Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

CBA extended 7 more days


DMD
 Share

Recommended Posts

With the owners opening the books more than they ever had, not even available to individual clubs before, and the union rejecting to look at it, I put the blame with the players even more. Clearly they want it done, and as DMD stated, numbers can be crunched any which ways to make any statement , for any party involved. Either get it done already or end the damn circus and the players can go work at McDonalds if they're unhappy with making millions a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With the owners opening the books more than they ever had, not even available to individual clubs before, and the union rejecting to look at it, I put the blame with the players even more. Clearly they want it done, and as DMD stated, numbers can be crunched any which ways to make any statement , for any party involved. Either get it done already or end the damn circus and the players can go work at McDonalds if they're unhappy with making millions a year.

The more BS that comes up from this is starting to sour me. De. Smith cares not about football, he cares about looking strong for the PA, and NOTHING else, reguardless if it hurts the NFLPA/Owners. The longer this drags out, the more likely I'll be to turn my back on the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

Report: Agreement reached on rookie wage scale

 

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 9, 2011, 4:33 PM EST

 

While the NFL and NFLPA wrangle over potentially crippling transparency issues, they have reportedly settled a smaller problem.

 

Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports that the two sides have reached a compromise on a rookie wage scale. The new plan will replace the current rookie salary cap and limit the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonuses available to draft picks.

 

Details on the guaranteed money available have yet to be revealed but here’s a few key points to the agreement.

 

1. Rookie first-round contracts will be limited to four years. The owners backed off an original idea to require first-round picks signing for five years.

 

2. Players drafted after the first round will be limited to three-year contracts. Players would be restricted free agents in the fourth year. This isn’t much different from the current system, when the majority of picks after the first round wind up with three-year contracts.

 

It’s hard to evaluate the new system without knowing how much the high first round picks will make. Cole reports the owners’ original offer for the No. 1 overall pick would have been a five-year, $19 million contract. Only $6 million was guaranteed. (For comparison, Sam Bradford got $50 million guaranteed on a six-year deal last year.)

 

The owners eventually backed off such a drastic reduction, but we don’t know by how much. Eagles president Joe Banner has been involved in the negotiations, according to Paul Domowitch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

 

The key concession from the union’s perspective is that first-round picks will hit free agency faster. The good ones will ultimately be rewarded with a big second contract faster than under the old system. (Just think of the leverage Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco would have now after three seasons.)

 

In the end, ballooning rookie deals was a big problem for the league that had to be corrected.

 

Now they just have to correct everything else.

 

ETA Second article:

:tup:

 

 

Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale

 

By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports

2 hours, 22 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON – While the NFL Players Association and owners remain far apart on the most critical issue – how to split approximately $9 billion in revenues – the two sides have reached agreements on a couple of smaller issues.

 

According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap. The owners backed off the idea of requiring first-round picks to sign five-year deals, instead limiting the contracts to four years before a player could become a free agent. The agreement is also expected to include a stipulation limiting the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonus offered to draft picks.

 

In addition, the league agreed that all players drafted after the first round would be limited to three-year deals, but teams would be allowed to put restricted free agent tags after the three years. That’s essentially similar to the current process where players can be tagged as restricted free agents after a three-year deal, although the existing rule allows players drafted after the first round to sign four-year pacts.

 

The key change is for the players in the first round. Currently, the first 16 players taken in the first round can sign for up to six years. The next 16 players taken can sign up to five years.

 

The reason the union wanted shorter deals is that it allows good players to get to free agency faster. While the owners and players agreed that high picks such as quarterbacks JaMarcus Russell(notes), Matthew Stafford(notes) and Sam Bradford(notes) were paid too much under the old system, it was important to the union that good players who proved themselves got a chance to cash in faster and avoid the risks of injury. Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley(notes) are among recent late first-rounders or second-round picks who have sought (and in the case of Johnson, was granted) new contracts because they felt they had outperformed their rookie deals.

 

In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts. For instance, the league’s first proposal called for the top pick in the draft to get a maximum five-year, $19 million deal. Only $6 million of that would have been guaranteed. The deal would have included no bonuses for play time or achievement, such as making the Pro Bowl.

 

That would have been in stark contrast to the six-year, $72 million deal that Bradford received last year. That deal included $50 million guaranteed.

 

“We all saw the problem with the current system, but you have to give a guy a chance to get paid if he’s a good player,” one source said. “After three years, you pretty much know if a guy is a good player.”

 

In addition to the rookie wage scale, the NFLPA is also expected to agree on stronger language to allow teams to recoup money from players who get in trouble with the law, such as then-Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick(notes) or Plaxico Burress(notes) with the New York Giants. In the Vick case, he was allowed to keep approximately $20 million in signing-bonus money despite going to prison for dog-fighting and related charges.

 

In essence, the NFLPA received strong support from other players who said that players such as Vick and Burress should not be allowed to keep money in those situations.

Edited by lennykravitz2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be naive in asking this, but isn't the total revenue known by all parties?

 

If that's the case, and all parties know what percentage of the the revenue goes to the players and what percentage goes to the owners, then asking the owners to open their books is only going to tell how much they're spending on operations, finances, and investments. I don't really see how that does the players any good. Different franchises are going to choose to use their capital in different ways, but they'll all have one thing in common: their number one expense is going to be player salaries.

 

I guess that they could look at the bottom line as the owners' take home, but its doubtful that the owners are paying themselves all of the team's net income each year. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the owners have figured out how to make these franchises lose money on paper. I'd be shocked if they weren't running expenses from their other business ventures through the teams' books in order to minimize their team taxes while showing better returns in their other businesses.

 

Plus opening the books isn't going to give the players any idea about the value of the franchises themselves, which is probably where the majority of the return on investment actually lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston, we have a problem

 

 

Players Association boss DeMaurice Smith announced Wednesday that the players will under no circumstances agree to an 18-game NFL season. It's common knowledge that the players don't want 18 games, but this is the first time Smith has said it so publicly and adamantly. According to SI's Jim Trotter, an extended regular season is "off the negotiating table." Said Smith, "18 games is not in the best interest of our players' safety, so we're not doing it." We don't want an 18-game season, either, but we also worry about the players overplaying their hand. They got a big leg up with Judge Doty's $4 billion ruling on March 1, and now appear to be pushing most --if not all --of their demands to the max. We'd bet heavily against an agreement before Friday's extension deadline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston, we have a problem

 

 

I read elsewhere that the owners never made a formal proposal on this.

 

:wacko:

 

Updated Mar 9, 2011 10:01 PM ET

There had been speculation in recent days that the NFL Players Association might give in to an 18-game season, but that notion was shot down by NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith.

 

Stay up to date on the NFL's labor situation as the owners and players work on a new collective bargaining agreement.

"First of all, the league has never presented a formal proposal for 18 games," Smith told SI.com. "But more importantly, it's something that our players don't want. Eighteen games is not in the best interest of our players' safety, so we're not doing it."

 

In other labor news, NFL.com reported that the entire NFL labor committee, excluding New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, is expected to be at Thursday’s CBA bargaining sessions in Washington. Kraft had a previous commitment and is out of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston, we have a problem

I don't see it as one. The NFLPA is giving in with a rookie wage scale, now it's the owners turn to give in and drop the 18 game schedule. I've read that some owners are against the 18 games anyways.

 

With the TV money ruling, the owners are in a bad spot. They got caught and they're going to pay dearly for it. They're going to have to negotiate a new CBA in the next two days or they'll be crushed. There is no way David Doty wouldn't preside over any desertification of the NFLPA. The owners can asked that he be removed, but that hasn't happened before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the past few days...

 

- rookie cap resolved

- 18-game schedule seems resolved

- all major players at the meeting for the last couple of days for this extension

 

I don't want to go all chub on these signs, buuuuuuuuttttttt....

 

You can chub, its ok. This is a potentially good reason to chub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this. I don't know how reliable the source is.

