Jump to content

XFL 2020 Season


ozzyman314

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

What a bunch of scumbags.  This minor league has a disproportional ego. 

 

I wasn't rooting for the AAF to crash and burn, but I’m rooting for McMahon to lose his :censored:ing shirt on this one.  

 

I am more excited about DC United fans raging over Audi Field being ruined by the XFL.

 

If you look at the cities that they have chosen for their teams and their TV deal, they will claim that they are a major league, not a minor league.  Plus XFL fans believe that their league will be more superior than the CFL at everything.  I wanted this league to succeed, but now I am not sure it will.  XFL fans are even suggesting invading CFL territory by having teams in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in future expansion because of the size of those markets and the fact that those three are the cities most known internationally when talking about Canada and it would help the XFL. In fact, if the XFL does expand further, they could be looking to continue to expand into cities that already have NFL teams like Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco.  None of that screams "minor league" and in the eyes of McMahon, Oliver Luck and Jeffery Pollack, they are not, even though they clearly are.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand, I understand the desire to not have a team totally thwarted by its coach and/or QB bolting without time to adjust.  It's not fair to the (hypothetical) fans, or the management of the club.  On the other hand, if i have talent and an ultimate goal of playing in the NFL, why would I sign with the XFL if it would mean passing up that dream until the end of my contract?  

 

Neither side is wrong, and both need to be reasonable.  If you sign on, you should need to play / coach the first season you sign on for.  Then make a deadline date for exercising 'outs', or something like that.  XFL needs to understand that their talent pool will be very limited if they feel like signing up for XFL takes away their dream... but on the other side, the talent need to realize that the XFL is letting them get the exposure needed to pursue their dream, so they owe it something.  

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

On one hand, I understand the desire to not have a team totally thwarted by its coach and/or QB bolting without time to adjust.  It's not fair to the (hypothetical) fans, or the management of the club.  On the other hand, if i have talent and an ultimate goal of playing in the NFL, why would I sign with the XFL if it would mean passing up that dream until the end of my contract?  

 

Neither side is wrong, and both need to be reasonable.  If you sign on, you should need to play / coach the first season you sign on for.  Then make a deadline date for exercising 'outs', or something like that.  XFL needs to understand that their talent pool will be very limited if they feel like signing up for XFL takes away their dream... but on the other side, the talent need to realize that the XFL is letting them get the exposure needed to pursue their dream, so they owe it something.  

I wonder if moving the start of the league to mid-March would be helpful as well? We didn't really see these issues pop up with the AAF, at least with coaches. Aren't mini-camps coming up as well? 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GDAWG said:

lus XFL fans believe that their league will be more superior than the CFL at everything.  I wanted this league to succeed, but now I am not sure it will.  XFL fans are even suggesting invading CFL territory by having teams in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in future expansion because of the size of those markets and the fact that those three are the cities most known internationally when talking about Canada and it would help the XFL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I wonder if moving the start of the league to mid-March would be helpful as well? We didn't really see these issues pop up with the AAF, at least with coaches. Aren't mini-camps coming up as well? 

 

Minicamps are next week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion about people breaking XFL contracts depends on how guaranteed they are. NHL contracts are pretty firm; NFL contracts might as well be written on toilet paper. If a league is making a firm commitment to its players, then it should be able to expect one back. My guess is the XFL is probably more like the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cosmic said:

NFL contracts might as well be written on toilet paper.

 

Can you cite an example where a contract was broken?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:
5 hours ago, Cosmic said:

NFL contracts might as well be written on toilet paper.

 

Can you cite an example where a contract was broken?

 

The point that @Cosmic made is to tie the issue to whether the contract is guaranteed.  NFL contracts are not guaranteed; so, every time a player under contract is released, that is an example of a contract being broken. 

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The point that @Cosmic made is to tie the issue to whether the contract is guaranteed.  NFL contracts are not guaranteed; so, every time a player under contract is released, that is an example of a contract being broken. 

 

But the contract isn't being broken.  Since it's subject to the conditions of the CBA... which the players' themselves agree to... their releases are totally within the guidelines of the agreement.

 

 

A better example might be when a college coach decides to leave school A for school B, right after signing with school A.  Temple lost their coach this season... before he even coached a game... because the Miami job opened up.  Unless there's clauses in those deals that explicitly state that a coach can leave for x number of jobs, then that would be a breach, which is why (I assume) they usually negotiate buy-outs.  

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Can you cite an example where a contract was broken?

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Indeed, “broken” is the wrong word. 

 

“Not worth the paper it’s printed on” is closer to the truth, since it can be voided by one side without penalty. 

Perhaps a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that the contracts were literally being "broken", but I didn't think it was controversial at all to say that NFL contracts heavily favor teams over players. Players are discarded with few repercussions to the team, but if a player outperforms their contract, HEY YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

 

Perhaps a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that the contracts were literally being "broken", but I didn't think it was controversial at all to say that NFL contracts heavily favor teams over players. Players are discarded with few repercussions to the team, but if a player outperforms their contract, HEY YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT.

 

 

 The Bears were just messing with Sowell at that point.  He's gone almost three weeks without being released right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Perhaps a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that the contracts were literally being "broken", but I didn't think it was controversial at all to say that NFL contracts heavily favor teams over players. Players are discarded with few repercussions to the team, but if a player outperforms their contract, HEY YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT.

 

And even “guaranteed” money like signing bonuses isn’t guaranteed

 

Quote

If former Patriots receiver Antonio Brown wants his $9 million signing bonus, he’s going to have to fight for it.

 

Per a league source, the Patriots did not pay Brown $5 million, the first installment of the signing bonus, on or before the Monday deadline specified in his contract.

 

The move was widely expected, even though the team’s argument for not paying earned money to Brown ultimately may fail. He did not commit a “forfeitable breach” under the terms of the labor deal. Thus, the Patriots will have to fashion an argument based on, for example, Brown withholding information as to the threatened sexual assault and rape litigation from the team. The Patriots would argue that they wouldn’t have signed Brown if they’d known about the potential lawsuit, especially since it can (and did) spark an NFL investigation that could result in Brown being placed on paid leave.

 

Whatever the argument, there’s no downside in refusing to pay Brown. If he wins, he gets the money — without interest, attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages, or other costs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

 

Perhaps a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that the contracts were literally being "broken", but I didn't think it was controversial at all to say that NFL contracts heavily favor teams over players. Players are discarded with few repercussions to the team, but if a player outperforms their contract, HEY YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT.

 

I'd argue that the contracts favor good players over teams and other players.  Star players get the super-high signing-bonuses, which amount to guarantees.  Would they give that up in exchange for straight-up guarantees across the board?  HELL NO they wouldn't, because the teams can afford to make those payments because they can cut other guys later on.

 

I'm kind of tired of hearing how evil the NFL is when it comes to contracts.  The players agree to this system, and they could very easily refuse it, and force a different system that guarantees them the same split of revenue, but with more guarantees.

 

Lane Johnson just signed a new extension today (even though he was extended just this offseason) which freed up cap money for other players, but increased his guarantees to a ridiculous amount that he'd never see if NFL contracts were like MLB.

 

As a fan, I've never criticized a player for holding out and taking advantage of his leverage.  It basically killed my own team (the '05 Eagles) but I supported TO the whole way, as I do any player.

 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I'm kind of tired of hearing how evil the NFL is when it comes to contracts.  The players agree to this system, and they could very easily refuse it, and force a different system that guarantees them the same split of revenue, but with more guarantees.

 

You're presuming that the players have any leverage.  We have seen conclusively that they don’t, except for the very few who can afford to negotiate their own special contracts.  For the vast majority of players, they are treated as disposable commodities, and lack the leverage to change that.  They have no choice but to play in this system or not to play at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

You're presuming that the players have any leverage.  We have seen conclusively that they don’t, except for the very few who can afford to negotiate their own special contracts.  For the vast majority of players, they are treated as disposable commodities, and lack the leverage to change that.  They have no choice but to play in this system or not to play at all. 

 

That's kind of my point - the star players have all the leverage, and agree to a system that benefits them, and results in the "filler" players being treated as disposable commodities.  The "players" aren't really the "players".  It's the top 10% vs the other 90%.  The top 10% absoutely have leverage... and are absolutely fine with contracts that give them $60M in guarantees.  The other 90% should maybe form their own union or something.

 

 

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

And even “guaranteed” money like signing bonuses isn’t guaranteed

 

 

 

You're talking about one extremely-unique situation.  I'd hardly say that qualifies as an argument against the validity of contracts.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.