NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement-2006

[HoosierCat]

Good article by Len P. But i dont understand why this is such a big issue for MikeyBoy. Most FA's dont pan out, and they end up getting cut, and the team that signed them ends up in "salary cap hell" for a couple of years.

Actually, the whole salary cap hell thing is a bit overblown. A team can land there, but typically only if it goes completely hog-wild like the Skins or Raiders have. I'm not suggesting the Bengals can compete with DC, but there's certainly no reason they can't pony up for a big name every few years.

I maybe missing something here, but cash over cap does not appear to have hurt the Bengals competive ability for the last 3 years. It also has not hurt the Squeelers who are our main rival.

Actually, it's hurting the Steelers right now. The only way they can keep a lot of their team is going to be by restructuring some deals and then using the space to do cash over cap contracts, which necessarily means a hit to the Rooney's pocketbook. Even teams that don't play heavily in outside FA get hit if they win. The Patriots had the highest payroll in the league last year, something like $124 million (or about $30 million cash over cap), virtually all of which was caused by a need to pay their own stars. Mikey, too, is looking at an increasingly long list of good players, all of whom are going to want to be paid top dollar.

If cash over cap is capped, then Mikey and the other owners essentially get a "hard ceiling" on player salaries. Like I said before, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[turningpoint]

So where the f**k is this counter offer?

[HairOnFire]

"Greed is good." --- Gordon Gekko

Not to derail the original point of the thread, but Robert Smith, ex-OSU Ex-Viking ex-Union rep, claimed that the biggest reason for the impasse remains the conflict between owners about sharing all forms of revenue streams. And as an example he used Daniel Snyder and our own Mikey Boy, asking why an owner who does everything he can to create fresh revenue streams, including charging fans to watch practice, have to share any portion of that individually generated income with an owner he won't even take advantage of the opportunity to sell the naming rights to a stadium? His answer made it clear that as a player rep he strongly supported Snyder, as the only factor that mattered to either of them concerned how to create the largest possible pie for their forks. Tradition and class weren't things that mattered much, if at all, and I got the strong and lasting impression that Smith wouldn't mind wearing a uniform covered with corporate logos...as long as he got to sell advertising space on his back for his individual rights. Try Skoal for a refreshing chew.

As far as Mikey Boy being greedy, yeah, I'm sure he is. Then again, name me a single NFL owner who isn't? Then show me another owner who has consistently spurned the opportunity to make millions just by changing the name on the facade.

[HoosierCat]

"Greed is good." --- Gordon Gekko

Not to derail the original point of the thread, but Robert Smith, ex-OSU Ex-Viking ex-Union rep, claimed that the biggest reason for the impasse remains the conflict between owners about sharing all forms of revenue streams. And as an example he used Daniel Snyder and our own Mikey Boy, asking why an owner who does everything he can to create fresh revenue streams, including charging fans to watch practice, have to share any portion of that individually generated income with an owner he won't even take advantage of the opportunity to sell the naming rights to a stadium? His answer made it clear that as a player rep he strongly supported Snyder, as the only factor that mattered to either of them concerned how to create the largest possible pie for their forks. Tradition and class weren't things that mattered much, if at all, and I got the strong and lasting impression that Smith wouldn't mind wearing a uniform covered with corporate logos...as long as he got to sell advertising space on his back for his individual rights. Try Skoal for a refreshing chew.

As far as Mikey Boy being greedy, yeah, I'm sure he is. Then again, name me a single NFL owner who isn't? Then show me another owner who has consistently spurned the opportunity to make millions just by changing the name on the facade.

Oh, there's no doubt that they are all a bunch of greedy cusses -- players, owners, the whole lot. The simple fact that they are sitting around squabbling over how to divvy up billions and billions of dollars among a few thousand people is ample evidence of that. And no, there's nothing wrong with greed, at least up to a point. Like the old saying goes, better to have 10% of something than 100% of nothing, and right now both sides seem to have forgotten that.

As to the specific issue of PBS naming rights, I regard that as a bullsh*t prop being used by buttheads like Snyder. Even if Mikey were to sell the rights, that would bring in maybe $1-2 million a year, hardly enough to matter. But it's a big, obvious issue they can use to smear Mikey.

EDIT: Coda to the naming rights issue: the rights were indeed sold. The purchasers name? Click here and scroll down. (.pdf)

[HoosierCat]

froim kffl...

NFL | Talks between NFL and NFLPA break off again

Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:57:04 -0800

ESPNews reports the NFL and NFLPA have broken off talks once again regarding a new CBA. Union executive director Gene Upshaw is reportedly headed back to Washington and sources have noted the deal is "dead as a doornail."

Morons.

[Whur CHad At?]

This is embarassing. Why can't both sides act like real men instead of little children and get this stupid s**t taken care of. I am sick of this crap, and I am sure most of you all are too. To the players...the Owners are offering 56.2% of shared revenue...and you want 60? Be happy with what they offer because all of you sure as hell don't need any of that because you are all millionares. Stop being greedy dickheads and accept what great things you have, becuase I and most of everybody else don't have half of what you have.

[andybren]

Before we all call each other morons and/or idiots, we should acknowledge that the whole CBA/salary cap situation is very convoluted, and unless Tagliabue's attorneys are lurking, nobody here fully understands it.

Regardless, I think it's fair to assume that small-market teams like the Bengals need spending limits in order to compete. But if you check out the Pasquarelli article mentioned in the A Mike Brown Dream Come True? thread, you'll see that even under the previous CBA, the situation isn't so clear cut as to say CBA=good/No cap=bad.

But should we be glad that Marvin & Co. have been more fiscally responsible than teams like the Raiders? Absolutely.

[HoosierCat]

Agreed, andy. BTW, here's another excellent espn piece on the issues. It lays out some of the key issues (like the debt differences between some owners and the reality that local revenues in a place like Cincy will never equal those in, say, NY) very well, IMHO.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

There are a lot of shades of gray...

[HoosierCat]

More from AP's Goldberg:

NFL labor talks break off with no progress

By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer

March 4, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- Talks between the NFL and its union broke off Saturday with no progress, although the sides agreed to meet again Sunday.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director did not immediately return phone calls from The Associated Press. Union spokesman Carl Francis said he had not heard from Upshaw.

Earlier in the week, negotiations broke off and the league set the salary cap for free agency at $94.5 million. Teams with a salary load far higher than that had anticipated an agreement that could have given them extra room to keep veterans, perhaps $10 million more with a new deal.

If not, it's likely a number of teams would have to make wholesale cuts, some involving big-name veterans such as Kansas City's Will Shields, Tampa Bay's Derrick Brooks and the New York Jets' Kevin Mawae and Chad Pennington.

Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, said after the earlier talks broke off that the NFL was offering $56.2 million of its total revenues to the players. Upshaw has said he will not go under 60 percent.

But the problem involves more than that, notably a dispute among owners over revenue sharing. Low-revenue teams complain that they would have to contribute a higher percentage of the money they get from advertising, naming rights and other nontelevision and ticket revenue than big-market teams.

Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners, but that isn't likely happen in these last-minute talks, which began Friday after the deadline for free agency was extended three days from Friday at 12:01 a.m. EST until Monday at the same time.

The labor agreement, extended several times since it was agreed to in 1992, has another two years to run. But 2006 would be the last year with a salary cap.

There would be no cap next year, but also many changes in the rules, including some the players find unappealing -- six years for a player to get to free agency instead of four and no minimum amount that teams have to spend.

The stalemate increased the possibility that many high-priced free agents would come on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. EST Sunday, the extended deadline for the start of free agency.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AvLH...ov=ap&type=lgns

And another view...

NFL labor talks break off

March 4, 2006

NEW YORK (Ticker) - It appears that a three-day reprieve only served as a delay for what may turn into salary cap chaos in the NFL.

Negotiations broke off between representatives of the NFL and the Players Association on Saturday, leaving little hope that a deal will be reached before the 6 p.m. EST Sunday deadline to extend the collective bargaining agreement, which runs through 2007.

