Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
CBA talks break off again (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jeter23
- Start date
jgb95
Footballguy
Just read the opposite on PFT!!!!!!!
NFL, UNION CLOSING IN ON A DEAL
A league source tells us that the NFL and its players union are getting closer and closer to reaching an agreement on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Per the source, the two sides have tentatively agreed that 58 percent of all football revenues will be devoted to player salaries. The last remaining hurdle is the "cash over cap" limit, which is the device that the owners will utilize to ensure that franchises earning high amounts of unshared revenue cannot skew the competitive balance by making total cash payments in any given year that greatly exceed the salary cap for that season.
From the players' perspective, unlimited cash over cap helps to get more money into the hands of players sooner rather than later. In a league where the only guarantee is the money already paid, placing a limit on this device is a potentially significant concession.
For owners, an agreement limiting the extent to which a team like the Redskins can borrow against future salary caps by pouring excess money into a team that might be only a couple of parts away from a championship run will make it easier for lesser-earning teams to compete for free agents.
Still, the key factor (as we see it) is the salary floor. If teams like the Bengals and Cardinals choose to rebel against a salary cap amount driven higher by the enormous revenues generated by teams like the Redskins, the union needs to push hard for a high minimum. Currently, the minimum is based on 54 percent of the so-called defined gross revenues. We think that the new CBA should contain a per-team minimum of at least 50 percent of the total football revenues.
As to revenue sharing, our guess is that the NFL will continue its current system of equally sharing amounts that presently equate to roughly 80 percent of all dollars earned. The league also is likely to tinker with its supplemental revenue sharing system, which already provides additional money to teams with a defined need for it. Moving forward, our guess is that the NFL will tweak the formula for determining whether a team is entitled to supplemental revenue sharing -- and will require that the team demonstrate some tangible desire and effort to enhance its own revenues before the team will be eligible to share even more of the money earned by others.
NFL, UNION CLOSING IN ON A DEAL
A league source tells us that the NFL and its players union are getting closer and closer to reaching an agreement on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Per the source, the two sides have tentatively agreed that 58 percent of all football revenues will be devoted to player salaries. The last remaining hurdle is the "cash over cap" limit, which is the device that the owners will utilize to ensure that franchises earning high amounts of unshared revenue cannot skew the competitive balance by making total cash payments in any given year that greatly exceed the salary cap for that season.
From the players' perspective, unlimited cash over cap helps to get more money into the hands of players sooner rather than later. In a league where the only guarantee is the money already paid, placing a limit on this device is a potentially significant concession.
For owners, an agreement limiting the extent to which a team like the Redskins can borrow against future salary caps by pouring excess money into a team that might be only a couple of parts away from a championship run will make it easier for lesser-earning teams to compete for free agents.
Still, the key factor (as we see it) is the salary floor. If teams like the Bengals and Cardinals choose to rebel against a salary cap amount driven higher by the enormous revenues generated by teams like the Redskins, the union needs to push hard for a high minimum. Currently, the minimum is based on 54 percent of the so-called defined gross revenues. We think that the new CBA should contain a per-team minimum of at least 50 percent of the total football revenues.
As to revenue sharing, our guess is that the NFL will continue its current system of equally sharing amounts that presently equate to roughly 80 percent of all dollars earned. The league also is likely to tinker with its supplemental revenue sharing system, which already provides additional money to teams with a defined need for it. Moving forward, our guess is that the NFL will tweak the formula for determining whether a team is entitled to supplemental revenue sharing -- and will require that the team demonstrate some tangible desire and effort to enhance its own revenues before the team will be eligible to share even more of the money earned by others.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
ESPN is quoting Upshaw's second-in-command as calling the talks "dead as a doornail"
Workhorse
Footballguy
Regardless of the actual facts of this negotiation, Upshaw is coming off looking like a moron. He should just take the best deal he can at this point. The owners appear to have given and given and Upshaw is still stamping his feet. Add in the comments by Birk and you get the impression of a guy who is not keeping the players best interests in mind.
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
With no REAL news yet established, because it hasnt yet happened, why dont we all choose OPTIMISM over pecimism....we'll know for sure in another 24 hours.
