The New CBA- A Final Solution to the NFL Labor Issues
by lifelongvike on Jul 20, 2010 10:16 AM CDT
Email
Print
I have taken the time to try and resolve the vexing NFL labor issue. My past articles on the dreaded labor negotiations and pending lock-out have not offered a contract solution to the issues. They have offered A view from a Labor perspective, A players resistance solution, and a fan's resistance solution. Lately, I see that both sides have softened up the rhetoric and that gives me hope. This is a lengthy discussion post.
The terms of the CBA and the reasoning behind it follows the jump.
Here are the issues:
- The players want pay and benefits to continue to be associated with the revenue they produce
- The players want to be able to maximize their individual earnings by being able to shop their services when they achieve free agency
- The owners want to place a ceiling on wages in order to be competitive
- The owners don't want to waste money on bad draft picks
- The owners want each team to be competitive
- The owners want to increase the value of the league and each well run team.
General Terms of the New CBA:
A. Pay-
As liberal as I am. As capitalistic as I am. As greedy as I am. I can't justify why the best football player in the world needs a salary above 20 Million per year. I also don't know why the worst player shouldn't receive $500,000 per year. The reason I limit the top player is because anyone that good is going to have extra endorsement money anyway. The reason I want to pay less talented players so much is simple. They won't last long anyway and they take a daily risk of permanent injury. So those are my parameters. Those are hard individual salary caps and floors. They are fair amounts. The Owners share revenue for the good of the game. Top players should have to share by capping their wages for the good of the game.
B. Free agency-
The draft dictates where a player must play. That is extremely restrictive. For instance, every other college graduate can work for whoever in their field wishes to hire them. In exchange for that restriction every player becomes a free agent after his rookie contract or any other contract expiration.
Every player must play out his legal contract ( injury excepted) or be banished from the game for life. If you don't want to play don't sign and take any money.
A contract is a contract. Therefore, every contract is 100% guaranteed and a maximum of three years long except the Rookie contracts described below..
C. Rookie Salary Cap
1. Rookie contracts are a maximum of three years long. Rookie contracts are only guaranteed for one year. The top 15 draft picks get a sliding scale from 10 Mil per year to 5 Mil per year. The salary of all other picks shall be set by the market ( slotted as it exists today).
2. Any draft pick that performs in the top 10% at his position in the NFL shall receive a bonus equating his total salary at 5 Mil per year. In other words if a 6th round selection performs in the top 10% at his position he shall be awarded the lowest salary of a top 15 pick for that year.
3. Any draft pick that does not perform may be cut or maintained under the existing contract after each year.
4. Any team which offers the maximum salary under the CBA to an expiring rookie contract may maintain the player for an additional 3 year guaranteed contract. You may keep your star player but you have to pay him the max.
C. Salary Caps and floors.
The current salary cap is computed as follows:
Owners get the first 1 Billion in Revenue. Players get the next 60% of the defined revenue. In 2009 the salary cap for each team was 127 Million. The least a team was allowed to spend was around 108 Million. This was all based on league wide revenue of just about 8 Billion Dollars.
A. Salary Cap:
Starting in 2011 the salary cap for each team shall be 127 Million plus 30% of all League revenue over 8 Billion dollars. In this way player compensation continues to rise if the league grows.
The players percentage share of league revenues shall increase 5% each time total league revenue increases 1 Billion dollars and cease to increase when total revenue equals 14 Billion dollars. This places the parties back in exactly the position they are in now, if the league grows revenue by an additional 75%. Each side is no better and no worse. The owners get their opportunity to prove that salaries are the enemy to growing the game. The players get the opportunity to prove that this is not true. Neither side wins or loses during the contract.
The players are assured that their wages do not get cut during times of rising revenue. The owners can grow the game and the value of its franchises without breaking the bank.
1. Owners opt to not raise the cap.
The owners may opt to not raise the cap for any year in which they claim player expenses are affecting their growth. However this will trigger the financial audit as structured under paragraph E below and the auditor will be the sole judge of the economic question raised by the owners. If the owners need this then they have to prove it.
B. Salary Floor:
The salary floor is designed to benefit those teams with excellent management skills. Not to save money for low revenue teams that don't want to be competitive. The owners share revenue among themselves to create parity in the league. This revenue sharing has been going on since 1960 and will continue under this new contract. Therefore, the salary floor is set at 90% of the salary cap.
Small market and low revenue teams are successful in the NFL under these rules. There is no reason to change any of the existing structures that work. It is obvious that certain markets are not being successful today. Those are individual market issues and must be resolved by that individual team's ownership.
