Stripes Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Good grief, they're desperate! If only the owners were as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 If it does blow up based on the revenue sharing -- which if I'm understanding this right has no direct connection to the language of the CBA document itself -- it's solely because of the owners.Well now it looks like the revenue-sharing issue is indeed tied to the new CBA proposal.ESPN ...Upshaw tied a revenue-sharing demand to his six-year proposal because he wants to make sure the lower-revenue teams will have enough money to spend on players.Chris Mortensen just said on ESPN that it is in fact written into the proposal, that the owners must come to a revenue-sharing plan that is acceptable to the union.As I suspected, this has been the major hold up all along yet the owners not only refused to deal with it until now, they actually tried to cover it up.IMO, the owners have been fundamentally dishonest with the Fans concerning this whole matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5392012 Another stay of execution. Time to line up Jerry Jones and the rest of them...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 There is going to be a nother delay until next week...don't get your hopes up anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Deal done according to ESPN - err should I say they have agreed on a deal supposably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Deal done according to ESPN.And it ain't even 9 yet! Who needs more time? Excellent news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsMan3203 Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Did I just hear the 2 owners that didn't vote are the Bills and Cincinnati?Guessing Mikey didn't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan2330 Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Buffalo and Cincy only two owners that voted against it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 About time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Bout Frig'n time Jeezzz us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Damn, wonder why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm Sorry, I can't help it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 He doesn't like it, Hey Mikey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Maybe he just wanted to be one of the odd men out? I don't know I would like to know why.But like TBD I am happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Six years, eh? Let's hope they can come an agreement peacefully when this one expires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 All in time, like I've said they had to figure this out because there was to much money to lose on both sides not to come to some resolution.Anyway around, like others, I'm happy !!!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Maybe he just wanted to be one of the odd men out? I don't know I would like to know why.Could be anything, and I'm sure we'll find out. One thing that immediately occured to me: the new CBA was rumored to include bonus recovery language. In other words, it included circumstances like retirement and holdouts (Barry Sanders, Terrell Owens) under which teams could seek repayment of a signing bonus. What if that language didn't cover the Bengals coveted "loyalty clause"? The clause was OK'd by arbitrators under the old CBA, but there was also no language governing signing bonus recovery in the old CBA. It's a fairly well-established point legally that if you delineate the circumstances under which something can be done, any situation not specifically delineated is implicitly excluded (it's the principle we get the phrase "the exception proves the rule" from, and yes, I am a fount of truly worthless knowledge ).Just a thought. It's tough to see any financial reason that would lead just 2 teams to vote no...and not the two lowest-revenue clubs at that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentjett Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Owners approve six-year CBA extension NFL.com wire reports GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 8, 2006) -- Labor peace was restored to the NFL when the owners agreed to the players' union proposal, extending the collective bargaining agreement for six years. There were no further details on the agreement, including whether it includes expanded revenue sharing. The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it. Free agency, put off twice by the protracted negotiations between the owners and players, now will start at 12:01 a.m. ET on March 10. "It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote." AP NEWSThe Associated Press News ServiceCopyright 2006, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved It's about time, is cincinnati trying to be cheap or what. I hope this isn't a sign of what to expect out of Mike Brown's cheap ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Cap note from pft...CAP JUMPS OVER $100 MILLION A league source tells us that the salary cap under the extended CBA is expected to move to $102 million in 2006, and $109 million in 2007. It's an increase of less than $8 million in 2006 over the cap under the prior CBA, which provides far less of an additional bump than previously anticipated.So even after the usual Bengals adjustments (rookie pool, injury cushion, etc.) they ought to have about $12 million to play with.Florio also ventures that the dissenting votes might relate to clauses that require teams to do more to maximize, local revenues, i.e. sell naming rights to the stadium, since both teams have non-sponsored stadiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ox Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 And in true form, Mikey throws in for the other side. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 As long as we're guessing why Mikey voted no, how about this one? The owners conduct several straw polls before the final vote is taken. Each of the straw polls indicate that the proposal will overwhelmingly pass. So in a fitting display of mule-headed cranky bastardism Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson, owners of two of the lowest revenue franchises, casts votes of symbolic protest...just because they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nice quote here:Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement. "This agreement is not about one side winning or losing. Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League.I know it's more something that "has" to be said, but it's about time they recognized the fans have a play in this. Without us coming to the games and buying up everything in sight that has to do with the team, all of this would be for not. Greedy F*CKERS !!! Oh well, at least it's done and we don't have to revisit this for at least 5 more years.WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benglsdrumr Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 fuhgeddaboudit!! I bet it was really a 31-1 vote except that ralph wilson is so damn old and senile that he totally forgot what was even going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.