Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Lowndesfalc

New CBA voting starts today

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, A Dog Named Brian said:

It’s possible, looking at how the vets feel. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it will be interesting for sure. 

I feel that the regular players, which this deal benefits greatly, will vote for it, and that will allow it to pass easily. The minimum level players get a $100,000 a year raise right off the bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boise Falcon Fan said:

I feel that the regular players, which this deal benefits greatly, will vote for it, and that will allow it to pass easily. The minimum level players get a $100,000 a year raise right off the bat.

Pretty much. The owners banked on over 50% of the league being "minimum wage" type players. It's going to benefit them the most in the short term, but it's such a terrible CBA. They're getting f*cked in plain sight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vel said:

Pretty much. The owners banked on over 50% of the league being "minimum wage" type players. It's going to benefit them the most in the short term, but it's such a terrible CBA. They're getting f*cked in plain sight. 

Wow, I thought it was pretty good for the players.  They may get a 17th game, but the majority minimum wage (lol) guys income will more than double over 10 years and 20% increase first year.

Practice squad players are getting a 30% pay increase.  Practice squad size is increasing, roster sizes are increasing (active), and practice squad players can ve activated multiple times.  Which is all good for the majority of players, and is great for fans. 

Even drug testing and punishment for things like marijuana are being greatly reduced.

Doesn't sound like anyone is getting bent over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vel said:

Pretty much. The owners banked on over 50% of the league being "minimum wage" type players. It's going to benefit them the most in the short term, but it's such a terrible CBA. They're getting f*cked in plain sight. 

The NFL has a monopoly on what it has. Players could go to the CFL but that's about it. It's not like baseball or Basketball where its played all over the world and players can go play in a different league or something. The owners know this. The players get paid millions to play a game provided by said owner. Is it completely fair? No, but they could always not play and you know that ain't happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AlabamaFalconFan said:

Wow, I thought it was pretty good for the players.  They may get a 17th game, but the majority minimum wage (lol) guys income will more than double over 10 years and 20% increase first year.

Practice squad players are getting a 30% pay increase.  Practice squad size is increasing, roster sizes are increasing (active), and practice squad players can ve activated multiple times.  Which is all good for the majority of players, and is great for fans. 

Even drug testing and punishment for things like marijuana are being greatly reduced.

Doesn't sound like anyone is getting bent over...

Lol I didn't know another category for the non-high paid players. It seems the CBA split the players into two categories: high paid vets and everybody else. 

Anything less than a 50% split is still asinine in my opinion. Caps at 48.5%. That's nuts in my opinion. Also, it's a 10 year CBA with no out. The 2011 lockout happened because the owners had an out after 5. The players don't have that. They can't holdout into training camp. Missing just one day of TC because of a hold out causes you to lose an accrued season. That's a massive loss of leverage. Restricted FAs can't hit FA and don't have a guaranteed contract. 

They're adding a lot more football but not increasing the amount of rest. Additional playoff game while taking away a bye week for the 2nd seed? 17th game but no extra bye week. 

Basically, the owners dangled a lot of carrots for the bottom of the roster guys, the "Most guys wash out after 3 years" part of the NFL, to sway them to agree to this CBA. Practice squads are increasing and they're getting a "raise" but they can't negotiate beyond that. Increasing the roster was primarily for practice squad players. Again, fringe players. 

Considering all of the things the owners are "giving on", they are getting over half of the revenue still and still can tuck away revenue like stadium naming rights, luxury ticket sales, etc. They are still making out like bandits. The 17th game is more wear and tear on the players, but more money for the owners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vel said:

Lol I didn't know another category for the non-high paid players. It seems the CBA split the players into two categories: high paid vets and everybody else. 

Anything less than a 50% split is still asinine in my opinion. Caps at 48.5%. That's nuts in my opinion. Also, it's a 10 year CBA with no out. The 2011 lockout happened because the owners had an out after 5. The players don't have that. They can't holdout into training camp. Missing just one day of TC because of a hold out causes you to lose an accrued season. That's a massive loss of leverage. Restricted FAs can't hit FA and don't have a guaranteed contract. 

They're adding a lot more football but not increasing the amount of rest. Additional playoff game while taking away a bye week for the 2nd seed? 17th game but no extra bye week. 

Basically, the owners dangled a lot of carrots for the bottom of the roster guys, the "Most guys wash out after 3 years" part of the NFL, to sway them to agree to this CBA. Practice squads are increasing and they're getting a "raise" but they can't negotiate beyond that. Increasing the roster was primarily for practice squad players. Again, fringe players. 

Considering all of the things the owners are "giving on", they are getting over half of the revenue still and still can tuck away revenue like stadium naming rights, luxury ticket sales, etc. They are still making out like bandits. The 17th game is more wear and tear on the players, but more money for the owners. 

I guess we see things differently as there is even language in the new cba that would increase the deductible for guaranteeing contracts, aka more contracts would be guaranteed in the future.  Getting upset over 48.8 vs 50%... Man that's 2.4% lol.  I just dont see how the players are not getting a ton in this deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vel said:

Lol I didn't know another category for the non-high paid players. It seems the CBA split the players into two categories: high paid vets and everybody else. 

Anything less than a 50% split is still asinine in my opinion. Caps at 48.5%. That's nuts in my opinion. Also, it's a 10 year CBA with no out. The 2011 lockout happened because the owners had an out after 5. The players don't have that. They can't holdout into training camp. Missing just one day of TC because of a hold out causes you to lose an accrued season. That's a massive loss of leverage. Restricted FAs can't hit FA and don't have a guaranteed contract. 

They're adding a lot more football but not increasing the amount of rest. Additional playoff game while taking away a bye week for the 2nd seed? 17th game but no extra bye week. 

Basically, the owners dangled a lot of carrots for the bottom of the roster guys, the "Most guys wash out after 3 years" part of the NFL, to sway them to agree to this CBA. Practice squads are increasing and they're getting a "raise" but they can't negotiate beyond that. Increasing the roster was primarily for practice squad players. Again, fringe players. 

Considering all of the things the owners are "giving on", they are getting over half of the revenue still and still can tuck away revenue like stadium naming rights, luxury ticket sales, etc. They are still making out like bandits. The 17th game is more wear and tear on the players, but more money for the owners. 

They should. It's their product. In what other business anywhere does the employee and the employer have a 50/50 split? They provide these guys the opportunity to be millionaires, not the other way around. The owners are already millionaires.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlabamaFalconFan said:

I guess we see things differently as there is even language in the new cba that would increase the deductible for guaranteeing contracts, aka more contracts would be guaranteed in the future.  Getting upset over 48.8 vs 50%... Man that's 2.4% lol.  I just dont see how the players are not getting a ton in this deal. 

If it's not such a big deal, why don't the owners give on it? Because we're talking billions of dollars. The players aren't really getting all that much that they shouldn't have. Increased minimums, like I said, impacts a large part of the NFL, but for a ten year CBA, it's fool's gold for the current guys to vote on for themselves. 

Why not demand a 50/50 split? Why not demand the option to get out in five years if the money is lopsided? Ten years from now, you know what's next? An 18 game season. And the players are not in a position of increased leverage. They are giving on 17th games, which is a baby step to 18, which players have been adamant on not agreeing to without increased roster sizes and rest. The "increased roster size" is required to be two practice squad players. How does that benefit the core roster guys? It really doesn't. Would having Alex Gray on the 55 man roster really been beneficial to Austin Hooper? No, because he would be inactive anyway. If they made gameday rosters all 55 players or close to it, removing the need for inactives, then ok. If they added a bye week, ok. 

They're dangling roughly $100MM in "new money" in the increases minimums. You're buying that, but that's foolish when you do the math. $100MM / 32 teams = $3MM. Throw in no removal of the franchise and transition tags and continued cap environment, and the coming increase in revenue skews heavily in favor of the owners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

They should. It's their product. In what other business anywhere does the employee and the employer have a 50/50 split? They provide these guys the opportunity to be millionaires, not the other way around. The owners are already millionaires.....

Lol it was 50/50 split until the 2011 deal. And you're joking if you think the owners are the ones providing the "opportunity". I'd go watch the Falcons in rag tag jerseys play at a high school stadium. I don't need the Benz stadium or TV rights. There is no product without the players. You waking up Sundays to watch Blank dance in a glass bubble? No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vel said:

 

They're dangling roughly $100MM in "new money" in the increases minimums. You're buying that, but that's foolish when you do the math. $100MM / 32 teams = $3MM. Throw in no removal of the franchise and transition tags and continued cap environment, and the coming increase in revenue skews heavily in favor of the owners. 

Eh I see it as over a billion in new salary for the roster over 10 years, which the players get the lions share if new tv deals are met, as well as stadium incentives.

There is also over 200 million going to practice squad players in new salaries plus 401k and tuition assistance..  They are also removing 1.25 million from certain vet contacts that wont ve included in the cap.  There is a ton in tgis new cba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, vel said:

Lol it was 50/50 split until the 2011 deal. And you're joking if you think the owners are the ones providing the "opportunity". I'd go watch the Falcons in rag tag jerseys play at a high school stadium. I don't need the Benz stadium or TV rights. There is no product without the players. You waking up Sundays to watch Blank dance in a glass bubble? No. 

You and how many others? Without the owners we just plain wouldn't have football.  All of the players can be replaced.  People would go watch the NFL with different players.  The scenario with "rag tag jersey play at a high school stadium" is comical, and not one bit believable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boise Falcon Fan said:

You and how many others? Without the owners we just plain wouldn't have football.  All of the players can be replaced.  People would go watch the NFL with different players.  The scenario with "rag tag jersey play at a high school stadium" is comical, and not one bit believable...

Do you know how many people have watched the XFL? That's the point. People who love football are not handcuffed to the owners. They don't matter. The product is the players, not the owners. 

Without the owners we just plain wouldn't have football is the comical part. We had it when they were making a 50/50 split before 2006. No problem. The Panthers just sold their team and nothing changed. Get rid of the players and there is no team. Make it make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to know how stupid this "No football without owners" argument is? Name the owner of the Packers. 

If the Falcons and the rest of the NFL went with no owners, there would still be football. If there were no players, what are you watching? 

Two questions. Give me answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

They should. It's their product. In what other business anywhere does the employee and the employer have a 50/50 split? They provide these guys the opportunity to be millionaires, not the other way around. The owners are already millionaires.....

Players are not merely employees.  They are also the product.  Nobody comes to see the owners own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Players are not merely employees.  They are also the product.  Nobody comes to see the owners own.

I just don't get how this is not common sense. I haven't tuned in once to watch an owner. Yet, people swear they're the reason we watch the NFL. Like what?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
  • Create New...