Cba
 

Interesting read from Mark Murphy, President of the GB Packers, regarding the CBA and the need for a rookie wage scale. It's the first time I've seen any sort of detail into what owners might be thinking as far as how rookies should be compensated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

Interesting read.....now if the NFLPA will only go along, maybe there will be an uninterupted 2011 NFL season. I'm not very sure this will happen though.

I was hearing the other day on one of the networks that DeMorris Smith, the NFLPA pres. is more interested in getting his political career jump started than he is about the CBA. The more attention he can draw to himself, the better he will like it, and the longer he will prolong the conflict.

Nonsense. This is all on the owners and don't let anyone tell you different. You should know better than to spout pro-owner garbage like that.

How much pressure to get this thing worked out is gonna come from certain players who are early or at the midrange of their careers ? You know the ones who aren't making the really big bucks like the super stars, the Mannings & Bradys & Ray Lewis are probably more likely to stand firm ? They're wealthy with SB rings but the younger guys have got to know that their years are numbered as far as their chances to get theirs go and they might be far more impatient ?

You should campaign for the NFLPA Pres after Smith makes his dramatic exit.

the owners cancelled the cba, not the players. owners creating the issue...

according to Forbes, while there are big market and small market teams, average team had a net profit of 33 million last year and value over 1 billion.

here is a forbes article on some of this
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mos...-10-intro.html

new stadiums help profit, tv deals continue to go up, 18 games increases revenue further, contracts aren't guaranteed but players are to honor them, likely rookie salaries will be slotted and capped, wouldn't feel to sorry for owners. owners don't open their books except Green bay who is a public entity, GB has a higher salary number than most teams.

the percent of a bigger pie means all will gain if hold steady on percentages which are rather fudge numbers anyways.

players union seems to be seeking mostly insurance/health gurantees for past and future players, more fair on contract terms guarantees.

does seem perhaps both sides finally starting to sit down and talk with a little clarity and urgency, atleast this week

I have 0 sympathy for the players. Many, many of these guys would have the proverbial occupation of "pumping gas" if it wern't for the NFL, and then moonlighting as semi-pros when it comes to their first love of football.
Isn't the minimum annual salary something like 3/4 million ? Make it every year you can without interruption until you are too old. Period.

This is so preposterously wrong-headed (and wrong) that it is surprising to read even if it is coming from you.

The owners are billionaires. Even the shittiest franchise makes TONS of money. (See: Houston Texans) Some of the players are indeed very wealthy by ordinary standards but for every Peyton Manning there are dozens of Vonta Leaches. These guys are going to play a few years in the league, suffer several concussions, f%ck up their back, blow out their knees and at the age of 40 will be hobbling around like a 90 year old. For what? For $400k a year? And you want to side with airheaded blowhard billionaires like Bob McNair in saying that these guys make too much money? Are you insane?

Like I said, the Vonta Leaches are making atleast the base annual comp
of 'bout 750 K. In other words players like Leach can make more in a few years than many of us can make in a lifetime. And NFL owners/entrepreneurs are the ones who made these tremendous financial opportunities available to the players with capital they put up and risked. I'm sure there's owners who basically inherited their teams, but the Bob Mcnairs bought them with their own money they made during their business careers. To me there's no difference between a computer programmer or accountant or janitor working for a Fortune 500 company and an NFL player playing for an NFL team, except the football players make a helluva lot more money.

I'm not going to waste too much time with you on this but your analogy is poor. Many owners made lots of money in business, sure, but many use taxpayer funded stadiums. To try to hold them up as paragons of the free market is laughable. They are taxpayer funded monopolists.

An accountant working at a Fortune 500 company may hope for a career spanning many decades. An NFL player cannot. If that accountant feels under-compensated or under-appreciated in his work he may seek work elsewhere. An NFL player cannot.

NFL teams net tens of millions of dollars in profits annually, even the terrible ones. On top of that the franchises themselves appreciate in value faster than most any other asset class, at least the decent ones do. NFL franchises are spectacular investments. If I had a billion dollars or two I would try to buy one, I promise you. But I would not be callous enough to say from the comfort of my taxpayer built suite that the concussed, hobbled players on the field beneath me, the very ones that give my franchise its value, should give me back 20% of their earnings. That's just immoral and insulting.

