New CBA approved

[Karnage84]

1 minute ago, Sllim Pickens said:

They aren't all millionaires though.  The majority of them are making league minimum.  They all still have to pay their agents, lawyers, etc.  Most dont make $1m in their careers.  especially take home, and then that for many is gone by the time their average 3 year career is done. 

Which is why making more money for them is a good deal... that's the same reason why a lot of pundits have been arguing in favour of it. Chris Simms and Pat McAfee both were in support of the new CBA. 

No deal is going to be perfect. The owners were always going to get that extra game... whether now or in the future. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

9 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I get that, and sure there are other professions that should be paid more.  Thats a completely different argument.  These are individuals that are in the top .00001% of all living humans in what they do at the level they do it.  Thats why people pay money to watch them and thats why they have a union to help them negotiate as a whole.  That union has protocols to follow, based on how they are set up.  If that is bypassed, thats an issue IMO, which it was here.  Sure just over half of the players voted for it but the teams have reps for a reason and that vote was ignored.  Your argument is saying the players, who risk their lives should be happy with whatever they get, meanwhile the beneficiaries are the 32 owners, who just make money of of these guys putting themselves at risk each week.  the money is there either way it turns out, its about what piece goes to the players vs the owners.  Its not like the extra money the owners saved is going to go to help vets/military.  So in this situation, a business situation, I think it was a shady deal.  Yes they got perks but they were going to get those anyways.  Marijuana is legal in half the states so it was bound to happen.  the floor was going to go up because there was more money.  They didn't expand the rosters sufficiently, they didnt create a fall back for fringe players, they didn't get rid of the pre-season, and they did get an extra game added to the schedule without making more money while the owners get an extra week and two more playoff games to bring in TV revenue.  Sounds like a bad deal if you ask me. 

It may be a different conversation, but it's certainly going to have an impact on public opinion.

I also don't buy the "players who risk their lives" line of thinking. These guys aren't "risking their lives". Is it a violent sport? Without question. It's still not even close to being dispatched to an active shooter scenario, or even an active domestic. It's a sport. If they're concerned with injuries or the potential long-lasting effects of head trauma, they shouldn't play.

I also don't blame the owners for stacking these deals, and for the exact same reason that I don't blame the players for getting paid millions to play a sport: if the players allow it, the owner's shouldn't be criticized. 

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure what happened with the union protocols. If they were bypassed, then that's absolutely an issue. The remedy? The player's vote. The way I see it: union protocols were believed to have been violated, the deal appears to significantly favor the owners and it was still passed by the players. They should have all voted 'no', but half chose not to. That's on them.

[Sllim Pickens]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

It may be a different conversation, but it's certainly going to have an impact on public opinion.

I also don't buy the "players who risk their lives" line of thinking. These guys aren't "risking their lives". Is it a violent sport? Without question. It's still not even close to being dispatched to an active shooter scenario, or even an active domestic. It's a sport. If they're concerned with injuries or the potential long-lasting effects of head trauma, they shouldn't play.

I also don't blame the owners for stacking these deals, and for the exact same reason that I don't blame the players for getting paid millions to play a sport: if the players allow it, the owner's shouldn't be criticized. 

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure what happened with the union protocols. If they were bypassed, then that's absolutely an issue. The remedy? The player's vote. The way I see it: union protocols were believed to have been violated, the deal appears to significantly favor the owners and it was still passed by the players. They should have all voted 'no', but half chose not to. That's on them.

It shouldn't have gone to a players vote based on the vote of the reps which required 2/3rds of a vote, and Smith bypassed that and sent it to the masses anyways even though it didnt pass that vote.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28872617/russell-okung-files-complaint-nflpa-nlrb

Quote

During a February vote, the executive committee voted 6-5 not to recommend the proposed CBA to players. After a meeting with owners during the NFL combine, the executive committee again remained in majority on its desire not to recommend the proposed deal.

Quote

The NFLPA then took a vote of all 32 team player reps in Indianapolis, with the vote being 17-14 to approve the deal, with one player abstaining. The NFLPA needs a two-thirds vote to pass the deal along to the full player group with recommendation, but short of that number it decided to still move the vote to the full player group without recommendation because it received a simple majority vote to approve.

Quote

Sources told ESPN's Dan Graziano that the NFLPA on Monday voted down a resolution that would have allowed players who have already voted on the proposed CBA to change their votes. Enough players had asked whether they could change their votes that the NFLPA player reps, in meetings taking place in Key Biscayne, Florida, decided to propose the resolution, but it did not succeed.

Quote

The union did vote to extend the voting window by 48 hours -- until Saturday at 11:59 p.m. ET -- to allow more time for players to consider the proposal and vote via DocuSign. There needs to be just a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass the new proposed CBA.

 

So the first vote never passed so they passed that to go to another vote.  Then that didnt work so they skipped that and sent it on to all of the players.  Some players voted early and wanted to change their vote but they would not let them once they really learned the details of the vote.  Then they extended the time to vote because they didnt have enough votes to pass and it eventually did.  Sounds like a shady situation to me. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Absolutely. And it was still passed by the players. They shouldn't vote without having researched the deal, but did anyway. That isn't the owner's fault, in my opinion... that falls on the players.

[Sllim Pickens]

16 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Absolutely. And it was still passed by the players. They shouldn't vote without having researched the deal, but did anyway. That isn't the owner's fault, in my opinion... that falls on the players.

It shouldn't have gotten to that point.  Thats the point.  It was rushed and manipulated until they had enough votes to make it work when there shouldnt have been a vote held.  

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

34 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

It shouldn't have gotten to that point.  Thats the point.  It was rushed and manipulated until they had enough votes to make it work when there shouldnt have been a vote held.  

