Kingfish Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I am told "serious, significant progress'' has been made on CBA issues. "This is not a sham,'' my source says, "but it is very fragile.''
CosmicBills Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 They actually will see that money which is why they are fighting to keep it. Your point about the increase isnt right, since player who signed contracts after the CBA did benefit and did see that money. If the whole thing was as you say, moot bc they will never see the money, there wouldnt be much of an argument would there? Don't waste your breath. WEO doesn't have a grasp of critical thinking, logic and finer points of discourse and debate let alone the patience or capacity needed to truly understand both sides of this complex issue. He keeps proving it with every post (on pretty much every topic). He's not interested in discussion or open to other points of view. He's dug himself into a corner (for no reason) and even when he's so clearly proven wrong, he refuses to admit it because he views any wavering as weakness. Which is pretty much the definition of a blowhard. But it's entertaining to witness. I like the front row seats.
ACor58 Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I actually like Peter King and as a person that reads his columns weekly let's make one thing clear. Roger Goodell has his hand so far up Peter King's butt that he will say or write whatever Goodell tells him to say or write.
Delete This Account Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 there will more than likely be an extension of up to 7-10 days. NFLPA already backed that last night. jw
Rockinon Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 Going to be interesting to see what changes will be made. I hope there is a rookie cap. This will free up more money so veterans who perform well can be retained instead of the revolving door crap that is the NFL now.
H2o Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 Going to be interesting to see what changes will be made. I hope there is a rookie cap. This will free up more money so veterans who perform well can be retained instead of the revolving door crap that is the NFL now. I think there will definitely be a rookie cap, but I hope they do not switch to an 18 game season. It would make every statistical record that has been attained over the last 25-30 years basically irrelevant. They would be broken with ease in alot of cases, especially the records on offense if players stay healthy.
Beerball Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I think there will definitely be a rookie cap, but I hope they do not switch to an 18 game season. It would make every statistical record that has been attained over the last 25-30 years basically irrelevant. They would be broken with ease in alot of cases, especially the records on offense if players stay healthy. I don't think an 18 game season is a good idea even though it would mean 'more' football, but not because of records. The same thing could be said about the switch from 14 to 16 and 10 to 14 (I think it was 10 before the move to 14).
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I don't think an 18 game season is a good idea even though it would mean 'more' football, but not because of records. The same thing could be said about the switch from 14 to 16 and 10 to 14 (I think it was 10 before the move to 14). As a season ticket holder I would much rather pay full price for a regular season game than a preseason game. Which is why they are making the change.
aristocrat Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 rookie cap is the issue i am most concerned about. it will give more value to those top picks while taking away the financial risk a team has picking in that spot
Mike in Syracuse Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I don't think an 18 game season is a good idea even though it would mean 'more' football, but not because of records. The same thing could be said about the switch from 14 to 16 and 10 to 14 (I think it was 10 before the move to 14). Does the change to an 18 game season mean that there will only be 2 preseason games?
CodeMonkey Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) They are all !@#$ing !@#$s, players and owners alike. While these millionaires and billionaires are battling it out with each other over money for playing a !@#$ing game, someone should remind them that there are plenty of people in this country battling to put food on their tables to feed their families. !@#$ those pieces of ****, every one of them. I hope there is a lockout and no season this year, and that each and every one of these !@#$s goes bankrupt because of it. Edited March 4, 2011 by CodeMonkey
Stl Bills Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 They are all !@#$ing !@#$s, players and owners alike. While these millionaires and billionaires are battling it out with each other over money for playing a !@#$ing game, someone should remind them that there are plenty of people in this country battling to put food on their tables to feed their families. !@#$ those pieces of ****, every one of them. I hope there is a lockout and no season this year, and that each and every one of these !@#$s goes bankrupt because of it.