Get your numbers correct and then talk. Kieth can explain this better, but the base salary for a rookie is 310k, it goes up every year to the ten year mark where it is in the 800K+ range.

An undrafted free agent player does not make the big bucks unless he hangs around for a while.

And the average playing life of a player is still only 3 years, most NFL players never make near the money you are asserting. Now a few on every team make huge money.

But the average life of a man who played in the NFL is still shorter than the man who did not play in the NFL. The injuries to the joints, backs and head lead to very low quality of lives for these guys.

OK if it's "just" over 300K a year that's big, big money by my standards. And pro football was never meant to be a man's life-long career, only something he did a few years of his youth, maybe around 10 for a small minority. Anybody who's fortunate enough in the first place to be born with enough raw athletic ability is just plain lucky, after that if they work hard enough to develope their skill the money they get is more than fair reward for their efforts. Even if it's only a few years at just over 300K annually.
High risk from injury ? Tell that to the guys who work the deep-water rigs in the Gulf and the coal-miners back in W.Virginia.

It's not socialism or communism, it's capitalism. I don't see how the owners are under any obligation to pay the players anymore than the bare minimum compensation they can get them at, nor do I think they are under any obligation to share in what some might think is an equitable or fair portion of the teams profits or revenues no more than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is obligated to share their salary with the guys on their roster making only base minimum.

I am able to see the point of view that the rookies should not be making crazy guaranteed money unless they have proven themselves. When Jamarcus Russell is making more than Tom Brady, then there is a problem. Taking a look at the article, it seems as if Andrew Luck will be making $19.9 Million over 6 years if he's the #1 pick next year. If he had been smart enough to come out this year, he'd probably have $50 Million guaranteed. So, I might compromise by allocating $30 Million for the #1 pick and allowing contract renegotiations after 2 years for all rookies, not just the ones not drafted in the 1st round. Matt Ryan has shown that a 1st round QB can be under-compensated.

What in the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about any of this? But now that you mention it, taking taxpayer revenue and giving it to an entity far mightier than the individual for its own use is certainly not capitalism. It's more akin to fascism, actually. And furthermore, what do you make of the NFL's revenue sharing? I hope that dangerous example of socialism infuriates you enough to act. Maybe you should call in to the Michael Berry show and vent.

The owners are certainly under no obligation to do any of this, and left to their own devices the league would be run like it was in the 1960s with low pay and no regard to the health consequences suffered by playing the game that further enriches the owners. You're fine with that. I understand. I'm not fine with this, and more relevantly the players are not, either. That is why they unionize. The owners run highly profitable franchises in a league that has never been more popular yet they are trying to squeeze the players. I try to see both sides of any issue that matters to me. In this case I think any sensible person would realize that the players are in the right here.

You say you have "0 sympathy" for the players. I hope you remember that sentiment when your boss at the dirt factory depresses your wages, lowers your working conditions and slashes your benefits.

The NFL is such high revenue, like 9 billion a year, seems the owners could negotiate to WIN-WIN position, but it does seem they are trying for WIN-LOSE for players, I don't really like that at all.

The more owners walk out on negotiations, demand ridiculous changes, sue the NFLPA, appear to be to ok with delaying offseason and regulare season, the less I appreciate them at all.

Absolutely. The league is getting almost two BILLION a year from ESPN for MNF alone in a deal will extend through 2020.

It's not some third-string linebacker's fault or some incoming rookie's fault that an idiot like Jerry Jones finds himself with a lot of debt after having built a colossal onanistic fantasy.

Here is a small summary of the issues after this last week of 40 hours negotiating with a mediator present.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...t/7443945.html

Apparently discussions to resume discussions this upcoming Tuesday.

It was also reported not one owner was there on the side of the NFL, so that doesn't sound right if true.

And some discussion of NFLPA disbanding the player union and that then the owners would not have organization to lockout. so maybe players could continue using facilities, and negotiate in good faith somehow?

well, hope it works out quickly and fairly for all.

Don't hear a whole lot official from the negotiators, have ya'll?

It is a little encouraging there is still no lockout and no de-certification, and a seven day extension of negotiations till next Friday.

So hopefully a little progress finally being made, sure hope it ends soon and the season continues as normal.

I did hear the main difference in two sides wishes is about 25 million per team / per year, at this time. just split the difference and be done with it guys.