EZEKIEL ELLIOTT Suspension Upheld

[j_y19]

hopefully the 3 years they have they can work it out

if i am the union i can see cutting the commissioners power and a better appeal system

i would also push for larger rosters and no ineligibles

i am thinking 60 man roster 10 man PS and a recallable IR meaning if they get well before the year is up they can be recalled

Those are all reasonable demands and the have a shot a getting those. But what they don't have a real good shot at is the guaranteed contract, which they really covet. They may get some bastardized version of it, but it will be full of holes and outs for the franchise.

As for the COmmissioner's power, there it a good chance it does get reduced. There are enough owners that also felt the brunt of Goodall's edicts. I bet they form some sort of independent panel to review all investigations and hand out penalties taking that portion away from the Commish.

 

[Stymietee]

hopefully the 3 years they have they can work it out

if i am the union i can see cutting the commissioners power and a better appeal system

i would also push for larger rosters and no ineligibles

i am thinking 60 man roster 10 man PS and a recallable IR meaning if they get well before the year is up they can be recalled

I'll add more guarantees or % guarantees in contracts. The guaranteed money is going to be a huge part of any negotiations.

 

[Stymietee]

Maybe. But as always happens, the players cave in the NFL. Their careers on average are just too short to miss a season of earnings. Plus the owners have shown the willingness and capability to field replacement teams that gave people football. They can talk big, but the owner's pockets are a hell of a lot deeper than that 3rd year pro journeyman OL who may only have 1 or 2 seasons left.

They won't break the Union....that would in effect give Goodell more power, and in as much as outlasting the players goes, they might get scabs to play, but the product as we know it won't be there. For those of us, lucky, or rather unfortunate to have witnessed it before, it wasn't a very good product then. Fans didn't come to see that crap in great, very good, or even good numbers back then. Today, to use the strategy of outlasting players, means either breaking the union or disbanding the league.

 

[j_y19]

They won't break the Union....that would in effect give Goodell more power, and in as much as outlasting the players goes, they might get scabs to play, but the product as we know it won't be there. For those of us, lucky, or rather unfortunate to have witnessed it before, it wasn't a very good product then. Fans didn't come to see that crap in great, very good, or even good numbers back then. Today, to use the strategy of outlasting players, means either breaking the union or disbanding the league.

Well history says the union does break. They always have. They can't afford a lockout. Sure, the owners will give on some things such as funding retired players support funds, larger caps, larger rosters etc., and moan how it is killing them, but they won't give up anything outlandish. They never do. I'll bet with history once again.

 

[Stymietee]

Well history says the union does break. They always have. They can't afford a lockout. Sure, the owners will give on some things such as funding retired players support funds, larger caps, larger rosters etc., and moan how it is killing them, but they won't give up anything outlandish. They never do. I'll bet with history once again.

The union never breaks, they compromise and, as you've suggested, the owners do as well. That's what negotiations and agreements based upon those negotiations are. What is being suggested thus far in this thread is about actually breaking the union, making it kaput, bye, bye, no longer valid or whatever term one wants to use. That is just NOT going to happen.

There's a reason why I posted the piece about the lawyer who's challenging for D.M. Smith ED spot. Unlike D.M. Smith, he's a much stronger negotiator, who's less willing to give much on the major points of contention that a new contract will require.

 

[j_y19]

The union never breaks, they compromise and, as you've suggested, the owners do as well. That's what negotiations and agreements based upon those negotiations are. What is being suggested thus far in this thread is about actually breaking the union, making it kaput, bye, bye, no longer valid or whatever term one wants to use. That is just NOT going to happen.

There's a reason why I posted the piece about the lawyer who's challenging for D.M. Smith ED spot. Unlike D.M. Smith, he's a much stronger negotiator, who's less willing to give much on the major points of contention that a new contract will require.

But the whole point about being a successful negotiator is negotiating from a position of strength. This union has no position of strength because it has not prepared its members for the ultimate sacrifice and that is a holdout. So any threat of walking and the owners just chuckle. They know who can outlast the other. The NFLPA can only win significant concessions by being able to carry out, successfully, those threats. They need to be focusing all their efforts in the next 2 years preparing their members to be in a position to walk. I don't see that happening.

 

[j_y19]

The union never breaks, they compromise and, as you've suggested, the owners do as well. That's what negotiations and agreements based upon those negotiations are. What is being suggested thus far in this thread is about actually breaking the union, making it kaput, bye, bye, no longer valid or whatever term one wants to use. That is just NOT going to happen.

There's a reason why I posted the piece about the lawyer who's challenging for D.M. Smith ED spot. Unlike D.M. Smith, he's a much stronger negotiator, who's less willing to give much on the major points of contention that a new contract will require.

As for the union breaking, I'm not talking about dissolving the union, just they cave every time. The union will not dissolve. In fact, the owners want the union in place. They are a nice scapegoat.

 

[Stymietee]

As for the union breaking, I'm not talking about dissolving the union, just they cave every time. The union will not dissolve. In fact, the owners want the union in place. They are a nice scapegoat.

I agree, the union won't be dissolved, but it's gonna cost a lot more than has been previously paid to keep that "nice scapegoat" happy. Come 2021, IMHO, there won't be much if any football being played until there are major concessions by the owners. The risk is that many disenfranchised fans will seek out and spend those entertainment dollars elsewhere, if it takes more than a single off- season, beyond the 2020 NFL year.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

They made a good pt about this today on ESPN. Player suspensions, etc affect a very, very small % of the players. Therefore - it is not really that big of a negotiating pt in terms of Goodell's power as it relates to these types of situations. Things like salary structure and safety issues are a much bigger concern so I would not necessarily expect this to be one of the main priorities during the next negotiations.

 

[gkekoa]

A large majority of the players will not fight for the few.

 

[Sportster 72]

Owners = 935395753953959353993959345394 NFLPA = -79

 

[SoCalWizFan]

A large majority of the players will not fight for the few.

Yep - my pt exactly. There are very few of these type of cases - there appear to more since certain things are constantly in the media (probably more than the games themselves). Why should decent, law abiding players sacrifice in other areas to take care of a few idiots.

 

[j_y19]

Yep - my pt exactly. There are very few of these type of cases - there appear to more since certain things are constantly in the media (probably more than the games themselves). Why should decent, law abiding players sacrifice in other areas to take care of a few idiots.

I agree. However he has also pissed off some pretty prominent owners who have to be questioning his authority. Owners such as Kraft, Jones, and Snyder to name a few. If they give on something, this would not be a bad area. Of course you start out by saying no way......

 

[gkekoa]

I agree. However he has also pissed off some pretty prominent owners who have to be questioning his authority. Owners such as Kraft, Jones, and Snyder to name a few. If they give on something, this would not be a bad area. Of course you start out by saying no way......

What is the league about to owners? It is all about the money.