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)

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.

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…….

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Sorry I didn’t dumb that down for you.

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.

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

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?

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?

“..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.

I’m good with that.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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?