Skip to content

NFL’s rookie wage proposal includes eliminating holdouts

S. Bradforddraft Getty Images

The Associated Press got a hold of the NFL’s proposed rookie wage scale on Wednesday.

Some of the financial stuff is interesting — the league wants to divert $300 million-per-year from first-round picks to veterans — but the fine print is fascinating.

According to Barry Wilner, the league wants to eliminate holdouts by “reducing the maximum allowable salary if a rookie isn’t signed when training camp begins.”

Basically, you start losing serious money the moment you start to miss camp.   The league wants to take this holdout idea even further.

“The NFL also suggested eliminating holdouts for all veterans by prohibiting renegotiations of contracts if a player holds out in the preseason,” Wilner writers.

Good luck with that.

Eliminating holdouts in rookie contracts would be a big pill for the NFLPA* to swallow.  It’s hard to imagine the union giving up the leverage of a veteran holdout, when it’s often the only leverage veterans have.

Permalink 78 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
78 Responses to “NFL’s rookie wage proposal includes eliminating holdouts”
  1. cmstrick says: Apr 13, 2011 2:55 PM

    That actually makes a lot of sense.

    Which, of course, puts it in the “out-of-the-question” category…

  2. ezmoover says: Apr 13, 2011 2:57 PM

    If you don’t show up to work, then you start losing money?

    Wow.

    I don’t think the slaves will stand for that.

  3. TurdSandwich says: Apr 13, 2011 2:58 PM

    Football – I’m caring less and less with each passing day of this nonsense.

  4. shamburg says: Apr 13, 2011 3:00 PM

    I love it. Rookie hold-outs are so detrimental to the players pro carear. Get them to camp and get them learning to play at the next level.

    As for vets, that’ll never happen.

  5. rpiotr01 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:00 PM

    Geez, why bother? This only gives the NFLPA p.r. ammo.

    If the league gets a rookie wage scale then that should go some way towards reducing holdouts by rookies, and will soften the financial blow of a rookie holdout to the team. For the player there’s less money at stake and the system is more rigidly slotted so less room to maneuver. For the team, tens of millions of dollars aren’t on the line – they won’t be in the position of having to pay a huge signing bonus to a guy that increases his odds of injury and missed time with every day of camp and practice he misses. That should be enough for reasonable folks.

  6. mattsffrd says: Apr 13, 2011 3:00 PM

    sounds good to me

  7. njdevil7 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:01 PM

    Boy, the Jets and Chargers sure could have used this last year..

  8. duffer58 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM

    The owners are dreaming again.

  9. brownsfn says: Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM

    They shouldn’t be able to hold out…bottom line, if you sign a contract then play to that contract….end of story…

  10. profootballwalk says: Apr 13, 2011 3:03 PM

    The guy holds out, gets a big raise, and then gets hurt – because he’s out of shape from holding out.

  11. chatham10 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:08 PM

    I think it is a great idea that will never fly, let us not forget that all these guys have agents and the agents are lawyers, that should end this debate.

  12. glen1904 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:11 PM

    so we draft you and tell you were you will work for how much and how long if you want to choose this profession. why not just make it a free market with no need for a union?? seems like that would be a positive move with a lot of poster here.

  13. jnbnet says: Apr 13, 2011 3:12 PM

    A first round (especialy in the top ten) pick used has become a liability. The idea was to help bad teams get better, but the price of signing a top pick has crippled some teams. The NFL is trying to restore the value and allow bad teams to get back in the thick of things.

  14. bigmike7914 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:13 PM

    If the owners want to eliminate holdouts then the players should come to a middle ground and tell the owners to eliminate the franchise tag and restricted free agency so when a players contract is up they are free to go wherever they want to without their previous team holding them up also make contracts guaranteed once 50% of the contract is played out by the player ,for example if a team signs a player to a 6 year deal at the end of the nfl season after the third year the contract has been played the contract will become guaranteed.

