ET80 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Now, onto the players... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, scar988 said: 9 hours ago, Nabbs4u said: Has there ever been a CBA reached on the very first attempt proposed by the Owners? It's almost like there was no negotiating? They've been negotiating for 2 years now. So we've had a CBA reached with the very first Proposal sent to the NFLPA? They've always negotiated in the years past leading up to the deadline. What's the difference here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said: So we've had a CBA reached with the very first Proposal sent to the NFLPA? They've always negotiated in the years past leading up to the deadline. What's the difference here? In 2011, that was also the very first proposal the NFLPA voted on. They've been negotiating for years on the different parts of the CBA. This isn't the very first proposal offered by the owners though. That's insane to think that. Players and owners have been working on this for at least a couple of years. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) Unless I’m missing something the owners want 1/16 more games to gain TV revenue off. So 7 percent more income when you add the 2 extra playoff games. In exchange for this gain (and 2 more free playoff games) the players are getting: -1 percent increase in the pie -Life insurance for 20+ year olds paid for after getting enough service time -Goodell power in suspension appeal moved to a 3rd party. -Weed taken off the drug list -1 less preseason game and 12 fewer practices -1 less tag per team per year (2 to 1) -A committee to review injuries and safety with 17 game schedule Did I miss anything? Because if I didn’t that’s a ridiculously bad offer to the NFLPA. TV revenue is the huge chunk of overall income - local gate is a fraction in comparison. The only reason the players would take this is out of fear of lost income they’d never get back. When the reality is that the owners would be gaining an even bigger share of the pie. This shows how bad the NFLPA is. It’s doubtful they created a war chest to calm fears of surviving a strike. And their fear of losing income fails to recognize the owners are most likely to concede now - before a TV deal is finalized. The fact it’s being tossed in at 10 years shows how owner-friendly the terms are for them. I can see why the sharpest guys in the NFLPA are losing their minds. But it’s also on the Union for not being in better shape to calm their base if the players decide to accept this. They have to be the worst player rep group around. Edited February 26, 2020 by Broncofan 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Assuming 20 billion in revenue for an average of the 10 year deal, that 1.5% is an average raise of 170 k per player (including the 2 new players per team) Minimum salaries go from 410 now to 500 in 2020 to a range of 590 to 610 in 2021 and 45k additional every year after. For a minimum salary player playing 3 years that's about 1.7 million instead of 1.23 million. (based on the minimum going from 410 to 500) Team performance based pool will go from about 4.4 million to 8 million in 2020 and 10 million in 2021. That's about 230k per player on average if you consider the pool being the 20 lowest paid players. The benefits increases come up to about 200k per player. Even full season practice squad guys go from about 128k to 178.5k Of course guys like Rodgers, Watt, and Wilson will take most of the money while pretending to care about the rights of the common player. The Pouncey's have made 55 and 66 million each. Rodgers has made 233 million Watt has made 85 million. Wilson has made 109 million Sherman has made 69 million These men should have close to zero say on what is best for players making 500k to 3 million a season. All but Rodgers just offered useless blather without specific complaints Rodgers cried about a 17th game but ignores 1 less preseason game, easier training camps, and less hitting in practice overall. They each get 1 vote, just like a long snapper or a 5th wide receiver. These guys only care about pushing the greed for the top earners and their powerful agents. Wanting a split 50/50 is great but going halfway from 47 to 50 at 48.5 is compromise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 18 hours ago, Broncofan said: Unless I’m missing something the owners want 1/16 more games to gain TV revenue off. So 7 percent more income when you add the 2 extra playoff games. In exchange for this gain (and 2 more free playoff games) the players are getting: -1 percent increase in the pie -Life insurance for 20+ year olds paid for after getting enough service time -Goodell power in suspension appeal moved to a 3rd party. -Weed taken off the drug list -1 less preseason game and 12 fewer practices -1 less tag per team per year (2 to 1) -A committee to review injuries and safety with 17 game schedule Did I miss anything? Because if I didn’t that’s a ridiculously bad offer to the NFLPA. TV revenue is the huge chunk of overall income - local gate is a fraction in comparison. The only reason the players would take this is out of fear of lost income they’d never get back. When the reality is that the owners would be gaining an even bigger share of the pie. This shows how bad the NFLPA is. It’s doubtful they created a war chest to calm fears of surviving a strike. And their fear of losing income fails to recognize the owners are most likely to concede now - before a TV deal is finalized. The fact it’s being tossed in at 10 years shows how owner-friendly the terms are for them. I can see why the sharpest guys in the NFLPA are losing their minds. But it’s also on the Union for not being in better shape to calm their base if the players decide to accept this. They have to be the worst player rep group around. The 7% increase is the total pie. It's like getting an 18" pizza instead of a 16" pizza. The 1.5% increase to the players is their share of the pie. So they get more of the 18" pizza both in total revenue increase of 7% and the 47% they get. Another comparison Say that right now, the league makes 10B to use a round # 7% more makes it 10.7B. Players are currently making 4.7B of that 10B. With 17 games they'd make 5.2B of that 10B. So that's 500M more than what they were making. This isn't a bad deal for the 95% of the league who makes under $4.5M/year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, scar988 said: The 7% increase is the total pie. It's like getting an 18" pizza instead of a 16" pizza. The 1.5% increase to the players is their share of the pie. So they get more of the 18" pizza both in total revenue increase of 7% and the 47% they get. Another comparison Say that right now, the league makes 10B to use a round # 7% more makes it 10.7B. Players are currently making 4.7B of that 10B. With 17 games they'd make 5.2B of that 10B. So that's 500M more than what they were making. This isn't a bad deal for the 95% of the league who makes under $4.5M/year. I think it's completely fair to say that this CBA is better for 95% of the league than the previous CBA. I think you can argue whether or not it's a "good deal" on its own. Since the past CBA was signed, we've learned a lot about the additional risks that players are taking by playing football and we've seen former players sue the league and end up settling with such a small amount that a federal judge actually scrapped the settlement offer. The elite guys who are against the CBA have enough money to get by with top of the line treatments, but in my opinion the 95% of the league that is hoping to hang around long enough to buy a house needs is hung out to dry by the healthcare options in the CBA for former players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 It seems to me the players speaking out against the deal are older, near retirement guys who are already making millions. They dont have the best interest at heart for the younger guys. Guys like Maurkice and Mike Pouncey are on twitter doing what they can to convince younger players to vote against it, talking about how theyll still make league minimum or less during a lock out. Aaron Rodgers talking about how Green Bay wouldve had to play an extra game. Not one of them have really come out and said what they dont like about the CBA, theyve just trashed the NFLPA and the reps who negotiated this deal with the owners for months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 1985 says hello... https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1985-01-14-8501020201-story.html TOP 10 NFL SALARIES Pos. Player Team Salary QB Warren Moon Oilers $1,100,000 QB John Elway Broncos 900,000 QB Joe Montana 49ers 858,333 WR James Lofton Packers 853,000 QB Lynn Dickey Packers 850,000 RB Billy Simms Lions 800,000 RB Walter Payton Bears 785,000 QB Dan Fouts Chargers 750,000 QB Marc Wilson Raiders 700,000 RB John Riggins Redskins 695,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/03/03/problems-with-nfl-proposed-cba-17th-game-revenue-split Great article on why this is not a good enough deal for the NFLPA. Edited March 4, 2020 by seminoles1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Very informative article: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 21 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said: That holdout piece was super interesting to me as well as mandatory fines/loss of an accrued season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Just now, MWil23 said: That holdout piece was super interesting to me as well as mandatory fines/loss of an accrued season. I'd be surprised if Dan Snyder wasn't one of the most vocal owners pushing for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said: I'd be surprised if Dan Snyder wasn't one of the most vocal owners pushing for it. Imagine being a RB under the new CBA that's looking at being tagged AND on a playoff caliber team not getting that 1/17 paycheck. 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.