PDA

View Full Version : Football NFL scewing things up again..


Valiant
05-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Didn't see the thread so hopefully not a repost..

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4147407

Confusion and mistrust over changes in the league's pension program is wreaking havoc with some NFL teams' coaching staffs, including the pending retirement of Indianapolis Colts offensive coordinator Tom Moore and offensive line coach Howard Mudd, according to Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Association.

Kennan confirmed that Mudd has "already filed his retirement papers" and added that he believes Moore is "just about there."

"What a travesty it would be that two of the most successful coaches in the history of this league feel compelled to retire because of the owners' greed and the state of confusion by recent changes in the pension plan," said Kennan. "And let me tell you something: They don't want to bail on the Colts but they just may feel like they have no other choice."

Mudd has coached 35 consecutive seasons in the NFL and Moore has been an assistant for 32 years. Both are considered among the finest assistant coaches in league history and their 12-year Indianapolis union as offensive coordinator and line coach has been considered a major factor to the success of the Colts and quarterback Peyton Manning.

NFL owners passed a resolution at the league meetings that allowed the 32 teams to opt out of a uniformed pension plan, which has been a generous incentive for coaches to remain at the pro level. Many teams have yet to decide on their specific plans for non-playing employees but Kennan painted a picture of betrayal.

"Howard was already researching the strategy of when to take a lump sum payment when the owners pulled this fast one," said Kennan. "Let me tell you something: The owners did this at the league meetings and they never informed me of anything. They didn't notify the [coaches] within their own organizations, with the exception of two classy organizations -- the Atlanta Falcons and Baltimore Ravens -- that there were changes coming. No advance warning and no information after the fact.

"So you take a guy like Howard Mudd, who is pretty diligent about everything, and he was already concerned about losing some money because the market index was going to change in July. Then you throw this at someone like that -- and he finds out that several teams have not fully funded their pension plans at an 80 percent level, the mark they need to hit for any employee to take a full lump sum payment. ...Well, Howard Mudd's not waiting around to see what happens with all these signals. And he's a guy that a lot of other coaches respect -- especially Tom Moore -- so they could follow his lead."

Kennan said he was only authorized to speak for Mudd and not Moore, who was unavailable for comment.

Colts president and GM Bill Polian released a statement through the team Wednesday, saying, "We have the highest personal affection and professional regard for Howard and it would be inappropriate for us to speculate at this time about any decisions he might eventually reach."

If the Colts lost Moore and Mudd, it is believed current assistants Clyde Christensen (assistant head coach, receivers) and Pete Metzelaars (assistant offensive line coach), would become prime candidates to replace them.

League owners have privately said the dramatic changes in the economic market was more than doubling the amount of contributions -- one owner suggested the league-wide contribution projected a hike from $40 million to $90 million -- that teams were required to make under the former uniformed plan. Consequently, owners passed the resolution in March that empowered teams to independently established their own pension plans.

Mudd would like to remain as a "consultant" with the Colts but that is also one of the loopholes that owners wanted to close, sources said, citing the example of another renown line coach, Alex Gibbs, who met the league formula for cashing out fully on his pension, only to be hired back as a $800,000 to $1 million consultant.

The coaches do have an associatio n but have failed to organize as a union, despite advice from Kennan and former NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw, who died suddenly last year, to form a union. Kennan said that the new NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith is determined to "protect the coaches" going forward.

Kennan, as the leader of the Coaches Association, works out of the NFLPA offices. Upshaw enabled the coaches to use NFLPA counsel in various grievance hearings.

But Smith, as the newly-elected NFLPA leader, has overwhelming and urgent issues with the current collective bargaining agreement that will expire after the 2010 season. Older coaches may be under the gun to make career decisions than can impact teams, like the Colts while younger coaches may look at their own alternatives down the road.

