NFL Labor Talks Broke Down........

[chiefqueen]

No new talks are scheduled. Looks like we're heading toward a mess. The story under breaking news under ESPN.com. My firewall requires me to go the roundabout way to get so somebody else can copy it.

[Mile High Mania]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

NFL labor talks broke off Tuesday three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the last three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old contract. Talks have been going on for more than a year.


Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.

Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.


"We're too far apart on our economics and too far apart on revenue sharing -- the ball is in their court.," Upshaw said. "We'll go to the uncapped year, there won't be an extension."

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.

Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.


ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.

Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.

Information from The Associated Press and ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli was used in this report.

[BTAU]

ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417)

NFL labor talks broke off Tuesday three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the last three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old contract. Talks have been going on for more than a year.

Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.

Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.

"We're too far apart on our economics and too far apart on revenue sharing -- the ball is in their court.," Upshaw said. "We'll go to the uncapped year, there won't be an extension."

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.

Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.

Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.

[Mile High Mania]

I don't like Jerry Jones, but I tend to agree with his comment about making some teams work harder to generate new sources of money.

There are some owners with no sense of direction...

[kaplin42]

I hope this gets resolved quickly. If we can into an uncapped league, I will sadly no longer be a fan.

[Mr. Laz]

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."
not good at all

[HerculesRockefell]

There are some owners with no sense of direction...

They have direction, they want the higher revenue teams to give over more money.

[tk13]

Be interesting to see what the owners do. The players are pretty well prepared to play hardball on this. I think they've learned from the NHL players union and aren't going to cave quite as easily.

[el borracho]

Oh, man, this is almost as scary as that time when the Y2K bug was going to destroy western civilization.

[FloridaMan88]

This sucks

[Chiefnj]

Upshaw is getting really good at his "It's over" speech. He's given it at least 3 times the past two weeks.

[chiefqueen]

Oh, man, this is almost as scary as that time when the Y2K bug was going to destroy western civilization.

The difference is this will destroy western civilization or the NFL as we know it.

[Mr. Laz]

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

"We're too far apart on our economics and too far apart on revenue sharing -- the ball is in their court.," Upshaw said. "We'll go to the uncapped year, there won't be an extension."

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

but,but,but ... the players aren't part of this ... it's all about the owners not agreeing!!

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[Ultra Peanut]

helloandwelcometothejoyof--

[sedated]

It's all posturing.

Only Major League Baseball is screwed up enough to let this stuff ruin their sport.

[JBucc]

I don't know who I like less Upshaw or the Owners

[DMAC]

Hopefully Upshaw just talks before he thinks. He says this alot it seems like. After every meeting he is like, " WELL, ITS OVER!!. THE OWNERS SCREWED IT ALL UP!!!"

[beavis]

It's all posturing.

Only Major League Baseball is screwed up enough to let this stuff ruin their sport.
Sincerely,
The NHL

[tk13]

Talking about it on Sportscenter as the lead story. Said the NFL released a statement saying that there will be no internal discussion of revenue sharing at the owner's meeting on Thursday, and that the free agency period will start as planned on Friday. Said Upshaw was actually supposed to stay in New York for meetings through tomorrow, but just went ahead and left because it was obvious they weren't going to reach a new CBA.

Also said there are a few teams that are really going to have to do some major work to fit under the cap without a CBA since the salary cap will be much lower. Should benefit teams like the Vikings and Packers and Browns that have money to spend.

[Mr. Laz]

Talking about it on Sportscenter as the lead story. Said the NFL released a statement saying that there will be no internal discussion of revenue sharing at the owner's meeting on Thursday, and that the free agency period will start as planned on Friday. Said Upshaw was actually supposed to stay in New York for meetings through tomorrow, but just went ahead and left because it was obvious they weren't going to reach a new CBA.

