A look at the list and how it pertains to the players as a whole and the Packer organization:
[list=1]
$1 million minimum player salary.veteran players with 4 or more years os playtime time are getting $730 this year and it increases up to $790 in year 2018. There is no way the average player will want to strike in order for the rookie street free agent can earn $1 mill while the vet only moves up a few hundred thousand a year.
The Packers would most likely be able to withstand the huge increase in player salary expenses but other teams will not. If this were to happen teams like Jacksonville would fold. Owners/organizations would not support the change.
Increase regular season from 16 games to 18 games.Players would not vote for it as the injury risk would increase. The additional pay would not offset the exposure. While the min salary would most likely be tied to this the Elite players would not see an increase in pay so they would not be in favor of the additional games.
Some teams would be in favor of it. It would not be beneficial to Green Bay as they sell out the preseason games already.
Increase of roster size from 53 to 57 (with an 11-player practice squad).I don't see players risking a strike or lockout over the practice squad players or the ones are there to fill out the roster.
Green Bay with all their injuries year after year after year would benefit from a larger roster. Uncle Teddy would be able to do a better job than other GMs in filling the last few roster spots. Owners will not agree to the expanded rosters. It is not as if the players who are not on as if the players disappear if they are not affiliated with a NFL team. When needed they can still be found. In the mean time the NFL does not have to pay them wages.
Increase in the practice-squad salary to $20,000 per week.Once again I doubt the NFL players are willing to risk very much in order to get a large raise for these players.
Green Bay would not accept the new higher cost any more than would any other team.
A reduction in dues from $15,000 to $10,000. No big deal.
None of the teams would care one way or the other.
Three-year rookie deals. Never happen. It is enticing to the better players to get out into free agency sooner but it will have a negative impact on the average and below average players, of which there are more of them.
It would hurt Green Bay as the hope would be to try and get salaries to spiral upward.
Free agency after three years.same as above
Permissible renegotiation after only one year (with Russell Wilson specifically mentioned as an example), nope. Teams will not allow. What is the point in having the contract if the players will not stick to them. The argument of teams releasing players before the end of the contract is offset by the signing bonus.
Under the current management team Green Bay would rarely renegotiate with a player.
A one-time career limitation on the use of the franchise tag. Players would be in favor but very few are good enough to be a franchise player.
Green Bay uses it so infrequently it does not effect them but they would not be in favor of such a move.
Removal of two preseason games. see above
Elimination of the transition tag.see above
Elimination of compensatory draft picks.I don't see the players as caring too much about this issue.'
Green Bay under Uncle Teddy loves the Comp pick and they would not be in favor of such a change in any way.
Elimination of “contract splits,”.No idea of what is meant by split contract.
Elimination of certain exclusions from “all revenue,” such as Cowboys merchandising and Jets/Giants PSL fees.Green Bay would not be in favor of such a move and would resist.
Restriction of the Commissioner’s judge-jury-executioner power.I doubt most players would support unless they knew the alternative. They already agreed to give the Commish the power to curb PEDs and dirty players such as Meriwather who has no regard of his fellow players.
GB would not vote in favor of such a move
[/list]
All in all too little is being offered to the teams and too much is wanted from them to make any of these options viable. Other than lowering dues not a single item could be enacted prior to the new CBA and even then owners would let players strike or lock them out over these items.
Who knows what the players really think but they are better served by an Ex Director who is an attorney and understands the process than a dude who has not formal training in these matters and only wants to stir things up in order to get a real job and not have to rely on being an asst HS coach.