holding out

[grammer_police]

shaun alexander is saying that holding out will be an option if he doesnt get that extra million or so. this is a slap in the face to the fans of seattle. if, and hopefully not if, willis holds out sometime in the future, this will be a slap in the face of buffalo.

 

yes players should have rights, but holding out directly hits the fan, when the regular season starts. there has to be a different option. perhaps players that hold out should be fined 10,000 $ per game or something.

[Fezmid]

shaun alexander is saying that holding out will be an option if he doesnt get that extra million or so. this is a slap in the face to the fans of seattle. if, and hopefully not if, willis holds out sometime in the future, this will be a slap in the face of buffalo.

 

yes players should have rights, but holding out directly hits the fan, when the regular season starts. there has to be a different option. perhaps players that hold out should be fined 10,000 $ per game or something.

374496[/snapback]

 

If a player is under contract and holds out, they forfeit their salary and get fined as well.

 

Of course, these "fines" are usually waived once the player reports/signs a new contract.

CW

[grammer_police]

If a player is under contract and holds out, they forfeit their salary and get fined as well.

 

Of course, these "fines" are usually waived once the player reports/signs a new contract.

CW

374497[/snapback]

 

 

thanks for the info.

[JimBob2232]

I think they should not get paid when they hold out, and if they miss opening day, they should not be allowed to play for the remainder of the season and their contract should automatically renew for 1 year (at the teams discression). If you dont like the terms of the contract...DONT SIGN IT. Novel concept I know.

[Fezmid]

I think they should not get paid when they hold out, and if they miss opening day, they should not be allowed to play for the remainder of the season and their contract should automatically renew for 1 year (at the teams discression).  If you dont like the terms of the contract...DONT SIGN IT.  Novel concept I know.

374500[/snapback]

 

On the surface I agree -- but on the other hand, the owners can cut you at any time and the contract becomes null and void... So it's definately a one-way street in that regard.

 

CW

[silvermike]

That kicks in at some point - I think after four weeks or something. You are no longer eligible to play, and your contract is extended. You can't hold out your way into free agency in the NFL.

[JimBob2232]

On the surface I agree -- but on the other hand, the owners can cut you at any time and the contract becomes null and void... So it's definately a one-way street in that regard.

 

Well...thats the way the NFL (and life) works. Guess what...If I dont show up to work tomorrow, I get fired. I dont have a choice, I have to go. My employer can fire me at any time. Thats the way life is. These guys actually have the luxury of negotiating with the employer of THEIR choice to an agreeable amount of money, and all they have to do is keep up their end of the bargain and the money is theirs. If you dont like what they are offering...GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Fezmid]

Well...thats the way the NFL (and life) works.  Guess what...If I dont show up to work tomorrow, I get fired.  I dont have a choice, I have to go.  My employer can fire me at any time.  Thats the way life is.  These guys actually have the luxury of negotiating with the employer of THEIR choice to an agreeable amount of money, and all they have to do is keep up their end of the bargain and the money is theirs.  If you dont like what they are offering...GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

374510[/snapback]

 

The difference is, you don't have a contract (or more precisely, you have a contract that says the employer can let you go at any time and you can leave at any time). If you had a "real" contract, your employer couldn't fire you whenever they wanted to.

 

CW

[Tom]

The difference is, you don't have a contract (or more precisely, you have a contract that says the employer can let you go at any time and you can leave at any time).  If you had a "real" contract, your employer couldn't fire you whenever they wanted to.

 

CW

As in MLB?

[sfladave]

That kicks in at some point - I think after four weeks or something.  You are no longer eligible to play, and your contract is extended.  You can't hold out your way into free agency in the NFL.

374509[/snapback]

 

Actually you are allowed to hold out for the 1st 10 games. If you report for the last 6 games your contract year is fufilled. Travis Henry can wait until game 11 to show up at OBD and play out the year. His obligation to the Bills would be over after that.

[MDH]

On the surface I agree -- but on the other hand, the owners can cut you at any time and the contract becomes null and void...  So it's definately a one-way street in that regard.

 

CW

374501[/snapback]

 

Exactly. If the owners are not bound to the contract there is no reason the players should be either. If a player doesn't play up to a contract they get cut, yet if they outplay a contract they're simply supposed to play out the contract? That makes no sense. You can't have it both ways, give the players guaranteed contracts and I'd agree that holding out is wrong, otherwise they have every right to do what they can to get what they're worth.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

My sense is that the base of this arrangement is the partnership between the owners and the players with both having a primary goal as these two groups (owners and the players) of making as much mney as they can. This primary goal of the two groups is made up of a bunch of individuals who have primary individual motives to win the ring and also to make as much money for them snd their familirs as they can (the prinority of these goals varies from individual to individual and from time to time, but these basically are the drives for this business of sport). However, since individual teams are competing with each other for the championship the basic shared goal is to maximize the $ they make competing.

