Football NFLPA says teams can take their Franchise Tags and stick it [Archive]

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 03:27 PM

NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION SENDS LETTER TO AGENTS REGARDING FRANCHISE TAG

As referenced at the NFL Players Association’s annual press conference Feb. 3, 2011, the NFLPA sent a letter to all agents regarding franchise tags. The letter in full stated:
We have received reports that the NFL is advising clubs that they can place a franchise tag on players whose contracts will expire at the end of the 2010 league year.
The current CBA provides that “each club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent [or Restricted Free Agent] as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this Agreement.” The 2011 season is not a “season during the term of this Agreement” so the NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011.
If you have had any discussions with clubs about their intent to use the Franchise designation for the 2011 season please contact the NFLPA to discuss this matter. Meanwhile, we will make sure that the rights of any players improperly designated will be protected.

ShowtimeSBMVP

02-04-2011, 03:30 PM

Lockout coming no offseason gonna suck.

Bewbies

02-04-2011, 03:32 PM

notorious

02-04-2011, 03:32 PM

Lockout coming no offseason gonna suck.

Agreed.

Unless they are trying to piss us off only to save the day at the last second.

ModSocks

02-04-2011, 03:33 PM

So....guess it's time to become a NASCAR fan? Their season starts soon, right?

Frazod

02-04-2011, 03:35 PM

Lockout coming no offseason gonna suck.

At least we'll be division champs for another year!

ShowtimeSBMVP

02-04-2011, 03:36 PM

ROFLAt least we'll be division champs for another year!

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 03:37 PM

The franchise tag needs to be changed up a bit anyway. In theory you can franchise someone different every single year.

If this is part of negotiations it'll turn into a tag you can't use as much, which in the end will be a great thing. Teams shouldn't be using 'franchise' tags on anyone but 'franchise' players.
what difference does it make what player they use it on?

The player gets a high contract.

Hell, the franchise tag took kicker's contracts to an all-time high.

notorious

02-04-2011, 03:40 PM

what difference does it make what player they use it on?

The player gets a high contract.

Hell, the franchise tag took kicker's contracts to an all-time high.

Long term security vs. short term cash.

If you are franchised and get injured at the back end of your career, you just got fucked out of a lot of money.

Franchise tag also limits a good player's options.

DaFace

02-04-2011, 03:41 PM

I may get to ski a lot more next year. Damn Sundays make it harder to squeeze a trip into the weekend...

Rasputin

02-04-2011, 03:41 PM

Brock

02-04-2011, 03:46 PM

It's a bargaining chip to be played, that's about it. The players would have been fine with just extending the agreement as is, but the owners didn't want to do it.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 03:47 PM

Long term security vs. short term cash.

If you are franchised and get injured at the back end of your career, you just got ****ed out of a lot of money.

Franchise tag also limits a good player's options.
if the player gets hurt with any contract he's screwed, there are no guaranteed contracts ... only guaranteed money. The franchise tag is basically the signing bonus of a long term contract.

Franchise tag helps control the moment of the best players. As a fan of the NFL you should be saying "woo hoo"

notorious

02-04-2011, 03:50 PM

if the player gets hurt with any contract he's screwed, there are no guaranteed contracts ... only guaranteed money. The franchise tag is basically the signing bonus of a long term contract.

Franchise tag helps control the moment of the best players. As a fan of the NFL you should be saying "woo hoo"

Would you rather get 30 million guaranteed plus 5 million a year for 4 years or 17 million guaranteed for 1 year?

It's about control and insurance for the player.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 03:52 PM

It's a bargaining chip to be played, that's about it. The players would have been fine with just extending the agreement as is, but the owners didn't want to do it.maybe, maybe not

Of course the players are playing the "let us play, don't change things and mess it up" card now. That's because the owners have asked for concession back because they feel they gave up too much during the last agreement.

It's a pretty good bet that if the Owners weren't asking for stuff back that the players would be asking for more themselves.

ModSocks

02-04-2011, 03:54 PM

I may get to ski a lot more next year. Damn Sundays make it harder to squeeze a trip into the weekend...

Heh. Yep

I got tickets to Sea World back in November. Had to put it off till last week cuz of football season.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 03:55 PM

Would you rather get 30 million guaranteed plus 5 million a year for 4 years or 17 million guaranteed for 1 year?

It's about control and insurance for the player.
pulling those numbers out of your ass?

only the top guys get 30 million

and who give a fuck about control and insurance for the players? They are getting paid ... big time.

The higher their salaries the more pressure on ticket prices etc.

