free agency 2011

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinster

I very much disagree with you. The CBA expires this year. That is part of the deal the players signed to have these rules expire this year. They should live with the fact that they are making way too much money while the owners profits are diminishing. Theres no way any single player should be making more money than an owner, but it happens....hell a few owners are losing money every year. It is not greed, it is smart business, and it is not cheep, they have the right to not re-new the CBA because that was in the original contract.

Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.

[JoeRedskin]

What's Allen's history in the UFA market? Shanahan's, just based on my recollection and not research, doesn't strike me as impressive.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.

I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinster

I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)

The point was the CBA wasn't set to expire, the owners triggered this environment by opting out.

The Packers made $9.8 million in profit (reported) but their overall gross revenues were MUCH greater than that. If you want to compare apples to apples, see what a player takes home after taxes, expenses, etc. since that's essentially his 'profit'. I'm pretty sure no player, even Fat Al, made gross revenues close to what any NFL team makes on one home game. Until the full books are released by each team, I'm not buying that any teams are losing money.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the thread, sorry I derailed it. I hope, as one of the richest teams in the league, we spend wisely but aggressively adding at least one G, 2 WR and a playmaking LB.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.

When did Congress pass a bill - - and have a President sign it into law - - saying the owners in the NFL could not use replacement players?

Or did that happen in each and every state where the NFL has a team?

[scott.sharrer]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

When did Congress pass a bill - - and have a President sign it into law - - saying the owners in the NFL could not use replacement players?

Or did that happen in each and every state where the NFL has a team?

It isn't law as in a federal law. Using the word unlawful was a misuse of the word. After the previous NFL lockout, it was a NFL decision to put in "rules" (since I can't think of a good word to describe it) to prevent replacement players from being used again.

There will be a season next year, I have no doubts, just I think the offseason will be cut really short. Players nor owners, nor the NFL for that matter, want to go without a season because that would be a full year with none of them making money. They owners will still have to pay for their stadium leases and all that crap, would get no endorsement money, would probably see a huge decrease in merchandise sales and so on. So in reality, the NFL, and each team, is in essesence a business, no season means no income.

As far as free agency, I am probably being a homer on this one, but I would actually like to see us do very little. Wait until other teams spend their big money, after that players generally scale down the amount they ask for, sign players to smaller contracts, trade away about 15-20 of our own roster and get draft picks and players that way. We need to go young, stop getting veterans that are 30+ in age. Look at how Philly is doing after taking on a youth movement.