Proposed CBA..whatya think

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking-11. Show Harleyroadking-11's posts

    Proposed CBA..whatya think

     

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

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Sounds fair to me!  Let's just get it signed so football can proceed uninterrupted!

    It's almost July . . . time to start thinking about training camp (and hunting season).
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    There are 2 I really like.

    1) Teams required to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

    2) New 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012.

    Get her done!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Fair without the expense credit. They can't say "all revenue" and then talk about an expense credit. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth...dirty, cheap, arrogant owners.

    Otherwise, it's all fine. Everything every Joe McFan knew would be included. THey pay lawyers how much to do this? What a joke.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]Fair without the expense credit. They can't say "all revenue" and then talk about an expense credit. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth...dirty, cheap, arrogant owners. Otherwise, it's all fine. Everything every Joe McFan knew would be included. THey pay lawyers how much to do this? What a joke.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Have to disagree on this.  The players cant get pure profit in their side while the owners are saddled with all the costs.  The owners have all the financial risks, so they deserve some "credits"
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    First, glad to see your posts Harley (earlier today I couldn't see them, & was about to tell you when I got back on just now)...

    Second...Really?  REALLY?!?  Was it THAT f#cking hard for the 2 sides to actually come up with THIS?!!  <please...pl-eeease-No more Union vs Owners...I'm sayin' here: BOTH sides to actually come up with this near id!otic equation that could've & should've been accomplished WAY before it came anywhere even near this />
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]Proposed CBA Details Details of a proposed collective bargaining agreement being pitched to NFL owners Tuesday, according to sources: • Players get 48 percent of "all revenue." • Players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated. • Teams required to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap. • Rookie wage scale part of deal but still being "tweaked." • Four years needed for unrestricted free-agent status. Certain tags will be retained, but still being discussed. • 18-game regular season designated only as negotiable item and at no point is mandated in deal. • New 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012. • Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadiums. • Retirees to benefit from improved health care, pension benefits as revenue projected to double to $18 million by 2016. -- ESPN's Chris Mortensen, John Clayton and Adam Schefter  
    Posted by Harleyroadking-11[/QUOTE]

         Sounds fair...but would like to see the idea of an 18 game schedule permanently scrapped. Would also like to see Goodell gone...he's bad for the game. Especially happy to see that the retired players are getting better benefits.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Not enough detail here to know what the deal is.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BB-IS-BEST. Show BB-IS-BEST's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    I feel like it did not require all the time that was wasted in courts and all the time used in bickering about minor details to come up with something reasonable like this. It's June, seriously. Greed on both sides managed to provoke a dispute that lasted this long and perhaps a week or two more while only really agitating the fans.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rodimus77. Show Rodimus77's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Proposed CBA..whatya think :      Sounds fair...but would like to see the idea of an 18 game schedule permanently scrapped. Would also like to see Goodell gone...he's bad for the game. Especially happy to see that the retired players are getting better benefits.  
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Amen to that!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]I feel like it did not require all the time that was wasted in courts and all the time used in bickering about minor details to come up with something reasonable like this. It's June, seriously. Greed on both sides managed to provoke a dispute that lasted this long and perhaps a week or two more while only really agitating the fans.
    Posted by BB-IS-BEST[/QUOTE]


    We can't know if it's reasonable or not. The owners cut size off the top was the question from day one, and that is still being haggled. The players had to try the court because otherwise it would just have been give up the money without a whimper.

    I suspect the owners cut off the top will be significantly larger. They are in the driver's seat here.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from patthepatriot666. Show patthepatriot666's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    they need to be very careful with this rookie salary cap. you  always here that the average stay in league is three years. maybe this results in overpaying vet players meant as role players-
    who knows what will happen- i hate changes. because thers no telling what the possible consequences are.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]Fair without the expense credit. They can't say "all revenue" and then talk about an expense credit. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth...dirty, cheap, arrogant owners. Otherwise, it's all fine. Everything every Joe McFan knew would be included. THey pay lawyers how much to do this? What a joke.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Expense credits will be negotiated against the gross this time, just like player benefits. The revenue split mechanism looks a lot more transparent in this model. I find it hard to call the owners out looking at this, because they seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to gain a change in language.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Proposed CBA..whatya think :      Sounds fair...but would like to see the idea of an 18 game schedule permanently scrapped. Would also like to see Goodell gone...he's bad for the game. Especially happy to see that the retired players are getting better benefits.  
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Ditto. 

    18 games should never happen, IMO.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    I should add, for NE, the "four years to FA" bit carries huge import.

    That makes several players like Manny Lawson unrestricted free agents, if I remember correctly. The no-CBA provisions pushed that figure into the future which made certain players unable to get "free." 

