Master Index of Archived Threads


NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot Feb 11 2011 09:11 AM

This isn't going to be an issue I'm going to sweat over day by day. But, still, it's certainly a topic worth keeping a running tab on as it moves along (or doesn't). The two most interesting aspects to me are: 1) to see how deep in the tank for the owners most of the media is going to dive. There's already near unanimity by the writer/blogger/TV set over the need for a cap on drafted players in addition to the cap on overall team rosters although no one ever explains why except to parrot the owners line about how this saved money is going to automatically flow to deserving veterans. Plus the mediots know how dependent they are on there being a full football season (particularly the TV types) that they're going to view any union capitulation as if a reprieve from the Governor. 2) how long before the players union begins to splinter. They have no history of being even remotely unified and when cracks start to show before things even get started (Mr. Cromartie) it's not a good sign. - The first "deadline" is in three weeks on March 4th. That's apparently when the sport's new calendar year starts and when everything officially begins to get screwed up including things like the players stop getting their insurance premiums paid for. - Talks "broke down" yesterday and follow-up meeting sked for today and tomorrow are off - the league's deal with the TV networks requires them to pay even if games are canceled, so the league's biggest source of income continues in the absence of games even as its biggest expense does not. Does that give a clue about which side is better able to withstand an outage?

Ceetar Feb 11 2011 09:31 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Personally I don't care at all. I find the labor negotiation talk only mildly more palatable than the Madoff stuff. I wonder what type of pressure the TV networks can bring. They're certainly not going to get advertisers for those empty slots. Hmm.. can baseball capitalize on this? If MLB signed some sort of deal to allow CBS/FOX to air games on Sunday outside the home market, (who owns TBS? one of the networks?) would that help them out with ratings? Obviously the nature of baseball and football are different, but if you put some exciting pennant race baseball game on Sunday afternoons, I'd have to think at least some of the football fans would sit down and watch it. Especially if they waited until Thursday or Friday and picked a game with a great matchup or pitcher or something? Mets lead the division by 1 games on Sunday 9/25. Santana's pitching against Halladay. Reyes and Ultey are predicted 1-2 in the MVP race, likely decided by the division winner. That's compelling no?

Edgy DC Feb 11 2011 10:23 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I care a lot. These players bake this pie and they get crumbs.

Willets Point Feb 11 2011 10:36 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

This is the year MLS takes over the hearts & minds of weekend tv sports viewers in America. So long NFL!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2011 10:40 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

If all you're following is the game on the field, Cee, then you're missing the real game. I wonder what type of pressure the TV networks can bring. They're certainly not going to get advertisers for those empty slots. Their interests-- at least in this particular situation-- might seem at a glance to align pretty well with the Players' Association: status quo or swift, acceptable resolution. But it doesn't seem like they're going to get in bed there anytime soon, and the NFLPA's not the side offering more product for their money. The NFL's the side with whom TV has the business relationship, so the league's their "in" here. Plus, the push for the 18-game schedule is largely a TV deal sweetener for now (and becomes more leverage when it's time to renegotiate THAT). Between this, the non-guaranteed deals, and the fact that players are-- and probably will be-- human ground chuck... I'm starting to wonder whether I'm best off weaning myself off of football.

Frayed Knot Feb 11 2011 10:51 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

CBS already refused to run (I think it was during one of their golf telecasts right before SB weekend) a Players Assoc ad promoting their point of view. The official network response was something along the lines of not wanting to get involved in issue ads or some such bullshit but I'm sure everyone suspects the real reason is that if the NFL says 'jump' the networks' only response is to say "how high" on the way up. Just one of the examples I was thinking of when wondering how deep into the tank for one side the media will be in this whole thing. oe: The other thing to consider here is that, like the MLB situation in the early '90s, it's the owners side which wants to blow up the entire existing arrangement and lock out the players if/when they don't get what they want.

Edgy DC Feb 11 2011 11:10 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If all you're following is the game on the field, Cee, then you're missing the real game. I wonder what type of pressure the TV networks can bring. They're certainly not going to get advertisers for those empty slots. Their interests-- at least in this particular situation-- might seem at a glance to align pretty well with the Players' Association: status quo or swift, acceptable resolution. But it doesn't seem like they're going to get in bed there anytime soon, and the NFLPA's not the side offering more product for their money. The NFL's the side with whom TV has the business relationship, so the league's their "in" here. Plus, the push for the 18-game schedule is largely a TV deal sweetener for now (and becomes more leverage when it's time to renegotiate THAT). Between this, the non-guaranteed deals, and the fact that players are-- and probably will be-- human ground chuck... I'm starting to wonder whether I'm best off weaning myself off of football. It's worth it. Believe me.

Edgy DC Feb 11 2011 11:51 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Willets Point wrote: This is the year MLS takes over the hearts & minds of weekend tv sports viewers in America. So long NFL! I'm pretty put out about the raw deal MLS players get also.

Ceetar Feb 11 2011 12:00 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Willets Point wrote: This is the year MLS takes over the hearts & minds of weekend tv sports viewers in America. So long NFL! Maybe if it wasn't even more boring than football.

seawolf17 Feb 11 2011 12:11 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Ceetar wrote: Willets Point wrote: This is the year MLS takes over the hearts & minds of weekend tv sports viewers in America. So long NFL! Maybe if it wasn't even more boring than football. Yeah, but that one goal each game is just ELECTRIC, man.

