kpholmes Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- The head of the NFL Players Association is bracing players for a possible 2011 lockout. Executive director DeMaurice Smith told reporters at Colts camp Monday that he is convinced owners will lock players out when the current labor deal expires after next season. Smith made no demands for a new deal and expressed his willingness to discuss everything, including changes in the league's disciplinary policy. The one caveat: He wants to know why owners backed out of the collective bargaining agreement. This could get very ugly as the 2011 season approaches... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfreak475 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Both sides need to look at the big picture and not be greed SOB's. Everybody is making money, be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Both sides need to look at the big picture and not be greed SOB's. Everybody is making money, be happy. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Both sides need to look at the big picture and not be greed SOB's. Everybody is making money, be happy. The owners have to pay for virtually everything and 60% of the money goes straight to players. Something is very wrong with the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The owners have to pay for virtually everything and 60% of the money goes straight to players. Something is very wrong with the system. why? payroll is usually one of the largest costs in a manpower-driven organization. It is not like the NFL is delivering a tangible product... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The owners have to pay for virtually everything and 60% of the money goes straight to players. Something is very wrong with the system. Just curious, but do players get a cut of merchandising/ticket sales/TV contracts? If so, is it more than the owner? (who doesn't break bones sitting at his desk) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The owners have to pay for virtually everything and 60% of the money goes straight to players. Something is very wrong with the system. Yet the owners could field teams that play to empty stadiums and still turn a profit. The problem isn't with what the players make, it's what Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, and Robert Kraft make in relation to what Zigi Wilff, John York, and Al Davis make. This is about bigger market-share owners who don't want to have to pool money to support smaller market-share owners. It has little or nothing to do with player salaries in a three-year old CBA that was approved 30-2 by the owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think it's a combination of things already mentioned plus a rookie salary structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 This could get very ugly as the 2011 season approaches... A year of no NFL with the greedy POS owners and players alike losing a bunch of $ while people remember there are other things to do on autumn Sundays and for one helluva lot cheaper is WAY overdue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKIDKOKID Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 A year of no NFL with the greedy POS owners and players alike losing a bunch of $ while people remember there are other things to do on autumn Sundays and for one helluva lot cheaper is WAY overdue. Ask the NHL how their strike went....or the MLB - if cooler heads do not prevail it will get very ugly. KO'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Without getting into the sticking points and bargaining chips of the negotiations, the players need the money to pay to "make it rain". Forget the $20,000 mortgage payments, $4,000 car payments, countless payments to baby mama's (insert Travis Henry joke here). After all, if there is a lockout, what will happen to all the strippers income? Talk about a pay cut, those hard working girls will have to rely on the common working man, ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Seriously, the players need to protect the retired veterans, first and foremost. They must remember who got them there when payroll was paltry. Secondly, they should implement a rookie pay scale, a new veteran minimum, and tweak the free agency system, specifically the "Franchise Tag". If the owners wanted the salaries to fall, then they would have to guarantee more of the salary. Owners will not want this b/c they would be paying injured players for more than a year and won't be able to cut them the next year from injury. The owners have all the bargaining chips because they hold all the money, not just tickets and TV but also merchandise and other various promotions. And then there are the Jerry Jones' who own their own stadiums while other owners lease. This will also have to be addressed b/c not all owners are the same. Edited August 18, 2009 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Ask the NHL how their strike went....or the MLB - if cooler heads do not prevail it will get very ugly. Technically, the NHL's most recent work stoppage was a lockout, not a strike. And the end result was attendance was still high upon return of the NHL, while MLB suffered after their strike. Not saying the process of getting to the end product was pleasant by any means though. Now then, there are some major differences between what the NHL and MLB went through, and I'm not sure what path the NFL will go through but I will point out some differences. 1. The NHL players had other options during the lockout. Playing in Europe was a big one, some opted to play in the smaller leagues, others just sat at home. 2. There is no minor league or alternative pro league for NFL players somewhere else in the world where they could play in absence of an entire NFL season. Well, there's the UFL or whatever league that is starting up, but they're only playing 6 games, and I don't know if that would be an option for NFL players. 3. MLB suffered greatly after their strike because they lost a TON of casual fans. The NFL also has a ton of casual fans. The NHL has, by comparison, very few casual fans so when the NHL returned from it's lockout, the diehards were back pretty much at the same attendance levels they were at pre-lockout. If the NFL does have a major work stoppage - losing a season along with the Superbowl - I think it will take them a long time before they recover the casual fan again. 4. The top officials at the NFL and the NFLPA should look at what happened to baseball as a result of their strike and be prepared for that fallout. If they think they can get by like the NHL did after their return, then I think they are operating on some false assumptions. 