Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

"I'm pleased to report that the definitive agreement that we've negotiated with the union, the owners approved it today by a vote of 31, with one abstention, and I'm quite pleased. It's a 10-year agreement." -- Houston Texans owner Bob McNair on a conference call Thursday night

I realize Bob McNair has forgotten more about business than I will ever know. I realize he is the billionaire who brought football back to Houston. I realize that I am but a humble radio host. I know all of these things.

I also know that the word "agreement" generally means that both sides concur that a deal exists, that an "agreement" by definition requires multiple parties to AGREE with each other. Whatever it was that Bob McNair and his fellow owners approved Thursday, it may have been a lot of things.

An "agreement" was not one of them.

It may and should still become an agreement eventually, but for now it's still a proposal.
Click to expand...
Houston Press
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Houston Press
Click to expand...
Come on, Pendergast. All McNair said was the owners approved the definitive agreement. Sure both sides have to sign it, McNair just said the owners did. A definitive agreement is a document that details all the terms and conditions of a "transaction" (for lack of better words). It's a pretty standard document in business. It's the 'definitive' document that expresses what the two parties are agreeing to. LOL
 
It's only PRACTICE........It's PRACTICE........It's only PRACTICE!

Also, practices have been severely reduced, especially during the regular season and, in particular, late in the season.

For starters, two-a-day practices in training camp have been eliminated, though teams can still hold a light walk-through practice in the morning. During the regular season, teams can practice in pads only one day a week. During the last five weeks of the regular season, they can practice in pads one day a week in only three of those weeks.

Previously, teams could practice in pads as many times as they wanted.

“You have to compromise on things you would prefer not to to get a deal done,” Rooney said. “They are significant changes. Everyone will have to adjust.”
Click to expand...
link
 
The owners and players have agreed to expand game day rosters from 45 to 46 active players. The No. 3 quarterback will no longer be an “emergency” inactive player.

In other words, a team can insert its third-string quarterback for a short period at any point in the game, then take him out and put the starter back in. Previously, the first and second quarterbacks couldn’t re-enter the game if the No. 3 quarterback played before the fourth quarter.

That rule came up most prominently last season when the Bears bungled the backup quarterback situation in the NFC Championship Game. After starter Jay Cutler went down and backup Todd Collins struggled, Bears coach Lovie Smith inserted No. 3 quarterback Caleb Hanie into the game just in time for him to hand off twice in the third quarter. Smith’s decision to put Hanie in the game in the third quarter instead of waiting for the fourth meant that if Hanie had suffered an injury, the Bears would have been without a quarterback for the rest of the game.

In 2011, the lack of a third-quarterback designation could be helpful for teams with third-string quarterbacks who are running threats: Now the third-stringer could be inserted as a wildcat quarterback for a play or two and then be replaced by the starter. That could be worth considering for whatever team selects Terrelle Pryor in the supplemental draft.

But the most likely result of the change to 46 active players on Sundays may just be that teams will add another active player at another position and keep two quarterbacks active on Sundays. For most teams, having extra depth at another position will be more useful than the ability to insert the third quarterback into the game whenever they please.
Click to expand...
link
 
I'm against the opt-out clause at the 7-year mark.

I want both sides to live with it for the full term (10 years). Live with it, then change it at year 11 if you didn't like some aspects of it. Otherwise, this is just a 7-year agreement.

I don't think fans want to endure another 4+ months of this horseshit 7 years from now. I know I don't. 10 years is even pushing it for me, because by then we might just start hitting our stride and getting that playoff berth.

The opt-out needs to be a "no go" by the owners. I'm willing to endure scrubs every Sunday for 2011 if it means the players are told to accept 10 years or stay home and have fun with their $200K while scrubs take their places on TV every week.

Owners should concede the re-certification process the players want to use, but in return should ask them to drop the opt-out proposal. 50-50.
 
GP said:
I'm against the opt-out clause at the 7-year mark.

I want both sides to live with it for the full term (10 years). Live with it, then change it at year 11 if you didn't like some aspects of it. Otherwise, this is just a 7-year agreement.

I don't think fans want to endure another 4+ months of this horseshit 7 years from now. I know I don't. 10 years is even pushing it for me, because by then we might just start hitting our stride and getting that playoff berth.

The opt-out needs to be a "no go" by the owners. I'm willing to endure scrubs every Sunday for 2011 if it means the players are told to accept 10 years or stay home and have fun with their $200K while scrubs take their places on TV every week.

