If I'm reading it correctly, there's a proposal for a 17 game season that's been negotiated between ownership and the NFLPA executive committee that's going to be presented to the board of player representatives and if it's accepted will then be voted on by the union.
Which got me thinking...
If it's accepted in 2020, when would the 17-game season begin? If it's as early as 2021, what happens with previously negotiated contracts? Should players with long term deals be expected to accept the same annual salary for a 17-game season that was negotiated under the assumption of a 16-game season? Will this year's free agency have language included in all contracts that accounts for the possibility (i.e., salary x if it's a 16-game season and salary x+1 if it's a 17-game season)?
Will Chester get himself some help at the Minister's group or will Chester help himself to the Minister's daughter?
from PFT - (
New Window )
This is per linked ESPN article.
Players will definitely get more money for agreeing to the 17 game season. There's no chance they would agree to it otherwise.
espn - ( New Window )
This is per linked ESPN article.
Players will definitely get more money for agreeing to the 17 game season. There's no chance they would agree to it otherwise.
espn - ( New Window )
More money- revenue sharing and two bye weeks. I think you can see it coming and with Jacksonville now going to do two home games in London this makes even more sense.
Unless some sort of provision is actually written into the new CBA dealing with this specific issue. Which, who knows, may need to happen to get it to pass.
Its also something that may gum up FA this season as agents look over the horizon. You might see some huge deals, or a lot of short term type deals.
Unless some sort of provision is actually written into the new CBA dealing with this specific issue. Which, who knows, may need to happen to get it to pass.
Its also something that may gum up FA this season as agents look over the horizon. You might see some huge deals, or a lot of short term type deals.
I think ownership will have to give players playing under existing contracts a bump, maybe six percent, for seasons with a 17 game schedule.
That's only fair and it's not going to be a lot of money, all things considered
I think they are pushing for a bigger share of TV revenue..
some teams would have 9 home games and others only 8.
Its likely the cap will jump significantly. Which won't have an immediate impact on salary, but will help every player going forward. Its also possible they do a one time increase by 1/17 to account for the additional week of pay.
I would stand firm on 16 games because there is more money on the way with new distribution deals. It's time for the players to win for a change after agreeing to so many pro-owner issues over the last two decades...
LOL. Which is why it's simply a layover to the bigger goal - 18 games.
The league has been talking out of both sides of their mouths on player saftey and the union should hammer them on it. The league won't like that PR one bit and will want it to go away. They have no defense knowing whats known about CTE and at the same time pushing for players greater exposure to the game.
The league has been talking out of both sides of their mouths on player saftey and the union should hammer them on it. The league won't like that PR one bit and will want it to go away. They have no defense knowing whats known about CTE and at the same time pushing for players greater exposure to the game.
All good points. If the players give up their leverage here it just re-affirms that they are the complete opposite of their peers in the MLB union - dumb and vapid.
Right. I'm saying that's not "also possible", it's basically a given. Why would players agree to do more work (which also means greater injury risk) and increase the revenue pie now, but not share in that increase until they individually are up for new contracts, in some cases quite a few years down the road? I know people like to think of the NFLPA as a bunch of dolts, but that really strains credulity.
You don't need 16 games to determine the leagues best teams.
The injuries are bonkers.
According to Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, the league has given the union a “rough deadline” of March 18 for accepting the current proposal, premised on a 17-game regular season. If the offer isn’t accepted, talks will be tabled indefinitely.
The message is clear: The league is taking the position that the deal isn’t getting any better, so don’t come back and ask for more. Take it or leave it. And if you leave it, a lockout may happen in 2021.
Quote:
The NFL and NFL Players Association have negotiated an acceptable labor deal. The NFLPA now must officially accept it, or reject it. And the clock is ticking.
According to Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, the league has given the union a “rough deadline” of March 18 for accepting the current proposal, premised on a 17-game regular season. If the offer isn’t accepted, talks will be tabled indefinitely.
The message is clear: The league is taking the position that the deal isn’t getting any better, so don’t come back and ask for more. Take it or leave it. And if you leave it, a lockout may happen in 2021.
Definitely leave it - if they are smart. I believe the public will overwhelmingly be on the players' side.
The owners have a lot of stink with their fake interest in health...
Any organization that can keep its players from getting punished for blatant, outright cheating- see the Astros- has exactly what the NFL needs to start to fight back and win over ownership.