Troy Vincent on the union

[Superman]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13170427/troy-vincent-talks-deflategate-more-qa-nfl

 

He dodges and plays politics in this interview, but he did say something that struck with me.

Look at the amount of money being spent on legal fees for a handful of people. It's millions and millions of dollars. We've got players that are hurting. We've got young men who don't know how to identify a good financial adviser. Men are in transition who aren't doing well, and yet eight to $10 million dollars a year is spent in court fees about who should make a decision on someone, who in some cases has committed a crime.

 

Think about that logically. Wouldn't it be better to spend our time and resources on the issues that are vital to our players -- past, present and future -- such as the players' total wellness and growing the game together?

 

 

How much time and money and energy and resources did the union spend on defending Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Jonathan Vilma, Greg Hardy, Richard Sherman, etc., players who mostly have proof did something wrong (illegal or against NFL rules), or in certain cases are most likely to have done something wrong? And all in an effort to undermine the league's ability to administer discipline, even though the league's authority to administer discipline was collectively bargained.

 

Meanwhile, most of those guys are coming from situations in their lives and with their families and friends where the odds are against them, the cultural upbringing is contrary to living life among the financially elite, they have no business skills, etc. How much more effective would it be to spend that time and money and energy on helping players make better decisions with their money, with their time, help them hire good consultants, etc.

[SteelCityColt]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13170427/troy-vincent-talks-deflategate-more-qa-nfl

 

He dodges and plays politics in this interview, but he did say something that struck with me.

 

How much time and money and energy and resources did the union spend on defending Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Jonathan Vilma, Greg Hardy, Richard Sherman, etc., players who mostly have proof did something wrong (illegal or against NFL rules), or in certain cases are most likely to have done something wrong? And all in an effort to undermine the league's ability to administer discipline, even though the league's authority to administer discipline was collectively bargained.

 

Meanwhile, most of those guys are coming from situations in their lives and with their families and friends where the odds are against them, the cultural upbringing is contrary to living life among the financially elite, they have no business skills, etc. How much more effective would it be to spend that time and money and energy on helping players make better decisions with their money, with their time, help them hire good consultants, etc.

 

A very well made point Superman, but as far as I understood it with all Unions this is what they do? They back you to hilt as long as you're paying up your dues even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the League has acted correctly (eventually anyway in the case of Rice!). 

[CR91]

having a brain fart. what did sherman do?

[amfootball]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13170427/troy-vincent-talks-deflategate-more-qa-nfl

 

He dodges and plays politics in this interview, but he did say something that struck with me.

 

How much time and money and energy and resources did the union spend on defending Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Jonathan Vilma, Greg Hardy, Richard Sherman, etc., players who mostly have proof did something wrong (illegal or against NFL rules), or in certain cases are most likely to have done something wrong? And all in an effort to undermine the league's ability to administer discipline, even though the league's authority to administer discipline was collectively bargained.

 

Meanwhile, most of those guys are coming from situations in their lives and with their families and friends where the odds are against them, the cultural upbringing is contrary to living life among the financially elite, they have no business skills, etc. How much more effective would it be to spend that time and money and energy on helping players make better decisions with their money, with their time, help them hire good consultants, etc.

Except the league LOST all of those cases with Hardy still in the balance. So it would seem that they can't see to administer their disciplinary actions in a way that is consistent with the CBA which has been the biggest issue with this administration since Roger took over ... and it is the union's job first and foremost to protect and fight for it members.

[Bad Morty]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13170427/troy-vincent-talks-deflategate-more-qa-nfl

 

He dodges and plays politics in this interview, but he did say something that struck with me.

 

How much time and money and energy and resources did the union spend on defending Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Jonathan Vilma, Greg Hardy, Richard Sherman, etc., players who mostly have proof did something wrong (illegal or against NFL rules), or in certain cases are most likely to have done something wrong? And all in an effort to undermine the league's ability to administer discipline, even though the league's authority to administer discipline was collectively bargained.

 

Meanwhile, most of those guys are coming from situations in their lives and with their families and friends where the odds are against them, the cultural upbringing is contrary to living life among the financially elite, they have no business skills, etc. How much more effective would it be to spend that time and money and energy on helping players make better decisions with their money, with their time, help them hire good consultants, etc.