Also said there are a few teams that are really going to have to do some major work to fit under the cap without a CBA since the salary cap will be much lower. Should benefit teams like the Vikings and Packers and Browns that have money to spend.

morton said that the redskins and chiefs would be a couple of the teams that would have to make cuts.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

if teams have to slash players & have roughly $10 mil less to spend. Sounds like a few players will be left in the cold & could be out of shape

[chefsos]

:shake:

Well, the Golden Goose is in the ER now.

[kaplin42]

Not getting this CBA done will have profound ramifications for everyone involved.

Teams this year will have to cut players they had intended on keeping or reworking.

FA this year will want bigger contracts because they wont want to get left out in the cold next year when there is no cap.

As mentioned before, there could be a lockout. Which would be all but devastating. How well has the NHL recovered from their lockout?

In the long run players/owners/The NFL as a whole will lose a large portion of their fan base, and in the end will lose money as well. I havent seen one person say they thought the NFL with no cap would be a good thing. To not get this done could very well ruin a great game. What I dont understand is why is everyone bickering over the few millions now, when if they could get their act straight they could make many more millions later.

[the Talking Can]

people are really this stupid?

damn...it's like a supermodel is begging to blow you, but you want 2 girls or nothing at all....

[The Bad Guy]

Not getting this CBA done will have profound ramifications for everyone involved.

Teams this year will have to cut players they had intended on keeping or reworking.

FA this year will want bigger contracts because they wont want to get left out in the cold next year when there is no cap.

As mentioned before, there could be a lockout. Which would be all but devastating. How well has the NHL recovered from their lockout?

In the long run players/owners/The NFL as a whole will lose a large portion of their fan base, and in the end will lose money as well. I havent seen one person say they thought the NFL with no cap would be a good thing. To not get this done could very well ruin a great game. What I dont understand is why is everyone bickering over the few millions now, when if they could get their act straight they could make many more millions later.

Wrong.

FA's would be more inclined to take one-year deals this year because they could stand to cash in big time from deep-pocketed owners next FA period. No player is going to get left out in the cold.

There would be a lockout in 2008. Aren't you jumping the gun just a tad since it's 2 years away?

[kaplin42]

Wrong.

FA's would be more inclined to take one-year deals this year because they could stand to cash in big time from deep-pocketed owners next FA period. No player is going to get left out in the cold.

There would be a lockout in 2008. Aren't you jumping the gun just a tad since it's 2 years away?

So you think that major FA's will be willing to take cap friendly 1 yr contracts this year so that they can cash in next year? Hmm, the reasoning is there, and it definately makes sense. But I doubt thats how its going to work. Owners are also gonna try and lock up their guys for a few years, I dont think it will be as easy as you suggest.

And no, I dont think I'm jumping the gun at all. I think this is a very significant time for the NFL, because I believe that if we go to an uncapped league, we will not get a cap again, the players wont allow it.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

how many times a year does a team need to be under the cap? If there is no CBA at draft time, will they have to cut more players to sign drafties?

[HerculesRockefell]

because I believe that if we go to an uncapped league, we will not get a cap again, the players wont allow it.

Upshaw has said for years that if the cap goes away it will not be brought back

[HerculesRockefell]

how many times a year does a team need to be under the cap? If there is no CBA at draft time, will they have to cut more players to sign drafties?

Every team has to be under the cap from March 3 until the end of the season

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Every team has to be under the cap from March 3 until the end of the season

training camp fodder excluded, the 52 player rule?

[Thig Lyfe]

nonononono

[HerculesRockefell]

training camp fodder excluded, the 52 player rule?

Yep, the 52 highest cap hits must put a team under the cap

[FloridaMan88]

I can't believe the NFL let it reach this point. They appear clueless to the fact that their financial model of having a salary cap and revenue sharing is one of the main reasons for why the NFL is as popular as it is.

I hope the big wigs involved in this take another look at what has happened to the NHL and baseball before they put the golden goose in the oven and close the door for the last time

[|Zach|]

helloandwelcometothejoyof--
Ha, great picture.