 

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-be...-the-table.html

 

NFL Owners Take 18-Game Schedule off the Table

 

Bob Warja on 03.09.11 at 8:27 PM | no comments |

According to a report on ESPN.com, players' union leader DeMaurice Smith claims the owners are conceding ground but at least one issue is still not settled.

 

• Goodbye 18 game schedule

 

This issue has never been formally raised, according to the report, and now that owners believe it's "not in the best interests of our players' safety" and that "our players don't want" it, they will not pursue it.

 

• Additional revenue demands lowered

 

The owners are also apparently willing to reduce the additional amount they take off the top. In the current CBA, they take $1 billion. They have since indicated they wanted another billion, but now say they will "only" take $800 million.

 

Further, the sides are said to be very close on an agreement for a rookie wage scale.

 

But while these concessions may seemingly move the two sides closer to an agreement, the players still consider the extra $800 million to be too much. According to the players, unless the owners truly open their books and prove that they need it, this will continue to be the main issue that keeps the sides from reaching a deal.

 

The owners claim they already have provided more financial information than the players wanted, but the players insist on full disclosure.

With the owners on the verge of losing over $4 billion in TV revenue, there is apparently some motivation for them to get a new CBA in place sooner rather than later.

 

But the owners feel the issue of transparency should be behind them.

"We've made more information available in the course of this negotiation than has ever been made available in decades of collective bargaining with the NFLPA," Pash said. "Far more information. And we've offered to make even more information [available], including information that we do not disclose to our own clubs."

 

If a deal isn't reached by Friday, they could agree to another extension or the lockout could begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The players have never been in the wrong per se - they want to remain status quo while the owners are the ones wanting to change to a more equitable/realistic/whatever state. I am 100% certain that were the books in their entirety made available that the NFLPA would absolutely jockey the numbers around to make their own case regardless of reality. That would be the job of the negotiators for them since it is in their favor to present a stance as favorable as possible to their clients. That isn't right or wrong, that is just business. it is complicated too by the differing agendas of the two sides so what makes 100% sense to one almost cannot be the same for the other.

 

Therein lies the rub. No matter what the books would say, it is not like the union is going to just nod and say "I get it now, we're cool with everything".

 

I realize too the difference between your business and the NFL but at the core it illustrates one of the problems. I know nothing about your restaurants or how successful they are, but just for argument, let's say you make $125,000 from a restaurant and after all expenses other than paying yourself. To a busboy or dishwasher making market rate, you can certainly afford to pay them more. Your cooks and whatever support people never consider your risk now and in the future, or the fact that you should be due as good of a return on your investment as possible. They would just look at the $125k and in their perspective they helped you make a lot of money and you should give more to them since you could not possibly do it all yourself. As a business owner, you are as interested in five years from now as you are now (assuming you are not about to go under) because you want a healthy ongoing business and know you are going to have to make reinvestments and upgrades and the like along the way. We can overly complicate or simplify any analogy but at the crux, the two sides have vastly differing agendas and outlooks and those naturally influence how they view everything. The two sides can look at the same numbers and see very different things guaranteed.

 

I do not think the players are making too much or too little really because their employers are willingly doing it. I just want football personally and it doesn't matter to me who makes what. This has all become a very big business by now and the costs of attending a game are now astronomic IMO because of both players and owners. But people buy the ticket since that is what the market will bear and neither the owners nor the players are into this for anything but the money.

 

I would be a bit more inclined to believe "Players make too much money and have forced the owners into an agreement that is bad for the NFL as a whole." because at the time of the previous signing it was a shock that the owners agreed to it and even then it was written so that the owners could opt out. There is also the reality of the economy that has greatly changed since the last CBA and the many new stadiums. The owners go into a lockout and take a risk of negatively affecting their businesses for years. And players are making exponentially more money than they did in the past with minimums of $340,000 for a rookie up to $860,000 for a 10-year veteran as a starting point.

