CBA Talks not going well

[EberKain]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/2020AP_FBN_Super_Bowl_Tagliabue.html

DETROIT -- NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue is not expecting any sudden breakthroughs with the players' union on a contract extension.

"We're not making the kind of progress we need to be making," he said Friday during his annual state of the league address. "I don't think negotiations are going very well."

The collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2007 season. But under the current contract, there would be no salary cap in 2007, and NFL Players Association executive Gene Upshaw insists if the cap disappears then, it won't come back.

While avoiding the strong rhetoric uttered by Upshaw earlier this week, Tagliabue did not sound too optimistic about getting a deal done before the NFL meetings begin March 25 in Orlando, Fla.

"I do think there needs to be an outreach and more reality on both sides," Tagliabue said. "There needs to be a positive dose of reality on both sides of the table. To some degree, positions are hardening on both sides when they shouldn't be."

The league and the owners have been negotiating for more than a year on an extension to the contract first agreed upon in 1993. An added element to what usually have been relatively smooth talks: owners are split on how to divide revenues that will go to the players.

High-revenue teams who make more money from sources other than television and ticket sales are balking at contributing the same percentage of their income as low-revenue franchises.

Upshaw set March 9 to begin consulting players on legal action if no deal has been reached. Tagliabue doesn't have such an immediate sense of urgency, but he's not loafing on the issue, either.

"A lot of things get done at the 11th hour and 55th minute," Tagliabue said. "I don't know if we'll get something done by the league meetings."

Upshaw talked Thursday about potential legal action and even a decertification of the union. Tagliabue conceded those were possibilities, but "I don't think we'll be in litigation or decertification."


Another thing in there was that they were considering another expansion team for LA even though it would give the league an odd number. What do you think about a Mexico City team? I could see that working.

[Red Bear]

an odd number of teams would mean a bye every week of the season including week 1, and i dont see that happening, you have to add teams in pairs

[CNYSkinFan]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/2020AP_FBN_Super_Bowl_Tagliabue.html




Another thing in there was that they were considering another expansion team for LA even though it would give the league an odd number. What do you think about a Mexico City team? I could see that working.
Too many problems with a Mexico City team, not the least of which water and travel. There is also the dollar exchange issues. There are plenty of continental american cities deserving a franchise (LA, Oklahoma City, San Antonio) before we go south of the border.


But to Keiono, Spence, And Danny's Stogie I direct you to this quote:



High-revenue teams who make more money from sources other than television and ticket sales are balking at contributing the same percentage of their income as low-revenue franchises.



I of course think high revenue teams should keep their local revenue since we have a salary cap. BUt this proves this is a large amount of local revenue that they are willing to fight over.

[fent]

Too many problems with a Mexico City team, not the least of which water and travel. There is also the dollar exchange issues. There are plenty of continental american cities deserving a franchise (LA, Oklahoma City, San Antonio) before we go south of the border.


But to Keiono, Spence, And Danny's Stogie I direct you to this quote:



I of course think high revenue teams should keep their local revenue since we have a salary cap. BUt this proves this is a large amount of local revenue that they are willing to fight over.

putting a team in oklahoma city would be pretty rough. there are only 3.5 million people in the entire state, most of which are already cowboys or chiefs fans. of that population, only 500K are actually in oklahoma city. it'd be hard to consistently sell those tickets.

[DoGood]

putting a team in oklahoma city would be pretty rough. there are only 3.5 million people in the entire state, most of which are already cowboys or chiefs fans. of that population, only 500K are actually in oklahoma city. it'd be hard to consistently sell those tickets.

Just from reading those stats, that would have to be scrapped. No way could Oklahoma support an NFL team. I'm sure they would love it, but the population just isn't there.

[CNYSkinFan]

putting a team in oklahoma city would be pretty rough. there are only 3.5 million people in the entire state, most of which are already cowboys or chiefs fans. of that population, only 500K are actually in oklahoma city. it'd be hard to consistently sell those tickets.
Yeah, i just looked at how well the NO hornets are doing there, but that is a whole different deal. What about Portland Oregon?

[redskin_rich]

No more expansion teams, the league is diluted enough.

[CNYSkinFan]

No more expansion teams, the league is diluted enough.
I pretty much agree with Rich. The only thing I would like done is a move of NO (sorry guys but ihas to be done) to LA.

[Axegrinder]

Aren't the most populated areas concentrated on the coasts?
Edit:
After posting this,I'd have to also agree with Rich.
There's already a shortage of NFL talent,especially at the QB position.

[fent]

Aren't the most populated areas concentrated on the coasts?

not necessarily. most of the inland big cities already have teams, though...here's a list. LA has been given several chances and it hasn't supported a team. none of the other cities really strike me as being able to support a team.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

[redskin_rich]

Aren't the most populated areas concentrated on the coasts?
Edit:
After posting this,I'd have to also agree with Rich.
There's already a shortage of NFL talent,especially at the QB position.
Not to mention, we finally have a perfect balance with 4 divisions of 4 in each conference, why mess that up?

[nmskin]

An uncapped year would actually be the worst thing you could ask for. It would drive the cost of everything football related through the roof and would just make for a pain when a huge salary is given to some bum. I like the salary cap and the challegne of finding compentent enough people to build a winner every year.

[DoGood]

Not to mention, we finally have a perfect balance with 4 divisions of 4 in each conference, why mess that up?

This thread is getting more and more clear-headed every minute. Just say No to expansion teams. I don't care where they are.

[BraveSkin76]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202350.html

In the Washington Post, there's also a little Upshaw blurb about Snyder I found interesting:

Tagliabue, meantime, is trying to get owners to agree to a plan to increase the degree to which the wealthiest franchises would share their locally generated revenues with needier teams. The two sets of negotiations are taking place simultaneously, and Upshaw said the biggest holdup to deals on both fronts is that some owners of the most prosperous clubs are taking advantage of the current system. He said he does not include the Washington Redskins' Daniel Snyder in that category.

"You have to take Dan Snyder out," Upshaw said. "He's completely different. He's got a high-revenue club, and he spends money on his players. We like that. There are high-revenue clubs who are spending less than $66 million on their players, and that's out of $300 million. That's not a fair share."

-from the Washington Post

So, it seems the main issue isn't between the league and the players but rather between the owners themselves. I hope I am understanding this right.
My opinion of Dan Snyder as a fan and Businesman has gone up increasingly over the last year or two.

[BraveSkin76]

An uncapped year would actually be the worst thing you could ask for. It would drive the cost of everything football related through the roof and would just make for a pain when a huge salary is given to some bum. I like the salary cap and the challegne of finding compentent enough people to build a winner every year.

I agree NMS. I see major problems down the road--even with just 2007 being an uncapped year.

[The Skinsinator]

putting a team in oklahoma city would be pretty rough. there are only 3.5 million people in the entire state, most of which are already cowboys or chiefs fans. of that population, only 500K are actually in oklahoma city. it'd be hard to consistently sell those tickets.You will not find a state that loves football as Okahoma does. However, you are correct, putting a nfl team here would be a major mistake. We couldn't support it. This state is all about one thing-OU football. Alot of their fans wouldn't even be aware that a nfl team was here.

[Keino]

Too many problems with a Mexico City team, not the least of which water and travel. There is also the dollar exchange issues. There are plenty of continental american cities deserving a franchise (LA, Oklahoma City, San Antonio) before we go south of the border.


But to Keiono, Spence, And Danny's Stogie I direct you to this quote:



I of course think high revenue teams should keep their local revenue since we have a salary cap. BUt this proves this is a large amount of local revenue that they are willing to fight over.

All it proves is that The owners who are innovative enough to generate local revenue are unwilling to share it. Do you blame them? The lack of a cap would force those owners who don't generate local revnenue to generate it if they want to field competetive teams. The owners who don't care would not see a decrease in profits or revenues in the absence of a cap. Those owners aren't spending on salaries anyways.

[Keino]

Not to mention, we finally have a perfect balance with 4 divisions of 4 in each conference, why mess that up?

Sort of make Moving N.O. to LA a bit of a logistical nightmare, doesn't it?

[RedskinRyan]

i say yes to salary cap and revenue sharing, cause id hate it if the NFL became the MLB in the sense that you only see the same teams competing cause smaller market teams cant compete. also no to a team in mexico. this is the NFL, not the Internation Football League.

[akhhorus]

This sounds like smoke, I think they are close to a deal and are just looking for leverage on each other for the final details. Upshaw came out with a statement yesterday looking to upstage Tags.

As for new teams, its in this order:
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
then maybe Chicago.

[fent]

You will not find a state that loves football as Okahoma does. However, you are correct, putting a nfl team here would be a major mistake. We couldn't support it. This state is all about one thing-OU football. Alot of their fans wouldn't even be aware that a nfl team was here.

i think that's the thing that makes people think a team in OK would work. it's nuts how crazy okies are for OU and OSU football (can't forget my friends in Stillwater ;) ) but that's instilled in them from birth. i don't think it's reasonable to expect oklahomans to fill OU Memorial on Saturday and then shell out the cash to fill an NFL stadium the next morning for a team that would be directly competing with the team they already follow, the cowboys or the chiefs. aside from the ties they already have to NFL teams, i don't think most oklahomans could afford it based on the average income down there.

[fent]

As for new teams, its in this order:
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
then maybe Chicago.

i still don't understand this fascination. how many times do they have to try before they realize that they won't support a team there?

[akhhorus]

i still don't understand this fascination. how many times do they have to try before they realize that they won't support a team there?

Biggest metro area and they've had nothing but bad owners there. A strong owner who is committed to winning will suceed there.

[danny's stogie]

Too many problems with a Mexico City team, not the least of which water and travel. There is also the dollar exchange issues. There are plenty of continental american cities deserving a franchise (LA, Oklahoma City, San Antonio) before we go south of the border.


But to Keiono, Spence, And Danny's Stogie I direct you to this quote:



I of course think high revenue teams should keep their local revenue since we have a salary cap. BUt this proves this is a large amount of local revenue that they are willing to fight over.

Hey CNY, I was never one to dispute that, but I think it's ridiculous that the owners have to share so much revenue in the first place and now the Tom Bensons and Bidwells want to steal even more profit from the other owners? Can you blame the top tier for holding out? They work hard to maximize their franchise's value while some owners do nothing but sit around and collect checks from the league. A free market, less revenue sharing and no salary cap, would weed out the bottom feeders.

As for LA landing a team...it's failed twice before and it will fail again if Tom Benson is the owner. Good ownership can make it work in LA.

[Keino]

i say yes to salary cap and revenue sharing, cause id hate it if the NFL became the MLB in the sense that you only see the same teams competing cause smaller market teams cant compete. also no to a team in mexico. this is the NFL, not the Internation Football League.

Actually there is quite an interesting debate about how much the Salary Cap impacts the "smaller market" teams. You can check that out here : http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=678373#post678373

As you will see, one school of thought is that it is Revenue Sharing alone that levels the playing field. Comparisons to baseball are negated by the fact that Baseball has no revenue sharing.

[Keino]

Biggest metro area and they've had nothing but bad owners there. A strong owner who is committed to winning will suceed there.

They had a Superbowl Team in the Raiders and still didn't support them. Al Davis is a nut, but I don't thik his passion for the Raiders can be denied.

They do not support teams in LaLa land.

[redskin_rich]

Sort of make Moving N.O. to LA a bit of a logistical nightmare, doesn't it?
You mean as far as keeping them in the NFC South?
They would be best off switching them to the NFC West and St.Louis to the NFC South, if that were to happen.

[CNYSkinFan]

Sort of make Moving N.O. to LA a bit of a logistical nightmare, doesn't it?

Well St. Louis and NO could easily switch conferences. It would actually make sense travel wise for SF, Seattle, And AZ to go to LA then St. Louis.

[CNYSkinFan]

You mean as far as keeping them in the NFC South?
They would be best off switching them to the NFC West and St.Louis to the NFC South, if that were to happen.
great minds

[CNYSkinFan]

Hey CNY, I was never one to dispute that, but I think it's ridiculous that the owners have to share so much revenue in the first place and now the Tom Bensons and Bidwells want to steal even more profit from the other owners? Can you blame the top tier for holding out? They work hard to maximize their franchise's value while some owners do nothing but sit around and collect checks from the league. A free market, less revenue sharing and no salary cap, would weed out the bottom feeders.

As for LA landing a team...it's failed twice before and it will fail again if Tom Benson is the owner. Good ownership can make it work in LA.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the other teams should be forced to share local revenues. In fact quite the opposite. I think big market teams should have some benefit and reap the rewards of their hard work. I also am not for a Cap on coaches or overall salaries either.

But when it comes to on the field talent I am for a hard cap. I am also for a higher minimum cap. I think 56% is ridiculous and a team should be withint the 80-100% range for the cap to be effective.

[Keino]

Well St. Louis and NO could easily switch conferences. It would actually make sense travel wise for SF, Seattle, And AZ to go to LA then St. Louis.

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable solution, but it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the reallignment....to create natural regional rivalries.

[CNYSkinFan]

Biggest metro area and they've had nothing but bad owners there. A strong owner who is committed to winning will suceed there.
Plus it has been what 15 years since LA went back to Oakland? The problem with the Raiders is their base was always in Oakland. The LA Rams blew for most of the time out there and had to compete with the Raiders. I think in 10 years Jacksonville will be looking to move since it is too small to support and NFL franchise as well.

[CNYSkinFan]

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable solution, but it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the reallignment....to create natural regional rivalries.
Well there aren't any real rivalries with NO...maybe ATL but it is not like Redskin Dallas or anything like that. AS for St. Louis their only real rival was SF back i the 80-s and that is because they were in LA.

[Keino]

Well there aren't any real rivalries with NO...maybe ATL but it is not like Redskin Dallas or anything like that. AS for St. Louis their only real rival was SF back i the 80-s and that is because they were in LA.

Well my friend, I think if you said that down here in Tampa, people would look at you as if you were crazy.

NO and Tampa have quite a rivalry since they were put in the same Division.

[Keino]

Plus it has been what 15 years since LA went back to Oakland? The problem with the Raiders is their base was always in Oakland. The LA Rams blew for most of the time out there and had to compete with the Raiders. I think in 10 years Jacksonville will be looking to move since it is too small to support and NFL franchise as well.

The Rams had Erick Dickerson played in a number of NFC Championship/Playoff games, went to the SB in 80. They were a perennial playoff team in 80's and could not get support. Why doesn anyone think moving the Saints, the Epitome of mediocrity would have a different effect? L.A. doesn't deserve a team.

[RedskinsDave]

The Rams had Erick Dickerson played in a number of NFC Championship/Playoff games, went to the SB in 80. They were a perennial playoff team in 80's and could not get support. Why doesn anyone think moving the Saints, the Epitome of mediocrity would have a different effect? L.A. doesn't deserve a team.

They don't and we all know it's all about the TV numbers. L.A. runs the prices up.

[helimech24]

Biggest metro area and they've had nothing but bad owners there. A strong owner who is committed to winning will suceed there.That leaves out N.O. because they have had nothing but bad coaching and bad owners.

[akhhorus]

That leaves out N.O. because they have had nothing but bad coaching and bad owners.

They've been talking about moving the Saints for a decade now.

They had a Superbowl Team in the Raiders and still didn't support them. Al Davis is a nut, but I don't thik his passion for the Raiders can be denied.

They do not support teams in LaLa land.

Yeah, but the Raiders were an Oakland team always. And Al was threatening to move them back to Oakland if he didn't get this concession or that concession. They support teams in LaLa Land, but they want winners and they want them to stay.

[lakeskin]

The Rams had Erick Dickerson played in a number of NFC Championship/Playoff games, went to the SB in 80. They were a perennial playoff team in 80's and could not get support. Why doesn anyone think moving the Saints, the Epitome of mediocrity would have a different effect? L.A. doesn't deserve a team.

"Could not get support"? Are you saying that the Rams couldn't sell out home games when they were winning? They did pretty well when they were losing until the last year when everyone knew they were leaving.

On a side note I saw the last Rams game in Anaheim when they played my beloved Redskins. I was with an ex cheering on the savior of my franchise, Heath Shuler... Pretty sad all around.

The reason why teams move has nothing to do with "support". See Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, etc. The owners try to get new stadiums in their respective towns, get stonewalled by the local politicians, another city moves in with an obscene offer, and the owner lines his/her pockets and gets outta Dodge. If Jacksonville can "support" a team then I'm pretty sure LA/Orange County would do just fine.

[helimech24]

They've been talking about moving the Saints for a decade now.

Yeah, I know, but that team needs to be dismantled all the way thru and rebuilt somewhere else. Of course, their luck might change like the Browns moving to Baltimore.

[Keino]

"Could not get support"? Are you saying that the Rams couldn't sell out home games when they were winning? They did pretty well when they were losing until the last year when everyone knew they were leaving.

On a side note I saw the last Rams game in Anaheim when they played my beloved Redskins. I was with an ex cheering on the savior of my franchise, Heath Shuler... Pretty sad all around.

The reason why teams move has nothing to do with "support". See Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, etc. The owners try to get new stadiums in their respective towns, get stonewalled by the local politicians, another city moves in with an obscene offer, and the owner lines his/her pockets and gets outta Dodge. If Jacksonville can "support" a team then I'm pretty sure LA/Orange County would do just fine.