Owners should concede the re-certification process the players want to use, but in return should ask them to drop the opt-out proposal. 50-50.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. A 10 year deal is a 10 year deal. Not a 7 year deal with an option for 3 more. The players will lose in the court of public opinion if they push this.
 
Double Barrel said:
All this talk about a so-called "PR battle" cracks me up. Does anyone honestly think the fans - you know, the objects of the so-called "PR battle" - have any say in any of this?

It's not like an election, where each side needs more supporters than the other side. What do the owners care if fans are on their side or not? Fans will herd to games to spend their hard-earned money regardless if they like the owners or not.

There is no "PR battle". There might be a perception of one, but really look at it objectively and ask yourself what difference does it make what side the fans are on.
Click to expand...

Can you honestly say the press conference and the statements made by folks including Goodell, Bob McNair, and the Cincinnati Bengals weren't done at least in large part to make it appear to the general public that the ball was completely and totally in the players court, and any delay in completion would be totally their fault? Can you honestly say that responses by players such as Vonnie Holliday, George Wilson and others accusing the owners of tricking, duping and hoodwinking the players weren't done (again, at least in part) to communicate to the NFL fans that if the deal doesn't get approved by the players quickly, it's because the owners are the bad guys - not the players?

I'm in agreement that I don't really see how winning the PR battle benefits either side very much (other than we all love to be loved), but to assert that there is no PR battle taking place - even if we don't really see a payoff for the winner - is a stance I completely disagree with.
 
Allstar said:
Sounds like the players are trying to make the game softer with these practice rules.
Click to expand...

If we were in the 80's I would agree, but we live in an era of personal trainers and million dollar gyms I thin 2 a days in full gear is better at getting players injured th!n it is at coaching the players up.
 
One day, we'll have to pay a company (probably owned by McNair) for daily use of oxygen.

You can buy your own oxygen instead of paying for the natural stuff, but then again...somebody will be selling the bottled oxygen to you.

You need oxygen. You have to have it.

If you like watching NFL, and you want to keep watching it, a fan must buy the thing no matter who is selling it or what the price is. To that extent, I can understand what DB is saying: It don't matter who you're pissed at, you're going to have to live with the outcome.

This is where monopolies are bad. You have no recourse. With competition, consumers can pick and affect the outcome to a large degree via financial natural selection. If there was another football entity competing with the NFL, you wouldn't see the extent of what we're seeing from BOTH sides of the aisle in the NFL. But they got the corner on the market.

This is why I think the feds SHOULD be able to step in and affect the outcome, because it's practically a monopoly whose business practices are hurting the economy and the workers across the whole nation. This has national implications. The least that can be done is for a court to step in and say "The show must go on," and make the two sides table the argument until next off-season. Live in 2011 with the previous CBA rules and take another crack at it in 2012. Why is that so hard to do?

Both sides are losing the plot. They've become isolated and focused upon winning at the desk level. De Smith should come out and say "We're not happy with it. We want to play in 2011 under the currrent rules and re-visit the CBA restructuring in 2012. That's it. That's our final offer." This would give everybody closure. Either we get started with 2011 or we say To Hell With It and see what 2012 brings--Hopefully a new POTUS and a new CBA deal for 10 years. Which would be a relief for everybody.
 
GP said:
One day, we'll have to pay a company (probably owned by McNair) for daily use of oxygen.

You can buy your own oxygen instead of paying for the natural stuff, but then again...somebody will be selling the bottled oxygen to you.

You need oxygen. You have to have it.

If you like watching NFL, and you want to keep watching it, a fan must buy the thing no matter who is selling it or what the price is. To that extent, I can understand what DB is saying: It don't matter who you're pissed at, you're going to have to live with the outcome.

This is where monopolies are bad. You have no recourse. With competition, consumers can pick and affect the outcome to a large degree via financial natural selection. If there was another football entity competing with the NFL, you wouldn't see the extent of what we're seeing from BOTH sides of the aisle in the NFL. But they got the corner on the market.

This is why I think the feds SHOULD be able to step in and affect the outcome, because it's practically a monopoly whose business practices are hurting the economy and the workers across the whole nation. This has national implications. The least that can be done is for a court to step in and say "The show must go on," and make the two sides table the argument until next off-season. Live in 2011 with the previous CBA rules and take another crack at it in 2012. Why is that so hard to do?

