PDA

View Full Version : Players appeal for end to NFL lockout in late-night court filing



Denver Native (Carol)
05-21-2011, 10:11 AM
MINNEAPOLIS -- Players who sued the NFL for alleged antitrust violations liken the league to a "cartel" in their latest court filing, again urging an appeals court to lift the lockout.

In arguments filed in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, just minutes before Friday's midnight deadline, attorneys for the players reiterated their argument that the NFL has violated antitrust laws. They also argued the lockout has imposed immediate, career-ending threatening harm on players and could deprive the public of the 2011 NFL season.

"The players face immediate, continuing, severe irreparable injury from unlawful conduct orchestrated to force them to re-unionize against their will and make immense financial concessions," the players' attorneys wrote. "The NFL, by contrast, claims only a temporary loss of leverage by members of a cartel that is no longer entitled to any exemption from the antitrust laws."

full article - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fede88/article/players-appeal-for-end-to-nfl-lockout-in-latenight-court-filing?module=HP_headlines

Nomad
05-21-2011, 10:29 AM
Sports Fan Coalition.....never heard of it and don't support it!!:coffee:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-21-2011, 03:40 PM
The players are really starting to annoy me. They aren't willing to negotiate, and if they get half of what they are asking for in their lawsuits the game will be forever changed.

They don't really care if they cause the face of the game to be changed forever. I guess as short as their career is I can understand why all they would care about is making as much cash as they can over the next few years, but I still don't like it at all.....

I'm kind of surprised they filed this after the appelate courts last ruling where the judge essentially said their lawsuit would likely not hold up.

Lonestar
05-21-2011, 06:21 PM
Lawyers get their mOney no matter What the out come. They will tell their clients what thewantto hearin order to fleece them out of more of the settlement.

SR
05-21-2011, 08:14 PM
The whole time this was going on in the beginning I chose not to take sides. After reading/hearing some of the SHIT Demaurice Smith has said, I blame him and the players backing him for all of this crap.

Lonestar
05-21-2011, 09:03 PM
The whole time this was going on in the beginning I chose not to take sides. After reading/hearing some of the SHIT Demaurice Smith has said, I blame him and the players backing him for all of this crap.

Got to remember lots of the players are high level morons. They do not have a clue about how to run a business and why 80% of them are flat broke within two years of leaving the game. Or maybe it is five years.

But to have guaranteed million in some cases to zip. In a heart beat tells me they will listen to any tripe this "LAYWER" says.

I remember the first time I heard a union rep talk I was on board till I has a chance to analyze it.

Remember talk is cheap. They will listen to him until they miss a couple of game day checks. Then they wiLL get smart.

Tned
05-21-2011, 09:12 PM
The whole time this was going on in the beginning I chose not to take sides. After reading/hearing some of the SHIT Demaurice Smith has said, I blame him and the players backing him for all of this crap.

De Smith comes from a big time lobbying and litigation law firm.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-21-2011, 09:25 PM
De Smith comes from a big time lobbying and litigation law firm.

According to the speech he gave at his alma-mater's graduation ceremony his thoughts towards those of us that don't like his bargaining methods are, "**** em' "

Nice Maurice, that's how you win friends and influence people. :laugh:

Npba900
05-22-2011, 08:43 AM
The players are really starting to annoy me. They aren't willing to negotiate, and if they get half of what they are asking for in their lawsuits the game will be forever changed.

They don't really care if they cause the face of the game to be changed forever. I guess as short as their career is I can understand why all they would care about is making as much cash as they can over the next few years, but I still don't like it at all.....

I'm kind of surprised they filed this after the appelate courts last ruling where the judge essentially said their lawsuit would likely not hold up.

I've always believed the players should have gone on strike in order to secure Guaranteed Contracts, medical coverage when playing days end, and better pensions. Of course players need honor and play within the rules of the contract. However, the current contracts of cutting players due to injuries sustained on field while doing their jobs or Teams just saying they won't pay the last last couple of years remaining of players contract is not right.

The owners need to realize they are putting a violent-injury riddled entertaining product out on the field. And as such, short-term and long term medical benefits must be provided along with suitable pensions. Now of course, players should also be required to pay into long term/short term medical and pensions as well.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-22-2011, 10:29 AM
I've always believed the players should have gone on strike in order to secure Guaranteed Contracts, medical coverage when playing days end, and better pensions. Of course players need honor and play within the rules of the contract. However, the current contracts of cutting players due to injuries sustained on field while doing their jobs or Teams just saying they won't pay the last last couple of years remaining of players contract is not right.

The owners need to realize they are putting a violent-injury riddled entertaining product out on the field. And as such, short-term and long term medical benefits must be provided along with suitable pensions. Now of course, players should also be required to pay into long term/short term medical and pensions as well.

Players have to be medically cleared before they can be cut. I don't agree that they players aren't financially comenspated for the risk they take.

Would you take that risk for the league minimum? Why don't you ask Davii if he'd take that risk for the league minimum?

BroncoJoe
05-22-2011, 10:47 AM
The NFL isn't socialism. Players choose to play and fully understand the risks.

Npba900
05-22-2011, 10:47 AM
Got to remember lots of the players are high level morons. They do not have a clue about how to run a business and why 80% of them are flat broke within two years of leaving the game. Or maybe it is five years.

But to have guaranteed million in some cases to zip. In a heart beat tells me they will listen to any tripe this "LAYWER" says.

I remember the first time I heard a union rep talk I was on board till I has a chance to analyze it.

Remember talk is cheap. They will listen to him until they miss a couple of game day checks. Then they wiLL get smart.

You cannot ignore the fact of the power of the NFL owners. They have the power to collude together as a billionaire corporate conglomerate along with their high priced corporate lawyers to not only lock out the players, but lockout the fans as well. Such is the power of Corporate Monopolies.

Make no doubt about it.....THE NFL IS CORPORATE MONOPOLY!!!!!

Npba900
05-22-2011, 10:49 AM
The NFL isn't based on socialism. Players choose to play and fully understand the risks.

Owners also know the risk of becoming NFL owners.....as they are learning the realities during this lock out!!!!! Kinda of rough to listen to billionaire owners sitting in their luxury boxes.....crying the poor house song!!!

Npba900
05-22-2011, 10:56 AM
Players have to be medically cleared before they can be cut. I don't agree that they players aren't financially comenspated for the risk they take.

Would you take that risk for the league minimum? Why don't you ask Davii if he'd take that risk for the league minimum?

How much risk do the owners take? Really, when was the last time you ever heard of an NFL losing their franchise??? Yet you constantly hear about players careers cut short due to injuries and not getting paid their full contracts during the last 3 or 4 years when they really have a chance to earn what the contract was agreed upon???

Remember, owners can own a team for 35-45 years (unless an untimely death) and are NEVER in danger of loosing their franchise. So again I ask exactly what risk are the owners taking???

hamrob
05-22-2011, 11:27 AM
I've always thought it's interesting when you look at the age of most players who are leading the players efforts. Most of them are at the end of their careers. What about the young guys...they stand to lose the most by not playing.

I can't see how anyone would be on the side of the players or DeSmith. Yes, the NFL screwed up in 2006...but, when do employees ever get 50-60% of the pie? How would normal companies be able to reinvest in people, equipment and new business when their labor costs wer inflated like that? It's ridiculous.

The NFL pays its players a more than fair rate (many are millionaires). It also gives them the oppurtunity to become a star. Look at the endorsement money these guys get on top of their salaries. But, they want more...they think they should get what the owner get. The hell with them. I'd rather scrap them all starting with Manning, Brady and Brees!

SR
05-22-2011, 11:33 AM
Players have to be medically cleared before they can be cut. I don't agree that they players aren't financially comenspated for the risk they take.

Would you take that risk for the league minimum? Why don't you ask Davii if he'd take that risk for the league minimum?
I'm sure he would. As would I. The league minimum is about ten times what I make in a year, if not more.

Softskull
05-22-2011, 11:46 AM
I've always thought it's interesting when you look at the age of most players who are leading the players efforts. Most of them are at the end of their careers. What about the young guys...they stand to lose the most by not playing.

I can't see how anyone would be on the side of the players or DeSmith. Yes, the NFL screwed up in 2006...but, when do employees ever get 50-60% of the pie? How would normal companies be able to reinvest in people, equipment and new business when their labor costs wer inflated like that? It's ridiculous.

The NFL pays its players a more than fair rate (many are millionaires). It also gives them the oppurtunity to become a star. Look at the endorsement money these guys get on top of their salaries. But, they want more...they think they should get what the owner get. The hell with them. I'd rather scrap them all starting with Manning, Brady and Brees!

I hear ya, but see it a bit differently. As a business owner, my biggest expense every year is payroll. Being in a niche market, I have to pay a bit more for my guys and offer more benefits. But the NFL isn't like most businesses. They're more like the entertainment industry. There is a limited supply of NFL caliber players (watch Canadian football for reference). I'm paying top dollar to see great performers. I'm not paying for the stadium or for lunch with the owner. I want to see Champ Bailey covering Calvin Johnson, not some second rate version.

In most businesses, the employees provide the product. In the NFL, the players are the product. I'm going to a concert in June to see my favorite performer. The venue is great, the promoter is fine, but the product is the musician. I have no problem with him being the financial benefactor of my ticket cost (I suspect that is the case). The same can be said for Champ Bailey et al.

Npba900
05-22-2011, 11:57 AM
I'm sure he would. As would I. The league minimum is about ten times what I make in a year, if not more.

What you earn and what an NFL players earns is comparing apples to oranges! You don't have the athletic talent to play in the NFL or you would already be in the NFL. Also, NFL players belong to a union and through collective bargaining over the years even the once lowly paid players have seen their salaries increased. The career field you selected does not allow unions nor collective bargaining and aircraft maintenance workers isn't as sexy and exciting as playing in the NFL. That's the reality.

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 12:19 PM
However, the current contracts of cutting players due to injuries sustained on field while doing their jobs.An NFL team cannot cut a player who suffers an injury while engaged in team football activities (i.e. OTA, mini camps, training camps, practice or a game). The team either has to place the player onto the IR and keep paying him or negotiate a "buyout" with the player. Once the actual injury and any resulting surgery has healed, then I believe the team can cut the player if the team doesn't feel the player can help the team any more.


Teams just saying they won't pay the last last couple of years remaining of players contract is not right.NFL teams do essentially guarantee most contracts via the "signing bonus". In most NFL player contracts, the last several years are never expected to be "honored" and are only included to inflate the length and amount of the contract for the agent's benefit. In those situations, most NFL experts say the contract is potentially for x number of years but realistically is a y year contract.


The owners need to realize they are putting a violent-injury riddled entertaining product out on the field. And as such, short-term and long term medical benefits must be provided along with suitable pensions. Now of course, players should also be required to pay into long term/short term medical and pensions as well.The short and long-term medical benefits are negotiated by the NFLPA. The reason they are not better is because the NFLPA has focused on negotiating better deals for the present and future active players at the expense of the present and future retired players.;)

Tned
05-22-2011, 12:23 PM
Guys, tread carefully and don't drag old politics forum arguments into this discussion.

Npba900
05-22-2011, 12:34 PM
An NFL team cannot cut a player who suffers an injury while engaged in team football activities (i.e. OTA, mini camps, training camps, practice or a game). The team either has to place the player onto the IR and keep paying him or negotiate a "buyout" with the player. Once the actual injury and any resulting surgery has healed, then I believe the team can cut the player if the team doesn't feel the player can help the team any more.



NFL teams do essentially guarantee most contracts via the "signing bonus". In most NFL player contracts, the last several years are never expected to be "honored" and are only included to inflate the length and amount of the contract for the agent's benefit. In those situations, most NFL experts say the contract is potentially for x number of years but realistically is a y year contract.

The short and long-term medical benefits are negotiated by the NFLPA. The reason they are not better is because the NFLPA has focused on negotiating better deals for the present and future active players at the expense of the present and future retired players.;)

I understand how the NFL's current contracts are structured. However, the NFL contracts should be structured as a player negotiates and signs a deal for 6 years and $36 million (signing bonus included), the teams should have to honor the contract and pay the full contract. There shouldn't be any buyouts etc., a deal is deal.

These contracts we currently see today are the benefit of the owner.

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Guys, tread carefully and don't drag old politics forum arguments into this discussion.What?:confused:

Who are you directing this comment towards Tned?:confused:

Tned
05-22-2011, 12:56 PM
What?:confused:

Who are you directing this comment towards Tned?:confused:

Those bringing their socialism vs. Corpatism and pro-union/anti-union arguments from the politics forum to here. Those who it applies to know who they are.

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 01:10 PM
I understand how the NFL's current contracts are structured. However, the NFL contracts should be structured as a player negotiates and signs a deal for 6 years and $36 million (signing bonus included), the teams should have to honor the contract and pay the full contract. There shouldn't be any buyouts etc., a deal is deal.So explain to me what is wrong with and how what you propose is really different from your hypothetical player receiving the following:

a 10 year contract with a potential total value of 76 million, but with a guaranteed signing bonus, roster and workout bonuses and salaries that equal $36 million over 6 years and $40 million over the last 4 years of the contract, which NO ONE EXPECTS the player to receive.:confused:

To me there is NO difference and the player gets the same amount of "guaranteed" money.


These contracts we currently see today are the benefit of the owner.:lol: that you make such a broad and general over-statement.

Some contracts benefit the owners and some benefit the players. The contracts and signing bonuses of Sam Bradford, Matt Stafford, JaMarcus Russell and Albert Haynesworth are just a few of the contracts that benefited the player(s) NOT the owners.;)

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 01:12 PM
Those bringing their socialism vs. Corpatism and pro-union/anti-union arguments from the politics forum to here. Those who it applies to know who they are.Oh okay, well that clears up that your comment wasn't aimed at me.:D

Denver Native (Carol)
05-22-2011, 01:22 PM
I understand how the NFL's current contracts are structured. However, the NFL contracts should be structured as a player negotiates and signs a deal for 6 years and $36 million (signing bonus included), the teams should have to honor the contract and pay the full contract. There shouldn't be any buyouts etc., a deal is deal.

These contracts we currently see today are the benefit of the owner.

Guess I have never heard of a buyout of a player's contract. I know when they get traded, their contract goes with them to the new team.

AND - you have this player, who was drafted by the 49'ers in 2009, who informed the 49'ers during last year's training camp that he was done. So, the 49'ers wasted a 3rd round draft choice on this player.


Coffee played only one season in San Francisco before informing former 49ers coach Mike Singletary during last year's training camp that he was done.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ff03b4/article/ex49er-coffee-nfl-ruins-lives-but-id-return-if-lord-says-so

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 01:51 PM
Guess I have never heard of a buyout of a player's contract. I know when they get traded, their contract goes with them to the new team.My mistake, I used the term buyout instead of "injury settlement" which from my understanding is essentially the same but can actually benefit both the team and the player by (1) enabling the team to NOT place the player on season ending IR and (2) then allowing his former team or any team to sign him later that season if or when he is healed and able to play again.

SoCalImport
05-22-2011, 02:12 PM
nothing to add atm but just wanted to say. Great Thread! :)
Thoroughly enjoyed reading

FanInAZ
05-22-2011, 02:18 PM
You cannot ignore the fact of the power of the NFL owners. They have the power to collude together as a billionaire corporate conglomerate along with their high priced corporate lawyers to not only lock out the players, but lockout the fans as well. Such is the power of Corporate Monopolies.

Make no doubt about it.....THE NFL IS CORPORATE MONOPOLY!!!!!

If the player would stop wasting their money on dope and hookers, as well as stop having children out of wedlock for whom they have to pay child support, they would have just as much money at their disposal as the owners.

Denver Native (Carol)
05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
My mistake, I used the term buyout instead of "injury settlement" which from my understanding is essentially the same but can actually benefit both the team and the player by (1) enabling the team to NOT place the player on season ending IR and (2) then allowing his former team or any team to sign him later that season if or when he is healed and able to play again.

I am still not understanding - found the following, which is an 2008 article, but, unless it is one of the changes the NFL owners are proposing, it still should be in effect - if there is EVER a new CBA in place.


WHAT IF A PLAYER GETS HURT?

When Cadillac Williams went down with a torn patellar tendon last year the paychecks kept coming. It's the same for any player injured in the line of duty - be it a game, a practice, even the workout room. The standard player contract calls for all injured players, even those such as Williams, who was eventually placed on injured reserve last year, to be paid in full through the end of the season in which they are injured. Williams, still recovering from his injury, will be paid as long as he's part of the team and under contract.

Players injured during training camp continue to be compensated as well, but such a player who is subsequently released can file a grievance against the club with the Players Association, up to 25 days from the termination date. To avoid a months-long grievance process, teams often reach injury settlements with players injured during training camp.

Breaking Down An NFL Contract - http://beta2.tbo.com/sports/sports/2008/jul/21/sp-nfl-contract-breaking-down-an-making-sense-of-d-ar-148136/

MNPatsFan
05-22-2011, 02:46 PM
I am still not understanding - found the following, which is an 2008 article, but, unless it is one of the changes the NFL owners are proposing, it still should be in effect - if there is EVER a new CBA in place.



Breaking Down An NFL Contract - http://beta2.tbo.com/sports/sports/2008/jul/21/sp-nfl-contract-breaking-down-an-making-sense-of-d-ar-148136/Carol, I found these which might be helpful:


* Injury Settlement: occasionally a team has a player on IR but agrees with that player to a cash settlement in exchange for releasing that player. The team benefits by limiting further financial responsibility and player carrying costs while the player benefits both by receiving cash and by becoming eligible to sign with another team and begin playing as soon as physically capable (perhaps even during the same season)

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=149&f=1764&t=1186834

and


No, a team does not have to keep the injured player and may release him. In order to release a player, the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article XII (Injury Protection), stipulates that an Injury Settlement with the player must be reached prior to his release.

Section 2 of Article XII says:

"Section 2. Benefit: A player qualifying under Section 1 above will receive an amount equal to 50% of his contract salary for the season following the season of injury, up to a maximum payment of $275,000, if he is released pursuant to Section 1(c) above in the 2006-08 League Years unless he has individually negotiated more injury protection or a larger guaranteed salary into his contract. This amount shall be increased to $300,000 in the 2009 League Year and, if they are Uncapped Years, in the 2010-11 League Years; to $325,000 in the 2010-11 League Years, if they are Capped Years; and to $350,000 in the 2012 League Year. A player will receive no amount of any contract covering any season subsequent to the season following the season of injury, except if he has individually negotiated injury protection into that contract. The benefit will be paid to the player in equal weekly installments commencing no later than the date of the first regular season game, which benefit payments will cease if the player signs a contract for that season with another Club. A player will not be entitled to such benefit more than once during his playing career in the NFL, and such benefit shall be reduced by any salary guaranteed to the player for the season following the season of injury."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_a_player_has_a_multi_year_contract_in_the_NFL_a nd_sustains_an_injury_that_will_keep_him_from_play ing_longer_than_1_year_must_a_team_pay_him_until_h e_has_recovered_even_if_they_want_to_release_him#i xzz1N719gtCP


Of course a key part of an injury settlement is that the player and team both negotiate and agree to it. The player is not required to agree to anything and then would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the above quoted provision(s).

Lonestar
05-22-2011, 03:20 PM
You cannot ignore the fact of the power of the NFL owners. They have the power to collude together as a billionaire corporate conglomerate along with their high priced corporate lawyers to not only lock out the players, but lockout the fans as well. Such is the power of Corporate Monopolies.

Make no doubt about it.....THE NFL IS CORPORATE MONOPOLY!!!!!
I think you missed your calling back in the 60's as a hippie.

The NFL is not a monopoly there is the cfl and arena football.

There ia nothing in the constitution stating that a moron has to be employed. Or that he should get millions to play that game.

Denver Native (Carol)
05-22-2011, 03:27 PM
Carol, I found these which might be helpful:



http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=149&f=1764&t=1186834

and



Of course a key part of an injury settlement is that the player and team both negotiate and agree to it. The player is not required to agree to anything and then would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the above quoted provision(s).

This is what the owners are now proposing:


3. After a player is injured, the NFL would guarantee that they would pay up to $1 milllion of that player's salary for the contract year. This is the first time that the owners have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/3/12/2046444/a-summary-of-the-nfls-proposal-to-the-nflpa

SoCalImport
05-22-2011, 03:45 PM
I think you missed your calling back in the 60's as a hippie.

The NFL is not a monopoly there is the cfl and arena football.

There ia nothing in the constitution stating that a moron has to be employed. Or that he should get millions to play that game.

You must have a pretty broad definition of "hippy".

You do have a great point there. Fans and (most importantly) Players can't ignore the existence of these other professional football leagues when it comes to this discussion.

Lonestar
05-22-2011, 04:19 PM
You must have a pretty broad definition of "hippy".

You do have a great point there. Fans and (most importantly) Players can't ignore the existence of these other professional football leagues when it comes to this discussion.

Not only football but basketball, baseball. most of these morons are bhret athletes and have played one or more of these other sports.

They made q xoncois effort and decision to go into football and most notably the NFL. They knew the rules when they declared for the draft some of them did so before they got their degree or completed their obligations to the college that gave them a scholarship and feed and housed them.

I have zero symphony for any of them all or most of the are free and over the age of 21 and signed contracts they knew were not guaranteed in toto.

For the most pArt they have the ability to make more money than almost any one else coming out of college and they Chios WTO blows it on bling, cars , booze,drugs and houses/boats etc. Instead of investing part of it for the future.

A fool and his money will soon be parted.

As for the hippie remark it should have read commie hippie.

No one is guaranteed anything in life the billionaires earned the money to buy the franchise.

When one of these morons does the same I might respect them also.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-23-2011, 11:10 PM
How much risk do the owners take? Really, when was the last time you ever heard of an NFL losing their franchise??? Yet you constantly hear about players careers cut short due to injuries and not getting paid their full contracts during the last 3 or 4 years when they really have a chance to earn what the contract was agreed upon???

Remember, owners can own a team for 35-45 years (unless an untimely death) and are NEVER in danger of loosing their franchise. So again I ask exactly what risk are the owners taking???

That is an illogical argument.

The players are EMPLOYEES, of course they have more risk.

Just to test out the practicality of your argument, the next time you apply for a job tell the manager you're not taking it unless the owner takes on as much risk as you.

Football is not some Marxist ideology that exists in fantasy land.