 

The owners got themselves into this situation by agreeing to the old CBA knowing that the players are never going to want to give anything back, even if it is just a percentage and may not even result in lower salaries. I kind of blame both sides. The owners should police themselves on signing rookie contracts that are ridiculous and they don't. And the players make a king's ransom and most of them just literally blow a fortune in a matter of a few years that would allow most any of us to retire with great comfort.

 

Opening the books is almost never done and won't solve anything if it does happen. I find it amusing that if the union decertifies, the players will bring up an antitrust lawsuit naming Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees as named litigants when they must combine for what - $300 million in total salaries so far? Manning has a $23 million tender right now. Doesn't exactly make a case for greedy owners.

 

The only thing I have made up my mind on is that both sides need to get this done quickly and without any interruption because it is unthinkable that they could screw this up. I honestly think they are realizing that more now and are moving in the right direction even if they are still not completely at the same place yet.

 

One sign that the players did very well last time? In 2005 the NFL salary cap was $85.5 million per team. In the final capped year of 2009, it was up to $127 million so that during a recession when most were losing their jobs or taking pay cuts, the NFL players overall had their salaries increase 33% during the economically worst four years in our lifetimes.

I'll respond to your last point first. How do we know this is something that needs correcting? I'm guessing the cap is attached to the revenue sharing number and that, if it went up, that must have been a result of revenues increasing as well. So, comparing it to other people losing their job seems inaccurate. People lost their jobs because they were working for companies that were struggling. Unless the NFL was also struggling during that period, it doesn't matter that the players made more. I know people who were in the right fields that have been making plenty of money during the recession. Why should this be any different?

 

And, I hate to break it to you, but "the only thing you've made up your mind on" is not that both sides need to get this done. You've made it abundantly clear that you're "100% certain" that the players don't seem prepared to be reasonable with regards to interpreting what they might find if the owners opened the books. I'm not saying they undoubtedly will be fair and reasonable, mind you. But, again, if the owners can show (without cooking the books) that they're simply not bringing home enough money to warrant their financial exposure, then I guess I'd like to think that the players would be more amenable to giving back some of the %.

 

You've also made it pretty clear you've made up your mind that the owners need this % swing rather than simply want it. And I think that is a bold assumption. I mean, they're allowed to want anything they want. But, if this thing gets ugly, at some point, it's going to be someone's fault more than the others. If this doesn't get done because the owners clearly show that the league can't afford the current % and the players show they don't care about that, then it's on them. If this doesn't get done because the owners are making money hand over fist but still figure they can squeeze the players for more, then it's on them.

 

I mean, all of us are in agreement that "both sides" better get this thing done or "both sides" can go screw themselves. But, what if one side is truly prepared to give in a bit and one side is just standing on their initial offer and not budging? If there's a stoppage, it's not because "both sides" had their heads up their asses.

 

And, since you brought up my business again, let me, once again explain how off-base you are. For starters, the massive issue at play here is that the owners are the ones initiating this stoppage, so the implication is that they must really, really need it for the health of the league. I mean, they risk doing serious damage to the league, so everyone assumes that must be the case. Because they're asking their employees to take a pay cut. So, this isn't about my employees finding out how much I make and, lacking the full picture, demanding I pay them more because it seems like I make more than I should. This is about me going to my staff and telling them all that they're all getting their pay cut by 15% or something. If I do that and they find out that I'm actually doing just fine in terms of the bottom line but just figure I can get away with squeezing them, I think they'd have a pretty legit beef. And further, if my business was high enough profile that people were following this battle in the news, I would expect no love from the peanut gallery if it became known that I was making a ton of money and just up and decided that I'd try and demand a pay cut from my employees anyway. Even if my employees were widely regarded as being very, very well paid.

 

Secondly, provided my employees make a nice living and they find out that I do really well on my business and lack the perspective to realize all the risks I take and how justified my take home really is, then screw them. Just like screw the players if they begrudge the owners making a good return on their investment. The last thing I would expect is for the owners to barely eke out a living on this league so that the players can continue to get paid as well as they are. But it seems like that is the assumed stance of anyone who's not firmly on the side of the owners in this fight. I just think it's naive to be so certain that owners are truly taking it in the shorts right now and that this is not simply a money grab on their part. Which, of course, they've got every right to go after, but they don't deserve any of the sympathy they seem to be getting if that is, in fact, the case. Not saying they should be vilified, either.

