CBA deal progressing

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
NFL and NLPA will meet following CBA vote

While nearly all major sports leagues have either suspended or canceled upcoming events, the NFL has yet to make any drastic changes to their offseason schedule. Obviously, unlike most other leagues, that are currently in season, the NFL lacks the same pressure since their largest public events (e.g. NFL Draft, Training Camp, etc.) are still at least a month away, but as the COVID-19 (a.k.a coronavirus) epidemic has reached the level of a global pandemic, it has become clearer that even the NFL will be impacted.

According to Mark Maske of The Washington Post, the NFL and NFLPA will meet on Sunday to discuss short and long-term plans for the offseason in reaction to the virus. Furthermore, Maske notes that free agency, at least at the moment, appears set to stay on schedule, however, there seems to be a real possibility offseason workouts are delayed.

While free agency does not require travel from players, agents, and teams, it does seem peculiar to try and continue business as usual amidst such abnormal circumstances. Mike Klis of 9News pointed out on Twitterthat “there are competitive disadvantages for teams that have shut down their buildings.” It’s also reasonable to expect members from all around the NFL community to contract the virus. Owners, front-office employees, coaches, agents, and players are all at risk and one wonders if as soon as one person is diagnosed with COVID-19 the league will suspend operation (much in the way the NBA reacted to Rudy Gobert’s diagnosis).

Another complicating factor for the league is the ongoing CBA negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. The NFLPA is currently voting on the league’s proposal and both sides may be more willing to delay the offseason if the deal is ratified. Granted, there are a number of critics and arguments in opposition of the deal as well.
 
So now that it's approved lets play the guessing role as we usually do around here. What are the next big issues for each side? I'd wager owners want to go to 18 games and players want more guaranteed money in contracts.
 
So now that it's approved lets play the guessing role as we usually do around here. What are the next big issues for each side? I'd wager owners want to go to 18 games and players want more guaranteed money in contracts.

I believe players want the revenue to go from 48.5 to 50% and then you will get your 18 games with two preseason games.
 
That was a close vote. I thought it would have passed with a wider margin. Oh well, it's done and now we can move on to free agency and the draft.
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: Riverumbbq
I believe players want the revenue to go from 48.5 to 50% and then you will get your 18 games with two preseason games.
I could see that and it likely comes down to a split like this year. More share of the revenue benefits the lower end almost as much as the upper end of the payroll spectrum. More guaranteed money benefits the upper end more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: den-the-coach
That was a close vote. I thought it would have passed with a wider margin. Oh well, it's done and now we can move on to free agency and the draft.
This CBA was 100% the haves vs the have not in the union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ramrocket
I believe players want the revenue to go from 48.5 to 50% and then you will get your 18 games with two preseason games.
By the time the CBA expires in 2030, we'll have a pretty good idea of the impact of adding the additional game. How that impacts player health will probably determine if they try for another regular season game in 2030.

By then, McVay's revolutionary strategy of resting his starters until week 3 of the regular season will have taken hold across the league... :ROFLMAO:
 
This CBA was 100% the haves vs the have not in the union.


So true. I thought the have nots percentage was 65% of the union which should have made it pass by a wider margin. I think the haves got to the have nots and persuaded some to vote no which is apparent from the numbers. The haves should have started to create strike fund accounts much earlier for the have nots. Had they done so they could have stopped the deal from passing. They should have put their money where their mouths were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldSchool