PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Burnett calls Roger Goodell a liar



fordfixer
03-16-2011, 09:49 PM
Kevin Burnett calls Roger Goodell a liar
The National Football Post
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... ell_a_liar (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ai.shRrjO5Irsgr6XjchsTd9t7l_?slug=nfp-20110316_kevin_burnett_calls_roger_goodell_a_liar)

San Diego Chargers linebacker Kevin Burnett(notes) didn't mince words during an interview with XX Sports Radio in San Diego.

Reacting to Roger Goodell's statements regarding the breakdown in collective bargaining agreement talks, Burnett called the NFL commissioner a liar.

“Goodell’s full of it," Burnett said, per SportsRadioInterviews.com. "He’s a liar. You’re a blatant liar. ‘It’s our league, it’s we, we love the players, we want the league,’ but what have you done for the players? What have you done, in all honesty, to improve the game, besides fine guys, besides take money away from guys, besides change a game that you’ve never played? He’s done nothing to improve the game.”


Burnett said that Goodell hasn't helped players with drug problems.

“If a guy has a drug problem, give him an alternative, don’t just say, ‘Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games,'" Burnett said. "You put them in a drug program. OK, anybody can stick somebody in a nuthouse, but what else are you doing? What programs are you putting in place?”

Burnett said that Goodell is only worried about representing the owners.

Well, that makes sense since he works for the owners and Goodell would obviously beg to differ on whom he cares about.

"We all, as players, understand that this is a business and you have to make money," Burnett said. "We’re not negating that. We need Roger to say, ‘You know what? OK, we understand the owners need to make their money … let’s do something sweet for the players.’ Instead of trying to extend the season, you need to be trying to shorten it.

"They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well. In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. … That’s what bothers me.”

And Burnett praised former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who had a close rapport with the late union chief Gene Upshaw.

“Paul Tagliabue, he would talk about the players, he would help out the players and, when it came down to it, he and Gene would sit down, ‘OK, we need to get this done,'" Brunett said. "Owners talk about players that hold out of camp and we talk about players who walk out of camp … well, the owners signed this deal. They signed this deal. Yeah, it was an opt-out, but they signed this deal and now they want money back. Now they’re the player that’s holding out.”

jj28west
03-16-2011, 10:07 PM
Trying to keep emotion out of this but growing up I did not remember commishes like this except he was there when the trophy was being raised.

Is the commish elected by the owners or players?

fordfixer
03-16-2011, 10:11 PM
Trying to keep emotion out of this but growing up I did not remember commishes like this except he was there when the trophy was being raised.

Is the commish elected by the owners or players?


the owners I believe

Chadman
03-16-2011, 10:22 PM
Stop giving players microphones....


Geez...they are not helping themselves...

"They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well. In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. … That’s what bothers me.”

Is that the NFL's responsibility? For players to be upstanding citizens?? Shouldn't that be on...you know...the individual?

hawaiiansteel
03-19-2011, 02:12 PM
Updated: March 19, 2011

NFLPA responds with official letter


Associated Press

MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- The NFL's locked-out players wrote back to commissioner Roger Goodell on Saturday, responding to his letter to them by saying: "Your statements are false."

In their four-page letter, the players told Goodell that during labor negotiations, the league's owners did not justify "their demands for a massive give-back which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major pro sports."

Goodell wrote all active NFL players Thursday, outlining the league's description of its last proposal and cautioning that each day "puts our game and our shared economics further at risk."

The players' letter begins, "Dear Roger," and closes with "Sincerely," followed by the names of the 11 members of the NFL Players Association's executive committee: Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch, Saints quarterback Drew Brees, Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, Jets fullback Tony Richardson, Colts center Jeff Saturday, Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, Chiefs guard Brian Waters and former players Sean Morey and Kevin Mawae, the NFLPA president.

Each attended at least some of the 16 days of federal mediation in Washington that broke off March 11 without a new deal, so the collective bargaining agreement expired.

The union dissolved itself, allowing players to file a class-action antitrust suit in federal court that day. Hours later, owners locked out the players. That created the sport's first work stoppage since 1987, and players can't sign new contracts or get paid under existing ones. Their health insurance premiums are not being paid by teams.

A hearing on the players' request for a preliminary injunction to stop the lockout is scheduled for April 6 in Minneapolis, and there appears to be little chance of a return to bargaining before then.

Before the NFLPA decertified last Friday, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million. But a pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries, writes John Clayton. Story

In Saturday's letter, the players went through various parts of the offer the NFL made on the last day of negotiations.

"You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal," the players wrote to Goodell. "That proposal did not come until 12:30 [p.m.] on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation."

They concluded their letter by telling Goodell that if he has "any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues" in the antitrust suit filed by 10 players -- including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Brees -- he should contact the lawyers representing the former union.

Goodell ended his letter by saying: "I hope you will encourage your union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement."

Players were upset by that line, particularly the reference to "your union" -- the NFLPA renounced its status as a union and says it is now a trade association, which permits the court actions under antitrust laws; the league calls that move a "sham."

Steelers safety Ryan Clark said Goodell's letter was written "to create confusion, to create dissension among the players." Dallas Cowboys linebacker Bradie James thought Goodell's words were meant "to divide us; it's that simple."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6236160

SteelTorch
03-19-2011, 06:51 PM
“Goodell’s full of it," Burnett said, per SportsRadioInterviews.com. "He’s a liar. You’re a blatant liar. ‘It’s our league, it’s we, we love the players, we want the league,’ but what have you done for the players? What have you done, in all honesty, to improve the game, besides fine guys, besides take money away from guys, besides change a game that you’ve never played? He’s done nothing to improve the game.”

Probably my favorite part. Goodell is a businessman, he's all about making money. He's done more to change the league than any commish in the last 20 years - but in a bad way.

hawaiiansteel
03-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Originally Published: March 18, 2011

Owners' math simply doesn't add up

Salary cap can't roll back that far when contract numbers are on the rise

By John Clayton
ESPN.com


Something has bothered me about the stalled NFL labor talks for months.

The problem became crystal clear when full details of the NFL owners' last offer were revealed last Friday. Before the NFL Players Association decertified last Friday afternoon, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million, with hopes of getting a negotiating extension.

Although that was a move in the right direction and was a solid counter to the trade association's $151 million position, the number doesn't work. Because benefits count for $27 million of the $141 million offer, the salary cap number came to $114 million.

In that case, the salary cap would be a salary choke.

A pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries.

Low-revenue teams have complained about the $7 million yearly growth of the cap since 2006, which is one of the reasons low-revenue owners joined others in opting out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008. The cap went from $109 million in 2007 to $116 million in 2008 to $123 million in 2009. The 2009 number was so high that NFL teams as a whole were $163 million below it -- roughly $5 million of cap room per team.

Owners can try to roll back the cap, but rolling back the increasing price of signing starters is impossible. It's especially impossible this year, as there are 450 unsigned free agents. At the same time owners were pushing for a lower cap, they were trying to re-sign starters at the higher numbers. Richard Seymour of the Raiders got $15 million a year. Champ Bailey of the Broncos got $10.75 million. A.J. Hawk of the Packers received $6.75 million.

What used to be $5 million deals are going for $10 million. To make it work in 2011 dollars, teams can't take the cap too far backward.

Just to keep franchise players, a dozen teams tendered players at more than $10 million salaries for 2011. In 2007, when the cap was $109 million, there were only 10 $10 million-plus players league-wide. There were 16 in 2008.

That number has already doubled heading into the 2011 season. I know the average value of the contract doesn't reflect the yearly cap number because the first-year cap numbers are usually the lowest, but you simply can't squeeze too many $10 million-a-year contracts into lower caps.

The cap reality of these talks does offer hope of a settlement soon. No owner wants to get into a long-term bargaining agreement that is troubled from the start. Redskins owner Dan Snyder wrote $36 million worth of checks to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last season to "free up'' cap room for the future. He didn't take $36 million out of potential profit to agree to a salary cap that would prohibit him from signing top free agents.

Salary caps need space to breathe. Starting the cap too low would force established veteran teams to release players and only be able to sign replacements for close to the minimum salary. It would force teams to guarantee high-priced contracts, turning base salaries into pro-rated signing bonuses to lower the cap numbers. Teams haven't had to do that for years because the cap has been so high that teams have had plenty of room to operate.

One of the reasons I was optimistic about a deal between the owners and the association has been the focus on the cap number itself. In "All The President's Men," the theme was "follow the money.'' Follow the cap and follow the payrolls of teams in these talks and you'll learn a lot.

Owners didn't have a cap last year, but payrolls still rose about 6 percent to around $125.5 million per team. The plan was to save money by not having a minimum requirement for team payrolls. Plenty of teams saved, but the price of starters keeps rising because of the competitive nature of this sport.

Starting quarterbacks now go for $14 million-plus. Top defensive ends go for $10 million to $14 million. Top guards are $8 million a year and tackles go for $10 million or more. The franchise numbers alone tell you where salaries are headed.

The numbers haven't been totally crunched for 2010, but starters in general are making more than $3.4 million a year. Because of injuries, teams have to plan for not just a 53-man roster but have to figure to have 65 players or more on their cap by the end of the season as attrition alters their rosters.

I look at winning teams, such as the Indianapolis Colts, New York Giants, New York Jets and others that have 10 to 12 starters making $5 million a year or more, and realize they can't start deals with a salary cap too low.

Under those realities, the owners' last offer of a $114 million salary cap can only be viewed as a counter offer, not a final offer. For further proof, go back to the league's comments for the past week that owners agreed to the players' request for a $161 million player cost number in 2014. With the $27 million of benefits included in that concept, the 2014 cap would be around $134 million, only $4 million more than what was supposed to be the cap number in 2010.

The 2011 cap can't be too much lower than $120 million for teams to be able to function competitively. Teams that budget their money well would be required to spend only 90 percent of that cap.

That's why I think both sides will reach out to each other before the April 6 hearing date on the Tom Brady case to try to work out the final numbers. Players are asking for a cap in the $124 range. That's not unfair, but if the owners come to the middle and go for $119 million, it might promote a deal.

What won't work is going back to $114 million, but that is easy enough for everyone to see.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=6232635 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6232635)

Slapstick
03-20-2011, 05:25 PM
Stop giving players microphones....


Geez...they are not helping themselves...

"They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well. In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. … That’s what bothers me.”

Is that the NFL's responsibility? For players to be upstanding citizens?? Shouldn't that be on...you know...the individual?

I think his point is that his contract is with his team, not with the NFL. Therefore, in his opinion, the NFL has no business legislating his behavior as a free citizen.

Flawed logic, but I can kind of see his point...

Chadman
03-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Stop giving players microphones....


Geez...they are not helping themselves...

"They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well. In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. … That’s what bothers me.”

Is that the NFL's responsibility? For players to be upstanding citizens?? Shouldn't that be on...you know...the individual?

I think his point is that his contract is with his team, not with the NFL. Therefore, in his opinion, the NFL has no business legislating his behavior as a free citizen.

Flawed logic, but I can kind of see his point...

But....he needs it written into his contract?? Regardless of who it is he promies to be an 'upstanding citizen' for, he needs it written down, signed for & paid for for him to feel like it's something he needs to do????