This Is My Problem With the NFLPA

[Hostile]

The players want more money. I get that. I understand. But they are not asking for an increase in the Minimum. They just want the profit margin to adjust the Cap. Presumably this means make it higher.

So lets break this down. Your name is John Doe and you are a backup Guard making the vet minimum of $320,000 (I know this is not exact but close.) The NFLPA successfully negotiates a Cap raise to $140 million.

Are you, John Doe, not a UFA or an RFA going to see a penny of that raise?

Nope. It's going to go to guys like Peyton Manning who not only have mega-huge multi-million dollar contracts already but endorsement deals out the yang as well.

Why are you, John Doe, willing to decertify, be locked out, go on strike, or in any other way willing to risk your short time in the NFL for the players who are already legacies in this league and should be set for life?

The players ought to be fighting for 3 things and limiting it to these things.

1. Better benefits for the players of yore.
2. More roster spots and PS spots so more jobs.
3. A higher Cap with a higher increase for the vet minimum for all, not just FAs.

To me the percentages are false numbers anyway.

It just seems like they are fighting for their own rich to get richer, not the whole rank and file. Anyone feel I am missing something please share.

 

[rkell87]

basically my way of thinking at least on the money side for the players, i also believe they should be fighting to make the most advance and safe equipment available to the players, not just the status quo accepted by the major companies that can afford the NFL license.

 

[Hoofbite]

Pretty much.

Gotta keep the Golden Geese well fed and cared for.

Hard to get the lowly pigeons to buy into the corporate propaganda when the guys at the top are disgruntled and refusing to take part.

It's all a joke. Like the 16 game season. They claim to have all these interests at heart but they don't care. Furthering their own cause and fattening their own wallets is all they care about.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

The players want more money. I get that. I understand. But they are not asking for an increase in the Minimum. They just want the profit margin to adjust the Cap. Presumably this means make it higher.

So lets break this down. Your name is John Doe and you are a backup Guard making the vet minimum of $320,000 (I know this is not exact but close.) The NFLPA successfully negotiates a Cap raise to $140 million.

Are you, John Doe, not a UFA or an RFA going to see a penny of that raise?

Nope. It's going to go to guys like Peyton Manning who not only have mega-huge multi-million dollar contracts already but endorsement deals out the yang as well.

Why are you, John Doe, willing to decertify, be locked out, go on strike, or in any other way willing to risk your short time in the NFL for the players who are already legacies in this league and should be set for life?

The players ought to be fighting for 3 things and limiting it to these things.

1. Better benefits for the players of yore.
2. More roster spots and PS spots so more jobs.
3. A higher Cap with a higher increase for the vet minimum for all, not just FAs.

To me the percentages are false numbers anyway.

It just seems like they are fighting for their own rich to get richer, not the whole rank and file. Anyone feel I am missing something please share.

The players don't want more money they are more than willing to play under the current agreement.

The owners are the ones who "want more money".

If you don't understand that basic principle what have you been watching during all of these proceedings.

Oh yeah they are asking for everything you have mentioned here while not asking for more money.

 

[WoodysGirl]

The problem I see is that the players never asked for more money. The Owners did. The Owners opted out of the deal because they want money back they feel they lost in the previous CBA.

I get that.

Owners have to give the players a good reason to give back anything from the previously negotiated CBA. And so far, the NFLPA isn't satisfied with what the Owners have offered to date.

But again, the NFLPA isn't asking for more money. They're just wanting to know why they should return any.

And the things you list Hostile seem like reasonable options the NFLPA would want, but before they work out the smaller issues, they still gotta work out the larger issues.

 

[Gadfly22]

The players ought to be fighting for 3 things and limiting it to these things.

1. Better benefits for the players of yore.
2. More roster spots and PS spots so more jobs.
3. A higher Cap with a higher increase for the vet minimum for all, not just FAs.

I agree that those are 3 good things to negotiate for. But why would we assume that the NFLPA isn't negotiating for those things? And why should their demands be limited to those 3 things? Remember that negotiating the deal only gets you halfway (maybe 1/3 of the way) to a solution. You also have to get the actual players (most of whom are not the superstars and potential big money FAs) to approve the deal.

Also, you don't go into a negotiation with a list of 3 things and tell the other side: "Hi, we'd like this to be nice and easy for you, so we have just this tiny list of demands. Well, requests really."

You go in asking for the moon, and see what you can get. If you get 1/4 of the moon, and you think you can sell that chunk of rock to the rank and file as a satisfactory hunk of satellite, then maybe you have a deal. If you walk out of the room with just a pocketful of moon dust, then you may have wasted your (and everyone else's) time.

 

[trickblue]

So lets break this down. Your name is John Doe and you are a backup Guard making the vet minimum of $320,000 (I know this is not exact but close.) The NFLPA successfully negotiates a Cap raise to $140 million.

The NFL has a sliding scale minimum depending on experience. For the 2010 season, the minimums are as follows:

R $325,000
1 $400,000
2 $475,000
3 $550,000
4-6 $635,000
7-9 $760,000
10+ $860,000

Since the average career, according to the NFLPA, is 3.5 years I would imagine the guys at that level would take a lockout pretty hard as they know their career may likely be coming to an end...

 

[Hostile]

The players don't want more money they are more than willing to play under the current agreement.

The owners are the ones who "want more money".

If you don't understand that basic principle what have you been watching during all of these proceedings.

Oh yeah they are asking for everything you have mentioned here while not asking for more money.

The players don't make less money unless the cap goes down. I haven't seen any indication the owners want to lower the Salary Cap. They do want to put a cap on rookie contracts and the players want that too.

They just seem to be asking for the wrong things.

 

[Hostile]

The NFL has a sliding scale minimum depending on experience. For the 2010 season, the minimums are as follows:

R $325,000
1 $400,000
2 $475,000
3 $550,000
4-6 $635,000
7-9 $760,000
10+ $860,000

Since the average career, according to the NFLPA, is 3.5 years I would imagine the guys at that level would take a lockout pretty hard as they know their career may likely be coming to an end...

Right on the money with that last comment. If I am John Doe on the Colts I am in Peyton Manning's face saying "I don't have the good fortune to get a multi-million dollar per contract plus mega endorsement deals. My time and earning ability are far more limited than yours. This is killing me not helping me."

 

[baj1dallas]

Right on the money with that last comment. If I am John Doe on the Colts I am in Peyton Manning's face saying "I don't have the good fortune to get a multi-million dollar per contract plus mega endorsement deals. My time and earning ability are far more limited than yours. This is killing me not helping me."

That's why the union does things to prepare its members for things like a lockout. Remember the union isn't striking, the owners are locking out. The owners have basically decided on an across the board paycut and increased hours (18 game schedule). The players simply didn't agree.

 

[iceberg]

The players want more money. I get that. I understand. But they are not asking for an increase in the Minimum. They just want the profit margin to adjust the Cap. Presumably this means make it higher.

So lets break this down. Your name is John Doe and you are a backup Guard making the vet minimum of $320,000 (I know this is not exact but close.) The NFLPA successfully negotiates a Cap raise to $140 million.

Are you, John Doe, not a UFA or an RFA going to see a penny of that raise?

Nope. It's going to go to guys like Peyton Manning who not only have mega-huge multi-million dollar contracts already but endorsement deals out the yang as well.

Why are you, John Doe, willing to decertify, be locked out, go on strike, or in any other way willing to risk your short time in the NFL for the players who are already legacies in this league and should be set for life?

The players ought to be fighting for 3 things and limiting it to these things.

1. Better benefits for the players of yore.
2. More roster spots and PS spots so more jobs.
3. A higher Cap with a higher increase for the vet minimum for all, not just FAs.

To me the percentages are false numbers anyway.

It just seems like they are fighting for their own rich to get richer, not the whole rank and file. Anyone feel I am missing something please share.

i would also like to see a post-career health care plan for former players.

 

[Hostile]

That's why the union does things to prepare its members for things like a lockout. Remember the union isn't striking, the owners are locking out. The owners have basically decided on an across the board paycut and increased hours (18 game schedule). The players simply didn't agree.

I have seen nothing that says the owners are going to lower the Salary cap, just that they want a larger bite of all future deals to stay above the profit margins.

If the cap is not going down how are players making less?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have seen nothing that says the owners are going to lower the Salary cap, just that they want a larger bite of all future deals to stay above the profit margins.

If the cap is not going down how are players making less?

They want less of the money that they make to be counted as revenue. Its double speak but at the end of the day the total cap space is less.

50% of 100 or 60% of 83.3. The bottom line is the same.

Then they want to obfuscate their intentions and the specifics of their finances that define the percentage.

