CBA deal progressing

[dieterbrock]

Union says players will get $100 million more in 2020 if they accept deal now

For NFL players voting on whether or not to accept the owners' proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement, the question is whether to take more money now, or to hold out for a potentially better deal down the road.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

100 million is like 3 million per team

 

[dieterbrock]

I don't understand why you have to increase the schedule by one game.

I am with you wholeheartedly on that.
The answer is simple though, its a flat out money grab. Neutral site games, games overseas, in Mexico and Canada? Yeah, use the players to bring in more $$$$. All of which is fine, but the players deserve their share.
I think its just stupid and goes to show (again) how much of a scam "player safety" is to the league

 

[OldSchool]

100 million is like 3 million per team

Yes but reading the article the money is mostly going towards raising the minimum salaries which is imo a good thing. The need it more than the top of the roster. Minimum salary players get a 90k raise.

 

[OldSchool]

Unions sheet on the proposal. This is a good read.

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/Agents/Proposal%20Fact%20Sheet_2%2020%2020.pdf?_cldee=Z3JlZ2xpbnRvbnVrQHlhaG9vLmNvbQ%3D%3D&recipientid=contact-82953b917724e711812de0071b66aed1-f074297253354257a182013a9d31ea73&esid=571dccde-3454-ea11-a812-000d3a1b1d16

 

[Psycho_X]

Hopefully whatever happens it gets finalized in the next two weeks. I’m guessing most teams are holding off doing any official roster moves until it is. Whatever day this becomes official the roster moves will come fast and furious.

 

[OldSchool]

Reading a lot of mixed reports from players. Some like JJ Watt say hell no. The owners were brilliant coming out and say they approve. Now the court of public opinion from the regular fans will be on their side. Going to be very intersting to see how this progresses.

 

[OldSchool]

And then there’s this.


View: https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1230918700296962050?s=21

 

[OldSchool]

View: https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1230915404828160001

 

[Ram65]

Changes to Drug Policy
o Narrows the testing window of THC from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp
o Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests
o Reduces the number of players subjected to testing for THC
o Increases the nanogram limit from 35 to 150/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a big change.

It would be interesting to find out why they don't just stop testing for THC completely.

 

[WestCoastRam]

Changes to Drug Policy
o Narrows the testing window of THC from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp
o Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests
o Reduces the number of players subjected to testing for THC
o Increases the nanogram limit from 35 to 150/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a big change.

It would be interesting to find out why they don't just stop testing for THC completely.

My guess is they don't want to run afoul of a very vocal part of the country that would attack them for dropping it completely. This gives them the veneer of still not condoning it.

 

[pmil66]

Wonder how the fans feel about this new unbalanced schedule. 9 home games one year, followed by 8 the following season. Do not like that at all.

 

[Ram65]

I've been listening to the radio a few hours during the week and of course reading comments here. There are a lot of issues with the new CBA. My first thoughts so far.

# Don't really like the new playoff format. The #1 seed gets too much of an advantage with a bye week and home field throughout the playoffs. Wild card weekend is watered down enough already. Adding another bad game doesn't make it better.

# I don't care about that extra game. I know it's more football but, 17 weeks plus playoffs is a lot of football. The odd game number seems off for fair competition.

# It's all about making more money which after reading the highlights of the proposed new CBA from the owners doesn't give the players enough extra money for the extra game.

# I hope it gets signed and we can move on. The lower-paid players will be getting nice increases. Overall I would like to see the owners negociate a little more if it is not approved. Work something out for the extra game that gives more money to the players.

 

[Dodgersrf]

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1230615266792558592

This is incorrect.
Adding a 17th game would bring in more revenue.
Since the cap is based off a percentage of revenue, the cap will increase as well.
A 16 game schedule would have a smaller cap than a 17 game schedule.

 

[WestCoastRam]

Even if the union doesn't ratify it on this vote, I doubt we're far off. Lots of posturing from owners that this is last and final offer but there's just too much money on the table to not get this done. It seems to me that there's tremendous room around the edges of this deal to push it over the line with a little more negotiating.

17th game isn't going away but I think the owners would prob be willing to juice the cash lower-tiered players get, up the percentage of money to players in general to get it done...

If it doesn't get done on this vote it'll just end up being an exchange of a bigger part of the money pie for that 17th game.

 

[WestCoastRam]

View: https://twitter.com/CharlesRobinson/status/1230951320103931905


This. This. 100 times this.

If players hold out a bit here, they'll get a concession on cash. No matter what, this deals getting done this offseason.

 

[Psycho_X]

And then there’s this.


View: https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1230918700296962050?s=21

The main thing I’d throw back at owners and say this isn’t going to fly is the $250k cap on game 17. That’s bullshit, every player should get a 17th game check equal to the first 16 and none of it should count against the cap for the team for duration of contract. Owners want to add a game they should be forced to pay for it equal to the first 16 for grandfathered contracts.

Anyone who signs deals this offseason and beyond should negotiate contracts with 17th game in mind. for instance, if I was an agent for Mahomes and I was previously seeking $40 million a season I’d say it actually needs to now be $42.5 million a season which is roughly 1/17th more. All agents will be asking for that 6% bump over previous contracts.

Another reason contracts signed before this season might turn out not so bad in long run.

 

[Akrasian]

Wonder how the fans feel about this new unbalanced schedule. 9 home games one year, followed by 8 the following season. Do not like that at all.

I thought the extra game for each team would be an away game, in a non-NFL stadium, most likely international. So each team would play 8 games at their normal stadium, 8 normal away games, plus a game in Britain or wherever.

 

[kurtfaulk]

This is incorrect.
Adding a 17th game would bring in more revenue.
Since the cap is based off a percentage of revenue, the cap will increase as well.
A 16 game schedule would have a smaller cap than a 17 game schedule.

they're talking about players who are already under contract. they agreed to terms when there were 16 games in the season. if there is an extra game every year they need to be compensated. the max extra payment they are proposing is $250k. that means every player that is under contract for more than $4m per year is getting screwed.

.

 

[Riverumbbq]

NFLMLBNBANHLCFBGOLFPLNAS
ALL PLAYER NEWS

• 
  
  
• The NFLPA executive committee recommended to decline the proposed collective bargaining agreement to the 32-man NFLPA board of representatives.
  The NFLPA executive committee does not have final say, but it is notable that the vote went 6-5 in favor of declining the proposed offer. Now the board of representatives will discuss and vote on the proposal. The NFLPA constitution outlines that the paying members of the union, not the 32-man board of representatives, will have the final say in the proposal. The players just need a majority vote to agree to the owner's current proposal. It's a confusing process, but one that seems to be finally gaining clarity. The biggest things to sort out for the players are the revenue split, 17-game schedule, roster sizes, and player punishment.
  SOURCE: Tom Pelissero on Twitter
  Feb 21, 2020, 1:11 PM ET
  
  
• 
  
•