Twitter: NFL Agents and Players Colluding - Beating NFL Owners at their Game

[Mac_MaloneV1]

So Dak is worth more than any other QB in the league right now?! Make it make sense!

Is Jordan Love? This is always such a ridiculous argument.

The best player at his position - in every cap sport - is rarely the highest paid.

 

[DAL1180]

@DAL1180 now who's avoiding what one said? Your initial point was collusion. Do you see the difference in what I mentioned on askers and payers or not?

And in my scenario, what if all players decided not to play in solidarity to what they believe is some unfair thing? Then what? Even if not, what was the result of replacement players back in the day? Was it successful or not?

Stop trying to deny players their rightful share just because you don't like the amount they're getting. If YOU want more, lace 'em up. Then you can get more. Lol.

And you quit avoiding that not every player can be the highest paid player at their position and the team still be able to field a competitive team.

 

[MarcusRock]

And you quit avoiding that not every player can be the highest paid player at their position and the team still be able to field a competitive team.

That's not what you said I was avoiding. You mentioned collusion, so I educated you on what that actually was and who had the power to do so. So when aced there, now you shift to something else you were saying ("sounds like a lot of the world nowadays" to quote you) which you connected to collusion which is now of none effect due to your not knowing what collusion was. So there's no point to address there besides what was in my collusion explanation: owners need to not OFFER multiple gargantuan contracts if THEY want to field a competitive team which is THEIR job, not the players. So you see, your issue is actually with owners, not players here because they can only play for what they're OFFERED by owners, player askings be damned. So why are you targeting players in this equation, yet defending owners? Rhetorical, but at least attempt an answer.

 

[DAL1180]

That's not what you said I was avoiding. You mentioned collusion, so I educated you on what that actually was and who had the power to do so. So when aced there, now you shift to something else you were saying ("sounds like a lot of the world nowadays" to quote you) which you connected to collusion which is now of none effect due to your not knowing what collusion was. So there's no point to address there besides what was in my collusion explanation: owners need to not OFFER multiple gargantuan contracts if THEY want to field a competitive team which is THEIR job, not the players. So you see, your issue is actually with owners, not players here because they can only play for what they're OFFERED by owners, player askings be damned. So why are you targeting players in this equation, yet defending owners? Rhetorical, but at least attempt an answer.

It is semantics to say that agents getting together and saying that our clients won't play unless they all are paid what we tell you pay them( and they do before you deny it) is not collusion. The players are just as much (if not more) to blame as the owners but when "highest paid" gets his bag and then making "businesses decisions " and the teams win totals drop it is owners that bear the brunt of operating costs, salaries, facilities etc. while your put upon players don't. We can agree disagree on this. Yes both parties are to blame but again not everyone has to be the highest paid.

 

[KingCorcoran]

It is semantics to say that agents getting together and saying that our clients won't play unless they all are paid what we tell you pay them( and they do before you deny it) is not collusion. The players are just as much (if not more) to blame as the owners but when "highest paid" gets his bag and then making "businesses decisions " and the teams win totals drop it is owners that bear the brunt of operating costs, salaries, facilities etc. while your put upon players don't. We can agree disagree on this. Yes both parties are to blame but again not everyone has to be the highest paid.

The only reason Jerry Jones ever pays top of market is because he wants to sign a player. That’s on him.

 

[ghst187]

The deal likely isn't centered around annual salary alone. The contract issues probably revolve around guaranteed money and the length of the deal. Dak likely wants a 4-year contract, while Dallas is aiming for a 5 or 6-year agreement. Personally, I side with the Joneses. I wouldn't reset the market for a QB who hasn't proven he can elevate his team in playoff games. If it were up to me, I'd consider blowing it up and starting over or trading Micah next year for two first-round picks to draft a new quarterback.

