1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sources: 48 percent share for players

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by DCSholtis, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. DCSholtis

    DCSholtis Up The Irons!

    5,775
    6
    Aug 7, 2002
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

    IMO there goes the value of Sunday Ticket if that happens....
     
  2. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
  3. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Does anyone find it odd that there is a collective bargaining agreement for a union that doesn't exist? :scratchin

    (Yeah, I understand the politics of this, but it just seems "wrong" in some respects .. Regardless, I'm all for an end to the current situation).
     
  4. WestDC

    WestDC Well-Known Member

    2,605
    131
    Feb 9, 2008
    If they don't get a deal done -THE NFL-Will lose it's anti-trust Status--SO a deal will be done no matter at what cost.

    With 8 more games on thursday--Sunday ticket is done for me- maybe others wish to pony up-but I'm done.
     
  5. DCSholtis

    DCSholtis Up The Irons!

    5,775
    6
    Aug 7, 2002
    Oh I'll still pony up I'm just saying that with Sunday Night, Monday Night, Thursday Night and Saturday Night (Starting Thanksgiving) it's just a bit diluted IMO.
     
  6. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    That's what I keep thinking... The union supposedly disbanded, and yet their Union Rep keeps showing up to negotiations... It seems to me that legally speaking, it would be hard to argue they disbanded the NFLPA if the same union rep keeps being responsible for negotiating!

    That said...

    I'm curious on a couple of things.

    I wondered... if they were getting 60% before, but not on the first billion... how much do the lose on that portion dropping to 48% and does 48% of the billion make up for that loss? IF not, then that would seem to be a sticking point in the negotiations.

    I'm personally ok with 16 games... I don't need 18 games, and I understand why many players don't want them. I would say, though, that IF they go 18, then they need to cut the pre-season games in half... IF they don't go 18, then they need to stop requiring people to purchase pre-season tickets in order to be eligible for regular season packages.

    I also would like to see a rookie scale... BUT I wish they would take care of proven veterans. In the olden days of sports, nobody was paid well... then there came a time where they started to pay people well... but the dynamic is all screwed up.

    You know, as a player, you will be cut as soon as you can't perform OR a new rookie comes aboard who can... and at the same time it is hard to argue you are worth mega-millions when you haven't proven it on the field.

    I wish NFL teams would look at their player salaries properly...

    1. Rookie wage scale to ensure they get something for coming into the league, and higher draft picks can get more than lower draft picks.

    2. Performance based raises where your salary isn't a bonus because you achieve goals, but rather IF you perform on the field, you get paid more the next season.

    3. Ultimately super-stars who have performed in the past but weren't paid much those early years... get paid back in their later years where performance is down.

    Stop looking at it like "we can't pay the old guy not to play" and look at it like "we got a deal those first 5 years, so now we are paying you what you really earned back then."

    Also they need to beef up the retirement medical packages, and include retroactively the older already-retired players who have problems.
     

Share This Page