Rodgers Wants Out

Status
Not open for further replies.
GBP4EVER said:
Still in end players will choose money who pays them the most to play in most of the time no matter what culture is like. Money rules the world for most
Click to expand...
some will some wont. Elite players have more value and can pick and choose.
 
Packinatl said:
some will some wont. Elite players have more value and can pick and choose.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they still likely pick the money. Look at NFLPA it's no secret they tell players go for the biggest contract no matter where you go as they don't want players leaving money on the table.
 
GBP4EVER said:
Yeah but they still likely pick the money. Look at NFLPA it's no secret they tell players go for the biggest contract no matter where you go as they don't want players leaving money on the table.
Click to expand...
no the NFLPA does not do that, no. Some evidence MLB does but its not broad
 
Speaking of ther NFLPA...

One of the biggest problems, imo, is that far too many people just can't seem to understand how a negotiation is supposed to work. It's been "reported" that Rodgers is pissed off that the last three years of the current contract are "team voidable." Well, Rodgers got something... if not a lot of somethings... in return for the team gaining that luxury. He got what he wanted but now, when it came time for the team to get theirs, he's red-assed? Sorry, pal, it just doesn't work that way.

Just like all the hullabaloo about the NFLPA advising players to boycott voluntary OTAs. The players' union didn't just come up with that out of nowhere, or for spite. This was the NFLPA saying to the players "You gave up something for this right. Do not be afraid to exercise it." During contract negotiations, the league said "Give us ______ and we'll allow certain mandatory OTA workouts to become voluntary." The players went for it and then a bunch of teams, if not all of them, still tried to treat those workouts as mandatory. It doesn't work that way for the teams, either.

As far as the players go, I think a lot of these agents need to be looked at pretty hard.
 
The Unholy Turnip said:
Speaking of ther NFLPA...

One of the biggest problems, imo, is that far too many people just can't seem to understand how a negotiation is supposed to work. It's been "reported" that Rodgers is pissed off that the last three years of the current contract are "team voidable." Well, Rodgers got something... if not a lot of somethings... in return for the team gaining that luxury. He got what he wanted but now, when it came time for the team to get theirs, he's red-assed? Sorry, pal, it just doesn't work that way.

Just like all the hullabaloo about the NFLPA advising players to boycott voluntary OTAs. The players' union didn't just come up with that out of nowhere, or for spite. This was the NFLPA saying to the players "You gave up something for this right. Do not be afraid to exercise it." During contract negotiations, the league said "Give us ______ and we'll allow certain mandatory OTA workouts to become voluntary." The players went for it and then a bunch of teams, if not all of them, still tried to treat those workouts as mandatory. It doesn't work that way for the teams, either.

As far as the players go, I think a lot of these agents need to be looked at pretty hard.
Click to expand...
well technically team "voidable" but that came with some serious dead cap ramifications and both sides understood that, thats not really debatable. If in fact he gets to choose his destination, the team lost some leverage.
 
The Unholy Turnip said:
Speaking of ther NFLPA...

One of the biggest problems, imo, is that far too many people just can't seem to understand how a negotiation is supposed to work. It's been "reported" that Rodgers is pissed off that the last three years of the current contract are "team voidable." Well, Rodgers got something... if not a lot of somethings... in return for the team gaining that luxury. He got what he wanted but now, when it came time for the team to get theirs, he's red-assed? Sorry, pal, it just doesn't work that way.

Just like all the hullabaloo about the NFLPA advising players to boycott voluntary OTAs. The players' union didn't just come up with that out of nowhere, or for spite. This was the NFLPA saying to the players "You gave up something for this right. Do not be afraid to exercise it." During contract negotiations, the league said "Give us ______ and we'll allow certain mandatory OTA workouts to become voluntary." The players went for it and then a bunch of teams, if not all of them, still tried to treat those workouts as mandatory. It doesn't work that way for the teams, either.

As far as the players go, I think a lot of these agents need to be looked at pretty hard.
Click to expand...
As to agents, the NFLPA has not done them many favors over the past few years. It’s not a love fest. Are some shady? Sure no question but most are up and up ethical and understand that it’s a business.
 
Packinatl said:
no the NFLPA does not do that, no. Some evidence MLB does but its not broad
Click to expand...
Yeah but players have said that union has called them saying to take biggest deal offered Granted that player said he did not because he was happy were he was despite having bigger offer from another team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top