Hot CBA - dead as a doornail

[JR4]

NFL | Talks between NFL and NFLPA break off again
Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:57:04 -0800

ESPNews reports the NFL and NFLPA have broken off talks once again regarding a new CBA. Union executive director Gene Upshaw is reportedly headed back to Washington and sources have noted the deal is "dead as a doornail."

Hot CBA - dead as a doornail

 

[Pats726]

Dead talks...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233
There goes Gene leaving on a plane...is that the 3rd of 4th time?? I hope he goes on a plane and NEVER returns..the players ought to oust his butt while he is gone..players are stupid if they allow this bozo to continue.. I'd be sure it was a one way tiicket..let it happen guys....I will have ZERO sympathy for any players squaking now..they let an idiot like Upshaw run things..so...to heck with any player complaints..they are all stupid..let it burn..NOW!!

 

[Willie55]

They have to think about 401K's and health insurance. According to Paul Perillo from Patriots Football Weekly, who was on EEI today, said that the current employer to employee contribution to their 401K is 2 to 1. That is huge. That right there they have alot to lose.

 

[Pats726]

They have to think about 401K's and health insurance. According to Paul Perillo from Patriots Football Weekly, who was on EEI today, said that the current employer to employee contribution to their 401K is 2 to 1. That is huge. That right there they have alot to lose.

With the uncapped year players will have a LOT to think about...Upshaw doesn't care at all..which is why it is so galling that he keeps leaving..his butt isn't going to suffer if an agreement doesn't go through..but he WILL go down as a total fool!!!

 

[Mainefan]

Another theory, one that joins the two threads on this subject:

1. Upshaw and Taglibue have reached an agreement
2. Upshaw has left NY, his job finished
3. Tagliabue has a day to sell the agreement to the owners
4. We won't know until sometime tomorrow if he succeeds.

 

[Pats726]

Another theory, one that joins the two threads on this subject:

1. Upshaw and Taglibue have reached an agreement
2. Upshaw has left NY, his job finished
3. Tagliabue has a day to sell the agreement to the owners
4. We won't know until sometime tomorrow if he succeeds.

That is interesting..but why would Upshaw leave?? WHy give the impression its deadlocked when it isn't?? AND what happens if Tags can't sell it to the owners..an extension because Upshaw is away?? OR is it dead in the water??
That seems optimistic..but I just think these clowns do NOT get it..I really doubt Upshaws job is done until it is signed sealed and delivered..and he's NOT there for that..Knowing Upshaw, I would think he'd want his face there IF it was going to be signed..for SURE!!

 

[hwc]

With the uncapped year players will have a LOT to think about...

The players don't care one iota about any of this. They just follow like sheep to what their agents are telling them. And Upshaw is doing a great job negotiating for the NFL Agents Association he represents.

BTW, I have come to believe that there are enough owners who are so sick of teams abusing the cap system and never paying the piper that there has never been any chance of a CBA until after the bloodshed of Bloody Thursday (or Bloody Sunday) is complete. The idea of handing a "get out of Jail free card" to Snyder and Polian and a few others is enough to make half of the ownership vomit in their mouths. Ask yourself, why would owners who are so concerned about "cash over cap" want to save the biggest cap backloaders from having to decimate their rosters this weekend when they have managed their own teams prudently enough to be under the cap right now -- a cap that increased $10 million over last year?

 

[SCPatBoy]

The Union's lawyer was ESPN and said that this whole situation would hurt the owners terribly and that the Players would fair better. I find that hard to believe. I think the top 20% players would get good compensation under a no cap scenario, the other 80% however would suffer in my opinion. I just can't find it in my buisness mind to feel bad for these lower revenue teams who want some of the higher revenue teams like the Patriots to basically give them some of there hard earned money. I mean Kraft deserves to make more of the Pats for the chances he took and smart buisness moves. It is crazy to even think they want him to come off of that money without taking into consideration his liabilities and debts.

 

[JR4]

The players don't care one iota about any of this. They just follow like sheep to what their agents are telling them. And Upshaw is doing a great job negotiating for the NFL Agents Association he represents.