They are all valid concerns, however why is it just on the union to spend their money on loftier things like this? What is the NFL doing with regards to these issues? This, to me, is a cheap shot at the union veiled by phony "concern" about issues the league itself should be taking a leadership position on. It also sounds like a guy worried about a lawsuit he might shortly be involved in that he doesn't have great odds to win.

[Superman]

having a brain fart. what did sherman do?

 

PEDs.

[buccolts]

Yet, if the Union doesn't back them, what is the Union good for?

 

Who's paying for Brady's appeal?

[Superman]

A very well made point Superman, but as far as I understood it with all Unions this is what they do? They back you to hilt as long as you're paying up your dues even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the League has acted correctly (eventually anyway in the case of Rice!). 

 

Just because it's typical union practice doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the members of the union. In this situation, it's obviously not.

[SteelCityColt]

Just because it's typical union practice doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the members of the union. In this situation, it's obviously not.

 

Now that is a good question to explore. Whom is the Union meant to serve and whom does it actually serve?

[Superman]

Except the league LOST all of those cases with Hardy still in the balance. So it would seem that they can't see to administer their disciplinary actions in a way that is consistent with the CBA which has been the biggest issue with this administration since Roger took over ... and it is the union's job first and foremost to protect and fight for it members.

 

How does the league losing cases have any bearing on the guilt of the individuals involved? The union has been responsible -- to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- for arguing technicalities to void punishments for people who obviously broke the rules.

 

Ray Rice is on video hitting his then-fiance. The union spent millions defending him, and the public (stupidly) backed this action because they don't like Roger Goodell. And still, the person who is in the wrong is Ray Rice. 

 

Jonathan Vilma paid into a bounty for hurting other players. The union spent millions defending him, and over a year fighting against punishment for him. And the public loved it.

 

And this whole thing about whether punishment is consistent with the CBA is bogus. Punishment is under the authority of the commissioner, yet the union and the courts have done everything they can to litigate that authority -- collectively bargained authority -- away from the commissioner. Again, on the grounds of technicalities. For the benefit of obviously guilty individuals, in several instances.

 

How does any of this help the league, the union, or most importantly, the players? At best, it's hypocritical. 

[Superman]

Yet, if the Union doesn't back them, what is the Union good for?

 

Who's paying for Brady's appeal?

 

There's a difference between paying for an appeal and using their bully pulpit to publicly defend a person who is on video punching a woman in an elevator.

[Superman]

Now that is a good question to explore. Whom is the Union meant to serve and whom does it actually serve?

 

They're supposed to serve their members, present and former. They file suit against the league in cases regarding player safety and concussions and so on, yet when a player is suspended for disregarding player safety -- Bountygate -- the union defends the player that was proven to have arranged the entire thing. 

 

Their interests are obviously conflicted at times, which isn't a surprise when they represent thousands of individuals. But their #1 interest, especially lately, is with undermining the NFL and it's collectively bargained authority.

[Superman]

They are all valid concerns, however why is it just on the union to spend their money on loftier things like this? What is the NFL doing with regards to these issues? This, to me, is a cheap shot at the union veiled by phony "concern" about issues the league itself should be taking a leadership position on. It also sounds like a guy worried about a lawsuit he might shortly be involved in that he doesn't have great odds to win.

 

That's rich.

 

There's nothing cheap about pointing out the hypocrisy of the union. It hardly even needs to be pointed out. I've been saying this since DeMaurice Smith was elected.

[jvan1973]

Except the league LOST all of those cases with Hardy still in the balance. So it would seem that they can't see to administer their disciplinary actions in a way that is consistent with the CBA which has been the biggest issue with this administration since Roger took over ... and it is the union's job first and foremost to protect and fight for it members.

Its funny how your tune has changed since the ray rice appeal

[BrentMc11]

That's rich.

 

There's nothing cheap about pointing out the hypocrisy of the union. It hardly even needs to be pointed out. I've been saying this since DeMaurice Smith was elected.

I am going to stay mostly out of this since I got into a big stink over Bounty Gate.

 

The NFLPA has one job and one job only.  It is to protect the player's rights at all cost. Locals all over the country are about 'making money' too.  Where else would someone get his livlihood back after he knocked the crap out of his wife?

 

jvan knows my stance.....I won't crack and I did not with Hoffa Jr.

[BrentMc11]

I do have to ask one question that I cannot answer,  How much in Union Dues do the players pay???  

[Superman]

I am going to stay mostly out of this since I got into a big stink over Bounty Gate.

