cba fan Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 9:59 AM, HappyDays said: I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money. ?? This keeps coming up over and over again. No one cares or worries about billionaires money. This salary paying debate, which is actually a cap spending debate, is about how your team you follow, spends the cap to the best of their ability to provide a winning team. This is not about an EX like this: people concerned how much teachers and administrators are paid in salary benefits etc etc...….. because they pay directly for it in the way of property tax assessments and have no choice in the matter. And don't really agree a 9 month job should pay 60 to 100+ k per year for teachers and 150+ k for administrators. NFL is mostly(but not all as tax dollars are sometimes spent for stadium) optional for you to spend money on the team in way of tickets merchandise and supporting their tv program etc etc...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_Fixit Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 7:07 AM, Bobby Hooks said: Teams are always looking for an edge to land the “big fish.” Even if most of the teams decided to only sign free agents to performance based contracts there would always be those outlier teams that didn’t and attracted the biggest free agents. Thanks professor science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitmic Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 If all players salary was performance based, wouldn't all of the good offensive players hold out to be signed by a team with Rodgers, Brees, Brady etc... at QB ? Why would anyone want to play for a team with a rookie QB or journeyman QB ? Bad idea OP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) On 6/6/2018 at 10:05 AM, oldmanfan said: Or you could go the other way and have guaranteed contracts but at lower salaries. ....again another NFLPA civil war.......a $12 BILLION dollar industry and they want their piece of the pie+......look at the franchise value escalation......sure as hell would like to see performance based contracts across all pro sports.......hell, we could call it "The Fat Albert Haynesworth Rule".....at least with MLB and NHL, both having substantial minor league systems, you can sign a player to a two way contract, starting in the minors....he gets called up and his major league salary initiates....demote him and he reverts back to his minor league salary....perform and you stay up at bigger $$$.....slack and back down you go....but it's not perfect....sign a guy to a major league contract and designate him for reassignment to the minors and he still gets his major league loot.......and endless debate as to how to solve it with the amount of money involved..... Edited June 22, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManRaid Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Prima donna receivers will demand the ball even more, QBs will throw 100% of the time, and what metrics will you judge linemen or defensive players by? Good CBs who don't get thrown to to get pass breakups and whatnot will get shafted. SO many problems with this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I’d actually go the other way. All contracts are 100% garaunteed. Maybe a 5 year, conditional years 4 and 5. Where if you hit your markers, the team is required to retain and pay you. You’d see less wasted money on unproven guys. I also think in instances loke Eric Wood, Aaron Williams,or the extreme Kevin Everett, the team should be required to pay, BUT it doesn’t have any effect on the cap. It’s just taken off the books. Forced retirement by a doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 4:31 PM, StHustle said: So should teams also be forced to pay more when players outperform their paygrade? You can't have it one way. There is a players union if you didn't know. it's the weakest players union, they have been hammered every single time in standoffs. too much $$$ is riding on the high likelihood of a career limiting or-ending injury every single snap even in practices many major knee injuries occur running through drills with no contact at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 1 hour ago, row_33 said: it's the weakest players union, they have been hammered every single time in standoffs. too much $$$ is riding on the high likelihood of a career limiting or-ending injury every single snap even in practices many major knee injuries occur running through drills with no contact at all Anyone can get hurt on the job at any time. Just like workman's compensation works, players should be paid less when injured and unable to work. Typical pay is 80% of take home pay. Sounds reasonable. They are also eligible for long term disability via Social Security just like all Americans who work enough to qualify. IE: work and earn money in 5 preceding years before disability and you qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 The CBA, the NFLPA, the WORLD. You're advocating for owners/franchises/companies to have full control over a contract. That doesn't happen for obvious reasons. Because a contract goes both ways. Oh and how painfully expensive it is to monitor every athlete's production subjectively, day to day? Hour to hour? Miss a meeting and you lose .1% of your salary. You would need like 2000 people just to keep track of that nonsense. Imagine you're a contract laborer. Have a setback. Boom, contract's out the window. Contracts protect the workers. That's why unions exist. Or we could go back to the lassai faire big industry: "The committee chairman asked Rockefeller whether he would stand by his anti-union principles even “if it costs all your property and kills all your employees.” Rockefeller replied, “It is a great principle.”" like what are we talking about here? This is just evolution of American economics. NFL players are virtually the same as contract employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 9:01 AM, T master said: In the world as we know it if you don't do your job up to the expectations put in place then you get let go & you don't still collect a pay check ! THAT'S NOT CONTRACTUAL LABOR. That's a salaried employee. NFL players aren't salaried employees. In a contract.. a company draws up details and stipulations, and if a worker agrees to that, both parties know what they're legally bound to do to finish the contract. Albert Haynesworth's agent was a genius, Dan Snyder is an idiot. I'm sure he proposed a few stipulations, but the agent knew his client was getting signed no matter what. he