NFL - NEWS & NOTES

Brice Butler says he’s back with the Cowboys...

A report before Sunday night’s victory over the Giants indicated that the Cowboys would be bringing wide receiver Brice Butler back to the team this week and it looks like the deal is done.

Butler tweeted “I’m backkkkk!!” along with a picture of himself in a Cowboys uniform on Tuesday morning. The team has not announced a corresponding move, but head coach Jason Garrett did discuss the prospect of a Butler return when he spoke to the media on Monday.

“We wanted to keep him last year when he signed in Arizona. But now he’s available and you’re always trying to look for ways to improve your team,” Garrett said.

Butler was released by the Cardinals at the end of the summer. He had 43 catches for 794 yards and six touchdowns over the last three seasons.

It’s not clear what the corresponding move will be to get Butler back on the roster. The team has six other wideouts on the 53-man roster and all of them were active against the Giants in Week Two.

UPDATE 1:58 p.m. ET: Per multiple reports, the Cowboys are cutting safety Tyree Robinson in a corresponding move. That may bode well for their chances of getting safety Xavier Woods in the lineup for the first time this season. (PFT)

 

Ignorant means uneducated.

What Irish was suggesting is that maybe players ought to think about their future needs (ie: health insurance) and plan for providing themselves and their families when their playing days are over and game checks no longer roll in rather than squander their short term income on lavish vehicles.

In my educated opinion . . . He's correct.

 

For one...just getting a new job isn't the answer because a majority of the time getting new insurance from a new employer isn't going to cover past injuries.

I only played football to the college level and that was a long time ago but from my time of being a football player I still have lingering medical things....I've had 8 surgeries on my knees from one injury sustained on the field. The medical bills from that alone is staggering.

That's why you're being called ignorant. Because you aren't seeing the whole picture.

For the millions that these entitled athletes make...the owners of the teams are making a whole lot more.

Actors are given insurance. So....okay.

Don't know. Also don't care. I'm not advocating they get a salary. I do agree with should get medical insurance though.

 

It took you 3 hours to look that up?

Which is ignorant because there's nothing to suggest that all players, or even a majority of players, are currently "squandering" their money.

It's also ignorant because if you or he were to look at the cost of average players medical bills, post retirement, you might actually learn something.

In my opinion, whether you believe it's educated or not (See: I don't give fuck), he comes across as a meatball with a populist, uneducated, unfounded opinion.

 

Nope. It took me 3 hours to decide whether continuing this conversation was worth the effort.

Most employer provided health insurance today now requires employees to contribute towards the cost of that insurance. The employer provides this insurance to all employees as a group in order to get lower rates for the insurance. As such, the employees pay a smaller amount for this coverage because they get it at a group rate.

Why can't the NFL do the same thing? Once a player is insured (at the group rate and contributes to the cost) allow the player to continue that coverage (at the group rate) for as long as they wish to contribute.

 

I think, given my prior conversation with Lyman, it's obvious that I'm interested in serious discussion, but recognize that I don't always properly foster it. Similar to before, you make a presumption that is without merit. Given prior discussions, I would say that, of the two of us, it is not my willingness to concede a point or see another reality that is in question.

I won't take your words as being your words. Understood.

Irish, let's be honest - given our prior discussions (and I remember one person from another very infrequently on these message boards), it's unlikely that you or I will have a productive conversation with one another. I'd always love for that not to be the case - for you and I to have an amicable conversation wherein we both agree on one reality, and mutually understand and agree with one another - but I don't know that I have the time to do my part in making sure that's possible.

So, I'll leave the discussion for others here, and I may contribute when I have a chance in the coming week (might have time at a hotel between meetings, etc). Here's to hoping a constructive discussion takes place in that absence - I think this is a distinctly important subject, and one on which I would like us all to find a mutual understanding.

 

No it isn't, when the player retires, quits or is fired, they are no longer union members unless they become union employees. I don't know of any unions that don't have union withdrawal upon employment termination, no matter what the reason.

The union could try to negotiate on behalf of CURRENT players benefits extending beyond their career, but those that were in the union when they were playing, and subsequently the ones that are threatening the league with a boycott now, are not under their jurisdiction.

It wasn't meant for you by the way, it was dline and BWW that were chiming in calling me ignorant, for no apparent reason.

 

This is it. Bingo.

Again: see Paul Ryan's assertion that people not buying an iPhone will allow them to pay for their healthcare. Seriously - I wasn't joking. Read the discussion and evaluation resulting from that - it will provide the material for education of its own accord.

 

It's tricky. The critical negotiation is the CBA as a whole, not individual players. At the level of the individual player negotiating a contract, trying to add in an extended health benefit would have salary cap issues. I believe that a lifetime benefit of that sort would not be permitted under the CBA.

On getting help in other ways, the sticky wicket is that their past injuries count as pre-existing conditions. Getting health coverage outside of a NFL/NFLPA solution isn't necessarily going to be easy, and the more we learn about the impact of all those concussions and micro-concussions, the worse it's going to get for players to obtain coverage on their own.

I'll avoid political discussion on the health care issue here, and I hope everyone else will avoid it too. The good news is that the solution is actually pretty simple - if the NFL and NFLPA both choose to make it happen.

It's exactly the same way that hospital workers and some other industries have coverage. (No insurance company would cover hospital workers otherwise. It's actually written in underwriting manuals - there are point blank instructions NOT to underwrite health coverage for hospitals.)

The approach is a self-funded plan, where the insurance companies involved only act as administrators. The insurance companies provide the membership cards, handle the claims processing, coordinate the payments to the doctors, etc. But the money to backstop the claims and handle potential insurance losses would come from a pool established by the NFL and NFLPA. The insurance companies are only administrators, not taking on the insurance risk. In that sense, the NFL/NFLPA would be acting as the true insurance company.

There would be some level of premium paid by the former players. The NFL/NFLPA would probably set up an office themselves to handle that (with the "dire needs" fund assisting the ex-players who need help) as well as other aspects of enrollment and eligibility.

It would require a pretty big fund to meet solvency requirements (it's possible that the insurance commissioners of every state with a team would have to sign off on it), but that would be a one-time thing. After that, it's likely that the fund would need smaller infusions from time to time, as I expect the insurance operation itself would run steady losses. But if that big fund is administered correctly, it might even run surpluses, eventually allowing the plan to reduce or even eliminate premiums.

 

Very fair point and that's worthy of a discussion.

It's also a lot different than just dismissing the subject as a bunch of entitled athletes that should just get jobs.

 

Speaking on ignorant.

Union withdrawal DOES NOT happen at termination because most unions represent terminated employees and will file grievances to get that employee their job back.

A lot of unions, the teachers union I belonged to being an example, will also help with job placement.

So....once again....you're wrong. You're batting .000 today. Rough outing.

 

I'm not entirely sure you are calling the correct person here...ignorant, you may want to look in the mirror.

1) I have injuries that go back to high school from sports. I have had subsequent medical treatment for those injuries and I can for a certainty say I am not in the same job or the same insurance from when those injuries occurred. I think what you are talking about is pre-existing conditions by way of diseases, like cancer or aids for example. IF you have such a disease when you stop playing football, there is something called COBRA insurance that you can continue to pay your insurance privately, which will leave you covered while being treated for the disease. Once you are declared clear from something like cancer, you can go on a new insurance policy and if cancer comes back, it will be covered.

The only injuries that wouldn't be covered are current injuries requiring specific treatment at the time of them leaving their job.

I can't believe I am explaining the inability of an athlete to acquire insurance as soon as they leave their job, when we live in a country that legally requires it.

These players aren't complaining that they don't have insurance, they are complaining that they have to pay for it like every other non government person in America. Unless you have something in the contract you sign WHILE EMPLOYED, you do not leave a job with insurance longer than what ever that companies policies are.

2) Don't wait ten years after you play to get a job...thus you won't go uninsured and you won't squander all of your money.

3) Actors are only insured while they are part of the actors guild, their union. Once they retire, they don't get paid insurance for life. Now actors aren't ignorant (I know you like that word) enough to stop working, thus remaining insured until they are old enough to receive medicare.

Finally, the NFL is OWNED by the OWNERS, they pay the investment and run the business, the players are their employees. Your damn right they make a whole lot more, as they should taking the risk with their own capital. If the players want to run a league, they should start one and see if they are educated enough to run it, then they can share all the money being made. This is called capitalism, see you are learning something today. I wouldn't give you the snarky tone if you hadn't come at me with the ignorance card. In this case, I am anything but ignorant on the subject, but it seems you could learn something about it.

 

Yep - this is exactly why the HOF Board is acting. The former players don't have a seat at the table otherwise. Now they have a brand new voice.

 

I did. I remain immensely impressed with what I see.

I made no mention of diseases like cancer or aids so I'm confused how to got there. But nice rant anyway. Have you ever bothered to look at the average cost of COBRA?

This little brain fart by you in no way had anything to do with what I said, by the way.

