lancerman Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 39 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: So - we good? Average American comps = bad Players have leverage Players need to real PF advice No becayse I don’t understand why your username is ramssuperbowl99 with a 49’ers avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Just now, lancerman said: No becayse I don’t understand why your username is ramssuperbowl99 with a 49’ers avatar I was a St. Louis Rams fan. Stopped being a fan when they moved to LA. Nothing makes Rams fans sadder than a good 49ers team, so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I was a St. Louis Rams fan. Stopped being a fan when they moved to LA. Nothing makes Rams fans sadder than a good 49ers team, so why not? I was like wtf did he switch teams when they moved closer to him probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Roster sizes are ~50% bigger. I don't have an exact number on the difference in turnover. The extra liability for healthcare on debilitating injuries is different. It's tough to know what the exact bill would be, but I don't think we'd be talking about a 3-fold increase or anything. If the roster sizes are roughly a 2:1 ratio, you’re right off the bat looking at doubling the expenses. The average NFL career IIRC is ~3 years while the average MLB career is 5.6 years, so another sizable discrepancy. Obviously we can’t really figure what the differences are in health, other than to say NFL athletes get the much shorter end of the stick. I have no idea what the cost would be, but I could see it tripling for sure. If we figure it’d double off of roster size alone, I could see the shorter career length + increased medical coverage warranting another $10M-$11M. I could also see that type of plan incentivizing some athletes who aren’t NFL caliber to try and make a roster for 3 seasons in order to achieve a life long salary and health care deal. Below average players with the minimum experience would have an incentive to call it quits where otherwise they’d have virtually no income. Again, impossible figures to determine, but I imagine that’d change certain dynamics. I’m not big on the whole idea, especially with the way the HOF players went about it. Obviously depends on the plan, but I think the costs, even at modedt figures, would be more than most teams would want to give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said: If the roster sizes are roughly a 2:1 ratio, you’re right off the bat looking at doubling the expenses. The average NFL career IIRC is ~3 years while the average MLB career is 5.6 years, so another sizable discrepancy. Obviously we can’t really figure what the differences are in health, other than to say NFL athletes get the much shorter end of the stick. I have no idea what the cost would be, but I could see it tripling for sure. If we figure it’d double off of roster size alone, I could see the shorter career length + increased medical coverage warranting another $10M-$11M. I could also see that type of plan incentivizing some athletes who aren’t NFL caliber to try and make a roster for 3 seasons in order to achieve a life long salary and health care deal. Below average players with the minimum experience would have an incentive to call it quits where otherwise they’d have virtually no income. Again, impossible figures to determine, but I imagine that’d change certain dynamics. I’m not big on the whole idea, especially with the way the HOF players went about it. Obviously depends on the plan, but I think the costs, even at modedt figures, would be more than most teams would want to give up. It entirely depends on how the plans are structured. The roster size would increase the number of players eligible, but the turnover rate could mean that if the pension is structured to require a lot of service time (which it currently is), so few of those players are eligible that you don't end up paying that much more. Average career is going to be misleading here. We want the rough percentiles since it's the distribution that really matters. The guys with 15 year careers really start to skew that curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 What a sideshow the NFL has become... Quote “We believe we deserve more,” the letter says. “We write to demand two things: Health insurance and an annual salary for all Hall of Famers that includes a share of league revenue.” The letter blasts Goodell as overpaid and says that the league “is notorious for the hard line it takes against players.” The Hall of Famers say they will not attend next year’s induction ceremony if their demands are not met. The letter is signed by Eric Dickerson, who is spearheading the effort, as well as Marcus Allen, Mel Blount, Derrick Brooks, Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, Richard Dent, Carl Eller, Marshall Faulk, Mike Haynes, Rickey Jackson, Ronnie Lott, Curtis Martin, Joe Namath, John Randle, Jerry Rice, Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Jackie Smith, Lawrence Taylor and Kurt Warner. Also signing the letter is Sarah White, Reggie White’s widow. This must be the ones that are already broke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they get a pension and healthcare already? If Goodell had a half a ball, he'd get in front of a camera and simply say, 'Don't Come'.... then fire the ones that are gleefully employed at NFL Network... The NFL is going right down the toilet, and I never thought I'd say it but... I COULDN'T CARE LESS..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 So if this is a negotiation topic for the upcoming CBA, how much are the current players willing to give up in % of NFL revenue split? 2011 CBA has the total revenue split as the players getting 47-48.5% of all revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Collective_Bargaining_Agreement Quote The key features of the 2011 CBA included changes related to health and safety, including a reduction in the number of off-season practices, a prohibition against training camp “two-a days", and a limit on contact practices in both the preseason and regular season.[23][24] The new CBA also featured increases in player benefits, including retroactive pension increases for retired players and the creation of a neuro-cognitive benefit for players affected by concussions and other similar injuries. Also, the agreement promised an increase up to $1.5 million in salary guarantees for injured players[23] and a new revenue split, offering players between 47 percent and 48.5 percent of all revenue.[20][25] Changes were also made in contract-related benefits, with an increase in minimum player salaries[19] and salary cap minimums, including the guarantee of a 99% -95% league wide spend and a requirement that each club would have to spend an average of 89% of the salary cap over four-year periods. Are the current players willing to give up a portion of that 47% to a pension increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 16 hours ago, squire12 said: Are the current players willing to give up a portion of that 47% to a pension increase? They could allocate a larger portion of the fine money to that pension fund. Some of it goes there now, but not all. NFL shouldn't be using the players cash for disaster relief and League PR According to the NFL, all money collected from fines goes to charitable causes, including supporting its retired players. In a 2010 statement, the NFL responded to public comments from Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark, who publicly challenged the NFL to give back fine money in the event of a player lockout. They clarified that all on-field fines go to the NFL Player Care Foundation—which provides medical, emotional, and financial assistance to retired NFL players—and the NFL Players Association Player Assistance Trust, a fund that helps professional and amateur football players' families in a crisis. The money can also go to various disaster relief and health-related charities backed by the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 So first thing, I'm 100% for covering health care for retired players. However I'm not for giving retired players a salary just bc they made it to the HoF. But apparently some people are conflating today's contracts with the money that some of the retirees made in their day. Many HoFers never made life changing money. Pre 1988 it was very common for players to work "day jobs" during the off season to make ends meet as they only had an income in season. The other thing here is that not all players can go out and make life changing money thru other avenues after football. Yes some guys can get into coaching, some guys can get into broadcasting but many of these guys have to go work normal jobs after football. Yes there is a pension, but again it's not accessible until age 62. The average career for most of these guys will end in their mid 20s. For the best of the best, it will end in their mid to late 30s. I want you to think about the possibility of not working from age 30 on and how long you could survive that way. But that's the average player, these are HoFers. They have revenue streams available to them that the average players simply dont have. From TV appearances, to speaking engagements, to book opportunities, etc... If any retired players could make it work, it would be these guys. As for the NFLPA standing up for these guys in the CBA, let's get real here, the PA cares more about rookies than it does about the retired players, and it doesn't care at all about rookies. The PA represents active players. They are most concerned about getting money for their membership as possible. Their membership is active players only. They will never give back money from the membership to negotiate better benefits for retirees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 Where would you even start? You're going to give money to everyone that ever made the HOF? What about deceased players that never got this money but would have if they were around? Is there going to be a cut-off where certain players get it and others dont? I feel like its an all or nothing thing. I get the healthcare thing and the NFL should be thinking about that long-term especially with all this concussion stuff but I'm sorry, you shouldn't get an additional salary because you were really good at your job. Not like that happens in any other profession. There is no HOF for doctors, lawyers, teachers or accountants. You have to plan your retirement and not spend every last dime you have and now expect the NFL to front the bill because of your ridiculous spending?(I know thats not the case for everyone but too many of these guys have no clue how to handle their money better than an 8 year old) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 On 9/23/2018 at 8:36 AM, Superman(DH23) said: So first thing, I'm 100% for covering health care for retired players. However I'm not for giving retired players a salary just bc they made it to the HoF. But apparently some people are conflating today's contracts with the money that some of the retirees made in their day. Many HoFers never made life changing money. Pre 1988 it was very common for players to work "day jobs" during the off season to make ends meet as they only had an income in season. The other thing here is that not all players can go out and make life changing money thru other avenues after football. Yes some guys can get into coaching, some guys can get into broadcasting but many of these guys have to go work normal jobs after football. Yes there is a pension, but again it's not accessible until age 62. The average career for most of these guys will end in their mid 20s. For the best of the best, it will end in their mid to late 30s. I want you to think about the possibility of not working from age 30 on and how long you could survive that way. But that's the average player, these are HoFers. They have revenue streams available to them that the average players simply dont have. From TV appearances, to speaking engagements, to book opportunities, etc... If any retired players could make it work, it would be these guys. As for the NFLPA standing up for these guys in the CBA, let's get real here, the PA cares more about rookies than it does about the retired players, and it doesn't care at all about rookies. The PA represents active players. They are most concerned about getting money for their membership as possible. Their membership is active players only. They will never give back money from the membership to negotiate better benefits for retirees. Well, not retroactively. They may cede some current money to negotiate better benefits prospectively for current members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.