NFL players vote to approve CBA, 17-game season and expanded playoffs on horizon

clarkgriswold

Well-known member
Good or bad, it's obvious there's a real division in the NFLPA. It's also obvious that about a quarter of their members are goofs as about 500 of them didn't even cast a vote.
 

bedevil

Well-known member
More games and the playoffs will be more watered down.
Good thing or bad thing?
I don't have a problem with the expanded playoffs. It's worked for baseball with more teams vying for playoff spots well into September, and I think two more teams expands interest even more so. Thing is, they could still achieve that with a 16-game schedule. The 17-game schedule is a pure money grab by the owners and a sure sign that "the safety of our players is our primary concern" is nothing more than lip service from Roger Goodell.
 

bedevil

Well-known member
Good or bad, it's obvious there's a real division in the NFLPA. It's also obvious that about a quarter of their members are goofs as about 500 of them didn't even cast a vote.
Agree, Clark. While there might have been labor strife avoided between the owners and the union, the simmering resentment of many players could spill over into the locker room. With a vote that close, it's easy to assume that half the guys in the room were on the opposite side of the vote. From early reports, without viewing the CBA, there was short-term gain for the lower salaried players, but long term ramifications for older and/or former players from a benefits perspective. And, frankly, 10 years before a new CBA can be negotiated is ridiculous from a player standpoint.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
When it all came out they were saying this really benefited 65% of the players in the league so I am not surprised.

The richest of the rich were all coming out stating to vote no, but would give no reasons or specifics to do so.

There wont be any spillover into the locker rooms. The big time players are still going to get paid big time dollars and keep getting more, and the low end folks will also get more than they ever had before.
 

clarkgriswold

Well-known member
Agree, Clark. While there might have been labor strife avoided between the owners and the union, the simmering resentment of many players could spill over into the locker room. With a vote that close, it's easy to assume that half the guys in the room were on the opposite side of the vote. From early reports, without viewing the CBA, there was short-term gain for the lower salaried players, but long term ramifications for older and/or former players from a benefits perspective. And, frankly, 10 years before a new CBA can be negotiated is ridiculous from a player standpoint.
10 year deal is ridiculous. I wonder if they again agreed that the commissioner can be judge, jury and executioner on everything.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
10 year deal is ridiculous. I wonder if they again agreed that the commissioner can be judge, jury and executioner on everything.
Here is the thing with that part..........
I would gather a vast majority of players see that as no big deal because they keep their noses clean. They gladly give that concession in return for something that will effect the masses.
 
.
Top