Hammock Parties

02-04-2011, 03:57 PM

There is not going to be a lockout.

Brock

02-04-2011, 03:58 PM

It's a pretty good bet that if the Owners weren't asking for stuff back that the players would be asking for more themselves.

Well, they didn't last time.

HMc

02-04-2011, 04:02 PM

if the players are worth as much as they say they are, why do they need a union?

ShowtimeSBMVP

02-04-2011, 04:05 PM

nfl owners want 18 game schedule and a smaller slice of the pie for players. what sports they are.

Over-Head

02-04-2011, 04:07 PM

At least we'll be division champs for another year! And by forfit we sweep ya AGAIN :p
Hell paid or not our boys will play....beats the hour a day excersize yard time

notorious

02-04-2011, 04:08 PM

pulling those numbers out of your ass?

only the top guys get 30 million

and who give a **** about control and insurance for the players? They are getting paid ... big time.

The higher their salaries the more pressure on ticket prices etc.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/12/manning-mcnab-asomugha-business-sports-nfl-highest-paid_slide_2.html

Once again, would you want to be paid very well for a long term or a lot year-to-year?

Oh ya, if an injury comes you are ****ed as a franchise tagged player, but if you had a long-term contract you get to keep your guaranteed money.

Over-Head

02-04-2011, 04:09 PM

There is not going to be a lockout.
people like you also said there wouldn't be a strike before either

Extra Point

02-04-2011, 05:32 PM

if the players are worth as much as they say they are, why do they need a union?

THIS.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-04-2011, 05:39 PM

nfl owners want 18 game schedule and a smaller slice of the pie for players. what sports they are.

Yeah, because they don't give a shit if tickets cost $500 a piece. Educate yourself before you take a side in this. The owners are the only ones that seem to realize they can't raise ticket prices too much higher.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 06:49 PM

Well, they didn't last time.
yes, the did.

March 9, 2006, 12:52 PM ET

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension

The league agreed Wednesday to the union's proposal, including a revenue-sharing component that will cost owners nearly a billion dollars over the next six years.

Tagliabue said $850 million to $900 million in players' salary will be added over the life of the deal because of the revenue-sharing component, which the union fought for throughout the on-again, off-again talks.

The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension will add $7.5 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it to $102 million, Mortensen reports. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million. The 2007 cap will be $109 million.

full article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Renegade

02-04-2011, 06:56 PM

I may get to ski a lot more next year. Damn Sundays make it harder to squeeze a trip into the weekend...

We will have another season of scrub football so the owners won't have to forfeit STH monies back to the "true fans"

Hydrae

02-04-2011, 07:32 PM

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/12/manning-mcnab-asomugha-business-sports-nfl-highest-paid_slide_2.html

Once again, would you want to be paid very well for a long term or a lot year-to-year?

Oh ya, if an injury comes you are ****ed as a franchise tagged player, but if you had a long-term contract you get to keep your guaranteed money.

Personally I believe that if I had $1 million I would be set for life. So I don't see the big deal that you are arguing about. Sorry if I don't feel sorry for someone who only makes $5 mill in their career playing a game instead of $20 mill.

milkman

02-04-2011, 07:32 PM

HMc

02-04-2011, 08:04 PM

i'd be interested to see what happens with no collective bargaining whatsoever. Just a salary cap and a draft. That's it, none of the the other crap, no mimimum salaries, so minimum amount allocated to players salaries.

We're constantly told that these players are "worth" all this money they get but if that's true, why do they require a union to negotiate them a an agreement that stipulates a mimumum you have to allocate toward salaries?

Are 10 year veteran 3rd string QBs that never see the field really "worth" the best part of a 900 grand a season or is that a figure inflated by the union's collective action? Are UDFA really worth 325 grand a yar or is that the same deal?

notorious

02-04-2011, 08:07 PM

Personally I believe that if I had $1 million I would be set for life. So I don't see the big deal that you are arguing about. Sorry if I don't feel sorry for someone who only makes $5 mill in their career playing a game instead of $20 mill.

That wasn't what I was arguing about.

GloryDayz

02-04-2011, 08:13 PM

At least we'll be division champs for another year!

Do we get another trophy, participation award (how??), or just 10/11 added to the current banner? Will the NFLPA negotiate that too?

philfree

02-04-2011, 08:15 PM

What a useless point.

If they don't get a CBA worked out there will be no free agency, so the franchise tag will be irrelevent.

The teams are just letting fans know who they intend to use the tag on if things get worked out.

I actually would hope that franchise tags are eliminated from the next agreement.

