Its official ..Its panic time

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:43 pm

Mezz wrote: Adam Shefter is as a reliable source as any...and he has no agenda ..this is what he reported last night

Air Hog wrote: Adam Schefter seems to me to be a pretty vaild source of info. and unlike Lenny, he's not biased against the Skins.

Ha...the same Adam Schefter that reported that Charlie Weiss was going to have his contract bought out by NFL teams that his sources confirmed were negotiating with Weiss.

Weiss signed a contract extension about 2 weeks later.

The same Adam Schefter from NFL.com that broke the story that the Redskins had entered the T.O. sweepstakes. Info that his "sources" confirmed.

Redskins issued a press release that they never were and never will be interested in T.O.

Yeah...he's about as reliable as it gets. That guy is money!

Tall me what NFL insider would be disecting and analyzing our salary cap and contracts?? What team does he work for and why is he working on our stuff when the entire league faces the same labor dillema? Okay...assuming there is any "reliable Insider" how many of them are able to talk to our players and see where they are? NONE...it's called tampering.

This report = flamboyant sensationalism to get people like you to read it and spread it all over the net. Im sure he's greatful. Redskins are mentioned in every article because we have a large fan base and get excited over this crap every time...never fails..they get the clicks on their web page and you get something to feed on until it's proven wrong.

Remember we weren't supposed to be able to sign our draft picks from last year.

Raindog · Post by **Raindog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:06 am

Remember we weren't supposed to be able to sign our draft picks from last year.

I remember that. At first I was worried that this was going to happen because they've been talking about the CBA extention since the beginning of last year. However, the more I think about this, the less sense it makes.

The main argument going through my head is that this is not baseball. Football is by far the most popular sport in the US and why would they want to mess with that? The fans like the salery cap because it give each team a fair chance to win the super bowl ever year, provided they choose the correct players and coach them up. As The Danny found out after his first few years as our owner, you cannot buy a championship calabar team the way those awful Yankees do.

Football has been very good to everyone, players, coaches, GMs, owners and fans alike. The only people who can't stand it are non-fans that complain that Sundays are filled with nothing but football games during the season.

The NFL doesn't want a MLB style black eye with a strike at the end of the 2007-08 season. There's no Cal Rypkin or Sammy Sosa/Mark McGuire to pull them out of the doghouse unless Farve wins another Super Bowl or someone like McNair pulls a John Elway. THey always been good at not making the same mistakes as the MLB and keep the fans interested by keeping the playing field as even as possible.

What the NFL (owners and players union) has right now, they want to keep and by March 1'st, I believe we'll hear about an extention. Right now, I think both sides are playing the scare factor on each other but once the deadlines start to loom, each side will give up enough and come with a nice, tidy agreement and allow us fans to sigh in relief that we wont have to cut half our roster.

If I'm wrong (and I don't think I am), it will be one of the messiest offseasons we've had in a long time and few of us will be able to speculate correctly just how bad or not-as-bad-as-we-thought it really will be.

MEZZSKIN · Post by **MEZZSKIN** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:40 am

Look lets hope this arguement ends with no one ever finding out who was right....But as a fan I and a smart who studiesb the game inside and out...Its clear as day we have major problems if there is NO CBA....
Its being reported on front page of NFL.COM and its even being reported on other redskin fans websites...at bare Minimum we will cut our 3rd and 4th receiver(thrash jacobs), our starting defensive end(wynn), our place kicker(hall), our back up center(raymer), and it AMOST ASSURES us of not resigning our starting strong safety(clark), a back up defensvive end(Evans), our starting tight end(Royal) two of our special teams aces (campell and cartwright)plus the depth they provide at respective positions. Oh we are trading our back up qb as well...never mind anyone else we would have to cut
This is what Gibbs called the "WORST CASE SCENARIO."..This is it.....It stinks its reality ...Im worried and I have every right to be since we staring at something we did not prepare for..
"Asked about the Redskins' approach to the offseason with the uncertainty of the CBA, Gibbs said: "First of all, none of us would have sat here a year ago and said, 'We're going to base everything we do based on the fact that we're not going to have a Collective Bargaining Agreement.' It would not have been smart".....Exactly we did not see this coming actuaklly we bet against it very heavy while others hedged..HOGSTER I know who love this team but its that very same love that is completely blinding you from the debacle we facE
To think we lose 5 roster players after all this is said and done is just plain wrong...wrong wrong wrong...When joe gibbs says "WORST CASE SCENARIO"...IT DOESNT MEAN WE ARE GOING TO LOSE 5 ROSTER PLAYERS....

Raindog · Post by **Raindog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:00 am

I don't care about being right or wrong. I wont be here on April second going... I TOLD U SO!!!!!!! All I'm saying is that unless Football is stupid like Baseball and Hockey and they wont want to mess with seccess. The NFL is making tons of money for everyone. A strike would be devestating and would upset everyone.

Somewhere, either on NFL.com or CBS Sports (I tried to look it up but I couldn't find it, but I think it was CBS), someone put our potential cap problem in perspective by speaking with our Salery Cap Specialist. He said, acording to this site, if everyone we have signed right now agreed to go down to the vetern minimum salery, we'd still be some terrible number like, twelve million over the cap.

rick301 · Post by **rick301** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:19 pm

From http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/s ... index.html I saw:

With a deadline looming tomorrow, NFL owners and the league's Players Association may be inching closer to a new collective bargaining agreement. Last night, Patriots vice chairman and president Jonathan Kraft expressed optimism that a deal was close.
-- Boston Globe

Next season's NFL salary cap likely will be about $108 million per team if the owners and the players' union can agree to an extension of their collective bargaining agreement. It probably will be set at $95 million to $96 million per club if there's no labor extension. Last season's salary cap was $85.5 million per team.
-- Washington Post

I hope its true about the CBA and the $108M salary cap. If it is, we'll be sitting pretty!

kkryan · Post by **kkryan** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:31 pm

rick301 wrote:From http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/s ... index.html I saw:

With a deadline looming tomorrow, NFL owners and the league's Players Association may be inching closer to a new collective bargaining agreement. Last night, Patriots vice chairman and president Jonathan Kraft expressed optimism that a deal was close.
-- Boston Globe

Next season's NFL salary cap likely will be about $108 million per team if the owners and the players' union can agree to an extension of their collective bargaining agreement. It probably will be set at $95 million to $96 million per club if there's no labor extension. Last season's salary cap was $85.5 million per team.
-- Washington Post

I hope its true about the CBA and the $108M salary cap. If it is, we'll be sitting pretty!

We wont be sitting pretty. The cards will have close to 40 million under the cap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rick301 · Post by **rick301** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:43 pm

kkryan wrote:
rick301 wrote:From http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/s ... index.html I saw:

With a deadline looming tomorrow, NFL owners and the league's Players Association may be inching closer to a new collective bargaining agreement. Last night, Patriots vice chairman and president Jonathan Kraft expressed optimism that a deal was close.
-- Boston Globe

Next season's NFL salary cap likely will be about $108 million per team if the owners and the players' union can agree to an extension of their collective bargaining agreement. It probably will be set at $95 million to $96 million per club if there's no labor extension. Last season's salary cap was $85.5 million per team.
-- Washington Post

I hope its true about the CBA and the $108M salary cap. If it is, we'll be sitting pretty!
We wont be sitting pretty. The cards will have close to 40 million under the cap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and as a 5-11 team they need to spend some of it and get some quality players! All that cap space is not helping them win any games!

SirSmizzy · Post by **SirSmizzy** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:53 pm

NFL | Labor talks break down
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:37 -0800

ESPNews reports the talks regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement have broken down between the NFL Players Association and team owners. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, has been called off, according to NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw. The set deadline is Wednesday, March 1, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

hkHog · Post by **hkHog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:59 pm

SirSmizzy wrote:NFL | Labor talks break down
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:37 -0800

ESPNews reports the talks regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement have broken down between the NFL Players Association and team owners. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, has been called off, according to NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw. The set deadline is Wednesday, March 1, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

I hope they are wrong

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:03 pm

People think by no new CBA< we'll be good in 2007-2008.

We won't... There will most likely be a lockout.

Also, with no new CBA, NFL probably will fall apart by 2010. Smaller market teams will eventually fall apart without revenue sharing and eventually middle market teams will be forced to either move or have permanet mediocrity.

No CBA will have long lasting effects that could kill NFL.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:04 pm

Looks like there isn't going to be a deal...

NFL labor talks broke off Tuesday three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the last three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old contract. Talks have been going on for more than a year.

Without an extension, the 2007 season would become a so-called uncapped year with no spending limit and no minimum, and players could potentially face a lockout in 2008.

Team officials and player agents have said that doing business without an extension -- particularly with the free agent signing period set to begin Friday and the draft on April 29-30 -- will prove virtually impossible. Because of the extreme circumstances that would exist with an uncapped year on the horizon, it would be difficult to meet the financial expectations of free agents and high-round draft choices.

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reported Monday that league owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday via conference call to discuss the status of negotiations.

Two owners told Pasquarelli on Monday afternoon that they have delayed their departures from Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine since Wednesday, to accommodate the 6 p.m. ET timing of the conference call.

Information from The Associated Press and ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli was used in this report.

Redskins1974 · Post by **Redskins1974** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:07 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01154.html

Labor Deal or Not, League to Set Salary Cap
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; 12:39 PM
Executives from NFL teams had expected to find out Monday what next season's salary-cap figure would be. Instead, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue informed all 32 clubs in a memo that the teams would be notified by 4 p.m. Wednesday whether there will be an extension of the labor agreement, and they'll be told then what the salary cap will be.
If the league and the players' union agree to a labor extension, the salary cap likely will be set somewhere between $104 million and $108 million per club. That would be an immense jump over last season's salary cap of $85.5 million per team. Without an extension, next season's cap probably will be around $95 million or $96 million per club.
That is a huge difference to teams facing a potential salary-cap crunch. If there's no labor deal, clubs would have to be in compliance with the salary cap by Friday and scores of players likely would be released Thursday. The free-agent market is scheduled to open Friday.
If there is a labor extension, the opening of free agency perhaps would be pushed back by a week to give the team owners and the players time to vote to ratify the deal. That would be a trickier proposition for the owners, who are scheduled to meet Monday and Tuesday in Dallas, since NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw continues to maintain that a labor deal would have to be accompanied by an agreement among the owners on a system to increase the degree to which the clubs share their locally generated revenues. The owners' revenue-sharing deliberations have been highly contentious, but it's possible that Tagliabue will arrive in Dallas on Monday telling the owners that he has a labor deal with Upshaw that would go into effect only if they approve a revenue-sharing plan.
The players have an executive board meeting scheduled for next week in Hawaii. They could end up approving a labor deal at that meeting. Or, if there's no labor deal, they could end up receiving a recommendation from Upshaw to put in process the motion to decertify the union. That would be a tactic designed to prevent a lockout by the owners in 2008, and it perhaps would lead to a courtroom confrontation between the two sides. The players decertifying the union would enable the owners to implement whatever system they wanted, but would give the players the right to file an antitrust lawsuit if they didn't like what the owners imposed.
Everything depends on what happens between now and Wednesday afternoon. Tagliabue and Upshaw are scheduled to meet today in New York. The parties apparently have made progress toward an agreement, but Upshaw said as he traveled to New York on Monday that speculation that a deal was already in place or virtually in place was off target. The two sides still had not agreed to what percentage of an expanded revenue pool the players would receive as compensation under a salary-cap system, Upshaw said Monday.
The labor deal keeps the current salary-cap system in place through next season, then there would be season without a salary cap in 2007 before the agreement expires.

Hog Heaven · Post by **Hog Heaven** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:23 pm

Smithian wrote:People think by no new CBA< we'll be good in 2007-2008.

We won't... There will most likely be a lockout.

Also, with no new CBA, NFL probably will fall apart by 2010. Smaller market teams will eventually fall apart without revenue sharing and eventually middle market teams will be forced to either move or have permanet mediocrity.

No CBA will have long lasting effects that could kill NFL.