    If the "tags" disappear, or are even nullified going back to last season, then Mankins is also free to the open market. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think : Have to disagree on this.  The players cant get pure profit in their side while the owners are saddled with all the costs.  The owners have all the financial risks, so they deserve some "credits"
    Posted by MordecaiBloodmoon[/QUOTE]

    That's a decent point...but what financial risk? The NFL saw growth as the rest of the country imploded. You'd really have to be a complete moron to NOT make money off of an NFL franchise. And both sides basically agree that the revenue will look like $16billion-ish around 2015. They already have absurd television deals that pretty much guarantee a sizeable profit. If any owner didn't want to be "saddled" with all these costs, I'm sure there are dozens of other billionaires who would overpay, right now, to take over their team.

    Research or watch 'Blood Equity', and you'll see a lot of what the players are fighting for, and see who's really taking the risks.

    Neither side is right here, but the owners are really coming off looking especially greedy trying to take back money and feigning poverty when the sport is seeing record growth.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Looks fair. I think the owners have given up more than the players. Mainly psyched for the Thursday night schedule, and the rookie slary scale which I think is long overdue!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kebbe. Show kebbe's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

               Asstated,it is an equitable and sane compromise on all counts and should have and could have been settled three manoths ago.It appears the players side finally grasped the reality three points:1-killing the salary cap also killed the salary flor and there would have been ten or more teams who would pay peanuts and not be competitive:2-that a rookie slaary cap frees up more money for the vets and stopped the stupidity of paying those who have not proven anything as pros making more than those who having labored in the NFL and proved their worth(first round picks were making more than proven stars-I often posted that the players opposition was self defeating..dawn broke over Marblehead I guess);3-the extrodinary growth in both the popularity and revenue was fueled,in large measure by the parity that existed in the league..fans knew that there were mechanisms in place that would enable their team to improve(e.g.-the draft,free agency,franchise and transition tags which enabled the smaller revenue teams to have the chance to keep their better players and primarily the salary cap and floor,which prevent the wealthiest teams from simply paying outragious salaries to corner the talent market,much as you see in baseball)and prevented the lower revenua teams from paying dramatically less that than the more affluent teams,these measures do not ensure teams getting better if they are poorly run but the opportunities do exirt to do so if their management teams make good decisions.Somebody could still do something stupid(probably based on ego)and sabotage a rational and equitable settlement but lets hope that the inmates no longer control the assylm. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think : That's a decent point...but what financial risk? The NFL saw growth as the rest of the country imploded. You'd really have to be a complete moron to NOT make money off of an NFL franchise. And both sides basically agree that the revenue will look like $16billion-ish around 2015. They already have absurd television deals that pretty much guarantee a sizeable profit. If any owner didn't want to be "saddled" with all these costs, I'm sure there are dozens of other billionaires who would overpay, right now, to take over their team. Research or watch 'Blood Equity', and you'll see a lot of what the players are fighting for, and see who's really taking the risks. Neither side is right here, but the owners are really coming off looking especially greedy trying to take back money and feigning poverty when the sport is seeing record growth.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    The risk is prospective, not how much growth have they had but how much they will have.  If an owner can sell his team for $1 billion today, then he is risking $1 billion by staying in the league so he be better make darn sure staying in the league will make him more than $1 billion. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    The players are getting more of the pie? Nah.

    The owners have ditched the $1 billion off the top and gone to a lower overall percentage for the players. (though there is talk about some stadium credits still being in the mix)

    So when the pie gets to $16 billion they aren't stuck with the $1 billion off the top of that and instead get more of those new billions based on the new lower percentage.

    The owners are doing better than their original demands for an extra billion off the top.

    The players are being routed. The discussions are only about exactly how bad the route will be.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    I would like to see alittle more definition around the having to spend close to 100 percent to the cap.  If you happen to plan and sign correctly and field a competitive team and are not at the cap/or near(why would like to know the exact amount) are teams then forced to sign players they don't need/want just to satisfy this?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    In Response to Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think:
    [QUOTE]I dont really care who gets the screws put to them so long as they get the deal done in time for training camp. That and they dont agree to an 18 game schedule.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, it doesn't effect us the fans much whomever gets more of the pie. If the owners get more it is possible prices to fans might see less upward pressure.

    I don't get why so many fans are against the 18 game thing. That seems to be in the drama queen category of fan viewpoint rather than being based on any real problem with it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Whatever you may think of the owners or the players (or the fans) you've got to love the quotation marks around all revenue.

    That's pretty funny.




     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Proposed CBA..whatya think

    Whats wrong with an 18 game schedule?  Are people that worried about injuries in just 2 more games?  What if they add a second bye week or expand rosters? 

    I for one would love to see more real (not preseason) football.
     

Share