"Talks are as dead as a doornail," NFL Players Association lead negotiator Jeffrey Kessler said. "We've given up hope for the short term. In the long term we hope there is a deal, but for now free agency will go forward under the present agreement."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfll...ov=st&type=lgns

[JPW]

This is embarassing. Why can't both sides act like real men instead of little children and get this stupid s**t taken care of. I am sick of this crap, and I am sure most of you all are too. To the players...the Owners are offering 56.2% of shared revenue...and you want 60? Be happy with what they offer because all of you sure as hell don't need any of that because you are all millionares. Stop being greedy dickheads and accept what great things you have, becuase I and most of everybody else don't have half of what you have.

Jeffrey Kessler, the NFLPA's lead negotiator pointed straight at, the lack of a new revenue-sharing agreement among the owners, as the main hold up.

Which agrees with what Upshaw has said:

Union head Gene Upshaw has told the owners he won’t make a deal until the owners agree to share equally those local revenues in the same way they do national TV income and other major revenue streams. Upshaw’s position is if that doesn’t happen, the gap between the haves and have-nots will widen to the point where more teams will pay their players only to the cap’s minimum while the few pay to the max, thus turning football into baseball, where one team, the Yankees, pays its infield more than the Devil Rays pay their entire roster.

Yet Tagliabue & The-Gang-of-Nine have blocked a vote on a new revenue-sharing agreement for well over a year and would not "allow" it to even be brought up at last week's special meeting of all the owners.

Your right, this really is stupid s**t ...

According to a NLF spokesman they will meet again tomorrow ...

ESPN Link ...

Talks between the NFL and its union broke off Saturday with no progress, although the sides agreed to meet again Sunday.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

[Spor_tees]

The major factor about the CBA this year is, they have to put a cap number on this year that is significantly less than it would have been under a new CBA. It takes the cap from a reported $102 million to $94.5 million. From what I have heard, the NFLPA (or at least Gene Upshaw_ wants the shared revenues to be 60%/40% in favor of the players which based on last years generated revenues is what next years cap would have been based on (and future years under the new CBA). But the owners, especially Jerry Jones, said that a 60% share to the players is absolutely ridiculous and would ruin the league.

One brightside to this, or downsized depending on how you look at it, some players are speaking out and saying Gene Upshaw and some players are asking for WAY too much. Matt Birk was one of those players. And if we go into an uncapped year without the CBA where players have to pay their own 401K and medical benefits maybe they will see the light.

The worst thing is, if no CBA is done before the end of the 2007 season the NFLPA will dissolve and the players will no longer have a union and then the Federal government anti-trust laws would apply. Do we really want the federal government dealing in the NFL?

Players just need to bite the bullet, quit asking for so much, and get the deal done!

And that is my two cents.

[HoosierCat]

The major factor about the CBA this year is, they have to put a cap number on this year that is significantly less than it would have been under a new CBA. It takes the cap from a reported $102 million to $94.5 million. From what I have heard, the NFLPA (or at least Gene Upshaw_ wants the shared revenues to be 60%/40% in favor of the players which based on last years generated revenues is what next years cap would have been based on (and future years under the new CBA). But the owners, especially Jerry Jones, said that a 60% share to the players is absolutely ridiculous and would ruin the league

Before the talks broke up today, there were whispers emerging from the negotiations (see everyone's favorite football gossip site, profootballtalk.com) that the two sides had split the difference at 58%, but that the whole issue of limits on "cash over cap" had become a problem.

Oh, BTW, welcome aboard!

[HoosierCat]

The scoop from Lenny at espn. Sounds pretty bleak. I thought the quote about not even being able to agree on what they're disagreeing on pretty much summed things up.

Labor talks end for day, little optimism to be found

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

Despite earlier indications that the league had nudged the ball forward in terms of a proposal to share a greater percentage of revenues with its players, the NFL and the NFL Players Association punted Saturday afternoon following two days of last-gasp negotiations.

Representatives from the NFLPA headed back to Washington, D.C., and the league is apparently headed now toward the kind of labor enmity that it has not experienced during the past two decades of unparalleled prosperity. Barring a dramatic reversal of negotiating stances, free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m., the league will operate with a salary cap of $94.5 million for 2006, and the two sides will go forward with 2007 scheduled to be an "uncapped" year.

