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.
What's your prediction on the owners meeting? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JaxBill
- Start date
It'll be interesting Jax. That's for sure. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.Tags is likely winding down his career. Ensuring a solid labor situation for the forseeable future would be a great cap to his tenure as commish.
I don't claim to know the personalities but I'd have to think some of the small market guys like Mr. Rooney being respected would help. I'd be sort of surprised if the rich guys like Jones and Snyder really carried as much weight as they'd like to let on. There's some truth to Jones' comment about nobody caring whether he's happy.
It's probably a loss for the small market guys that Mr. Mara isn't there anymore but maybe not depending on how the Giants lean now on the sharing issue.
It's a fascinating experiment to see how much greed influences the greater good of the bigger being.
This is a real life "Golden Goose" scenario being played out right in front of us.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I think the real problem here is the "Gang of Nine" could in fact be the majority voice in a 32-team league. If the 9 "haves" band together, no matter what the other 23 owners do won't make a difference, and that's an issue all on its own.
fatness
Footballguy
From what I've read there are 2 different blocs of owners (or gangs of 9) ---- one of the "big money" teams and one of the "small market" teams. The latter group would be the ones most likely to want to hold down player salaries, unless they get some revenue from the "big money" teams without strings. The "big money" teams are only likely to subsidize the "small market" teams if they get some say in their business affairs. If neither side gives, there's no revenue sharing, and no CBA. I doubt they'll work it out by tomorrow. They should have started working this out a year or 2 ago. Some fundamental business understandings have to shift for their to be a revenue-sharing agreement among the owners, and those guys don't change their minds easily or quickly.
The ones hurt the most by not coming to an agreement will be the "small market" teams in the long run. No CBA means steadily rising salaries.
The ones hurt the most by not coming to an agreement will be the "small market" teams in the long run. No CBA means steadily rising salaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigJim®
Footballguy
I'd love to see it get done, but I doubt it will at this rate. As I mentioned in a different thread, nobody on the owners' side can possibly be respecting the urgency of this when they've gotten the NFLPA to agree to 2 extensions already. Agreeing to extend was the only way the NFLPA could keep its objectives alive without falling into a $94M cap, something that would have been horrible for veterans and a serious blow to NFLPA leadership. However, because they haven't been forced into a hard decision yet, my guess is the owners are eventually going "play deadlocked" one too many times and the NFLPA will surprisingly decide not to allow another extension. Bad for the NFLPA, who was probably asking for too much and accomplished nothing. Also bad for owners, who could have lived with NFLPA demands, and now they have 2 years of utter uncertainly to manage as a result of dogmatic (or just plan bad faith lazy) approach to negotiations.
Owners likely to vote on March 8
NFL.com wire reports
GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 7, 2006) -- What is supposed to be the absolutely, positively final meeting to solve the NFL's labor problems began with owners trying to decide whether to accept the union's latest proposal.
A decision on whether to extend the collective bargaining agreement was unlikely to come down until March 8, close to the latest deadline of 8 p.m. ET. It'll take that long for the owners to resolve their differences over internal revenue sharing, the most divisive issue facing them. If they don't get that straight, a deal is unlikely.
Much of the early hours of the meeting was spent simply listening to commissioner Paul Tagliabue go through details of the union's proposal. Then Tagliabue outlined revenue sharing, but there was no discussion before the owners broke for dinner.
"We haven't punched anybody yet," said Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney, who described Tagliabue's remarks as "Excellent. Super."
"He described how the owners and players should be in this together for the good of the league," added Rooney, who has helped to solve past labor disputes.
League spokesman Joe Browne said Tagliabue had agreed with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, that the owners would have a decision no later than 8 p.m. ET on March 8. That would come as the union, which is meeting in Hawaii, holds its executive board session.
There seemed to be some hope they would reach an agreement that would extend the contract that runs out after the 2007 season. It came from Dallas owner Jerry Jones, who is 180 degrees away from Wilson on sharing, but suggested for the first time that he might have to give in a bit to let the owners solve their dispute.
"We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.
"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."
Finding a solution now is critical because free agency, pushed back twice, is scheduled to start March 9 with a $94.5 million salary cap that could go as much as $10 million higher if there is an extension. And although both sides have agreed there will be no more extensions there would be one more if there is an agreement -- until 12:01 a.m. on March 10 to give teams time to get everything in order.
If there is no settlement, then 2007 would have no salary cap and create the kind of uncertainty that neither side really wants.
Revenue sharing hasn't been dealt with during the negotiations, even though Upshaw has contended all along that no agreement can be reached without it.
If nothing else, the tone of the owners was far different at this meeting than March 2 in New York, when they took only 57 minutes to reject the union proposal. Later that day, they extended the deadline for free agency for three days and extended again March 5 just as it seemed talks had broken off.
That led to this meeting and the discussion over revenue sharing, which will be necessary to meet the union's proposal for slightly under 60 percent of the league's total revenues.
Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights. Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.
If there is no agreement, it would leave a number of free agents commanding far less than they thought they could get and a glutted market filled with veterans who could be cut to provide cap room.
AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service
NFL.com wire reports
GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 7, 2006) -- What is supposed to be the absolutely, positively final meeting to solve the NFL's labor problems began with owners trying to decide whether to accept the union's latest proposal.
A decision on whether to extend the collective bargaining agreement was unlikely to come down until March 8, close to the latest deadline of 8 p.m. ET. It'll take that long for the owners to resolve their differences over internal revenue sharing, the most divisive issue facing them. If they don't get that straight, a deal is unlikely.
Much of the early hours of the meeting was spent simply listening to commissioner Paul Tagliabue go through details of the union's proposal. Then Tagliabue outlined revenue sharing, but there was no discussion before the owners broke for dinner.
"We haven't punched anybody yet," said Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney, who described Tagliabue's remarks as "Excellent. Super."
"He described how the owners and players should be in this together for the good of the league," added Rooney, who has helped to solve past labor disputes.
League spokesman Joe Browne said Tagliabue had agreed with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, that the owners would have a decision no later than 8 p.m. ET on March 8. That would come as the union, which is meeting in Hawaii, holds its executive board session.
There seemed to be some hope they would reach an agreement that would extend the contract that runs out after the 2007 season. It came from Dallas owner Jerry Jones, who is 180 degrees away from Wilson on sharing, but suggested for the first time that he might have to give in a bit to let the owners solve their dispute.
"We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.
"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."
Finding a solution now is critical because free agency, pushed back twice, is scheduled to start March 9 with a $94.5 million salary cap that could go as much as $10 million higher if there is an extension. And although both sides have agreed there will be no more extensions there would be one more if there is an agreement -- until 12:01 a.m. on March 10 to give teams time to get everything in order.
If there is no settlement, then 2007 would have no salary cap and create the kind of uncertainty that neither side really wants.
Revenue sharing hasn't been dealt with during the negotiations, even though Upshaw has contended all along that no agreement can be reached without it.
If nothing else, the tone of the owners was far different at this meeting than March 2 in New York, when they took only 57 minutes to reject the union proposal. Later that day, they extended the deadline for free agency for three days and extended again March 5 just as it seemed talks had broken off.
That led to this meeting and the discussion over revenue sharing, which will be necessary to meet the union's proposal for slightly under 60 percent of the league's total revenues.
Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights. Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.
If there is no agreement, it would leave a number of free agents commanding far less than they thought they could get and a glutted market filled with veterans who could be cut to provide cap room.
AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service
DoctorDetroit
Chocolate Thunder
I see this happening as well. I do think that this plays into the hands of the NFLPA and that they should use it to milk whatever they can out of the conflict between the owners. And you're right it's bad for everyone if they have come this far and really are closer than even we may know, just to let this thing fall apart.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
