Deadline Looms

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by mikey, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

    Deadline Looms For NFL, Players
    Attorney: Deal 'Seems Doubtful'

    By Mark Maske
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, February 19, 2006; E01

    The NFL is headed toward a labor showdown by the end of this week barring an unlikely last-minute breakthrough in negotiations, Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw said, signaling that the labor peace that for 13 years has been a key reason for the league's success is on the verge of dissipating.

    A written message sent Friday from a union attorney to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said it "seems doubtful" that team owners and players will be able to settle on an extension of their collective bargaining agreement beyond next season. Upshaw, who has worked closely with Tagliabue for years to avoid the sort of labor strife that has affected other professional sports leagues, said in a telephone interview that the union now is ready for a fight.

    "The closer we get to the deadline the more pessimistic I am that anything will happen," Upshaw said. The owners "don't seem to believe we're willing to take it all the way. . . . But we are."

    Upshaw said he regards the end of this week as the deadline for a labor deal and he has little hope that scheduled bargaining sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday will produce movement toward a settlement. He plans to address players' agents in two groups this week in Indianapolis, the site of the NFL scouting combine.

    The current labor deal leaves the NFL's 13-year-old salary cap system in place through the 2006 season. A failure to agree to an extension of the deal would leave the sport without a salary cap in 2007 -- and perhaps beyond. Upshaw has said the players will not allow a salary cap to return if they play a season without one.

    The salary cap sets an annual ceiling on the amount each team can spend on players. Next season's cap is projected to be between $92 million and $95 million per team. Without one, wealthier teams such as the Washington Redskins could spend whatever they wished on players, but people on the management side maintain that certain changes that would come with a season without a salary cap -- such as players needing six seasons of experience, instead of four, to be eligible for unrestricted free agency -- might keep it from being the bonanza for players' salaries that Upshaw and the players envision.

    The labor impasse already is wreaking havoc on teams' planning for the March 3 opening of the free agent market, since it is effectively leaving teams with less wiggle room under the 2006 salary cap.

    With league revenues burgeoning after the completion of a new set of national television contracts worth almost $4 billion per season, Upshaw has been seeking to expand the pool of revenues from which the players are paid. But the two sides remain unable to agree on what percentage of the expanded revenue pool the players should receive.

    In a related issue that is complicating talks with the union, the 32 owners have been unable to agree to a system to increase the amount of locally generated revenues that they would share. Several teams, including the Redskins, in recent years have expanded the revenues they generate on their own, outside the shared revenue stream each team receives collectively, primarily through network television contracts and leaguewide marketing deals. The owners' deliberations have become so combative, Upshaw said, that he has been told nine of the wealthiest teams have banded together and are threatening to sue if the clubs have a revised revenue-sharing system forced upon them. The Redskins, who generate the highest revenues in the league, would be among that group of nine.

    Owners of lower-revenue teams say that if no plan for bolstered revenue-sharing is put in place, football will become, like baseball, a sport of have and have-not clubs in which only a handful of wealthier franchises will have realistic championship aspirations.

    The labor stalemate also impacts planned stadium construction. Upshaw said the players will stop participating in a stadium-loan program that they fund in cooperation with the league if there are no labor and revenue-sharing deals. The teams planning new stadiums include the Dallas Cowboys, Indianapolis Colts and the New York Jets and Giants.

    Upshaw previously has said he would, if there's no deal, recommend to the players at a March 9 executive board meeting that they begin the process of decertifying the union, a tactic that would seek to eliminate the possibility of a lockout by the owners. It also could lead to the players going to antitrust court to challenge any new system imposed by the owners.

    Upshaw and Tagliabue skipped the Pro Bowl in Hawaii last week to return to the East Coast after the Super Bowl and resume the labor deliberations, but Upshaw said there has been no progress.

    A letter written by union attorney James Quinn, delivered by e-mail Friday to Tagliabue and Harold Henderson, the league's chief labor executive, said that "we are rapidly approaching the next league year and our ability to get a deal done in this short time frame seems doubtful. Gene, Jeff [Kessler, another union attorney] and I are particularly concerned that so little progress has been made on the core economic issues that we have been discussing for nearly two years."

    In the e-mail, Quinn identified the "three bedrock issues" in the negotiations as the salary cap, revenue sharing and the stadium loan program. He wrote that "in order for us to continue any form of salary cap, the players must obtain a significant increase (both in dollars and percentage) in our overall share of total league revenues." On the revenue-sharing issue, Quinn said that the union has "repeatedly made clear that we will not agree to any form of salary cap that does not deal with the 'free-rider effect' which unfairly benefits a handful of high-revenue clubs."

    Upshaw has said that some owners of the league's wealthiest franchises aren't devoting a fair portion of their revenues to players' salaries. He has exempted the Redskins' Daniel Snyder, whose team generates the league's highest revenues but also usually has one of the NFL's heftiest player payrolls.

    The teams share their national revenues equally, but the success of the Redskins and some other clubs in increasing streams of unshared local revenues has led to a fractious internal debate in which the less-prosperous franchises are seeking to have more of those revenues shared.

