QuoteNFL hopes to run delay on 'season'
BY GARY MYERS - February 14, 2006
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
The NFL free agent market is scheduled to open March 3, but it could be pushed back until April 1 if there is enough progress made in the next couple of weeks in negotiations for an extension of the collective bargaining agreement.
According to a source with knowledge of the talks, there have been advances in some areas since the Super Bowl ended 10 days ago that could lead to a delay in free agency. The NFL and the union still have a very long way to go, but the sense of urgency has intensified. The dance, for now, hasn't changed: One step forward, two steps back.
The sides met yesterday in New York. "The only good news is there is a lot of talk," the source said last night. "That is usually a good sign. Both sides are feeling pressure to get it done within a reasonable time period."
If the market opens without a CBA extension, it would make contract negotiations much more complicated. Signing bonuses can be prorated for only four years instead of what is usually a maximum of seven in the first year of a new CBA. With no extension, 2007 will be an uncapped year. As a result, the money in all new contracts, other than signing bonus, would be subject to the "30% rule" going into an uncapped year. That means if a player signs a deal for $1 million in base salary and roster and reporting bonuses in 2006, he can't get more than $300,000 (30%) increases in succeeding years.
The biggest names scheduled to be unrestricted free agents are league MVP and rushing champion Shaun Alexander and Colts running back Edgerrin James.
Obviously it would suck ass for those of us who are waiting for the signing frenzy to get started. But if it means that the greedy owners and players can work something out that'll help everyone then I'm cool with it. April would be a crazy month. FA and then the draft...
A new CBA is a MUST HAVE. As the article states...if there is no CBA then you cannot prorate SB's for 7 years. That would mean less FA signings and using more of the cap on fewer players.
That would mean only four weeks between the start of free agency and the draft.
Utter chaos, dude.
Utter chaos sounds good to me.
It would officially end all the trade talk on TO though. No way we pay him March 6 on the off chance someone picks him up.
On the other thread this was discussed, we talked about this. I don't see how they could delay the start of free agency but still keep wording for roster bonuses in contracts like T.O.'s the same.
You have much more faith than I.
Quote
Lights fading on labor talks as deadline nears
By Adam Schefter
Special to NFL.com
INDIANAPOLIS (Feb. 23, 2006) -- Amidst the buzz surrounding football's top prospects is the buzz kill of what is transpiring in the current labor talks.
Little progress, little hope -- big problem.
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw informed a group of 10 agents on Wednesday -- just as he is scheduled to address all agents Friday morning -- that he currently has no reason to be encouraged.
And then, after his Friday meeting, Upshaw is scheduled to leave Indianapolis, with no new Collective Bargaining Agreement deal in sight. NFL officials, who are no more optimistic than Upshaw, then would also leave Indianapolis, dealing a blow to any of the sides' remaining hopes.
The union has a soft deadline of Friday for a new deal, a hard deadline of next Thursday, before Upshaw insists there will be uncapped year in 2007. And then, potentially, a strike in 2008 -- a scenario nobody wants.
The 10 agents Upshaw spoke with Wednesday were Tony Agnone, Mark Bartelstein, Ralph Cindrich, Ian Greengross, Van McElroy, Paul Sheehy, Fletcher Smith, Jim Steiner, Mike Sullivan, and Angelo Wright. Their tones were far more somber than upbeat.
Meanwhile, each team trying to get under the salary cap or plot its offseason moves is waiting to see whether or not there will be a new CBA. At this point, it looks as if the teams can proceed as if there will not be one, which could be devastating to some.
The teams that will have the most restructuring and slashing to do by next Thursday are the Oakland Raiders ($31 million over the cap, as of Wednesday); the Kansas City Chiefs ($24 million over the cap); the Washington taterskins ($23 million over the cap); the Denver Broncos ($22 million over). And as of Wednesday, before they restructured running back Curtis Martin's contract and released some veterans, the Jets were $25 million over, a figure that is now considerably reduced.
Teams with the most space under the salary cap include the Arizona Cardinals ($23 million), the Minnesota Vikings ($21 million under), the Green Bay Packers ($19 million under), the Cleveland Browns ($18 million under) and the San Diego Chargers ($17 million under).
Teams over the cap this offseason are going to be squeezed without a new CBA. Teams under the cap this offseason are going to have a huge advantage over the other teams. Never will being under the cap mean more than it will this offseason.
Ok. Maybe I am a tard.
Since 2007 might be an uncapped year, doesn't that mean that teams could just blow tons of money on whoever they want? I understand why it will hurt some teams in 2006, but how would a new CBA help them for '06? Why does it affect FA signings for 06? Also, if it benefits the Eagles and the other teams under the cap, would it make sense for those teams to try to drag out the process? Make it more likely for the CBA to not get done?
It has to do with how contracts are structured. Check out Florio's archives on profootballtalk.com. He goes into it in depth.
Found a really good write up by Clayton for anyone that is interested:
Quote
Lack of new deal would affect '06 free agency
By John Clayton
ESPN.com
Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement extension continue to drag. Conference calls are going on daily with hopes of getting something done. The collective bargaining agreement runs out after the 2007 season, but March 3 of this year is perhaps the most important date in the process.
Even though two years remain in the agreement, the NFL Players Association and owners built incentives into the current CBA to encourage negotiations. The incentives include the uncapped year in 2007 and the equally painful transition year in 2006. If no deal is done by March 3, the NFL, as we've known it since the cap started in 1993, won't be the same. If a new deal isn't worked out, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said the union will proceed to the uncapped year in 2007 and not look back. That could put pro football in the rare position to be the first sport to lose a salary cap.
Most experts think a last-minute deal will be completed, but what if it isn't? Here are a few answers to the questions.
• What is the problem in the negotiations?
The biggest problem is the lack of cohesion among the owners. The players have to settle on a negotiated percentage of total gross revenues, and Upshaw said that percentage must be in the 60s. They currently get 64 percent of designated gross revenues, but the sport has grown so much that the formula must change. Starting with an extension, the percentage will be based on total revenues. The NFL has grown into a $6 billion business and is expected to be a $10 billion business by 2010. Upshaw and commissioner Paul Tagliabue should be able to work out the number but not if there isn't improved revenue sharing among the owners, and that's what has been holding up a settlement.
Teams with new stadiums at the top of the revenue list don't want to share their profits with the lower revenue teams. Heading the list of high-revenue teams are the Dallas Cowboys, Washington taterskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Philadelphia Eagles. Because eight votes can block any deal such as a CBA, they prevent a deal from getting done and it could cost the league the salary cap. Their position is strong.
The revenue differences in a league that made its success by sharing has grown apart. A top team such as the taterskins can make between $200 million and $240 million in gross revenues and that number should grow to $300 million. The lower-revenue teams are in the low $100-million range. What the high revenuers are hoping is that the union would do a deal without revenue sharing. Upshaw says that won't happen because he can't have a top revenue team pay 35-40 percent of its revenues on payroll while a low revenue team pays 70 percent. Conference calls over the past couple of days are moving the process but the negotiations are complicated. At some point, the owners have to settle their differences and take the best deal or they will lose the salary cap.
• With no extension, what problems would exist for the '06 season?
Because 2006 could be a transition year to no cap in 2007, rules change slightly and they take a lot of money out of the free agency pool. Teams will lose between $2.5 million and $5 million of cap room because of the transition. Because there is no cap in 2007, players who are released from multi-year contracts will have the cap hits on the 2006 cap. With no salary cap in 2007, there will be no June 1 adjustment date to release players with high cap numbers and delay the cap hits. With no cap in 2007, all incentives will count immediately.
Normally, incentives have to be earned during the season and are posted on the next year's cap. Teams have to leave room for the extra charges and that will take anywhere between $100 million and $150 million of cap room out of the free agent pool. With less room, fewer free agents will get big dollars, and fewer free agents will be signed. Another problem is the 30-percent rule for base salaries. Any contract that extends into an uncapped year limits the increase of a player's base salary to 30 percent a year. That kills the teams over the cap because they can't negotiate simple replacement deals in which they replace base salary with signing bonuses. The base salaries can increase only 30 percent a year so teams would have to negotiate two or three years of reductions. It will be harder for teams to free up money under the cap because of that.
Signing draft choices will be more difficult because teams can prorate signing bonuses for only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That leads to long holdouts by draft choices.
• What does the NFL lose if it doesn't negotiate a CBA extension?
Labor peace. In 2008, the NFL will either be on strike or the owners will lock out the players. That's not going to play well with networks investing a total of $100 million a year in rights fees. The union will decertify and then antitrust rules will apply. The NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted in the current CBA if it expires. Naturally, the NFL will try to implement a system, but the NFLPA will sue and both sides will be spending all of their time in court. To get players out of college, it could be open negotiations. Minimum salaries for all players will be eliminated in 2007, so every contract, including those for rookies coming out of college, has to be negotiated individually and those players get what they can get. Players probably can sue if their contracts are traded. Every single move of the league will be under legal scrutiny.
• What do the players lose if there is no extension?
They will lose some protection. Even though it's more of a procedural thing that has to do with antitrust laws, the union will go out of business if there is no CBA. That will cause uncertainty for the players. Teams can change and cut down the benefits package that players receive, which is considered the best in sports. With no structure, teams can pay young players below the current minimums of $235,000, $310,000 and $385,000 a year.
• Will the NFL resemble baseball if there is an uncapped 2007?
Not really. There will be some restrictions of teams being able to go out and sign whomever they want. There will be what is called a "Final Eight" restriction for teams that make the playoffs in 2006. The final four playoff teams will be allowed to re-sign any of their own unrestricted free agents. However, they will be permitted to sign unrestricted free agents from other teams as replacements only if they lose one of their own free agents. A team that loses in the divisional playoff round will have the limitation of adding one unrestricted free agent with a salary of $1.5 million or more. So the final eight playoff teams won't be able to go out like the Yankees and Red Sox and grab all the players that are available in an uncapped year. There is no limitation on Fight Eight teams signing franchise or transition players from other teams but those players are hard to acquire and would cost top draft choices to sign. Teams in 2007 also will have one extra transition designation along with their one franchise tag, giving them a franchise tag and two transition tags to keep their top players.
• Will free agency be different in 2007?
Yes, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years under the current rules. If no CBA agreement is reached this year, players won't begin unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers.
I don't like the restiction on playoff teams signing free agents. Under that scenario, a perennial playoff team like the Eagles could never sign anyone unless they lost their own FAs, while crappy teams like the taterskins and Cowboys would have no restrictions....
Just get the damn deal done already.
QuoteNFL | League moving closer to a labor deal?
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:29:18 -0800
Alex Marvez, of the Sun-Sentinel, reports the NFL appears on the verge of reaching agreement on a new labor pact with its players union. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Monday, Feb. 27, that progress has been made. An agreement reached this week would likely delay the start of the free-agent signing period, which is scheduled to begin Friday, March 3. Jones said negotiations between the league and the NFL Players Association could continue until Thursday, March 2.
QuoteA league source tells us that the NFL previously promised to disseminate on Monday the official crop report (a/k/a salary cap numbers) for 2006, and that the league ultimately failed to do so.
This development has prompted increased speculation among league insiders that a new CBA is imminent, since an extension would require the team-by-team salary maximums to be re-calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in the new agreement.
We've previously heard that the new CBA will determine the cap numbers based on a percentage of "Total Football Revenue." Current thinking in some circles is that the number will be 59 percent, and that the salary cap will be between $100 million and $110 million per team for 2006.
Raw revenue numbers suggest an even higher number, but we're told that there are certain deductions that will be made before the 59 percent figure is applied.
Anyway, brace yourself for what looks to be an inevitable announcement that peace and harmony will continue in a sport premised upon anything but
QuoteESPN.com has confirmed that progress is being made on a new CBA, with a week delay to free agency looking more likely than ever.
Owners have a conference call on Tuesday and the NFL has delayed announcing the salary cap and restricted free agent tender numbers until after the call. Free agency was scheduled to begin this Friday, but a delay of a week or more appears likely if a deal comes this week.
Another goddamn week to wait. :-\
Awsum! That means T.O. will be an Eagle for an extra week!
There's still hope!!
Negatory.
His bonus dates are still applicable.
So he'll have to be cut by March 8th still.
Liar.
QuoteNext season's salary cap likely will be about $108 million per team if the owners and the players' union can agree to an extension of their collective bargaining agreement. It probably will be set at $95 million to $96 million per club if there's no labor extension. Last season's salary cap was $85.5 million per team. . . .
From the Washington Times Mark Maske, who is a pretty good writer.
ewwww washington times....someone as good as maske would never write for that nazi right wing rag of a paper...maske writes for the post and yes he is one of if not the best nfl beat writer...the following article was in todays post co written with leonard shapiro who is one of the great all around sportswriters in the country
Labor Negotiations to Resume Today
League, Union Hope for Progress by Tomorrow Afternoon
By Mark Maske and Leonard Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; E03
NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw traveled to New York yesterday to resume labor negotiations today with Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and other league officials, hoping to reach a last-minute settlement on an extension of the collective bargaining agreement that would keep the salary cap system in place beyond next season.
Upshaw and Tagliabue plan to resume deliberations after a one-day break. The sides met Sunday, and front-office executives from NFL teams and agents were anticipating yesterday that a settlement was imminent or already tentatively in place. But Upshaw said by telephone while en route to New York yesterday that there had been no agreement and he and Tagliabue still were working to try to settle the central economic issue of the dispute by negotiating what percentage of an expanded revenue pool players would receive as compensation.
Tagliabue sent a memo to all 32 teams, notifying them that they will be informed by 4 p.m. tomorrow whether there will be a labor extension and told then what next season's salary cap figure will be. The team owners are scheduled to talk via conference call today, and the league's free agent market is slated to open Friday.
"We don't have a deal," Upshaw said. "It's hard to say if we'll get there by Wednesday or not. We're not there yet, but you keep trying until the time runs out. That's why we're still meeting."
A league official said there was no agreement between Tagliabue and Upshaw, but the commissioner was readying for a final negotiating push. The owner of one team, speaking on the condition of anonymity because talks were at such a sensitive stage, said he had been told that negotiations had resulted in "some progress but no agreement."
Upshaw said that no other issues would serve as deal-breakers if he and Tagliabue can agree to what percentage of an expanded revenue pool players would receive. They currently receive about 65 percent of a revenue pool known as defined gross revenues. With league revenues burgeoning, Upshaw is seeking to have players paid from a greatly expanded revenue pool known as total football revenues, and wants the players to receive at least 60 percent of those revenues. The league has not been willing to offer that much.
"We don't have any agreement on that," Upshaw said. "If anyone says that we do, it's just not right. They're still in the same place with their proposal, and it's not enough. . . . If we can get an agreement on the percentage, it would be pretty easy to fill everything else in. We've been talking about the other stuff."
Owners are scheduled to meet Monday and Tuesday in Dallas. Upshaw said that if he and Tagliabue are going to strike a deal, it will have to include a provision for increasing the degree to which the teams share their locally generated revenues, and then Tagliabue would have to get the owners to approve the labor and revenue-sharing deals in Dallas. Some owners have said they think a labor agreement could come without a revenue-sharing deal, but Upshaw continues to maintain the two would have to come simultaneously.
"It's still tied to our proposal," Upshaw said. "You can't have one without the other. If we can reach an agreement, he's going to have to go to the owners and say, 'Here's the deal. If you want a deal, you have to vote for this.' That's his job, not mine. I don't have to deal with that, thank goodness."
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 28, 2006, 08:05:34 AM
someone as good as maske would never right for that nazi rgith wing rap of a paper
Writing real words is hard.
werd
QuoteNFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
LEAGUE, PLAYERS CLOSE TO EXTENDING CBA to 2013
The NFL and the union likely will extend their collective bargaining agreement soon, avoiding a possible salary cap mess.
BY JASON COLE jcole@MiamiHerald.com
February 28, 2006
INDIANAPOLIS - The Dolphins and other NFL teams felt relief after Monday's news of progress in the negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones indicated that an extension of the current collective bargaining agreement likely is only days away, avoiding what could have been a complicated situation with the NFL salary cap.
When asked whether there had been progress in the past few days, Jones replied: ``Yes. I feel we'll likely have a deal within . . . we've got a pretty tight time frame here with the [league] year [starting Friday]. It will be firmed into a situation that will reasonably address the beginning of the league year.''
Jones, who is considered a leader of the high-revenue teams, has been among the key figures in the talks.
NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw met Monday in Washington to hold further talks and are expected to meet today in New York.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the executive committee of the NFL Management Council, which includes eight owners, will meet in New York.
If an agreement is completed, the current cap rules would stay in place and would be extended through the 2013 season.
That would greatly benefit the Dolphins. Like many teams, the Dolphins were expected to have problems getting under the projected salary cap of between $92 million and $95 million. The rules that would have taken effect without an extension would make restructuring contracts difficult.
An extension of the agreement would ease that. For example, the Dolphins could create approximately $6 million in cap space by guaranteeing and extending the contract of Pro Bowl defensive end Jason Taylor, whose salary is scheduled to count for $11 million against the cap in 2006.
The cap for all teams also is expected to be much higher. Last week, Upshaw said the cap could be as high as $104 million with the extension.
That means the Dolphins can retain more veteran players, at least temporarily. For example: Without a CBA extension, left tackle Damion McIntosh and quarterback Gus Frerotte might have been released for salary cap reasons. But now they can remain on the roster, at least until the team gets other players to supplant them or reworks their contracts.
Although the Dolphins have not confirmed how far under the cap they will be, it's apparent that an extension would put them in position to do some significant free agent shopping. That could include making offers for players such as Saints center LeCharles Bentley, former Jets cornerback Ty Law or Chargers quarterback Drew Brees.
Upshaw said last week that he wouldn't agree to extend the deadline for a new CBA, but others in the NFLPA have indicated that Upshaw was posturing. Jones said something must be at least in writing by Thursday to get an extension of the deadline.
The negative fallout from the extension: The start of the league year, which also is the beginning of the free agency period, likely will be delayed. Free agency is expected to begin March 3 but could be delayed by a week or two.
Houston general manager Charley Casserly said an extension likely would have to delay the start of the league year to read through the cap and examine any changes in the rules.
Also, several other executives with the league and the NFLPA have said it will take time for teams to restructure contracts for players
anyone hear they're close to a new CBA?
You would think a delay of the start of the league year WOULD, in fact, push back the dates roster bonuses are due. There could be some significant outcry from many teams, including the Eagles, considering that dates were set based on a schedule for the league year. For instance, the Eagles could have played cat and mouse with T.O. for a few days and seen if someone pulled the trigger on a trade. Otherwise, they (and everyone else in a similar situation) will have to just cut. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and I can't imagine the owners would agree to it.
And then the NFLPA lawyers would get in a hissy fit about a date being a date. And I agree with them on that. The only reason I do is because it is set 5 days after the FA period was set to open.
If it was closer to the date, like March 2d or 3rd then I would agree with you. Then it would be tied more directly to that start of FA. But 5 days later isn't a real strong argument, IMO.
They're all gay.
i would think they would instantly move those contract dates as many days back as they would for the start of free agency.
but i doubt they will. as the dates for the franchise/transition tags didnt change.
it's not the nfl's problem that some teams put these dates into the contracts with the players.
Breaking news from ESPNews:
Mortenson reports talks have broken down and Upshaw said a deal will not get done and he's leaving Washington.
Mort will be on in a sec, I'm going to watch.
BWAHAHA.... Here come the cuts!
i'll be honest, i'm extemely curious to see all the players that would have to be cut due to the CBA not being extended.
that and i'm so damn impatient to get free agency started.
The level of my morbid curiosity about this whole thing is pretty high.
especially since, by all accounts, the Eagles won't be effected negatively
Well, the market may be flooded with more high-talent guys that they still won't sign. Thereby driving every Eagles fan into a cripple-beating frenzy and resulting in the loss of millions as 74% of the fan base lands in federal pound me in the ass prison.
The Eagles won't be affected positively either. The Eagles aren't top 5 in the league in cap space this year like usual.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 28, 2006, 04:46:27 PM
Well, the market may be flooded with more high-talent guys that they still won't sign. Thereby driving every Eagles fan into a cripple-beating frenzy and resulting in the loss of millions as 74% of the fan base lands in federal pound me in the ass prison.
and it will still be better than being a Skins fan.
Amen to that.
The funniest farging thing....and I will bet the farm on this.....is that one of the people blocking the process is.............Daniel Snyder. No way that dude signs off on the revenue sharing. No way, no how. He is farging his own team, and it's fan base. Do I have proof you ask? With Danny Snyder...do I need it?
I heart Danny Snyder.
Quote
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Upshaw says NFL labor talks break down again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN.com news services
NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the latest talks to bring a new collective bargaining agreement have once again broken down and he again expressed pessimism about a deal getting done.
Upshaw said: "We met today and there's no deal and we're deadlocked. We were supposed to stick around and meet tomorrow, but that's not gonna happen. That's it. I'm headed back to Washington"
The two sides met for five hours Tuesday. When asked if the two sides could still resolve the issue, Upshaw said it was possible, but he there were no more talks scheduled at this time.
ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.
Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.
Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.
Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.
Among the owners who have expressed optimism that an 11th-hour deal will be hammered out is Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys. "I think that we'll likely have a deal," Jones told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Monday. Other owners and team officials allowed there have been rumblings of progress and that they feel an extension will be in place before the end of the week.
QuoteNFL | Labor talks break down
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:37 -0800
ESPNews reports the talks regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement have broken down between the NFL Players Association and team owners. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, has been called off, according to NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw. The set deadline is Wednesday, March 1, at 4:00 p.m. EST.
it definitley sounds like Upshaw is posturing to get more concessions from the owners. i can't believe they'd be this close and allow everything to go to shtein. i still think it will get done.
I don't understand how credible sites like profootballtalk.com that are usually spot-on with their info and all these rumors that a CBA is agreed to in principle come out, and today Mortenson reports talks have broken down. I thought they already agreed to a deal?
Quote from: Philly Forever on February 28, 2006, 05:05:46 PM
I don't understand how credible sites like profootballtalk.com that are usually spot-on with their info and all these rumors that a CBA is agreed to in principle come out, and today Mortenson reports talks have broken down. I thought they already agreed to a deal?
Well, um....that's where you are wrong.
Spot on and credible?
pft.com is usually always right with their stuff, and they usually break stories way before other sites do as well. They are quite impressive.
They break the stories first because they print every single rumor that they come across/create out of thin air.
You sure you aren't thinking of profootballweekly? Profootballtalk usually only posts legit stuff that they confirm with their sources.
I don't know. Shut up.
Quote from: Philly Forever on February 28, 2006, 05:10:05 PM
pft.com is usually always right with their stuff, and they usually break stories way before other sites do as well. They are quite impressive.
they get one right every now and again. Give me a break.
Well, PFT is currently reporting that the labor end of the deal is done, and the owners are having a hard time agreeing on revenue sharing. So, until they agree, no deal can be put in place, and there is nothing left to negotiate. Hence, they aren't scheduled to have any further meetings.
Upshaw is posturing to pressure the owners. The owners have a conference call in half an hour. fargers better get it done. Rich asshats.
Getting a deal done quickly is not as important as getting it right.
Quote from: FFatPatt on February 28, 2006, 05:34:42 PM
Getting a deal done quickly is not as important as getting it right.
or not doing at all now so the taterskins get farged over.
As enjoyable as it would be for the Skins to get assfarged this year, the end of football as we know it would suck.
Especially since we didn't win a SB yet. I don't want the window closed like that.
Quote from: Philly Forever on February 28, 2006, 04:47:19 PM
The Eagles won't be affected positively either. The Eagles aren't top 5 in the league in cap space this year like usual.
Don't believe Petey King's BS.
That doesn't include the money that is saved by cutting TO and the LTBE credits of $6.5M from Jack Brewer's contract added on.
Once those two things are added in the Eagles will have approx. $18.7M to spend.
QuoteAround the NFL, disbelief and even desperation
By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com
Most fans couldn't care less about the collective bargaining agreement and, justifiable or not, view any discussions of negotiations aimed at extending labor peace through the 2013 season as just another example of the avaricious nature of already overpaid players.
By Thursday, however, when the real-world ramifications of the failed labor talks become more apparent, fans in a lot of NFL precincts will take notice. With negotiations toward an extension having broken off Tuesday afternoon -- despite earlier optimistic reports that the sides were poised to strike an agreement -- salary cap managers from several franchises are readying themselves for what one general manager suggested late Tuesday will come to be known as "Bloody Thursday."
Translation: Because so many teams are up against the projected cap limit of $95 million to $96 million for 2006, and the lack of a CBA extension means there are few options for relief, some big-name players will be jettisoned by Thursday, when teams must be in compliance with the spending limit.
"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."
For a few hours into Tuesday night, after word broke that NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw had departed league offices in Manhattan and headed back to Washington -- after declaring the negotiations hopelessly deadlocked -- there was a sense that the union chief was undertaking one last bit of posturing. As the evening wore on, though, it became increasingly obvious that Upshaw and the league were not just practicing brinksmanship, and that the NFL could instead be poised on the brink of disaster.
The word most often used by teams' staffers, the people charged with crunching the salary cap numbers, and who clearly had bought into the notion that a CBA extension would be struck: stunned.
Said one cap manager: "For months, my owner told me to develop two strategies, one with [an extension] and one without. But nobody, even with all the gloom-and-doom talk of the last few weeks, ever really believed we'd be breaking out 'Plan B.' And then, these last few days, even my owner was telling me he thought it would get done. Unless there's some kind of miracle on Wednesday, our team is going to have to do some drastic things, and I know we're not the only team in that situation."
How drastic? There continue to be rumors the Washington taterskins, who extended numerous contracts in the past to deal with previous cap crunches, could have to play with 20 rookies on the roster in 2006. On Tuesday night in Atlanta, there were rumblings the Falcons, who aren't in nearly the dire straits some other franchises are, might be forced to release tailback Warrick Dunn, who rushed for a career best 1,416 yards in 2005. The Kansas City Chiefs could part ways with perennial Pro Bowl guard Will Shields if he doesn't agree to adjust his contract and reduce a $6.67 million cap charge. And that is just the start of the many examples of potential attrition cited by team officials Tuesday evening.
Certainly the positive vibes of Monday had spiraled into disbelief -- and in some instances, desperation, it seems -- by Tuesday night.
Less than 24 hours earlier, key owners such as Dallas' Jerry Jones and Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney, and high-ranking club officials like New England vice chairman Jonathan Kraft, had offered public optimism about a CBA extension. But in the five-hour bargaining session in New York, things went bad, and by Wednesday's 4 p.m. deadline for reaching an accord that now seems unreachable, they could be far worse.
The league was represented Tuesday by commissioner Paul Tagliabue, vice president of labor relations Harold Henderson, members of the Management Council, and team presidents John Shaw of St. Louis and Atlanta's Rich McKay. In addition to Upshaw, it's believed the NFLPA representatives included attorneys Richard Berthelsen and Jeffrey Kessler.
"We're deadlocked," Upshaw said after the session. "There's nowhere to go."
The two sides remain about 4 percent apart in negotiations. A league source confirmed that the NFL is offering 56.2 percent of revenues, while the NFLPA is seeking a 60-percent share of the pie. The difference translates into approximately $300 million to $350 million per year. In a statement released Tuesday night, the NFL accused the NFLPA of "overreaching." And, rather predictably, the union, which has remained firm in its conviction that the old revenue-sharing models have become obsolete, charged that the optimism of Monday, that a deal would be completed, had been fabricated by the league in an attempt to pressure the NFLPA into a deal.
After essentially claiming the sides had run out of time, and that the league would play the 2007 season as a so-called "uncapped" year, Upshaw did leave some wiggle room by acknowledging that one phone call could change things. But it's not likely that call will be made. ESPN.com has confirmed that a meeting of the powerful Management Council executive committee, made up of eight owners and high-ranking club officials, is still set for Wednesday. But the session is not scheduled to begin until late afternoon, and, with a 4 p.m. deadline looming, it doesn't appear a last-minute accord is possible.
Tagliabue will convene a Thursday meeting of all owners. By that point, though, the mechanisms for an "uncapped" season in 2007 will already be in place. And Upshaw has reiterated throughout the talks that, if the NFL ever plays without a salary cap for one season, players will never permit one to be reinstituted.
There also exists the possibility that players could be locked out before the 2008 season, by which point the current collective bargaining agreement will have expired.
"We're going to behead the golden goose," one NFC owner said last week. "And I can't see why both sides would ever let it get to that. Then again, a year ago, I would have told you we'd never, ever let it get this close to happening. I figured there were enough 'poison pills' [in the CBA], things that negatively impacted both sides, to force an extension. But, hey, here we are. A lot of things in our league could be changed forever."
The lack of an extension, indeed, means a lot for both sides. And not just the composition of rosters.
For instance, players will now need six accrued seasons, not four, to qualify for unrestricted free agent status. So a standout young player such as Chicago Bears three-year veteran linebacker Lance Briggs, who is coming off a Pro Bowl season and whose contract expires after the 2006 season, would have to wait two additional seasons before being unrestricted. The league would also, in an uncapped year, quit funding 401(k) plans (it currently matches player investments on a 2-1 basis) and most other fringe benefits, meaning players would be responsible for those things.
And there would be difficulties, even for the most innovative teams and creative player agents, in meeting financial expectations on most contracts. Players in free agency and high-round draft picks will have trouble approximating the fat deals of the past, and player agents face problems in trying to explain why expectations might have to be lowered.
As of Tuesday, there were a dozen teams in the league with more than $10 million apiece in 2006 salary cap room. It seems logical that those teams, which include four franchises with more than $20 million each in cap space, would benefit from the problems of cap-strapped clubs, especially if the free agent rolls are swelled Thursday with the anticipated cap casualties. But because of the quirks of the pending "uncapped" year in 2007, even those teams will have to move with great caution in crafting contracts.
One player agent suggested that it will be a "nuclear winter" at the outset of free agency, with few teams jumping out and completing early deals because of the uncharted landscape in which the NFL will be operating.
Some other lesser known implications: Without an extension to the CBA, teams will be able to amortize signing bonuses over just four seasons, instead of the maximum seven years. Because of the 30-percent rule, which essentially stipulates that a player's basic compensation (his base salary plus the prorated share of his signing bonus for 2006) cannot be increased by more than 30 percent, teams can't make up the difference in smaller signing bonus with fatter base salaries.
But perhaps the biggest problem is that so-called "not likely to be earned incentives" (NLTBE) will count immediately against the cap. In normal circumstances, NLTBE incentives count on the following year's spending limit. So NLTBEs earned in 2005, for instance, count against a team's 2006 cap. But with an uncapped year looming in 2007, such incentives and bonuses that are triggered in 2006 would immediately apply.
Indeed, barring a dramatic and unanticipated turn of events Wednesday, it is not going to be business as usual around the league. And if the ramifications are as catastrophic as predictions indicated Tuesday they might be, fans could be forced to pay more than the usual grudging attention to business matters.
yay! the last remaining sport that isn't already ruined by horrible player contracts is about to be ruined.
Did you change your screen name again?
:paranoid
Quote from: hunt on March 01, 2006, 09:25:39 AM
yay! the last remaining sport that isn't already ruined by horrible player contracts is about to be ruined.
yep. pretty much.
the nfl was the only league left i actually paid attention to on a weekly basis...if this happens, i assume it will follow the likes of the other sports i just dont get in to all that much anymore.
if this follows in a worst case...you will see ticket prices skyrocket around the league, and more and more 1/4 empty stadiums.
(http://www.accboards.com/newboard/images/cry2.gif)
If the NFL turns into the NBA I probably will cry. So cram it.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 01, 2006, 10:08:42 AM
(http://www.accboards.com/newboard/images/cry2.gif)
You can poke fun all you want, but everyone's right. The restrictive salary cap has made the NFL much better than its other major sports counterparts. You go back to a huge cap, or no cap, or a luxury tax system... you're going to be exactly like MLB or the NBA. It will be awful for the long-term success of the NFL.
the nfl is better because it doesnt play a 1000 game schedule and have half its league make the playoffs....player salaries have nothing to do with it
player salaries have no effect on anyone other than the jealous bitter working class fans who dont like kids caking off for life at age 22
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 01, 2006, 10:52:54 AM
the nfl is better because it doesnt play a 1000 game schedule and have half its league make the playoffs....player salaries have nothing to do with it
player salaries have no effect on anyone other than the jealous bitter working class fans who dont like kids caking off for life at age 22
wrong.
it's the constant competitive nature of the NFL that keeps the sell outs. you elimate the rules that keep all 32 teams playing on the same salary stucture, you will have 6 or 7 nfl teams with all the money paying all the players, and the rest of the teams fielding young underpaid players, where once in a while they will snag a playoff spot, but over all, it will be the big money makers in year in and year out.
when you have the small market teams that can not keep paying top money, you will have more franchises looking like the cardinals. the fans will stop going at the same rate. and they will lose more money.
keep thinking it wont happen. thats what every other league did, and they all struggle bringing in attendence on a league wide scale.
Salaries have everything to do with why the NFL is the better league. The cap keeps things on a level playing field. Fans from every NFL city know that their team could be just a season away from competing because of the cap. Teams go from terrible to outstanding in short order because of parity. Take the cap away and you'll have the money-hogs developing dynasties and you'll have a small handful of teams who will be good for a long time while the rest of the league suffers. The cap has made the NFL what it is. If you don't see that you're pretty f'ing blind.
the nfl more than any other sport is a team game...money can buy players but not teams...coaching and player personel decisions own the league...the teams that are best in those areas will win
the nba has had a cap for a while and its popularity is at an all-time low
baseball doesnt have a cap and is as popular as its ever been....baseball suffers more from a 162 game schedule as anything else
all that said im pro cap and i think the league is better with it....but lets not pretend the game will become unwatchable if they dont have one...people wont admit it but what it comes down to is heads not liking rich athletes and the nfl system screws athletes on the regular which appeals greatly to a lot of people
No one's saying it'll be unwatchable.
But it will decline in popularity. A lot. And the loss of parity will make it a helluva lot less interesting.
all athletes are rich compared to the average fan.
