Upshaw tells agents to prepare for uncapped '07

[Coach]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2343073

Upshaw tells agents to prepare for uncapped '07

By John Clayton
ESPN.com

NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw told a seminar of agents Friday morning to prepare for a 2006 season without a collective bargaining extension, setting up an uncapped year in 2007.

"March 3 will be the beginning of a new league year and we are just not there yet," Upshaw said. "I'm taking the position now that it won't get done."

No negotiating sessions are scheduled although Upshaw said he is willing to talk. He told agents the issues are so far apart that there is virtually no way a deal could be set before next Thursday, the eve of the start of free agency. Under no circumstance, Upshaw said, will the union agree to delay the start of free agency to accommodate a deal.

Three major issues were cited by Upshaw as the reason for no collective bargaining agreement extension.

• Neither side can agree on the percentage of total revenues that will go to the players. Upshaw wouldn't elaborate on where the numbers were in the negotiations, but he has publicly said he wants a percentage number in the sixties. Reportedly, the sides are four percent apart but that number wasn't discussed by Upshaw.

"We want to have a higher percentage," Upshaw said. "We want more dollars to come into the system."

How significant is the percentage differential?

Upshaw said each percentage point is worth $2 million of cap room per team early in any CBA agreement, $2.5 million in the middle and $2.9 million in the end.

• The NFLPA won't agree to any type of CBA extension that doesn't have a new revenue sharing plan in the future. The differences between the high and lower revenue sharing teams have grown as much as $100 million dollars. The league owners aren't close on any revenue sharing deal among themselves, and Upshaw considers that something the union would never accept in a new deal without revised revenue sharing.

• Upshaw's third difference is the league's "G-3" program in which money is loaned to teams by the league to finance new stadium construction. The union has to sign off on any "G-3" plan because it comes out of the gross revenue pool. Upshaw is asking for a "flip tax" in which the union gets a return on the investment. The NFLPA hasn't signed off on new stadium "G-3" deals for the Cowboys, Colts and Giants.

With nothing on the horizon that gives him optimism of any breakthroughs, Upshaw set a soft deadline of Friday for getting a CBA extension. According to him, the sides are so far apart that a six-year extension would be hard to settle before the hard deadline of March 3.

To give agents guidance, Upshaw told the room that the 2006 cap should be between $92 million and $95 million but he thinks the realistic number will be $96 million. That number should be settled within in the next day or so. He said the benefits package paid by teams is $13.8 million.

Though he will be available by phone, Upshaw planned to leave Indianapolis on Friday afternoon and return to Washington, D.C.

"I'm leaving," Upshaw said. "We're running out of time. You might as well prepare as if we are heading for an upcapped year."

John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

[Mecca]

Great..........we're hosed. Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Bob McNair, Pat Bowlen, Bob Kraft and so on are going to kill the NFL golden goose because they make more money, good job guys.

[kaplin42]

I posted the previous article to this one yesterday. This just sucks. With an uncapped NFL, the game will lose much of its competiveness. Large market franchises will dominate and smaller market teams will just get crushed.

What I dont understand is why an agreement cant be reached later in the year? Why cant it be reached in june? Also, why did the NFL and the NFLPA wait till the very last second to try and pound out a deal? This just sucks, and it weighs heavy on my heart, because I will not be an NFL fan if we move to an uncapped league.

[Eleazar]

Of course the players' association wants an uncapped year... duh

The NFL is going to find out why it's so much interesting to fans than baseball unless it finds a solution.

[kaplin42]

of course they do, but that doesnt make it right.

[Mecca]

Of course the players' association wants an uncapped year... duh

Actually that's not true. The players want the cap to stay they just want it to increase. They realize with no cap there will be more teams that don't pay than do pay.

What's going on is you need 24 of 32 owners to pass something. Well 9 are holding out.......so that's 1 short. With 1 guy holding it up, if this does happen. The other 23 owners will lock out the league after 07 that is if the players don't strike first.

[Mr. Laz]

Great..........we're hosed. Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Bob McNair, Pat Bowlen, Bob Kraft and so on are going to kill the NFL golden goose because they make more money, good job guys.
don't blame just those owners .... the players share some responsibility as well.

[Mecca]

don't blame just those owners .... the players share some responsibility as well.

The players have nothing to do with the CBA till the owners agree to what they're going to propose to the union. They haven't even gotten past the owners part because it's being held up by the 9.....

[kaplin42]

Actually that's not true. The players want the cap to stay they just want it to increase. They realize with no cap there will be more teams that don't pay than do pay.

