CBA agreement - Page 3 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Madjostok** · 04-02-2010, 09:28 PM

There are enough incompetent ownerships in the league who struggle making money, and those clowns would welcome a lockout. They will still get the TV revenue in the event of a lockout and they can just put their operations in 'sleep' mode and count the money. The bottom feeders are actually the ones who will benefit more.
That crowd is so cheap that they had to let the Players Association bring suit to keep revenue sharing as is during an uncapped year, even though they had the most to lose.

Mm... I hadn't thought about the TV contract.

Jebus... they are jeopardizing the next TV contract by playing this game. Ugh.

**BitStillrhile** · 04-02-2010, 09:53 PM

Mm... I hadn't thought about the TV contract.

Jebus... they are jeopardizing the next TV contract by playing this game. Ugh.

I thought I heard Mike and MIke say something along the lines of the owners or the league brought on the guy who led the NHL to lockout years back.

I swear the more I see this the more I see Jerrah in my mind as a representation of the owners who would play hardcore chicken on possibly severely damaging the league to win.

**embefuri** · 04-02-2010, 10:21 PM

I disagree. A veteran is going to be comparing his contract to what a rook is getting - Stafford, 24 mil signing bonus? You better make sure that Peyton gets more.

The players aren't going to worry about rookie salaries - those will work themselves out. Those are 'prospective' members of the union, not union members yet - so contesting that point is merely a hook to use to get something else they want - like cutting the time for free agency qualification, or eliminating the franchise tags - or, like they did in 08, reducing the cap charge for minimum salary veterans.

If you think the vast majority of players are happy with guys who have never played a down making 10x more then them, your wrong. How does having a rookie take up 10-20% of your cap make it good for veterans.

This is the NBA lock out all over again, which was David Stern and the owners trying to neutralize agents, especially David Faulk. It's the NFL Owners vs the Super Agents of the NFL. Don't make no mistake about it, it's the agents that are running this thing.

**crestosssa** · 04-02-2010, 10:23 PM

If you think the vast majority of players are happy with guys who have never played a down making 10x more then them, your wrong. How does having a rookie take up 10-20% of your cap make it good for veterans.

This is the NBA lock out all over again, which was David Stern and the owners trying to neutralize agents, especially David Faulk. It's the NFL Owners vs the Super Agents of the NFL. Don't make no mistake about it, it's the agents that are running this thing.

You misunderstood my intent - I meant that the majority of players aren't going to worry about rookies getting these great deals.

**Susanleech** · 04-02-2010, 10:32 PM

You misunderstood my intent - I meant that the majority of players aren't going to worry about rookies getting these great deals.

See, I think a majority do, because it means less dollars at the trough for them. If you keep a cap, and a floor, and lower the rookie dollars, then there are more dollars for the veterans. I don't think they worry enough the other way that they're going to say we refuse to put a cap on rookie contracts. But you know that's an issue, because the people feeding them the info are the agents.

Who do rookie contracts benefit. The first round rookies and about 10 other players in the NFL who have to be the highest paid at that position. That it. Otherwise it's a determent to the league that guys who haven't even taken a snap get such huge contracts. It's purely an agent driven agenda so guys like Drew Rosenhaus can get these giant contracts, and then parade them around. How the hell can anyone argue that Matt Ryan should make more then Tom Brady?

**Phlkxkbh** · 04-02-2010, 10:34 PM

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread?

**MAKEMONEY** · 04-02-2010, 10:36 PM

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread?

nope.

When I saw CBA agreement, I thought it was indeed an agreement. Only to find out it was more talk about it.

**TriammaMade** · 04-02-2010, 10:38 PM

nope.

ok I just figured some other smartass would've commented by now.

**Zfdeisde** · 04-02-2010, 10:39 PM

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread?

No. This thread was brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

**Mister.levitra** · 04-02-2010, 10:40 PM

No. This thread was brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

It should've been titled: Dr. Stangefavre or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Salary Cap

**mr.nemo** · 04-02-2010, 11:21 PM

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said that once that genie is out of the bottle, it will be "virtually impossible" to go back to a capped environment. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...capped-system/

04-02-2010, 09:28 PM	#41
Madjostok Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	There are enough incompetent ownerships in the league who struggle making money, and those clowns would welcome a lockout. They will still get the TV revenue in the event of a lockout and they can just put their operations in 'sleep' mode and count the money. The bottom feeders are actually the ones who will benefit more. That crowd is so cheap that they had to let the Players Association bring suit to keep revenue sharing as is during an uncapped year, even though they had the most to lose. Mm... I hadn't thought about the TV contract. Jebus... they are jeopardizing the next TV contract by playing this game. Ugh. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 09:53 PM	#42
BitStillrhile Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	Mm... I hadn't thought about the TV contract. Jebus... they are jeopardizing the next TV contract by playing this game. Ugh. I thought I heard Mike and MIke say something along the lines of the owners or the league brought on the guy who led the NHL to lockout years back. I swear the more I see this the more I see Jerrah in my mind as a representation of the owners who would play hardcore chicken on possibly severely damaging the league to win. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:21 PM	#43
embefuri Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 499 Senior Member	I disagree. A veteran is going to be comparing his contract to what a rook is getting - Stafford, 24 mil signing bonus? You better make sure that Peyton gets more. The players aren't going to worry about rookie salaries - those will work themselves out. Those are 'prospective' members of the union, not union members yet - so contesting that point is merely a hook to use to get something else they want - like cutting the time for free agency qualification, or eliminating the franchise tags - or, like they did in 08, reducing the cap charge for minimum salary veterans. If you think the vast majority of players are happy with guys who have never played a down making 10x more then them, your wrong. How does having a rookie take up 10-20% of your cap make it good for veterans. This is the NBA lock out all over again, which was David Stern and the owners trying to neutralize agents, especially David Faulk. It's the NFL Owners vs the Super Agents of the NFL. Don't make no mistake about it, it's the agents that are running this thing. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:23 PM	#44
crestosssa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 538 Senior Member	If you think the vast majority of players are happy with guys who have never played a down making 10x more then them, your wrong. How does having a rookie take up 10-20% of your cap make it good for veterans. This is the NBA lock out all over again, which was David Stern and the owners trying to neutralize agents, especially David Faulk. It's the NFL Owners vs the Super Agents of the NFL. Don't make no mistake about it, it's the agents that are running this thing. You misunderstood my intent - I meant that the majority of players aren't going to worry about rookies getting these great deals. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:32 PM	#45
Susanleech Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 451 Senior Member	You misunderstood my intent - I meant that the majority of players aren't going to worry about rookies getting these great deals. See, I think a majority do, because it means less dollars at the trough for them. If you keep a cap, and a floor, and lower the rookie dollars, then there are more dollars for the veterans. I don't think they worry enough the other way that they're going to say we refuse to put a cap on rookie contracts. But you know that's an issue, because the people feeding them the info are the agents. Who do rookie contracts benefit. The first round rookies and about 10 other players in the NFL who have to be the highest paid at that position. That it. Otherwise it's a determent to the league that guys who haven't even taken a snap get such huge contracts. It's purely an agent driven agenda so guys like Drew Rosenhaus can get these giant contracts, and then parade them around. How the hell can anyone argue that Matt Ryan should make more then Tom Brady? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:34 PM	#46
Phlkxkbh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 406 Senior Member	Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:36 PM	#47
MAKEMONEY Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread? nope. When I saw CBA agreement, I thought it was indeed an agreement. Only to find out it was more talk about it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:38 PM	#48
TriammaMade Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 380 Senior Member	nope. ok I just figured some other smartass would've commented by now. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:39 PM	#49
Zfdeisde Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 420 Senior Member	Am I the only one who sees a problem with the title of this thread? No. This thread was brought to you by the department of redundancy department. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 10:40 PM	#50
Mister.levitra Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 493 Senior Member	No. This thread was brought to you by the department of redundancy department. It should've been titled: Dr. Stangefavre or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Salary Cap Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-02-2010, 11:21 PM	#51
mr.nemo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 446 Senior Member	NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said that once that genie is out of the bottle, it will be "virtually impossible" to go back to a capped environment. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...capped-system/ Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)