Gene Upshaw, the Hall-of-Fame offensive tackle and current head of the NFL Players Association, is under fire for his failure to assist former players in collecting on pension and health claims made to the union.Upshaw, who reportedly earns close to $7 million annually, has repeatedly sided with the union in its allocations to the former-player pool. Retirees impacted by his decisions have called them outrageous.
As a former player, Upshaw should understand that retired NFLers need extensive medical treatment—and that many of them can't work full-time because of injuries suffered during their careers.
Such famous retired players as Mike Ditka, Harry Carson, Daryl Johnston, and Merril Hoge have spoken out against the NFLPA's unfair policies.
The crux of the problem is that voting by active players determines the amount of funding allocated to the pool for disability benefits. The active players—many of them millionaires—have been low-balling the pool, thus leaving many retired players without resources to care for themselves.
And one more thing—only the active members vote for the union president.
Rather than fighting for his former colleagues, Upshaw has pandered to the current players—in order to maintain his lucrative post atop the NFLPA.
"I'm sure (Upshaw) is laughing all the way to the bank," said Bruce Laird, a former Colt who leads an activist NFL retiree group in Baltimore. "But the fact remains that the system for partial and permanent disability is absolutely flawed."
"I'd love to extend an invitation to Mr. Upshaw to come to my house and see how other guys live," said Brian DeMarco, a former Jacksonville and Cincinnati lineman who suffered extensive back and leg injuries during his NFL career.
DeMarco's family has been homeless three times in the last four years because of medical bills from his football injuries.
"Upshaw owes his entire life to football," DeMarco says of the union boss, "and now he's stepping away from the guys he sweat with and bled with.
Of the 8,500 players that have retired from the NFL since 1960, less than five percent receive disability benefits.
Yesterday, Kansas City Chiefs lineman Kyle Turley, flanked by Ditka, announced that he would donate his $25,000 salary from an upcoming game to assist needy retired players. He urged others to join him.
"We make a lot of money playing this game and it's because of the guys that played before us," Turley said.
Gene Upshaw, if you read this...
You know that you've sold out your contemporaries—as well as the forefathers and founders of this great game.
How can you possibly look at yourself in the mirror every day?
This article is also featured on
http://www.blognyg.com
14 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Turd Ferguson about 1 year ago
Great article. Gene, like my namesake, is a real turd.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bryan Goldberg about 1 year ago
This is disgraceful. I've always felt that current athletes, who make a ton of money, should do what they can to honor and help those stars who came before them. Those stars MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR TODAY'S ATHLETES TO BE MILLIONAIRES.
This is a great article, and really has me fired up, to be honest.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dave Finocchio about 1 year ago
Voting by active players determines how much money is allocated for former players? Are you serious? Is this really true?
If so, it's one of the most out-of-whack decision-making situations I've ever heard of. Is anyone surprised that retirees guys are get short changed by current players who aren't affected what so ever by their allocation decisions?
It seems to me that their should be a board of current and former players who are elected. The representatives from the current players would be voted on by...current players. The representatives from the retired players would be voted on by...retired players.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zander Freund about 1 year ago
"Of the 8,500 players that have retired from the NFL since 1960, less than five percent receive disability benefits."
Honestly, reading this article puts tears in my eyes and makes my skin crawl. These mighty men who played the game without proper padding, million dollar salaries, and rules designed to protect them from brutal hits put their health on the line for the entertainment of our nation.
Years later, while the current players of the NFL are rolling in money, the old players do not have access to the medical benefits they need to take care of their broken bodies. The idea that a former NFL player would have to sell his house to pay for his medical bills when the league could very easily help him and his family out is appalling.
Something needs to change, and change fast. The league needs to make this a top priority. No, it isn't a profit enhancing marketing ploy like moving the Super Bowl to London but damn it, it's the right thing to do.
These are the pioneers of the great game of football we're talking about here. And you're totally right John: Gene Upshaw, of all people, ought to know better.
Shame on you Mr. Upshaw. Shame on you Mr. Goodell. And shame on any of the current players who low balled the greats that made their lavish lifestyles possible in the first place.
It's at least a good sign that Kyle Turley is willing to put his money where his mouth is in an effort to help the older injured players. Hopefully others will follow suit; it surely doesn't hurt that Mike Ditka is rallying the cause.
This has been a problem for some time now. I remember sports illustrated running an article at least five years ago which took a good hard look at the state of NFL players from the past and the conclusion was the same.
It's not that difficult to fix—all it requires is for a few powerful individuals in the league to step up and do the right thing. It starts with you Mr. Upshaw: time to remember your roots and stop being a such a money-hungry piece of filth.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Duberstein about 1 year ago
John Fennelly ought to spend more time on research and less time reading press releases from the likes of Mike Ditka. His article about NFL health and retirement benefits is interesting and very shoddy. Next time, go beyond clipping together bits and pieces from various articles featuring a bunch of malcontents who should have known better.
It's obvious he never contacted anyone at the union for their side/view and took Ditka et. al's word as accurate. Of course, during their NFL careers, neither he nor any of his buddies were involved with the union or did anything personally to further player rights;
Did he, for example, talk to Sylvia Mackey about who really stood by John over the past decade? I doubt it.
Did he talk to anyone at the pension board offices in Baltimore? Or even attempt to talk to any current player reps? Or Troy Vincent?
And before I continue, let me emphasize that I was there during the period when these so-called limits on retirees took place. Given the past history of savaging Gene by the likes of Ditka and Joe DeLamielleure, I understand why he may have felt the congressional hearing would fare better without his being in the room. As for attempting to get Upshaw s detailed point of view, after having been an NFLPA staff member for nearly 25 years I know that Gene steadfastly believes he is only responsible to one group and one group alone currently active and potentially active players, the members of the union s bargaining unit and those are the only ones to which he will answer.
This column was much too one-sided. And since I am retired from the union since 2005, I don t feel reticent about filling in the blanks.
First, however, my credentials: I spent nearly a decade working in the Congress, first as a Research Economist for the Joint Economic Committee, then as Legislative Assistant for the late Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of California and then as Legislative Analyst for Representative Ronald V. Dellums of California. And from 1981 until I retired in 2005 I was the Director of Research for the NFLPA.
When I joined the union staff in 1981 and Gene at that time was the president of the association players were receiving approximately thirty cents out of every dollar they generated in revenues and owners were taking approximately seventy cents. Enmity between players and owners was bitter and hostile. And the more that articles like this one portray division among players, the more than hard-line owners laugh all the way to the bank; for them, a weakened Upshaw is the best of all possible worlds. For a broader, more detailed history of the NFLPA, I urge you to read the NFLPA History in the About Us section on the union s website, http//www.nflpa.org.
By 2005 when I retired, players now are receiving well over 60% of all revenues and owners are making over 30%--and those unsettling labor/management battles between the parties of the 1960 s through the 1980 s was replaced by a constructive partnership (although I personally would call it more of a shotgun marriage ). Current NFL players have the best post-career program of any professional sport and important steps have been taken in critical health coverage and injury issues. All of this occurred under the leadership of Gene and the elected player representatives including the newest Upshaw critic, Kyle Turley--who must have been napping throughout the annual meetings he attended.
Having failed to gain traction with active players indeed, the small group of malcontents have never even attempted to build a positive coalition so that the distance between themselves and active players keeps widening the dissidents have now turned to the political arena and to the media, personally, to air their complaints.
Had Fennelly talked to anyone at the NFLPA, he d have learned that:
(1) All decisions relating to union policies are decided by a vote of the elected Player Representatives; when it is imperative to take a quick vote whenever it is impossible to bring together the entire Board of Player Representatives votes are made by the elected Executive Committee. Gene, as Executive Director, does not have the power to vote in any situation. I have witnessed many instances when votes have gone against what Gene has favored;
(2) Throughout every period when there has been a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the current recognized bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act limits membership in the NFLPA only to active and potentially active players. I challenge you to find any other union where retired members continue as part of the bargaining unit; so when Gene is quoted in the media as rebuffing former players because they are not his boss , he may seem gruff but he s totally correct;
(3) Instead of listening only with outspoken critics of the union Fennelly ignored the current union president, Troy Vincent, as well as also other past presidents, such as Jeff Van Note, Tom Condon (both of whom served as player-appointed trustees on the pension board), and Michael Kenn, and Trace Armstrong, former NFLPA presidents who constitute a procession starting in the 1960 s and running through the turn of the century and they certainly can testify that any attempts to discriminate against older retired players didn t happen;
(4) Investigating only the role of the union and Gene in particular is disingenuous in terms of players receiving disability payments from the joint pension board. There are three player trustees and three owner trustees which means, in practical terms, only those cases that receive unanimous votes can proceed. Once again, Gene does not have a vote on the board. No matter what he personally or any of the player-appointed trustees favors and how thorough the due diligence performed by the NFLPA staff and its consultants the owners three representatives always vote as a group. I am not aware of any instance over the near quarter century I worked for the union when an owners trustee broke ranks and therefore I am puzzled by charges hurled at Gene for his alleged inability to grant disability payments;
(5) No one is more interested in extending post-career health coverage than Gene and such insurance coverage has been expanded greatly since 1993. However, research conducted by the NFLPA s Director of Benefits, Miki Yaras-Davis, uncovered that the cost of total post-career health benefits just for active players would be more than entire amount of funds going for all salaries and benefits and to add coverage for the thousands of retired players would be literally astronomical. As it is, you might do better by investigating why insurance companies hesitate to issue coverage for any former NFL player because they assume that the players have and they do too many pre-existing conditions. The answer here is not in the scope of what Gene or the owners can do; instead, the answer lies in the hope that the Congress will be able to devise a much better national health care system with mandatory coverage for everyone;
(6) It will be difficult, if not impossible; to locate any other industry in which pension benefits for already-retired members--some of them out of the industry for over 25 years--are regularly increased by significantly more than cost-of-living indices. Yet that is what Gene and his bargaining committees have done every time starting in 1983; I'm sure Fennelly's former employers do not grant up to 100% increases in their pension rates. For NFL retirees and mainly the older ones that process started in 1993, and continued again in 1998, 2002 and 2006. And any money spent to create a new benefit, improve an existing benefit, or fund future benefits for either retired or active players, comes out of current players negotiated percentage not out of the owners percentage (player costs = salaries and benefits). To do so--and despite bozos like Ditka s belief to the contrary--in 2006 alone, active player salaries and benefits were reduced by $126-million, an average $70,000 per active players ($96.5 million to improve pension benefits and $20 million to fund disability benefits). Over $5.5 million is being spent monthly on current retired players, disabled players, widows and surviving children.
(7) Indeed, Gene has been able to negotiate significant increases for older former players in years when no new comprehensive Collective Bargaining Agreement talks have been on-going; there are always CBA issues and interpretations that must be dealt with, either formally or informally. Since 1993 when the current basic CBA took effect, when the NFLPA has prevailed and that has been the rule rather than the exception the result most often has been that the owners have agreed to increase the share of overall revenues allocated to players (both active and retired). Assume, for instance, that increase was $20-million. Divided by the 32 clubs that would mean each club would have to increase its share by $625,000 and given past history it is likely that at best only one or two current players would end up with marginally higher salaries. Contrast that with the effects were all of the $20-million were put into new or higher benefits either for active or retired players. Of course, when splitting that same $20-million among all former players who qualify for benefits, it means that marginal increases for every player are not very large. Nonetheless, the tendency since 1993 has been to put disproportionately more money into benefits than into salaries;
(8) As the proportion of funds going to benefits has continued to rise at a more rapid pace than the increase for salaries, players who were not covered by pensions the so-called pre-59er's and some reaching back to World War II and Korea who didn't have the requisite number of credited seasons for pension benefits, i.e., were not covered at all because of the inability of the pre-Upshaw union's leverage (and that includes most of the dissidents of the Mike Ditka era who now are crying the loudest about Gene but were afraid themselves to strike during the regular season)--are now all getting pension benefits;
(9) I can assure you that the first bargaining area always dealt with by the bargaining committees led by Gene, before anything else, has been to negotiate both higher pension rates and higher disability rates for all players receiving pensions.
As for those dissidents: Looking back over the years I served on the union staff, only three of them Bruce Laird, Brent Boyd and Kyle Turley ever were elected as a player representative or asked to be included in the various projects underway. Laird was a Baltimore Colts player rep when I joined the union staff in 1981 and throughout the lead-up to the 1982 strike; never once during all the meetings I attended--either formally or informally--did Laird ever propose increasing benefits for then-retired players. Boyd, as a Viking player rep seemed to enjoy the yearly free trips to Hawai i but never spoke out about head injuries or going back and raising disability payments or changing the system. Turley also was silent during meetings and registerred no concern about retired players or the disability system even though even then he was dealing with back problems.
Mike Ditka never involved himself in the union in any role whatsoever; in blunt terms Ditka always was considered to be a management stooge --the type of player trying to win plaudits from owners so that they could quickly move to that side once their playing days ended and, of course, that is exactly what happened. I sat across from Joe DeLamielleure in a team meeting visit I attended in Orchard Park and he never said anything about raising pensions for players out of the game or bringing into the pension umbrella those former players not receiving a cent at that time; as a matter of fact, he was mute throughout the whole meeting.
Then there s Brian DeMarco--who Fennelly does mention--but without any investigating on his part would have found that, as reported by Pro Football Talk:
"RETIRED PLAYERS' POSTER BOY HAS ANOTHER WART
The folks who are hoping to compel the NFL Players Association to take better care of retired players have wrapped their arms around former NFL lineman Brian DeMarco, a 35-year-old man who allegedly is financially destitute, and who walks with a cane.
The NFLPA recently explained that it has been providing financial assistance to DeMarco, and ESPN reported that former teammates have questioned whether DeMarco really needs a cane.
There's another problem with using DeMarco as the face of the cause: His face could be on a wanted poster.
A law enforcement source in Ohio has tipped us off to the existence of a warrant for DeMarco's arrest. The warrant was issued in September 2006, after DeMarco failed to appear at a contempt hearing in connection with child support obligations.
The online court docket for the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas shows that DeMarco's current address is in Austin, Texas. DeMarco has been identified in recent media reports as a resident of Austin, Texas.
The docket can be viewed at this address, after inserting case number 01NU059151."
And
"DEMARCO IS THE WRONG POSTER BOY
The name Brian DeMarco recently has surfaced as one of the former NFL players whose on-field injuries have left him disabled and destitute. The folks targeting the NFLPA and executive director Gene Upshaw needed a compelling poster boy to give life to the cause, especially since none of the current NFL players are going to stand up and ask tough questions. And DeMarco seemed on the surface to be as good of a candidate as anyone.
The problem, however, is that a scratch or two at the surface reveals some potential flaws.
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that the NFLPA produced on Monday night checks reflecting contributions of almost $10,000 that have been made to DeMarco over the past 12 months for rent, utilities, and child support.
Earlier in the day, DeMarco claimed at a press conference that the union has turned its back on him during his time of financial need. (Hey, if anyone out there wants to turn their backs on us in similar fashion, we'll be glad to, you know, cash the checks.)
Mortensen also reports that a union employee wired to DeMarco $300 as recently as this weekend. The money came out of the employee's own pocket. Also, the union claims that it set up a job for DeMarco in Austin, Texas, but that he didn't show up for work.
Said NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw: "We can't let them manipulate the media anymore. On dire need alone, we made $1.2 million worth of payments to 147 former players last year and paid another $1 million to 140 guys the year before. And we're glad to do it. We don't talk about it. That's what we do."
Also, a former teammate of DeMarco's suggests that the former Jaguar is jaking it. "[H]e's walking with a cane in front of cameras," the ex-Jaguar told Mortensen. "Last time we saw him -- and it was in the past two weeks -- he didn't need a cane. He has some physical problems, yes, but there are other things going on there."
Look, we're not saying that any of this means that real changes aren't needed. But if the folks looking to effect change are going to rely upon apparent bunko artists to make the case, it will be hard to generate any real sympathy."
Then, there's the wonderful example of some Hall of Fame players, led by Ron Mix, who, for years, have advocated that they should receive higher pension rates than their non-Hall of Fame peers simply because they were in the Hall, thus sweeping aside the obvious fact that none of them would have been there without blockers, other linemen, receivers, etc, i.e., some of the most perverted logic I have ever heard.
Fennelly completely ignores the role of agents in this area. Where s DeMarco s agent saying what he did? Or Harry Carson s? Boyd s? DeLamielleure? Do you think they re stepping up to the plate? Of course not; they wring as much money as possible from players and then let them hang out there as the agent searches for new clients and new money.
Why then has there been so much criticism?
Until 1959, no NFL players received a pension. Prior to the NFLPA s formation players were required to provide their own jocks-and-socks for practices even when there were twice a day pre-season practices in stifling late summer heat. Players received no compensation for the entire pre-season period. If injured, players would be released without any further pay. No disability payments. There was no grievance or arbitration process. And when a player s contract expired, he was not able to negotiate with any other club. Owners held tightly to their powerful leverage over players. For most of its history the NFL has operated both as a monopoly having absorbed or bankrupted such short-lived potential competitors as the All American Football League (1946-1949), the American Football League (1960-1966), the World Football League (1974-1975), and the United States Football League (1983-1985) and as a monopsony since owners recognized gentlemen s agreements not to bid against each other for player services. And yet, the weaker, pre-Upshaw union was forced to accept a bargaining unit excluding retirees even if, improbably, that could have been achieved the difficult disability payments process, extremely limited post-career health insurance, and everything else that the malcontents who were too chicken to try and achieve.
That monopsony leverage was maintained until late 1992 when the association the NFLPA had ceased being a union in 1989 in order to not fall under the NLRA instead of the more powerful and relevant antitrust laws prevailed in a series of major antitrust actions. The settlement between the parties resulted in the 1993 CBA which remains as the basic structure of the current CBA and under when the association once again became a recognized union.
Having worked for the union for such a long period, I was able to witness many stages in the NFLPA s development. When the USFL competed for player services in the early 1980 s, NFL salaries rose at a rapid rate and those players whose careers had just ended bemoaned the fact that they were born too early . It happened again when the so-called Plan B system was imposed by owners for the 1989 season only this time many of the players who benefited from the USFL experience were the ones complaining. And, of course, when the current system took effect in 1993, the Plan B group groused as salaries rose at unprecedented rates since 1993, players leaving the game also point out how fate had denied them the salaries that younger players were earning. No one group ever seems to have been exceedingly pleased and yet, what can the union or Gene in particular do about it?
Many, if not all, of the players now complaining the most took their pensions at age 45 which meant that payments were significantly below what they would have been had they waited until age 55 or 65. I also know that in doing so, many times they were driven by fears generated by management. It took a comprehensive NIOSH study published in the 1990 s to reveal that longevity for retired players mirrored that of the general population. Until then, conventional wisdom held that the average age of death for retired players was 55; given that prospect one trumpeted throughout locker rooms by management waiting until the average age of death to receive a pension seemed foolish. To blame Gene Upshaw for their own follies is wrong.
Or the case of one Hall of Famer who is only receiving $100 a month; but, he took 25% of his pension when he left the game, which obviously reduced his pension by 25%; at age 45, the same player started collecting his pension, further reducing his pension; then, to top it off, the same player elected the Social Security option which meant he had to sign a form stating he understood that at age 62 his pension would be at $50 a month. All of these were bad choices, but, because of changes made since 1993, that can never happen again.
The disability system issue has been in the news a lot this year and whenever articles are written, they tend to parrot Ditka and his malcontents and contain vicious attacks upon Gene and the union. If there was substance to these attacks, I have no problem whatsoever. That however is not the case.
Why then are Ditka et. al so upset. I think it largely stems from their resentment at the high salaries and higher benefits going to players starting in 1993. Go back in NFL history and you'll discover that Ditka et. al never once confronted owners; they never were daring enough to strike during the regular season, nor were they courageous enough to decertify their union and sue the owners for violating antitrust laws.
Players in both 1982 and 1987 conducted in-season strikes. In 1989 they decertified the union, filed a series of antitrust suits and won a jury trial in 1992. The result was the framework for the current system that led to higher salaries and much better benefits.
Had players not taken that course starting in 1992, it wouldn't matter how much money owners made; both salaries and benefits would have remained lousy--just as they had in Ditka's era. Gene Upshaw was on the front-line that whole period. Where was Ditka?
Finally, Fennelly never mentions how much money Gridiron Greats has given to players in need. Don't try and ask the organization--I did--because they won't reply. (Or, how much of the money Ditka's getting from his Circuit City ad is he sending to those players?)
No one disputes that former players are in need. Since the issue came up early this year, both the owners and the union have worked to change procedures and add more money--but I find no mention of that by Fennelly either.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long comment.
Michael J. Duberstein
Edit Comment Cancel
Dave Finocchio about 1 year ago
"However, research conducted by the NFLPA s Director of Benefits, Miki Yaras-Davis, uncovered that the cost of total post-career health benefits just for active players would be more than entire amount of funds going for all salaries and benefits and to add coverage for the thousands of retired players would be literally astronomical."
Mike what is the average monthly cost of post-career health benefits for players? If you have more numbers, it would be great if you could share them.
Also, you write that the Board of Player Representatives makes decisions on these matters. Can you give us more info on how many people sit on that board...who's eligible for the board...are there ex-players on the board...how are they elected...how long are their terms...what does the voting structure look like?
Edit Comment Cancel
Dave Finocchio about 1 year ago
John...response?
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
Mr. Duberstein, I thank you for your lengthy and informative response. There are facts that we are covering right here and now that the mainstream media has failed to outline to the general public.
I am glad you saw my piece and have attempted to set me -and the record - straight.
For the record, I wrote this article in response to a documentary film recently made by former NFL linebacker Roman Phifer called 'Blood Equity'. The film covers many of the events in your response. The fact remains that players that did not have the luxury of a pension plan, which was introduced in 1993, are still pretty much on the outside looking in. Granted, there are efforts being made to help them from all walks, but it is still an issue. According to the documentary, insurance claims are still being denied, and many older retirees are still being underserved.
As for Upshaw , he is the man at the head of the table. In all cases where there are have-nots, the man at the head of the table takes the heat. That is, if the argument being made by the have-nots is not legit. Upshaw should fire back at his critics. If he is this great reformer, he should quell this dispute by making a statement on the current status of player benefits and what he's done to improve them. That would shut the uninformed (apparently, I'm in that group) up and spin this issue in the direction it should be going. Right now, whatever the facts are, its becoming a major PR black eye for the union.
I ask you, Mr. Duberstein, do these dissidents' accusations and claims have any merit at all in your mind? Or are they just seen as nuisances, who are being sloughed off because they were under represented at the time important decisions were being made. Perhaps you should contact Roman Phifer about his film, because he really socks it to Upshaw.
By the way, I do agree that agents should have more accountability in this equation. Most of them make the pre-transformed Jerry Maguire look like a boy scout.
Admittedly, I should have been more fair in my assessment of the situation, but that doesn't get Upshaw off the hook. I still think he has to get out in front of this publicly.
Dave, as for your question regarding the Board. It consists of Upshaw and eleven current or recent NFL players.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
Mr. Duberstein, I thank you for your lengthy and informative response. There are facts that we are covering right here and now that the mainstream media has failed to outline to the general public.
I am glad you saw my piece and have attempted to set me -and the record - straight.
For the record, I wrote this article in response to a documentary film recently made by former NFL linebacker Roman Phifer called 'Blood Equity'. The film covers many of the events in your response. The fact remains that players that did not have the luxury of a pension plan, which was introduced in 1993, are still pretty much on the outside looking in. Granted, there are efforts being made to help them from all walks, but it is still an issue. According to the documentary, insurance claims are still being denied, and many older retirees are still being underserved.
As for Upshaw , he is the man at the head of the table. In all cases where there are have-nots, the man at the head of the table takes the heat. That is, if the argument being made by the have-nots is not legit. Upshaw should fire back at his critics. If he is this great reformer, he should quell this dispute by making a statement on the current status of player benefits and what he's done to improve them. That would shut the uninformed (apparently, I'm in that group) up and spin this issue in the direction it should be going. Right now, whatever the facts are, its becoming a major PR black eye for the union.
I ask you, Mr. Duberstein, do these dissidents' accusations and claims have any merit at all in your mind? Or are they just seen as nuisances, who are being sloughed off because they were under represented at the time important decisions were being made. Perhaps you should contact Roman Phifer about his film, because he really socks it to Upshaw.
By the way, I do agree that agents should have more accountability in this equation. Most of them make the pre-transformed Jerry Maguire look like a boy scout.
Admittedly, I should have been more fair in my assessment of the situation, but that doesn't get Upshaw off the hook. I still think he has to get out in front of this publicly.
Dave, as for your question regarding the Board. It consists of Upshaw and eleven current or recent NFL players.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
I am still awaiting Dave Finocchio's and Michael Dubenstein's response.
Perhaps after the posturing in their response to my article they realized that I was completely accurate in my assertions. MY addition by subtraction is a a strategic tool to lure such nasyayers form their respective lairs........
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
I am still awaiting Dave Finocchio's and Michael Dubenstein's response.
Perhaps after the posturing in their response to my article they realized that I was completely accurate in my assertions. MY addition by subtraction is a a strategic tool to lure such nasyayers form their respective lairs........
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Perhaps Mr. Duberstein can address some of the issues at www.retiredplayers.org.
Edit Comment Cancel
matt bush about 1 year ago
i think this is true hoow can u live with urself upshaw i think u need to pay the players of old more and the pay the players before 1959 more too
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Nice hit and run Duberstein.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.