What's going on is you need 24 of 32 owners to pass something. Well 9 are holding out.......so that's 1 short. With 1 guy holding it up, if this does happen. The other 23 owners will lock out the league after 07 that is if the players don't strike first.

Lock out the league? You mean until an agreement gets put into place? That actually gives me some hope. Its just too bad that the Jerry Jone's and the Snyders can't share a little bit. They are already make a serious amount of money, it wouldnt hurt them to lose 10 million in a 200 million dollar profit year.

[Mr. Laz]

The players have nothing to do with the CBA till the owners agree to what they're going to propose to the union. They haven't even gotten past the owners part because it's being held up by the 9.....
this is true ... but there isn't an agreement with the players either.


the problem is two-fold

[Mecca]

Here's some stuff on it.............

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine NFL franchises are resisting the expansion of revenue sharing by the league's 32 teams.* Upshaw also told Mark Maske of The Washington Post that the nine teams are planning to file suit if they are forced to share revenues that currently are not distributed evenly among all teams.

A league source has identified for us the members of this modern-day Mudville nine:* the Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans.

Here's a link to a Clayton story on it about some of the things that would happen.........

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

Basically if it doesn't get done this will get really ugly.

[Coach]

Well, how about kicking out those Greedy piece of shit bastards 9 teams out of the league? Not like they have done anything good for the league anyways.

[Mecca]

Well, how about kicking out those Greedy piece of shit bastards 9 teams out of the league? Not like they have done anything good for the league anyways.

The arguement those teams are making is "we paid more for our teams because of the markets to make more". They think if the league makes all the local revenues shared and takes that margin away they're being hosed. The Houston and NE owners are adament that if they have to share their local revenues then the league should share in their debt margin they have other owners don't.

[HemiEd]

Memories of players riding around with shotguns to run off scabs and replacement players on the field come to mind.

I think the NFL will regret the day they approved the sale to Dan Snyder.

[ROYC75]

Oh boy, it will get just like baseball now.............. If they do, I'm giving up the NFL, just like I have with baseball.

[Mecca]

Oh boy, it will get just like baseball now.............. If they do, I'm giving up the NFL, just like I have with baseball.

If you read that Clayton article I posted it "won't be like baseball" it will be different than it is now but not like baseball.

[kaplin42]

Oh boy, it will get just like baseball now.............. If they do, I'm giving up the NFL, just like I have with baseball.

Exactly, I really dont want to watch the Cowboys and the patriots go to the SB every year because they were able to pay 3 times as much money to their players than the smaller franchise teams could. Just a very stupid thing.

[ChiefsfaninPA]

Hey come on fellows, this is big business, capitalist at its best. Don't it just make you happy?

[Mecca]

Since I take it some of you are missing the Clayton article I'll post it and bold some important parts............

Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement extension continue to drag. Conference calls are going on daily with hopes of getting something done. The collective bargaining agreement runs out after the 2007 season, but March 3 of this year is perhaps the most important date in the process.

Even though two years remain in the agreement, the NFL Players Association and owners built incentives into the current CBA to encourage negotiations. The incentives include the uncapped year in 2007 and the equally painful transition year in 2006. If no deal is done by March 3, the NFL, as we've known it since the cap started in 1993, won't be the same. If a new deal isn't worked out, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said the union will proceed to the uncapped year in 2007 and not look back. That could put pro football in the rare position to be the first sport to lose a salary cap.

Most experts think a last-minute deal will be completed, but what if it isn't? Here are a few answers to the questions.

• What is the problem in the negotiations?
The biggest problem is the lack of cohesion among the owners. The players have to settle on a negotiated percentage of total gross revenues, and Upshaw said that percentage must be in the 60s. They currently get 64 percent of designated gross revenues, but the sport has grown so much that the formula must change. Starting with an extension, the percentage will be based on total revenues. The NFL has grown into a $6 billion business and is expected to be a $10 billion business by 2010. Upshaw and commissioner Paul Tagliabue should be able to work out the number but not if there isn't improved revenue sharing among the owners, and that's what has been holding up a settlement.

Teams with new stadiums at the top of the revenue list don't want to share their profits with the lower revenue teams. Heading the list of high-revenue teams are the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Philadelphia Eagles. Because eight votes can block any deal such as a CBA, they prevent a deal from getting done and it could cost the league the salary cap. Their position is strong.