BTW, I have come to believe that there are enough owners who are so sick of teams abusing the cap system and never paying the piper that there has never been any chance of a CBA until after the bloodshed of Bloody Thursday (or Bloody Sunday) is complete. The idea of handing a "get out of Jail free card" to Snyder and Polian and a few others is enough to make half of the ownership vomit in their mouths. Ask yourself, why would owners who are so concerned about "cash over cap" want to save the biggest cap backloaders from having to decimate their rosters this weekend when they have managed their own teams prudently enough to be under the cap right now -- a cap that increased $10 million over last year?

Good thought ... I hope you are right.

 

[fgssand]

CBA - Might it be better for the Patriots to NOT have it done??

If the agreement is signed, all teams get their 104-110MM cap to spend to. All teams will then have money to sign their own or go after other free agents. I realize in the long run for players such as Branch, Seymour, Koppen and others we need the dollars. However, in the short term, since I really believe that at least 5 of our 16 or so free agents are really good players, would it favor us if the deal is not signed? That way the amount of teams that have money to sign free agents is greatly reduced. Also, the teams that do have money are going to have their pick of the litter. It appears that without the higher cap, many more FA's will be added to the pool for the teams with money to go after. Our FA's may slip through hence reducing the deals they could make if teams did have money.

My point and question to everyone is: Do we stand a better chance of keeping AV, Willie Mcg (with a restructure), Neal and maybe even Givens if there is no new agreement??

The NFL will go on and there will be football. Let the greedy SOB's prey upon each other for a while. There is nothing to say that a new CBA cannot be agreed upon sometime next year or even after next season. At some point the NFL and the players will decide they need to get things under control. Maybe the poison pills need too inflict some of the pain they were intended before that can happen.

 

[Murphys95]

The Union's lawyer was ESPN and said that this whole situation would hurt the owners terribly and that the Players would fair better. I find that hard to believe. I think the top 20% players would get good compensation under a no cap scenario, the other 80% however would suffer in my opinion. I just can't find it in my buisness mind to feel bad for these lower revenue teams who want some of the higher revenue teams like the Patriots to basically give them some of there hard earned money. I mean Kraft deserves to make more of the Pats for the chances he took and smart buisness moves. It is crazy to even think they want him to come off of that money without taking into consideration his liabilities and debts.

Saw that. My jaw dropped when the NFLPA's attorney said the offer by the owner's was "unfair".

Unfair? Gimme an f'n break.

 

[PatsSteve1]

IMO, if the owners agreed to a new revenue sharing plan, getting a CBA extension would be easy. This explains why that hasn't happened and why it's complicated, so even many here might even understand it. Maybe not -

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

I've been reading about this story for over a year and what the issue's are. The NFL has had success because the teams were pretty much on an even playing field so they all could financially field competitive teams. Now some teams have so much more money, they actually can pay out more money each year than other teams in real money, yet still stay under the cap. Even Tags and the owners have agreed the player should get a bigger slice of the pie. But, what's going to make up the pie? Because the different owners money situations are so wildy different, I have no idea how they come up with a plan that will lead to parity on the field. The cap this year will still go up about 10 mill from last year and they could still get an extension before next year's uncapped year. It's really not panic time yet.

 

[Pats726]

It's funny about these so called "poor" teams that can't compete..Theowners are sitting of profits and they want even MORE money for doing zip..Case in point is Cinci..They keep saying how poor they are and yet have larger profits than one can imagine. Don't be fooled be looking at revenue ONLY. That is money coming in..but that is only larger if the other sides (expenses) is the same. These so called "small city" owners have so much less in the expense category..so that margin is not the same. Maybe the NFL should look at the profits and differentials instead of just gross revenue. Another case in point is that Breen Bay, the smallest city of any pro sports team is in the top 1o in revenue. Blows that argument off the table. These poor teams are now holding up the agreement and they will be screwed with uncapped years...so in a sense their stand will be their downfall. If they don't want what is offered now..the future will only be worse for thm in the future.

