I didn't say that the contracts are good for the league, I said I think it should be up to the owners to stop it.

Starting in 2009, if they want to hold out over not getting a big fat contract, the owners should unite and let them holdout. Instead, we have to have a rule put into place to do this for the owners, which I think is ridiculous.

And mark my words, as soon as this gets proposed, it is going to send the players union into a frenzy and quite possibly bring us a nice long work stoppage, which will result in many important issues getting ignored just so football can be played again.

All because people are worried about how much the owners are spending on rookies.

I think you guys look too "short term" here. What the NFL is doing here is copying what the NBA has already done. Well, to limit the rookies contract, you can bet that they are ultimately going to have to start guaranteeing contracts. Once that happens, we can enjoy watching players be shipped from team to team, not because a team wants the player, but because they are taking his salary.

Do you want a 53 man roster that has a bunch of busts sitting there with guaranteed money? Because when you open this can of worms, this is exactly what you are going to get. The players union IS NOT going to simply agree to this without getting something in their favor.

So in the end, all that money you think will be available to veterans will in fact be there for them at first, in the form of guaranteed contracts. Then, when many of them start to break down during that 6 year deal they got, they get to spend the remaining 5 on the sideline earning the money and doing nothing.

But isnt that what so many highly paid rookie busts do for two or three seasons? Sit, earn money, and do nothing?

Some do, some don't.

Would you rather have veteran players get big contracts, do nothing, and sit on the bench earning their money?

At least right now teams can cut players who aren't producing, and players can hold out if they aren't earning their fair market value.

Personally, I think the owners need to get smarter about how they hand out their money, rather than opening up this can of worms and turning the NFL into the NBA.

And personally, I am not looking forward to a work stoppage and a loss of popularity for the best league in pro sports, all because the commissioner wants to make a rule to protect some idiot owners.

Whats wrong with leaving the current system in place and just limiting the years and money a rookie can be signed for? Your not crashing the entire system that way. Hell, might help some guys who are studs and want off a horrible team.

And then the union will nail the owners with collusion, because they have unilaterally decided to do this, rather than bargain it in. Please don't be this naive, you know better.

And get sued for Collusion and lose millions. Why NOT bargain it in. I don't argue that they made their own beds, but at this point, the Union has enough power, they have to negotiate it out.

yeah, it is collusion if they all huddle up and say they are going to start paying X amount to rookies and that is it. All it would take is for the owners to sit back and wait to see what that #1 guy received, and then, rather than offering more money for their lower picks, offer contracts that are in accordance. Yeah, the players union might sue, but if common sense was used, they would be able to prove nothing.

I think 32 owners could get this done though without "collusion" ever being proven. But, they would never manage to all take a stand on this.

My whole point here is that as much as you folks are happy to see this, I think you are overlooking the big picture. The players are going to get something just as valuable, if not more valuable, in return. I fully expect this to be guaranteed contracts for the players.

No more of these big nice looking contracts for free agent veterans that we all know they will never see the end of, because now, they will be seeing the end of them. So look forward to seeing your 53 man roster including worn down players that have become worthless to your team, and look forward to seeing your teams burned by free agents that get that big contract and suddenly lose that motivation that got them that contract.

Oh, and that revenue split that is bringing an end to the current CBA because the owners don't want to pay the current percentage (even though they are all getting filthy rich off of their percentage), expect the players to get an even larger portion of that as well.

Something else you have to realize - Many veterans have been questioned about these rookie salaries over the past few years, and for the most part, they support these guys getting as much as they can get. So if Goodell thinks he is going to get support from the veteran players, he is mistaken.

This is simply a motive to put less money into contracts via rookie salaries, in an effort to keep the owners from having to pay a bigger percentage, or even continuing to pay the current percentage that they think is too much.

This could turn into a very ugly situation. Personally, I am not looking forward to a September without Football.

One more thing, this comment being made by Goodell during the Symposium was nothing more than an effort to gain fan support toward the owners.

They need two caps. They can have one cap on what they spend on rookies, and one cap on what they spend on everyone else.

MOJO, just how much do you hate Goodell

Have you purchased the domain dame for showgoodellthedoor.com?

I am a Raiders fan!! You don't scare me!!

No, I am sorry, all it takes is to prove the league and ownership were in agreement on a stance and collusion will be won. It isn't a maybe here Mojo, it is a will be. Look at what happened in baseball, and collusion was not the case.



Won't happen. Vets will agree to it, because the salary will go to them, not the rookies. In fact all it would take is a set % of income having to go to salary to insure this. Without having to have guaranteed contracts. That is part of negotiation.


Okay, another rediculous statement. They got too greedy now, and it cost them a great agreement. They will lose blood testing and rookie salaries...watch and see. Owners have the power here, not the union on this. Fan base will want to keep salary cap, and have drug testing thanks to all the other issues going. May end up stoppage for a while, but ownership will win

According to what I have seen, this is due to the fact that they know this won't change right now. So you get it up front. But alot of vets, and retired players are now agreeing that this high rookie salary is rediculous.

Limit the risk, not the cost

lol, just consider me one of the few that hasn't crowned him as the greatest thing since sliced bread all because he flexed his muscle on a couple players.

Owners and players union were already enough at odds. Goodell never should have popped off like this.

And Phicinfan, where are you hearing the vets speaking out against the rookies? Same source that is giving you the inside Ryan info?

As for the retired players, I think the current leader of the NFLPA has already made it clear he could care less what the retired players think.

First of all, the Salary Cap is why the NFL is the best league in North America. I think in another 10 years, the NHL will follow suit. MLB is going to get worse when you have teams like Red Sox and Yankees keep spending the way they do.

Guys...I don't think its a sense of collusion if you put a cap on rookie salaries. It is if the owners all agree on the side to limit salaries. So make it legitimate and make it part of the CBA. Cap on rookie salaries, but make it reasonable. Rookies should not make $50M for their first 5 years for not even stepping on the field. That's why you have all these stars getting released or holding out because they actual do deserve more. Maybe with a smaller contract like 2-3 years so they can re-negotiate after they prove themselves. These kids coming in will have the incentive to 'prove' they deserve it like the veterans and pro-bowlers do.

Look at it like this. When you start a job, let's say at a retail store. You get the starting rate. You have an annual evaluation, if you do well, you get a raise. Simple as that. You have never heard of a new floor sales staff at a Wal-Mart get to start at $20/hr when there are people there making $10/hr for the past five years. This kid may not even know what a light bulb is, why is he getting $20/hr already. I can explain to a customer the difference between incandecent and flourescent, can he? LOL

Just put a cap on rookies and we'll be fine. I hate seeing people who have been with a team for 10 years an dropped because they need to pay a rookie $10M a season. Even worse, I hate to see a face of a club let go for someone who only last two seasons.

The NFL was the top sports league in America before the salary cap came into play.

As for just putting a cap on rookies, it won't happen. the players union isn't going to let it happen. They will get something in return.

And given that goodell handled this as professional as he did (sarcasm), I am sure the players union is already in the bunker planning on getting as much as they can from the owners once the labor talks start. There was absolutely no reason for Goodell to announce this in the fashion he did.

Trying to cap contracts for rookies entering a league where the average career length is about 5 years is just asking for huge resistance.