- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How bad is the NFL's current CBA for the players?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 7/26/13 at 12:57 pm
LINK
Just so I'm clear, NFLPA agreed to lower salaries for rookies, essentially forcing out older more expensive players, for retirement benefits?... Why would they agree to this?...
quote:
The biggest proof came last week when the publicly controlled Green Bay Packers released their annual financial statements. The Packers reported a team-record operating profit of $54.3 million for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2013, a 26 percent increase from the year before, according to the Sports Business Journal.
Even more eye-popping, the Packers’ net income in the two years before the CBA: $22.3 million. In the two seasons since: $85.8 million
Just so I'm clear, NFLPA agreed to lower salaries for rookies, essentially forcing out older more expensive players, for retirement benefits?... Why would they agree to this?...
This post was edited on 7/26/13 at 12:59 pm
7
Posted on 7/26/13 at 12:58 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Why would they agree to this?...
because it should also free up salary cap space for players to get paid more and set up a minimum salary cap for teams
Better benefits too:
quote:
To be fair, the players have better post-retirement benefits — medical care, pensions, transition programs, and more — under the new CBA. The creation of the $620 million Legacy Fund for pre-1993 players helped correct some mistakes of the past. Players also have a better quality of life, with a shorter offseason program, stricter guidelines on contact in practice, and the elimination of two-a-days in training camp.
you need more data than that to support the conclusion (doesn't mean it isn't true)
This post was edited on 7/26/13 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:01 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Why would they agree to this?
They had no leverage. You have to go back to about a year before the lockout. The argument then was big market owners like Jerry Jones not wanting to share as much revenue with the small market owners. There wasn't any mention of players making too much money. Then a year later all of the sudden players make too much money so we're locking them out, oh and by the way we might make them play 18 games a season too. The owners settled their internal dispute by stealing from the players because they could.
Billionaires STAAAACKED
Millionaires FUUUUUCKED
This post was edited on 7/26/13 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:04 pm to lowspark12
Wait, you mean the Packers made a bunch of money shortly after winning a superbowl? That hardly ever happens.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:05 pm to JG77056
quote:
Wait, you mean the Packers made a bunch of money shortly after winning a superbowl? That hardly ever happens.
so they're making more money now than they the seasons immediately following?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:06 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
because it should also free up salary cap space for players to get paid more and set up a minimum salary cap for teams
this, along with better pension and practice stuff, could've been included with a better split on revenue.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but another couple weeks and the players likely would've gotten a better deal... but as mentioned above.... Billionaires > Millionaires... their ability to hold out was greater, i guess.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 2:23 pm to lowspark12
quote:What about the other 31 teams?
The biggest proof came last week when the publicly controlled Green Bay Packers released their annual financial statements. The Packers reported a team-record operating profit of $54.3 million for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2013, a 26 percent increase from the year before, according to the Sports Business Journal.
Even more eye-popping, the Packers’ net income in the two years before the CBA: $22.3 million. In the two seasons since: $85.8 million
Posted on 7/26/13 at 2:32 pm to shel311
quote:
What about the other 31 teams?
it's my understanding that the packers are publicly owned, so their financials are reported each year... the other 31 franchises are not and don't make that info public.
could be wrong about that though.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 6:50 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Just so I'm clear, NFLPA agreed to lower salaries for rookies, essentially forcing out older more expensive players, for retirement benefits?.....
No the NFLPA agreed to lower the salaries of 1st rounders. The rookie scale as it applies to 2nd - 7th round picks and undrafted free agents remained largely the same.
In both the old and new CBA, the draft is still the place to find cheap talent.
Combined that with the owners agreeing to raise the salary floor, and eventually more money will flow to veterans.
The NFLPA got fricked in this new CBA but this area really wasnt an example of that.
The % of the revenue split between owners and players & Goodell keeping God like power are better examples.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 6:54 pm to lowspark12
It wouldnt be so bad if NFL owners didnt Blatantly collude like they do and did this offseason
Posted on 7/26/13 at 7:07 pm to lowspark12
quote:
know hindsight is 20/20, but another couple weeks and the players likely would've gotten a better dea
No they wouldn't have.. They got best deal they could have. Richardson was ready to recommend season long and he had the power for some reason in the lockout.
This post was edited on 7/26/13 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 7/26/13 at 7:30 pm to lowspark12
Didn't the Packers get most of that money from selling worthless stock certificates?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News