I agree we won't be good in the 2007-08 season because we'll need to rebuild the depleated team we'd have to field this comming season. Also, a lockout would certainly be a possibility, but not a certainty. As far as revenue sharing, that is different than the CBA. We can have that without a salery cap, although it would be less effective. I would destroy the pairity the league currently has, but not the league itself. The NFL existed before both the salery cap and the revenue sharing agreement, and I think it was even better then. I liked the excitement of dynasties facing off against each other. Sure a few teams really struggled, but if they were smart at building through the draft, they could field playoff teams.

Raindog · Post by **Raindog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:37 pm

This is stupid. This isn't even between the NFL owners and the Player's Union, this is nitpicking between just the owners. Sight Sighted... grumble grumble.

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:42 pm

I don't think theres anybody on the cut list we couln't suvive without.

MEZZSKIN · Post by **MEZZSKIN** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:15 pm

This is sad and unfortunate..I hope this is posturing by both sides...If not let the cutting commence and say goodbye to all our UFA'S.....This is going to be very sad time for Redskin nation..Brace yourselves...

vasfinest24 · Post by **vasfinest24** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:46 pm

Sad and unfortunate??? This could be great!!! Lets face it, even if we look at the most grim outlook for next year, no scenario has mentioned us cutting any cornerstones or key buidling blocks. Sorry, but Walt Harris, Bowen, Raymer, and Hall don't exactly bring up those thoughts in my mind. And no, I find it hard to believe that no new CBA will bring about the end of the NFL for all eternity. I just hope that 07 isn't the only uncapped year, and judging from Upshaw's comments it looks like we could hit the jackpot with this one and be without a cap for quite a few years down the road.
HAIL

SkinsFanInHawai'i · Post by **SkinsFanInHawai'i** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:01 pm

Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement extension continue to drag. Conference calls are going on daily with hopes of getting something done. The collective bargaining agreement runs out after the 2007 season, but March 3 of this year is perhaps the most important date in the process.

Even though two years remain in the agreement, the NFL Players Association and owners built incentives into the current CBA to encourage negotiations. The incentives include the uncapped year in 2007 and the equally painful transition year in 2006. If no deal is done by March 3, the NFL, as we've known it since the cap started in 1993, won't be the same. If a new deal isn't worked out, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said the union will proceed to the uncapped year in 2007 and not look back. That could put pro football in the rare position to be the first sport to lose a salary cap.

Most experts think a last-minute deal will be completed, but what if it isn't? Here are a few answers to the questions.

• What is the problem in the negotiations?
The biggest problem is the lack of cohesion among the owners. The players have to settle on a negotiated percentage of total gross revenues, and Upshaw said that percentage must be in the 60s. They currently get 64 percent of designated gross revenues, but the sport has grown so much that the formula must change. Starting with an extension, the percentage will be based on total revenues. The NFL has grown into a $6 billion business and is expected to be a $10 billion business by 2010. Upshaw and commissioner Paul Tagliabue should be able to work out the number but not if there isn't improved revenue sharing among the owners, and that's what has been holding up a settlement.

Teams with new stadiums at the top of the revenue list don't want to share their profits with the lower revenue teams. Heading the list of high-revenue teams are the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Philadelphia Eagles. Because eight votes can block any deal such as a CBA, they prevent a deal from getting done and it could cost the league the salary cap. Their position is strong.

The revenue differences in a league that made its success by sharing has grown apart. A top team such as the Redskins can make between $200 million and $240 million in gross revenues and that number should grow to $300 million. The lower-revenue teams are in the low $100-million range. What the high revenuers are hoping is that the union would do a deal without revenue sharing. Upshaw says that won't happen because he can't have a top revenue team pay 35-40 percent of its revenues on payroll while a low revenue team pays 70 percent. Conference calls over the past couple of days are moving the process but the negotiations are complicated. At some point, the owners have to settle their differences and take the best deal or they will lose the salary cap.

• With no extension, what problems would exist for the '06 season?
Because 2006 could be a transition year to no cap in 2007, rules change slightly and they take a lot of money out of the free agency pool. Teams will lose between $2.5 million and $5 million of cap room because of the transition. Because there is no cap in 2007, players who are released from multi-year contracts will have the cap hits on the 2006 cap. With no salary cap in 2007, there will be no June 1 adjustment date to release players with high cap numbers and delay the cap hits. With no cap in 2007, all incentives will count immediately.

Normally, incentives have to be earned during the season and are posted on the next year's cap. Teams have to leave room for the extra charges and that will take anywhere between $100 million and $150 million of cap room out of the free agent pool. With less room, fewer free agents will get big dollars, and fewer free agents will be signed. Another problem is the 30-percent rule for base salaries. Any contract that extends into an uncapped year limits the increase of a player's base salary to 30 percent a year. That kills the teams over the cap because they can't negotiate simple replacement deals in which they replace base salary with signing bonuses. The base salaries can increase only 30 percent a year so teams would have to negotiate two or three years of reductions. It will be harder for teams to free up money under the cap because of that.

Signing draft choices will be more difficult because teams can prorate signing bonuses for only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That leads to long holdouts by draft choices.

• What does the NFL lose if it doesn't negotiate a CBA extension?
Labor peace. In 2008, the NFL will either be on strike or the owners will lock out the players. That's not going to play well with networks investing a total of $100 million a year in rights fees. The union will decertify and then antitrust rules will apply. The NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted in the current CBA if it expires. Naturally, the NFL will try to implement a system, but the NFLPA will sue and both sides will be spending all of their time in court. To get players out of college, it could be open negotiations. Minimum salaries for all players will be eliminated in 2007, so every contract, including those for rookies coming out of college, has to be negotiated individually and those players get what they can get. Players probably can sue if their contracts are traded. Every single move of the league will be under legal scrutiny.

• What do the players lose if there is no extension?
They will lose some protection. Even though it's more of a procedural thing that has to do with antitrust laws, the union will go out of business if there is no CBA. That will cause uncertainty for the players. Teams can change and cut down the benefits package that players receive, which is considered the best in sports. With no structure, teams can pay young players below the current minimums of $235,000, $310,000 and $385,000 a year.

• Will the NFL resemble baseball if there is an uncapped 2007?
Not really. There will be some restrictions of teams being able to go out and sign whomever they want. There will be what is called a "Final Eight" restriction for teams that make the playoffs in 2006. The final four playoff teams will be allowed to re-sign any of their own unrestricted free agents. However, they will be permitted to sign unrestricted free agents from other teams as replacements only if they lose one of their own free agents. A team that loses in the divisional playoff round will have the limitation of adding one unrestricted free agent with a salary of $1.5 million or more. So the final eight playoff teams won't be able to go out like the Yankees and Red Sox and grab all the players that are available in an uncapped year. There is no limitation on Fight Eight teams signing franchise or transition players from other teams but those players are hard to acquire and would cost top draft choices to sign. Teams in 2007 also will have one extra transition designation along with their one franchise tag, giving them a franchise tag and two transition tags to keep their top players.

• Will free agency be different in 2007?
Yes, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years under the current rules. If no CBA agreement is reached this year, players won't begin unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

hkHog · Post by **hkHog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:06 pm

vasfinest24 wrote:Sad and unfortunate??? This could be great!!! Lets face it, even if we look at the most grim outlook for next year, no scenario has mentioned us cutting any cornerstones or key buidling blocks. Sorry, but Walt Harris, Bowen, Raymer, and Hall don't exactly bring up those thoughts in my mind. And no, I find it hard to believe that no new CBA will bring about the end of the NFL for all eternity. I just hope that 07 isn't the only uncapped year, and judging from Upshaw's comments it looks like we could hit the jackpot with this one and be without a cap for quite a few years down the road.
HAIL

I just had kind of a funny thought... LET'S HAVE A STRIKE!!!!!!

Think about it, the last two strikes occured in 1982 and in 1987. What do those two years have in common? Well, that's pretty obvious, the Redskins, led by Joe Gibbs, won the Super Bowl during both of those two seasons!!!

So let's have a strike!!!!