Ceetar Feb 11 2011 01:36 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

seawolf17 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Willets Point wrote: This is the year MLS takes over the hearts & minds of weekend tv sports viewers in America. So long NFL! Maybe if it wasn't even more boring than football. Yeah, but that one goal each game is just ELECTRIC, man. Just like when the paint finally DRIES!

Willets Point Feb 11 2011 01:54 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

You laugh now, but you'll be tuning in for the BIG GAME on MLS Cup weekend, if only for the commercials.

metsmarathon Feb 11 2011 02:11 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

ya know what would make soccer more interesting? if the players celebrated after every tackle. that's how you make sports appeal to americans.

Ceetar Feb 11 2011 02:27 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

metsmarathon wrote: ya know what would make soccer more interesting? if the players celebrated after every tackle. that's how you make sports appeal to americans. or cheerleaders.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2011 02:13 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Federal Judge David Doty rules in favor of the NFLPA re: claims that the NFL renegotiated its TV contract extensions specifically to build a "lockout war chest". Essentially, you've got legal proof that the league was not acting in good faith-- that is, representing the NFLPA's interests as well, as bound by the prior CBA/other legal precedents-- during those renegotiations (overruling an independent arbiter who ruled otherwise), and not merely exercising "sound business judgment," since the league actually left money on the table to insert the lockout insurance language into the contract. It's also the first substantive legal-stamp-of-approval bearing proof of what's been common knowledge for a while now-- the league has been planning a work stoppage for years. No guaranteed, lockout-proof TV money for the owners means less chance of a prolonged lockout, which means the NFLPA's got some leverage to get the league back to the figurative table.

Willets Point Mar 02 2011 02:27 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: ya know what would make soccer more interesting? if the players celebrated after every tackle. that's how you make sports appeal to americans. or cheerleaders. It would be pretty easy to make soccer a high-scoring game in the US. You start by making every goal count for six points. After a goal the team that scores will have a chance for an extra point by taking a penalty kick at an empty net (which is such a giveme that pretty much every goal will be worth 7 points). Teams will also be rewarded when they get close to scoring a goal but fail to do so, say 3 points for every shot that hits the crossbar or goes just wide of the net. Tackling a defending player in the box will earn another 2 points. Presto, such artificial means will convince Americans that soccer is a high-scoring game.

metsmarathon Mar 02 2011 02:34 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

yeah, if you just count touchdowns as one point apiece, and eliminate all the other nonsense, football doesn't seem terribly high-scoring, does it?

Gwreck Mar 02 2011 02:35 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Very funny, but still inaccurate; the average number of touchdowns in a football game far exceeds the average number of goals in a soccer game.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2011 02:49 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

TRUE FACT: Whether the target is golf, soccer, football, auto racing, Quidditch, or competitive-eating-contest-flyer-eating, the your-sport-is-stupid/-overrated/-boring/-illegitimate argument tends to damn the speaker far more than it does the sport.

metsmarathon Mar 02 2011 03:00 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

no, but it's probbaly less than in hockey, right? this strikes me as something findable. i could always strive to find it.

metsmarathon Mar 02 2011 03:08 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

per the wonderful people at baseballreference.com's sister site, pro-football-reference.com, in 2010, the average team scored 1.5 passing tds, 0.8 rushing tds, and about 0.1 defensive tds, with 1.5 field goals per game as well. so that's 2.5 tds and 1.5 fgs per game. the nhl is averaging 2.8 goals scored per game. mls averages maybe around 1 g/g or so. i don't have time to do the math.

TransMonk Mar 02 2011 03:25 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I forgot what the point of the math was. I'm sure there are multiple soccer threads around here to tout it's many merits.

Willets Point Mar 02 2011 03:26 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I found that in the MLS goals per game in 2009 was 2.54. The EPL is averaging 2.75 goals per game this season. (PS sorry I derailed this thread. I was just making jokes. Although I do find this stuff interesting.)

metsguyinmichigan Mar 02 2011 03:29 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Mets pitchers certainly did their best to ramp up scoring last season. How many times did they give up four runs with one pitch? A dozen? Sure seemed like it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2011 03:32 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

metsmarathon wrote: per the wonderful people at baseballreference.com's sister site, pro-football-reference.com, in 2010, the average team scored 1.5 passing tds, 0.8 rushing tds, and about 0.1 defensive tds, with 1.5 field goals per game as well. so that's 2.5 tds and 1.5 fgs per game. Actually, that's 5 and 3. Blahblahblah... the likelihood of a prolonged lockout just plummeted today. That's the point I was making.

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2011 04:43 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Federal Judge David Doty rules in favor of the NFLPA re: claims that the NFL renegotiated its TV contract extensions specifically to build a "lockout war chest". Essentially, you've got legal proof that the league was not acting in good faith-- that is, representing the NFLPA's interests as well, as bound by the prior CBA/other legal precedents-- during those renegotiations (overruling an independent arbiter who ruled otherwise), and not merely exercising "sound business judgment," since the league actually left money on the table to insert the lockout insurance language into the contract. It's also the first substantive legal-stamp-of-approval bearing proof of what's been common knowledge for a while now-- the league has been planning a work stoppage for years. No guaranteed, lockout-proof TV money for the owners means less chance of a prolonged lockout, which means the NFLPA's got some leverage to get the league back to the figurative table. This is a big deal to the point where it means that the owners will have merely a huge war chest to survive a prolonged stoppage instead of a FUCKIN' HUGE war chest to survive a prolonged stoppage. It's a winning step for the players although they are still the bet to be less able to weather a lengthy outage and fold first.

metsmarathon Mar 02 2011 05:55 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Actually, that's 5 and 3. sorry. i meant per game per team. i was rushing on my way out the office.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2011 06:55 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I really haven't been paying a drop of attention to this. Is there any reason why the NFL seems to be having its do-or-die moment in March? Have they switched to a USFL schedule or something? I would think that the clock would be ticking its loudest in August, not now.

