Comments on: Union paid $44 million for lockout insurance http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/ ProFootballTalk on NBCSports.com Tue, 21 May 2013 00:58:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: khuxford http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1699985 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:08:40 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1699985 bigjdve says:
Apr 3, 2012 4:34 PM
I find it ironic that the NFLPA got this insurance, after they sued the owners for having the same type of insurance.
______________

They sued the league for shuffling payments from networks on the TV contract to put money in their pockets when it wouldn’t necessarily be contributing to players, in an effort to keep salaries down and insure an influx of revenue even without a season going on.

If they had to go to the specialty insurance equivalent of Geico to get a policy covering them for a work stoppage with their own damn money, the NFLPA wouldn’t have had anything to sue over.

]]> By: khuxford http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1699969 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:54:02 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1699969 smacklayer says:
Apr 3, 2012 3:26 PM
$200k is less than the league minimum. That wouldn’t have a made a difference to most players. Seems like an expensive premium for not much upside.
__________________

Yeah, just like unemployment insurance has no value because it doesn’t pay exactly what you were making at your job before the layoff.

Do you really think these things through?

Anyone on the league minimum is most likely to be unable to comfortably deal with absolutely no pay for the season, while they would be able to deal with $200k for the year.

]]> By: bigjdve http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1699061 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:34:33 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1699061 I find it ironic that the NFLPA got this insurance, after they sued the owners for having the same type of insurance.

]]> By: srbumblebeeman http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698800 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:31:48 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698800 No discount double check?

]]> By: nebster21 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698788 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:27:33 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698788 anyone know what would happen to a player that played a game when he was suppose to be suspended?

]]> By: bpjensen http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698786 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:27:23 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698786 The policy was not completely without riskl for an insurance company because the NFLPA had the ability to decide if games were or were not going to be missed. This was not like a life insurance policy were the insurance company is released from paying if the insured commits suicide. The insurance company could not say the NFLPA has to accept any offer or it will not pay. There are approximately 1900 players in the NFLPA, which would equal a $380 million payout at $200,000/player.

Also, I seriously doubt the insurance would only pay out if the entire season was cancelled. More likely is that it would pay out for each game missed, which is a total payout of $23.75 million/week. So, after a couple of missed games, the insurance would have more than paid for itself. While most did not believe the entire season would be cancelled, there was significant risk that 1 or 2 games would be missed.

So I am not going to be the “D is Dumb” drum over the lockout insurance. I would rather learn more about the initial CBA, which was rejected, that at least seemingly provided for a greater salary cap.

]]> By: smacklayer http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698783 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:26:29 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698783 $200k is less than the league minimum. That wouldn’t have a made a difference to most players. Seems like an expensive premium for not much upside.

]]> By: latchbeam http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698742 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:16:55 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698742 Sounds like a typical union…

]]> By: mvp43 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698720 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:12:36 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698720 They should’ve checked with Progressive…

]]> By: KIR http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698698 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:08:45 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698698 If anyone recalls, the owners quickly made a deal after the found out about lockout insurance.

]]> By: lombardihero http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698641 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:59:23 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698641 Tom Brady would be laughing when that check came in the mail. Here you go honey go buy a new pair of shoes.

]]> By: stats5 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698640 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:59:19 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698640 Who wouldn’t underwrite such a policy? There was absolutely 0% chance the full season would be lost. Thus, any ins. co. would take that premium in a heartbeat. There was absolutely zero risk that the insurance co. that posketed $44 million in premiums would ever have to pay out any $$ for a loss. D. Smith and the NFLPA continue to look dumb and dumber.

]]> By: kane337 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698623 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:51:51 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698623 Those union fees the players pay must be really expensive.

]]> By: chawk12thman http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698617 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:48:58 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698617 The Owners’ likely paid for lockout insurance as well. Hence, the game of chicken was played out until the Billions were at serious risk of being lost. No insurance would cover that……

]]> By: kathyisintheroom http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/union-paid-44-million-for-lockout-insurance/#comment-1698600 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:43:12 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=483935#comment-1698600 Wow.
Those players and union reps sure are a smart bunch huh?

The owners took complete advantage of the fact that they are much smarter and obtained a very nice CBA.

So happy those greedy players got the worst of the deal

]]>