Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Albert Breer alleges VJax and Mankins stand strong on 10 million! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JuSt CuZ
- Start date
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Not sure how much it's worth, but they were screwed. They should get something.. When things aren't done based on whats fair, but rather by what someone can legally get away with, They have every right to complain and to ask for compensation.
Lehigh98
Footballguy
10 million, 10 million, 10 million dollars!RIP Pryor & Candy
Reaper
Footballguy
Vjax has the same agents as Revis... Not sure about Mankins..
These guys had the Jets brass going insane with their demands and we all saw what Vjax did last year. Same with Roddy White.
I know their job is to get the most $$$$$ possible - But, if I were a player I'd value where I played, who I played for and how much money my team had to spend on others as well because #1 I would want to Win.
There's only so much of the Salary cap pie to take...
These guys had the Jets brass going insane with their demands and we all saw what Vjax did last year. Same with Roddy White.
I know their job is to get the most $$$$$ possible - But, if I were a player I'd value where I played, who I played for and how much money my team had to spend on others as well because #1 I would want to Win.
There's only so much of the Salary cap pie to take...
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
That was a great movie to watch as a child.. Brewster's Millions.. Pryor was the man..
Reaper
Footballguy
...... But, my agents Shiester and Shiester see an opportunity get cash in.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
If the owners didn't opt out of the CBA which allowed the league to operate under a new set of rules - both players would have been UFAs under the CBA, not RFAs. They each lost a great deal of money because of it, so I can kind of see their point.Getting what you rightfully and legally think you deserve is not greed. Bottom line though is that we as fans don't really need to worry because the settelment of the anti-trust suit can go on without these two plaintiffs that can opt out and pusrsue the litigation on their own, if they chose to do so.Also Jackson has stated that this "news" isn't even true and he just wants to play football like everyone else.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
You should go into work today, kiss/hug and of your colleges, march into the bosses office and tell him you'll work for 1 10th of what you're worth..V-jax did nothing wrong last year.. Have no clue what you're talking about. If your boss wanted to pay you 1/10th of your worth, you'd do what you had to do to protect your future... Not sure about the Revis situation, that's closer to you, and I don't remember the story, but don't get the 2 confused. V-Jax got screwed over royally last year..
comfortably numb
Footballguy
I agree to an extent, as the above bolded initially...it is easy for us to say what we would/wouldn't do, when we only deal with the "sport" of football.The players/coaches deal with the "business" of football.
I agree with the OP, as a fan, I would take all that into account...as a business, when you see so many of your friends, teammates get kicked to the curb after 2 good years of service because you tore your ACL last year, and are not worth the contract you signed, you probably consider the business end a lot more then you do the sports end.
habsfan
Footballguy
I think he got screwed "ethically" if you believe in right or wrong but not legally obviously. SD did what they did because they could. Now he may do (more or less) exactly the same thing.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Lets not forget... They signed the last contract they and their agent negotiated, they didn't have to sign those deals.
They felt entitled so they held out, they knew the league rules when the joined the NFL, they are nothing special.
Their demands are selfish, disrespectful to the other players in the league, and arrogant. If anything, they should be the ones not even barking, they held out and dishonored the deal.
They felt entitled so they held out, they knew the league rules when the joined the NFL, they are nothing special.
Their demands are selfish, disrespectful to the other players in the league, and arrogant. If anything, they should be the ones not even barking, they held out and dishonored the deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reaper
Footballguy
That is true... I'm letting my hatred for these 2 Agents effect my Vjax opinion - Vjax got caught in the middle of all this CBA stuff while Revis demanded money long before his rookie contract was up.I do know that these 2 agents won't back down....
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The point is they didn't sign anything. Their free agency was taken away from them by the owners opting out of the CBA (which was the deal negotiated between the players and owners) and implemented new rules which were unfair to 5th year and 6th year players whose contracts had expired.You're thinking as a fan that just wants his football back, not as a human being or business man. Once again going after what you feel you deserve is not being greedy or selfish.
Flying Elvis
Footballguy
Albert Breer must be using the same "sources" that said Peyton & Drew wanted to ensure they couldn't be franchised.Journalism is dead.
Agreed, screw these guys. Two players are holding up a deal that's been negotiated by the man their player reps intrusted to negotiate on their behalf. Words can't express how much I hate these two.
What?
massraider
Footballguy
You have no idea what you are talking about. Neither one held out, both played out their deals, and were held up as restricted free agents because the owners opted out of the CBA. They both were cost the opportunity to be free agents, resulting in both playing for below-market contracts, that cost them millions. That they will never get back.
Catbird
Footballguy
These players got the short end, but they signed contracts with the understanding that the league might elect to opt out of the longer agreement and put them in that position. They got (or at least should have negotiated) compensation in their earlier contract for that possibility. None of these options were unknown to the players or their agents. This is what agents are paid to do - negotiate contracts in light of the potential consequences?
But if the owners don't want to sign a deal with those claims hanging in litigation unresolved - and I think the whole negotiated agreement was made with the assumption that the litigation claims would be withdrawn with the named players getting something like the named players did last time for being involved - exemption from being tagged players for their careers, but certainly not 10 million dollars ... an unwillingness on both sides to give could stall a resolution indefinitely.
Assuming Jackson is stating his position and relates that to his agents, the question becomes whether Mankins trying to squeeze cash out of a weak claim (SD did what the rules then in effect allowed, whether ethical or not) may hold up the whole agreement. Somebody will have to give here (could be owners if the holdup works or Mankins/Jackson under player pressure not to hold up the season and paychecks). With the stakes this high and pressures this intense, I suspect it will get done pretty quickly.
But if the owners don't want to sign a deal with those claims hanging in litigation unresolved - and I think the whole negotiated agreement was made with the assumption that the litigation claims would be withdrawn with the named players getting something like the named players did last time for being involved - exemption from being tagged players for their careers, but certainly not 10 million dollars ... an unwillingness on both sides to give could stall a resolution indefinitely.
Assuming Jackson is stating his position and relates that to his agents, the question becomes whether Mankins trying to squeeze cash out of a weak claim (SD did what the rules then in effect allowed, whether ethical or not) may hold up the whole agreement. Somebody will have to give here (could be owners if the holdup works or Mankins/Jackson under player pressure not to hold up the season and paychecks). With the stakes this high and pressures this intense, I suspect it will get done pretty quickly.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Jackson's off field issues may have also contributed to him not getting a new deal before all this happened....
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Can we reiterate that Jackson publicly said today it's not true, and Mankins hasn't spoken up one way or another?I know this is the internet and all, but just because a talking head "reports" something doesn't mean they have any semblance of truth.If we find out with certainty that they're making these moves, then by all means burn them in effigy until your heart's content.
Flying Elvis
Footballguy
Well said.Although, to be fair, it looks like VJax tweeted that a few days ago. And there are reports that say he's full of bull and is still looking for 10M. At this point there's still no way to be sure what the truth is, either way. The hate for these guys seems premature.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Maybe your right, but its easy for a player to backtrack and an agent to say anything, is it not?Its all he said she said, but where there is smoke, there is fire.To be honest, fans are fed up, and if they get upset at anyone involved at this point...we have the right. Its our money they are fighting over, if we did not make this sport as big as it was with the outbreak of fantasy, these numbers (10 million) they are talking about would never be spoken.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Whoa, whoa.Look, I love fantasy football obviously. I've been on staff for over a decade now and have loved every minute of it. But don't for a second think fantasy football made the NFL what it is today. That's crazy talk.
"Aaaahhhhh!!!! I'm right back where I started!!!"
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
If you were better informed, you would too..
GregR_2
Footballguy
I feel like I'm pretty informed, and would love to hear an explanation from you why if these players are owed anything it should come from the owners. To recall how we got to this situation...The CBA was set to expire in 2006. The owners were internally at odds on revenue sharing. The players used this to push through a CBA extension with a plan from Uphsaw that would resolve the revenue sharing, and which also gave the players a jump in the amount of revenue they receive. Tagliabue asked if the players would extend the free agency deadline for more time to negotiate, and Upshaw said he would only if the owners would put his exact proposal with no modifications to a yes-no vote. That's the proposal that ended up being the 2006 extension. Upshaw received a lot of press for having won against the owners.While the agreement was hailed for how it kept football from missing games, you can tell that the seeds had been laid for future trouble. Robert Kraft called it a bad deal, Jerry Jones called the Union proposal that was accepted a 'mean mother'. Here's what the Giants owner had to say soon after:"We made a mistake, no question about it. And we deserve criticism for making that mistake. The players, themselves, have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006 and there were a number of us, myself included, who didn't fully understand what we were doing in 2006. We understood pretty quickly, within about a year after that. At the end of the day, we're businessmen who love football and we want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that's good for the game and allows the game to grow. There is a deal there to be made that would be fair for both sides."- New York Giants owner John Mara on the 2006 CBA extension.
The 2006 CBA extension that greatly favored the players, combined with the change in the economy and increased prices for things like stadium construction, set up the environment that led to the owners opting out, as was their option under the terms of the extension. Gene Upshaw himself, the architect of the 2006 extension that was agreed to, said he expected the owners would opt out.So the owners opted out. The provisions kicked in that were meant in the case of an opt out to drive them back to the table by making it painful for both sides... things such as 6 year free agency instead of 4, and no salary cap to control salaries. However those consequences were not enough to get both sides to agree to a new CBA.All of the teams in the league followed the rules of the opt out, as did the players. Some players gained by the lack of salary control (example, the Redskins and their $178 million salary last year and the Cowboys and their $166 million salary). Other players, like VJax, were restricted free agents under the rules while they would have been unrestricted otherwise.Then finally it appears the two sides are in agreement on a new CBA now. The players are giving back the bigger slice of the revenue pie that they won in 2006 in exchange for simpler salary rules that include a cash floor to limit use of loopholes in cap figures, and simplified ways of calculating revenue that goes into the split. Which suggests there was enough merit in the owner's position about how bad the 2006 agreement was if the players were willing to give some back.When I look back at the history of what happened, the players were the largest reason that the league found itself in the situation it did. It's just like an FF trade... you can make a deal you win and they lose... or you can make a deal that is fair for both sides. They made one that they won and the owners lost. The owners mistake then was caving to the threat of decertification to avoid the 2006 season being lost and accepting that deal.So why should the owners owe VJax anything? They followed the agreement. They weren't the ones who set the landscape to where their only good option was to opt out of the previous CBA, the players did that. It's one thing if people were saying that VJax should do whatever he can while he has some leverage, which he does. But it's another to imply that he was screwed by the owners or his team as some have done here and which to me is the biggest thing wrong in this thread. The players 2006 CBA extension was like the Treaty of Versaille in how it set the stage for their be strife that came later. If that was the ultimate cause of where we are today, why should it be the owners making it up to VJax instead of the players who benefited from the extra revenue from the bad deal from 2006 to present, and those especially who benefited from the uncapped year opt out terms while VJax was suffering from the other opt out terms?
GregR_2
Footballguy
Agreed. It might be a little better off than it was, but FF isn't responsible for where the NFL is.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Agreed, I was just being more specific.Lets ask how many people were playing fantasy ball 10 years ago?
If not fantasy, what has caused the rapid growth of the NFL kingdom. More interest, well whats creating it, the hard hits on the QB?
Football is the same thing it was 10 years ago, just a little more sensitive. Players still have to score TDs, so what changed? The rise of fantasy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood
Zoo York
A fraction of the people that WATCH the NFL, no matter what data you want to cite.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Don't be so sure, but we can agree to disagree.I believe the NFL is a huge event, with or without fantay, but in my opinion....fantasy has obviously helped its popularity greatly.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I always absolute love it when guys jump into a discussion about the unique RFA situation last year and start blabbering about "hold outs". It tells you right away that they are expounding based on zero knowledge and all emotion.
PLEASE, at least try to have some semblance of knowledge before offering an opinion.
Aside from that obvious indicator, we have several other "facts" that no one seems to know much about. Why is anyone surprised that a couple of guys who sued the league believing they got ripped off, aren't enthusiastic about walking away from that lawsuit with nothing? It's not like the lawsuit was thrown out for having no merit. The league and the players are negotiating to address "the issues". One of those issues is what happened to the RFAs that shouldn't have been RFAs last year.
Clearly, one of the reasons (and probably the primary reason) those players as a whole sued the league was for CBA leverage. But for Jackson and Mankins, maybe that wasn't ALL of the reason. Yes, the previous CBA is what lead to that unique (and unfortunate for those two guys) situation. And yes, the "players" as a whole entered into that agreement. But Jackson and Mankins didn't as individuals, and those individuals got HOSED (when most of the players did not).
It's all well and good to talk about taking one for the team when it's not your money that someone (whoever you want to lay it on) took out of your pocket. In fact, I'm not 100% convinced that it's a purely Jackson/Mankins V owners situation. It may well have an element of Jackson/Mankins V "whoever the Hell stole my $, owner OR NFLPA" situation. They helped get the NFLPA leverage, and maybe they are looking for a little compensation for being BADLY hosed last year.
I laid the blame mostly on AJ Smith last year for Jackson (because he didn't have to do what he did), but WHOEVER was responsible, there is ZERO doubt that the guys in that situation (whether you liked them or not) got ripped off. Again, I am astounded anyone is surprised by these guys wanting to get some of that money back if they can.
PLEASE, at least try to have some semblance of knowledge before offering an opinion.
Aside from that obvious indicator, we have several other "facts" that no one seems to know much about. Why is anyone surprised that a couple of guys who sued the league believing they got ripped off, aren't enthusiastic about walking away from that lawsuit with nothing? It's not like the lawsuit was thrown out for having no merit. The league and the players are negotiating to address "the issues". One of those issues is what happened to the RFAs that shouldn't have been RFAs last year.
Clearly, one of the reasons (and probably the primary reason) those players as a whole sued the league was for CBA leverage. But for Jackson and Mankins, maybe that wasn't ALL of the reason. Yes, the previous CBA is what lead to that unique (and unfortunate for those two guys) situation. And yes, the "players" as a whole entered into that agreement. But Jackson and Mankins didn't as individuals, and those individuals got HOSED (when most of the players did not).
It's all well and good to talk about taking one for the team when it's not your money that someone (whoever you want to lay it on) took out of your pocket. In fact, I'm not 100% convinced that it's a purely Jackson/Mankins V owners situation. It may well have an element of Jackson/Mankins V "whoever the Hell stole my $, owner OR NFLPA" situation. They helped get the NFLPA leverage, and maybe they are looking for a little compensation for being BADLY hosed last year.
I laid the blame mostly on AJ Smith last year for Jackson (because he didn't have to do what he did), but WHOEVER was responsible, there is ZERO doubt that the guys in that situation (whether you liked them or not) got ripped off. Again, I am astounded anyone is surprised by these guys wanting to get some of that money back if they can.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
As usual Jason Cole tries to be provocative rather than insightful. His premise fails because that lawsuit was, from the very start, the brainchild not of the plaintiffs but by the NFLPA. It was a device FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE, and those named plaintiffs may deserve credit for adding their names to the case, but never once had any legal experts suggested that by doing so they were taking on legitimate personal risks. It was always understood, by all sides (players, owners, and fans) that that lawsuit was a means to getting a resolution for the entirety of the player population. So now that we have that in sight, to somehow make the case that they DESERVE some kind of special kicker? Ridiculous, and flies in the face of the spirit of why they did it in the first place.Do those guys deserve kudos from their fellow players for being on the front lines? ABSOLUTELY.
