MERGED: NFL Owners/Union CBA News

[Hawg73]

Bob Kraft doesn't have to apologize to anyone for the way he goes about his business.

The guy has taken some major risks going back to when he acquired the original lease on Foxboro Stadium. He is the steady hand on the tiller that steered the Pats away from incompetence and disaster and put them on top of the NFL.

He had a vision that most of his financial advisors thought was ludicrous and he put the pieces together and made it happen. He risked his family's nest egg on this team-- nobody else. Hindsight is 20-20, but it could easily have gone the other way and put him in financial ruin. He deserves the money and the success, because it was HIS ass if it didn't work out.

Bob Kraft has had a lot of people tell him that he is crazy and we should be thankful that he doesn't care.

Pissed that the ticket costs etc. are so high? Blaming Kraft for all of that is shortsighted, IMO.

He could have moved the team somewhere and had more state help and tax relief, but he was bullheaded and stuck it out in Taxachusetts-- a state that is legendary for it's institutionalized inability to get things done right.

Bottom line is that Patriots fans are paying for it all instead of the taxpayers and the season ticket waiting list says that the vast majority of them are happy to do so.

Every time I have to cough up 150 bucks to go to a game I do it gratefully, because there was a time when we were this close to completely losing the Pats.

Some of us remember that.

 

[TrueBeliever]

As long as he doesn't turn into a Steinbrenner wannabe like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder...

I would just like to clarify my earlier statement.

My concern is that the high-revenue owners might turn the league into something closer to MLB, which was discussed in another thread.

What really pisses me off about Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder is both of them came in and bought teams that already had rabid followings and an established history of success. (Admittedly, the Cowpokes won three Super Bowls after Jones took over.) But they act like they've done all the work themselves and shouldn't have to share with owners that haven't done as much work.

Kraft, on the other hand, HAS done a helluva lot of work to turn around his franchise, so I can understand his point more than I would Jones or Snyder. But I don't want the league to punish smaller-market teams just for being in smaller markets.

I don't know, maybe I'm just posting in circles.

 

[dchester]

I would just like to clarify my earlier statement.

My concern is that the high-revenue owners might turn the league into something closer to MLB, which was discussed in another thread.

What really pisses me off about Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder is both of them came in and bought teams that already had rabid followings and an established history of success. (Admittedly, the Cowpokes won three Super Bowls after Jones took over.) But they act like they've done all the work themselves and shouldn't have to share with owners that haven't done as much work.

Kraft, on the other hand, HAS done a helluva lot of work to turn around his franchise, so I can understand his point more than I would Jones or Snyder. But I don't want the league to punish smaller-market teams just for being in smaller markets.

I don't know, maybe I'm just posting in circles.

I just think that if small market teams want to talk about sharing more revenue, they should also talk about sharing debt.
________
extreme vaporizer review

 

[#54]

I just think that if small market teams want to talk about sharing more revenue, they should also talk about sharing debt.

Amen.

As the old saying goes:

Gas, grass or ass. Nobody rides for free.

 

[PatsChamps3X]

Amen.

As the old saying goes:

Gas, grass or ass. Nobody rides for free.

From KFFL, Tuesday March 7th, 8:52 pm EST

NFL Labor deal specifics; free agency to start Thursday or Friday


ESPN.com's John Clayton reports a few provisions of the new NFL labor deal include: 1) Teams will be able to use their franchise tag on a player more than once, but if they franchise a player for a third time, they will have to do it at a salary equivalent to that of a top-five quarterback, the highest-paid position in football. 2) Contracts for players selected in rounds two through seven of the NFL Draft will be limited to four years in length. More and more teams have been trying to lock second-day draft choices into five-year contracts that prevent the player from hitting restricted free agency after year three and unrestricted free agency after year four. 3) Bonuses in contracts will be pro-rated over five years this year and over six years in 2007, but in 2008 the pro-ration reverts to five years. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue made it clear that at this point there is no more negotiating with the union. If the owners accept the proposal before 8 p.m. ET Wednesday, March 8, free agency will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday, March 10. If there is no acceptance, free agency will start Thursday, March 9, as scheduled.