"Over the course of time, I think you'll see the NFL lose some quality coaches, especially quality young coaches, because of this pension issue," Kennan said. "Look at how well colleges are paying coaches now; one of the factors that weighed in NFL favor for these coaches was the league pension plan. Now? That could change."

One owner countered that teams that want to remain attractive to coaches will have to seriously consider the impact of a diminished pension plan when competing for their services. Some teams will value coaches more than others, this owner conceded.

Chris Mortensen is a senior NFL analyst for ESPN.


Well if the NFL is this greedy over pensions, I am getting more worried about an uncapped year and what it might do to pro football.. Especially since most of the presidents/owners did not disclose it to the coaches..

htismaqe
05-07-2009, 01:40 PM
Make no mistake about it, the owners will NEVER agree to go uncapped long-term. The players want more, the owners feel they ALREADY get too much.

We're headed for a lockout, replacement players, and dark days.

Brock
05-07-2009, 01:47 PM
I doubt a strike or lockout will last long. The players haven't had and probably still don't have the resolve to live without their money for a long period of time.

As for the coaches, I don't think very many owners are willing to pony up for superstar coaches anymore. There's always a younger guy who's willing to work for a lot less money.

vailpass
05-07-2009, 01:50 PM
The NFLPA will accept a new CBA with less favorable terms. Most of those guys aren't dummies, they see what's happening out in the world and know their career options are pretty much pro baller, gym teacher or bodyguard.

htismaqe
05-07-2009, 01:54 PM
I doubt a strike or lockout will last long. The players haven't had and probably still don't have the resolve to live without their money for a long period of time.

I hope you're right. Because I know the owners aren't going to give an inch. They feel like they gave up too much last time. So we're down to the players budging or nothing.

As for the coaches, I don't think very many owners are willing to pony up for superstar coaches anymore. There's always a younger guy who's willing to work for a lot less money.

Very true.

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 02:57 PM
Not sayin' I like it, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

The players learned from MLB.

There is too much money to be lost by the owners in a long work stoppage.

Gene Upshaw is RIP.

Uncapped, here we come.

Mr. Krab
05-07-2009, 02:58 PM
Work stoppage coming up.

CoMoChief
05-07-2009, 03:42 PM
LOL Pete Metzellars is their asst Oline coach?!?!

kaplin42
05-07-2009, 03:50 PM
IMHO, players need to look at what they are getting and be happy. I remember on draft day, Rich Eizen was talking with Goodell and the new NFLPA head guy, and they were talking about how Stafford just got paid more guranteed money than any NFL player ever, and he hasn't even put on a jersey yet.

Eizen was going ballistic over it, Goodell did the right thing and calmly stated that there would be some discussion about it, but the NFLPA was straight up saying that the way it is is just fine, and that nothing is wrong with the owners paying an unproven product a ridiculous amount of money.

I personally wanted to bitch slap the guy for being a greedy dumbass. I'm not saying the money should be taken out of the players hands, but maybe the guys that earned the dough should get it, rather than the ones that don't even know what the play calls are yet.

Brock
05-07-2009, 06:48 PM
Not sayin' I like it, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

The players learned from MLB.

There is too much money to be lost by the owners in a long work stoppage.

Gene Upshaw is RIP.

Uncapped, here we come.

LOL, the owners can certainly outlast the players as far as losing money goes, not that the owners would lose any money to begin with. You're trying to compare baseball economics to football and it doesn't work on a number of levels.

htismaqe
05-07-2009, 07:07 PM
LOL, the owners can certainly outlast the players as far as losing money goes, not that the owners would lose any money to begin with. You're trying to compare baseball economics to football and it doesn't work on a number of levels.

And the guys that don't have income sources outside of football (Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones) are the owners that have actually STARTED some of this.

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 07:11 PM
LOL, the owners can certainly outlast the players as far as losing money goes, not that the owners would lose any money to begin with. You're trying to compare baseball economics to football and it doesn't work on a number of levels.

Television contracts, games, parking, radio, jersey sales...

