CBA Thread

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

that doesn't really make sense, given the fact that the major point of contention is the owners lowering the % of revenue that becomes players salaries. So if you're saying that the players currently get a fair wage then it seems like you should be against the owners.

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
If no sides agree by the allotted time do we get replacement players? That's what I wanna know.

Why? You running routes?

Yes.

replacement players could only be used in the event of a strike.

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
If no sides agree by the allotted time do we get replacement players? That's what I wanna know.

Why? You running routes?

Yes.

Let's start a thread, maybe we an get a team together just in case they need some replacements....I'm kind of built like a RB.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

Dude, you can't say that current owners today have really bared any real risk. The NFL is well established. Even at the height of the financial crisis they probably could have unloaded the team for a profit (maybe). Many owners have proven that they don't even need to field a competitive team to make money.

Also, I dont care if they only play 16 games. It doesn't matter. The money is there or they wouldn't pay these guys. They have a salary cap, it goes up with inflation (I guess?). If a team doesn't want a player they shouldn't pay for him. It's guys like Snyder and Al Davis that ruin it for everyone. If anything, maybe they should put a cap on the nut jobs that skew the market for everyone.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

that doesn't really make sense, given the fact that the major point of contention is the owners lowering the % of revenue that becomes players salaries. So if you're saying that the players currently get a fair wage then it seems like you should be against the owners.

I actually think they currently are paid better than fair.....but I did not want to argue that point so I just put fair. Bottom line I would side with the owners through a large scale of pay decreases....thats how fair I think the players already have it

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

that doesn't really make sense, given the fact that the major point of contention is the owners lowering the % of revenue that becomes players salaries. So if you're saying that the players currently get a fair wage then it seems like you should be against the owners.

I actually think they currently are paid better than fair.....but I did not want to argue that point so I just put fair. Bottom line I would side with the owners through a large scale of pay decreases....thats how fair I think the players already have it

gotcha. i agree that the players had a very, very good deal in the previous CBA. Personally, I thought it was pretty just, considering they are the ones that ultimately drive the revenue for the league (Yes, the owners and league office have a huge hand in how much $ the league makes, but no one watches the NFL to see Jerry Jones sitting in his luxury box). I don't blame the owners for wanting to make some changes to that deal, but I A) don't like some of the changes they are trying to lump in there, ie the 18 game schedule and B) don't like how they went about it. That said, I can see both sides of the argument, and think that both the owners and the NFLPA have some good points and some unreasonable ones, but ultimately my "sympathies" will lie with the players (at least in this situation).

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

Dude, you can't say that current owners today have really bared any real risk. The NFL is well established. Even at the height of the financial crisis they probably could have unloaded the team for a profit (maybe). Many owners have proven that they don't even need to field a competitive team to make money.

Also, I dont care if they only play 16 games. It doesn't matter. The money is there or they wouldn't pay these guys. They have a salary cap, it goes up with inflation (I guess?). If a team doesn't want a player they shouldn't pay for him. It's guys like Snyder and Al Davis that ruin it for everyone. If anything, maybe they should put a cap on the nut jobs that skew the market for everyone.

LOL McNair invested 700M to get the Texans. Putting up 700M always involves risk

AH this CBA stuff is driving me crazy. Football season is all I look forward to all year and I'm not happy about the possibility of losing games next season. Even worse this is the worst possible season for us to witness a lockout. We have a whole new coaching staff, new offense, and we need to find a QB via free agency or trade. Even if a deal is struck before the start of the season our team will be in no position to compete against well established teams.

Hopefully I'm overreacting but the news floating around doesn't sound good.

Man this off season is gonna suck big rhinoceros cocks. We finally get a coach everybody wanted and the cba bs is gonna set everything back.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

that doesn't really make sense, given the fact that the major point of contention is the owners lowering the % of revenue that becomes players salaries. So if you're saying that the players currently get a fair wage then it seems like you should be against the owners.

I actually think they currently are paid better than fair.....but I did not want to argue that point so I just put fair. Bottom line I would side with the owners through a large scale of pay decreases....thats how fair I think the players already have it

gotcha. i agree that the players had a very, very good deal in the previous CBA. Personally, I thought it was pretty just, considering they are the ones that ultimately drive the revenue for the league (Yes, the owners and league office have a huge hand in how much $ the league makes, but no one watches the NFL to see Jerry Jones sitting in his luxury box). I don't blame the owners for wanting to make some changes to that deal, but I A) don't like some of the changes they are trying to lump in there, ie the 18 game schedule and B) don't like how they went about it. That said, I can see both sides of the argument, and think that both the owners and the NFLPA have some good points and some unreasonable ones, but ultimately my "sympathies" will lie with the players (at least in this situation).

