Welcome to PatsFans.com

Tentative Deal Reached

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PatsSteve1, Mar 6, 2006.

  1. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    What a crazy day. I was home all day doing home stuff so I was following the reports all day. ESPN's Chris Mortensen now says there has been a deal reached. The NFLPA gave the league a proposal and the NFL countered. The NFLPA rejected it and decided a deal wasn't possible and left. Then later, the NFL contacted the NFLPA and said they'd take thier last offer. The NFL, or Tags, is going to take that offer to the owners meeting this week and do some arm twisting which I'm sure will include trying to agree on a new revenue sharing agreement. Good luck. The tentative deal is for 59.5% of total revenue, whatever that is -:)
  2. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Thanks, PS1 !

    Some of us having been enjoying these twists and turns for entire days now.

    While i don't believe this report either ... it is a pleasant note on which to say, GoodNight!

  3. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  4. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  5. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    If you aren't misquoting Mort and he knows what he's talking about at least Upshaw would have finally uttered a percentage that doesn't start with a 6. But from what I understand the have nots also have a block of voters who have sworn not to accept any deal above the 56.5% in the last NFL proposal without either expanded revenue sharing - which the gang of 9 block won't agree to - or a single digit hard cap on cash over cap - which the union won't agree to.

    I wonder what the over under is on minutes in before they vote no at the Tuesday owners meeting?
  6. hwc

    hwc On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    110
    Ratings:
    +241 / 5 / -2

    I figure this is good for at least three more cycles of "she loves me, she loves me not" before Wednesday dinner time when talks break off "for good this time". Then, around 9:00 pm, somebody who was just called a liar and a cheat on national TV will fax a "new proposal" and the two sides will agree to delay free agency until Friday.

    Basically, you've got two sides with their chests all puffed up like big tough guys, but neither side has the balls to actually pull the trigger on anything. Kinda like watching Pomeranians fight. Lotta annoying yapping and not much action.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2006
  7. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    If Mr. Tagliabue can pull this off, he deserves to go to the Hall of Fame.


    .
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,421
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -26

    This whole thing is getting way to dramatic for me, put them all on some island close the doors, turn off the phones and come up with a plan. Too much info is leaking, or perhaps this is the way of the NFL to generate interest in the usual bleak February??
  9. groundgame

    groundgame Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    992
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Kraft Most Outspoken Opponent of Latest CBA Revenue Model

    ESPN.... "That formula could be the subject of major debate during Tuesday's owner meetings in Dallas between low- and high-revenue clubs. Sources say New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has emerged as the most vocal high-revenue franchise that is a strong dissenter to a new revenue sharing model..."
    See Story below:
    NFL, union agree to delay free agency 72 hours
    ESPN.com news services
    NEW YORK -- NFL labor negotiations took yet another surprising turn late Sunday when the league and union agreed to postpone free agency another 72 hours, giving the sides more time to try to reach agreement on an extension to their contract.


    NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the delay would give owners a chance to consider the union's latest proposal during a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

    "The NFL negotiators called us tonight after our negotiations broke off to indicate that they will take our complete package to the owners for an approval vote on Tuesday," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said late Sunday night. "We have therefore agreed to extend the free agency deadline until midnight Wednesday in order to provide time for that vote to be accomplished. It was the NFL's previous rejection of our proposal earlier this evening that caused the talks to break down."


    The deal that NFL owners will vote on guarantees that players will receive 59.5 percent of all football revenue over the six-year extension of the CBA, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports. That 59.5 percent includes a "cash over cap" limit that addresses the concerns of low revenue clubs about how much teams actually spend on their payrolls in a given year.


    The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.


    That formula could be the subject of major debate during Tuesday's owner meetings in Dallas between low- and high-revenue clubs. Sources say New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has emerged as the most vocal high-revenue franchise that is a strong dissenter to a new revenue sharing model.



