PFSIKH Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 One could argue there's too much money out there to NOT make everyone happy. ROOKIES should all make the same amount (within each round or half-round). Then it's actually a BENEFIT to the worst team in the league to get the #1 pick, and that idiotic draft pick value chart could actually have some merit. There would also be no rookie holdouts either. I agree. Make it like the NBA. #1 draft pick receives 4 years-$4 million. #2-5 receives 4 years-$3.75 million. Something along those lines. Devil's advocate These fringe players last how long in league, maybe 4 years...if lucky i like seeing these guys get rewarded for a team milestone, rather than seeing Cindy or peyton making another $200k, when they clearly do not need the coin. They are set for life and promotions will always come their way. Afso you have a valid point, but so does Sperm. These fringe players earned a minimum #285,000 last year as a first year player. You are still talking about a player banking what....$600K after taxes for four years of work. Plus, players that exceed their contract can earn extra money in "performance based pay". This was part of the last CBA and allows players that outplay their contract to earn extra money. For instance, Cassell received an extra $238K last year. Even Logan Mankins a first round draft pick picked an extra 100K up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I stopped reading it... he is a moron... it does not matter how the money is spread out... If Tom Brady makes 15 million in 09'... he makes 15 million no matter how the games are arranged... He is trying to make it sound as if players will get paid less by switching a couple pre-season games to regular season games... they wont... he is an idiot. he's only a moron because you stopped reading it. If you would have read on you would have got his valid point(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveMike Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 So I guess the moral of the story is the majority of posters here would love to work more yet get paid the same. Man there are some stupid mother f#ckers here. Seriously, people are being very stupid here. They need to get over their jealousy that the players are making millions of dollars and just look at the facts. More games = more work. If your boss came to you and said, what's your commute to work? You reply, about 45-60 minutes. Boss says, OK, I'm going to need you here an hour early and stay an hour late every day. Now you're working a 10 hour day (or more depending on your job), but I won't be paying you anything more. Oh yea, and you're working every other Saturday, too. Not one person here would be happy with that. NFL players are paid much, much more money than just about any of us, but its still their job. Nobody wants to work more for the same salary. Period. There's no way this holds up in the union. The owners will have to give up something in the CBA. As far as the performance bonuses go, I'm sure owners will contend that those numbers will need to be adjusted as well. Another bye week is almost a necessity for this 18 game season, and it's going to drag the season out another month...question is, do they add it to the front or back end of the season? I think they should add it on to the back end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 IMO, what should happen is less pre season games and more post season games. Perhaps, a total of 3 pre season. They are meaningless and risk injury to starters, but potential starters as well. As a fan, I wont waste my money on pre season games when I can go to a regular or post season instead. Especially in this down economy. The NFL could increase revenue by selling some of the post season games instead of airing them for free on national TV. IMO, the NFL is heading towards that direction anyway. I watch virtually all NE games at a sport bar with other NE fans anyway. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfan13 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 So I guess the moral of the story is the majority of posters here would love to work more yet get paid the same. Man there are some stupid mother f#ckers here. keep in mind the majority of posters work 52 weeks a year not 20 something and don't make anywhere near 8-10 mill per siad year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 keep in mind the majority of posters work 52 weeks a year not 20 something and don't make anywhere near 8-10 mill per siad year They also don't bring millions and millions of dollars to their company. That's why I said it's all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfan13 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 They also don't bring millions and millions of dollars to their company. That's why I said it's all relative. ok, and for the record..I do not get paid overtime no matter how many hours I work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveMike Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 ok, and for the record..I do not get paid overtime no matter how many hours I work Are you in a card carrying union member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Yep, it's idiotic. So, I'm paying you $100k salary a year working 5 days a week. You know what, I'm going to have you work 6 days a week and still pay you $100k. That makes perfect sense. Not really. Considering it's only 2 extra games that they are working anyway, it's probably more like making 100k a year and being asked to come in 1 weekend day a month, which happens all the time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 A rookie cap needs to be put in place. The veteran players are adamant about this and I'm sure the owners agree. Think the Jets would like the $21 million in guaranteed money that they gave to Gholston last year? I never understood why rookie salaries are so high to begin with... I mean what owner in their rightful ever dreamed up the idea "hey, im going to pay a kid that hasnt played an NFL game in his life the most money out of every vet on my roster!" I mean they get drafted by a team, if they dont sign with that team they dont get paid at all...So why would owners ever allow rookie salaries to get so high? Never got that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveMike Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 why would owners ever allow rookie salaries to get so high? Never got that. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 ok, and for the record..I do not get paid overtime no matter how many hours I work Either do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Seriously, people are being very stupid here. They need to get over their jealousy that the players are making millions of dollars and just look at the facts. More games = more work. If your boss came to you and said, what's your commute to work? You reply, about 45-60 minutes. Boss says, OK, I'm going to need you here an hour early and stay an hour late every day. Now you're working a 10 hour day (or more depending on your job), but I won't be paying you anything more. Oh yea, and you're working every other Saturday, too. Not one person here would be happy with that. NFL players are paid much, much more money than just about any of us, but its still their job. Nobody wants to work more for the same salary. Period. There's no way this holds up in the union. The owners will have to give up something in the CBA. As far as the performance bonuses go, I'm sure owners will contend that those numbers will need to be adjusted as well. Another bye week is almost a necessity for this 18 game season, and it's going to drag the season out another month...question is, do they add it to the front or back end of the season? I think they should add it on to the back end. I am sorry but am i missing something here, isn't the player obligated to play a full 4 quarters of each of those 4 games in the preseason if the coach so wishes? Just because they decide not to doesn't mean the player can just assume he doesn't have an obligation to play 20 games. So whether 16 or 18 out of those 20 games are regular season doesn't really matter in the eyes of the owners, they are required to play in those games if asked. I am a business owner, and i pay everyone a salary based on a 40 hour work week. Business is slow on fridays so i usually let them go an hour or so early each friday. That does NOT mean their new hours are 39 a week, it means as an owner and boss i choose to cut them some slack on friday. Is there such thing as a contract that stipulates a player does not have to participate on the field in the preseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GangGreen Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I don't think that's the point really. I think the point is getting paid for your contribution to the company. Are you telling me that if your boss told you that you were going to work Saturdays for free that you would just bend over and say "how about Sundays too!!" I understand. But either way, that's a lot of money. I'd work 20 hours a day every day of the year for that kind of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Not really. Considering it's only 2 extra games that they are working anyway, it's probably more like making 100k a year and being asked to come in 1 weekend day a month, which happens all the time.. Actually, no. Playing 18 games is a 112% increase over a 16 game season. That's the equivelent of working 32 1/2 extra weekend days a year. Does that happen all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I agree with everything he said. You can say the players make a lot of money, well s o do the owners but who sacrifices more and who works harder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I understand. But either way, that's a lot of money. I'd work 20 hours a day every day of the year for that kind of money. You would now and I would bet there isn't a person on this board that wouldn't. The thing is, these guys are already making that kind of money. So for the NFL to ask them to go out there and risk their bodies for one or two more weeks just so the NFL can make more money yet refuse to offer any of that money to the people who make the league is a blatant kick in the nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I am sorry but am i missing something here, isn't the player obligated to play a full 4 quarters of each of those 4 games in the preseason if the coach so wishes? Just because they decide not to doesn't mean the player can just assume he doesn't have an obligation to play 20 games. So whether 16 or 18 out of those 20 games are regular season doesn't really matter in the eyes of the owners, they are required to play in those games if asked. I am a business owner, and i pay everyone a salary based on a 40 hour work week. Business is slow on fridays so i usually let them go an hour or so early each friday. That does NOT mean their new hours are 39 a week, it means as an owner and boss i choose to cut them some slack on friday. Is there such thing as a contract that stipulates a player does not have to participate on the field in the preseason? That's not really the same thing. On paper it's correct, but in reality everyone knows that there are two pre-season games where the stars play no more than a series or two. Further, they're two games where the outcome is inconsequential; they are nothing more than short on-field practice sessions with TV cameras. Everyone knows that. Those two games are now being changed to two full games that count. First of all, you'd have to be talking about an hour early EVERY day (35 hrs/wk) to make it the same difference between 16 & 18 games. Second, I'd wager you don't have employees who negotiated work contracts based on 35 hours per week (plus an extra laid-back 1/4-day a couple of times every 3-4 months), and then you change it to a hard 40 hours per week with no change in pay. Next, if you increased your employees' hours beyond their "customary" amount of work, you are not increasing their risk of serious and permanent bodily harm. Lastly, a QB who is making $10M per season could (now) theoretically hold out & refuse to play during two pre-season games & be slapped with a "small" fine of $10K per day or whatever. And if this player had a nutty HC who wanted to let him take snaps behind an OL of UDFA's, I'd say that's pretty likely to happen. So over two weeks, that's $20K to not risk injury in an unnecessary game. If he held out two weeks of REAL games in an 18-games season, he'd lose $1.1M in game checks. It is changing the arrangement under which the current work contracts were negotiated. 16 regular season games and 4 pre-season games (2 of which they barely play in & don't count) comprises the usual and customary work schedule that has been established for years & years. It is not the same as you telling a 35 hr/wk employee, "Hey, you knew when I hired you that your work week is 40 hrs/wk if I need you there all 40 hrs." Everyone, including the courts if it went that far, KNOWS that these 1st string NFL players do not play full games in all 4 pre-season matchups. They get game checks for 16 games and it is spread over 17 weeks. Why is it not spread over the 17 week regular season & 4 game pre-season? Because they are not the same thing. IF the players were getting their current yearly salaries spread over the pre-season & regular-season, then you could have a better (and probably legitimate) case to argue this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.