Ceetar Mar 03 2011 07:06 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I really haven't been paying a drop of attention to this. Is there any reason why the NFL seems to be having its do-or-die moment in March? Have they switched to a USFL schedule or something? I would think that the clock would be ticking its loudest in August, not now. I wondered this as well, it'd sorta been in the background for a bit, except for those places that refuse to talk anything but NFL, and then all of a sudden we're supposed to get talk-radio 24/7 coverage today? please please please tell me we're not going to get 'news' like this every time there is a court date for the Wilpons/Picard?

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2011 07:42 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I really haven't been paying a drop of attention to this. Is there any reason why the NFL seems to be having its do-or-die moment in March? Have they switched to a USFL schedule or something? I would think that the clock would be ticking its loudest in August, not now. Because it (tonight at midnight) is the day that their version of the 'Basic Agreement' expires - similar to MLB's expiring in November or December after their season has ended.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2011 07:52 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Yeah, but in baseball when that happens, things don't get critical until around February. What's the panic about not having a Basic Agreement during the sports fallow months?

TransMonk Mar 03 2011 08:06 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I would guess ESPN and the like are making a big deal out of it due to the timing. With all respect to the NBA and NHL, I would bet that the period between the Super Bowl and the beginning of the NCAA Tourney is a weak time for sports news agencies in regards to ratings. The NFL is the king of American sports.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2011 08:08 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Basically the owners are driving this thing figuring that they have the hammer in negotiations by being able to withstand a protracted stoppage better than the players can. They're not only the ones who want to substantially alter the current set-up but they even took the step of exercising an option to end it a year early. So what everyone believes is that the owners are going to proactively lock-out the players as this deadline hits. Nothing substantially changes as midnight hits seeing as how training camps are still four months away, but it effectively begins a ticking clock towards missed paychecks and lost jobs. Something like 1/4 of the league are free agents (although mostly lower level players) and all of them are jobless until something gets done.

TransMonk Mar 03 2011 08:12 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I get the sense that the longer this drags on, the less the players are going to get out of the final agreement. From what I understand, the owners have been planning for this work stoppage since the last agreement was signed and are out for revenge based on the last agreement that was signed. What a bunch of fat-cat assholes.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2011 09:52 AM Re: NFL Labor strife Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2011 09:57 PM

TransMonk wrote: From what I understand, the owners have been planning for this work stoppage since the last agreement was signed and are out for revenge based on the last agreement that was signed. Yeah, that odious agreement that enabled the NFL's financial growth and popularity increase, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for even the league's cheapest owners. Basically, Grimm, it's like FK said. The owners' leverage is from a potential lockout (the potential length of which likely got kneecapped by Judge Doty's ruling precluding league/owner access to $4 billion in guaranteed TV money). The players? They can decertify the union/file an antitrust suit/file for an injunction precluding a lockout... and if they do it by today's end, they can do so in the courtroom of that same Judge Doty, whose jurisdiction over these matters apparently ends when the current CBA does. These nukes on both sides must or will be fired by day's end, or not at all (at least not without the same effect). After today/tomorrow... it's a lull, precisely because there's no real league activity for several months. There's some impact on the draft (trades may only be draft-pick-for-draft-pick), but really, the next key dates will be in midsummer (start of training camp in July) and the summer's end (just after Labor Day, when the season's scheduled to start).

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 03 2011 10:05 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

A CEO, a Tea Party Member and Union Rep are sitting at a table that has a plate of 10 cookies. The CEO takes 9 of the cookies, then says to the Tea Party guy, "Watch out for that Union guy. He wants part of your cookie."

TransMonk Mar 03 2011 03:40 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The NFL Network is reporting that the two sides will extend the talks for another 24 hours.

TransMonk Mar 04 2011 01:58 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

It's looking more and more like this may get sorted out as the deadline has been re-extended to 3/11. Both sides are hopefully sensing how much money there is to be lost and realizing that they are all millionaires.

Nymr83 Mar 09 2011 09:07 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

[url]http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/201550e2#/201550e2/4 This is the guide that the NFLPA issued to its members. you really have to laugh at some of the money saving "tips", we should all have such problems as telling our "posse" that we cant pay for the parties anymore

TransMonk Mar 11 2011 03:26 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Bad news. No new deal. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL- ... ers-031111

metirish Mar 11 2011 03:57 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

TransMonk wrote: Bad news. No new deal. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL- ... ers-031111 Damn, I was looking forward to Tiki begging for a job.

G-Fafif Mar 11 2011 04:41 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

To be utterly simplistic about it, fuck 'em both.

Frayed Knot Mar 11 2011 05:02 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I don't have any 'fuck the players' feelings here. They are, and would remain, quite happy with the status quo. It's the owners who want to take a system already rigged in their favor (hard cap, limited FA movement, non-guaranteed contracts, restrictive draft) and further rig it even as they brag about how well run and profitable their league is. Like the baseball strike in '94, the owners here are essentially saying that there's plenty of money to go around but rather than finding a better way amongst themselves to share it they want to take a larger share (in this case another billion off the top) from what the players currently get. And from a group who, until right up to a few months ago, was denying any connection between their sport and long-term head trauma as if their goal was to mirror the image of tobacco executives, I trust them about as far as I can toss one of their offensive linemen. And UNlike the '94 MLB mess, the players have (so far anyway) managed NOT to constantly stick their collective feet in their mouths as a way to turn the tide of public opinion against their side.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2011 07:46 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Word.