I would’ve already done it…..
Paying Dak 60m is insanity. Better QBs are making less….and Parsons value is highest now….hes not made any difference when it counted in the playoffs….getting a load of picks in lieu of his production and saving the cash is preferable esp since his mouth is tiresome

 

[freemanjc19]

Really, when was the last time Jerry drafted a QB in the first round? What guarantees that they will make a good choice? The lucked into Romo and Dak. The joneses believe they can are smarter than every other team and can find a franchise QB from the UDFA pool. Thats what they count on.

Dak is the best bet for this team, no matter what everyone says.

It was just my OPINION, not the gospel!

 

[freemanjc19]

Door number 2 - QB purgatory

Free Dallas Cowboys game tickets with Rodeo and Concert purchase....

The going rate for QBs like Cooper Rush will be $25M to $35M next couple of seasons...

Prescott understands that the CBA was structured to lift ALL player salaries....Why shouldn't the players use ALL their leverages ....the Owners DO!!!

I get where you're coming from, but I think there's a middle ground between breaking the bank and falling into QB purgatory. It's all about finding the right balance.

Yes, Dak understands the CBA's purpose and the importance of leveraging his position, but at what cost to the team's overall success? If we tie up too much cap space in one player, it might handicap our ability to build a strong roster around him.Maybe a compromise on the length and guaranteed money could work out. Finding a sustainable solution without compromising the team's future is key. Thoughts?

 

[MarcusRock]

It is semantics to say that agents getting together and saying that our clients won't play unless they all are paid what we tell you pay them( and they do before you deny it) is not collusion. The players are just as much (if not more) to blame as the owners but when "highest paid" gets his bag and then making "businesses decisions " and the teams win totals drop it is owners that bear the brunt of operating costs, salaries, facilities etc. while your put upon players don't. We can agree disagree on this. Yes both parties are to blame but again not everyone has to be the highest paid.

Not semantics, by definition. The definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." What is secret or illegal or deceiving about people gathering and openly saying "this is the price we'll play for and not a penny less?" Owners can tell them to pound sand. Contrast that with owners getting together and saying they're going to hold the price down lower than the current market dictates? That is not allowed. So if what players and agents are doing is illegal, then owners should sue, right? They don't because it's not illegal from their end. It is from the owners' end.

Same in a marketplace for vegetables. You and your friends can demand whatever maximum price you want to pay and the farmer can tell you all to pound sand. But if he and others intentionally rigs prices above the reasonable market price, they would be in trouble. The risk is on them, not you because they have the final say in supplying the market. Same for players and owners.

But you're going to die on that "players are evil" hill even though it's the "final say" owners who agree to pay them those big contracts that upset you, aren't you? Lol.

 

[DAL1180]

Not semantics, by definition. The definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." What is secret or illegal or deceiving about people gathering and openly saying "this is the price we'll play for and not a penny less?" Owners can tell them to pound sand. Contrast that with owners getting together and saying they're going to hold the price down lower than the current market dictates? That is not allowed. So if what players and agents are doing is illegal, then owners should sue, right? They don't because it's not illegal from their end. It is from the owners' end.

Same in a marketplace for vegetables. You and your friends can demand whatever maximum price you want to pay and the farmer can tell you all to pound sand. But if he and others intentionally rigs prices above the reasonable market price, they would be in trouble. The risk is on them, not you because they have the final say in supplying the market. Same for players and owners.

But you're going to die on that "players are evil" hill even though it's the "final say" owners who agree to pay them those big contracts that upset you, aren't you?

Not semantics, by definition. The definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." What is secret or illegal or deceiving about people gathering and openly saying "this is the price we'll play for and not a penny less?" Owners can tell them to pound sand. Contrast that with owners getting together and saying they're going to hold the price down lower than the current market dictates? That is not allowed. So if what players and agents are doing is illegal, then owners should sue, right? They don't because it's not illegal from their end. It is from the owners' end.

Same in a marketplace for vegetables. You and your friends can demand whatever maximum price you want to pay and the farmer can tell you all to pound sand. But if he and others intentionally rigs prices above the reasonable market price, they would be in trouble. The risk is on them, not you because they have the final say in supplying the market. Same for players and owners.

