********Press Conference********** (1 Viewer)

[zadok]

Cuts will be fast and furious now...I still would bet a lot of $$$$ that there's no uncapped year in '07, however it appears we're in for one entertaining '06 offseason.

I agree there is a cap or a lockout.

There can't be a lockout if the Players follow through on their threat to disband the union and sue the League for anti-Trust violations.

 

[bagger.]

It comes down to this. The NFL owners will not give more than 59.9999999999999999999999% of revenues to the players. Upshaw is asking for that # to begin with a 6. This is the issue.

 

[derek19]

NFL | Latest NFLPA proposal rejectedPublished Thu Mar 2 11:56:00 a.m. ET 2006

(KFFL) ESPNews reports NFL owners have rejected the latest NFLPA proposal.

Did they offer another proposal or are they talking about the previous proposal???????

 

[Dave Baker]

As much as I love football and writing on behalf of this place, I would be bizarrely pleased to see the players get their rears handed to them in an extended lockout/strike.

 

[Warpig]

This really isn't looking good. I was just checking out all my usual sites and they all agree it is a dire situation. Then there is a quote by Gene Upshaw saying: "I won't budge and the players know that." Do the players know they will soon be unemployed? Is being unemployed better than making hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions? It appears they are arguing over nickels and dimes (in their world ofcourse). The players want a little over 60% of total revenues and the owners are offering 56.2%. Dear god man! I agree that the players are what make the league but the owners (well, some owners) invest their money into making sure those players have state of the art equipment and stadiums. I hate it when rich people argue about who's gonna be richer. If the NFL starts to become the MLB...I too may cash in my chips. Hey! Curling is kinda cool! And there seems to be hot chicks that play it. Maybe I should burn all my NFL jerseys and start buying team USA Curling polos for my kids!

 

[The Juggernaut]

The quesiton is- Will we be seeing replacement players in 2008?

With the average lifespan of NFL players at around 3 years, they can not afford potential lost time. For that reason, the NFL owners will always win an extended labor conflict.

That's my big question. If so, I'm gonna double my efforts to become an NFL safety.

 

[Workhorse]

If I were a player with some clout, I'd try to have Upshaw thrown out as head of the union and try to split the difference with the owners TODAY.

 

[Warpig]

The quesiton is- Will we be seeing replacement players in 2008? 

With the average lifespan of NFL players at around 3 years, they can not afford potential lost time.  For that reason, the NFL owners will always win an extended labor conflict.

That's my big question. If so, I'm gonna double my efforts to become an NFL safety.

I'd make a great OLB/MLB in the Zach Thomas mold. But I really wanna play RB. I could be the first "not-so-great white true tailback".

 

[Gatorman]

truth be told, nothing may happen anytime soon. Since none of the real crap hits the fan until next year, we are going to have a very bizzarre 2006 season while the league gets ready for 2007. What this has basically done is restarted the salary cap era. All teams will be forced to cut and cut deep now, players will be forced into lower end deals now, and everyone will continue to posture until next offseason where a lockout will happen.

You basically have about a week for this to make sense before everything gets locked into place and the changes take effect in 2007.

Either something happens now, or it happens next offseason (financially)

IMHO.

 

[Gatorman]

If I were a player with some clout, I'd try to have Upshaw thrown out as head of the union and try to split the difference with the owners TODAY.

YOu need an agent to get in there and do this. No individual player is strong enough.

 

[Workhorse]

If I were a player with some clout, I'd try to have Upshaw thrown out as head of the union and try to split the difference with the owners TODAY.

YOu need an agent to get in there and do this. No individual player is strong enough.

Ok, good point. How about a subgroup of players? The NFL QB club?

 

[Bad_Mo]

As much as I love football and writing on behalf of this place, I would be bizarrely pleased to see the players get their rears handed to them in an extended lockout/strike.

Can you work up a list of scabs that will fill-in for the real players?I'd like to get a mock going asap for that group!

 

[Dave Baker]

Upshaw has taken serious flack for supposedly selling out the players in the last contract and is being saber rattling now to improve his image with them. But I think it's a major mistake.

 

[BigTex]

Upshaw has taken serious flack for supposedly selling out the players in the last contract and is being saber rattling now to improve his image with them. But I think it's a major mistake.

Unless the owners cave in, he's in a lose/lose situation.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Upshaw has taken serious flack for supposedly selling out the players in the last contract and is being saber rattling now to improve his image with them. But I think it's a major mistake.

It's always a mistake to let business become personal.

 

[Bri]

there's too many threads here

 

[Verbal Kint]

The quesiton is- Will we be seeing replacement players in 2008?

With the average lifespan of NFL players at around 3 years, they can not afford potential lost time. For that reason, the NFL owners will always win an extended labor conflict.

That's my big question. If so, I'm gonna double my efforts to become an NFL safety.

Falco! Falco! Falco!

 

[Punchie]

remember that next year won't be uncapped completely. The 30% rule will make it a relative salary cap where each player is unable to make greater than 30% of his 2006 salary. Where it gets fun is contracts structured next year to look like:

2007 $5million

2008 $30million

I read somewhere that the destruction of the CBA also removes the player's 401(k) plan and major benefits. Personally I think even 50% total revenue is FAR too much for employees, any normal corporation wouldn't be able to handle that sort of payroll percentage.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

there's too many threads here

how soon they forget about TO.....

 

[Marvelous]

Guys, I cannot believe all the doom and gloom on the NFL. If the CBA is not extended, I don't think the owners will do that poorly. Right now, some teams will have a hard time because they need to cut players because there are fewer ways to "borrow" cap dollars from future years.

After 2007, the owners can implement any system that want. The only caveat is that the player's union can de-decertify and then sue on anti-trust allegations. Do you think Bidwell or other small market teams will voter for a system that allows the Redskins, Cowboys, and Broncos to outspend everyone? It would be difficult for such a lopsided system to get 24 votes for approval.

My guess is that the owners will implement a system similar to the current one with tweaks. So there will be free agency and a salary cap. Some tweaks I imagine:

1. Less ability to spread signing bonuses out over multiple years. This will real in the free spending teams some.

2. Players become free agents after 6 years (like 2007)

3. Draft goes back to 12 rounds

4. Rookie salaries are slotted by draft position

5. Contracts cannot be renegotiated until the player has played two season under the original contract.

6. Snyder and Jones head committe to help small market teams develop more local revenues. Each team contributes to a pot for seed money for projects (that would be revenue sharing).

On the flip side, I do think the CBA expirinig is a disaster for the players. Since teams cannot spread out signing bonuses, the essesntially have less dollars to spend this year. And this primarily hits the free spending teams, which help drive up free agent market. So in 2006, record numbers of players will get cut AND there is much less money to spend on them in free agency. This year's free agent class is screwed.

I also don't think 2007 will be that big of a bonanza for the players. The 6 year requirement will cut down the number of free agents drastically. Marquee players generally are not available (this year may be the exception), so you cannot build a whole team from one year of free agency.

I basically think Gene Upshaw really messed this up. The owners offered 56.2% of total revenue. If league revenue will be $6 B, that equates to a salary cap of $105.4M per team. That means Upshaw turned down a $320 M raise ($10 M per team) for the players this year so that they can get cut in record numbers. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[BigTex]

remember that next year won't be uncapped completely. The 30% rule will make it a relative salary cap where each player is unable to make greater than 30% of his 2006 salary. Where it gets fun is contracts structured next year to look like:

2007 $5million

2008 $30million

I read somewhere that the destruction of the CBA also removes the player's 401(k) plan and major benefits. Personally I think even 50% total revenue is FAR too much for employees, any normal corporation wouldn't be able to handle that sort of payroll percentage.

This is one reason why the fans will be on the owners side and the players will be the evil ones.

 

[Marvelous]

remember that next year won't be uncapped completely. The 30% rule will make it a relative salary cap where each player is unable to make greater than 30% of his 2006 salary. Where it gets fun is contracts structured next year to look like:

2007 $5million

2008 $30million

I read somewhere that the destruction of the CBA also removes the player's 401(k) plan and major benefits. Personally I think even 50% total revenue is FAR too much for employees, any normal corporation wouldn't be able to handle that sort of payroll percentage.

I read that 401(k) contributions stop in 2007 per the CBA. Current match is 2-1, much more generous that any employer I have had.

 

[Bri]

stadiums being built and renovated is the silent issue here. Owners are trying to not "eat" it all. Most of all who have gotten their states or local gov'ts to help pay for it too.

 

[bagger.]

stadiums being built and renovated is the silent issue here. Owners are trying to not "eat" it all. Most of all who have gotten their states or local gov'ts to help pay for it too.

not really.

 

[Bob Magaw]

there were reports yesterday that the union leadership wasn't communicating well with the players... though with all the coverage, it is inconceivable they couldn't have have been aware of the nastier implications, at least in broad strokes...

maybe the tags announcement was going over the head of upshaw to send a signal to the players that if they don't put pressurre on their own leadership from below, it is about to get real ugly...

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

is upshaw making this up from thin air... or as a rep of players... is he taking orders from them on what to ask for, & at what point or if to cave in... i kind of doubt he is some kind of rogue or renegade with no relationship to the instructions of the players he represents...

this could reflect a schism in the players... while some of the ramifications & shockwaves that will ripple through the system could be devestating to mid & lower tier players, it might be good for the superstars... maybe this could be a case where different levels of player talent & income generating potential are being variably represented... & not consistently with everybody's interests in mind?

 

[BlueOnion]

stadiums being built and renovated is the silent issue here. Owners are trying to not "eat" it all. Most of all who have gotten their states or local gov'ts to help pay for it too.

not really.

I can agree with Bri. Part of the issue is the 'total shared revenue'. Owners are taking a cuts out of these revenues and offering them to owners for low interest rate loans. After the cut is taken out of the 'total shared revenue', then the remaining balance is shared between owners and players. So how does this benefit the players? It does not because owners take these loans to build new stadiums that generate more local revenue which in turn was not intended to be shared in the CBA.

 

[BigTex]

there were reports yesterday that the union leadership wasn't communicating well with the players... though with all the coverage, it is inconceivable they couldn't have have been aware of the nastier implications, at least in broad strokes...

maybe the tags announcement was going over the head of upshaw to send a signal to the players that if they don't put pressurre on their own leadership from below, it is about to get real ugly...

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

is upshaw making this up from thin air... or as a rep of players... is he taking orders from them on what to ask for, & at what point or if to cave in... i kind of doubt he is some kind of rogue or renegade with no relationship to the instructions of the players he represents...

this could reflect a schism in the players... while some of the ramifications & shockwaves that will ripple through the system could be devestating to mid & lower tier players, it might be good for the superstars... maybe this could be a case where different levels of player talent & income generating potential are being variably represented... & not consistently with everybody's interests in mind?

You bring up some good points. We know that the owners are unified 100% but we don't know if the players are. The will make a big difference on who'll make the next move.

 

[Warpig]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

is upshaw making this up from thin air... or as a rep of players... is he taking orders from them on what to ask for, & at what point or if to cave in... i kind of doubt he is some kind of rogue or renegade with no relationship to the instructions of the players he represents...

It was either in an article on ESPN or CBS that had the amounts on the table. It said the players (or Upshaw) is asking for a little over 60% and the owners have 56.2% on the table.

 

[Bri]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

 

[Warpig]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

 

[Bri]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I think they want at least a minimum of 60% of 'total revenue'.  I believe they were getting about 54% of 'shared revenue last season'.  Currently the owners are offering about 56.x% of 'total revenue'.

Gene Upshaw was quoted as saying "our number has to begin with a 6."

Yep. The difference between 56% and 60% is about $340 million.

Spread over 32 teams = $10.625 Million per team

$10.6M/8 years for new CBA = $1.3 Mill per year per team they are arguing aboutIf you really think this is the sticking point you are dreaming. That equates to like raising ticket prices a quarter. Or Beers a dime.

 

[BlueOnion]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking.

He would probably say, 'Yeah right', why don't you go start your own company. I suspect the players may be willing to do this.

 

[scooper]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Hey Sharks,

I found this summation of the labor woes/implications/major players from the Dallas Morning News to be helpful.

Labor Impasse Implications 3/2/06

FWIW.

Mark

 

[Bri]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

 

[-OZ-]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

 

[Bri]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

yes they have to pay their workers.That is all their discretion and I've never seen anything like the Pats pay their workers better than the Cards or somesuch. Players have personal trainers and financial advisors that I'm sure they pay with their salary too

 

[BlueOnion]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

I imagine those 'administration fees' are taking out first and then the remaining is split.

 

[Bri]

I imagine those 'administration fees' are taking out first and then the remaining is split.

I don't believe so. It's revenue not profit

 

[BlueOnion]

I imagine those 'administration fees' are taking out first and then the remaining is split.

I don't believe so. It's revenue not profit

My bad, I thought you were talking about the administration fees and such that pertain to establishing a CBA. If you were asking what the 40% of the owners cut goes to 'team administration', you are right. The actually take home pay of the owners would be considerably less.

 

[-OZ-]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

yes they have to pay their workers.That is all their discretion and I've never seen anything like the Pats pay their workers better than the Cards or somesuch. Players have personal trainers and financial advisors that I'm sure they pay with their salary too

Ok, I've always looked at it as management vs. players. Management here would include staff, workers, etc. Sure it's discretionary, why wouldn't it be?I understand players have their own assistants, what your point? They make plenty of $. Not the issue here.

I'd love to see a breakdown of where the $ actually goes.

 

[BigTex]

Hey Sharks,

I found this summation of the labor woes/implications/major players from the Dallas Morning News to be helpful.

Labor Impasse Implications 3/2/06

FWIW.

Mark

Good article, I like Rick.

 

[Warpig]

I'd love to see a breakdown of where the $ actually goes.

I'm sure they have it posted somewhere. However, I wouldn't totally buy into what it shows. They probably cook their books just like everyone else. No way to know for sure.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think they want at least a minimum of 60% of 'total revenue'.  I believe they were getting about 54% of 'shared revenue last season'.  Currently the owners are offering about 56.x% of 'total revenue'.

Gene Upshaw was quoted as saying "our number has to begin with a 6."

Yep. The difference between 56% and 60% is about $340 million.

Spread over 32 teams = $10.625 Million per team

$10.6M/8 years for new CBA = $1.3 Mill per year per team they are arguing aboutIf you really think this is the sticking point you are dreaming. That equates to like raising ticket prices a quarter. Or Beers a dime.

I'm not sure why you are dividing by 8 to come up with $1.3 million. The 10.6 million is a MINIMUM per year, as the salary cap has been ever expanding. With the bar set at $94.5 million this year, IIRC that is around $10 million more than last year. So the CBA were extended at the higheger percentage, low end of the scale would be . . .$10.625 million x 8 years = $85 million per team over the 8 years.

 

[BigTex]

This is reality

http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nflcut4pz.jpg

 

[Orange Crush]

Guys, I cannot believe all the doom and gloom on the NFL. If the CBA is not extended, I don't think the owners will do that poorly. Right now, some teams will have a hard time because they need to cut players because there are fewer ways to "borrow" cap dollars from future years.

After 2007, the owners can implement any system that want.

No, they absolutely cannot. Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. Otherwise they are in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws for conspiring to limit the free movement of labor. They can (and thus will) retain the rules left over from the current CBA. So all the rules that they are talking about for next year will continue unless there is a new collectively bargained agreement.All of those rules you brought up would be things I'm sure the owners would like to do, but if they try to implement just one then they will be sued in federal court, and they will lose with the judge then getting to impose his own rules. They won't risk that. And the set-up for '07 isn't disastrous for them. I think it's much worse for the players.

I know of one owner who said that he and some of the other teams were looking forward to the uncapped year because they could spend less than what they currently do. I'm curious to see if that actually takes place, but it is a possibility. Even if that doesn't happen, there are going to be very, very few players that actually benefit from these new rules.

 

[Bri]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union.

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

 

[Sammy3469]

Unlike some here, I think Upshaw holds all the cards here. Unlike some other leagues (the NBA) where the powerful agents are more powerful than the Player's Association, the NFLPA is much stronger than any one agent, plus the most powerful agent, Tom Condon of IMG, is behind (some say telling Upshaw) what to do. For the first time in awhile, Upshaw is in the position of power in dealing with the NFL and I'd bet the number will be much closer to 60% than people want to admit.

It's the NFL owners that are fractured. Jerry Jones and Snyder have vastly different revenue streams than Cincy or Indy.

 

[Orange Crush]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. 

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

Nope. Didn't miss it at all. That was part of my point. The teams can't make changes without an agreement with a certified union. The union is decertifying to make that impossible. Therefore, the first time the teams try to install a new rule, they get sued. So, in conclusion... we are stuck with the rules of this CBA and all of its poison pills until either the courts get involved, or the union decides to either remain certified (or after a prolonged period to recertify) and engage in meaningful negotiations.