Fabini

[Sandyf]

Does Jason Fabini fall under the same rules as signing a Glover. If so, I would have thought we would have at least approached him to sign. Anyone know?

 

[Ken]

Yeah, he does.

I believe today he would be eligle to sign. WE shall see.

 

[jksmith269]

A lot of players and their agents are taking Upshaws advice and not signing contracts yet to see if a new CBA gets done.

 

[aikemirv]

And thats the advice of someone who said:

"I'm going to tell the agents to do deals as if there is no salary cap in 2007 if we don't have a deal by Friday," Upshaw said. "But under no circumstance will I move back the start of free agency."

He still has any credibility?

 

[Dayton Cowboy]

And thats the advice of someone who said:

"I'm going to tell the agents to do deals as if there is no salary cap in 2007 if we don't have a deal by Friday," Upshaw said. "But under no circumstance will I move back the start of free agency."

He still has any credibility?

I thought I heard that the NFLPA doesn't have anything to say in pushing back free agency, though I think it was from Mortenson on ESPN Radio if I remember correctly.

 

[aikemirv]

I thought I heard that the NFLPA doesn't have anything to say in pushing back free agency, though I think it was from Mortenson on ESPN Radio if I remember correctly.

Both times it was pushed back was by an agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.

 

[dbair1967]

Does Jason Fabini fall under the same rules as signing a Glover. If so, I would have thought we would have at least approached him to sign. Anyone know?

maybe they did...or maybe they are taking a wait and see approach to see who else is available...or maybe they decided he wasnt worth signing, maybe he cant pass a physical etc etc

you guys are in too much of a hurry to do stuff

David

 

[cowboyjoe]

Also, got to remember the Cowboys want to look at Fabini first to see if he is cleared healthy wise, since he had a chest and pectoral muscle injury. They want to be sure he can play, and not wind up like Riveria.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

If I were a FA, I would wait until a new agreement was reached... Why sign now when the cap -- and resulting future salaries -- might be higher than anyone expects?

 

[AbeBeta]

He still has any credibility?

I'd say he does -- if the owners approve the current deal then he won a huge victory for the players.

His comments were part of negotiation. He backed off of that demand and the owners had to give something in return. That's how negotiating works.

 

[pancakeman]

you guys are in too much of a hurry to do stuff

Welcome to life on an NFL forum in early March.:

 

[aikemirv]

I'd say he does -- if the owners approve the current deal then he won a huge victory for the players.

His comments were part of negotiation. He backed off of that demand and the owners had to give something in return. That's how negotiating works.

The owners did not give anything to push back the start of FA. It was a stupid, grandstanding comment by Upshaw in stating that he would not push back the start of FA and was not in the best interest of the players to go into FA without a new deal.

It is only a good deal for the players if the owners with this new found revenue actually spend it on the players - there better be a minimum these guys can spend because if they take money from the Jerry's and Danny's of the NFL and give it to the Modells/Rooney's and Laury(Philly Owner, there always 20 mill under the cap are they not?), there will be less competition for the players, less competition means salaries lower than they would be if Jerry and Danny had all that money to spend.

 

[AbeBeta]

The owners did not give anything to push back the start of FA. It was a stupid, grandstanding comment by Upshaw in stating that he would not push back the start of FA and was not in the best interest of the players to go into FA without a new deal.

Hmm. Owners' original offer 56%. Owners voting today on an offer of 59.5%.

That seems to me like the owners' negotiating team did give something up.

I'm sure Upshaw though is more worried about making a comment that he had to go back on. Much more important than the roughly 300 million dollar swing in the % of revenues going to salary.

 

[aikemirv]

Hmm. Owners' original offer 56%. Owners voting today on an offer of 59.5%.

That seems to me like the owners' negotiating team did give something up.

I'm sure Upshaw though is more worried about making a comment that he had to go back on. Much more important than the roughly 300 million dollar swing in the % of revenues going to salary.

You let me know when you have proof that the players get more by Revenue sharing than they would have without it. Just because that money is allocated to the cap does not mean the players will get it. Socialism has not proven to be an effective way to create growth in an economy.

What happens when Jerry says that he is tired of putting out all this extra effort to share his pot with 31 other guys?

 

[AbeBeta]

You let me know when you have proof that the players get more by Revenue sharing than they would have without it. Just because that money is allocated to the cap does not mean the players will get it. Socialism has not proven to be an effective way to create growth in an economy.

I was referring to the % of money allocated to salaries -- larger cap means players are getting more $$.

The revenue sharing issue is a different point entirely.