I completely agree. And, based on that, the players should have voted no immediately. But they didn't. More than half still voted yes.

[Sllim Pickens]

6 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I completely agree. And, based on that, the players should have voted no immediately. But they didn't. More than half still voted yes.

There is a reason that more than simple majority is required for significant decisions. Thats why these controls are in place on the front end. This whole thing was manipulated it seems and they used the ability to more freely use marijuana as a way to sneak their agenda through. Yes the players shouldnt have voted, but above that, players shouldnt have had the opportunity to vote. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Sllim Pickens said:

There is a reason that more than simple majority is required for significant decisions. Thats why these controls are in place on the front end. This whole thing was manipulated it seems and they used the ability to more freely use marijuana as a way to sneak their agenda through. Yes the players shouldnt have voted, but above that, players shouldnt have had the opportunity to vote. 

Again, I agree. But they did. If these millionaires don't want to take a stand a fight back against the owners, I won't have sympathy for them. They had a chance to turn it down and make a statement, but they chose not to.

[Sllim Pickens]

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Again, I agree. But they did. If these millionaires don't want to take a stand a fight back against the owners, I won't have sympathy for them. They had a chance to turn it down and make a statement, but they chose not to.

Again, thats why there are controls in place in front of that vote, and those were bypassed.  If this happened in politics, it would be an uproar. If it happened in the UAW, there would be an uproar.  If it happened with the teachers unions, there would be an uproar.  But since these guys make more money, who gives a crap?  They make money because we have made them valuable.  And again, the money and things they are fighting over are for their health, their well being, and their long term ability to live.  Their careers are so short, most cant live the rest of their lives on what they make in the NFL.  So their health when they are done should be more important, but again the owners gaslight and pretend to care and then throw more games at them because they will make more money and not have to share with them.  Again, internal controls are put into place for a reason.  In my industry, if they are bypassed intentionally, we call that fraud. 

[Karnage84]

16 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Again, thats why there are controls in place in front of that vote, and those were bypassed.  If this happened in politics, it would be an uproar. If it happened in the UAW, there would be an uproar.  If it happened with the teachers unions, there would be an uproar.  But since these guys make more money, who gives a crap?  They make money because we have made them valuable.  And again, the money and things they are fighting over are for their health, their well being, and their long term ability to live.  Their careers are so short, most cant live the rest of their lives on what they make in the NFL.  So their health when they are done should be more important, but again the owners gaslight and pretend to care and then throw more games at them because they will make more money and not have to share with them.  Again, internal controls are put into place for a reason.  In my industry, if they are bypassed intentionally, we call that fraud. 

And if that's truly the case, then the legal system will step in and resolve it. However, it didn't force the voter apathy that seemed to be throughout the union. There's only so much that can be done to educate people and get them out to vote. If they aren't going to engage themselves then they'll wind up with the best of what's available. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

37 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Again, thats why there are controls in place in front of that vote, and those were bypassed.  If this happened in politics, it would be an uproar. If it happened in the UAW, there would be an uproar.  If it happened with the teachers unions, there would be an uproar.  But since these guys make more money, who gives a crap?  They make money because we have made them valuable.  And again, the money and things they are fighting over are for their health, their well being, and their long term ability to live.  Their careers are so short, most cant live the rest of their lives on what they make in the NFL.  So their health when they are done should be more important, but again the owners gaslight and pretend to care and then throw more games at them because they will make more money and not have to share with them.  Again, internal controls are put into place for a reason.  In my industry, if they are bypassed intentionally, we call that fraud. 

Close (part in bold). They make more money AND still voted yes, despite knowing that protocol may have been broken to get it to league-wide vote. They did this to themselves. It must've been good enough to get their minds back on playing football.

[BigC421/]

Until the day comes that the top tier players break from the union the players will continue to get screwed.  The union is overly represented by guys who are barely even a part of the league.  Top surgeons and health care specialists aren’t dependent on the vote of the janitors ( custodian ****) and bed pan cleaners in order to get what there owed.  The owners are smart enough to throw just enough incentives at the bottom players to get them to screw over the system.  NBA players have a lot more power for this very reason.  Imagine if they gave g-league players an equal vote and the owners offered to double there salaries while slashing max contracts by 20% 

Edited March 17, 2020 by BigC421/

[Sllim Pickens]

47 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

And if that's truly the case, then the legal system will step in and resolve it. However, it didn't force the voter apathy that seemed to be throughout the union. There's only so much that can be done to educate people and get them out to vote. If they aren't going to engage themselves then they'll wind up with the best of what's available. 

This is what is heppening.  That is why Okung filed a lawsuit against them.  So it will play out, and let the facts determine it.  But it sure looks slimy from here.  

[Karnage84]

4 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Until the day comes that the top tier players break from the union the players will continue to get screwed.  The union is overly represented by guys who are barely even a part of the league.  Top surgeons and health care specialists aren’t dependent on the vote of the janitors ( custodian ****) and bed pan cleaners in order to get what there owed.  The owners are smart enough to throw just enough incentives at the bottom players to get them to screw over the system.  NBA players have a lot more power for this very reason.  Imagine if they gave g-league players an equal vote and the owners offered to double there salaries while slashing max contracts by 20% 

You're misconstruing the argument. 

If we're using doctors as the example, it's the General Practitioners (GP's) who are your average player while Surgeons are the top level players. The custodial staff do very different work. 

[BigC421/]

3 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

You're misconstruing the argument. 

If we're using doctors as the example, it's the General Practitioners (GP's) who are your average player while Surgeons are the top level players. The custodial staff do very different work. 

So guys who never see the field or just run down the field on kickoff a few times a game don’t do very different work than Mahomes or Aaron Donald?  Don’t quote me on this but I thought I read somewhere that Sam Acho was saying something like 60% of players who have a vote make the league minimum