If you want to retain a player, then get an extension worked out before his contract expires.

I don't know but I would think the significance of the Franchise Tag would be between the owners. If they honor it (for the time being) then they won't be going after each other players, no holes barred, until this thing is worked out. What the players think about doesn't matter as long as the owners keep playing by the old rules.

PhilFree:arrow:

HMc

02-04-2011, 08:24 PM

how does no new CBA prevent free agency?

Brock

02-04-2011, 08:36 PM

how does no new CBA prevent free agency?

How are you going to sign free agents without the ground rules of the CBA established?

HMc

02-04-2011, 08:42 PM

How are you going to sign free agents without the ground rules of the CBA established?

Who says you need one? What makes you think a collective bargaining agreement is critical to signing personal services contracts ?

Brock

02-04-2011, 08:49 PM

Who says you need one? What makes you think a collective bargaining agreement is critical to signing personal services contracts ?

There is no free agency unless the CBA says there is. If there is no CBA, there are no free agents. Why would you scramble to sign a free agent only to find out later that he's going back to his old team whether he wants to or not?

HMc

02-04-2011, 08:57 PM

There is no free agency unless the CBA says there is. If there is no CBA, there are no free agents. Why would you scramble to sign a free agent only to find out later that he's going back to his old team whether he wants to or not?

It's hard to know any of this without seeing any of the documents, but;

If the term of the CBA expires, then what it says or doesn't say becomes completely irrelevant. From what I've read, the CBA as a document ceases to have any effect shortly. If that occurs, the concept of "free agency" will, unless it is governed by some other agreement between the player(s) and the team(s), cease to exist. That doesn't mean you have to keep showing up to work after your contract expires, it means you can walk. You'd be free to go wherever you like.

Teams don't have some natural right to players at law. They have rights that are given to them as part of some negotiation then agreement. If that (collective) agreement expires, you've lost the rights.

HMc

02-04-2011, 09:02 PM

If there's another document which states that NFL teams own the rights to players contracted to them the previous season, UNLESS a Collective Bargaining Agreement is struck saying that they do not own those rights, then what is that document?

milkman

02-04-2011, 09:04 PM

Makin it too difficult.

If there's a work stoppage, no one is going to be signing anyone.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 09:07 PM

I actually would hope that franchise tags are eliminated from the next agreement.

If you want to retain a player, then get an extension worked out before his contract expires.
and yet again you prove that you're a complete moron

The tags are leverage which helps keep the salaries under control. No tags would hurt smaller market teams, like the chiefs, even more than most.

patteeu

02-04-2011, 09:10 PM

patteeu

02-04-2011, 09:11 PM

Brock

02-04-2011, 09:19 PM

It's hard to know any of this without seeing any of the documents, but;

If the term of the CBA expires, then what it says or doesn't say becomes completely irrelevant. From what I've read, the CBA as a document ceases to have any effect shortly. If that occurs, the concept of "free agency" will, unless it is governed by some other agreement between the player(s) and the team(s), cease to exist. That doesn't mean you have to keep showing up to work after your contract expires, it means you can walk. You'd be free to go wherever you like.

Teams don't have some natural right to players at law. They have rights that are given to them as part of some negotiation then agreement. If that (collective) agreement expires, you've lost the rights.

There will be a CBA at some point. Good grief, man.

milkman

02-04-2011, 09:19 PM

and yet again you prove that you're a complete moron

The tags are leverage which helps keep the salaries under control. No tags would hurt smaller market teams, like the chiefs, even more than most.

The salary cap keeps the salaries under control.

The tags have no effect on that, unless you take a guy like Matt Cassel, who was nearly worth the 14 mil price tag that the franchise tag put on him, and resulted in getting him a contract that was far more than he was worth.

Mr. Laz

02-04-2011, 09:36 PM

The salary cap keeps the salaries under control.

The tags have no effect on that, unless you take a guy like Matt Cassel, who was nearly worth the 14 mil price tag that the franchise tag put on him, and resulted in getting him a contract that was far more than he was worth.Of course the tags have an effect. A by-product of the salary cap is that teams and players have started looking for more front-loaded contracts. Big signing bonus of 15,20 even 30 million now to counter salary caps and non-guaranteed contracts.

Not only that, but the tricks of working around the salary cap by prorating the signing bonuses and then restructuring the contracts over and over again allow teams to push the salary cap numbers around. Teams can spend 180/190 million dollars in a year and still be under the 110 million dollar cap.

All this "front" money and cap "cheating" is more difficult for small market teams.

Especially when it comes to big name elite players.