C. Retired player benefits.
50% of any direct savings resulting from the rookie salary cap being instituted shall be paid into the benefit fund for retired players.
D. Player Benefits: All benefits remain the same under this contract.
E. If Revenue goes down:
Then every player's salary on every team goes down by 50% of the % revenue reduction.. If the players union is so resolute that the league will continue to grow under the existing contract then they can put the players money where their mouth is. Players now get 52% of the revenues. Under this plan if revenues decrease by 10% each salary shall decrease by 5%. Once the players are asked to lower their salaries then each team must submit its financial records to an independent confidential auditor agreed to by both parties. The cost of the league wide audit will be shared 50/50. No individual team financial information will be disclosed to the union. The auditor shall be the sole judge of economic contract questions arising out of the CBA.
F. Length of New CBA:
This contract is a six year contract.
G. Other terms. The last CBA is 301 pages long. I expect all of the detail to be pretty much the same. I know of know other major issues the parties are fighting about.
Of course I really don't believe that either side will take such a proposal seriously. after all it is proposed only by a football fan. But I do believe all the issues are solvable by these parties.
I would be curious as to what the fan reaction is to this model. Since this caps your star player, shortens the contracts, limits draft pick risk, and saves the owners money what objections do you have? What objections would any owner have? Is it a fair concept?
If you would make changes are your changes fair to each side?
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's not bad
It’s missing the Nacho principle though.
And that is that everything is better with nachos.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
That was quite a read. Good job.
I am not sure about the “banishing for life” part.
I think that would be a tough sell.
I also did not see any mention of a franchise or transition tag but I am assuming that since all contracts are 3 years long and guaranteed and the players become free agents after that it eliminates the tags.
I think the players will never agree to a banishment. And I think that the owners want longer than 3 years for contracts.
One of the reasons is that players, especially rookies, take a few years before they really start to hit their stride (like Sidney Rice).
Under this plan Sidney would be a free agent right now and the Vikings would have to cough up some big bucks to keep him and by the language you used they would be in a bidding war since the tags are eliminated. As has been discussed here, Rice has had only the one good year statistically. Many feel that if he does it again then he can get the top WR money.
He would be getting it early right now.
Look at Ray Edwards. He had his best year in his 4th season. He would not have gotten too much before his 4th year which he may feel is not a good thing because after his 4th year he could have gotten much more. Under this plan he would be locked into another 3 year deal at most and teams may not want to sign him to less than the max 3 years.
Those are the only two issues I can think of that may cause a problem.
Great thing about negotiating is that both sides have to give something up.
“Banishing for life”- I’m not suggesting that this would be easy to sell to the players. I’m suggesting it is the right thing to do. If the owners are going to guarantee the contracts then the players need to guarantee they will play under those contracts.
The players are only guaranteeing three years play. In essence, today’s signing bonus and 1st year pay under contracts guarantee about three years of pay.
The Rookie contract, under my theory. pays for exceptional play. This means that only veteran players are negotiating and signing the three year set in stone contracts. I think it is a fair trade-off for both sides. A " Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander" kind of approach.
I agree that the owners want more than three years. If they want a rookie wage scale then they have to give something up. If they want a salary cap they have to give something up. A three year contract is a restriction I believe the players could live with.
I would never suggest that this plan is perfect. I realize that it creates issues as well as solves some of them. Thanks for only finding two faults in the idea. That in itself is a compliment.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 22, 2010 5:40 AM CDT up reply actions
the salary cap of 20mil is too problematic
I cannot see where any player would agree to a cap on his earning power any more than you or I would. The way to work that out would be to use some sort of matrix or % of salary cap or or other factor. That way as the league grows the top wages can also go up. Plus if some sort of matrix of salaries were used the teams that were best able to manage salaries would have more $ to pay top players.
Rookie salary caps should also have a matrix also that caps the value of players based on selection in the draft.
by just another viking on Jul 21, 2010 11:06 PM CDT reply actions
20 Million per year is 15% of the current salary cap for a person that constitutes only 2% of the team ( 1 in 53). The NBA players have agreed to a hard individual salary cap. I see no reason to believe a player would not give his all for 20 Mil plus endorsements that exceed that amount.
Every time one exceptional player is awarded more money it takes away from the guys at the bottom. By the time the salary cap grows, the contract would be expired and a new number will have to be negotiated for the star players. Don’t forget. A team has to pay out at least 114 Million. Its not like the owners get to keep the money.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 22, 2010 5:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I was not aware that the NBA
had an individual salary cap. If that is true then it just might work. I agree with you that 20mil is plenty of money for playing football.
