Progress on the CBA? - New England Patriots Forums

JoeSixPat · 02-16-2006, 05:47 PM

I'm not sure if this was broached in the all too long "Kraft Benching the NFL" thread but there appears to be some progress on the CBA if this report is to be believed.

Though it seems to me that the definition of Defined Gross Revenues is much easier than agreeing how much should go to player salaries - let alone how the team owners will share such revenues among themsleves.

So this still looks like a pretty steep hill to climb to me - a three way tug of war

- the players who are simply looking for more money and don't really care where it comes from,
- the owners who financed their own stadiums and projects and depend on team revenues to finance their projects,
- and those owners who expect the public to finance their teams while ALSO getting a share of the revenues earned by other team owners (Aid to Families with Dependent NFL Owners)

Looks like a mess in the works to me, so I hope the optimism of this article is true

Quote:

Originally Posted by profootballtalk.com

CBA DEAL COMING?

As the hand wringing begins regarding the absence of a new CBA, we're hearing quiet but clear indications of growing optimism that a new deal will be done in the near future.

Per a league source, the NFL and the NFLPA have reached an agreement regarding the contents of so-called "Defined Gross Revenues," which provides the basis for determining the total team-by-team salary cap.

The thrust of the negotiations at this point, we're told, is the specific percentage of the DGR that will be earmarked for player salaries.

Also, a source tells us that the negotiations aimed at ironing out player compensation are proceeding even though no agreement has been reached among owners regarding the local revenues that the NFL franchises don't share. If, as we assume, the new DGR formula includes some of the unshared revenues and if the owners don't agree to expand their current practice of cutting up 32 equal pieces of Ben Franklin pie, teams with lower revenues will end up with an inflated salary cap due to the fact that teams with higher revenues will help to push the number for everyone up. Likewise, teams with the higher local revenues will enjoy a salary maximum that is nudged lower down by the revenues of the other teams.

And that's why, as we've previously explained, the real focus of the talks should be the minimum team salary, not the maximum. Absent expanded revenue sharing, franchises with lower total revenues might choose to implement their own artificial player spending limit in order to enhance, or preserve, the total margin. To guard against abuses in that regard, the NFLPA needs to insist on pushing the spending floor as high as possible.

***PATSNUTme*** · 02-16-2006, 06:07 PM

Not great news but good news.

In the end, I really don't care what they finally agree to as long as the greatest game on earth continues to be played.

oldrover · 02-16-2006, 06:19 PM

Don't care about progress. Only a final deal.

groundgame · 02-16-2006, 10:21 PM

After Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft were recently savaged (painted as incredibly greedy owners for not volunteering up their earned money in a give-away to other owners) in an editorial by Pro Football Weekly editor Hub Arkrush, do any other national media types mention the fact that the Patriots are already subsidizing/supporting a majority of NFL franchises by way of sharing their existing revenue stream which boasts the NFL's highest ticket prices per seat for Gillette Stadium's estimated 62,500 non-luxury box seats?