MERGED: NFL Owners/Union CBA News

Share this page

ladypatsfan

ladypatsfan

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
52
Location
Boston
Pft: Nfl, Union Closing In On A Deal

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
NFL, UNION CLOSING IN ON A DEAL

A league source tells us that the NFL and its players union are getting closer and closer to reaching an agreement on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Per the source, the two sides have tentatively agreed that 58 percent of all football revenues will be devoted to player salaries. The last remaining hurdle is the "cash over cap" limit, which is the device that the owners will utilize to ensure that franchises earning high amounts of unshared revenue cannot skew the competitive balance by making total cash payments in any given year that greatly exceed the salary cap for that season.
Click to expand...

Take it for FWIW guys.
 
Owners holding up CBA extension

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5380160

It depends on the day and whom you are talking with, but there are many within the NFL who believe that commissioner Paul Tagliabue and union boss Gene Upshaw have a handshake deal, but that the commissioner simply can't get enough support from ownership for his extension to the current collective bargaining agreement.

The rationale behind such thinking is that Tagliabue and Upshaw are smart men with a total understanding of the financial bottom line and that they both find it idiotic to spend the rest of their few remaining years on the job arguing about salary-cap issues considering the billion-dollar enterprise that keeps them wealthy and employed.

Basically, this past week has seen a lot of posturing on both sides of this huge financial issue but the word is that Upshaw wants to finalize an agreement and that it doesn't necessarily have to start with 60 percent of the total league-wide revenue. Interestingly, whatever he has discussed with Tagliabue he hasn't shared with his union members.

The players have no idea about what benefits and salary levels may be part of any potential long-range package.

One major holdup is that small-market teams like Jacksonville, Minnesota, New Orleans, San Diego and Oakland would like to limit their very rich competitors from spending more money on salaries above whatever salary cap number is agreed upon. For example, teams like the Redskins and Cowboys have in the past spent more money on player salaries in a given season because of excessive bonuses given star players (the current system allows teams to pro-rate bonuses over the length of a player's contract). Low revenue teams would prefer that there be no "cash over cap" in the new deal, particularly if there's no wholesale revenue sharing among the top revenue-generating clubs.

This may become a major ingredient in the new deal because the wealthy teams seem to be very much against subsidizing the revenue streams for teams like Jacksonville, a move that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has compared to welfare.

There has been silence on both sides in the past 24 hours, which means that a formal deal does have a chance of happening before Sunday night's deadline. Free agency is supposed to begin on Monday, but that could be pushed back again if a new deal is ratified by 24 of the 32 owners this weekend.

There is no avoiding the fact that there is revenue disparity throughout the NFL, much of it created by Tagliabue's ability to help franchises build new stadiums. In this scenario, franchises like New England, Tampa Bay and Philadelphia, which were in the bottom third of the league 10 years ago, have leap-frogged the middle class into the top 10. Also, a small-market franchise like Indianapolis will eventually be among the league's richest due to a new stadium deal, which included $120 million in stadium naming rights last week.

Colts owner Jimmy Irsay may have wanted to leave Indiana for California, but he was literally forced to stay (smart business decision) because of all the revenue he can earn in Indianapolis compared to fluctuating future promises in somewhere like Los Angeles. The Colts, who recently signed receiver Reggie Wayne with a $12.5 million signing bonus, are in position to keep many of their stars because the franchise is financially secure.

Conversely, Bengals owner Mike Brown would rather not pursue stadium-naming rights and keep Cincinnati's stadium named after his father, Paul Brown. The Bengals lose revenue because of that honor toward Paul Brown, but why should the rich owners make up the revenue difference because of money lost in such a circumstance?

Other owners like Daniel Snyder in Washington and Bob McNair in Houston have large debt payments as a result of purchasing their franchises and improving their stadiums, both of which have naming rights deals. They are willing to share some local revenue, but are both balking at contributions of over $15 million per club.

If a new CBA isn't approved, clubs like the Redskins could be in jeopardy of being over a projected $94.5 million cap. Will they be penalized? Will they be unable to retain some key players? The other issue is that many teams may be unable to compete in the free-agent market while others could go wild if they really want to.

For example, the Arizona Cardinals, Green Bay Packers and Cleveland Browns were $21.8, $20.9 and 20.3 million, respectively, under the projected 2006 salary cap. That is more than enough money to pursue a star running back like Shaun Alexander of Seattle, Edgerrin James of Indianapolis and Jamal Lewis of Baltimore.

Many teams like Minnesota, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis and Houston have in excess of $10 million to spend in free agency. Those franchises are in very sound financial shape when it comes to player payroll.

However, if there's no CBA extension, you could see many teams and players agree on one-year contracts like Tampa Bay quarterback Chris Simms did this past week.

Such one-year deals will allow both the player and the team to renegotiate in a potential uncapped 2007 season. It's a gamble, but one that Simms thought was worth taking.
============================
Since I don't trust PFT rumormill sources much, I figured I'd post this.
 
It's back to looking bleak.....From Pasquarelli on espn.com:

Updated: March 5, 2006, 12:28 AM ET
Labor talks end for day, little optimism to be found
By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com

Despite earlier indications that the league had nudged the ball forward in terms of a proposal to share a greater percentage of revenues with its players, the NFL and the NFL Players Association punted Saturday afternoon following two days of last-gasp negotiations.

Representatives from the NFLPA headed back to Washington, D.C., and the league is apparently headed now toward the kind of labor enmity that it has not experienced during the past two decades of unparalleled prosperity. Barring a dramatic reversal of negotiating stances, free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m., the league will operate with a salary cap of $94.5 million for 2006, and the two sides will go forward with 2007 scheduled to be an "uncapped" year.

And essentially proceed into an uncertain, and potentially perilous future.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL vice president of public relations Greg Aiello said in a Saturday evening statement. Officials from the NFLPA, however, said there are no further talks scheduled. It is believed that the executive committee of the NFL Management Council, the league's labor arm, was apprised Saturday evening of the stalemate.

Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead negotiators for the NFLPA and part of a small group that huddled with league representatives, termed the negotiations "as dead as a doornail."

Identifying a cause of death, given the veil of secrecy under which the negotiations were conducted for a total of 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday, might be difficult. But the inability to bridge the differences over two key issues -- the internal revenue sharing among the league's 32 teams and the so-called "cash over cap" problem -- were almost certainly among the components which forced the end to negotiations.

One prominent owner strongly suggested to ESPN.com that those two issues, which he lumped under the umbrella category of "revenue sharing-related things," indeed led to the collapse of discussions.

It was difficult, however, in the immediate wake of Saturday afternoon's events, to even get the two sides to agree on what had transpired during two days at the bargaining table.

For example, two league sources told ESPN and ESPN.com on Saturday that the NFL had increased its offer on how much revenue would be split with players from 56.2 percent to between 58.2 and 58.5 percent. If true, that would have represented a predictable middle-ground compromise, given that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been seeking 60.3 percent. An NFLPA source insisted, though, that the league's best offer never got to the 58-percent range.

Late Saturday night, Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the union did come down "a little" from the 60 percent cut of the revenue pie they were demanding. Earlier Upshaw denied that the owners had raised their ante by two points. Mortensen reports that the owners' last offer was 56.6 percent.

When informed late Saturday afternoon of the breakdown in talks, one frustrated owner resonded: "When we can't even agree on what the disagreements are on some issues, well, that just shows you how [messed] up the situation really is, right?"

Perhaps because of the paucity of leaks following the Friday talks, the Saturday negotiations began with a public sense of optimism, and a feeling that the weekend of bargaining would lead to an agreement by Sunday evening that would stave off the anticipated chaos which could now ensue. Fueling the speculation that the two sides were poised to reach an extension to the collective bargaining agreement was a memo that commissioner Paul Tagliabue dispatched to all 32 franchises, telling owners to set aside Tuesday as a possible date to ratify the labor deal.

But by Saturday at noon, one owner not involved in the negotiations but privy to their content, told ESPN.com that, if there had indeed been progress, "it's only if you use 'progress' as a relative term." That owner acknowledged he was "still dubious" a deal would be struck in advance of Sunday's deadline. Only a few hours later, his assessment turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Even if there was movement in terms of how much of the total league revenues the NFL would share with its players, the two sides apparently never got close on the critical matters of revenue-sharing among the 32 franchises and the equally crucial issue of cash over cap. Some owners have long contended that their intramural battle over revenue sharing -- with an increasingly alarming disparity between high-revenue teams like the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys and low-revenue earners like the Indianapolis Colts and Jacksonville Jaguars -- should be out of bounds to the union. Upshaw argued all along, though, that the internal revenue sharing was tied to the league's problems.