 

But it's really easy to say, "I want my football, dammit! So why won't the players just give in and end this thing?!" What happens when this deal runs out? Will the owners then be emboldened by how well it went this time and just go after a bigger chunk? The players, after all, will still be "getting paid millions to play a game", so they'll be a no more sympathetic group than they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarity - the players may not be taking a pay cut at all other than rookies. The owners want to decrease the players % and/or increase the money off the top but that doesn't mean the players are all taking any significant cuts this year. The players have already been earning ever increasing salaries for many years and that trend is the problematic one. My point in bringing up your employees was only related to them having no real longterm outlook on your business or ever taking into consideration everything you have to in running a business. What looks like a lot of money to them may not really be much in reality.

 

The owners are not in a losing situation currently either and no one is saying that they are "taking it in the shorts" by any means but in a longer term view, the one that the owners live with and the players do not, the team owners obviously have significant concerns. I suppose we could assume they all just got together and decided to collude and take away as much money as they could from the players but I think that is a much bolder assumption.

 

Granted, we all make assumptions. But knowing what was said after the last CBA, seeing how much more money the players get since 2006 and splicing that together with economic realities of new stadiums and the like, I would tend to believe the owners would not jeopardize their investments if they are already sitting on piles of money with no end in sight. I know the NFLPA will try to get every penny they can for their players since that is their job and they have no long term concerns with a group that mostly only plays 2 or 3 years.

 

I would have thought that the 18 game season would bring in more revenue and with that ensure the players salaries remained as high or higher but the players don't want it. Seemed like a reasonable way to make all parties happier. Increase roster sizes for more players which makes the NFLPA and agents happier. For the want of just two more games, it seemed like a way to reach an equitable spot and playoff teams already play those extra two or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the 18 game season would bring in more revenue and with that ensure the players salaries remained as high or higher but the players don't want it. Seemed like a reasonable way to make all parties happier. Increase roster sizes for more players which makes the NFLPA and agents happier. For the want of just two more games, it seemed like a way to reach an equitable spot and playoff teams already play those extra two or more.

I am very much on record as saying that I thought, giving in on this would be one of the best ways the players could compromise without losing any money. I'm very puzzled that they're holding out so much on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to your last point first. How do we know this is something that needs correcting? I'm guessing the cap is attached to the revenue sharing number and that, if it went up, that must have been a result of revenues increasing as well. So, comparing it to other people losing their job seems inaccurate. People lost their jobs because they were working for companies that were struggling. Unless the NFL was also struggling during that period, it doesn't matter that the players made more. I know people who were in the right fields that have been making plenty of money during the recession. Why should this be any different?

FWIW, I do remember that there were NFL teams (Jets off the top of my head) that were laying people off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very much on record as saying that I thought, giving in on this would be one of the best ways the players could compromise without losing any money. I'm very puzzled that they're holding out so much on this.

 

I don't think you, me, anyone else on this message board and to a large extent, any of the owners has any clue what an nfl season takes on a player's body. But the players know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you, me, anyone else on this message board and to a large extent, any of the owners has any clue what an nfl season takes on a player's body. But the players know.

I understand that, but as long as they're getting a cut of the revenue, they're getting paid for those games. So, on one hand, they have to work more each year. On the other hand, they get to fit 12.5% more earning potential into each year, which cheats the specter of time. I mean, they talk about "miles" on a RB in terms of how many games he's played. So, sure, careers could end up being shorter in terms of years, they'll all make as much money as they would have playing more years but less games. That is, unless the wear and tear is disproportional depending on how many games are played.

 

If there was no revenue sharing, then I could completely understand why the players would oppose this because then it truly would be more work for no more pay. And who would want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 18 game schedule thing....

