What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

OWNERS APPROVE NEW LABOR DEAL! (1 Viewer)

Mort also just said they're asking Upshaw to approve ANOTHER delay on free agency by 24 hours so it wouldn't begin until 12:01 on SATURDAY :sadbanana:
Tags had a press conference on NFL Network- 24 - 48 hour hiatus before free agency

- 102 Mil in '06

- 109 Mil in '07

-Players drafted in rounds 2-7 would have 4 year max initial contract

- tweaking of franchise tag to make it harder for teams to tag players 3 times in a row.

- revenue sharing where teams would be slotted according to local revenue. I didn't get all of the details, but basically Top 10 would pay most, 10 thru 15 pay little 15 thru 20 getting a little and so on down the line.

 
Mort also just said they're asking Upshaw to approve ANOTHER delay on free agency by 24 hours so it wouldn't begin until 12:01 on SATURDAY :sadbanana:
Tags had a press conference on NFL Network- 24 - 48 hour hiatus before free agency

- 102 Mil in '06

- 109 Mil in '07

-Players drafted in rounds 2-7 would have 4 year max initial contract

- tweaking of franchise tag to make it harder for teams to tag players 3 times in a row.- revenue sharing where teams would be slotted according to local revenue. I didn't get all of the details, but basically Top 10 would pay most, 10 thru 15 pay little 15 thru 20 getting a little and so on down the line.
I read about this on ESPN today...in the 3rd year, if you tagged someone you would have to pay them the average of the top 5 highest paid QUARTERBACKS. So in essence, that will prohibit a player from being tagged three times...unless he's a QB. :)
 
NFL Network will replay Tagliabue press conference on Total Access (10:00??).
I am sure Chris Mortenson will be watching. It seems to be the only way he can get any information.
 
- tweaking of franchise tag to make it harder for teams to tag players 3 times in a row.
I'll say. The new rule (as I read it) was that tagging a guy a third time a team would have to pay him franchise money AS A QUARTERBACK even if he was not a QB. Can't remember where I read it though . . .
 
NFL Network will replay Tagliabue press conference on Total Access (10:00??).
I am sure Chris Mortenson will be watching. It seems to be the only way he can get any information.
:confused: Mort broke the salary cap at $102mm AND that free agency was going to be extended again on ESPN News...he had both stories out there 15 minutes before the NFL Network.

 
Have to give credit where credit is due...Upshaw has long had the reputation as being Tagliabue's whipping boy, but he created leverage where most thought there was none by betting that the owners wouldn't ultimately quibble over the incremental millions annually per team; and he was absolutely right.

 
Here's a far-out idea why Buffalo and Cincy might have opposed the deal:

I wonder if stadium naming rights was a point of contention, since both of those teams have stadiums named after people.

Something like, you can only receive shared money from naming rights if you make a good faith effort to obtain a corporate name on your stadium.

 
Dan Snyder, smiling: "It was a tough day." 

Ralph Wilson: "I didn't understand it."
I'm tellin' ya, ol' Ralphie was :confused:

:yawn:

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Ralph Wilson's facial expressions were priceless here. I voted no because I did not understand it. hard to imagine this club being on the high side of revenue anytime soon with this guy owning it.
 
Here's a far-out idea why Buffalo and Cincy might have opposed the deal:

I wonder if stadium naming rights was a point of contention, since both of those teams have stadiums named after people.

Something like, you can only receive shared money from naming rights if you make a good faith effort to obtain a corporate name on your stadium.
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
 
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
Except Tags said it was two concepts that they merged. They had been talking about the two concepts for days. Ralph Wilson seemed to be the only owner not able to keep up.
 
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
Except Tags said it was two concepts that they merged. They had been talking about the two concepts for days. Ralph Wilson seemed to be the only owner not able to keep up.
he's pretty old
 
Dan Snyder, smiling: "It was a tough day." 

Ralph Wilson: "I didn't understand it."
I'm tellin' ya, ol' Ralphie was :confused:

:yawn:

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Ralph Wilson's facial expressions were priceless here. I voted no because I did not understand it. hard to imagine this club being on the high side of revenue anytime soon with this guy owning it.
This may explain the JP Losman deal...
 