And essentially proceed into an uncertain, and potentially perilous future.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL vice president of public relations Greg Aiello said in a Saturday evening statement. Officials from the NFLPA, however, said there are no further talks scheduled. It is believed that the executive committee of the NFL Management Council, the league's labor arm, was apprised Saturday evening of the stalemate.

Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead negotiators for the NFLPA and part of a small group that huddled with league representatives, termed the negotiations "as dead as a doornail."

Identifying a cause of death, given the veil of secrecy under which the negotiations were conducted for a total of 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday, might be difficult. But the inability to bridge the differences over two key issues -- the internal revenue sharing among the league's 32 teams and the so-called "cash over cap" problem -- were almost certainly among the components which forced the end to negotiations.

One prominent owner strongly suggested to ESPN.com that those two issues, which he lumped under the umbrella category of "revenue sharing-related things," indeed led to the collapse of discussions.

It was difficult, however, in the immediate wake of Saturday afternoon's events, to even get the two sides to agree on what had transpired during two days at the bargaining table.

For example, two league sources told ESPN and ESPN.com on Saturday that the NFL had increased its offer on how much revenue would be split with players from 56.2 percent to between 58.2 and 58.5 percent. If true, that would have represented a predictable middle-ground compromise, given that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been seeking 60.3 percent. An NFLPA source insisted, though, that the league's best offer never got to the 58-percent range.

When informed late Saturday afternoon of the breakdown in talks, one frustrated owner resonded: "When we can't even agree on what the disagreements are on some issues, well, that just shows you how [messed] up the situation really is, right?"

Perhaps because of the paucity of leaks following the Friday talks, the Saturday negotiations began with a public sense of optimism, and a feeling that the weekend of bargaining would lead to an agreement by Sunday evening that would stave off the anticipated chaos which could now ensue. Fueling the speculation that the two sides were poised to reach an extension to the collective bargaining agreement was a memo that commissioner Paul Tagliabue dispatched to all 32 franchises, telling owners to set aside Tuesday as a possible date to ratify the labor deal.

But by Saturday at noon, one owner not involved in the negotiations but privy to their content, told ESPN.com that, if there had indeed been progress, "it's only if you use 'progress' as a relative term." That owner acknowledged he was "still dubious" a deal would be struck in advance of Sunday's deadline. Only a few hours later, his assessment turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Even if there was movement in terms of how much of the total league revenues the NFL would share with its players, the two sides apparently never got close on the critical matters of revenue-sharing among the 32 franchises and the equally crucial issue of cash over cap. Some owners have long contended that their intramural battle over revenue sharing -- with an increasingly alarming disparity between high-revenue teams like the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys and low-revenue earners like the Indianapolis Colts and Jacksonville Jaguars -- should be out of bounds to the union. Upshaw argued all along, though, that the internal revenue sharing was tied to the league's problems.

As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of 9-10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years.

But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.

Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."

As ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported on Friday, the cash over cap component, which in many ways ties into the disparity between the league's "haves" and "have-nots" in terms of how money is calculated, also continues to divide NFL owners. Of course, the issue of cash over cap has always been a hot-button item for low-revenue franchises.

To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Redskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means.

Sources said Saturday that, as part of the weekend discussions, the NFL proposed limiting the amount of cash over cap, per team, to 2 percent. While Upshaw has expressed concern in the past about cash over cap, he likely viewed the 2 percent limit as too low, and as potentially taking money away from players.

The day's events left teams and players not only frustrated, but concerned about what lies ahead.

General managers and cap experts for teams that are still over the projected spending limit of $94.5 million for 2006 were scrambling again on Saturday night to conjure up ways to get into compliance. It is believed that about 10 franchises on Saturday still had gap overages. Those teams face a Sunday 6 p.m. ET deadline for getting under the spending limit.