 

Now as far as this goes the NFL operated unitl the late 80s within a framework where actually the owners had most of the power and kept most of the money made by the sport for themselves and for the most part dictated the rules under which the players competed.

 

The key to alot of this was that actually football did not operate by free market rules and the good old American way. In general the in the free market supply and demand rules and people are free offer services to anyone and anyone can buy those service for a mutually agreed price. The NFL (and most other major sports) had developed in a manner where the owners actually colluded with each other to restrain trade and the free market of any individual offering his services to the highest bidder. The competing teams in the NFL had developed a system where they did compete on the field but actually colluded with each other to not compete in a free- market way in terms of the business (it actually is hard for me to imagine how one even operates a sport in a true free market but that is another discussion).

 

However, by the 80s we saw some major changes prompted by society and events in the NFL. In one of the other big sports Major League Baseball, even though it has under the law an exemption from anti-trust laws which makes the owner collusion legal in a way that the NFL does not, individuals asserted another key to the American way which is the individual freedom to sell their services to anyone unless they agree to the limitations.

 

When the legally stronger MLB lost the restrictions of the Reserve Clause which bound a player to a team that chose him in the restraint of trade draft for life, it was a victory for individual rights and the end of sports as we knew them. In addition to the changes in baseball which put the NFL in danger of owners having to actually operate in a free market, the NFL suceeded in outlasting the USFL and through this victory made it clear that the owners were truly one business rather than competitors despite the on field competition.

 

The next event was that the players pushed to be given a majority of the gross receipts under the leadership of Ed Garvey. The players were beaten badly in this economic fight with the owners and the union was crushed in the replacement player move of the owners.

 

Interestingly enough it was these two total victories which sealed the fate of the NFL as we knew it. Ironically, the restraint of trade that the owners were pleased to put in place because unlike MLB the colleges subsidized development and training of it's prouct with college football. The NFL does not have to pay the millions (if not billions) it would take to manage a minor league system the way theMLB does because the colleges (many of them paid for with government money).

 

However, a side effect of this massive subsidy to the NFL and the restraint of trade of the draft is that the leadership of the players is by definition a college educated crew. Mpst athletes are actually undereducated folks who really majored in football in college. However, the player leadership consists of well-educated smart guys and under the leadership of Gene Upshaw and other players they countered beng beaten totally by the replacement player tactic by joining with a bunch of bright lawyers and simply threatening to decertify the union. Without the agreement of the players to the restraint of trade of the draft unless the NFL made a deal with the players they would have had to actually compete against each other financially for player services.

 

The good news for the owners financially however, is that though they were in fact much richer than the players and loved beating the crap out of them, they grudgingly but quickly had to admit that their were forces in society (like the TV networks that had far more money than they had. In fact with the burgeoning economy under President Clinton in the 90s they could be shown that they actually could make far more money than they ever had if they could gurantee the delivery of a product through labor peace and development of a partnership with the players.

 

The result was that the NFL and NFLPA concluded an agreement in the mid-90s where the players actually won a % of the DESIGNATED gross of around 70% which far outstripped the Garvey demand of 52%. This designated gross was actually far more limited than the total gross of the Garvey deal as major income streams such as luxury boxes were not designated. However, with labor peace and an ensured delivery of a product until a new Collectuive Bargaining Agreement needed to be produced, the networks paid so muh $ for the product taht both the owners and players made more money from football than ever imagined.

 

The bottom line as far as this thread is that the key to this is that the key to business decisions here, the NFL and NFLPA has nothing to do with you, me, cities like Buffalo, the region. etc. We are a real key to the business because we are the cash source, but we have no direct control and no influence in any planned way over decision governing the product.

 

Hold-outs will not end unless it somehow endangers the BFL and NFLPA making money. For now, hold-outs are actually part of the system of contracts. Individuals can try to deny their services, even abridging a contract, if they are willing to take the penalties for doing this of not being paid.

 

The players will not agree to a more draconian penalty for abridging a contract unless there is something financially in it for them I do not see the NFL doing much to pay the NFL in joining them to rein in this behavior. The NFL would have to pay the union alot to agree to this deal and even if they did they would actually begin to flirt with individual restraint of trade issues that it would not benefit the NFL to have dealt with.

 

Remember, the USFL won their lawsuit against the NFL that they were colluding and restraining competition. However, trebling of the damages they received for winning this lawsuit resulted in them winning $3. In addition, the NFL destroyed the NFLPA in their labor battle and as a result the Art Rooney's and Halas family who had run pro football on their own for decades had to take on the players (abd all them African-Americans like Gene Upshaw) on as essentially their partners.

 

I'm sure that the the NFL could win a lawsuit against a player for violating his contract but like the USFL and the replacement player episode they would likely lose as a result of this win.

[OGTEleven]

The difference is, you don't have a contract (or more precisely, you have a contract that says the employer can let you go at any time and you can leave at any time).  If you had a "real" contract, your employer couldn't fire you whenever they wanted to.

 

CW

374514[/snapback]

That is what the NLFPA agreed to when they negotiated with the owners. Whether it is one contract or the combination of two, terms are terms.

[stuckincincy]

There's no business, like show business,

 

Like no business I know.

 

Everything about it is appealing,

 

Everything the traffic will allow,

 

No where could you have that happy feeling,

 

When you are stealing, that extra bow ...

[MadBuffaloDisease]

The rules are fine the way they are. If you holdout, you lose a game check. If you holdout more than 10 games, you forfeit a year of eligibility towards UFA. If you are on the opening day roster, your salary for the year is guaranteed (except if you holdout). And if you are cut, and you are good, you still have made money in your signing bonus, and have a good chance of being picked-up and paid again by another team.

[IDBillzFan]

There's no business, like show business,

 

Like no business I know.

 

Everything about it is appealing,

 

Everything the traffic will allow,

 

No where could you have that happy feeling,

 

When you are stealing, that extra bow ...

374572[/snapback]

I once portrayed Buffalo Bill Cody in a high school production of "Annie Get Your Gun", and had to sing that song with three other people. We would alternate lyrics. Mine was "Everything the traffic will allow." Then I'd come back large when we got to "When you are stealing that extra bow..."

 

Thanks for that !@#$ed up memory.

[stuckincincy]

I once portrayed Buffalo Bill Cody in a high school production of "Annie Get Your Gun", and had to sing that song with three other people. We would alternate lyrics. Mine was "Everything the traffic will allow." Then I'd come back large when we got to "When you are stealing that extra bow..."

 

Thanks for that !@#$ed up memory.

374578[/snapback]

 

My stage debut was in 6th grade...had to sing "Heart of My Heart" with 3 other forced laborers...

[BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land]

shaun alexander is saying that holding out will be an option if he doesnt get that extra million or so. this is a slap in the face to the fans of seattle. if, and hopefully not if, willis holds out sometime in the future, this will be a slap in the face of buffalo.

 

yes players should have rights, but holding out directly hits the fan, when the regular season starts. there has to be a different option. perhaps players that hold out should be fined 10,000 $ per game or something.

374496[/snapback]

1st of punishment is spelled with a single n.

 

I don't blame Alexander, or the guy with the Jets. When you're franchised, you get top 5 $ but that's for one year with no guaranteed cash. Why would you go to VOLUNTARY activities and risk serious career-ending injury, without some guaranteed cash??? Orlando Pace and Walter Jones both held out multiple times and it doesn't seem to affect them

[plenzmd1]

Exactly.  If the owners are not bound to the contract there is no reason the players should be either.  If a player doesn't play up to a contract they get cut, yet if they outplay a contract they're simply supposed to play out the contract?  That makes no sense.  You can't have it both ways, give the players guaranteed contracts and I'd agree that holding out is wrong, otherwise they have every right to do what they can to get what they're worth.

374535[/snapback]

However, the player wants it both ways. They want a long term contract with a SIGNING bonus. The players have guaranteed contracts, its called the signing bonus!!!!!!. Remember, these players do not sign one contract, they sign a series of one year contracts, hense the reason they can be cut.

 

In no other sport, other than the baseball draft where there are still options for someone being drafted,are there signing bonuses involved. It is the negotiation that takes place in the NFL everyday. You want security, I will give you this big signing bonus, and in return you agree to play for me at these salaries, at my discretion.

 

I am so tired of hearing the argument it is a one way street. Now, if no signing bonus was involved, I would agree. However that bonus is their guarantee. Lets not forget the player can always opt to play in Canada, or get another job, or just not play football if he does not feel he is fairly compensated.

[Ghost of BiB]

I once portrayed Buffalo Bill Cody in a high school production of "Annie Get Your Gun", and had to sing that song with three other people. We would alternate lyrics. Mine was "Everything the traffic will allow." Then I'd come back large when we got to "When you are stealing that extra bow..."

 

Thanks for that !@#$ed up memory.

374578[/snapback]

 

Thank you for the fkued up visual. An italian guy wearing a white cotton beard and hair singing everything the traffic will allow. Nathan Lane look out.