Owners approve new CBA

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Here is the memo that the NFL has accepted the terms of the new proposed CBA: pic.twitter.com/yRYZc3anSB

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 20, 2020

[dirk digler]

As I said from the beginning when this was leaked it was a bad deal for the players and they would be dumb to accept it.


If you want 17 or more games, remove the 250k max (yes I know it is just temporary), remove the inactive list and let all players including practice squad players be active, and give lifetime health benefits. Otherwise I would vote no.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

As I said from the beginning when this was leaked it was a bad deal for the players and they would be dumb to accept it.


If you want 17 or more games, remove the 250k max (yes I know it is just temporary), remove the inactive list and let all players including practice squad players be active, and give lifetime health benefits. Otherwise I would vote no.

The players don't care about the roster numbers, matter of fact they don't want expanded rosters, more players means less money for them.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by MAHOMO 4 LIFE!

Palmer says we will tag Jones and possible re sign Fuller

I get tag Jones but Fuller? Thornhill should be back with honey badger and Sorenson as a 3rd safety. Breeland wants his money so he's gone. We need a CB, not a safety.

Fuller was way better playing safety but its just not a need and we are always going to be up against the cap from now on until Mahomes retires. Hard choice need to be made. This is low hanging fruit.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The players don't care about the roster numbers, matter of fact they don't want expanded rosters, more players means less money for them.

I'm not really talking about expanded rosters though I think they should expand it to 55-60, I am talking about all players being active on game days except those that are out because of injury.

More games = more injuries = lifetime benefits.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

As I said from the beginning when this was leaked it was a bad deal for the players and they would be dumb to accept it.


If you want 17 or more games, remove the 250k max (yes I know it is just temporary), remove the inactive list and let all players including practice squad players be active, and give lifetime health benefits. Otherwise I would vote no.

I don't understand the bitching about the week 17 game check.

So lets pretend I'm a player under contract and that contract states like I make $1M per game check. It's not like my contract is being cut or that my compensations is being lowered. There is a new pay period and I'm getting an EXTRA 250k.

Cry me a river. Plus they % of their share of the cap is going up meaning in future contract there is more $ available for player contracts.

Cry me a river.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I get tag Jones but Fuller? Thornhill should be back with honey badger and Sorenson as a 3rd safety. Breeland wants his money so he's gone. We need a CB, not a safety.

Fuller was way better playing safety but its just not a need and we are always going to be up against the cap from now on until Mahomes retires. Hard choice need to be made. This is low hanging fruit.

I think Spags is the Joe Madden of the NFL, he loves flexibility. Having someone like Fuller allows him to do more stuff, which is important with the Honey Badger.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't understand the bitching about the week 17 game check.

So lets pretend I'm a player under contract and that contract states like I make $1M per game check. It's not like my contract is being cut or that my compensations is being lowered. There is a new pay period and I'm getting an EXTRA 250k.

Cry me a river. Plus they % of their share of the cap is going up meaning in future contract there is more $ available for player contracts.

Cry me a river.

if my boss told me I get to work an extra day this week but we will only get 1/4 of your salary for that day, with the same workload same physical effort and risks as my normal workload, I would punch them in the face.

It is not just 1 extra game it is 1 extra week of practice/film/time away from family/injury risk/stress.

[tatorhog]

Originally Posted by Wilson8

They are being led by -
NFLPA
Executive Director – DeMaurice Smith
President - Eric Winston
Treasurer – Mark Herzlich
Vice President - Sam Acho
Vice President – Lorenzo Alexander
Vice President – Zak DeOssie
Vice President – Thomas Morstead
Vice President – Russell Okung
Vice President – Richard Sherman
Vice President – Michael Thomas
Vice President – Adam Vinatieri
Vice President – Benjamin Watson

President Eric Winston???????

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Monticore

if my boss told me I get to work an extra day this week but we will only get 1/4 of your salary for that day, with the same workload same physical effort and risks as my normal workload, I would punch them in the face.

It is not just 1 extra game it is 1 extra week of practice/film/time away from family/injury risk/stress.

This is not even comparable to that.

Sure, you can break it down to what players make per game, but that's not how any player looks at their compensation package.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by tatorhog

President Eric Winston???????

I know.

Wonder what he makes.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't understand the bitching about the week 17 game check.

So lets pretend I'm a player under contract and that contract states like I make $1M per game check. It's not like my contract is being cut or that my compensations is being lowered. There is a new pay period and I'm getting an EXTRA 250k.

Cry me a river. Plus they % of their share of the cap is going up meaning in future contract there is more $ available for player contracts.

Cry me a river.

Because their contracts state they get paid for 16 regular season games not 17. If you want to play 17 games then pay them their regular weekly rate.

I bet if you were working on a project that contractually paid you for x amount of weeks and then they said no we are adding another 1-2 weeks but we are only paying you a smaller % of your normal weekly rate you would be happy about that.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

What kind of negotiations would this be if they just took 1st offer. Also there was no way in hell these guys were adding an extra game just to make at most $250,000. Why the hell would they agree to making the owners a shit ton more money and the players take less than usual. Lots of you acting like the cap on paycheck won't effect many people, but there are lots of guys that make over $4 mil/year and make more than $250k a game.

This isn't the first offer, this agreement was jointly agreed to by the owners and NFLPA leadership after months of negotiations. This is a final product. It is now going to the larger groups to approve, with the owners going first, and it passed. IT now moves on to the players. This deal really appeals to the lower paid mass of players and has a great chance of passing. However, I think they will stumble on a few things... First being salary for 17th game. I believe this will ultimately be pro-rated based on current contracts per game with a slight adjustment for one less pre-season game. Also, the 10 year period of the agreement may be a sticking point.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Because their contracts state they get paid for 16 regular season games not 17. If you want to play 17 games then pay them their regular weekly rate.

I bet if you were working on a project that contractually paid you for x amount of weeks and then they said no we are adding another 1-2 weeks but we are only paying you a smaller % of your normal weekly rate you would be happy about that.

Imagine thinking that you deserve 50% of your employers revenue in a real job....

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

This isn't the first offer, this agreement was jointly agreed to by the owners and NFLPA leadership after months of negotiations. This is a final product. It is now going to the larger groups to approve, with the owners going first, and it passed. IT now moves on to the players. This deal really appeals to the lower paid mass of players and has a great chance of passing. However, I think they will stumble on a few things... First being salary for 17th game. I believe this will ultimately be pro-rated based on current contracts per game with a slight adjustment for one less pre-season game. Also, the 10 year period of the agreement may be a sticking point.

We'll see how this plays out but it isn't helpful lots of players and media members are calling it a turd of a deal.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I'm not really talking about expanded rosters though I think they should expand it to 55-60, I am talking about all players being active on game days except those that are out because of injury.

More games = more injuries = lifetime benefits.

Geoff Schwartz said they can't do that, because of injuries etc you could end up with 1 team having 5 more dressed players than another and that is a huge competitive advantage.