At the same time, some players who might have been released had the league year commenced on Friday as scheduled will likely face the chopping block again.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354534

[Spor_tees]

The major factor about the CBA this year is, they have to put a cap number on this year that is significantly less than it would have been under a new CBA. It takes the cap from a reported $102 million to $94.5 million. From what I have heard, the NFLPA (or at least Gene Upshaw_ wants the shared revenues to be 60%/40% in favor of the players which based on last years generated revenues is what next years cap would have been based on (and future years under the new CBA). But the owners, especially Jerry Jones, said that a 60% share to the players is absolutely ridiculous and would ruin the league

Before the talks broke up today, there were whispers emerging from the negotiations (see everyone's favorite football gossip site, profootballtalk.com) that the two sides had split the difference at 58%, but that the whole issue of limits on "cash over cap" had become a problem.

Oh, BTW, welcome aboard!

[cincy9275]

well if they can't get this deal done then this could really hurt this years draft picks . players who are drafted might hold out because there agents are afraid they will lose money if they sign a deal before a new cba. if they don't sign a new deal and the league goes to a uncapped year and a lockout the following year these guys won't play football for 2 years . both sides need to get something done before this goes too far .

[HoosierCat]

Some stuff from Mark Maske at the Washington Post, who relates a conversation from Upshaw on the 56-60% matter and cash over cap issues…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030400454.html

The two sides had bargaining sessions Friday and yesterday in New York, but the talks broke down and Upshaw said late yesterday afternoon he was returning to Washington.

"Talks broke off because the owners are not capable of compromise," Upshaw said. "I'm on my way back."

League officials said they expected negotiations to resume before the scheduled opening of free agency.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," said Greg Aiello, the NFL's vice president of public relations.

Said Buffalo Bills cornerback Troy Vincent, the president of the Players Association: "Just because negotiations break off doesn't mean there won't be communications. Everyone is exhausting themselves trying to get it to work. There are just some core issues here that need to be resolved, and it hasn't happened."

Upshaw did not rule out another attempt by the parties to reach a settlement today but said he had no reason to be optimistic that a deal is within reach. He said he had relented on his demand that the players receive at least 60 percent of the league's greatly expanded revenue pool, but the talks were deadlocked with the owners offering 56.6 percent. Upshaw declined to specify the terms of the players' most recent offer.

"I don't know where else to go," he said by telephone. "I came down from 60, and then I came down again. They're at 56.6. That's too low. They went from 56.2 to 56.5 to 56.6. You tell me if they've made any real movement. At this rate, they'll get there some day, but I'll be long gone by then."

Union officials said the owners' portrayal of their offer as 58 percent of revenues was misleading because that figure included an already existing performance-based pay pool. Upshaw said he was willing to negotiate a system to limit the amount of money that teams could spend above the flexible salary cap, but the parties could not agree to the details.

[jjakq27]

From NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9283769

Apparently there is even a dispute whether they are meeting on Sunday. Just get it done.

[turningpoint]

$100 says whur chad at has never played nfl2k5 and runs the same 3 plays on madden.

I played it and traded it in the next day cuz it was the worst graphics and gameplay i have ever seen.

wtf, the graphics in nfl2k5 blew madden 05 out of the water wtf were you smoking.

[HoosierCat]

From NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9283769

Apparently there is even a dispute whether they are meeting on Sunday. Just get it done.

Y'know that quote about history repeating itself, first time as tragedy and second time as farce?

I think we're firmly in "farce" territory.

[JPW]

UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO" ...

POSTED 10:19 p.m. EST, March 4, 2006

UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"

A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.

Not much new here since according to the union, revenue-sharing has been the main sticking point all along.

[HoosierCat]

Yeah, Maske say that they apparently quit arguing over the shape of the table and got serious overnight...looks promising, but of course we've heard this all before. Maske also suggests there may be yet another FA extension to Tuesday to allow for an owners' vote on a new deal...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030500255.html

NFL Labor Negotiations Back On, Deal Close

By Mark Maske

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 9:09 AM

The NFL's labor negotiations took a dramatic turn overnight. After the talks faltered yesterday, representatives of the team owners and the players' union agreed to resume negotiations, and participants said the two sides were close to completing a deal.

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said via e-mail early this morning that the parties had scheduled another meeting in New York and were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

he negotiations broke off yesterday with Upshaw saying the owners were unable to compromise, and he left New York and returned to Washington. But the owners were meeting via conference call when Upshaw departed, and league spokesman Greg Aiello said the owners expected negotiations to resume today.

The talks ended yesterday with the owners offering 56.6 percent of an expanded pool of league revenues to the players as compensation under a salary-cap system. Upshaw had dropped his demand that the players receive at least 60 percent, but he would not specify exactly what percentage his latest proposal called for.

Upshaw has maintained that any labor deal between the players and owners would have to be accompanied by an agreement among the owners to increase the degree to which the 32 NFL teams share locally generated revenues. Otherwise, Upshaw has said, lower-revenue clubs could not afford the salary commitment they'd be making to the players. Owners have said they could complete a labor deal with the players without finishing a revenue-sharing agreement immediately.

The compromise might be a provision in the labor deal to limit the amount of money that teams can spend above the flexible salary cap. That would address the concerns of lower-revenue teams that the high-revenue clubs could gain a competitive advantage by using their wealth to consistently outspend the salary cap and get better players. The sides had been negotiating about such "cash over cap" before talks broke off Saturday.

The league's free-agent market is scheduled to open at midnight. Unless there is a new contract, teams must be under next season's $94.5 million salary cap by then. If they need to release players to get under the cap, they must do so by 6 p.m.

But Upshaw and NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue facing a similar deadline Thursday agreed to push back those deadlines by 72 hours, and they could agree to another postponement if more time is needed to complete the deal. Tagliabue has told the owners to leave Tuesday free for a possible meeting in Dallas to ratify a labor deal.

[jjakq27]

Yeah, Maske say that they apparently quit arguing over the shape of the table and got serious overnight...looks promising, but of course we've heard this all before. Maske also suggests there may be yet another FA extension to Tuesday to allow for an owners' vote on a new deal...

Maybe they just needed a good night's sleep.

Hopefully they will finish it off today. Guys like Snyder and Jones have an advantage that other owners just don't have. Big cities, name recogonition of their teams, etc.We don't need any Steinbrenners trying to buy a title every year. That's what makes football different.

Personally I would like to see them raise the cap number but make it a firm cap. Eventually signing bonuses would go down. This kind of creative accounting makes it too complicated.

[HoosierCat]

Maybe they just needed a good night's sleep.

Hopefully they will finish it off today. Guys like Snyder and Jones have an advantage that other owners just don't have. Big cities, name recogonition of their teams, etc.We don't need any Steinbrenners trying to buy a title every year. That's what makes football different.

Personally I would like to see them raise the cap number but make it a firm cap. Eventually signing bonuses would go down. This kind of creative accounting makes it too complicated.

I definitely agree than, if they're going to have a cap, it ought to have at least some force. The current one is little more than a book-keeping annoyance. But even if they do cap "cash over cap," I suspect ways around that cap will be found eventually. Oh, well, at least that would give them something to argue about for the next CBA, eh?

As to the big vs. little market, there's certainly going to be variances that could unbalance things...but there's not as much to that as some of the PR emanating from the small market teams would have you believe. For example, organizations like the Bengals love to toss around facts like "the Redskins make $100 million more a year than the Bengals." Which is true -- but the Redskins are an anamoly. Go look at the Forbes numbers I linked earlier and yeah, DC's revenues are $116 million higher than Cincy's. But the revenues of the No. 2 team, NE, are just $65 million above Cincy's. Quite a drop. The No. 10 team, Chicago, makes only about $22 million more. If the revenues tracked by Forbes were shared equally, everyone would have made about $188 million, which is just $17 million more than the Bengals made unshared.

[schweinhart]

The talks ended yesterday with the owners offering 56.6 percent of an expanded pool of league revenues to the players as compensation under a salary-cap system. Upshaw had dropped his demand that the players receive at least 60 percent, but he would not specify exactly what percentage his latest proposal called for.

Sounds like the NFLPA is actually involved now. Once the owners agree on the revenue sharing, it's just a matter of splitting the baby.

[Whur CHad At?]

56.6% isn't good enough for the players guys. Ir has to be 60%. The Players feel like they are getting ripped off, but I mean they are only making millions of dollars a year so I could understand. Looks like a deal will not be reached fellas...