The Second Spitter Mar 12 2011 12:23 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot wrote: And UNlike the '94 MLB mess, the players have (so far anyway) managed NOT to constantly stick their collective feet in their mouths as a way to turn the tide of public opinion against their side. The NFLPA has run a textbook PR campaign; it would have taken considerable effort to put the muzzle on some of its members. I hope the owners get what they deserve when this thing goes to court. Pound-for-pound they may be the scummiest group in all of pro-sports.

Ashie62 Mar 12 2011 07:18 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I am almost pining for the days of the Ultra Shitty Football League, or even the WFL.

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2011 07:27 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

The Second Spitter wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And UNlike the '94 MLB mess, the players have (so far anyway) managed NOT to constantly stick their collective feet in their mouths as a way to turn the tide of public opinion against their side. The NFLPA has run a textbook PR campaign; it would have taken considerable effort to put the muzzle on some of its members. So far anyway. On the other hand NFL players have a truly rotten record of maintaining any kind of solidarity so it's probably only a matter of time until some start going off the reservation, verbally or otherwise. Maybe the stewardship of DeMaurice Smith will be able to maintain better discipline, only time will tell. MLB players were virtually the opposite, great at maintaining union solidarity while at the same time projecting an air of entitlement which made them pitiful at fostering any kind of fan sympathy.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2011 10:28 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

G-Fafif wrote: To be utterly simplistic about it, fuck 'em both. Thats where I stand, but until there is actually no football in week 1 of the 2011 season, it doesnt really matter to me if they want to all act like big babies until then, all i care about is the games.

The Second Spitter Mar 24 2011 04:13 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Chad OC is gonna try to beat the lock-out by playing in the MLS. If he can play centre-back, I strongly recommend he contacts Arsène Wenger.

Nymr83 Apr 20 2011 08:44 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Several outlets are now reporting that a large group of "mid-tier" players wants to be represented seperately in the Antitrust case and in negotiations/arbitration, as they feel the [crossout:6ocuuj2k]union[/crossout:6ocuuj2k] NFLPA represents the interests of the stars more than their own. i don't see any basis that the NFLPA or the Brady plaintiffs have for stopping them either.

Frayed Knot Apr 20 2011 08:47 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Gee, a splinter group amongst the players; couldn't possibly have seen that one coming.

Nymr83 Apr 20 2011 08:55 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot wrote: Gee, a splinter group amongst the players; couldn't possibly have seen that one coming. I'm a little suprised by the timing. All you heard from the players the past year was about their "unity," so much for that. Obviously there will always be guys (like the Jets' Cromartie) who strongly disagree with the direction the union is taking and are vocal about it. I don't think having a few such people really hurts your cause much. Having 50 of them does. The owners must be giving each other the virtual equivalent of high-fives right now. The players are starting to break down before anyone even missed a paycheck

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 20 2011 09:02 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The CFL commish can't make his erection go away, either. There's never going to be unanimity in a large union, much less one with such a widely-distributed pay scale. But this... is just doofy, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face stuff.

Nymr83 Apr 20 2011 09:22 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The CFL commish can't make his erection go away, either. There's never going to be unanimity in a large union, much less one with such a widely-distributed pay scale. But this... is just doofy, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face stuff. Without knowing who these "breakaway" players are, i'm not sure I agree with that. The average NFL career is very short, it is probably in the best of interest of many players (2%? 5%? 10%? i don't know) to make damn sure that there is a season this year, even if it is on the owners' terms, because they don't stand to reap the benefits of a slightly more beneficial labor agreement if the 2011 season is obliviated to get it.

Ceetar Apr 22 2011 11:54 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I"m surprised they didn't release the schedule with a whole lot of TBD @ TBD It's wishful thinking no? And what bout the 18 game schedule thing they keep floating? I know last word was it was down, but as they haven't actually agreed to much, couldn't it pop back up?

TransMonk Apr 22 2011 12:02 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Notice that all of the Week 3 matchups feature teams that share a bye week. So, with some juggling and moving the season a little deeper into January, they could still play the entire season as long as a resolution is found in time to play Week 4.

Frayed Knot Apr 22 2011 03:05 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Ceetar wrote: I"m surprised they didn't release the schedule with a whole lot of TBD @ TBD It's wishful thinking no? And what bout the 18 game schedule thing they keep floating? I know last word was it was down, but as they haven't actually agreed to much, couldn't it pop back up? The 18-game sked was never intended to begin in 2011 anyway. As far as how the negotiations go, a number of owners have publicly stated that they have the right to impose the longer season whether the players agree with it or not. Don't know if they can actually make that one stick or not but they apparently think they can and aren't a group that easily takes 'No' for an answer. Of course Goodell keeps spinning the issue like they've been playing 20-game seasons all along and therefore the transition from a year with 16 regular tilts plus 4 [crossout]exhibition[/crossout] er, excuse me, pre-season games to one with 18+2 is something that the help need not concern themselves with.

Nymr83 Apr 22 2011 04:15 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Notice that all of the Week 3 matchups feature teams that share a bye week. So, with some juggling and moving the season a little deeper into January, they could still play the entire season as long as a resolution is found in time to play Week 4. Did you read that somewhere? excellent detective work otherwise!