 

The NFLPA has one job and one job only.  It is to protect the player's rights at all cost. Locals all over the country are about 'making money' too.  Where else would someone get his livlihood back after he knocked the crap out of his wife?

 

jvan knows my stance.....I won't crack and I did not with Hoffa Jr.

 

The union's job is actually to protect the members of the union within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. What they've done is collectively bargain authority to the commissioner, then when they don't like the decisions the commissioner makes, they sue the league in federal court.

 

If the league did this -- sued the players every time the players did something the league didn't agree with -- how would that go over? "Dez Bryant, if you hold out of training camp, we're going to sue you." 

[BrentMc11]

The union's job is actually to protect the members of the union within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. What they've done is collectively bargain authority to the commissioner, then when they don't like the decisions the commissioner makes, they sue the league in federal court.

 

If the league did this -- sued the players every time the players did something the league didn't agree with -- how would that go over? "Dez Bryant, if you hold out of training camp, we're going to sue you." 

I agree with you here.  If they do hold out on an existing contract they do set a date when they will not pay the player.

 

The real problem IS the CBA, leading to too much authority for "The Roger."

[Superman]

I agree with you here.  If they do hold out on an existing contract they do set a date when they will not pay the player.

 

The real problem IS the CBA, leading to too much authority for "The Roger."

 

It's collectively bargained. The union should have made that as big a sticking point as they did their split of revenue. They prioritized their money, and now they want to litigate away the authority they gave the commissioner. 

 

It's like me negotiating a contract with my employer, and I agree to this pay rate, but they don't want to pay for my parking pass. I say fine, let's get to work. Is it right for me to sue them when they refuse to pay for the parking pass? That's what I agreed to.

 

And I was mostly sympathetic to the players' side during CBA negotiations. The NFL planned to opt out early and then lock the players out, and refused to negotiate in good faith in the meantime. Along the way, there was likely a ton of collusion between the teams, against the players and the union. And then when the dust settled, the NFL basically held a parade celebrating themselves for coming up with a great deal, when the players hadn't even agreed to it yet. Then the union was under the gun and looking like the bad guy for telling everyone to slow down and reviewing all the details. 

 

When they saw the final product, they said 'oh, they're giving us our split? Fine, let Goodell have disciplinary authority and appeal authority. Let's get back to work.' Now, they're suing for their parking pass. It's duplicitous. 

[chad72]

It's collectively bargained. The union should have made that as big a sticking point as they did their split of revenue. They prioritized their money, and now they want to litigate away the authority they gave the commissioner. 

 

It's like me negotiating a contract with my employer, and I agree to this pay rate, but they don't want to pay for my parking pass. I say fine, let's get to work. Is it right for me to sue them when they refuse to pay for the parking pass? That's what I agreed to.

 

And I was mostly sympathetic to the players' side during CBA negotiations. The NFL planned to opt out early and then lock the players out, and refused to negotiate in good faith in the meantime. Along the way, there was likely a ton of collusion between the teams, against the players and the union. And then when the dust settled, the NFL basically held a parade celebrating themselves for coming up with a great deal, when the players hadn't even agreed to it yet. Then the union was under the gun and looking like the bad guy for telling everyone to slow down and reviewing all the details. 

 

When they saw the final product, they said 'oh, they're giving us our split? Fine, let Goodell have disciplinary authority and appeal authority. Let's get back to work.' Now, they're suing for their parking pass. It's duplicitous. 

 

Well, they thought the CBA terms would be like paper contracts that players sign all the time reaping the beneficial parts of the contract.  When the player sees others in their position making more while under contract, they hold out for more hoping the team will budge. Similarly, the union feels it can keep pushing back for leeway despite knowing what they signed are now not deemed beneficial to them.

 

I think this is why the owners also like Goodell because he is not afraid to call the union's bluff and is willing to be in the line of fire on behalf of the owners.

[BrentMc11]

It's collectively bargained. The union should have made that as big a sticking point as they did their split of revenue. They prioritized their money, and now they want to litigate away the authority they gave the commissioner. 

 

It's like me negotiating a contract with my employer, and I agree to this pay rate, but they don't want to pay for my parking pass. I say fine, let's get to work. Is it right for me to sue them when they refuse to pay for the parking pass? That's what I agreed to.

 

And I was mostly sympathetic to the players' side during CBA negotiations. The NFL planned to opt out early and then lock the players out, and refused to negotiate in good faith in the meantime. Along the way, there was likely a ton of collusion between the teams, against the players and the union. And then when the dust settled, the NFL basically held a parade celebrating themselves for coming up with a great deal, when the players hadn't even agreed to it yet. Then the union was under the gun and looking like the bad guy for telling everyone to slow down and reviewing all the details. 

 

When they saw the final product, they said 'oh, they're giving us our split? Fine, let Goodell have disciplinary authority and appeal authority. Let's get back to work.' Now, they're suing for their parking pass. It's duplicitous. 

I was more like....What the heck are they doing?  They are giving the POWER to the Non-union Commissioner.  That would not even work 'well' in Utopia

[NFLfan]

The union's job is actually to protect the members of the union within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. What they've done is collectively bargain authority to the commissioner, then when they don't like the decisions the commissioner makes, they sue the league in federal court.

If the league did this -- sued the players every time the players did something the league didn't agree with -- how would that go over? "Dez Bryant, if you hold out of training camp, we're going to sue you."

While I agree with your original point in the thread, this here sounds a bit disingenuous for you. Are you saying that because the NFLPA "collectively bargain(ed) authority to the commissioner", the commissioner should have absolute power to make whatever decision he chooses even if it is not reasonable? Should the NFLPA just sit back and say, "Oh well, we collectively bargained authority to the commissioner. Why bother to appeal this outrageous punishment"? That is unrealistic.

Now, regarding the Dez Bryant comment, suing is unnecessary. The league just fines him. That is easier than suing.

[Superman]

I was more like....What the heck are they doing?  They are giving the POWER to the Non-union Commissioner.  That would not even work 'well' in Utopia

 

I don't see what's wrong with giving that authority to the commissioner, and I don't really think any of his punishments have been unfair. As a matter of fact, when he seemed to start lightening up on player discipline, it got him in trouble.

 

Which brings us back to Troy Vincent's comments. I have little sympathy for knuckleheads to break the rules or the law, and then want to complain about the big bad commissioner not being fair with them. Reminds me of this:

 

[Superman]

While I agree with your original point in the thread, this here sounds a bit disingenuous for you. Are you saying that because the NFLPA "collectively bargain(ed) authority to the commissioner", the commissioner should have absolute power to make whatever decision he chooses even if it is not reasonable? Should the NFLPA just sit back and say, "Oh well, we collectively bargained authority to the commissioner. Why bother to appeal this outrageous punishment"? That is unrealistic.

Now, regarding the Dez Bryant comment, suing is unnecessary. The league just fines him. That is easier than suing.

 

The league's right to fine Dez is collectively bargained. If they were to sue him, that would be outside the scope of their collectively bargained authority, which is my point.

 

As for my comment about the commissioner's authority, no I'm not saying he should have absolute power even if it's not exercised in a reasonable manner. The union could have kept their lawsuit against the league active, but they agreed to drop that as well. They could have attached to that suit the use of power as exercised by the commissioner. They could have negotiated an opt-out for themselves. They did none of that, because they wanted to get back to work, and they got the money they asked for. 

 

And this is more a matter of opinion and will differ from person to person, but I don't think the commissioner has made any outrageous decisions with regard to player discipline. The only one that comes close is only suspending Rice two games, and that's on the opposite end of the spectrum. 

[Valpo2004]

Just because it's typical union practice doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the members of the union. In this situation, it's obviously not.

 

Ultimately I think a lot of it has to do with precedent.  Once a precedent get's established it's very hard to fight it. 

[chad72]

Ultimately I think a lot of it has to do with precedent.  Once a precedent get's established it's very hard to fight it. 

 

The problem there is the precedent itself is inconsistent. I think Big Ben was suspended 4 games (reduced from 6 if I remember right) while Ray Rice got 2 games. When personal conduct punishment is all over the place, Goodell and the union choose to latch on to the precedent that is expedient to them.

[amfootball]

How does the league losing cases have any bearing on the guilt of the individuals involved? The union has been responsible -- to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- for arguing technicalities to void punishments for people who obviously broke the rules.

 

Ray Rice is on video hitting his then-fiance. The union spent millions defending him, and the public (stupidly) backed this action because they don't like Roger Goodell. And still, the person who is in the wrong is Ray Rice. 

 

Jonathan Vilma paid into a bounty for hurting other players. The union spent millions defending him, and over a year fighting against punishment for him. And the public loved it.

