Skip to main content

Maybe new school football is more adaptable to this, but I’m worried this is going to show up on the field...specifically in things like tackling and fumbling. That’s a big reduction.

So I am a little behind on the CBA discussion.  So if they agree to go to a 17 game season how do they handle the schedule?  I would imagine the teams/players won't be incredibly happy with some teams getting 9 home games and some only getting 8.  How are they handling that?

CoPackFan posted:
Leroy says:
 
leroy butler
 
@leap36
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. 

https://sportsnaut.com/2020/02...-less-for-17th-game/

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.

Regardless of financial side, I just think number of regular season games should not exceed 16 games.  More than that is just too much and tells me the league doesn't give a crap about the health of its players.

16 games....12 play-off teams just worked too well.

The NFUL will just hire more gladiators once they kill this batch.

The league has peaked, hence the 10 year deal....by the end of it, we'll all be watching Liverpool.

Last edited by Blair Kiel
Last edited by packerboi

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

The players really needed to hold out for lifetime health care. Instead, a lot of the minimum guys will vote for this to get the extra 100K a year. That extra 300K (for an average 3 year career - more like 180K after taxes) will be gone with the first knee surgery they have without health insurance, let alone anything really serious. 

How much effort do you put into negotiating a health care package if you believe there is a better than even chance that the US will have adopted some form of universal health care before the end of the contract?

Last edited by antooo

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

Maybe they already know the vote that is coming:

 

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. 

 

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."

https://www.playsmartplaysafe....source/nfl-benefits/

Boris posted:
MichiganPacker2 posted:

There's a reason these guys are billionaires. 

 

Yeah. It's called stepping on people to get to the top. Same as it ever was. 

Per Bruce,

poor man wants to be rich

rich man wants to be king

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."

https://www.playsmartplaysafe....source/nfl-benefits/

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
Pikes Peak posted:
Boris posted:
MichiganPacker2 posted:

There's a reason these guys are billionaires. 

 

Yeah. It's called stepping on people to get to the top. Same as it ever was. 

Per Bruce,

poor man wants to be rich

rich man wants to be king

per Dylan,

steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king

Pakrz posted:
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."

https://www.playsmartplaysafe....source/nfl-benefits/

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.  

My frame of reference is California Highway Patrol, and Cal Fire of which I know a few guys who get their retirement healthcare and it is complete and total. My assumption was it was equally as outstanding in other states...my bad. 

My mentor (he's 75) his a Vietnam era vet and has his misgivings about the VA, but has always said he's never had to wait too long from care and it was way better than the insurance he had under his wife's plan.

I may have overstated the overall quality of the care for those two groups, but it is far and away better than anything the NFL veterans get. We are talking about guys who basically have PTSD level brain injuries that can't get the care they need.

Guys with brain injuries killing themselves a couple years ago seemed to garner some momentum, but that has waned. Yes, there is assumed risk from playing football, but it's not like the owners can't step up and make it right. Those fuckers print money. 

This whole debate is too funny.  To say NFL players deserve free lifetime health care and yet the push is on to take away lifetime health care for Congressmen, Senators, Federal Judges, Etc.  Who is really more important to the country?   Let's get real here. 

ammo posted:

This whole debate is too funny.  To say NFL players deserve free lifetime health care and yet the push is on to take away lifetime health care for Congressmen, Senators, Federal Judges, Etc.  Who is really more important to the country?   Let's get real here. 

It's not about who is more important, it's about who has a greater risk of long term chronic health issues. I don't hear about politicians lives being wrecked by  carpal tunnel syndrome.

That said, I wouldn't personally push for removing life-time health care from congressman, senators, etc.

PackerPatrick posted:

I really don’t much care about how much they make or don’t make. However, I do have some concerns about the players long term health.

Especially when traumatic brain injuries could make them a danger to themselves or others (like Junior Seau, Chris Benoit, etc.).

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×