  15. 3octaveFart says: Apr 13, 2011 3:15 PM

    “It’s hard to imagine the union giving up the leverage of a veteran holdout, when it’s often the only leverage veterans have.”

    I was never a big fan of players who first agreed to, then wanted to re-negotiate contracts before they expired.

    ..oh wait, isn’t that what the owners are doing now?!

  16. bmac187 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:19 PM

    brownsfn says:
    Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM
    They shouldn’t be able to hold out…bottom line, if you sign a contract then play to that contract….end of story…
    —————————————————-

    so i imagine you are for guaranteed contracts?

  17. 3octaveFart says: Apr 13, 2011 3:21 PM

    brownsfn says: Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM

    “They shouldn’t be able to hold out…bottom line, if you sign a contract then play to that contract….end of story…”

    You mean like the owners are doing now?

  18. kellyb9 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:21 PM

    Makes sense. If a rookie pay scale existed, the only logical reason I can think of for holding out would be to avoid playing for a team.

  19. biggerballz says: Apr 13, 2011 3:25 PM

    that’s fine as long as the league guarantees contracts, it’s only fair.

  20. kratos7002 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:27 PM

    They are employees either you take it or go somewhere else. Bring the replacements. I don’t think the veteran holdout will be accepted by Nflpa*.

  21. rickandj says: Apr 13, 2011 3:28 PM

    Great idea. Just guarantee those contracts you sign players to and then holdouts should be banned.

    Oh wait only the player should be forced to honor a contract which is signed. Oh okay….

  22. alldayvikings says: Apr 13, 2011 3:30 PM

    About time

  23. itorrey says: Apr 13, 2011 3:30 PM

    @brownsfn – You can’t dictate to another person that they must physically do anything. They have a contract which they are free to break under penalties set forth by the contract. If the contract says that if they hold out they have to pay a fine then that’s all you can do. You can’t force them to show up. It’s just like any other contract for services. If you pay someone to come paint your fence and they don’t show up you can’t go to their house and force them to do it. You can only seek to recover money as determined in your contract or by contract law.

  24. dorn09 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:30 PM

    So what if a crappy owner(Paul Brown) decides not to offer a contract to his draft pick until after the start of training camp? The player would have to take less.

    Not all holdouts are because of players. A few rookies did not get their contract offers until the first day of training camp last year.

  25. eaglesfan290 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:32 PM

    If you have a rookie wage scale, what is there to holdout over?

  26. ttommytom says: Apr 13, 2011 3:33 PM

    You are going to see a Rookie in Cincinnati sit out a whole year if this happens. The only way the Bengals can avoid that is to over draft a player or pay the going rate. They will never pay…

  27. frug says: Apr 13, 2011 3:34 PM

    Given that the majority of players never make it to a second contract a rookie wage school would screw over most NFL players. If the league really wanted to control rookie salaries they would simply abolish the draft (which limits the negotiating leverage of both players and teams), make all rookies free agents and let the market decide what they are worth. If that was too much of a logistical nightmare, then they could simply do a variation on what baseball does. Eliminate the concept of “draft eligible” and let teams select whomever they want when their pick is up, then if the two sides can’t reach an agreement the kid returns to school. This would solve the problems teams not wanting to draft at a certain position because since no player may be worth since the teams could refuse to pay. Though the NFL might need to institute some rules about “good faith” negotiations to prevent teams from simply picking players to prevent other teams from doing so.

  28. warmachine2112 says: Apr 13, 2011 3:42 PM

    Isn’t one of the strategies of negotiation putting in some stuff to get thrown out later as a sacrificial point. It’s unlikely to ever survive negotiation (well, if you’re negotiating with someone who actually earns their money) but it can be lost and used as a point of possible leverage.

    That’s the thing about the whole negotiation concept: Offers and counter-offers, as opposed to offers followed by the witty retort of slapping on a crap hat and going for litigation.