Big Score
Footballguy
Uhhh...how is Upshaw looking bad here? If he gets the owners to up the GR from 56.2%, how can you possibly say he's looking like a moron and isn't acting in the best interests of the players?His job as Union boss, is too negoitiate the very best deal he can for the players. Now if Upshaw weren't trying to hammer out the absolute best new deal for the players that he possibly could, then your statements would make sense.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
if the best they can negotiate is 58%, yet he continues to insist 60% or else & talks implode over this, there will be a lot of veteran blood on the street mon... are you sure this is in there best interest to be unemployed for some pie-in-the-sky promises about supposed benefits of uncapped league that may or may not benefit vets in future seasons...what about players that would have become vested FAs after four seasons, but now will have to wait six... how does it help them...
some of those poison pills that were put in so that the NFLPA would be crazy to dissolve the CBA will be a bitter swallow & not go down easy... hope upshaw & the players don't choke on them...
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Score
Footballguy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
He's playing it straight. I doubt he's got alot going on behind the scenes in terms of gettig the media to help he and the PU out, which isnt particularly bright. He needs to use tactics that will improve the players leverage, but it seems that's just not his style. The owners on the other hand have all the power in the world and can use the media to twist this thing in their favor, which considering Upshaw's style, just wont help. I dont think he's stupid, just stubborn and old school. He's probably not the best representation the players could get, but he's trusted and the players believe in the guy. I see the flaws in his style in his particular line of work, but the guy's been doing it a while....and this will likely be his swansong as the Pres with these CBAs, so he's trying to make it count. It'll get done.....just be patient.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Not acc. to Upshaw:"In Friday's negotiations, sources told Mortensen that the owners narrowed the gap on the percentage that players are demanding with a CBA extension. Management raised the ante by two points, offering players a 58.2 percent cut of the revenue pie. The union has been set at a 60.3 percentage, but could compromise depending on the revenue sharing model.
Upshaw denied that the owners had raised the percentage by two points. Upshaw said the offer was 56.5 percent."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
In a perfect world, the one area of the CBA Id like to see changed would be in the area of rookie contracts. Can it really be so hard to insert a system that pays players like Philip Rivers, David Carr, Joey Harrington and even Eli Manning to a degree for God's sake in, say, their 4th or 5th year when they actually begin to PERFORM. Its these GD friggin' young QBs who SUCK that either never amount to squat or take years to become decent AFTER theyve made boatloads of cash that screw this whole thing up. I think if Matt Birk wants to point the blame, he should point it at the agents and owners who are throwing $15-20 million at these scrubs that are nowhere near worth the coin theyre swindling. Where's the solution to THAT nightmare, and is it Gene's responsibility to solve that too??? Who's got the answer there????
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Ball Thorton
Footballguy
You know nothing.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
You make zreo sense.
Big Score
Footballguy
Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
Sack-Religious
Footballguy
Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
Big Score
Footballguy
Two things;1) Since the owners have already nudged up by 1.8% from a number that they insisted they would never move from, are we so sure they won't go some more?Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
2) Is it midnight Monday yet?
EDIT: To add point #1
Last edited by a moderator:
Sack-Religious
Footballguy
If his hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice. A 1.8% increase means nothing if a deal is never signed.Is it midnight Monday yet?Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
You can say that the owners have all the power, but I don't think so.
The NFL in 2006 will get 3.74 Billion dollars from its agreements with the networks that cover the NFL.... That figure does not count what the NFL Network is paying or if they pay for Thursday games. So in the future I have a feeling the number goes up.
I don't see the owners wanting to give up that money so the players do have some power as well.
The NFL in 2006 will get 3.74 Billion dollars from its agreements with the networks that cover the NFL.... That figure does not count what the NFL Network is paying or if they pay for Thursday games. So in the future I have a feeling the number goes up.
I don't see the owners wanting to give up that money so the players do have some power as well.
