Upshaw| "hold off on signing new contracts or restructuring deals until March 2"

[Hostile]

If March 3rd were 2 or 3 months away, I would agree that its a negotiating tactic. When its 7 days away, I think its reality.

I agree with you.

 

[DBoys]

Let's see, you're Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones and hold all the cards. The NFL and the players want you to give up money. Why would you do it for nothing in return? The way I see it, if you're going to give up money, then at least get a better team in return. There are two big sticks the NFL PA has: uncapped free agency and decertification.

If you are the wealthiest NFL teams, uncapped free agency is not a stick-- it's a dream come true! It means you'll be among an elite group of teams competing for Superbowls every year while the Bengals and Cardinals of the world remain content to go along for the ride.

The marketing deals the Cowboys, Seahawks, et al enjoy would be even more fruitful with a consistent winner on the field. If anything, uncapped free agency could make the wealthy even wealthier-- it will certainly improve their ability to win games.

The American public won't care-- the millions of fans the NFL tries to attract each year will simply become fans of the competitive teams.

The networks won't care-- with only a few teams to focus on, scheduling MNF and talking up the winners will be easy.

The NFLPA will be both hurt and helped-- desirable free agents will get paid bigtime salaries and the Bengals and Cards will barely field competitive teams because there will no longer be a minimum salary cap.

The big losers are the NFL owners who are stuck in between the haves (Jones, Snyder) and the don't care's (Bidwell, Brown). It's the Rooneys who get shafted since they aren't sharing revenues and have trouble outbidding the Allens or Snyders for better free agents. These teams will become farm teams for the competitive NFL teams. Parity will be lost, and as a result the NFL will lose some fans to baseball, international games, and other sports, but the bottom line is there's only one NFL and fans will still pay top dollar to see it.

If the Rooney's have a lick of sense, they'll accept whatever token revenue-sharing Jones, Snyder and company offer and move on. It's free money to them and ensures they will still be able to compete in the future.

Nice post

 

[AmericasTeam31]

If I am understanding it correctly, it's a no win situation for the League as far as parity is concerned.
If the NFL is uncapped it becomes like MLB where only a few teams have any real chance of winning and one will, every once in a while. But for the most part, the Yankees, Red Sox, and the like, will continue to compete by themselves.
If there is a revenue or profit sharing agreement, that would certainly affect which teams free agents sign with. If a player is offered equal contracts from the Cards and the Boys, Dallas would have a much better chance of signing the player due to more $$$$$ in sharing. Again this shifts the power to the big $ or big market teams. Leaving only a few to compete on a consistent basis.
Seems to me the best thing is to raise the cap, and offer no profit or revenue sharing. If the players don't like it, they can find another league to play in that will pay them anywhere close to what they make now. Where are they gonna find that? That's the only bargaining chip you need.

 

[Cbz40]

Making a stand waiting for someone to blink.....

 

[TheKey]

There will be no 2009 season and maybe beyond, and we will not get the money for our stadium. The NFL is headed south.

 

[AbeBeta]

The reason I wrote that it was a scare tatic was because of his uncapped year in 2007 and no CBA in 2008 statement because he knows that the league cannot make it without a CBA - that will just not happen.

So maybe then the league should get their *&$&^ together and agree on the revenue sharing aspect of this, huh?

 

[DBoys]

If you were an owner and you had 2 options - sign and compete for players while everyone has a cap limit of 92-95 million or sign and compete for players when everyone has a 110-115 million limit - what would you do.

I am missing something - because please tell me if I am - why would the owners want a deal before FA begins?

Other than the obvious guys like Snyder who will be in cap hell.

People want to win no matter the cost. Take the Cowboys for example if they make 300mil a year and only spend 100 on the cap. I would be willing to spend 200mil and win superbowls as opposed to 100mil and struggle with injuries and depth.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So maybe then the league should get their *&$&^ together and agree on the revenue sharing aspect of this, huh?

I agree. They should definatly agree on something but what should that be? Should it be everybody getting everybody elses fruites or should it be a limited criteria? To me, revenue sharing should consist of what it does now and no more. If you share everything, there's no incentive for other owners to work hard to improve there franchises. If you set it up so that the revenue sharing is limited, then the owners who do work harder and smarter are compensated fairly and the owners who are lazy get what they put into it. That, to me, is the fairest thing in the world.

 

[notherbob]

Seems to me the best thing is to raise the cap, and offer no profit or revenue sharing. If the players don't like it, they can find another league to play in that will pay them anywhere close to what they make now. Where are they gonna find that? That's the only bargaining chip you need.

That's why the NFL is subject to the anti-trust laws. If they can't voluntarily come to some agreement, sooner or later the union will sue and the courts will force a settlement on them.

I would hope it doesn't come to that as I would like to watch some good football, preferrably without undue interruptions and I hope there will be an extension signed and we can get on with the off-season. I guess I'll just have to take whatever table crumbs these people choose to give me. It's either that or start spending my Sunday afternoons in fall and winter outside in nature, there being no other reason to watch TV.