As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years.

But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.

Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."

As Mortensen reported on Friday, the cash over cap component, which in many ways ties into the disparity between the league's "haves" and "have-nots" in terms of how money is calculated, also continues to divide NFL owners. Of course, the issue of cash over cap has always been a hot-button item for low-revenue franchises.

To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Redskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means.

Sources said Saturday that, as part of the weekend discussions, the NFL proposed limiting the amount of cash over cap, per team, to 2 percent. While Upshaw has expressed concern in the past about cash over cap, he likely viewed the 2 percent limit as too low, and as potentially taking money away from players.

The day's events left teams and players not only frustrated, but concerned about what lies ahead.

General managers and cap experts for teams that are still over the projected spending limit of $94.5 million for 2006 were scrambling again on Saturday night to conjure up ways to get into compliance. It is believed that about 10 franchises on Saturday still had gap overages. Those teams face a Sunday 6 p.m. ET deadline for getting under the spending limit.

At the same time, some players who might have been released had the league year commenced on Friday as scheduled will likely face the chopping block again.
Click to expand...
 
Mar. 5, Sunday Morning @ 9:09, Washington Post Says "Deal Close"

Yes, it's mid-Sunday morning, and supposedly, optimism about a new deal is the first flavor of the day. There's no way that a deal doesn't get done. Greed is ugly, man. Remember that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500255.html

NFL Labor Negotiations Back On, Deal Close
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; 9:09 AM

The NFL's labor negotiations took a dramatic turn overnight. After the talks faltered yesterday, representatives of the team owners and the players' union agreed to resume negotiations, and participants said the two sides were close to completing a deal.

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said via e-mail early this morning that the parties had scheduled another meeting in New York and were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."
 
I'm merging these threads. It's getting difficult to follow all the news updates with multiple threads being started.
 
BSPN (among others) has confirmed that the NFL and NFLPA, have pushed the cut deadline back to 10 pm (from 6 pm).

The other deadlines stay in effect; Midnight for under the cap, and 12:01AM starts FA.

:pat:
 
Well, if they're smart, they'll get it done. But I don't know. Upshaw hasn't said one positive word since Day 1.

I hope he knows what he's doing. There are a heck of a lot of ramifications for players, that it doesn't appear they seem to be paying much attention to right now.

And for owners, when one considers that 4% is equivalent to 300-400 MILLION DOLLARS, um, well how much money will us fans pay to watch a lockout after next year? Perhaps a *TOTAL* of 300-400 MILLION. Too much greed, all the way around, IMO.
 
:mad:

Labor talks break off without new agreement

Labor talks between NFL owners and the players' union have broken off without an agreement, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports. Representatives of the players' union walked out of negotiations Sunday evening, believing that an agreement with owners cannot be made.

"They're off," NFL vice president Joe Browne said after a day of bargaining that seemed to provide hope for an agreement.

The NFL had previously delayed the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap to 10 p.m. ET Sunday, Mortensen and ESPN.com's John Clayton reported.

Management wanted to extend the deadline to Wednesday, Mortensen reported, but the players' union would only agree to a four-hour delay from the original 6 p.m. ET deadline.

The owners and the players' union have until midnight Sunday to agree on an extension to the league's collective bargaining agreement, a scenario that now seems unlikely with talks breaking off. Free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET.

If no agreement is reached on an extension to the CBA, the projected salary cap for 2006 will be $94.5 million. On Saturday, it was believed that about 10 franchises still had cap overages. Also, if there is no agreement, 2007 will be an uncapped year.

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players' Association, told Mortensen that the two sides are meeting in New York again Sunday and that they communicated via e-mail on Saturday night after face-to-face talks broke down during the day. Sunday's talks reportedly began just before noon ET.

In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Upshaw said the two sides were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

This is in stark contrast to how the talks ended Saturday. Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead negotiators for the NFLPA and part of a small group that huddled with league representatives, termed the negotiations "as dead as a doornail."

Identifying a cause of death, given the veil of secrecy under which the negotiations were conducted for a total of 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday, might be difficult. But the inability to bridge the differences over two key issues -- the internal revenue sharing among the league's 32 teams and the so-called "cash over cap" problem -- were almost certainly among the components which forced the end to negotiations.