Delete This Account Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 Does the change to an 18 game season mean that there will only be 2 preseason games? that would be more than likely the case. jw
Orton's Arm Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 The 60% of revenues allocated to players never got to the vast majority of players, sinc emost were already under contract--the increase didn't being them any more money. Also, the increase is reflected only in a higher salary cap (which already was on schedule to increase every year as a result of increase in revenue). The difference in the cap increase before and after the CBA is maybe 5-7 points. The salary cap is a voluntary spending limit--no team has to spend to it. If teams don't spend to the cap, the 2006 CBA "pay increase" is moot. Raising the cap to infinity would not change much in this league--check out the spending for teams in 2009. Several high revenue teams were well under the cap. The 40% of the gate Ralph gets from the JerryDome is likely as much as he gets from the Ralph--even without Jerry's skyboxes. Despite all of the checks Ralph has to write (which are an order of magnitude fewer than Jerry has to write), he still clears 10's of millions of dollars every year. The cap, increased or not, is not preventing any low revenue team from fielding a winner. Nor is crazy spending by the highest revenue teams leading to fielding winners either. I agree with your suggestions, but the players won't take 50% of shared revenue. Let them have 50% of all--they're never going to see that money anyway, just like they didn't get it in 2006. You are correct that the increase in the percentage of revenues allocated to the players had little short-term effect, because most players were under contract. Any increase in the salary cap will have significantly greater long-term consequences than short-term effects. If the salary cap was increased to infinity, the NFL would become a lot more like major league baseball. Higher revenue teams could consistently compete, and lower revenue teams would become second-tier. By significantly increasing the salary cap, the collective bargaining agreement of a few years ago pushed things significantly in that direction. Also, what is your source for asserting that Ralph clears tens of millions of dollars every year?
Mr. WEO Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 They actually will see that money which is why they are fighting to keep it. Your point about the increase isnt right, since player who signed contracts after the CBA did benefit and did see that money. If the whole thing was as you say, moot bc they will never see the money, there wouldnt be much of an argument would there? As a result of the CBA, only the salary cap went up. Players negotiating new contracts got whatever they and their team couls agree upon--just as before this particular CBA. There was no automatic bump in their contract value due to the CBA--if the owner thought the player was worth what he was asking and there now was a little more room in the higher cap, that player may have gotten a bit more than he would have otherwise. Before or after the 2006 CBA--and forever more, the vast majority of the cap space is tied up in a relatively few players on each team. The point is not moot, because even if the majority of the players did not enjoy any fruits of the last CBA, they won't give back what they think they got. Plus, with the face of the league now being Manning, Brady and Brees (the posterboys of the higher cap beneficiaries), that will be their stand. You are correct that the increase in the percentage of revenues allocated to the players had little short-term effect, because most players were under contract. Any increase in the salary cap will have significantly greater long-term consequences than short-term effects. If the salary cap was increased to infinity, the NFL would become a lot more like major league baseball. Higher revenue teams could consistently compete, and lower revenue teams would become second-tier. By significantly increasing the salary cap, the collective bargaining agreement of a few years ago pushed things significantly in that direction. Also, what is your source for asserting that Ralph clears tens of millions of dollars every year? Since that CBA is history, there will be no more long-term effect as contracts get renegotiated going forward. PLenty of teams have been abusing the cap anyway they can (Redskins for sure)--it has done nothing for them. MLB has had more different champs in the past decade than the NFL. The cap isn't going away. The cap increased less than 10% as a result of the last CBA--look at the spending behavior of all the teams. In the year after the signing, everyone went up. But many teams had a downward trend on spending as the years followed--even the higher revenue teams. My source is the only one that I know of--Forbes annual NFL valuations. A few here have challenged these numbers (with no facts of their own), but I don't see anyone of significance saying these numbers are fantasy.
Mr. WEO Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I think the 18 game season is being traded for about half a billion to a billion dollars as we speak.
ajzepp Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 I'm not sure I understand why FANS wouldn't want to go to the 18 game season. It's the same way that I wouldn't understand if someone told their wife that they wanted fewer BJs each month as opposed to more. Why wouldn't you want two more meaningful games during the season? If they don't go to an 18 game schedule, I hope they at least extend the season out to 8 weeks and give the teams two bye weeks. I want as much football as I can see, as often as possible dammit. How come some of you guy's don't?
3rdnlng Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure I understand why FANS wouldn't want to go to the 18 game season. It's the same way that I wouldn't understand if someone told their wife that they wanted fewer BJs each month as opposed to more. Why wouldn't you want two more meaningful games during the season? If they don't go to an 18 game schedule, I hope they at least extend the season out to 8 weeks and give the teams two bye weeks. I want as much football as I can see, as often as possible dammit. How come some of you guy's don't? The quality might get diluted and of course they wouldn't be as novel. Speaking of the extra games of course. More BJ's are always good. Edited March 4, 2011 by 3rdnlng
Recommended Posts