Darnell Dockett weighs in on a possible NFL lockout in 2011.

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

I've been saying for a while that the new CBA needs to include a rookie cap and expanded rosters.

But your 17 game schedule is new to me. And while I would prefer to just keep the 16 game schedule, I think your plan is a REALLY good compromise. On two fronts, actually, since it would solve the London issue and the 16/18 game schedule issue.

Nice post.

And btw, I can't stand Dockett, but he is making sense with these tweets. The players are screwed though. The NFL negotiated a TV deal that pays them next year whether or not there's games being played. So it there is a lock out the owners will still be making their money. And they KNOW the players aren't saving enough to hold out long. I respect Dockett (just a little) for trying to make other players realize the situation they're in. But I don't think it will work.

Read the book Field of Schemes. It will blow your mind as a sports fan.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

Moot point. The 49ers will have moved to LA by then.

I don't understand why some don't get it. The NFL will move a team like Jacksonville way before they move a team that still sells their games out, like the Niners. The Jags average like 25-30 for their games. That's the team you move.

I've told him this several times, but he doesn't get it. If Dallas Cowboys was his team, he would be trolling their board and telling them how they move to LA.

I think it will be tough to get any team to move to LA. Two teams have failed in that market, and it won't be easy to convince another owner to move to LA. I still think Oakland has the best shot at moving to LA. They have some history there, they still have some fans down there - and if LA can build a new stadium - Oakland have to be interested.

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

Moot point. The 49ers will have moved to LA by then.

I don't understand why some don't get it. The NFL will move a team like Jacksonville way before they move a team that still sells their games out, like the Niners. The Jags average like 25-30 for their games. That's the team you move.

I've told him this several times, but he doesn't get it. If Dallas Cowboys was his team, he would be trolling their board and telling them how they move to LA.

I think it will be tough to get any team to move to LA. Two teams have failed in that market, and it won't be easy to convince another owner to move to LA. I still think Oakland has the best shot at moving to LA. They have some history there, they still have some fans down there - and if LA can build a new stadium - Oakland have to be interested.

What about the Chargers? This season they have really struggled to sell out. My idea has been move them closer to LA or whatever and call them the So. Cal Chargers or something.

well, i hate the guy, but he's pretty right-on on this issue.

The NFL is going to leverage the recession against the players and turn the public against them by painting them as a bunch of whiny millionaires--all so that a bunch of billionaires can make even more money off of their labor.

Like it or not, the NFL Players deserve the amount of money they make.

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

________

The players wouldn't exist without owners to pay them and administrators who make them look like superstars. What you said is a weak argument that every single employee base could make in regard to their employer.

Players are good at one thing, playing football. Owners could literally find thousands of replacements if a player quits. You can't say the same with an owner. Owners, and their exec team, make s**t happen. Sorry to burst your bubble. That's capitalism. That's reality.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

________

The players wouldn't exist without owners to pay them and administrators who make them look like superstars. What you said is a weak argument that every single employee base could make in regard to their employer.

Players are good at one thing, playing football. Owners could literally find thousands of replacements if a player quits. You can't say the same with an owner. Owners, and their exec team, make s**t happen. Sorry to burst your bubble. That's capitalism. That's reality.

that's exactly true, but for some reason no one in this country will see that. For a country that demands jobs, jobs, jobs, why don't we want jobs where the workers are actually valued?

The sentiment against labor in this country is appallingly stupid.

And: capitalism is supposed to value the rare resource, yes? Athletic ability doesn't count?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810

The real battle is among the owners

Quote:
Revenue sharing fails to address the reality that some teams (such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals) have favorable stadium deals that call for little or no expenditures from the organization while other owners, such as Jones, Denver’s Pat Bowlen or the Green Bay Packers, took out massive loans for new or renovated stadiums. Thus, someone such as the Panthers’ Richardson might be forced to write an eight-figure check that subsidizes a peer such as the Bengals’ Mike Brown(notes), who is actually making a far greater profit because of his relatively low overhead. Further, there are owners who intentionally keep revenues low to maintain their spot in the NFL’s lower 17 and ensure that they’ll receive money under the current system. All of this is mystifying to the players, who believe the owners who are most averse to revenue sharing greet a potential work stoppage as an opportunity for prevailing in an internal struggle.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
I would laugh my ass off if there was a lock out in 2011 and they all went to the UFL.

Then I would cry myself to sleep in the feedle position.

...or attempt to make fun of Dockett's lack of writing skills?

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

the players have said they would agree with a rookie cap if the owners agree that the money they save from the rookie cap should go into paying vets and free agents. Of course the owners have already turned that down b/c they want to keep the money instead of spreading it to vets. so if they don't spread it around to vets salaries never increase and the owners win out big time over the long haul. i think they can come to an agreement on this issue. But the 18 game schedule might be the bigger problem if compensation is figured out.

Originally posted by 23zack80:
60% to players, 40% to owners. The NFL is nothing without the players, they put their lives on the line to make rich a*****es even richer. NFL athletes make great money but the owners make even more.

17 game schedule with every team playing an international game or in a city that has no NFL team such as L.A. as a "neutral" site game. Neutral site games would keep teams from losing a home game to London every year.

Rosters need to be expanded to at least 60 players, 50 active on gameday and a 5-10 man practice squad.

The draft needs to have a rookie cap. The money saved by the rookie cap should go towards free agency and increasing the rookie and veteran league minimums.

If that % was of Net Revenue I would have not problem. The current breakout is of Gross Revenue. Which means that Owners have to pay all of the non-player expenses (coaches, stadiums, and other costs) out of their 40%. The owners are not pocketing as much as everyone thinks. Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't cry for them as they are making a pretty penny, but it isn't like all the owners are pulling down hundreds of million a year or something.

I hate this dude but his points are valrod