The franchise/transition tags help smaller market teams have some addition leverage to keep those elite players.

HMc

02-04-2011, 09:41 PM

interestingly, if the union was to decertify and players were to negotiate individually, there'd not necassarily be a draft in 2012 (the CBA provides for a draft in 2011 but not after that).

milkman

02-04-2011, 09:55 PM

Of course the tags have an effect. A by-product of the salary cap is that teams and players have started looking for more front-loaded contracts. Big signing bonus of 15,20 even 30 million now to counter salary caps and non-guaranteed contracts.

Not only that, but the tricks of working around the salary cap by prorating the signing bonuses and then restructuring the contracts over and over again allow teams to push the salary cap numbers around. Teams can spend 180/190 million dollars in a year and still be under the 110 million dollar cap.

All this "front" money and cap "cheating" is more difficult for small market teams.

Especially when it comes to big name elite players.

The franchise/transition tags help smaller market teams have some addition leverage to keep those elite players.

When you use the franchise tag on positions like kicker and guard, it pushes the salaries up for other positions.

I like the transition tag, and believe that it should still be a part of the next CBA.

They do need to work out something that eliminates the poison pill in contracts, like the one that Steve Hutchinson signed with the Vikings a few years ago.

If they do keep the franchise tag, they need to change the money to average of top ten, rather than top five, because that's where it raises the salaries.

If a guard makes 5 mil a year, then a LT will want 10 mil a year.

patteeu

02-04-2011, 10:03 PM

When you use the franchise tag on positions like kicker and guard, it pushes the salaries up for other positions.

The salary cap helps to limit the amount that other position salaries can escalate on the basis of a highly paid kicker or guard.

The benefit of the franchise tag, in addition to the obvious benefit of helping a team hang on to it's most important potential free agent each off season (if they so choose) is that it prevents superstar salaries from skyrocketing and eating up even more of the salary cap than they already do to the detriment of all the non-superstar players in the league. The only players hurt by the franchise tag are the guys that get tagged. All the other players benefit indirectly (even though it doesn't seem like most of them realize that).

Bewbies

02-04-2011, 11:48 PM

Why?

Franchise tags are for people like Peyton Manning, not an idiot kicker. Most of the players that are given the franchise tag today are not franchise players. If a team wants to keep a guy they should resign him before his contract is up.

If it were up to me I think I'd keep the franchise tag but make it so that you could only use it again if the guy you used it on is no longer on your team. So if we tagged Hali for instance, until he's no longer a Chief we would be unable to franchise tag anyone else.

With a system like that 2nd or 3rd tier players, or say backup QB's who weren't good enough to play in college, would no longer be the kind of player you would want to tag.

Bewbies

02-04-2011, 11:50 PM

The salary cap helps to limit the amount that other position salaries can escalate on the basis of a highly paid kicker or guard.

The benefit of the franchise tag, in addition to the obvious benefit of helping a team hang on to it's most important potential free agent each off season (if they so choose) is that it prevents superstar salaries from skyrocketing and eating up even more of the salary cap than they already do to the detriment of all the non-superstar players in the league. The only players hurt by the franchise tag are the guys that get tagged. All the other players benefit indirectly (even though it doesn't seem like most of them realize that).

Doesn't the NBA have a system where one of your guys can be resigned at it doesn't effect the cap at all? The Larry Bird rule or something like that?

royr17

02-05-2011, 03:46 AM

The league, the NFLPA, and the Union need to quit worry about telling each other to go screw them selves and tellin teams to shove the Franchise Tag up their rears and get this damn thing agreed to so that there isnt a lockout.

It is really goin to suck if there is a lockout next year, I dont know what I would do, cause their are two sports that I truly enjoy watching that is the NFL and College Basketball, and it is goin to really suck if their aint no NFL next year.

notorious

02-05-2011, 07:29 AM

The franchise tag system helps more players than it hurts.

So why does the NFLPA want it gone?

patteeu

02-05-2011, 09:15 AM

Franchise tags are for people like Peyton Manning, not an idiot kicker. Most of the players that are given the franchise tag today are not franchise players. If a team wants to keep a guy they should resign him before his contract is up.

If it were up to me I think I'd keep the franchise tag but make it so that you could only use it again if the guy you used it on is no longer on your team. So if we tagged Hali for instance, until he's no longer a Chief we would be unable to franchise tag anyone else.

With a system like that 2nd or 3rd tier players, or say backup QB's who weren't good enough to play in college, would no longer be the kind of player you would want to tag.

