nd03 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'm sure we all have heard about whats looming in 2011. I can see why the owners want this. They want to pay the veterans the big money and not the rookies and unproven players........ makes sense right! Do you think this is why we are having trouble find a coach? According to the NFL, clubs are obligated by the collective bargaining agreement to spend almost $4.5 billion on player costs. Players received around 60 percent of league revenues. Growing costs of stadium construction and operations also figured into the decision. The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans. The agreement signed two years ago was to last until 2013 with the option to terminate in 2011, which is what the owners did a couple years ago, If there is not a deal by the next couple of months there WILL be an uncapped 2011 season! GREED GREED GREED. Wouldn't be suprised to see a players strike guys! would like to hear your thoughts on this matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The players don't want to change anything. If their is a work stoppage it will be a lock-out by the owners not a player strike. Then the players can blame the owners for no NFL. There won't even be replacement games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'm sure we all have heard about whats looming in 2011. I can see why the owners want this. They want to pay the veterans the big money and not the rookies and unproven players........ makes sense right! Do you think this is why we are having trouble find a coach? According to the NFL, clubs are obligated by the collective bargaining agreement to spend almost $4.5 billion on player costs. Players received around 60 percent of league revenues. Growing costs of stadium construction and operations also figured into the decision. The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans. The agreement signed two years ago was to last until 2013 with the option to terminate in 2011, which is what the owners did a couple years ago, If there is not a deal by the next couple of months there WILL be an uncapped 2011 season! GREED GREED GREED. Wouldn't be suprised to see a players strike guys! would like to hear your thoughts on this matter! From everything that I've seen and read, the GREED lies on the part of the players union and not the owners. The owners, like any other business owner in this country, should have the right to make as much or as little money as they feel fit. The problem in the NFL (and a lot of companies) is that the union has been given too much power and us minions that pay to watch this form of entertainment are the ones that will eventually get screwed in the end. I especially agree with the owners when it comes to the rookie pay scale. The vets that weren't drafted in the first round have worked for years to get to a point to make a reasonable salary, only to get squeezed because some 21 year old who had one great year in the NCAA against a bunch of pushovers, is demanding more money in a signing bonus than that vet will make his entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berriesandcream Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 They absolutely need to change the way rookies get paid. Its ridiculous the amount of power a player has who has never played a down in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 From everything that I've seen and read, the GREED lies on the part of the players union and not the owners. The owners, like any other business owner in this country, should have the right to make as much or as little money as they feel fit. The problem in the NFL (and a lot of companies) is that the union has been given too much power and us minions that pay to watch this form of entertainment are the ones that will eventually get screwed in the end. I especially agree with the owners when it comes to the rookie pay scale. The vets that weren't drafted in the first round have worked for years to get to a point to make a reasonable salary, only to get squeezed because some 21 year old who had one great year in the NCAA against a bunch of pushovers, is demanding more money in a signing bonus than that vet will make his entire career. Yeah its all the Unions fault. Agreed rookie salary cap is required I do not think the NFLPA is against that. The issues are on revenue sharing, pension and other matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The players don't want to change anything. If their is a work stoppage it will be a lock-out by the owners not a player strike. Then the players can blame the owners for no NFL. There won't even be replacement games. Oh they will care. This runs more than a year and the money the NFLPA has put back starts running out and the owners are still billionares, you can bet your ass they will care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 They absolutely need to change the way rookies get paid. Its ridiculous the amount of power a player has who has never played a down in the NFL. +1 However, I dont think even the veterans want to change this. They simply want to get paid more money than the rookies that are earning much more than they are, all while not playing a single down in the NFL. I have said for at least a year now that the NFL could find itself in big trouble if they go on strike. Especially in an economy like this. People are scraping by to pay bills and put food on the table and enjoy watching the game (either from the stadium or their couch). That loses a bit of steam if they go on strike. People are sick of watching ignorant kids like Lynch and Pacman Jones act like thugs while making more in a season than the fans that watch them might make in their lifetimes. IMO its actually perfect for the UFL. If there is a strike you may see free agents play in the UFL, you may see hold out rookies play in the UFL to get away from teams like Buffalo, Detroit, St Louis (Jim Kelly ring a bell?). Honestly this might be Buffalos best shot to have a football team. If we lost the Bills you would quickly see Jim Kelly and group sign up for a UFL franchise in hopes that it becomes the next AFL. This might not be too far off. The NFL will have to expand again in its future or else why all the overseas games like London, Toronto, Mexico City? This would be an easy way for the NFL to add up to 8 teams at once (one in each division), add games and bye weeks to the schedule, and increase the amount of teams in the playoffs. If Buffalo loses the team, we may want to jump on the UFL ship quickly. My 2 Cents, Flame away, But there will be another merge of NFL teams in the next 20 yrs. Unless we all die in 2012 that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteski Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I actually think the veteran players are all for it. they don't want a chump making more money than them. How many people on the Bills do you think are pissed because Aaron maybin made more money than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I actually think the veteran players are all for it. they don't want a chump making more money than them. How many people on the Bills do you think are pissed because Aaron maybin made more money than them. Probobly none. It gives them more ammo to make more when their contract is up. Or hold out for more. Why you think we didnt sign Peters to more money? Sign Docker and Walker to highest OLmen paid contacts in Bills history and of course the best OLmen we have would be pissed. Especially when the guy next to him sucks. Schobel didnt mind much when Kelsey got paid all that money. Gave him reason to hold out, and hey, whadya know, he got paid a ton for it. No, The veterans could care less about it. They just make more when its their turns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yes, but the 2006 CBA preserved labor peace! It was a great thing. Ralph was a fool for not understanding it when he voted against it and only did so because it hurt him financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 There's no lockout until there's a lockout. Both sides are now doing their best to convince the other that they're willing to give up a year's work for their demands. Don't believe it until the gun actually goes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts