OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said: Says "Practice Squad" under you name...fitting. Bad info in it and also the AAF is as much of a threat to the NFL as Canada is to invading and taking over the US. ...uh oh.....we need another wall....... 1
GunnerBill Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 AAF is the NFL.... and Finkle is Einhorn. Now it makes sense. 1
Mr. WEO Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 10 hours ago, PUNT750 said: You're misunderstanding me. The AAF IS the NFL. The current NFL players get paid millions only because the Players Assoc. promotes them to be "stars". The AAF is the NFL - - - look into it! Why would the games be on the NFL Network? Because it's free programming for a 24 hr sports network? 1
dpberr Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 If the AAF demonstrates viability - lasting more than three seasons without teams in financial trouble - I foresee it becoming the developmental league for NFL front office, coaches, players and referees. The NFL is the only major professional sport that lacks minor league infrastructure for its personnel. It's a win/win for the NFL. They get to expand rosters, football is on TV nearly the entire year, the NFL is in smaller markets, and perhaps even the quality of personnel will be improved if there is a stop between the college and pro game. I also see it as a way to keep NFL players who get into trouble in the game until they can get back into the league. 1
SoCal Deek Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 What I think is hilarious is the idea that the NFLPA is planning on a strike! What do they want now? They’ve already gotten rid of tackling, practicing in pads, and a whole bunch of offseason requirements. What now? Come on man! 1
PromoTheRobot Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 12 hours ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said: I'm apparent why the AAF isn't making it's NFL affiliation more important. Should be a decent marketing idea to show the fans.. unless posing as an alternate league has it's merit. Probably because they are keeping the AAF at arm's length for now, until it's success is more assured. Also to avoid being caught up in any litigation should the AAF go sideways.
Florida Bills Fanatic Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 Although the league continues to generate significant revenues, there are some potentially troubling signs for the NFL. St. Louis, Oakland, and San Diego recently turned their backs on the league. There were a number of large corporations that were conspicuously absent from advertising in the Super Bowl. The television viewership for the Super Bowl this year was the lowest that it has been in 10 years. Significant numbers of people stopped watching the NFL because of the national anthem controversy. The league and the NFLPA know all of these things and much more. A strike in 2021 would drive more fans away. The advice from the NFLPA to the players to save money in advance of the contract negotiations, is common union advice given in any industry going into a contract year. I don't read anything ominous in any of that. All of that being said, both sides stand to lose more than they could ever hope to gain. The problems will come if a faction of radical players or radical owners drive the narrative to a stalemate and cause a strike.
BillsSB2020 Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 11 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said: Have you happened to notice AAF is being promoted by the NFL. The players already get paid enough. They are a bunch of greedy ******* Without the best players, there is no league. Where do you think that money should go? All of it to the owners? It's simple supply and demand. If people stopped attending games or watching them, then their value would diminish. Capitalism plain and simple. They are paid in accordance with their market value.
Saxum Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: What I think is hilarious is the idea that the NFLPA is planning on a strike! What do they want now? They’ve already gotten rid of tackling, practicing in pads, and a whole bunch of offseason requirements. What now? Come on man! They want to eliminate drug tests. Pot is "legal" now, this unapproved drug helps this issue, etc. They also want fines/suspensions on penalties removed. They really need 2 unions - one for bad boys and one for not.
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 I really don't see the owners changing much as far as the players go. I am more concerned with the big market teams doing something stupid to gain an advantage.
SoCal Deek Posted February 20, 2019 Posted February 20, 2019 14 hours ago, Limeaid said: They want to eliminate drug tests. Pot is "legal" now, this unapproved drug helps this issue, etc. They also want fines/suspensions on penalties removed. They really need 2 unions - one for bad boys and one for not. Seems like pot use could only be legal in states where it’s legal. That issue doesn’t seem worthy of a strike to me. And eliminating fines doesn’t seem like it rises to that level either. It can’t effect that many players in any given year. I sure hope they have more than that to complain about!
Mr. WEO Posted February 20, 2019 Posted February 20, 2019 On 2/19/2019 at 8:57 AM, SoCal Deek said: What I think is hilarious is the idea that the NFLPA is planning on a strike! What do they want now? They’ve already gotten rid of tackling, practicing in pads, and a whole bunch of offseason requirements. What now? Come on man! They want fully guaranteed contracts.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 20, 2019 Posted February 20, 2019 6 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Seems like pot use could only be legal in states where it’s legal. That issue doesn’t seem worthy of a strike to me. And eliminating fines doesn’t seem like it rises to that level either. It can’t effect that many players in any given year. I sure hope they have more than that to complain about! That could get tricky as the job literally entails traveling across the country for half the season. If a player from the Bengals were to test positive for pot, who's to say he didn't smoke it on the teams recent trip to Denver or Seattle? The AAF has no intention of ever overtaking the NFL. If anybody plans on trying to take advantage of this hypothetically happening, it would be the XFL, who will fail miserably. Even if the NFL goes on strike, and the XFL decides to start playing in fall, once the Strike is over, the NFL is dead. Plus, the timeline wouldn't work. The AFL/XFL seasons end around April or May. The NFL will procrastinate as long as possible before canceling games when/if this occurs. We probably won't know until sometime in July or even August if that happens. That's not enough time to get a league, especially a minor league to get back up and running.
PUNT750 Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 I am NOT SAYING the AAF will replace the NFL in the event of a strike. IF the strike is prolonged then it could be a possibility!! Some things make sense in altering the Collective Bargaining Agreement: 1) No kick-Offs 2) Only 2 Point Conversions 3) No time-outs for commercials 4) Split Screen Commercials 5) Quick Video Reviews - - and KEEP THE PAYROLLS UNDER CONTROL! Push it on the Union!!!
aristocrat Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: They want fully guaranteed contracts. It’s funny that they already allow fully guaranteed deals but players opt for the other. Only cousins and that raiders cb are ones I remember who got fully guaranteed
BillsSB2020 Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, PUNT750 said: I am NOT SAYING the AAF will replace the NFL in the event of a strike. IF the strike is prolonged then it could be a possibility!! Some things make sense in altering the Collective Bargaining Agreement: 1) No kick-Offs 2) Only 2 Point Conversions 3) No time-outs for commercials 4) Split Screen Commercials 5) Quick Video Reviews - - and KEEP THE PAYROLLS UNDER CONTROL! Push it on the Union!!! I think most posters get the gist. You want the owners to retain more of the profit and the athletes to retain less. I fundamentally disagree with this, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Recommended Posts