Whats the difference between Soccer and Football in America? You think it's the athletes that are keeping the fans away? It's not like soccer doesn't have the ability to become very successful. It is in other countries! But whats the difference... probably the owner people and the league office people. That's the difference between the popularity of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and Soccer. NFL is the most successful for a reason and it's not because of athletic ability.

You know some actors are great, but many of them have been in bad movies.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Put me down for pro player.


MOST of these guys dont make big money relative to the headline contracts. Even the contracts are BS. Except for the gaureentee money, nothing is certain for these guys. The average career is less than four years, but the physical effects are life long.

All of these guys come into the NFL as kids, are surrounded by preditory agents, and are followed by childhood friends who are young, dumb and full of cum. I'm not saying it's the owners fault, because it's not, but for a lot of these young men this is the only money they have ever had and will be broke when it's all said in done. Not everybody has good strong family role models who are used to handling wealth. Too bad the money couldn't be kept in a trust until they turn 30. I just think all the lights, fame, girls, friends and money is too much to handle for young men with little guidance.

I just dont understand why these Billionaire owners need a bigger piece of the pie? I really dont. I would love for all the players in the NFL to defect to a UFL/XFL type league if this lockout really happens. f**k these rich b***hes.

I side with the owners. The players get a fair wage, everything else should belong to the owners....thats part of the deal. Nothing stopping the players from combining their significant wealth and starting their own league where they can be the owners.......oh wait there is that pesky risk though. The same risk the owners bore all by themselves to get into this position in the first place.

that doesn't really make sense, given the fact that the major point of contention is the owners lowering the % of revenue that becomes players salaries. So if you're saying that the players currently get a fair wage then it seems like you should be against the owners.

I actually think they currently are paid better than fair.....but I did not want to argue that point so I just put fair. Bottom line I would side with the owners through a large scale of pay decreases....thats how fair I think the players already have it

gotcha. i agree that the players had a very, very good deal in the previous CBA. Personally, I thought it was pretty just, considering they are the ones that ultimately drive the revenue for the league (Yes, the owners and league office have a huge hand in how much $ the league makes, but no one watches the NFL to see Jerry Jones sitting in his luxury box). I don't blame the owners for wanting to make some changes to that deal, but I A) don't like some of the changes they are trying to lump in there, ie the 18 game schedule and B) don't like how they went about it. That said, I can see both sides of the argument, and think that both the owners and the NFLPA have some good points and some unreasonable ones, but ultimately my "sympathies" will lie with the players (at least in this situation).

Whats the difference between Soccer and Football in America? You think it's the athletes that are keeping the fans away? It's not like soccer doesn't have the ability to become very successful. It is in other countries! But whats the difference... probably the owner people and the league office people. That's the difference between the popularity of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and Soccer. NFL is the most successful for a reason and it's not because of athletic ability.

You know some actors are great, but many of them have been in bad movies.

the MLS is absolutely not on the athletic and competitive level of international soccer leagues, which is why most soccer fans in the US prefer to watch foreign leagues. anyway, your analogy is really confusing and takes this conversation into a completely different direction, but what I think you're saying is that ownership and the league office are ultimately responsible for people caring about the sport...right? and while i don't disagree that they are a very important part of it, the fact remains that without great players they wouldn't have anything to sell to the fans. Labor is always one of the biggest costs for any business, and I don't see why sports should be any different, especially when the labor is literally the product.

Originally posted by HessianDud:




the MLS is absolutely not on the athletic and competitive level of international soccer leagues, which is why most soccer fans in the US prefer to watch foreign leagues. anyway, your analogy is really confusing and takes this conversation into a completely different direction, but what I think you're saying is that ownership and the league office are ultimately responsible for people caring about the sport...right? and while i don't disagree that they are a very important part of it, the fact remains that without great players they wouldn't have anything to sell to the fans. Labor is always one of the biggest costs for any business, and I don't see why sports should be any different, especially when the labor is literally the product.