Here's a far-out idea why Buffalo and Cincy might have opposed the deal:

I wonder if stadium naming rights was a point of contention, since both of those teams have stadiums named after people.

Something like, you can only receive shared money from naming rights if you make a good faith effort to obtain a corporate name on your stadium.
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
Wilson is probably right that 45 minutes isn't enough time to properly review it but...Who cares! We won't need to worry about any more of this for a long time

:banned:

Back to talking about free agency, the draft, the upcoming season and fantasy football... the way it should be!

 
Here's a far-out idea why Buffalo and Cincy might have opposed the deal:

I wonder if stadium naming rights was a point of contention, since both of those teams have stadiums named after people.

Something like, you can only receive shared money from naming rights if you make a good faith effort to obtain a corporate name on your stadium.
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
Wilson is probably right that 45 minutes isn't enough time to properly review it but...Who cares! We won't need to worry about any more of this for a long time

:banned:

Back to talking about free agency, the draft, the upcoming season and fantasy football... the way it should be!
:goodposting: Six more years of uncomplicated NFL bliss :pickle:

 
Here's a far-out idea why Buffalo and Cincy might have opposed the deal:

I wonder if stadium naming rights was a point of contention, since both of those teams have stadiums named after people.

Something like, you can only receive shared money from naming rights if you make a good faith effort to obtain a corporate name on your stadium.
I wonder what GB was thinking then? Must be they know that even a "good faith effort" would result in nothing.
 
Is anyone else suspicious about this $102M cap number? Where did that come from? For days we've been seeing anywhere from $105M to >$110M, and all of a sudden its just 102? That's a $3-$8+ Million difference per team, or $100-$250M total difference.

I think the NFLPA caved on revenue more than is being reported. When the "Final Offer" was made and Tags said he would take it to the owners, I saw one report that listed 59.6% of "increased revenues over DGR" instead of "Total" revenues. One of the contentions made by teams was the debt payments they had, specifically regarding stadium construction. Onlookers had been predicting an agreement closer to 58%, and instead we get a 0.4% settlement by the NFLPA?

I say :bs:

Upshaw caved a lot more than is being reported, but got Tags to agree to spin it so that it appeared he only caved a little bit.

 
Is anyone else suspicious about this $102M cap number? Where did that come from? For days we've been seeing anywhere from $105M to >$110M, and all of a sudden its just 102? That's a $3-$8+ Million difference per team, or $100-$250M total difference.

I think the NFLPA caved on revenue more than is being reported. When the "Final Offer" was made and Tags said he would take it to the owners, I saw one report that listed 59.6% of "increased revenues over DGR" instead of "Total" revenues. One of the contentions made by teams was the debt payments they had, specifically regarding stadium construction. Onlookers had been predicting an agreement closer to 58%, and instead we get a 0.4% settlement by the NFLPA?

I say :bs:

Upshaw caved a lot more than is being reported, but got Tags to agree to spin it so that it appeared he only caved a little bit.
What means this - "increased revenues over DGR""
 
"We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother."

 
Ralph Wilson's facial expressions were priceless here. I voted no because I did not understand it. hard to imagine this club being on the high side of revenue anytime soon with this guy owning it.
He seemed baffled, and said something like "I didn't think I was a dropout, but maybe I am. I just didn't understand it." :)
 
Have to give credit where credit is due...Upshaw has long had the reputation as being Tagliabue's whipping boy, but he created leverage where most thought there was none by betting that the owners wouldn't ultimately quibble over the incremental millions annually per team; and he was absolutely right.
I agree. Upshaw played this one out very well. It seemed that Upshaw and Tagliabue basically agreed on how to settle things, a way that would allow play to continue and money to continue to be made. But getting 32 owners to go along was like herding cats. Between Tagliabue's persuasion and Upshaw's deadline pressure they pulled it off. They both deserve credit.