5. I guess I'm not sure what the NFL owners want. They say that 60% of all revenues went to players. How do you fix that? The NFL already has a salary cap. I really don't know as much about the distribution of revenues in the NFL like I did about the NHL, but I'm kind of confused as to how the NFL owners plan on receiving a higher percentage of total revenues. Lower the cap? Work out a higher cut of player merchandise dollars? I really don't know. Ultimately, I think cooler heads will prevail over this one. Godell doesn't seem anywhere near as weaselly as Bettman, and I don't think he's in the back pockets of a handful of owners either. I don't have any real basis for these other than a gut feeling, but if the NFL is dumb enough to deliberately tear it's own ACL for a season, they are going to take well more than a year to recover what they lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Without getting into the sticking points and bargaining chips of the negotiations, the players need the money to pay to "make it rain". Forget the $20,000 mortgage payments, $4,000 car payments, countless payments to baby mama's (insert Travis Henry joke here). After all, if there is a lockout, what will happen to all the strippers income? Talk about a pay cut, those hard working girls will have to rely on the common working man, ouch. And it's really going to hurt cocaine dealers when the owners can't use their glass tables for parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 All this being considered, it sure strikes me that they have PLENTY of time to get cracking on something. It's always struck me as odd that they know there are all these issues that need addressed, yet they wait until the 11th hr - sometimes quite literally, to get something done. Why aren't they already hard at work on this? Is there leverage to be gained by one side or the other by waiting? I don't get it. The two sides need each other. Make it happen for crissakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Seriously, the players need to protect the retired veterans, first and foremost. They must remember who got them there when payroll was paltry. No, they need to protect themselves, and protect the future and integrity of their job. Let the owners who paid the paltry payroll to the retired veterans pony up for their medical expenses. Do you prepare for your job every day thinking about the guy who did the exact same job you did before you? Do you owe that guy any allegiances? Secondly, they should implement a rookie pay scale, a new veteran minimum, and tweak the free agency system, specifically the "Franchise Tag". If the owners wanted the salaries to fall, then they would have to guarantee more of the salary. Owners will not want this b/c they would be paying injured players for more than a year and won't be able to cut them the next year from injury. The owners have all the bargaining chips because they hold all the money, not just tickets and TV but also merchandise and other various promotions. And then there are the Jerry Jones' who own their own stadiums while other owners lease. This will also have to be addressed b/c not all owners are the same. So how do the players factor into any of that? Answer: they don't. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking the players are anything other than caught in a battle between the super rich and the very rich over how many more millions Jerry Jones gets to keep every season instead of handing it over to the likes of Zigi Wilf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Why aren't they already hard at work on this? Is there leverage to be gained by one side or the other by waiting? I don't get it. The two sides need each other. Make it happen for crissakes. The fact that they are discussing it right now is pretty big. Goddell and Smith are new at this, and probably don't have the same close relationship that Tagliabue and Upshaw had over the years. At this point, the CBA signed in 2006 says that there will be no salary cap or salary floor (84% of the cap) in place for 2010, which is why it's starting to rear its head because both sides want this figured out before they get too close to the off-season. No cap or floor means that there will be nothing forcing NFL teams to spend money and they get to set the market price amongst each other however they wish to do so, much to the chagrin of the NFLPA. That also will mean that any franchise can go out and spend whatever they want on players, thus creating a theoretical unlevel playing field among the teams, much to the chagrin of the smaller-pocketed owners. I don't have a read on how much either side wants or doesn't want the salary cap. In one sense, the players don't care because there are enough teams that will spend money on salaries to offset those teams that choose not to spend money. The problem will be among the owners of the Cincinnati Bengals, the Buffalo Bills, the Oakland Raiders, et al, who will not be able to compete with the richer franchises in spending money on free agents, thus creating a potential morass of permanently bad teams, or teams who are continually rebuilding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pip's Invitation Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 And the end result was attendance was still high upon return of the NHL In New York, Philly, Detroit, etc., yes. In Phoenix and that ilk, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 The fact that they are discussing it right now is pretty big. Goddell and Smith are new at this, and probably don't have the same close relationship that Tagliabue and Upshaw had over the years. At this point, the CBA signed in 2006 says that there will be no salary cap or salary floor (84% of the cap) in place for 2010, which is why it's starting to rear its head because both sides want this figured out before they get too close to the off-season. No cap or floor means that there will be nothing forcing NFL teams to spend money and they get to set the market price amongst each other however they wish to do so, much to the chagrin of the NFLPA. That also will mean that any franchise can go out and spend whatever they want on players, thus creating a theoretical unlevel playing field among the teams, much to the chagrin of the smaller-pocketed owners. I don't have a read on how much either side wants or doesn't want the salary cap. In one sense, the players don't care because there are enough teams that will spend money on salaries to offset those teams that choose not to spend money. The problem will be among the owners of the Cincinnati Bengals, the Buffalo Bills, the Oakland Raiders, et al, who will not be able to compete with the richer franchises in spending money on free agents, thus creating a potential morass of permanently bad teams, or teams who are continually rebuilding. Isn't it AFTER the 2010 season - not heading into it? I understood that there would be labor peace this year and next - maybe I'm wrong though. Probably am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.