YES - New CBA Agreement Close

[flutie2phelan]

Fox is now carrying this - this may be what we are looking for.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5361662


http://mb14.scout.com/fseahawksinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=28125.topic


http://browns.scout.com/a.z?s=149&p=2&c=502826

Thanks for the thought. But there never was any doubt that there would be a salary cap in 2006. Will there be a Collective Bargaining Agreement extension in time to cover 2007? THAT is why we're on tenterhooks.

95 million is the number which implies ... no extension.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Thanks for the thought. But there never was any doubt that there would be a salary cap in 2006. Will there be a Collective Bargaining Agreement extension in time to cover 2007? THAT is why we're on tenterhooks.

95 million is the number which implies ... no extension.

The last paragraph said there's a very good chance the CBA will get done so that's good news, unless it ends up being false.

 

[fgssand]

Thanks for the thought. But there never was any doubt that there would be a salary cap in 2006. Will there be a Collective Bargaining Agreement extension in time to cover 2007? THAT is why we're on tenterhooks.

95 million is the number which implies ... no extension.

You must have skimmed - from Fox

"These same sources told Scout.com that members of one NFL organization are telling their staff that there is a very strong chance the Collective Bargaining Agreement will be extended by the March 3 deadline."

 

[flutie2phelan]

You must have skimmed - from Fox

"These same sources told Scout.com that members of one NFL organization are telling their staff that there is a very strong chance the Collective Bargaining Agreement will be extended by the March 3 deadline."

You are correct. I read Fox and skipped the scout.coms. Earlier they had been posted, and i thought i knew their gist. Yes, the Scout reports certainly are upbeat.

But a CBA extension has been associated with an '06 cap over 100 million. So, when we read of a probably 95 mil cap, it isn't the "high end of the estimates" that grabs me ... but rather that the estimate isn't adding anything for a Designated Revenues expansion.

 

[DaBruinz]

You are correct. I read Fox and skipped the scout.coms. Earlier they had been posted, and i thought i knew their gist. Yes, the Scout reports certainly are upbeat.

But a CBA extension has been associated with an '06 cap over 100 million. So, when we read of a probably 95 mil cap, it isn't the "high end of the estimates" that grabs me ... but rather that the estimate isn't adding anything for a Designated Revenues expansion.

Flutie2Phelan - Well, lets remember that this is an extension, meaning that it would start at the end of the 2007/2008 season, unless they wrote it in such a way to replace the 2 years remaining on the current CBA. So, that is why they could be saying that the 95 million is where the cap would be, since the new monies wouldn't apply until the 2007 or 2008 seasons.

 

[ilduce06410]

i suspect each of you is correct

Flutie2Phelan - Well, lets remember that this is an extension, meaning that it would start at the end of the 2007/2008 season, unless they wrote it in such a way to replace the 2 years remaining on the current CBA. So, that is why they could be saying that the 95 million is where the cap would be, since the new monies wouldn't apply until the 2007 or 2008 seasons.

i don't what actual words McKay spoke in the phone call, or the press conference, or whatever. But whatever those specific words are, they indicate something very specific to the owners.
there's no need to engage in this eastern-thought parlor game, but it frees the union to say "we accept" to the owners' people on a face-to-face basis, and, yes, saves face. the language will appear in the contract and no one will comment on it. then gene goes back and tries to explain it to the players.
to explain the parlor game--it shows up language in the WW 1 treaty and in the korean and and ww 11 treaties, that but it takes a very long time.