How many Rams games were subject to Blackout because they didn't sell out the stadium? I seem to remember it being quite a problem when they became a less than Above Average team. LA will only support winners. It is why in Lakers games weren't selling out early in the year but Clippers games were. There isn't a more fair weather, apathetic sports town than Los Angeles. The city has already proven it can't/won't support a football team. Jacksonville on the other hand is proving it can.

[helimech24]

How many Rams games were subject to Blackout because they didn't sell out the stadium? I seem to remember it being quite a problem when they became a less than Above Average team. LA will only support winners. It is why in Lakers games weren't selling out early in the year but Clippers games were. There isn't a more fair weather, apathetic sports town than Los Angeles. The city has already proven it can't/won't support a football team. Jacksonville on the other hand is proving it can.How many teams does Cal. need? They have three already.

[lakeskin]

How many Rams games were subject to Blackout because they didn't sell out the stadium? I seem to remember it being quite a problem when they became a less than Above Average team. LA will only support winners. It is why in Lakers games weren't selling out early in the year but Clippers games were. There isn't a more fair weather, apathetic sports town than Los Angeles. The city has already proven it can't/won't support a football team. Jacksonville on the other hand is proving it can.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance

Sorry you've been misinformed about the Lakers and Clippers. Last year the Lakers ranked 7th in NBA home attendance. And they were awful last year. The Dodgers were 9th in the MLB and, guess what, they were even worse than the Lakers.

Where do the Wiz rank on that list? Will they only support winners? What fans will go to a game with a losing team? Been to a 49er game, Cardinal game, Texan game, etc... Hell Atlanta cant sell out Falcons or Braves games when the team is winning. And again, see Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis? Did they prove that they cant "support" a team when their owners left them? To be honest the fans here dont care if the NFL comes back or not. But if it did the second largest market in the US would have no trouble finding transient fans to "support" the team.

[Keino]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance

Sorry you've been misinformed about the Lakers and Clippers. Last year the Lakers ranked 7th in NBA home attendance. And they were awful last year. The Dodgers were 9th in the MLB and, guess what, they were even worse than the Lakers.

Where do the Wiz rank on that list? Will they only support winners? What fans will go to a game with a losing team? Been to a 49er game, Cardinal game, Texan game, etc... Hell Atlanta cant sell out Falcons or Braves games when the team is winning. And again, see Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis? Did they prove that they cant "support" a team when their owners left them? To be honest the fans here dont care if the NFL comes back or not. But if it did the second largest market in the US would have no trouble finding transient fans to "support" the team.

Lake, I said early in this year, when The CLippers were hot and the Lakers not so much. Last year's ranking have no bearing on any argument that I've made. The Washington area has proven overwhelmingly that it is capable of supporting its teams.

As for your question, the Redskins have been sold out since 1960 Something. So have the Packers. That's 2 examples of Cities (7th largest Market and 32nd Largest Markets) that support their teams through good and bad. The Redskins have 2 winning season in the past 13.

Your second to last sentence is exactly why LA doesn't deserve a team. I remember reading about Pre-selling season tickets in an effort to show the NFL that the market was hungry for an NFL franchise and that campaign failed miserably. As I said, most apathetic sports town. Towns that don't care don't deserve it.

[whitskins]

Lake, I said early in this year, when The CLippers were hot and the Lakers not so much. Last year's ranking have no bearing on any argument that I've made. The Washington area has proven overwhelmingly that it is capable of supporting its teams.

As for your question, the Redskins have been sold out since 1960 Something. So have the Packers. That's 2 examples of Cities (7th largest Market and 32nd Largest Markets) that support their teams through good and bad. The Redskins have 2 winning season in the past 13.

Your second to last sentence is exactly why LA doesn't deserve a team. I remember reading about Pre-selling season tickets in an effort to show the NFL that the market was hungry for an NFL franchise and that campaign failed miserably. As I said, most apathetic sports town. Towns that don't care don't deserve it.

LA is apathetic towards pro football, no doubt about that, but it is not an apathetic sports town. The city lives for college football and mightily supports two major teams, which is why it cares so little for the NFL. The Lakers are literally a major topic of conversation 12 months out of the year (even when they aren't good). Same with the Dodgers and to a lesser degree, the Angels. There are three sports talk radio channels out here.

The city loves sports, just not the NFL.

[Keino]

LA is apathetic towards pro football, no doubt about that, but it is not an apathetic sports town. The city lives for college football and mightily supports two major teams, which is why it cares so little for the NFL. The Lakers are literally a major topic of conversation 12 months out of the year (even when they aren't good). Same with the Dodgers and to a lesser degree, the Angels. There are three sports talk radio channels out here.

The city loves sports, just not the NFL.

I'll buy that.

[redskin_rich]

LA is apathetic towards pro football, no doubt about that, but it is not an apathetic sports town. The city lives for college football and mightily supports two major teams, which is why it cares so little for the NFL. The Lakers are literally a major topic of conversation 12 months out of the year (even when they aren't good). Same with the Dodgers and to a lesser degree, the Angels. There are three sports talk radio channels out here.

The city loves sports, just not the NFL.
I think the same can be said for DC only in a reverse order. The Redskins own this town, always have always will. We have the longest sellout streak in the NFL, since 1968. The Wizards have played a distant second fiddle and only started selling out when Jordan came to DC. Now that we have a baseball team, I would expect them to take the distant second role, no matter how good or bad they are. I'm not sure where college sports fit in because we are a region of two states and the district but I see alot of UMD and VATech flags around, so the support is there, just divided around the region. Lastly, we have the Caps, unfortunately, this is not a hockey town, so they only have a small following of true hockey fans.

[lakeskin]

Lake, I said early in this year, when The CLippers were hot and the Lakers not so much. Last year's ranking have no bearing on any argument that I've made. The Washington area has proven overwhelmingly that it is capable of supporting its teams.

As for your question, the Redskins have been sold out since 1960 Something. So have the Packers. That's 2 examples of Cities (7th largest Market and 32nd Largest Markets) that support their teams through good and bad. The Redskins have 2 winning season in the past 13.

Your second to last sentence is exactly why LA doesn't deserve a team. I remember reading about Pre-selling season tickets in an effort to show the NFL that the market was hungry for an NFL franchise and that campaign failed miserably. As I said, most apathetic sports town. Towns that don't care don't deserve it.

I only brought up last year's attendance figures to show that LA will support the Lakers no matter what. This year, 99 percent attendance tells me that every game was a virtual sellout for the Lakers. 89.5 percent for the CLippers tells me that no one cares, still.

There are fans who attend games in spite of their teams dismal performance, but their are many fans of other teams who wont. Should those teams be stripped of their NFL teams? If a team loses here people will not go to the games. if they win people will coem out in droves. But thats like alot of other citites in the NFL. Which tells me that LA can "support" a team because those other cities can too.

As long as the owner has a favorable lease and some nice luxury boxes than that owner, that team, aint going anywhere.

And in the words of William Munny, deserves got nothing to do with it. The NFL wants a team here.

Bah, to be honest Im pretty apathetic about the whole thing myself.

[RicFlairOne]

"Could not get support"? Are you saying that the Rams couldn't sell out home games when they were winning? They did pretty well when they were losing until the last year when everyone knew they were leaving.

On a side note I saw the last Rams game in Anaheim when they played my beloved Redskins. I was with an ex cheering on the savior of my franchise, Heath Shuler... Pretty sad all around.

The reason why teams move has nothing to do with "support". See Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, etc. The owners try to get new stadiums in their respective towns, get stonewalled by the local politicians, another city moves in with an obscene offer, and the owner lines his/her pockets and gets outta Dodge. If Jacksonville can "support" a team then I'm pretty sure LA/Orange County would do just fine.


I'm sorry you had to go through that! Heath Shuler. That was the last game that year wasn't it - finished 3 - 13 ??

[PA Skins Girl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202350.html

In the Washington Post, there's also a little Upshaw blurb about Snyder I found interesting:

Tagliabue, meantime, is trying to get owners to agree to a plan to increase the degree to which the wealthiest franchises would share their locally generated revenues with needier teams. The two sets of negotiations are taking place simultaneously, and Upshaw said the biggest holdup to deals on both fronts is that some owners of the most prosperous clubs are taking advantage of the current system. He said he does not include the Washington Redskins' Daniel Snyder in that category.

"You have to take Dan Snyder out," Upshaw said. "He's completely different. He's got a high-revenue club, and he spends money on his players. We like that. There are high-revenue clubs who are spending less than $66 million on their players, and that's out of $300 million. That's not a fair share."
-from the Washington Post

So, it seems the main issue isn't between the league and the players but rather between the owners themselves. I hope I am understanding this right.
My opinion of Dan Snyder as a fan and Businesman has gone up increasingly over the last year or two.
This quote seems to have gone unnoticed. The fact that Gene Upshaw would put Dan Snyder in a completely different catagory than the other big money generating owners is something that should be recognized.

[BigPlayJay]

No more teams. The number now is perfect. LA doesn't need a team, they don't even seem to want a team. Anyways I'm sure as long as there are dollars to be made, teams will keep moving and some team will wind up in LA eventually.

[skin4life]

i think nashville should get a team. great city, great facility and its real close to memphis. also las vegas is a must on the nfl tour, hopefully sooner rather than later imo. and then LA, most populus city in the world and those people got money. just look at how they support the lakers. well thats 3 solid cities that would make the nfl great. just think of the new division and playoff schemes tags could come up with.

[HAWGZHEAD]

i think nashville should get a team. great city, great facility and its real close to memphis. You're joking right. Did you forget about the Titans that play in Nashville?

[skin4life]

aint they the tennesse titans?

[HAWGZHEAD]

aint they the tennesse titans?Yeah ever since they moved from Houston and changed their name from the Oilers. Nashville is in tennesee.

[MWballer]

i think nashville should get a team. great city, great facility and its real close to memphis. also las vegas is a must on the nfl tour, hopefully sooner rather than later imo. and then LA, most populus city in the world and those people got money. just look at how they support the lakers. well thats 3 solid cities that would make the nfl great. just think of the new division and playoff schemes tags could come up with.

Nashville has a team trust me every time I visit my fam there thats all my uncle can talk about is the Titans.

[robotfire]

My opinion of Dan Snyder as a fan and Businesman has gone up increasingly over the last year or two.

I couldn't agree more.

Clint

[ChiefPowhatan17]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/2020AP_FBN_Super_Bowl_Tagliabue.html




Another thing in there was that they were considering another expansion team for LA even though it would give the league an odd number. What do you think about a Mexico City team? I could see that working.

If we add a team to be LA then there other team to make it even should be in Hawaii or Portland or Alaska, or Oklahoma city. I don't know. I guess MC would work.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

This is going from bad to worse.

Only a few weeks ago, the NFLPA rejected a new league proposal, and Tagliabue all but conceded there is little hope of being able to present owners with the framework for an extension at the annual league meeting in March in Orlando, Fla. Upshaw suggested that if the two sides get past March 3 -- when free agency begins -- without an accord, then the 2007 campaign likely will be played as an "uncapped" year. And Upshaw has maintained throughout the discussions that, if the cap disappears, the players will never permit him to negotiate another spending limit.

From here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2317906)

A few people seem to have the "Get rid of the cap and let Snyder buy everyone he wants!" mindset. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be a worse idea. First of all, we've already seen what happens when teams throw gobs of money at premium free agents - it doesn't always work. Snyder could assemble the most dominant Madden team of all time, but I would put money on that sort of team never winning a Super Bowl.

Second, and most importantly, this could put the sport we all love in a serious bind. The idea that every team, every year has a chance is what makes the NFL so great. If the CBA goes out the window, so does that idea. The league will turn into the MLB, where certain teams wallow in small-market pain forever. It could lead to huge problems down the road.

I want a cap, regardless of who Snyder could buy without one. The labor issue is starting to really worry me.

[DoGood]

This is going from bad to worse.



From here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2317906)

A few people seem to have the "Get rid of the cap and let Snyder buy everyone he wants!" mindset. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be a worse idea. First of all, we've already seen what happens when teams throw gobs of money at premium free agents - it doesn't always work. Snyder could assemble the most dominant Madden team of all time, but I would put money on that sort of team never winning a Super Bowl.

Second, and most importantly, this could put the sport we all love in a serious bind. The idea that every team, every year has a chance is what makes the NFL so great. If the CBA goes out the window, so does that idea. The league will turn into the MLB, where certain teams wallow in small-market pain forever. It could lead to huge problems down the road.

I want a cap, regardless of who Snyder could buy without one. The labor issue is starting to really worry me.

I'm concerned too and also annoyed that it has come to this. It is these people's duty to make the NFL the best in the world. It's obvious how unprepared these people were when going into these talks. Sounds a lot like how we lost an entire hockey season. They need to get their head out of you know what and get this thing done.

[BurgundyNGold]

This is going from bad to worse.

Only a few weeks ago, the NFLPA rejected a new league proposal, and Tagliabue all but conceded there is little hope of being able to present owners with the framework for an extension at the annual league meeting in March in Orlando, Fla. Upshaw suggested that if the two sides get past March 3 -- when free agency begins -- without an accord, then the 2007 campaign likely will be played as an "uncapped" year. And Upshaw has maintained throughout the discussions that, if the cap disappears, the players will never permit him to negotiate another spending limit.

From here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2317906)

A few people seem to have the "Get rid of the cap and let Snyder buy everyone he wants!" mindset. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be a worse idea. First of all, we've already seen what happens when teams throw gobs of money at premium free agents - it doesn't always work. Snyder could assemble the most dominant Madden team of all time, but I would put money on that sort of team never winning a Super Bowl.

Second, and most importantly, this could put the sport we all love in a serious bind. The idea that every team, every year has a chance is what makes the NFL so great. If the CBA goes out the window, so does that idea. The league will turn into the MLB, where certain teams wallow in small-market pain forever. It could lead to huge problems down the road.

I want a cap, regardless of who Snyder could buy without one. The labor issue is starting to really worry me.
Great post, Joe. I agree with everything you said. I would also add that I think that the league would lock out the players in favor of replacement players before the uncapped 2007 season strictly because of this scenario. The league has the upper hand right now and the players have it very well. I'm expecting another strike season during Gibbs second tenure.

[Redskin4Life]

This quote seems to have gone unnoticed. The fact that Gene Upshaw would put Dan Snyder in a completely different catagory than the other big money generating owners is something that should be recognized.

I thought the NFLPA and Upshaw just want the owners to spend more of the money that they're making on the players.... Snyder does that. By us being in "cap hell", we're following the purpose of a cap.... to actually pay the right players to be here and get as close to that number as possible. I don't think they actually thought they needed to have a MIN CAP number but I think that's what's going to get the new CBA signed by everyone.... or could be the hold up.

[hail2skins]

C'mon guys, if there was no cap you could have both TO and Reggie Wayne.

[The Skinsinator]

C'mon guys, if there was no cap you could have both TO and Reggie Wayne.And way too many egos for even Gibbs to handle. Sure, it may benefit us and honestly I doubt Gibbs would buy an all star team but I do feel it's not a good idea. I see way more bad than good in this. Hope they find a way to get it done. Not too surprised by the complications considering all that is involved and the immense popularity of the nfl.

[bgforever]

"You have to take Dan Snyder out," Upshaw said. "He's completely different. He's got a high-revenue club, and he spends money on his players. We like that. There are high-revenue clubs who are spending less than $66 million on their players, and that's out of $300 million. That's not a fair share."


-from the Washington Post -


FROM GENE UPSHAW -NFLPA President -on who exploits NFL system to avoid paying players their just due.

Bill Polian and his lopsided pay scale, is an example of one such owner that screws people like Pollard, and others out of the equation to keep their choking QB. That's why we have Marcus Washington (thanks Indy :) )

and that's why we went ONE FURTHER than they in the playoffs, with all that firepower they had on both sides of the ball.

[EberKain]

C'mon guys, if there was no cap you could have both TO and Reggie Wayne.

If there is no cap, then noone else has a cap either and they will be able to retail all there players no problem. Free Agency what?

[BurgundyNGold]

C'mon guys, if there was no cap you could have both TO and Reggie Wayne.
It's like you're throwing gasoline on an open flame ... :D

[ObiWan1278]

I do wish there was some way they could keep the cap but also reward teams for home grown talent. It sucks to see a player develop then leave for another system. Or have a player you have rooted for most of his career leave over salary cap reasons, when in reality we would all like for them to retire with said team.

I don't know how they would do it maybe some sort of X amount of years under contract then some of the players money doesn't go to the salary cap which would increase each year said player played with a team.

I hope they also find some sort of Rookie mandatory pay scale. So that each year the 1st pick of the draft gets X amount of money right on down to the last pick and adjust there pay accordingly. Rookies shouldn't be rewarded in lieu of the vets

[danny's stogie]

You all know the deal with the source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

"SMALL POSSIBILITY" OF FREE AGENCY DELAY



Word is that a series of meetings between representatives of the NFL and the NFLPA has created progress toward an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. We're told that these talks have given rise to a "small possibility" that the free agency signing period will be delayed this year from March 3 until early April.



The mere talk of bumping back the opening of free agency confirms that the recent efforts to iron out the issues between management and labor are aimed at getting a new deal in place before the annual shopping spree commences. As it now stands, signing boni can be spread over only four years, and any incentives earned in 2006 automatically count against the salary cap in 2006. This will make it harder for teams to add new players and, in turn, less lucrative for the players.