TransMonk Apr 22 2011 06:45 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I wish it was my detective work, but there are people paid to figure these things out before me. USA Today

Nymr83 Apr 24 2011 09:28 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Brandon Marshall was stabbed by his wife! The NFL lockout restricts team contact with players. However, a team doctor for the Dolphins can see Marshall and consult with Marshall's other doctors, and the team can express appropriate well wishes, said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. Well, I'm glad there isn't a 50k fine for sending a "get well soon" card. The "rules" on contact are a little absurd.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 25 2011 09:50 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Nymr83 wrote: Brandon Marshall was stabbed by his wife! That's just so wrong. Paper or clocks for the first anniversary; steel's not until year eleven. Idiot.

Frayed Knot Apr 25 2011 04:35 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Judge sides with the players and effectively negates the owners' lockout. This will of course be appealed and so the final upshot will be ... oh I have no fuckin' idea.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 27 2011 11:59 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

The final upshot? No draft, no free agency restrictions, no salary cap, no drug testing, no insurance, tire-fire-lit rape orgies at every stadium in the country, the country broken up into fiefdoms led by violent, brain-damaged defensive linemen... that is, if the players win. For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history. What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans. For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players. For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com. Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer. If Goodell thinks so much of the prior CBA... why did he and the owners choose to discontinue it?

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2011 02:03 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

That Goodell piece in the Wall Street Journal is getting universally panned, especially when coupled with the thought that maybe he went to the WSJ in the first place because he's in search of good will from pro-business judges who he assumes make up that paper's demo. I'm guessing he's a lot less likely to reach fans 'The Dawg Pound' and 'The Hogs' though. His problem is that he and the owners have over-reached here and now have to contend with the idea that everything is on the table instead of just the few points they wanted to contend from the expiring agreement (the one they made expire btw) and that the timetable is no longer theirs because the court has judged their tactics to be illegal. The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins kicks the owners butts up and down this morning.

Edgy DC Apr 27 2011 02:18 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation.

SteveJRogers Apr 27 2011 02:32 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong.

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2011 02:38 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong. Bullshit

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2011 02:47 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. Just because they're in the wrong I don't think it necessarily follows that they know they're in the wrong. When powerful folks are used to getting their own way it's not uncommon for them to assume it should always be that way and/or that the rules don't apply to them. What I like about Jenkins' piece is that she's one of the few media types who didn't automatically join the chorus who simply repeat the notion that the previous agreement was harmful to the owners based on nothing more than the fact that they say it was. It's amazing how many journos for years did little but praise the NFL for how efficiently run the league is to the point where it's become a virtual license to print money, then suddenly turn around parrot the owners' claims about how the system they set up needs immediate and massive repairs.

SteveJRogers Apr 27 2011 02:52 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong. Bullshit We are talking about an billion dollar generating entertainment industry. How is not having a CBA reached in time for a new season not casting both sides in the wrong?

Edgy DC Apr 27 2011 02:58 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. Just because they're in the wrong I don't think it necessarily follows that they know they're in the wrong. No, it doesn't necessarily follow, but I think it's true. Frayed Knot wrote: When powerful folks are used to getting their own way it's not uncommon for them to assume it should always be that way and/or that the rules don't apply to them. Ergo, they're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care.

Edgy DC Apr 27 2011 02:59 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

SteveJRogers wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong. Bullshit We are talking about an billion dollar generating entertainment industry. How is not having a CBA reached in time for a new season not casting both sides in the wrong? Because real issues are on the line. I don't see how it being a multi-billion dollar industry means the talent has an obligation to cave to management.

metsmarathon Apr 27 2011 06:38 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong. tell that to the guys at the bottom of the roster, at the far end of the bench, and on the practice squads. those guys are hardly millionaires. i would hazard to say that the vast majority of players in the nfl invites immediate financial ruin for the fleeting opportunity to suit up in anger against a similar opponent.

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2011 09:25 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

SteveJRogers wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm never comfortable with the "don't get it" phrase, but I think they get it fine. They're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care. It's exploitation. It's still billionaires versus millionaires, no matter how you slice it. They are both in the wrong. Bullshit We are talking about an billion dollar generating entertainment industry. How is not having a CBA reached in time for a new season not casting both sides in the wrong? The amount of money one has, Steve, doesn't mean that the concepts of right or wrong, or even just differences of opinion still don't exist. IOW, what Edgy said. In this case in particular, the players would have been quite happy to continue along with the agreement which seemingly the entire western world praised as one which made the NFL a weekly cash machine even as there were enough restrictions in that CBA to keep many players from ever reaching their actual earning potential in what is traditionally a very short career arc and one that takes a physical toll for years and decades to come. The owners, on the other hand, not only claim that they need an extra billion dollars off the top before negotiating (and capping) what percentage of that the players as a whole could get but unilaterally ended the agreement two years early to do that and additionally want to require the players to work a longer season (13% longer) in order to get it while denying that the physical toll thing is even an issue. And now when the players shockingly didn't swallow that proposal whole, wash it down with some Tabasco sauce before saying, 'thank you sir can I have another', the league immediately locked them out, a strategy which has now been ruled illegal. So you're free to disagree with that assessment if you wish but don't just throw out the tired cliche about how no one has anything to complain about simply based on their having more money than you and me. And if that's not enough then go read what marathon added.

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2011 09:30 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Ergo, they're in the wrong, and don't particuarly care I'd put it that they're wrong but don't see it that way because it's never actually occurred to many of them that such a thing is even possible. The net result is the same so we're really just splitting hairs here, but that, IMO, is the genesis of Jenkins' "they don't get it" line.

Edgy DC Apr 27 2011 10:22 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The cotton industry was pretty lucrative before the Civil War. If management and labor couldn't come to an agreement, a pox on both of them.

Ashie62 Apr 28 2011 03:44 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

The only "wrong" by either side would be the failure to negotiate in good faith. I've always perceived football guys as "Paycheck players" and believe eventually they will fold like cheap tents once one or two said checks are not cut.

Edgy DC Apr 28 2011 04:24 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Well, I imagine the owners are counting on that. A big part of that is the very small window of opportunity they have to earn their money. They take a year off and there are twice as many players gunning for their jobs next season.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 28 2011 08:39 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

I'm glad FK got to the "Billionaires vs. Millionaires" response before I did. He was a bit more polite than I would've been.

seawolf17 Apr 29 2011 05:12 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Lockout back on, right in the middle of the draft, sez the Twitters. So confused.

MFS62 May 27 2011 08:12 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

What did you do during the strike, daddy? http://www.courant.com/news/education/h ... 2684.story Good for him. Later

Edgy DC May 27 2011 08:42 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Great, but let's not call it a strike.

Frayed Knot May 27 2011 09:08 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Good to see Drew Brees teeing off in an SI article: "I can point to about five different things to prove to you that they were ready to lock us out. - They opted out of the last year of the [CBA] deal; - they hired Bob Batterman [who oversaw a lockout of NHL players]. - They tried to take the American Needle case [one dealing with a uniform supplier] to the Supreme Court to basically give them an antitrust exemption or single-entity status, but were defeated 9-0; - they established new TV deals to pay them in the event of a lockout, but we were able to put a freeze on that money because they did not negotiate in good faith and broke the law. - And they had an internal NFL document that was leaked -- a decision tree -- that said smack dab in the middle of it 'financial needs in a lockout.' That was in 2008, OK? So you're telling me that they had no plans to lock us out and really wanted to get a deal done? I don't think so."

Edgy DC May 27 2011 09:50 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Standing and clapping for Drew Brees.

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2011 02:28 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I don't claim to have been following the ins and outs of these negotiations as they're (seemingly) coming down to the wire here, but a few observations: - the sports-casting on this topic has involved an awful lot of "wish-casting" (particularly among the national folks), as in; we who make our living around football are SO anxious to tell you that a settlement is imminent because we really, really WISH it to be the case". I think I've heard that a deal was within days of happening - or in some cases, within hours - for about three weeks now. - theoretically, what the owners put out and quickly voted 31-0 to adopt (Oakland abstained) is in line with what the player reps have been in on all along, but that's certainly subject to speculation and if I'm the players I'm checking that thing word for word TWICE before voting on it and if that stretches things out for another few days then so be it. The fact that the owners seem REAL anxious to jump into this deal which will cover a stunning ten years after opting out early from the previous one sends up more than a few red flags to me. - the act of the owners voting on this proposal Thursday and then announcing their (near) unanimous approval before even sending the final copy to the players is (IMO) a clear attempt to shift the PR balance in their favor. Now if the players reject this or even ask for modifications it'll seem like their the ones delaying the settlement that the [crossout]mouthpieces[/crossout] reporters have already trumpeted as both fair and a question of when not if, even if all that's happened so far is that the owners showed approval for the plan that they wrote up. - it's amazing how concerned some media-types are about the fate of the pre-season games; "Oh no, if the players don't vote to approve this today it could mean the first pre-season week is in jeopardy and the Hall of Fame Game has already been scrapped!!!!" Again, that goes back to the fact that many of them work for outlets who have a financial interest in seeing those games played.

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 02:39 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

A Facebook post I saw this morning: Those million dollar babies should just shut up and sign the deal. I'm assuming he's referring to the NFL. Those babies are putting their careers on the line when they have virtually no other prospects. During a recession. I mean holy crap.

Ceetar Jul 22 2011 02:40 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

To me this stuff merits a news item bulletin, not endless debate on minutia that they don't even have the details of. It's not like there isn't 15 games to talk about every single day in another sport that could keep these people occupied? Of course, you get that crap with everything. When a new free agent in baseball is negotiating a contract, it seems like they're required by law to phone jon Heyman every 15 minutes to give him an update on exactly how much money they're talking about at that very moment, and how far along the player is in the signing of his name. And you're right, the players should take as much time as they need to make sure it's good. a coworker was telling me today that someone 'leaked' info about the deal before the players had read it, and it then spread like a panic to all the players who started bitching on twitter and to 'reporters' about how unfair it was before even getting a look at it.

TransMonk Jul 22 2011 02:53 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Edgy DC wrote: A Facebook post I saw this morning: Those million dollar babies should just shut up and sign the deal. I'm assuming he's referring to the NFL. Those babies are putting their careers on the line when they have virtually no other prospects. During a recession. I mean holy crap. Whose career is on the line? The players will play football again. It's only a matter of when. It's best for everyone (the owners, players and FANS) if they get this deal done now for the good of the game. Besides...the majority of them have a college education. That's more than I've got and I pay the bills.

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 02:57 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

You miss time in the NFL while another class of players is gunning for your job --- when a typical career lasts what? four years --- it's serious. Besides...the majority of them have a college education. That's more than I've got and I pay the bills. Now I know you're not serious. The majority have lived on a campus, yes.

