way to go congress, it's about time those who played the game are cared for..........

ssmitty · 06-27-2007, 06:49 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/sp...ll&oref=slogin

hagan714 · 06-27-2007, 07:21 PM

Why are they so surprised, I guess they never had to deal with disability rules and regulations. Even temp. disability is a pain in the but. Just try to reup for another 6 months. The system does sux

ScottyRo · 06-27-2007, 09:35 PM

I just have to think that our Congress has better things to do than this and how very hypocritical it is for them to make mockery of someone else's disability plan.

blacksaint · 06-27-2007, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

I just have to think that our Congress has better things to do than this and how very hypocritical it is for them to make mockery of someone else's disability plan.

Well said ScottyRo, well said indeed. It's like they're always looking in other people backyards, when the weeds in their own backyard grows way out of control, besides the NFL and it's Player Union is not the MLB they won't buckle or submit to pressure from Congress. This situation is going to have to be work out amongst themselves, no Congress, no Media, just them acting like adults and addressing a serious issue.

WhoDat205 · 06-28-2007, 09:27 AM

Regardless of your thoughts about congress, something needs to be done about the cuncussion problem. These are the guys that built the NFL, and they did it for less money than a lot of us make today. The players today make enough money to plan for their own retirement/disability, but those guys from the 60's? They deserve to be supported by the $7 BILLION industry that they built.

ScottyRo · 06-28-2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by WhoDat205

Regardless of your thoughts about congress, something needs to be done about the cuncussion problem. These are the guys that built the NFL, and they did it for less money than a lot of us make today. The players today make enough money to plan for their own retirement/disability, but those guys from the 60's? They deserve to be supported by the $7 BILLION industry that they built.

That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry?

Tobias-Reiper · 06-28-2007, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry?

Very well said.

And I would like to add that, while former NFL players might have made less than what we make today, back in the day they made more money than the average Joe. Obviously, some of them knew how to manage it, some didn't.

ssmitty · 06-28-2007, 01:53 PM

you have to start someplace........
given the benefits package most major co.s provide their employees, even many yrs ago, does not seem to jell with what nfl players recieved, but, since i don't have that on paper in front of me, i'm not sure....
i was reading, where are they now and came across bob lily......
you all do remember him, don't you?
anyway, his nfl benefits per month are like 100.00..........
now, compare that to a major co in the 70's of your choice and tell me what an average employee who put in 10 yrs or so would have coming to him/her.
i'd say it's a few more dollars.....
anyway, you're right, big co.s do not take of their own, but isn't it time they do? if not now, when?

WhoDat205 · 06-28-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry?

Apples and oranges, ScottyRo.

First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93.

Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes.

Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average.

Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50.

Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close.

ScottyRo · 06-28-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by WhoDat205

Apples and oranges, ScottyRo.

First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93.

I was using truckers as ONE example of employees who injure themselves for their company but really don't get much in return. In that context I am comparing apples to apples. Plus, I'm not sure how often Congress has held hearings strictly to listen to former truckers who don't think they're getting enough out of their disability plans. Maybe they have, but I doubt it.

Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes.

I'm not going to go back and look at the history of worker's compensation laws to verify that what you say as true today was true back then. Again, don't attack the "trucker" example so hard. That was just an example of ONE group.

Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average.

Shelf life of the player is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long after their injury they have to live unless the disability payments stopped. Maybe they do stop for former NFL players and that'd be a problem for me. But I still think they should file a lawsuit rather than getting congress to hold hearings so the congressmen can be on TV.

Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50.

I'm not comparing brain injuries to back problems. I'm talking about employees who become disabled by their jobs and used truckers as one example. Don't add to what I wrote. I learned a while back on forums not to use examples because people tend to assail the example instead of the point. I slipped up and used one.

But on that note, you've probably never tried both of these injuries so you're not really in a position to say for sure which you would choose if given the choice. You're only guessing.

Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close.

Exactly, I get the feeling that the former players are concerned with not getting a piece of the big pie because they played so early in the NFL's history rather than concerned with being denied benefits. (I'm not saying there are no valid cases where a former player was wrongly denied benefits).

My point overall that is being overlooked is that I just don't see this as being Congress' business. It seems to be more about congressional public appearances with a presidential election year coming up than actual concern for the players and a complete waste of tax money (but what isn't, these days?).

06-27-2007, 06:49 PM	#1
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	way to go congress, it's about time those who played the game are cared for.......... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/sp...ll&oref=slogin
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

06-27-2007, 11:17 PM	#4
blacksaint DARE TO ENTER Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Home Sweet Home, NEW ORLEANS, La. Posts: 1,154	Originally Posted by ScottyRo I just have to think that our Congress has better things to do than this and how very hypocritical it is for them to make mockery of someone else's disability plan. Well said ScottyRo, well said indeed. It's like they're always looking in other people backyards, when the weeds in their own backyard grows way out of control, besides the NFL and it's Player Union is not the MLB they won't buckle or submit to pressure from Congress. This situation is going to have to be work out amongst themselves, no Congress, no Media, just them acting like adults and addressing a serious issue.

06-28-2007, 12:31 PM	#6
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Originally Posted by WhoDat205 Regardless of your thoughts about congress, something needs to be done about the cuncussion problem. These are the guys that built the NFL, and they did it for less money than a lot of us make today. The players today make enough money to plan for their own retirement/disability, but those guys from the 60's? They deserve to be supported by the $7 BILLION industry that they built. That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry?

06-28-2007, 01:48 PM	#7
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by ScottyRo That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry? Very well said. And I would like to add that, while former NFL players might have made less than what we make today, back in the day they made more money than the average Joe. Obviously, some of them knew how to manage it, some didn't.

06-28-2007, 01:53 PM	#8
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	you have to start someplace........ given the benefits package most major co.s provide their employees, even many yrs ago, does not seem to jell with what nfl players recieved, but, since i don't have that on paper in front of me, i'm not sure.... i was reading, where are they now and came across bob lily...... you all do remember him, don't you? anyway, his nfl benefits per month are like 100.00.......... now, compare that to a major co in the 70's of your choice and tell me what an average employee who put in 10 yrs or so would have coming to him/her. i'd say it's a few more dollars..... anyway, you're right, big co.s do not take of their own, but isn't it time they do? if not now, when?
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-27-2007, 07:21 PM	#2
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	Why are they so surprised, I guess they never had to deal with disability rules and regulations. Even temp. disability is a pain in the but. Just try to reup for another 6 months. The system does sux

06-27-2007, 09:35 PM	#3
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	I just have to think that our Congress has better things to do than this and how very hypocritical it is for them to make mockery of someone else's disability plan.

06-28-2007, 09:27 AM	#5
WhoDat205 Prediction Pain Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 1,082 Blog Entries: 2	Regardless of your thoughts about congress, something needs to be done about the cuncussion problem. These are the guys that built the NFL, and they did it for less money than a lot of us make today. The players today make enough money to plan for their own retirement/disability, but those guys from the 60's? They deserve to be supported by the $7 BILLION industry that they built.

06-28-2007, 02:02 PM	#9
WhoDat205 Prediction Pain Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 1,082 Blog Entries: 2	Originally Posted by ScottyRo That could be said for any industry, any company. Truck drivers are notorious for having back problems that disable them and the entire country's economy is built on product being delivered, but there's no congressional hearing about the unfairness of their position. You could probably find industry after inustry and company after comany where employees wore their bodies out for very little pay compared to what is made now and what the company raked in who get much less than an average of $63k in disability benefits each year. Why is it so much more important when you talk about the sports industry? Apples and oranges, ScottyRo. First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93. Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes. Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average. Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50. Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close.
	"defence's personal to allwats double team or watch is over, that one reason why the saints or not any good." - Vador101

06-28-2007, 05:42 PM	#10
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Originally Posted by WhoDat205 Apples and oranges, ScottyRo. First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93. I was using truckers as ONE example of employees who injure themselves for their company but really don't get much in return. In that context I am comparing apples to apples. Plus, I'm not sure how often Congress has held hearings strictly to listen to former truckers who don't think they're getting enough out of their disability plans. Maybe they have, but I doubt it. Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes. I'm not going to go back and look at the history of worker's compensation laws to verify that what you say as true today was true back then. Again, don't attack the "trucker" example so hard. That was just an example of ONE group. Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average. Shelf life of the player is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long after their injury they have to live unless the disability payments stopped. Maybe they do stop for former NFL players and that'd be a problem for me. But I still think they should file a lawsuit rather than getting congress to hold hearings so the congressmen can be on TV. Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50. I'm not comparing brain injuries to back problems. I'm talking about employees who become disabled by their jobs and used truckers as one example. Don't add to what I wrote. I learned a while back on forums not to use examples because people tend to assail the example instead of the point. I slipped up and used one. But on that note, you've probably never tried both of these injuries so you're not really in a position to say for sure which you would choose if given the choice. You're only guessing. Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close. Exactly, I get the feeling that the former players are concerned with not getting a piece of the big pie because they played so early in the NFL's history rather than concerned with being denied benefits. (I'm not saying there are no valid cases where a former player was wrongly denied benefits). My point overall that is being overlooked is that I just don't see this as being Congress' business. It seems to be more about congressional public appearances with a presidential election year coming up than actual concern for the players and a complete waste of tax money (but what isn't, these days?).