Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

latest on the CBA


Happy Panther

Recommended Posts

Rookie wage scale is agreed upon

18 games is now OFF the table according to the NFLPA because...

owners released some financial information but not enough to make anyone happy.

Smith included a list of 10 financial categories, including total operating income and total operating expenses. NFL lead negotiator Jeff Pash said the league has offered an unprecedented amount of financial data. The union has said it's not sufficient.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/10/2011-03-10_justin_tuck_remains_optimistic_but_nfl_owners_players_now_battling_over_financia.html#ixzz1GDktYkws

So basically the same things you can get off Forbes website?

Here is the nugget i had not heard before...

If the union decertifies and the league locks the players out, one prominent agent told the Daily News Wednesday he will send all his clients to work Monday at the team facilities and predicts others will do the same. He said once the union decertifies and if the league can't stop it by proving it's a sham, as it maintains, then he said the players can't be denied the right to work.

"Every guy shows up for work and says, 'I honor my contract. If you don't want to honor my contract, then I'm free," the agent said. "If they turn them away, I'm going to state court to let you know my contract is null and void and I'm a free agent and you owe me damages, treble damages because you are locking me out and it's a restraint of trade because there is no union."

That's why this agent says, "I don't think the owners will lock out."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/10/2011-03-10_justin_tuck_remains_optimistic_but_nfl_owners_players_now_battling_over_financia.html#ixzz1GDkZcM23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the union decertifies and the league locks the players out, one prominent agent told the Daily News Wednesday he will send all his clients to work Monday at the team facilities and predicts others will do the same. He said once the union decertifies and if the league can't stop it by proving it's a sham, as it maintains, then he said the players can't be denied the right to work.

"Every guy shows up for work and says, 'I honor my contract. If you don't want to honor my contract, then I'm free," the agent said. "If they turn them away, I'm going to state court to let you know my contract is null and void and I'm a free agent and you owe me damages, treble damages because you are locking me out and it's a restraint of trade because there is no union."

That's why this agent says, "I don't think the owners will lock out."

Damn, that's some good Lawyering!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always laugh when I hear the players complain about 18 games. If they're so concerned about injuries why not just demand playing 14 games? Because they won't make as much money. The league and the players will make more money from 18 games so it'll get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i actually like it how its set up now .. because then you have the 2 extra games in preseason to get a really good look at your rookies / 2nd year guys .. with just 2 games we could be fielding teams with no chemistry right and left .. with an 18 game schedule training camp would have to be extended among other things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If the union decertifies and the league locks the players out, one prominent agent told the Daily News Wednesday he will send all his clients to work Monday at the team facilities and predicts others will do the same."

That's like sending a teacher to work in July... nobody is there. The players' work schedule does not have them going to work in March and the NFL has established work schedules (camps, OTAs, etc.). It's like me showing up to work on Sunday when the place is closed and demanding they pay me just because I showed up. Argument: FAIL

"He said once the union decertifies and if the league can't stop it by proving it's a sham, as it maintains, then he said the players can't be denied the right to work."

That is a huge "if." If the union were to put itself back together any time within about a year, the NFL and the owners would be filing suit about how much of a sham it was and the union could then be held legally liable for violating labor laws itself.

"Every guy shows up for work and says, 'I honor my contract. If you don't want to honor my contract, then I'm free," the agent said. "If they turn them away, I'm going to state court to let you know my contract is null and void and I'm a free agent and you owe me damages, treble damages because you are locking me out and it's a restraint of trade because there is no union."

These are the same players who are worried they cannot pay for their own health insurance correct? These are the same guys who are borrowing money from each other? These are the same guys we've read articles about possibly looking for a job but they've got the resources to hire an attorney to go against the NFL and the owners? Watch one player try that stunt and see how long he plays football in the NFL. He'd be blacklisted so fast Maurice Clarett would be laughing. I'll believe that when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...