Football CBA: "I dont think we are making any progress." - Page 2

**BossChief** · 01-20-2010, 06:28 PM

Just said on NFLN that next year will almost surely be an uncapped year. No progress has been made since November.

Per NY Times.

Seems the sides are still very far apart and no counter-proposals have been made from the PA to get it done. They want the owners to open up the books and that doesnt look like it will ever happen.

Owners offered to extend current offer 6 years and players union is not cool with that says Jason La Canfora.

Titty Meat · 01-20-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spott

I wonder if the NCAA will schedule games on Sundays if there is no NFL season in 2011.

They should play the playoff games on Sundays

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-20-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

They'll get it finished at the stroke of midnight. The question will be, can the owner's show their determination by not over paying guys in the uncapped year. That'll largely be up to Snyder and Jones.

Well, there really won't be anyone to overpay in 2010. 2011 is a different story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

They want a better deal because of the economy, and the fact that public money for stadiums is going away. If guys don't get paid worth a shit this year, it'll make a statement. They're looking out for the longevity of the league. The players of course don't give a shit. Their time is limited.

This has the potential to get ugly. Hopefully both sides recognize the serious repercussions a strike will cause with the general public.

There's also the issue of owner vs. owner. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder and all the wealthy owners want to do away with the subsidizing of small-market teams like the Chiefs. This year, the $200 million dollar fund that existed for teams in Buffalo, Kansas City, Jax and Green Bay is gone. In the new CBA, those same owners want merchandising to no longer be shared as well.

It'll make for an unbalance that's never been seen in the NFL, if they can get their way.

It's gonna get ugly, that of which there is no doubt.

**BossChief** · 01-20-2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, there really won't be anyone to overpay in 2010. 2011 is a different story.

There's also the issue of owner vs. owner. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder and all the wealthy owners want to do away with the subsidizing of small-market teams like the Chiefs. This year, the $200 million dollar fund that existed for teams in Buffalo, Kansas City, Jax and Green Bay is gone. In the new CBA, those same owners want merchandising to no longer be shared as well.

It'll make for an unbalance that's never been seen in the NFL, if they can get their way.

It's gonna get ugly, that of which there is no doubt.

A reporter for the NY times (the paper you say is like gold and I am taking you for your word, till proven wrong, you've earned the benefit of the doubt in my opinion on this) talked out of place on the issue and said the owners offered a 6 year extension that the PA declined and that has been on the table since November. Wouldn't that extent the revenue sharing as well or is that a completely separate issue? Im pretty sure they are linked.

**Rain Man** · 01-20-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

The problem is that you have the new breed of owners, like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder.

They not only change the dynamics of negotiating between the league and players, but affect the dynamics bewteen the owners.

If they (the owners) can't even agree amongst themselves, there's no way they can get an agreement in place with the union.

Yeah, I fear that it's not good that NFL teams are toys to a significant portion of owners. I guess I couldn't say for sure, but my instincts tell me that it's better to have a league of owners for whom the football team is their major asset.

Eh, in retrospect that can't be many owners, though. It's not like the Hunts or Ralph Wilson built their wealth from football.

milkman · 01-20-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Yeah, I fear that it's not good that NFL teams are toys to a significant portion of owners. I guess I couldn't say for sure, but my instincts tell me that it's better to have a league of owners for whom the football team is their major asset.

Eh, in retrospect that can't be many owners, though. It's not like the Hunts or Ralph Wilson built their wealth from football.

I think that back in the day, when the NFL was trying to establish itself, they saw how the AFL was able to not only survive and compete with the NFL, but thrive as the result of sharing TV revenues, and those owners had the vision to understand how that formed a more compelling product by expanding on the idea of revenue sharing.

These owners today can only see the money they think they're losing by sharing revenue.

They don't remember how the league struggled to gain a foothold among sports fans and how revenue sharing is largely responsible for creating the mega billion product that we have today.

chop · 01-20-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I've lived through the 82 strike and the 87 strike. At that age, it bothered me to have my pastime stolen from me. At my current place in life, I'll considered it a gift of free time on Sundays. Go ahead and strike, I don't care. It just costs the players and owners money.

I totally agree with you. I could spend my time doing much more productive things.

**Bugeater** · 01-20-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I think that back in the day, when the NFL was trying to establish itself, they saw how the AFL was able to not only survive and compete with the NFL, but thrive as the result of sharing TV revenues, and those owners had the vision to understand how that formed a more compelling product by expanding on the idea of revenue sharing.

These owners today can only see the money they think they're losing by sharing revenue.

They don't remember how the league struggled to gain a foothold among sports fans and how revenue sharing is largely responsible for creating the mega billion product that we have today.

How much money would Jerruh lose if his palace sat empty for a season?

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-20-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

A reporter for the NY times (the paper you say is like gold and I am taking you for your word, till proven wrong, you've earned the benefit of the doubt in my opinion on this) talked out of place on the issue and said the owners offered a 6 year extension that the PA declined and that has been on the table since November. Wouldn't that extent the revenue sharing as well or is that a completely separate issue? Im pretty sure they are linked.

The revenue sharing portion is different from the player's portion.

There are so many facets to the new deal that there's no way it's done by March 1st.

**BossChief** · 01-20-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The revenue sharing portion is different from the player's portion.

There are so many facets to the new deal that there's no way it's done by March 1st.

they pretty much all but guaranteed it on NFLN.

thanks

**dirk digler** · 01-20-2010, 08:57 PM

Why wouldn't the PA not want to extend the current deal? They are getting 60% of the revenue which the owners do not like.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-20-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Why wouldn't the PA not want to extend the current deal? They are getting 60% of the revenue which the owners do not like.

I've never read that info.

Boss, can you link us?

Also, I mentioned the NY Post, not the Times.

**dirk digler** · 01-20-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I've never read that info.

Boss, can you link us?

Also, I mentioned the NY Post, not the Times.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

Currently, players get roughly 60 percent of revenues. The union would like to maintain that threshold. Owners are not content with the current deal, which is why they opted out of it last spring, as was their right under the bargained rules. The union, meantime, within the past few months offered to extend the current deal by six years, something the owners have no interest in doing.

**BossChief** · 01-20-2010, 09:08 PM

I heard it on NFLN, as I said. If you put it on there, Im sure they will play it again before the night is out. They usually replay stuff like that three to four times per night, at least. The reporter might get into some hot water for it by the way they were putting it.

...
*edit
That didnt seem right when I heard it either. I must have misheard that part of it.

My apologies.

**dirk digler** · 01-20-2010, 09:10 PM

Boss got it backwards the PA wants to extend the deal 6 years and the owners are not going to do it.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-20-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Boss got it backwards the PA wants to extend the deal 6 years and the owners are not going to do it.

Okay, THAT makes sense.

I can't understand why the owners would want to extend the current deal, as they say they're losing money. They also want to implement a rookie wage scale, have the players involved in stadium building and renovation costs as well as an overall reduction in revenue sharing (from the current 64% to 56%).

01-20-2010, 06:28 PM
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1725912	CBA: "I dont think we are making any progress." Just said on NFLN that next year will almost surely be an uncapped year. No progress has been made since November. Per NY Times. Seems the sides are still very far apart and no counter-proposals have been made from the PA to get it done. They want the owners to open up the books and that doesnt look like it will ever happen. Owners offered to extend current offer 6 years and players union is not cool with that says Jason La Canfora.
Posts: 47,901

01-20-2010, 08:57 PM	#25
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $144644	Why wouldn't the PA not want to extend the current deal? They are getting 60% of the revenue which the owners do not like.
Posts: 67,114

01-20-2010, 09:08 PM	#28
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1725912	I heard it on NFLN, as I said. If you put it on there, Im sure they will play it again before the night is out. They usually replay stuff like that three to four times per night, at least. The reporter might get into some hot water for it by the way they were putting it. ... edit That didnt seem right when I heard it either. I must have misheard that part of it. My apologies. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407 Last edited by BossChief; 01-20-2010 at 09:22 PM..*
Posts: 47,901

01-20-2010, 09:10 PM	#29
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $144644	Boss got it backwards the PA wants to extend the deal 6 years and the owners are not going to do it.
Posts: 67,114