This is getting rough. What is with these people? These talks are kind of like choosing between $280 million or $285 million. Hey, you have alot of money!
This is beautiful if these greedy @**holes could come to an agreement we could get 10 more mil in cap space
I think they're actually 10 million dollars off per team per year. So that means they are 320 million dollars off per year, or upwards of 2 and a half billion dollars for the life of the contract.
It was said on there that the main lawyer for the NFLPA said the negotiations were "dead as a doornail", and that it is a "sad day for the NFL". No more talks are scheduled, and Gene Upshaw is heading back to Washington.
Part of me hopes that it doesn't get done. My most hated team in the world, the Colts, would be in a world of trouble. Colts | Team could face cap penalties Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:35:33 -0800 Mike Chappell, of the Indianapolis Star, reports the Indianapolis Colts and several other teams might have a difficult time getting under the $94.5 million salary cap if there is no extension reached for the collective bargaining agreement. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said there has never been an instance where a team was over the cap. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue determines whether a team will face fine and/or forfeiture of draft picks as a penalty.
Thanks for the information. I am just saying they should come to agreement. None of them will be hurting for money after an agreement is made either way.
Uggghhhhh!!! Why cant they just solve their differences. If they dont get a deal solved. It will be bad news. Just suck up your pride and sign it for the good of the league.
The players union should just fire Upshaw. The NFL could not be more popular right now, they need to avoid any labor disaggreements at all costs.
Conflicting report from 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.
Heres the story from ESPN, doesn't sound good.. Updated: March 4, 2006, 4:22 PM ET Union not optimistic for labor deal ESPN.com news services NEW YORK -- There was at least one positive development Saturday in the NFL's labor negotiations: The two sides talked. The management negotiating team is planning on having a conference call with the owners' executive committee, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported. Sources tell Mortensen that they are not overly optimistic at this point. One source characterized it as having "less than a 50 percent chance of getting it done." Both sides apparently have a lot of concern about the revenue-sharing model. Union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, a lead negotiator for the NFLPA, said that the talks "are as dead as a doornail." Kessler told ESPN that this is "a sad day for the NFL." Kessler said there is no plan for resumption of talks, and that executive director of the NFL Players Association Gene Upshaw is on his way back to Washington, D.C. The talks that took place today from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. concluded "because the NFL is unwilling to compromise," Kessler said. Representatives from teams withheld comment, waiting to see if an agreement could be reached by midnight Sunday to avert what could be mass cuts of veterans to get under a salary cap that will be about $10 million less than anticipated. Earlier in the week, negotiations broke off and the league set the salary cap for free agency at $94.5 million. Teams with a salary load far higher than that had anticipated an agreement that could have given them extra room to keep veterans. A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period. Upshaw said after the earlier talks broke off that the NFL was offering 56.2 percent of its total revenues to the players. Upshaw has said he will not go under 60 percent. 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. "They want a bigger piece of the pie [than they had under the current deal], and I am heading back to Washington," Upshaw told Mortensen. Asked for his thoughts on the NFL management negotiating team having a conference call with the owners' executive committee to discuss the situation, Upshaw said: "We see no need to continue because they are offering a lower deal than we had in the past." As incentive to get the two sides to reach an agreement, the owners also offered the players a $10 million increase in this year's salary cap under an extension, from $94.5 million to about $105 million. That will require an adjustment in appropriations of TV revenues, but that is somewhat easily accomplished, a source told Mortensen. Without a reappropriation of those revenues, the salary cap is projected at about $100 million with an extension. The bigger obstacles involve the revenue-sharing model among owners. Low-revenue clubs want a limit on how much actual cash clubs can spend each year on their payrolls that exceed the salary cap. This was being accomplished through the prorations of signing bonuses given to players, and the union is reluctant to change any of those rules. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did send a memo to owners on Friday, telling them to set aside Tuesday for possible ratification of a new CBA, although owners have granted their eight-member executive committee the authority to sign off on any agreement reached this weekend. If an agreement is reached, it is possible the two sides could delay free agency again for a few days to allow negotiators to get a grasp on the economic model. Several management sources have confirmed that despite the show of solidarity presented on Thursday morning following an owners' meeting, if there is no CBA extension, it will be because of disagreement among owners on the principles of revenue sharing. Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners in these last-minute talks, which began Friday after the deadline for free agency was extended three days from Friday at 12:01 a.m. ET until Monday at the same time. The labor agreement, extended several times since it was agreed to in 1992, has another two years to run. But 2006 would be the last year with a salary cap. There would be no cap next year, but also many changes in the rules, including some the players find unappealing -- six years for a player to get to free agency instead of four and no minimum amount that teams have to spend.
How about the Skins having to cut 20 players, and play 20 rookies next year? Now, THAT would be funny.
The Associated Press says talks will resume again tomorrow... NEW YORK (AP) _ Talks between the NFL and its union broke off Saturday with no progress, although the sides agreed to meet again Sunday. The stalemate increased the possibility that many high-priced free agents would come on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. EST Sunday, the extended deadline for the start of free agency. ``No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night,'' NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. Union officials did not immediately return phone calls from The Associated Press. Earlier in the week, negotiations broke off and the league set the salary cap for free agency at $94.5 million. Teams with a salary load far higher than that had anticipated an agreement that could have given them extra room to keep veterans, perhaps $10 million more with a new deal. If not, it's likely a number of teams would have to make wholesale cuts, some involving big-name veterans such as Kansas City's Will Shields, Tampa Bay's Derrick Brooks and the New York Jets' Kevin Mawae and Chad Pennington. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, said after the earlier talks broke off that the NFL was offering $56.2 million of its total revenues to the players. Upshaw has said he will not go under 60 percent. But the problem involves more than that, notably a dispute among owners over revenue sharing. Low-revenue teams complain that they would have to contribute a higher percentage of the money they get from advertising, naming rights and other nontelevision and ticket revenue than big-market teams. Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners, but that isn't likely happen in these last-minute talks, which began Friday after the deadline for free agency was extended three days from Friday at 12:01 a.m. EST until Monday at the same time. The labor agreement, extended several times since it was agreed to in 1992, has another two years to run. But 2006 would be the last year with a salary cap. There would be no cap next year, but also many changes in the rules, including some the players find unappealing _ six years for a player to get to free agency instead of four and no minimum amount that teams have to spend.
Screw the ESPN idiots who report crap on a whim. How did these guys get credible? We won't know whether they're gonna reach a collective bargaining agreement until either the deadline passes or its reached or all sources agree. I'm done with this shit till something is announced.
The owners are the ones that should just get it done. The owners have a sweet deal right now. There is a salary cap and contracts are not guaranteed... The truth is when it is all said and done the owners make millions...the players make millions...the fans get screwed!! I think that each NFL team should have a 'profit cap'. If an NFL team makes more that 500 million dollars in a year (for example) , any extra profits should go back to the city in which they play. Isn't it time that the the little guy who supports this billion dollar industry get something back?? Any thoughts on such an idea??
