Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ryan Clark and others plan to return to work Tuesday morning

          
   
   
    Bookmark and Share
  1. #11
    Veteran DanRooney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rampage View Post
    I agree with this. While I would like to see the NFL do a little more with post-career health care and insurance, it is a business. That said, the players should look at their pay like hazard pay: You are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per year to put your life on the line. They are essentially modern era gladiators. If you ask me, it is a pretty sweet gig for a bunch of people that lift weights and play a sport, and they should recognize that or fall back on all those physical education and kinesiology degrees that they got for free.
    I really don't understand the health care argument. Didn't Obama pass a law oh some 10 months ago that required everyone to get health insurance? What do they want free physical therapy after retirement? Massages?

  2. #12
    JensK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Aalborg
    Posts
    4,114
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryNJ View Post
    Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.
    They should not be filing lawsuits, as times just did not focus on these kinds of things when they played. Sucks? Yeah, but thats how it works. I can, however, understand why the current players would want a system that protects them afterwards. The science is far superior today, and we now know just how much abuse the players bodies take. Sure, they earn a pretty large pile of money, however the owners make at least 10 times as much, and they hardly put their body on the line. For all they care, a player is with their club for like 15 years at best and then they get new players. I don't understand the "They knew what they went into" argument. That would be the same as denying someone who got stress any help because the person damn well knew that stress is a potential risk of working. Furthermore, people seem to believe that all football players earn a shitton of money. Sure, we hear about the large contracts etc. but the average salary in a place like Packers (pre SB victory) was under 500k a year. While that is way above the average salary per year, the players are not able to work for nearly as long the average person, especially not if a good portion of those money have to go into surgical repairs of various body parts after their career is over.

    I am not trying to argue that NFL players earn a lot of money, because that is unquestionable, however I do think that a policy after their career is over is warranted as they do put their body on the line day in and day out. It is not like this is cause the owners to go bankrupt. It is hardly all players who'll need a lot of attention afterwards. The owners would get a lot of good publicity and come out as winners of the debate, looking like the good guys, which would give them a great bargain strategy for next CBA.



    Regarding Obama and the healthcare system.. really? Lets keep Obama out of here... Im sure you can find plenty of other places to rant about him should you not agree about his politics. This is a football forum so lets talk football shall we.
    However much you think you know about football, rest assured that Skip Bayless knows more!

  3. #13
    SA's #1 Pirates Fan Tetris Champion Black@Gold Forever32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Michigan City, IN
    Posts
    12,977
    My Mood
    Mad
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryNJ View Post
    Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.
    Johnny Unitas wasn't paid huge money and while he was alive all he wanted was fair compensation from the NFL when he basically lost total use of his right arm......NFL basically told him to **** off and said his arm trouble wasn't related to his playing days......

    Last time I checked it was the owners locking out the players......Not the players going on strike but whatever you're entitled to your opinions......NFL owners created this and now they better deal with it.....I'll support the players over the billionaires club.........

  4. #14
    Starter coach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The great white North
    Posts
    1,530
    I pasted a few links below where the data I used in this submission came from. There are a lot of articles out there but it is hard to wade through the jargon and try to find substance. Even in below, the details were kept pretty brief and that doesn't show how one argument (free agency after 3 v 5 years) impacts the remaining issues. I don't pretend to know more than any other reader. I am limited to finding things on the Internet like anyone else.

    Why are players seeking extended health benefits?
    It currently takes three years in the NFL to receive five years of post-career healthcare. So hypothetically, a player is drafted at age 22, leaves the league when he is 25 and therefore will receive no more health benefits from the NFL and its multi-billion dollar enterprise after the age of 30.

    Hardly a recipe for success; but, both owners and players (union) can be blamed:
    For many years, the players union put the needs of the current players ahead of the needs of the retirees, but now that focus has changed.

    Isn't this issue just about about money?
    Itís not so much about money as much as it is about medical coverage for retired players. Football is a physical sport that can leave a lasting impression, especially as we continue to uncover more and more about the long-term brain damage that many players suffer. Right now, the NFL and NFLPA is barely providing players with enough coverage to survive.

    The real crux of this problem is that itís an issue that the players have neglected in several previous labor disputes, and now itís snowballed into an avalanche.

    What options have each side argued to resolve the issue?
    The players union would like owners to set aside 2% of their profits ($320 million), while the owners will only offer $100 million.

    Couldn't a salary cap easily fix this issue?
    Options include a salary cap or re-routing some of these millions from incoming players to the outgoing ones via the pension fund. Sounds easy enough since many fans, owners and players believe there is an issue; just work out the scheme, right?

    Without a doubt, the NFL rookie pay scale is out of control. Every year, first-round draft picks -- especially the ones at the top of the draft -- earn more than the majority of vested, proven veterans before they have even played a single live snap.

    The league would be willing to do something like reduce the wage the rookies make, but are not offering anything along what they will save via a rookie salary cap.

    Perhaps there is someone out ther that understands how the rookie wage drives veteran wages that can shed additional light on that issue. I just tried to keep this real simple.

    http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/sports/t...l-lockout.html

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...r-next-season/

  5. #15
    LarryNJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    4,852
    If the players gave up their right to sue the owners for millions in workmans comp claims. My guess is they would get some sort of better health care after retirement that would help pay for some of the surgical procedures that were caused by playing.
    "When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself."
    -Wayne Dyer

  6. #16
    JensK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Aalborg
    Posts
    4,114
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryNJ View Post
    If the players gave up their right to sue the owners for millions in workmans comp claims. My guess is they would get some sort of better health care after retirement that would help pay for some of the surgical procedures that were caused by playing.
    This I agree upon! You can't have both. If it is clearly stated that they'll get help after their are done playing, they should not be able to sue the owners, nor should it be needed, unless the Owners break their part of the deal.
    However much you think you know about football, rest assured that Skip Bayless knows more!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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