Shut up and Play (1 Viewer)

[Bartyboy]

Those under contract will get what they signed for.
If the cap is lower ( and with all this going on, it will not be what is expected now)
Future contracts will be lower to stay under the new cap.

I personally would like to see a limit to individual contracts.

My personal proposal:
No individual player should make over 10% of the cap in a year. All current contracts would be lowered to come in compliance.
No rookie contract should make over 5% of the cap in a year. All current contracts that were over would have to changed.
This would do 2 things. Big market teams wouldn't have as much pull as FA would have a max.
Rookies would get to camp sooner and owners wouldn't have that huge monetary risk in players like Jamarcus Russel.
By the way this would lower Reggie's next years pay to 5 or 6 Million.
It will never happen but it would make a ton of sense.

 

[Bongzilla]

LOL at your ALLCAPS.

I use caps to show EM-PHA-SIS, it's the only way I know how to do so while typing....

Thanks for the post, maybe if you keep incessantly bumping it for me I can get some answers to my questions.

 

[Flipx99]

I use caps to show EM-PHA-SIS, it's the only way I know how to do so while typing....

Thanks for the post, maybe if you keep incessantly bumping it for me I can get some answers to my questions.

I don't know, a lot of people see posts with an excessive use of ALLCAPS and conclude the poster has MENTAL ISSUES so they just SKIP the post.

 

[Cosmic201]

Again, you are slipping in that percentage thing. The owners proposal including a HIGHER salary cap. INCREASING EVERY SINGLE YEAR. In 2011 there will be more money for 53 players to split than in 2010. In 2012 there will more salary cap money for 53 players to split than in 2011.

Im still trying to see this pay cut everyone is referring to. The players have never been asked to take a pay cut. They have been asked to slow down their skyrocketing salaries.

That is not even remotely the same thing IMO.

We become business partners. (Owners + Players(silent partner) = NFL).

You supply the product while I handle all of the business aspects of the partnership. You earn 57.5% of certain shared revenue by the agreement we came up with. This agreement imposes certain Anti-Trust conditions on you, but it's allowed because we're both in agreement.

I suddenly tell you I need you to cut back to 50% of revenue. The reason I give is increased cost on my side of the deal. However I refuse to show you any of the private details about those increased costs, instead telling you to simply take my word for it, while any of the public information available tells you that revenue has done nothing but increase.

Now yes, total revenue will still go up and yes you'll still be seeing a larger net amount each year, but you'll still be taking what is testimonial as a 7.5% pay cut.


I imagine you would be willing to do so (and the players are) if the business really was in need of this extra money. However I would imagine you would require to see proof of that first.

 

[Cosmic201]

Wish people had the balls to say why they disagree with a post you made instead of just negative repping you.

 

[smchls23]

Re: this thread title

It's called a lock out and not a strike for a reason. The players are not choosing to "not play/"

 

[Firecross]

I think the OP misses the point entirely, lets put the lockout aside and assume this was a normal offseason. You realize how many hours a day some players put into being a pro? Take Drew Brees for example, dude gets up at at 4AM and is at the facility for 5AM and doesn't go back home until nearly 11PM and repeats it everyday.

It's a big grind to play pro football, players have to put a lot of time into film study, practice, training aspects. Football players probably get about 1 real month off a year and its split between the last game of their season and in between june to mid july.

I wouldn't say its all sugar and rainbows for football players, I would bet they work a lot harder than people think they do because there is a lot that goes on behind closed doors @ their respective facilities.

 

[authentic]

I call 100% bs on this or question your true fanhood. If you truly love the saints and football as much as a normal fan, there is no way you could stay away from the game. IRREGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS DISPUTE!

Im married to the saints, like most of us here. Sure they are going to piss me off sometimes, and I may be disappointed or angry with them, and I may not even want to talk about them for a couple days here and there, but I will always love them. -Till death do us part!

That's not even a word.

 

[V Chip]

NEVER ONCE HAS THE SIZE OF THE PIE BEEN REDUCED IN A PROPOSAL. THE PIE WAS ACTUALLY INCREASED IN THE OWNERS PROPOSAL AND THE PIE WOULD CONTINUE TO INCREASE EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

There is no way around this simple fact

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Numerous proposals the owners put forth including the one that sat on the table the longest included a reduced salary cap. Even the latest 12-th hour offer reduced the cap:

the league's last offer would roll back player salaries back to 2007 levels. Smith said the NFL last proposal would have reduced the salary cap from "$149 million to 2009 to $141 million in 2011" and added that 2012 cap would have been $148 million, also less than the 2009 cap.

Their initial offer was exactly the same as the existing CBA, except instead of the 1 billion off the top it would be 2 billion. So if the last year revenue increased by 10% (more than normal and nearly double the best projections), then revenue would have been 9.9 billion, minus the 2 billion, for a split of 7.9 billion -- effectively cutting the cap number, and that's with the 10% increase, which is much more than historical levels.

Some players would be cut, or have deals renegotiated, because of the lower cap. I can't point to which exact players because the effects are not there yet, but I guarantee you that if the cap is expected to be X dollars and it turns out to be X minus Y dollars, some players will suffer a paycut or maybe not even be employed at all because of that extra "minus Y."

And additionally, the owners proposals all were based on projections -- if the actual revenue increased MORE than projections that the NFL made, then they wanted to keep 100% of all the extra revenue.

I guess I just don't understand this whole thing.

Finally you say something that is an undeniable fact.

 

[dtc]

No offense, but you sound super jealous. I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone who I see is jealous.

Don't get jealous, get motivated. America is the land of opportunity. Go out there and seize it.

And those two situations aren't remotely comparable. The players are the product. Imagine Windows going to Microsoft and demanding more cut of the dough. No players, no football. Owners exploit the players and the players get compensated for it. It's entirely mutual. That's how the business works. The players have as much right to the pot as the owners do.

The players are the product....hmmmmmm.

Since when did potatoes and grape nuts start telling the freaking store how much they get as a share of the gross?

 

[dtc]

They are getting paid all that money because that's what the market says they're worth. They're not "overpaid" or getting paid "unjustified" money. They're getting what they're supposed to be getting. They're top-of-the-line athletes in the most popular sport in America.

Exactly. The market, however, is comprised of 32 rich people who own the teams and "the market" is telling them they're overpaid.

Watch how it all shakes out.

 

[dtc]

Would you just shut up and work if your boss was trying to take part of your paycheck, because he suddenly decided that he didn't want to pay you as much? No, you'd pitch a fit.

Do I think players are overpaid? Yes. Am I jealous? Yes. But if you or I were in their same situation, we would all do EXACTLY the same thing they are: Fighting to keep the current cba. Don't act like you wouldn't.

God, these threads are horrible.

Of course, your analogy is perfect except the fact that not one single player was asked to take a pay cut. In fact, they all would be making more this year and next than they are today.

 

[Ryan]

Hmm, someone who will get less money this year, than they did last year...


Cam Newton?

Cam Newton didn't get paid to play professional football last year. He got paid to play college football.

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

The players are the product....hmmmmmm.

Since when did potatoes and grape nuts start telling the freaking store how much they get as a share of the gross?

Seriously? Potatoes and Grape Nuts?