Labor Talks Break Down!!!!!

[kingwhicker]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the latest talks to bring a new collective bargaining agreement have once again broken down and he again expressed pessimism about a deal getting done.

Upshaw said: "We met today and there's no deal and we're deadlocked. We were supposed to stick around and meet tomorrow, but that's not gonna happen. That's it. I'm headed back to Washington"
The two sides met for five hours Tuesday. When asked if the two sides could still resolve the issue, Upshaw said it was possible, but he there were no more talks scheduled at this time.

ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.

Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.

Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.

Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.

Among the owners who have expressed optimism that an 11th-hour deal will be hammered out is Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys. "I think that we'll likely have a deal," Jones told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Monday. Other owners and team officials allowed there have been rumblings of progress and that they feel an extension will be in place before the end of the week.

Information from ESPN's Chris Mortensen and ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli was used in this report.

GOOD!!

 

[mschmidt64]

and lose all your guys after their first contracts expire?

What the hell are you talking about?

No cap... you can resign your own players instead of having the cap squeeze out players you want to keep.

A FAIR way to do business.... instead of letting teams that draft crappy just steal your players because they have no good ones of their own.

 

[kingwhicker]

What the hell are you talking about?

No cap... you can resign your own players instead of having the cap squeeze out players you want to keep.

A FAIR way to do business.... instead of letting teams that draft crappy just steal your players because they have no good ones of their own.

I'm with you 100%- I hate the state of the NFL now- this would be good news for Dallas and would spell the end for the mediocre "championship" teams and the small market turds like Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

 

[BigDFan5]

I want this to last just long enough for the Skins to burn. Then everything can get back to normal.

me too lol

 

[mschmidt64]

I'm with you 100%- I hate the state of the NFL now- this would be good news for Dallas and would spell the end for the mediocre "championship" teams and the small market turds like Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

I don't buy that Green Bay and Pittsburgh wouldn't be able to keep up.

We had no salary cap for 30 years and those teams did just fine. Besides, each of those teams are among the more popular in the league.

If they draft well and are smart negotiating with their own players to resign them while still under contract, they'll be able to get fair deals done.

Everyone will be able to keep their own, for the most part.

Much better than the crappy system we have now.

 

[superpunk]

Someone knowledgable of these workings fill me in....

Does this mean the Skins are up the creek without a paddle?

If not, when will they be?

Can the Skins be screwed, AND the league go back to the way it was?

Should Carrot-Top be euthanized?

 

[TheSkaven]

Lockouts happen in leagues where teams are losing money like hockey. Why would the NFL owners lockout when they're making money hand over fist?

Because after the uncapped year, the NFL would be operating without a cap and then they would go from making money to losing money in no time.

I want the Skins to burn as bad as anybody, but this deal has to get done. If it doesn't, 2008 will almost certainly be a strike year. If the players are going to suffer through what they will have to suffer with in 2007, they will certainly be dug in for a protracted 2008 battle.

 

[felix360]

Im in the dark how exactly are the skins gonna get burned??? forgive im not up to par on the whole thing?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The problem is the parasites like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Arizona think that the teams that make money should bend over.

What is funny is that the NFLPA has been nothing but a house union for 20 years, but now for some reason has decided it wants more money.

 

[kingwhicker]

If it doesn't, 2008 will almost certainly be a strike year.

And we know what that means...:skins:

 

[AbeBeta]

What the hell are you talking about?

No cap... you can resign your own players instead of having the cap squeeze out players you want to keep.

A FAIR way to do business.... instead of letting teams that draft crappy just steal your players because they have no good ones of their own.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept schmitty

Smaller marker teams don't have the money to spend as much. Some teams would end up with a de facto cap because they didn't have the cash to spend.

 

[sharph20]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Upshaw says NFL labor talks break down again

NFL labor talks broke off Tuesday three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.
Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the last three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

The NFL acknowledged the talks had broken off and said no further discussions were scheduled. The league said it would not extend Friday's deadline for the start of free agency.

Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old contract. Talks have been going on for more than a year.


Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.

Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.


"We're too far apart on our economics and too far apart on revenue sharing -- the ball is in their court," Upshaw said. "We'll go to the uncapped year, there won't be an extension."

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.
They differ, however, on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

But there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to explain to NFL clubs why the sides have been unable to come to an agreement.
Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.
Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.


ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners were scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.

Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said "internal revenue-sharing issues" would not be discussed at the meeting.


Here is another version they have on ESPN

 

[Da Hammer]

HAHA hello cap hell for the Skins :suxskins: :suxskins:

 

[Bizwah]

I don't buy that Green Bay and Pittsburgh wouldn't be able to keep up.

We had no salary cap for 30 years and those teams did just fine. Besides, each of those teams are among the more popular in the league.

If they draft well and are smart negotiating with their own players to resign them while still under contract, they'll be able to get fair deals done.

Everyone will be able to keep their own, for the most part.

Much better than the shatty system we have now.

Wrong........for all those years, there wasn't FA.

You drafted a player and retained his rights for his whole career....unless you traded him or released him.

With FA, teams like Pitts and GB would have a very hard time competing. Minnesota, Seattle, Jax, and Carolina would also have a tough time. In about 20 years, we'd probably be feeling the crunch.

Plus, I hate the way baseball works. I hate to see players switch jerseys like underwear. Give me some continutity.

 

[Little Jr]

Wrong........for all those years, there wasn't FA.

You drafted a player and retained his rights for his whole career....unless you traded him or released him.

With FA, teams like Pitts and GB would have a very hard time competing. Minnesota, Seattle, Jax, and Carolina would also have a tough time. In about 20 years, we'd probably be feeling the crunch.

Plus, I hate the way baseball works. I hate to see players switch jerseys like underwear. Give me some continutity.

Not Carolina. They were one of the 9 who were holding up the CBA. I was little shock though.

 

[Reality]

Revenue sharing is completely stupid IMO. The team owners knew what team and what area they were getting when they bought the team. Does a coffee shop that opens in the poor part of town deserve a share of the money from a coffee shop that opens in a rich part of town? Life is not fair and it should be no different in the NFL. No matter what rules are put in place such as the salary cap, teams with money will find a way around it.

Look at the Commanders for example. They've supposedly been in "cap hell" for years yet they sign free agents every year without a problem. While this year may be different, it is only because of the CBA issue and if the CBA was not ending in a year, the Commanders would find the cap room to sign whoever they wanted just like any team with money can.

I mean think about it .. with revenue sharing, you would be encouraged to put a team in Maine, Oregon, etc. That way, you would get revenue sharing while at the same time be able to tell your fans that fan support doesn't allow your team to sign the top free agents.

I think the best way to solve this is to remove the salary cap and revenue sharing all together and implement a luxury tax like MLB has but with more bite. Simply say that the salary limit for players AND coaches cannot exceed X dollars or you'll be forced to pay a luxury tax that matches dollar-for-dollar the amount a team went over that limit. This would include the ENTIRE signing bonus when the player is signed to remove the 7 year contracts with 3-4 voidable years at the end.

That way, teams that may be in big markets but are more responsible with their money wouldn't be forced to pay the owners of teams in smaller markets when those owners knew what they were getting into when they bought their teams.

Oh, and I think if they did something like this, they could also apply a credit for players who have played their entire careers with your team. So, if you draft a player or sign a rookie free agent, only a percentage of any money paid to them would be applied to the luxury tax limit. This would put the focus back on drafting where it should be, not on what mercenary a team can hire for 2-3 years that another team groomed.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Reality, while I agree with you in principle, I must ask, would you feel the same way if you cheered for one of the parasite teams instead of a high revenue team?

 

[Reality]

Reality, while I agree with you in principle, I must ask, would you feel the same way if you cheered for one of the parasite teams instead of a high revenue team?

I look at it like this .. The Yankees spend 200+ million a year on salary while most of MLB spends less than half that. How many World Series have the Yankees won lately since their spending surged so much?

Money doesn't buy championships. Take T.O. for example. A team could come in and pay him a $10 million signing bonus and $10 million a year, then have him go down with an injury in pre-season that puts him on IR for the rest of the year. Just because you have money and just because you spend money doesn't mean you're going to succeed.

Take Dallas for example paying $9 million to Rivera last year as a signing bonus. Was he worth it? Absolutely not, but to add insult to injury (literally), a luxury tax would have Dallas sharing money with other teams if they do that often. Meaning, not only did they not improve their team, they have to pay other teams for that ability.

 

[Chuck 54]

Who's smarter:

Gene Upshaw
Patrick Ewing
Vince Young

I resent having Ewing grouped into that bunch. Patrick Ewing may have been teased with bananas (an idiotic and racial slur) due to his facial features, but he was quite intelligent. The funny thing I found was watching how much respect Ralph Sampson was afforded because he played for UVA and had so called "white features" when in fact, he was the "slow" one, and if you ever heard him talk or answer interview questions, you know what I mean.

Ewing is no dummy...

 

[InmanRoshi]

Not Carolina. They were one of the 9 who were holding up the CBA. I was little shock though.

And not Seattle either. They have a brand new stadium with luxory boxes stacked on top of one another, which they sell out. And, not to mention, their owner is the 2nd richest man in the world.