Skip to content

If lockout lasts 30 days, Cardinals will slash staff’s pay 35 percent

New Orleans Saints v Arizona Cardinals Getty Images

Coaches and front office-employees of the Arizona Cardinals will be hoping for a quick resolution to the lockout.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that if the lockout lasts 30 days, meaning it’s still going on April 11, the Cardinals’ coaches and front-office members under contract will start having 35 percent of their pay deducted from their paychecks.

If the lockout is ultimately resolved before the start of the season, and no games are missed, the team apparently plans to refund the money. But if any games are missed, those employees are out of luck.

The Cardinals are also considering giving their employees a week of unpaid furloughs in May.

Other teams including the Bills, Jets and Chiefs have said their employees will take a pay cut during the lockout.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
15 Responses to “If lockout lasts 30 days, Cardinals will slash staff’s pay 35 percent”
  1. djstat says: Mar 17, 2011 7:03 AM

    I am in total support of the owners on the lockout however, I think it is disgraceful that these coaches and workers with contracts are having paycuts of 35% placed on them. That is a lot of money. Not sure how it is legal. Just goes to show that the owners and players were more concerned about themselves as opposed to all of the people their lockout.decerifying/postuirng would hurt.

  2. drslipdadic2me says: Mar 17, 2011 7:45 AM

    Hmmmm…. I wonder if Drew will give another of his beautifully worded & unwanted sentiments.
    He is so dreamy & like a Hallmark Card!

  3. chapnastier says: Mar 17, 2011 7:45 AM

    More evidence that the players only care about themselves. Besides the part time stadium workers potentially losing their jobs these people could lose a lot of money. The players need to get back to the negotiation table.

  4. mmickute says: Mar 17, 2011 8:14 AM

    Hey it’s better then being laid off! WAY BETTER.

  5. apopnj says: Mar 17, 2011 8:25 AM

    This is just an excuse for the owners to cut payroll and put more money in their pockets. This is a good strategy by the owners to make the players look like the bad guys. If the “game” is not played right and the current economy is not going to improve, both sides will have to answer to the some angry fans. We also have to remember, after all these years, women are starting to make up a large number of NFL fans. By playing the game on how to divvy 9 billion, the NFL will stand to lose a large part of the women NFL base. Women dont put up with that crap. Us guys will hoot and holler but come back to the game but women have different views. The bottom line is, the NFL as well as the players better get their butts back to the negotiating table and hash out a plan going forward cause in the end, both sides will lose.

  6. wallyhorse says: Mar 17, 2011 8:26 AM

    The real problems to me are some owners for whom they need the profits.

    I’m wondering if in some cases, the owners are being “greedy” because they know that some sponsorship money that previously was there is drying up. It needs to be remembered that the current CBA was done (which some owners didn’t like even then), the economy had not yet tanked like it would a couple of years later. That I would have to think is playing the in backs of some owners’ minds, aside from those perceived as simply being “cheap” when in reality, they may need every dime they can get to make up for lost revenue from advertising.

    There then is what to me is a factor that on the surface is unrelated, but could be a driving force of some of the owners: The situation with the Dodgers and their owner, Frank McCourt, who currently is being sued for divorce by his estranged wife, Jamie. It could be there is an owner or two out there who may actually need the money to keep up his family’s lifestyle or face a similar situation with his team of that currently happening with the Dodgers that we don’t know about right now. If that is actually the case, it could be the owners know it could create major problems for the NFL if a case similar to the McCourts happened in their fraternity, especially in the case of Major League Baseball with one of their signature franchises.

  7. duanethomas says: Mar 17, 2011 9:30 AM

    This is nothing more then the owners of these organizations showing what that they only care about one thing, at that is greed. No regard for the players, and even less for the everyday longtime employee’s. They knew the lockout was coming when the opt-ed out of the CBA 3 years ago. The Bidwell’s have ran one of the worst outfits for 40 plus years, and despite Whisenhunt they are going back to par for the course. Why are the Jets cutting back and business as usual with the Giants? Bills & Chiefs? Why not the Broncos and Browns? Bottomline is the owners only concern is using the players and fans to increase they bottomline in the new arms war to see who can build the biggest and newest stadium.

  8. famucancer says: Mar 17, 2011 9:33 AM

    But I thought the owners had all the money in the world to wait out the players? Guess that’s not applicable to everybody. The owners wanted this, so those employees know who is causing their decreased salaries. Meanwhile, the players get their salaries through the season. Other than roster bonuses and small workout bonuses – which dont effect the majority, they wouldn’t miss any paychecks before August. Thought the owners had that big contigency plan? Guess not.

  9. blackqbwhiterb says: Mar 17, 2011 9:42 AM

    I am not the least bit surprised to see Bidwills doing this. And some of the others. The real problem will be that those owners are going to try and hold out long enough to miss one game so they keep that $$$$, rather than settle. Just like the lawyer now in charge of representing the players wants to drag this out, so he and his firm can rake in millions. When people have a vested interest in NOT settling, there’s going to be trouble. Read about it on PFT.com, baby

  10. 3octaveFart says: Mar 17, 2011 10:20 AM

    djstat says: Mar 17, 2011 7:03 AM

    “I am in total support of the owners on the lockout however, I think it is disgraceful that these coaches and workers with contracts are having paycuts of 35% placed on them. That is a lot of money. Not sure how it is legal.”

    Yet you see no problem with the owners wanting to cut into the players pay by $1 billion?
    How is that any different?

  11. biggerballz says: Mar 17, 2011 10:45 AM

    they should do that to the players, if lockout continues your offer goes down 30% permanently. If you don’t like it go ahead and start your own league, i’m sure brady or manning would invest in it NOT.

  12. thehighhat says: Mar 17, 2011 11:16 AM

    Stay classy Arizona!

  13. wallyhorse says: Mar 17, 2011 11:27 AM

    That’s where the PSLs do help The Maras (Giants Owners), as they can wait out a lockout more easily without getting in season ticket revenue while paying their staff as they would normally. I seriously doubt most teams, no matter what is said otherwise is in a position to do that.

    As also said, I wonder how much indirectly the situation with the Dodgers and the McCourts is contributing to the owners “greed.” Could it be an owner or two’s marriage has a clause where he has to keep his spouse in a certain lifestyle, even if funds dry up and if he doesn’t, she could be in a position to do what Jamie McCourt currently is with the Dodgers over her estranged husband? That to me could be behind this!

  14. agelardi says: Mar 17, 2011 12:37 PM

    That’s totally messed up. The staff aren’t the one’s holding up the works, it’s the owners. The staff should threaten legal action. But they won’t cause they don’t want to be blackballed from getting another job in the NFL.

  15. agelardi says: Mar 17, 2011 12:44 PM

    I don’t get you people who are blaming the players for this situation. It’s the OWNERS who have decided to shut down the NFL. And why? Because they don’t like the deal that THEY gave the players the last negotiating period. Goodell said himself that the owners approved a deal that they fully expected to opt out of at the first possible instant. I mean, who does that? Is THAT negotiating in good faith?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!