CBA deal progressing

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,216
Name
Burger man
Not a lot new in the article, but it’s a good read.

I grabbed this piece as speculation when the vote might occur.


League officials have told CNBC the union would like to make the votes official before the union’s annual meetings next week in Miami. Both sides prefer to have the deal ratified by the owners’ meeting at the end of the month, according to people familiar with the talks.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
The risk for injury is going to keep the wealthier athletes from supporting this CBA. Those players with less top level talent will sign to increase their lower-end pay and extend the contract for another 10 years. If the league just wants to extend the season and TV profitability, adding BYES will accomplish this, but it does start to look more like greed when owners adding games is their biggest motivating factor. It's going to be interesting to see how this vote shakes out. jmo.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,216
Name
Burger man
The risk for injury is going to keep the wealthier athletes from supporting this CBA. Those players with less top level talent will sign to increase their lower-end pay and extend the contract for another 10 years. If the league just wants to extend the season and TV profitability, adding BYES will accomplish this, but it does start to look more like greed when owners adding games is their biggest motivating factor. It's going to be interesting to see how this vote shakes out. jmo.

That appears the divide; those who have been paid well, and those trying to get there.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,051
.

Seeing there's more little guys than superstars the deal should get through. If minimum wage goes up from 550k to 660k (approximations) why wouldn't they vote yes.

.
 

hotanez

NRA Member for Life
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
7,384
.

Seeing there's more little guys than superstars the deal should get through. If minimum wage goes up from 550k to 660k (approximations) why wouldn't they vote yes.

.
I'm hoping that's how it plays out. I don't want to miss any games
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,787
If the minimum wage guys are getting a 100k raise, hard to imagine them saying no to that.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,085
But they get no penalties for smoking weed. Other than having to enter counseling if they keep failing drug tests for things other than weed.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,216
Name
Burger man
New NFL CBA would remove suspensions for positive substance abuse drug tests

NFL players just began the voting process of whether or not to accept the new collective bargaining agreement. And as they have a week to vote, different aspects of the CBA are being revealed.

According to Pro Football Talk, one such change to the CBA would be that players would only be subject to fines for positive drug tests for substance abuse. As of right now, a positive drug test would result in a four-game suspension for the first offense. Potentially, the first failed test wouldn’t result in a fine at all. Instead, a multi-stage intervention program would be enacted where the player would enter a two-stage system and depending on the results of an evaluation or a future failed test will determine where the NFL goes from there.

If a player fails a test while in Stage 1 or the evaluation recommends it, a player can move up to Stage 2. There, a treatment plan is required and each positive test carries a bigger fine. The fine increases until the fourth positive test, whereas a player is fined three game checks per positive test after that.

There is technically a suspension still in place but that only happens if the player refuses to undergo testing or a treatment program in Stage 2, beginning with the fourth positive test. The fourth positive test results in a three-game suspension and goes up from there. As long as a player is still seeking treatment, they can only be fined for failing a test.

It’s certainly a step in the direction of those who believe decriminalization and treatment is the way to go to make people actually change. Many will feel these penalties are too lenient and might result in more drug use if the risk of suspension goes away and is no longer a deterrent. But in addition to the public scrutiny of failing a test as well as being fined game checks, players are still getting some sort of punishment.

Not to mention, you can make an argument that if someone actually has a drug addiction problem, a suspension isn’t exactly going to do much. In fact, for some people, an argument can be made that if a player is suspended they may have more free time to take more drugs and lose that structure of playing football every week. Every person handles addiction treatment in different ways and this is going to give the NFL more options to handle that.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,216
Name
Burger man
DeMaurice Smith addresses lack of opt out in new CBA

Of the various criticisms of the new CBA, one of the more popular goes like this: The deal doesn’t allow for the players to opt out early. DeMaurice Smith of the NFL Players Association has a simple response to that critique: The deal doesn’t allow the owners to opt out early, either.

During a one-hour interview with #PFTPM regarding the labor deal on which players currently may vote, Smith pointed out that the 2006 CBA had a mutual opt out, and the owners did just that at their first opportunity. He also suggested that, if the owners had the power to opt out during the current CBA, they would have during the downturn in the ratings that happened in 2016 and 2017.

With all the talk about how the proposed CBA provides the NFL with “cost certainty,” it also provides the players with revenue certainty. As the pie grows, the players’ slice of it grows, too. And the owners are stuck with that, no matter now big, or small, the total pie becomes.

Despite the inherently tense relationship between management and labor, the more the league and its players behave as partners, the better off they and the game will be. This deal arguably moves them closer to a true partnership than they’ve ever had. That reality (we’re told) has been difficult for some owners to accept; they’d prefer to squeeze the players into submission, and to continue to treat them as employees.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,216
Name
Burger man
Sharply divided NFLPA leadership prepares to meet in Miami

For the first time in a long time (perhaps ever), the NFL Players Association will convene an annual meeting with leadership that is sharply divided on an issue of critical importance while that issue of critical importance is being resolved, one dues-paying member of the union at a time.

The Executive Committee, which negotiated the proposed CBA but now has more members against it than for it, will join with the board of player representatives, which generated just enough votes to send the CBA to the full membership, will gather in Miami for several days of meetings that surely will be dominated by ongoing debate and discord over the CBA. As they meet, players will continue to vote for or against a new CBA.

There’s a vocal minority that is opposed to the deal and, by all appearances and indications, a largely silent majority that is willing to defer to the judgment of NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith and vote for the deal.

As Richard Sherman, who serves both as a member of the Executive Committee and the 49ers’ player representative, explained in a tweet to retired NFL safety Eric Weddle, “[W]e fought the good fight but we were outnumbered for sure. It’s disappointing when the best argument for it is fear of what may happen.”

But people make decisions influenced by fear of what may happen every day. They choose surgery for fear of what may happen if they don’t have surgery. They choose to settle a civil case or criminal charges for fear of what happen if they go to trial. And in making these decisions they defer to the judgment of trained and experienced experts whom they trust when making those decisions.

That’s where the union currently is. Smith has resolved after considering all relevant factors and circumstances that the current deal is the best deal, giving the players the biggest slice from the largest pie. As some of the naysayers with agendas (including media members who may be angling for employment with a new-look union) scoff at the idea that the TV revenue will shrink if new deals aren’t done soon, Smith is in the best position to assess what’s real and what isn’t. As he explained during a Thursday visit to #PFTPM, he’s spoken to the league about this — and he’s spoken directly to the networks. How many of the critics of the deal can say the same?

Some players, like Sherman, aren’t willing to defer to the judgment of De Smith, based on the information he has gathered. Others are. Regardless of whether a player chooses to oppose or support the CBA, every player needs to realize that their vote means that they are rejecting or accepting the judgment of De Smith.

Far too many players seem to think that, by saying no, they’re saying no to an offer that the NFL dropped on their doorstep in a flaming bag. That’s just not the case. And every player needs to think of it this way before making his final decision.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,085
Far too many players seem to think that, by saying no, they’re saying no to an offer that the NFL dropped on their doorstep in a flaming bag. That’s just not the case. And every player needs to think of it this way before making his final decision.

Wow that's a majorly weighted comment designed for one thing. So much for objective journalism :) One thing that's very apparent with the way things have gone is the most important thing for the players seems to be the right to their weed without penalty. If that's what's most important congrats. The owners seem to want 17 games for it.
 

Ram65

Legend
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
9,629
I listened to Eric Winston the (NFLPA) president on ESPN radio yesterday. He was not giving his opinion on how players should vote. He sounds very smart and they say he is. There is a lot to the deal. The benefits for older players went up and the younger players will get more. He said there was a give a take. Hard to remember exactly what he said but, something, like they would not have sent it to a vote, had it not been a fair deal.