Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 118
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,023

    Owners want to hold back 35% of player salary in escrow

    https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49...scrow-proposal

    Of course the players would rather be paid their full contract amount but that contract also includes the possibility that their pay can be altered based on catastrophic events. I think them getting paid and then having to pay back from their pockets to the owners would be worse for everyone involved. It sounds like the players don't get what "escrow" is.

    Also, the NBA players already went through this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    8,211
    I thought the NFLPA rejected this yesterday?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Of course the players would rather be paid their full contract amount [...]
    Wouldn't you?

    I'd first wait and see that the owners take their losses as well, not just use player salaries to offset theirs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,023
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Wouldn't you?

    I'd first wait and see that the owners take their losses as well, not just use player salaries to offset theirs.
    The CBA requires them to be partners, in increasing profits as well as when they decrease. The way people talk they think every owner has unlimited money and are just being greedy. Yes the owners are wealthy, but I don't get how players think that there is never going to be any reduction in their pay if the company they work for loses money. Do the players think they can keep all their money if the cap goes through the floor? Do they think the accountants will screw them?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.B View Post
    I thought the NFLPA rejected this yesterday?
    That would be pretty quick to discuss it and vote on it. But maybe.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,285
    Actually I just checked and the NFL CBA does not contain provisions about force majeure or unforeseen emergencies.

    So there is no basis at all for owners putting player salaries into escrow.

    I have no idea why fans would choose to side with the owners over stuff like. I root for players not ****ing owners.

    If the NFL loses revenue then the salary cap gets adjusted; that's how it works.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,023
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Actually I just checked and the NFL CBA does not contain provisions about force majeure or unforeseen emergencies.

    So there is no basis at all for owners putting player salaries into escrow.

    I have no idea why fans would choose to side with the owners over stuff like. I root for players not ****ing owners.

    If the NFL loses revenue then the salary cap gets adjusted; that's how it works.
    There is no part of the CBA on a revenue split?

    I don't care about either side's rich people. I want the league to be healthy, and I don't want a work stoppage.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    There is no part of the CBA on a revenue split?

    I don't care about either side's rich people. I want the league to be healthy, and I don't want a work stoppage.
    Revenue split, yes. If a loss in revenue happens this season, the salary cap will get adjusted next season.

    But there's nothing about emergency or unforeseen circumstances. So there's no reason whatsoever for the players to allow the owners to withhold salaries.

    If an owner can't pay the bills he can sell the team -- but of course the natural instinct is to simply not pay the employees.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,023
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Revenue split, yes. If a loss in revenue happens this season, the salary cap will get adjusted next season.

    But there's nothing about emergency or unforeseen circumstances. So there's no reason whatsoever for the players to allow the owners to withhold salaries.

    If an owner can't pay the bills he can sell the team -- but of course the natural instinct is to simply not pay the employees.
    Okay, so the cap drop means players get cut to get under the cap ... the NFLPA wants players to be cut in a league were nobody is going to have money to pay them? That's a tough position to take but okay.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,166
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Revenue split, yes. If a loss in revenue happens this season, the salary cap will get adjusted next season.

    But there's nothing about emergency or unforeseen circumstances. So there's no reason whatsoever for the players to allow the owners to withhold salaries.

    If an owner can't pay the bills he can sell the team -- but of course the natural instinct is to simply not pay the employees.
    That scenario of a cap drop next year would be very bad for players.

    That being said, owners deserve always argue that they deserve their money because they assume the financial risk of running a team. Thatís true. But if once the downside of that risk is actually realizes for the first time any of us can remember they then try to share in that downside, then that defeats the whole purpose of them taking on the financial risk which is the basis for how they get what they get.

    Realistically though, the owners will eventually pass on any hardship the players. So putting pride aside it behooves them to work with the owners and at least negotiate some way to minimize that. Because a major cap drop is going to really hurt a lot of players.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,285
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    Realistically though, the owners will eventually pass on any hardship the players. So putting pride aside it behooves them to work with the owners and at least negotiate some way to minimize that. Because a major cap drop is going to really hurt a lot of players.
    Obviously it will hurt players. Veterans will get cut and forced to play for less. But that's still a better solution than letting owners hold money in escrow.

    Nobody is losing money running a football team, so yes, the owners will survive this, but there's no reason to make it even easier for them.

    Who will get hit hardest are workers at NFL teams who don't have a collective bargaining agreement in place.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,264
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Obviously it will hurt players. Veterans will get cut and forced to play for less. But that's still a better solution than letting owners hold money in escrow.

    Nobody is losing money running a football team, so yes, the owners will survive this, but there's no reason to make it even easier for them.

    Who will get hit hardest are workers at NFL teams who don't have a collective bargaining agreement in place.
    What am I missing? If owners put money in escrow, they still have to come up with it...not like they just don't have to pay it. It's just money that is temporarily sitting in an account generating interest but neither party has access to.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,704
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    What am I missing? If owners put money in escrow, they still have to come up with it...not like they just don't have to pay it. It's just money that is temporarily sitting in an account generating interest but neither party has access to.
    Players always paint it as the owners are stealing from them though.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,285
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    What am I missing? If owners put money in escrow, they still have to come up with it...not like they just don't have to pay it. It's just money that is temporarily sitting in an account generating interest but neither party has access to.
    Escrow is actually the wrong word here. They money is withheld in case of unforeseen costs. It's more like a emergency fund in case owners can't pay bills.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,264
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Escrow is actually the wrong word here. They money is withheld in case of unforeseen costs. It's more like a emergency fund in case owners can't pay bills.
    no, it's still the right word if the owners have to put the money in there........the only question is who controls when and how it's released from escrow. In most escrow situations, the money is set-aside with a 3rd party in control of it, only releasing it under mutually agreed upon conditions
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •