**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!**

[CrunchTime]

THere's no way in Hell that this happens. NEVERRRRR. And Pro Football Talk is like the GLOBE or the ENQUIRER..Making up rediculous stuff just to get a rise.

PFT is no worse than the legitimate press who print contradictory stories time and time again and who base their stories on thinner stuff.

 

[nick1]

we will not have two leagues, that is a load of crap

 

[eddie4fins]

I just listened to Jerry Jones on ESPN about the proposal and he did not like it and said others he knew didn't like it either, he didn't sound very optimistic.

 

[fanman]

If there is no new CBA whats to stop us from signing Mr.Brees for say 1
million this Year and to GUARANTEE him say 20 Million the next year when there is no CAP. That's over 10 million a year and we could still sign more players this year.

 

[nick1]

If there is no new CBA whats to stop us from signing Mr.Brees for say 1
million this Year and to GUARANTEE him say 20 Million the next year when there is no CAP. That's over 10 million a year and we could still sign more players this year.

you wouldn't be able to do that, salaries could only increase 30% each year without a new CBA, you give him 1 million this year he could only get 1.3 million next year

 

[greatwade]

It looks like there is still a lot of "red-tape" to cut through before a deal can be ironed out...

TAGS RIDES THE FENCE

It's Tuesday, which means that it's time for a bunch of rich white dudes (and one rich white chick) to convene in Dallas to determine whether they can work out their differences in the interests of continued labor peace.

But the 59.5 percent question continues to be whether the Commish actually is endorsing the union's latest proposal, or whether he's merely delivering it.

Mark Maske of The Washington Post (who does tremendous work -- and that's a lot coming from us because we pretty much hate everybody) tries to get to the bottom of this key issue.

"Everyone wants to know if he's going to endorse it," NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw stold Maske. "My main issue is that he presents it. He doesn't get a vote. The owners have the votes. [But] if he didn't support it, you wouldn't think he'd be presenting it."

In contrast, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told Maske that Tagliabue would merely be presenting the union's offer without a recommendation.

The deeper issue, as we've previously explained, is whether Tags has any remaining juice with his employers. If he makes a recommendation and if at least 24 of them don't agree with it, he suddenly becomes football's version of Fay Vincent. But if Tagliabue is merely the postal worker who drops off the envelope to the owners, he won't look bad if at least nine of them stamp the thing "return to sender."

Here is the link, since I cannot post the entire article:http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Oh, how I enjoy some nice Tuesday racism. Wonder what race has to do with anything? :evil:

 

[finresurrection]

you wouldn't be able to do that, salaries could only increase 30% each year without a new CBA, you give him 1 million this year he could only get 1.3 million next year

but we could cut Gus, give Brees his 4 mill as salary this year, 5.2 mill next with a 20 mill roster bonus next year thus averaging out to a 2 yr 20 mill bonus and 4.6 mill salary. uncapped makes this easier.

 

[nick1]

but we could cut Gus, give Brees his 4 mill as salary this year, 5.2 mill next with a 20 mill roster bonus next year thus averaging out to a 2 yr 20 mill bonus and 4.6 mill salary. uncapped makes this easier.

in that case we could yes

 

[Geauxfins]

It's a contract. The owners don't have to agree to **** if they don't want to. It will ruin their sport and their fortunes if they choose that option, but they are completely free to do so.

What you're saying here is that you like the man to have all the power and hate that other people have any option to consolidate their bargaining power.



Isn't that all the more reason to deal with them as a collective? Are you saying if you were one of the players, you'd want the union?

Jimmy, if it was that simple, all the players would have guaranteed contracts, but they don't becuase it is not as simple as you.

 

[Geauxfins]

:shakeno:

That's what I have been saying from the beginning. Costs do not determine price, but price can determine costs.

The whole point was always that rising player salaries does not mean rising ticket prices.

So if your cost for your widget is $3.00/ea and you sell them for $3.50 for each, or $2.50 each, how does your price affect your cost?? Wrong again pony.....I think you mean costs do not necessairly drive the max price, but they do drive the minimum price as one of several factors.

 

[phinphan11]

I just listened to Jerry Jones on ESPN about the proposal and he did not like it and said others he knew didn't like it either, he didn't sound very optimistic.

Can't say as I care much for him either....

 

[Jimmy James]

Jimmy, if it was that simple, all the players would have guaranteed contracts, but they don't becuase it is not as simple as you.

Care to complete this thought? :rolleyes2

 

[IdahoPhin]

I just listened to Jerry Jones on ESPN about the proposal and he did not like it and said others he knew didn't like it either, he didn't sound very optimistic.

I heard this also. I don't think they will get the deal done. (IMO) Twenty-four teams have to vote for it to pass. We can always hope for the best.

 

[Geauxfins]

I could use some help understanding the reveune sharing issue...Here is my cut on the problem, please tell me where I have this screwed up.

If I understand the problem, the deal from the union is that the players want 59.5% of the total revenue the teams bring in as the salary cap. Not necessairly a bad thing at all...right?? However, the teams only get the reveune they produce, plus some bit of revenue sharing. So if the total NFL revenue is $100/yr, the players get $59.50 of that in their contracts, so if we assume there are 30 teams (to make my math simpler), Buffalo pays out $2.00 in salary to stay even with the rest of the teams (30X$2.00=a little over the cap of $59.50, but keep it simple for me)...but the problem in Buffalo is that their owner's revenue is only $1.00 out of the total $100 that is counted to determine the cap. So then Ralph Wilson says share 30% of the revenue eually amongst the teams....Jeffy Jones doesn't like it, cause his revenue is $4.00/yr. But they end upsharing the 30% of the total, so now each team gets their piece of that, so the Bills total revenue is $1.00-.30 (for rev sharing)+$1.00 (the distribution of revenue sharing) which gives them a total revenue of $1.70/yr, but they have to pay the players $2.00/yr....therefore the Stinkin bills lose money....right??? Meanwhile, because Dallas brings in $4.00 (bigger market, luxury boxes, local TV, etc, none of which are options in Buffalo), they give up their 30%, so they end up with $4.00-$1.20(revenue sharing out)+$1.00 (distribution of rev sharing) for a total of $3.80...so Jerry Jones makes money, but not as much as he thinks he should, so he doesn't like it either?? Right? or way, way off??

 

[dolfan72734me]

Oh, how I enjoy some nice Tuesday racism. Wonder what race has to do with anything? :evil:

It is against whitey, so it is ok.