PDA

View Full Version : Owners meet to discuss new CBA proposal


Coach
03-07-2006, 07:25 PM
Haven't seen this posted anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Updated: March 7, 2006, 7:41 PM ET
Owners to discuss revenue sharing, vote on proposal

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The extension of the NFL's labor agreement is now up to the owners. That's exactly what the players have been expecting all along.

The owners began meeting Tuesday at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport to vote whether to accept the latest proposal given them by the NFL Players Association. But to make it financially acceptable, they will have to agree first among themselves on expanded revenue sharing, just what Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director, has been saying in more than a year's worth of talks.

Still, this is the first time it has come up during these negotiations.

"I think it's playing out exactly like we thought it would," said Kevin Mawae, the New York Jets' union representative until he was cut Sunday by the Jets. "We said as a union that in order for free agency to go off without a hitch, the owners would have to figure out how to divide up the revenue. It's not necessarily the percentage that we're asking but how they spread the wealth."

Most of the first three hours of Tuesday's meeting was spent simply listening to commissioner Paul Tagliabue go through details of the union's proposal. Then Tagliabue outlined revenue sharing, but there was no discussion before the owners broke for dinner.

"We haven't punched anybody yet," said Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney, who described Tagliabue's remarks as "Excellent. Super."

"He described how the owners and players should be in this together for the good of the league," added Rooney, who has helped to solve past labor disputes.

League spokesman Joe Browne said Tagliabue had agreed with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, that the owners would have a decision no later than 8 p.m. ET Wednesday. That would come as the union, which is meeting in Hawaii, holds its executive board session.

"It's going to be a while. Quite a while," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson, one of leading proponents of revenue sharing.

There was an early note of optimism as the executive committee of the NFL's Management Council -- the owners' committee that deals with labor issues -- began bargaining. It came from an unlikely source: Dallas owner Jerry Jones, who has been strongly opposed to additional revenue sharing.

"We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "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."

League spokesman Joe Browne said Tagliabue had agreed with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, that the owners would have a decision no later than 8 p.m. ET Wednesday. That would come as the union, which is meeting in Hawaii, holds its executive board session.

Tagliabue has informed the owners that they will meet until 11 p.m. ET on Tuesday, and resume talks Wednesday morning, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports.

The contract doesn't run out for another two years, though this will be the last one with a salary cap. Without an agreement, there will be no cap next year, allowing teams to spend as much as they want. But there also will be no minimum figure for expenditures, which could lead to the kind of imbalance with high-revenue and low-revenue teams as in such sports as baseball and European soccer.

Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football 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.

Mawae, who said he is looking forward to joining another team when oft-delayed free agency begins Thursday, is one of many players who could be out of work if the owners turn down the proposal and leave the salary cap for 2006 at $94.5 million. If they approve the proposal, the cap could be as much as $10 million higher.

A number of endangered veterans have redone their contracts, as linebacker Derrick Brooks did with Tampa Bay on Monday, ensuring he will stay with the team where he has starred for 11 seasons. But Isaac Bruce, a star for the St. Louis Rams for a decade, was released and so was 37-year-old Junior Seau, who has been injured most of the last two seasons with Miami.

The union's request is for 60 percent of total league revenues.

On Monday, Jones reiterated that he is opposed to revenue sharing. But he also sounded like a man who knows he might end up in the minority.

"I'm not happy with the proposal. I didn't think that we would be entertaining the kinds of propositions that we got from the players. I'm not happy with it at all," he said. "As you well know, I don't think anyone particularly cares how happy I am."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2358144

Mile High Mania
03-07-2006, 07:36 PM
"Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football 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."

This argument gives me tired head... I don't like Jerry Jones, but I agree with his stance. I understand the small market vs big market issues, but that's not to say it can't be done in small markets.

Get creative.

Pitt Gorilla
03-07-2006, 09:11 PM
Get creative.
Yeah, there's an answer.

Mile High Mania
03-07-2006, 09:16 PM
Yeah, there's an answer.

I'm just not sold on the notion that every owner is doing every thing they can to maximize the revenue they generate.

jspchief
03-07-2006, 09:24 PM
I'm just not sold on the notion that every owner is doing every thing they can to maximize the revenue they generate.Why wouldn't they? Up until this new CBA gets done, that extra revenue would have gone directly into their pockets.

Yea, there are a few bums. The Bidwells and McCombs (formerly).

But there are probably 7-10 teams that are in cities that simply don't have the private and corporate wealth to generate 1/2 the money that Dallas and DC do. And there isn't a line of better cities to take over those teams.

If you're content with a 20 team league, then your expectations may be viable.

The revenue sharing that this league adopted decades ago always recognized that some cities are simply going to bring in more money.

StcChief
03-07-2006, 10:08 PM
They get it done or end up losing teams in the long run.

Mecca
03-07-2006, 10:43 PM
"Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football 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."

This argument gives me tired head... I don't like Jerry Jones, but I agree with his stance. I understand the small market vs big market issues, but that's not to say it can't be done in small markets.

Get creative.

Are you saying this because your team is one of the ones that is in the 9 high revenue teams holding out?

cdcox
03-07-2006, 10:49 PM
Get creative.

Creativity is a short term advantage in a copy cat world. Green Bay invents a way to double their revenue. What's to stop Dallas from copying? Market size and geographic wealth on the other hand, are long term advantages.

ct
03-08-2006, 07:22 AM
Couple of bits from KFFL:


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.



NFL | Labor talks continue
Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:31:26 -0800

Nick Eatman, of DallasCowboys.com, reports despite more than eight hours of meetings between NFL owners Tuesday, March 7, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, there is no new labor deal. The league was expected to end talks around 10 p.m. (CST) without a vote on the NFL Players Association's latest proposal. Joe Brown, NFL executive vice president of communications, said that vote now will occur at some point Wednesday, March 8, after the two sides resume talks here early in the morning. "We're moving along," Dallas Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones said during a short recess from the meetings Tuesday night. "But it wouldn't be right to discuss everything that Paul (Tagliabue) has said here today." New York Giants executive vice president Steve Tisch said Tagliabue has been rather blunt in getting his points across. The biggest holdup continues to be the difference in revenue allocation to the players and revenue sharing among the owners. The players have wanted 60 percent of the league's revenue, but recently lowered their proposal to 59.5 percent. The owners have not changed their initial offer of 56.2 percent.