You're a liar!
yeah the nfl sucked in the 70's 80's and early 90's
sixers fans are loving the nba cap that is preventing them from being a contender for the foreseeable future
guaranteed contracts & out of control salaries are what killed the nba & mlb....i don't want to see the nfl go in that direction and getting rid of the cap is a precursor to doing just that, imo.
baseball is more popular than is ever been and as good a product as ever...it hasnt been hurt much less killed
nba is just a bad product right now...partly due to guaranteed contracts but more to do with the salary cap and the influx of young not ready for the nba players
Baseball has morphed into a homerun derby where large market teams dominate. May the richest, brutiest brutes win. And I thought I read that attendance and tv ratings have been in decline league-wide, though I don't really know for sure.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 01, 2006, 12:06:52 PM
where large market teams dominate. May the richest, brutiest brutes win.
Florida Marlins, Chicago Whitesox, Anahiem Angels
i cant speak on tv...but the ratings of all sports are down including the nfl
as for attendance the league set an all-time record last year
QuoteFlorida Marlins, Chicago Whitesox, Anahiem Angels
1. Dismantled every other year.
2. What is their payroll right now? Didn't they just get Thome and sign Konerko to a huge deal?
3. Have a freak in the OF and a good coach. They might compete on and off, but they won't be a perenial playoff team like the Yanks and Sox of the world.
Exceptions are everywhere, they don't make it a good product.
i'm just saying, more of the recent champs have been lower payroll teams than have been higher payroll teams
it would save all of us a lot of time if you just said you hate baseball and moved on
Fine with me. Don't want to talk about that passtime anyway...
if the cap goes away & the eagles "buy" a championship, will all of you celebrate?
Of course. But as IGY said, football is the most obvious example of a team sport where 'buying a championship' might not even be possible.
your Yankees bear trap is very obvious
it was meant to be obvious.
and i already know everyone's answer....somehow, the eagles doing it would be different.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 01, 2006, 12:31:08 PM
Of course. But as IGY said, football is the most obvious example of a team sport where 'buying a championship' might not even be possible.
Yeah. The taterskins didn't "buy" their championships. That's why, even with the cap, Gibbs is teh bestest coach @vaR! LeWT! Bizitch1!1!Please ban me, I have nothing to contribute.!
As much as I hate to admit it Skins didn't buy their championship... they had a good team together for the first one and were able to spend whatever they needed/wanted to keep that team together. They built a championship caliber team and then had the money and leeway to keep them together as a championship level. The trick was putting that team together in the first place and you can't begrudge them that.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 01, 2006, 12:39:31 PM
As much as I hate to admit it Skins didn't buy their championship... they had a good team together for the first one and were able to spend whatever they needed/wanted to keep that team together. They built a championship caliber team and then had the money and leeway to keep them together as a championship level. The trick was putting that team together in the first place and you can't begrudge them that.
Noted.
* But you missed my point:
The taterskins suck.........and their fans love manmeat.
*
I think someone must have hacked RJS' account....
Cap status as of today (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505)
Note that the Eagles' cap includes T.O.'s contract, so that will throw another $6m or so onto the heap.
It's good to be prepared.
interesting to note you must be at the cap by 4pm thursday not midnight...i guess midnight is just when FA starts
altho wip has been reporting the owners will meet tomorrow at 830am and if they deem that there is even a sliver of hope for an extension on the cba the start of fre agency will be delayed for up to a week
Quote from: hunt on March 01, 2006, 12:28:52 PM
if the cap goes away & the eagles "buy" a championship, will all of you celebrate?
Damn straight.
Pfft... I'd celebrate it if the other team they'd be facing in the Super Bowl went down in a plane crash killing all aboard on the way to the game.
As long as they win, I don't give a shtein about the circumstances surrounding it.
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 01, 2006, 12:50:25 PM
Cap status as of today (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505)
Note that the Eagles' cap includes T.O.'s contract, so that will throw another $6m or so onto the heap.
It's good to be prepared.
Lovely... so we're actually in the top 5 once again. :yay
Yep, we'll shake out right around $20 million in space once T.O. and possibly Grasmanis are released...
| Player | Cap number | 2006 savings |
| DT Paul Grasmanis | $700,000 | $700,000 |
| DE Jerome McDougle | $2,001,666 | $407,502 (charge) |
| WR Terrell Owens | $6,778,333 | $4,544,999 |
| QB Koy Detmer | $720,000+? | $720,000 |
| QB Mike McMahon | $800,000+? | $800,000 |
They aren't going to cut McDougle, but the others are all either definite (Owens) or possible. Of course, McMahon and Detmer's numbers would be replaced with new backups at a net cost, so they wouldn't REALLY end up being realizable savings.
im pretty sure that number clayton came up with is already excluding TO
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 01, 2006, 01:31:27 PM
im pretty sure that number clayton came up with is already excluding TO
I'm pretty sure it's not. But since the Eagles always screw us fans by not even coming close to using their cap dollars, why does it even matter? Jeff Lurie hates us all! We're not going to sign anyone! Mediocrity prevails!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2341755
list of possible cap casualties
I'm pretty sure it's not.
i hope youre right but about a month ago he was saying that the birds would be right in the middle of the nfl...even without adding additional money he has them up higher than that...add in six mil more and they are like 5th
i guess tho with all the slicin and dicin that will be done a bunch of teams could jump over them...knocking them down into the middle of the pack
Quote from: hunt on March 01, 2006, 01:34:28 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2341755
list of possible cap casualties
i don;t really study this cap shtein very much, but for example, the first guy on that list, Calvin Pace. Why would a team get charged by releasing him?
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 01, 2006, 01:38:23 PM
I'm pretty sure it's not.
i hope youre right but about a month ago he was saying that the birds would be right in the middle of the nfl...even without adding additional money he has them up higher than that...add in six mil more and they are like 5th
i guess tho with all the slicin and dicin that will be done a bunch of teams could jump over them...knocking them down into the middle of the pack
Its not. He is still part of the team, so his cap counts his salary until he is officially released.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 01, 2006, 12:03:42 PM
baseball is more popular than is ever been and as good a product as ever...it hasnt been hurt much less killed
links?
pirates, and royal fans would disagree
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 01, 2006, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on March 01, 2006, 12:06:52 PM
where large market teams dominate. May the richest, brutiest brutes win.
Florida Marlins, Chicago Whitesox, Anahiem Angels
which one hasnt bought a world series of not from a large market again?
Quotewhich one hasnt bought a world series of not from a large market again?
in 2002, Anaheim's payroll was 15th at 62.7 million
in 2003, Florida's payroll was 26th at 48.4 million
in 2005, Chicago's payroll was 13th at 75.2 million
Quote from: phattymatty on March 01, 2006, 02:02:12 PM
i don;t really study this cap shtein very much, but for example, the first guy on that list, Calvin Pace. Why would a team get charged by releasing him?
His accelerated pro-rated signing bonus is greater than his 2006 salary + 2006-only portion of signing bonus.
ie: McDougle would cost the Eagles $400,000 more to cut than to keep, because his the remaining part of his pro-rated signing bonus is $400,000 more than his total cap number (2006 portion of signing bonus + 2006 salary).
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 01, 2006, 02:26:40 PM
Quotewhich one hasnt bought a world series of not from a large market again?
in 2002, Anaheim's payroll was 15th at 62.7 million
in 2003, Florida's payroll was 26th at 48.4 million
in 2005, Chicago's payroll was 13th at 75.2 million
florida's payroll was 63M in 03
still the other two teams there are from larger markets, and it's 3 out of the last 10 years....
actually, it's 3 out of the past 4
i can't wait for Bloody Thursday tomorrow
I just hope we're ready with our band-aids.
(Yeah, I know that was weak as hell, but I'm not even trying... kiss my ass.)
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 01, 2006, 04:50:27 PM
(Yeah, I know that was weak as hell, but I'm not even trying... kiss my ass.)
QuoteOwners to meet ahead of Thursday deadline
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- NFL owners will try Thursday to find labor peace before the start of free agency, hoping to avoid the mass dumping of veterans for salary-cap reasons.
The owners will meet in New York, seeking to find a way toward an agreement with the players union that could add $10 million to $15 million to a 2006 salary cap that currently is projected at about $95 million. Without it, some teams could be forced into wholesale cuts to get beneath the cap by midnight. Free agency starts Friday.
Three days of talks between the league and the NFL Players Association to extend the agreement that runs out in 2008 ended Tuesday with the sides far apart on the percentage of league revenues earmarked for its players. Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director, said the league is offering 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 said.
But beyond the numbers is an issue that has divided the owners for two years: revenue sharing among the teams.
Under the current system, some teams make far more than others in ancillary income, ranging from local radio rights to stadium naming rights and advertising. The lower revenue teams say that forces them to commit as much as 70 percent of that money to the players while teams with more outside money contribute far less, giving the high-revenue teams more available cash for upfront bonuses to free agents.
The NFL said in a statement after talks broke off that revenue sharing won't be discussed at Thursday's meeting.
Still, it is bound to come up during a meeting that on the surface is considered a strategy session to determine the owners' next move. Labor negotiations often have a way of being moved forward by deadlines, and revenue sharing is considered a critical part of the formula.
Under the current agreement, 2006 is scheduled to be the last year with a salary cap. An uncapped year in 2007 means new rules that 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.
"It might mean that no rookies get signed because no one is sure of the long-term ramifications," said Tom Condon, the agent for a number of the game's top players.
Even more urgent are salary-cap ramifications for many teams, which anticipated a labor agreement and planned for a much bigger ceiling. Washington, for example, could be as much as $25 million over after signings over the past few years that anticipated a salary cap figure well over $100 million.
The ramifications of a lower than anticipated cap were evident Wednesday, when some high-priced veterans were cut. Among them were defensive end Trevor Pryce and running back Mike Anderson of Denver, the team's leading rusher last season. Denver also cut tight end Jeb Putzier.
Buffalo, meanwhile, released defensive tackle Sam Adams and Carolina released three veterans: running back Stephen Davis, defensive tackle Brentson Buckner and kicker returner Rod Smart, "He Hate Me" of old XFL days.
Miami cut left tackle Damion McIntosh, saving $3.8 million against the cut. The Dolphins are a prime example of a team that needs a new labor agreement: They are estimated to be about $9 million over a $95 million cap, but would be under it if the agreement is reached.
Others seem ready for whatever happens.
"We're in pretty good shape," New York Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi said Wednesday. "They're going to give us a cap number and we'll be ready for it. You always prepare for a worst case, no matter what the situation. You never want to be surprised by something negative, only something positive."
Accorsi said he's also not worried about new rules. He said those contingencies are covered in the contracts of two young Pro Bowl players -- tight end Jeremy Shockey and defensive end Osi Umenyiora -- that the Giants extended last fall.
But others are in a different situation, which could mean wholesale cuts of big-name players at midnight Thursday. What happens in the meetings may determine that.
QuoteNFL | Cap set at $94.5 million
Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:06:59 -0800
The Associated Press reports the NFL has set the salary cap for the 2006 season at $94.5 million. League owners will meet in New York on Thursday, March 2, in an attempt to work out a new collective bargaining agreement. A new CBA could add anywhere from $10 million to $15 million to the salary cap. Teams also have an additional six hours to terminate contracts and request waivers on players. The original deadline was set for 4 p.m. EST on Thursday, March 2, but has now been pushed back to 10 p.m.
Tags is having a live presser on ESPNEWS right now...
ok, i will await your word for word recap...
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:20:44 AM
Tags is having a live presser on ESPNEWS right now...
Anywhere to hear a stream live? Nothing on ESPNRadio yet....On now...
i forgot, i don't need a recap, i have ESPNnews with my XM radio
the main point that will keep a deal from getting done is the NFLPA's demands for the percentage of revenue sharing
Updates! I need updates!
taterskins = Gutted. While I am stoked about that, no CBA is going to suck....
the Owners have voted unaminously to break off talks with the NFLPA
Tags layed it all on the feet of the NFLPA
he kept saying that the NLPA needs to make a fundamental change in their proposal regarding the % of revenue sharing
Holy shtein. That's really big news. Kind of sucks.
Says the NFLPA's demands are excessive....
Tags quote: "As dire as dire can get"
Tags says...
- Dire as dire can get.
- The NFLPA is unrealistic in its demands for revenue sharing-- don't understand the economics going into building stadiums, investments, etc. that generate the revenue in the 1st place.
- The Skins are farged.
Mort says that the owners are not as solidified as Tags tries to make them out to be.
This gives me a taterskins hating rager.
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:28:24 AM
Tags says...
- The Skins are farged.
lol, he actually mentioned them specifically?
Every clueless piece of shtein who ever criticized the front office for being fiscally conservative should find the nearest hammer and beat themselves over the head with it.
It's nuclear wintertime and the Eagles have themselves a handy-dandy, fully-stocked fallout shelter constructed and ready to go.
:deion
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on March 02, 2006, 10:32:29 AM
Every clueless piece of shtein who ever criticized the front office for being fiscally conservative should find the nearest hammer and beat themselves over the head with it.
:-D
Quote from: MURP on March 02, 2006, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:28:24 AM
Tags says...
- The Skins are farged.
lol, he actually mentioned them specifically?
no you silly goose.
Quote from: MURP on March 02, 2006, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:28:24 AM
Tags says...
- The Skins are farged.
lol, he actually mentioned them specifically?
Nah... I just got a little carried away. :-D
Now starting at quarterback for YOUR Washington taterskins.......
(Http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_replacements/keanu_reeves/replacements.jpg)
More like:
(http://www.chariho.k12.ri.us/chs/studentwork/p_debartolo_movies/pics/Burt%201.jpg)
:-D @ Mean Machine
At least three times during her report... Rachel Nichols has said "renevues". Get your shtein straight.
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:38:45 AM
At least three times during her report... Rachel Nichols has said "renevues". Get your shtein straight.
She can't even get her hair color straight. It's a different color everytime she's on. The first few times I check to make sure that my television's colors weren't off.
Liar.
You dudes are farged up in the head.
Rachel Nichols is hotter than Hades in July... >:D
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/jerome99rip/RachelNichols01.jpg)
Quote from: Philly Forever on February 28, 2006, 05:05:46 PM
I don't understand how credible sites like profootballtalk.com that are usually spot-on with their info and all these rumors that a CBA is agreed to in principle come out, and today Mortenson reports talks have broken down. I thought they already agreed to a deal?
Spot on. :yay
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 10:28:24 AM
Tags says...
- Dire as dire can get.
- The NFLPA is unrealistic in its demands for revenue sharing-- don't understand the economics going into building stadiums, investments, etc. that generate the revenue in the 1st place.
- The Skins are farged.
Upshaw should start spinning now, or hire a new PR firm.
Tags is making it look like the NFLPA is demanding revenue sharing. If that's the case, that's a big mistake by the union.
If public perception is simply that Upshaw wants 60%, he's losing the PR battle. People already don't like unions, let alone unions for people making millions of dollars. They should be focusing on making the owners look like they are not unified, which is the case.
It looks like I was wrong about a last minute deal. Now things get interesting.
It'll all come down to the language of the original contracts. If they're written in such a way to allow flexibility to convert and prorate bonuses, then cap numbers can be reduced in compliance with the 30%.
If not, then the league will reject the restructure, like they did with the colts.
Snyder will look like a genius if that's how he set up some of the contracts. We'll have to see.
Snyder could have a two to one payroll advantage over every other team in the NFL and he'd still find a way to farg it up.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on March 02, 2006, 11:07:49 AM
Rachel Nichols is hotter than Hades in July... >:D
Yes. Yes, she is.
Quote from: qwert246 on March 02, 2006, 11:43:09 AM
Snyder will look like a genius if that's how he set up some of the contracts. We'll have to see.
wow, an idiot up until the very end.
They have to hold on to that sliver of hope that maybe they won't end up looking like idiots. Of course the rest of us know they've been looking like idiots for a decade now. They're jsut too retarded to see it.
Where are the cuts?! I want blood, dammit.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 02, 2006, 12:11:34 PM
Where are the cuts?! I want blood, dammit.
Tell me about it. I can't leave my farging computer...
Questions and answers about the NFL labor talks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN
The sudden change in the climate of labor negotiations between the NFL and the Players Association, and the sudden flurry of player cuts, has left many fans with questions. Fortunately, ESPN.com has answers.
What is the primary issue?
The deadline to extend the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expires at 12:01 a.m. Friday, March 3. This is merely the negotiating period to extend the CBA. The CBA itself does not expire until after the 2007 season.
Why is that deadline important?
Friday is the beginning of the new NFL fiscal year. Every team must be under the salary cap by 10 p.m. ET Thursday, a six-hour reprieve from the original 4 p.m. ET deadline for cap compliance.
Could the negotiating deadline be extended?
That was discussed but is now highly unlikely. A delay in starting the new fiscal year would have pushed back the start of free agency and, in the event an extension still couldn't be reached, made it easier for teams to come into compliance with the 2006 cap.
Without the extension, though, teams some teams will have to release some very significant players in order to clear cap room. The 2005 cap was $85.5 million, and teams were anticipating a 2006 cap of around $102 million with an extension to the CBA. However, the actual 2006 cap is going to be $94.5 million, which has some teams scrambling to comply.
What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?
No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. Could Commissioner Paul Tagliabue penalize a team with draft picks? Or fines? With some teams in dire cap shape, we could find out sooner rather than later. The Washington taterskins are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs which have studied the taterskins' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.
Will any of this affect 2006 free agency?
Aside from the player pool growing rapidly as teams cut players to comply with the cap, the biggest change is that teams only will be able to prorate signing bonuses over four years, rather than seven, meaning players seeking large bonuses could be disappointed. And since base salaries can increase by a maximum of only 30 percent per year, the huge contracts we've seen recently (Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, for example) are likely a thing of the past. In short, it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to meet players' financial expectations.
Will any of this affect the 2006 season?
Only to the extent that some teams could look remarkably different heading into training camp than they did at the end of the 2005 season. But the current CBA actually has two more years to run (2006 and 2007), so if there is going to be a work stoppage at all, it's not likely to happen until 2008.
What happens if there is no extension to the current CBA?
Without an extension, the final season of the current CBA (2007) will be an uncapped season, meaning teams would have no limit on the amount of money they could spend on free agents.
Given the potential absence of a salary cap in 2007, some 2006 free agents might be unwilling to sign long-term contracts, figuring they could earn even more in the uncapped 2007. And NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has said once the salary cap goes away, the players aren't going to accept its return. Also, while unlikely, the potential exists that the owners could lock the players out in 2008. That is one reason the NFLPA will consider decertifying.
How will free agency be different in 2007?
Currently, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years. Without an extension to the CBA, players won't be eligible for unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers from their current teams.
Does an uncapped season also mean there's no salary minimum?
Yes. Currently, there is a salary minimum, as well as a salary cap. Every team must allocate a certain minimum amount to player salaries. However, when the salary cap goes away, so does the salary floor. Teams could choose not to spend a dime if they didn't want to.
What happens to player benefits (401k plans, health coverage, etc.)?
In an uncapped 2007, owners no longer will be responsible for their annual payments of about $13 million apiece to 401k plans, health coverage, life insurance and other programs under the umbrella of benefits. The NFL matches each player's 401k investments 2-for-1.
How does all of this affect the 2006 NFL draft?
Signing draft choices will be more difficult this year, because teams can prorate signing bonuses over only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That likely will lead to long holdouts by draft choices.
What are the long-term ramifications for the league?
In 2008, the NFL either will be on strike or the owners will lock out the players. The union likely will decertify, and antitrust rules will apply. Also, the NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted in the current CBA. Players coming out of college could be free agents, with no salary restrictions. Open negotiations, including those for rookies coming out of college, will leave it to the players to get what they can get.
What are the long-term ramifications for the players?
If the union does decertify, it will cause a lot of uncertainty for the players. Teams could change the benefits package players receive, and there would be no organization to protect players' interests. Teams could offer players salaries well below the currently established minimums.
that no draft thing is huge...
if im a draft pick this year i seriously consider sitting out a year
could a new cba be agreed upon after midnite tonight and before the uncapped 07 year?...or once we hit tomorrow it is 100% certain that 07 will be uncapped
whats stopping a team like the skins from sign ing players to two year contracts during free agency this year...year one paying them $100 and year two (the uncapped year) paying them 10 million dollars
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 02, 2006, 01:35:54 PM
if im a draft pick this year i seriously consider sitting out a year
could a new cba be agreed upon after midnite tonight and before the uncapped 07 year?...or once we hit tomorrow it is 100% certain that 07 will be uncapped
whats stopping a team like the skins from sign ing players to two year contracts during free agency this year...year one paying them $100 and year two (the uncapped year) paying them 10 million dollars
i am pretty sure the maximum salary escalation between single years is 33%
Well, the NFL still has to approve all contracts. I'm pretty sure $100 is a little under the minimum salary for any player this season.
look everyone its mr literal!!
lemme try this again
whats stopping a team like the skins from sign ing players to two year contracts during free agency this year...year one paying them the league minimum and year two (the uncapped year) paying them 10 million dollars
i am pretty sure the maximum salary escalation between single years is 33%
really...ive never heard of that...would that still apply in an uncapped year
i know there is a limit on the salary escalation, and i read that as the main guard against what you are talking about, it's only the % i am not sure about.
i would like to see the eagles offer freddie mitchell a $1 contract
Quotei would like to see the eagles offer freddie mitchell a $1 contract
Yeah but would it be worth it to have to pay him $1.30 next year? I don't like those numbers.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 02, 2006, 01:41:08 PM
look everyone its mr literal!!
lemme try this again
whats stopping a team like the skins from sign ing players to two year contracts during free agency this year...year one paying them the league minimum and year two (the uncapped year) paying them 10 million dollars
i am pretty sure the maximum salary escalation between single years is 33%
really...ive never heard of that...would that still apply in an uncapped year
that only applies if there is an uncapped year
oh so the escalation clause was put in for only the capped year
that makes sense
Quote from: rjs246 on March 02, 2006, 01:45:48 PM
Quotei would like to see the eagles offer freddie mitchell a $1 contract
Yeah but would it be worth it to have to pay him $1.30 next year? I don't like those numbers.
$1.33.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 02, 2006, 01:35:54 PM
if im a draft pick this year i seriously consider sitting out a year
i think that may be an idea for some of the projected high picks, but for those guys in the later rounds it will suck. getting drafted late means you at least get a chance to work out with a team and show them what you have, but the chances of a team going out and asking you to come in and work out are slimmer, i think.
Yeah, those guys getting drafted in round 8 will really get scr00ed!
Please ban me, I have nothing to contribute.!
Wonder why SKinsFan...I mean, Florio...hasn't updated PFT all day today? :-D
laroi glover and will shields both released
Florio has a job, like the rest of us. He typically posts in the morning and late afternoon.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on March 02, 2006, 02:48:33 PM
Florio has a job, like the rest of us. He typically posts in the morning and late afternoon.
POSTED 12:11 p.m. EST, February 28, 2006
JETS MISUSING FRANCHISE TAG?
POSTED 10:18 a.m. EST; UPDATED 11:16 a.m. EST, February 28, 2006
OWNERS SHOULD GET READY FOR GOLD RUSH
POSTED 1:39 p.m. EST; LAST UPDATED 3:26 p.m. EST, February 27, 2006
CBA IS "DONE," BUT . . . .
POSTED 12:08 p.m. EST, February 27, 2006
DUDE WHO LEAKED YOUNG SCORE TO BE POOP-CANNED
You get the idea. Biggest day in the NFL in YEARS....and he's nowhere to be found or none of the guys who post on that site are around either?
Whatever. ::)
maybe he was accidentally cut?
Quote from: Wingspan on March 02, 2006, 02:54:36 PM
maybe he was accidentally cut?
One could only hope Art would go first.
whats this about a cba extension? where'd this talk come from?
I love irrational hatred. It's so....feminine.
I shot your little theory to shtein and that's what you come back with....a chauvinistic comment.
Thrilling.
wait....PhillyGirl's a girl?
this is so awkward.
Quote from: phattymatty on March 02, 2006, 02:59:45 PM
whats this about a cba extension? where'd this talk come from?
Where's it being reported? I heard something earlier but it didn't sound right given the AP article...
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 02, 2006, 03:20:14 PM
wait....PhillyGirl's a girl?
this is so awkward.
I giggled a little at that...
Quote from: PhillyGirl on March 02, 2006, 03:16:14 PM
I shot your little theory to shtein and that's what you come back with....a chauvinistic comment.
Thrilling.
The point is he's right more than I would expect from random chance. And you have a preset notion of his worth, which is unshakeable by any explanation, reasoned or otherwise. It IS possible he's busier at work today than yesterday or the day before, yes? An n=4 for a body of several years of work hardly produces a significant trend, BTW.
It's a joke that they couldn't come to terms. For the future health of this league it's important a deal gets done. Even though it wold be funny to laugh at the taterskins, I would rather it get done.
There's nothing wrong with getting a new CBA done after the Skins have been gutted is there?
absolutely not...the ultimate would be for them to implode their team this year then avoid a no cap year next year
if thats even possible...im still confused as to whether an agreement can be struck between tomorrow and next year
it can be struck but next year will still be uncapped. next year is technically the last year of the current CBA. this capped/uncapped nonsense was merely a mechanisim installed into the current CBA to ensure that there is no lapse in collective barganing. so, if they somehow come to an agreement for an extension of the CBA in the next couple months, 2007 will still be uncapped because the deadline for 2007 to stay capped will have passed.
Yeah, I think they can still negotiate. Kinda the point I was making to PF.
Len Pasquerelli said they could still reach an extension of the CBA between now and next year, so if the CBA is extended, then wouldn't 2007 be capped? Extended is the key word. If not, then would 2008 be capped?
The NFL is delaying FA for 3 days, per ESPNEWS. :boo :boo
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 05:02:37 PM
The NFL is delaying FA for 3 days, per ESPNEWS. :boo :boo
Ah horseshtein.......this doesn't affect the deadline to be under that cap though does it? I am so stoked to watch the Skins be disassembled.
Everything pushed back 72 hours. So much for Bloody Thursday.
farg, farg, farg...i knew this would happen
Quote from: Philly Forever on March 02, 2006, 04:56:50 PM
Len Pasquerelli said they could still reach an extension of the CBA between now and next year, so if the CBA is extended, then wouldn't 2007 be capped?
i don't think so, if so, what would be the point of having this hard deadline if the ramifications of it can be reversed with a CBA extension down the line?
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on March 02, 2006, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 05:02:37 PM
The NFL is delaying FA for 3 days, per ESPNEWS. :boo :boo
Ah horseshtein.......this doesn't affect the deadline to be under that cap though does it? I am so stoked to watch the Skins be disassembled.
Mort now says that it's 6pm Sunday for cut-downs. Guess we're now waiting for Bloody Sunday. :boo :boo
6pm sunday?...farg...right in the middle of the oscar red carpet show
they're going to get a deal done, they wouldn't have extended things if either Upshaw or Tagliabue hadn't conceeded something
He also said they are resuming CBA talks so this is for CBA too.
Quote from: Philly Forever on March 02, 2006, 05:15:15 PM
He also said they are resuming CBA talks so this is for CBA too.
that's all it's for
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 02, 2006, 05:15:05 PM
they're going to get a deal done, they wouldn't have extended things if they either Upshaw or Tagliabue conceeded something
Yup... exactly what I'm thinking.
meaning dan snyder basically said i put moe money into this league than any human being on the planet....im not imploding my team...get a farging deal done tags...NOW
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 02, 2006, 05:02:37 PM
The NFL is delaying FA for 3 days, per ESPNEWS. :boo :boo
This sucks :boo :boo
This is good news. I know we all hate the Skins, but this is important for the health of the league. I would love to see the Skins fall apart too, but I'd rather this next season not be uncapped.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 02, 2006, 05:14:48 PM
6pm sunday?...farg...right in the middle of the oscar red carpet show
whether this is serious not. it's your first post in english...and funny either way :-D
so can all those cap cuts from earlier get a "do over?"
QuoteA high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during the period of uncertainty (which includes players in this story) can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.
Per this article. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2351727)
indeed
KC rescinded their cuts, so Barber isn't gone yet...
He sucks anyway. All the players they cut suck.
So far the only players so far I'd have interest in that have been cut or were about to be are all offensive lineman and a one RB - Anderson.
yeah mort was saying that 80% of the players cut were gonna be cut anyway...it looks more and more like this bloody (day) was an overblown media creation...deal or no deal very few if any big time players are gonna be cut
when the extension 1st came down yesterday, i was positive a deal would get done. that was because i was sure it was the NFLPA that conceeded something. however, yesterday it was said by a couple of people that it was actually the owners that told the NFLPA that a new offer would be coming and asked them to agree to extend the deadline. i'm not so sure a deal will get done now. the NFLPA is dead-set on getting 60.3% of the revenues and unless the owers give that to them i'm not sure something is going to get done.
Quote from: qwert246 on March 02, 2006, 11:43:09 AM
It looks like I was wrong about a last minute deal. Now things get interesting.
It'll all come down to the language of the original contracts. If they're written in such a way to allow flexibility to convert and prorate bonuses, then cap numbers can be reduced in compliance with the 30%.
If not, then the league will reject the restructure, like they did with the colts.
Snyder will look like a genius if that's how he set up some of the contracts. We'll have to see.
Quote from: phattymatty on March 02, 2006, 11:58:48 AM
wow, an idiot up until the very end.
All reports are that they were ready for the 10PM deadline, and they restructured the deals of Portis, Thomas, Springs, Brunell, Wynn. And they're working with Jansen and Arrington currently.
But you know things, and they're going to have to cut players.
Toolbag.
QuoteVikings center Matt Birk, has taken aim squarely at NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw.
Birk was candid in his comments with The Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding the union and Upshaw's leadership of it in conjunction with the ongoing CBA negotiations.
"Don't put this in the paper ... no, wait, go ahead and put it in," Birk said. "Gene Upshaw is a piece of [insert colorful language here]."
And Birk isn't just some garden-variety pissed-off lineman spewing venom. Birk's pedigree gives him plenty of credibility. The dude went to Harvard, and he didn't get a six or a seven or a 16 on his Wonderlic.
He's smart, he's perceptive, and he's very dangerous to guys who hope to manipulate others through emotion.
As to the status of the on-again, off-again labor talks, Birk said: "It's a joke, it really is. Everyone is making money. A lot of money. You think anyone wants to hear about the money problems of the NFL owners or players? It's bad pub for the league. It's bad for all of us."
Birk told us a few weeks back that the union has left the players "[p]retty much in the dark" regarding the status of the talks. "One thing about the union, in my opinion, they're always watching out for the union," he told us.
Per Friday's story in The Star Tribune, Birk was at one point a player representative to the union, but he quit due to what he called "propaganda and poor leadership."
"When you go to those CBA meetings, you always feel like you're being sold something instead of being given the straight facts," Birk told The Star Tribune. "Through all the meetings leading up to this, it was always: 'The owners don't want an uncapped year. We'll get a deal, and if we don't, so what? There will be an uncapped year and there will be crazy money out there.' The reality is that's not the case. And you're seeing that it's not the leverage we were told it would be. . . .
"Instead, you go there and it's like some kind of religious revival. You don't feel you're getting the true message. And they're always talking too fast."
With all that said, we're still convinced that the deal between the league and the union will get done in a heartbeat as soon as the owners figure out what to do with revenue sharing. But if Upshaw really is willingly playing the bad guy as cover for the owners in the hopes that he'll be the next Commissioner, the owners might want to ponder the wisdom of an Ivy Leaguer before making a selection based on gratitude.
Gratitude, after all, is just another emotion.
I am now a Matt Birk fan. :yay
He's absolutely right. The system was working for everybody, and Upshaw's trying to increase the power of the players/agents/union beyond the balance that was already in place.
Upshaw (and his sidekick Tom Condon) are pieces of garbage. It takes a special piece of garbage to make NFL owners look somewhat intelligent and down-to-earth.
if matt birk is so in the dark on everything thats going on then how can he comment so strongly on it?
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 03, 2006, 12:45:35 PM
if matt birk is so in the dark on everything thats going on then how can he comment so strongly on it?
I was listening to the Dan Patrick show about an hour ago and they had Birk as a guest. He said ont of the things that frustrates him most is how the union "tells them" what's best for them... and that there's little to no communication coming from the union to the players. They feel "along for the ride" instead of a part of the fight alongside the NFLPA.
He also conceded that he's had issues with Upshaw in the past that may have led to him speaking out so strongly against him.
It's obvious that Birk's problem is racism.
hugh co hosted the midday show today and ike was on for about an hour....both said what i said last week...that this is 90% about post playing career benefits for the players
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 03, 2006, 03:46:06 PM
hugh co hosted the midday show today and ike was on for about an hour....both said what i said last week...that this is 90% about post playing career benefits for the players
That was a great show today with Hugh on. And when Ike called in it was even better. I actually enjoyed listening to the station for once today.
FWIW..Comcast reported that the owners have upped thier offer to 58.5% of the DGR. Upshaw still says he wants 60%.
56.2% to 58.5%
The owners have come up. The players should accept that.
That two plus percent is what? Like 130 million per year, right? farging players union better take that shtein so we can get this show on the road. Christ.
That was a great show today with Hugh on. And when Ike called in it was even better. I actually enjoyed listening to the station for once today.
it really was...everything youve everheard about hugh in the locker room is true...in small doses i always thought he was kinda corny...but today he was absolutely hilarious in an everyman kind of way...and what else needs to be said about ike...hes fo rilla fo rilla
FWIW..Comcast reported that the owners have upped thier offer to 58.5% of the DGR. Upshaw still says he wants 60%.
56.2% to 58.5%
The owners have come up. The players should accept that.
FWIW are the key words....but if true i agree...thats a huge jump by the owners
If Upshaw doesn't agree to 58.5%, the CBA not getting done is 100% on his shoulders.
According to Schefter on NFL Total Access, the NFLPA and the owners are still hung up on some other issues. Something to the effect of, "both sides are firmly entrenched, and are attempting to wait out the other." He said several of his sources give the likelyhood of a either a new or an extension CBA about a 25% chance by the deadline. He did mention that regardless of whether or not one is in place, free agency will start on 12:01 Monday morning.
According to ESPNews the labor talks have broken off again
NFLPA lead lawyer said the talks are dead as a doornail.
These iceholes need to get their shtein together or...oh, right. Or nothing. The fans will watch and pay no matter what.
Carry on then.
there's this from PFT...
QuotePOSTED 2:47 p.m. EST, March 4, 2006
NFL, UNION CLOSING IN ON A DEAL
A league source tells us that the NFL and its players union are getting closer and closer to reaching an agreement on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Per the source, the two sides have tentatively agreed that 58 percent of all football revenues will be devoted to player salaries. The last remaining hurdle is the "cash over cap" limit, which is the device that the owners will utilize to ensure that franchises earning high amounts of unshared revenue cannot skew the competitive balance by making total cash payments in any given year that greatly exceed the salary cap for that season.
From the players' perspective, unlimited cash over cap helps to get more money into the hands of players sooner rather than later. In a league where the only guarantee is the money already paid, placing a limit on this device is a potentially significant concession.
For owners, an agreement limiting the extent to which a team like the taterskins can borrow against future salary caps by pouring excess money into a team that might be only a couple of parts away from a championship run will make it easier for lesser-earning teams to compete for free agents.
Still, the key factor (as we see it) is the salary floor. If teams like the Bengals and Cardinals choose to rebel against a salary cap amount driven higher by the enormous revenues generated by teams like the taterskins, the union needs to push hard for a high minimum. Currently, the minimum is based on 54 percent of the so-called defined gross revenues. We think that the new CBA should contain a per-team minimum of at least 50 percent of the total football revenues.
As to revenue sharing, our guess is that the NFL will continue its current system of equally sharing amounts that presently equate to roughly 80 percent of all dollars earned. The league also is likely to tinker with its supplemental revenue sharing system, which already provides additional money to teams with a defined need for it. Moving forward, our guess is that the NFL will tweak the formula for determining whether a team is entitled to supplemental revenue sharing -- and will require that the team demonstrate some tangible desire and effort to enhance its own revenues before the team will be eligible to share even more of the money earned by others.
ESPN report....gloomy (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233)
PFT totally different again. ::)
yeah, i saw ESPN's too, seems to be a wide disparity huh?
So it's still a 50/50 shot.
Spew's "blog" entry:
QuoteSATURDAY, 2:55 P.M.
The Internet is starting to buzz with the story that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is shaping up, that a deal looks likely before Sunday night and that, in the end, the teams now hopelessly over the salary cap are going to find some real relief.
How would that impact the Eagles? Certainly, they wouldn't be in the driver's seat as far as cap room relative to the rest of the league, but they would still be in great shape, not only for 2006 but for many years to come.
Again, I don't think a surplus of salary cap room would dramatically change the way the Eagles conduct business in this free-agency period. I think they have a solid plan, a thorough plan, and they've identified needs and players to fill those needs.
Under a new agreement, we won't see the players pouring out onto the streets as we would have had the cap remained at $94.5 million.
Still, there is quality available. The Eagles are poised. Let's get this deal done and get to free agency!
NFL.com is now reporting the talks are dead along the crawler on the bottom of the screen as well. Upshaw is already back in D.C apparently, and there is no new meeting scheduled. Likelihood of another meeting is extremely slim.
They have this on their website though:
Quote
No progress, but talks to resume March 5
NFL.com wire reports
NEW YORK (March 4, 2006) -- Talks between the NFL and its union broke off with no progress, although the sides agreed to meet again March 5.
The stalemate increased the possibility that many high-priced free agents would come on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. ET on March 5, the extended deadline for the start of free agency.
"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Union officials did not immediately return phone calls from The Associated Press.
Earlier in the week, negotiations broke off and the league set the salary cap for free agency at $94.5 million. Teams with a salary load far higher than that had anticipated an agreement that could have given them extra room to keep veterans, perhaps $10 million more with a new deal.
If not, it's likely a number of teams would have to make wholesale cuts, some involving big-name veterans such as Kansas City's Will Shields, Tampa Bay's Derrick Brooks and the New York Jets' Kevin Mawae and Chad Pennington.
Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, said after the earlier talks broke off that the NFL was offering 56.2 percent of its total revenues to the players. Upshaw has said he will not go under 60 percent.
But the problem involves more than that, notably a dispute among owners over revenue sharing. Low-revenue teams complain that they would have to contribute a higher percentage of the money they get from advertising, naming rights and other nontelevision and ticket revenue than big-market teams.
Upshaw always has wanted that issue decided first among the owners, but that isn't likely happen in these last-minute talks, which began March 3 after the deadline for free agency was extended three days from 12:01 a.m. ET on March 3 until March 6 at the same time.
The labor agreement, extended several times since it was agreed to in 1992, has another two years to run. But 2006 would be the last year with a salary cap.
There would be no cap next year, but also many changes in the rules, including some the players find unappealing -- six years for a player to get to free agency instead of four, and no minimum amount that teams have to spend.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on March 04, 2006, 05:02:43 PM
ESPN report....gloomy (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233)
PFT totally different again. ::)
so which one of the "never rights" is actually right?
Neither. The universe unravelled and you're dead. You're all dead.
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 06:30:38 PM
Neither. The universe unravelled and you're dead. You're all dead.
Dammit... and the Eagles were gonna win the Super Bowl next year too. >:(
Quote from: PhillyGirl on March 04, 2006, 05:02:43 PM
ESPN report....gloomy (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233)
PFT totally different again. ::)
Yeah, because ESPN is the end all of knowledge. How 'bout we say how this pans out first.
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 04, 2006, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 06:30:38 PM
Neither. The universe unravelled and you're dead. You're all dead.
Dammit... and the Eagles were gonna win the Super Bowl next year too. >:(
Well now the Cardinals will win the next 8, but it doesn't matter because you're all dead.
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 04, 2006, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 06:30:38 PM
Neither. The universe unravelled and you're dead. You're all dead.
Dammit... and the Eagles were gonna win the Super Bowl next year too. >:(
Well now the Cardinals will win the next 8, but it doesn't matter because you're all dead.
Well... if they're winning the next 8... I guess we all ended up burning in >:D.
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 04, 2006, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 04, 2006, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on March 04, 2006, 06:30:38 PM
Neither. The universe unravelled and you're dead. You're all dead.
Dammit... and the Eagles were gonna win the Super Bowl next year too. >:(
Well now the Cardinals will win the next 8, but it doesn't matter because you're all dead.
Well... if they're winning the next 8... I guess we all ended up burning in >:D.
We won't be burning, because it had to have frozen over.
PFT.com gets it's act together and joins the club:
Quote
POSTED 6:48 p.m. EST, March 4, 2006
DEAR DUMBASSES: GIT 'ER DONE
Five hours of negotiation between the NFL and the NFLPLA resulted initially in more empty rhetoric from union officials, followed by a glimmer of optimism from the NFL, which has said that the .
On Saturday afternoon, we'd heard that significant progress had been made toward a new CBA. Then, the negotiations ended for the day, with NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler proclaiming the talks "as dead as a doornail" (real original), and that it's "a sad day for the NFL."
Jeff, it's only a sad day for the NFL because guys like you are in a position to dictate the future of the sport.
Indeed, we've heard opinions from league insiders that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw could get the deal done if they would hammer out the remaining issues face-to-face, man-to-man. It's the other guys, we hear, such as Kessler and NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen, who are preventing the thing from getting done.
Like any other matter that is remotely adversarial in nature, ego can quickly get in the way of common sense, and men hoping to prove that they're smart and tough can be a distraction at a time when there are broader objectives in play.
In this case, the NFL, the owners, and the union aren't wrestling with issues like cash over cap because the present system is pushing the league to failure, but because the present system has yielded unprecedented, but disparate, success. For the NHL, hammering out a new compensation system was a matter of life or death. For the NFL, the golden goose could end up starving to death while the guys fighting over how to divvy up the eggs neglect the damn thing's food supply.
So get it done, guys. You're all richer than most of the folks who pay for the tickets and generating the ratings points. So it's really not wise to risk pissing us all off.
Just ask hockey. And baseball.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on March 04, 2006, 07:55:47 PMSo it's really not wise to risk pissing us all off.
Hollow words if ever I heard them. The NFL has as little to fear from its fans as NASCAR or Pat Robertson do. They'll pay anything, and never stop watching. These dickheads can keep screwing the fans all they want, and everyone knows it.
I got more of a chuckle out of that than I guess most will. It seems as though the people over at PFT were slightly jaded that they were putting it out there that the CBA was almost a sealed deal when everyone else was reporting it looks more like a sinking ship.
blillionaire slave owners bickering over money is funny stuff
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 05, 2006, 08:05:48 AM
blillionaire slave owners bickering over money is funny stuff
As long as you're including the NFLPA side in "slave owners", I agree. The whole lot of them are crazy... but I'm inclined to side with the owners. Any CBA which is wholly different than the last one is a bad idea, because the last one saw interest in the league as compared to other sports climb dramatically and was getting the players record-setting deals.
the man is definitely holding the nfl players down.
QuoteUpdated: March 5, 2006, 10:44 AM ET
NFL, NFLPA to resume labor negotiations in N.Y.
ESPN.com news services
The NFL owners and the players' union have until midnight Sunday to agree on an extension to the league's Collective Bargaining Agreement. And just when the talks looked dead, there might be a glimmer of hope.
Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the two sides are meeting in New York again Sunday and that the two sides communicated via e-mail on Saturday night after face-to-face talks broke down Saturday.
In an e-mail to the Washington Post, Gene Upshaw said the two sides were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."
This is a stark contrast from how things ended Saturday. Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead negotiators for the NFLPA and part of a small group that huddled with league representatives, termed the negotiations "as dead as a doornail."
Barring a dramatic reversal of negotiating stances, free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET. The league will operate with a salary cap of $94.5 million for 2006, and the two sides will go forward with 2007 scheduled to be an "uncapped" year.
Identifying a cause of death, given the veil of secrecy under which the negotiations were conducted for a total of 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday, might be difficult. But the inability to bridge the differences over two key issues -- the internal revenue sharing among the league's 32 teams and the so-called "cash over cap" problem -- were almost certainly among the components which forced the end to negotiations.
One prominent owner strongly suggested to ESPN.com that those two issues, which he lumped under the umbrella category of "revenue sharing-related things," indeed led to the collapse of discussions.
It was difficult, however, in the immediate wake of Saturday afternoon's events, to even get the two sides to agree on what had transpired during two days at the bargaining table.
For example, two league sources told ESPN and ESPN.com on Saturday that the NFL had increased its offer on how much revenue would be split with players from 56.2 percent to between 58.2 and 58.5 percent. If true, that would have represented a predictable middle-ground compromise, given that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been seeking 60.3 percent. An NFLPA source insisted, though, that the league's best offer never got to the 58-percent range.
Late Saturday night, Upshaw told Mortensen that the union did come down "a little" from the 60 percent cut of the revenue pie they were demanding. Earlier Upshaw denied that the owners had raised their ante by two points. Mortensen reports that the owners' last offer was 56.6 percent.
When informed late Saturday afternoon of the breakdown in talks, one frustrated owner resonded: "When we can't even agree on what the disagreements are on some issues, well, that just shows you how [messed] up the situation really is, right?"
As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years.
But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.
Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."
As Mortensen reported on Friday, the cash over cap component, which in many ways ties into the disparity between the league's "haves" and "have-nots" in terms of how money is calculated, also continues to divide NFL owners. Of course, the issue of cash over cap has always been a hot-button item for low-revenue franchises.
To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The taterskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means.
Sources said Saturday that, as part of the weekend discussions, the NFL proposed limiting the amount of cash over cap, per team, to 2 percent. While Upshaw has expressed concern in the past about cash over cap, he likely viewed the 2 percent limit as too low, and as potentially taking money away from players.
The day's events left teams and players not only frustrated, but concerned about what lies ahead.
General managers and cap experts for teams that are still over the projected spending limit of $94.5 million for 2006 were scrambling again on Saturday night to conjure up ways to get into compliance. It is believed that about 10 franchises on Saturday still had gap overages. Those teams face a Sunday 6 p.m. ET deadline for getting under the spending limit.
At the same time, some players who might have been released had the league year commenced on Friday as scheduled will likely face the chopping block again.
Back and forth, back and forth... does anyone else this is nothing more than bullshtein on both sides?
I think the whole situation is nothing more than a PR stunt. Keep the fans attention and keep the NFL as a league front and center in the media at all times.
I could be wrong but I have a feeling this is nothing more than an attentionwhoring stunt on both sides.
the start of FA gets enough attention, they dont need to manufacture it.
But it's been going on for weeks on end, MURP. The start of free agency would be an attention-grabber, sure, but nothing like the doom and gloom prognostications like we've seen lately.
I swear to christ....if these jerkoffs delay the start of FA one more goddamn time my head is going to explode.
QuoteNFL Labor Negotiations Resume, Deal Close
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; 12:24 PM
Labor negotiations between representatives of the NFL's team owners and the players' union resumed late this morning in New York amid renewed optimism that a settlement was within reach, a day after the talks had collapsed yet again.
A union official said just before 11:15 a.m. that the bargaining session was about to begin. Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the Players Association, and Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, traveled back to New York from Washington this morning after leaving New York when talks broke down yesterday.
Upshaw said via e-mail early this morning that the parties were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."
Another participant in the talks said just before today's bargaining session began that any optimism should be tempered, however, because the sides had not yet resumed face-to-face negotiations and there still was plenty of work to be done. He said he was hopeful but less than certain that a settlement was imminent.
It seemed possible that the two sides could agree to a second postponement of the opening of the free-agent market, scheduled for midnight, if they made progress today but could not complete a deal.
Even if the parties emerge from today's negotiations with a tentative agreement, the owners and players would have to ratify the deal. It could be particularly difficult for NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get a consensus among the owners. The labor deal would have to be ratified by at least 24 of the 32 teams.
If the labor deal is accompanied by an agreement among the owners for clubs to increase the degree to which they share locally generated revenues, it's possible that nine high-revenue teams would band together to block approval of the labor settlement. If the labor deal isn't accompanied by a revenue-sharing accord among the owners, it's possible that nine low-revenue clubs could block it.
Tagliabue had informed the owners they would meet Tuesday in Dallas if there's a labor agreement with the union up for ratification.
The players' executive board is scheduled to meet this week in Hawaii, and the union could put any settlement with owners up for the players' approval then.
The negotiations broke off yesterday with Upshaw saying the owners were unable to compromise, and he left New York and returned to Washington. But the owners were meeting via conference call when Upshaw departed, and league spokesman Greg Aiello said the owners expected negotiations to resume today.
The talks ended yesterday with the owners offering 56.6 percent of an expanded pool of league revenues to the players as compensation under a salary-cap system. Upshaw had dropped his demand that the players receive at least 60 percent, but he would not specify exactly what percentage his latest proposal called for.
Upshaw has maintained that any labor deal between the players and owners would have to be accompanied by an agreement among the owners to increase the degree to which the 32 NFL teams share locally generated revenues. Otherwise, Upshaw has said, lower-revenue clubs could not afford the salary commitment they would be making to the players. Owners have said they could complete a labor deal with the players without finishing a revenue-sharing agreement immediately.
The compromise might be a provision in the labor deal to limit the amount of money that teams can spend above the flexible salary cap. That would address the concerns of lower-revenue teams that the high-revenue clubs could gain a competitive advantage by using their wealth to consistently outspend the salary cap and get better players. The sides had been negotiating about such "cash over cap" before talks broke off yesterday.
The league's free-agent market is scheduled to open at midnight. Teams must be under next season's $94.5 million salary cap by then. If they must release players to get under the cap, they must do so by 6 p.m.
But Upshaw and Tagliabue, facing a similar deadline, agreed Thursday to push back those deadlines by 72 hours, and they could agree to another postponement today if more time is needed to complete the deal or an agreement must be ratified.
The current labor deal keeps the salary-cap system in place through the 2006 season, then there would be a season without a salary cap in 2007 before the deal expires. Tagliabue said Thursday, just after the owners had a 57-minute meeting in New York to officially reject a players' proposal, that the owners had proposed an extension that would run through the 2011 season.
A labor settlement would push next season's salary cap as high as $108 million per team and would alleviate the salary-cap crunches being experienced by many teams.
>:( :boom
Assmunchers. All of them.
Bullshtein... I swear. :boom
Jack Bauer told me he won't let them delay free agency again.
QuoteATTENTION SHIFTS TO NEW EXTENSION
As the NFL and the NFLPA continue to discuss the final sticking points on a new CBA, we're told that the focus has now shifted to negotiating an extension to the start of the 2006 league year.
Under the extension to which both sides agreed on Thursday, the new league year begins at 12:01 a.m. Monday, and all teams must make any cuts aimed at getting under the salary cap by 6:00 p.m. EST Sunday.
That's roughly an hour from now.
We're told that the deadlines will be extended either by one or three days
Fargin shtein. >:(
Mort reporting that they DO NOT have a deal yet. Says they might not have a basis for a deal yet either.
He said he was told that the OWNERS are asking the NFLPA for another extension until WEDNESDAY at 4PM. >:(
This shtein is really starting to piss me off. :boom
I don't give a shtein anymore. Get the farging deal done, don't get it done... just do something so we can go on with the farging NFL year.
I feel ya.
What is the goddamn point of having a deadline if it isn't adhered to?
I wish the companies who I owe bills to would be like these fools with saying "oh, ok sure you can have 38 more days to pay your shtein. Matter of fact...just pay it when you want."
Exactly... they need to quit bullshteinting and tell everyone that they're gonna start the FA period after they get a new deal and that'll be whenever they damn well please.
If they can keep extending the deadline then why can't they just cancel the uncapped year?
Mort coming back on in 5 minutes.
35 minutes until the deadline.
Please, please, please, please let this thing get going.
PP54, do you really think no agreement really helps the Eagles like everyone thinks or do you think all this benefitting the Eagles talk is overblown?
Yes, I agree it would help the Eagles.
Mort reporting that NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed that NO DEAL has been struck. But Aiello said talks are still going on. Mort says that these talks are likely for an extension until Wednesday. He said that the owners are trying to get then to accept another extension (same stuff as last half hour update)...
Mort got another phone call on air...will be back.
Mort is BACK.
Waiver cuts have been delayed from 6pm to 10pm!
6pm to 10pm.
The league year (free agency) is STILL SCHEDULED FOR 12:01am!
But the deadline to get under the cap went from 6pm to 10pm.
The NFLPA DID NOT want a long delay. They only agreed for a 4 hour dealy!
The two sides are NOT THAT CLOSE.
What channel, ESPNews?
Also has the FA period been moved?
Yes, ESPNews.
And no, the FA period has not been moved. Still at 12:01 tonight. Mort said the NFLPA did not want a long extension like the owners wanted. They (NFLPA) only agree to push the waiver/cap deadline to 10pm but FA will still start at 12:01am.
Thanks, keep me updated, I'm too lazy to reach for my remote that is 20 feet away and turn on the TV.
Why didn't the NFLPA want a long extention by the way?
Also is there any update on the actual progress of the agreement?
Quote from: Philly Forever on March 05, 2006, 05:41:11 PM
Thanks, keep me updated, I'm too lazy to reach for my remote that is 20 feet away and turn on the TV.
:-D Bum.
My guess is I think this is to give teams time to go get their cuts and restructured contracts in order. If they didn't push it back from 6pm it would have left only 20some minutes to get that done. The NFLPA wants to get the ball rolling and quit giving them days to extend it.
Hahahaha. The Skins are totally farged.
All these motherfargers suck balls and can feel free to have a suckle of my left nut.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on March 05, 2006, 05:56:42 PM
Hahahaha. The Skins are totally farged.
I'm mentally spent after 3 days of praying for that specific situation. After spending 10+hours treading through their propaganda, I'm brainwashed into thinking it's not gonna happen & that life in Snyderland will be all rainbows & unicorns come 12:01 am.
I need to be reprogrammed. ...help.....me....
You should help yourself by spending less time on ES.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 05, 2006, 05:35:04 PM
Mort is BACK.
Waiver cuts have been delayed from 6pm to 10pm!
6pm to 10pm.
Phreak =
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mo/anchorman250b.jpg)
UPDATE:
Mort reporting that NFLPA people have WALKED OUT because there is NO DEAL to be done. Free agency will PROCEED AS SCHEDULED unless something drastic happens.
Quote from: MURP on March 05, 2006, 06:21:03 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 05, 2006, 05:35:04 PM
Mort is BACK.
Waiver cuts have been delayed from 6pm to 10pm!
6pm to 10pm.
Phreak =
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mo/anchorman250b.jpg)
:-D :-D
Stay classy, ConcreteField.
Is this good or bad news for us?
Good.
Eagles = get to spend
Other teams = get to cut players, renegotiate and trip out to try to get under 94.5. ;D
Hell yeah. Quality guys are cut loose... Eagles are there to pick up the pieces. :yay
I'm going to be fargin dead. I haven't been asleep since I woke up at 8pm yesterday to go to work. I was going to take a nap to be ready by 12:01 but it ain't lookin good now because I'm pumped.
I...need...energy. Must...get ...more beer.
I'm farged tonight... I'm gonna be doing our 11pm show tonight which runs 'til midnight. :boo
I got about a half-hour ride home... the FA anxiety will probably make it about a 20 min ride... and then I shoot straight to the computer.
Schefter on NFL Network:
Talks have broken off. (obviously)
Talks are at a stalemate in regards to the deadline going from 12:01 tonight to Wednesday at 4pm. Talks are off and free agency will begin tonight. The deadline from 6pm to 10pm was a unilateral decison. But the NFLPA will not agree to extend the deadline to Wednesday. Talks are still going on, but going nowhere.
He says do not be surprised to see it pushed back to WED but they are not really getting anywhere now with that.
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 05, 2006, 06:20:53 PM
You should help yourself by spending less time on ES.
I should help myself by not being fixated on german scat porn too, but it can't be stopped.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 05, 2006, 07:02:59 PM
Schefter on NFL Network:
Talks have broken off. (obviously)
Talks are at a stalemate in regards to the deadline going from 12:01 tonight to Wednesday at 4pm. Talks are off and free agency will begin tonight. The deadline from 6pm to 10pm was a unilateral decison. But the NFLPA will not agree to extend the deadline to Wednesday. Talks are still going on, but going nowhere.
He says do not be surprised to see it pushed back to WED but they are not really getting anywhere now with that.
That kinda confuses me. ???
Quote from: NGM on March 05, 2006, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 05, 2006, 07:02:59 PM
Schefter on NFL Network:
Talks have broken off. (obviously)
Talks are at a stalemate in regards to the deadline going from 12:01 tonight to Wednesday at 4pm. Talks are off and free agency will begin tonight. The deadline from 6pm to 10pm was a unilateral decison. But the NFLPA will not agree to extend the deadline to Wednesday. Talks are still going on, but going nowhere.
He says do not be surprised to see it pushed back to WED but they are not really getting anywhere now with that.
That kinda confuses me. ???
Me too. But just writing what he says.
Basically he said that the shtein is scheduled to start at 12:01 but they are talking about going to WED. He said those could still happen since they have time to talk, but it very well couldn't too.
He's talking out both sides of his mouth.
Schefter:
The discussions about moving FA from tonight at 12:01am to Wednesday at 4pm or later are still on-going. But they are getting nowhere with these discussions. It could happen still (the extension) but it is very slim.
For better or worse I wish this shtein would just end. This is one of my favorite times of the year ecspecially when the Eagles are willing to spend. All work and no Free Agency makes NGM a dull boy.
Quote from: NGM on March 05, 2006, 07:11:13 PM
For better or worse I wish this shtein would just end. This is one of my favorite times of the year ecspecially when the Eagles are willing to spend. All work and no Free Agency makes NGM a dull boy.
It also makes Beermonkey smell like pooh for some strange reason......
QuoteTALKS BREAK OFF AGAIN
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that talks between the NFL and NFLPA have broken down again, just when it seemed that the two sides were closing in on a deal.
The most recent impasse was not accompanied by the usual gloom-and-doom pronouncement from NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw or one of his cronies. This could mean that the union doesn't want to risk pissing anyone off on the management side of the equation in case talks resume.
Or it could mean that Upshaw and company realize that the Chicken Little routine hasn't done much to shore up their credibility.
The next step will be for all teams to get in compliance with the 2006 salary cap by 10:00 p.m. EST Sunday. This means that teams currently over the limit of $94.53 million will have to reduce cap numbers and/or cut players within the next three hours.
As a result, things will be getting a little hectic.
Interestingly, the NFL wanted to extend the start of the league year until Wednesday, but the NFLPA refused.
This is all welcome news to the cap-rich teams like Arizona, Minnesota, Green Bay, and Cleveland. We're told that at least one of those teams was getting more than a little chafed about the fact that teams which hadn't properly planned for compliance with the $94.53 million salary cap were continuing to secure reprieves.
Even if the new league year begins without a deal, that doesn't mean that a deal won't get done soon. We've recently heard that, even after free agency begins, the point of no return won't arrive until late April or early May.
But if a new CBA is reached after guys start signing free agent contracts under the restrictive rules of the final capped year, there could be some rancor in locker rooms as guys get better deals later in the offseason.
If we were negotiating a player contract right now (and players everywhere should be glad we aren't), we'd insert language triggering a hefty roster bonus or an option bonus if there's eventually a CBA extension
Doesn't this mean that if we sign Bentley it'll only be a one year deal? That would suck for the Eagles. Getting all these players but only for one year deals because they want to hold out for the CBA extension for the big payday.
TALKS RESUME AT 8:30 EST
A league source tells us that talks between the NFL and the NFLPA will resume at 8:30 p.m. EST Sunday.
Maybe they were just hungry, or perhaps they're curious to see whether Jake Gyllenhaal wins the Oscar for best support actor in Brokeback.
Actually, we're hearing that the owner of one of the high-revenue teams is mucking up the efforts to strike a deal that will work for the union, the league, the low-revenue clubs, and the big-money clubs.
Stay tuned.
Quote from: Philly Forever on March 05, 2006, 07:54:24 PM
TALKS RESUME AT 8:30 EST
A league source tells us that talks between the NFL and the NFLPA will resume at 8:30 p.m. EST Sunday.
Maybe they were just hungry, or perhaps they're curious to see whether Jake Gyllenhaal wins the Oscar for best support actor in Brokeback.
Actually, we're hearing that the owner of one of the high-revenue teams is mucking up the efforts to strike a deal that will work for the union, the league, the low-revenue clubs, and the big-money clubs.
Stay tuned.
And just whom would that be? :sly
In the middle of the Oscars??!!?! That's crazy talk. No way they'd diss IGY like that.
Free agency delayed again. This time, it's for 72 hours.
Delightful.
In other news, I think Phreak's head just exploded.
:-D
My head, like the entire internet structurem did indeed explode. I couldn't get on to any sites and I was trippin. I am mad. I'm tired and slightly drunk.
If a deals not reached by the next deadline I'm rioting.
I was mad because I was forced to watch the Oscars instead of talking about free agency all night.
For that reason, and that reason alone, Tagliabue & Upshaw can kiss my farging ass.
:fire (http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/nfl/2006/0305/photo/g_upshaw_412.jpg)
farg the NFL.
The ABSOLUTE LATEST from PFT.com---"The NFL and the NFLPA have an agreement in principal. It will be discussed Tuesday in Dallas---however----Bob Kraft of the Pats is OPPOSED to the deal". Why? Because the owners have upped thier offer to 59.5%, and they propose dealing with the revenue sharing with an adjustment to the cash-over-cap situation.
So, Kraft is the one last thorn in the side of a deal getting done, and not Lurie/Banner. No shocker there.
Here's the full article---
POSTED 9:25 a.m. EST, March 6, 2006
NFL, UNION HAVE AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported moments ago on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio that the NFL and the NFLPA have reached an agreement in principle on a new CBA, and that the deal is subject to approval of the owners on Tuesday.
Under the deal, the NFL will devote 59.5 percent of total football revenues to player salaries. On one hand, the league moved a lot farther than the union as to the reported gap of 56.2 percent and 60 percent that existed before the weekend. On the other hand, the deal undermines the credibility of NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw, who insisted that the first number would have to be a "6".
Mort also says that it's no guarantee that the owners will approve the deal. Pats owner Bob Kraft, Mort says, is strongly opposed to the package, which addresses revenue sharing via the so-called "cash over cap" issue.
"Cash over cap" is the amount of total money paid to players in a given year. Because high-revenue teams have the ability to dump more money into players' pockets, the unlimited ability to pour future cap dollars into current cap years could, in theory, disrupt competitive balance because the low-revenue teams simply won't have the cash on hand to match a string of deals that rob Peter to pay for a Lombardi. The proposal apparently limits the extent to which a team can spend money in a given year over the salary cap.
Mortensen says that Tuesday's meeting could get ugly, and that it could extend into a second day.
Our suggestion to the Commish -- if you didn't break out the Louisville Slugger when the fellas got together last week in New York, make sure you take it with you to Texas. Your legacy is on the line, and it's time to stand up and build a consensus.
If you can't, then walk away. If nothing else, it'll get the attention of the guys who are no longer listening to you because you're a short-timer.
Kraft has been bitching (allegedly) that the revenue sharing doesn't take into account the fact that he funded his own stadium, and has massive debt. I tend to agree with him. But killing the golden goose is certainly not the way to keep your knees from getting broken.
there has to be more opposed. i thought you need 8 owners to say no?
So what would this increase the cap number to?
Here's to hoping they get this put to bed. Sooner the better for everyone's sake.
i'm sick of hearing:
-golden goose
-cash over cap
-NFL
also, Jefferey Kessler is one annoying MF, but the type of lawyer i would love to have defending me in something
farg... the motherfarging NFL.
lolol @ bob kraft having 'massive debt'
these owners make sick
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 10:36:12 AM
So what would this increase the cap number to?
Seventeen gazillion dollars.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 06, 2006, 11:14:09 AM
lolol @ bob kraft having 'massive debt'
these owners make sick
I agree with this too. But, at least his stadium isn't with tax dollars, which drives me nuts.
Lurie is carrying over 300 million in debt as well. The debt-service on the Linc is enormous.
waaaaaah
if lurie kraft or any other owner didnt ever make another penny they still couldnt spend all their money if they tried
and lets say for arguments sake a owner actually got into financial trouble regarding their stadium...which of course would never happen as they make gobs of money on them...the nfl would bail them out in a cocaine heartbeat
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 10:36:12 AM
So what would this increase the cap number to?
Well, if 56.2 was 104M, I'd say that 59.5 is probably close to 110-112M. That would mean, WITH an agreement the Eagles would be--
1. Right now, with their RFA tenders and with Owens gone (not yet, though), they're at 18.3M
2. They would recoup 7M in LTBEs that would have hit this year
3. I believe they would also recoup 7M in 30% rule payouts they wouldn't have to make
4. Add in approximately 17.5M
They'd be 50M UNDER the cap.
I thought 56.2 equated to 94.5mil...
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 06, 2006, 11:22:05 AM
waaaaaah
I wasn't crying for Lurie, IGY. I was saying that he's in the same boat debt-wise as Kraft, yet you don't hear his name being mentioned in the same was as Kraft's in this fiasco.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on March 06, 2006, 11:23:06 AM
They'd be 50M UNDER the cap.
Wow, that gives us enough money that maybe we could go after TO.
Quote from: phattymatty on March 06, 2006, 11:51:28 AM
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on March 06, 2006, 11:23:06 AM
They'd be 50M UNDER the cap.
Wow, that gives us enough money that maybe we could go after TO.
he's had some troubles, but i think this locker room can keep him in line.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on March 06, 2006, 11:32:14 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 06, 2006, 11:22:05 AM
waaaaaah
I wasn't crying for Lurie, IGY. I was saying that he's in the same boat debt-wise as Kraft, yet you don't hear his name being mentioned in the same was as Kraft's in this fiasco.
Lurie bought the Eagles for $175 mil (reportedly) and they're now worth close to $1 billion. I'm sure the same applies to the Pats. They can both suck a fat one, and Kraft can suck 2 fat ones if he's the one holding this shtein from getting this done.
I hear you, but it isn't that clear cut. "Worth" fluctuates. Sure, the Franchises are worth more, but that doesn't inherently give them money to spend. My house is "worth" a lot of money, too...but that doesn't do a damn thing to help me pay the bills regularly.
these owners make so much money from tickets, SBL's, tv/radio contracts, merchandising that we should never, ever, hear them utter one syllable about paying debts
Quote from: Zanshin on March 06, 2006, 11:58:05 AM
I hear you, but it isn't that clear cut. "Worth" fluctuates. Sure, the Franchises are worth more, but that doesn't inherently give them money to spend. My house is "worth" a lot of money, too...but that doesn't do a damn thing to help me pay the bills regularly.
A) I'm sure the Pats and Eagles did fine the past 5 years with revenue. I can't believe for one second that either would bitch after the support they've received from their fans.
B) When you have a close to Billion dollar asset it makes it pretty easy to get loans and whatnot.
Yeah. That's the sort of thing people say when they don't feel any pain associated with these things, relative as it may be. That's just not realistic business.
Quote from: Zanshin on March 06, 2006, 12:01:28 PM
Yeah. That's the sort of thing people say when they don't feel any pain associated with these things, relative as it may be. That's just not realistic business.
Why not? You're telling me that with all the yearly revenue they bring in and with a billion dollar asset that they have the right to bitch? Wish I was in their situation.
they know exactly what theyre doing...they finance these stadiums and aquire some debt in order to collect on all streams of revenue having to do with the stadium...an owner doesnt want a publically owned stadium cause they dont make any money off it...why do you think snyder makes so much...cause the skins stadium was 100% paid for by JKC...
anyone that brings the word debt up when talking about kraft lurie or any of these other owners should be cained
Quote from: SD_Eagle on March 06, 2006, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Zanshin on March 06, 2006, 11:58:05 AM
I hear you, but it isn't that clear cut. "Worth" fluctuates. Sure, the Franchises are worth more, but that doesn't inherently give them money to spend. My house is "worth" a lot of money, too...but that doesn't do a damn thing to help me pay the bills regularly.
A) I'm sure the Pats and Eagles did fine the past 5 years with revenue. I can't believe for one second that either would bitch after the support they've received from their fans.
B) When you have a close to Billion dollar asset it makes it pretty easy to get loans and whatnot.
and the revenue is used to pay them back. the lurie's and kraft's of the nfl, have used their high revenue streams to finance things like the stadium, and training complexes, and then the salaries, and taxs and everything else.
every dollar in is not profit, there are a lot of bills to pay, in untilities, salaries for players and office employees. some of the larger market owners need the higher revenue to pay back their debts. if too much of the revenue is lost to the pool, then there could be some trouble within those teams in the future that counted on that lost future income to pay back it's debt.
this plan is not to bring the lower revenue teams up to the higher ones, it does the opposite, it brings the higher ones back down to the rest. Zanshin is right, just because an asset has appreciated does not give you more money, unless you liquidate that asset. and even then it would be less any debt.
**edit**
this is not to say that they are poor souls who need sympathy, but in the realm of the nfl, this must be considered. as profitable as the nfl has been recently, it is a very fragile business model, because there is no gaurentee of an improved product in the future.
That's ridiculous. Debt should be factored in to franchise worth, not only revenue. Only taking revenue into account makes no sense at all and leaves out a lot of the financial picture. Plus, you look at owners like the Browns in Cincy that eschewed the possibility to sign the naming rights of the stadium over, and the picture only gets cloudier.
If revenue sharing is going to be in place, why shouldn't the actual profit of the franchise be considered?
Trust me... guys like Bob Kraft will still get screwed, just more fairly so.
Just because these guys are filthy rich is no reason that they should just bend over to any deal.
Who farging cares?
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 11:25:07 AM
I thought 56.2 equated to 94.5mil...
That number is based on defined gross revenue. The new CBA will be based on total gross revenue, which is why the number gets elevated. Christ, haven't you been following the pages of minutiae on this issue that Florio has been blogging on PFT?
if its a agreed upon that revenue sharing is good for the league and essential to its livelyhood then they damn well should bend over and give up the cheese...especially when they all have more money than god...if revenue sharing is not necessary in the nfl then i wouldnt blame them for saying farg off
but its i think its pretty much agreed upon by most people that revenue sharing is crucial to keeping the nfl what it is today..and that is the most pupular sport in the country by far...so if they dont like it go buy a team in another sport that doesnt practice revenue sharing...or get out of the nfl and put all your money into your own private business where you dont have to share with anyone...or hell just retire and live off the interest of the money you already have...
Quote from: Wingspan on March 06, 2006, 12:08:38 PM
Quote from: SD_Eagle on March 06, 2006, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Zanshin on March 06, 2006, 11:58:05 AM
I hear you, but it isn't that clear cut. "Worth" fluctuates. Sure, the Franchises are worth more, but that doesn't inherently give them money to spend. My house is "worth" a lot of money, too...but that doesn't do a damn thing to help me pay the bills regularly.
A) I'm sure the Pats and Eagles did fine the past 5 years with revenue. I can't believe for one second that either would bitch after the support they've received from their fans.
B) When you have a close to Billion dollar asset it makes it pretty easy to get loans and whatnot.
and the revenue is used to pay them back. the lurie's and kraft's of the nfl, have used their high revenue streams to finance things like the stadium, and training complexes, and then the salaries, and taxs and everything else.
every dollar in is not profit, there are a lot of bills to pay, in untilities, salaries for players and office employees. some of the larger market owners need the higher revenue to pay back their debts. if too much of the revenue is lost to the pool, then there could be some trouble within those teams in the future that counted on that lost future income to pay back it's debt.
this plan is not to bring the lower revenue teams up to the higher ones, it does the opposite, it brings the higher ones back down to the rest. Zanshin is right, just because an asset has appreciated does not give you more money, unless you liquidate that asset. and even then it would be less any debt.
**edit**
this is not to say that they are poor souls who need sympathy, but in the realm of the nfl, this must be considered. as profitable as the nfl has been recently, it is a very fragile business model, because there is no gaurentee of an improved product in the future.
So what you're saying is the Lurie's/Kraft's of the world pocket some coin while their franchises worth goes through the roof. If they're making even a small profit while holding onto a Billion dollar business then they're in great shape. When an asset has appreciated it has raised the value of the asset. A = L + OE.
Part of the issue is that revenue sharing hasn't been universal in the NFL. There have been parts of "revenue" that teams have been able to keep for themselves all along.
My understanding right now is that the players and the smaller-market owners want to make revenue sharing more-or-less universal, with EVERYTHING going into the pot. The larger-market teams, that have developed these streams of revenue to boost their profits, are balking at this move.
I also believe that if these additional revenues are added to revenue sharing, they also increase the salary cap, as MMH said.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on March 06, 2006, 12:34:27 PM
Part of the issue is that revenue sharing hasn't been universal in the NFL. There have been parts of "revenue" that teams have been able to keep for themselves all along.
My understanding right now is that the players and the smaller-market owners want to make revenue sharing more-or-less universal, with EVERYTHING going into the pot. The larger-market teams, that have developed these streams of revenue to boost their profits, are balking at this move.
I also believe that if these additional revenues are added to revenue sharing, they also increase the salary cap, as MMH said.
But there's the issue. Some teams (Eagles, Pats, taterskins (hate to say it)) have found ways to increase their profits, while teams like the Cardinals haven't. The latter want more of the former's money, and don't want to have to earn it. To them, I say farg you. As Florio has said, demonstrate not getting someone else's earned money is causing harm before you bitch.
There are some jealous motherfargers in this forum.
Pointing and laughing at those of you who are...
Spads just said that he predicts that FA will start on Monday.
He said that he sees it going like this - Owners and NFLPa agree on a deal on TUE/WED. Then they will ask for and be granted a request to delay FA so the number crunchers and personnel guys can figure out who, what when where and why of the new CBA and then FA starts on Monday.
I wouldn't mind that. I'm off on Mondays and can pull another all nighter.
I don't want to wait a whole nother week. :boo
I might start watching baseball if this wait continues much longer.
That would be BS.
So....they have a contigency in case it doesn't get signed, but no contigency if it does?
To hell with Monday... we should all have our farging Bentley jerseys on the way by now. ;D
farg that... no more delays.
Well, if it does get signed they cannot have a locked down plan in place because the salary cap number isn't set yet and would not be set until the deal is agreed upon. Then they'd know what the DGR % is and then set the cap number. And then they'd give teams time to figure out what to do.
I wanted it to start last night. But since it didn't, I am rooting for it to start next Monday for my own selfish reason. I want to be able to be on-line when the signing and craziness starts.
Golden Goose! Golden Goose!
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 03:51:55 PM
Golden Goose! Golden Goose!
That is an excellent point.
Cash over cap!
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 04:46:53 PM
Cash over cap!
Dear God. Listen to this man. A farging NFL prophet.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2006, 04:46:53 PM
Cash over cap!
please stop. i'll give you a quarter.
I heard that no one wants to be remembered as part of the group that killed the golden goose. Did anyone else hear that?
(http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_molt/1521014567.jpg)
If the deal was agreed upon last night, I don't think they would've pushed back the free agency period, so why would they do it this week?
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 06, 2006, 03:20:14 PM
Spads just said that he predicts that FA will start on Monday.
He said that he sees it going like this - Owners and NFLPa agree on a deal on TUE/WED. Then they will ask for and be granted a request to delay FA so the number crunchers and personnel guys can figure out who, what when where and why of the new CBA and then FA starts on Monday.
I wouldn't mind that. I'm off on Mondays and can pull another all nighter.
Eat shtein and die. If it gets delayed again, I will cut you mang.
that goose isn't golden...
YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR!
(http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/evans/stills2/hairafter.jpg)
(http://www.picturegrill.com/images/animals/yellow_golden_goose_egg.jpg)
can someone explain to me how the rams signed glover today
They cheated.
Because when a guy is released, like Glover was, they can be signed at anytime. The start of free agency is for guys whose contracts are expiring and will not do so until the start of the new league year, whenever Skin Fan Tags and Upshaw decide that is.
Chicago signed Muhammed before FA last year and Baltimore did the same with Derrick Mason. And the Giants had Sam Madison visiting today.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 06, 2006, 07:01:18 PM
can someone explain to me how the rams signed glover today
Easy...
The Rams called his agent... who called La'Roi. The Rams said, "Here's a whole bunch of money."... La'Roi's agent said, "They're gonna give you a whole bunch of money."... La'Roi said, "Cool."
There you have it.
I don't understand all of this technical mumbo jumbo. I'm sticking by my timely, and unquestionably correct, answer.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 06, 2006, 07:06:12 PM
Because when a guy is released, like Glover was, they can be signed at anytime. The start of free agency is for guys whose contracts are expiring and will not do so until the start of the new league year, whenever Skin Fan Tags and Upshaw decide that is.
Chicago signed Muhammed before FA last year and Baltimore did the same with Derrick Mason. And the Giants had Sam Madison visiting today.
Whoa... deja vu.
QuoteThere are no negotiations [Monday]," Jeffrey Kessler, an NFLPA attorney and negotiator, said in an e-mail to ESPN. "We are just reviewing language on our proposal for submission to the owners for their approval vote. The deal goes to the owners [Tuesday] for approval up or down. If up, we have a deal. If down, we go to the uncapped year. Nothing in between and no more negotiation."
The deal that NFL owners will vote on guarantees that players will receive 59.5 percent of all football revenue over the six-year extension of the CBA, Mortensen reports. That 59.5 percent includes a "cash over cap" formula that addresses the concerns of low revenue clubs about how much teams actually spend on their payrolls in a given year.
The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.
Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said it was never discussed Sunday. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.
"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said
--from ESPN.com
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 06, 2006, 07:01:18 PM
can someone explain to me how the rams signed glover today
a cut player is not bound by the free agency rules
I was trolling around the NFLPA site & found the March player's newsletter that explains the CBA situation in pretty basic language. Enjoy it slackers.
NFLPA March 2006 Player's Newsletter (http://www.nflpa.org/Media/includeu/audible/Mar06Audible.pdf)
QuoteIt is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.
Can this end up screwing with the way the Snyder works his cap? Because his money "actually" spent on players ends up over the cap in one year... but under what the next year's anticipated cap will be right? So say if he ends up spending say $10 million more than what the cap allows... that would mean the next year's cap he would be anticipating would drop by $10 million and cause him to purge his guys right?
I'm probably looking at this wrong but whatever....
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 07, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
QuoteIt is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.
Can this end up screwing with the way the Snyder works his cap? Because his money "actually" spent on players ends up over the cap in one year... but under what the next year's anticipated cap will be right? So say if he ends up spending say $10 million more than what the cap allows... that would mean the next year's cap he would be anticipating would drop by $10 million and cause him to purge his guys right?
I'm probably looking at this wrong but whatever....
Sounds about right to me. It sounds like they want to set a limit for "cash over cap". Something like 2%, if I recall correctly. So 2% of the $94.5M cap this year would be $1.89M. I could be wrong but I haven't read too in-depth on it yet. I am waiting to see the fianl CBA to really look at it.
But the Eagles do this too. For instance here are the 2004 payroll numbers for each team (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004). You'll see that the Eagles actually spent $104M (the Skins spent $117M).
That was the year we got Kearse ($16M signing bonus) and TO and Dhani Jones. The actual cap in 2004 was $80.5M. So they spent approx. $24M over that. That would be the cash over cap.
The small market (low revenue teams) see this as an unfair advantage. They say that the big money teams have an unfair advantage. This is another example of how the loser ass cheap teams are bitching about being poor. Like it is the other teams fault that they don't market their team as well. They already get revenue sharing and now they want to limit this.
Its crazy. And its stupid. The cash over cap and the revenue sharing are the two things the billionaires are bitching about. And I side with the teams like the Eagles, Cowboys, Pats, Skins and Texans. F the people like Bill Bidwell who are cheap fargs.
Lenny P (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2356568)
QuoteBy agreeing to present the union's proposal to the 32-owner membership, commissioner Paul Tagliabue has taken NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw off the hook with his increasingly restless and angst-ridden player constituency. And, far less important but still somewhat significant, with whatever fans are casually interested in the tedious and drawn-out labor discussions.
In any battle pitting millionaires and billionaires, the public, comprised mostly of thousandaires, typically empathizes with no one, because it can relate to neither combatant. But by taking the union's proposal to the owners, a blueprint not terribly dissimilar to the one unanimously rejected by owners Thursday in a 57-minute meeting, Tagliabue and the NFL have unwittingly declared Upshaw and the NFLPA the winners in the public relations battle
QuoteBecause the bottom line is this: Tagliabue has put the onus on the owners. If the deal falls apart now, it will be the owners -- who are still locked in an intramural battle over revenue sharing among themselves that could turn contentious Tuesday -- who bear the brunt of public criticism.
At this point there certainly is plenty of blame to dole out to two sides that may not have yet killed off the golden goose[/b](just for rjs), but who definitely plucked some feathers from it. But the owners will catch most of the flak if the deal falls through now
QuoteRemember, it takes 24 of 32 votes to pass the extension to the collective bargaining agreement. And as ESPN.com has reported several times in the past week, there remains a bloc of 9-10 low-revenue franchises that plan to oppose any extension to the CBA that doesn't adequately address their revenue sharing issues. ESPN.com has learned that representatives from several of those allied low-revenue teams huddled via telephone conference call on Monday to reaffirm their united stance.
QuoteBut there are indications that it does not address the revenue-sharing component, certainly not to the satisfaction of the low-revenue franchises. There are some stipulations that would adjust the percentage of revenues shared with players, which the union has proposed as 59.5 percent, based on the amount of "cash over cap" in a given season.
The "cash over cap" issue -- the difference between a club's true payroll and its salary cap figure -- does tie into the widening disparity between the high- and low-revenue franchises. But officials from two low-revenue teams reiterated to ESPN.com Monday that the "cash over cap" adjustments recommended by the NFLPA proposal are inadequate as a substitute for reworked revenue sharing among the owners. And the high-revenue teams may not accept any CBA extension that penalizes them for spending too much cash over the cap.
QuoteIt will not be surprising if the Tuesday meeting in Dallas deteriorates into a standoff that pits the revenue "haves" and "have-nots" in separate corners. One general manager from a low-revenue club even joked Monday that the site of the meeting was appropriate, because the session could become a "Texas cage match." Indeed, it might take the commissioner's bolting the doors to the meeting room and instructing the owners that they can't leave until they reach an accord.
"This is," said one general manager, "no slam dunk."
John Clayton (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2356871)
QuoteOwners are already getting word to prepare for a two-day discussion and vote that starts at 2 p.m. Tuesday. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, for the sake of league harmony and security, needs to make sure there are 24 votes to pass. There will be plenty of lobbying and plenty of heated words
QuoteBut there will be arm twisting, and it starts with the high-revenue teams. Tagliabue has to break the block of five negative votes for revenue sharing: Jerry Jones in Dallas, Dan Snyder in Washington, Robert Kraft in New England, Jeff Lurie in Philadelphia and Bob McNair in Houston. Those five have garnered enough support among a handful of owners to block efforts to get a revenue-sharing plan into this deal
QuoteTagliabue will need to break two or three of those votes in favor of this deal for it to pass. Snyder might be tough because he loves to spend and doesn't like restraints. Jones will be a tough sell because he's a maverick who isn't afraid of a non-capped NFL. He's also waiting for the union to sign off on more than $80 million of union- and NFL-approved loans for his new stadium construction.
Plus, it wouldn't be bad if an assurance of a Super Bowl in Dallas could be suggested to make things right. The Super Bowl in Houston was considered a success, and there isn't a reason why Dallas couldn't do the same.
Tagliabue will have to make sure everyone is aligned on the low-revenue side. Wayne Weaver of the Jacksonville Jaguars has been part of a lot of talks with high-revenue teams about sharing the wealth. The commissioner needs to make sure the low-revenue teams feel they aren't being too financially consumed by the proposal to increase the players' percentage of the revenue.
While the numbers will be moderately fixed, the commissioner has to make sure that those low-revenue teams can make a profit and not find themselves in a financial hole with this deal. Sometimes it's hard to count on the Brown family in Cincinnati and the Bidwell family in Arizona to support a system that is expensive.
Weaver has to make sure the votes of the low-revenue clubs are lined up. Plus, it would help to make sure Al Davis of the Raiders doesn't abstain. Unfortunately, the poor salesmanship of the city of Oakland for tickets has left the Raiders among the lower-revenue teams. Davis, who has a history of fighting the league, needs revenue sharing until the Raiders can work their season-ticket magic.
This is the first year since moving back to Oakland the Raiders can sell tickets. That had been the domain of a city-run marketing association that simply didn't do a good job. Davis loves to compete. He has pride in Raiders tradition. Tagliabue needs to make sure the Raiders' vote can be counted on.
so can arrington be signed at anytime?
yes.
I thought they put him on waivers. Doesn't he have to clear first?
these rules are all so gay....can they please just open this shtein up to everyone
it's not really that complicated. all these FA-to-be are still under contract until their contract runs out at the end of the league year.
anyone who is cut, is cut. their contract is terminated so they can immediately sign with anybody.
You didn't mantion anything about waivers, nerd.
they don't exist. it's a figment of your twisted imagination.
I'm pretty sure my imagination can do a lot better than that, dude.
after the regular season ends and before free agency starts should be a dead period in terms of signing players
make sure to present that idea at the next league meeting.
New Bang! Cartoon today (http://www.bangcartoon.com/popupCartoon.php?movie=2006archive/wonderlic.swf)
He actually pokes fun at the skins a little (obviously tongue-in-cheek, but still...)
link if first link doesn't work (http://www.bangcartoon.com/)
Yes, this was already posted by a skins fan on the Point & Laugh thread, but who ever reads the last post on a page?
Quote from: rjs246 on March 07, 2006, 08:11:51 AM
I thought they put him on waivers. Doesn't he have to clear first?
Waivers are for players WITH LESS THAN 4 YEARS IN THE LEAGUE.
FINE!
Meanwhile, expect another delay (notice I didn't caps lock "another" to emphasize the point) ;D to FA if the owners agree to the union's proposal. If the owners disagree, there will be no more negitiations per the union.
http://www. washingtonpost.com
Representatives of the owners and the union met yesterday in New York to put the players' proposal into writing. Upshaw said afterward that there would be no further negotiations between the two sides and free agency will begin as scheduled Thursday if the owners reject the proposal. If the owners ratify the proposal, Upshaw said, the salary cap deadline and opening of free agency would be pushed back by a day.
And per the Denver Post, the Eagles are interested in Mike Anderson--but I think it's pre speculation on their part, as they also say the Txans "could" look at Jeb Putzier.
Jerrah Jones on NFL Network last night basically said that from what he knows about the new proposal, it sucks for both the lower-revenue owners and high-revenue owners. It was easy to tell he wasn't very happy at Tags for agreeing to bring it to the owners, because it's apparently a warm bucket of elephant piss.
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 07, 2006, 10:42:21 AM
Jerrah Jones on NFL Network last night basically said that from what he knows about the new proposal, it sucks for both the lower-revenue owners and high-revenue owners. It was easy to tell he wasn't very happy at Tags for agreeing to bring it to the owners, because it's apparently a warm bucket of elephant piss.
according that that it sounds like he is pissed that they are trying to keep all teams equal. As if parity has hurt the league so far. Get another face lift Jonesy.
Quote from: MURP on March 07, 2006, 11:31:27 AM
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 07, 2006, 10:42:21 AM
Jerrah Jones on NFL Network last night basically said that from what he knows about the new proposal, it sucks for both the lower-revenue owners and high-revenue owners. It was easy to tell he wasn't very happy at Tags for agreeing to bring it to the owners, because it's apparently a warm bucket of elephant piss.
according that that it sounds like he is pissed that they are trying to keep all teams equal. As if parity has hurt the league so far. Get another face lift Jonesy.
Not really. I forgot add that he also mentioned how difficult Upshaw has been to deal with, and it just seemed like he was exasperated and pissed that Tags would cave so much. He also downplayed the rift between the owners, saying that it's nothing compared to the rift Upshaw and his team have created.
I wish I could find the actual quote somewhere.
what time does the owners' meeting start? the mental image of this meeting i get is the scene from The Godfather where the heads of the five families sit down together. Jeffy and Danni are sitting in their chairs while Joe Banner and Vinnie Cerrato are behind them, pulling out their chairs and filling up their water.
I, too, don't believe in greater revenue sharing. In my proposal, we'd keep the revenue sharing to the lower revenue generating clubs - they're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.
The meeting theoretically started 10 minutes ago.
The way I understood it, Arrington basically bought access to free agency and wasn't released by the team, so he's subjected to FA rules...
i bet i could go down to HR and say, "if i paid you $1000, will you fire me?" they wouldnt think twice about it either
Forbes Chimes in on NFL's CBA War
http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/03/06/nfl-upshaw-football_cx_tvr_0307nfl.html
From Forbes:
In the latest negotiations, NFL owners have agreed in principle to expand the pool of money that players get a cut from. They'll include all revenue sources, such as stadium-naming rights and luxury suites, rather than just direct "football" sources like tickets and broadcast rights. Upshaw has succeeded in getting the pool enlarged; the only sticking point is how much of it goes to the players.
Under the expiring agreement, the players have been receiving an average of 64.5% of "football" revenue, a number that would equate to 55% of all revenue under the new formula. The owners' latest offer would bump that up to 56%, but the union is holding out for 60%.
that's a big jump
If that's true, Upshaw is a snake for insinuating that the overall % is lower... but we already knew that.
the players should get 75%...they ARE the league
they are the on the field product, true. but the smart guys in suits are the ones who make available all the different revenue streams. they need each other. without the players there is no product, without the league there isn't as much money to go around.
If the players got that much of the pie the league would fall apart in less than a decade. Don't give stupid people money and tell them to run a business. It don't work that way.
who said the players would run the business...no one is saying get rid of the owners...but theres a whole bunch of rich people in the world that can invest money to make money...whereas there are a miniscule amount of people in the world that can play nfl football at the level it requires to make a good league
there is no substitute for the players...there are plenty of potential owners out there willing to buy a team to get more rich than they already are
Who would own and run a business and then accept being paid only 1/4 of what their business brings in? No one.
because 1/4th of a gazillion dollars is a lot of money...and as stated the 75% is a % of part of the revenues...but far from all of them...the tv money alone that owners get more than pays for player salaries
Any major shift from the previous CBA is a likely mistake. NFL football experienced the largest spike in efficiency and popularity during this CBA as it ever has.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 07, 2006, 04:44:47 PM
the players should get 75%...they ARE the league
thats so ridiculous, it's not even worth responding to in any detail.
Ed Werder gave an update from the meeting in Dallas. He said he spoke to Jerry Jones and that they don't expect a vote until tomorrow at the earliest. He said it's not out of the question that the owners could come back with a counter-offer, but Jerry seemed resigned to the fact that this may be the best deal they can get and they may just need to accept it and move forward.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 07, 2006, 04:56:55 PM
Who would own and run a business and then accept being paid only 1/4 of what their business brings in? No one.
Plus some people make it sound like the owners just pocket the check for whatever the leftover percentage is, failing to not only take in account debt from stadiums/training facilities, but the administrative costs of running a team, such as insurance,
non-player salaries & benefits, advertising, marketing, equipment, utilities, travel costs, etc.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 07, 2006, 05:19:45 PM
Ed Werder gave an update from the meeting in Dallas. He said he spoke to Jerry Jones and that they don't expect a vote until tomorrow at the earliest. He said it's not out of the question that the owners could come back with a counter-offer, but Jerry seemed resigned to the fact that this may be the best deal they can get and they may just need to accept it and move forward.
Ed Werder likes the taste of Jerrah's juice.
Looks like Upshaw and his team might get their way from being complete pains in the ass. I guess we know who's really in charge of the NFL, just like every other entity with union workers:
It's not the workers themselves, but the executives that run their union. Sometimes they have the best interests of the workers, but usually they're only interested in making the union more and more powerful.
Quote from: Beermonkey on March 07, 2006, 05:21:01 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on March 07, 2006, 04:56:55 PM
Who would own and run a business and then accept being paid only 1/4 of what their business brings in? No one.
Plus some people make it sound like the owners just pocket the check for whatever the leftover percentage is, failing to not only take in account debt from stadiums/training facilities, but the administrative costs of running a team, such as insurance, non-player salaries & benefits, advertising, marketing, equipment, utilities, travel costs, etc.
Bingo.
GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE POOR POOR PLAYERS!
Haha.
My problem is that allotting more money to salaries pretty much means that the top players are going to make even more ridiculous money and the guys constantly fighting for jobs will still be fighting for jobs at minimum salary. So, they're not even really benefitting most players by raising the salary cap that much... and unless the 53-man roster gets bumped to 55 or 56, there certainly aren't going to be more jobs for players in the NFL. Only difference is that more teams might be more inclined to have veteran depth instead of rookie free agents or other young and unproven guys... but they already addressed that by making veteran minimum contracts count significantly less for the cap than they really cost.
My point, if you missed it, is that those who think an NFLPA-sanctioned CBA will really improve the lot of players in general are simply wrong. The only thing it would do is make the rich players richer, the rich owners slightly less richer, and most importantly, the not-as-rich owners possibly dangerously less rich.
There's something funny about the idea of someone being 'dangerously less rich' than someone else.
I just say it's dangerous to take away any of the parity in the NFL, because then it might end up more like Major League Baseball... and I don't want that one bit. MLB sucks ass.
I'll probably get bashed, but in terms of the issue of extending the revenue sharing between franchises from the current standard of Designated Gross Revenue (DGR) to Total Football Revenues (TFR), I can totally understand the side of the higher revenue teams.
It's like being a salesperson for a large successful company & all the sales people benefit by having very good base salaries. Of course, the sales people that work the hardest, are the most innovative & create opportunities, are the ones that will earn the highest commissions & set themselves apart from the others. Extending revenue sharing to TFR, is like making the high achievers share their commissions with the other sales staff, something I highly doubt anyone on this board would do in real life. While there are some that could never earn high commissions due to lack of opportunities in their territories, there are some that just choose not to make that extra effort.
How would you like some slacker from the Indiana territory building a deck off his house with the money you earned? ;)
Unlike my comparison, refusing to "share commissions" in this situation, threatens the livelihood of all involved.
Let's just get the farging FA period started.
Twenty pages of bullshtein about millionaires and billionaires squabbling over their pot of gold... :puke
My problem is that allotting more money to salaries pretty much means that the top players are going to make even more ridiculous money and the guys constantly fighting for jobs will still be fighting for jobs at minimum salary.
a lot of the money would go to players during their post playing career...and this would most help the lower rung guys
as for revenue sharing if an upper ecehlon owner doesnt like it then go into the real business world and try to make money that you can keep all to yourself...some of these guys have been successful in the real world like lil danni...but most wouldnt have a clue how to run a real business all by theirself...many of them are being carried by the nfl...
QuoteNFL | Labor deal specifics; free agency to start Thursday or Friday
Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:52:29 -0800
ESPN.com's John Clayton reports a few provisions of the new NFL labor deal include: 1) Teams will be able to use their franchise tag on a player more than once, but if they franchise a player for a third time, they will have to do it at a salary equivalent to that of a top-five quarterback, the highest-paid position in football. 2) Contracts for players selected in rounds two through seven of the NFL Draft will be limited to four years in length. More and more teams have been trying to lock second-day draft choices into five-year contracts that prevent the player from hitting restricted free agency after year three and unrestricted free agency after year four. 3) Bonuses in contracts will be pro-rated over five years this year and over six years in 2007, but in 2008 the pro-ration reverts to five years. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue made it clear that at this point there is no more negotiating with the union. If the owners accept the proposal before 8 p.m. ET Wednesday, March 8, free agency will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday, March 10. If there is no acceptance, free agency will start Thursday, March 9, as scheduled.
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 07, 2006, 08:39:32 PM
Haha.
The only thing it would do is make the rich players richer, the rich owners slightly less richer,
That should be
richerer
Most indications I've seen are that the owners will begrugingly accept this offer, which will likely push back free agency again, but only by one day. So, we have THAT going for us, which is nice.
Quote
NFL Owners Don't Agree on Labor Deal
By DAVE GOLDBERG
41 minutes ago
NFL owners got off to a slow start Wednesday in trying to beat a deadline and decide on accepting the union's proposal to extend the labor agreement.
"We're not even close to a consensus yet," said Jim Irsay, owner of the Indianapolis Colts.
That assessment came a day after commissioner Paul Tagliabue tried to build consensus with a speech to the owners, reminding them of the labor strife that culminated in strikes in 1982 and 1987.
But the good feeling that engendered seemed to wane as the owners discussed expanded revenue sharing. Irsay suggested they needed a consensus builder like the late Wellington Mara of the New York Giants, the last of the NFL's founding generation, who died last October.
"We need the ghost of St. Wellington to appear with some of the forefathers," he said.
The owners were operating under an 8 p.m. EST deadline to get a deal done before the start of free agency. Free agency, twice delayed, is scheduled to begin Thursday if owners turn down the union's offer. If they approve it, free agency will start Friday.
As the meeting broke up, most of the participants acknowledged there was a long way to go.
"I love my country and I love my league," said Oakland's Al Davis, the NFL's most consistent maverick for decades but now, according to those in the meeting, a strong Tagliabue supporter. "People who have been through this in the past want something good to come of it. What's good is another question."
The real debate is on the important issue of expanded revenue sharing, which has divided teams into "haves" and "have-nots." Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, has insisted throughout more than a year of negotiations that this division must be resolved before agreement can be reached on a contract extension.
There are three plans on the table and each has different supporters and opponents. To get it done, 24 of the 32 teams will have to back one of them.
It is anything but certain that the owners will agree by the deadline to the union's proposal. There was doubt among many owners that any of the plans could get the three-quarters support to pass, according to those in the meetings.
If there is no agreement, it doesn't mean there will be a work stoppage — at least not for the next two years.
But it would keep the salary cap at $94.5 million rather than as much as $10 million more. It would put a number of veterans on the street and it would also limit the amount available for other free agents. And it would lead to an uncapped year in 2007, which would allow some teams to spend almost at will and keep others from spending at all.
The revenue debate involves low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis who say high-revenue teams — Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance — should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in nonfootball income such as advertising and local radio rights
Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.
It's difficult to anticipate how the vote may go, especially with the negotiations that have had daily twists and turns. But Jerry Jones, one of the leaders of the high-revenue teams, indicated even before the meeting that his viewpoint might lose.
"We want to play football," Jones said. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.
"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."
Later, Jones said: "We've had a good dialogue. Very productive."
Beyond that, some of the higher-revenue teams that entered the meeting undecided have owners who have traditionally been those who regularly sacrifice for the good of the league.
They include the Denver Broncos, owned by Pat Bowlen, and the New York Giants, run by John Mara, son of the late Wellington Mara, who more than 40 years ago was one of three major-market owners who agreed to share television money. The senior Mara was elected to the Hall of Fame in part because of that decision.
Another fence-sitter is the New York Jets. Traditionally, the Jets have followed the Giants' lead, although that happened more often when Leon Hess, a close friend of Wellington Mara's, owned the team. The current Jets owner is Woody Johnson.
In any event, Tuesday's meeting appeared amicable.
"We haven't punched anyone yet," Rooney said.
free agency will never happen
QuoteThe current Jets owner is Woody Johnson.
Indeed.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 08, 2006, 12:45:03 PM
QuoteThe current Jets owner is Woody Johnson.
Indeed.
I really thought you were making that up. Its much better that you didn't.
i hope they delay free agency again...i'm not quite ready for it yet.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on March 08, 2006, 12:21:04 PM
"We haven't punched anyone yet," Rooney said.
Happy Gilmore.
Quote from: hunt on March 08, 2006, 12:48:46 PM
i hope they delay free agency again...i'm not quite ready for it yet.
I actually :-D at that, hunt.
i'd put 3 to 2 odds on FA not starting at 12:01am 3/9/2006.
i'd also put 1 to 1 odds on Art being a toolbag, whatever happens.
Who cares when free agency starts? We already got Shawn Barber!
i'd put 3 to 2 odds on FA not starting at 12:01am 3/9/2006
then youre guaranteeing the owners ratify today
or they still have a "chance" and will push it back again
PFT.com:
Quote
JONES SAYS OWNERS TOOK A STEP BACKWARDS
ESPN.com reports that the owners aren't making much progress on their second day in Dallas for meetings regarding an extension to the CBA.
"I don't think we're progressing. I think it will go to the last minute. I think we've probably had a step back today (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2359300)," Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said.
Per ESPN, the owners are looking at two revenue-sharing models. Under a system proposed by the Steelers, each team would put 25 percent of local revenues into a pool that would be distributed to the teams at the lower end of the earning spectrum.
The Patriots and Jets are proposing an expansion to a little-known system of supplemental revenue sharing that's already in place. We've previously heard that there is some dissatisfaction regarding the manner in which the NFL currently divvies up the additional revenue; presumably, the Pats/Jets plan will hinge enhanced revenue sharing to factors such as a franchise's overall financial picture -- and its efforts (or lack thereof) to earn more money on its own.
We've previously proposed a system that takes a set percentage of the local revenue of every team and funnels it to players on a league-wide basis according to factors such as seniority and performance. But who in the hell listens to us?
If no agreement can be reached among the owners (and thus no deal will be reached with the NFLPA), each team will be required to be under the $94.53 million salary cap by 9:00 p.m. EST Wednesday, and free agency will launch at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
Though the union has said that the deadlines won't be extended again, the union previously has said that the deadline would never be extended beyond March 2.
It has since been extended twice
The league is going to keep pushing back the deadline until the players pressure Upshaw to just sign a deal.
Players get ancy, owners don't.
Ancy?
Quote from: rjs246 on March 08, 2006, 05:19:29 PM
Ancy?
It's a funny word. Basically means anxious or impatient.
Players want to play. They don't want their livelihood farged with.
It isnt a word it is a suffix.
I think he knew what it meant. :D
Oh, 'Antsy.' Got it.
it's a fantsy word.
Bite me
Schefter (NFL Network) says the waiver deadline is being pushed back 'til 11pm tonight. Get ready for another delay.
Quote from: EagleFeva on March 08, 2006, 06:10:38 PM
Schefter (NFL Network) says the waiver deadline is being pushed back 'til 11pm tonight. Get ready for another delay.
wake me when it's over. please.
i'm just pretending it's february so it doesn't bother me.
farging hell.
- Upshaw's in farging Hawaii (says Rich Eisen). Guess he was serious about no more negotiations.
That dude is a regular Carmen Sandiego, isn't he. everytime we get an update he's somewhere else in the world except at the goddamn negotiating table.
What's next? Antartica? Luxembourg?
QuoteIt's going to be delayed. Deadline for Owners gets moved back one hour. FA will start on Friday at 12:01 a.m. Mark my words
From Spads
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 08, 2006, 07:15:38 PM
QuoteIt's going to be delayed. Deadline for Owners gets moved back one hour. FA will start on Friday at 12:01 a.m. Mark my words
From Spads
farg Spads. Spads has been categorically wrong since they started this horseshtein. "I really think they will get a deal done..." "There is a buzz.....I can feel it."
The whole thing makes me feel ill, and Spads is like adding a big swig from a container of strawberry Quik.
Owners accepted it.
This is all I found so far.
QuoteAfter pushing back various deadlines and getting the owners together for two days in Dallas, labor peace has been reached. The owners have accepted the NFLPA's offer for a CBA extension.
It's on ESPNews
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258
Sign Everyone!
EVERYONE!!! [/Stansfield from Leon/The Professional]
Looks like we can lock it down here.