Of course the owners would lose money.

Baseball owners could have outlasted the players as well. They didn't.

Neither will football owners, imo.

MoreLemonPledge
05-07-2009, 07:11 PM
And the guys that don't have income sources outside of football (Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones) are the owners that have actually STARTED some of this.

These guys would LOVE an uncapped year. Can you imagine how much they would spend?

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 07:12 PM
These guys would LOVE an uncapped year. Can you imagine how much they would spend?

This is also true. The owners are certainly not solidly aligned.

DTLB58
05-07-2009, 07:13 PM
IMHO, players need to look at what they are getting and be happy. I remember on draft day, Rich Eizen was talking with Goodell and the new NFLPA head guy, and they were talking about how Stafford just got paid more guranteed money than any NFL player ever, and he hasn't even put on a jersey yet.

Eizen was going ballistic over it, Goodell did the right thing and calmly stated that there would be some discussion about it, but the NFLPA was straight up saying that the way it is is just fine, and that nothing is wrong with the owners paying an unproven product a ridiculous amount of money.
I personally wanted to bitch slap the guy for being a greedy dumbass. I'm not saying the money should be taken out of the players hands, but maybe the guys that earned the dough should get it, rather than the ones that don't even know what the play calls are yet.

Because that's his job! He represents all of the members not just the veterans. If he agreed with the Commish on national TV about an issue that is going to be bargained on he would be overthrown by the union members immeditaly and rightfully so!

Even if he agrees that there should be a rookie salary cap you DO NOT state that publicly. But rather, behind close doors in negotiations. Also, that would just lose all bargaining power. It would be like walking onto a car lot and telling the car salesman you will pay sticker price.

Start high (state publicly that the rookies deserve the money) and then find a common ground during discussions at the table.

htismaqe
05-07-2009, 07:19 PM
These guys would LOVE an uncapped year. Can you imagine how much they would spend?

It's not about the uncapped year at all. The uncapped year is a byproduct of the existing CBA, in which the cap is contained, expiring.

The players currently get 51% of a limited scope of the total NFL revenue. The owners don't want them to get any more than that. They're fairly united in that aspect.

Brock
05-07-2009, 07:32 PM
Television contracts, games, parking, radio, jersey sales...

Of course the owners would lose money.

Baseball owners could have outlasted the players as well. They didn't.

Neither will football owners, imo.

Are you saying they won't be getting their television and radio money? The games will be played, and they will be watched.

Ari Chi3fs
05-07-2009, 07:38 PM
At least the Royals are doing good, so far! heh

Crush
05-07-2009, 08:08 PM
At least the Royals are doing good, so far! heh

:thumb:

Mojo Rising
05-08-2009, 01:26 AM
This story is about Coaches getting pensions. Pensions have been eliminated in private enterprises. Get used to it. If you want a pension work for the government.

The Union has a fair gripe with the NFL over the salary cap issue. The cap is set on a percentage of the NFL revenue. That does not dictate that the cap must be met.

The Chiefs have been under the cap for years. The teams that usually draft at the beginning of the draft are usually the teams that underspend.

The NFL should negotiate a rookie pay schedule for the 1st 2 years of a players career. After that they are open to the market.

They should also have rules to make sure all of the teams spend close to the cap. This would not force them to cut veterans that end up being the depth of a team.

hishighness
05-08-2009, 06:48 AM
An algebra equation if I may.

NFL Owners = Money > AnythingElseOnThePlanetIncludingSexWithPornStars

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 06:53 AM
This story is about Coaches getting pensions. Pensions have been eliminated in private enterprises. Get used to it. If you want a pension work for the government.

The Union has a fair gripe with the NFL over the salary cap issue. The cap is set on a percentage of the NFL revenue. That does not dictate that the cap must be met.

The Chiefs have been under the cap for years. The teams that usually draft at the beginning of the draft are usually the teams that underspend.