Big Score
Footballguy
If that happens, I'll agree. But as it stands right now, he has performed admirably for the players, just as he is supposed to.If his hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Is it midnight Monday yet?Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
Right, thats a big part of it, but take Jim Plunkett for example. Didnt everyone know this guy could play QB when he came into the league? Didnt need to be a genius to figure out the guy could play, but the problem was he was young and playing for a bad team, and his pay didnt match his performance his first several years. He then went to a team that was ready to win and he wins 2 Superbowls. Now, was the team that drafted him , the Pats, guilty of bad scouting or just bad timing? Was it that Plunkett couldnt play or that he just wasnt ready yet to carry a team? Whatever the case, he was overpaid. Now, replace the name Jim Plunkett with the name David Carr. Does David Carr suck or is he just not ready yet to carry a team? Whichever is the case, it doesnt help the fact that the guy has been drastically overpaid and swallowing up a large % of the Texans' salary cap for several years now. Will he move on to another team and win 2 Superbowls?? Who knows. I doubt it. I dont think he's that good. But for sure, the guy has not been getting it done, hasnt lived up to a #1 draft position, and he's just one example of WHY players who DO perform get cut nevertheless. So, scouting helps....its just not the answer. A change in pay stucture is, but because of the economic world we live in, it just wont get changed anytime soon.
Sack-Religious
Footballguy
Here is where our opinions diverge. Upshaw's performance is gauged by getting the players the best deal possible. Absent getting a deal done, his performance cannot be considered a success.If that happens, I'll agree. But as it stands right now, he has performed admirably for the players, just as he is supposed to.If his hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Is it midnight Monday yet?Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
He has totally screwed them over. No deal means only 1 thing. Upshaw is a hack who was in way over his head and failed miserably at negotiating. Admirably, huh? You can have this turd as your representative.But as it stands right now, he has performed admirably for the players, just as he is supposed to.
I guess they told Upshaw to hit de road and they will hammer out the deal tomorrow. He was just getting in the way anyway.
Updating an ongoing storyline, the Associated Press reports the NFL and NFLPA agreed to resume talks Sunday, March 5, after the two sides broke off talks Saturday, March 4. "No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Updating an ongoing storyline, the Associated Press reports the NFL and NFLPA agreed to resume talks Sunday, March 5, after the two sides broke off talks Saturday, March 4. "No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Captain Blowhard
Footballguy
We'll see yet another last-minute extension of the free agency period.
This is getting older than the will-he won't-he Favre saga.
This is getting older than the will-he won't-he Favre saga.
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
I don't think this whole stalemate is Upshaw's fault.
The NFL is making a boatload of money off these players and they typically live 5 or more years fewer than the average American.
I think there are several greedy owners to blame also - as they refuse to share profits.
They're equally to blame in my opinion.
The NFL is making a boatload of money off these players and they typically live 5 or more years fewer than the average American.
I think there are several greedy owners to blame also - as they refuse to share profits.
They're equally to blame in my opinion.
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
There is a corrolation here.Much like negotiations, Jack Bauer also puts me to sleep.... zzzz
zzzzi would like to see bauer jump in that conference room and threaten to take out someone's eye with a knife, if they don't get this done..
Maxwell is on target.. the players, for all of upshaw's "great work" still done't have deal... if his hardline wrecks this, he has failed the PA
Maxwell is on target.. the players, for all of upshaw's "great work" still done't have deal... if his hardline wrecks this, he has failed the PA
I have no inside info, but Upshaw said that there was no increase offered. Sounds to me like this could be an NFL ploy. You say to the media that you offered 58%, even though you didn't. The media goes to Upshaw and says 'heard you were offered 58%'. If Upshaw says he's cool with 58%, you better believe that when the NFL sees the report, they will offer 57% at the table. SO Upshaw just says that the offer was never made. He looks like an ###, b/c the NFL is moving up, but he's not budging from 60%, but really, he's doing the right thing. Is this what happened? Who knows. But it's pointless ot even speculate...Simple. A 1.8% increase means nothing if he does not accept it. If the owner's are budging as reported and Upshaw's hardline stance kills the deal, then he has done the players a disservice.Please explain to me how an increase of 1.8% of the GR from the owners orginal offer, is not good negoitiating by Upshaw and is bad for the players? How on earth does this make zreo sense to you Billy Ball?You know nothing.You make zreo sense.Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Upshaw already gotten the owners to budge from their other final offer of 56.2% to now 58%, by insisting on the absurd 60%?Whether you like Upshaw or not, his negoitiating tactics are working pretty good so far. His tactics have just netted the players he is supposedly doing a piss poor job of representing, additional millions upon millions of dollars.
I wish I had such crappy representation.
Big Score
Footballguy
lod2005,I take it from your response, that these negoitiations are now over, with no chance of them resuming?He has totally screwed them over. No deal means only 1 thing. Upshaw is a hack who was in way over his head and failed miserably at negotiating. Admirably, huh? You can have this turd as your representative.But as it stands right now, he has performed admirably for the players, just as he is supposed to.
I thought the Friday extension was for 72 hours.
fatness
Footballguy
I agree with that. And I think part of the holdup to reaching an agreement between players and union is likely the disagreements about revenue sharing between owners of "low budget" teams and owners of "high dollar" teams. Until the 32 hardheads decide how to cooperate a bit more on how to raise the collective dollar pot available to the players, the % from the owners as a whole is going to be pegged low, so as not to hurt the "low dollar" teams. Of course, there's always the "I'm worried an NFL season might be cancelled, I want that worry eased now, I need somebody to blame, I'll blame Upshaw" argument, which is very trendy.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Bring Chuck Norris into the negotiations. Things will happen.
x3
Rovers
Footballguy
From PFT at 10:15:
UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"
A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.
Said the source: "It is the rich Johnny-come-lately owners who can't figure out that they are making money because they own a team in a large market and not because they own a team."
Of course, the owners at the other end of the spectrum would argue that teams not in a large market should be required to try to earn as much money as possible before asking for revenues to be shared beyond their current extent, which represents 80 percent of all revenues.
Any proposal must attract the votes of at least a few of the 11-12 owners who are opposed to any changes to the current system of revenue sharing.
The disagreement arises from the growing disparity between unshared local revenues. Because the new CBA will determine the team-by-team salary cap based on a percentage of total football revenues, the teams making less of the money that isn't shared will see their player costs increases by revenues earned by the teams making more money in comparison.
One of the possibilities under consideration is a limitation on the amount of cash payments made in a given year above the salary cap. Such a measure will restrict the ability of the big-money teams to use their extra cash to lure free agents with signing bonus money.
UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"
A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.
Said the source: "It is the rich Johnny-come-lately owners who can't figure out that they are making money because they own a team in a large market and not because they own a team."
Of course, the owners at the other end of the spectrum would argue that teams not in a large market should be required to try to earn as much money as possible before asking for revenues to be shared beyond their current extent, which represents 80 percent of all revenues.
Any proposal must attract the votes of at least a few of the 11-12 owners who are opposed to any changes to the current system of revenue sharing.
The disagreement arises from the growing disparity between unshared local revenues. Because the new CBA will determine the team-by-team salary cap based on a percentage of total football revenues, the teams making less of the money that isn't shared will see their player costs increases by revenues earned by the teams making more money in comparison.
One of the possibilities under consideration is a limitation on the amount of cash payments made in a given year above the salary cap. Such a measure will restrict the ability of the big-money teams to use their extra cash to lure free agents with signing bonus money.
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
That would bolster my thoughts...
I think it's Snyder, Jones and these other nim-rods that want to 'buy a championship'.
...and I'm not saying that Jones 'bought his other championships' whatsoever. That 90s 'Super Bowl franchise' was built through the draft, and bolstered in the latter years with the trade for Charles Haley.
I think it's Snyder, Jones and these other nim-rods that want to 'buy a championship'.
...and I'm not saying that Jones 'bought his other championships' whatsoever. That 90s 'Super Bowl franchise' was built through the draft, and bolstered in the latter years with the trade for Charles Haley.
fatness
Footballguy
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but I found it to be an excellent read regarding the dispute between owners. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095
Big Score
Footballguy
Hmmm....59.5% for the new CBA per Mort. Tell me again what a hack he is lod2005.He has totally screwed them over. No deal means only 1 thing. Upshaw is a hack who was in way over his head and failed miserably at negotiating. Admirably, huh? You can have this turd as your representative.But as it stands right now, he has performed admirably for the players, just as he is supposed to.