One prominent owner strongly suggested to ESPN.com that those two issues, which he lumped under the umbrella category of "revenue sharing-related things," indeed led to the collapse of discussions.

It was difficult, however, in the immediate wake of Saturday afternoon's events, to even get the two sides to agree on what had transpired during two days at the bargaining table.

For example, two league sources told ESPN and ESPN.com on Saturday that the NFL had increased its offer on how much revenue would be split with players from 56.2 percent to between 58.2 and 58.5 percent. If true, that would have represented a predictable middle-ground compromise, given that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been seeking 60.3 percent. An NFLPA source insisted, though, that the league's best offer never got to the 58-percent range.

Late Saturday night, Upshaw told Mortensen that the union did come down "a little" from the 60 percent cut of the revenue pie they were demanding. Earlier Upshaw denied that the owners had raised their ante by two points. Mortensen reports that the owners' last offer was 56.6 percent.

When informed late Saturday afternoon of the breakdown in talks, one frustrated owner resonded: "When we can't even agree on what the disagreements are on some issues, well, that just shows you how [messed] up the situation really is, right?"

As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years.

But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.

Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."

As Mortensen reported on Friday, the cash over cap component, which in many ways ties into the disparity between the league's "haves" and "have-nots" in terms of how money is calculated, also continues to divide NFL owners. Of course, the issue of cash over cap has always been a hot-button item for low-revenue franchises.

To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Redskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means.

Sources said Saturday that, as part of the weekend discussions, the NFL proposed limiting the amount of cash over cap, per team, to 2 percent. While Upshaw has expressed concern in the past about cash over cap, he likely viewed the 2 percent limit as too low, and as potentially taking money away from players.

Information from ESPN.com senior NFL writer Len Pasquarelli and The Associated Press was used in this report.
 
aaava said:
Well, if they're smart, they'll get it done. But I don't know. Upshaw hasn't said one positive word since Day 1.

I hope he knows what he's doing. There are a heck of a lot of ramifications for players, that it doesn't appear they seem to be paying much attention to right now.

And for owners, when one considers that 4% is equivalent to 300-400 MILLION DOLLARS, um, well how much money will us fans pay to watch a lockout after next year? Perhaps a *TOTAL* of 300-400 MILLION. Too much greed, all the way around, IMO.
Click to expand...

NFL | Labor talks break off again
Sun, 5 Mar 2006 15:41:49 -0800

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports the NFL labor talks broke off once again about 6:30 p.m. Sunday, March 5. Both sides left the meeting not being optimistic of getting a deal done. "Unless there's a miracle - right now we're going forward with the current collective bargaining agreement," Mortensen said.
 
Is is just me or can anyone else hear the death toll for the NFL as we know it?

Gene upshaw is an asshole with no idea what he is doing to the NFL. Just MHO>.

I think he needs to go, the deal they were looking to strike was too greedy and now he says there will be no cap ever again.

Even the casual observer of the NFL knows that the thing that sets the NFL apart from other professional sports is a hard cap.

Without it, we may as well be talking baseball or hoops.

Sad day indeed!:(
 
Wow, the money problems of rich people....I feel so bad for all of them.....:banghead: :4321:
 
Well, those who know my "leanings" will know where I stand on this one, but here's HOW I look at it....

2005 Cap under "Old" agreement = 85.5 Million

2006 Cap under "Old" agreement = 94.5 Million (an 11 % increase)

2006 Cap IF new CBA, owners 56% pool = 100 Million (a 17 % increase over 2005)

2006 Cap IF new CBA, players 60% pool = 105 Million (a 23 % increase over 2005)

Where do the players union get off demanding this sort of increase IN PERCENTAGE TERMS????

Sure the revenues are increasing, but WHY are they increasing? The players aren't doing anything that they haven't done before, that is, give 100 percent. Nothing new here. How does that translate into increased revenue for the league. Fact is that the increased revenues for the league are more due to creative marketing (15 new hats a year for each team), expansion into overseas markets (NFL Europe, preseason and regular season games abroad in Japan and Mexico), better negotiations with television networks, and capital investment in new stadiums, (increased sign-age etc...). The risks associated with these endeavors belongs to the owners and it is they who should reap the benefits....

Although New England may be the exception, I could see a team getting a new stadium and because of cap mismanagement still not being able to fill that stadium. It will be interesting to see what happens in Arizona's new stadium once the "newness" of that building wears off. I know TV money will cover the cap, but the owners could see diminished "returns on investment".