A new deal also would undoubtedly increase the salary cap for 2006, giving teams more money to spend on their rosters. This is good news for teams like the Redskins and Jets, who reportedly are facing some tough salary-trimming decisions under the current '06 cap.



But even if the free agency period is pushed back by a month, there still will be some intrigue come March. For example, Terrell Owens' contract must be terminated by the Eagles on or before March 5. So if the free agency launch is bumped to April and no new CBA is in place before Owens is released, he'll have to decide whether to take any offers that might be on the table under the current CBA -- or whether to wait until a new deal is in place.

[PA Skins Girl]

You all know the deal with the source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
Interesting. I didnt know about the incentive bonuses having to be taken this year. That means no Unlikely to be Earned (UTBE) Incentives can go into contracts this year.

[PA Skins Girl]

It would make sense to delay things by a month if they are getting close to coming to an agreement. I doubt they can reach an agreement before March 3 and once we get into the FA period, forget about getting anything done this year. The only problem is the suspense! But, I guess March madness can carry us through till April.

[stonebraker]

Hey guys, in the case of an uncapped year, would we be able to restructure contracts to pay players ridiculously high amounts in the uncapped year? For example, pay Lavar $20 million this year, making it easy to keep him the next years, and pay Brunell $10 Million. Just making random numbers up, but do you get my point? This would definetly solve our cap problem in coming years, and we know Dan Snyder wouldn't have too much issue with spending amazingly high amounts of money for the betterment of the team.

Is this even possible to do, in the case of an uncapped year? Anyone who could shed some light on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[helimech24]

It's like you're throwing gasoline on an open flame ... :DFeel the Burn baby. I think Deion is going to be a free agent again.

[PA Skins Girl]

Hey guys, in the case of an uncapped year, would we be able to restructure contracts to pay players ridiculously high amounts in the uncapped year? For example, pay Lavar $20 million this year, making it easy to keep him the next years, and pay Brunell $10 Million. Just making random numbers up, but do you get my point? This would definetly solve our cap problem in coming years, and we know Dan Snyder wouldn't have too much issue with spending amazingly high amounts of money for the betterment of the team.

Is this even possible to do, in the case of an uncapped year? Anyone who could shed some light on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
The uncapped year would be 2007, not this year, but I believe the answer is yes. I could see us taking a lot of the salary that is due to our players in the tail end of their contracts and moving it forward to 2007. I doubt we will ever get to that though. As Americans, we do everything at the last minute. We may not get a CBA extension this year, but I would bet money we will get one before the 2007 league year begins.

Edit: One caveat to that is, the monies paid would have to be in the form of a bonus, not salary, because of the 30% rule for salaries.

[GeneralDisorder]

Not saying it's good idea expanding the NFL - but what would stop the NFL moving into Canada (say Edmonton/Vancouver to give Seattle a rivalry) before Mexico.

I'm aware the CFL might not be best pleased, but it seems logical, given the common language, etc...

[HanburgerBum]

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the other teams should be forced to share local revenues. In fact quite the opposite. I think big market teams should have some benefit and reap the rewards of their hard work. I also am not for a Cap on coaches or overall salaries either.

But when it comes to on the field talent I am for a hard cap. I am also for a higher minimum cap. I think 56% is ridiculous and a team should be withint the 80-100% range for the cap to be effective.


I think you are exactly right about how the NFL should share revenue among the owners and the players. If anything, I would even move the floor of the salary system to about 85%. This would go a long way towards satisfying the players concerns that some owners simply won't spend, as well as making all teams even more competitive than they are already.

[BurgundyNGold]

Not saying it's good idea expanding the NFL - but what would stop the NFL moving into Canada (say Edmonton/Vancouver to give Seattle a rivalry) before Mexico.

I'm aware the CFL might not be best pleased, but it seems logical, given the common language, etc...
Three words: The metric system.

It'll never happen. :D

[HanburgerBum]

I do wish there was some way they could keep the cap but also reward teams for home grown talent. It sucks to see a player develop then leave for another system. Or have a player you have rooted for most of his career leave over salary cap reasons, when in reality we would all like for them to retire with said team.

I don't know how they would do it maybe some sort of X amount of years under contract then some of the players money doesn't go to the salary cap which would increase each year said player played with a team.

I hope they also find some sort of Rookie mandatory pay scale. So that each year the 1st pick of the draft gets X amount of money right on down to the last pick and adjust there pay accordingly. Rookies shouldn't be rewarded in lieu of the vets


A very good idea. Doesn't the NBA have some kind of Larry Bird exception rule where a team is allowed to go over the cap a certain amount to re-sign a player? That would also be a terrific thing for the NFL, as long as the amount isn't so large as to render the salary cap meaningless. The players would love the additional money, and the fans would be happy with their teams' ability to retain star players. A win-win.

[akhhorus]

Not saying it's good idea expanding the NFL - but what would stop the NFL moving into Canada (say Edmonton/Vancouver to give Seattle a rivalry) before Mexico.

I'm aware the CFL might not be best pleased, but it seems logical, given the common language, etc...

Actually for international expansion, the logicial candidates would be:
Vancouver(weather and population), Toronto, London, Berlin; probably in that order. The trips to Europe might be problematic(especially for west coast teams), but you can schedule things right(like make the games on Monday european time and have late games(sunday night, MNF, 4 pm sunday games) for their next games

[HanburgerBum]

Great post, Joe. I agree with everything you said. I would also add that I think that the league would lock out the players in favor of replacement players before the uncapped 2007 season strictly because of this scenario. The league has the upper hand right now and the players have it very well. I'm expecting another strike season during Gibbs second tenure.


This is going to be a very interesting couple of months. Will there be an extension of the player agreement? Will the onwers come to a consensus as to how to share their revenue? Will there be a work stoppage within the next 2-3 years?

If I were to bet on this, I would wager that the owners will come to an agreement amongst themselves as well as with the players, and that there would not be a work stoppage.

Unlike MLB, NFL is just booming right now. There is such a huge pie to carve up and so much $$$$$ for everybody involved, it would be foolish (even silly) not to pull back some in one's demands and get this thing done.

On the one hand, the players have learned from the past that the NFL owners are of a special breed. They have the deepest pockets and the biggest set of gonads anywhere. They will shut the game down or use replacement players if they have to rather than give in to unreasonable labor demands. They will survive nicely, as they listen to the biological clock ticking for the players.

On the other hand, the owners would be foolhardy to disturb the winngest formula of all time. Why do anything to detract the golden goose from laying its eggs every year?

The most ticklish problem to solve may be how the owners will share the revenue among themseves. In the end, I suspect a comprise will be worked out between the "haves" and the "havenots". The former group tends to carry larger mortgages because the price tag on their franchises were probably substantially higher. Perhaps, in exchange for some sharing of locally-generated revenue, the teams would be allowed to deduct at least a portion of their mortgage payments from the revenue earmarked to be shared. This would cushion the blow for someone like Dan Snyder (who has a sizeable mortgage).

[HanburgerBum]

The uncapped year would be 2007, not this year, but I believe the answer is yes. I could see us taking a lot of the salary that is due to our players in the tail end of their contracts and moving it forward to 2007. I doubt we will ever get to that though. As Americans, we do everything at the last minute. We may not get a CBA extension this year, but I would bet money we will get one before the 2007 league year begins.

Edit: One caveat to that is, the monies paid would have to be in the form of a bonus, not salary, because of the 30% rule for salaries.


PSG, a question related to the question whether salaries can be moved to the 2007 uncapped year in order to purge oneself from cap hell is how the excess salaries will be counted in subsequent capped years.

Let's say the Skins are projected to spend 150 million in salaries for 2008 after the uncapped 2007 season. Then, the cap in 2008 is negotiated to be 120 million. Would the Skins have to cut 30 million to get under the cap, or would salaries previously negotiated be exempt from the new cap? If no such exemption is allowed, there could be whole scale release of players and even chaos for some teams.

[HanburgerBum]

Not saying it's good idea expanding the NFL - but what would stop the NFL moving into Canada (say Edmonton/Vancouver to give Seattle a rivalry) before Mexico.

I'm aware the CFL might not be best pleased, but it seems logical, given the common language, etc...


When there is expansion, there are more partners to share the TV money. Would revenue generated from Mexican TV be enough to justify more feeders at the trough?

Also, some foreign countries have very rowdy fans (I don't really know what Mexican fans are like), and the security at sporting events is often non-existent. Even some US cities (Philly comes to mind) have unruly fans. The last thing the NFL would want is to tarnish its image with fans being trampled to death at a football game.

So, I would guess that for the time being, Mexico is out. Of course, at some point in the future, if and when pro football becomes huge internationally, the NFL would have to consider locating franchises outside of the USA.

[HanburgerBum]

How many Rams games were subject to Blackout because they didn't sell out the stadium? I seem to remember it being quite a problem when they became a less than Above Average team. LA will only support winners. It is why in Lakers games weren't selling out early in the year but Clippers games were. There isn't a more fair weather, apathetic sports town than Los Angeles. The city has already proven it can't/won't support a football team. Jacksonville on the other hand is proving it can.


I don't think the number of blackouts is the only measure of support for a team. Doesn't LA have a huge stadium (around 90,000?) that is also old and located in a rundown part of town? Given that scenario, non-sellouts are not surprising.

Also, while many NFL small markets support their teams very well, I doubt that they would be able to generate more revenue than a team in LA (sell out or no sellout). Larger markets (and LA is arguably the largest) will generate more for their skyboxes and stadium advertising (and naming) than smaller markets. Further, as someone pointed out on this thread, a team in LA would boost the national TV ratings and that would mean more $$$ for the national TV contract.

However, having said that, I think a team in LA is not imminent for two reasons:

1) There does not appear to be a new stadium deal in the works. The NFL no doubt wants the city to foot the bill for such a stadium (by the way, I am against publically funded stadiums--sports need to learn to live within their own means), and so far the city seems unwilling to do so.

2) The NFL for the time being is content to use LA as a threat against other cities that are reluctant to build new stadiums for existing franchises (very much like the way MLB used Washington DC for years). Every time there is an unwilling city, the talk about moving that city's team to LA starts up.

[HanburgerBum]

This is going from bad to worse.



From here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2317906)

A few people seem to have the "Get rid of the cap and let Snyder buy everyone he wants!" mindset. I'm sorry, but that couldn't be a worse idea. First of all, we've already seen what happens when teams throw gobs of money at premium free agents - it doesn't always work. Snyder could assemble the most dominant Madden team of all time, but I would put money on that sort of team never winning a Super Bowl.

Second, and most importantly, this could put the sport we all love in a serious bind. The idea that every team, every year has a chance is what makes the NFL so great. If the CBA goes out the window, so does that idea. The league will turn into the MLB, where certain teams wallow in small-market pain forever. It could lead to huge problems down the road.

I want a cap, regardless of who Snyder could buy without one. The labor issue is starting to really worry me.


I am in total accord with you on the need for a salary cap (in fact, I just got thru a long debate with Danny'sStogie on this subject).

I think, when Upshaw says if the uncapped 2007 season happens there will not be a cap after that ever again, he is just posturing for negotiation purposes. He has gone thru a couple of labor wars. He should realize that the NFL owners have the deepest pockets and the biggest set of gonads in the world. Unlike MLB owners, NFL honchos will not cave in to unreasonable demands. There are enough small market owners who will never agree to a contract without a salary cap.

The owners will use replacement players and play games that count in the standings. I attended such games and will do so again if it came to that. The biological clock for the players will be ticking so loud, they won't be able to ignore it.

[PA Skins Girl]

PSG, a question related to the question whether salaries can be moved to the 2007 uncapped year in order to purge oneself from cap hell is how the excess salaries will be counted in subsequent capped years.

Let's say the Skins are projected to spend 150 million in salaries for 2008 after the uncapped 2007 season. Then, the cap in 2008 is negotiated to be 120 million. Would the Skins have to cut 30 million to get under the cap, or would salaries previously negotiated be exempt from the new cap? If no such exemption is allowed, there could be whole scale release of players and even chaos for some teams.
No exemptions will be given. But dont fret, the FO knows what they are doing when it comes to the cap.

[DCGreys]

Just from reading those stats, that would have to be scrapped. No way could Oklahoma support an NFL team. I'm sure they would love it, but the population just isn't there.
Of course they could. OSU and OK have fan bases well in excess of 75,000.

[EberKain]

No exemptions will be given. But dont fret, the FO knows what they are doing when it comes to the cap.

My conspiracy cap is on, so hold onto your self. I think the FO is way ahead of the curve. We may be one of the teams holding up the CBA talks, we may be doing it intentionally, and we may have been planning on this all along. If you look at the numbers (http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html), three things stand out to me. Lavar, Samuels and Taylor have a combined cap hit of about 27 million next season, and then a drop to 17 million the next year. If we did that for every player it would be obvious we were juking the league on the CBA. By doing it with a few players, we are getting the chance to pay them some cash up front, during the uncapped year, and then having them play for less later on. Giving us an advantage under the cap cause a couple our guys already got payed. Score one for the FO, I think they know what there doing.

[CNYSkinFan]

Warptah Insiders had an article explaining some of the CBA ramifications today. It is a subscription article so I will not quote it, and also it points out several things we have already discussed (Signing Bonus only pro-rated over 4 years, no cap relief for a post June 1 cut, 2007 being an uncapped year, and salary escalation from 2006 to 2007 is 30%).

They do point out one other thing that I had not hear yeat. After 2006 a player must have 6 years NFL experience to qualify for free agenbcy. That is up from the current 4 years. This effects Ramsey and Betts more then anyone else. Both are in 5 year contracts and have currently served 4 years. So if the Redskins do not trade them or cut them by the end of the 2006 seasoin and the CBA is not renewed and we go into the uncapped year in 2007, both will be exclusive right free agents at the end of their contract. This gives the Redskins leverage, espesically in BEtts case, in keeping them or getting value after they serve their contract.

[CNYSkinFan]

also the same article also mentioned the rumor of the free agency marker being pushed back but also said it is just rumor with no foundation ....yet.

[chrisbcbu]

also the same article also mentioned the rumor of the free agency marker being pushed back but also said it is just rumor with no foundation ....yet.

Yea i have heard of this rumor also, but like you said its merely a rumor right now.

[whistleandthumb]

also the same article also mentioned the rumor of the free agency marker being pushed back but also said it is just rumor with no foundation ....yet.
Heard on ESPN today that the NFL and the players met today and talks went well... the most encouraging negotiations so far. However, Tagliebue said that they are seriously considering pushing Free Agency from March 3 to April 1 to accomodate more time for a deal to be made.

[helimech24]

Heard on ESPN today that the NFL and the players met today and talks went well... the most encouraging negotiations so far. However, Tagliebue said that they are seriously considering pushing Free Agency from March 3 to April 1 to accomodate more time for a deal to be made.That is not a very good sign IMO, plus it makes the opening of FA and the draft pretty close. It would definitely make for an interesting month of April.

[techskinsfan]

That is not a very good sign IMO, plus it makes the opening of FA and the draft pretty close. It would definitely make for an interesting month of April.
i second that

[Vonslydog]

More news on CBA stuff. Upshaw 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
Also says he won't push back free agency.

[santanadasavior]

That is not a very good sign IMO, plus it makes the opening of FA and the draft pretty close. It would definitely make for an interesting month of April.

If that happens, there would be so many problems and complaints. I just think they should strap on their thinking caps and make a frikken comprimise.

[akhhorus]

More news on CBA stuff. Upshaw said
Also says he won't push back free agency.

He's bluffing, he also said that he's going to decertify the union after friday which would be a total disaster for the Union. All the indications are that they are close and some of the owners object to the amount of revenue sharing and thats the last detail to be worked out.

And they should move back free agency. There's no reason to have 8 weeks between the start of free agency and the draft. If you can't sign who you want and figure out who you want from the combine to the draft, then you shouldn't be a GM.

[hail2skins]

He's bluffing, he also said that he's going to decertify the union after friday which would be a total disaster for the Union. All the indications are that they are close and some of the owners object to the amount of revenue sharing and thats the last detail to be worked out.

And they should move back free agency. There's no reason to have 8 weeks between the start of free agency and the draft. If you can't sign who you want and figure out who you want from the combine to the draft, then you shouldn't be a GM.I'm not too sure about the bluff. The sticking point is the revenue sharing between the wealthy clubs and the not so wealthy clubs. Upshaw basically said once that's done they can move forward. He also said the players want more than 60% of the revenue from sharing. It was reported he met with some hand-pick agents and told them not renegotiate/sign players before March 2. IF nothings done by then he said he'll tell them to prepare for 2007 being uncapped and 2008 being without an agreement. I guess we'll see how this plays out. The wealthy clubs would have to give in for this to happen though.

[akhhorus]

I'm not too sure about the bluff. The sticking point is the revenue sharing between the wealthy clubs and the not so wealthy clubs. Upshaw basically said once that's done they can move forward. He also said the players want more than 60% of the revenue from sharing. It was reported he met with some hand-pick agents and told them not renegotiate/sign players before March 2. IF nothings done by then he said he'll tell them to prepare for 2007 being uncapped and 2008 being without an agreement. I guess we'll see how this plays out. The wealthy clubs would have to give in for this to happen though.

