PDA

View Full Version : What is holding up the NFL CBA?


Suitanim
03-01-2006, 05:35 PM
3.8% That's it. The game could be ruined forever over 3.8%. Hopefully this posturing will end and these guys will come to their senses soon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9273758

'Deadlocked' labor talks break off http://m.2mdn.net/viewad/817-grey.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v5%7C339b%7C0%7C0%7C%2a%7Cb;44306;0-0;0;10732674;238-150%7C30;0%7C0%7C0;u=suitanim2;%7Esscs=%3f)http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/sponsorships.nfl.com/fs/stories;arena=nfl;feat=stories;type=psa;user=Named ;ct=USA;st=OH;ac=330;gend=M;age=C;cust=no;vip=no;s z=150x30;tile=5;ord=713161141255920? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/sponsorships.nfl.com/fs/stories;arena=nfl;feat=stories;type=psa;user=Named ;ct=USA;st=OH;ac=330;gend=M;age=C;cust=no;vip=no;s z=150x30;tile=5;ord=713161141255920?)
NFL.com wire reports NEW YORK (Feb. 28, 2006) -- NFL labor talks broke off three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.
Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the past three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

NFL statement

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."
Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old contract. Talks have been going on for more than a year.
Free agency is scheduled to start March 3. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.
For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.
The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit of money a team generates.
However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.
However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for March 2 to try to resolve them.
Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.
Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said "internal revenue-sharing issues" would not be discussed at the meeting.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2006, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

tony hipchest
03-01-2006, 05:52 PM
i think i heard today that that 3.8% translates to something like 300-350 million dollars/ year which is effectively 10 million per team in the owners pockets or that much dispersed amongst the players. the money dispersed amongst the players will probably only go to the best players unless they do something like raise the vet minimum or something. whill it benefits only the owners on one side im not sure it would actually benefit ALL the players on the other side.

Suitanim
03-01-2006, 06:11 PM
i think i heard today that that 3.8% translates to something like 300-350 million dollars/ year which is effectively 10 million per team in the owners pockets or that much dispersed amongst the players. the money dispersed amongst the players will probably only go to the best players unless they do something like raise the vet minimum or something. whill it benefits only the owners on one side im not sure it would actually benefit ALL the players on the other side.

Know how to fix that problem to everyone's satisfaction? Cap the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. Why the NFL hasn't taken this common sense step continues to baffle me...the only people who really lose are the agents (I can't think that some College kid making nothing will be unhappy with a 3 million dollar salary and a few million in a signing bonus), and everybody hates agents anyway.

DIESELMAN
03-01-2006, 06:16 PM
I don't know how true this is but.........

NFL owners have called an emergency meeting Thursday in hooes if finding labor peave before the start of free agency at midnight.

Barring a new deal getting completed, there could be a mass dumping of veterans for salary-cap reasons.

For the Pittsburgh Steelers, that means that instead of re-working deals for centers Jeff Hartings and Chukky Okobi, running back Duce Staley and defensive end Travis Kirshke, those players could be released outright instead.

The owners will meet in New York, seeking to find a way toward an last-minute agreement with the players union. If that happens, as much as $10 million to $15 million could be added to the 2006 salary cap that current is projected at about $95 million. Without it, some teams could be forced into wholesale cuts to get beneath the cap by midnight.

Gene Upshaw, the union?s executive director, said the league is offering to 56.2 percent of its total revenue for the players, almost four points lower than the union?s. ?Our number has to start with a six,? Upshaw told the Associated Press.

Also standing in the corner like a 400-pound gorilla is the issue of revenue sharing among the teams.

The NFL said in a statement after talks broke off Wednesday that revenue sharing won?t be discussed at Thursday?s meeting.

The current CBA has two years left, with 2006 scheduled to be the last year with a salary cap. The contract year 2007 is uncapped, meaning new rules will force teams and agents to change their plans this year and could keep a lot of teams out of the free-agent market entirely, including the Steelers. Teams may be reluctant to make long-term deals because they are unsure of the ramifications.

tony hipchest
03-01-2006, 06:18 PM
Know how to fix that problem to everyone's satisfaction? Cap the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. Why the NFL hasn't taken this common sense step continues to baffle me...the only people who really lose are the agents (I can't think that some College kid making nothing will be unhappy with a 3 million dollar salary and a few million in a signing bonus), and everybody hates agents anyway.

totally agree 100% its outrageous someone like alex smith making more $$$$ than ben or alot of other 2-3-4 year players who have actually proved something. that e. james and s. alexander have to struggle to get what theyre worth and to see r. bush come in for a 25 mil signing bonus is utterly rediculous.

DIESELMAN
03-01-2006, 06:33 PM
Know how to fix that problem to everyone's satisfaction? Cap the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. Why the NFL hasn't taken this common sense step continues to baffle me...the only people who really lose are the agents (I can't think that some College kid making nothing will be unhappy with a 3 million dollar salary and a few million in a signing bonus), and everybody hates agents anyway.

Definitely.......They should've nipped this in the bud years ago........coming out of college being hyped up as being the next greatest thing since sliced bread a owner has got to have him and pay him whatever he wants just to get him then after he signs the veterans are like wait a minute I deserve what hes getting.It should be just like in the real world...or something like this...sign for a certain minimum and then show me what you can do...get paid by your stats for key positions...how many players sit on the bench making millions and not even play 2 or 3 games a year....just because your a superstar in college doesn't make you a superstar in the NFL....its a faster game,bigger faster players at all positions...I realize this a team sport but look at golf or tennis or a sport like that either you play good and get paid or you get what you get.......as far as the agents go the small guys are the ones who are going to lose...

Motley Nate
03-01-2006, 06:46 PM
Ridiculous, isn't it? 3.8%

Suddenly Tagliabue, Upshaw and the boys are acting like Cleveland Browns management.

Motley Nate
03-01-2006, 06:47 PM
Know how to fix that problem to everyone's satisfaction? Cap the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. Why the NFL hasn't taken this common sense step continues to baffle me...the only people who really lose are the agents (I can't think that some College kid making nothing will be unhappy with a 3 million dollar salary and a few million in a signing bonus), and everybody hates agents anyway.
Or just take Kellen Winslow II out back and beat the rest of the cash he has out of him.

tony hipchest
03-01-2006, 07:06 PM
i dont like the idea that saying all rookies can only make a max of 3 mil or whatever, cause some rookies can have more talents/worth/ or be more pro ready than others. but maybe like what they have in the franchise tag.--- no rookie can be paid higher than the average of the top 10-15 at their position for the 1st 2 years.

Atlanta Dan
03-01-2006, 07:07 PM
This is a 3 way dispute between filthy rich owners, owners who are only very rich, and rich players.

Excuse me for having a hard time finding much sympathy for any of those groups.

This dispute is all about greed, with each side trying to portray itself as the victim.

This is the sports negotiations equivalent of World War I - once actions start to occur (e.g. - Denver cutting 3 starters today, an action I do not believe can simply be reversed) it is going to be difficult to stop the cascade of cuts that are going to gut a lot of teams.

An illustration of how screwed up this situation has become is that a messed up franchise like the Vikiings has the most cap room to buy up salary cap cuts. Only bright point for me at this point is that Danny Snyder (the face of all that is wrong with the new generation of NFL owners to me) is going to have to watch some major cuts on the Redskins.

tony hipchest
03-01-2006, 07:19 PM
This is a 3 way dispute between filthy rich owners, owners who are only very rich, and rich players.

Excuse me for having a hard time finding much sympathy for any of those groups.

This dispute is all about greed, with each side trying to portray itself as the victim.

This is the sports negotiations equivalent of World War I - once actions start to occur (e.g. - Denver cutting 3 starters today, an action I do not believe can simply be reversed) it is going to be difficult to stop the cascade of cuts that are going to gut a lot of teams.

An illustration of how screwed up this situation has become is that a messed up franchise like the Vikiings has the most cap room to buy up salary cap cuts. Only bright point for me at this point is that Danny Snyder (the face of all that is wrong with the new generation of NFL owners to me) is going to have to watch some major cuts on the Redskins. the average player has nothing to gain from this whole ordeal. although the players union would have us believe so. its like a major tax cut for the filthy rich under the guise that it will be beneficial for everyone involved.

Milkman
03-01-2006, 07:28 PM
Ridiculous, isn't it? 3.8%

Suddenly Tagliabue, Upshaw and the boys are acting like Cleveland Browns management.

:rofl:

tony hipchest
03-01-2006, 07:35 PM
hmmmm.......hasn't that been done???? lol. well my intentions wasnt really meant to equate it to trickle down economics, but i do believe that the majority extra money proposed will wind up in the hands of the jamal, and ray lewis's and t.o.s of the world. really i dont think it will be that bad, but those making the minimum will still be making the minimum and i think alot of money would probably be wasted on inflated free agent prospects. teams like the steelers would benefit though. so would teams like the pats and eagles cause they have proven to be pretty fiscally responsible and i dont think they would blow their money any more than they do now.

Suitanim
03-01-2006, 08:14 PM
the average player has nothing to gain from this whole ordeal. although the players union would have us believe so. its like a major tax cut for the filthy rich under the guise that it will be beneficial for everyone involved.

Well, that depends. If common sense broke out, the rookie cap would benefit virtually every other player in the NFL who AREN'T rookies. The money wasted on unproven rookies would trickle UP to the most deserving players, like veteren lineman and such. Really, everyone wins. If you have star power, you get endorsements as you wait for the big salary. Look at LeBron James. You think he cares that he only makes a few million a year from the Cavs? He's already one of the top 5 players in the NBA, and he makes more jack in endorsements than he probably ever will in salary.

Prove you are worth it. Easy.