NFL - NEWS & NOTES

I really do think a big part of it is showing the players just how inept their union head really is. The real message was for them, not for us.

And it had to be done.

 

I tell you what, they want salaries and insurance...Maybe work for it. Do they want to sign a contract that they will make themselves available to the HOF 25 times per year so that the patrons not only see a bronze bust, but get a picture of the player standing next to it? That would be 25 days out of a 365 day calendar year, I guarantee not ONE single player would agree to that. They would negotiate, we get salary, insurance AND $100 per picture from the patron. SMH, you give them something else, and they will be back in 10 years wanting more.

 

There's a lot more to this than face value. They're doing what they can to get the needs of former players to the forefront in time for the next CBA.

 

This is a complex issue with room for nuance and mutual understanding, but certainly no room for nonsense like this.

To call someone entitled, and say that a lifetime's worth of healthcare costs can be offset by just not buying a fancy car (presuming they did that in the first place), is ignorant at the very least.

Were you privy to any of the public discussion surrounding Paul Ryan's claim that people just shouldn't buy an iPhone, so that they can afford health insurance? I think we can save some time by referencing you to those responses / discussions.

You do this discussion a disservice. I'd ask that you think about it more carefully and robustly before making any further judgments.

 

You presume too much, and think too little. Again, you do this conversation a disservice. This is a conversation worth having, and one that requires mutual understanding, as well as critical thought. Revisit it when you're capable of that.

 

Being provided health insurance even after their playing days are done is one area I actually agree with the players on.

 

but what about 4 years ago when the NFL held out on the player's pensions and got sued and lost? are they asking for more here or what is owed to them ? The NFL isn't innocent here in dealing with the players benefits, so they may not be innocent over health insurance.

 

And there are other professions where people keep health insurance after retiring.

 

Dline, I often find your opinions on various topics quite enlightening. As such they often force me to look at a topic in from a different angle.

However, when @IrishDawg42 (or others) voices his opinion on a given subject, you tend to belittle them or their opinion. If you REALLY want constructive dialog, might I suggest that you start by simply recognizing that most posts in this forum are just that . . . Opinions just like yours.

In other words, just because someone's opinion of a given topic is different from yours, it doesn't mean that your opinion is more valueable. If you treat other's posts like you would like your posts treated, maybe - just maybe - you would end up with the enlightened dialog you suggest you're looking for.

 

I sincerely appreciate that, Lyman. You're right - that's absolutely something I need to work on, and be better about. I think there's a time where I was, and I've devolved. I'll put focus back on that in the future, and I appreciate the level-headed reminder. Reciprocally, I must say, that you're one of the level-headed Browns fans I've encountered here that I can count on not to be drinking the kool-aid at all times, which makes for opportunity for discussion.

Specific to this instance - IrishDawg espoused a blatantly ignorant viewpoint, and I pointed him towards the discussion surrounding Paul Ryan's statements regarding healthcare. I would encourage him to read up on them - I don't have the time to rehash that discussion in full, and it's already been had elsewhere. If I had time, I would inform his viewpoint myself, but I think there are resources for him to explore on his own, and I'd ask him to do that before revisiting this conversation with that same opinion.

 

There's nothing wrong with calling an ignorant opinion ignorant.

 

Calling someone's viewpoint "blatantly ignorant" is precisely what I was talking about.

 

Then you, Sir, are ignorant.

OBTW: Nice win last night !!!

 

Might want to look up the definition of that word.

Saying players should hold off from buying a car in order to pay for their insurance is "blatantly ignorant".

 

In fairness, Lyman, you presented me a criticism, and suggested a way to fix the issue. I took it well, and agreed.

I've done the same for IrishDawg - presented a criticism, recommended a way of fixing the issue.

I get what you're saying - I could approach it more nicely. But in fairness, I'm calling a spade a spade. I used to be better at using the kid gloves to introduce such criticisms, but in this case, I don't think they're necessary. If IrishDawg wants to have a legitimate conversation about what he sees as player entitlement, he will.

I do appreciate and agree with your assessment, that I can approach things better than I do, at times. In this case, I presented the criticism, and offered the fix.

 

The NFL holding out on pensions 4 years ago was a case of holding out funding under the current pension plan. That was resolved.

But if you look at the details of the HOF Board's message, they're saying that what has been done to this point for former players is a joke.

The health insurance issue is a key point. They note that MLB players have health coverage for life as of their very first game played. The other major sports also have ongoing health coverage for former players. But somehow - in spite of football being the most physically brutal sport and indisputable evidence that players suffer health effects that last long after their playing days are over - the union has failed even to push for that coverage for NFL players.

Never mind "feelings of entitlement" or any political stupidity. Pushing for that type of benefit is one of the main reasons why the players have a union in the first place. Their union has been truly inept.

The timing is critical. The current players need to wake up now - before the next CBA - and focus on the fact that they will soon be former players too. They're the ones with the strongest ability to push for a proper health coverage fund that includes all former players - and as future ex-players, it will be in their interest to do so.

 

You don't want a legitimate conversation, you want your opinion to be accepted by belittling anyone that has a voice. That isn't a conversation.

You want to talk about ignorance? That is a person that takes a post on a website and accepts it so literally that there really can't be conversation at all.

The point of the post was, players lives are very extravagant. Those that live within their means and invest their money wisely aren't the ones with the loudest voices in these matters. The average age of retirement for successful NFL players is 33. Get a job if you need insurance. That isn't ignorance, it is the voice of reason. Not every player is going to get a job as a sports analyst. Figure it out before you are done playing so that you can have a long prosperous life for you and your family. These are athletes and yes they feel they are entitled to be taken care of for the rest of their lives because they ENTERTAINED people for a decade or so. Should actors be given free insurance for entertaining us as well? They are becoming very similar to politicians, they too feel entitled, but with them at least they are serving a public office and actually supposed to be working for the public while in office. For the record, I don't believe they should be given free insurance for life either.

Here is a question for you AND BearsWillWin since he chimed in, what are they doing to earn a salary at this point of their lives. Explain that to me and we can have a conversation.

 

No company in the United States is required to give insurance to current or former employees who are not CURRENTLY working 31 hours or more per week average. They sure as hell aren't paying those employees a salary simply because they have declining skills that are required to do their job better than a competing employee, so they don't do the job any longer and call it retirement. Here's the thing about the real world, retirement is when you have built the means to live the remainder of your life without the need for a job to continue living. They call it retirement in the NFL, the truth is, some quit, others are fired. Some build enough of a nest egg that they actually can retire, the rest, well they need to find a job.

 

Was this meant for me? I'm not claiming that it's the NFL's responsibility to give them coverage. I'm claiming that it's the union's responsibility to negotiate for it, and that the union leadership has been negligent, inept, and in many ways incompetent.

 

Ex-players can demand anything they want, but the bottom line is the NFL is not obligated at this juncture to even submit to their threats and pay or insure them until other-wise litigated.

Torgo makes a good point in that as it stands, obviously, the NFL is not obligated.

My point initially was when you sit down and sign a contract dealing in some cases with millions, wouldn't you ask and seek answers at that time about the future? You have to have an agent that can read between the lines and get answers.

I do feel for some guys that have health concerns and financial probs, but when do you own up to it and isn't there help in other ways?