ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, candyman93 said: Props to ESPN for speaking on this. JJ watts heart is probably in the right place, but he needs to realize there are guys who give this a “hard yes.” I'm shocked that ESPN, which is paying the NFL a huge amount of money for TV rights, sides with ownership. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candyman93 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'm shocked that ESPN, which is paying the NFL a huge amount of money for TV rights, sides with ownership. You’re absolutely right. However, there 1 point was pretty accurate and it goes back to what I mentioned. You have guys that all have different interests and desires. It kills unions in our society. It’s usually a newer employee not being happy with an older guy that does the same job as him, but gets paid substantially more. Newer guys want paid based on performance, not seniority. When you factor in the gaps in salary between nfl players, it’s even worse. Edited February 21, 2020 by candyman93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomont Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 8 hours ago, MWil23 said: The fact that vision coverage wasn't included/proposed until now is laughable. Yeah I don't know how they could afford eye exams and glasses on those paltry salaries (which are only going up about another $100K ish; which of course would never cover it). Talk about laughable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hukos Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Usually it's the more vulnerable members of society that are more willing to take a bad deal if it's superior to what they already have on the table - holding out for something better could completely blow up in their face and then they're left with nothing. If the players union wants to defeat ownership, then they're going to have to tackle this head-on by making sure the more vulnerable players are taken care of during a strike, or else I wouldn't be shocked to see them be the first ones to cross the picket line. 1 hour ago, candyman93 said: You’re absolutely right. However, there 1 point was pretty accurate and it goes back to what I mentioned. You have guys that all have different interests and desires. It kills unions in our society. It’s usually a newer employee not being happy with an older guy that does the same job as him, but gets paid substantially more. Newer guys want paid based on performance, not seniority. When you factor in the gaps in salary between nfl players, it’s even worse. If I'm the young guy, I absolutely want to be paid based on performance because pay based on seniority sounds like nepotism/corruption to me. However, if I'm the old guy in this analogy, I believe myself to have earned my position through a long career of hard work and that the young man has it coming for him when he works as long as I have. I'm not really sure what the solution to this is, but if someone can figure out you might have saved unions in the US. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) I feel like the owners took a large step toward offering the players more. But now that they did, the lockout is almost certainly going to happen because now the players are gonna call the owners' bluff and demand more, a lot more. Edited February 22, 2020 by wwhickok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 I think it should be approved. I empathize with the sentiment of Richard Sherman, JJ Watt, and any other high-profile detractor, but ultimately I think they're displaying both strength and ignorance. Sherman is right, professional sport unions have more bargaining power than typical unions (which is setting the bar on the ground and stepping over it), but there is actually a lot in there to noticeably improve the career quality of every NFLPA member, while the top-end take a bit less. I don't know what their priority is because they did not specify if it's the potential expanded work year or money distribution. If it's the former then I cannot fault it at all; if it's the latter, then they look tone deaf. This CBA caters to the 80%+ that the NFLPA is supposed to represent, whereas the last CBA was a huge boon to high-end players with only a moderate trickledown effect to the average player. To have such a short memory to forget that makes them look snobbish, or in other words: like every union member I've ever seen who is dissatisfied that their union didn't "stick it to management." I'm surprised the NFLPA did not hold out for 3-4 additional roster spots. I know we are seemingly set-in-stone on the "53-man roster" bit, but roster size is an intersection of two critical aspects for the NFLPA: player safety / wellbeing and expanded access bargaining unit work (e.g., jobs). The NFL cannot realistically have acted as though an expanded roster size is a concession. It's one of those instances in which you can literally pull 1,000 interviews from Management in which they lament final cuts and how "they wish they could keep one more guy," "it was really tough," and "there were some great players walking out the door that managed to catch on somewhere else, and we're happy for them." Also, the NFL is full of some miserly ****s. They're adding vision to their insurance plan, in ******* 2020. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candyman93 Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Also, if I’m correct, the current cba doesn’t expire until next year right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 You guys worry about the peanuts. Life insurance? Vision? Nobody cares and nobody should care. Anyone can buy life insurance. Shop it out right now for yourself. It’s dirt cheap. Health insurance post playing days is huge. That costs real money. Tags and how they can be used is huge and percent of revenue and how it’s calculated is hugest of all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 I don’t even know if you’re responding to me because if you are you missed the point on my vision remark by such a huge degree that I wouldn’t know how to respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 On 2/21/2020 at 12:44 PM, dll2000 said: Bonus payment of 1/17 of his paragraph 5 salary [up to $250K] to any player whose contract runs through a season when 17 games is played This will not go over well. Why cap it they will say? Why not just add 1/17? The few players who are butthurt over this and their teams will not restructure can call out sick for week 17. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 20 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'm shocked that ESPN, which is paying the NFL a huge amount of money for TV rights, sides with ownership. common sense can be foreign to some. is it possible ESPN anchors just realize that unless if your the top 15-20% of the players in terms of salary, this is a good deal? Yes it hurts the highest paid guys, but it helps way more players... only looking at the offer on the table ifs downright selfish to say thats a bad deal if your making 10 mil a year. Cause half your rosters making (figuratively) fractions of that and in some sense actually have to worry about money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 also, a lot of the stuff under benefits are really strong. Cant say its a great improvement simply because i dont know what it was prior but the 401K contribuiton, pension increase, termination pay, etc are all great. Quite frankly, as long as you have a little bit of sense and you spend at least a couple years in the league, you should be set once you hit (real life) retirement age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, SwAg said: I don’t even know if you’re responding to me because if you are you missed the point on my vision remark by such a huge degree that I wouldn’t know how to respond. Just ask @Malfatron what he would say to respond 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) From the players perspective, other than week 17, what is the problem? It looks great to me. The only thing i would add is a clause to runningback contracts, who do a bunch of work and dont get paid that well for it over their careers relative to their colleagues. Edited February 23, 2020 by Kiwibrown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDsportsfan Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Good lord….amongst all of these threads about the CBA I can't figure out why there so many complaints form peeps. It's like some guys think they have a stake in this and somehow affects them negatively. More football for us. More money for the players. And yes more money for the owners. That's how it works. Limited punishment for THC and at least dumb@$$ Goodell is out of the first phase of punishment. Although I'm sure all of agree we'd want him out of it altogether. I ain't crying any tears for the players making millions of dollars to play a game. And even for the lower paid guys. Most of them aren't starters and as such don't play as much and less chance of injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.