NFLPA says teams can take their Franchise Tags and stick it

[Mr. Laz]

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.

[HMc]

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]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

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]

Originally Posted by frazod

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]

Originally Posted by milkman

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

[HMc]

how does no new CBA prevent free agency?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HMc

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]

Originally Posted by Brock

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]

Originally Posted by HMc

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]

Originally Posted by Brock

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]

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]

Makin it too difficult.

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

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by milkman

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]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

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.

Why?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

The franchise tag system helps more players than it hurts.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HMc

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.