I never said athletes had an inability to acquire insurance....could you point out where I did or do you just enjoy arguing things I never said for no reason?

What I said was I advocate ex-players being covered under insurance paid for by the league. Care you keep the argument to that?

Actually, if you took your head out of your ass and actually read something, anything about this subject you would see a lot of prominent ex-players are advocating getting coverage for less prominent ex players that don't have as much money as they do.

Which....isn't really all that crazy of an ask, to be honest. I know you think all players are entitled assholes driving around in lambos while wearing fur coats and wearing a lot of gold....but you'd be surprised to realize that you're off base. Actually, you probably wouldn't be surprised because I think it likely happens to you a lot.

Do you have anything of substance that proves this opinion of yours is based in reality at all?

So you think all actors keep working until they get old?

I'm at a loss here because I think your stupidity just gave me a brain tumor.

No shit? The owners....own it? I always thought owner was just some fancy word that meant rich guy. Learn something new every day.

Yeah, big risk. Super rich guy runs a billion dollar business....typically funded by a group of investors that remain silent...a business that is pretty much guaranteed to make money every year...and has profit sharing for when you don't make as much as the other guys.

Genius. Fucking genius.

Considering they use profit sharing and distribute money in other ways...the NFL is much closer to socialism than it is capitalism.

The NFL is a closed league. It's about as anti-capitalist as you can be.

Thanks for the snarky tone but I would like it better if it came with an educated opinion and some actual facts. Can you work on that? Thanks.

Or continue being ignorant. Your choice bud.

 

FYI - coverage under COBRA only lasts 18 months. It's not an answer.

 

Here's a good article....

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/09/covering-medical-costs.asp

To my point...an ex-player getting a new job later on with new insurance could run in to difficultly when it comes to his old injuries that still require medical treatment.

But don't listen to me or let the fact that I've actually had this problem in my life change your mind.

 

One again, you are making the ignorant comments. I am speaking to a distinct group of players asking for something they are not entitled to. It isn't the majority of players asking for these concessions, nor did I say it was every "retired" NFL player. You are implying something to make yourself seem smarter than you are.

The cost of medical bills is not relevant to the conversation. There are millions of people that have never played sports that also have injuries or ailments that are in the same predicament. They didn't CHOOSE to do something they knew would most likely cause their ailments though. Should the NFL also provide insurance and salaries for those people since they are less fortunate?

Again, make sure you are correctly using the word ignorant before you actually try to use it in a sentence.

Actually, I haven't been calling you names, calling you ignorant incorrectly and have actually explained my opinion, so...

 

Who are you to decide what they are or are not entitled to?

They majority of players don't have a voice or a seat at the table....as was previously said here.

I don't need to seem smarter. Next to you I look like Einstein right now. And I don't consider that an accomplishment at all.

The hell it isn't. It's exactly why ex players need insurance.

Moot point.

No but I can write a letter to see if they will pay for that lobotomy you sorely need.

So because injuries are prevalent for NFL players....they shouldn't be allowed insurance? Is this where your argument is going now.

Maybe firemen don't deserve insurance either. I mean....they knew fire was hot before they ran in the burning building, right?

Again....you're ignorant. We've already discussed this word's definition today so I'm sure I'm using it correctly here.

Your ignorance is on full display chucko.

Your opinion is shit and you're a meatball.

Have a nice day.

 

JAG - "just a guy."

 

The reason it isn't feasible is because you are discussing health insurance for employees Lym, these players are no longer employees, if they were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The current employees are insured, I'm sure you both realize that.

I'm doing nothing of the sort in dismissing it, I am pointing out the reality of corporate America not insuring former employees.

Here's another dilemma for you. There are literally thousands of former NFL players that do have jobs after their playing days. When they get these new jobs, their new employer will insure them, however, they cannot be insured by two separate companies. In the case of spouses, you can carry two policies, but one is primary and one is secondary. You can't have two primary policies on one individual.

So the next question on this particular aspect is, do they have an open policy of withdrawl and reinstatement for the rest of their lives.

Next question is, are you going to include the players families?

We aren't talking about an NFL of 3,000+ employees, when you add in the retired players that number would, guestimating here, jump to around 30,000 current and former employees. Now, add families to the equation and you are now talking in excess of 100,000 people.



Again, these players sign a contract for millions of dollars having full knowledge that there will likely be injuries that will effect them the rest of their lives. They don't have to sign that contract.

I really am not the one dismissing anything here, I am explaining that it isn't something that small they should be asking for years after signing that contract.