Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Done


Pope Flick
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 Redskins 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 Redskins, 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.

www.profootballtalk.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEW YORK -- There was at least one positive development Saturday in the NFL's labor negotiations: The two sides talked.

 

The management negotiating team is planning on having a conference call with the owners' executive committee, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported. Sources tell Mortensen that they are not overly optimistic at this point. One source characterized it as having "less than a 50 percent chance of getting it done."

 

Both sides apparently have a lot of concern about the revenue-sharing model.

 

Union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, a lead negotiator for the NFLPA, said that the talks "are as dead as a doornail."

 

Kessler told ESPN that this is "a sad day for the NFL."

 

Kessler said there is no plan for resumption of talks, and that executive director of the NFL Players Association Gene Upshaw is on his way back to Washington, D.C.

 

The talks that took place today from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. concluded "because the NFL is unwilling to compromise," Kessler said.

 

Who do I believe!? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that Bidwell is a cheap ass you know what. I can totally agree with the other owners out there that are in it to win it. Do more promoting of their franchises to make them money, while Bidwell play with his bowtie. Mind you I don't want the league to have Yankee franchises but the revenue sharing is a little unfair to me if I was an owner. Just 20 years of being a Cardinal fan having to vent. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to have confused everyone, but when I said "done" and "goodbye NFL" that meamt it's over. Done. ESPN2 has been running the end of talks and Upshaw returning to DC for a few hours now.

 

I know that lulu posting his other thread saying the opposite thing confused the issue as well. He either posted old news or espn has it wrong.

 

The parity dominated NFL is over. Goodbye, we hardly knew ye....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope, though it looks more and more likely with each passing hour that you are correct, the fact remains there are conflicting reports. There is an AP report (link) which says:

 

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

 

Troy Vincent of the Buffalo Bills, the union's president, said Gene Upshaw, its executive director and chief negotiator had flown back to Washington but could return Sunday for talks. "There's not much movement," Vincent said.

 

So, if it's all the same to you, I'll continue to hold out hope that they will get something done. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope, though it looks more and more likely with each passing hour that you are correct, the fact remains there are conflicting reports.  There is an AP report (link) which says:

So, if it's all the same to you, I'll continue to hold out hope that they will get something done.  :D

 

1352132[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Keep Upshaw there and hammer out a deal without him/

 

Veterans who are facing an extra 2 years before free agency talk to your union. This is not doing you any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep Upshaw there and hammer out a deal without him/

 

Veterans who are facing an extra 2 years before free agency talk to your union. This is not doing you any good.

1352144[/snapback]

Actually quite the opposite Randall.

 

Because of Upshaw calling the owners bluff, he's already caused them to blink on their supposedly final offer of 56.2% GR. Upshaw reportedly has them up to 58% GR. Even if he can't poker the owners into a % higher than 58% GR, he's already made them millions per year more with the 1.8% increase. They'll get this done, it's just grandstanding now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From PFT, a half hour ago:

 

UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"

 

 

 

A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.

 

 

 

Said the source: "It is the rich Johnny-come-lately owners who can't figure out that they are making money because they own a team in a large market and not because they own a team."

 

 

 

Of course, the owners at the other end of the spectrum would argue that teams not in a large market should be required to try to earn as much money as possible before asking for revenues to be shared beyond their current extent, which represents 80 percent of all revenues.

 

 

 

Any proposal must attract the votes of at least a few of the 11-12 owners who are opposed to any changes to the current system of revenue sharing.

 

 

 

The disagreement arises from the growing disparity between unshared local revenues. Because the new CBA will determine the team-by-team salary cap based on a percentage of total football revenues, the teams making less of the money that isn't shared will see their player costs increases by revenues earned by the teams making more money in comparison.

 

 

 

One of the possibilities under consideration is a limitation on the amount of cash payments made in a given year above the salary cap. Such a measure will restrict the ability of the big-money teams to use their extra cash to lure free agents with signing bonus money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually quite the opposite Randall.