    Having said that, it’s now down to both parties to stop jagging around and actually get on with doing a deal.

    Don’t make me come out there and sort you tossers out…

  29. bleedgreen says: Apr 13, 2011 3:54 PM

    “3octaveFart says: Apr 13, 2011 3:15 PM
    I was never a big fan of players who first agreed to, then wanted to re-negotiate contracts before they expired.

    ..oh wait, isn’t that what the owners are doing now?!”

    ———————————-

    No… its not. There was an out in the contract. Its like a player option in a contract. The player can choose to void the final year of the contract, and thats exactly what the owners did. They were 100% within their legal rights, under the contract signed by the NFLPA, to end the existing CBA.

  30. Deb says: Apr 13, 2011 3:55 PM

    It’s reasonable to include a holdout clause for untried rookies, but not vets. Again … compromise.

  31. bleedgreen says: Apr 13, 2011 3:58 PM

    rug says: Apr 13, 2011 3:34 PM

    Though the NFL might need to institute some rules about “good faith” negotiations to prevent teams from simply picking players to prevent other teams from doing so.
    ———————-

    You could do something along the lines of, round 1 = this is the price for every position in every spot. From round 2 the top 1/3rd get 1 salary, the middle 3rd another, and bottom third a third, slightly decreasing, and from 3 -> 5th this is the contract you get. its standard. You get $x for being selected in Y round. If you choose not to sign the contract, you can go back to school. This leaves no wiggle room for ‘good faith’. The contract is what it is and thats final.

  32. schemefactory says: Apr 13, 2011 4:03 PM

    the players are the commodity here. why does the league keep treating them like the d.m.v. treats customers? like it’s a priviledge to be employed there more than a right. ? if all employees are expendable, then why do businesses have them? why don’t the owners go and sack each other? none of you righties can explain that. except to say that the worker has been kept in a constant state of fear for all eternity…

  33. radrhatr says: Apr 13, 2011 4:04 PM

    Well, I lost a $20 bet.
    I was sure the gag order would last at least 1 day!!!

  34. biglebronski says: Apr 13, 2011 4:05 PM

    A rookie who is not and has never been under contract is NOT a holdout. He is simply negotiating a salary with his future employer. If a rookie wage scale is agreed upon, then this should not be an issue anyway.

    In regards to Veterans, why change the system? The team lets the guy hold out, applies for a roster exemption, and doesn’t pay the holdout player. Meanwhile, the player gets no closer to the end of his contract, because he’s not honoring it by playing. Seems exactly as it should be to me.

  35. dorn09 says: Apr 13, 2011 4:10 PM

    If they did 3 year guaranteed contracts with no franchise or restricted tags this might go through.

    If I was a 2nd rounder through 7th rounder I would rather not get drafted. That way I could pick my team and salary and contract would not be slotted.

  36. thefiesty1 says: Apr 13, 2011 4:19 PM

    Vets and rookies should have a no holdout in their contracts, if the lockout is still in play. You sign it, you play with it, no holdout. Giving the vets another $300 million isn’t necessary, but neither is giving rookies $50 million contracts. They are all overpaid WAY too much.

  37. nfl25 says: Apr 13, 2011 4:22 PM

    Bring on the Replacements

  38. realitypolice says: Apr 13, 2011 4:26 PM

    bleedgreen says:

    No… its not. There was an out in the contract. Its like a player option in a contract. The player can choose to void the final year of the contract, and thats exactly what the owners did. They were 100% within their legal rights, under the contract signed by the NFLPA, to end the existing CBA.
    ================

    And players are completely within their legal rights to hold out. Their contracts stipulate specific penalties for holding out, and these penalties are enacted when they do.

    So as long as the players accept the penalties for holding out- specifically loss of wages and fines- then they aren’t even violating their contracts by holding out.

    But in your mind that’s different because the owners are hard working, right thinking, businessmen and the players are spoiled babies, right?

  39. geefan1 says: Apr 13, 2011 4:33 PM

    Guaranteeing contracts would be fine, as long as the players are willing to base the bulk of their pay on performance. That way when the player gets old and loses his starting job, he still can paid to be a backup.

  40. angrycorgi says: Apr 13, 2011 4:42 PM

    Of course…Locking players out is forbidden in the minds of the players, but heaven forbid someone suggest that players not be allowed to bully owners into overpayment via holdouts.

    Another example of the one-way street that is the NFL.

  41. angrycorgi says: Apr 13, 2011 4:49 PM

    It’s hard to imagine the union giving up the leverage of a veteran holdout, when it’s often the only leverage veterans have.

    —–

    Leverage for what? You are making over $600k minimum if you are a 4-6 year veteran and over $750k minimum if you are a 7-9 year vet…let’s stop pretending these guys are somehow getting screwed…veterans sign a contract, then they suddenly stop liking the contract and “sit out” to get even more?? Sorry, but its your signature on the contract, moron. Now go earn your paycheck.

  42. Grulks says: Apr 13, 2011 4:56 PM

    Easy way to fix this:
    Have contracts set up with holdout provisions, as the owners want. This gets players under contract to camp/practice, where they belong, so they can start gelling with the team. This is a win for the owners.

    Players want to ability to renegotiate their contracts when they “feel” they have outplayed them. Fine, include tangible escalation triggers (say being a top 5 WR by receptions two years in a row, or something like that) that would force the owners to either renegotiate the contract to be more inline, or reduce the number of years in the contract before the player can hit free agency. Either way, the players get paid sooner, and have an incentive to actually perform under the contract, instead of coasting like so many big name free agents do. This is a win for the players.

  43. CKL says: Apr 13, 2011 4:57 PM

    RP I don’t think too many teams actually enforce those fines for holding out. Which is their choice…but still.

  44. realitypolice says: Apr 13, 2011 5:01 PM

    angrycorgi says:
    Apr 13, 2011 4:42 PM
    Of course…Locking players out is forbidden in the minds of the players, but heaven forbid someone suggest that players not be allowed to bully owners into overpayment via holdouts.

    Another example of the one-way street that is the NFL.
    =========================

    Yes, the one way street where the average player plays three years and earns about 1 million dollars and the owners own their teams for decades and make hundreds of millions.

    The one way street where owners can cut players for any reason they want and owe them nothing but players are tied to their contract for as long as the owners say, unless they hold out, in which case they are subject to loss of salary and fines.

    Is that the one street to which you refer?

  45. realitypolice says: Apr 13, 2011 5:05 PM

    angrycorgi says:

    Sorry, but its your signature on the contract, moron. Now go earn your paycheck.

    =========================

    Don’t the owners sign the contract too?

    But they can renege on their commitment any time they want.

    But that’s ok with you, because you respect the owners as they are the picture of what a rich american should look like in your eyes.

    But how dare those young kids playing a game you wish you could play exert their rights.

    Who do they think they are?

  46. cappa662 says: Apr 13, 2011 5:05 PM

    Bad deal for the players. How about if negotiations start a week for the pre-season?

  47. buckifan4life says: Apr 13, 2011 5:21 PM

    Keep your foot on their throats, owners! I’ll give up a season in order to get it right. Rookie wage scale is wayyyy to high. The vets should be getting more mula and as to rookies holding out,… yes, squash that too.

    Go Owners!!!

  48. ac0117 says: Apr 13, 2011 5:31 PM

    —————————————————
    cmstrick says: Apr 13, 2011 2:55 PM

    That actually makes a lot of sense.

    Which, of course, puts it in the “out-of-the-question” category…

    ezmoover says: Apr 13, 2011 2:57 PM

    If you don’t show up to work, then you start losing money?

    Wow.

    I don’t think the slaves will stand for that.
    —————————————————-

    No, I don’t think you understand this concept completely. If a player, regardless of whether they are a rookie or vet, holds out then they are already losing money. That’s why it’s called “Holding out”, they aren’t fulfilling their contract and therefore are not being paid (and in some cases, fined).

    How does “reducing the maximum allowable salary if a rookie isn’t signed when training camp begins” make any sense? I agree that rookie contracts are ridiculous but it’s highly unlikely that the players will agree with that. What’s to prevent a team from “postponing” signing a player until traning camp start?

    Although the first couple commentators didn’t really think it through, I can’t really blame them – poor analysis by Gregg on this one.

  49. bukes111 says: Apr 13, 2011 5:48 PM

    @ angrycorgi

    I hate holdouts but I understand the holdouts in the NFL. They’re one sided contracts where the owners can terminate a player’s contract and stiff them out of a sizeable portion of that contract. In every other sport, contracts are gauranteed. That’s the reasons why it’s rare to see veterans hold out in baseball, basketball, etc. In football, they can cut you at anytime or teams can threaten to cut you and force you to sign a contract with a lesser salary.
    While I’m against the rules at curbing veteran holdouts, I don’t mind the rules at curbing rookie holdouts. Draft them, slot there salaries, make the years universal and have them report to camp.
    Any info on if the owners would enforce these rules on unsigned players w/ the franchise tag?

  50. jakek2 says: Apr 13, 2011 5:53 PM

    Let me get this straight….Owners can cut players under contract at any time but if a player outperforms his contract he can’t, effectively, cut the owner by holding out. Yes…that is a form of slavery you dimwits.

  51. Deb says: Apr 13, 2011 6:04 PM

    The Steelers rarely have an issue with holdouts. Maybe it has to do with how the owners treat the players … just sayin’

  52. tinytim4115 says: Apr 13, 2011 6:08 PM

    Im pretty sure us fans could negotiate a new CBA before the league does

    the league should just have us negotiate a new one and the owners and players would have to deal with whatever we decide lol

  53. mrfrostyj says: Apr 13, 2011 6:24 PM

    I’m confused. First I have to say that I think NFL rookies get paid way too much for not having played a down anyway. Do we all remember that Brady Quinn “held out” and what Denny’s does he work at now? Pay for performance makes sense.

    Anyway, last I checked the GM’s and owners are the ones who set the “going rate for players” and not the players themselves so in all logic shouldn’t the owners just set a salary cap for themselves and abide by it? How stupid will this lockout look when after it’s over Jim Irsay pays Payton Manning enough money to buy his own team and then some. If the players loose and the owners get their revenue percent, it’s all going to come back to star players once contract negotiation time comes.

  54. FinFan68 says: Apr 13, 2011 6:25 PM

    There should be a middle ground on this issue. Players should be justly compensated even though they suffer a football injury. They should not, however, expect payment on a contract they choose not to uphold. They are paid to play football to the best of their ability and that is regardless of a particular scheme that player (Haynesworth) wants to play in. If a team cuts a player (for no reason) as someone said, they should be able to sign with another team. If they can’t do that, guess what?…They were not cut for “no reason”, they were cut because they can’t or won’t do the job anymore.

    The average career length is determined by ability, not usually injuries or getting cut for no reason. The 3.5 year number is a manipulation of statistics because it factors in the 30+ players per team that count for .1 year or less. Those guys are not NFL players, they are guys trying to make a squad and are just not good enough for whatever reason. The average career length for starters is is not 3.5 years.

  55. thebraso says: Apr 13, 2011 6:26 PM

    Will someone please tell me where to find these replacement players you are talking about. My Broncos could have used a few of them last year.

    you know like the truck driver in Nebraska that can run a 4.4 forty or the insurance salesmen that can get pressure on a QB…..

    For the love of god someone please tell me where these guys are.

  56. txhc says: Apr 13, 2011 6:53 PM

    “brownsfn says:
    Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM
    They shouldn’t be able to hold out…bottom line, if you sign a contract then play to that contract….end of story…”

    It really should be this cut and dry. I guess contracts aren’t legally binding documents anymore.

  57. txhc says: Apr 13, 2011 6:58 PM

    “bigmike7914 says:
    Apr 13, 2011 3:13 PM
    If the owners want to eliminate holdouts then the players should come to a middle ground and tell the owners to eliminate the franchise tag and restricted free agency so when a players contract is up they are free to go wherever they want to without their previous team holding them up also make contracts guaranteed once 50% of the contract is played out by the player ,for example if a team signs a player to a 6 year deal at the end of the nfl season after the third year the contract has been played the contract will become guaranteed.”

    I’m good with that.

  58. 3octaveFart says: Apr 13, 2011 6:59 PM

    bleedgreen says: Apr 13, 2011 3:54 PM

    “..oh wait, isn’t that what the owners are doing now?!”
    ———————————-
    No… its not.”

    Yes it is. It’s exactly what they’re doing.
    Read what I wrote again.

  59. bukes111 says: Apr 13, 2011 7:13 PM

    The one problem I have with the proposed rookie deal is the 5 year deal. It should be reduced to 3. Maybe 4 w/ players eligible to become restricted free agents after year 3.

  60. loytomaki says: Apr 13, 2011 7:24 PM

    My understanding is that a Rookie Wage Scale would essentially slot all picks. First pick gets X million +y% each year of the CBA. It makes no sense to hold out since you know what you will make.

    If a RWS instead is just “each team spends 200million per draft class” it will result in the number 1 pick holding out for more money, which means all the other picks might never get signed. In other words, unless they slot the amount of money it will not work as intended, and if they slot the amount no one would have any incentive to hold out.

    Is there something I am missing about how the proposed RWS will work?

  61. airraid77 says: Apr 13, 2011 7:31 PM

    The owners are geniuses…..of course the players dont have a counter proposal YET…
    I hope the owners balk and walk.

  62. loytomaki says: Apr 13, 2011 7:35 PM

    txhc says:
    Apr 13, 2011 6:53 PM
    “brownsfn says:
    Apr 13, 2011 3:02 PM
    They shouldn’t be able to hold out…bottom line, if you sign a contract then play to that contract….end of story…”

    It really should be this cut and dry. I guess contracts aren’t legally binding documents anymore.

    If contracts were guaranteed then I would 100% agree, the problem is owners sign contracts weighted towards the back end, and players never see that money. They end up having to renegotiate or get cut, and if they are under performing they get cut. As long as you can cut a player who under performs there needs to be a way for the player to earn more if they over perform.

    All of you saying the players should live up to their end of the agreement would agree that owners should be held to the same standard right?

    NFL is the only sport without guaranteed contracts are they not?

  63. obamaczarofussa says: Apr 13, 2011 7:41 PM

    Man, Dis jus beez mo evi-dance of da nfl slavery.
    Jus cause a man aint dun nothin dont mean yo dont owes him he fotey million dolla’s . A man gotsta get paid booeeey.. jus ax jamarcus russell. He a man that jus shed he nfl chains.

  64. hitdog042 says: Apr 13, 2011 7:54 PM

    Veterans with a valid contract should have ZERO leverage, other than to say I will retire if you don’t give me more money.

    This is also why the Bengals should let Carson Palmer retire. Take a stand.

  65. hitdog042 says: Apr 13, 2011 7:57 PM

    Deb says: Apr 13, 2011 6:04 PM

    The Steelers rarely have an issue with holdouts. Maybe it has to do with how the owners treat the players … just sayin’

    ==============

    someone really needs to take the keyboard away from this lady.

    Yes Deb.. every team that has holdouts is run much more poorly than your beloved Steelers.

    It couldn’t possibly be the fact that the Steelers are usually very good and pick late in the first round.

    That would just be a foolish reason.

  66. bronco1st says: Apr 13, 2011 8:20 PM

    By reading the comments, I see most of the posters don’t understand the rookie wage scale. The sale only limits the ceilings on what players can be paid, not the floor as it is now proposed. That means if the wage scale allows for $10 Mil to be paid to the QB position, that is the ceiling only and not guaranteed and without a floor in place, an owner could offer only $5 mil to their drafted QB and with no floor added to the no hold out clause, the player would be forced to 1) take the lower money 2) risk losing even more money 3) opt out entirely and re-enter the draft the following season. People are so stupid they think the wage scale is guaranteed money at a set amount, it’s NOT!

  67. airraid77 says: Apr 13, 2011 9:18 PM

    I DARE any pro player poster, to tell me you would open your financials to your boss when its time to get a raise, so you can justify asking for it?
    ANY TIME YOU WANT TO BUY A CAR, HOUSE, ANY MAJOR PURCHASE OF ANY KIND, DEEMED MAJOR BY ANYBODY, YOU HAVING TO DISCLOSE YOUR FINANCIAL RECORDS…..5 YEARS BACK….MUCH LESS 10.
    OH WAIT I WONT GET ONE REPLY

  68. Deb says: Apr 13, 2011 9:22 PM

    @hitdog042 …

    You’re not terribly bright, are you? But I guess some things must be completely spelled out for some people. The article is about a proposal to eliminate rookie holdouts. Some commenters are suggesting contractually eliminating both rookie and veteran holdouts. I previously posted that I favor eliminating holdouts for untried rookies. Then noted that the Steelers don’t have many issues with holdouts–meaning veteran holdouts–and maybe that has something to do with how the Steelers treat players.

    Whether or not veterans hold out has nothing to do with their draft position. :roll:

    Sorry I didn’t dumb that down for you.

  69. marthisdil says: Apr 13, 2011 9:54 PM

    Ya know…players who hold out should be fired and forced to not play in the league for the remaining term of their contract.

    The owners have NO leverage with the players if they wanna screw around – i.e. Haynesworth. Sure, they can cut them, but they still take a hit against cap for a lot of it and the player gets free money and can go elsewhere.

    So yeah, screw rookies who holdout. Screw vets who holdout. They screwup the league as much as the owners.

  70. marthisdil says: Apr 13, 2011 10:00 PM

    Oh – and no rookie wage scale. Make it all tiered:

    Salary is based on position and number of years in the league. Common performance incentives, again, based on position, are included in all contracts.

    Each team is given the SAME amount to use for signing bonuses, perks, etc, to split up between all players on the team.

    Problem solved.

    That way, no rookie QB can come into the league and make as much as a good vet qb (or more), etc, etc. The vets get paid significantly more, have incentive to perform better, and down the road, even being a backup/third stringer, you’re still getting paid a lot more than you likely would if negotiated.

  71. marthisdil says: Apr 13, 2011 10:03 PM

    “If contracts were guaranteed then I would 100% agree, the problem is owners sign contracts weighted towards the back end, and players never see that money. ”

    Then perhaps the players should refuse to sign such contracts? They have that ability too…but greed gets in their eyes and blinds them.

  72. mrfrostyj says: Apr 13, 2011 11:10 PM

    @airraid77

    I see your point and it makes no sense to the situation in the NFL. Everyone in the situation you’re comparing to has to open their financials. It’s called a credit check. You ask the bank for a loan and the bank in return asks you to show them proof that you can pay it back.

    In the case of the NFL, the owners are stating that they want the higher percentage because the NFL under the CBA as is was not profitable. ANYONE being told by a billionaire that statement if they were smart would ask the same thing. If a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit leaning against a mazerati comes up to you and asks for $20 because he can’t afford lunch, wouldn’t you be a tad suspiction?

    Or in this case, if Jerry Jones cries broke after having a 1.3 billion dollar stadium built, wouldn’t you be suspicious?

  73. bringbacktheflex says: Apr 14, 2011 1:18 PM

    I’ll watch NFL games on TV even if there are no high-priced primma donnas playing. Maybe we’ll get some decent balanced games where the real heart of football is shown. Instead of histrionics on the sideline and hula dances in the endzones.

    I say DON’T pay them. Get less talented players for less and let’s play ball!

  74. airraid77 says: Apr 14, 2011 1:37 PM

    true capitalism….prices to high? dont hire those employees. and much to the shagrin of the pro player poster, that is exactly what will happen.

  75. nolliabed says: Apr 14, 2011 3:24 PM

    Will someone please tell me where to find these replacement players you are talking about. My Broncos could have used a few of them last year.

    you know like the truck driver in Nebraska that can run a 4.4 forty or the insurance salesmen that can get pressure on a QB…..

    For the love of god someone please tell me where these guys are.
    ———————————————————-

    The’re in college………that’s where they are. They WANT to play and are not getting paid…”as far as we know”. They are also not in a union. Start fresh with all new players. The other players will come around soon enough. If not, then let them go get other jobs……………..oh wait, they can’t get other jobs, at least not jobs that pay this well. The owners know it as well as the fans………..and the owners can sit it out. Yes they will loose money but it won’t make or break them. Now as for the players……….different story. A bunch are already making deals with loan sharks and that’s a fact. Imagine if this lasted a whole year…….

  76. Deb says: Apr 14, 2011 6:18 PM

    @nolliabed …

    Any replacement players for a 2011 season wouldn’t come from the college ranks. College players seasoned enough to play in the pros would immediately become part of the lockout as soon as they were chosen by a pro team. That’s just how the system works.

    The replacement players would be guys who’ve been cut from NFL teams because they weren’t good enough or guys who just retired and are willing to give it another go … players commonly called “scrubs.”

    The reason those savvy team owners who were smart enough to accrue billions of dollars in their careers have bid player salaries as high as they are is because the presence of elite athletes is what has helped explode the NFL’s audience. Today’s players are paid based on the revenues they generate. You can see scrubs play in neighborhood leagues. You probably wouldn’t be willing to sit and watch them on TV or pay mega ticket prices to see them live in stadiums.

    And if all today’s players left the league and we started over and rebuilt with upcoming college talent, the owners would soon bid their salaries into the stratosphere for the very same reason.

  77. andyreidisfat says: Apr 17, 2011 12:42 PM

    As long as the contracts are not guaranteed, then vets should have the right to hold out. I have always said the league needs a rookie scale where they bring the contracts way way way back to reality.

    As far as people who say “you sign a contract, then you should play the contract” that’s great in theory but when the other side doesn’t have to honor that deal ( and i like it that way because it keeps teams competetive) then its always going to be unfair to the players.

    As far as getting rid of the francise tag , i don’t like that idea. Though It would be a good idea to limit the tag to once per player ( as in, no tags two years in a row ) The tag is an important way of keeping teams together and for some teams it has been why they were able to keep key players and win superbowls..

    Mostly though imo they should just go back to the way it was a few years ago. The players should take a small salary cut and the owners should pay full benefits for life to anyone who signs an nfl contract. The players should except the rookie wage scale and the owners should except a sorta round style slotting on contraact length, as in 1-3 rd = 4 year 4-7= 3 year. That way the younger players will not have long to wait to get their first big deal, but at the same time the owners won’t have to make a guy who has never plaed the highest paid player at his position ( though the owners only have them selves to blame for rookie salarys. Its their own stupid fault for not valuing vets more)

  78. andyreidisfat says: Apr 17, 2011 12:46 PM

    One more thing. To the people who say they would watch scabbs play football ….. trust me, you wouldn’t. Watch tapes of old scab games. Its not liek the movie the replacements. Its more like watching a really good junior high team. Its easy to say you would do something, untill you see it and its awful

Leave a Reply

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