    When talks broke off earlier in the day, it left dozens of veterans in danger of becoming salary-cap casualties before midnight Monday, when free agency was supposed to begin.


    The breakdown in talks, though surprising, was typical of the topsy-turvy negotiations, so far: Just when things seemed darkest, they got back on track; and when it appeared a deal could be struck, talks fell apart.


    The union broke off Sunday's session.


    "The talks ended after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years," Upshaw said. "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to 10 this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting."


    But Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said the union rejected a proposal that would have added $577 million for players in 2006 compared to 2005 and $1.5 billion in the six years of the extension.

    "It's an unfortunate situation for the players, the fans and the league," Henderson said.


    A mere four hours later, things were fluid again.


    After a conference call between owners and league officials, including commissioner Paul Tagliabue, the league announced yet another extension -- the second 72-hour respite in free agency, which originally was to start Friday.


    "The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours -- until 12:01 a.m., ET, Thursday, March 9 -- in order to allow the NFL clubs to meet in Dallas on Tuesday to consider the NFL Players Association's offer," the NFL said.


    The deadline for teams to be below the salary cap was also pushed back, to 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.


    Meanwhile, cuts had already started, but the extension to the deadline changed things.

    Under the terms of the deal reached late Sunday night between the NFL and the players association, teams could opt to rescind any waiver cut made Sunday if they so chose.


    That could affect the Oakland Raiders, who thought they would be forced to let quarterback Kerry Collins go as a way of saving $9.2 million in cap space. The delay grants them a reprieve. Center Kevin Mawae was cut by the New York Jets, although he probably would have been gone anyway because he is 35 and missed the final 10 games of last season with a triceps injury.

    The Washington Redskins, the team believed to be in the most cap trouble, said they had worked out an agreement to make linebacker LaVar Arrington, a three-time Pro Bowl player, a free agent.

    An official with knowledge of the transaction told The Associated Press that Arrington had agreed to a buyout that would save the team cap space it wouldn't have had if it had cut him.


    Other big names also could go if teams try to squeeze under a salary cap of $94.5 million. If a deal is reached, the cap could go as much as $10 million higher -- in other words, allowing teams to keep some of the players.


    Amid all the labor back-and-forth came news that running back Shaun Alexander was staying put: The league's MVP agreed to return to the NFC champion Seattle Seahawks for $62 million over eight years, with $15.1 guaranteed, according to his agent, Jim Steiner.


    These labor negotiations are by far the most difficult since the NFL and the union first agreed to free agency and a salary cap in 1992, ending years of labor unrest that included player strikes in 1982 and 1987. The contract has been extended several times since then, most of the time with ease.


    Even now, the contract doesn't expire until 2008, but this would be the last year of a salary cap -- 2007 would be uncapped, which could lead to wild spending by some teams and little by others, creating a haves/have not situation similar to the one in baseball.


    One reason these talks were more difficult is that the players asked for a change in the system.


    Until now, they received their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking fees to stadium naming rights.


    That led to difficult negotiations, in part, because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside income made by low-revenue teams like Buffalo and Indianapolis and high-revenue teams like Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences.


    Both sides seemed ready to compromise Sunday, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin last Friday. However, it was put off for three days so the sides could keep talking.


    Negotiations appeared to be at a standstill last Thursday, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject a union offer. But seven hours later, the sides reversed course and started talking again.


    Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.


    "Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said.

    Information from The Associated Press was used in this report
  10. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,416
    Likes Received:
    280
    Ratings:
    +745 / 5 / -14

    #61 Jersey

    What they really need is Lombardi back from the grave to straighten things out: "What the hell's goin' on out there?! Everybody's gabbin', nobody's compromising! Gab, gab, gab!"
  11. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +287 / 19 / -2

    I think we should recall that for Lombardi and for most of the years of the NFL there was no salary cap. This panic is over the top two full years befor the end of the current contract.
  12. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    How many votes are needed for the owners to accept a deal? Can the gang of 9 block it?
  13. workhorse

    workhorse Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I think they need 24, so ya 9 could block it.
  14. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    That's what I thought too; 75% being needed for approval. (But I couldn't find anything on the web to confirm it.)