It's pretty hard for me to side with either the rich players or the mega-rich owners since I can't really identify with either side. If I could just once get as much money as the lowest paid player in the league I could fix this old ranch up real nice, put in some good fences and redo the barn like new and even wire it for electricity. I'd still drink this unfiltered, dark, murky old creek water, though, it's the best tasting water in the world - even makes whiskey taste good.

Deep down, I don't care anything at all about whether there's a new CBA or not, I just wanna see good football and if that's the only way I can see it then I want them to work it out however they can and the sooner the better.

Is this gonna make the Kool-Aid taste funny?

 

[AbeBeta]

I agree. They should definatly agree on something but what should that be? Should it be everybody getting everybody elses fruites or should it be a limited criteria? To me, revenue sharing should consist of what it does now and no more. If you share everything, there's no incentive for other owners to work hard to improve there franchises. If you set it up so that the revenue sharing is limited, then the owners who do work harder and smarter are compensated fairly and the owners who are lazy get what they put into it. That, to me, is the fairest thing in the world.

The Daily turd suggested that the owners who are holding out want something in return if they share -- like having the SB in their town and funding for their stadiums. Not unreasonable - but really, they are just moving cash around there.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2340178


Upshaw tells agents that CBA talks are in standstill

By John Clayton
ESPN.com





At an NFLPA advisory board meeting of 16 handpicked agents, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw told them to hold off on signing new contracts or restructuring deals until March 2, the evening before the start of 2006 free agency.
Upshaw told the agents there isn't any progress on a new collective bargaining agreement and he will not move back the start of free agency under any circumstance. Upshaw said Wednesday he would like to know by Friday when he holds an agents seminar whether there is a chance for a CBA extension.
One of the holdups in extension talks is revenue sharing among the owners. The high revenue teams have yet to cut a deal with the low revenue teams. Once that deal is arranged, Upshaw and the owners can cut a deal for what percentage of total gross revenues will be given to the players.
The players want a percentage of total gross revenues in the 60 percent or above range. Upshaw said he wants a number in the sixties.
"I won't do it, though, without revenue sharing," Upshaw said.
If it comes to Friday and there is no deal, Upshaw plans to tell agents to prepare for an uncapped year in 2007 and no collective bargaining agreement in 2008.
"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."
Upshaw had a Wednesday afternoon negotiating session with several owners, including Jerry Jones of the Cowboys and Rams president John Shaw.
John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.








----------------------


Not looking good for the Skins in this scenario

HOPEFULLY WE COULD REALLY SEE HOW RICH JERRY IS...

 

[TheSkaven]

Not looking good for the Skins in this scenario

As much as I'd like to see the 'Skins squirm, I don't want to see any labor unrest. Get it done. The mere thought of another one of those strike seasons or, heaven forbid, a year without football is far too depressing!!

 

[Cbz40]

As much as I'd like to see the 'Skins squirm, I don't want to see any labor unrest. Get it done. The mere thought of another one of those strike seasons or, heaven forbid, a year without football is far too depressing!!

 

[big dog cowboy]

The mere thought of another one of those strike seasons or, heaven forbid, a year without football is far too depressing!!

There is no much to lose from both the players side and the owners side for that.


Isn't there???

 

[notherbob]

There is no much to lose from both the players side and the owners side for that.


Isn't there???

I don't know, Snyder is one of the holdout owners and failure to get a new CBA would hurt his team a lot immediately, probably more than any other team. He's caught between a rock and a hard place; lose players now or lose money later. Breaks my heart.

 

[aikemirv]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2340178


Upshaw tells agents that CBA talks are in standstill

By John Clayton
ESPN.com

http://log.go.com/log?srvc=sz&guid=...ileespn.com?campaign=mobile&source=insider_ah



At an NFLPA advisory board meeting of 16 handpicked agents, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw told them to hold off on signing new contracts or restructuring deals until March 2, the evening before the start of 2006 free agency.
Upshaw told the agents there isn't any progress on a new collective bargaining agreement and he will not move back the start of free agency under any circumstance. Upshaw said Wednesday he would like to know by Friday when he holds an agents seminar whether there is a chance for a CBA extension.
One of the holdups in extension talks is revenue sharing among the owners. The high revenue teams have yet to cut a deal with the low revenue teams. Once that deal is arranged, Upshaw and the owners can cut a deal for what percentage of total gross revenues will be given to the players.
The players want a percentage of total gross revenues in the 60 percent or above range. Upshaw said he wants a number in the sixties.
"I won't do it, though, without revenue sharing," Upshaw said.
If it comes to Friday and there is no deal, Upshaw plans to tell agents to prepare for an uncapped year in 2007 and no collective bargaining agreement in 2008.
"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."Upshaw had a Wednesday afternoon negotiating session with several owners, including Jerry Jones of the Cowboys and Rams president John Shaw.
John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

Not looking good for the Skins in this scenario

Granstander and scare tactis - He knows it is in the best interest of the players to get a deal done. But he wants to take center stage and make grand statements to put himself in the limelight - know he looks rather stupid with those comments wouldn't you say!!