TransMonk Jul 22 2011 03:09 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Only moderately serious. About as serious as NFL-bound college athletes take their studies. The average NFL career is six years. The minimum annual NFL player salary is $295,000. The median salary in 2010 was $770,000. I understand that these players are risking their life and bodies playing the sport that they love, but we're not exactly talking about the plight of coal miners here.

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2011 03:56 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

TransMonk wrote: It's best for everyone (the owners, players and FANS) if they get this deal done now for the good of the game. It's NOT best for the players, TM, if what they're doing is signing a bad deal and locking themselves (and the next generation of players) into it for a full decade. (I don't KNOW that it's a bad deal but it's worth taking a couple of days to read the fine print and find out). They are, after all, dealing with a monopoly here so it's not like they can simply hawk themselves to a different football employer if the conditions they agree to aren't any good. Remember also that what they're agreeing to is not whether to consent to a cap on their salaries and limits to their freedom of movement, it's how much of a limit & cap there's going to be.

TransMonk Jul 22 2011 04:01 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

I'm just saying when there is a goose that lays golden eggs...

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 04:59 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The players are the geese. The owners are the egg salesmen. It's easy to look at a number like $295,000 and think them set for life, but it doesn't work out like that at all for the vast majority of players. They're not coal miners. But they are men with rights. And I don't think they would be putting their careers at risk the way they are if they didn't take this deal very very seriously. I don't get it. This was a lockout, not a strike. It was the owners' initiative. The NFLPA has a long histroy of failing solidarity (and their leadership a long history of sleepign with the owners). If they show even an ounce of self-respect, more power to them.

Willets Point Jul 22 2011 06:00 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Not arguing the other points Edgy & FK are making, but TM is on to something with college comments. Studies show that NFL players (who generally complete 4 years at college) are on average smarter than NBA players (who leave college early) who are smarter than MLB players who go pro straight from high school. They may be "dumb jocks" but they're smarter than the dumber jocks who spend less or no time at college.

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 06:38 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Sounds compelling. But I'd counter to some extent that four years on campus doesn't necessarily equal smart, and smart doesn't necessarily equal holding a degree and ready for another career. To the extent that they are smart and are coming off campus educated, I hope they use that initially to get the deal that best suits their interests.

TransMonk Jul 22 2011 06:46 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Edgy DC wrote: The players are the geese. The owners are the egg salesmen. I would argue that the fans and the billions of dollars in revenue they provide are the geese. Edgy DC wrote: It's easy to look at a number like $295,000 and think them set for life, but it doesn't work out like that at all for the vast majority of players. It's hard to look at a number like $295,000 over 6 years and not ask why it wouldn't? Edgy DC wrote: They're not coal miners. But they are men with rights. And I don't think they would be putting their careers at risk the way they are if they didn't take this deal very very seriously. I don't get it. This was a lockout, not a strike. It was the owners' initiative. The NFLPA has a long histroy of failing solidarity (and their leadership a long history of sleepign with the owners). If they show even an ounce of self-respect, more power to them. I understand the rights of unionized workers. Anyone who reads any of my Facebook posts from 3-4 months ago knows that. I understand that this is usually their only career option and that working out the best agreement is a smart business decision. But let's not pretend like we are talking about state employees or teachers here. Their gripe is over how many more millions of dollars the average one of them can make. My heart finds it harder to bleed when they are already making 10 times more money than most people I know. Is it smart for them to negotiate the best deal they can? Yes, it is in their best business interest. But when some high-paid players spend the off-season bitching about how badly they are getting screwed and comparing being an NFL player to modern day slavery, my patience for their plight runs out pretty quickly. And, this is not me taking the owners' side. The billionaires shouldn't make out any better than they already do, either. The last CBA favored the player's demands and now they've had it in their mind that this one has to sting the players. That's not right in any way either. The real losers in this situation if any games (pre-season or otherwise) are lost will be the stadium vendors, the parking lot attendants, the ticket takers, the mom-and-pop grocery store down the street form the stadium, the trainers, the assistant coaches and all of the other little jobs that are created by NFL games. Not to mention the fans, whose dollars generate the revenue the two sides are arguing over.

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 06:55 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Yeah, I guess that's why I'm coming off as insensitive. I'm not a fan. So it's not personal to me if somebody doesn't take the field. But my friend Chris is a cameraman/editor/producer, winner of three Emmys (one in each category), and killing himself with overtime trying to earn enough money to get services and care for his handicapped child. I'd probably have a different attitude if I put myself in his shoes, which are pretty sweaty. But the ball had been in the owners' court for months, and now the players have had it for comparative hours. I feel pretty certain that a compromise will be reached in a reasonable time that satisfy both parties. (I feel that way about the debt ceiling issue, too.)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 22 2011 07:03 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The smartypants folk we're discussing here WEREN'T the ones who opted out of a hugely profitable CBA and locked themselves out. These guys may not make miner salaries, but they also are done making those salaries within 3-4 years, on average, and end up with medical problems and bills that rival-- if not outright dwarf-- your average black-lung sufferer's. I tend to cringe when I watch hard tackles these days, and I tend to cut these players a little slack (no matter how distasteful I may find some of their displays of wealth and other personal comportment).

Edgy DC Jul 22 2011 07:27 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

That's where I'm at. A lot of these guys end up going on to pay out-of-pocket on significant medical costs. And that takes us back to Congress. Here's hoping a day comes soon where nobody has to hear, read, or speak the words "pre-existing condition." (Hey, Nymr, I'm talking politics. Come out from hiding.)

