Twitter: NFLPA pushing to eliminate offseason programs/practices

[Hennessy_King]

I would want them to not make so drastically more than the people actually taking the punishment. There is no risk, either financially or physically owning an NFL team, its basically just free money at this point with no real work needed.

Exactly now this year when owners were not going to make as much $$ they wanted players to possibly take pay cuts to help the owners. laughable.

 

[thunderpimp91]

no if offset by fewer preseason and less camp activities. League wants to add a game - they are going to have to give up some stuff to get it.

The players are all for raising revenue but need concessions on other items to reduce wear.

This really seems pretty simple - that is assuming more than a single brain cell at use though, so maybe I've given you too much credit.

This issue has nothing to do with the 17th game, that's already been negotiated and approved. If you want to be a dick about it though ill just end the conversation here.

 

[Rockport]

not sure if this is a good or a bad thing... I think it’s good for teams to get the extra prep work in.

Title is misleading as it's not true.

 

[Kevinicus]

They run between 50 and 70 million for most owners per year. Now technically considering the size of the investment this is not a substantial amount (NFL teams are technically overvalued due to both the safe nature of the investment and the fact that its a "sexy" thing to own), but its also the least work imaginable.

By the way that number will go WAY up starting next year once the new revenue kicks in which is why the salary cap was originally projected to skyrocket over the next couple years.

Investments aren't meant to be jobs (Now some do take additional work to get something out of them, but it's generally not a career).

Owner is a title, not an employee position.

However, some owners do still do quite a lot of work.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Anytime a player says something like this there's a reason for it. If this is how the players feel then they should. I'm a little shocked the reasoning is a "wear and tear" issue though. How much wear and tear could you possibly be doing?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anytime a player says something like this there's a reason for it. If this is how the players feel then they should. I'm a little shocked the reasoning is a "wear and tear" issue though. How much wear and tear could you possibly be doing?

The issue is the Union is being led by the veteran players. That makes the most money and they're already the leaders on their teams.

No I'm not saying that's a problem in and of itself but it does create a dynamic where their voices within the Union are more significant than the rank and file.

Most NFL players are young players that are going through the churn of an industry with an average career length of 3 years or so.

Vet players are beat up and they don't like hitting in the summertime leading up to the season. I get it but at the same time their solution throws the baby out with the bathwater.

The young players need that training.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is 100% false. Teams actually lose money on occasion, its why many franchises relocate. Outside of the Cowboys most dont make nearly as much as you probably think. It's been a while since i've looked up revenue figures, but the average team makes around $400-$500M in annual revenue. 48% of that makes up the salary cap. Now add in salaries coaches/scouts/Front office/administrative/Cheerleading/stadium workers, etc. Stadiums (many are heavily tax payer funded to be fair), travel expenses, practice facilities, player medical costs, and on and on. Year over year profits are slim for most owners.

I'd like to see evidence of teams losing money.

The raiders moved to Las Vegas the oilers moved to Tennessee and the browns moved to Baltimore all because local politicians would not agree to a sweetheart deal for a stadium for them.

 

[CWR]

I think it’s going to have the opposite impact of the intended effect because there are going to be more conditioning related injuries....

If this year was any indication players need off season work to keep their bodies ready.

 

[thunderpimp91]

The issue is the Union is being led by the veteran players. That makes the most money and they're already the leaders on their teams.

No I'm not saying that's a problem in and of itself but it does create a dynamic where their voices within the Union are more significant than the rank and file.

Most NFL players are young players that are going through the churn of an industry with an average career length of 3 years or so.

Vet players are beat up and they don't like hitting in the summertime leading up to the season. I get it but at the same time their solution throws the baby out with the bathwater.

The young players need that training.

Extremely well said. lumping the players into just one group is a bad idea. Young guys and vet players always have different agendas, just look at anytime they vote on a new CBA. Its always the older guys holding out, and they young guys break. The young guys make up the majority of the league, but hardly get represented.

I really believe this move would hurt career length for many players who are on that roster bubble. If you dont have a guaranteed spot on a roster you want every possible practice to show what you can do.

 

[MonsterD]

Maybe it should be an age thing, like if you are 27 or older you don't have to do the offseason practices.

 

[Runwildboys]

Gee, players want less wear and tear to prolong careers. How selfish

Thing is, it seems like it would exacerbate the problems, and I'm sure the players have seen all the injuries this year, and suspect that it's due to lack of conditioning. That would make it seem as if Tretter is just looking to get paid more and work less....if you're the suspicious type.

 

[Loso86]

not sure if this is a good or a bad thing... I think it’s good for teams to get the extra prep work in.

Inthink it's stupid, it helps guys physically get to where they need to be fornthe season, especially since there adding an extra game

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe it should be an age thing, like if you are 27 or older you don't have to do the offseason practices.

I like the approach but I think seasons accrued makes more sense. In other words anyone with five or more years of experience doesn't have to go to the first two camps or something like that

 

[CWR]

Maybe it should be an age thing, like if you are 27 or older you don't have to do the offseason practices.

I like where your head is. Let's make a couple calls and have you mediate this deal.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I'd like to see evidence of teams losing money.

The raiders moved to Las Vegas the oilers moved to Tennessee and the browns moved to Baltimore all because local politicians would not agree to a sweetheart deal for a stadium for them.

Oh its pretty rare, but teams have lost money. It was estimated by Forbes that the Rams would lose over $100MM this year without fans, which they have not had all year. Not sure if they have found ways to offset that or not.

Below is a cool little snapshot of teams finances over the years. Detroit reported a loss back from 2011 to 2014. Several teams such as Cincinnati, Buffalo, Tampa have had years where they have only been in the green by a couple million.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/detroit-lions/?sh=637d8812422d

 

[Pantone282C]

not sure if this is a good or a bad thing... I think it’s good for teams to get the extra prep work in.

Poor little babies, I hope they get their boo boos fixed.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

not sure if this is a good or a bad thing... I think it’s good for teams to get the extra prep work in.

not at you but the NFLPA...

 

[buybuydandavis]

I think it’s going to have the opposite impact of the intended effect because there are going to be more conditioning related injuries....

Seemed to be the trend this season. Offseason practices aren't as hard as preseason games aren't as hard as regular season games.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh its pretty rare, but teams have lost money. It was estimated by Forbes that the Rams would lose over $100MM this year without fans, which they have not had all year. Not sure if they have found ways to offset that or not.

Below is a cool little snapshot of teams finances over the years. Detroit reported a loss back from 2011 to 2014. Several teams such as Cincinnati, Buffalo, Tampa have had years where they have only been in the green by a couple million.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/detroit-lions/?sh=637d8812422d

Okay that's fair so one of the worst teams in the league lost money for a few years and made all of it up and more in a single year a few years later.

Meanwhile the average NFL owner averages 9 figures in profit.

It should also be noted that the initial investment was 4.1 million.

In a world where you can't get a CD for better than 1%, I cannot feel that the NFL is a tremendous return on investment with very little risk. Then there's the dynastic element to the whole thing.

 

[Vanilla2]

Hey guys. It’s anti American to not suck up to ownership. Now kneel before your overlords