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

[Dolfan2788]

have you broken a leg, torn an acl, got a concussion, seperated a shoulder, etc. at your "real" job? do people at your "real" job tend to die at an uncommonly early age? players work hard, put their health on the line, and mean enough to you for you to be here talking about them. you should show them some respect.

Yes, and they get to play the game they love and have thousands of people adore them for it, not to mention they get payed millions of dollars for it.

That is their compensation, and they are over compensated, it is a choice.

Do you think king crab fisherman get a huge raise because their contract is simply up and a lot of people get killed on the job? HECK NO and they have the most dangerous job in the world. They also get well compensated but not anywhere to the extent that football players do.

 

[Jimmy James]

Do you think king crab fisherman get a huge raise because their contract is simply up and a lot of people get killed on the job? HECK NO and they have the most dangerous job in the world. They also get well compensated but not anywhere to the extent that football players do.

Can a king crab fisherman run a 4.2 forty? If he can, let the owners know. They could use them as scabs!

Do fishermen actually have unions?

 

[dolphingator]

I reiterate what I said earler. The greedy players want a big cut list to come down. Instant it does, they will ACCEPT the CBA so that all the new free agents can cash in on the extra 10 mil per team, and also cherrypick for the team they want to go to.

The owners are too smart for that and keep calling their bluff and delaying FA. Good for them! Maybe if they continue to hold the line you all won't have to pay $200 for an NFL game ticket next year.

 

[nopony]

I reiterate what I said earler. The greedy players want a big cut list to come down. Instant it does, they will ACCEPT the CBA so that all the new free agents can cash in on the extra 10 mil per team, and also cherrypick for the team they want to go to.

The owners are too smart for that and keep calling their bluff and delaying FA. Good for them! Maybe if they continue to hold the line you all won't have to pay $200 for an NFL game ticket next year.

1. If you think player salaries has one iota of bearing on ticket prices, you are wrong. The owners sell the tickets for what people will pay. They don't charge more because they get players and they don't charge less. They charge what the market will bear. Period.

The only way to lower ticket prices is to stop going. Nothing to do with players at all.

2. Why one earth do you have that theory? And why wouldn't they have let the cuts happen last week? If that's their plan, they sure do stink at it.

 

[Roman529]

I think calling NFL players "greedy" is wrong. They get paid a lot less than MLB and NBA players and they play a much more physically demanding sport and have NO gauranteed contracts and much shorter careers. I think they should get more money when you look at how much the NFL and the owners make.

 

[twg76]

For Christ sake get this deal done! One more delay in the deadline, and football is going to start getting alot of negative press. They had plenty of time to be working on this. Get it together!! :fire:

 

[finfan54]

Its the owners who are pulling all these misreports. The greed is coming from guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder.

 

[PhinBeck]

1. If you think player salaries has one iota of bearing on ticket prices, you are wrong. The owners sell the tickets for what people will pay. They don't charge more because they get players and they don't charge less. They charge what the market will bear. Period.

The only way to lower ticket prices is to stop going. Nothing to do with players at all.

2. Why one earth do you have that theory? And why wouldn't they have let the cuts happen last week? If that's their plan, they sure do stink at it.

No you are wrong. Players salaries, admin salaries, overhead costs, other revenues, and markup % etc all play a part in ticket prices. Once again cost accounting 101. They dont randomly pulll a number out of a hat. If the peoeple dont come, the have to adjust one of the components of the price to reduce the ticket price, first being the markup. But it isnt solely based on what people will pay. If people would only pay 10 bucks, they wouldnt get the tickets.

 

[BigDogsHunt]

Without a CBA in place chances are this would be the last draft we see on a long time, rookies would only turn free agents when they declare, pretty much like in baseball. Money my friend would get you your first rounders.

It not like Baseball....they still have a draft (a lot longer regarding # of rounds as well) the minute you are eligible or declare for the draft.

This would be unprecedented!

The players union while fighting for a larger percentage of gross revenue to be mandatory for use of Salary Cap, they really arent squabbling over much else. They want a higher Salary cap each year, thats obvious, but they also want the floor (the minimum a team must spend on salaries) to be fair and proportional. That being said, its up to the players union to find middle ground and agree to the CBA with what the owners are willing to do.

The worst part to the players isnt a draft or uncapped years, etc. Its that you would have to wait 6 years before you could be a Free Agent to test this type of market. Thats the part they are very nervous about. Heck if they dont get a deal done, how many players would want to sign a long term deal in 2006 if 2007 is staring them right in the kisser and its uncapped? What free agent right now would sign on the dotted line with that option in front of them?

Yes, I agree its the "rich" owners (Skins, Cowboys, etc) that have been agressive and creative with earning as much money (promotions, naming rights, popularity of jersey sales, etc) as possible for their team and then being forced to add it to the pile to split amongst all teams. I love that way back when Wellington Mara as owner of the NY Giants was smart enough to see that TV rights and contract dollars from the NY market would provide him a competitive advantage. He said right then and there that in the best interest of the league, I will add those monies into a pot for all teams to share. That was the genesis, and these owners need to remember the best-interest-of-the-league mantra. These so-called rich teams (arent they all in reality Millionaires vs. Billionaires), are upset simply with the mindset and effort (or lack thereof) of the small-owners who do not maximize the revenue possibility thru naming rights, cross promotions, etc. So while they all share, they arent all contributing to the pot equally via effort atleast if not actual dollars. Clearly this squabble has nothing to do with the Players Union. This is the infighting that the new bloods and the old bloods just cant see eye-to-eye over.

Both parties need to wake up and see how good it is, and realize for the good of the game it needs to be settled.

The most unique thing about professional football to me compared to all other major US sports isnt the draft or free agency or even salary cap and revenue sharing, its the length season, and the drama surrounding how because of that each win or loss is magnified each week and thru salary cap and revenue sharing and free agency the dreggs of the league can become the media-darlings the very next season. 3 year plans are the norm from worst to first mentality.

I hope they just dont break that.

 

[Geauxfins]

1. If you think player salaries has one iota of bearing on ticket prices, you are wrong. The owners sell the tickets for what people will pay. They don't charge more because they get players and they don't charge less. They charge what the market will bear. Period.

The only way to lower ticket prices is to stop going. Nothing to do with players at all.

.

It is really simple to figure this one out...if the players salary's cost 60% of the total revenue, then that is the single largest expense (assuming the owners are making a profit). Ticket prices are certainly driven by costs, as well as supply and demand. It's really pretty simple.

 

[Geauxfins]

Its the owners who are pulling all these misreports. The greed is coming from guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder.

Link?

Still, there's no guarantee that a deal will get done. NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw is back to spewing rhetoric, which to date have proven to be hollow. In a statement on the front page of the union's official web site is the following statement from Upshaw:

"The talks ended today after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years. After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to ten this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 per cent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 per cent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year.

"I continue to believe that the problem lies with the high revenue clubs and the revenue sharing issue. Their refusal to share more revenues is making it worse for everybody-- players, owners, and fans."
​

 

[PhinGeneral]

No you are wrong. Players salaries, admin salaries, overhead costs, other revenues, and markup % etc all play a part in ticket prices. Once again cost accounting 101. They dont randomly pulll a number out of a hat. If the peoeple dont come, the have to adjust one of the components of the price to reduce the ticket price, first being the markup. But it isnt solely based on what people will pay. If people would only pay 10 bucks, they wouldnt get the tickets.

You're oversimplifying what he said. It's a market based on its ceiling, not on what someone would offer.

 

[Geauxfins]

I think I suggested that the union had the power here. I think it's clear from this that it's the case.

I think at least one poster now has to stop watching football and leave this forum permanently according to his own words. Others have to explain why this is so terrible for the league as they have been maintaining. It seems those negotiating the deal disagree.

ummmm, ok, not exactly from a great source (PFT) but you can't argue with the fact that the union is really screwing the players here..

UNION IS FAILING ITS MEMBERS

We've long believed that the NFLPA is doing a less-than-ideal job (we were going to say "piss-poor," but we're trying to be nice) in representing its membership.

Tonight, we're convinced of it.

At times of great tribulation, where multiple diverse interests must be considered and a balance seems nearly impossible to reach, strong leaders don't get close to working it all out and then storm out of the room.

But NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw continues to posture and preen at a time when the two sides are as close as they might ever get to getting a deal done. Once the teams cut their players in order to get under the cap, the sense of urgency to get something done will diminish, and all of the momentum of the past few days will be lost.