The NFL should negotiate a rookie pay schedule for the 1st 2 years of a players career. After that they are open to the market.

They should also have rules to make sure all of the teams spend close to the cap. This would not force them to cut veterans that end up being the depth of a team.

The Chiefs have been under the cap for years? Other than last year, there haven't been but one or two during the entire Peterson era where they weren't up against it by TC or so.

Futhermore, teams usually cut veterans that end up being depth because said veterans THINK they're starters and only realize they're backups after exploring the free agent market.

hishighness
05-08-2009, 07:04 AM
The Chiefs have been under the cap for years? Other than last year, there haven't been but one or two during the entire Peterson era where they weren't up against it by TC or so.

Futhermore, teams usually cut veterans that end up being depth because said veterans THINK they're starters and only realize they're backups after exploring the free agent market.Nothing slaps your value into you faster than getting zero offers on the open market.

beach tribe
05-08-2009, 08:40 AM
IMHO, players need to look at what they are getting and be happy. I remember on draft day, Rich Eizen was talking with Goodell and the new NFLPA head guy, and they were talking about how Stafford just got paid more guranteed money than any NFL player ever, and he hasn't even put on a jersey yet.

Eizen was going ballistic over it, Goodell did the right thing and calmly stated that there would be some discussion about it, but the NFLPA was straight up saying that the way it is is just fine, and that nothing is wrong with the owners paying an unproven product a ridiculous amount of money.

I personally wanted to bitch slap the guy for being a greedy dumbass. I'm not saying the money should be taken out of the players hands, but maybe the guys that earned the dough should get it, rather than the ones that don't even know what the play calls are yet.
I remember that UGLY greedy bastard. You're right. I wanted to punch him in his face, and it's fuqers like him, who are going to cause this league to fall from the near perfect sport that is today. IMO the rookie contracts are about the only serious issue the league has, but greed is going to screw it all up.

Brock
05-08-2009, 09:09 AM
Don't blame the player for taking the money, you'd do the same thing.

ElGringo
05-08-2009, 09:09 AM
They should also have rules to make sure all of the teams spend close to the cap. This would not force them to cut veterans that end up being the depth of a team.

I do not have as much knowledge as some others on this board (hence the very low post count), but I thought there was a penalty for being too far under the cap. I thought I heard that last year the Chiefs had to spend X amount more, or they would face that penalty whatever it may be. Can anyone verify, or correct this if I am wrong?

vailpass
05-08-2009, 09:31 AM
I do not have as much knowledge as some others on this board (hence the very low post count), but I thought there was a penalty for being too far under the cap. I thought I heard that last year the Chiefs had to spend X amount more, or they would face that penalty whatever it may be. Can anyone verify, or correct this if I am wrong?

There is currently a salary floor as well as a ceiling. When the cap goes away so too does the floor. This is one of many reasons the players are worried about working without a CBA and will ratify a new one when put to the vote.

Chaunceythe3rd
05-08-2009, 05:03 PM
This story is about Coaches getting pensions. Pensions have been eliminated in private enterprises. Get used to it. If you want a pension work for the government.

The Union has a fair gripe with the NFL over the salary cap issue. The cap is set on a percentage of the NFL revenue. That does not dictate that the cap must be met.

The Chiefs have been under the cap for years. The teams that usually draft at the beginning of the draft are usually the teams that underspend.

The NFL should negotiate a rookie pay schedule for the 1st 2 years of a players career. After that they are open to the market.

They should also have rules to make sure all of the teams spend close to the cap. This would not force them to cut veterans that end up being the depth of a team.

:thumb:

Good thinking, good post. But I do think the pensions should be honored or at least until the NFL is offered and accepts federal bailout money. That obviously isn't going to happen, so they should honor their obligations or be prepared to pay more for coaches who probably take less money now because of a nice benefit like a pension. You know the Redskins and the Cowboys will pay too much for coaches and offer a team pension plan independent of the league and you'll always have an imbalance between teams.