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

Started by PhillyPhreak54, February 14, 2006, 02:43:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BigEd76

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...

Wingspan



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
Connection Problems

Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.

SunMo


   
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
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

PoopyfaceMcGee

If that's true, Upshaw is a snake for insinuating that the overall % is lower... but we already knew that.

ice grillin you

i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

SunMo

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.
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

rjs246

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.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

ice grillin you

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
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

rjs246

Who would own and run a business and then accept being paid only 1/4 of what their business brings in? No one.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

ice grillin you

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
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

PoopyfaceMcGee

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.

Wingspan

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.
Connection Problems

Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.

SunMo

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.
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

Beermonkey

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.

PoopyfaceMcGee

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.