 

[bideau]

This is an AP story from the Boston Globe:

By Dave Goldberg | March 8, 2006

GRAPEVINE, Texas --The NFL was still without labor peace after team owners met for most of Tuesday without reaching any agreements.

Yet another deadline looms Wednesday, with owners trying to decide whether to accept the union's latest proposal.

A decision on whether to extend the collective bargaining agreement was unlikely to come down until close to the latest deadline of 8 p.m. EST on Wednesday. Before making a deal with the union, the owners must resolve their own differences over expanded internal revenue sharing. If they don't get that straight, a CBA deal is unlikely.

Much of the early hours of Tuesday's meeting was spent simply listening to commissioner Paul Tagliabue go through details of the union's proposal. Then Tagliabue outlined revenue sharing, but there was no discussion before the owners broke for dinner.

"We haven't punched anybody yet," said Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney, who described Tagliabue's remarks as "Excellent. Super."

"He described how the owners and players should be in this together for the good of the league," added Rooney, who has helped to solve past labor disputes.

League spokesman Joe Browne said Tagliabue had agreed with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, that the owners would have a decision no later than 8 p.m. EST Wednesday. That would come as the union, which is meeting in Hawaii, holds its executive board session.

"It was a good day," Browne said after the meeting broke up for good Tuesday night.

One of those who supported Tagliabue was Oakland's Al Davis, for decades the NFL's most consistent maverick, who noted that the league had had enough of labor disputes.

"I love my country and I love my league," Davis said as the meeting broke up for the day. "People who have been through this in the past want something good to come of it. What's good is another question."

There seemed to be some hope they would reach an agreement that would extend the contract that runs out after the 2007 season. It came from Dallas owner Jerry Jones, who has been an opponent of expanded revenue sharing, but suggested for the first time that he might have to give in a bit to let the owners solve their dispute.

"We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.

"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."

Finding a solution now is critical because free agency, pushed back twice, is scheduled to start Thursday with a $94.5 million salary cap that could go as much as $10 million higher if there is an extension. And although both sides have agreed there will be no more extensions there would be one more if there is an agreement -- until 12:01 a.m. Friday to give teams time to get everything in order.

If there is no settlement, then 2007 would have no salary cap and create the kind of uncertainty that neither side really wants.

Revenue sharing hasn't been dealt with during the negotiations, even though Upshaw has contended all along that no agreement can be reached without it.

If nothing else, the tone of the owners was far different at this meeting than in New York last Thursday, when they took just 57 minutes to reject the union proposal. Later that day, they extended the deadline for free agency for three days and again extended Sunday night just as it seemed talks had broken off.

That led to this meeting and the discussion over revenue sharing, which will be necessary to meet the union's proposal for just under 60 percent of the league's total revenues.

Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights. Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

If there is no agreement, it would leave a number of free agents commanding far less than they thought they could get and a glutted market filled with veterans who could be cut to provide cap room.

 

[dchester]

NFL Offers Players Union 5-Year Non-Guaranteed Deal With Incentives

DALLAS--After meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Dallas, the NFL owners have emerged with a fresh proposal for the players union. The proposal, approved by the commissioner?s office, would offer a 5-year extension to the CBA chock full of incentives that, if reached, could give the players up to 60 percent of total revenue sharing. The deal would be non-guaranteed and could be terminated at any time by the league.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue called the offer ?extremely generous? and said it would be their final attempt at a compromise before free agency officially begins.

?This is really the best offer we have come up with so far,? Tagliabue told reporters on Tuesday. ?This would be a 5-year deal loaded with all kinds of incentives. If these incentives are reached, the players can get up to 60 percent of the total league revenue, which is exactly what they're asking for. It's actually a really big compromise on our part, if you think about it. Actually, don't think about it. ?

When asked to describe the incentives in the deal, Tagliabue wouldn?t get into specifics.

?Well you know everything is performance based in the NFL and that?s what makes us the economic model for all other sports leagues,? he said. ?Basically the players would need to drive the revenue streams up to a certain point for the incentives to kick in. For example, if merchandise sales go over a specified dollar amount the incentive clause kicks in. So the players really need to do well on the field and promote the NFL brand in a way that drives up revenues so they can get a share of those revenues. And it can be terminated whenever the owners feel like it, without warning. So it?s essentially a big charade, just like a regular NFL contract.?

In addition to the incentives, the players would receive a signing bonus of $50 million upon agreeing to the new deal.

Players union representative Gene Upshaw sounded less than enthusiastic when asked about the league?s latest proposal.

?No, this just isn?t going to work.? Upshaw said earlier today. ?It?s not guaranteed, it?s performance based, and it just falls short in a lot of different ways. The owners need to realize that this is not just a regular contract negotiation. You can?t walk all over us like you normally do. We?re the NFL players union! You can?t keep us down! Unless you up the signing bonus to, like, $60 million. That would be a start anyway.?

The union?s original demand was to receive 60 percent of the league?s total revenue, while the league was offering only 56.2. The new deal could theoretically get the union their 60 percent, but only if a series of complex incentive clauses are triggered.

NFLPA president Troy Vincent was also lukewarm about the proposal but did say it was ?something they could work with.?

?It?s not an ideal proposal but I think we could work with it,? said Vincent. ?Basically the owners are only willing to give us more of the revenue if there?s more revenue to give. You follow me? It?s pretty confusing but the bottom line is that it?s a low risk proposition for them and the same old high-risk, non-guaranteed bullshit for us. It reminds me a little of my contract with the Bills, which pays me a base salary of $4,000 and up to $5,000,000 in bonus incentives if, say, the Bills win the Super Bowl, I win the Super Bowl MVP, and I somehow kick the game-winning field goal.?

Vincent would not say if the union planned to accept the deal, only that they would meet and discuss it. The players union is not concerned about the prospect of an uncapped year or any kind of backlash from fans.

?Whatever. An uncapped year means nothing to us because it would actually be a good thing. And backlash from the fans? Uh, OK. I?m sure they?re all going to be so upset that they stop coming to games. We?re all going to be stinking rich no matter what, and the fans are going to keep buying our stupid crap no matter what, and I?m just going through this whole charade because I like this business and I aspire to be commissioner someday, so I can finally be on the other side of this thing and stick it to the players.?

http://thebrushback.com/nfloffers_full.htm
________
Townsman

 

[aaava]

bideau, if that's true about the money he got from the state, I apologize for that part of my rant. I didn't know it was a loan. I know he lobbied hard for a while to get money or a special deal, but if he didn't get it...

But I still think people are way too generous with Kraft. The value he will get out of a franchise, by running the business well, as he has, no doubt, is the increased *value* of the franchise. IMO, a sports team runs the line between a business and a public trust.

At one point, I believe that Kraft understood this...and by all his comments, one would think this is true.

But try *parking* in the Pats' lots for a game. The cost is *obscene*. And of course, all that money, perhaps is going to debt relief. Which means we're paying for the debt anyway, indirectly. Some would say that's good business...and if there were extra perks for tailgaters and such, there could have been some perceived extra value in the obscene parking prices. But there aren't.

Then there are the prices for the tickets. Sure, there is a waiting list of 50K for those prices...if one looks at this as *just* a business and *not* partially a public trust (where the value generated by running the business well comes out at the end in the team price), then demand obviously is there for rationalizing how at least half of the football fans or so cannot afford to take their family to a game.

Let's not even get into the prices for a bottle of water. Or the fact that no one is allowed to bring any food into the stadium. These things have already been discussed ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong. I've been a Pats fan since '86. The year I moved to Boston. And I can afford the tickets, so I'm not speaking for myself. The fact still remains that Kraft *could* lower the ticket and concession prices to middle of the league and still make money...lots of it. And once he has finished paying off the stadium debt, as he is well on his way of doing, will prices come down? I don't think so.