I agree that the NFLPA needs to take better care of the rank and file as well as those that came before but that is not what these negotiations are about.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

They want less of the money that they make to be counted as revenue. Its double speak but at the end of the day the total cap space is less.

I don't think that's right. What the owners claim they want to do, anyway, is give them a smaller percentage of a bigger pie. So their piece would grow, just not as much as the owners'.

 

[bracey]

The players don't make less money unless the cap goes down. I haven't seen any indication the owners want to lower the Salary Cap. They do want to put a cap on rookie contracts and the players want that too.

They just seem to be asking for the wrong things.

I thought the owners were wanting to lower the salary cap. The simplified way I've seen it explained is that out of total league revenue ($9 billion most recently) the owners take off the first $1B and the remaining $8B is split 60% players/40% owners. That 60% of $8B is then divided by 32 teams to set the salary cap for each team.

Now the owners are asking to take off $2B to start with. That would give the players 60% of $7B. I don't know the other details. This simple math would indicate last year's salary cap would be $150 million and it was set to $128 million. Using the math above the cap would be reduced for each team by $18.75 million. It's probably really less than that also.

Now who knows how the numbers would end up with the additional revenue from 18 games. Assuming each game is the same and they would just get 2 more games of revenue the players end up slightly better than even, but having to play to 2 more games.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think that's right. What the owners claim they want to do, anyway, is give them a smaller percentage of a bigger pie. So their piece would grow, just not as much as the owners'.

I have seen the actual figures spelled out and that is the opposite of what i read.

The players came in offering to lower their cut to half right off the bat. The owners said no and wanted the revenue stream reevaluated.

They just will not say what that stream is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I thought the owners were wanting to lower the salary cap. The simplified way I've seen it explained is that out of total league revenue ($9 billion most recently) the owners take off the first $1B and the remaining $8B is split 60% players/40% owners. That 60% of $8B is then divided by 32 teams to set the salary cap for each team.

Now the owners are asking to take off $2B to start with. That would give the players 60% of $7B. I don't know the other details. This simple math would indicate last year's salary cap would be $150 million and it was set to $128 million. Using the math above the cap would be reduced for each team by $18.75 million. It's probably really less than that also.

Now who knows how the numbers would end up with the additional revenue from 18 games. Assuming each game is the same and they would just get 2 more games of revenue the players end up slightly better than even, but having to play to 2 more games.

This is exactly what they are proposing.

 

[Hostile]

I don't think that's right. What the owners claim they want to do, anyway, is give them a smaller percentage of a bigger pie. So their piece would grow, just not as much as the owners'.

This is exactly how I understand it too.

 

[satam55]

The players don't want more money they are more than willing to play under the current agreement.

The owners are the ones who "want more money".

If you don't understand that basic principle what have you been watching during all of these proceedings.

Oh yeah they are asking for everything you have mentioned here while not asking for more money.

Co-sign. This shows the OP doesn't know he is talking about and this thread should be deleted.

 

[te0002]

The players want more money. I get that. I understand. But they are not asking for an increase in the Minimum. They just want the profit margin to adjust the Cap. Presumably this means make it higher.

So lets break this down. Your name is John Doe and you are a backup Guard making the vet minimum of $320,000 (I know this is not exact but close.) The NFLPA successfully negotiates a Cap raise to $140 million.

Are you, John Doe, not a UFA or an RFA going to see a penny of that raise?

Nope. It's going to go to guys like Peyton Manning who not only have mega-huge multi-million dollar contracts already but endorsement deals out the yang as well.

Why are you, John Doe, willing to decertify, be locked out, go on strike, or in any other way willing to risk your short time in the NFL for the players who are already legacies in this league and should be set for life?

The players ought to be fighting for 3 things and limiting it to these things.

1. Better benefits for the players of yore.
2. More roster spots and PS spots so more jobs.
3. A higher Cap with a higher increase for the vet minimum for all, not just FAs.

To me the percentages are false numbers anyway.

It just seems like they are fighting for their own rich to get richer, not the whole rank and file. Anyone feel I am missing something please share.

The answer is simple Hos - unions and their leaders long ago quit being entities dedicated to their membership, instead they are dedicated to their leaders - in this case the high profile players.

Even if the union got everything it wanted form the league, it would not benefit the 'rank-and-file' player any more than he is currently. All of the benefits would be proportioned to the top-level players and the rank-and-file would be exactly where they are now.