The revenue differences in a league that made its success by sharing has grown apart. A top team such as the Redskins can make between $200 million and $240 million in gross revenues and that number should grow to $300 million. The lower-revenue teams are in the low $100-million range. What the high revenuers are hoping is that the union would do a deal without revenue sharing. Upshaw says that won't happen because he can't have a top revenue team pay 35-40 percent of its revenues on payroll while a low revenue team pays 70 percent. Conference calls over the past couple of days are moving the process but the negotiations are complicated. At some point, the owners have to settle their differences and take the best deal or they will lose the salary cap.

• With no extension, what problems would exist for the '06 season?

Because 2006 could be a transition year to no cap in 2007, rules change slightly and they take a lot of money out of the free agency pool. Teams will lose between $2.5 million and $5 million of cap room because of the transition. Because there is no cap in 2007, players who are released from multi-year contracts will have the cap hits on the 2006 cap. With no salary cap in 2007, there will be no June 1 adjustment date to release players with high cap numbers and delay the cap hits. With no cap in 2007, all incentives will count immediately.

Normally, incentives have to be earned during the season and are posted on the next year's cap. Teams have to leave room for the extra charges and that will take anywhere between $100 million and $150 million of cap room out of the free agent pool. With less room, fewer free agents will get big dollars, and fewer free agents will be signed. Another problem is the 30-percent rule for base salaries. Any contract that extends into an uncapped year limits the increase of a player's base salary to 30 percent a year. That kills the teams over the cap because they can't negotiate simple replacement deals in which they replace base salary with signing bonuses. The base salaries can increase only 30 percent a year so teams would have to negotiate two or three years of reductions. It will be harder for teams to free up money under the cap because of that.

Signing draft choices will be more difficult because teams can prorate signing bonuses for only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That leads to long holdouts by draft choices.

• What does the NFL lose if it doesn't negotiate a CBA extension?

Labor peace. In 2008, the NFL will either be on strike or the owners will lock out the players. That's not going to play well with networks investing a total of $100 million a year in rights fees. The union will decertify and then antitrust rules will apply. The NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted in the current CBA if it expires. Naturally, the NFL will try to implement a system, but the NFLPA will sue and both sides will be spending all of their time in court. To get players out of college, it could be open negotiations. Minimum salaries for all players will be eliminated in 2007, so every contract, including those for rookies coming out of college, has to be negotiated individually and those players get what they can get. Players probably can sue if their contracts are traded. Every single move of the league will be under legal scrutiny.

• What do the players lose if there is no extension?

They will lose some protection. Even though it's more of a procedural thing that has to do with antitrust laws, the union will go out of business if there is no CBA. That will cause uncertainty for the players. Teams can change and cut down the benefits package that players receive, which is considered the best in sports. With no structure, teams can pay young players below the current minimums of $235,000, $310,000 and $385,000 a year.

• Will the NFL resemble baseball if there is an uncapped 2007?

Not really. There will be some restrictions of teams being able to go out and sign whomever they want. There will be what is called a "Final Eight" restriction for teams that make the playoffs in 2006. The final four playoff teams will be allowed to re-sign any of their own unrestricted free agents. However, they will be permitted to sign unrestricted free agents from other teams as replacements only if they lose one of their own free agents. A team that loses in the divisional playoff round will have the limitation of adding one unrestricted free agent with a salary of $1.5 million or more. So the final eight playoff teams won't be able to go out like the Yankees and Red Sox and grab all the players that are available in an uncapped year. There is no limitation on Fight Eight teams signing franchise or transition players from other teams but those players are hard to acquire and would cost top draft choices to sign. Teams in 2007 also will have one extra transition designation along with their one franchise tag, giving them a franchise tag and two transition tags to keep their top players.

• Will free agency be different in 2007?

Yes, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years under the current rules. If no CBA agreement is reached this year, players won't begin unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers.

[Chiefnj]

We should start a can drive for those poor teams that only generate 100 million in gross revenue. I've got some mushroom soup in the closet.

[kaplin42]

Mecca,

Thanks for the post. It helped calm me down a little, but I think it will still suck. It wont be exactly like baseball, but close enough. I just think that the owners need to come to an agreement. In the long run, not comming to an agreement will hurt everybody.

[Mr. Laz]

What is the problem in the negotiations?[/B]

The biggest problem is the lack of cohesion among the owners. The players have to settle on a negotiated percentage of total gross revenues, and Upshaw said that percentage must be in the 60s. They currently get 64 percent of designated gross revenues, but the sport has grown so much that the formula must change. Starting with an extension, the percentage will be based on total revenues. The NFL has grown into a $6 billion business and is expected to be a $10 billion business by 2010. Upshaw and commissioner Paul Tagliabue should be able to work out the number but not if there isn't improved revenue sharing among the owners, and that's what has been holding up a settlement

1. some owners want to increase revenue sharing


2. the players want to increase the amount of revenue that the salary cap is based on.


just because problem #1 has to be solve first doesn't mean that problem #2 doesn't exist.

[Frazod]

Oh goody. On the one hand, we could have another strike, and on the other hand, the Chiefs could turn into the Royals.

Lovely. :shake:

[picasso]

If we go into an uncapped year then how about this little bit of an advantage. The league decides for teams that go over that 96 million dollar amount (from the previous year) has to abide by a 53 man roster where other teams that stay under that amount get to suit up and use everyone on their bench. The one thing to balance out competition against a team with all quality is quantity that low market teams should be able utilize? Oh and higher draft picks in the next year. All of the larger markets regardless of record fall to the end of the selection order.

[kaplin42]

Oh goody. On the one hand, we could have another strike, and on the other hand, the Chiefs could turn into the Royals.

Lovely. :shake:


exactly!!! Personaly I think someone should go slap jerry jones. If for nothing else, it would just be fun.

[Mecca]

If we go into an uncapped year then how about this little bit of an advantage. The league decides for teams that go over that 96 million dollar amount (from the previous year) has to abide by a 53 man roster where other teams that stay under that amount get to suit up and use everyone on their bench. The one thing to balance out competition against a team with all quality is quantity that low market teams should be able utilize? Oh and higher draft picks in the next year. All of the larger markets regardless of record fall to the end of the selection order.

I don't know if you know this or not......but if this isn't agreed on. Not only does the cap go away in 07 the draft goes away in 08 making all college entries free agents for the highest bidders.

[Mr. Laz]

I don't know if you know this or not......but if this isn't agreed on. Not only does the cap go away in 07 the draft goes away in 08 making all college entries free agents for the highest bidders.
won't happen imo


they will get it fixed or there won't be a 07 season



rumor has it that some of the team who are against the expanding revenue sharing are against it partially because they know that as soon as they do that it will immediately be snapped up by the players association as expanding salary cap.

[King_Chief_Fan]

another example of greedy butted unions trying to take more than they are entitled to.....shutting down another business

[Chiefnj]

Imagine what would happen if the players lost their medical benefits and had to use the same crap systems that we have to use? I'm sorry Priest your primary care physician Dr. Aedeliebi Mubiliga from the University of Yemen won't refer you to the hip specialist. He says to take some naproxen and check back in two months.

[Mecca]

another example of greedy butted unions trying to take more than they are entitled to.....shutting down another business

What? I think you totally read that entire article wrong........64% is what was agreed to long ago. I don't have an issue with the players wanting it to remain 64% as the revenues of the league increase. The players aren't exactly driving the problem right now it's being driven by the Jones and Snyders.

[Mecca]

Imagine what would happen if the players lost their medical benefits and had to use the same crap systems that we have to use? I'm sorry Priest your primary care physician Dr. Aedeliebi Mubiliga from the University of Yemen won't refer you to the hip specialist. He says to take some naproxen and check back in two months.

This is great......you got big market owners trying to hose small market owners. And a few people take time to post how it's the players fault. I'm sorry you're jealous they make more money than you.

[picasso]

I don't know if you know this or not......but if this isn't agreed on. Not only does the cap go away in 07 the draft goes away in 08 making all college entries free agents for the highest bidders.
I can't see that happening as projected because this years or next years crop of draft talent would be able to see into the future and decide hey I'm not enteing the draft I am waiting for next year when it doesn't exist anymore. I just don't see that happening.

[Mr. Laz]

What? I think you totally read that entire article wrong........64% is what was agreed to long ago. I don't have an issue with the players wanting it to remain 64% as the revenues of the league increase. The players aren't exactly driving the problem right now it's being driven by the Jones and Snyders.
and you're ignoring half the problem...


the players want it to stay at 64% BUT they want the pool of money to increase.


The players want more money


they want internet stuff,concessions,parking etc included in the salary cap formula.

[kaplin42]

1. some owners want to increase revenue sharing


2. the players want to increase the amount of revenue that the salary cap is based on.


just because problem #1 has to be solve first doesn't mean that problem #2 doesn't exist.