This is my only beef with how Kraft is running the franchise. That and the fiasco with how he treats long time fans. Because we all know, that if *he* was a fan still and not an owner, he would want to pass on his tickets to his son, and his son would definitely want said tickets. But now that he's the *owner* of the franchise, he turns his face.

It's just that the NFL is truly the last pro sport I can watch. I've been tainted by the greed inherent in MLB and NBA players unions--especially MLB. Fehr has done more damage to the enjoyment of baseball for fans than any other person on the planet (with perhaps the ex-NHL crook (forget his name), running as a close second...because, face it, the NHL is now a joke)).

I just don't want to see this happen to the NFL, and if Kraft continues his ways, it just might...because only the elite will be able to actually *go* to a football game.

 

[Undertaker #59*]

NFL | Owners continue to meet and review plans
Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:19:45 -0800

Todd Archer, of the Dallas Morning News, reports NFL owners continue to meet regarding a revenue sharing plan. However, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones did not sound optimistic Wednesday, March 8. He said he doesn't think they are progressing. "I think it will go down to the last minute. I think we probably had a step back," Jones said. Four plans have been presented to the owners, including one by the Cowboys. The New England Patriots and New York Jets have a shared plan, while the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens also presented plans. If owners cannot come to an agreement, the free-agent market will begin at 12:01 a.m. EST Thursday, March 9, with a $94.5 million salary cap. With a deal, free agency could be delayed again while the salary cap is raised to around $105 million.

 

[Dan Pires]

Deadline extended - what else is new.

WTF people? I no longer want to hear about the labor pains - I just want to see the baby now.

NFL | Salary cap deadline pushed back two hours
Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:33:43 -0800

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports, the NFL's waiver deadline to get below the salary cap has been moved back two hours, from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday, March 8, to 11 p.m. ET.

http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl

AND

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2359300

Jerry Jones: Owners 'getting close'
ESPN.com news services - March 8, 2006 8:34 P.M.
GRAPEVINE, Texas -- How close are NFL owners to ratifying the NFL Players' Association's latest proposal for an extension to the league's collective bargaining agreement?
ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

 

[#54]

WTF people? I no longer want to hear about the labor pains - I just want to see the baby now.

I wholeheartedly agree with ya, Dan. This crap has gone on long enough.

No matter how this ends, someone is going to bitchin' about the the outcome.

Just Git 'er done!!!!!

 

[TrueBeliever]

It IS done!

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- Labor peace was restored to the NFL when the owners agreed to the players' union proposal Wednesday, extending the collective bargaining agreement for six years.

There were no further details on the agreement, including whether it includes expanded revenue sharing.

The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.

"On behalf of the players, the NFLPA staff and the negotiating team, we are pleased that this process has finally concluded with an agreement," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement. "This agreement is not about one side winning or losing. Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League.

"Moving forward, this new agreement gives us the opportunity to continue our unprecedented success and growth."

Free agency, put off twice by the protracted negotiations between the owners and players, now will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

"The union is delighted," NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. "The new CBA is a big leap forward for the players and means a fairer system for all. It also means seven more years of labor peace. Fans can now forget about the lawyers and owners and enjoy football."

Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.

Had the owners been unable to reach an agreement, it would have put a number of veterans on the street and would have limited the amount of money available for teams to spend in free agency. By reaching a compromise, the league managed to avoid an uncapped year in 2007, which would have allowed some teams to spend almost at will and keep others from spending at all.

Some veterans have already been let go, such as Brentson Buckner, a 13-year veteran who was cut by the Carolina Panthers last week to clear about $1.5 million of cap space.

"It was eventually going to happen, they had to get it done," he said. "But it's good because now it gives guys who put in the time to become a big-time free agent, the guys like Edgerrin James, the chance to go out and get what they've earned."

The crux of the debate over the last few days has centered on revenue sharing and the disparity between high- and low-income teams. Low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say that high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights.

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Synder said. "This is really a win-win."

Upshaw has insisted throughout more than a year of negotiations that the division between owners must be resolved before agreement could be reached on a contract extension.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.