 
Is anyone else suspicious about this $102M cap number? Where did that come from? For days we've been seeing anywhere from $105M to >$110M, and all of a sudden its just 102? That's a $3-$8+ Million difference per team, or $100-$250M total difference.

I think the NFLPA caved on revenue more than is being reported. When the "Final Offer" was made and Tags said he would take it to the owners, I saw one report that listed 59.6% of "increased revenues over DGR" instead of "Total" revenues. One of the contentions made by teams was the debt payments they had, specifically regarding stadium construction. Onlookers had been predicting an agreement closer to 58%, and instead we get a 0.4% settlement by the NFLPA?

I say :bs:

Upshaw caved a lot more than is being reported, but got Tags to agree to spin it so that it appeared he only caved a little bit.
Actually the number $95 mil had been bandied about for a few weeks so maybe this is a cup half full situation.As for the notion of "NFL bliss" we must all never forget that Terrell Owens is still alive so the bliss will probably be temporary.

 
Have to give credit where credit is due...Upshaw has long had the reputation as being Tagliabue's whipping boy, but he created leverage where most thought there was none by betting that the owners wouldn't ultimately quibble over the incremental millions annually per team; and he was absolutely right.
I agree. Upshaw played this one out very well. It seemed that Upshaw and Tagliabue basically agreed on how to settle things, a way that would allow play to continue and money to continue to be made. But getting 32 owners to go along was like herding cats. Between Tagliabue's persuasion and Upshaw's deadline pressure they pulled it off. They both deserve credit.
:goodposting: I thought all along this was gonna get done but I did flinch yesterday when I heard that talks had stalled. But I'm glad it's over, we won't face any chance of a labor stoppage or the air of uncertainty, and I think just about everyone involved is at the vary minimum ok with how things turned out. You gotta admit, it's been an interesting offseason thus far.

 
1) Great work by Gene Upshaw to push an aggressive deal and not capitulate to media and player pressure. After underwhelming at the last CBA talks several years ago, he is one of the big winners today. He took a lot of heat over the last several weeks, but he stood firm and ultimtaely signed a GREAT deal for the players. Sharing of ALL revenues, better health and pension benefits, nearly 60% cut. Great job.

2) Say what you like about the "fat cats" (Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, etc), but they showed that the spirit of the NFL is alive and well. They left big dollars on the table for the sake of the Game and the Fans, and I for one applaud them. These people are aggressive, shark-like businessmen in the real world, but for the good of the League they made considerable financial sacrifices. Wellington Mara would be proud of all the owners today. And I think its about time they started getting a bit more respect from the fans as well. People should NEVER compare Dan Snyder to Goerge Steinbrenner again.

3) Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson will live out the rest of their NFL days in infamy. They seemed to benefit most from this deal, yet they were the ones to reject it. Id like to hear their side of the story.

4) Paul Tagliabue cemented his place today as a top-notch commissioner for the ages. He seems to be getting most of the credit for hammering out a deal with the owners when it seemed all hope was lost. A commissioners reputaion and legacy are built in instances like these. He was a worthy successor to Pete Rozelle.

5) The Fans: Woohoo!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually a bigger surprise that 30 of 32 clubs voted for this deal, not that two dissented. From Ralph Wilson's comments, it seems his main contention was the time pressures of approving what is a complex deal. He said the 45 minutes they had to review and vote wasn't enough; and he was probably right but :shrug:
Except Tags said it was two concepts that they merged. They had been talking about the two concepts for days. Ralph Wilson seemed to be the only owner not able to keep up.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case since the guy is so old, but I doubt many owners would actually admit to not understanding what they agreed on. They all knew that they were under the gun and probably the basics sounded good. But let's not pretend that merging two proposals was as easy as saying "we're merging two proposals." How those two proposals affected each other and affected the bottom line may not have been so cut and dry. Let's face it, we're not talking about a simple contract here. A half hour is a pretty short amount of time to make a decision of that magnitude when you're talking about that kind of money.

From a fan's persective, a deal needed to get done and I'm glad it got done. I also believe that the deal seems pretty fair to everyone involved from what has been released so far. But we don't know what went on behind closed doors either. A half hour is a pretty short amount of time to consider a new proposal. It's not as if it was just an adjustment of a percentage or something like that, it was in essence a new proposal entirely.

That's not to say that Ralph could just have been slower than everyone else. The man is 87 years old for crying out loud, so it wouldn't be a surprise if he isn't as sharp as he used to be.

I'd hate to see too many people take shots at him and call him cheap though. He's the founder and only owner of the Bills. He's the only AFL team owner never to move his team. The current NFL wouldn't exist without his instrumental involvement in the AFL-NFL merger. Without the financial assistance he provided to the Raiders long ago they probably would have went under. He was also instrumental in creating the last CBA. And he has done all of that while always being in one of the smallest markets in the league. He was never super rich like a lot of the current owners. He's a small private family owner whose income comes mostly from his football team. Because of owners like Ralph Wilson the success of the NFL exists today. Guys like Daniel Snyder wouldn't be making nearly the money they're making off of their teams if it weren't for Ralph Wilson. It's nice that Daniel Snyder can generate so much revenue in one of the richest and most populous areas in the country. But he wouldn't be doing it if guys like Ralph Wilson weren't creating that product for him by sticking things out in a small blue collar market like Buffalo.

 
3) Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson will live out the rest of their NFL days in infamy. They seemed to benefit most from this deal, yet they were the ones to reject it. Id like to hear their side of the story.
Here's their story... Wilson is old and couldn't keep up with the final proposal in the time they had to review it which was about 45 minutes and Mike Brown, well he's Mike Brown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ralph Wilson is not fit to run a NFL franchise. It is time for him to get someone that "understands" these "complicated" deals, especially when they directly benefit his club.

If Wilson cannot comprehend a free handout to him compared with what the big franchise owners could have tried to stick him with, he needs someone to read the docs for him and break it down to him in a format he can understand...a re-enactment in the form of a Matlock show.

 
Page 2 at ESPN

What a concession by the owners like Dan Snyder, who should be commended. Snyder creates innovative revenue streams specific to his team, but -- for the good of the league -- he's willing to simply give even more of it away to the other owners who either can't (or won't) be equally aggressive. (I don't want to hear any more anti-Snyder talk from fans of these small-market teams that will now be the beneficiaries of the largesse from entrepreneurial owners like Snyder and the equally unliked Jerry Jones.)

The new deal affirmed peace with the players. But, even more than that, it was an affirmation of the fundamental concept of parity that the league has been built on. Parity in the standings is what makes the NFL so great to follow; this time, it's a renewed understanding of parity among owners that will help drive the parity of their teams on the field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have to give credit where credit is due...Upshaw has long had the reputation as being Tagliabue's whipping boy, but he created leverage where most thought there was none by betting that the owners wouldn't ultimately quibble over the incremental millions annually per team; and he was absolutely right.
Don't disagree Jason. This seems like a good deal for both sides.As I said a while back, both sides were smart enough to realize the value of the golden goose and elected to dominate for the greater good of everyone. Good stuff.

This was an excellent experiment in greed with very rich men quibbling over small percentages (albeit of a huge pile of $$$) and it was super cool to see them work it out without negatively affecting the whole thing. And regardless of the Mortensens of the world's view on this, I think keeping things much as they've been on the labor front is absolutely the best thing for everyone involved.

Bottom line is major :thumbup: to all.

J

 
Page 2 at ESPN

What a concession by the owners like Dan Snyder, who should be commended. Snyder creates innovative revenue streams specific to his team, but -- for the good of the league -- he's willing to simply give even more of it away to the other owners who either can't (or won't) be equally aggressive. (I don't want to hear any more anti-Snyder talk from fans of these small-market teams that will now be the beneficiaries of the largesse from entrepreneurial owners like Snyder and the equally unliked Jerry Jones.)

The new deal affirmed peace with the players. But, even more than that, it was an affirmation of the fundamental concept of parity that the league has been built on. Parity in the standings is what makes the NFL so great to follow; this time, it's a renewed understanding of parity among owners that will help drive the parity of their teams on the field.
They should be commended for doing the right thing. But I'm not sure why the small market teams need to be portrayed as some sort of villians. Daniel Snyder has done a tremendous job of creating new revenue streams, but he's also had the luxury of doing so in an area of the country that is extremely wealthy and has a huge population. He has done a fantastic job of building on the backs of those that came before him, but let's not forget that he'd be standing in the dirt if it weren't for some of those small market guys that created the modern NFL in the first place. (I know, he's wealthy due to his interests outside of the NFL, my point is that the Redskins themselves wouldn't be worth a darn without the other 31 teams in the league too).They get my props for being willing to give and concede what will amount to a pretty good amount of money I'm sure. But they did it for their own good too. This will only serve to better the NFL as a whole and end up putting more money back into their pockets in the end. They're simply smart businessmen for understanding that their team product doesn't exist without the NFL product as a whole.

 
Have to give credit where credit is due...Upshaw has long had the reputation as being Tagliabue's whipping boy, but he created leverage where most thought there was none by betting that the owners wouldn't ultimately quibble over the incremental millions annually per team; and he was absolutely right.
Don't disagree Jason. This seems like a good deal for both sides.As I said a while back, both sides were smart enough to realize the value of the golden goose and elected to dominate for the greater good of everyone. Good stuff.

This was an excellent experiment in greed with very rich men quibbling over small percentages (albeit of a huge pile of $$$) and it was super cool to see them work it out without negatively affecting the whole thing. And regardless of the Mortensens of the world's view on this, I think keeping things much as they've been on the labor front is absolutely the best thing for everyone involved.

Bottom line is major :thumbup: to all.

J
So Joe, I know you are a football fan and all of that, but did you alslo breathe a sigh of relief looking at it from the business perspective? If a strike year occurred, there wouldn't be much of a fantasy football season, or many subscriptions to FBGs, eh? :thumbup:
 
Page 2 at ESPN

What a concession by the owners like Dan Snyder, who should be commended. Snyder creates innovative revenue streams specific to his team, but -- for the good of the league -- he's willing to simply give even more of it away to the other owners who either can't (or won't) be equally aggressive. (I don't want to hear any more anti-Snyder talk from fans of these small-market teams that will now be the beneficiaries of the largesse from entrepreneurial owners like Snyder and the equally unliked Jerry Jones.)

The new deal affirmed peace with the players. But, even more than that, it was an affirmation of the fundamental concept of parity that the league has been built on. Parity in the standings is what makes the NFL so great to follow; this time, it's a renewed understanding of parity among owners that will help drive the parity of their teams on the field.
They should be commended for doing the right thing. But I'm not sure why the small market teams need to be portrayed as some sort of villians. Daniel Snyder has done a tremendous job of creating new revenue streams, but he's also had the luxury of doing so in an area of the country that is extremely wealthy and has a huge population. He has done a fantastic job of building on the backs of those that came before him, but let's not forget that he'd be standing in the dirt if it weren't for some of those small market guys that created the modern NFL in the first place. (I know, he's wealthy due to his interests outside of the NFL, my point is that the Redskins themselves wouldn't be worth a darn without the other 31 teams in the league too).They get my props for being willing to give and concede what will amount to a pretty good amount of money I'm sure. But they did it for their own good too. This will only serve to better the NFL as a whole and end up putting more money back into their pockets in the end. They're simply smart businessmen for understanding that their team product doesn't exist without the NFL product as a whole.
I agree. Anyone who thinks so did not understand the true issues caused by letting players have a share of TOTAL revenues.If you do it and have revenue sharing, the big revenue clubs do subsidize the lower revenue clubs. But if you don't have it, the small market clubs subsidize the high revenue clubs.

Obviously the team with less money is less able to be the one doing the subsidizing.

 
Here's a pretty good read from ESPN.com

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson spent two days with his head spinning and he wasn't alone.

After being overwhelmed by hearing endless percentages and terminology spewed at a fast pace, Wilson sided with Mike Brown of the Bengals and voted no on the NFL Players Association's proposal to extend the collective bargaining agreement.

"It's a very complex proposal and I really didn't understand it," Wilson said. "I didn't think I was a dropout but maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

Fortunately, 30 other owners and a wily commissioner did understand as the NFL agreed to a six-year CBA extension that brings labor peace to the league through 2011. The league was staring at an economic black hole -- and loss of the salary cap -- that only 16 remaining owners from the pre-labor peace days understood. For two years, the parties failed to reach a deal in part because of the revenue-sharing issue that created a greater gap between high and low-revenue teams.

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw gave commissioner Paul Tagliabue the hammer to put in place a revenue-sharing agreement Wednesday night, imposing an 8 p.m. ET deadline on accepting a CBA extension that gobbled up 59.5 percent of teams total revenues. Literally 25 minutes before the bewitching hour of potential labor unrest and an uncapped 2007, Tagliabue brought together three diverse factions of owners to craft a revenue-sharing deal that passed 30-2.

The final three hours of owner negotiations were so fast and furious that everyone's heads were spinning. Tagliabue and Upshaw couldn't even finalize a start to free agency. Scheduled to start at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, free agency was pushed back a day upon acceptance of the union proposal. Because of the complications of the deal, Upshaw is expected to agree to push it back again until 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

Terms sheets weren't readily available for general managers, agents and players Wednesday night. This much was known: The cap in 2006 will be $102 million, an increase of $7.5 million over the projected $94.5 million cap for 2006. That's a $16.5 million increase from the $85.5 million cap of 2005. The 2007 cap will be $109 million.

Tagliabue was asked about the proration of signing bonuses, but he joked that he couldn't remember if his granddaughter was six years old or if the proration for signing bonuses was four. Proration will be five years in 2006 instead of the current four. The proration will be six years in 2007 and five in 2008. What that means is it will be easier for teams to structure bigger deals for top five draft choices and the highest paid free agents.

Also confusing is the bottom line figure on the revenue sharing. Tagliabue said $500 million of local team revenue will be put in a pool for the lower-revenue teams in the first four years of the six-year agreement. The incremental revenue-sharing plan, as it is called, will cost high-revenue teams between $850 million and $900 million over the six years. The top five revenue teams will pay the most; teams between six through 10 in revenue will pay the second most and 11 through 15 will pay the lowest third of that revenue-sharing pool.

What all this means for the league, the owners and the players is labor peace. For fans, it means roster peace. The Colts now have extra cap room to try to keep linebacker David Thornton and possibly halfback Edgerrin James. The Seahawks won't lose transition tagged Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson to a team trying to squeeze the Seahawks, who already had ample space under the cap. For close to three dozen players scheduled to be cut Wednesday night, they get a temporary reprieve.

The Raiders have time and cap space to keep quarterback Kerry Collins. The Redskins may eventually cut six players but they'll likely still be players in the free agent market. Now, everyone will be under the cap and have the ability to keep players they want and to bid for players from other teams. Most importantly, they kept the salary cap and have fixed labor costs until 2011.

"It was a compromise by all parties and I think that makes it great," Steelers owner Dan Rooney said.

"I wanted it, and we had to have it," Raiders owner Al Davis said of the deal. "We do have the greatest game in the world, and we got what we wanted."

Davis had an interesting theory about the vulnerability of the NFL had it not reached a deal and had an uncapped 2007 and no CBA in 2008. Understand Davis' background. He was the former commissioner of the American Football League who orchestrated a merger with the NFL after years of fighting to steal their players. Davis feared the NFL could have been challenged by a new league in 2008.

"There's always the possibility of a new league," Davis said. "You have to understand it. I do. I lived it. I coached and was a commissioner of a new league that forced a merger. I know how to do it. I really believe the numbers are there where it would be very simple to have a 10-team league. You see with no cap and no draft and no agreement with the players. They had a problem, too, because they would have anarchy. Gene [upshaw] would be out eventually and the whole group would have been disbanded eventually because people would go their own way."

A lot was at stake Wednesday and it was fascinating as the revenue-sharing deal came together. Early Wednesday, there was no consensus and it looked as though the owners would blow the deadline and lose the salary cap. The Steelers and the Ravens came up with a plan that caused teams to put 25 percent of the revenue in a pool to be set aside to help low-revenue teams. The Patriots and Jets pushed an already existing supplemental pool that is worth $40 million a year and put big numbers to that.

By mid afternoon, things got hot. Tension built and egos started to flair. Jerry Jones of the Cowboys came out and said things were going backwards. One of the reasons high-echelon clubs generate so much revenue is because they have owners such as Jones, Dan Snyder, Bob McNair and others who wait for deadlines to make the best deals.

Jones worked with Arthur Blank of the Falcons to get sides together. Jerry Richardson of the Panthers, Pat Bowlen of the Broncos and John Mara of the Giants tried to find ways to come up concepts that would fit within the Steelers-Ravens model and the Jets-Patriots model. Tagliabue kept everyone focused on the deal during the final two hours.

Accountants and lawyers sat outside meeting rooms reviewing concepts. Finally, the sides came together and the high-revenue clubs worked out the compromises with the moderates to blend a deal that works.

"It's been a long, long process," Redskins owner Dan Snyder said. "Halfway through today I didn't think it was going to get done. I think Paul did a heck of a job of corralling people who could have gone in a lot of difference directions and built some consensus."

The foundation of the league was how Wellington Mara of the Giants gave up the lucrative New York television market and shared television revenue to get the NFL off to its unparalleled success. Mara passed a way last year. In the spirit of Mara, the Snyder, Jones, McNair and others went back to the roots and shared.

Mara would have been smiling Wednesday night. His league stayed true to his spirit. It was a banner day in the NFL.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
Sounds like the final proposal was actually made just 25 minutes before voting. And even Tagliabue couldn't even remember how many years before a guy became an UFA. I think that a good deal was struck, but I'm a little disappointed that the talking heads and many fans are giving Ralph Wilson a hard time because of his vote. 25 minutes is a pretty short amount of time to thoroughly review something like that. I'd rather Wilson vote no because he didn't feel that he had time to review it rather than vote yes just to get something done. Maybe if he was asked right now if he is in favor of it he would say yes.

 
What means this - "increased revenues over DGR""
d is.....diversified? domestic? grrr not suregross

revenue
Defined Gross Revenue. It was the portion of revenue that the players were getting a chunk of in the old CBA from things like the television contracts.
(1) Regular season, pre-season, and post-season gate receipts (net of admission taxes, and surcharges paid to stadium or municipal authorities which are deducted for purposes of calculating gate receipts subject to revenue sharing), including ticket revenue from “luxury boxes,” suites and premium seating subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL Teams; and

(2) Proceeds including Copyright Royalty Tribunal and extended market payments from the sale, license or other conveyance of the right to broadcast or exhibit NFL pre-season, regular season and play-off games on radio and television including, without limitation, network, local, cable, pay television, satellite encryption, international broadcasts, delayed broadcasts (which shall not include any broadcast of an NFL pre-season, regular season or play-off game occurring more than 72 hours after the live exhibition of the game, unless the broadcast is the first broadcast in the market), and all other means of distribution, net of any reasonable and customary NFL expenses related to the project; and

(3) Proceeds from the sale or conveyance of any right to receive any of the revenues described above.
So increased revenue over DGR would be all the stuff the players weren't getting a piece of before, but are now. Luxury boxes, local revenues, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So FA has started.
still 24 hours away
Free agency, put off twice by the protracted negotiations between the owners and players, now will start at 12:01 a.m. March 10.
lol... too funny.
Not sure if it's been posted on another thread, but Chris Mortenson said that Upshaw plans to concede another 24 hours before free agency - pushing it back to Saturday.
Jags website says it might not start until Monday.
March 9)—Free agency will not begin on Friday and may not begin until Monday. That decision was announced to teams during a conference call on Thursday morning, as the logistics of the Collective Bargaining Agreement the league reached with the players union on Wednesday night will require more time to assemble. A longer version of this story will appear within an hour
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top