Players moving to oust Upshaw

[Paniolo22]

I think Robert Smith would be a great candidate to replace him. Just listening to him speak on the players issues, you can tell he's on top of it.

 

[THUMPER]

It's about time. I don't know how he's kept his job for this long.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3336017

I agree. He has been horrible IMO but the newer players have loved him because he has been instrumental in getting them mega millions. Ask any of the older players and they hate the guy, even his former Raiders teammates hate him.

 

[sacase]

Sorry I think the cap is an excellent thing. The players had best realize the reason they make so much money is that the fans are entertained and that there is some level of parity in the league. Its really had to pick who will win the SB at the beginning of the season much less in the playoffs. No cap means teams with money will have good teams and teams without money will be bad and not make any money.

 

[Hostile]

I think Robert Smith would be a great candidate to replace him. Just listening to him speak on the players issues, you can tell he's on top of it.

My money would be on Troy Vincent.

 

[Kangaroo]

Maybe maybe not. The dude is an idiot. When he threatened publicly to fight Ditka or whoever it was i realized he was stupid.

Surrenduring all that power to the league in terms of disciplining players was monumentally stupid. Harsher punishments fine but ceding all right to appeal a ruling was just monumentally stupid.

Also Adam and i got into a tiff about the amount of money he brokered, he really got the players less than baseball and basketball. Baseball has no cap and when ARod is getting $30+mil a year that says something.

As for basketball, yes the NFL has a cap around 60% of revenues and basketball at 56% but the NFL cap is a hard cap whereas NBA teams can go over the cap and do go way over the cap. The luxury tax threshold is much much higher.

In all, Upshaw is awful from his handling of the ex players, whether or not the union is responsible notwithstanding, to his brokering of the current CBA, to his capitulation to Goodell, he needs to go.

You also realize 10% of all NBA players earnings go into the pool that they do not get back if certain numbers are hit. They have a floating soft cap and they have a cap on contracts exception length by age and total amount they can earn of adding players and if you go over the cap you can only add players with exception or the vet min.

I hate baseball setup if the NFL goes to that I will quit watching it like I have baseball; we will have about 10 teams and then a bunch of farm teams feeding the players every 3-5 years :bang2::bang2::bang2: I have watched parts of about 5 world series games since 94

Last I looked Football makes more money overall and for a reason but the difference is you are splitting more money among more people so yes the players get smaller contracts but more people have a chance to earn big money. The NBA has what roughly 360-400 players football has over 1700 players playing in a season roughly 4 times more players than basketball and baseball has roughly 800 players in the year and they have the most unique Minor league system

 

[kevwun]

There's no excuse for contracts not being guaranteed or for the outrageous contracts given to unproven rookies. I don't have a huge problem with the salary cap, but there are improvements that can be made in the areas I mentioned above and that others have listed in this thread.

 

[Beast_from_East]

There's no excuse for contracts not being guaranteed or for the outrageous contracts given to unproven rookies. I don't have a huge problem with the salary cap, but there are improvements that can be made in the areas I mentioned above and that others have listed in this thread.

I disagree, guaranteed contracts would be TERRIBLE for the NFL. The fact that most players get paid for performance year in and year out is what keeps players motivated and working out all year.

If contracts are guaranteed, I see alot of players "taking it easy". Dont believe me? Why do players usually have their best year during a "contract year" if motivation is not a factor?

How do you explain players usually having a down year after a huge payday? Ever notice that Roy's play started going downhill after he got a new contract?

Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. That is my whole point. We can even use a real world example. If I guaranteed your salary for the next 5 years at your job and it didnt matter what your performance was, your pay was guaranteed. How many weekends you working? How much overtime you going to be putting in?

See my point?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

call me crazy, but I hope Troy Vincent gets the job

 

[kevwun]

Guaranteed contracts are the right thing to do. How can you justify a team being able to tear up a contract whenever they want to by cutting a player? The player isn't allowed to opt of his contract whenever he wants, so why should the team be able to? That's not how contracts work in the real world. Guaranteed contracts would also simplify the salary cap immensely.

 

[viman96]

Upshaw is the owners hand puppet. I'm shocked the players have not kicked him to the curb.

 

[Rack]

I don't know if a strike will happen, but the owners are going to have to make some concessions. Contrats need to be guaranteed and a rookie contract scale similar to what the NBA has needs to be implemented.

I agree about the rookie cap, but no way do players desever guaranteed contracts. Not till they can "Guarantee" that they'll play to the level the contract indicates during the duration of the contract.


You think the Eagles got their money's worth from Jevon Kearse?


Guaranteed contracts? MOST FA's aren't living up to the signing bonuses they're given much less the WHOLE contract. No freakin' way should they get guaranteed contracts.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Upshaw has run a house union for years.

 

[Dhragon]

Base contracts should be guaranteed. Incentive bonuses would be what needs to be earned.