Very few people in this country will see at 10 percent increase in wages this year and those that do are probably being promoted and assuming more responsibility along with that bump in pay. The players are not being asked to play harder, just endure a few discomforts like traveling abroad. 11 percent, or even the 17 percent the league is offering is very generous indeed.
 
I wonder how much of this has to do with fallout from the NHL lockout. Is Upshaw afraid to give an inch after what happened to Bettman?
 
Hey, far as I'm concerned, this comment says it all:

"Management wanted to extend the deadline to Wednesday, Mortensen reported, but the players' union would only agree to a four-hour delay from the original 6 p.m. ET deadline."

This is obviously something Upshaw and Condon his ah buddy wanted. Of that there can be no doubt. Time and again they would leave the meetings and be pessimistic or say things that are not conducive to making a deal (ie, 'The number has to start with a six in it', thus not budging of the number they started with).

Are the owners coming up roses in this? Heck no. The problem comes down to, you can't make a deal, if one side doesn't want to negotiate. And Upshort and Condom have made it clear what their priorities are. And the rich owners have also made it clear what *their* priorities are. It shouldn't take rocket science to come up with a number, for each team's market that they should be able to hit--heck just hire a McKinsey numbers freak to do that. There's absolutely no reason why that couldn't have been done, and perhaps this would've solved the issue.

But this is Upshort and Condom's game here. They actually wanted to 'be partners' with these rich, egomaniac owners! That's not gonna happen. Upshaw stated at one point that the owners needed to solve the revenue-difference issue and he wanted to be involved in that 'as a partner'.

So, you take an NFLPA tool who's decided he's going to listen to a stinkin' agent, and combine that with a bunch of rich tools...and this is what we've got.

If we think it's gonna be bad this year (I mean, face it, Cleveland and Minny and whoever else has money is going to be signing vets at cut rate deals--there just isn't any room under the cap for most teams to even deal!)

It's gonna be worse next year, since any team that makes it to the playoffs is completely screwed (can't add any free agents unless one leaves, and even then can only sign one to 1.5Million per).

Upshaw's been telling these players that next year is uncapped. What he hasn't told them is that this also means a team could spend 20 million on players *total*, if it wants to. And no team (no smart team owner anyway, and that prolly doesn't apply to most owners) will sign a bunch of players to ridiculous sized contracts, since there's a limit of 30% increase for any contract. It's not really a sellers' market out there.

And teams will also be able to franchise *TWO* players, instead of one. This is a bad deal all the way around.

If, come September, Upshaw ends up signing the players for anything *less* than his fabled 60%, he's gonna be looked upon in the history of the NFL as a complete chump...which he has been for a long time, IMO. And it won't be until these paychecks stop flowing into bank accounts that the players (the big money ones anyway...the mid market players are screwed) are gonna wise up and toss Condom and Upshort on their butts.

Because only the low market vets are gonna have a guaranteed job...or the high and mid market players that are willing to take a paycut--unless they're one of the lucky ones that get signed by the 5 teams that have any kind of money under the cap. And if you *TOTAL* the number of money teams have under the cap, after signing draft picks, we're talking less than 130 million dollars or so. That's total for all free agents.

Whatta bunch of tools. I'm gonna start watching college ball more. I'm sick of these rich, spoiled owners and athletes. It's just sickening.

And then there's Willy McGinest. Man, our team is just not gonna be the same w/o that dude. He's now gone. No money to sign him. Troy? Probably gone too. Vinatieri? Gone to Cleveland or Dallas. Givens? Gone (but we knew that). Our Patriots are gonna have some big holes next year...
 
According to that article, it looks more like the owners have the ball in their court.

I don't think it's a good time to ask for all that outside reveniew if the teams themselves haven't settled on how to share that pool of $$$.

What a mess. I don't see the owners agreeing to the "Entire package" put forth by the NFLPA.

This is just more delaying the inevitable IMHO.
 
It's appears that Mr. Kraft has emerged as the leader of the high revenue clubs. From ESPN.com:

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.
Click to expand...
 
TrueBeliever said:
As long as he doesn't turn into a Steinbrenner wannabe like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder...
Click to expand...

Hmm, I missed that quote. The fact is that Kraft has most definitely rec'd Mass Tax dollars (for Route 1 and such...10s of millions of dollars). Everyone always talks about how he built the stadium on his own, yada yada.

