There’s an easy fix, the owners can get rid of the hard salary cap.
NFLPA claims Denver acted illegally
- Thread starter EverydayImRusselin
- Start date
Welshers2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2023
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 1,401
Where can I read about this evidence of a union complaint? Sorry I don't have time to search for it right now if you wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
That's obvious....
Let's suffice to say that this is shaping up to be pretty bad for the Broncos organization.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
That would be a terrible move, it's half the reason if not more that the league is overall fairly competitive. I don't want to see the NFL's richest owners buying championships.
AnimeAmore
Active member
- Joined
- May 15, 2023
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 148
The Donkey's problem is they were trying to have it both ways, and trying to redo contracts mid-season is a tricky thing unless you're just converting salary to bonus $$.
There would be nothing wrong with asking him to rework the deal as long as they weren't threatening him in any way.
There would also be nothing wrong with simply benching him to protect themselves from his contract.
They screwed up by threatening his job if he didn't rework his deal. I don't think they will face any severe consequences, but it was a douchey thing to do.
It's also weird that they're keeping him as the #2 because he could get injured that way too. Not shutting him down completely seems odd
There would be nothing wrong with asking him to rework the deal as long as they weren't threatening him in any way.
There would also be nothing wrong with simply benching him to protect themselves from his contract.
They screwed up by threatening his job if he didn't rework his deal. I don't think they will face any severe consequences, but it was a douchey thing to do.
It's also weird that they're keeping him as the #2 because he could get injured that way too. Not shutting him down completely seems odd
AnimeAmore
Active member
- Joined
- May 15, 2023
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 148
The NFL's salary cap has been successful, for sure. Teams aren't able to stay on top via free agency, and the success of drafts is still the key. A small market team can win a championship with 3 good drafts in a row and some smart FA pickups.
ccla
Active member
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 209
But are you sure they threatened to bench him if he did not rework the contract? Csn they be that stupid? Or is this something that russ himself put out there? I mean, they could have implied it but that is not illegal, or is it?
RiverDog
Well-known member
I agree. There's no problem in my mind with benching him for any reason, football, financial, injury avoidance, or otherwise. It's the threat that I feel constitutes an unfair labor practice.
Two months before they benched him he filed a complaint with his union that they were threatening to bench him if he did not rework his contract mid-season.
IMO, this far exceeds the preponderance of evidence needed for civil matters. It actually moves beyond reasonable doubt.
Could RW and/or his team have made this all up two months before the fact as part of a leveraged preventative strategy?
Sure. But without convincing evidence it is just conjecture and not allowed as evidence in arbitration or any other civil proceeding.
flv2
Well-known member
1 like isn't enough for this post. The NFL has thrived when other sorts haven't because its so competitive. Weaker teams can turn things around in a short period of time without needing the richest owner.
RiverDog
Well-known member
The fact that he filed a complaint to the union that he was threatened with benching is evidence of a threat? Not in my book. IMO there has to be something to corroborate Russell's accusation, otherwise it's just that, an unsupported accusation.
Besides, if it was a legitimate threat, why didn't they act on it when Russell called their bluff and refused to remove the clause? The fact that they continued to start Russell for 7 straight games after the supposed threat is evidence that there wasn't one. Russell could have wrongly implied a threat, misinterpreted what the Broncos said.
They went on a win streak after that so they couldn't use his play as an excuse for benching him.
ccla
Active member
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 209
Guys and Gals,
You know what? It us not OUR problem. I thank <insert your deity here> that the Broncos were stupid enough to hire Russ last year. I, for one, was absolutely sure he was exposed as a has been, but luckily i was proven wrong!!!
All props to the front office for that one!!!!
You know what? It us not OUR problem. I thank <insert your deity here> that the Broncos were stupid enough to hire Russ last year. I, for one, was absolutely sure he was exposed as a has been, but luckily i was proven wrong!!!
All props to the front office for that one!!!!
That’s BS. The NFL owners don’t pay the players. Players money comes out of TV contracts. The cap is a system setup to force players against each other when it comes to their contracts. There are no broke owners barely getting by in the NFL.
There are of course no owners that are waiting in soup lines. But there's rich, and then there's RICH. The Cowboys bring in 1.1 billion in revenue, compared with the Seahawks $550 million (in 2022). Remove the salary cap and the Cowboys become the Yankees, and the Seahawks become the Mariners, in MLB terms. There are probably owners that could (and would) take a loss and fund with their own money beyond team revenue if the cap weren't an issue. I'm thinking of the Broncos with Walton cash.
@RolandDeschain is right. The NBA and MLB have declining popularity and ratings. The NFL is increasing, and it is absolutely largely because in any given year any team has a shot to go to the playoffs. I for one have no desire to see the Cowboys in the Super Bowl every other year.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
Oh, my sweet summer child...
RiverDog
Well-known member
It's certainly one of the factors, but there's other reasons why MLB and NBA are declining in popularity besides parity. One is the length of the schedule. With 162 games in the MLB and 82 games in the NBA. In total, there are 1,230 regular season games in the NBA and 2,430 games in MLB. Compare that with 272 NFL games, so as a consequence there is more importance assigned to any given game. MLB and NBA games become commonplace, as opposed to an NFL game being the highlight of the week.
But your point is valid. The biggest single reason why NFL football is so entertaining is parity. It's too bad that college football is going the opposite direction with their rich getting richer and poor getting poorer model.
Last edited:
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
It's so weird that Sean Payton would have a total disregard for the NFL conduct rules.
chrispy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,082
- Reaction score
- 1,120
In order for it to be a threat, the Broncos would have wanted RCW to continue playing without an injury clause. They didn't. They dont. It seems obvious to me, but maybe just plausible to most, that they really just want to move on.
I believe RCW was told they're done with him and, to protect themselves financially, they're benching him. If he wants to take that clause out, then there's no downside to the Organization so that's the only way he could continue to play. In RCWs mind, that's a threat. There's no possible reality where he's not the preferred option over Stidham. In truth, the Broncos wanted to bench him for numerous reasons but were open to allowing him more playtime... but only if the risk was removed.
Whether this is a threat or a favor to RCW is all in the presentation. That will be impossible to prove and would never impose any damage on the Broncos. The entire drama-fest is RCW being himself: the 50mil/yr victim. He hopes it increases his value in Free Agency but, in the meantime, he gets some ego stroke from RG3 and Ryan Clark and other talking heads.
The Broncos are done with him. Their lack of any response tells me they don't see him as even worth the PR group investing 30 minutes to write a statement.
I believe RCW was told they're done with him and, to protect themselves financially, they're benching him. If he wants to take that clause out, then there's no downside to the Organization so that's the only way he could continue to play. In RCWs mind, that's a threat. There's no possible reality where he's not the preferred option over Stidham. In truth, the Broncos wanted to bench him for numerous reasons but were open to allowing him more playtime... but only if the risk was removed.
Whether this is a threat or a favor to RCW is all in the presentation. That will be impossible to prove and would never impose any damage on the Broncos. The entire drama-fest is RCW being himself: the 50mil/yr victim. He hopes it increases his value in Free Agency but, in the meantime, he gets some ego stroke from RG3 and Ryan Clark and other talking heads.
The Broncos are done with him. Their lack of any response tells me they don't see him as even worth the PR group investing 30 minutes to write a statement.
