Saratoga Leo Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Gotta love it. Union won't approve without "concessions". There is nothing I see where it hurts the rank and file. It would be a win for fans and players. It would create more excitement for fans of contending teams. If a player was on IR and could come back off, you would think that would be a win for the player. But improving the game or making it better for the players is irrelevant unless there are "concessions".
Beerball Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Gotta love it. Union won't approve without "concessions". There is nothing I see where it hurts the rank and file. It would be a win for fans and players. It would create more excitement for fans of contending teams. If a player was on IR and could come back off, you would think that would be a win for the player. But improving the game or making it better for the players is irrelevant unless there are "concessions". While I agree I can see a couple reasons why the union would be against the changes (the real reason they are against the changes is because the league suggested them and they can't just give in without 'concessions' by the league). First, you would be uprooting players later in the season, forcing them to move. Players have kids to consider, schools, homes, a wife, a girlfriend, a wife & a girlfriend. That's just too much to ask. Second, if you allow a player on IR who is already receiving his full salary to return to a team's active roster you are putting someone else out of a job. That guy, making league minimum most likely will end up on the practice squad where he'll make less.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 First, you would be uprooting players later in the season, forcing them to move. Players have kids to consider, schools, homes, a wife, a girlfriend, a wife & a girlfriend. That's just too much to ask. Those guys have two wives and two girlfriends? That is too much to ask!
Recommended Posts