That's not really an answer to why your position makes more sense than the current system. It's really more of a restatement of that position. Would you feel better about the current system if they changed the name from "franchise tag" to "retention tag"?

The way the current system works reduces the team to team mobility of a larger group of the leagues better players than your system would while still giving most players a shot at free agency that they didn't have under the pre-free agency system. As a fan, I like having more continuity on the roster.

patteeu

02-05-2011, 09:16 AM

Doesn't the NBA have a system where one of your guys can be resigned at it doesn't effect the cap at all? The Larry Bird rule or something like that?

Yes, they do.

patteeu

02-05-2011, 09:21 AM

So why does the NFLPA want it gone?

I think there's a widespread misconception based on (a) the fact that the downside to tagged players is more obvious than the upside to non-tagged players and (b) players tend to believe that they will someday be good enough to be tagged even though many of them never will be. The NFLPA responds to all players, but the superstars have more clout and influence than the guys who barely make the 53 man roster.

Chiefshrink

02-05-2011, 10:10 AM

DeMaurice Smith:rolleyes: No way in hell the NFLPA moves at all unless it is in their favor:shake:

Do some research on Smith and you will see why:shake:

Bewbies

02-05-2011, 01:45 PM

Yes, they do.

That's what the NFL should do then. Forget the tags and have one guy who you can pay without any restriction.

patteeu

02-05-2011, 02:32 PM

That's what the NFL should do then. Forget the tags and have one guy who you can pay without any restriction.

I prefer the way it is, particularly since the Chiefs don't have a Payton Manning, but that would be another way of doing it.

ShowtimeSBMVP

02-05-2011, 03:12 PM

Union, agents consider boycott of combine or draft
Posted by Michael David Smith on February 4, 2011, 9:36 PM EST
In July we reported that the players’ union and player agents were considering a boycott of the NFL draft and pre-draft activities because of the lack of progress toward a new labor deal. Fast forward seven months, and there’s still no labor deal — and still talk of a boycott.

NFL Network reported today that union officials and player agents are discussing withholding players from the Scouting Combine and urging players not to attend the NFL Draft. According to the report, NFL Players’ Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith has talked to agents about telling their clients to skip the combine in Indianapolis and the draft at Radio City Music Hall.

A boycott of the combine wouldn’t make much sense. For one thing, the combine is in February, when there’s still time to get a new deal done before the current deal expires. Any time spent organizing a boycott rather than focusing on negotiating a new deal would fly in the face of the union’s claims that they want to get a deal done. Furthermore, it wouldn’t make much sense for prospective players (who aren’t even in the union yet) to sacrifice an opportunity to prove themselves to NFL teams.

However, if the NFL locks the players out, and if the lockout is still going on in late April when the draft takes place, it’s possible that some players might choose to show solidarity for the union they’re about to join and skip the draft. On the other hand, the handful of players the NFL invites to the draft may be worried that refusing the invitation could cause them to be labeled as prima donnas and make their draft stock drop with the teams selecting high in the first round.

So this year’s prospective draft picks might not be willing to go along with this idea. Unless the union manages to get all the agents for all the top prospects on board, and the agents manage to get all their clients on board — in which case the biggest event of the NFL offseason would lose a lot of its drawing power.

ShowtimeSBMVP

02-05-2011, 03:19 PM

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
JOINT NFL-NFL STATEMENT: The NFL and NFL Players Association met for two hours today in a continuing effort to narrow the differences and...

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
reach a fair agreement that will benefit the players, teams and fans. We plan to increase the number, length and intensity of bargaining...

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
sessions so that we can reach agreement before the March 4 expiration of the current CBA.

morphius

02-05-2011, 03:22 PM

Mr. Laz

02-05-2011, 05:24 PM

That's what the NFL should do then. Forget the tags and have one guy who you can pay without any restriction.
why in the hell would they want to do that?

Mr. Laz

02-05-2011, 05:32 PM

not going to the combine would hurt the non 1st round type players a lot.

Over-Head

02-05-2011, 05:38 PM

Listen, the owners either get what they want, or lock em out. Let scabs and other position filling players man the positions, and by week 4 in the Reg season most of those bitchy millionairs living pay cheque to pay cheque should be hurten enough to BEG for league min :evil:

It don`t matter how big a slice of the pie the Owners want, They own the clubs, either take what they offer, or go the f**k home.
No ones pointing a gun at a players head and making them play. And they sure as hell dont have to sign the offers or contracts presented to them.
I ain't pro athlete but f**k it, i'll go get pummeled by a line backer for half what these azzholes get for league min, and still go home happy.

Unions cause as many problems as they solve IMO