NFL Players Association: Lockout or strike in 2021 is “almost a virtual certainty”

[LesBaker]

The players pushed the union to get a deal done because they wanted to get a rookie cap, which they thought would provide them bigger contracts as vets and because they wanted to get back to work and get paid. Smith rushed to the table and came back with a bad deal that the players reps agreed to.......not smart. The public perception was sort of split but there was more sympathy for owners IMO..........a lot of regular folks think that what players get paid is insane considering it's just a sport.


I don't know about that flv because as I mentioned above everyone thought it would allow for larger vet deals with a spending minimum in place with a growing cap. What has happened is the rookie cap is so low that the extra money is going to a few players as free agents with really dumb contracts. So before this CBA it was bad rookie deals that could hurt a teams cap, not it's bad free agent deals. Most vets are gong to want to hit the market, especially if they are a top player, or even top 10 at their position because the GM's will throw huge contracts at them.

This is why I've been saying that Donald wants to become a free agent. He knows he is going to break the bank.

I think they should agree to modify and extend the current CBA. It's obvious the rookie cap needs to increase, and vet minimums need to kick in at different years of service at a higher number. Not to mention the contracts should be guaranteed unless a player is cut, and then the contract should be off the books as far as the cap. Use "real dollars" as the standard not all of these convoluted methods for a hard cap. Set the number for the payroll, set the floor, and add up what gets paid out each year according to contracts.

It's actually not super difficult to do but the issue will be getting people to admit they were wrong, and to be fair rather than greedy. A 50% split seems sensible. But 1 or 2 percent is appealing to greedy fucks.

 

[LesBaker]

The vets were pushing for a rookie cap big time. The rookie deals were making vets unhappy, and that's understandable. I don't think the owner care who gets what to be honest. Paying Player A 15MIL a year and Player B 5MIL is all the same to them.

 

[LesBaker]

Yes owners also complained I'm not claiming they didn't because yes they did for sure, but teams union reps were vocal about the rookie contracts that had grown to be record deal after record deal for someone who hadn't played a down in the NFL.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/18/a-strike-would-create-fantasy-football-havoc/

A strike would create fantasy football havoc
Posted by Mike Florio on August 18, 2017

When NFL players went on strike in 1987 and the league replaced them, fantasy football wasn’t really a thing yet. It now is, and a repeat of ’87 would create havoc for the millions with a passion for this twisted branch of the football tree.

Let’s play it out. The CBA expires in March 2021. The owners, happy with the current deal, don’t lock the players out, allowing the two sides to operate with a contract while negotiations continue.

Negotiations continue to fail, and on the eve of the regular-season opener, the players walk out. The NFL replace them with teams consisting largely of the players cut on Labor Day weekend.

For daily fantasy players, it truly would become a game of skill, since it would take real work to know who will be getting reps and touches — and who will be turning those chances into points. For full-season fantasy players (and particularly for keeper leagues), a huge mess would be looming.

One approach would be to freeze the rosters of regular players and create new rosters of replacement players. At a minimum, that would require plenty of work and creativity for the fantasy platforms, which aren’t built to have a primary team and a reserve lineup. Also, what happens if/when players start crossing the picket line and returning to the game, like plenty of players did in 1987?

For the NFL and the NFLPA, the stakes will be dramatically higher. But fans will have a much more at stake if a strike happens in 2021 than they did in 1987. And that surely will be a factor in the P.R. battle to come.

 

[Warner4Prez]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/18/a-strike-would-create-fantasy-football-havoc/

A strike would create fantasy football havoc
Posted by Mike Florio on August 18, 2017

When NFL players went on strike in 1987 and the league replaced them, fantasy football wasn’t really a thing yet. It now is, and a repeat of ’87 would create havoc for the millions with a passion for this twisted branch of the football tree.

Let’s play it out. The CBA expires in March 2021. The owners, happy with the current deal, don’t lock the players out, allowing the two sides to operate with a contract while negotiations continue.

Negotiations continue to fail, and on the eve of the regular-season opener, the players walk out. The NFL replace them with teams consisting largely of the players cut on Labor Day weekend.

For daily fantasy players, it truly would become a game of skill, since it would take real work to know who will be getting reps and touches — and who will be turning those chances into points. For full-season fantasy players (and particularly for keeper leagues), a huge mess would be looming.

One approach would be to freeze the rosters of regular players and create new rosters of replacement players. At a minimum, that would require plenty of work and creativity for the fantasy platforms, which aren’t built to have a primary team and a reserve lineup. Also, what happens if/when players start crossing the picket line and returning to the game, like plenty of players did in 1987?

For the NFL and the NFLPA, the stakes will be dramatically higher. But fans will have a much more at stake if a strike happens in 2021 than they did in 1987. And that surely will be a factor in the P.R. battle to come.

 

[Mackeyser]

*until Goff wins the first of five Super Bowls....
~bubba

That shouldn't be in blue, brother. We gonna own that silver slice of heaven!!!

 

[kurtfaulk]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/18/a-strike-would-create-fantasy-football-havoc/

A strike would create fantasy football havoc
Posted by Mike Florio on August 18, 2017

When NFL players went on strike in 1987 and the league replaced them, fantasy football wasn’t really a thing yet. It now is, and a repeat of ’87 would create havoc for the millions with a passion for this twisted branch of the football tree.

Let’s play it out. The CBA expires in March 2021. The owners, happy with the current deal, don’t lock the players out, allowing the two sides to operate with a contract while negotiations continue.

Negotiations continue to fail, and on the eve of the regular-season opener, the players walk out. The NFL replace them with teams consisting largely of the players cut on Labor Day weekend.

For daily fantasy players, it truly would become a game of skill, since it would take real work to know who will be getting reps and touches — and who will be turning those chances into points. For full-season fantasy players (and particularly for keeper leagues), a huge mess would be looming.

One approach would be to freeze the rosters of regular players and create new rosters of replacement players. At a minimum, that would require plenty of work and creativity for the fantasy platforms, which aren’t built to have a primary team and a reserve lineup. Also, what happens if/when players start crossing the picket line and returning to the game, like plenty of players did in 1987?

For the NFL and the NFLPA, the stakes will be dramatically higher. But fans will have a much more at stake if a strike happens in 2021 than they did in 1987. And that surely will be a factor in the P.R. battle to come.

I didn't read the article but looked at the heading and the author. Ugh.

.

 

[Prime Time]

Click the link below to watch video of the selfish jerk.
*********************************************************************
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ent-says-care-nfl-dies-20-years-work-stoppage

Eric Winston: Don't care if NFL 'dies out in 20 years' because of work stoppage
ESPN.com news services

NFL Players Association president Eric Winston agreed with DeMaurice Smith's recent comments that a work stoppage in 2021 is likely, given the current relationship between the union and the league.

But Winston took it a step further Monday in an interview with WCPO in Cincinnati, suggesting that players shouldn't care that a strike or lockout "might kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

"Honestly I don't care and I don't think the guys in this locker room care whether [the NFL] is going to be around in 20 years because none of us are going to be playing," Winston, an offensive tackle for the Bengals, told WCPO. "So if these guys [the owners] want to own for a long time, then they can own for a long time. But another work stoppage might kill the golden goose."

"I'm certainly not worried about it," he said. "I'm not going to be around that long. I don't care if even if there are rookies in here -- they're not going to be playing that long.

"So if this thing dies out in 20 years, it dies out in 20 years. That's not really my concern, and I don't think it's any of these players' concern in here either."

Winston is a 12-year veteran and has been the NFLPA's president since March 2014. He acknowledged that there are "always going to be issues between labor and management" but also said that a work stoppage will be the "inevitable outcome" unless serious progress is made in negotiations.

Winston also was asked Monday why he thinks fans tend to side with ownership in labor disputes.

"My personal theory is [fans] think they have a stake in the team," he said. "I was as blindsided by it probably as anybody [in 2011]. ... They don't look at the issues the way we look at issues -- wages, hours, working conditions, and health and safety. You could talk about the same thing in a coal miners' union meeting as we do in our meetings.

"I think fans look at the team and say that that's their team -- they have an ownership in that. That's why you always hear fans say 'Oh, the salary cap,' and they think they're kinda the general managers. Obviously fantasy football and things like that play into it."


View: https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/900081072855277569

 

[DaveFan'51]

" I hate unions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Mikey Ram]

I couldn't believe he said that...No concern for the guys who would not get a shot at the same thing that he and all current and past players have ...And this is a UNION president ??? What a complete D-bag...

 

[jetplt67]

Honestly, I don't blame the players. They are getting screwed. It's the owners who aren't bringing enough value to the table.

Just how are the players "getting screwed"?

If anyone is getting screwed, it would be the fans, but not by owners or players. Fans are "getting screwed" by other fans. We keep paying more and more to watch this game. More and more for tickets, food, beer, jerseys and etc. Why do we keep paying it? Because we're sheep. Jim paid $200 for that uncomfortable seat, I guess I better pay it too. If no one pays for those $200 tickets, guess what those prices will do?? anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Why should owners lower prices to an affordable amount when we keep paying what they ask?

 

[12intheBox]

Just how are the players "getting screwed"?

If anyone is getting screwed, it would be the fans, but not by owners or players. Fans are "getting screwed" by other fans. We keep paying more and more to watch this game. More and more for tickets, food, beer, jerseys and etc. Why do we keep paying it? Because we're sheep. Jim paid $200 for that uncomfortable seat, I guess I better pay it too. If no one pays for those $200 tickets, guess what those prices will do?? anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Why should owners lower prices to an affordable amount when we keep paying what they ask?

Granted - the players aren't getting nearly as screwed as the fans, especially the fans who want to go to the games.

But the players have not done nearly as well for themselves in the NFL as they have in other sports. Part of that is the volume of players in football and the other part is the greater injury factor. These guys are in very real danger out there - and the CBA was - in my opinion very owner friendly again this time around.

I really think the next lockout the players should consider forming a new league instead of just sitting out. They can hire refs, buy pads, negotiate TV contracts and stadium lease agreements.

 

[Rynie]

I don't care if there's not a season that year as long as Goodell is gone, or the new CBA is an agreement that the commissioner doesn't hasn't that much power, and weed is no longer an issue.

 

[Prime Time]

Another backpedaler.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...winstons-remarks-about-the-future-of-the-nfl/

Understanding Eric Winston’s remarks about the future of the NFL
Posted by Mike Florio on August 22, 2017

Getty Images

Much has been made about one specific comment made by NFLPA president Eric Winston at his Bengals locker about the future of the NFL. The click-magnet headline cultivated by some (like ESPN.com) attributes to Winston the notion that he doesn’t care if NFL “dies out in 20 years.” We didn’t even use the quote in the PFT story on his remarks, because the context made Winston’s comments far less innocuous.

There’s nothing wrong or inflammatory or even surprising about his response. The players have no equity in the league; all they have is their bodies and what they can do with them until age or injury stops them. It’s the owners who have the long-term interest in keeping the game as viable as possible, and if they’re willing to engage in tactics that threaten it, that’s their problem.

Winston addressed the issue separately on social media, apparently in response to the focus on his “20 years” remark.

“The league’s spin doctors are at it again,” Winston said. “I was asked whether I worry about the league in 20-30 years if another lockout occurs, I plainly stated, ‘no.’ And no other players in the locker room should either. Players have always chosen to be good stewards of the game because we are the game but quite simply, if the owners choose to lock us out again as they did in 2011, or if they continue to deny the health and safety risks of football, then they have signaled that they are not worried about the game in 20-30 years. I love the game of football but every players knows this is a business.”

The broader point is this: If the owners are willing to drive a bargain so hard in 2021 that it drives the game to the brink, the owners are the ones who will bear the brunt of it over the long haul, because today’s players will be long gone by the time the proverbial chickens come home to roost.

 

[OldSchool]

Sorry Mr. Winston but both the owners and the union have to share the burden. Most fans don't care who feels got the better deal in the negotiations. Because regardless of the outcome only one thing is certain. It will cost fans while players and owners both get rich. So please continue to tell us how you don't care about the future of the game we love that you've made $31 million playing over the last decade. We enjoy hearing you cry as we pay hundreds of dollars a person to go to a single game.

 

[FaulkSF]

I was about to say Winston sounds as dumb as a bag of rocks, but his last statement clarified to Florio (shocked he's reporting the truth on anything) seems more reasonable.

As an owner you should always be mindful of your direct and indirect customers' needs. If your players (indirect) want guaranteed contracts, give them guarantees (years and amounts would likely be shorter). If your fans (direct) want less stoppages and commercials and the NFL is losing market share, then air less commercials. It's not rocket science!