The latest from ESPN about the CBA

[DMD]

fingers crossed - looks like midnight will be the time now...

 

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."

 

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.

 

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 Redskin 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.

 

[Rovers]

I don't think the Washington franchise can get to within 2% of the cap, mathematically.Even if they cut the whole team, they'd get hit on the cap even harder. These owners have no excuse for not getting their house in order before the CBA expired. "buisness as usual", as they watch this league's successful formula go down the tubes.

[Sox]

The funny part is that Snyder is one of the owners that's against sharing,but if a deal doesn't get done by midnight,his 2006 team will be pretty much dismantled.

[Big Score 1]

Aside from ESPN, here are some other up to date pieces.

 

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 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.

 

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

[Big Score 1]

The funny part is that Snyder is one of the owners that's against sharing

1352729[/snapback]

Actually, Danny Boy is beginning to see the light.

...................... Dan Snyder is willing to change his position on NFL revenue sharing in order to get a CBA extension done................... that would mean that Snyder has pushed some more of his own chips into the pot in this high-stakes poker game.

redskins.scout.com

[Sox]

Actually, Danny Boy is beginning to see the light.

 

redskins.scout.com

1352743[/snapback]

 

 

Heh.

 

Nothing like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun to change one's viewpoint.

[Randall]

Heh.

 

Nothing like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun to change one's viewpoint.

 

1352746[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Score 1]

This is now the latest and it looks like a new CBA will be ratified on Wednesday.

 

 

By Mark Maske

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 4:21 PM

 

Negotiators for NFL team owners and the players' union were making progress this afternoon toward settlement on an extension of their collective bargaining agreement, sources familiar with the deliberations said.

 

It appeared increasingly likely that the league would push back the opening of the free-agent market, scheduled for midnight tonight, for a second time, perhaps until Wednesday. That would give NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue an opportunity to take a deal or near-deal with the union on a labor settlement before the owners in a meeting tentatively scheduled for Tuesday in Dallas.

 

Sources said the owners and players were progressing toward a compromise in which players would receive approximately 59 percent of a greatly expanded pool of league revenues as compensation under a salary-cap system.

 

The owners raised their offer today to more than 58 percent, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were ongoing.

 

Here's a link to the entire story www.washingtonpost.com

 

You may need to register, if so use this www.bugmenot.com

 

There is a concern that if the revenue sharing amongst the owners isn't acceptable to some, be it either the larger market owners or small market owners, they may form a clique/bloc of 9 and refuse to ratify, thereby blocking implementation of the new CBA.