Bloody Thursday

Brandon · 03-01-2006, 03:37 PM

I just heard on the radio that we are supposed to see the biggest number of big name cuts in NFL history tomorrow. Star after star.. Teams have over $10M they have to cut.

Stay tuned

Dr. Giganto · 03-01-2006, 03:51 PM

I heard about this. It's because the players union is messing with a good thing and trying to stand up to the owners. bad idea.

Look how it turned out for hockey. The players ended up accepting a deal that was worse for them than the one that was on the table before the strike.

The same thing is happening to the cocksucking NYC transit workers who went on strike right before Christmas. They are going to be forced into legally-binding arbitration, which will probably end up giving them a worse deal than the one the city offered them before the strike

Hogan · 03-01-2006, 03:56 PM

Mort was on WEEI in Boston today and he thinks NFL ia a bad league and thinks no cap may be better for game.I think I read that Bucs,Raiders,KC and Mia are in awful shape cap wise and Minn,GB and Clev are in great shape.

Brandon · 03-01-2006, 04:20 PM

It will kill the NFL's popularity if there's no cap. The cap is what makes the NFL interesting to most people...

The day the NFL turns into the MLB, I start paying less attention to it.

Mr. Kennedy · 03-01-2006, 06:48 PM

19 of the 32 teams will be OK. I'm with Brandon, having no salary cap would be bad for the NFL and one of the things I hate about MLB.

I think most of the people cut will be these veterans who aren't that good anymore but still command high salaries.

Freak · 03-02-2006, 03:14 AM

Spyke, those kinds of guys you mentioned are the guys who already get cut before March 1st, when the salary cap is expanding normally.

10 million dollars is A LOT to shave off a team's payroll.

Hopefully this shit gets worked out, but if not, Green Bay is finally in good cap shape and should be fine. Hell, if Brett retires before his roster bonus, I think that's like 11 million dollars freed up right there.

DMW · 03-02-2006, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Dogg

I heard about this. It's because the players union is messing with a good thing and trying to stand up to the owners. bad idea.
Look how it turned out for hockey. The players ended up accepting a deal that was worse for them than the one that was on the table before the strike.
The same thing is happening to the cocksucking NYC transit workers who went on strike right before Christmas. They are going to be forced into legally-binding arbitration, which will probably end up giving them a worse deal than the one the city offered them before the strike

I generally oppose unions and strikes, but I would be more sympathetic towards the NFLPA than any other major sport, because those players get pretty screwed when compared to their baseball and basketball counterparts. NFL owners are rolling in it right now and the players should definately be getting a bigger piece of the proverbial pie, especially in a league that has no guaranteed contracts.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would actually support an NFL players strike. I don't want a strike, but it looks like something will have to give, and it's clearly the owners turn to do the giving.

Dr. Giganto · 03-02-2006, 11:53 AM

Good points. I'm definitely more sympathetic to the plight of football players. It's not like hockey, where the players were grossly overpaid (relative to league revenues) and the owners simply werent bringing in that much money

Bloody Thursday

This is a discussion on Bloody Thursday within the North American Sports forums, part of the Sports Forums category; I just heard on the radio that we are supposed to see the biggest number of big name cuts in ...