But you're going to die on that "players are evil" hill even though it's the "final say" owners who agree to pay them those big contracts that upset you, aren't you? Lol.

No I think the players should control everything. According to people like you they should get the majority of revenue because "they" are the reason people watch. But they dont pay the actual bills that allow the league to survive. And If they are all gone do you really think the next group of players wouldn't have stars, mid level guys and scrubs. But yes let's give then 60, 75, or hell even 80% of the money so they can continue to demand less practices, less time in pads and less actual work but expect 80 million dollars a year for everybody.

 

[MarcusRock]

No I think the players should control everything. According to people like you they should get the majority of revenue because "they" are the reason people watch. But they dont pay the actual bills that allow the league to survive. And If they are all gone do you really think the next group of players wouldn't have stars, mid level guys and scrubs. But yes let's give then 60, 75, or hell even 80% of the money so they can continue to demand less practices, less time in pads and less actual work but expect 80 million dollars a year for everybody.

As long as you're clear on what is or isn't collusion. And what you suggest is from the players' side, isn't.

 

[Qcard]

I get where you're coming from, but I think there's a middle ground between breaking the bank and falling into QB purgatory. It's all about finding the right balance.

The right balance can not be found in the current 11 year CBA agreement.

The Owners and Agents will play cat and mouse, one uppping each other.

The Owners took the RB Market and depressed it's earnings...

Agents took the RB depression and have created a Bubble for QBs, WR and top Lineman.

The fans traditionally side with owners because the NFL owns the traditional media.

No Salary Cap and New Media can change the paradigm

Yes, Dak understands the CBA's purpose and the importance of leveraging his position, but at what cost to the team's overall success? If we tie up too much cap space in one player, it might handicap our ability to build a strong roster around him.Maybe a compromise on the length and guaranteed money could work out. Finding a sustainable solution without compromising the team's future is key. Thoughts?

No Salary Cap is the Solution.

Fans and Players ability to remove Bad Ownership

These are my solutions

 

[Nova]

The OP Dak statement is incredibly normal.

It's what players have said for years. If he doesn't get the max he can get, it affects other QB negotiations.

 

[Nova]

With all the comments Dak has been making lately. Makes him look like, himself first, team second.

But Dak and all other players have two teams.

On the field - The Dallas Cowboys
In contract negotiations - the NFLPA and its members

Him letting his agent do the work is right in line with being a team player to the NFLPA.

 

[Cowboys93]

It probably is. This is what Jerry started. He puts himself and his money first so why would the players not? If Dak was me first he would be sitting out right now like Love did. He really could embarrass Jerry right now. He wants to be a leader but I would force Jerry’s hand if I wanted to be here….but I don’t think Dak does.

Dak is well within his right to earn as much money as he can. Owners will do anything and everything to maximize their profits and cut their losses without hesitation especially ours. Can’t blame him one bit and I say this as someone who leans more in the let Dak walk camp

 

[Cowboys93]

Owners corroborate as well btw lol players should stick together and use their leverage as best as they can. The league could replace the owners and nobody would care but you can’t replace the guys playing

 

[CowboyFrog]

Why would he?
It would be detrimental to what he really wants to accomplish.

The huge difference, meaning, Dak knows what he will be giving up in money. Love was on his rookie contract. He was not giving up much.

Dak already has his money the only thing not accounted for is the cap hit the FO spread out...Dak would lose very little if he sat out. It was front loaded pay with cap move years built in.

 

[HanD]

the i don't play for money thing changed pretty quickly. lol what a joke

 

[Qcard]

the i don't play for money thing changed pretty quickly. lol what a joke

And fans siding with Billionaire Owners never changes....pretty pathetic so UnAmerican

 

[5Stars]

the i don't play for money thing changed pretty quickly. lol what a joke

Hey, he's only in camp so he won't get fined. Joke is right.