 

Because of Upshaw calling the owners bluff, he's already caused them to blink on their supposedly final offer of 56.2% GR. Upshaw reportedly has them up to 58% GR. Even if he can't poker the owners into a % higher than 58% GR, he's already made them millions per year more with the 1.8% increase. They'll get this done, it's just grandstanding now.

 

1352216[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Upshaw is the one who said anyhing under 60% was uacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a total soap opera, which I'm totally fine with.....if they get it done. IMHO, the NFL is the last of the real major pro sports left, but it is at a major crossroads. Let's wrap this up and then get some full time officials. :D

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the supposed "rich" teams... ALL of them are at the top of the ticket cost price list. NE, Wash, NYG, NYJ, Dallas. Seems like a simple fix to me.... let everyone else pay from 60 to 90 dollars a ticket too.... problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the owner of the NFL (his name escapes me at this point for obvious reasons) is trying to paint a horrible picture...for obvious reasons...

 

he wants Upshaw...whom he thinks is an idiot....to cave and take the deal he's offered and take the deal that is given...

 

Upshaw will win tomorrow...because it is what is good for the NFL unless someone wants to cut his nose off to spite his face...

 

 

do they really want the NFL powerhouses to dominate the NFL free agency?...or do they want it to be fair game so any team can win it?...

 

it's obvious what is happening right now...

 

and if a deal isn't struck...then the NFL wants it this way......

 

giving up 60% isn't the end of the world....they'll cave...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upshaw is the one who said anyhing under 60% was uacceptable.

 

1352238[/snapback]

 

 

 

That's called playing poker Randall. Whoever blinks first loses and so far it's the owners doing all the blinking. Upshaw will drive as hard a bargain as he can for the players and then sign the new CBA before the deadline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"

 

A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.

 

Said the source: "It is the rich Johnny-come-lately owners who can't figure out that they are making money because they own a team in a large market and not because they own a team."

 

Of course, the owners at the other end of the spectrum would argue that teams not in a large market should be required to try to earn as much money as possible before asking for revenues to be shared beyond their current extent, which represents 80 percent of all revenues.

 

Any proposal must attract the votes of at least a few of the 11-12 owners who are opposed to any changes to the current system of revenue sharing.

 

The disagreement arises from the growing disparity between unshared local revenues. Because the new CBA will determine the team-by-team salary cap based on a percentage of total football revenues, the teams making less of the money that isn't shared will see their player costs increases by revenues earned by the teams making more money in comparison.

 

One of the possibilities under consideration is a limitation on the amount of cash payments made in a given year above the salary cap. Such a measure will restrict the ability of the big-money teams to use their extra cash to lure free agents with signing bonus money.

www.profootballtalk.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's called playing poker Randall. Whoever blinks first loses and so far it's the owners doing all the blinking. Upshaw will drive as hard a bargain as he can for the players and then sign the new CBA before the deadline.

 

1352342[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think so. I don't think Gene wants a cap. He tried going into an uncapped year until many veterans complained and got him baqck to the table because they would sit out all year.

 

In addition young players needed to wait 6 years instead of 4 to be FA's.

Edited by Randall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a total soap opera, which I'm totally fine with.....if they get it done.  IMHO, the NFL is the last of the real major pro sports left, but it is at a major crossroads.  Let's wrap this up and then get some full time officials. :D

 

1352240[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D:D:D Full time officials!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. I don't think Gene wants a cap. He tried going into an uncapped year until many veterans complained and got him baqck to the table because they would sit out all year.

1352451[/snapback]

 

 

Where are you getting this information from? I cannot find reference to this anywhere. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that Bidwell is a cheap ass you know what.  I can totally agree with the other owners out there that are in it to win it.  Do more promoting of their franchises to make them money, while Bidwell play with his bowtie.  Mind you I don't want the league to have Yankee franchises but the revenue sharing is a little unfair to me if I was an owner.  Just 20 years of being a Cardinal fan having to vent. :D

 

1352064[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Good Info Here. :D A few years back when Bidwell was hinting at LA, A large majority of us volunteered to help him move (frickin loser).

 

But I don't understand why the Players (and their Union) think they have a right to 60% of the Revenue. Owning a Professional Football Team is the same as owning a business. The Owners are the ones taking all the risks. If the business fails, it's the owner that loses. They built it, they run it, and they deserve to make the profits.

 

Football players are really just employees, they have no financial risk if the team is losing money. They get paid no matter what. If they don't like it, use that free education they are given to get a real (re. Average Paying) job. They don't have to play football, they CHOOSE too play football.

 

Yea I know, here come the arguments:

 

1. Evil owners can cut players at any time, they do not have to honor contracts.

 

Seems to me either do the players. They ignore their contracts when they think they are worth more. Most of us go to work every day knowing that if the business/company we work for has a downturn, we can lose our jobs. Or if we no longer perform to the level expected, our employer can give us our walking papers. Why should it be any different in Football. Players (even bad ones) get a hell of a lot more then your average joe.

 

2. Football players risk serious injury everytime they step on the field.

 

Really, then damm, maybe they shouldn't play. I have had several jobs in my life, and many of them (Military and Mining for example) had a serious risk of injury or death. Let's face it, they play for the money, they take the risks for the money. If they don't like it, get another job.

 

3. Players are just asking for what's fair.

 

Please, even a 3rd string QB has a better change of being a millionaire then 75% of the rest of us. They passed "What's Fair" a long time ago.

 

I guess my point in this little rant is the Player's Union should "Come Back too Reality". Players are over-compensated already, what the he!! are you crying about.

 

Gene and his group need a reality check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are you getting this information from? I cannot find reference to this anywhere. :D

 

1352606[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Same place you are getting yours. Guesses from past behavior and reading between the lines of current comments.

 

This sounds like he wants to do away with the cap to me. He has said any sharing has to begin with a "6". To you that is a poker stance, but I take it more literally.

 

"DETROIT (AP) -- The NFL Players Association is preparing to take the league to court if there is no immediate progress on a new contract.

 

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw set March 9 as the date he will begin consulting players on legal action if no deal has been reached to extend the collective bargaining agreement. Upshaw said Thursday that the current stalemate is due more to a disagreement among the owners on revenue sharing than conflict between the league and the union.

 

The current contract expires after the 2007 season, but it calls for an uncapped year in '07. Without a new CBA, negotiations on individual contracts in the free-agent period that begins March 3 will be much more difficult for teams and players.

 

"The price of poker will go up," Upshaw said at the union's Super Bowl news conference. "We can not stay in the place where we are now."

 

The league and the owners have been negotiating for more than a year on an extension to the contract first agreed upon in 1993.

 

But this is the first time there has been a stalemate, primarily because of the dispute between high-revenue teams such as Washington, Dallas, Houston and New England, and teams with less local money available from items ranging from parking to stadium signage.

 

Upshaw insisted the union is prepared for decertification, which involves disbanding and going to antitrust court to ask for a set of rules under which the NFL would operate. The union did that to end the monthlong 1987 strike and played without a contract until 1992, when the court ruled in its favor -- leading to the current deal negotiated with commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the owners. That deal included free agency for the first time, as well as the salary cap, which took effect in 1993.

 

"We've demonstrated we are not afraid to decertify," Upshaw said. "We understand the laws and what's available to us."

 

Upshaw warned if the dispute continues through 2007, then the salary cap is likely to be gone -- for good.

 

Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said if the decertification strategy is used, it could keep the owners from locking out the players and allowing games to continue. "If there is no union, the labor laws would not apply, so you wouldn't have a lockout," he said."

 

He has also said this-

 

An uncapped year threatens to disrupt competitive balance and skew the market. It would also limit some players who now might be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2007; in an uncapped scenario, players would suddenly need six years, rather than four, to be eligible to be unrestricted free agents.

 

Upshaw contends the players wouldn't go back to a salary-cap system. "Once the players get something, I'm never going to ask them to take less," he said.

 

 

Older players got him to go back and negoiate. Hopefully it will get done.

Edited by Randall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same place you are getting yours. Guesses from past behavior and reading between the lines of current comments.

1352640[/snapback]

Not sure how you've come to the conclusion that Upshaw wants an uncapped NFL from past behavior.

 

All past behavior by Upshaw points to the exact opposite of wanting an uncapped NFL, as he's successfully negotiated several CBA's during his tenure. Upshaw has had multiple opportunities before now to push for an uncapped NFL & has never done so.

 

His threat to decertify in 2007 is so that the owners cannot lock out the players. He has said that if the NFL goes uncapped, then the cap will never again be accepted. Purely a negotiating ploy to get the owners % up.

 

As far as reading between the lines, everything I've come across points to the in-fighting amongst the owners themselves as being the main impediment to getting a new CBA.

 

These are the most recent pieces I could find.

 

NFL Labor Negotiations Back On, Deal Close

By Mark Maske

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 9:21 AM

The NFL's labor negotiations took a dramatic turn overnight. After the talks faltered yesterday, representatives of the team owners and the players' union agreed to resume negotiations, and participants said the two sides were close to completing a deal.

 

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said via e-mail early this morning that the parties had scheduled another meeting in New York and 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."

 

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'd 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 Saturday.

 

The league's free-agent market is scheduled to open at midnight. Unless there is a new contract, teams must be under next season's $94.5 million salary cap by then. If they need to release players to get under the cap, they must do so by 6 p.m.

 

But Upshaw and NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue facing a similar deadline Thursday agreed to push back those deadlines by 72 hours, and they could agree to another postponement if more time is needed to complete the deal. Tagliabue has told the owners to leave Tuesday free for a possible meeting in Dallas to ratify a labor deal.

 

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.

 

NFL talks take dramatic turn overnight

FOXSports.com

Posted: 1 hour ago

Just when doom and gloom were beginning to characterize these NFL labor negotiations, there appears to be some hope the league can still agree on a deal.

 

The NFL's negotiations to extend the current collective bargaining agreement took a dramatic turn overnight Saturday, the Washington Post is reporting, as representatives of team owners and the players' union agreed to resume negotiations as the deadline of midnight Sunday looms over the horizon.

 

Not only are the two sides meeting a day after negotiations appeared to fall apart, but Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director, told the Washington Post that the two 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."

 

This is startling news given what transpired in New York City on Saturday. Talks between the NFL and its players union broke off Saturday with no progress. No meeting for Sunday was planned and the league appeared to be bracing for a wild off-season where many high-priced free agents would become available on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. EST Sunday.................

 

.............Upshaw has said the NFL was offering 56.2 percent of its total revenues to the players. He also has said he will not go under 60 percent. Vincent said he had been told the league had increased its percentage offer Saturday.

 

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 non-television and ticket revenue than big-market teams. I don't know how we can do a deal without revenue sharing," Vincent said.

 

Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners, but that isn't likely to happen in these last-minute talks, which began Friday after the start of free agency was extended three days from Friday at 12:01 a.m. EST until Monday at the same time.......................................

 

.........................Broadcast reports indicated Sunday that if a deal is not struck in New York that the league may extend the deadline again and hope that something can be worked out some time this week.

 

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.".............

 

...............................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 responded: "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?"...................................

 

All of the above pieces corroborate many other pieces I've read, where the main hold up to a new CBA, is the owners themselves. It is their inability to work out their own internal revenue sharing details which seems to be delaying a new CBA.

 

I have looked all over the web on Upshaw and read up on him and his past labor dealings. Absolutely nothing in his past behavior points to him wanting an uncapped NFL. I simply can't find any articles that insinuate (let alone come right out and say) that Upshaw is actively pushing / politicking for an uncapped NFL.

 

Here are some more articles detailing the internal strife amongst the owners and revenue sharing if you care to read them.

 

espn.com

 

www.post-gazette.com

 

I know it's the trendy thing to blame this on Upshaw and the press was certainly guilty of initially portraying this line of thinking to us, but as more & more leaks come out on the details of these talks, I see it as an internal problem amongst the owners and their current revenue-sharing model.

Edited by Big Score 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information