Well, it's not like he had a choice. This was a business decision and he's made very good money on it. End of story. If he is now getting greedy (because *puhleeze*, do not ask me to cry for his ridiculously expensive seats, parking, food, etc..; and no one is gonna convince *any* sane person on this board that Kraft is make lots of money, no matter what his payments for the stadium loan are), then the only differences between Kraft and Steinbrenner is Kraft leaves Belioli alone and has been behind the trenches until now. At least Steinbrenner would be public with his greed.

I know I might get flamed for this view on Kraft. How he could have moved the team (oh yeah? Where would he be making more money than in Foxboro?). Connecticutt? Um, no. I think the dude, is already getting too much of a free ride, since many families can no longer afford to ever see a football game live in Foxboro anymore. It's the most expensive ticket (overall) in the NFL and has been for years.

Also, fans for decades are being forced to give up their seats when the name on the ticket passes away. That's caused a lot of friction...never mind how expensive it is.

If he's the main owner preventing the revenue sharing from happening--well, IMO, it will end up a PR nightmare for him. He's been getting a free ride up until now despite the out of control prices to attend a Pats game. I thought he purchased the franchise to 'take care of it', not to milk it..and us fans.

The dude has more than enough money right now.
 
aaava said:
Hmm, I missed that quote. The fact is that Kraft has most definitely rec'd Mass Tax dollars (for Route 1 and such...10s of millions of dollars). Everyone always talks about how he built the stadium on his own, yada yada.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's very much NOT TRUE. Kraft has to pay back the $75 million that the state spent on the infrastructure work. Part of the payback is in the form of a $5 per parking spot per game tax that those of us who attend must pay. The only thing the state did was perform the work upfront, essentially loaning the money to Kraft.

Originally posted by aaava
Well, it's not like he had a choice. This was a business decision and he's made very good money on it. End of story. If he is now getting greedy (because *puhleeze*, do not ask me to cry for his ridiculously expensive seats, parking, food, etc..; and no one is gonna convince *any* sane person on this board that Kraft is make lots of money, no matter what his payments for the stadium loan are), then the only differences between Kraft and Steinbrenner is Kraft leaves Belioli alone and has been behind the trenches until now. At least Steinbrenner would be public with his greed.

I know I might get flamed for this view on Kraft. How he could have moved the team (oh yeah? Where would he be making more money than in Foxboro?). Connecticutt? Um, no. I think the dude, is already getting too much of a free ride, since many families can no longer afford to ever see a football game live in Foxboro anymore. It's the most expensive ticket (overall) in the NFL and has been for years.

Also, fans for decades are being forced to give up their seats when the name on the ticket passes away. That's caused a lot of friction...never mind how expensive it is.

If he's the main owner preventing the revenue sharing from happening--well, IMO, it will end up a PR nightmare for him. He's been getting a free ride up until now despite the out of control prices to attend a Pats game. I thought he purchased the franchise to 'take care of it', not to milk it..and us fans.

The dude has more than enough money right now.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure it's shared by some others. He's certainly made some decisions that aren't popular. I agree with you on the policy about passing tickets down.

Kraft would have made many, many more millions by moving to CT. No stadium costs, free rent, ticket guarantees. The only debt service he would have been dealing with was the original purchase price of the team. And I still would have attended games in Hartford even though it would have been much more difficult for me.

It's hard for me to bitch about the cost of seeing a game. For me, I'm still getting my money's worth (I pay $89/ticket/game). My first year with tickets, I paid $28/ticket/game to sit in a crappy stadium watching a team that was an embarassment both on the field and off. 15 seasons later, I'm sitting in a state-of-the-art stadium watching a team that is the model franchise for the NFL and arguably all of professional sports.

We have very little idea of the operating expenses for this team and the facilities. I can't imagine what the debt service must be on hundreds of millions of dollars. I have enough of a problem grasping what I'm paying in interest on my modest mortgage.

I guess my best analogy is car shopping. Do I prefer to pay $15K for a car which will be bare bones, uncomfortable and unreliable....or do I pay $30,000 for a car with bells and whistles, great comfort and I know it will last me for a long time.

Kraft has made some mistakes. But right now, there isn't a better owner in the NFL. He's entitled to make a profit. He took the risks and he deserves the rewards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top