Well, if the reports are true, the owners will support the players' proposal. The "Gang of Nine" is a bluff because the Broncos, the Skins and the Jets need the new CBA or they have major cap problems. One of them will flipflop and vote for the CBA just to save the 06 season from starting off with a bloodletting and then the owners have enough votes(24-8). And in the negotiations today, Jones was there personally. If there was this bloc really holding out and threatening to sue, Tags wouldn't let their spokesman anywhere near the negotiations because they might try to sabotage it. I think they'll approve it before the 2nd, and FA will be pushed back a couple weeks.

[redskin_rich]

I bet it gets done by early next week, Thursday at the latest. Just a hunch.

[chrisbcbu]

here is more about the CBA. And some interesting stuff about the Salary cap if a new CBA is done this year. Estimated amt is 102-104 million!!

NFL | Upshaw reveals possible salary cap figures
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:40:08 -0800

Todd Archer, of the Dallas Morning News, reports NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw revealed what he thinks the salary cap will be for the 2006 season. Upshaw believes the salary cap will rise to between $102 million and $104 million if a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. He feels the cap will be between $92 million and $95 million without a new agreement.


NFL | Free agency will not be delayed
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:32:19 -0800

Todd Archer, of the Dallas Morning News, reports NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said the free agency period will not be delayed a month, as previously reported. The free agency period will open March 3, even if there isn't a new collective bargaining agreement.

NFL | CBA update
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:33:40 -0800

Tom E. Curran, of the Providence Journal, reports one of the issues preventing a new collective bargaining agreement is determining the percentage of defined gross revenues (DGR) that goes to the players. The current DGR is at 64 and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw would like it to remain in the sixties. There are other fine-print aspects that need to get worked out, but there is optimism that something may break this week. Getting the players to agree to the new CBA is only the first step. The second step is getting the owners to sort out their own issues. It is believed that once the NFLPA agrees on the new CBA, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will tell the owners they must be in agreement on how they share revenues going forward before the new CBA is ratified.

[danny's stogie]

here is more about the CBA. And some interesting stuff about the Salary cap if a new CBA is done this year. Estimated amt is 102-104 million!!

I think the Reggie Wayne deal is a telltale sign that a deal is imminent and that the cap is going up. I don't think there's any way Indy signs him to that large a deal if there's uncertainty about the future of the CBA.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but the Abraham rumors may also be telling. The Skins could never afford him without a new CBA so the fact that the Skins name has been tossed around as a potential suitor implies that they can fit him under the cap.

[CNYSkinFan]

I think the Reggie Wayne deal is a telltale sign that a deal is imminent and that the cap is going up. I don't think there's any way Indy signs him to that large a deal if there's uncertainty about the future of the CBA.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but the Abraham rumors may also be telling. The Skins could never afford him without a new CBA so the fact that the Skins name has been tossed around as a potential suitor implies that they can fit him under the cap.
Yeah I agree with this too. No way Indy goes crazy on Wayne without assurances the deal would be done soon.

[Redskin4Life]

I think the Reggie Wayne deal is a telltale sign that a deal is imminent and that the cap is going up. I don't think there's any way Indy signs him to that large a deal if there's uncertainty about the future of the CBA.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but the Abraham rumors may also be telling. The Skins could never afford him without a new CBA so the fact that the Skins name has been tossed around as a potential suitor implies that they can fit him under the cap.
Also the fact that the Bucs aren't looking to cut or restructure Rice and his $10 mil cap number, knowing that they're in real CAP HELL. Another telltale sign...

[akhhorus]

Also the fact that the Bucs aren't looking to cut or restructure Rice and his $10 mil cap number, knowing that they're in real CAP HELL. Another telltale sign...

Exactly. Or that the Broncos aren't dumping players now, or any of dozens of other moves aren't going on. It looks as if everyone knows that the deal is imminent.

[danny's stogie]

Exactly. Or that the Broncos aren't dumping players now, or any of dozens of other moves aren't going on. It looks as if everyone knows that the deal is imminent.

Not to contradict myself, but on the other hand, what's up with the Jets? Were they just that far over the cap that they needed to dump 7 players to franchise Abe?

[akhhorus]

Not to contradict myself, but on the other hand, what's up with the Jets? Were they just that far over the cap that they needed to dump 7 players to franchise Abe?

They were 20 something million over the cap, and they had to be 9 million under the cap to issue the franchise tag on Abe.

[chrisbcbu]

Not to contradict myself, but on the other hand, what's up with the Jets? Were they just that far over the cap that they needed to dump 7 players to franchise Abe?

They were 26 million over the cap and have to get under by 9million to cover Abe's franchise tag.

They will probably release/restructure Pennington very soon. Curtis martin already redid his contract. So they are moving in the right direction at least.

[Redskin4Life]

Not to contradict myself, but on the other hand, what's up with the Jets? Were they just that far over the cap that they needed to dump 7 players to franchise Abe?
If these rumors about the new cap are true, they'd still be $17-19 mil over PLUS the 8.3 the need to get below for the JAbraham FTag... plus I read he's going to SIGN to force a trade immediately.

[smittyskin]

Has anyone seen todays Post article where Upshaw says that they have made no progress after there most recent meeting?

[akhhorus]

Has anyone seen todays Post article where Upshaw says that they have made no progress after there most recent meeting?

Yeah, but coming from Upshaw, its far from credible. PFT reported that Jerry Jones would vote for the new deal(which would mean it would be approved for sure, they just need one vote) for a super bowl in Dallas and some league funding for his new stadium.

[CNYSkinFan]

It figures if one of the 9 sells out it would Jerry Jones

[monkr]

...todays Washington Post says the league is getting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6022001206.html

...$4 BILLION a year to split 32 ways or...$125 million per team.

It says our man Dan pulls in about $300 mil a year, which, I think, includes the TV money and that the Skins earn double the worst money teams, Arizona and the Vikes.

If true, that means the Cards and Vikes only earn about $150 mil a year, total, including $125 from TV. That means for the season, 8 games plus two preseason, plus local rights plus stadium naming plus whatever else they pull in is only $25 million or so. If you figure about $75 per ticket times, say, 50,000 or so a game times 10, that's pushing $40 million and I think they split that with the visitor, so call it $20 mil.

THAT means these stiffs are only earning about $5 million on the other stuff.

Now, it also means Dan is out there doing a hell of a job selling his product.

Hang with me here, as I'm drawing (scribbling?) a picture to help get a grip on the salary cap. If baseball and basketball are paying over 1/2 total revenues to players (And I think they are) then based on the Skins one could argue a cap of about $150 mil. Based on the have nots, a cap of $75 mil is good.

Split the difference and you got about what we're told it likely may be, $100 million.

Now, I used 50,000 seats as a base for the bad $ teams because the NFL is so hot any one of us could sell that many tickets if it was our team.

If you're competitive, everyone sells out and the stadium average is about 65,000 seats so, by what we'll call a combination of poor management/poor location (just to be nice) these teams are leaving 15,000 unsold tix at $75 (which I think is on the high side for an actual game ticket?) or about $11 million for 10 games on the table. Half of that is $5.5 million.

This doesn't count luxury boxes, high end seats or the air Snyder charges us for to breathe., so, $75 is gotta be a decent average if not low. Fair enough?

Also, field performance isn't the issue as to earning power; Houston is one of the top money makers.

So, where I'm going with this is if the top teams are paying out $100 mil in players salary and are earning another $150-200 MILLION, that creates one hell of an itchy palm; they are gonna push damn hard for ways to be able to spend more money on players.

If the Cards are earning $150 and spending 100, that leaves them $50 mil to operate the team. I have no clue how much it costs to run a team but, obviously, Snyder and the big money boys don't want to take all their extra local earnings and give it to people who are, perhaps, not working hard enough. But, then again, they might be willing to subsidize some if they see an advantage in it. Say they can spend an extra $20 mil if they fork over, what, a 1/3 'luxury' tax?). I give you the Amercian way.

Thus, in any event, in true American spirit, the people with money are gonna find a way to spend it so I see a new CBA getting done soon somehow, with room, loopholes, clauses for Snyder to spend a good bit more than the present agreement. Here's why:

If they let it go, then they play 2007 with NO cap. It's better for the poor teams to suck it up now with a known number than to play 'sign me' against Snyder with no limit. What if there's no agreement and we're looking at no cap in 2007? Well, if I'm Snyder I schedule everybody for big ass chunks of their contracts to be paid...in 2007. That lets him get who he wants NOW.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying I think it's silly to worry about the Redskins in terms of our salary cap number. Dan Snyder has ZERO problem in terms of the actual money. The only team this deferral and extension business ever hurt was San Fran and that is because they just didn't earn the money Snyder does. They got stuck in a pay me now or pay me later corner, paid at the time to win that last Superbowl and then it came apart at the seams. They had to pay the piper and didn't have it. FIRE SALE of players.

At the end of the day, Dan Snyder IS the piper

[DCGreys]

Also the fact that the Bucs aren't looking to cut or restructure Rice and his $10 mil cap number, knowing that they're in real CAP HELL. Another telltale sign...
Really interesting insights I think you are right and the cap is going to be way over 100 m

[Sonoma]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2343073

Looks like this year will be capped, hmm interesting.

I am kind of scared for an uncapped year knowing how the Danny likes to spend money

[Redskin4Life]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2343073

Looks like this year will be capped, hmm interesting.

I am kind of scared for an uncapped year knowing how the Danny likes to spend money
$92-96 mill for the cap... according to Upshaw. Interesting...

[Redskin4Life]

How are we 23 mil OVER the cap???

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9261946

[PA Skins Girl]

Here's what I dont understand. The current CBA defines the percentage of the Defined Gross Revenues (DGR) allocated to go to the teams as $64.5% for 2006. Upshaw has stated that with the CBA extension, he wants that number to stay in the 60's, leading me to believe it will drop for 64.5%.

If the percentage of DGR is going to drop with the extension, how is it that the salary cap number is reportedly going to increase in 2006 with the extension? I've heard the 2006 number will be $92-$96 without the extension, and $102-$105 with the extension. That seems backwards to me.

Is it possible that the $92-$96 has been understated?

[akhhorus]

Here's what I dont understand. The current CBA defines the percentage of the Defined Gross Revenues (DGR) allocated to go to the teams as $64.5% for 2006. Upshaw has stated that with the CBA extension, he wants that number to stay in the 60's, leading me to believe it will drop for 64.5%.

If the percentage of DGR is going to drop with the extension, how is it that the salary cap number is reportedly going to increase in 2006 with the extension? I've heard the 2006 number will be $92-$96 without the extension, and $102-$105 with the extension. That seems backwards to me.

Is it possible that the $92-$96 has been understated?

Thats very possible, but I think the 64.5% number doesn't include what is being wrestled with in the negiotiations. The PA wants all revenue included into this pot, and some of the owners want to keep the money from selling stadium naming rights, local advertisting, etc etc. I think this is the major issue at hand.

[PA Skins Girl]

Thats very possible, but I think the 64.5% number doesn't include what is being wrestled with in the negiotiations. The PA wants all revenue included into this pot, and some of the owners want to keep the money from selling stadium naming rights, local advertisting, etc etc. I think this is the major issue at hand.
I guess we'll know in a couple days when the number is actually set. An increase over what has been reported would be sweet.

[akhhorus]

I guess we'll know in a couple days when the number is actually set. An increase over what has been reported would be sweet.

Yeah, I still think the deal will get done. Once the players realize that no team is going to dish out big bucks this offseason because of the uncapped year and how much they will actually lose because of this, they'll force the Union to agree.

[PennSkinsFan]

NFL | Upshaw tells agents to be ready for an uncapped 2007 season
Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:19:59 -0800

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw told a seminar of agents Friday morning, Feb. 24, to prepare for a 2006 season without a collective bargaining extension, setting up an uncapped year in 2007. "March 3 will be the beginning of a new league year and we are just not there yet," Upshaw said. "I'm taking the position now that it won't get done." Three major issues were cited by Upshaw as the reason for no collective bargaining agreement extension. 1) Neither side can agree on the percentage of total revenues that will go to the players. 2) The NFLPA won't agree to any type of CBA extension that doesn't have a new revenue sharing plan in the future. 3) Upshaw's third difference is the league's "G-3" program in which money is loaned to teams by the league to finance new stadium construction.

[PA Skins Girl]

Yeah, I still think the deal will get done. Once the players realize that no team is going to dish out big bucks this offseason because of the uncapped year and how much they will actually lose because of this, they'll force the Union to agree.
I dont know. Not a good sign that Upshaw is heading back to DC.

[bgforever]

With Upshaw showing no faith in an agreement because other triggers aren't there among the owners (bickering over revune sharing), then the hand is forced to the Skins to look to the draft as Cerrato stated. It saves money and one has to buy the time on development/depth stages at that point.

Bill Polian has a good laugh for now, but I also know the other GM's are in as good a position as he. We aren't as bad off as other years and we will make the most of it either way. Its not like we were lucky to be we were. I don't expect a big splash anywhere, but I still feel we will be as good as ever and improved.

[PA Skins Girl]

With Upshaw showing no faith in an agreement because other triggers aren't there among the owners (bickering over revune sharing), then the hand is forced to the Skins to look to the draft as Cerrato stated. It saves money and one has to buy the time on development/depth stages at that point.

Bill Polian has a good laugh for now, but I also know the other GM's are in as good a position as he. We aren't as bad off as other years and we will make the most of it either way. Its not like we were lucky to be we were. I don't expect a big splash anywhere, but I still feel we will be as good as ever and improved.
Did Cerrato say something about focusing on the draft and not free agency?

[fent]

Did Cerrato say something about focusing on the draft and not free agency?

even if he did, it's cerrato...

[akhhorus]

I dont know. Not a good sign that Upshaw is heading back to DC.

Perhaps, but there are so many negatives for the players if they don't agree to the new CBA that I find it completely implausible that they won't. The players will lose just about everything if this happens(they'll lose their benefits, no one is going to hand out any contracts of any real size, every team will have to dump a ton of players, the uncapped year will mean less free agents on the market since the minimum years' service requirement jumps to 6 years for unrestricted free agency) that this has to be a bluff. And if Upshaw decertifies the NFLPA to prevent a lockout, thats total disaster for the players. The owners could just cut individual deals with each player or with groups of players and then its anarchy.

[chrisbcbu]

Did Cerrato say something about focusing on the draft and not free agency?

he said that if there is no CBA agreement then they will just focus on the draft, and if there is a CBA agreement then they would like to pick up FA's then worry about the draft after the FA's.

[akhhorus]

Latest from PFT:

UPSHAW FAKING IT?

There's a theory making the rounds in media circles that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw is spewing doom-and-gloom rhetoric regarding the status of the CBA negotiations as the result of a plan by Upshaw and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get the owners to reach an agreement regarding the issue of expanded revenue sharing.

On Friday, Upshaw was extremely pessimistic during a meeting with agents regarding the prospects of getting a new deal done.

The fact that the media was invited to the portion of the agent seminar in Indianapolis during which Upshaw spoke has strengthened for some the notion that it's all a ruse aimed at prodding the owners to get their house in order ASAFP.

An industry source opined to us on Friday that, despite the "sky is falling" routine, a deal could be worked by the time the owners meet in Dallas on March 7. This would mesh with things we've been hearing for the past couple weeks regarding progress at the bargaining table.

So perhaps things are moving in the right direction -- and perhaps all that's needed now is a spark from the owners to extend 12 years of labor peace.

[smittyskin]

Excuse my ignorance but won't it complicate matters for teams like the Redskins if an agreement is reached after March 3?

[akhhorus]

Excuse my ignorance but won't it complicate matters for teams like the Redskins if an agreement is reached after March 3?

if Free agency(the start of the league year) isn't pushed back, and the agreement is reached after the start of it, then it could be a disaster for quite a few teams, including the skins.

[joethefan]

cerrato was asked about Lavar on the John Thompson Show....Vinnie did alot of Studdering.....and said that if the new CBA wasn't in place, we were gonna be in trouble....

[DoGood]

Latest from PFT:

Please, please, please be accurate. If the talks really are going as badly as they are making them out to be, they should be ashamed of themselves for cheapening the NFL product on the field.

[akhhorus]

Please, please, please be accurate. If the talks really are going as badly as they are making them out to be, they should be ashamed of themselves for cheapening the NFL product on the field.

There's too many negatives for both sides if no deal is reached that makes me think that all this drama is theater and is meant to get some group of owners to capitulate to some concession.

[chrisbcbu]

There's too many negatives for both sides if no deal is reached that makes me think that all this drama is theater and is meant to get some group of owners to capitulate to some concession.

Im expecting a deal to be struck on Tuesday. I dont know why but that is the day i think it will all come together!

[DoGood]

Im expecting a deal to be struck on Tuesday. I dont know why but that is the day i think it will all come together!

Noted.:) Let's see if your an oracle.

[Vonslydog]

Im expecting a deal to be struck on Tuesday. I dont know why but that is the day i think it will all come together!
I can't just sit around in front of the TV all day Tuesday. Can you please give a specific time?

[PA Skins Girl]

Sorry if this was posted already:

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=15590

I really like the fact that the FO is focused on the same player needs as the fans seem to be: WR, DE, CB, backup OL. The needs may seem obvious but I am sometimes amazed at the difference between the FO and the fans perspective.

[monkr]

this could get ugly

[skins111111]

would love to see this set by next week......a lot of teams including us would like to know where they stand

[RicFlairOne]

cerrato was asked about Lavar on the John Thompson Show....Vinnie did alot of Studdering.....and said that if the new CBA wasn't in place, we were gonna be in trouble....

Doesn't Vinnie always studder and stammer when he is on TV / radio ?