 

[hwc]

I think we may be missing the real point. IMO, the issue really does revolve around "cash over cap". Here's why:

a) There is a significant block of owners who are sick of owners like Snyder paying huge, irresponsible bonuses (a ton of cash over cap) and never having the teeth in the salary cap to penalize him. A cap that increases every year bails him out.

b) Upshaw and the agents union loves cash over cap. That's what fuels the big bonus payments and hence the big commissions to the agents. They love the fact that there are enough Synder's out there to bid up the price on any stiff that comes along, even if it screws up sensible cap management for the entire league.

See the inherent conflict?

Now, think about this. Most of the NFL teams are under the cap right now. Not necessarily comfortably, but they've managed their teams to live with a $94.5 million cap -- a whopping $10 million increase over last year. Guess which owners can't survive this $94.5 million cap? Yep...the guys who have been abusing cash over cap without penalty. Doing a new CBA before tomorrow is a get out of jail free card for the very behavior that the majority of the team owners would like to curtail. IMO, there are enough owners who would rather see Bloody Sunday that doing a deal this weekend is impossible.

Understand that Snyder is so screwed by the whopping $94.5 million cap that he probably can't get under it just by cutting players. Understand that the Colts are so screwed that they are thinking about suing rather than complying with the cap. Meanwhile, the other owners have watched the price of fee agents driven up by the big cash over cap teams because they were trying to maintain a position where they could survive this year without a CBA. Do you think they look at Reggie Wayne's contract this week and think, "Yeah, we should give Polian a get out of jail free card for paying a #2 WR that kind of money while we are releasing guys we love to get under the cap." Do you think Robert Kraft (with David Givens as a free agent) is happy about Polian making his #2 WR the third highest player at his position in the NFL and then having the gall to threaten litigation because he can't get under the cap?

 

[Joker]

I can't help but think of Snyder as that weasel biographer in Unforgiven...."who was first in the order?...I don't rightly know...but I can tell you who'll be last...." as William Munny loads the shotgun at the bar

 

[PatsSteve1]

I've read that every NFL team got about 85 million from the TV deal. Which really is for doing nothing. Just handed to them.

 

[BelichickFan]

I've read that every NFL team got about 85 million from the TV deal. Which really is for doing nothing. Just handed to them.

And we all pay for it. The TV money comes from advertisers who have to charge us more money for everything we buy to pay for their expensive commercials.

 

[Willie55]

I think we may be missing the real point. IMO, the issue really does revolve around "cash over cap". Here's why:

a) There is a significant block of owners who are sick of owners like Snyder paying huge, irresponsible bonuses (a ton of cash over cap) and never having the teeth in the salary cap to penalize him. A cap that increases every year bails him out.

b) Upshaw and the agents union loves cash over cap. That's what fuels the big bonus payments and hence the big commissions to the agents. They love the fact that there are enough Synder's out there to bid up the price on any stiff that comes along, even if it screws up sensible cap management for the entire league.

See the inherent conflict?

Now, think about this. Most of the NFL teams are under the cap right now. Not necessarily comfortably, but they've managed their teams to live with a $94.5 million cap -- a whopping $10 million increase over last year. Guess which owners can't survive this $94.5 million cap? Yep...the guys who have been abusing cash over cap without penalty. Doing a new CBA before tomorrow is a get out of jail free card for the very behavior that the majority of the team owners would like to curtail. IMO, there are enough owners who would rather see Bloody Sunday that doing a deal this weekend is impossible.

Understand that Snyder is so screwed by the whopping $94.5 million cap that he probably can't get under it just by cutting players. Understand that the Colts are so screwed that they are thinking about suing rather than complying with the cap. Meanwhile, the other owners have watched the price of fee agents driven up by the big cash over cap teams because they were trying to maintain a position where they could survive this year without a CBA. Do you think they look at Reggie Wayne's contract this week and think, "Yeah, we should give Polian a get out of jail free card for paying a #2 WR that kind of money while we are releasing guys we love to get under the cap." Do you think Robert Kraft (with David Givens as a free agent) is happy about Polian making his #2 WR the third highest player at his position in the NFL and then having the gall to threaten litigation because he can't get under the cap?

