Rule Change Will Hurt The NY Jets

[Matt39]

You think players like OTAs and did not grumble in having to go?

It depends on the player- younger guys, its an evaluation and a try out. I highly doubt they're enjoying not knowing they'll have a paycheck come week 1.

Vet's on the team probably dont, because they know they'll be there and are relatively secure. That's like any profession.

[Scott Dierking]

It depends on the player- younger guys, its a evaluation and a try out. Vet's on the team probably dont, because they know they'll be there. That's like any profession.

The NFLPA is looking to have OTA's REDUCED in the new contract. THAT is how much they like them

[Matt39]

The NFLPA is looking to have OTA's REDUCED in the new contract. THAT is how much they like them

So what?

If ownership hadn't torn up the old CBA....players would be at OTA's. It's their job to be there.

Players not having to report to OTA's doesn't equate enjoying the lockout. That's absurd.

[Scott Dierking]

So what?

If ownership hadn't torn up the old CBA....players would be at OTA's. It's their job to be there.

If the former commissioner hadn't greased an extension through that gave players more in order to end his reign quietly...............

[Matt39]

If the former commissioner hadn't greased an extension through that gave players more in order to end his reign quietly...............

You know why Tagliabue was great?

Because we never spoke about him.

Goodell wants to be the star. He wants to be Jerry Jones' bud. Like a ref taking over a big game.

[Scott Dierking]

You know why Tagliabue was great?

Because we never spoke about him.

Goodell wants to be the star. He wants to be Jerry Jones' bud. Like a ref taking over a big game.

You know why Tagliabue was a pussy? He did not want confrontation and he did not want to deal with the issues.

The owners feel he gave away the farm with the extension he did 6 years ago, and they want a more equitable distribution.

Tagliabiue passed the buck. Goodell is left holding the bag.

[Matt39]

You know why Tagliabue was a pussy? He did not want confrontation and he did not want to deal with the issues.

The owners feel he gave away the farm with the extension he did 6 years ago, and they want a more equitable distribution.

Tagliabiue passed the buck. Goodell is left holding the bag.

What issues?

The farm? The owners need wheel barrels for the amount of money they've been making over the past 10 years. If anyone's making a farm, its been the owners.

[T0mShane]

I don't agree with either side-but trying to keep it balanced.

NEITHER side is totally right.

if you believe this is ALL Goodell-you are mistaken

Did the players lock themselves out? Come on, bro.

[ECURB]

I'm still waiting on a link.

http://www.jetnation.com/forums/index.php?/topic/97554-rule-change-will-hurt-the-ny-jets/page__view__findpost__p__1802860

[Scott Dierking]

What issues?

The farm? The owners need wheel barrels for the amount of money they've been making over the past 10 years. If anyone's making a farm, its been the owners.

Which side is forcing the issue?

The owners, particularly a faction of aggressive, entrepreneurial Goodell confidants (Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Pat Bowlen, Jerry Richardson) who want a CBA that accounts for the high-risk investments they’ve made on new stadiums and other capital expenditures. For the most part, the owners are unified in their belief that they agreed to a lousy deal when the current CBA was extended in 2006, and that the players currently receive too great a share of their adjusted gross revenues. At last March’s NFL owners meeting in Orlando, Fla., the Carolina Panthers’ Richardson gave a fiery speech in which he exhorted his peers to “take back our league” by forcing a more favorable deal down the throats of the players. This is likely to be accomplished in the form of a lockout, though it’s possible that the owners could opt for a milder approach: negotiating to impasse and imposing terms of their choosing, which might compel the players to strike. DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, is convinced that a lockout is coming, and a majority of his constituents – many of whom are more engaged and informed than is commonly perceived – share this belief.

Why are the owners so upset about the deal they cut in 2006?

Many owners believe that the late Gene Upshaw, who served as the NFLPA’s executive director for a quarter-century, caught then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in a weak moment and muscled through an extension to the CBA that was, in essence, a resounding victory for the players. Upshaw, they believe, knew that Tagliabue – who was preparing to step away after a 17-year stint as commissioner which included unprecedented labor peace – was loath to tarnish his legacy by ending his tenure with a messy fight between the players and owners. He also understood that several of the league’s most powerful owners, such as the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were unwilling to entertain thoughts of a work stoppage because of expensive stadium plans. So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least. A little more than two years after agreeing to the extension by a 30-2 vote, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the deal two years early. Upshaw’s sudden death from pancreatic cancer three months later may have given some owners an increased sense that the union is in a vulnerable position this time around.

Why do some owners think the system is broken?

Revenue sharing fails to address the reality that some teams (such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals) have favorable stadium deals that call for little or no expenditures from the organization while other owners, such as Jones, Denver’s Pat Bowlen or the Green Bay Packers, took out massive loans for new or renovated stadiums. Thus, someone such as the Panthers’ Richardson might be forced to write an eight-figure check that subsidizes a peer such as the Bengals’ Mike Brown(notes), who is actually making a far greater profit because of his relatively low overhead. Further, there are owners who intentionally keep revenues low to maintain their spot in the NFL’s lower 17 and ensure that they’ll receive money under the current system. All of this is mystifying to the players, who believe the owners who are most averse to revenue sharing greet a potential work stoppage as an opportunity for prevailing in an internal struggle.

Just their side.

[Scott Dierking]

Did the players lock themselves out? Come on, bro.

Sometimes you can not afford to just roll over

[Matt39]

All that shows is the big owners dont like the small owners.

Great. No one forced Jerry Jones to build a new stadium when he didnt need one.

[Scott Dierking]

All that shows is the big owners dont like the small owners.

Great. No one forced Jerry Jones to build a new stadium when he didnt need one.

No kidding-Maybe, just maybe they are not trying to be the MLB.

That is a pretty apathetic response.

The issues are there, whether you choose to ignore them or not.

This IS NOT a one sided dispute.

[T0mShane]

You know why Tagliabue was a pussy? He did not want confrontation and he did not want to deal with the issues.

The owners feel he gave away the farm with the extension he did 6 years ago, and they want a more equitable distribution.

Tagliabiue passed the buck. Goodell is left holding the bag.

Gene Upshaw got eviscerated for signing that deal originally because it ONLY ensured that players would be cash-rich for a relatively short period of their unguaranteed contracts and it did nothing for retired players. Upshaw was mocked as a joke and Tagliabue's pet. The reason that contract is an issue NOW is because TV revenues are growing faster than the owners could have predicted and they're pissed that they agreed to hand over a percentage stake. In essence, they don't want to ever pay a player, even one as great as Peyton Manning, $30=$35 mil per year assuming revenues continue to blow up, even though the owners are pocketing more and more cash. They're the ones who were short-sighted.

[Scott Dierking]

Gene Upshaw got eviscerated for signing that deal originally because it ONLY ensured that players would be cash-rich for a relatively short period of their unguaranteed contracts and it did nothing for retired players. Upshaw was mocked as a joke and Tagliabue's pet. The reason that contract is an issue NOW is because TV revenues are growing faster than the owners could have predicted and they're pissed that they agreed to hand over a percentage stake. In essence, they don't want to ever pay a player, even one as great as Peyton Manning, $30=$35 mil per year assuming revenues continue to blow up, even though the owners are pocketing more and more cash. They're the ones who were short-sighted.

What are the current players doing for the retired players now? How is that going?

From the sound of things, not much:

With the NFLPA* not responding to a Friday offer from owners that, per the league, includes “funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent,” some former players are getting antsy, and some want answers as to why talks aren’t continuing. One man who is antsy to get some answers is NFL Alumni president, and former Giants defensive end, George Martin (pictured).

The NFL recently pointed out that Martin can’t get a meeting with NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith. Martin has now pointed that out to Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News.

“It’s disconcerting because, yet again NFL Alumni, although we appear to be in the discussion, we’re still treated as if we’re second-class citizens or an afterthought,” Martin said. “We definitely feel there’s a moral imperative for those of us who have paid such an extraordinarily high price to help build this industry to be in the discussion.”

Martin says he was invited to the upcoming NFLPA* meeting in Marco Island, Florida, but that he wasn’t promised a meeting/audience with Smith. Martin also claims that he had to fill out a questionnaire detailing his relationship and dealings with the league.

“To me it was a bit insulting,” Martin said. “Here’s a guy who played 14 years in the NFL, a 10-year veteran as a player representative, and was the president of the NFLPA for two years. Now my loyalty and allegiance is being called into question before I can come and address the very organization I spent 14 years officially supporting?”

But here’s the thing. NFL Alumni has strong ties to the NFL, and the NFLPA* has its own relationship with retired players, including two of them (Jim McFarland and Cornelius Bennett) as non-voting members of the Executive Committee. The league gave NFL Alumni a $1 million loan, interest free. And the fact that the league has been supporting the idea of Congressional pressure to force Smith to meet with Martin suggests that the league views the group as a possible tool for driving a wedge between current and former players, in the hopes of getting the players to eventually cave.

As to the “questionnaire,” we’re told that Martin was asked questions via e-mail exchange regarding whether he supports the Legacy Fund and the union’s efforts at the bargaining table. Given the possible ties between the league and NFL Alumni, it’s not unreasonable (in our view) for the union to be interested in ensuring that the motives of NFL Alumni are pure, and that the group isn’t being manipulated by the league.

Though Martin is a former player, there’s a history of acrimony between former players and the NFLPA. The late Gene Upshaw once said that he doesn’t represent former players. Though De Smith has taken a more conciliatory tone, the effort has coms at a time when both sides have been trying to win the hearts and minds of the fans, perhaps first by winning the hearts and minds of the game’s greats.

[T0mShane]

Sometimes you can not afford to just roll over

My friend, the players didn't do anything--not a thing--to precipitate this lockout. This lockout started because Jerry Jones essentially took Cowboys merchandising private and then Big Cable started bidding on TV contracts and small market teams were crying because nobody wanted to buy a Bills jersey. The owners, instead of reigning in dickholes like Jones who decided to f*ck their entire league by trying to become the Yankees, they turned around and are trying to gouge the players and fans. How the players are culpable here is beyond me.

[Scott Dierking]

My friend, the players didn't do anything--not a thing--to precipitate this lockout. This lockout started because Jerry Jones essentially took Cowboys merchandising private and then Big Cable started bidding on TV contracts and small market teams were crying because nobody wanted to buy a Bills jersey. The owners, instead of reigning in dickholes like Jones who decided to f*ck their entire league by trying to become the Yankees, they turned around and are trying to gouge the players and fans. How the players are culpable here is beyond me.

Just because one position enjoy status quo, does not mean all sides have to.

I LOVE how some players talk as they are slaves. Some perspective.

[Matt39]

Just because one position enjoy status quo, does not mean all sides have to.

I LOVE how some players talk as they are slaves. Some perspective.

One player did that. Silly comment. No different from owners crying poverty though.

[slats]

No, the owners did. Goodell, owners...same difference.

Numerous players have publicly stated they hate all of the new rules, the 18 game schedule etc.

And coaches and fans...

The only ones who want the lengthened schedule are the owners. Every one of them gets beaten up every year for forcing season ticket holders to pay full price for two exhibition games - games that fans don't show up for to pay parking, buy $12 beers, etc.

Why are the owners so upset about the deal they cut in 2006?

Many owners believe that the late Gene Upshaw, who served as the NFLPA’s executive director for a quarter-century, caught then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in a weak moment and muscled through an extension to the CBA that was, in essence, a resounding victory for the players. Upshaw, they believe, knew that Tagliabue – who was preparing to step away after a 17-year stint as commissioner which included unprecedented labor peace – was loath to tarnish his legacy by ending his tenure with a messy fight between the players and owners. He also understood that several of the league’s most powerful owners, such as the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were unwilling to entertain thoughts of a work stoppage because of expensive stadium plans. So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least. A little more than two years after agreeing to the extension by a 30-2 vote, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the deal two years early. Upshaw’s sudden death from pancreatic cancer three months later may have given some owners an increased sense that the union is in a vulnerable position this time around.

Why do some owners think the system is broken?

Revenue sharing fails to address the reality that some teams (such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals) have favorable stadium deals that call for little or no expenditures from the organization while other owners, such as Jones, Denver’s Pat Bowlen or the Green Bay Packers, took out massive loans for new or renovated stadiums. Thus, someone such as the Panthers’ Richardson might be forced to write an eight-figure check that subsidizes a peer such as the Bengals’ Mike Brown(notes), who is actually making a far greater profit because of his relatively low overhead. Further, there are owners who intentionally keep revenues low to maintain their spot in the NFL’s lower 17 and ensure that they’ll receive money under the current system. All of this is mystifying to the players, who believe the owners who are most averse to revenue sharing greet a potential work stoppage as an opportunity for prevailing in an internal struggle.

Read that revenue sharing paragraph again. That's the culprit. The lockout is mostly owner on owner crime, but they're more than willing to get together and screw the players rather than settle their own differences. If the teams were really so hurt financially because of the money the players get, they'd be willing to open their books - which is obviously the last thing on planet earth they'd ever be willing to do. Guaranteed there are owners cashing in on the current system that don't want the other owners to know what they're really raking in.

[Scott Dierking]

And coaches and fans...

The only ones who want the lengthened schedule are the owners. Every one of them gets beaten up every year for forcing season ticket holders to pay full price for two exhibition games - games that fans don't show up for to pay parking, buy $12 beers, etc.

Read that revenue sharing paragraph again. That's the culprit. The lockout is mostly owner on owner crime, but they're more than willing to get together and screw the players rather than settle their own differences. If the teams were really so hurt financially because of the money the players get, they'd be willing to open their books - which is obviously the last thing on planet earth they'd ever be willing to do. Guaranteed there are owners cashing in on the current system that don't want the other owners to know what they're really raking in.

The owners are not without culpability.

But that does not mean the current system is perfect either. The Cap is going UP.

[Scott Dierking]

One player did that. Silly comment. No different from owners crying poverty though.

Leonard Weaver, too

[slats]

The owners are not without culpability.

But that does not mean the current system is perfect either. The Cap is going UP.

Even in negotiations between a union and one employer, the result will not be perfect, and there will be things that both sides don't like about it.

The problem here is you have a (formerly ) unionized workforce vs. 32 employers, all with their own financial angle - and all with financial angles against each other. The only thing they agree upon is that they need more money. And the only way for them to agree on how to get it is to squeeze the players - and fans.

It's not that the owners aren't without culpability, it's that they are the primary culprits. This is their lockout. They dissolved a contract that they had previously agreed to.

[Scott Dierking]

Even in negotiations between a union and one employer, the result will not be perfect, and there will be things that both sides don't like about it.

The problem here is you have a (formerly ) unionized workforce vs. 32 employers, all with their own financial angle - and all with financial angles against each other. The only thing they agree upon is that they need more money. And the only way for them to agree on how to get it is to squeeze the players - and fans.

It's not that the owners aren't without culpability, it's that they are the primary culprits. This is their lockout. They dissolved a contract that they had previously agreed to.

Yes, they agreed to a contract because it would have bee n MUCH more painful for them to do this 6 years ago.

As with everything, timing is the key in life.

Shame on them for not realizing that once you negotiate something away, you never get it back. That is what they are staring at.

[JetsFanInDenver]

One would think that trying to eliminate injuries is a good thing.

Was the suspensions for head hunting about $$$? Horse collar tackles? Stringent rules on concussions?

Some are hopping on a bandwagon of conspiracy far too often.

Sometimes it is about protecting the players. Period.

Who are we kidding. Its all comes down to what is good for revenue. Star RB's being a big draw. And they were the victims of horse collars.

And when did this focus on concussions come into play ? In what season ?

This is so obvious that it would be very gullible to even give the owners the benefit of the doubt.