Both sides are losing the plot. They've become isolated and focused upon winning at the desk level. De Smith should come out and say "We're not happy with it. We want to play in 2011 under the currrent rules and re-visit the CBA restructuring in 2012. That's it. That's our final offer." This would give everybody closure. Either we get started with 2011 or we say To Hell With It and see what 2012 brings--Hopefully a new POTUS and a new CBA deal for 10 years. Which would be a relief for everybody.
Click to expand...

Bring back the USFL! That was actually really fun to watch imo. The Gamblers with Jim Kelly and the smurfs were some great times back in the day! :hurrah:
 
Last edited:
Double Barrel said:
All this talk about a so-called "PR battle" cracks me up. Does anyone honestly think the fans - you know, the objects of the so-called "PR battle" - have any say in any of this?

It's not like an election, where each side needs more supporters than the other side. What do the owners care if fans are on their side or not? Fans will herd to games to spend their hard-earned money regardless if they like the owners or not.

There is no "PR battle". There might be a perception of one, but really look at it objectively and ask yourself what difference does it make what side the fans are on.
Click to expand...

Anti-trust exemption = PR Battle.

Endorsement $$$ = PR Battle
 
b0ng said:
If we were in the 80's I would agree, but we live in an era of personal trainers and million dollar gyms I thin 2 a days in full gear is better at getting players injured th!n it is at coaching the players up.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the new rules issued today. 14 padded practices allowed throughout the entire season.

Doesn't look like anything is going on this weekend:

Schefter:
AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."
Click to expand...
 
The one thing that might happen is that the weekend gives time for the bulk of players to contact the player leadership and say, "Look, thanks for representing us this whole time. We appreciate it. But get this done and get us onto the field because $200K and no playing time is not gonna' work for us."

I don't think the rookies are included in the so-called "player's insurance money" that is supposedly $200K-per-player, is it? You're going to have a rookie rep amongst the veteran player leadership reps, and he's going to want a deal to be done.

I actually just think the players are figuring they can take their sweet time and preseason is just for the owners to line their pockets with extra cash anyways. So it's no skin off the players' teeth to go slow and see if they can bargain some things such as the supposed 7-year opt-out clause, which I think is a bad deal for both sides.
 
Allstar said:
Sounds like the players are trying to make the game softer with these practice rules.
Click to expand...

I see lots more injuries taking place when the regular season begins, due to lack of conditioning.

All in all, a more inferior product. But what I expected.
 
This is pure BS on the players part. First, this is at a critical stage, and they want to go play golf over the weekend like it's Feb? SEcondly, all this crap about not seeing the deal is BS. By now, that deal in it's entirety has been seen by at least the player reps if not the majority of the membership.

Lastly, this crap about the union is BS as well. That can be done inside of a day if not less.

The only chains being yanked are the players yanking on the fans chain and if they don't get this wrapped up Mon-Tue timeframe, fan sentiment is going to turn on them bigtime. They had a deal that was bargained by both sides in good faith and now they want a 7 yr buyout and are wanting other changes.

I think the players already got the better end of this deal overall, and if I am ownership I'm standing firm right where I am at. I'll take another scrub season if I have too rather than see the players keep jacking us around.
 
ChampionTexan said:
Can you honestly say the press conference and the statements made by folks including Goodell, Bob McNair, and the Cincinnati Bengals weren't done at least in large part to make it appear to the general public that the ball was completely and totally in the players court, and any delay in completion would be totally their fault? Can you honestly say that responses by players such as Vonnie Holliday, George Wilson and others accusing the owners of tricking, duping and hoodwinking the players weren't done (again, at least in part) to communicate to the NFL fans that if the deal doesn't get approved by the players quickly, it's because the owners are the bad guys - not the players?

I'm in agreement that I don't really see how winning the PR battle benefits either side very much (other than we all love to be loved), but to assert that there is no PR battle taking place - even if we don't really see a payoff for the winner - is a stance I completely disagree with.
Click to expand...

I think the so-called "PR battle" is an over-hyped myth perpetuated by a media machine that is lacking anything of substance to talk about these days with the NFL, so they continue to bleat on about making mountains from molehills. Sports talk radio and the blog-o-sphere has been abuzz for months regarding their delusion of self-importance and the PR angle, but yet season ticket sales remain high and seem impervious to the lock-out.

Has either the owners or players hired actual PR firms to make their side look better? This would seem prudent in a true PR battle. This is why I do not think one exists in the real sense of trying to sell it to the fans. What we think is ultimately irrelevant as long as we keep going to games.

