Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Could be. I wasn't trying to counter any argument there. I don't actually know the process that well but am pretty sure about needing to reject current offers first.
Fair. I am just saying, I would expect a lot of back and forth on this. If the players accept this first deal then they are being poorly advised.
It's the 2nd deal is what I'm saying. I think your point is valid though about not sending your best first. And the players *should* be stingy.
If the players vote yes, this offer is accepted with no further negotiation. There are more low salary players in the NFL than high salary players. This deal is very good for low salary players. Therefore, the players as a whole are almost certain to vote yes.
The NFLPA and the owners have been negotiating for several months. This is the first CBA being put to a vote. It isn’t the “first offer”.
Then the players are being poorly advised and are short sighted. The agents rep players of all levels and will hopefully explain to the players at all levels why they need to vote NO.
First offer pushed to a vote, a year ahead of time, there is no urgency for the players to accept this.
The NFL worked on this proposal with reps from each team and the NFLPA for almost an entire year. Both sides actually thought they had a deal in place but from what I've been able to gather the initial media backlash caused some in the NFLPA to change their stance.
Oh, I am sure they have worked with the NFLPA. The NFLPA has a terrible reputation so that makes this all very interesting. What does the election have to do with the this deal?
I don't want to turn this into a political discussion but presidential elections have been known to impact the economy, sometimes in a negative way.
That is the most ridiculous speculative BS. That is not a shot at you, as I could see the NFL owners really putting that out there. The NFL has grown in value for 30+ straight years regardless of National politics and beyond what we have seen in the markets.
The last Presidential election occurred in 2016, and NFL ratings were down that season. The NFL wants to negotiate new deals now. If they wait a year, they will risk negotiating in a much worse situation.
You don't think the players lose negotiating power by agreeing early? Isn't their only power the threat of missed games?
Say you are a minimum salary player. You make $585K per season, give or take. That is, if you make the roster. Pretty easy to cut minimum salary players, after all.
No because if they are offering that now, they will offer even more in a year. Why would the NFL have less of an offer next year?
First off, if you are a minimum salary player, you might not be in the league in a year.
Because they have all the power? The players can’t afford to sit out. If the nfl waits a year the deal gets way worse.
They will. The megastars who have made 80M are far outweighed by the minimum guys trying to hang on at 600k. I expect it to pass fairly easily.
If the NFL waits a year and the deal gets worse, the players can turn this down and get something much better much quicker
Players can’t afford to sit out. If you are the 52nd guy on a roster you can’t risk missing game checks or worse, sitting out a season while the next wave of 300 college kids are still coming for your job.
You don't have to necessarily sit out, but at least threaten to sit out. People in all walks of life make way less money than the lowest paid NFL players and still miss checks when they strike.
Normal people have nothing to do with this. When they strike it is to preserve 20+ year careers. Nfl players generally have 3 years tops.
Fair points and they probably will accept the deal. It's bad process on their part though.
That's what they said last time. The Steelers were the only team to reject the offer though.
I read at ESPN that this CBA would go from two tags per year (franchise, transition) to one tag per year. No details.
I thought they could only use one per year already? It's just this year, due to CBA expiring that teams can use both and that's up in the air right now based on what I read yesterday.
Around $545,000 difference for new proposed minimum salary vs XFL average pay and that's before factoring in logistics of XFL season not starting until February so not sure how that provides any leverage.
The top salaries for non-QBs in the XFL is ~$55K for players who play every game and max out incentives. That is less than 10% of the minimum salary in the NFL.
You are probably right. I think what I read was in the context of this year, e.g., if they vote to accept the deal, teams lose a tag for this year's free agents.
Actually I think they are. The latest I just read said when they move to a 17 week schedule the 4th preseason game would be removed and replaced with a bye week.
That wouldn't technically be a bye week, veterans already weren't playing in the 4th preseason game.
I don't think that's how it's going to work out. The league is not taking a bye week before the opener. Maybe the word replace I used is confusing this talk. If/when they go to 17 games the 4th pre-season game is gone and they add in an extra bye week.
Yeah, it seems odd for anyone to call it a bye week.
I would be surprised if it was the week before the season but if so I'd agree, that's an off week and not a bye week and don't see what good that really does anyone.
