Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RavingManiac

Ezekiel Elliott Case

31 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, mdrunning said:

Whether Goodell does or doesn't want to cede some of his disciplinary power (and absolute monarchs do not surrender authority willingly) is a peripheral issue at best. Who really cares? The point is the players have much bigger problems over which they could go to the mats; the disciplinary power of the commissioner doesn't even rate an asterisk. The players got absolutely destroyed during the last collective bargaining talks, and it has nothing to do with Goodell flexing his muscles.

As a result of the current CBA, not only have rookie contracts been slashed (and they can't even renegotiate until after their third season), but veterans, to whom the savings on rookies were supposed to trickle down, are also being squeezed out. So what the NFLPA succeeded in doing was slashing rookie pay by almost half while at the same time pushing veterans out of the game. Where's the benefit to the players?

To be sure, the union did secure better post-retirement benefits for the players--such as medical care, pensions and transition programs to help players adjust to a life without football. And they also did get a $620 million legacy fund for pre-1993 players, which was certainly a plus. Players also have shorter off-season programs, stricter guidelines on contact practices, and the complete elimination of two-a-days in training camp. But the truth is, the owners were probably more than happy to yield ground on these issues. Not only does it give the appearance of them actually caring about their players, but it also helps them fend off lawsuits. 

Then again, which do you think a player would rather have: A few more thousand dollars in pension money 30 or 40 years down the road or a couple of million more in the bank right now? I think we both know the answer.

The truth is, the players have never been able to engage in hardball negotiations because they simply cannot sustain a unified front. Their careers are too short and they're too stratified pay-wise by position to ever survive a protracted labor dispute. Worst of all, they're stuck with this deal for the next three years because their is no re-opener escape hatch.

The NFLPA would be wise to fight battles it can win when the CBA comes up again. Maybe some modifications of the rookie payscale would be in order, as would a revisiting of the franchise tag. But again, what would they have to give up to induce the owners to make concessions in these and other areas? Regardless of which fronts on which they choose to fight, if the union decides to take a hardline approach, they will lose. . .again.

 

 

 

Very detailed response. I trust your facts are correct so I'm not even going to bother to check them.

Why do you talk about pensions 30 years down the road? Do they not collect it when they retire?  Rookie salaries were getting out of control. I think even the veterans believed that.They were making more money or at least the same amount as some of the veteran stars and they never played a down. I think this pissed off a lot of veterans. What looks like to you and I that the players got duped here, the players knew what they were voting on here. During negotiations, I don't think the league dictates what's going to happen here. I really do believe both sides negotiate, however nieve that thinking may be. I have always thought the players union is very strong. Is this not the case? I have to believe that Goodell having final authority on all disciplinary actions is a huge deal to the players. The league suspended Josh Brown one game for domestic violence last year. Then Goodell got a lot of backlash for that. He reopens the case this year and suspends him another 6 games. What is that? There is no way he should have the power to do this. Is this a coincidence that this comes out right before the judge rules on the Elliott case? You be the judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it's a reality of the CBA they agreed to, but was talking more about the next round of talks.  Here's the thing... and the union would need to approach it as a benefit to the owner's / league side of the table as well... switching to a "Wait for the legal system to rule first" philosophy as your standard operating procedure COULD very well (I think anyway) reduce some of the bad P.R. that the league incurs every time a player is accused of something non-football related.

Say Joe Lineman is accused of something domestic violence related.  Immediately the public perception is, mostly, he's guilty... and the mass media immediately turns to "What will the league do? Will they suspend him? Will it be tough enough?"  That's all over the place constantly until the league does something, or not... at which point the narrative immediately becomes a critique of how they handled it.  And no matter what they do it seems, most of the opinions are usually negative in some way.  Meanwhile, the guy might never actually even be charged with something.

As a society, and supposedly in the legal system, the mantra is "Innocent until PROVEN guilty".  The NFL would be wiser to limit it's role in determining innocence or guilt to matters involving the sport itself (things the legal system doesn't give two burps about).  But if they leave all of the off-field / non-football related issues (and there are dozens every year) to rest pending real world legal system has run its course on the issue, it's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.  Whether an individual team chooses to bench a guy pending the outcome is a different matter.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to say "Who are we to judge a legal matter before the legal system?" and focus on "Innocent until proven guilty".  It would eventually make the public narrative about what they do / don't do cleaner (pending resolution), and satisfy a gripe that I'm sure the union / players have.

Edited by Ravens2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ravens2006 said:

I understand it's a reality of the CBA they agreed to, but was talking more about the next round of talks.  Here's the thing... and the union would need to approach it as a benefit to the owner's / league side of the table as well... switching to a "Wait for the legal system to rule first" philosophy as your standard operating procedure COULD very well (I think anyway) reduce some of the bad P.R. that the league incurs every time a player is accused of something non-football related.

Say Joe Lineman is accused of something domestic violence related.  Immediately the public perception is, mostly, he's guilty... and the mass media immediately turns to "What will the league do? Will they suspend him? Will it be tough enough?"  That's all over the place constantly until the league does something, or not... at which point the narrative immediately becomes a critique of how they handled it.  And no matter what they do it seems, most of the opinions are usually negative in some way.  Meanwhile, the guy might never actually even be charged with something.

As a society, and supposedly in the legal system, the mantra is "Innocent until PROVEN guilty".  The NFL would be wiser to limit it's role in determining innocence or guilt to matters involving the sport itself (things the legal system doesn't give two burps about).  But if they leave all of the off-field / non-football related issues (and there are dozens every year) to rest pending real world legal system has run its course on the issue, it's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.  Whether an individual team chooses to bench a guy pending the outcome is a different matter.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to say "Who are we to judge a legal matter before the legal system?" and focus on "Innocent until proven guilty".  It would eventually make the public narrative about what they do / don't do cleaner (pending resolution), and satisfy a gripe that I'm sure the union / players have.

I think the easiest way to address the above would be an independent arbitrator. No union in its right mind should ever agree to a non-independent arbitrator to settle disputes, but that's essentially what Goodell currently is. The only hangup would be which types of cases would go to the arbitrator and which would remain under the dominion of the commissioner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 5:44 PM, OriginalColtsFan said:

^

Looks like you spoke too soon again ocf. It was ruled that Elliott did not get a fair hearing. You seem to be wrong a lot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

Very detailed response. I trust your facts are correct so I'm not even going to bother to check them.

Why do you talk about pensions 30 years down the road? Do they not collect it when they retire?  Rookie salaries were getting out of control. I think even the veterans believed that.They were making more money or at least the same amount as some of the veteran stars and they never played a down. I think this pissed off a lot of veterans. What looks like to you and I that the players got duped here, the players knew what they were voting on here. During negotiations, I don't think the league dictates what's going to happen here. I really do believe both sides negotiate, however nieve that thinking may be. I have always thought the players union is very strong. Is this not the case? I have to believe that Goodell having final authority on all disciplinary actions is a huge deal to the players. The league suspended Josh Brown one game for domestic violence last year. Then Goodell got a lot of backlash for that. He reopens the case this year and suspends him another 6 games. What is that? There is no way he should have the power to do this. Is this a coincidence that this comes out right before the judge rules on the Elliott case? You be the judge. 

The NFL defines retirement age as 55 years old. Only players who played at least one season prior to 1993 may collect full benefits as early as age 45. For all others, there is a substantial penalty. For example, a player who begins drawing on his pension at age 45 (known as early retirement) would only be able to collect 45 percent of the monthly benefit he would otherwise receive had he waited another 10 years.

The NFLPA is arguably the weakest of the four major sports, although I can't say that definitively because I don't follow hockey closely enough. The MLB players association is by far the strongest of the four. Since 1976, they've experienced six work stoppages (technically seven, but the '85 strike only lasted about 48 hours), and emerged stronger each time. The fact that you're hearing rumblings of a possible NBA lockout suggests the league wants to take back some of the power it has lost to the players.

I'd say the players union in hockey is closest to the NFLPA in terms of strength, but the fact that players in the $13 billion NFL have the same leverage as players whose sport generates about a quarter of that amount is telling. NFL players have non-guaranteed contracts, a hard salary cap, short careers and immense health issues that players in the other three sports rarely have to deal with.

As I stated before, the almost unlimited power of the commissioner (as defined in Article 46 of the CBA) is a vexing problem for the players but not a central one because it doesn't affect all players equally, if at all. How about guaranteeing the players a larger percentage of the revenues than the 47 percent they currently receive? Before the current CBA was agreed to, the players received 59 percent. That's huge and if I'm an NFL player, I'm wondering why in the hell did my union agree to a 12 percent pay cut? 

I'm sure the almost unchecked powers of the commissioner will be a point of contention in the next collective bargaining talks, but will the players be willing to sacrifice game checks in order to enact changes in that regard? I'm guessing no. As I stated in a previous post, an independent arbitrator would be the remedy for player discipline matters, and it would actually benefit both players and owners alike. (Both sides have reportedly been amenable to changes in this regard.) Disciplinary actions are time-consuming affairs and relieving Goodell of these duties would allow him to focus more on the job the owners hired him to do--make them more money. Changes in this area are something the players should push for, but it is not, repeat, not, something they should go the mats over because it's not something all players can rally around equally. For the players who have never run afoul of the law or NFL rules and guidelines, why should they lose pay checks over who gets to discipline the jerks?

NFLPA director DeMaurice Smith is already rattling his sabers of a possible work stoppage when the current agreement expires in 2021, but considering how badly he got his clock cleaned in 2011, I'm not sure I'd want him leading the troops into battle again. The owners might be perfectly willing to lock out the players or let them go on strike and see how long their resolve actually lasts. If history is any precedent, they'll collapse faster than an empty sack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2017 at 1:12 AM, RavingManiac said:

Looks like you spoke too soon again ocf. It was ruled that Elliott did not get a fair hearing. You seem to be wrong a lot 

A judge said the same thing about Brady but appeals judges said its in the CBA what can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0