Punching Bag Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Steelers union rep to players: Start saving for possible 2021 lockout http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/steelers-union-rep-to-players-start-saving-for-possible-2021-lockout/ "It's coming," Foster continued. "They've hired certain people on their legal team, the NFL has, and we have to be the type of players and union that's not borrowing money from banks and stuff like that to survive a lockout, a strike. That can't happen this time around. We have to be smarter this time around because there are a lot of things we're going to be fighting for and a lot of things they are going to want and we're going to want, too." Maybe the NFLPA can start fining players as well and save the money for a rainy day fund rather than spending millions defending players to have suspensions waived/reduced when they have clearly violated rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Five years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 So they players that they are telling most likely won't be in the NFL so save your money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 So they players that they are telling most likely won't be in the NFL so save your money anyway. and the ones who will be playing are in high school and college Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 and the ones who will be playing are in high school and college Yep needing money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 They were talking about this same last week on the Mike and Mike show, how baseball was able to build up a huge war chest, but will never work in the NFL because the players careers are so short, they'd basically be striking to make sure the guys in HS won't be subject to Roger ruling on suspensions. Or they can agree to instead take an extra 5% in their pension and Roger keeps doing the same. Which will it be?? They also mentioned how 90% of the players in the NFLPA never get suspended or fined, so again why go on strike for the 10% bad apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The only thing that might work for the players would be a mid-season walkout similar to what happened in baseball in 2004. Maybe after week 4, 5 or 6 of a regular season. Fans would be fully involved by that time (we would have several draft threads running already ) and you know how much we love our football. The fear of losing a season, postseason and SB might get the owners to talk. Short of that I don't know what the players could do. The league will, IMO, give in quite a bit in terms of the powers of the commish. That's in their best interests, but, that alone won't get a deal done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 They also mentioned how 90% of the players in the NFLPA never get suspended or fined, so again why go on strike for the 10% bad apples. That is exactly my point - NFL players ought to split their union with one represented by current NFLPA laywers who want to litigate everything and other represented by another group. Yeah pain in butt during contract negotiation time but other industries manage with primary and secondary partners so why not NFL? There are insurance companies for low and HIGH risk drivers and life insurance clients. Players who do not want their money being spent on things such as defending drug users, drunk drivers and wife beaters could choose other union which would be charging players less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 IMO most of the suspension nonsense is the NFL intentionally inflicting minor wounds to it's product in order to *hopefully* create major leverage against future player demands. Ownership knows it has reached a point where each negotiation is just going to get increasingly more costly. They don't have a lot of things left to give other than higher % of the pie and guaranteed contracts and they do not want to do that. And if they wait until 2021 to extend it they may find weed is no longer illegal and the pressure to guarantee deals will be higher so I think they are actually very motivated to push the envelope by being extremely punitive and hopefully get the deal extended much sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I'll save by not paying for Sunday Ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 IMO most of the suspension nonsense is the NFL intentionally inflicting minor wounds to it's product in order to *hopefully* create major leverage against future player demands. Ownership knows it has reached a point where each negotiation is just going to get increasingly more costly. They don't have a lot of things left to give other than higher % of the pie and guaranteed contracts and they do not want to do that. And if they wait until 2021 to extend it they may find weed is no longer illegal and the pressure to guarantee deals will be higher so I think they are actually very motivated to push the envelope by being extremely punitive and hopefully get the deal extended much sooner. Then owners will bluff like they don't want to give in on suspension arbitration, drug policies and weed, etc....and then they will concede these meaningless points to the players, who will think they scored a major victory. What they won't ever get are guaranteed contracts and a higher percent of revenues. The owners all will survive a "walkout". Not many players will. As pointed out above-why would the vast majority want to surrender game checks to make suspensions less severe for the few knuckleheads like Marcel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) It's all about the money. Even when it isn't about the money (weed, Goodell, domestic violence, etc.).....it's all about the money. How much will you trade for what you want? Edited August 23, 2016 by Augie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 It's all about the money. Even when it isn't about the money (weed, Goodell, domestic violence, etc.).....it's all about the money. How much will you trade for what you want? The NFL can't survive giving out guaranteed contracts, unless they are for a fraction of what they are now i terms of value and length. The owners will never concede this and any NFLPA leader will always know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The NFL can't survive giving out guaranteed contracts, unless they are for a fraction of what they are now i terms of value and length. The owners will never concede this and any NFLPA leader will always know this. I pray that is all true. Guaranteed contracts are not the way to go. Hold the line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Then owners will bluff like they don't want to give in on suspension arbitration, drug policies and weed, etc....and then they will concede these meaningless points to the players, who will think they scored a major victory. What they won't ever get are guaranteed contracts and a higher percent of revenues. The owners all will survive a "walkout". Not many players will. As pointed out above-why would the vast majority want to surrender game checks to make suspensions less severe for the few knuckleheads like Marcel? I think it's ridiculously transparent and I know the player representation know it too. But as you said it does give the owners something to give and it also gives the player reps something to claim victory when they inevitably a lot less than they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I think it's ridiculously transparent and I know the player representation know it too. But as you said it does give the owners something to give and it also gives the player reps something to claim victory when they inevitably a lot less than they want. I still can't understand why NFL players don't just decertify the union. They bluffed doing it last time, then chickened out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I still can't understand why NFL players don't just decertify the union. They bluffed doing it last time, then chickened out. They decertified in '89---which ultimately led to a new CBA. They threatened to decertify in 2011 and the NFL went before the NLRB to argue it was to be a sham decertification (which it clearly would be). All pension and health insurance payments would stop and the league would likely lock out non union players. An antitrust challenge would cost millions. This would be a tough sell to the vast majority of players who had no problem with the current CBA when ratified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 For the ones that are either on their 2nd contract, or 1st round pick rookie deals. This shouldn't be hard. You SHOULD be set for life, let alone a single year. There won't be a full non-season - the owners stand to lose far too much. So look at it like a late start to the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 They were talking about this same last week on the Mike and Mike show, how baseball was able to build up a huge war chest, but will never work in the NFL because the players careers are so short, they'd basically be striking to make sure the guys in HS won't be subject to Roger ruling on suspensions. Or they can agree to instead take an extra 5% in their pension and Roger keeps doing the same. Which will it be?? They also mentioned how 90% of the players in the NFLPA never get suspended or fined, so again why go on strike for the 10% bad apples. I pray that is all true. Guaranteed contracts are not the way to go. Hold the line! perhaps some middle ground. Guaranteed contract for injury, not for performance. That "guaranteed" injury amount also does not count against the cap. In terms of griping about suspensions, the players need to zip it. They have ZERO public support. Anyone else would not get a 4 game suspension from work, they would get fired. Also, 90% of players don't get suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts