Jump to content

New CBA Details begin to leak.


Mogglez
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

This has been answered. The 17th game will be against the other conference and the 'home' game will alternate years. So 1 year all AFC teams will be the 'home' team and the next year all 'NFC' teams will be the home team.

 

So no one in the conference will get an extra home game over any other team in their conference. 

That fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maxman said:

So teams in the same division will have a different amount of home games? That isn't right.

Which kind of proves that 17 games is just a migration path to 18 games.

All the AFC East teams would be home for the extra game this year and be away for the extra game next year, something like that if at a divisional level it’s felt that all must have the same amount of home games per year.  

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, choon328 said:

For cap purposes, only the top 51 players count against the cap. So raising the active roster limit wouldn't affect players at all.

Top 51 rule is only during offseason when teams can have up to 90 players on roster.  Once regular season begins, all players must fit under cap.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

sounds like good changes - not sure why some of the big money guys are coming out against it

From what I have read, there is a cap on the amount of incrementsal money that will be paid to players for the 17th game.  Higher paid players will not get full pro rata share of pay for 17th game. 

So, anyone who gets more than $4,000,000 per season ($250K per game) is taking a pay cut for that 17th game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, choon328 said:

For cap purposes, only the top 51 players count against the cap. So raising the active roster limit wouldn't affect players at all.

You really think if they raised the roster size to 60 they'd still leave it with only 51 counting against the cap? That sounds extraordinarily unrealistic and is moving the goalposts by more than a little. The amount of players counting against the cap would rise as the roster size rises, and they'd all get paid out of the same pool of cap space as they have now with several players fewer. A major difference is, again, a team might be less inclined to IR/PUP a player because few actually have the talent on the summer rosters to warrant keeping a full 60 rostered guys. 

Teams pay more now for players who go on temporary IR/PUP and get replaced by subsequent signings. Both the IR/PUP'd player count against the cap, as well as their 6-8 week replacements. Plus if those replacements are on the opening day roster the whole season's $ is guaranteed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

This has been answered. The 17th game will be against the other conference and the 'home' game will alternate years. So 1 year all AFC teams will be the 'home' team and the next year all 'NFC' teams will be the home team.

 

So no one in the conference will get an extra home game over any other team in their conference. 

I wonder how that advantage will affect draft position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lith said:

Top 51 rule is only during offseason when teams can have up to 90 players on roster.  Once regular season begins, all players must fit under cap.

All 53. Those 2 additional bottom guys will be minimum salary players just like it's always been.. If it goes to 55 it'll be 4 additional minimum salary players from the 51. That's about $2.5 million in salary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You really think if they raised the roster size to 60 they'd still leave it with only 51 counting against the cap? That sounds extraordinarily unrealistic and is moving the goalposts by more than a little. The amount of players counting against the cap would rise as the roster size rises, and they'd all get paid out of the same pool of cap space as they have now with several players fewer. A major difference is, again, a team might be less inclined to IR/PUP a player because few actually have the talent on the summer rosters to warrant keeping a full 60 rostered guys. 

Teams pay more now for players who go on temporary IR/PUP and get replaced by subsequent signings. Both the IR/PUP'd player count against the cap, as well as their 6-8 week replacements. Plus if those replacements are on the opening day roster the whole season's $ is guaranteed. 

 

The proposal is to move it to 55, not 60. And move there game day roster to 48 instead of 46. Most teams keep at least $5 million in cap space at the start of the year in case of injuries.  Increasing the roster by 2 would help alleviate the need to go out and sign a free agent during the season bc of the additional roster options.  Plus the practice squad is proposed to go to 12 from 10. Another part of the new CBA is that teams would be able to bring up a player from the practice squad and send him back down a couple of times without subjecting him to waivers and risk losing him.  Again, this would alleviate the need to go out and sign a street free agent bc of an injury. Everything you said above about the additional money needed is a moodt point bc of the proposed roster and practice squad changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lith said:

From what I have read, there is a cap on the amount of incrementsal money that will be paid to players for the 17th game.  Higher paid players will not get full pro rata share of pay for 17th game. 

So, anyone who gets more than $4,000,000 per season ($250K per game) is taking a pay cut for that 17th game.

Thanks - I am fine with that, have to assume preseason is shorter (fewer games?) the overall season is about the same so they are not really "working" more, they will get paid extra for playoff games (again would not be happy to hear a player complain about making the playoffs...)

sounds like they need some cheese with that wine 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kdels62 said:

Apparently the conflict is that the players that make the most money are against it but young players and minimum type guys will benefit greatly from the changes. 

that's about 60% of the league who get a 20% raise and 64 more players will make the opening day roster - my guess is they will approve the CBA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

Thanks - I am fine with that, have to assume preseason is shorter (fewer games?) the overall season is about the same so they are not really "working" more... sounds like they need to cheese with that wine - 

I'm amazed by your take on this. I really am.

If I were an NFL player who makes more then $250,000 per game, or thinks I'm worthy of a second contract, I'd be having a long talk with my union rep about why the council even let this be brought to a vote. 

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

Only the dumbest of memberships wouldn't see how ridiculous this is. If it gets ratified, just shut down the union.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

I'm amazed by your take on this. I really am.

If I were an NFL player who makes more then $250,000 per game, or thinks I'm worthy of a second contract, I'd be having a long talk with my union rep about why the council even let this be brought to a vote. 

The NFLPA is a joke of a union.

Respect your opinion - I am sure some of those players can and will hold out for a new contract under the new CBA and I would expect some teams to update contracts for their face of the franchise guys (renegotiating contracts happens all the time and will settle out quickly) what if it's a bad contract like Tru would you want him to get an automatic raise with the new CBA?

Overall the deal seems fair to both sides and helps the vast majority of players, plus it gives us fans more meaningful football and most importantly avoids a work stoppage...

This new deal would give NFL players the highest percentage of revenues of any American professional sport, going to 48% and eventually could climb higher than 48.5% depending on media rights. That would mean more than $5 billion in new money to players.

The new deal would also include an expanded playoff setup of 14 teams, with only the top seed in each conference receiving a first-round bye. The new postseason format would likely go into effect this upcoming season. 

In addition to adding a regular-season matchup for every team (with no extra bye), the proposed CBA limits the number of international games teams play. It also reduces the number of training camp practices from 28 to 16. 

Rosters would expand by two players (from 53 to 55), with 48 players able to dress for games rather than the current 46. Practice squad sizes would rise from 10 players to 12 and eventually 14. Protecting those players from free agency would be easier. 

The minimum salary for rookies is expected to increase by $100,000 in 2020. Additionally, owners and the league are set to relax the league's penalties on marijuana and put player discipline for off-field incidents in the hands of a neutral arbitrator rather than commissioner Roger Goodell, who currently adjudicates such matters.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/02/26/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-facts-deal-details-players-association/4878534002/

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SAR I said:

All the AFC East teams would be home for the extra game this year and be away for the extra game next year, something like that if at a divisional level it’s felt that all must have the same amount of home games per year.  

SAR I

That would make sense, I think they would have to do it at the divisional level for sure. The crazy thing is in that scenario our season ticket $ go up, because there will be 9 games instead of 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

Respect your opinion - I am sure some of those players can and will hold out for a new contract under the new CBA and I would expect some teams to update contracts for their face of the franchise guys but overall the deal seems fair and helps the vast majority of players, plus it gives us fans more meaningful football and most importantly avoids a work stoppage...

This new deal would give NFL players the highest percentage of revenues of any American professional sport, going to 48% and eventually could climb higher than 48.5% depending on media rights. That would mean more than $5 billion in new money to players.

Rosters would expand by two players (from 53 to 55), with 48 players able to dress for games rather than the current 46. Practice squad sizes would rise from 10 players to 12 and eventually 14. Protecting those players from free agency would be easier. 

The minimum salary for rookies is expected to increase by $100,000 in 2020. Additionally, owners and the league are set to relax the league's penalties on marijuana and put player discipline for off-field incidents in the hands of a neutral arbitrator rather than commissioner Roger Goodell, who currently adjudicates such matters.

I added the below portion to my original quote too late for you to see it. 

30 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

Only the dumbest of memberships wouldn't see how ridiculous this is. If it gets ratified, just shut down the union.

The $250,000 per for the 17th game is a non starter for me if I'm a player..

Just think how many millions of dollars of extra revenue the owners get from a game where players are making millions less then they normally would. What a wind fall for them!!!! All the while these same owners get the full revenues from an added game...LOL

Hell, the Seahawks would make about $2 million in that game on Russel Wilson alone. Forget about every other player making more then 4 million per year. 

That buys a lot of wine...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

It's not just the NFL, this happens to salaried employees with cost cutting measures all the time but we have the freedom to go work somewhere else

My best friend is 3rd generation IBEW so I understand the viewpoint, I just have never had a union negotiate my wages. I do agree the need is real and a 20% raise for the minimum salary guys seems like a  good union proposal - IMHO the strong can usually fight for themselves (Wilson will get his $2m) the union should be there to help those who can't fight for themselves

What changes would you make? Do you dislike everything with the proposed CBA?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

I added the below portion to my original quote too late for you to see it. 

The $250,000 per for the 17th game is a non starter for me if I'm a player..

Just think how many millions of dollars of extra revenue the owners get from a game where players are making millions less then they normally would. What a wind fall for them!!!! All the while these same owners get the full revenues from an added game...LOL

Hell, the Seahawks would make about $2 million in that game on Russel Wilson alone. Forget about every other player making more then 4 million per year. 

That buys a lot of wine...

The $250,000 cap for the 17th game was taken out of the new CBA yesterday when they met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

It's not just the NFL, this happens to salaried employees with cost cutting measures all the time but we have the freedom to go work somewhere else

My best friend is 3rd generation IBEW so I understand the viewpoint, I just have never had a union negotiate my wages and not had issues. I do agree the need is real and a 20% raise for the minimum salary guys seems like a  good union proposal - IMHO the strong can usually fight for themselves the union should be there to help those who can't fight for themselves

What changes would you make? Do you dislike everything with the proposed CBA?

No I think there are a lot of good things for the players in there, you listed a lot of them, but as usual, in the big picture, they amount to "throwing the dog a bone."

My problem is looking at this from the point of view where you compare NFL players to any other type of workers besides those in other major sports like baseball and basketball. Your point about salaried employees and cost cutting measures holds true in industries that are struggling to stay afloat. It doesn't hold water when talking about the NFL. They are printing money.

This proposal shows you how the NFL owners became billionaires, and how the NFLPA became known as the joke it is. The owners have preyed on the lowest level NFL players forever. They know those players realize how short their careers are, and how easily they can be replaced. Wave a few extra dollars at them, and they'll jump at it. They always have. 

The older, smarter players have always realized this, but they get killed for coming off as greedy and "not knowing how good they have it" by the average joe, and the owners know this. So the owners give a few bucks to the bottom of the barrel guys, give in on a few minor issues, and walk out with an extra week of games and the revenue that brings, and added playoff revenue on top of that. 

Do you think they're going to ask the TV networks for the same reduced rate for these playoff and regular season games they want from the players? I don't, and neither do you. God knows how many hundreds of millions they'll get for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, choon328 said:

The $250,000 cap for the 17th game was taken out of the new CBA yesterday when they met.

AAAGH!!!

Why didn't you say this BEFORE I posted 100.000 words complaining about it? LOL

btw What was the new proposal? Was it 1/16 of the players salary? Curious about pay for the playoff games also...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

AAAGH!!!

Why didn't you say this BEFORE I posted 100.000 words complaining about it? LOL

btw What was the new proposal? Was it 1/16 of the players salary? Curious about pay for the playoff games also...

Lol.  I had just read your post. The only changed I heard about playoff pay was that teams that are on a bye will now receive pay for that week as well. Which I guess they weren't getting before. As far as what I understand about the 17th game it will be an extra 1/16th of their salary no matter how much they make since there won't be a cap on it now. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 14 in Green said:

I'm amazed by your take on this. I really am.

If I were an NFL player who makes more then $250,000 per game, or thinks I'm worthy of a second contract, I'd be having a long talk with my union rep about why the council even let this be brought to a vote. 

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

Only the dumbest of memberships wouldn't see how ridiculous this is. If it gets ratified, just shut down the union.

But they want the greater votes of the lesser ones to override the fewer votes of the greater ones.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

I'm amazed by your take on this. I really am.

If I were an NFL player who makes more then $250,000 per game, or thinks I'm worthy of a second contract, I'd be having a long talk with my union rep about why the council even let this be brought to a vote. 

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

Only the dumbest of memberships wouldn't see how ridiculous this is. If it gets ratified, just shut down the union.

Keep in mind that ther person saying that isn't doing the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, flgreen said:

Wow, there's only going to be 16 practices?

These guys will be coming into opening day out of shape and not knowing the game plan.  This should be fun.

Good luck developing a QB

Main reason I don’t like the new CBA

 

If people the quality of football sucks now wait til this goes through 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, flgreen said:

Wow, there's only going to be 16 practices?

These guys will be coming into opening day out of shape and not knowing the game plan.  This should be fun.

Good luck developing a QB

Huge advantage for veteran teams with long term coaching staffs and established systems(NE, Packers, Seattle, Ravens, Steelers). Young teams with new coaching staffs (Jets) are screwed. More dynasties, less parity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

I'm amazed by your take on this. I really am.

If I were an NFL player who makes more then $250,000 per game, or thinks I'm worthy of a second contract, I'd be having a long talk with my union rep about why the council even let this be brought to a vote. 

There isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want to get more hours from their top employees at the rate they pay their lowest ones.  The NFL is the only one that might be able to pull it off, however, because the NFLPA is that big of a joke.

Only the dumbest of memberships wouldn't see how ridiculous this is. If it gets ratified, just shut down the union.

Companies do do this by giving a salary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maxman said:

That would make sense, I think they would have to do it at the divisional level for sure. The crazy thing is in that scenario our season ticket $ go up, because there will be 9 games instead of 8.

But it takes the place of a preseason game,

So if we have the 17th game as a home game, we'd pay for 9 regular season and 1 preseason game, right?  Then the next year we'd pay for 8 and 2 just like the old days.  I think that's how it works. 

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, flgreen said:

Wow, there's only going to be 16 practices?

These guys will be coming into opening day out of shape and not knowing the game plan.  This should be fun.

Good luck developing a QB

Hence the reason that continuity is so much more important than it was in the past.  Gase & Coaches all returning next year gives us an advantage over all the teams with rookie HC's and on par with those who have a staff onboard for a few years.

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, nyjets1969 said:

The money these players are making they should play more games. I'm not really for or against it but most of these players make enough in one season than most  fans make in an entire lifetime and are set for the rest of their lives. The rules the players union have in place limiting practice time has really effected the game the first 3 to 4 games the teams are still shaking the rust off 1 more game wont kill them. 

Yeah but Aaron Rodgers needs more time off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

Sorry if this was answered so if we get 9 home games this year is my season ticket price going up. I’m already paying this year via monthly installments

The proposal has the league going from 4 preseason games to 3.  The 9th home game would be in lieu of the 2nd preseason game.  So we'd pay for the same 10 home games.  Every other year we'd have 2 preseason games, every other year we'd have 1 preseason and 1 extra regular season game.

Since regular season games are something like $25 more expensive than preseason games, you would see an increase around that amount every other year that 2nd preseason game is converted to a 9th regular season game.

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...