8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No,this has nothing to do with Dem or Rep....this has to do with owners and greed.

I agree with this statement. Though I would revise to "owners, players and greed".

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The salary cap has risen in 15 years from 34M to 123M. I guess, I see both sides as having greed as a part of the factor.

The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The salary cap is based off the revenue taken in.(minus the 1 billion off top for owner expenses) It's not like the salary cap is set in place prior.

To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

To be fair the percentage of the revenue has grown with each CBA extension as well. In other words, the 1994 salary cap computation wasn't 1b off the top, then 60/40 (approx). The deals have gotten more and more favorable to the players as time went by.

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

You are right, that it has gone down.

question, do you think the players would lower their percentage in order to gain guaranteed contracts?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You are right, that it has gone down.

question, do you think the players would lower their percentage in order to gain guaranteed contracts?

You think the owners would be okay with guaranteed contracts? I just don't see it from their part.

[SolidSnake84]

I have a question that I dont think has been answered in this thread.

My question is concerning the lockout and how it relates to players who are supposed to have this year being their last contract year.

If the lockout lasts the entire season, does the player become a "free agent", or does the last year of the contract go to next year since there is no NFL year.

in example, Mark Brunell for the Jets. This is his last year under contract. Does he get one more year in NY if there is no season this year? Or will he expire even though there is no season.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You think the owners would be okay with guaranteed contracts? I just don't see it from their part.

I don't know, I would expect not but if it got the numbers closer to where they want it? I just wondered what NC_Skins thought about that type tradeoff.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I have a question that I dont think has been answered in this thread.

My question is concerning the lockout and how it relates to players who are supposed to have this year being their last contract year.

If the lockout lasts the entire season, does the player become a "free agent", or does the last year of the contract go to next year since there is no NFL year.

in example, Mark Brunell for the Jets. This is his last year under contract. Does he get one more year in NY if there is no season this year? Or will he expire even though there is no season.

I would expect that since no league year ever occurred, and no games took place everyone's contract picks up where it left off last year.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would expect that since no league year ever occurred, and no games took place everyone's contract picks up where it left off last year.

I would think it all depends on how each individuals contract reads. Basic contract, yes it would probably pick up where it left off since there is probably a claus that says he has to work for a specific number of yrs. Say he had a 3 yr contract and he just finished his 2nd yr then he still is under contract for 1 more year.

But I can see where some smart sob lawyer might have put a claus in their clients contract that whether he plays or not he becomes a free agent, which might mean some players will be FA's next year whether there is a season or not.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Right now, they are looking at 53% of the total revenue.(actually it went down for the players since 1994) I think 53% to the players is fair. Also, we have to remember that these contracts aren't guaranteed.

Two things:

1st part: I think your right depending on how you look at it. 53% of the total 9 bill, or.... 60% of the 8 bill. I could be wrong so don't ring my neck but it's funny how both sides keep coming up with two different figures in regards to what the players were getting. The players are playing off the fact they only get closer to 50% of total revenue, and the owners seem stuck on the 60% of split.

2nd part: The contracts are not guaranteed but the agents have been able to get money guaranteed for their clients. As in Haynesworths situation he was the 100 mill dollar man but I think only 40 mill was guaranteed. The team could have cut him but they would still owe him the rest to make the 40 mill. Some players have used this system to benifit themselves. Jason Taylor comes to mind. Currently we still owe Cartwright, ARE, T.Collins, Betts, and a ton of others.

[SmootSmack]

What the eff?

Punk move by Panthers players to lock out media - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What the eff?

Punk move by Panthers players to lock out media - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Man, that reporters is pissed.
I wonder if the Panther players just wanted some privacy just in case they wantet to talk about CBA related items while they were all together for practice? Just a thought.

[NLC1054]

Could be any number of reasons why the Panthers didn't want reporters there, but in a situation like this, any transparency the players can give to the fans is better than being secretive. Sort of.

Who knows, maybe they didn't want to show footage of Cam Newton throwing up dugs and trying to figure out what the offense meant. It's probably more innocent than a slap in the face, but I can understand why a reporter (who's job is pretty effectively being screwed up by the lockout) would get mad that all of the sudden, he can't do his job because of something he's not involved in.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Man, that reporters is pissed.
I wonder if the Panther players just wanted some privacy just in case they wantet to talk about CBA related items while they were all together for practice? Just a thought.

They can just tell the media practice is closed to reporters today, or during these hours it's closed, or you can watch practice on the field but can't enter the facilities today. There are many ways to deal with it. I don't know that having a cop keeping reporters away was really all that necessary