Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Todd Gurley: NFL players deserve guaranteed contracts, could strike to get them

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Everyone can maintain and advocate for their own interests. I find it somewhat comical, though, when either side in these disputes solicit my support. As a fan, I want (1) no work stoppages, and (2) a system in which competitive balance is not replaced with financial haves and have-nots.

    The details are not my problem.

    Comment


    • #17
      In response to Russell Okung's twitter feed provided by Nick several posts earlier, and as someone who neither owns a lucrative business nor is filthy rich, you might find my position on this issue a curious one, but I largely side with ownership on this. The boss is the boss. The owner is the owner. How they got there and how much money they have is irrelevant- they have put themselves in a position of strength by being the boss. They pay the bills and the paychecks. While players have the right to collectively bargain, the advantage still lies with the owners. If the NFL disappeared tomorrow, 90% of the players would be in huge trouble financially, as only a select few would be able to make anything even close to the money they're currently making, whereas the owners would still be filthy rich.

      I sympathize with the players in that they're the ones risking their health and football is a tough profession physically, but they know the risks. They enjoy the upside of fame, glory, every perk imaginable and opportunities in every walk of life the rest of us can only dream about. Along with that comes a great salary that most of us don't make in our chosen professions. While the players have every right to advocate for themselves, they're simply living in dreamland if they think guaranteed money is gonna' happen anytime soon.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by general counsel View Post
        The only point i will make is that the collective bargaining agreement is not forced on anyone. If the players dont like its terms, they dont have to play (ie dont have the vote to ratify the collective bargaining agreement) and can effectively strike. That might cause the owners to change their negotiating position. All negotiations are on some level a function of leverage. The owners have more of it than the players because they can better afford to take the losses as the players have short careers. What gets lost many times in this discussion is that "fair" is a relative and subjective term. The players want to scream bloody murder about guaranteed contracts, certain terms of the collective bargaining agreement they dont like and other injustices. However, did you ever see a player complain when they get paid a big signing bonus and either get hurt or simply fail to perform to expectations? Sure, players like aaron donald are badly "underpaid." Many players are overpaid as well. In the real world, employees are are valuable as what they did for the company very recently. If you dont perform, you get fired and you dont get paid. You arent guaranteed anything. The fact that football players have a short career is a red herring. That is the career they have chosen. If players dont like it, they dont have to play. They can also buy their own team and give guaranteed contracts if they can raise the money and want to do things differently. That is their choice. Unequal bargaining power between people that own companies and employees is not new and its not changing anytime soon unless people want a socialist state, and i certainly am not trying to turn this into a political discussion.

        Players today are about a thousand times better off than they were before free agency. A lot of progress has been made from the players perspective on the revenue sharing side. I appreciate that the players would like more, and there is no reason they shouldnt try for it, but i dont think either side gets to vote in favor of a collective bargaining agreement and then complain about some of its provisions after the fact. The collective bargaining agreement is a long complicated legal document. You cant really pick one provision and say its unfair. The agreement needs to be looked at taken as a whole, because taken as a whole its a good deal for both sides. That does not mean that every provision is a good deal for both sides.

        To summarize, the players can choose to strike (ie breach and deal with the damages), not sign a new collective bargaining agreement, make any demands they want in the next round of negotiations, same as the owners. We can then see where the breaking point is for each side. We can talk about billionaires all we want, but i think that misses the issue in many respects. Go ask any small business owner in this country trying to make a living how difficult it is to hire and retain quality employees and how those small business owners feel when their workers dont perform and whether they want all their workers to be guaranteed wages for a period of time regardless of the level of performance. See how that works out for the economy....

        Ramming speed to all

        general counsel
        Thanks for your response GC. It is very informative for a layman/fan like me. I am not taking a side in this simply because I don't know anywhere near enough to have an informed opinion. I am a small business owner though, and you are spot on with your comments in that area as regards performance, wages, etc.



        Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
        Everyone can maintain and advocate for their own interests. I find it somewhat comical, though, when either side in these disputes solicit my support. As a fan, I want (1) no work stoppages, and (2) a system in which competitive balance is not replaced with financial haves and have-nots.

        The details are not my problem.
        As stated above I don't have a side - I was just asking for information as regards both sides. Given that you work in this arena, I respect your right to defer. I don't particularly wish to spend my off time discussing what I do for a living either. That said, on occasion in the past you have given some extremely insightful information as regards various legal issues - hence my solicitation.

        1) "no work stoppage" is what we all hope for I am sure.

        2) "a system in which competitive balance is not replaced with financial haves and have-nots." That one is intriguing. I would love to hear more thoughts on that.
        Last edited by MauiRam; -07-08-2018, 06:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
          In response to Russell Okung's twitter feed provided by Nick several posts earlier, and as someone who neither owns a lucrative business nor is filthy rich, you might find my position on this issue a curious one, but I largely side with ownership on this. The boss is the boss. The owner is the owner. How they got there and how much money they have is irrelevant- they have put themselves in a position of strength by being the boss. They pay the bills and the paychecks. While players have the right to collectively bargain, the advantage still lies with the owners. If the NFL disappeared tomorrow, 90% of the players would be in huge trouble financially, as only a select few would be able to make anything even close to the money they're currently making, whereas the owners would still be filthy rich.

          I sympathize with the players in that they're the ones risking their health and football is a tough profession physically, but they know the risks. They enjoy the upside of fame, glory, every perk imaginable and opportunities in every walk of life the rest of us can only dream about. Along with that comes a great salary that most of us don't make in our chosen professions. While the players have every right to advocate for themselves, they're simply living in dreamland if they think guaranteed money is gonna' happen anytime soon.
          Hopefully the players will make some fair and equitable gains when it comes time for a new CBA. After reading all the posts, yours certainly reflects the "it is what is is" of the situation. A lengthy work stoppage would most likely piss off fans with sentiments going against the players. Mike's post is relevant in this scenario ..

          Originally posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
          I'm with Gurley on this. That $9,376,550 guaranteed portion of his rookie contract is just not enough to take care of his family should something happen to him.

          Comment


          • #20
            It all depends on their performance. And in the Gurley thing as really the nearly $10M he should both invest to the right kind of people not like a Bernie Madoff.
            Carolina Panthers @ Denver Broncos 2/7/2016 CBS 6:30PM EST Santa Clara CA!

            Comment


            • #21
              Guaranteed contracts mean teams will buy insurance just like in MLB and they'll go with shorter contracts over 4+ year contracts. Suh's contract would be far more common than Whitworth's. Teams will adapt.

              Comment


              • #22
                You cant buy insurance against performance issues. Insurance pertains to injuries, especially major injuries. i doubt the players are going to win this point as i highly doubt that a majority of the players are going to be prepared to strike or not sign a new collective bargaining agreement over the point. I think the owners are too smart to give this up. ethics of the issue aside, its a major leverage point for the owners and the football owners understand how badly the baseball owners got hurt when they converted over to the fully guaranteed long term contracts.

                ramming speed to all

                general counsel

                Comment


                • #23
                  So you think the reluctance to guaranteed contracts is performance issues and not injury related?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dreadlock View Post
                    So you think the reluctance to guaranteed contracts is performance issues and not injury related?
                    In my mind, it's both. But to your point, sure, take Tavon Austin as exhibit A. Dude was 2 years in on a 40+ million deal. So he was making 10 - 11 million a year with a mere 2-3 touches per game last season. Wasn't injured; just wasn't producing anything on the field (except for consecutive fumbles amiright?). Can you imagine the Rams cutting him and still having to pay another 22 million over this year and next because his entire contract was guaranteed? haha. And the "but they traded him" argument won't work. The only way the Rams were able to trade him to Dallas was because he voluntarily restructured his contract to a one year deal. He'd have zero incentive to restructure his contract if it was entirely guaranteed. And thus, no team would take on his contract in its prior form.

                    Conversely, what if a team changes coaches and entire schemes are affected? What are you going to do with an obsolete player if you can't trade him?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I think the reluctance to guarantee contracts analysis goes something like this "Why should i guarantee a contract if i dont have to?" Same as any other employer. I have never heard of an employer who will voluntarily guarantee a contract if they dont have to do so. Have to is a function of market conditions. Employers may choose to do so, but they dont want to be legally obligated to do so because human nature being what it is, if people are guaranteed to receive a certain amount of money over a certain period of time why should they give their absolute best every day, come to work or play when sick/hurt etc. Kudos to the baseball players for getting market conditions to the point where guaranteed contracts are the norm. Same with the NBA. But its a very rare situation and i dont see that the nfl owners will give in unless they have to and they wont have to unless the players can be unified enough to refuse to play for some extended period of time unless and until they get what they want. Its both injury and performance, the tavon situation is a great example.

                      ramming speed to all

                      general counsel

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by General Counsel View Post

                        ...Human nature being what it is, if people are guaranteed to receive a certain amount of money over a certain period of time, why should they give their absolute best every day, come to work or play when sick/hurt etc. Kudos to the baseball players for getting market conditions to the point where guaranteed contracts are the norm. Same with the NBA. But it's a very rare situation and I don't see that the NFL owners will give in unless they have to and they won't have to unless the players can be unified enough to refuse to play for some extended period of time unless and until they get what they want. Its both injury and performance, the Tavon situation is a great example.

                        Ramming speed to all

                        General Counsel

                        Makes sense, one of the infamous sides / factors of human nature. Unfavorably and unfortunately.

                        It is thus highly comforting and a relief to know that there ARE some NFL players with a truly responsible, mature and committed mindset. In fact, even self-motivated players by virtue of personal ethics and integrity. Exemplary individuals.

                        Here on planet Earth.
                        Last edited by RealRam; -07-10-2018, 09:19 PM. Reason: Gracias Nick!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          If performance is a problem, why not just only make short term contract deals with players?
                          MLB teams are stuck with high dollar underperforming players. Last time I checked MLB wasn't damaged by it. The NBA is also.
                          I see no reason to believe that if Austin's contract were guaranteed that the Rams would have entered into it in the first place.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Dreadlock, that is why the signing bonus money that is guaranteed effectively acts as the guaranteed portion of the contract. Players say contracts arent guaranteed, but the signing bonuses are guaranteed, effectively creating a partially guaranteed deal. I disagree that MLB owners havent been damaged. Sure they are making plenty of money. They would be making more money if they werent all giving guaranteed contracts on a long term basis. you make a great point about short term contracts. owners would love short term contracts, but if that is the direction it goes, the huge signing bonuses will be gone because the owners wont be able to amortize their cost over the length of the contract, both on a cash basis and a salary cap basis.

                            Ramming speed to all

                            general counsel

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
                              I'm with Gurley on this. That $9,376,550 guaranteed portion of his rookie contract is just not enough to take care of his family should something happen to him.
                              I tend to agree. I think if any of the big three sports should have guaranteed contracts, it should be the NFL where the possibility of injury - especially life changing injury - is greater. I don't really see the path for how they get there, though.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nick View Post
                                I tend to agree. I think if any of the big three sports should have guaranteed contracts, it should be the NFL where the possibility of injury - especially life changing injury - is greater. I don't really see the path for how they get there, though.
                                You did see the sarcasm in my comment, right?

                                Gurley's $9,376,550 in guaranteed money (and that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary he's made) over a 40 year working career translates to $234,413 per year. If you can't carve out a very good life for your family and retirement on that, you're not doing something right. I'm sorry, but I just don't accept the argument that NFL players "need" guaranteed contracts to survive in the world.

                                Comment

                                Related Topics

                                Collapse

                                • clarasDK
                                  The 2020 plan?
                                  clarasDK
                                  During this offseason the main theme of discussion has been when will we get nr 99 signed up and what will it cost us. Related to that there has been a lot of discussion about what he is worth, but also if the Rams can afford signing him together with the other players we need to sign and have already signed. We have already signed up Gurley for a very high RB contact setting new standards and Cook is also not a cheap player. We have Goff, probably Peters and other young talent who will not come cheap.

                                  This have made me think a little about if there might be a grant plan for The Rams to get these players signed up on long term contract before 2020 where there will be a new collective bargain agreement. I am 100% sure that a new agreement here will in one or more ways also lead to a higher % of the league revenues going to the players (how much nobody knows). This will mean that a contract made this year or next year that last beyond 2020 might suddenly look cheap compared to new contacts made after 2020 and at the same time the cap space will move upward meaning they will have a smaller overall impact.

                                  I am not a specialist on this, but is that a totally off idea/concept?...
                                  -08-16-2018, 12:05 AM
                                • r8rh8rmike
                                  NFL Heads Toward Labor Showdown
                                  r8rh8rmike
                                  Jan 26, 12:48 PM EST

                                  NFL heads toward labor showdown

                                  By BARRY WILNER
                                  AP Football Writer



                                  NEW YORK (AP) -- Rich, powerful and more popular than ever, the NFL gets closer to a doomsday scenario every day.

                                  Without a deal in the next five weeks to preserve the labor peace that has lasted since a bad month in 1987 - anybody remember scab football? - next season will have no salary cap. That means richer teams such as the Redskins and Patriots will be able to far outspend clubs such as Jacksonville and Buffalo for free agents, while the Jaguars and Bills might try to pinch pennies to stay in business.

                                  And if no deal can be reached next season, that uncapped, maybe less competitive year will be followed by no NFL at all in 2011. Stay tuned as the nation's most lucrative and most watched sport heads into the Great Unknown.

                                  "It looks very bleak to get a (deal) done before March of this year or the beginning of the new NFL season," says Titans center Kevin Mawae, president of the players' union.

                                  "We're going to continue to try. ... Until we come to some terms of what's really important and what are the big issues in this deal it's going to be tough to get something done.

                                  "The players are more united than ever before, and we're preparing for a lockout."

                                  And getting antsy about the future.

                                  "From our standpoint right now, you not only prepare for the worst, that seems like the direction it's headed," Titans defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch says. "If players aren't prepared, if guys are in bad financial situations, it hurts our leverage as players."

                                  The main issue, of course, is money - despite soaring TV ratings, an average franchise value of $1 billion and even a storybook Super Bowl featuring the hard-luck Saints and MVP Peyton Manning's Colts.

                                  The NFL owners in 2008 opted out of their contract - called the collective bargaining agreement, or CBA - and have asked for significant givebacks from the players, including a reduction in salaries of nearly 20 percent.

                                  That works out to about $800 million; overall NFL revenues are estimated at $6.5 billion. Those owners say the agreement that will expire next year is far too favorable for the players, who get about 60 percent of the revenues actually used to determine the salary cap.

                                  "What we're trying to accomplish here is to have an economic system ... that will allow us to look back 15 years from now and say that we, meaning the clubs and the players, were creative and thoughtful and laid the groundwork for the game to continue to grow," says NFL executive VP and chief counsel Jeff Pash.

                                  "If we have the right type of structure, it will lead to better salaries and benefits for current and retired players, and...
                                  -01-26-2010, 04:24 PM
                                • Fat Pang
                                  CBA and salary cap
                                  Fat Pang
                                  What get's lost in this highly charged, emotional and (just whisper this bit.........) political debate about the future of the CBA and the salary cap that underpins it, is that everyone else around the world thinks it's a great idea.

                                  The debates about the intricacies, details, percentages and contractual niceities of the CBA and the cap obscure the essential point of it, which is to ensure the long term success of the NFL.

                                  I've watched and read various reports concerning the power plays between the NFLPA and the owners and between the various factions present within owners groups themselves and it all points to the very thiing that the CBA and cap are designed to circumvent.................GREED.

                                  It's obvious I know, but it really is remarkable the extent to which some people will go in order to sugarcoat an extremely bitter pill. Upshaw, Tagliabue,Benson and Jones (and our own extremely honest broker Shaw) can dress it how they like, but whether they dissimulate about 4% or the sharing of local revenue's it's all about the money.

                                  As if people aren't making enough already, as if there is a long line of players at the soup kitchens, owners driving around in Yugo's and agents cutting down the poplar trees in the drive to feed the fireplace as winter sets in.

                                  How much is enough? There's plenty enough for everyone already I'd suggest, so the current argument isn't about fairness or equality, because nothing works like that in our lauded and much worshipped free market, it's about power, resentment and greed.

                                  Compare Alexander and Bruce in their recent statements about their respective contracts.

                                  Alexander typifies the intellectual paucity ot today's NFL millionaires who plead that they only want "..what's fair for me and my family.." whilst demanding that their ego is sated by being paid at the top of their position and maybe even their profession and collecting enough money over a 7 year contract to fund healthcare in Sierra Leone for the next 20 years.

                                  Alas for envy.......

                                  The CBA and the cap has been such an outstanding success because it has manged to keep the lid on this pressure cooker of resentment, envy and greed. It's managed to ensure that for the last 10 years we've seen a full season of play.

                                  What's the alternative?

                                  The alternative can easily be seen in the EPL, Serie A or the Spanish Primera Liga. Here, full seasons of play are guaranteed by promising the players the lions share of revenue generated by increasingly massive television deals. Rupert Murdoch bankrolls the English Premier league to such an extent that his demise would shatter the national game.

                                  The players need not honour contracts, and can essentially move with impunity whenever they so please, because the transfer system in European football (where each player has a market driven value...
                                  -03-04-2006, 10:11 PM
                                • Curly Horns
                                  Bernie Bytes: NFL wins big in concussion settlement
                                  Curly Horns
                                  August 30, 2013 12:10 pm • Bernie Miklasz

                                  I’ll suspend the political correctness and state the obvious here: in the matter of the $765 million settlement of the concussion-related suit filed by retired players, the NFL won in a rout.

                                  Several reasons:

                                  1. Some legal analysts suggested that the players could have won $2 billion or more in damages had the players pushed this all the way. And others projected a doomsday scenario that would have meant the end of the NFL as we know it. After all, this is a gladiator sport – and if you can’t keep the players healthy, and you’re going to get sued and be forced to pay damages every time a player suffers a concussion, then how could you possibly continue to operate?

                                  Well, that’s over now.

                                  Yes, $765 million is a big number, but it breaks down to about $24 million per team. Goodness, NFL owners and GMs waste more money than that on stupid free-agent contracts each year.

                                  Moreover, the league gets to make this go away on a payment plan; half the settlement is due within three years but the NFL can allocate the other half over 17 years. This is a league that collects nearly $10 billion a year in revenue, and that annual haul will increase in the coming years. This payout is tip-jar money for NFL owners.

                                  2. The league didn’t have to admit liability. Direct words from the court document: “The settlement does not represent, and cannot be considered, an admission by the NFL of liability, or an admission that plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by football.”

                                  Of course, that’s preposterous; the NFL didn’t agree to pay $765 million because the 32 owners are sweet, wonderful and generous humanitarians. This was obviously an acknowledgement by the league, but legally it doesn’t matter.

                                  The NFL had already gone on the offensive by instituting new rules to protect players. This helps in three ways: (A) increased player safety is the right thing to do; (B) the NFL's new safety initiatives puts the league in a more positive light; (C) the new guidelines will help ward off future concussion-related suits.

                                  And the NFL’s PR machine already is working its magic to portray the league as a proactive, sensitive organization that cares deeply about the players’ health.

                                  Before settling, the former players had made good progress in winning the PR battle. I don’t think anyone out there is a fan of dementia. I don’t think anyone wants to see these old football heroes suffer horribly as they grow old while NFL owners are growing their franchise values and individual wealth.

                                  By agreeing to settle, the former players ceded the PR platform to commissioner Roger Goodell and associates. And this plays to the NFL’s strength; the league can spin away and engage in more image enhancement.

                                  3. The settlement will keep the league’s private files and documents...
                                  -09-03-2013, 07:54 PM
                                • RamWraith
                                  Players, league hit wall in talks
                                  RamWraith
                                  By Jim Thomas
                                  ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
                                  02/28/2006

                                  The optimism of earlier this week has faded into a blunt reality for the National Football League in its hopes of extending its labor agreement.

                                  Negotiations broke off Tuesday, leaving the league and the NFL Players Association deadlocked. A special league meeting is planned for Thursday in New York, and league commissioner Paul Tagliabue told teams to prepare for the start of free agency Friday without a new deal.

                                  "We're deadlocked," Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the players association, told The Associated Press. "There's nowhere to go. There's no reason to continue meeting. We're too far apart on our economics, and too far apart on revenue sharing, and we'll go to the uncapped year. There won't be an extension."

                                  These words came just one day after Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told reporters that a new deal would be in place by the end of the week.

                                  Of course, there are still two days before the start of the free agency and trading period Friday. And a lot of agreements, in a lot of businesses, get done at the 11th hour.

                                  But for now, teams remain in a strange sort of limbo as they approach one of the busiest and most critical times of the year.

                                  "I don't like where we find ourselves," Atlanta general manager Rich McKay said over the weekend at the NFL scouting combine. "I find us really stuck in the mud. You really don't know which way this thing is going to go. ... It would be extremely difficult to operate without an extension. Extremely difficult."

                                  The current labor agreement doesn't expire until after the 2007 season. But the '07 season would be uncapped - meaning there would be no salary cap. Teams could spend as much - or as little - as they wanted, which would be a big advantage to big-market spenders such as Dallas' Jones or Washington owner Dan Snyder.

                                  The uncapped year was put into the current collective bargaining agreement as an incentive to owners to extend the labor contract before 2007.

                                  There are incentives to spur the players association to an agreement as well. For example, once the uncapped year is reached, the earliest players can qualify for unrestricted free agency is after six years of service instead of the current four years.

                                  On the Rams' roster, for example, linebacker Pisa Tinoisamoa is scheduled for unrestricted free agency following the '06 season. But if '07 is an uncapped year, he would have to wait two more seasons.

                                  If the current free agency period starts without a labor agreement, some provisions are triggered in the bargaining agreement that neither players nor clubs would like. Foremost is the provision that signing bonus money can be pro-rated - or spread out - over a maximum of four years instead of the usual seven. This...
                                  -03-01-2006, 02:24 PM
                                Working...
                                X