Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL WANTS END TO HOLDOUTS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IPBprez" data-source="post: 13290" data-attributes="member: 51"><p><a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: red">MANAGEMENT COUNCIL WANTS END TO HOLDOUTS</span></span></a></p><p></p><p>We're hearing that the NFL management council has raised with the NFLPA the league's concerns regarding the use of holdouts and threatened holdouts as a device to leverage contract extensions.</p><p></p><p>Behind the scenes, we're told, the management council is suggesting that the union rein in agents who use this device if the Players Association hopes to gain some of the concessions that it seeks in the ongoing Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations.</p><p></p><p>The issue is one of philosophy, and the folks on both sides of the issue can agree only to disagree on whether it is appropriate for a player who has outperformed his contract to withhold future services until he gets more money. The argument in favor of holdouts and threatened holdouts is that, because teams have the ability to break contracts with players who underperform, players who overperform should have the same power.</p><p></p><p>The argument against this tactic is that the NFL system for which the NFLPA bargained allows teams to part ways prematurely with a player (subject to certain rules regarding injured players). That same system does not contemplate players who believe their play has been more valuable than their pay to refuse not to play at all.</p><p></p><p>It's ridiculous, really, when you think about it. A guy agrees to play football for a specific wage, and because he plays football better than he expected he refuses to keep playing until he gets more money?</p><p></p><p>These are issues that could be -- and should be -- addressed through the terms of the contract. If a player thinks that he might "overperform," he can request the placement of incentives in his deal to compensate for such overperformance. </p><p></p><p>Or the player who thinks he might become a Pro Bowler in short order can request a shorter-term deal. To get there, of course, the player must accept less signing bonus money -- and no one wants to do that.</p><p></p><p>Our overriding belief regarding this issue is that holdouts and threatened holdouts are wrong because they fall beyond the boundaries of the current system. Although agents should be trying to get the best deals possible for the players they represent, they need to do so within the confines of the rules. Breaching or threatening to breach a contract simply isn't within the scope of the rules, and therefore it is inappropriate and wrong. </p><p></p><p>So how does a player generate leverage? Easy. The player puts in the years to which he agreed and he suggests that he'll hit the open market and leave for another team is he doesn't receive a fair offer from his current team. </p><p></p><p>Sure, the player could find himself when the time comes on the wrong side of the franchise tag. But, again, this is the system to which the NFLPA agreed in order to persuade the owners to devote more than 65 percent of designated gross revenue to player wages. </p><p></p><p>In the end, that's the issue. If the players want to play football they need to accept the fact that the union and the league has created a system that will, for some players, lead to unfortunate outcomes. But this doesn't mean that a player who thinks he's worth more than the ongoing terms of the contract that he signed should be able to refuse to play until he gets more money. In the end, it's something that the current system simply does not contemplate.</p><p></p><p>So as we see it the players and their agents have three choices. Change the system. Live with the system. Or try to find in some other industry a job that pays anything remotely close to what you're making now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IPBprez, post: 13290, member: 51"] [url=http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm][size=7][color=red]MANAGEMENT COUNCIL WANTS END TO HOLDOUTS[/color][/size][/url] We're hearing that the NFL management council has raised with the NFLPA the league's concerns regarding the use of holdouts and threatened holdouts as a device to leverage contract extensions. Behind the scenes, we're told, the management council is suggesting that the union rein in agents who use this device if the Players Association hopes to gain some of the concessions that it seeks in the ongoing Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations. The issue is one of philosophy, and the folks on both sides of the issue can agree only to disagree on whether it is appropriate for a player who has outperformed his contract to withhold future services until he gets more money. The argument in favor of holdouts and threatened holdouts is that, because teams have the ability to break contracts with players who underperform, players who overperform should have the same power. The argument against this tactic is that the NFL system for which the NFLPA bargained allows teams to part ways prematurely with a player (subject to certain rules regarding injured players). That same system does not contemplate players who believe their play has been more valuable than their pay to refuse not to play at all. It's ridiculous, really, when you think about it. A guy agrees to play football for a specific wage, and because he plays football better than he expected he refuses to keep playing until he gets more money? These are issues that could be -- and should be -- addressed through the terms of the contract. If a player thinks that he might "overperform," he can request the placement of incentives in his deal to compensate for such overperformance. Or the player who thinks he might become a Pro Bowler in short order can request a shorter-term deal. To get there, of course, the player must accept less signing bonus money -- and no one wants to do that. Our overriding belief regarding this issue is that holdouts and threatened holdouts are wrong because they fall beyond the boundaries of the current system. Although agents should be trying to get the best deals possible for the players they represent, they need to do so within the confines of the rules. Breaching or threatening to breach a contract simply isn't within the scope of the rules, and therefore it is inappropriate and wrong. So how does a player generate leverage? Easy. The player puts in the years to which he agreed and he suggests that he'll hit the open market and leave for another team is he doesn't receive a fair offer from his current team. Sure, the player could find himself when the time comes on the wrong side of the franchise tag. But, again, this is the system to which the NFLPA agreed in order to persuade the owners to devote more than 65 percent of designated gross revenue to player wages. In the end, that's the issue. If the players want to play football they need to accept the fact that the union and the league has created a system that will, for some players, lead to unfortunate outcomes. But this doesn't mean that a player who thinks he's worth more than the ongoing terms of the contract that he signed should be able to refuse to play until he gets more money. In the end, it's something that the current system simply does not contemplate. So as we see it the players and their agents have three choices. Change the system. Live with the system. Or try to find in some other industry a job that pays anything remotely close to what you're making now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
scheeler
Firethorn1001
DoURant
Heyjoe4
gopkrs
swhitset
Latest posts
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: longtimefan
7 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: DoURant
7 minutes ago
Draft Talk
H
2024 Draft Prospect Discussions
Latest: Heyjoe4
10 minutes ago
Draft Talk
I had This Nightmare
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:13 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Draft-- Media Stuff
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 11:23 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL WANTS END TO HOLDOUTS
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top