Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Players getting too much power?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Players getting too much power?

    Frankly I was not aware of the magnitude of these changes, I knew there were some, but I was not aware just how much these went in the players favor.... I personally thought the owners had much more leverage than then to allow this to happen.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


    Under the new labor deal, players get the edge on contracts.



    Lito Sheppard violated his contract with the Eagles when he elected to ride his Suzuki GSX-R1000 motorcycle to work on Tuesday. He wore a helmet, and the trip from Sheppard's home in Moorestown to the NovaCare Complex was uneventful, Sheppard said, unlike Ben Roethlisberger's much-publicized journey in downtown Pittsburgh on Monday.

    In the days after Roethlisberger's accident, when he smashed into the windshield of a car and broke his jaw, several Eagles said they would not give up their bikes. Not out of safety, and not because of their contracts.

    The number of players who are willing to take risks - be it riding a motorcycle, or using steroids or possibly holding out of training camp - soon might increase because the penalty for such infractions has been dramatically reduced.

    According to a high-level official at an NFC team, when the NFL Players Association presented the league with its final take-it-or-leave-it collective bargaining agreement in March, the Players Association added a section regarding signing bonuses. Under the previous CBA, each team could negotiate what is called signing bonus forfeiture language. The teams could put in strict deterrents - in the form of dollars - for behavior it deemed risky, like skiing or riding a motorcycle.

    Under the new CBA, clubs now can recoup only 23.5 percent of a player's signing bonus prorated for one season, the team source said. And that goes for players who test positive for drugs, commit a crime, or hold out of mandatory team activities, the source said.

    "You see baseball moving toward a 50-game suspension for steroid use," the source said. "You see the NBA and their union agreeing to things like a dress code. And here you have the NFL and the union, which historically have had this positive relationship looking out for the best interest of the game. I don't think it's in the best interest of the game to minimize the penalties for steroid use, holdouts, or motorcycle accidents. The union's comeback is, 'We agree there should be a deterrent, but we believe the old deterrent is onerous, just too much.'

    "The reality is with the levels of salaries the players were making - and now they're going to jump up to a whole other level - you really need a very significant [penalty] before it really serves as a deterrent."

    NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that the league has "not agreed to do anything" and is "still negotiating all of the terms." But Aiello did say the league is "discussing possible maximums on the bonus forfeiture in certain areas," such as drug use, holdouts and early retirements.

    A source close to the Players Association called this a "fluid process," but acknowledged that the union had scored a major victory when it comes to teams forcing players to repay signing bonus monies.

    Consider the Terrell Owens case. After Owens failed to show up for a minicamp last spring, the team asked him to repay $1,725,000 - a whopping 75 percent of the $2.3 million signing bonus Owens received when he signed a seven-year deal with the Eagles. If the new language includes holdouts, it is believed the Eagles would have been able to recoup only about $77,000.

    "It worries me that we've reduced a player's sense of consequence," the NFC source said, "and I actually think it's going to create a very dramatic change in the game, more from a holdout standpoint. The other part [drugs and steroids], I'm not sure that we'll know, now that we have [Jason] Grimsley talking about people using human growth hormones you can't even test for. Who knows what's going on?"

    Although the NFC source said that the new rules would affect only players who sign a contract beginning in this NFL calendar year - such as the Eagles' Shawn Andrews, who signed an extension last week - many speculated that the rules will apply to all contracts.

    "If I got hurt with a motorcycle, I'd have to pay back some of my contract, and that was just a couple months before the new [CBA] deal," said Eagles kicker David Akers, who signed a contract extension last November. "The one thing we talked about was it would be hard for an arbitrator, if there's now a standardized contract, to rule against a player."

    When negotiating a new contract, the signing bonus forfeiture language typically is a sticking point, said Jerrold Colton, Akers' Voorhees-based agent.

    "From my standpoint in negotiating contracts, you hate when you get all the terms of the deal done, and then the club drops on you the bonus language, some onerous forfeiture language," Colton said. "I have felt it's been way too tilted in the clubs' favor, and the P.A. had to put in some different language... . It can be the most difficult part of the negotiations."

    Players can ignore it anyway, like Sheppard. He said he grew up riding bikes - scooters, motorcycles, dirt bikes and three-wheelers. He isn't about to stop now, whether $1 million is at risk or $1.

    "There's a risk of getting hurt whatever you do," Sheppard said. "You can't say, 'I'm at more of a risk doing this than this, so I'm not going to do it.' But everybody has their own opinion about it. People who like motorcycles like them, and people who don't, don't."

  • #2
    Re: Players getting too much power?

    Originally posted by MDFAN
    Frankly I was not aware of the magnitude of these changes, I knew there were some, but I was not aware just how much these went in the players favor.... I personally thought the owners had much more leverage than then to allow this to happen.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


    Under the new labor deal, players get the edge on contracts.



    Lito Sheppard violated his contract with the Eagles when he elected to ride his Suzuki GSX-R1000 motorcycle to work on Tuesday. He wore a helmet, and the trip from Sheppard's home in Moorestown to the NovaCare Complex was uneventful, Sheppard said, unlike Ben Roethlisberger's much-publicized journey in downtown Pittsburgh on Monday.

    In the days after Roethlisberger's accident, when he smashed into the windshield of a car and broke his jaw, several Eagles said they would not give up their bikes. Not out of safety, and not because of their contracts.

    The number of players who are willing to take risks - be it riding a motorcycle, or using steroids or possibly holding out of training camp - soon might increase because the penalty for such infractions has been dramatically reduced.

    According to a high-level official at an NFC team, when the NFL Players Association presented the league with its final take-it-or-leave-it collective bargaining agreement in March, the Players Association added a section regarding signing bonuses. Under the previous CBA, each team could negotiate what is called signing bonus forfeiture language. The teams could put in strict deterrents - in the form of dollars - for behavior it deemed risky, like skiing or riding a motorcycle.

    Under the new CBA, clubs now can recoup only 23.5 percent of a player's signing bonus prorated for one season, the team source said. And that goes for players who test positive for drugs, commit a crime, or hold out of mandatory team activities, the source said.

    "You see baseball moving toward a 50-game suspension for steroid use," the source said. "You see the NBA and their union agreeing to things like a dress code. And here you have the NFL and the union, which historically have had this positive relationship looking out for the best interest of the game. I don't think it's in the best interest of the game to minimize the penalties for steroid use, holdouts, or motorcycle accidents. The union's comeback is, 'We agree there should be a deterrent, but we believe the old deterrent is onerous, just too much.'

    "The reality is with the levels of salaries the players were making - and now they're going to jump up to a whole other level - you really need a very significant [penalty] before it really serves as a deterrent."

    NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that the league has "not agreed to do anything" and is "still negotiating all of the terms." But Aiello did say the league is "discussing possible maximums on the bonus forfeiture in certain areas," such as drug use, holdouts and early retirements.

    A source close to the Players Association called this a "fluid process," but acknowledged that the union had scored a major victory when it comes to teams forcing players to repay signing bonus monies.

    Consider the Terrell Owens case. After Owens failed to show up for a minicamp last spring, the team asked him to repay $1,725,000 - a whopping 75 percent of the $2.3 million signing bonus Owens received when he signed a seven-year deal with the Eagles. If the new language includes holdouts, it is believed the Eagles would have been able to recoup only about $77,000.

    "It worries me that we've reduced a player's sense of consequence," the NFC source said, "and I actually think it's going to create a very dramatic change in the game, more from a holdout standpoint. The other part [drugs and steroids], I'm not sure that we'll know, now that we have [Jason] Grimsley talking about people using human growth hormones you can't even test for. Who knows what's going on?"

    Although the NFC source said that the new rules would affect only players who sign a contract beginning in this NFL calendar year - such as the Eagles' Shawn Andrews, who signed an extension last week - many speculated that the rules will apply to all contracts.

    "If I got hurt with a motorcycle, I'd have to pay back some of my contract, and that was just a couple months before the new [CBA] deal," said Eagles kicker David Akers, who signed a contract extension last November. "The one thing we talked about was it would be hard for an arbitrator, if there's now a standardized contract, to rule against a player."

    When negotiating a new contract, the signing bonus forfeiture language typically is a sticking point, said Jerrold Colton, Akers' Voorhees-based agent.

    "From my standpoint in negotiating contracts, you hate when you get all the terms of the deal done, and then the club drops on you the bonus language, some onerous forfeiture language," Colton said. "I have felt it's been way too tilted in the clubs' favor, and the P.A. had to put in some different language... . It can be the most difficult part of the negotiations."

    Players can ignore it anyway, like Sheppard. He said he grew up riding bikes - scooters, motorcycles, dirt bikes and three-wheelers. He isn't about to stop now, whether $1 million is at risk or $1.

    "There's a risk of getting hurt whatever you do," Sheppard said. "You can't say, 'I'm at more of a risk doing this than this, so I'm not going to do it.' But everybody has their own opinion about it. People who like motorcycles like them, and people who don't, don't."

    Let me get this straight. We're talking about guys who run full bore downfield for 50 yards and then hurl their bodies into a maze of people at full speed and you're worried about the same guy taking a ride on a bike?

    Did your boss ever tell you that you couldn't ride one? This is America. You know, the same one you fought for back in the 60's.


    MD, that corperate management world you were in really did a number on you.
    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

    Comment


    • #3
      Actually there 60, I never stated what I thought, only that I was surprised that the players got that much because I thought the owners had more leverage. But frankly, I was merely looking to see what others thought of this development. Especially after living through the whole TO thing and since this piece even showed some of the details in his case. Frankly if TO only had 77K at stake I can't imagine what else he could have done. And if this stands I can't imagine how many, more TO's will emerge.

      But since you pigeoned holed me..............

      You're right, I didn't work for some government entity that takes the hard earned money from others to pay people to do jobs for life, never having to produce or justify a return on that money.

      I worked in a world where the bottom line was profit --- and an asset, human or otherwise held value to the organization. And frankly, while you "say" you understand this concept----- Football IS corporate America------ I really don't think you do!

      And in this case the value a player brings to the field and to the organization translates right to the bottom line of the ----- and here is the big finish----------- business for profit!

      In this case players ARE assets, as well as employees. So IMO they can and should have large penalties assessed if the violate their contracts and diminish the value of said asset.

      And employers can and do set all kinds of personal restrictions on what employees can and can't do, especially in the private sector. You give up many rights when you agree to accept payment for services(or face penalties for disregarding those those restrictions).

      So yeah, I stand by my comments.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good assessment MD. I cannot believe that anyone believes for one minute that they are not bound by some kind of restrictions with GOOD jobs.

        I cannot consort with criminals. I cannot act a certain way in public. I even skip playing in rugby reunions because of the real threat of injury, which at times would have affected me from getting promoted (I even passed over an officer because he was on light duty, and I needed a supervisor immediately).

        In the real world, the bottom line is all that matters. If you are layed up in the hospital, you can't be making much money as a salesperson. You can't be scoring TD's after certain MC accidents. You can't be meeting with your boss from a jail cell. Etc. Etc. Etc.

        Of course, you can always quit these type of jobs, but that would be a response to being ruled. You could run your own business, but then you would be responsible for making your own rules.........which would probably include some precautions from activities that may cause you to miss work.

        Whether we like it or not, we all live under some kind of restrictions. They are just not all in writing.
        Pedro

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pedro
          Good assessment MD. I cannot believe that anyone believes for one minute that they are not bound by some kind of restrictions with GOOD jobs.

          I cannot consort with criminals. I cannot act a certain way in public. I even skip playing in rugby reunions because of the real threat of injury, which at times would have affected me from getting promoted (I even passed over an officer because he was on light duty, and I needed a supervisor immediately).

          In the real world, the bottom line is all that matters. If you are layed up in the hospital, you can't be making much money as a salesperson. You can't be scoring TD's after certain MC accidents. You can't be meeting with your boss from a jail cell. Etc. Etc. Etc.

          Pedro. You stopped playing rugby because you realized that it was not in YOUR best interest to continue playing, not your employer's. America is about freedom of choice, even if you make dumb choices.

          If you don't believe, ask Phil Mickleson!

          Of course, you can always quit these type of jobs, but that would be a response to being ruled. You could run your own business, but then you would be responsible for making your own rules.........which would probably include some precautions from activities that may cause you to miss work.

          Whether we like it or not, we all live under some kind of restrictions. They are just not all in writing.
          "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

          Comment


          • #6
            MD,

            As far as bonus money goes I'm of the opinion that a bonus is a bonus. If the guy commits a crime or refuses to play, that's another story. These guys are risk takers, and that's why they have chosen the most dangerous occupation in the world outside of the military. Sh!t happens (like your return man jumping fences).
            "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

            Comment


            • #7
              I think there is a line between unnecessary risks, and just plain LIVING YOUR LIFE. Every time we get in a car, or cross the street for that matter, we are taking a risk. You go in a jewelry store or a bank, and it can get robbed. You go swimming and you could drown, or get attacked by a shark. Etc, etc....

              I just don't think taht riding a motorcyle crosses that line of what is an unacceptable risk.......unless you are doing something STUPID like not wearing a helmet. THAT makes for an unnecessary risk.

              Thinning the herd..........
              http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

              Comment


              • #8
                "I just don't think taht riding a motorcyle crosses that line of what is an unacceptable risk.......unless you are doing something STUPID like not wearing a helmet. THAT makes for an unnecessary risk. "

                This is fair--- and that is why they do write such things into contracts, everyone isn't going to agree on what acceptable risk is and isn't.

                It's just my opinion that when you either break that contract or do something that stupid and foolish that it not only hurts you it hurts the team and possibly the capacity of the business to earn a ROI from the "talent"--- then severe penalties need to be enforced----which will discourage such behavior not encourage it.

                And 60-- while a bonus is a bonus---it's a bonus based on the entire length of the contract------ Kellen Winslow got a bonus and never played a down-- think he should still get it? IMO, no. TO signed a long term deal here that bonus was spread out over those years.... no way he should get that money after deliberately doing what he did--- and yet under this new language he would have merely had 77k at risk--- yet you think that is ok, cause it's his right to act that way????????

                Comment


                • #9
                  I tend to agree with most of your argument MD but I am not sure a signing bonus is really tied to the length of the contract. I understand that the amount goes up when you sign longer contract but it isn't a year by year thing and it is also allowedto be spread for cap purposes but that is just an accounting thing to allow for higher bonuses. I certainly could be wrong in my opinion but I tend to think it is a bonus for signing with the team. I think if one is injured doing something legal and within the bounds of the contract the bonus should be off limits. If, however, one does something illegal, detrimental to the image of the team, not within the terms of your contract, etc the bonus should be available for judgement.
                  Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
                  Hope is not a strategy
                  RIP

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "I think if one is injured doing something legal and within the bounds of the contract the bonus should be off limits. If, however, one does something illegal, detrimental to the image of the team, not within the terms of your contract, etc the bonus should be available for judgement. "

                    Fully concur NoDak. And thus the entire thrust of my comments on the topic. Nobody,certainly not I, is suggesting that say Andrews should have to give back part of his Bonus money cause he missed his first year, but IMO guys like TO and Winslow and Ricky Williams should be held to different standards.

                    TO is the perfect example in my mind!

                    He got punished $1.7 million worth-- whereas under this new language he would only have been punished $77K.


                    IMO, the new language could/may open up a pandoras box for bad behavior. And this surprises me cause I thought the owners had much more leverage this go round.......obviously I was wrong or they are a bigger collection of wimps than I took them for.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X