And then the players who get dumped will sign crappy deals due to the restrictive rules of the last capped year, and they'll soon be craving the uncapped year in order to make their money back. And as more guys sign those crappy deals under the current rules, it'll be harder to justify extending the CBA, since more and more of the players who signed deals under the old one will be screwed.

So before anyone knows it we'll be into the uncapped year, when some teams will spend a lot more money that otherwise would be permitted.

And some teams will spend a lot less than otherwise would be required.

Our guess is that, despite the lure of a year without a cap, the total dollars spent on player salaries will be less than what they would have been if there had been an extension and a cap in 2007.

So next comes the expiration of the CBA in 2008, decertification of the union, antitrust lawsuits if the league imposes a uniform set of compensation and free agency rules, and maybe a work stoppage.

As one league source told us on Sunday night, "The union and the players have no idea what they just did to themselves. No one is going to win, but they will suffer the greatest."

It's time to wake up, players. Demand that the guys whose salaries you pay earn their money and get a deal done. The owners will always be making money, but the players have a limited window.

If the 2006 league year gets rolling without a new CBA, you're all going to be making a lot less of it over the next few years.​

 

[Surferosa]

ummmm, ok, not exactly from a great source (PFT) but you can't argue with the fact that the union is really screwing the players here..

UNION IS FAILING ITS MEMBERS

We've long believed that the NFLPA is doing a less-than-ideal job (we were going to say "piss-poor," but we're trying to be nice) in representing its membership.

Tonight, we're convinced of it.

At times of great tribulation, where multiple diverse interests must be considered and a balance seems nearly impossible to reach, strong leaders don't get close to working it all out and then storm out of the room.

But NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw continues to posture and preen at a time when the two sides are as close as they might ever get to getting a deal done. Once the teams cut their players in order to get under the cap, the sense of urgency to get something done will diminish, and all of the momentum of the past few days will be lost.

And then the players who get dumped will sign crappy deals due to the restrictive rules of the last capped year, and they'll soon be craving the uncapped year in order to make their money back. And as more guys sign those crappy deals under the current rules, it'll be harder to justify extending the CBA, since more and more of the players who signed deals under the old one will be screwed.

So before anyone knows it we'll be into the uncapped year, when some teams will spend a lot more money that otherwise would be permitted.

And some teams will spend a lot less than otherwise would be required.

Our guess is that, despite the lure of a year without a cap, the total dollars spent on player salaries will be less than what they would have been if there had been an extension and a cap in 2007.

So next comes the expiration of the CBA in 2008, decertification of the union, antitrust lawsuits if the league imposes a uniform set of compensation and free agency rules, and maybe a work stoppage.

As one league source told us on Sunday night, "The union and the players have no idea what they just did to themselves. No one is going to win, but they will suffer the greatest."

It's time to wake up, players. Demand that the guys whose salaries you pay earn their money and get a deal done. The owners will always be making money, but the players have a limited window.

If the 2006 league year gets rolling without a new CBA, you're all going to be making a lot less of it over the next few years.​

What a load of crap. A completely short-sightend perspective from PFT.

 

[Surferosa]

I reiterate what I said earler. The greedy players want a big cut list to come down. Instant it does, they will ACCEPT the CBA so that all the new free agents can cash in on the extra 10 mil per team, and also cherrypick for the team they want to go to.

The owners are too smart for that and keep calling their bluff and delaying FA. Good for them! Maybe if they continue to hold the line you all won't have to pay $200 for an NFL game ticket next year.

I laugh at the notion that people blame Gene Upshaw & the NFLPA. You wont find an example anywhere in the world of a Union that works so closely with its employer - and with the same interests - as the NFLPA over the last 20 years. Gene Upshaw, while fighting for player rights, ultimately has the Leagues best interests at heart. He is one of the silent heroes of the NFL, and one of the of the key protaganists for the leagues continued growth. And all he gets for it is grief.

A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years? Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.

Do you want to point the finger at someone? Look at the new, greedy, "leveraged" owners that purchased their Franchises in small markets for $500 million, and now have to do everythting imaginable to turn a profit and justify their investment. These are the people that are rocking the boat, not the NFLPA. They want to keep player salaries down AND prevent rich-owners from over-spending (cash over cap). Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They are the ones causing the problems here, not the union.