Something I Remember From the Last CBA

[Hostile]

Do you remember how the prevailing thought was that Gene Upshaw sold out the NFLPA and the owner's got the better end of the deal? I remember it well.

Now, in retrospect look what deal the players want to keep in place and the owners want to eliminate.

I remember Upshaw being really castigated on all fronts and that he was viewed as a puppet of the Commissioner. My how perceptions change

 

[speedkilz88]

I remember the deal in the early 90s, a lot of players like Michael Irvin thought Upshaw betrayed them. But my recollection of 2006 was that most thought the players got a sweetheart deal because Tagliabue twisted arms to get a deal done on his way out.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you remember how the prevailing thought was that Gene Upshaw sold out the NFLPA and the owner's got the better end of the deal? I remember it well.

Now, in retrospect look what deal the players want to keep in place and the owners want to eliminate.

I remember Upshaw being really castigated on all fronts and that he was viewed as a puppet of the Commissioner. My how perceptions change

The reason for that is because they had won the court battle and then they still were able to force through franchise tags and restricted free agency.

Player freedom and money. Thats what this all about.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

The difference is in short and long term thinking. It's natural for current players to have a short term focus in CBA negotiations - then and now. But over time, what prevails is that long term thinking and planning is always best for both sides. That's the persepctive from which I think Upshaw was coming from then, and that's the persepctive where I think NFL owners are coming from now.

 

[burmafrd]

Tag wanted a deal for his "legacy" and Upshaw worked him like a rag.

 

[Hostile]

Nope fellas, it was definitely the last CBA. Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson were the only 2 owners who voted against it and most felt Upshaw sold out.

Now, look at this today.

Cincinnati Enquirer.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Tag wanted a deal for his "legacy" and Upshaw worked him like a rag.

He wasn't negotiating with Tags, he was negotiating with 32 owners, and 30 of them voted for the deal.

It's amazing to me how often I see the following 3 points made consecutively in the same argument...

a) Players are mostly dumb meatheads and criminals.
b) Owners are all independently wealthy because they're brillant business people.
c) The owners had no choice but to void out the current CBA and lock out the players and inflict a work stoppage on fans, because the "meathead" players worked over the "brillant" owners at the negotiating table in 2006.

 

[speedkilz88]

"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."

The deal was put together by nine teams who began on different sides of the revenue-sharing debate, including such high-revenue teams as New England and Dallas.

"We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

 

[Hostile]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Thank you sir.

 

[speedkilz88]

NFL players ecstatic for long-awaited labor peace
By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY
When Shawn Barber considered the possibility of an uncapped year in 2007 and the uncertainty of an NFL with no labor deal thereafter, the Philadelphia Eagles linebacker called it a "lose-lose" for players and owners alike.

When Mark Bruener learned that owners agreed not only to revenue sharing but the NFL Players Association's plan for a six-year extension, the Houston Texans tight end termed it "a complete victory for both sides."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-08-labor-deal-reaction_x.htm

 

[speedkilz88]

May 20, 2008
ATLANTA -- The NFL officially notified its players union on Tuesday that it will opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which could lead to a season without a salary cap in 2010 and a possible lockout in 2011.

Owners voted unanimously Tuesday morning to opt out of the deal, which was extended in March 2006. The NFL had until November to opt out, but decided to do it early instead of waiting for the deadline.

The league, however, emphasized that it will keep negotiating with the NFL Players Association and said games will be played "without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons."

"We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football," commissioner Roger Goodell said after the owners used the opt-out clause built into the agreement signed more than two years ago. "We are not in dire straits. We've never said that. But the agreement isn't working, and we're looking to get a more fair and equitable deal.".......

*******

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been anticipating the early termination of the agreement. He met with owners two weeks ago, and from that meeting he asked for audited financial reports from owners to document their economic problems.

Roger [Goodell] e-mailed me this morning [and] told me they had a unanimous agreement to terminate the deal. My response back to him? 'What a surprise.'
-- NFLPA president Gene Upshaw..........

*******

Upshaw said Goodell's e-mail listed three reasons for the early termination
: high labor costs, problems with the rookie pool and the league's inability, through the interpretation of the courts, to recoup bonuses of players who subsequently breach their contract or refuse to perform.

The highest-profile example of the latter was a court decision allowing Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick to keep $16.5 million in bonus money, despite pleading guilty to federal dogfighting charges and being sentenced to 23 months in federal prison.

According to the NFL, clubs are obligated by the collective bargaining agreement to spend almost $4.5 billion on player costs in 2008. Players received around 60 percent of league revenues. Growing costs of stadium construction and operations also figured into Tuesday's decision.

The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans.

"The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the cost of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest shares; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country," the NFL said.........

******


NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler told The Wall Street Journal prior to Tuesday's announcement that if the owners were to opt out, the union "plans to ask for a greater share of revenues."

Kessler added that "Every deal we've gotten with them, we've received another increase.".............

********

Upshaw added: "March of 2010 -- that's what we see as the realistic deadline. I'm not going to sell the players on a cap again. Once we go through the cap, why should we agree to it again?"







http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

 

[burmafrd]

He wasn't negotiating with Tags, he was negotiating with 32 owners, and 30 of them voted for the deal.

It's amazing to me how often I see the following 3 points made consecutively in the same argument...

a) Players are mostly dumb meatheads and criminals.
b) Owners are all independently wealthy because they're brillant business people.
c) The owners had no choice but to void out the current CBA and lock out the players and inflict a work stoppage on fans, because the "meathead" players worked over the "brillant" owners at the negotiating table in 2006.

TAG was the one that pushed the owners hard and he had built up a lot of cred with them.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Do you remember how the prevailing thought was that Gene Upshaw sold out the NFLPA and the owner's got the better end of the deal? I remember it well.

Now, in retrospect look what deal the players want to keep in place and the owners want to eliminate.

I remember Upshaw being really castigated on all fronts and that he was viewed as a puppet of the Commissioner. My how perceptions change

I remember that too, in fact, players wanted to ride Upshaw out on a rail so to speak, because they thought he sold them out. :starspin

 

[poke]

i dont remember it being that way at all.

 

[Hostile]

i dont remember it being that way at all.

The articles speedkilz posted don't job the memory?

 

[poke]

The articles speedkilz posted don't job the memory?

i didnt see anything in that article that hinted at Upshaw being vilified

 

[birdwells1]

He wasn't negotiating with Tags, he was negotiating with 32 owners, and 30 of them voted for the deal.

It's amazing to me how often I see the following 3 points made consecutively in the same argument...

a) Players are mostly dumb meatheads and criminals.
b) Owners are all independently wealthy because they're brillant business people.
c) The owners had no choice but to void out the current CBA and lock out the players and inflict a work stoppage on fans, because the "meathead" players worked over the "brillant" owners at the negotiating table in 2006.

That's because they are trying to work the strike angle. They are trying to say that the players initiated the lockout but by definition a lockout is an action by ownership.