Trying to understand what you're saying - cash over cap - are you talking about future years? Isn't the salary cap set just prior to every league year? If so, how would they know how much to spend on future years?

 

[arrellbee]

Remember - a change in revenue sharing is NOT an issue or necessary at ALL - if the NFLPA accepts the current offer of 56.2 percent. That deal is ALREADY signed off and approved by the owners WITHOUT ANY changes in revenue sharing.

It is hard to stomach the use of the word 'unfair' by the PA - in fact it is impossible.

Perhaps some numbers can give a perspective on what the owners are offering versus what the players want.

For history, the players pie per team was:
2001 67.4M
2002 71.1M
2003 75.0M
2004 80.6M
2005 85.5M

2006 94.5M under pretty much the same percentage cut to the players under the current CBA.

So this year, they get a 10.5% raise under the current CBA.
For the 5 years from 2001 to 2006 they got a 40.2% raise.

So what, if the figures being mentioned in the media are somewhat correct, are the owners offering for the new CBA ? The number that Felger mentions is 105M.

So what that means is that the owners offer of 56.2 percent of the redefined revenue pie is offering the players 12% MORE of the pie than they are getting under the current CBA. Apparently that's not considered to be a very fair offer on top of the 10.5% the players are already getting this year. Obviously VERY unfair.

In perspective, if the players accepted the new CBA at 56.2% they would be getting a 22.8% raise this year. And from 2001 numbers it would be a total of 55.8% raise. Geeeesh.

Upshaw's MINIMUM 60% number would give a salary cap of, I guess, 112M. So that would be a raise this year of 31% or a total raise since 2001 of 66.2%. I guess that's the minimum to be 'fair'.

In addition, you have to step back and think about the fact that the huge growth in the NFL overall revenues has come without a RED CENT from the players. They have just sat back and skimmed their share of the cream while the owners risked their money, borrowed capital, spent their efforts and their money from THEIR share to promote the league, invest in new facilities, and generally increase the revenues. The players got a totally free ride and now complain that they are not getting their 'fair' share. Anybody remember the fable of the Little Red Hen ? The players over the last 5 years haven't even been any more of a fan attraction than the players in the years before that. You could even say that, with all of the bad acting and team hopping for the biggest buck of modern players, that the players of yore were more of a fan attraction.

There is one possibility where you could say the players 'did their fair share'. That would be if the percent of revenues they agreed to take in the last CBA was low enough that it left extra profit so the owners had a high enough return on their investment that they had enough money or could justify loans that they invested and used to increase the revenues. The flip side would be that the salaries were such a huge chunk of the revenue that the owners HAD to spend energy and money to increase revenues to the point where they could get a reasonable return on their investment and have about now gotten to that point and now the players want even more.

It has been impossible for us to know which of these two possibilities is the case - and what the finances of the owners really were as far as being a reasonable business. But guess what - we are now probably going to be able to tell which it was and is !! It's simple. If the deal is a good enough one for the owners and they can get a reasonable return on their investment by agreeing to something up to Upshaw's 60 percent demand, then the owners will go ahead and approve it. It makes their life predictable and orderly and relatively controlled. If Upshaw's demand is an unreasonable reach beyond what would the owners can afford, they'll let the CBA expire and spend what they want to on salaries and deal as best they can with the disparity in competitive level.

The revenue sharing is a non-issue and total red-herring - a fantasy of Upshaw that he thinks will somehow magically make it likely that the owners will give him the larger cut of the pie. Additional revenue sharing does NOT at this juncture increase the overall revenue. It just spreads it around a little but doesn't change whether the owners get enough money to make sense of their business as a league. And apparently the owners who have spent the most effort and money to increase their revenues feel that the small market teams aren't using enough effort to increase their contribution to revenues AND it looks like the high revenue teams see little or no additional advantage in terms of the overall competition as far as creating additional revenue, especially enough to justify sharing more of their revenue. If that is the case, they might as well use their money to build dominant rosters and try for Superbowl wins.

It will be interesting. We'll get a good idea of the answer within the next 24 hours.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Seems to me ... that hwc sees some of these issues clearer than anyone i hear on ESPN ... or read at espn.com.