CoPackFan posted:
Leroy says:
leroy butler
I agree with and and vote no! Until more changes are made

Some powerful no votes coming out on the CBA


There are a lot of reasons for the players to hold our for more, but the dumbest thing the owners did was the say they were going to cap salaries for the extra game to $250,000. In other words, anyone already contract making over 4 million  a year would be in some respects taking a pay cut to play an extra game. Rodgers and Wilson make about 30-32 million a year (2 million dollars a game). Instead of just prorating the contract on a game by game basis, they want them to take a 80-90% paycut and play that 17th game for 250K instead of 2 million. With the average payrolls the way they are 10-12 guys that would be taking paycuts on a game by game basis and the owners would just pocket that extra 12-15 million a game (400-450 million league wide)? That doesn't make any sense if you are trying to bargain in good faith.

Lifetime healthcare the instant you are drafted. 
lifetime healthcare for UDFA after 3 years on same roster. 
Lifetime healthcare for practice squad members after 5 years regardless of roster. 

Play 1 active game in MLB you have health coverage for life. One fucking AB. 

But the NFL is dicking around over health coverage. Fuck NFL owners. Ridley Scott was fucking spot on 26 years ago when he portrayed a decorated General (college/ draft) reduced to common gladiator.

Are you not entertained?

While I get Aaron's beef, he's by far the exception and not the rule.  And why his concerns are almost certain to fall on deaf ears with the vast majority of players.

I see what you are saying, PBoi, but then it's those players getting an increase, but allowing the owners even more control and money.  Not much different than my bargaining unit getting the State of MN to give us a mild step increase in salary but now being told that due to the State Budget, our MN State Colleges and Universities are going to likely be forced to cut staff.  So yay, I got about a $50 per check increase, only to probably be cut down to 80% FTE (best case scenario) once the summer gets here.

Former GB Packer JC Tretter is laying out (what sounds like) reasons to vote no. I still think it falls on deaf ears with the majority of players who want salary increases now. But I guess time will tell:


That second reply nails it "  Owners played this perfect. They controlled the narrative from start to end. They divided and conquered (highest paid vs lowest paid players). They made the "elites" look selfish. They knew the players weren't prepared to negotiate. Owners are billionaires for a reason."

17 games, odd number.    every other sport has even number regular games.

NBA-82                                                                                                                                     MLB-162                                                                                                                                 NHL-82                                                                                                                                    XFL-10                                                                                                                                      MLS-34                                                                                                                                     Premier-38

What 22-24 y/o ever thought about how great it would be to have free health care for life?  When I was that age if someone told me that I could have an extra $100,000/yr, I would have said yes in a heartbeat. 

Also, the league has never truly cared about the health of it's players except while they are playing. Why would it change now?  However, the benefits outweigh the risks.  What other job gives you a free college education with the opportunity to become a multimillionaire?  

Last edited by DocBenni

It looks like this will end up being a case where the obscenely wealthy (billionaire owners) essentially won by splitting the locker rooms between the wealthy superstar multi-millionaires (Rodgers, Wilson, JJ Watt) and the minimum level guys and the bottom half of the rosters making close to that. It looks like the only thing the owners are giving up of any value is to raise the minimum salary by 100-200K a year. That's what the rank and file is jumping at, and a lot of those guys last less than 2-3 years so they can't afford to lose money in a strike or a lockout. 

The owners get an extra game (where the guys with big contracts are going to paid less money), give up a minimum amount of revenue sharing, and get labor cost certainty to negotiate the next TV contract. They'll get this without giving really anything else up in terms of health care or perhaps putting money in a pool to support retired players to finish their Bachelors degrees or get graduate degrees. 

There's a reason these guys are billionaires. 


Chongo posted:

That vested NFL players don't get total lifetime healthcare is a joke.

Vested NFL alumni is a relatively small group, and the league makes BILLIONS. Veterans and first responders get outstanding healthcare in retirement because they are in high-risk jobs. NFL players should be afforded the same. Their current plan for vested players is a joke. Basically it's "better than nothing."


Disabled Veterans (I is one) get health care but I wouldn't exactly call it outstanding.  I'm also a first responder and my health care comes to a stop upon retirement in Wisconsin.  For the record, neither veterans nor first responders have the ability to make millions of dollars playing a game.  

Edit:  Veterans that actually do 20+ years and retire get pretty good healthcare through Tricare (I think that's what its called) though.  

Last edited by Pakrz