The Idea of a limit on earnings just rubs my free market mentality the wrong way…..locking all salaries within a certain range is just bothersome. However I do understand the need for it I sure don’t want the same thing happening to football that has happened to baseball. I cannot even stand to watch a game any more as the players seem not to be enjoying the game but rather playing merely for their opportunity to get a better deal next time.
BTW, this is a fantastic read and is very well put together.
by just another viking on Jul 22, 2010 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Thank You
FYI- The NBA caps a players maximum contract by years of service. This is why Shaq makes more than LeBron. For that reason alone the NFL should not base contracts on years of service after the rookie contract expires.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 22, 2010 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
They do that so that teams can pay out some of their older players
For instance a bit a go some of the players (Bird, Johnson etc) would take lower salaries so that their team could be more competitive. Then as the team faded from the spot light they ended up getting monster deals in the last couple years. This happened to Jordan and Bird to my knowledge as well as more in probablity. Now is this fair? Don’t know and it could back fire for suree, but really it was more of a thank you for the years than a buy off of their services.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
It s fine with me that a team thanks it players financially.
But to make the cap based on age rather than performance seems a little backward to me.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 22, 2010 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
The NFL has a minimum salary based on the years of service
and currently there is no exception available to either the players or the team. The problem with a mandatory minimum based on time is that some of the guys that don’t take a beating on a daily basis (like the long snapper and kickers) they don’t warrant a huge paycheck but the CBA mandates that they get one so most teams will let a qualified longsnapper go b/c of the financial restraints. Minne was in that position in the late 90’s with our long snapper Mike Morris. He is now working the am show on KFAN. Things worked out for him well but he has said that he would have played for a lot less money so he could play longer if the CBA would have let him.
"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."
John Wayne
by just another viking on Jul 23, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
It is difficult to balance.
Guys who have played three years or less- No continuing medical payments
Guys who play 3-5 years- 5 years continuing medical (for their injuries suffered)
Guys who play longer than 5 years- continuing medical coverage.
The union tries to maximize what it can for veterans but it has to balance the owners needs for less expensive replaceable talent.
The issues for replaceable guys ,like a snapper, are different than special guys like a franchise QB.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 23, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Salary Cap
I think there should be one. The only people who would oppose this are the elite players. Let’s just set the cap at 20 million (or whoever is the highest paid per year).
Why would we want to set a salary cap? Because those particular players are probably making more in endorsements, commercials, etc as well.
Look at Manning & Favre:
Favre made $12 million for the 2009 season? But he was also in Sears commercials, having his Wrangler jeans commercial aired, and I believe a Toyota or Nissan commercial that aired during the Superbowl.
You know that Favre still collects on those Wrangler commercials, and I am pretty sure Sears paid Favre pretty good for those few commercials he did. The car commercial was probably quick/easy money..
And I am sure Favre still collects a check from all those places from time to time. (I believe it goes by everytime the commercial is aired).
And Favre wasn’t even a top salary player. We have people like AP who has been in some commercials and we have Peyton Manning in those Sony commercials lately (along w/ another one that I recall during the holidays). You know on top of his $20 million he gets away pretty good w/ endorsements.
Here is my reasoning… Peyton Manning is great, and he can turn an average team great. But a team shoudln’t feel like they have to overpay their “great” player, since it was said team that made them great & well-known. Manning is known for the Colts, and Favre was known for the Packers.
Would Manning be such a great QB if he was stuck with the lions all those years? They maybe would of had soem great seasons, but, nothign compared to the Colts. The Colts have a pretty decent draft strategy and have been good year-in & year-out.
Therefore, Manning’s success has been because of the team as well.
Different kinds of caps
Good points Deek. But I just want to point out that neither the players or the owners have asked for an individual player salary cap like we propose. An individual ceiling. I think you and I agree.
I have no problem with a team being well paid or even overpaid. But if the owners are correct and the salaries have to be more restricted then starting by restricting the top sounds like a good idea to me.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 23, 2010 5:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Capitalism works because it pays for performance
Communism doesn’t because items are artificially restricted so that every makes do under a curve. I’m not saying a 20 million cap is communism but one reason there are a lot more football players than shot putters is because even if you have a 1% chance at that kind of money you’ll pull it out. If that decreased I think talent would go else where (I mean this is sort of a stupid argument on my part because 20 mil is pretty stupid money, but I can’t help playing the devils advocate)
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
I kinow- the Devil made you do it.
Doesn’t every labor contract ever written caps the wage of every union member? What makes the NFL so special that following that formula will change our political culture? I think McCarthy must be attempting a comeback as the new NFL Commish. :)
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 24, 2010 5:29 AM CDT up reply actions
How about an individual cap that's a percentage of the team cap.
For example the team salary-cap could be 120 million and a max player would get 15 million or 12.5%. If the league grows and the cap rises to 140 mill a max player gets 17.5 million because they’re at the 12.5% level.
This way max-contracts would be tied to the leagues health and top players wouldn’t be constantly chasing the money that another top player just signed for as they would all eventually top out at the same rate. In practice this would end up with guys like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Favre all being paid at the exact same rate with the only difference in their contracts being the various amount of years they’re signed for.
by CanadianViking on Jul 24, 2010 5:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Might work
but if the Agents have any thing to say about it they will find a way to increase the payout. It does not matter how well the new CBA is written there will be some one that will figure out how to get their guy paid more than the rest. Mind you I don’t have a problem with that but it is just a part of living in the US with a free market.
"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."
John Wayne
by just another viking on Jul 24, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah there are always loopholes.
Look at the 17 year contract Kovalchuck just signed in the NHL. There will probably be ways for players to get ridiculous deals under any new CBA.
by CanadianViking on Jul 24, 2010 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
That's why it was disallowed by the NHL
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 26, 2010 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Your position that the contracts don't work is probably not correct.
No team has circumvented the CBA to such an extent that either side is complaining that it doesn’t work. One of the worst examples was last year. The Tampa Bay Bucs traded away Gains Adams so they could be above the Salary Floor for Cap purposes. But they still were 20 Million under the floor for payroll purposes.
The current CBA has doubled the players salaries and the owners have all had sizable gains in the value of their franchises during its term. The Vikings were purchased for 500 Million in 2005 and now are worth close to 900 Million. This during a recession.
We need to focus on getting a labor agreement , not worrying if someone will find a loophole. But I have a hard time understanding how placing a maximum salary on a player of 20 Million could be finagled. 20 Mil is 20 Mil no matter how you count it.
The key to successful negotiations is to make the framework a win/win situation. Worrying about the loopholes will never
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 25, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Cant remember
Is there an individual salary cap under the current CBA?
"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."
John Wayne
by just another viking on Jul 26, 2010 6:47 AM CDT up reply actions
The reason I didn't suggest that the highest salary be % based
is because that won’t solve the players issues. They want to extend medical benefits and put some money aside for retired players. This can only be done if money is taken from somewhere. I chose the top paid players because at 20 Million + endorsements it doesn’t make sense to take it away from the little guy.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 25, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point.
I was just thinking in terms of the cap growing or shrinking and that a % system could help regulate the top-end salaries while remaining fair to the players if the cap continues to grow and fair to the owners if the opposite happens. I definitely agree with some sort of individual cap on the top-end guys with the savings going to benefits and lower-tier players though. This part of your plan would also keep rich owners and crazy GMs from getting too out of hand and help to stabilize the constant fighting over contracts.
by CanadianViking on Jul 25, 2010 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually man when Payton went to the Colts they were about as bad as the Lions are now
Dungy helped for sure. But having Payton would make any franchise stick out.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Well, the Lions would have had to have several great drafts that McMillan screwed up.
Its never just one player that makes a great team. But a great QB helps. If one goes back and sees what Detroit passed up in those drafts its scary.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 24, 2010 5:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah I will say this if anyone hires McMillan to HC again they should be shot
a lot.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
I suspect you mean to GM again. He never was the head coach was he?
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 26, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I understand
That most players wish to be paid very well when they are extremely successful. But any player that is extremely successful should also realize that other players need their pay as well. Think of it like this…. Imagine this scenario… Prior to the 2009 season, a really good WR wants more money and has a legitimate reason to ask for more money. The teams cap is nearly to the breaking point of going over. Financially, the team can not afford to pay said player and the player pursues and shops other teams. This upset player signs thru free agency with a different team. The Colts are now looking to updgrade their depth on up (#2 now is #1, #3 is now #2, and so forth). Now imagine, if it was basically that 1 player that made the QB not have as many TD passes, passing yards, etc. And really, maybe that 1 player could of been the difference between winning a game/losing a game (Think of a game like the Superbowl). Now, this is particular a case where the greed of the Professional sports players damages his own team by taking and surrounding himself w/ less talent. Great QBs are hard to come by, and with rules set in stone to protect them, they can have a pretty lengthy career. But when you need to pay said player $20million/yr, your cutting into the pie for the rest of the playres and could cause some players to move on elsewhere.
Just my .02
No one has to pay a player anything.
Team owners choose to pay Brady, Manning, ect top dollar. They have to choose how many top players to pay and not go over the cap. Its not fair to ask the player to take less than he is worth. He might do that as a personal preference but it is unfair to construct a labor contract that makes him play for less than he deserves.
I like the parity in the NFL. Free agency helps create that parity. The salary cap helps create that parity. The salary floor helps create that parity.
I hate to see a beloved player move to another team. Just like Chester Taylor’s move this year.
But I was happy for Chester. That he got his nice contract. I’m sad for the Vikings because my team lost a good player. But it is good for the NFL. We now have Toby Gerhart. The dream lives on.
I’m not sure we disagree on anything about the CBA Deek. Was just clarifying my thoughts on your comments.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Jul 26, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
One Fan's Reaction to This Model
I’m glad to notice that you “don’t believe that either side will take such a proposal seriously.” If some owners or folks like Terrell Owens were so farsighted and open-minded, the next contract would be wrapped up by now, but of course such a presumption is contrary to fact. A funny thing always happens on the way to survival.
Economic perspectives are highly colored by the point of view of those in the food chain, and labor negotiations evolve based on factors that go far beyond rationality.
Beyond the universe of fooball, United States executives in 1950 averaged about 30 times that of the typical worker. Today, they get about 400 times as much as the typical employee. That’s not because the typical worker thinks today’s fat cat is so much better qualified an as entrepreneur or more productive for the planet than the robber barons of old. I believe stockholders who think guys like Tony Hayward are worth every penny should be locked in a rubber room. As Ralph Nader once commented, you never see the company press releases stating they are outsourcing their CEO position to Mexico because of the obvious cost savings in management that will result.
But, as Zsa Zsa might say, enough about me. Here are my free thoughts on the issues, guaranteed to be worth the price of admission, or even less:
1. The players want pay and benefits to continue to be associated with the revenue they produce, but no football team that was composed solely of a handful of stars is sufficient in number not to forfeit its games and go 0-16. What that has to do with the price of rice requires a spy drone, armed with missiles, and a road map of Atlantis. Greed, like everything else, is only good when used properly, and what group of over 2000 people (like some unnamed football league) will form a concensus on the matter of the common good?
2. The players want to be able to maximize their individual earnings by being able to shop their services when they achieve free agency. Of course, they could also compete with illegal immigrant farm laborers for wages, but none of them will decide to do so. Does throwing, catching, or carrying a leather ball actually benefit society more than brain surgery or teaching? Who knows? Sanitation workers can shop their services, I suppose, but the only thing our founding fathers found inalienable was the pursuit of happiness. Personal experience convinces me that many wealthy people are unhappy. In fact, a recent survey found a low correlation between income and happiness for those making more that $75,000 a year. Excuse me. My mind just drifted past LeBron James, and an old tattoo slogan: “Born for fun; faithful to none.”
3. The owners want to place a ceiling on wages in order to be competitive, but they want to outbid the other owners to get the upper hand. No, what I actually suspect is true is that owners want to place a ceiling on wages because they are on the expense side of the ledger.
4. The owners don’t want to waste money on bad draft picks, but then if there were no risks involved in such businesses, anybody might become an NFL owner. It’s not the fans, or the zebras, or the HAL 9000 making those draft picks. Maybe the owners could go to a secret hedge fund on draft picks. I wonder where that would lead? Why should the players have to cover up the stupidity of management? Those picks are selected by people hired by the owner. Brett Favre might want every pass he throws to result in a touchdown, but the real world does not operate in that manner. On what planet do the bookies not have to pay off because they set the odds incorrectly?
5. The owners want each team to be competitive (except for the teams they play on this year’s schedule).
6. The owners want to increase the value of the league and each well-run team, which of course they all presume to be their own franchise, even if every fan with any lick of sense knows they are largely egomaniacs and a few of them are perhaps more qualified to be employed as paperweights or boat anchors.
Wb Elgar :)
In fact, a recent survey found a low correlation between income and happiness for those making more that $75,000 a year.
That survey was more heavily rigged than an Obama election.
5. The owners want each team to be competitive (except for the teams they play on this year’s schedule).
It wouldn’t break my heart if the Vikings blew out every team they played this year, by 20+ points :)
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Ack! NAK NAK NAK ABORT! Insert sub-post reply routine, goto 40
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
