NFL & Players At Odds

Moriarty · Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:43 am

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/0 ... /24554334/

Having the same sort of issues baseball is having.

It's a bad idea, with lots of risk and reduced revenue...and everyone wants 'the other guy' to eat the costs and take the risks.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mlb-c ... 2020-06-15

Atkins&Rebel · Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:01 am

I'd be shocked if there aren't provisions spelled out for catastrophic events in the CBA.

Moriarty · Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:53 am

Atkins&Rebel wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:01 am I'd be shocked if there aren't provisions spelled out for catastrophic events in the CBA.

If it were spelled out, there'd be no need for negotiation.

Moriarty · Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:59 am

In somewhat related news, it looks like people have just about given up on HS & college football (which doesn't have the same financial issues to contend with).

https://sports.yahoo.com/in-announcing- ... ml?src=rss

The podcast also says NFL insiders are getting pessimistic, too.

dplank · Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:16 am

Meh...IMO it's all hanging on MLB. Training camps will start as that can be done in a bubble of sorts, so they'll be in motion to start the NFL season heading into September. At that point, MLB will have been playing games for well over a month. If they are still playing and it's relatively (not perfectly) free of Covid drama, then I see no reason why the NFL would think they can't do the same thing.

RichH55 · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:45 pm

Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:53 am
Atkins&Rebel wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:01 am I'd be shocked if there aren't provisions spelled out for catastrophic events in the CBA.
If it were spelled out, there'd be no need for negotiation.

True

Seems like the sticking point (one of them) is that Owners want to classify COVID as Not Football Related - which means that the Owner would have the option not to pay that player

dplank · Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:16 pm

RichH55 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:45 pm
Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:53 am

If it were spelled out, there'd be no need for negotiation.
True

Seems like the sticking point (one of them) is that Owners want to classify COVID as Not Football Related - which means that the Owner would have the option not to pay that player

The owners better not be greedy dicks here, reasonable people should be able to come to a quick agreement on this.

Arkansasbear · Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:41 pm

RichH55 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:45 pm
Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:53 am

If it were spelled out, there'd be no need for negotiation.
True

Seems like the sticking point (one of them) is that Owners want to classify COVID as Not Football Related - which means that the Owner would have the option not to pay that player

Simple solution. If a player can trace the COVID to an expose related to football (practice, game, meeting, etc.) he gets paid. If the team can trace the expose to something not football related ( e.g. the player went out to bar and got it) he doesn't get paid.

Seem fair and it would likely result in players making better choices - unlike whatever hockey team went to bar and got infected. Players would also police each other on those aspects more. I know a lot of MLB teams have have player meetings were the vets have been telling everyone to tow the line because if they mess it up, all sports will likely get canned for the year.

dplank · Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:00 am

Arkansasbear wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:41 pm
RichH55 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:45 pm

True

Seems like the sticking point (one of them) is that Owners want to classify COVID as Not Football Related - which means that the Owner would have the option not to pay that player
Simple solution. If a player can trace the COVID to an expose related to football (practice, game, meeting, etc.) he gets paid. If the team can trace the expose to something not football related ( e.g. the player went out to bar and got it) he doesn't get paid.

Seem fair and it would likely result in players making better choices - unlike whatever hockey team went to bar and got infected. Players would also police each other on those aspects more. I know a lot of MLB teams have have player meetings were the vets have been telling everyone to tow the line because if they mess it up, all sports will likely get canned for the year.

What happens with the 50% of cases where they can't trace it with any level of certainty?

RichH55 · Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:44 pm

dplank wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:00 am
Arkansasbear wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:41 pm

Simple solution. If a player can trace the COVID to an expose related to football (practice, game, meeting, etc.) he gets paid. If the team can trace the expose to something not football related ( e.g. the player went out to bar and got it) he doesn't get paid.

Seem fair and it would likely result in players making better choices - unlike whatever hockey team went to bar and got infected. Players would also police each other on those aspects more. I know a lot of MLB teams have have player meetings were the vets have been telling everyone to tow the line because if they mess it up, all sports will likely get canned for the year.
What happens with the 50% of cases where they can't trace it with any level of certainty?

That was my thought

This isn't South Korea - we suck at contract tracing

Yogi da Bear · Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:03 pm

How about split the difference? If a player contracts COVID he only gets paid half his game check. No contact tracing involved. This way both the player and the team suffer equally.

Isn't this what normally happens when you compromise?

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:05 am

Let's be very mindful not to make this thread political. If it gets even a bit hairy, this discussion is over.

Moriarty · Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:52 pm

Collegiate attempts to have team practices have been a disaster

https://sports.yahoo.com/west-virginia- ... 49357.html