The Start Of Free Agency To Be Delayed? (CBA Extension Talk)

[rjs246]

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.

[Wingspan]

GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE POOR POOR PLAYERS!

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

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.

[rjs246]

There's something funny about the idea of someone being 'dangerously less rich' than someone else.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

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.

[Beermonkey]

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.

[Feva]

Let's just get the farging FA period started.

[Rome]

Twenty pages of bullshtein about millionaires and billionaires squabbling over their pot of gold...

[ice grillin you]

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...

[SunMo]

NFL | 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.

[stalker]

Haha.

  The only thing it would do is make the rich players richer, the rich owners slightly less richer,

That should be richerer

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

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.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

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.

[Wingspan]

free agency will never happen

[rjs246]

The current Jets owner is Woody Johnson.

Indeed.