Florio makes my point about contracts/QB Salary Cap?

[Buzzbait]

Well GM's and Owners can cut players/trade players who have a contract correct? So if a player wants to go basically on strike for a new deal or a new team why not? These are not 100% guaranteed contracts like MLB.

If a team can trade a player, maybe the player should be able to trade the team.

The team probably has reasonable cause to trade the player, like if he's underperforming or is already being paid too high of a salary that is interfering with the team's ability to meet the salary cap. No matter what the specific reason is, it's still allowed by the contract stipulations.
Whether you like it or not, a contact is a contract. Why sign a contract if you don't intend to abide by it?
Yeah but there's a guy I heard about that's making more money than I am!!! So, so, so there! If I don't like it, that means I shouldn't have to live up to the contract I signed. Yeah right.

 

[FanofJerry]

The NBA model seems to be a lot better than NFL.

NFL should allow a team to Designate a Player for max contract while having Bird Rights that ease roster building.

I just dont know what the cap percentage for a designated max QB should be. If fans are up in arms about the current 22.5%...maybe the NFL caps QB pay at 17.5%...and 20% for Designated Max guys.

 

[Buzzbait]

I have a problem with anyone claiming that making that much money is being underpaid
Show me where anyone thinks anyone else you mentioned is considered underpaid
I feel sorry for people whose whole ego is tied up in money
when you are making that kind of money, you should never complain
look at some who made big bucks and then claim they were held to slave wages

Particularly when a multi millionaire complains that somebody on another team is making more money than he is, so uses that as justification for busting the contract he knowingly and willingly signed.
People will always find an excuse to blame someone else for their own greed.

 

[Chasing6]

The team probably has reasonable cause to trade the player, like if he's underperforming or is already being paid too high of a salary that is interfering with the team's ability to meet the salary cap. No matter what the specific reason is, it's still allowed by the contract stipulations.
Whether you like it or not, a contact is a contract. Why sign a contract if you don't intend to abide by it?
Yeah but there's a guy I heard about that's making more money than I am!!! So, so, so there! If I don't like it, that means I shouldn't have to live up to the contract I signed. Yeah right.

So it is ok for a team to cut a player that is underperforming, but if he is over performing to bad he has to honor the contract? No, that is why they can hold out.

CD has all the leverage. Just like Martin did, if not significantly more.

 

[Reid1boys]

The owners cant unilaterally place a cap on any one position because it is not in the CBA and any agreement among the owners to implement such a thing would be considered collusion and grounds for the NFLPA to terminate the current CBA.

This article talks about the entire issue and how it literally is the dumbest idea the owners could come up with since the CBA does not allow it. If the owners want to cap QB salaries, they can bring up the issue again in 2031 when the current CBA expires.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/nfl...umbest-idea-yet/ar-BB1oAMKE?ocid=BingNewsSerp

wrong.... teams can bring it up right now and the CBA can be changed before 2031. You think the league will wait till 2031 to play an 18 game schedule?

 

[Reid1boys]

Man so concerned about ot her people's money. And I guarantee you have wished in your heart we cut a player before.

Even if I did hope they cut a player, who cares? The contracts and the CBA allow for usch action.

 

[Buzzbait]

So it is ok for a team to cut a player that is underperforming, but if he is over performing to bad he has to honor the contract? No, that is why they can hold out.

CD has all the leverage. Just like Martin did, if not significantly more.

When you read, understand and sign that contract, you're giving your word, both legally and morally. If that players word is worth nothing, that's on him, not on the team. If the team is holding up their legal responsibility to the contract, then the player owes the same respect to that contract in return. A legal contract is a legal contract, period. If it's not, then don't sign it.

 

[FanofJerry]

Speaking of contracts...

What is the boards opinion of mineral rights?

If someone owns land and mineral rights to said land...but is not advanced enough to build tools to see what is under said land...is it humane for someone who did develop said tools to go around the country and offer $1 an acre for mineral rights, knowing they could sell them for $100 an acre to someone else...or develop the minerals worth far more than that?

Or is the game..."individual responsibility"? This is "Gotcha Captilism"...sorry 'bout it.

Or is it..."you didnt provide ideas or innovation...so get gyped"?

Is leaning on weak excuses for extreme profit really where we want to go?

Would anyone here complain if they sold their mineral rights to a company for 1/75th of what the company was making off you? Or should there be some regulation? Yeah...dont tell me to leave the country...thats lazy. You know you wouldnt want it done to you.

Grand scheme of things...few athletes are overpaid. Owners reap all the rewards minus a few contracts that didnt deliver. They are making money.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Me personally, I don't like the cap idea. The only dumb thing they can do is to collude to achieve a QB cap. They'd be caught so quickly.

But the league can introduce anything they want before the CBA has run its course. But the NFLPA would have to sign off on it after taking a vote. It's called an MOA (Memorandum of Agreement). If both sides agree, it gets added to the current CBA.

What do you think the chances are that the NFLPA agrees to this? Zero. The NFL would have to give up something massive to get the NFLPA to agree.

Good points bro...........I agree that the NFLPA would want something very valuable in return to agreeing to any type of QB cap. So what could the owners offer???

Maybe elimination of all franchise tags?
Maybe elimination of the 5th yr option for 1st round picks?
Maybe unrestricted free agency after 3 years instead of 4?
Maybe higher percentage of league revenue, the current CBA allocates 48.5% of league revenue to the players, so maybe increase that to an even 50/50 split?

I personally dont think the NFL would agree to any of these options, thus the odds of NFLPA agreement is practically zero. There will be no changes until 2031.

 

[Beast_from_East]

wrong.... teams can bring it up right now and the CBA can be changed before 2031. You think the league will wait till 2031 to play an 18 game schedule?

Of course, if both sides agree, but the point is it can't be done unilaterally, the owners will have to give up something of value.

I assumed this was just common knowledge everybody was aware of.

You seriously think the the owners will say "next year we are playing 18 games" and the NFLPA says "cool".

NFLPA will say, "how much is that 18th game worth to you, what are you willing to give up in exchange".

 

[Beast_from_East]

Speaking of contracts...

What is the boards opinion of mineral rights?

If someone owns land and mineral rights to said land...but is not advanced enough to build tools to see what is under said land...is it humane for someone who did develop said tools to go around the country and offer $1 an acre for mineral rights, knowing they could sell them for $100 an acre to someone else...or develop the minerals worth far more than that?

Or is the game..."individual responsibility"? This is "Gotcha Captilism"...sorry 'bout it.

Or is it..."you didnt provide ideas or innovation...so get gyped"?

Is leaning on weak excuses for extreme profit really where we want to go?

Would anyone here complain if they sold their mineral rights to a company for 1/75th of what the company was making off you? Or should there be some regulation? Yeah...dont tell me to leave the country...thats lazy. You know you wouldnt want it done to you.

Grand scheme of things...few athletes are overpaid. Owners reap all the rewards minus a few contracts that didnt deliver. They are making money.

As far as mineral rights go, the owner of the land is the owner of what is under the land as well. Be it oil, gas, coal, or whatever.

What you are asking about is the extraction process and ability to get those commodities (oil, gas, coal, ect...) to market in order to find a seller. You just can't sell a barrel of oil at your local Walmart.

After college, I actually worked awhile for a company that specialized in mineral extraction and strip mining. Typically, a contract was negotiated with the land owner and all the manpower, tools, equiptment, logistics, and everything else was provided by the company. They sent teams out into the field to extract and then worked with market brokers to sell the commodities at current market rate.

There was all types of legal mumbo jumbo from "leases for a certain time period, to ad infintim which basically meant you can extract till everything is gone, to even day by day rights".

In the end if I was going to ballpark it, usually it was around 70/30 split with the company taking 70% and the land owner getting 30%. Dont know if that is industry standard or just a couple of isolated examples, but that was usually the breakdown profit wise. Is that fair? I dont know, both parties agreed to the contract and both sides had lawyers review it, so nobody was being forced to do anything. So yeah, I would say that is fair.

 

[Flamma]

wrong.... teams can bring it up right now and the CBA can be changed before 2031. You think the league will wait till 2031 to play an 18 game schedule?

Yes. How do you propose they'd implement it otherwise? Are you familiar with unions? The union has to agree, or they wait until 2031.

 

[NumOneQB]

NFL contracts aren’t guaranteed. The NFLPA would fight this tooth and nail, thrusting this into court if the Owners tried to cap one position. I could only see this possibly getting any traction if the Owners guaranteed QB contracts 100% when applying a hard cap. No way in hell the owners would agree to that.

 

[Chasing6]

When you read, understand and sign that contract, you're giving your word, both legally and morally. If that players word is worth nothing, that's on him, not on the team. If the team is holding up their legal responsibility to the contract, then the player owes the same respect to that contract in return. A legal contract is a legal contract, period. If it's not, then don't sign it.

That goes both ways. If the team can cut you and not honor your contract, then they have every right to hold out. It can't be a one way contract.

This is also part of the reason Jerry over pays, he waits too long, and players out play their contract, then they want the new contract to make up for being under paid in the past.

Or why he signed injured players to big contracts. He feels like he owes it, for under paying them before hand.

 

[Reid1boys]

Yes. How do you propose they'd implement it otherwise? Are you familiar with unions? The union has to agree, or they wait until 2031.

Seeing how I am on the negotiating committee for a union... yea, Im pretty familiar with how they work. We can go to the district at anytime to get something added or changed. It doesnt mean it will happen, but we dont need to wait until the contract is opened back up. Same with the team owners. Does the union have to agree, sure, but the NFL players are weak. Anything the owners really want, they will get.

 

[Reid1boys]

Of course, if both sides agree, but the point is it can't be done unilaterally, the owners will have to give up something of value.

I assumed this was just common knowledge everybody was aware of.

You seriously think the the owners will say "next year we are playing 18 games" and the NFLPA says "cool".

NFLPA will say, "how much is that 18th game worth to you, what are you willing to give up in exchange".

seeing how we are discussing, essentially a contract, I would suggest not stating things that are factually incorrect and then saying... oh well, I thought that was just common knowledge. I know this much; anything the owners want, they will get. The NFL players association is weak. The top 10% of players (im guessing at that %) have a 7 year or longer career. The other guys are 3-4 years max. 80 plus percent of the league can not afford to miss a season, so when the owners say there will be a lockout if they dont get what they want, those players are gonna cave.

The owners want 18 games. They are gonna get 18 games. By the way, the Canadian league has played 18 games for as long as I can remember. I looked it up, since 1986. I dont remember hearing about Canadian players dying each year due to the number of games they play.

And yes, I know how unions work. I was in the union at UPS. I was in management at UPS and had to deal with the union.
I am a teacher and have been in the union for 19 years. Im currently on the negotiating committee.

 

[Reid1boys]

That goes both ways. If the team can cut you and not honor your contract, then they have every right to hold out. It can't be a one way contract.

This is also part of the reason Jerry over pays, he waits too long, and players out play their contract, then they want the new contract to make up for being under paid in the past.

Or why he signed injured players to big contracts. He feels like he owes it, for under paying them before hand.

Please explain to me how a team that cuts a player did not honor the contract? It is very frustrating to have discussions in this forum when some of us dont understand the most basic elements of the discussion.

Yousee, cutting a player is absolutely PART of the contract. The team ALWAYS andI mean ALWAYS honors the contract. If they didnt, it would cost them even more money. Teams dont have the option of not honoring player contracts.

The only people that dont honor the contract are the players.

Imagine Diggs showing up for work this year at training camp and the team saying, we arent allowing you into training camp. We dont want to pay you until you renegotiate this deal down.

 

[Flamma]

Seeing how I am on the negotiating committee for a union... yea, Im pretty familiar with how they work. We can go to the district at anytime to get something added or changed. It doesnt mean it will happen, but we dont need to wait until the contract is opened back up. Same with the team owners. Does the union have to agree, sure, but the NFL players are weak. Anything the owners really want, they will get.

Then you should know very well how things work. I just automatically assumed you weren't union knowledgeable. How many people are? In my experience over 35 years this rarely happens. I've seen it happen once. But I'm dealing with 3-4 year contracts. It's not that big of a deal to wait it out. The NFL's CBA seems to be stupid long. But you're right on one thing, the players are weak.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

If a construction company signs a contract to build a building in 6 months in return for $2 million and they build it in 3 months, can the company demand a higher payment in violation of the terms of the contract? Of course they can demand more money, but the other party has no obligation to pay them more money. After all, the construction company puts its best offer on the table and the other party agrees to the terms stipulated in the contract. That is how contracts work.

Why should player contracts be any different? If a player thinks the contract will not meet his level of performance he can add in incentives should be exceed his past level of performance. And that is the point, both parties put their demands on the table and they agree to the deal. A player cannot ask for more money because he had a good year any more than a team can cut a player's salary because he didn't meeting his previous performance levels. Of course the team can cut or trade the player, that is no doubt in the terms of the contract as well.

Bingo. There's no such thing as "outperforming" a contract unless the contract defines what "outperform" means.

 

[Flamma]

Please explain to me how a team that cuts a player did not honor the contract? It is very frustrating to have discussions in this forum when some of us dont understand the most basic elements of the discussion.

Yousee, cutting a player is absolutely PART of the contract. The team ALWAYS andI mean ALWAYS honors the contract. If they didnt, it would cost them even more money. Teams dont have the option of not honoring player contracts.

I've tried this before. It falls on deaf ears. People will continue to post misinformation about teams not honoring contracts. Many people have multi year contracts that are on a year to year basis. You get paid what is in the contract if you work. If you're still there.