major Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/01/judge-doty-sides-with-players-in-lockout-insurance-cas/ I hope this helps the players in some fashion. I just can't side with owners in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Excellent. I look forward to many more years of rookies like Aaron Maybin holding out and getting $25MM contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet. This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I side with the fans... In a way, I don't care about what the players & owners decide. They're all making more than everyone on this board combined, so just figure out a way to share the sandbox so we can all be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSpeed Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I side with the fans... In a way, I don't care about what the players & owners decide. They're all making more than everyone on this board combined, so just figure out a way to share the sandbox so we can all be happy. Maybe we should team up with some other cities and start our own league. A league full of Greenbay Packer type ownership. A league for the fans by the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombstone56 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) A BUNCH MILLIONAIRES COMPLAINING THAT THEY'RE NOT BILLIONAIRES, SCREW EM ALL. Edited March 2, 2011 by tombstone56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Funny thing, this CBA has very little to actually do with the Players vs the Owner. Its Owners vs Owners and the players are just caught up in the mess. Some of the owners don't want to share revenue anymore. The little issues between the Players and the Owners aren't really that important to the Owners. There is nothing really anything that is make or break for the owners. There isn't any huge source of income that they would reclaim under a new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Excellent. I look forward to many more years of rookies like Aaron Maybin holding out and getting $25MM contracts. care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brenty Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) care to explain? i believe he just read the title and assumed players won everything. Edited March 2, 2011 by brenty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 i believe he just read the title and assumed players won everything. No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make. As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make. As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall. FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make. As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall. Without sounding like a hardass, I don't think you have to worry about who's going to come out ahead in this battle. 90% of the players aren't rich without football, 100% of the owners are rich beyond most people's imagination without football. Who needs who here? FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore. Can you let De Smith know that? He's been staunch in his stance that there will be no rookie wage scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet. This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas. Those deals were on the renegotiated contracts--old news. They are part of every contract, apparently. It's not "free money"--it has to be repaid. It's a sound business practice that the NFLPA never had a problem with in past contracts. The special master ruled for the League. A judge has ruled agaisnt the league. There will be an appeal, etc. The league will obviously argue that they were intent on maximizing revenues in the face of an uncertain economic climate (that's what they argued in front of the master and the judge). Said the master in his ruling: "In Burbank's decision, released for the first time Thursday, he said he couldn't believe the NFL had a duty to the union to "throw budgets and business plans in the wastebasket" even as he acknowledged the sharp disagreement between the two sides over how much the NFL can pursue its own business interests while following requirements of the labor pact." Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Without sounding like a hardass, I don't think you have to worry about who's going to come out ahead in this battle. 90% of the players aren't rich without football, 100% of the owners are rich beyond most people's imagination without football. Who needs who here? Can you let De Smith know that? He's been staunch in his stance that there will be no rookie wage scale. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view.bg?articleid=1319424 http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/03/01/sports/nh3708950.txt?viewmode=fullstory http://www.businessinsider.com/nflpa-not-happy-with-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-2011-2 Here are some articles showing the NFLPA is negotiating the issue. In fact the last article explains Smith's counter [b]wage scale proposal.[/b] Is that what you call staunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make. As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall. the money should go towards the vets instead of the rookies. i also want the owners to quit asking the public for money...they run billion dollar teams but they cant afford rent? doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore. Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet. This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas. What are you talking about? If the league extracted a 20% revenue deal from the players they would still try to maximize their profit margins. If the owners extracted a 5% revenue deal they would still with great zeal continue maximizing their profit level. They can't help being insatiably greedy. It is in their DNA. Just think the owners are paying the players an effective rate of 52% of the total revenues that resulted in more profits than under the previous CBA. They find that objectionable. As you rightly observed the owners' TV money and insurance ploy was blatantly an unfair labor practice. So when the owners resolutely refuse to state their profit margins there is a reason why. They are doing better and simply want more. If the owners want to make even more money without wrangling with the union there is a better way to do it. They could show more discipline and intellegence in the way they negotiate contract deals. Albert Haynesworth and Clinton Portis type contracts are due to their own irresponsibility. The owners have never made a case as to why there was such an imperative to re-open the CBA. It was more about more. Greed on top of greed. Edited March 2, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed. Did you read the articles i posted? Your post doesnt necessarily make sense since under the old CBA there was a total cap, so everyone couldnt keep escalating out of control based on rookie contracts. Both sides wants to cap rookies and reallocate that money to vets and retirees. THe issue is the type and amount of the cap for rookies and of course the overall piece of the pie that goes to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 the money should go towards the vets instead of the rookies. i also want the owners to quit asking the public for money...they run billion dollar teams but they cant afford rent? doesn't make sense. No argument there, but I hold crooked politicians primarily responsible for that nonsense. Everyone wants a hand out, it's up to responsible leaders to tell them to f--- off. Both sides wants to cap rookies and reallocate that money to vets and retirees. That might be news to the players' union. From your article: However, the NFLPA does not want a slotting system like the NBA employs. Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view.bg?articleid=1319424 http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/03/01/sports/nh3708950.txt?viewmode=fullstory http://www.businessinsider.com/nflpa-not-happy-with-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-2011-2 Here are some articles showing the NFLPA is negotiating the issue. In fact the last article explains Smith's counter [b]wage scale proposal.[/b] Is that what you call staunch? That last article is interesting, I hadn't seen that...thanks. However, I can't say that I view tinkering with contract length and limiting escalators the same way as agreeing to a rookie wage scale. This league needs something more significant. It's not right for JaMarcus Russell to make more than Tom Brady just in guarantees (an item that--based on the article--Smith's proposal would not affect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts