Ongoing CBA discussions

These things always go down to the final hour, I'm still holding out hope for a last minute deal to avoid a lockout.

NFL, union meet for 2-hour bargaining session - MyNorthwest.com (http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/nfl_articles/20110201/Happy-to-talk-labor,-Ward-worries-about-lockout/)

I am sure the Redskin's lack of success in the past century has fueled this feeling of "work" as well for me.

You guys are like me. I am 30 year Redskins fan, and most Decembers, it is like work watching this team. Geez!

why is 50-50 too much for the owners?

why is 50-50 too much for the owners?

I would imagine the players would say because there are 32 ownership groups, and thousands of current and retired players.

I'm not missing that point at all, but at the end of the year do you want to see your team's starter (whoever that is in our case) or 3rd string qb? Increasing the roster size is essentially an admission that there will be more guys on IR or the PUP list.

I don't follow hockey, but it doesn't seem to have the extreme collision hits the nfl does, or the dangerous piling on leg injuries. Two more games is a big deal. As it is 16 games is too much. Before that the season was 14, before that 12, before that 10.

It's not just about injuries though, the NHL, NBA & major league baseball all have created a regular season product that even devoted fans can't or don't pay much attention to. The NFL IMO is pushing the limits on the demand for their product. There are already several 'meaningless' games at the end of the year, a longer schedule would increase that. And just like a preseason game, someone big like Brady or Manning, will get hurt in game 17 or 18 when their team has little to no mathematical chances of improving their playoff position.

1st point: Duely noted. But it doesn't mean it's a given players will get hurt. It just means teams will have more roster spots to keep back ups. Right now teams have to decide what position is more important to them and use those spots. Not to mention the 8 PS spots. If the league allowed 10 more active spots or 15 the teams could have more players to pick from if injuries occur.

2nd point: The meaningless games at the begining are usually set up to get starters in playing shape and evaluate prospects. The way I look at it... you either in the play offs which you can go back to starting a lot of rookies to give them playing time or your completely out which again give you the opportunity to play the rookies. The only teams to worry would be the teams who are on the bubble and are fighting to stay or get into the play offs.

I just don't see how 2 more games is going to make a huge difference with the players. Either they are healthy or they are not. If they are worried about injuries in game 17 or 18 then they should be worried about injuries in game 2 or 3 also. Maybe there should only be one game for each team and the winners move on to the playoffs. Then the SB. It all could be finished by Oct.

why is 50-50 too much for the owners?

Owners say that such a ratio does not offer them the resources to invest in and grow the game, thus growing the financial pie that both owners and players draw from.

However, a cynic might say that the 50-50 ratio does not match up with owners' greed.

why is 50-50 too much for the owners?

This is what I don't get. Why not just split the money between owners and players 50/50. Instead the players have a 60/40 split. 50% can go to players salaries, the other 50% the owner can use however he likes... stadium, equipement, coach's, front office, whatever.

I would imagine the players would say because there are 32 ownership groups, and thousands of current and retired players.

I maybe missing the point, but honestly, I could care less about the retired players. They chose that path. and... although the NFL nor the NFLPA has developed any type of retirement fund, I feel the players themselves had every opportunity to take a portion of their earnings and put it into an IRA or something. Instead they pissed it away. I just don't see how that should be placed on the owners and they be forced to solve the problem. How about the NFLPA step up and create a retirement fund and have the players give a % of their income to be put into a retirement fund for the future... kinda like the social security dept.

I also have felt that the insurance issue is BS also. Let the NFLPA act like any other corporation and find a decent HMO for all the players and again let the players pay for their own insurance and their families if they chose the family package. The more players that take the deal the lower the monthly costs.

Lastly, I'm not trying to sound one sided but all in all if the players are unhappy they can always take their talents to the CFL, UFL, or where ever. Fans will follow them just to see them. The owners have more invested and more to worry about in regards to this very thing happening.

1st point: Duely noted. But it doesn't mean it's a given players will get hurt. It just means teams will have more roster spots to keep back ups. Right now teams have to decide what position is more important to them and use those spots. Not to mention the 8 PS spots. If the league allowed 10 more active spots or 15 the teams could have more players to pick from if injuries occur.

2nd point: The meaningless games at the begining are usually set up to get starters in playing shape and evaluate prospects. The way I look at it... you either in the play offs which you can go back to starting a lot of rookies to give them playing time or your completely out which again give you the opportunity to play the rookies. The only teams to worry would be the teams who are on the bubble and are fighting to stay or get into the play offs.

I just don't see how 2 more games is going to make a huge difference with the players. Either they are healthy or they are not. If they are worried about injuries in game 17 or 18 then they should be worried about injuries in game 2 or 3 also. Maybe there should only be one game for each team and the winners move on to the playoffs. Then the SB. It all could be finished by Oct.

You assume players are "healthy or they are not." It's not just about what guys are inactive or out for the year. Every week guys are playing w/various ailments & are often not 100%. You seem to think that it's all or nothing, when players deal w/nagging injuries that only get worse the more they play. Often players delay surgery till after the season because they'd miss games otherwise.

I would imagine the players would say because there are 32 ownership groups, and thousands of current and retired players.

I maybe missing the point, but honestly, I could care less about the retired players. They chose that path. and... although the NFL nor the NFLPA has developed any type of retirement fund, I feel the players themselves had every opportunity to take a portion of their earnings and put it into an IRA or something. Instead they pissed it away. I just don't see how that should be placed on the owners and they be forced to solve the problem. How about the NFLPA step up and create a retirement fund and have the players give a % of their income to be put into a retirement fund for the future... kinda like the social security dept.

I also have felt that the insurance issue is BS also. Let the NFLPA act like any other corporation and find a decent HMO for all the players and again let the players pay for their own insurance and their families if they chose the family package. The more players that take the deal the lower the monthly costs.

Lastly, I'm not trying to sound one sided but all in all if the players are unhappy they can always take their talents to the CFL, UFL, or where ever. Fans will follow them just to see them. The owners have more invested and more to worry about in regards to this very thing happening.

Well the NFLPA represents current players, retired players (atleast that's my understanding).

As for the NFLPA acting like a corporation, it is not, it is a Union, the NFL is the "corporation"- type entity, so your argument actually tends to back the players point

in the end I maintain both sides just need to set aside pettiness and "man up" at the negotiating table.