MEZZSKIN · Post by **MEZZSKIN** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:12 pm

Great?..ok let me state this as clearly as possible.if this cap stays at 95 million with no CBA. We UNQUESTIONABLY lose R CLARK, M Bowen, R Wynn, D Evans, W Harris, JHall, C Raymer, J Trash, K Campell, R Cartwright, T Jacobs, w holdman, P ramsey AND WE ARE STILL 12 MILLION OVER with almost zero mobility to restructure other deals.so other cuts will come as well..Alot Gibbs guys will have to get cut...This is sad, its unfortunate and really to me UNFAIR.....Greed is prevailing......any other cuts basically will be starters and we lost all our depth already..2006 will be a Horror SHOW!....Everything coach joe built will be dismantled in 36 hours...the role players, the character guys, the team chemistry and yes even some starters...Im sick....

SirSmizzy · Post by **SirSmizzy** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:23 pm

vasfinest24 wrote:Sad and unfortunate??? This could be great!!! Lets face it, even if we look at the most grim outlook for next year, no scenario has mentioned us cutting any cornerstones or key buidling blocks. Sorry, but Walt Harris, Bowen, Raymer, and Hall don't exactly bring up those thoughts in my mind. And no, I find it hard to believe that no new CBA will bring about the end of the NFL for all eternity. I just hope that 07 isn't the only uncapped year, and judging from Upshaw's comments it looks like we could hit the jackpot with this one and be without a cap for quite a few years down the road.
HAIL

Im not sure you have a complete grasp on the situation.

vasfinest24 · Post by **vasfinest24** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:56 pm

WHAT?!?!? Did you say portis, taylor, moss, jcampbell, washington, and griffin mezzkin? Oh no I misread...you just added taylor "i feel woozy" jacobs along with another couple of 3rd teamers. The only one out of that whole bunch who will will have to find a suitable replacement is Wynn. So go ahead sell your tickets to the "horror show," just dont ask for them back when we start making our super bowl runs in another year or two.

Raindog · Post by **Raindog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:00 pm

This is downright silly. The revenue sharing program has made the NFL what it is. The playing ground is level and all teams are able to compete. If rich teams like us, Dallas and New England are able to gobble up a lot of the best talent (even with resrtictions, we'll still have a large advantage), fans wont be as interested in teams like The Vikings once their free agents leave to rich teams that missed the playoffs.

Also, why would you want to risk losing labor peace? I may not be an expert but it just doesn't make sense to me. The NFL is in the height of it's popularity. Smart buisness men know not to mess with seccess. Personally, I like watching teams go from 11-5 one year, to 7-9 the next, to 11-5 the next (like Carolina). It keeps you on your toes. Cincinnati just became an exciting team for the first since I've been watching the sport.

Keep the playing field even, keep the fans frothing at the mouths, share the revenue extend the CBA.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:03 pm

Here's a question, what if we decide not to go under the Salary Cap, and just say, "Hey Gene Upshaw, your a loser." and just stay way over the cap.

What's the worst that could happen...

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:20 pm

This is downright silly. The revenue sharing program has made the NFL what it is. The playing ground is level and all teams are able to compete. If rich teams like us, Dallas and New England are able to gobble up a lot of the best talent (even with resrtictions, we'll still have a large advantage), fans wont be as interested in teams like The Vikings once their free agents leave to rich teams that missed the playoffs.

Also, why would you want to risk losing labor peace? I may not be an expert but it just doesn't make sense to me. The NFL is in the height of it's popularity. Smart buisness men know not to mess with seccess. Personally, I like watching teams go from 11-5 one year, to 7-9 the next, to 11-5 the next (like Carolina). It keeps you on your toes. Cincinnati just became an exciting team for the first since I've been watching the sport.

Keep the playing field even, keep the fans frothing at the mouths, share the revenue extend the CBA.

The problem with the revenue sharing agreement is that it allows smaller market teams to collect large sums of money and do whatever they want with it. There are too many owners that simply pocket the money that comes in through revenue sharing and don't use it to make improvements to their franchise. This same thing happens in baseball. So I'm not surprised that owners such as Jerry Jones and Snyder are unwilling to keep the current system. If I was an owner of a team like the Skins I would not want a system in place where I have to pay money because I do a better job of running my team to an owner who doesn't care about his team and just takes the money and does whatever he wants with it. I think that along with some type of cap (i prefer a soft cap over the NFL's hard cap) they should implement a spending minimum which would force all the owners to spend atleast a certain amount on their team.