Interesting Albert Breer Tweet

[SDogo]

At the end of NFLPA exhibits, there are 40 pages w/player signatures, repping all 32 teams, w/reaffimation of renunciation of union status.

http://twitter.com/#!/AlbertBreer

 

[speedkilz88]

Saturday on not extending talks: "It took 2 years to get there & if you can't get a deal done in 2 years, what's another 3 days gonna mean?" 26 minutes ago via web

This to me is just further proof that the nflpa wanted to take it to court no matter what.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This to me is just further proof that the nflpa wanted to take it to court no matter what.

I am sure if the NFL would open its books, drop the 18 game schedule, get rid of the notion of expenses, and eliminate restrictions to player movement in the form of tags and restricted FA then they would have not sued.

 

[Bizwah]

I am sure if the NFL would open its books, drop the 18 game schedule, get rid of the notion of expenses, and eliminate restrictions to player movement in the form of tags and restricted FA then they would have not sued.

I think tags and RFA are good ideas if there continues to be a cap.

Teams spend a lot of time and energy developing a player. They shouldn't just lose them for nothing.

Of course, I think exempting players originally drafted by teams from the cap would help teams retain players.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

This to me is just further proof that the nflpa wanted to take it to court no matter what.

I've been saying this since all this crap started. I know for a fact this was Smith's intent from the day he was hired to run the union.

They wanted no agreement. This is Smith's time to shine. And those are HIS words. Not mine.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

http://twitter.com/#!/AlbertBreer

I ****ing hate twitter.

 

[Stash]

At this point, I hope ownership crushes them.

Let the fools struggle with their bills as many have squandered away their money, no matter how much they're paid.

Or better yet, how about they all show up at Peyton Manning's house? I'm sure the place is big enough and ol' Peyton's made about 150 million so far. I'm sure he'll be more than willing to 'share the wealth'...

Besides, he and the other big-money stars are leading the charge, I'm sure they'll be willing to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

At this point, I hope ownership crushes them.

Let the fools struggle with their bills as many have squandered away their money, no matter how much they're paid.

Or better yet, how about they all show up at Peyton Manning's house? I'm sure the place is big enough and ol' Peyton's made about 150 million so far. I'm sure he'll be more than willing to 'share the wealth'...

Besides, he and the other big-money stars are leading the charge, I'm sure they'll be willing to put their money where their mouths are.

CRUSH:anvil: THE UNION!

 

[Hostile]

At this point, I hope ownership crushes them.

Let the fools struggle with their bills as many have squandered away their money, no matter how much they're paid.

Or better yet, how about they all show up at Peyton Manning's house? I'm sure the place is big enough and ol' Peyton's made about 150 million so far. I'm sure he'll be more than willing to 'share the wealth'...

Besides, he and the other big-money stars are leading the charge, I'm sure they'll be willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Look out folks, stash is awake, pissed, and making sense.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is there one shred of evidence that of actual free agent signing --ie I am not talking about players that are dealing with draft, RFA and tag restrictions-- that the additional money being paid to the players since 1989 has favored an elite class.

Or is it just now its this time that only the top 5% are going to get an increase in salary?

You know over the last 20 years all kinds of players have been getting lucrative contracts.

 

[AdamJT13]

Is there one shred of evidence that of actual free agent signing --ie I am not talking about players that are dealing with draft, RFA and tag restrictions-- that the additional money being paid to the players since 1989 has favored an elite class.

Or is it just now its this time that only the top 5% are going to get an increase in salary?

You know over the last 20 years all kinds of players have been getting lucrative contracts.

I think what people who are saying that are referring to is the collectively bargained minimum salary. If the NFL is forced to operate with no CBA, there will be no minimum salary, and many players who would have made the minimum for their experience level could end up getting much less money. There's no recent evidence for it, of course, because the NFL has had a minimum salary for decades. But imagine an NFL with no salary cap, no salary floor, no minimum salary and completely unrestricted free agency. The distribution of money among the players likely would be drastically different, and the total amount they collectively receive might be even less than it is now.

Knowing that they will have to outbid every other team for the best players, even their own, will teams still want to pay the worst player on the team more than $320,000 per year (for a rookie, more for a veteran) to be inactive each week? Or will they be able to find someone who is more desperate to do it for much less? More likely, the borderline players who would have gotten the minimum of $405,000, $480,000, $545,000, etc., under the old CBA would accept less because teams won't have any reason to offer them that much anymore. There's no bidding war for them -- they're just looking for any team that will sign them.

If there was open bidding for Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, etc., how much higher would their salaries be than they are now? And if the Colts had to pay twice as much for Peyton Manning, wouldn't they likely spend that much less on their other players?

Now, how extreme the salary spread between the elite and the dregs would become is unknown, but there's no question that it would increase.

 

[Dhragon]

I wish the owners could just consolidate the league - go from 32 different entities to just one with the former owners becoming shareholders instead. Then there should be no problems. The new league could set whatever price they wanted for their labor and assign the players wherever they wanted within the company without all this anti-trust junk.

Doubt the owners would want to give up their freedom of ownership but it would sure appear to fix alot of what the union wants to make wrong IMO.

 

[AbeBeta]

This to me is just further proof that the nflpa wanted to take it to court no matter what.

That makes no sense. The players have their leverage through the threat of decertification. Had they received an offer they found acceptable, there is no reason to go to court. Owners wouldn't give that so it goes to another level. Saying they wanted to go to court no matter what makes zero sense.

 

[junk]

I wish the owners could just consolidate the league - go from 32 different entities to just one with the former owners becoming shareholders instead. Then there should be no problems. The new league could set whatever price they wanted for their labor and assign the players wherever they wanted within the company without all this anti-trust junk.

Doubt the owners would want to give up their freedom of ownership but it would sure appear to fix alot of what the union wants to make wrong IMO.

The owners don't want that either. At least a portion of them. If they took this approach, they'd have to basically revert to revenue sharing which they are desperate to get rid of.

The Jones, Krafts and Snyders of the world make much more in local revenue than the Browns and Wilsons of the league. They are tired of sharing it.

 

[AbeBeta]

I wish the owners could just consolidate the league - go from 32 different entities to just one with the former owners becoming shareholders instead. Then there should be no problems. The new league could set whatever price they wanted for their labor and assign the players wherever they wanted within the company without all this anti-trust junk.

Doubt the owners would want to give up their freedom of ownership but it would sure appear to fix alot of what the union wants to make wrong IMO.

Yeah. That sounds like it would withstand league challenge.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I ****ing hate twitter.

I think you should tweet about it.

 

[BlindFaith]

I think what people who are saying that are referring to is the collectively bargained minimum salary. If the NFL is forced to operate with no CBA, there will be no minimum salary, and many players who would have made the minimum for their experience level could end up getting much less money. There's no recent evidence for it, of course, because the NFL has had a minimum salary for decades. But imagine an NFL with no salary cap, no salary floor, no minimum salary and completely unrestricted free agency. The distribution of money among the players likely would be drastically different, and the total amount they collectively receive might be even less than it is now.

Knowing that they will have to outbid every other team for the best players, even their own, will teams still want to pay the worst player on the team more than $320,000 per year (for a rookie, more for a veteran) to be inactive each week? Or will they be able to find someone who is more desperate to do it for much less? More likely, the borderline players who would have gotten the minimum of $405,000, $480,000, $545,000, etc., under the old CBA would accept less because teams won't have any reason to offer them that much anymore. There's no bidding war for them -- they're just looking for any team that will sign them.

If there was open bidding for Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, etc., how much higher would their salaries be than they are now? And if the Colts had to pay twice as much for Peyton Manning, wouldn't they likely spend that much less on their other players?

Now, how extreme the salary spread between the elite and the dregs would become is unknown, but there's no question that it would increase.

Not to mention there will be certain teams that don't even come close to approaching the minimum salary cap now in place. They'll just sit back and sign whatever left over players there are for peanuts.

What's being overlooked here is that this is a GAME and not just a normal business. A game that needs special rules in place in order for it to be competitive on a team by team basis. Why do you think its so popular? Because of all the crummy rule changes, the arrogant players, the high ticket prices? No, its because each city that has a team can have an expectation that their team could be competitive. This draws in more fans and higher ratings.

If football goes the way of baseball, I'm out. Done. All of this bickering and legaleze has started to turn me off to the sport anyway. And I never thought in a million years I would say that. Neither the owners nor the players give a crap about the fans. Its about the money.

I think the fans should strike.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I think what people who are saying that are referring to is the collectively bargained minimum salary. If the NFL is forced to operate with no CBA, there will be no minimum salary, and many players who would have made the minimum for their experience level could end up getting much less money. There's no recent evidence for it, of course, because the NFL has had a minimum salary for decades. But imagine an NFL with no salary cap, no salary floor, no minimum salary and completely unrestricted free agency. The distribution of money among the players likely would be drastically different, and the total amount they collectively receive might be even less than it is now.

Knowing that they will have to outbid every other team for the best players, even their own, will teams still want to pay the worst player on the team more than $320,000 per year (for a rookie, more for a veteran) to be inactive each week? Or will they be able to find someone who is more desperate to do it for much less? More likely, the borderline players who would have gotten the minimum of $405,000, $480,000, $545,000, etc., under the old CBA would accept less because teams won't have any reason to offer them that much anymore. There's no bidding war for them -- they're just looking for any team that will sign them.

If there was open bidding for Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, etc., how much higher would their salaries be than they are now? And if the Colts had to pay twice as much for Peyton Manning, wouldn't they likely spend that much less on their other players?

Now, how extreme the salary spread between the elite and the dregs would become is unknown, but there's no question that it would increase.

Rich get richer and the poor make more money working at McDonalds. :laugh2:

 

[Longboysfan]

I think what people who are saying that are referring to is the collectively bargained minimum salary. If the NFL is forced to operate with no CBA, there will be no minimum salary, and many players who would have made the minimum for their experience level could end up getting much less money. There's no recent evidence for it, of course, because the NFL has had a minimum salary for decades. But imagine an NFL with no salary cap, no salary floor, no minimum salary and completely unrestricted free agency. The distribution of money among the players likely would be drastically different, and the total amount they collectively receive might be even less than it is now.

Knowing that they will have to outbid every other team for the best players, even their own, will teams still want to pay the worst player on the team more than $320,000 per year (for a rookie, more for a veteran) to be inactive each week? Or will they be able to find someone who is more desperate to do it for much less? More likely, the borderline players who would have gotten the minimum of $405,000, $480,000, $545,000, etc., under the old CBA would accept less because teams won't have any reason to offer them that much anymore. There's no bidding war for them -- they're just looking for any team that will sign them.

If there was open bidding for Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, etc., how much higher would their salaries be than they are now? And if the Colts had to pay twice as much for Peyton Manning, wouldn't they likely spend that much less on their other players?

Now, how extreme the salary spread between the elite and the dregs would become is unknown, but there's no question that it would increase.

Add in that there being no Salary CAP the NFL would look like the Premiership league in the UK.

The same 5 or 6 teams always on the top.

 

[InmanRoshi]

This to me is just further proof that the nflpa wanted to take it to court no matter what.

That's a pretty ridiciulous thing to say considering it's the owners that voided out the current CBA that was making everyone filthy rich, and inflicted the work stoppage on the players and the fans. The players have to go to court as a way to try to work around the work stoppage that the owners imposed.