But should they get extra rewards that could very well have mucked up the solution for the entirety of the player pool? Of course not.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Doesn't matter how much money they have. If you have enough money at home, does that mean you're worth less at work? So you're saying a player in the prime of his career, should get bummed over if they already have a lot of money? Who's greed was really at work here? He was putting out good product, AJ f'ed him with a loop hole. Don't you think the team had enough money to pay him fairly? .. Sorry, who was the greedy one again?Siding with Millionaires wanting more money, your right, lol
GregR_2
Footballguy
Mort on ESPN right now:
"Logan Mankins of the Patriots... speaking with his agent... said Logan was solicited to be part of the lawsuit. Said it's unfair characterizations by the media that he's demanding monetary settlement. He hasn't demanded anything, he said, because no one has communicated with him. But he certainly went in there with the expectation that I'm putting my name on this for the good of all the players, hoping to be free, hoping to have fewer restrictions. And he clearly is not happy with the level of communications with the players association, or with, he said, their lead attorney, counsel Jeff Kessler."
"Logan Mankins of the Patriots... speaking with his agent... said Logan was solicited to be part of the lawsuit. Said it's unfair characterizations by the media that he's demanding monetary settlement. He hasn't demanded anything, he said, because no one has communicated with him. But he certainly went in there with the expectation that I'm putting my name on this for the good of all the players, hoping to be free, hoping to have fewer restrictions. And he clearly is not happy with the level of communications with the players association, or with, he said, their lead attorney, counsel Jeff Kessler."
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I think you presume a great deal of knowledge you don't have. Were you in the meetings when the lawsuit was filed? Do you know what may or may not have been presented to these guys BY the NFLPA as possible outcomes (other than the obvious "You might win the lawsuit.")?You as a fan may have "understood" that the lawsuit was strictly for show, but you didn't lose multiple millions of dollars last year because of the way the previous CBA played out.'Jason Wood said:
Just as my previous post indicated, it looks a bit like the guys that actually LOST money in this deal, are not all that happy with just being used for their names/situations by the NFLPA without any real involvement with the negotiations. For the good of the whole sounds great, but what did most players lose last year because the owners and the NFLPA BETWEEN THEM couldn't get a deal done? Nothing. What did the RFA guys lose? A bunch. Why would it possibly be ridiculous that the ONLY guys to really lose anything through this mess actually get something back?
No response. Typical. These guys have lost millions due to the greed of the owners and they should be good little soldiers now. Bull####.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Repeating what I said before, if they are to "get something back", why should the owners be the ones to have to provide them with that? If the NFLPA chose not to come to an agreement on a CBA to avoid those terms, why aren't they the ones supplying them their $10 million? The players were the ones behind the last CBA extension that was a bad deal for the owners and led to the opt out and the terms that caused VJax/Mankins to miss free agency.
Peeps Inc.
Footballguy
I know about 99.9% of people who play fantasy including myself would continue to watch football even if fantasy were completely eliminated. I would probably only watch my hometown team and the primetime games though. Fantasy really spikes the ratings for a mid Sunday afternoon Cardinals vs 49ers game in my opinion, I will watch any game ever as long as fantasy is involved hahahaha. Fantasy also helps give bad monday nite games like the Raiders and Broncos better ratings for sure.'JuSt CuZ said:
Last edited by a moderator:
If they were that worried about missing on unrestricted FA they should have kept this in mind prior to negotiating their contract.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Dude I'm not arguing with you. Players have lost money?
Sarlakticacid
Footballguy
Gold. 1st thing i thought of when i wandered in hereyou sir just made my day and to that i tip my hat
Heatman
Footballguy
I object, speculation your honor.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Jackson and Mankins wanting money is greedy but the owners demanding an extra billion off the top before even negotiating isn't?
Heatman
Footballguy
'GregR said:
I'm glad someone other than me remembers this. EVERYONE should have known the owners were going to opt out of that deal, it was horrible and the owners and players both knew it. Tagliabue was also set to retire and pushed HARD to get this deal through so he didn't end his tenure during a labor dispute.
Heatman
Footballguy
Now this is misinformed.