True, but I would be willing to bet that #2 will get taken care of a lot quicker and easier than #1. I really just think this is a case of the large market teams just trying to get as much money as they possibly can and not carring at all what that does to the entire league. What they are not seeing is the big picture. If it goes to no cap, then eventually the NFL could lose fans, and revenue and TV agreements. Which will cost them even more money than they would have lost wit hthe agreement.

[Mecca]

and you're ignoring half the problem...


the players want it to stay at 64% BUT they want the pool of money to increase.


The players want more money


they want internet stuff,concessions,parking etc included in the salary cap formula.

They should want it to increase, the overall revenue of the league has increased faster than the cap. What's wrong with wanting it to increase back to what 64% is when that was what was agreed to?

[Mr. Laz]

True, but I would be willing to bet that #2 will get taken care of a lot quicker and easier than #1. I really just think this is a case of the large market teams just trying to get as much money as they possibly can and not carring at all what that does to the entire league. What they are not seeing is the big picture. If it goes to no cap, then eventually the NFL could lose fans, and revenue and TV agreements. Which will cost them even more money than they would have lost wit hthe agreement.
i noticed you didn't quote this part of my post


rumor has it that some of the team who are against the expanding revenue sharing are against it partially because they know that as soon as they do that it will immediately be snapped up by the players association as expanding salary cap.


this all a part of the same problem ... how is the money divided up between the owners and players.


you can't ignore either side

[Chiefnj]

This is great......you got big market owners trying to hose small market owners. And a few people take time to post how it's the players fault. I'm sorry you're jealous they make more money than you.

I didn't say it's the players fault.

What the hell do I care if a bunch of multi-millionaires don't want to play nice? Those poor small market clubs who only make 100 million a year, boo hoo. They are going to do whatever the hell they want irregardless of whether I blame them or the players. If a small market team can't make money, maybe they should leave town. If Jerry Jones is able to sell the stadium's name and make money why should he share it with the Bengals who refuse to do it and keep the name after a family member? If taxpayers in a certain city are willing to pay an increased tax to build a new stadium why should they share it with KC where taxpayers keep voting down such referendums?

[Mr. Laz]

They should want it to increase, the overall revenue of the league has increased faster than the cap. What's wrong with wanting it to increase back to what 64% is when that was what was agreed to?

ah ... i see

so the reason you're leaving the players out of the current NFL problem is because you AGREE with their claims.


whether you agree or not ... they are still part of the existing problems.

[Mecca]

ah ... i see

so the reason you're leaving the players out of the current NFL problem is because you AGREE with their claims.


whether you agree or not ... they are still part of the existing problems.

Actually I left it out because the owners have to get their shit together before it even gets to the players.

[kaplin42]

Laz,

Your second quote is from a differant post, thats why I didnt quote that one.

And I'm not saying ignore the prospect of the players union wanting more money. But lets deal with one thing at a time. We need to know how deep the pool is first before we can tell the players how far they can dive into it.

The second issue cant be resolved until the first one is, simple because they have no idea of what they are working with. How can you offer half of something if you dont even know how much of that something you have?

Just because I said #2 would be resolved easier doesnt mean that it will be a simple little matter, I just dont think it will be this big fuss, thats all.

[chiefqueen]

Lock out the league? You mean until an agreement gets put into place? That actually gives me some hope. Its just too bad that the Jerry Jone's and the Snyders can't share a little bit. They are already make a serious amount of money, it wouldnt hurt them to lose 10 million in a 200 million dollar profit year.

They want to buy their way into the playoffs, they want to load up with talent and have that make up for any front office/coaching shortfalls.

[Lurch]

That would suck...

[beer bacon]

I didn't say it's the players fault.

What the hell do I care if a bunch of multi-millionaires don't want to play nice? Those poor small market clubs who only make 100 million a year, boo hoo. They are going to do whatever the hell they want irregardless of whether I blame them or the players. If a small market team can't make money, maybe they should leave town. If Jerry Jones is able to sell the stadium's name and make money why should he share it with the Bengals who refuse to do it and keep the name after a family member? If taxpayers in a certain city are willing to pay an increased tax to build a new stadium why should they share it with KC where taxpayers keep voting down such referendums?

I guess you are all for the Chiefs heading to LA.

It is pretty ****ing simple. The CBA is good BECAUSE IT MAKES THE GAME BETTER. That is why there was a CBA in the first place. It keeps the game competitive and thus more fun and attractive to fans. It isn't rocket science.

[Mr. Laz]

Laz,

Your second quote is from a differant post, thats why I didnt quote that one.

And I'm not saying ignore the prospect of the players union wanting more money. But lets deal with one thing at a time. We need to know how deep the pool is first before we can tell the players how far they can dive into it.

The second issue cant be resolved until the first one is, simple because they have no idea of what they are working with. How can you offer half of something if you dont even know how much of that something you have?

Just because I said #2 would be resolved easier doesnt mean that it will be a simple little matter, I just dont think it will be this big fuss, thats all.
but the part you didn't quote discussed how #2 is effective part #1.


every owner knows that as soon as they agree to share a new section of revenue they basically are throwing it into the expanded salary cap number as well.


example: the chiefs know that parking revenue is not shared ... that's why they charge so freaking much. the money is staying strictly with them. So raising parking actually gives more money to the chiefs than raising ticker price because ticket price revenue goes to the players salary cap as well.


as soon as the teams share parking ... the players are going to want to use parking in the formula of determining salary cap.



so the owners are actually trying to agree about both problems at once.

[jspchief]

What the hell do I care if a bunch of multi-millionaires don't want to play nice? Those poor small market clubs who only make 100 million a year, boo hoo. They are going to do whatever the hell they want irregardless of whether I blame them or the players. If a small market team can't make money, maybe they should leave town. If Jerry Jones is able to sell the stadium's name and make money why should he share it with the Bengals who refuse to do it and keep the name after a family member? If taxpayers in a certain city are willing to pay an increased tax to build a new stadium why should they share it with KC where taxpayers keep voting down such referendums?Yea, because revenue sharing has worked so poorly for the league over the last 35 years. They really need to fix that.

Have fun watching your 10 team professional football league.

[kaplin42]

but the part you didn't quote discussed how #2 is effective part #1.


every owner knows that as soon as they agree to share a new section of revenue they basically are throwing it into the expanded salary cap number as well.


example: the chiefs know that parking revenue is not shared ... that's why they charge so freaking much. the money is staying strictly with them. So raising parking actually gives more money to the chiefs than raising ticker price because ticket price revenue goes to the players salary cap as well.


as soon as the teams share parking ... the players are going to want to use parking in the formula of determining salary cap.



so the owners are actually trying to agree about both problems at once.

While I think they might have to define what is shared and what isnt, that could definately be part of the problem. But even if they decide to share everything from parking prices to jersey sales, they still have to decide that before they can move to the players union. I definately see how that could be an issue for the owners. Because I dont think that money made from beer sold at arrowhead should have to be shared with the league, thats the benefit of having home games. But I think that merchandise sales and ticket prices, and money from having your game televised should all be shared. I still stand by my point that you have to finish with the owners before you can devote your attention to the players.

[Mr. Laz]

While I think they might have to define what is shared and what isnt, that could definately be part of the problem. But even if they decide to share everything from parking prices to jersey sales, they still have to decide that before they can move to the players union. I definately see how that could be an issue for the owners. Because I dont think that money made from beer sold at arrowhead should have to be shared with the league, thats the benefit of having home games. But I think that merchandise sales and ticket prices, and money from having your game televised should all be shared. I still stand by my point that you have to finish with the owners before you can devote your attention to the players.
i don't disagree

my point is just that it's all linked ...

there may be 2 problems ... but they are so intertwined that they can't be fully separated.

to say that it's just the "mudville nine" that are screwing stuff up is just ignoring the larger picture imo.

[Chiefnj]

Yea, because revenue sharing has worked so poorly for the league over the last 35 years. They really need to fix that.

Have fun watching your 10 team professional football league.

Sharing has worked. The players want the owners to share in more things that haven't been part of the previous agreements so they can get a share of it as well.

If teams want to share in revenue from selling stadium names why shouldn't all teams have to sell the name to toss it into the pot?

Sharing creates parity right? Why not share players? Maybe Peyton should have to spend the month of December in Arizona because Warner is having a bad year.

[Mecca]

Sharing has worked. The players want the owners to share in more things that haven't been part of the previous agreements so they can get a share of it as well.

If teams want to share in revenue from selling stadium names why shouldn't all teams have to sell the name to toss it into the pot?

Sharing creates parity right? Why not share players? Maybe Peyton should have to spend the month of December in Arizona because Warner is having a bad year.

Wow, I wonder if you realize how insanely stupid what you just said sounds.....

[Bob Dole]

If the union wants a larger chuck of the revenues, maybe they need to figure out a way for the union to assume a larger share of the risks.

[jidar]

I didn't say it's the players fault.

What the hell do I care if a bunch of multi-millionaires don't want to play nice? Those poor small market clubs who only make 100 million a year, boo hoo. They are going to do whatever the hell they want irregardless of whether I blame them or the players. If a small market team can't make money, maybe they should leave town. If Jerry Jones is able to sell the stadium's name and make money why should he share it with the Bengals who refuse to do it and keep the name after a family member? If taxpayers in a certain city are willing to pay an increased tax to build a new stadium why should they share it with KC where taxpayers keep voting down such referendums?


Well the jokes on you because irregardless isn't even a word.

[HerculesRockefell]

• Will the NFL resemble baseball if there is an uncapped 2007?

Not really. There will be some restrictions of teams being able to go out and sign whomever they want. There will be what is called a "Final Eight" restriction for teams that make the playoffs in 2006. The final four playoff teams will be allowed to re-sign any of their own unrestricted free agents. However, they will be permitted to sign unrestricted free agents from other teams as replacements only if they lose one of their own free agents. A team that loses in the divisional playoff round will have the limitation of adding one unrestricted free agent with a salary of $1.5 million or more. So the final eight playoff teams won't be able to go out like the Yankees and Red Sox and grab all the players that are available in an uncapped year. There is no limitation on Fight Eight teams signing franchise or transition players from other teams but those players are hard to acquire and would cost top draft choices to sign. Teams in 2007 also will have one extra transition designation along with their one franchise tag, giving them a franchise tag and two transition tags to keep their top players.


Clayton should have also pointed out that players who are cut don't apply to the signing limitations.

[HerculesRockefell]

At some point, guys like Bidwell and Davis do deserve some blame in all of this. Snyder, Jones, Kraft, Bowlen, etc. have built up their brand names and are reaping the benefits. They do have a legit beef that a crap franchise like the Cards, or one that cannot even sell out its home games like the Raiders do not deserve an increased share of what the big boys make locally.

[Mecca]

Clayton should have also pointed out that players who are cut don't apply to the signing limitations.

There'd be very very few cuts with no cap.

[HerculesRockefell]

There'd be very very few cuts with no cap.

No, it'd just be lower quality cuts since there'd be no reason to cut guys for cap purposes. Cuts of players who no longer justify their salary would still occur.

[Mecca]

If the union wants a larger chuck of the revenues, maybe they need to figure out a way for the union to assume a larger share of the risks.

I'm sure they'd tell you that the players are the ones making the money for the owners. That the average players career is 3 years, that's alot of risk. People who play in the NFL have much shorter life expectancies than normal people.

I don't really have a problem with players wanting 64% of more stuff, the league has changed since the first agreement.

[oldandslow]

If the union wants a larger chuck of the revenues, maybe they need to figure out a way for the union to assume a larger share of the risks.


What risks?

Let's see...taxpayers pay for new stadium - check.

All teams get huge slice of revenue from TV - check.

No team in the NFL loses money - check.

It seems to me that the players risk their bodies on every snap. I have yet to see an owner paralyzed from counting his/her profits.

[Mecca]

Alot of people posting in this thread are acting like the players have more money than the owners, I don't get it.

The players are the reason the owners are making money, there are all sorts of risks I pointed out earlier how should they take more?

Laz here is trying to drive home that this is all on the players, considering contracts in the NFL aren't guarenteed and the growth the game has seen since the last agreement I don't think anything they're asking for is unreasonable.

[Mr. Laz]

Laz here is trying to drive home that this is all on the players
that's a lie


i've been saying that BOTH sides are involved ... you the one who has been intentionally leaving out the players because you agree with them.


just because you agree with the players doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem.

[Mecca]

that's a lie


i've been saying that BOTH sides are involved ... you the one who has been intentionally leaving out the players because you agree with them.


just because you agree with the players doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem.

You might've said both sides are involved but he was implying it was more of the players issue holding up the cba then the owners. The players have a right to share more in the revenue. Only elite players see big money contracts, and even then they only see what the first 3-4 years of a mostly backloaded contract?

[tk13]

that's a lie


i've been saying that BOTH sides are involved ... you the one who has been intentionally leaving out the players because you agree with them.


just because you agree with the players doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem.
I think that's the argument though, if he agrees with the players' stance then he doesn't think they are a problem, if you didn't agree with their stance is when you'd think they are a problem. Otherwise your argument is that they are fighting for what they deserve.

[Mr. Laz]

You might've said both sides are involved but he was implying it was more of the players issue holding up the cba then the owners. The players have a right to share more in the revenue. Only elite players see big money contracts, and even then they only see what the first 3-4 years of a mostly backloaded contract?
see ... you post claiming to be *reading my mind* about what i think

and then turn around a make MORE of your claims supporting the players.

you're partial to the players and are looking for support for them ... when i didn't support either side you "assumed" i must be against the players.

i haven't said anything about who is right or wrong ... i have consistently said that you can't ignore the player's part in the current negotiations.

right or wrong ... the players are PART of the current holdup.

[tk13]

I wonder if anybody regrets letting Houston into the league now. That's basically the difference between getting this done and not getting this done.

[Mecca]

see ... you post claiming to be *reading my mind* about what i think

and then turn around a make MORE of your claims supporting the players.

you're partial to the players and are looking for support for them ... when i didn't support either side you "assumed" i must be against the players.

i haven't said anything about who is right or wrong ... i have consistently said that you can't ignore the player's part in the current negotiations.

right or wrong ... the players are PART of the current holdup.

So it's not the players fault but you keep mentioning. You're straddling the fence but leaning off to 1 side.

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me this current issue is very heavily player related. You got 9 teams who don't want a cap or to share their revenue because they make so much more. It's a rift between owners so much so they can't even get anything together to propose to the union.

I'm sure the players are playing a part in the rift between the big and small market owners.... :spock:

[Mr. Laz]

I think that's the argument though, if he agrees with the players' stance then he doesn't think they are a problem, if you didn't agree with their stance is when you'd think they are a problem. Otherwise your argument is that they are fighting for what they deserve.
fighting for what they deserve still means they are part of the current CBA problem.

right,wrong ... indifferent.

there are currently 3 sides to this CBA negotitions

1. owners with big money
2. owners without big money
3. players


now all 3 of these groups have issues they want worked out ... therefore they are all part of the current labor/work issue.


Mecca is trying to insert his personal feelings into the situation.


i'm be very literal in my stance that there are 3 parties with 3 different idea ... with makes all 3 groups part of the problem.

[Mr. Laz]

So it's not the players fault but you keep mentioning. You're straddling the fence but leaning off to 1 side.

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me this current issue is very heavily player related. You got 9 teams who don't want a cap or to share their revenue because they make so much more. It's a rift between owners so much so they can't even get anything together to propose to the union.

I'm sure the players are playing a part in the rift between the big and small market owners.... :spock:
you have no idea which side i'm leaning ... or whether i'm leaning at all.

i have not said a single thing saying so

all this is in your imagination ... desperately trying to blame the owners and when i don't blame anyone you get pissed.

[Mecca]

fighting for what they deserve still means they are part of the current CBA problem.

right,wrong ... indifferent.

there are currently 3 sides to this CBA negotitions

1. owners with big money
2. owners without big money
3. players


now all 3 of these groups have issues they want worked out ... therefore they are all part of the current labor/work issue.


Mecca is trying to insert his personal feelings into the situation.


i'm be very literal in my stance that there are 3 parties with 3 different idea ... with makes all 3 groups part of the problem.

So answer me this...........if 1-2 can't get anything together to propose to 3, which right now is the case. How is 3 a problem in negotiation? 1-2 have to work out their issues before 3 is even a player.

[Mr. Laz]

So answer me this...........if 1-2 can't get anything together to propose to 3, which right now is the case. How is 3 a problem in negotiation? 1-2 have to work out their issues before 3 is even a player.
it doesn't freaking matter ... just because the players issues are still "pending" doesn't mean they aren't issues.


i think the miscommunication we are having is because you are arguing 2 different things at once.

1. what are the problems
2. who is to blame


I'm not even addressing the "blame" issue ... just that there are 3 parties involved here.

[ct]

The players have nothing to do with the CBA till the owners agree to what they're going to propose to the union. They haven't even gotten past the owners part because it's being held up by the 9.....

I had thought it was only 7, that they were actually 1 short. but they were making such a fuss, with threats of lawsuits, that they have not actually 'voted' on anything yet.

nevermind...

[redbrian]

If the union wants a larger chuck of the revenues, maybe they need to figure out a way for the union to assume a larger share of the risks.

Ill second that, labor is already getting 64%, this is an insane percentage.
If they want to expand the pot to include all revenue than their percentage should drop to below 50% more like 48% or less should go for all labor costs.