail.

If it was so simple, then the judges wouldn't be finding the actions of the NFL illegal. Que "liberal judges" rant from someone on here...

i guess i don't know enough to know the difference in contractors and employees. i've worked for a couple of companies that were union, we were still considered employees. wages and benefits were negotiated through the union contract though. i guess in reality that made me a contractor instead of an employee? I admit i made damn good money at that last job. that was also the job i was on when i had the first and second back injuries and subsequent surgeries. through all that, not one freakin union rep EVER checked on me to make sure i was being taken care of. so after years of paying union dues, going to meetings, etc.... once i was hurt, i never heard from them at all. forgive me if i'm sour on unions....