Kittymama
Benched
- Messages
- 2,170
- Reaction score
- 1
PFT has been covering it pretty extensively over the past few days. Since they're talking about the deal itself, rather than potential gossip about players or coaches, I give their coverage on this a bit more credibility. One comment they mentioned a couple of days ago--that the new CBA specifically EXCLUDES the ability for a team to be able to punish players (like TO) by suspending them. Then, there's this that's just up (including a mention, again, that the CBA can actually be voided in 2008 by either side--they'd also pointed that out a few days ago):
MANAGEMENT TYPES SAYING UNION "KICKED OUR ***"
We've heard from several front-office types around the league who believe that the NFL Players Association "kicked our ***" in conjunction with the new CBA.
"The union ate the league's lunch -- big time," said one league source.
"The owners were so focused on their pockets and infighting, they never talked about the CBA," added the source. The thinking is that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue just wanted to get the CBA done, so that he could ride into the sunset as a hero.
And some see trouble in 2008, if/when either the league or the union invoke in November of that year their right to terminate the new CBA two years early. By then, there will be a new Commissioner and possibly a new NFLPA executive director. The new duo won't have the working relationship that Tagliabue and Upshaw enjoyed, and the new Commish (whoever it might be) will feel compelled to score a slam dunk once the NFL owners realize how skewed the new deal is in the union's favor.
From a dollars-and-cents standpoint, the new CBA pumps more than $600 million into the players' pockets in 2006 and 2007 than the old deal would have paid. Indeed, some owners were wondering last week whether the league shouldn't just ride it out under the prior CBA, pocket the extra $600 million, and take their chances with the union in 2008.
Beyond the money, most of the revisions seem to favor the union. As one source said, "The NFLPA folks are laughing their ***** off as the new rules are revealed."
So the new CBA is, in reality, nothing more than a short-term Band Aid that solved the revenue sharing conundrum -- but that set up what could be an ugly fight in a few years between labor and management.
It's a "recipe for disaster," we've been told, since it won't be Tagliabue and Upshaw won't be the ones working out the terms the next time around.
MANAGEMENT TYPES SAYING UNION "KICKED OUR ***"
We've heard from several front-office types around the league who believe that the NFL Players Association "kicked our ***" in conjunction with the new CBA.
"The union ate the league's lunch -- big time," said one league source.
"The owners were so focused on their pockets and infighting, they never talked about the CBA," added the source. The thinking is that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue just wanted to get the CBA done, so that he could ride into the sunset as a hero.
And some see trouble in 2008, if/when either the league or the union invoke in November of that year their right to terminate the new CBA two years early. By then, there will be a new Commissioner and possibly a new NFLPA executive director. The new duo won't have the working relationship that Tagliabue and Upshaw enjoyed, and the new Commish (whoever it might be) will feel compelled to score a slam dunk once the NFL owners realize how skewed the new deal is in the union's favor.
From a dollars-and-cents standpoint, the new CBA pumps more than $600 million into the players' pockets in 2006 and 2007 than the old deal would have paid. Indeed, some owners were wondering last week whether the league shouldn't just ride it out under the prior CBA, pocket the extra $600 million, and take their chances with the union in 2008.
Beyond the money, most of the revisions seem to favor the union. As one source said, "The NFLPA folks are laughing their ***** off as the new rules are revealed."
So the new CBA is, in reality, nothing more than a short-term Band Aid that solved the revenue sharing conundrum -- but that set up what could be an ugly fight in a few years between labor and management.
It's a "recipe for disaster," we've been told, since it won't be Tagliabue and Upshaw won't be the ones working out the terms the next time around.