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2011 08:42 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Their gripe is over how many more millions of dollars the average one of them can make. Actually no it isn't. In fact they didn't even have a gripe with the system that was in place* and are merely trying now to NOT have the rights they did have reduced. * even though said system involved dealing with a monopoly with the power to control their entry wage (through the draft and bonus slotting), and control their salaries later on (though VERY limited free-agency and 'franchise tags' that could limit it even more), and control the salaries of the pool of players as a whole (hard team cap).

TransMonk Jul 23 2011 10:57 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Frayed Knot wrote: In fact they didn't even have a gripe with the system that was in place* and are merely trying now to NOT have the rights they did have reduced. Actually...Six key things the NFL players want before they agree to sign off on ending the lockout DAILY NEWS wrote: 3. $320 million in lost benefits The owners weren't required to pay for benefits last year due to the rules of the final year of the old CBA, but the players are asking for them anyway. "They know they won't get this," one agent said. "It's a negotiating chip." Silly. Look, I see all of your points. I really do. I feel for the players that make the minimum, work hard and then get hurt and lose their spot or their careers. I'd like to see them get injury guarantees, but I think it will be a hard sell. But, in the end, if a deal isn't struck next week it will be due to $$$ on one side or another and (right or wrong), as a fan, it pisses me off.

Frayed Knot Jul 23 2011 02:29 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

There are always going to be differences over details in labor negotiations (that's why they're negotiating) - but when I say that players didn't have a gripe with the old system I meant it in a more general sense: that they weren't the ones who ended the agreement in place early due to being unhappy with the money split. They didn't strike for more money while the owners not only caused this stoppage but have been aiming to cause it for years. But, in the end, if a deal isn't struck next week it will be due to $$$ on one side or another and (right or wrong), as a fan, it pisses me off. And it should piss you off. I'm just arguing that the players signing up (at least partially sight-unseen) for a plan the owners approved first and then sent to them second isn't a good solution. Nor am I (unlike much of the media scrum) crying in my beer over the possibility of a reduced pre-season schedule if they don't sign up in the next 48 hours. Bottom line is, whatever and whenever the end result of this comes, what seems apparent is that both the entry level wages and the pct of money that is going to the established players is going to go DOWN. In exchange for that the players are supposed to receive better health benefits and the vague promise that their money will eventually go up because the lower pct they're agreeing to is going to come from a bigger pie (although no recourse if it doesn't and a full decade before they could even hope to change things). Hopefully everyone is happy with the deal in the end but I don't blame the players for not signing up immediately just so the reporters who are tired of chasing this story wouldn't have to work this weekend and fantasy geeks can start putting together their teams. It's still July, the season isn't scheduled to start until September.

Edgy DC Jul 23 2011 02:45 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Again... Edgy DC wrote: But the ball had been in the owners' court for months, and now the players have had it for comparative hours. Really, if the thing is approved today or Wednesday, the difference won't cost anybody too many snaps.

Ceetar Jul 24 2011 11:11 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Are those Brett Favre rumors I hear? really?

TransMonk Jul 25 2011 07:39 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Sounds like this is going to get done today. Breakdown.

Edgy DC Jul 25 2011 10:48 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Agreement apparently reached.

Willets Point Jul 25 2011 11:18 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

What does it propose to do about concussions?

seawolf17 Jul 25 2011 11:29 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Willets Point wrote: What does it propose to do about concussions? Increase them until the players have no idea how much money they're making, then cut salaries in half.

Edgy DC Jul 25 2011 11:31 AM Re: NFL Labor strife

Concussions are henceforth outlawed. No, but there are concessions to better protect players from the it's-only-a-bruise league. [list:v3pyjjly][*:v3pyjjly]limited practice times and full-contact practices; [/*:m:v3pyjjly] [*:v3pyjjly]current players getting the option to remain in the player medical plan for life (Cold comfort to the crippled retired players); [/*:m:v3pyjjly] [*:v3pyjjly]an injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury, presumably giving a player some incentive not to force himself back on the field before he is ready.[/*:m:v3pyjjly][/list:u:v3pyjjly] "Concussion concessions": say that five times fast.

Frayed Knot Jul 25 2011 12:25 PM Re: NFL Labor strife Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2011 01:38 PM

What it sounds like is that the players opted to fight for increased medical care/prevention over any kind of money or freedom issues (essentially they agreed to givebacks on both) - which is pretty much consistent with what they've been doing since the days when the league's idea of a "medical plan" topped out at free band-aids for any broken bones that might occur. NFL players actually had a form of true free-agency years before MLB players had to go to court to get theirs, but later gave up that right during collective bargaining (in exchange for better health plans) and then went about two decades before getting some form of it back. It amazes me that no one in the NFLPA or in the press (well that part doesn't amaze me) even raises the slightest hint about doing away with the 'Franchise' and 'Transition' tags that teams can slap on players in order to kill or severely restrict & delay their FA rights, but I guess when you're seeing so many of your predecessors broke, crippled, or in the throes of dementia other things take on a higher priority.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 25 2011 12:45 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

The way these guys negotiate, it's like they've been constantly, persistently hit in the head at sub-concussive levels, leading to a decrease in brain function that's so gradual it's undetectable... until it's undeniable. Y'know, figuratively speaking.

Ceetar Jul 25 2011 02:50 PM Re: NFL Labor strife

Glad they finally settled so the players can stop negotiating for more money as a union and instead individual players can hold out for more money by locking themselves out.