 

[DallasEast]

Base contracts should be guaranteed. Incentive bonuses would be what needs to be earned.

That seems like a reasonable compromise. Give a player a lot of money as a reward for playing well... then give him a chance for making a ton more if he continues to play well or even better. If the contract incentives are spread out each year, it'll serve as motivation for a player who plays harder for the money. My question is how incentive packages could be structured to be that easily obtainable in the player's eyes without them putting considerable strain on the salary cap.

 

[Dhragon]

That seems like a reasonable compromise. Give a player a lot of money as a reward for playing well... then give him a chance for making a ton more if he continues to play well or even better. If the contract incentives are spread out each year, it'll serve as motivation for a player who plays harder for the money. My question is how incentive packages could be structured to be that easily obtainable in the player's eyes without them putting considerable strain on the salary cap.

Standardize incentives yet make them excluded from the cap. That way no one owner can promise a player more incentives for playing for him than another team could.

For example, say a WR free agent is looking to sign somewhere. With hard caps on base guaranteed contracts in place, all he can find is Oakland for 1.5 million or the Cowboys for 1 million base. The two teams could only offer the same incentives for the WR as bonus ( League mandated incentives of +$1,000 per catch, + $25,000 per TD, +$250,000 for a Probowl birth, etc ).

The free agent would then have to determine if the extra $500,000 base with the Raiders would trump the likelihood of better self production and incentives playing with Romo and the Boys.

It would basically make the really big money a player could earn all be based off performance while guaranteeing them a decent base contract amount.

I could see a lot of problems with this method but it is an idea that has some fairness to it.

 

[WoodysGirl]

VINCENT, UPSHAW AT ODDS?

Posted by Mike Florio on April 9, 2008, 8:34 a.m.

In the wake of Tuesday’s news that Ravens kicker Matt Stover is leading the charge in connection with the potential replacement of long-term NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw, a league source has shared with us some additional details, which suggest that there has been a falling out between Upshaw and former NFLPA president Troy Vincent.

Vincent stepped aside as president of the union, due to the fact that he’s no longer an active player. And the source says that Eagles safety Brian Dawkins was Vincent’s hand-picked choice to succeed him. But Dawkins didn’t get the votes.

As a result, turmoil exists. “There are warring factions in the NFLPA,” the source said. “Brian Dawkins . . . would have tried to endorse Troy replacing Gene. Gene protected himself by getting [Titans center Kevin] Mawae in and further pushed Troy away.” (And this perhaps explains Mawae’s statement of support for Upshaw.)

Indeed, with rumors swirling that Vincent would be named the Assistant Executive Director, Upshaw launched into his No. 1 and No. 2 tirade, insisting that there would be no No. 2 because No. 2 always wants to be No. 1. The source believes that Upshaw was talking about Vincent.

Indeed, we’re told that the union quietly has appointed Clark Gaines to the No. 2 position that Vincent had targeted.

Stay tuned. This once could get interesting. More interesting.

 

[big dog cowboy]

You think the Eagles got their money's worth from Jevon Kearse?

Shockingly, no one has mentioned Roy Willy's name yet.

 

[Randy White]

I have not seen one players union win a holdout

Baseball Players lost and caved not as bad as some but still caved and took a worse deal then they had to because they decided to strike

Really ? Tell that to the baseball owners.

Baseball players had the same exact benefits after the strike as they did before it. ( Note: and it wasn't really a strike. It was lockout by the owners ). The baseball owners tried to implement a salary cap, didn't happen. Tried to end free agency, didn't happen. Tried to end arbitration, didn't happen. Tried to curve salaries, didn't happen. The only thing that happened was that the World Series were cancelled.

About the only two gains the owners have had in the past 30 years are not really considered players' losses:

a) the implementation of a stricter drug policy
b) more sharing of revenues amongst clubs, ie: luxury tax system.

And even with the luxury tax system, as per the contract, that money must be spent on payroll.

 

[Doomsday101]

I hope the players do get that idiot out. He would have these high priced players on strike give me a break. The NFL is not mistreating them or underpaying them.

 

[Randy White]

As for basketball, yes the NFL has a cap around 60% of revenues and basketball at 56% but the NFL cap is a hard cap whereas NBA teams can go over the cap and do go way over the cap. The luxury tax threshold is much much higher.

The NFL does not have a hard cap. Their salary cap is stricter than the NBA's, but teams are allowed to go over their salary cap if they want to.

We know that procedure as " cap credit ".

Incentives that are not met, but charged to the previous year's cap, are credited to the following year's cap, therefor, technically, a team can go over the cap. Cowboys did that with Tony Curtis this past season, I believe.

Also, the ability to spread out bonuses and manipulate base salaries, circumvents the salary cap as well. For years, the Deadskins have been paying more money than their cap limit, and the Cowboys and 49ers did that as well, for a while.