 

And this whole thing about whether punishment is consistent with the CBA is bogus. Punishment is under the authority of the commissioner, yet the union and the courts have done everything they can to litigate that authority -- collectively bargained authority -- away from the commissioner. Again, on the grounds of technicalities. For the benefit of obviously guilty individuals, in several instances.

 

How does any of this help the league, the union, or most importantly, the players? At best, it's hypocritical. 

Guilt is one thing, punishment is quite another. Once Goodell came in as Joe law and decided that he was going to punish for the appearance of wrong doing he opened this Pandora's box that you and I have been over time and again. A player has a right to play and Goodell can't just decide on a whim by holding his finger up in the air who gets what punishment for X crime. The CBA has rules and perimeters that he seems to feel does not apply. Of course the PA is going to fight him because they almost always win when they do because his incompetence and generally buffoonery is hard to miss. 

 

And it is quite ironic that Vincent is talking about spending when the league paid $5 mil to investigate air ball pressure and got back a report full of holes and mickey mouse science. Talk about a waste of money. And then for the trump card he wants to couch this in the PA not caring about real player needs as if the league is exempt for also helping the cause with its billions of dollars?? Gimmee a break. What a class A hypocrite.

[Valpo2004]

I do have to ask one question that I cannot answer,  How much in Union Dues do the players pay???  

 

This is a bit dated but I found this article from '09 that gives the figures from that time.  

 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2009/09/Issue-7/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/NFLPA-Increasing-Yearly-Player-Dues-To-Establish-Lockout-Fund.aspx

 

Answer is apparently $15K for that year.  NFL Agents apparently also pay like $1500 to $2000 depending on how many clients they have.

 

Personally given the wide variety of salaries made in the NFL they aught to consider the dues based on a percentage of money you make in that season from playing football.  Seems unfair that a UDFA at the bottom of the 53 man roster on the NFL min salary has to pay the same dues as Aaron Rodgers who could probably pay his dues out of the money he finds in his couch cushions.  

[Valpo2004]

The problem there is the precedent itself is inconsistent. I think Big Ben was suspended 4 games (reduced from 6 if I remember right) while Ray Rice got 2 games. When personal conduct punishment is all over the place, Goodell and the union choose to latch on to the precedent that is expedient to them.

 

I agree with you. . . the league doesn't seem to have any consistency on it's own punishments.  

 

Shoot they just last year enacted that 6 game suspension for domestic violence but havn't once found a single player to apply it to as they've considered every player that's come before them with domestic violence allegations as an exception.

[Superman]

The problem there is the precedent itself is inconsistent. I think Big Ben was suspended 4 games (reduced from 6 if I remember right) while Ray Rice got 2 games. When personal conduct punishment is all over the place, Goodell and the union choose to latch on to the precedent that is expedient to them.

 

That's another thing: People want every situation to be handled exactly like the last, except when they think it should be handled differently. It's why we hate things like the 3 strikes laws, but then we act like every player discipline issue should be handled the same.

 

In reality, Roethlisberger was twice accused of sexual assault in a short time frame, and the commissioner chose a strong punishment after weighing the entirety of the situation. In contrast, Ray Rice had a squeaky clean image, and was thought to have done something terrible as a one-off. The prosecutors reached the conclusion that he would be put in the diversion program as a first time offender (which was at their discretion, and which Rice accepted), and Goodell mistakenly followed their lead and went light on Rice. Still, while we can look back and see obviously that Goodell messed that up, the circumstances were very different, and should have been handled differently. It doesn't make sense to say "well Roethlisberger got four games, so Rice should get four games." 

[Bad Morty]

By abusing the authority that was collectively bargained to him, Goodell is all but guaranteeing a holy war over this issue when it comes time to do the next deal. It's one thing to win a concession...it's another thing to throw it in the face of the losers when you know you're going to eventually be back at the bargaining table.

[BrentMc11]

I don't see what's wrong with giving that authority to the commissioner, and I don't really think any of his punishments have been unfair. As a matter of fact, when he seemed to start lightening up on player discipline, it got him in trouble.

 

Which brings us back to Troy Vincent's comments. I have little sympathy for knuckleheads to break the rules or the law, and then want to complain about the big bad commissioner not being fair with them. Reminds me of this:

 

Good one.  I have no problem if it works.  I am sure a whole lot of people think is broken in some capacity.  I always say, you gave him authority, do not cry or ***** about it.

[Superman]

Guilt is one thing, punishment is quite another. Once Goodell came in as Joe law and decided that he was going to punish for the appearance of wrong doing he opened this Pandora's box that you and I have been over time and again. A player has a right to play and Goodell can't just decide on a whim by holding his finger up in the air who gets what punishment for X crime. The CBA has rules and perimeters that he seems to feel does not apply. Of course the PA is going to fight him because they almost always win when they do because his incompetence and generally buffoonery is hard to miss. 

 

And it is quite ironic that Vincent is talking about spending when the league paid $5 mil to investigate air ball pressure and got back a report full of holes and mickey mouse science. Talk about a waste of money. And then for the trump card he wants to couch this in the PA not caring about real player needs as if the league is exempt for also helping the cause with its billions of dollars?? Gimmee a break. What a class A hypocrite.

 

A player doesn't have an unconditional right to play.

 

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, it's general nonsense that's been asked and answered previously. This thread is NOT about Deflategate.

[shakedownstreet]

Who's paying for Brady's appeal?

 

i bet Gisele buys his clothes & tells him how to wear his hair

[BrentMc11]

This is a bit dated but I found this article from '09 that gives the figures from that time.  

 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2009/09/Issue-7/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/NFLPA-Increasing-Yearly-Player-Dues-To-Establish-Lockout-Fund.aspx

 

Answer is apparently $15K for that year.  NFL Agents apparently also pay like $1500 to $2000 depending on how many clients they have.

 

Personally given the wide variety of salaries made in the NFL they aught to consider the dues based on a percentage of money you make in that season from playing football.  Seems unfair that a UDFA at the bottom of the 53 man roster on the NFL min salary has to pay the same dues as Aaron Rodgers who could probably pay his dues out of the money he finds in his couch cushions.  

With the number players alone not counting agents based JUST on 90 man roster....About 4.8 million bucks in dues.  I went to $17,000 but I am not a sports money authority.  

 

Thanks by the way for the link. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by BrentMc11

[Superman]

By abusing the authority that was collectively bargained to him, Goodell is all but guaranteeing a holy war over this issue when it comes time to do the next deal. It's one thing to win a concession...it's another thing to throw it in the face of the losers when you know you're going to eventually be back at the bargaining table.

 

Define "abusing authority." Basically just suspending Tom Brady?

 

'Jonathan Vilma, you arranged and persisted in a bounty program to hurt other players. You're suspended for a year.' Abuse?

 

'Greg Hardy, you beat up your girlfriend and threatened to kill her. You're suspended for ten games.' Abuse?

[amfootball]

A player doesn't have an unconditional right to play.

 

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, it's general nonsense that's been asked and answered previously. This thread is NOT about Deflategate.

Who said a player has an unconditional right to play? We are talking about punishments and that is something that Roger has been very inconsistent with and has lost in appeals/court as a result. Honestly, I have no idea what Vincent is crying about here. I could see if the PA was wasting millions defending their players and losing but they are winning the majority of them. That is money well spent as that is their job - to defend their members when they are unfairly treated. Perhaps he should spend more time looking at the league and how they can tighten up their disciplinary process to keep losing every time. I did see they are hiring an investigative director so we will see how that goes ...

[Valpo2004]

With the number players alone not counting agents based JUST on 90 man roster....About 4.8 million bucks in dues.  I went to $17,000 but I am not a sports money authority.  

 

Thanks by the way for the link. 

 

I think you missed a zero.  For a 90 man roster that would be $43.2 Million. 

 

However I'm guessing they only charge you dues if you are on the 53 man roster, not if you are cut in training camp.  That puts it at 25.44 Million.

 

There might be some dues for practice squad players though, so that may up it.  

[amfootball]

Even more laughable, Vincent admitted on 60 minutes to have never read the Mueller report, http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2015/02/03/Troy-Vincent-Mueller.aspx

 

Oy vey!

[BrentMc11]

I think you missed a zero.  For a 90 man roster that would be $43.2 Million. 

 

However I'm guessing they only charge you dues if you are on the 53 man roster, not if you are cut in training camp.  That puts it at 25.44 Million.

 

There might be some dues for practice squad players though, so that may up it.  

I am laughing my butt off.  HA HA!  I knew I would do something wrong.  

 

You probably are correct, but if you play in even a preseason game you have to pay some kind of dues...may be like an agent's dues???  I am still laughing.