[The Bad Guy]

So you think that major FA's will be willing to take cap friendly 1 yr contracts this year so that they can cash in next year? Hmm, the reasoning is there, and it definately makes sense. But I doubt thats how its going to work. Owners are also gonna try and lock up their guys for a few years, I dont think it will be as easy as you suggest.

And no, I dont think I'm jumping the gun at all. I think this is a very significant time for the NFL, because I believe that if we go to an uncapped league, we will not get a cap again, the players wont allow it.

You're the one already saying how you'll no longer be a fan, so yes, I think you're jumping the gun.

I definitely think players will take one-year deals and owners aren't going to try to lock up guys long term with the 30% rule - team's can't afford to do it.

There will always be a market for players. Always. In your last post, you said that players will get left out in the cold by an uncapped year, now you're saying that once there is an uncapped years, the players will always want one. So which one is it?

You're being a chicken little and saying the sky is falling when it's not even close yet.

[Mr. Laz]

Upshaw has said for years that if the cap goes away it will not be brought back

but it's not really up to JUST Upshaw


every owner and player in every major sports league knows that that a salary cap is what's best for the success of that league.


some just don't care

[Valiant]

I hope this gets resolved quickly. If we can into an uncapped league, I will sadly no longer be a fan.


Shit I would rather the owners lockout the season then go uncapped... because once it happens I am not sure they will be able to go back..

[melbar]

Be interesting to see what the owners do. The players are pretty well prepared to play hardball on this. I think they've learned from the NHL players union and aren't going to cave quite as easily.

Did they not learn from Baseball? The greedy players and their strike ALLOWED football to overtake baseball as the national passtime.Their greed is going to F it up for all of us.

[Rausch]

Lovely.

This offseason is like watching your child smoke crack for the first time...

[Simplex3]

Here's a news flash for the players:

There are thousands of people who would do what you do for a tenth of what you make.

There are only 32 teams in the world you can play for.

You don't have the leverage you think you do.

[Rausch]

Here's a news flash for the players:

There are thousands of people who would do what you do for a tenth of what you make.

There are only 32 teams in the world you can play for.

You don't have the leverage you think you do.

Newsflash for the fans: the players hire people to represent them.

Those people don't give a **** what the fans think...

[Mr. Laz]

Here's a news flash for the players:

There are thousands of people who would do what you do for a tenth of what you make.

There are only 32 teams in the world you can play for.

You don't have the leverage you think you do.

the only way they don't have the leverage is if the owners get tough ... and the fans let the owners know that they SHOULD get tough.

even if that means starting over



gotta make sure the players get the message that they are employees ... nothing more, nothing less.

[Iowanian]

have I ever said I hate Unions?

Greedy bastages.

I hope when this shakes out....Rookie salaries are slotted, revenue is shared reasonably, and a player has to EARN his big contract...on the field, instead of at the combine.

[Simplex3]

the only way they don't have the leverage is if the owners get tough ... and the fans let the owners know that they SHOULD get tough.

even if that means starting over



gotta make sure the players get the message that they are employees ... nothing more, nothing less.

You know, the more I think about it the more I like it. No TO, no McNabb, no Ron Mexico. The truly stupid and annoying players would sit out and do nothing with the union while the smart and likeable guys will probably see the folly for what it is and cross to play. I don't see how that's bad for the league.

Hell, worst case scenario, here's what the NFL owners do:

1. Raid the CFL.
2. Bring your guys from NFLE back.
3. Eliminate the age restrictions from the draft for one year to get good college freshmen and sophomores into the league sooner.

Take those three steps and you can easily generate enough excitement to overcome the loss of a few mouths like TO.

[Mr. Laz]

have I ever said I hate Unions?

Greedy bastages.

I hope when this shakes out....Rookie salaries are slotted, revenue is shared reasonably, and a player has to EARN his big contract...on the field, instead of at the combine.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Rausch]

You know, the more I think about it the more I like it. No TO, no McNabb, no Ron Mexico. The truly stupid and annoying players would sit out and do nothing with the union while the smart and likeable guys will probably see the folly for what it is and cross to play. I don't see how that's bad for the league.

Hell, worst case scenario, here's what the NFL owners do:

1. Raid the CFL.
2. Bring your guys from NFLE back.
3. Eliminate the age restrictions from the draft for one year to get good college freshmen and sophomores into the league sooner.

Take those three steps and you can easily generate enough excitement to overcome the loss of a few mouths like TO.

That might work if it was Spy VS. Spy, but it's not.

It's Small Maket owners Vs. Big Market Owners VS. Players.

Right now no one is willing to give...

[Mr. Laz]

You know, the more I think about it the more I like it. No TO, no McNabb, no Ron Mexico. The truly stupid and annoying players would sit out and do nothing with the union while the smart and likeable guys will probably see the folly for what it is and cross to play. I don't see how that's bad for the league.

Hell, worst case scenario, here's what the NFL owners do:

1. Raid the CFL.
2. Bring your guys from NFLE back.
3. Eliminate the age restrictions from the draft for one year to get good college freshmen and sophomores into the league sooner.

Take those three steps and you can easily generate enough excitement to overcome the loss of a few mouths like TO.

it's exactly what baseball needs to do

[Simplex3]

That might work if it was Spy VS. Spy, but it's not.

It's Small Maket owners Vs. Big Market Owners VS. Players.

Right now no one is willing to give...
I haven't read anything about the small and large market owners not being willing to go with the 50-some percent. The owners obviously have a deal between themselves that they're comfortable with, now you tell the players to take it or f**k off and figure out how to pay all their bills on a bus driver's salary.

[Rausch]

I haven't read anything about the small and large market owners not being willing to go with the 50-some percent. The owners obviously have a deal between themselves that they're comfortable with, now you tell the players to take it or f**k off and figure out how to pay all their bills on a bus driver's salary.

Last I read the Owners were willing to give 54% but the players wanted 60%.

Small market owners wanted reasonable revenue sharing and large market didn't.

There you go.

[jAZ]

Bring on the scabs! I don't know why more leagues don't do that (NHL, MLB). While it certainly wasn't the caliber of performance that we expect from Pro Athletes, the scab season was in fact NFL football and I think it was basically treated as such by most fans. I know I watched. I expect the same would happen in 08 if there were a lockout and I imagine the same would have been true for the MLB and NHL.

[KCChiefsMan]

so how about that Terrell Owens guy....eh?

[Dunit35]

I wonder if Shane Falco is around? Or how bout that MLB on that team too. I really thought the FS for them was awesome too.

[jspchief]

I don't like Jerry Jones, but I tend to agree with his comment about making some teams work harder to generate new sources of money.

There are some owners with no sense of direction...How hard did Jerry Jones work for his revenue? He happens to own a team in a city with probably the largest corporate presence in America.

For every Bidwell or McCombs, there is an owner of a team in KC or GB that no matter how bad they want to make more money, the city simply doesn't have the wealth.

If you think revenue sharing is a bad idea, be prepared for extremely lop-sided competition, and about 10 fewer teams in the league. All of which will ultimately result in all those guys making less money.

They have a model for making this league fair and competitive, which results in widespread popularity. Individual greed is going to shrink the demographic, eventually hurting every owner's bottom line.

The Broncos and the Cowbys of the world can sit back and agree with their owners, but in ten years when the league resembles baseball competitively, and is losing/contracting teams, everyone will lose out.

[KCTitus]

How hard did Jerry Jones work for his revenue? He happens to own a team in a city with probably the largest corporate presence in America.

For every Bidwell or McCombs, there is an owner of a team in KC or GB that no matter how bad they want to make more money, the city simply doesn't have the wealth.

True.

[htismaqe]

How hard did Jerry Jones work for his revenue? He happens to own a team in a city with probably the largest corporate presence in America.

For every Bidwell or McCombs, there is an owner of a team in KC or GB that no matter how bad they want to make more money, the city simply doesn't have the wealth.

If you think revenue sharing is a bad idea, be prepared for extremely lop-sided competition, and about 10 fewer teams in the league. All of which will ultimately result in all those guys making less money.

They have a model for making this league fair and competitive, which results in widespread popularity. Individual greed is going to shrink the demographic, eventually hurting every owner's bottom line.

The Broncos and the Cowbys of the world can sit back and agree with their owners, but in ten years when the league resembles baseball competitively, and is losing/contracting teams, everyone will lose out.

:bravo:

[Tribal Warfare]

IMO, a cap will be in place, or the NFL will incur a lockout/strike. I'm prepared for that if that transpires. The cap issue will be resolved, and the players will f*ck up their cash flow if their isn't a cap in place

[Brock]

Bring on the scabs! I don't know why more leagues don't do that (NHL, MLB). While it certainly wasn't the caliber of performance that we expect from Pro Athletes, the scab season was in fact NFL football and I think it was basically treated as such by most fans.

Are you kidding? It was an abortion.

[Valiant]

Are you kidding? It was an abortion.


Scabs might be the only shot of the Chiefs winning the title any time soon... Bring on the lockout... :) :)

[kaplin42]

You're the one already saying how you'll no longer be a fan, so yes, I think you're jumping the gun.

I definitely think players will take one-year deals and owners aren't going to try to lock up guys long term with the 30% rule - team's can't afford to do it.

There will always be a market for players. Always. In your last post, you said that players will get left out in the cold by an uncapped year, now you're saying that once there is an uncapped years, the players will always want one. So which one is it?

You're being a chicken little and saying the sky is falling when it's not even close yet.


Ok, I will try to explain my point in more detail for you.....

FA's this year wont take one year deals that are cap friendly. You think that super star football player is going to take a 1 year 1.5 million dollar contract this year so that next year they can get a 5 year 50 million dollar contract? Wrong, this football player knows he is worth more than that, and will try to get the biggest contract he can, one simple reason (of which there are many more) will be because what if he gets injured, and cant play any more. Lets see 1 yr/ 1.5 as opposed to a 5 year 30 million with a 10 million SB. FA's arent gonna wanna miss out. And what I meant about being left out in the cold is this, the FA's this year will want bigger than normal FA contracts so that they are making money on par with the FA's next year when there is no cap and guys can get signed to ridiculous contracts, they will not want to be "left out in the cold" looking in on these other players with huge contracts

But yes IFwe go uncapped, the players wont want the cap to come back, and the players union wont let it. Why would they not want the cap back? Because it puts a hard ceiling on what their salarys can be!!


And no its not jumping the gun or being chicken little. It's my opinion, and I said IF, IF the NFL goes uncapped, then I will no longer be a fan. I dont want to see the NY Yankees in the NFL, I think that would ruin the game for me.

And while I know that the actual current CBA expires at the end of next season, I believe now is the tiem they need to get the new CBA into place, otherwise it wouldnt be such a big spectacle. So please dont tell me the situation isnt close, when in fact its right in our faces.

All cap #'s are for example ONLY!!

[Chiefnj]

I'm not sure the majority of players want the cap to go away. If you play for the Skins or Cowboys you'd be happy for it to go away, but the smaller and intermediate market teams aren't going to see much of a benefit from it. The cap is a convenient excuse for a lot of owners not to pay large contracts. These guys got rich making good investments and by being smart with their money. You don't do that by throwing tons of money at players who don't deserve it.

[sedated]

Sincerely,
The NHL

The NHL actually improved their sport through their lockout.

They got a much needed salary cap.

Now the teams are even, good players have had to move out of the big markets.

And they didn't lose too much, since their sport wasn't too popular anyway.

They did what MLB should have done in 1994, stand their ground to improve the game.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Last I read the Owners were willing to give 54% but the players wanted 60%.

Small market owners wanted reasonable revenue sharing and large market didn't.

There you go.

ESPN is reporting 56% - 60%
don't know when it changed