Â
|
|
Quote: |
Currently, the players have every right to band together and say, “What is it worth to you to get us to show up for offseason workouts?” They haven’t, and chances are they won’t. Which counts as a double win for the always-winning billionaires who own the teams. First, the owners benefit from free work. Second, the lack of willingness of the players to stay away from offseason workouts that don’t result in the forfeiture of game checks makes it even less likely that players will ever hold firm during a lockout or a strike. (One of which may be less than four years away.) The players can change that whenever they want. They can do it right now. The fact that they haven’t, and the strong likelihood that they never will, shows that the players will never match the will of the owners when it comes to getting the best possible deal that they can |
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
Except Marty how many countless times have we read about non-contact injuries occurring?
That's the messagesgetting from players and everyone these days
If you want your Spring off like NFLers, put on a pair of cleats.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
My concern is for those who attend and don't end up on an NFL roster, particularly with regards to injury. Perhaps that can be solved by requiring the NFL to provide health insurance for any player participating on activities organized by the team.
And given that salary scale there might be some benefit to establish mandatory financial planning seminars as part of OTAs. Even a player who only lasts in the league for 2 years should be able to save enough to either finish college or transition to life after football at those salaries. Unfortunately, many do not.
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
His line of work also isnt subject to an industry-wide CBA with work rules, that has him working on a forced below-market contract leaving him so underpaid that his side gig (which probably takes 100 hours a year at most) pays him more, and gives him more income certainty.
The NFL calendar is a joke right now
Quote:
In comment 13481898 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
His line of work also isnt subject to an industry-wide CBA with work rules, that has him working on a forced below-market contract leaving him so underpaid that his side gig (which probably takes 100 hours a year at most) pays him more, and gives him more income certainty.
Crying poverty just doesn't fly in this situation, at least for those ending up on a roster.
Quote:
In comment 13481980 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13481898 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
His line of work also isnt subject to an industry-wide CBA with work rules, that has him working on a forced below-market contract leaving him so underpaid that his side gig (which probably takes 100 hours a year at most) pays him more, and gives him more income certainty.
Crying poverty just doesn't fly in this situation, at least for those ending up on a roster.
Not crying poverty. He has a job with work rules. Rules that he did not negotiate. Those rules say that this work is voluntary. So he doesnt have to come.
The CBA is negotiated. Owners traded one thing for another.
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
Ridiculous. These guys know what they're signing up for. You cant take big $$$ and then turn around and say you dont want to assume the risk. Does a construction worker get to skip work because he doesnt want to inhale harmful dust?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
That's probably the beat way to solve it. For anyone making a roster (and $1.8 mil for the season) the reality is that they are not working for free. Making it mandatory would remove the fiction. And as I said above, I could see provisions to protect those that don't make rosters.
Do your job or perish.
Do your job or perish.
Somewhere between this and a $1.8 million dollar player getting slave wages because of "voluntary" OTAs is probably where things should be.
Quote:
In comment 13481898 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
Ridiculous. These guys know what they're signing up for. You cant take big $$$ and then turn around and say you dont want to assume the risk. Does a construction worker get to skip work because he doesnt want to inhale harmful dust?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Terrible comparison.
You're comparing construction work to voluntary OTA's in May?
Give me a fucking break.
Do your job or perish.
Unless your job has negotiated rules that say you don't have to do something for free.
Also the NFL isn't comparable to a regular job. We should give them holidays off then if we're going to compare it to a 9-5.
It always funny to me how people feel that way about the men who put their bodies on the line for our entertainment and not about the ultra-wealthy people who own the teams.
It's the people who get all bent out of shape when workers who make our food or clean our toilets want a living wage, but CEOs who make 7, 8 or 9 figures barely merit a shrug.
Quote:
In comment 13481980 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13481898 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
get the high salaries of football players. I don't begrudge the players their time off, but I can see management's desire to keep their heads in the game.
IMO the real issue is player safety. These "workouts" whether voluntary or coerced, are not the two-a-days of the past. There is little contact and little danger of injuries compared to the scrimmages of the past. I see this as a big benefit to the players and not as billionaire owners running a sweatshop that torments the life out of helpless millionaires and millionaire wannabees.
I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't put you at risk for concussions, torn ligaments, or broken bones.
Ridiculous. These guys know what they're signing up for. You cant take big $$$ and then turn around and say you dont want to assume the risk. Does a construction worker get to skip work because he doesnt want to inhale harmful dust?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Terrible comparison.
You're comparing construction work to voluntary OTA's in May?
Give me a fucking break.
No it isn't a terrible comparison. You're saying they shouldn't have to do it because it's dangerous. That's the argument you laid out.
Lots of work - including construction - is dangerous to both ST and LT health.
It would be the equivalent of passing on an optional training seminar where you could potentially hurt yourself and not be able to do the real work that gets you paid.
Beckham isn't obligated to attend or participate in OTA's. He's obligated to attend training camp, practices, and perform well on Sundays. All of which he's been doing since the day he became a Giant.
Some of you guys need to deal with the fact that athletes can do what they consider to be in their best interest.
2) I believe you can't just straight cut injured players. So if you're the 90th man on the roster, you're probably better off pulling a hammy and getting an injury settlement than just getting waived (see Ishaq) when they find another bottom roster guy.
3) re: Gary - can't people take issues with both sides of a labor dispute?
It would be the equivalent of passing on an optional training seminar where you could potentially hurt yourself and not be able to do the real work that gets you paid.
Beckham isn't obligated to attend or participate in OTA's. He's obligated to attend training camp, practices, and perform well on Sundays. All of which he's been doing since the day he became a Giant.
Some of you guys need to deal with the fact that athletes can do what they consider to be in their best interest.
Construction workers don't have 'voluntary' skyscraper welding training in the middle of the winter to attend?
And the most important thing for Beckham right now is to stay in shape. It's not like: a) they have a new offense/QB or b) he's lounging on his sofa all day. By all accounts he's still work his a$$ off and if he comes to camp in better mental shape this way, then I'm all for it.
2) I believe you can't just straight cut injured players. So if you're the 90th man on the roster, you're probably better off pulling a hammy and getting an injury settlement than just getting waived (see Ishaq) when they find another bottom roster guy.
3) re: Gary - can't people take issues with both sides of a labor dispute?
Some players do get workout bonuses. Most don't. It's usually reserved for veteran free agent contracts. Typically it's just a way to squeeze more guaranteed money into contracts. You show up to offseason weightlifting and get an extra couple hundred k. Example: JPP gets an extra 250k a year in workout bonuses. DRC gets 20 thousand a year. Eli takes home 500k.
The bottom two thirds of rosters do not.
Had you said its OK to skip because it's voluntary, no arguments.
The current system, regardless of whether it is compulsory for all but star players is much less risky for injuries and much better for teaching new players and getting vets into better football shape (regardless of what they do on their own).
This system is IMO, very beneficial to the players compared to what they had before. I think the suggestion of a "boycott" is needless "pot stirring" by a writer who has no real football news. Such a boycott would result in injuries and diminish the chances of new players who want to make the roster.
Most notable players without them are those on rookie deals (the CBA is pretty brutal to rookie deals): Pugh, Flowers, Apple, Beckham, Kennard, Collins, Richburg, Shepard, Tomlinson, Berhe, etc.
Excluding those on rookie deals, you're probably looking at ~1/3 of the remaining players on the 90 man roster have workout bonuses.
Notably, Vernon is giving up a chunk of his $250k by skipping them (unless it's excused).
Link - ( New Window )
Had you said its OK to skip because it's voluntary, no arguments.
It's not BS - the voluntary part is exactly why there's an argument to be made that avoiding the potential risk is well within a players rights.
He's been training anyway. It's not like the guy is sitting around doing nothing. He'll be at camp in a couple months, he'll be on the field in Dallas on September 10th.
It's much ado about nothing.
It's not a very fair system. When contract time comes, the ACLs are going to be a deciding factor very much more than OTA attendance.
And even 7th round picks have guaranteed money once they sign their deals (which is why they need waivers/insurance to attend OTAs if they haven't signed).
I can see extra sympathy for UDFAs that attend and get injured, though they arguably have the most to gain of anyone by standing out during OTAs.
Marginal vets (e.g. Herzlich) are the ones that get 'pressured' into attending. No (or small) workout bonuses and if they don't attend, they give an even bigger opportunity to the UDFAs.
Do your job or perish.
Pretty easy to spot who hasn't worked in a union right here.
Quote:
When your boss asks you to do something, you do it. Whether you get paid or not. Or you run the risk of getting your ass fired. That's how it works in the real world. That's what employees have done for years and that's how the economy works in this country.
Do your job or perish.
Pretty easy to spot who hasn't worked in a union right here.
Correct. Many companies prohibit usage of that word.
In a non-contact activity. The point of mentioning him was to highlight that. It may have very well cost him his career at age 24. So I do grasp that even if it's shorts and offseason, shit happens. When it happens in a game, there's at least the thinnest pretense that it happened on the job trying to fulfill your contractual obligations.
Unpaid overtime is a shitty place to put your future at risk.
Do your job or perish.
I don't know what line of work you're in, but that's not how it works in the "real world" for many people. If you're high performer or even just meeting expectations, you don't get fired for skipping an unpaid, voluntary event.
What you're describing is something that's mandatory. This, by definition and by contract, is voluntary.
Quote:
There's no equivalent of OTA's in construction work. That's why it's a stupid comparison.
It would be the equivalent of passing on an optional training seminar where you could potentially hurt yourself and not be able to do the real work that gets you paid.
Beckham isn't obligated to attend or participate in OTA's. He's obligated to attend training camp, practices, and perform well on Sundays. All of which he's been doing since the day he became a Giant.
Some of you guys need to deal with the fact that athletes can do what they consider to be in their best interest.
Construction workers don't have 'voluntary' skyscraper welding training in the middle of the winter to attend?
And the most important thing for Beckham right now is to stay in shape. It's not like: a) they have a new offense/QB or b) he's lounging on his sofa all day. By all accounts he's still work his a$$ off and if he comes to camp in better mental shape this way, then I'm all for it.
And if skyscraper training truly is voluntary, they can skip it. And when a skyscraper job comes up that they're untrained for, they'll likely miss out on that job.
The same goes for NFL players, by the way. Voluntary or not, if a replacement level player skips OTAs and gets passed on the depth chart in the process, he's probably going to lose his job as a result. Much like the construction worker who skipped the skyscraper training, they can make themselves expendable by their own choices.
Players like Beckham and Vernon have the luxury of being safe enough in their roster spot and role on the team that they can actually treat a voluntary event as though it's, you know, voluntary.