|
|
That Guy 03-08-2006, 03:10 PM the uncapped year in 2007 is a bluff by the players. bidwell could decided to spend 15mill fielding a worthless team (no vet min, no salary floor which is currently 54mill) and he could pocket 65+mill a year from shared tv revenues. he's lucky that arizona is a vacation spot, so he can just advertise for visiting teams and still get decent ticket and concession cash.
If a few teams went the route of the clippers (which were NEVER in contention, but ALWAYS profitable), where is all this extra cash for the players? the top 5 at a position will get more money. Everyone else loses though. vet min is 235-770k a year, but in 2007, the NFL can drop it to 100-120k and still be 20-50% higher in salary than the cfl or afl.
dan_snyder69 03-08-2006, 03:40 PM Hahaa this is driving me crazzzy! Lock these b#tch players out. The owners don't work for the players, the players work for the owners. The owners PROVIDE the players with their jobs! As salaries go up, blue collar players will go away, while prima donnas like T.O. will increase. If the owners agree to these "negotiations", I would have to say it was more of a raping than a negotiation. In a negotiation both sides have to give, and the players really aren't giving at all. If my employees wanted to pull this crap on me I would fire them all (maybe even punch a few), and hire cheaper labor. I personally would enjoy a lockout season, because the players come and go but I am still a Redskins fan. LaVar leaving is a perfect example; it's not about the stars, it's about the team!
As Redskins fans, with a rich young owner (he's gonna be around for a loooong time), we should hope the owners tell the players to go f*** themselves.
Also it is possible for the owners to make their own little salary cap under the table, even if the players don't agree to one. :)
PWNED 03-08-2006, 03:46 PM snyder should spend his money on strippers and tang (not puntang, the drink)
gibbs4life 03-08-2006, 04:35 PM as much as i would love to see a deal get done ,i don,t see it happening.
i hope it gets done but i don,t think so.
they have until tonight.
PWNED 03-08-2006, 05:42 PM yum..
http://www.walgreens.com/dbimagecache/206296.jpg
best investment ever.
seriously though, i think its going to get done as long as jerry jones doesnt block it
Sociofan 03-08-2006, 06:00 PM Why would the players insist that the signing bonus proration be limited to 5 years instead of 6? What do they have to gain by shortening the proration period? I might be way off here, but it seems that if the proration period is longer, then each player's cap hit through the first 3 years of a deal (the only years that usually matter) will be lower, thus reducing the need for a restructure/release.
Thoughts?
Agreed. Owners will be less forthcoming with bonus money if it jacks up their annual cost (spread over 5 years instead of 6). I'm not sure why players would want this deal. They should be calling for it to be spread over 8 or more years! Realistically, I would push for a proration equivalent to the number of years in the BASE contract, not option years. And if you get an additional bonus 3 years in to play for one more year, it gets rolled into that year only. It will help teams stay out of salary cap purgatory.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 03-08-2006, 06:03 PM Hahaa this is driving me crazzzy! Lock these b#tch players out. The owners don't work for the players, the players work for the owners. The owners PROVIDE the players with their jobs! As salaries go up, blue collar players will go away, while prima donnas like T.O. will increase. If the owners agree to these "negotiations", I would have to say it was more of a raping than a negotiation. In a negotiation both sides have to give, and the players really aren't giving at all. If my employees wanted to pull this crap on me I would fire them all (maybe even punch a few), and hire cheaper labor. I personally would enjoy a lockout season, because the players come and go but I am still a Redskins fan. LaVar leaving is a perfect example; it's not about the stars, it's about the team!
The dispute over the CBA extension no longer involves the players. The dispute is now between the high and low revenue club owners.
So, I guess I don't understand why the players should be blamed because the rich owners have a beef with the "richer" owners.
|