Additionally, if the players get what they want, then in the next 5 years there is definitely some risk owners could lose their franchises. The competitive balance of what we see now would be changed. It would be reminiscent of the 80's and early 90's when the Broncos couldn't afford to keep up with other larger market teams, except the effects would be more far reaching and catastrophic.

This isn't about picking out a social group to root for. This is about whether or not the current business model is sustainable in current economic conditions. Guess what, it's not....why is that so hard for some people to understand?

arapaho2
05-24-2011, 11:06 AM
I understand how the NFL's current contracts are structured. However, the NFL contracts should be structured as a player negotiates and signs a deal for 6 years and $36 million (signing bonus included), the teams should have to honor the contract and pay the full contract. There shouldn't be any buyouts etc., a deal is deal.

These contracts we currently see today are the benefit of the owner.


yeah...ol al davis sure benefitted from his last 1st overall qb's contract didnt he

or BOWLEN benefitted from darrel gardners contract...right?

Npba900
05-24-2011, 11:29 AM
I think you missed your calling back in the 60's as a hippie.

The NFL is not a monopoly there is the cfl and arena football.

There ia nothing in the constitution stating that a moron has to be employed. Or that he should get millions to play that game.

Come on Lonestar.....why the leap to name calling? Point is, where does it say in the constitution that moron corporate billioniares can earn profits without regard with fair compensation for those who helped earn the profits and wealth. By the way you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the Billionaire Corporate entities that make up 32 teams with non-corporate arena league sandlot football and the lowly talented CFL Football league.

Npba900
05-24-2011, 11:36 AM
yeah...ol al davis sure benefitted from his last 1st overall qb's contract didnt he

or BOWLEN benefitted from darrel gardners contract...right?

Those are all aberations wouldn't you agree? Besides, those two players you are speaking of didn't fullfill their contract agreement.....correct!

Point is so long as players fullfill their contracts the owners should pay the contract in full. The owners should have to pay in full if players have attitudes detrimental to the team or off-the field legal issues and behaviors.

If a player signs for 6 years at $48 million dollars the owner should be expected to pay the contract in full. Meaning the player should earn 8 million dollars over the next 6 years.

Npba900
05-24-2011, 11:49 AM
So explain to me what is wrong with and how what you propose is really different from your hypothetical player receiving the following:

a 10 year contract with a potential total value of 76 million, but with a guaranteed signing bonus, roster and workout bonuses and salaries that equal $36 million over 6 years and $40 million over the last 4 years of the contract, which NO ONE EXPECTS the player to receive.:confused:

To me there is NO difference and the player gets the same amount of "guaranteed" money.

:lol: that you make such a broad and general over-statement.

Some contracts benefit the owners and some benefit the players. The contracts and signing bonuses of Sam Bradford, Matt Stafford, JaMarcus Russell and Albert Haynesworth are just a few of the contracts that benefited the player(s) NOT the owners.;)

Russell, Bradford, Stafford, and Haynesworth are really aberations and its not seen as what happens with the vast majority of players when you look at how contracts are written. The 22 starters on both sides of the ball do not receive signing bonuses as the 4 players you mentioned.

Other than guaranteed signing bonuses players seldom see the full contract full filled. The first 3 years of the contract is rather low to fit under salary cap and of course the last 3 years of a 6 year contract when the salary really increases the players seldom if ever are paid in full. The owners already know they do not have to pay the last 3 years of a 6 year contract and a certain percentage of the last 3 years of a 6 year contract will return to the owners.

MNPatsFan
05-24-2011, 12:17 PM
Russell, Bradford, Stafford, and Haynesworth are really aberations and its not seen as what happens with the vast majority of players when you look at how contracts are written. The 22 starters on both sides of the ball do not receive signing bonuses as the 4 players you mentioned.They may not receive signing bonuses of that size, but they all receive guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses, roster bonuses, workout incentive bonuses/payments, etc.


Other than guaranteed signing bonuses players seldom see the full contract full filled.That isn't true. Usually the team and player agree upon a certain "guaranteed" total compensation in the form of a signing bonus, roster bonuses, workout incentive clauses, etc. and that will be paid out over a certain number of years. The player and team, however, usually add "dummy" years at the end of the contract with a HUGE annual salary, which both the player and team know will never be paid, in order to spread the signing bonus out over a longer period of time and produce a lower salary cap hit to the team in the early years of the contract.


The first 3 years of the contract is rather low to fit under salary cap and of course the last 3 years of a 6 year contract when the salary really increases the players seldom if ever are paid in full.See my response immediately above. You conveniently ignore or overlook the fact that in most situations the player knew when he and his agent agreed to the contract that he would NEVER be paid the salary called for in the last or "dummy" year(s) of the contract because they were ONLY included for salary cap relief purposes and to inflate the purported amount of the "total" contract so the agent can use that when soliciting new clients.


The owners already know they do not have to pay the last 3 years of a 6 year contractUsually the player and his agent also know this when the contract is negotiated and signed.


and a certain percentage of the last 3 years of a 6 year contract will return to the owners.Doesn't return to the owner because it was never paid or intended to be paid to the player.

Npba900
05-24-2011, 03:11 PM
They may not receive signing bonuses of that size, but they all receive guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses, roster bonuses, workout incentive bonuses/payments, etc.

That isn't true. Usually the team and player agree upon a certain "guaranteed" total compensation in the form of a signing bonus, roster bonuses, workout incentive clauses, etc. and that will be paid out over a certain number of years. The player and team, however, usually add "dummy" years at the end of the contract with a HUGE annual salary, which both the player and team know will never be paid, in order to spread the signing bonus out over a longer period of time and produce a lower salary cap hit to the team in the early years of the contract.

See my response immediately above. You conveniently ignore or overlook the fact that in most situations the player knew when he and his agent agreed to the contract that he would NEVER be paid the salary called for in the last or "dummy" year(s) of the contract because they were ONLY included for salary cap relief purposes and to inflate the purported amount of the "total" contract so the agent can use that when soliciting new clients.

Usually the player and his agent also know this when the contract is negotiated and signed.

Doesn't return to the owner because it was never paid or intended to be paid to the player.

Those are fair arguments. However, those dummy years as you referred to should be paid. If not in full, the players should still received at least 50% of the last remaining years of the contract, or spread the payments out over a longer period of years. I doubt a player/agent really has a fair determination of how the contract is drawn up. Don't get me wrong young players for the most part just want to get the deal overwith without considering the long term disadvantages of their contract. I'd like to see the players have guaranteed contracts like baseball and the NFL....with contengencies and stipulations attached.

rcsodak
05-24-2011, 04:35 PM
Got to remember lots of the players are high level morons. They do not have a clue about how to run a business and why 80% of them are flat broke within two years of leaving the game. Or maybe it is five years.

But to have guaranteed million in some cases to zip. In a heart beat tells me they will listen to any tripe this "LAYWER" says.

I remember the first time I heard a union rep talk I was on board till I has a chance to analyze it.

Remember talk is cheap. They will listen to him until they miss a couple of game day checks. Then they wiLL get smart.

60% after 3yrs.

rcsodak
05-24-2011, 04:39 PM
I've always believed the players should have gone on strike in order to secure Guaranteed Contracts, medical coverage when playing days end, and better pensions. Of course players need honor and play within the rules of the contract. However, the current contracts of cutting players due to injuries sustained on field while doing their jobs or Teams just saying they won't pay the last last couple of years remaining of players contract is not right.

The owners need to realize they are putting a violent-injury riddled entertaining product out on the field. And as such, short-term and long term medical benefits must be provided along with suitable pensions. Now of course, players should also be required to pay into long term/short term medical and pensions as well.
Sounds almost cradle to grave. They WANTED to play football. Ask any of them, and they say they KNEW the risks. And of course, they also know the reward. MILLION$

rcsodak
05-24-2011, 05:10 PM
They may not receive signing bonuses of that size, but they all receive guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses, roster bonuses, workout incentive bonuses/payments, etc.

That isn't true. Usually the team and player agree upon a certain "guaranteed" total compensation in the form of a signing bonus, roster bonuses, workout incentive clauses, etc. and that will be paid out over a certain number of years. The player and team, however, usually add "dummy" years at the end of the contract with a HUGE annual salary, which both the player and team know will never be paid, in order to spread the signing bonus out over a longer period of time and produce a lower salary cap hit to the team in the early years of the contract.

See my response immediately above. You conveniently ignore or overlook the fact that in most situations the player knew when he and his agent agreed to the contract that he would NEVER be paid the salary called for in the last or "dummy" year(s) of the contract because they were ONLY included for salary cap relief purposes and to inflate the purported amount of the "total" contract so the agent can use that when soliciting new clients.

Usually the player and his agent also know this when the contract is negotiated and signed.

Doesn't return to the owner because it was never paid or intended to be paid to the player.

Actually, unless the player is cut, there's a high probability he sees most if not all of the money (see champ).
the contract will get reworked, with a large portion becoming a signing bonus, so it again lowers the cap footprint.

Practice squad>up to 3yrs-$89k/yr

What's the nfl min? $350k/yr? Over 20wks?