Ya, my underlining point is that the owners and the league office is responsible for the sport being as popular as it is. It's not the players, they're just the product of well executed business management.

My point stems to the fact that the MLS is horribly under talented compared to foreign leagues. But nobody can make the case that American's are just not good at soccer. For a country that Fields the best Professional and Amateur players in the world there is no reason we can't excel in soccer. We have the people, we have the American spirit. MLS has fallen short in selling they're product and such it is the reason why the league is not as popular and lucrative as the others. If they were able to sell they're product we could see them grow like other pro sports and compete internationally.

My point is the players are talented and great, but with out the expertise of management and marketing they'd be arguing over MLS market share money, not multibillion dollar TV share money. (exaggeration)

I have actually written a few papers on why pro athletes deserve the money they make because they are the product being sold. I feel no sorrow for the players who make more than a fair share. A good portion of players in the league make more than there coaches. Tom Brady makes 2 times more than the highest paid coach in the league which happens to be his boss. Peppers makes 2 1/2 times as much. You could make cases for them. But everybody knows that you could have a pro bowl team but without a good coach the team would fail. You could showcase all the talent in the world but in order for them to be successful, they need to be coached, and managed and sold.

In terms of product, they are what the NFL sells after they produce them. I would put the players in the mold of raw materials, not a finished product. With out all the manufacturing to them, they're nothing more than sand to silicon valley.

I sure as hell wouldn't give sand 60 percent market share, not when I'm making silicon chips. Not when I first have to make mgs grade silicon before I can make egs grade polycrystalline material with which I can finally grow single crystalline silicon ignots.... just saying

I tuned into KNBR today in the middle of an ESPN interview of someone who had worked for the GB front office until 1999, so I didn't catch his name.

He was asked his opinion about the prospects of a CBA resolution before the season begins. In his capacity at GB, he was intimately familiar with the standard protocols and posturing of negotiations. Until the two sides come up against important deadlines, each negotiating side will play out their standard scripted role.

In this case, he said, there will be no progress until shortly before the season is about to begin. Then talks will begin in earnest and then the necessary compromises will be made to put the thing together. This means that there will be no real off-season activities or much of a preseason.

This will accrue to the advantage to teams having the same coaching staff and already good rosters.

Our team, on the other hand, will be severely handicapped because there will be very little time for our new staff to implement their new playbooks and schemes. And we will not be able to engage in any trades or sign new FAs until very late.

This could be the reason why the team may want to sign Alex now to a one year extension (assuming he would agree). This would give him the rest of the offseason to learn it.

Originally posted by Esco:
AH this CBA stuff is driving me crazy. Football season is all I look forward to all year and I'm not happy about the possibility of losing games next season. Even worse this is the worst possible season for us to witness a lockout. We have a whole new coaching staff, new offense, and we need to find a QB via free agency or trade. Even if a deal is struck before the start of the season our team will be in no position to compete against well established teams.

Hopefully I'm overreacting but the news floating around doesn't sound good.

Unfortunately I don't think you're overreacting. It's looking like we won't be able to start assembling the team until late summer . . . which as you pointed out will impact us more severely than most teams. If that's how it develops I think the 2011 season will essentially just be an extended evaluation period for the staff with post-season being a longshot. It would suck to put another year of wear and tear on Willis, Gore and Justin Smith in the face if such a huge competitive disatvantage, but it may be unavoidable.

Originally posted by excelsior:
I tuned into KNBR today in the middle of an ESPN interview of someone who had worked for the GB front office until 1999, so I didn't catch his name.

He was asked his opinion about the prospects of a CBA resolution before the season begins. In his capacity at GB, he was intimately familiar with the standard protocols and posturing of negotiations. Until the two sides come up against important deadlines, each negotiating side will play out their standard scripted role.

In this case, he said, there will be no progress until shortly before the season is about to begin. Then talks will begin in earnest and then the necessary compromises will be made to put the thing together. This means that there will be no real off-season activities or much of a preseason.

This will accrue to the advantage to teams having the same coaching staff and already good rosters.

Our team, on the other hand, will be severely handicapped because there will be very little time for our new staff to implement their new playbooks and schemes. And we will not be able to engage in any trades or sign new FAs until very late.

This could be the reason why the team may want to sign Alex now to a one year extension (assuming he would agree). This would give him the rest of the offseason to learn it.

well that would suck, at least I'd have giants baseball though