 

Not that they would, but what's to prevent a team from playing all their starters ALL 4 quarters of ALL the preseason games as it is now?

 

The players have no basis for an argument on this one in my opinion. Unless there's something specifically written into their contracts now limiting the amount they play in the preseason, a team, if it so desired, has the right to play a guy all 4 quarters of every preseason game.

 

I get the practical aspects of why that wouldn't play out, but can someone explain to me the legal aspects of why it couldn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarity - the players may not be taking a pay cut at all other than rookies. The owners want to decrease the players % and/or increase the money off the top but that doesn't mean the players are all taking any significant cuts this year. The players have already been earning ever increasing salaries for many years and that trend is the problematic one. My point in bringing up your employees was only related to them having no real longterm outlook on your business or ever taking into consideration everything you have to in running a business. What looks like a lot of money to them may not really be much in reality.

 

The owners are not in a losing situation currently either and no one is saying that they are "taking it in the shorts" by any means but in a longer term view, the one that the owners live with and the players do not, the team owners obviously have significant concerns. I suppose we could assume they all just got together and decided to collude and take away as much money as they could from the players but I think that is a much bolder assumption.

 

Granted, we all make assumptions. But knowing what was said after the last CBA, seeing how much more money the players get since 2006 and splicing that together with economic realities of new stadiums and the like, I would tend to believe the owners would not jeopardize their investments if they are already sitting on piles of money with no end in sight. I know the NFLPA will try to get every penny they can for their players since that is their job and they have no long term concerns with a group that mostly only plays 2 or 3 years.

 

I would have thought that the 18 game season would bring in more revenue and with that ensure the players salaries remained as high or higher but the players don't want it. Seemed like a reasonable way to make all parties happier. Increase roster sizes for more players which makes the NFLPA and agents happier. For the want of just two more games, it seemed like a way to reach an equitable spot and playoff teams already play those extra two or more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the overall percentage the players were getting in revenue going down anyway. Even though salaries have been increasing at a dramatic rate for players, I thought I read that the overall percentage of money players were getting was in fact decreasing. So even though salaries were rising, the increase in pay was due more to overall revenue going up dramatically vs. just crazy random overall players salaries going up.

 

Straighten me out on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 18 game schedule thing....

 

Not that they would, but what's to prevent a team from playing all their starters ALL 4 quarters of ALL the preseason games as it is now?

The coaches would not allow that as they feel they could be hung if a key player get hurt in a preseason game, plus they want to evaluate the scrubs in game action to see if any warrant a roster spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coaches would not allow that as they feel they could be hung if a key player get hurt in a preseason game, plus they want to evaluate the scrubs in game action to see if any warrant a roster spot.

 

 

You didn't quote my entire post. Here was the rest...

 

"I get the practical aspects of why that wouldn't play out, but can someone explain to me the legal aspects of why it couldn't? "

 

 

So again, legally, what's to prevent a team from playing their guys all 4 quarters of every preseason game? I'm guessing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't quote my entire post. Here was the rest...

 

"I get the practical aspects of why that wouldn't play out, but can someone explain to me the legal aspects of why it couldn't? "

 

 

So again, legally, what's to prevent a team from playing their guys all 4 quarters of every preseason game? I'm guessing nothing.

Legally, nothing is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't quote my entire post. Here was the rest...

 

"I get the practical aspects of why that wouldn't play out, but can someone explain to me the legal aspects of why it couldn't? "

 

 

So again, legally, what's to prevent a team from playing their guys all 4 quarters of every preseason game? I'm guessing nothing.

 

I'm not sure i understand your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure i understand your point.

 

The point is that if ownership wanted to get 18 games worth of action out of their players, there's nothing in writing preventing that from happening now - 20 games even.

 

So basically the notion that the players are bitching 'cause they don't want to play an 18 game schedule due to increased injury risk holds ZERO water from my perspective.

 

There is nothing preventing that from happening now if teams insisted their front line players played all the preseason. Again, I get why that's not going to happen, but it legally could.

 

I just don't think the players have a leg to stand on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information