Free medical? Full pension after what, 4yrs?

Poor ******* babies

rcsodak
05-24-2011, 05:15 PM
Those are fair arguments. However, those dummy years as you referred to should be paid. If not in full, the players should still received at least 50% of the last remaining years of the contract, or spread the payments out over a longer period of years. I doubt a player/agent really has a fair determination of how the contract is drawn up. Don't get me wrong young players for the most part just want to get the deal overwith without considering the long term disadvantages of their contract. I'd like to see the players have guaranteed contracts like baseball and the NFL....with contengencies and stipulations attached.

I can only assume you meant NBA.

And tell me.....just how are those two leagues doing, these days. Mets? Dodgers? Golden State? :rolleyes:

Good ol' guarantees...... only guarantees that SOMEBODY's getting screwed....like the team.

Ravage!!!
05-24-2011, 05:22 PM
T I'd like to see the players have guaranteed contracts like baseball and the NFL....with contengencies and stipulations attached.

I hope that this doesn't happen. Baseball and the NBA have 160 games to pull income from. The NFL has 16. THere is a reason that football is absolutely BOOMING in comparison to the NBA (TV ratings are MUCH MUCH bigger to watch the NFL draft than they are NBA playoff games). There is a reason that the NHL basically went bust a few years back. Baseball is at an all-time low, and they still have to pay out 100 million dollar contracts.

The LAST thing the NFL wants to do is copy any of these leagues.

Npba900
05-25-2011, 06:59 AM
Sounds almost cradle to grave. They WANTED to play football. Ask any of them, and they say they KNEW the risks. And of course, they also know the reward. MILLION$

You can argue the owners have a craddle to grave set up themselves with being able to own their franchises with little risk of loosing the franchise over their lifetime. I can't remember any NFL owner in recent memory who lost their franchise due to financial reasons due to paying/compensating NFL players. Ask any of the owners as well, they knew the risk rewards of becoming NFL owners. The owners knew that the rewards would be in the billions. The players want their millions and the owners want their billions.

Npba900
05-25-2011, 07:09 AM
I hope that this doesn't happen. Baseball and the NBA have 160 games to pull income from. The NFL has 16. THere is a reason that football is absolutely BOOMING in comparison to the NBA (TV ratings are MUCH MUCH bigger to watch the NFL draft than they are NBA playoff games). There is a reason that the NHL basically went bust a few years back. Baseball is at an all-time low, and they still have to pay out 100 million dollar contracts.

The LAST thing the NFL wants to do is copy any of these leagues.

I think the popularity of the NFL could be on the down slide in terms of if the owners continue to play the corporate hard line---which is well within their rights, however its does not mean the strife between players and owners are over.

The players could still start the season by giving into owners demands, yet still reserve their rights of leverage by striking before the playoffs start or even boycotting and not playing in the Super Bowl. Imagine the fall-out from the owners and fans.....the players would simple say the NFL is a business. The owners CBS, NBC, FOX etc would loose billions and the players would loose millions, however the aftermath impact would be long term.

Do not underestimate the players feelings and mistrust towards the owners and likewise from the owners. The players in NFL could even goe far as to publically ignore ownership and absolutely not recognize the owners for successes of the overall team should the teams make the playoffs or Super Bowl, let alone win.

Imagine the players during interviews after having won their division or conference title or even the Super Bowl just giving credit and praise for themselves and coaches while ignoring the owners of teams. Then when the owners try to get in on the celebration of hoisting the championship trophy's the players in unionison turn their backs and stop their own jubilation until the owner(s) get the message and simple leave room. This will definitely set a bad prescedence between millionaire players sending a message to billionaire owners that they can't be controlled and must be reckoned with. When the season starts the players can return the "Lockout favor" by simple locking out the owners mentally and publically.

This is why a healthy financial compromise from both sides needs to get done.

Npba900
05-25-2011, 07:20 AM
I can only assume you meant NBA.

And tell me.....just how are those two leagues doing, these days. Mets? Dodgers? Golden State? :rolleyes:

Good ol' guarantees...... only guarantees that SOMEBODY's getting screwed....like the team.

Last I checked those teams are still in business. Also, we fans need to realize once the players are screwed....they are screwed; especally when you consider the short careers players have. Whereas the owners can own their teams for 35-45 years and still make huge profits.:rolleyes:

Remember professional team ownership has not gone out of business because they have paid their players way too much money!!!!

The players don't want to destroy the goose the lays the golden eggs (as in owners), while the owners staunchly believe it is they themselves who lays the golden eggs and to hell with the players. Point is the Players beg to differ.