    "There's a lot of infighting on their side," Upshaw said. "They don't believe they're going to have to do this, but that's the only way the low-revenue clubs can afford their commitment to us. My understanding is that there's a group of nine [wealthy teams] that's saying, 'If you force us into more revenue sharing, we'll sue you.' "

    Of the stadium loan program, Quinn wrote that "the players are prepared to continue the . . . program in a form that makes sense to both sides" but it must come within the context of a bolstered revenue-sharing deal. Upshaw said the union will not contribute to any future stadium projects if there aren't labor and revenue-sharing deals in place. An NFL spokesman said yesterday the league had no response.

    All of the uncertainty is creating extra work and additional worries for those people in charge of running teams.

    "Right now we're operating with a Plan A and a Plan B," Baltimore Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome said. "We have both of them ready to go. That's all you can do. We've never faced a year like this since I've been on this side of the fence. We've never been where it went down to the 11th hour like this not knowing what the system is going to be."
  2. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Good find, mikey ... good post.

    It is becoming clear that the players' union holds a weak hand. The "nine wealthy clubs", on the other hand, are driving.

    I see Upshaw getting ready to submit. To give him some cover with his constituents, the Nine will consent to some fig-leaf of a concession. Upshaw can trumpet that as his vindication ... and a new deal flies out of the word processor. A deal involving slight expansions of Designated Revenues and percentage to the cap pool.

  3. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks Supporter Supporter

    I agree. WTH does Upshaw think the players on low revenue teams will earn without a cap and revenue sharing? And without a CBA the NFL can't have either.

    Posturing. BTW we were the third highest actual payroll in the league last year and unlike Gene's friend Dan Snyder we managed to be that without screwing up our cap into the next millenium. The league couldn't operate nearly as successfully without good and smart owners like Kraft. WTF does Upshaw think hammered out the new mega TV deal, Irsay and Bidwell?
  4. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    A different story emanating from Washington ... the article JR4 linked in his thread on the coming smashup of the Redskins roster ... has an entirely different slant:

    <LI>There is talk making its way through the league that the NFL and the players association are close to agreeing on a new collective bargaining agreement. There has been steady progress the past week, giving hope to both sides. The NFL has called a special owners meeting for next week in Dallas. All the doom and gloom of the past year regarding a potential agreement has suddenly been replaced by optimism.

    "There has been some good talks this week," said a league source. One issue that seemed to be clouding the talks was the improved revenue sharing between high- and low-revenue teams. But the word is the owners will wait until after a getting an agreement with the NFLPA before worrying about that problem.

    The players want a higher percentage of the total revenue, which is believed to be one point that the two sides are close to agreeing on. Don't be shocked to see a new agreement in place in the next week. If that happens, the free-agency period should begin March 3 as planned. With no agreement, the opening of the free-agency period could get pushed back to April.
  5. pats60

    pats60 On the Game Day Roster

    #12 Jersey

    don`t know who to believe
  6. oldrover

    oldrover 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    #50 Jersey

    Me either. I'm waiting til it shakes out one way or the other. Pats would be OK under a cap-less system, just less profitable. IMHO.
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Agreed, Why does the CBA expiring mean RFA's for 6 years instead of 4? Is there some other, SUPER CBA that's still in effect that dictates this?
  8. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    I think an agreement will be made..the players and Upshaw have a LOT MORE to lose than the of the things that will be gone will be a minimum...and do you NOT think some teams will push that down?? Upshaw is just trying to throw out smoke here..making a deadline of this week as the deadline? posturing BIG time...decertify the union and see how fast football falls..If he really believes the players have a trump card..they don't..and all will be lost..
  9. OldEnglandPatriot

    OldEnglandPatriot On the Game Day Roster

    Out of interest, how concerned are you about the possible loss of the salary cap? Personally, regardless of the Patriots prospects without one, I hate the idea.

    I love what the NFL has become with the salary cap; the extra level of strategy and discussion it provides, and the way that success on the field becomes a function of careful management and good coaching rather than a bottomless pit of money.
  10. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up Supporter

    100% Agree. Greed on both sides will probably ruin a good thing unless
    all concerned are willing to compromise their positions to some extent.
  11. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Totally agree...that is the one thing that makes the NFL better than the other leagues..they get it!! It is competitive and much more balanced than any of the others..without a cap and a will be chaos..if greed rules..and blows may be the worst days of the NFL...
  12. jimleehunt

    jimleehunt Rookie

    the current nfl system has a lot to do with why the nfl is by far the most popular sport in the usa. i agree with everyone that losing the cap(which WONT happen) would be a bad thing for the sport. it would probably be a GOOD thing for the Pats, tho. why? well, look at mlb. if you have no cap-yes, only a small % of the teams who have $(Pats are included in this group), could compete effectively. but JUST having $ doesnt guarantee success-when's the last time the yankees won a WS? can you imagine how badly kraft and the pats braintrust would abuse the dan snyders of the nfl when those would be the only teams wed have to compete with? you need money AND the smarts and the people who know how to use it wisely. no team in the nfl does that better than the pats. funny thing is, it would be the PLAYERS who would be screwed worse than anyone if there were no cap. yes, the top 2% of nfl players, the pro-bowlers, would be making a lot more money-but everyone else would make far less.

Share This Page