What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

New CBA may be invalid (1 Viewer)

Ok, then it doesn't change my point at all. I don't think any reasonable person in a serious negotiation with this much at stake would actually put their best offer out the first time. 
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. 

That said I think there was one already rejected so there has been *some* back and forth.

 
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. 

That said I think there was one already rejected so there has been *some* back and forth.
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. 

 
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.

 
Ok, then it doesn't change my point at all. I don't think any reasonable person in a serious negotiation with this much at stake would actually put their best offer out the first time. 
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. 

 
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. 
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.

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”.
First offer pushed to a vote, a year ahead of time,  there is no urgency for the players to accept this. 

 
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.
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.

This is not just a case of the NFL sending this to NFLPA out of the blue saying this is offer or else.

Also from what I understand if the players don't take this, which I think they will, but if they don't the NFL won't renegotiate until next year.

I understand it feels to some like the NFL is trying to rush this process and in some degree I think they are with respect to not wanting to wait till next year. The TV money being key. There are legit concerns ranging from recession, coronavirus and election the economy might be in a much worse place this time next year and that TV money might be harder to come by. I'm ok with anyone disagreeing with this premise, but it's true for sure they worked with NFLPA and union on this for about a year and only presented this when they thought both sides had actually worked out a deal the players would approve.

 
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.

This is not just a case of the NFL sending this to NFLPA out of the blue saying this is offer or else.

Also from what I understand if the players don't take this, which I think they will, but if they don't the NFL won't renegotiate until next year.

I understand it feels to some like the NFL is trying to rush this process and in some degree I think they are with respect to not wanting to wait till next year. The TV money being key. There are legit concerns ranging from recession, coronavirus and election the economy might be in a much worse place this time next year and that TV money might be harder to come by. I'm ok with anyone disagreeing with this premise, but it's true for sure they worked with NFLPA and union on this for about a year and only presented this when they thought both sides had actually worked out a deal the players would approve.
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?

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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. 

For that reason, plus risk that coronavirus turns into a huge impact on the world economy, if the players vote no, the NFL might go ahead and negotiate new deals now, anyway. If they do, the players lose the leverage they had in negotiating the CBA now being voted on. That could mean the owners would take a harder line in subsequent negotiations. 

 
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. 

For that reason, plus risk that coronavirus turns into a huge impact on the world economy, if the players vote no, the NFL might go ahead and negotiate new deals now, anyway. If they do, the players lose the leverage they had in negotiating the CBA now being voted on. That could mean the owners would take a harder line in subsequent negotiations. 
You don't think the players lose negotiating power by agreeing early? Isn't their only power the threat of missed games?

 
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.

This deal expands the roster by 2 positions. Good for you, since it makes it more likely you stay on the roster each season. 

This deal would mean an extra ~$500K for you over the next 3 seasons. That is a raise of 25%+ for you. 

This deal also improves your benefits. Something more valuable to the lower salary players. 

This deal also reduces offseason requirements. Not a critical issue, but positive. 

This deal also allows you to use MJ without potentially serious punishment from the league, if that matters to you. A possible positive. 

Meanwhile, all of this starts in 2020 if you vote yes. If you vote no, the ultimate new deal might not begin for another year. You might not even still be in the league. 

Now. Tell me how you vote. 

 
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.

This deal expands the roster by 2 positions. Good for you, since it makes it more likely you stay on the roster each season. 

This deal would mean an extra ~$500K for you over the next 3 seasons. That is a raise of 25%+ for you. 

This deal also improves your benefits. Something more valuable to the lower salary players. 

This deal also reduces offseason requirements. Not a critical issue, but positive. 

This deal also allows you to use MJ without potentially serious punishment from the league, if that matters to you. A possible positive. 

Meanwhile, all of this starts in 2020 if you vote yes. If you vote no, the ultimate new deal might not begin for another year. You might not even still be in the league. 

Now. Tell me how you vote. 
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?

 
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. 

To answer your question, the only leverage the players have is that the league prefers to enter the upcoming media negotiations with a new CBA in place. If the NFL goes ahead and negotiates those deals this year without a new CBA, their motivation to compromise with the players goes away.

I have explained enough. If you still disagree, then we can just wait and see what happens. I’m pretty confident the players will vote to approve the deal based on the reasons I have posted. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, if you are a minimum salary player, you might not be in the league in a year. 

To answer your question, the only leverage the players have is that the league prefers to enter the lie media negotiations with a new CBA in place. If the NFL goes ahead and negotiates those deals this year without a new CBA, their motivation to compromise with the players goes away.

I have explained enough. If you still disagree, then we can just wait and see what happens. I’m pretty confident the players will vote to approve the deal based on the reasons I have posted. 
I think you have brought up great points. 

 
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?
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. 

 
First off, if you are a minimum salary player, you might not be in the league in a year. 

To answer your question, the only leverage the players have is that the league prefers to enter the lie media negotiations with a new CBA in place. If the NFL goes ahead and negotiates those deals this year without a new CBA, their motivation to compromise with the players goes away.

I have explained enough. If you still disagree, then we can just wait and see what happens. I’m pretty confident the players will vote to approve the deal based on the reasons I have posted. 
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. 

 
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. 
If the NFL waits a year and the deal gets worse, the players can turn this down and get something much better much quicker 

 
Why does the deal get worse? If the players stop playing, the league has nothing. 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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. 
How often are those people being offered $100K raises? Never. 

 
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. 

 
I can't find any proposed changes to the existing tag system for franchise/transition/etc.  No mention of changes to the RFA tender, either.

No wonder all the highly-compensated players are coming out against it.

 
I can't find any proposed changes to the existing tag system for franchise/transition/etc.  No mention of changes to the RFA tender, either.

No wonder all the highly-compensated players are coming out against it.
I read at ESPN that this CBA would go from two tags per year (franchise, transition) to one tag per year. No details.

 
If I were a player, even a low level one, I don’t think I’d vote yes unless the health insurance was much better.

And what’s the prevent a lower level player from going and playing for the XFL for a year if there is a strike?

 
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.

 
And what’s the prevent a lower level player from going and playing for the XFL for a year if there is a strike?
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.

 
If I were a player, even a low level one, I don’t think I’d vote yes unless the health insurance was much better.

And what’s the prevent a lower level player from going and playing for the XFL for a year if there is a strike?
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.

I mean, if there is a strike, I assume many guys would do that. But they have heavy financial incentive not to strike.

 
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.
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.

 
It's not, as it takes place before Week 1.
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.

 
I'm not sure if you are joking but point is it's an extra bye week.
It's not, as it takes place before Week 1.
Yeah, it seems odd for anyone to call it a bye week.

During the NFL regular season, when teams have bye weeks, they reduce or pause their normal weekly activities (practices, meetings, etc.) -- the term "bye week" should really be called "off week". That wouldn't apply to the week before the NFL regular season starts, which is most certainly not an off week. 

 
Yeah, it seems odd for anyone to call it a bye week.

During the NFL regular season, when teams have bye weeks, they reduce or pause their normal weekly activities (practices, meetings, etc.) -- the term "bye week" should really be called "off week". That wouldn't apply to the week before the NFL regular season starts, which is most certainly not an off 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.

Only other thing I'd add is that if/when they reduce the preseason to 3 games instead of 4 I'd not assume they handle game 3 like we normally see game 3 now. It's quite possible the rotations in game the new preseason finale of week 3 would be handled the way we currently see them in week 4.

 
According to this USA Today article it says the new CBA will not include extra byes. 
 

Link

”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.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would recommend reading this article as it seems they highlight most or all notable changes of the new updated CBA. Also they state that each team would receive a bye week in place of the 4th preseason game.

“CBS Sports obtained an updated copy of the proposal, which was distributed to NFL agents on Thursday. Here are some of the most notable rules, regulations and changes that would go into effect under the proposed CBA:”
 

Link

 
Per ESPN-

“The language of the proposed collective bargaining agreement was finalized late Wednesday night and is going out to NFL players Thursday morning, a league source tells ESPN's Jeff Darlington.

The ballots were sent out at 9 a.m. ET Thursday, and the voting window will stay open for seven days, a source tells ESPN's Dan Graziano.

Players will be able to cast a vote throughout the seven-day window, but they currently plan to wait the full allotted time before formalizing the results, meaning ratification is unlikely until later next week, a NFL Players Association source told Darlington”

Link

 
The NFLPA board of player representatives voted to extend the deadline for voting on the proposed collective bargaining agreement to Saturday at 11:59 p.m. ET.
 

Link

 
So far I haven't seen or heard a single word on the fantasy implications of a 17 game schedule and/or 2 bye weeks. It could really fundamentally alter the structure of many of our leagues.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top