Yeah, I agree that the owners and players might be doing things to influence a perception of a so-called "PR battle", but the end result is that they all get their money from the same place since it's all under the big NFL umbrella. I do not see fans avoiding games or not buying merchandise because they took one side over the other during the lockout, so ultimately, PR is irrelevant to any given side as it relates to the overall success of the league.

And owners have never really been popular, so for them to fight a public relations battle is a bit goofy. Maybe the ones trying to get stadium deals, but they are a small group at this point.

TD said:
Anti-trust exemption = PR Battle.

Endorsement $$$ = PR Battle
Click to expand...

The public has no sway regarding the anti-trust exemption, so I'm not sure that I follow your logic. The NFL's exemption is not even a minor platform subject to voters right now, so what would be the point of influencing PR in that regard? John Conyers tried to bring it up in May, but Lamar Smith refused to take up the legislation. If there was blood in the water and voters really cared about the anti-trust exemption, there is no doubt in my mind that those sharks in Wash DC would have capitalized on it. In the end, nothing happened.

As far as endorsements, these are directly tied to performance. As soon as this lock-out blows over - and it's just a matter of time - it's business as usual and advertisers are looking for the next star player to sign to endorsements. I do not see an individual player's position during the lock-out having any influence on an advertisement deal.

Marcus said:
I see lots more injuries taking place when the regular season begins, due to lack of conditioning.

All in all, a more inferior product. But what I expected.
Click to expand...

Yep, this ain't our fathers' NFL. Maybe one day they will make it so soft that girls can play, too. :winky:
 
Albert Breer
I will say this: NFLPA people are working over the weekend, and their office will be open. Communication with exec comm, reps is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Judy Battista
Players spokesman George Atallah says neither he nor De Smith know anything about an email saying player reps won't meet until Monday.
Click to expand...
 
I think the Owners have underestimated the players willingness to play preseason games when there are no game checks on the line for them.
 
Porky said:
This is pure BS on the players part. First, this is at a critical stage, and they want to go play golf over the weekend like it's Feb? SEcondly, all this crap about not seeing the deal is BS. By now, that deal in it's entirety has been seen by at least the player reps if not the majority of the membership.

Lastly, this crap about the union is BS as well. That can be done inside of a day if not less.

The only chains being yanked are the players yanking on the fans chain and if they don't get this wrapped up Mon-Tue timeframe, fan sentiment is going to turn on them bigtime. They had a deal that was bargained by both sides in good faith and now they want a 7 yr buyout and are wanting other changes.

I think the players already got the better end of this deal overall, and if I am ownership I'm standing firm right where I am at. I'll take another scrub season if I have too rather than see the players keep jacking us around.
Click to expand...


I'll buy that for a dollar. You still have Takeo Spikes claiming the owners slipped them a mickey. But who is really slipping who a mickey here?
 
Allstar said:
Albert Breer

Judy Battista
Click to expand...

Somebody isn't telling the truth. Kyle Vandenbosh was on NFLN via phone. He's the player representative for the Lions and he said that the last he heard was they were going to talk again Monday. I think the players are full of **** right now and want to drag this out as long as possible. I think they want to miss preseason.
 
Cjeremy635 said:
Somebody isn't telling the truth. Kyle Vandenbosh was on NFLN via phone. He's the player representative for the Lions and he said that the last he heard was they were going to talk again Monday. I think the players are full of **** right now and want to drag this out as long as possible. I think they want to miss preseason.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been thinking exactly. I still can't wrap my brain around their practice demands.
 
Cjeremy635 said:
Somebody isn't telling the truth. Kyle Vandenbosh was on NFLN via phone. He's the player representative for the Lions and he said that the last he heard was they were going to talk again Monday. I think the players are full of **** right now and want to drag this out as long as possible. I think they want to miss preseason.
Click to expand...

I heard old Kyle say that and I agree with you. Taking the weekend off isn't a really good move. It isn't as if they've been working hard for the last few months and need a rest.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
It may and should still become an agreement eventually, but for now it's still a proposal.
Click to expand...
Houston Press
Click to expand...

I really don't understand this. What were they talking to Demaurice Smith for if he didn't have the power to negotiate on behalf of the players?

Were we just wasting time?

The agreement should be in place. What we should be waiting for is the players to recertify the union.

If they don't want to recertify because they do not like the agreement, then Demaurice Smith wasted our time. The players time, & needs to get the F out of the way & let whoever the real negotiator is step to the table & get this done.
 
Porky said:
Bring back the USFL! That was actually really fun to watch imo. The Gamblers with Jim Kelly and the smurfs were some great times back in the day! :hurrah:
Click to expand...

I think this would be a perfect time for that XFL group, or any of the wanna-bee pro football groups to come in & make an offer.

You have a bunch of players out there, with no where to go.

Actually February or March would have been the perfect time.
 
Double Barrel said:
Yep, this ain't our fathers' NFL. Maybe one day they will make it so soft that girls can play, too. :winky:
Click to expand...

how_handegg_should_be_played.jpg
 
thunderkyss said:
I think this would be a perfect time for that XFL group, or any of the wanna-bee pro football groups to come in & make an offer.

You have a bunch of players out there, with no where to go.

Actually February or March would have been the perfect time.
Click to expand...

There's the UFL, but it's going under apparently.
 
Cjeremy635 said:
Somebody isn't telling the truth. Kyle Vandenbosh was on NFLN via phone. He's the player representative for the Lions and he said that the last he heard was they were going to talk again Monday. I think the players are full of **** right now and want to drag this out as long as possible. I think they want to miss preseason.
Click to expand...
Jason La Canfora
Clearing up some stuff from earlier - was a false report about the nature of an alleged email from the NFLPA to player reps that quickly . Spread to the point where reps and players believed it to be true, including several I spoke to. Turned out to be erroneous and the NFLPA. In fact sent out nothing. PA got word to players it was not true and there is no conference call or meeting set for Monday.
Click to expand...

Maybe that explains it?
 
Adam Schefter
In touch with @georgeatallah: Roger, De, officials from both sides working all weekend to finish deal points, process for players reforming.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
how_handegg_should_be_played.jpg
Click to expand...

I played rugby for 3 years all over Texas. I can vouch that it's a rough sport and I do think it's harder than football. The continuous running plus the contact made it a great outlet. I've seen guys get their ear partially ripped off in a scrum, use electrical tape to hold it in place, and then finish the game. Played in numerous tournaments where legs were snapped. You could hear the loud pop. They'd just pull the guys to the sideline and keep playing. Good times, good times....
 
Cjeremy635 said:
I played rugby for 3 years all over Texas. I can vouch that it's a rough sport and I do think it's harder than football. The continuous running plus the contact made it a great outlet. I've seen guys get their ear partially ripped off in a scrum, use electrical tape to hold it in place, and then finish the game. Played in numerous tournaments where legs were snapped. You could hear the loud pop. They'd just pull the guys to the sideline and keep playing. Good times, good times....
Click to expand...

I once took care of one of Australia's national team......and met the rest of the team.........never met a rougher, durable bunch in my life..........they seemed immune to pain.

Now, if the NFL would have 2-a-days.......and without helmets and pads like that........I could definitely live through that.........unfortunately, OUR players probably would never..........that is, live through that!:kitten:
 
Allstar said:
I'm talking about the new rules issued today. 14 padded practices allowed throughout the entire season.

Schefter:
Click to expand...

Really? Wow...
k_hahaurgay1.gif



I understand wanting to cut down on injuries, that little amount of time in practice just seems it would mess with their technique, and conditioning.
 
False Start said:
Really? Wow...
k_hahaurgay1.gif



I understand wanting to cut down on injuries, that little amount of time in practice just seems it would mess with their technique, and conditioning.
Click to expand...



It has been pointed out that the Texans were one of the teams that was always doing their second practice without pads or helmets, just walk-throughs anyway. So it won't change much for them. Certainly helped in the injury department.........and we sure showed great execution in games. :kitten:

Believe me, besides sloppier performance, it will result in MORE injuries........MANY MORE. That's what essentially happens when the inmates begin running the asylum.
 
I think the lack of padded practices will definitely contribute to more injuries and sloppy technique as was mentioned above. With the lack of tackling skills that are league wide and the constantly changing contact rules that only allow you to contact someone in a 2 foot section of their torso, I forsee:

1) More fines
2) More penalties
3) More missed tackles and allowed touchdowns

This is turning into powderpuff football.
 
After this is all over and signed off on, I would like to see a letter from the fans posted in newspapers of all major cities telling owners and players what we think of them. Probably would not bother any of them but would make me feel better by knowing "we told them!"
 

Posted by Mike Florio of PFT
On Thursday, the NFL annouThe open items before the league’s approval of the labor dealnced that it had approved a new labor deal, subject to acceptance of the deal by the players. Some players complained that they hadn’t seen the final version of the deal that was approved by the owners, other players complained that the NFL had slipped new terms into the final version of the deal that was approved by the owners.

A day before, the NFLPA* Executive Committee and board of player representatives saw a summary of the proposed deal, which included the open items, as of Wednesday. Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and 101espn.com has obtained a copy of the summary.

The open items are set forth below.

First, the minimum team expenditure would be only 89 percent of the salary cap. The term would be coupled with a guaranteed league-wide cash spend of 95 percent of the salary cap. If half of the teams spend 100 percent of the cap, half could spend 90 percent of the cap, preserving as a practical matter a 10-percent spread between the highest-spending and lowest-spending teams. If, alternatively, all teams have a minimum cash spend of 95 percent, the total cash spend would be 97.5 percent or more, assuming at least half of the teams spend 100 percent of their allotment, with the other half spending 95 percent.

Second, those offseason workout bonuses (such as the $750,000 due to Jets tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson) would be paid if the player reports to training camp and performs the services required of him. Thus, under this term, players who report for work (and then work) would earn all offseason workout bonuses, despite the absence of an offseason workout program.

Third, for rookie pay, an escalator would be available to push the fourth-year salary to the lowest level restricted free agency tender, which is $1.2 million in 2011, but which will increase with the salary cap.

Fourth, players would be guaranteed up to $3 million for the second and third year after a catastrophic injury. Balzer reports that, in the deal approved by the league on Thursday, the number had been cut to $1 million in the second year and $500,000 in the third year.

Fifth, the California loophole for workers’ compensation benefits would continue.

Sixth, the possibility of an opt out was included as an open item. Balzer reports that the final version included no opt out, making it a firm 10-year deal. (It has been reported that the players want a potential opt out after seven years.)

Seventh, payment of $320 million in lost benefits would be made for the 2010 season. In the summary document, the lump sum expressly is linked to the “lockout insurance” case. Basically, the players are proposing the restoration of those lost benefits as the payment of damages for the league’s failure to max out TV money when persuading the networks to pay rights fees during a lockout.

Eighth, a settlement of the Brady antitrust case would need to be made, separate and apart from the labor deal.

Ninth, a player would be subject to the franchise tag only once in his career.

Tenth, short-term injured reserve would be available, along with a possible game-day roster of 47. The deal approved by the owners reportedly limits the game-day roster to 46.

I’ll be pulling out some of the settled items from the summary later tonight for discussion and analysis. Thanks again to Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and 101espn.com for passing it along.
Click to expand...
 
There are so many games being played now because different agendas within both sides are dictating the actions or inactions of the participants.

Owners care more than players about preseason revenue


In theory, the players should have no leverage at this point in the practice. Each lost week of the preseason results in a shared forfeiture of roughly $200 million. Under the proposed labor deal, that’s roughly $96 million for the players, and roughly $104 million for the owners.

In practice, it doesn’t matter because the owners care much more about the preseason revenue than the players do. For many players, their compensation for 2011 already is fixed; it doesn’t matter if the pot that funds the salary cap adds another $96 million or $192 million or $288 million or $384 million. For the owners, $104 million in lost revenue per week roughly equates (setting aside for these purposes revenue disparities) to $3.25 million per team, per week. Which increases to $13 million per team if the full preseason is lost.

What’s $13 million per team? For some, that’s most if not all of the profit margin for the entire year.

That said, the absence of preseason games would also result in reduced expenses for the owners. But with game checks not paid until the regular season, the expenses are a lot less during the preseason.

Then there’s the fact that, if a full preseason is played, some veterans (including possibly members of the Executive Committee and/or board of player representatives) could end up making zero percent of their 2011 salaries, if the full preseason gives a younger player enough time to persuade the coach that it’s time to cut the veteran. So why not skip a couple of weeks of preseason revenue and increase dramatically the chances of getting 17 weeks of regular-season pay?
Click to expand...
link
 
New offseason rules carry stiff fines for violations

From time to time, teams have been punished for violating the terms of the offseason workout rules. Typically, the offending team loses a week of workouts.

Under the proposed labor deal adopted by the league (but not yet by the players, if you haven’t heard), it’ll cost more than a week of practice time.

The summary obtained by Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and 101espn.com shows that coaches would be fined $100,000 for a first offense, and $250,000 for a second offense. Teams will be fined $250,000 for a first offense, and $500,000 for a second offense.

That’s a total fine of $350,000 for a first offense, and $750,000 for a second offense.

And that’s a significant deterrence for any coach or team that decides to skirt these new rules, if/when they are adopted.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top