Owners tried to slip things by the players

[Kelly the Dog]

You're right, Kelly.

 

George Wilson is the Fred Jackson of the defense… except not as accomplished a player by degrees.

 

 

On a totally different subject, I really disagree with you guys criticizing D Smith. I think he's flubbed a few PR things but look at it this way:

 

If things go as they look likely to go, the collateral damage to this impasse (which can be blamed equally on both sides), is that the Hall of Fame game was canceled.

 

The benefit is going to be 10 years of labor peace… a rookie wage scale which everyone here was in favor of, a reasonable plan to move forward, giving ownership some concessions on total revenue in exchange for solid clauses on the players side. The players relented and have helped make NFL team ownership attractive again and the deal allows the sport to continue to grow unabated to the quarterback… I mean unabated… with the likely promise of increased revenues for both sides.

 

This whole work stoppage started out acrimoniously but Smith and Goodell have worked together to make this a win-win for the NFL.

 

I don't see where D Smith deserves any more or less criticism than Goodell. Their fates are inextricably linked.

 

It's said that in a fair negotiation that both sides come away unhappy… but this negotiation looks more like both sides will come away happy.

 

The only criticism I can see for D Smith is if you are a staunch union supporter and you are unhappy because you think he gave up too much.

 

But I think history will show that he struck a fair deal that was good for the players, owners, and the NFL as an industry.

 

How exactly has D Smith damaged the NFL?

I don't know that he damaged the NFL, but from what I know and heard through the grapevine, he hasn't been forthcoming with his own reps and players, and they don't even like him. For example, acquiring a huge lockout insurance plan without telling the players. Hard to tell if the existence of that secret plan helped the players by forcing the issue with the owners but to me, that's just wrong. especially when the players made such a big deal about the owners lockout insurance.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I don't know that he damaged the NFL, but from what I know and heard through the grapevine, he hasn't been forthcoming with his own reps and players, and they don't even like him. For example, acquiring a huge lockout insurance plan without telling the players. Hard to tell if the existence of that secret plan helped the players by forcing the issue with the owners but to me, that's just wrong. especially when the players made such a big deal about the owners lockout insurance.

If he hasn't been above board and forthcoming, that's unfortunate. Certainly there's a right way and a wrong way to do things.

 

Several times in this thread I've criticized his communications skills and clearly he's shown some leadership deficiencies.

 

But ultimately he'll be judged on the agreement and my point was that the criticisms I was reading about D Smith seem like a lot of fan anger and frustration over the fact that the CBA hasn't been settled yet… as if that's his fault.

 

We're all gonna be smiling and happy one week from now while the intrigue of free agency plays out. It seem a bit shortsighted to be angry right now… pointless actually.

Edited July 23, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Marv's Neighbor]

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." :doh:

[Hplarrm]

With all due respect, WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I have absolutely no idea.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Under what will soon be the old CBA (its great they are going back to work IMHO) NFLPA Gene Upshaw dictated publicly when negotiations started that the new CBA unlike the old one would need to see the salary cap determined from the entire gross receipts of the NFL and not from designated sections of profits as was the case in the late 80s CBA.

 

This first negotiation came on the heels of the NFLPA under the leadership of traditional AFL-CIO style union folk led by a fellow named Ed Garvey. His plan was to have the union strike after the regular season (during which the players collected their weekly paychecks) but before the playoffs which is when the team owners got their biggest bucks from the TV networks. Garvey was demanding 52% of the total receipts be awarded to the players in the form of salary.

 

The owners totally kicked the butt of the union by instead locking out the players early in the regular season and hiring "replacement players" who were simply a bunch of wannabee jocks. Still folks and the networks covered the games even just out of curiousity and in about three weeks the players broke.

 

In the face of being demolished, there was a meeting of the minds between the smartest of the players and some smart lawyers. An idea was hatched that the players were officially represented by s not-for-profit legal association called the NFLPA. Under US labor law and practice, under normal circumstances, the teams were individual legal entities (different owners different management styles, different ways of trying to build a team to win the SB who competed with each other. However, it was clear virtually right from the start in George Halas's day and acelerated under Commissioner Pete Rozelle that the teams needed to compete playing the game but as far as business went they needed to cooperate.

 

The NFL and many major sports developed systems which allowed them to allocate players to each other in an orderly fashion and the game prospered. Rozelle led making it even more socialist by awarding the first draft picks to the worst teams.

 

The problem is that this is flat out anti-American and not the way this country operates. The draft for example not only tells an American where he must live in order to play ball, but it also forced him to negotiate with only one employer. America was based on a free market where workers while clearly not having a right to any specific job did have a right to try to get work in their field anywhere their field operated.

 

This is the thing about how the NFL forces things upon individual workers. They are told without regard to their wishes where they MUST work and who they MUST work for. Our society says this is allowable IF you are part of a democratically elected group certified to be your bargaining agent.

 

This is why the decert strategy is so potent and why the team owners are simply begging for the NFLPA tp be around.

 

If the NFLPA is not around to collude with the owners then this denial of individual rights will not stand in our society. Brady et al. are "merely" seeking a remedy of in the absence of a certified bargaining agent then the US commitment to individual rights, competition producing good, and checks and balances demands that the individual corporations which are NFL teams actually compete financially rather than collude to deny basic individual freedoms.

 

My comments about the team owners being an inefficient economic drag is based on the last CBA. The players got by agreement 60.5% of the total gross take.

 

Thus the team owners got 39.5%.

 

My question is what do the team owners add to the game. My answer is very little that cannot be replaced by better performing, more cost effective alternatives.

 

The team owners deserve tons of credit for taking the risk when it was a big risk to provide capital for the NFL. its great that the original owners like Mr. Ralph have gotten a huge rate of return on their investment. I do not feel at all that they are hosed when they get less than the old days when they got to make up the rules than today when there is more fairness for all. I would not even feel bad if their investments became basically worthless because their business mistakes resulted in the NFL actually being more of a free market and the team owners lost the fair competition for assets.

 

The team owners also use to be the sole source of management, but as the GB Packers (and Mr. Ralph has shown with his series of bad football decisions) there are better management models out there than simple team owners.

 

This is what is behind my rant.

[Hplarrm]

If he hasn't been above board and forthcoming, that's unfortunate. Certainly there's a right way and a wrong way to do things.

 

Several times in this thread I've criticized his communications skills and clearly he's shown some leadership deficiencies.

 

But ultimately he'll be judged on the agreement and my point was that the criticisms I was reading about D Smith seem like a lot of fan anger and frustration over the fact that the CBA hasn't been settled yet… as if that's his fault.

 

We're all gonna be smiling and happy one week from now while the intrigue of free agency plays out. It seem a bit shortsighted to be angry right now… pointless actually.

Again its hard to tell what is going on in the midst of things but it will become a lot clearer when we see the results quite soon.

 

It has become a tried and true technique for lawyers who happen to be people of color to present a public image which at times seems downright incompetent. However, these folks end up being crazy like a fox because they have been well aware of who the decision-maker is and who their opponent is.

 

If a lawyer can create a world where his opponents consistently underestimate him and think that this fool is incompetent then they do not plan against out to box things the lawyer does. We saw Johnny Cochran get off a guilty OJ and lawyer Baes get Anthony released when most people were sure they were guilty.

 

One way of looking at what MAY have happened in this NFLPA case is that D. Smith is judged by many to be an idiot that NFL team owners seemed to give no thought at all to the idea that the NFLPA might buy strike insurance giving the players an ability to hold out much longer than anyone thought.

 

There are some reports of the NFL team owners being quite surprised by this move and that their negotiating hard line changes when it became quite possible that they would be losing hundreds of millions each week if the players did not break.

 

I do not know, maybe D. Smith is just an idiot. However, the key thing here is that I do not think that many of those who rant so loudly against him do not know either.

 

I find that often knowing what things one does not know for sure can make all the difference between failure and success.

[K-9]

... The owners totally kicked the butt of the union by instead locking out the players early in the regular season and hiring "replacement players" who were simply a bunch of wannabee jocks. Still folks and the networks covered the games even just out of curiousity and in about three weeks the players broke. ...

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to offer an explanation. I see that it's the same thing you've been saying about the matter. I'll give you credit for sticking to your guns on the issue but it's not a viewpoint I can remotely agree with.

 

You also keep suggesting the owners locked out the players in '82 and '87. The players chose to strike. That's not an insignificant difference. In the case of the '82 strike, no replacement players were hired and those games were lost as well as the TV revenue that went along with them. When the players struck again in '87 the owners, having learned their lesson, indeed hired replacement players and were able to mitigate the loss of TV revenues as a result. It's no wonder the players caved.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Malazan]

But ultimately he'll be judged on the agreement and my point was that the criticisms I was reading about D Smith seem like a lot of fan anger and frustration over the fact that the CBA hasn't been settled yet… as if that's his fault.

 

I can say personally that Smith has given an impression that he's more concerned with his own 'image' over getting a deal done. He's in love with his own voice and seems to focus perception over substance. I don't think I'm alone in the belief that a fair deal could have been done a long time ago with someone else running things. It's backed up by thing like players running around yelling about the deal. They should have been informed and consistent statement released beyond the yelling, "ZOMG, Owners voted!".

 

Why was it that all the fans knew the NFL has said they had days to look it over, but the players themselves were running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Smith seems to delight in his 'power' and it has seemed from the moment he was hired that we were destined for a 'showdown' if, for nothing else, to put him in the limelight. His focus has seemed to drift and the latest antics seem to re-inforce the opinion that he has willfully kept and manipulated information to ensure support from the players for his tactics.

 

In addition, his pretending that he is not aware of the greater financial pressures that were in play to cause the owners to make the move didn't exactly endear him to anyone. As stated, we rarely get 'calm, collected' statements from him. Something like, "We realize that the owners have made some decisions that have driven up valuations of franchises and caused problems for teams that make disproportionately less then the top earning teams in the league. We realize that we all have to pay for those mistakes, and we're ready to strike a deal that is fair and helps ensure the stability of the league" would have gone a long way compared to the rhetoric laden statements he unleashes nearly non-stop.

 

In short, he hasn't struck me as a leader working to get a deal in place that benefits players. He's struck me as working to get a deal, but ensuring that he gets plenty of press while doing it and if that requires manipulating and holding up the process, then he's ok with that.

[KOKBILLS]

I can say personally that Smith has given an impression that he's more concerned with his own 'image' over getting a deal done. He's in love with his own voice and seems to focus perception over substance. I don't think I'm alone in the belief that a fair deal could have been done a long time ago with someone else running things. It's backed up by thing like players running around yelling about the deal. They should have been informed and consistent statement released beyond the yelling, "ZOMG, Owners voted!".

 

Why was it that all the fans knew the NFL has said they had days to look it over, but the players themselves were running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Smith seems to delight in his 'power' and it has seemed from the moment he was hired that we were destined for a 'showdown' if, for nothing else, to put him in the limelight. His focus has seemed to drift and the latest antics seem to re-inforce the opinion that he has willfully kept and manipulated information to ensure support from the players for his tactics.

 

In addition, his pretending that he is not aware of the greater financial pressures that were in play to cause the owners to make the move didn't exactly endear him to anyone. As stated, we rarely get 'calm, collected' statements from him. Something like, "We realize that the owners have made some decisions that have driven up valuations of franchises and caused problems for teams that make disproportionately less then the top earning teams in the league. We realize that we all have to pay for those mistakes, and we're ready to strike a deal that is fair and helps ensure the stability of the league" would have gone a long way compared to the rhetoric laden statements he unleashes nearly non-stop.

 

In short, he hasn't struck me as a leader working to get a deal in place that benefits players. He's struck me as working to get a deal, but ensuring that he gets plenty of press while doing it and if that requires manipulating and holding up the process, then he's ok with that.

 

Agreed 100%...

 

Or the way I like to put it is...He's a mush-mouthed d-bag...But your way was is MUCH more eloquent...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I can say personally that Smith has given an impression that he's more concerned with his own 'image' over getting a deal done. He's in love with his own voice and seems to focus perception over substance. I don't think I'm alone in the belief that a fair deal could have been done a long time ago with someone else running things. It's backed up by thing like players running around yelling about the deal. They should have been informed and consistent statement released beyond the yelling, "ZOMG, Owners voted!".

 

Why was it that all the fans knew the NFL has said they had days to look it over, but the players themselves were running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Smith seems to delight in his 'power' and it has seemed from the moment he was hired that we were destined for a 'showdown' if, for nothing else, to put him in the limelight. His focus has seemed to drift and the latest antics seem to re-inforce the opinion that he has willfully kept and manipulated information to ensure support from the players for his tactics.

 

In addition, his pretending that he is not aware of the greater financial pressures that were in play to cause the owners to make the move didn't exactly endear him to anyone. As stated, we rarely get 'calm, collected' statements from him. Something like, "We realize that the owners have made some decisions that have driven up valuations of franchises and caused problems for teams that make disproportionately less then the top earning teams in the league. We realize that we all have to pay for those mistakes, and we're ready to strike a deal that is fair and helps ensure the stability of the league" would have gone a long way compared to the rhetoric laden statements he unleashes nearly non-stop.

 

In short, he hasn't struck me as a leader working to get a deal in place that benefits players. He's struck me as working to get a deal, but ensuring that he gets plenty of press while doing it and if that requires manipulating and holding up the process, then he's ok with that.

Well we're not gonna agree. I've criticized D. Smith for his weaknesses in communication and leadership but as I already have said, the proof will be the CBA.

 

As far as the accusations that the players have been holding up the deal, that's a bunch of bunk, IMO. The two sides have been going at it for over 4 months. For most of March and April they met for maybe 1-2 days per week.

 

BOTH sides dragged their feet in a showdown which is how the vast majority of collective bargaining cases are. Nothing happens until a gun is at someone's head. Both sides (and I've been through a few of these myself) are playing chicken. The player reps only saw the summary document after the owners approved it. This happened late on Thursday. The players association then had to communicate the summary document to the player reps and then the 1900 members of the rank and file.

 

The players side has been studying the summary document since they received it and this process continued today with reports from Schefter and Breer and others that much work was done today and a vote is expected on Monday.

 

The Hall of Fame Game was cancelled on Thursday. There's no difference between getting the deal done on Thursday or on Monday so why should the players rush this when it's a deal that has to be complied with for the next 10 years? They are doing their due diligence as they should.

 

Again, D. Smith's biggest responsibility by far is to get the best deal he can for the players.

 

I'm not sure where all the "he's in love with the sound of his own voice" and that "he's more concerned with his own image" than getting a deal done is coming from. Personally I haven't seen it and it's really irrelevant.

 

D. Smith's job is to drive a hard bargain and style points mean little to nothing in the equation except to give fuel to those who've decided that they don't like him for whatever reason… or who have the perception that he's holding up the deal… which is a viewpoint that I consider totally incorrect.

 

[Scrappy]

Who really cares about the HOF game ?? It's the most meaningless game of the season, right in front of the preseason.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Who really cares about the HOF game ?? It's the most meaningless game of the season, right in front of the preseason.

I agree Scrappy but I have to say… when Jeff Fisher called that fake punt on 4th down, I was ready to fly down to Canton for the express purpose of trying to strangle him. I thought it was totally bush league.

Edited July 24, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Scrappy]

I agree Scrappy but I have to say… when Jeff Fisher called that fake punt on 4th down, I was ready to fly down to Canton for the express purpose of trying to strangle him. I thought it was totally bush league.

 

Jeff Fisher is the devil.

[Orton's Arm]

I can say personally that Smith has given an impression that he's more concerned with his own 'image' over getting a deal done. He's in love with his own voice and seems to focus perception over substance. I don't think I'm alone in the belief that a fair deal could have been done a long time ago with someone else running things. It's backed up by thing like players running around yelling about the deal. They should have been informed and consistent statement released beyond the yelling, "ZOMG, Owners voted!".

 

Why was it that all the fans knew the NFL has said they had days to look it over, but the players themselves were running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Smith seems to delight in his 'power' and it has seemed from the moment he was hired that we were destined for a 'showdown' if, for nothing else, to put him in the limelight. His focus has seemed to drift and the latest antics seem to re-inforce the opinion that he has willfully kept and manipulated information to ensure support from the players for his tactics.

 

In addition, his pretending that he is not aware of the greater financial pressures that were in play to cause the owners to make the move didn't exactly endear him to anyone. As stated, we rarely get 'calm, collected' statements from him. Something like, "We realize that the owners have made some decisions that have driven up valuations of franchises and caused problems for teams that make disproportionately less then the top earning teams in the league. We realize that we all have to pay for those mistakes, and we're ready to strike a deal that is fair and helps ensure the stability of the league" would have gone a long way compared to the rhetoric laden statements he unleashes nearly non-stop.

 

In short, he hasn't struck me as a leader working to get a deal in place that benefits players. He's struck me as working to get a deal, but ensuring that he gets plenty of press while doing it and if that requires manipulating and holding up the process, then he's ok with that.

This.

[Malazan]

The players side has been studying the summary document since they received it and this process continued today with reports from Schefter and Breer and others that much work was done today and a vote is expected on Monday.

 

The Hall of Fame Game was cancelled on Thursday. There's no difference between getting the deal done on Thursday or on Monday so why should the players rush this when it's a deal that has to be complied with for the next 10 years? They are doing their due diligence as they should.

 

I've not seen anything that the owners were looking for the players to vote on the proposal before this..

Edited July 24, 2011 by jeremy2020

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I've not seen anything that the owners were looking for the players to vote on the proposal before this..

Well Jeremy I was referring to numerous posts where anger is directed at Smith based on a perception that he's obstructing final approval of the proposed CBA.

 

I wonder if part of the difference in perception of D. Smith between you (and Edwards' Arm and KOKBills) and me is that I really don't watch television.

 

It almost seems that there's something about him that brushes people the wrong way… something I'm not picking up when reading news reports.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

[Scrappy]

Everything looks to be slipped now, deal is done according to multiple sources on both sides.

[Orton's Arm]

Well Jeremy I was referring to numerous posts where anger is directed at Smith based on a perception that he's obstructing final approval of the proposed CBA.

 

I wonder if part of the difference in perception of D. Smith between you (and Edwards' Arm and KOKBills) and me is that I really don't watch television.

 

It almost seems that there's something about him that brushes people the wrong way… something I'm not picking up when reading news reports.

 

Just a thought.

I don't have cable, and only use my television to watch DVDs. I've never seen Demaurice Smith on television. My negative impression of him is based on two things: 1) a lot of what he's said strikes me as misleading and deceptive. 2) I've seen no evidence to suggest he's looking for very many win-wins.

 

As an example of 2), why not push for a higher minimum player salary? That would be no skin off the owners' noses as long as the salary cap was not raised, and would help a lot more players than it hurt. An increase in salary of $100,000 a year would do a lot more to help some minimum wage player who's only in the league for 2 - 3 years than a decrease in salary of $100,000 a year would do to hurt Peyton Manning. But Demaurice Smith has not (to my knowledge) pushed for an increase in the minimum salary.

 

Another thing which he could be doing is to push for changes to reduce brain trauma. An article I read suggested a lot of brain trauma is caused by the way practices are conducted. Why not campaign to have practices changed? Why not campaign for changes to equipment and the rules set in ways intended to reduce brain trauma? That would be a huge help to the players he's supposed to be representing, but he's done nothing. Except, of course, for using brain trauma as yet another argument for a higher salary cap. He argues players deserve more compensation for their brain trauma. On the surface that argument may seem to make sense. But a higher salary cap does nothing for players making the minimum wage. Those guys take a lot of hard hits on special teams--plenty of brain trauma there--and they're the ones currently receiving the least compensation for their brain trauma. A high salary cap is most beneficial for the star players in the league--Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and so forth. Players in that category are already overcompensated for their brain trauma, so there's no need to try to raise their compensation still further.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Demaurice Smith has been singing only one song: which is that the salary cap should be as high as possible. He's done nothing to help the men he's supposed to represent beyond his constant push on that one issue. For the good of the league the salary cap needs to be reduced, and it's become clear the owners are determined to make that happen. Instead of digging himself in on that one issue--while ignoring everything else--he should have been willing to offer the owners concessions on the salary cap and on the rookie wage scale in exchange for meaningful action on brain trauma and an increase in the minimum salary. Had he done these things, he would have been part of the solution. Instead, he's acted like a man determined to be part of the problem. (The problem here being a salary cap that's clearly too high.)

[Kelly the Dog]

As an example of 2), why not push for a higher minimum player salary? That would be no skin off the owners' noses as long as the salary cap was not raised, and would help a lot more players than it hurt. An increase in salary of $100,000 a year would do a lot more to help some minimum wage player who's only in the league for 2 - 3 years than a decrease in salary of $100,000 a year would do to hurt Peyton Manning. But Demaurice Smith has not (to my knowledge) pushed for an increase in the minimum salary.

 

Another thing which he could be doing is to push for changes to reduce brain trauma. An article I read suggested a lot of brain trauma is caused by the way practices are conducted. Why not campaign to have practices changed? Why not campaign for changes to equipment and the rules set in ways intended to reduce brain trauma? That would be a huge help to the players he's supposed to be representing, but he's done nothing. Except, of course, for using brain trauma as yet another argument for a higher salary cap. He argues players deserve more compensation for their brain trauma. On the surface that argument may seem to make sense. But a higher salary cap does nothing for players making the minimum wage. Those guys take a lot of hard hits on special teams--plenty of brain trauma there--and they're the ones currently receiving the least compensation for their brain trauma. A high salary cap is most beneficial for the star players in the league--Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and so forth. Players in that category are already overcompensated for their brain trauma, so there's no need to try to raise their compensation still further.

 

He pushed for and got an increase in minimum salary. $55,000 a year more right now, and $75,000 more next year, for an increase of $130,000..

 

There is also a huge fund put aside for injury research. 50 million per year, although NFL Charities comes out of that fund, too.

 

Plus there is:

*Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.

*An enhanced injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury.

*Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new "Legacy Fund," which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I don't have cable, and only use my television to watch DVDs. I've never seen Demaurice Smith on television. My negative impression of him is based on two things: 1) a lot of what he's said strikes me as misleading and deceptive. 2) I've seen no evidence to suggest he's looking for very many win-wins.

 

As an example of 2), why not push for a higher minimum player salary? That would be no skin off the owners' noses as long as the salary cap was not raised, and would help a lot more players than it hurt. An increase in salary of $100,000 a year would do a lot more to help some minimum wage player who's only in the league for 2 - 3 years than a decrease in salary of $100,000 a year would do to hurt Peyton Manning. But Demaurice Smith has not (to my knowledge) pushed for an increase in the minimum salary.

 

Another thing which he could be doing is to push for changes to reduce brain trauma. An article I read suggested a lot of brain trauma is caused by the way practices are conducted. Why not campaign to have practices changed? Why not campaign for changes to equipment and the rules set in ways intended to reduce brain trauma? That would be a huge help to the players he's supposed to be representing, but he's done nothing. Except, of course, for using brain trauma as yet another argument for a higher salary cap. He argues players deserve more compensation for their brain trauma. On the surface that argument may seem to make sense. But a higher salary cap does nothing for players making the minimum wage. Those guys take a lot of hard hits on special teams--plenty of brain trauma there--and they're the ones currently receiving the least compensation for their brain trauma. A high salary cap is most beneficial for the star players in the league--Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and so forth. Players in that category are already overcompensated for their brain trauma, so there's no need to try to raise their compensation still further.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Demaurice Smith has been singing only one song: which is that the salary cap should be as high as possible. He's done nothing to help the men he's supposed to represent beyond his constant push on that one issue. For the good of the league the salary cap needs to be reduced, and it's become clear the owners are determined to make that happen. Instead of digging himself in on that one issue--while ignoring everything else--he should have been willing to offer the owners concessions on the salary cap and on the rookie wage scale in exchange for meaningful action on brain trauma and an increase in the minimum salary. Had he done these things, he would have been part of the solution. Instead, he's acted like a man determined to be part of the problem. (The problem here being a salary cap that's clearly too high.)

 

He pushed for and got an increase in minimum salary. $55,000 a year more right now, and $75,000 more next year, for an increase of $130,000..

 

There is also a huge fund put aside for injury research. 50 million per year, although NFL Charities comes out of that fund, too.

 

Plus there is:

*Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.

*An enhanced injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury.

*Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new "Legacy Fund," which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.

Yeah besides what Kelly posted, the new agreement:

 

Only allows 1 full-pads practice each week and no more than 14 over the 17 week season. Amazing concession by management (coaches really).

 

The first 3 days of training camp will have ZERO full-pads practice.

 

There will be ZERO two-a-day workouts in training camp. They have been outlawed.

 

In addition to the increase in the minimum salary that Kelly pointed out, the new CBA introduces a new mechanism which makes it harder to cut older veteran players based on salary. I can't find the link for this yet but I will. In the meantime:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/24/seven-things-you-may-have-missed-in-new-cba/

 

"1. There won’t be hitting for the first three days of training camp this year. (That includes arrival day and two days of practices.)

5. Minimum salaries are going up $50,000, and will continue to increase. This is a huge gain for a lot of players. Almost half the league has a minimum salary."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/in-season-padded-practices-plummet-under-new-cba/

"The parties have agreed that, during the 17-week regular season, teams will conduct only 14 practices in pads.

 

Let’s repeat that. During the 17-week regular season, teams will have a maximum of only 14 padded practices."

 

It also looks like the players are going to get 5 straight, uninterrupted days off during their bye week.

 

In view of these details, it looks like D. Smith has done MORE for the working conditions of the players than any union head in NFLPA history.

 

 

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Yeah besides what Kelly posted, the new agreement:

 

Only allows 1 full-pads practice each week and no more than 14 over the 17 week season. Amazing concession by management (coaches really).

 

The first 3 days of training camp will have ZERO full-pads practice.

 

There will be ZERO two-a-day workouts in training camp. They have been outlawed.

 

In addition to the increase in the minimum salary that Kelly pointed out, the new CBA introduces a new mechanism which makes it harder to cut older veteran players based on salary. I can't find the link for this yet but I will. In the meantime:

 

http://profootballta...sed-in-new-cba/

 

"1. There won't be hitting for the first three days of training camp this year. (That includes arrival day and two days of practices.)

5. Minimum salaries are going up $50,000, and will continue to increase. This is a huge gain for a lot of players. Almost half the league has a minimum salary."

http://profootballta...-under-new-cba/

"The parties have agreed that, during the 17-week regular season, teams will conduct only 14 practices in pads.

 

Let's repeat that. During the 17-week regular season, teams will have a maximum of only 14 padded practices."

 

It also looks like the players are going to get 5 straight, uninterrupted days off during their bye week.

 

In view of these details, it looks like D. Smith has done MORE for the working conditions of the players than any union head in NFLPA history.

Also from the Bflo News,

 

"The proposed deal also makes significant changes to the players' offseason workout schedules. This was a big issue for the players. The offseason program will be reduced by five weeks. The organized training activities (OTAs) will be cut back from 14 to 10. Last year, four teams had those workouts shut down for violations of the CBA."

 

 

 

And this:

 

"Current players would have medical coverage for life."