took advantage of that.. and drew the contract. If you're going to wax poetic on how money should be earned based on merit, think about Snyder being the idiot and losing all that money on a contract he signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Fan Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 I think he prefers hawaiian rolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 Sure have guaranteed contracts so players could get Planters Fakeitis and collect for salary for free and they ALREADY do that without guaranteed contract. I am sure no player will reveal an offseason injury, say tripping over the dog going to door to get pizza, and just wait to training camp where it will magically appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DabillsDaBillsDaBills Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Limeaid said: Sure have guaranteed contracts so players could get Planters Fakeitis and collect for salary for free and they ALREADY do that without guaranteed contract. I am sure no player will reveal an offseason injury, say tripping over the dog going to door to get pizza, and just wait to training camp where it will magically appear. The other major sports leagues have guaranteed contracts and that doesn't seem to be a problem there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 Really, there are two separate philosophies. On one hand, you have the corporate model, which espouses the PAAC philosophy (profit at all cost). On the other hand, there is the philosophy that a football team provides a service that benefits the community as a whole (which includes the players, and the owners). Performance based contracts, or (as Oldmanfan suggested) lower salaries, would work well under PAAC, and does not hold ownership, or shareholders accountable in any way. IMO, if such a contract existed in the NFL, it would most certainly need comprehensive protections for players who suffer injury, and incentives to keep players from playing injured. But, I understand the frustration with players who pedal their efforts back after they land a big contract. But, I wonder if there weren't some more player-friendly (and safety-friendly) options that would help the same issues? How about profit sharing for players,and coaches? Perhaps a certain portion of each team could be owned by the community in which they reside, like the Packers' structure, but at a percentage? What people often don't realize about an organized labor force is that the labor force operates under the same economic pressures that the business does. If the company doesn't thrive, then neither do the workers. The more invested the labor force is in the product, the higher the motivation to put out a high quality product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 29 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said: The other major sports leagues have guaranteed contracts and that doesn't seem to be a problem there. Yes because the union allows and supports such things. Do you deny it happens is NFL? The NFL has a lot larger roster than other sports with a lot of UDFAs, players signed when other players are injured, etc. Should every player signed get guaranteed contracts? Just drafted players? Just free agents? Who determines when a player does not perform and needs to be penalized? NFLPA? Do you really think the NFLPA will not argue every penalty? Do you think they will pull guarantee of a player (aka Billy Joe) as an example did not read playbook? I do not think so. This is a zero money game. Guaranteed money is coming from somewhere and some players will lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: Really, there are two separate philosophies. On one hand, you have the corporate model, which espouses the PAAC philosophy (profit at all cost). On the other hand, there is the philosophy that a football team provides a service that benefits the community as a whole (which includes the players, and the owners). Performance based contracts, or (as Oldmanfan suggested) lower salaries, would work well under PAAC, and does not hold ownership, or shareholders accountable in any way. IMO, if such a contract existed in the NFL, it would most certainly need comprehensive protections for players who suffer injury, and incentives to keep players from playing injured. But, I understand the frustration with players who pedal their efforts back after they land a big contract. But, I wonder if there weren't some more player-friendly (and safety-friendly) options that would help the same issues? How about profit sharing for players,and coaches? Perhaps a certain portion of each team could be owned by the community in which they reside, like the Packers' structure, but at a percentage? What people often don't realize about an organized labor force is that the labor force operates under the same economic pressures that the business does. If the company doesn't thrive, then neither do the workers. The more invested the labor force is in the product, the higher the motivation to put out a high quality product. I don't think anyone is suggesting the salary cap would be abolished. The players collectively, including those injured, would still share the players portion of all defined income via the current salary cap. The plan suggested by several would just redistribute some(but far from all) salary away from underperforming and injured players and into the rightful hands of players who produce and are available. 8 minutes ago, Limeaid said: Yes because the union allows and supports such things. Do you deny it happens is NFL? The NFL has a lot larger roster than other sports with a lot of UDFAs, players signed when other players are injured, etc. Should every player signed get guaranteed contracts? Just drafted players? Just free agents? Who determines when a player does not perform and needs to be penalized? NFLPA? Do you really think the NFLPA will not argue every penalty? Do you think they will pull guarantee of a player (aka Billy Joe) as an example did not read playbook? I do not think so. This is a zero money game. Guaranteed money is coming from somewhere and some players will lose. Virtually every NFL contract has some guaranteed portion. Some have salary itself guaranteed, some have sign bonuses that are paid out on signing so are same as guaranteed. For those low end guys who do not get a sign bonus I agree wholeheartedly they should have a portion guaranteed or given a sign bonus. Even practice squad players should get a reasonable severance pay when cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts