blackthought
Starter
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2005
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 42
YO!!! Off topic, Gene Upshaw is losing it. Read this...the guy is a fool.
Check this out on PFT.
UNION OPPOSES ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE
Posted by Mike Florio on April 22, 2008, 11:06 p.m.
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw must be feeling a lot more secure in his position than he did a week ago. Because Upshaw is officially on record as saying that he opposes a salary structure for incoming NFL players.
“Every year at this time, I hear it again,†Upshaw told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports. “They don’t like how the rookies are paid. ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.â€
So how does paying a skyrocketing windfall to ten or so players who haven’t worn an NFL helmet since Halloween when they were six years old (yeah, we use that one from time to time . . . because we’re as cool as the other side of the pillow) help veterans?
In two ways, according to Upshaw. First, the huge payments made to certain rookies give veterans more leverage. Second, lower rookie pay would make rookies more attractive than veterans, pricing veterans out of jobs.
As to Upshaw’s first point, we don’t buy it. The big free-agency contracts each year are driven by other recent veteran contracts, not by rookie deals. Sure, the rookie deals might be getting so out of control that they’re becoming a factor in the negotiations for veteran free agents. But the notion that providing a lot of extra money to a few rookies is a good thing for all veterans is ridiculous; at best, it will help only the few who are signed to big-money deals on the first day of free agency.
Upshaw’s second point, with all due respect, makes no f–king sense.
“We have to have a system where every player has an equal chance to get a job,†Upshaw said. “We don’t want to get into a position where the league is keeping four or five rookies because it’s cheaper than keeping one or two veterans.â€
But, Gene, the problem isn’t with the second-day draft picks whose compensation won’t change at all if there is a formula used for setting the contracts for all rookies. Those guys will still get a signing bonus plus three or four years of minimum salaries. The focal point is the huge pile of money that gets paid to the small handful who happen to hear their names called early on the first day of the draft process.
Besides, Upshaw overlooks the system that was put in place earlier this decade to encourage teams to sign veterans. Though Cole makes reference to veterans “who make one of the varying minimum salaries,†the truth is that all players with four or more years of service are eligible to sign one-year contracts for increasing minimum salaries that entail an actual cost and a salary-cap charge of only $445,000 — even if the player is actually earning $820,000.
The reality is that a few agents (led by Tom Condon — who coincidentally represents Gene Upshaw) want to preserve their cut of these annual windfalls. Even if there’s merit to Upshaw’s argument that the huge dollars paid to a few rookies helps veterans, it will in reality help only a few of them each year, too.
Meanwhile, the interests of 90 percent of the players will be ignored. And, the last time we checked, it only took 50.1 percent of them to set policy for the union.
Check this out on PFT.
UNION OPPOSES ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE
Posted by Mike Florio on April 22, 2008, 11:06 p.m.
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw must be feeling a lot more secure in his position than he did a week ago. Because Upshaw is officially on record as saying that he opposes a salary structure for incoming NFL players.
“Every year at this time, I hear it again,†Upshaw told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports. “They don’t like how the rookies are paid. ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.â€
So how does paying a skyrocketing windfall to ten or so players who haven’t worn an NFL helmet since Halloween when they were six years old (yeah, we use that one from time to time . . . because we’re as cool as the other side of the pillow) help veterans?
In two ways, according to Upshaw. First, the huge payments made to certain rookies give veterans more leverage. Second, lower rookie pay would make rookies more attractive than veterans, pricing veterans out of jobs.
As to Upshaw’s first point, we don’t buy it. The big free-agency contracts each year are driven by other recent veteran contracts, not by rookie deals. Sure, the rookie deals might be getting so out of control that they’re becoming a factor in the negotiations for veteran free agents. But the notion that providing a lot of extra money to a few rookies is a good thing for all veterans is ridiculous; at best, it will help only the few who are signed to big-money deals on the first day of free agency.
Upshaw’s second point, with all due respect, makes no f–king sense.
“We have to have a system where every player has an equal chance to get a job,†Upshaw said. “We don’t want to get into a position where the league is keeping four or five rookies because it’s cheaper than keeping one or two veterans.â€
But, Gene, the problem isn’t with the second-day draft picks whose compensation won’t change at all if there is a formula used for setting the contracts for all rookies. Those guys will still get a signing bonus plus three or four years of minimum salaries. The focal point is the huge pile of money that gets paid to the small handful who happen to hear their names called early on the first day of the draft process.
Besides, Upshaw overlooks the system that was put in place earlier this decade to encourage teams to sign veterans. Though Cole makes reference to veterans “who make one of the varying minimum salaries,†the truth is that all players with four or more years of service are eligible to sign one-year contracts for increasing minimum salaries that entail an actual cost and a salary-cap charge of only $445,000 — even if the player is actually earning $820,000.
The reality is that a few agents (led by Tom Condon — who coincidentally represents Gene Upshaw) want to preserve their cut of these annual windfalls. Even if there’s merit to Upshaw’s argument that the huge dollars paid to a few rookies helps veterans, it will in reality help only a few of them each year, too.
Meanwhile, the interests of 90 percent of the players will be ignored. And, the last time we checked, it only took 50.1 percent of them to set policy for the union.