    If that's the case they only need to get one of the 9 to change sides and the thing goes through.
  15. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Here's some confirmation (if you believe Borges) and interesting data:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/03/05/players_need_to_know_their_limits?mode=PF
  16. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My question is the same..which group of 9 is blocking what is on the table??
    The high revenue owners or the low ones?? If it's cash over cap issues, it may be the low revenue ones..as I dioubt the union would mess with that and limit it all that much...but??
  17. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    BINGO. Kraft is not opposed to this deal, the low revenue cartel is. Kraft is opposed to expanded revenue sharing, and there is none of that in this proposal which has already been declined by the NFL during the negotiations. A hard cap on cash over cap in a deal that gives the players almost 60% of Total Gross Revenue is a non starter for the have nots. Kraft is vocal in his opposition to expanded revenue sharing that accounts for neither operating expenses or effort - big news! It just got folded in during Mort's latest post midnight spin cycle. Ergo, Kraft is the problem. :rolleyes:

    All this voting BS on Tuesday was just a way to get the union to agree to another 72 hour delay. Upshaw would have had a hard time explaining to the players why he refused to let the offer go to a full vote of the owners (even though the executive committee already nixed it post haste on Sunday). It bought the Colts enough time to figure out Manning and Harrison's contracts, it gives teams and players more time to try to restructure under pressure as opposed to parting company altogether, it buys more time for the pressure to build on both sides (cause once the league year starts and there is no visible apocolypse the incentive to get something done will begin to be replaced by complacency.

    As BB would say, it is what it is. But it is becoming an increasingly nauseating process to go through, especially since there is actually less hope for a deal now than there was weeks ago. Otherwise Condon would have never agreed to restructure two of his marquee players contracts.
  18. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +287 / 19 / -2

    MLR,

    You posted,

    "As BB would say, it is what it is. But it is becoming an increasingly nauseating process to go through, especially since there is actually less hope for a deal now than there was weeks ago. Otherwise Condon would have never agreed to restructure two of his marquee players contracts."

    Yes, it is what it is. Also, there needs to be lots and lots and lots of posturing before the parties agree to disagree for another year, and get on with season. I don't see why this "nauseating". It seems like normal negotiations to me. Also, everyone is easing into the reality of the $94.5M base cap.

    How have the past three weeks hurt the patriots? A few things have gotten done even before free agency starts:
    1) Starks was cut.
    2) A decision was made with regard to market offers to Givens.
    3) A decision of no-tag was made with regard to AV.
    4) Don Davis was re-signed.
    5) Tucker was re-signed (an experienced backup OL)
    6) Poteat was re-signed
    7) Apparently the team has talked to Troy Brown, who will play another year.
    8) Willie was not cut (we hopefully await the possibility of a restructure)
    9) Combine numbers are being evaluated. And
    10)I'm sure the two free agent plans are reviewed and updated daily.

    My point is that for the patriots this is business as usual. So, the free agency period is starting a week late; so what! It wouldn't affect the patriots much if it started 4 weeks late.

  19. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,258
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +173 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    With the draft being a week later this year, the FA period can be the same as last year even with the week delay.
  20. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    It has been rather nauseating in many ways do you not think?? Or is it smooth to you??? Just wondering...
    I don't think the Patriots have been as effected as others by these non-negotiations as they are under the cap..but that is because they are quite smart and looking ahead. Most comments about the negotiations are a bit broader in perspective than just how it affects the Patriots..I think many are concerned with what kind of an NFL is going to come out of these talks CBA yes or no. It is what is is..and pushing ahead will change the NFL to me NOT for the better. Yes, I think either way the Pats are in great shape, but will the NFL be headed to the mess baseball is?? Will it keep teams competitive?? That to me is important.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>