NFL Labor Negotiations

[Redskin in Canada]

I had a chance to read this article on the Post in the plane from D.C. to Toronto last week. I remembered to bring it up here today:

No Progress on NFL Labor Negotiations

By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page E02

INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 22 -- A 3 1/2 -hour bargaining session here on Wednesday between NFL Players Association officials and a reshuffled group representing the league's team owners failed to jump-start the sport's stalled labor negotiations.

"There's been no progress," union chief Gene Upshaw said as he left the downtown Indianapolis hotel at which the meeting was held. "We told them our points. They understand our points. They think we're asking too much, and we think they're not offering enough. We're just not there, and I'm not sure we're going to get there. . . . The positions are still the same."

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and St. Louis Rams President John Shaw joined the league's negotiating team, but the new dynamic failed to produce any breakthroughs. The meeting ended, Upshaw said, when it became clear that neither side was budging from its bargaining position.

"When you get to the point where you repeat yourself four or five times, you end it," Upshaw said. "The clock is ticking, and they all realize that."

Upshaw has set the end of this week as his deadline for completing a deal that would keep the sport's salary-cap system in place beyond next season. The collective bargaining agreement runs through the 2007 season, but that season would be played without a salary cap.

Upshaw is scheduled to address a group of about 500 agents here on Friday. He spoke to a smaller group of agents earlier Wednesday and told them he would leave open the possibility of a last-minute settlement with the owners as late as March 2, the day before league's free agent market is scheduled to open. Upshaw told the agents he would not postpone the start of free agency.

He is scheduled to meet with the players' executive board on March 9 and has said that if there's no labor deal by then, he would recommend to the players that they put in motion the process to decertify the union as a tactic to prevent a lockout by the owners and perhaps set up a courtroom challenge by the players.

NFL Notes: The Indianapolis Colts ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02676.html

I have highlighted some portions relating to highly sophisticated negotiation tactics. This is a confrontational (zero-sum) process at the present time.

Upshaw is being advised by some of the BEST negotiators in the USA. ALL of his moves are being very carefully choreographed. His threats sound credible. Other tactics seem pretty standard (closing the door -almost- all the way while leaving it a bit ajar and setting up a deadline to meet with agents, "preparing" for the worst", etc.

Let me tell you, this is the MOST fascinating negotiation taking place in the USA this year. Forget about Congress. Both sides are being coached to the last detail by the best negotiators money can buy.

Interesting that the only side who has decided to speak more openly to the media is the NFLPA through Upshaw. Tagliabue has been rather reserved for a while.

Another fascinating tactic not fully explained in the article is the "rotation" of negotiators by the owners. When you "use up" one of them, you bring a new person who presumably brings something "new" to the table and whatever animosities and bad "concessions" made by the previous negotiator are removed from the table as well. By bringing two, you can bring a "good" cop and a "bad" one too. Fascinating.

This is the Superbowl of negotiations USA-business style.

I do not feel that this negotiation is going to fundamentally change into a cooperative (win-win) process until the fundamental issues are settled in an acceptable manner for both sides. At that time, the implementation of the fundamental agreement (and the devil is in the details, just ask Lavar and the Postons) is still a difficult process that may not be finished on time.

Each side has constituencies that want and do not want an agreement. This scenario makes the negotiation much more complicated. Some star players will benefit enormously from the absence of a CBA. Others may end up out of a job (and a team to play for). Some owners want an agreement because their small market teams will not survive. Others (like you know who and Jerry Jones) do not want a dramatic change in some revenue-sharing provisions and even a small cap CBA.

You have players against players, owners versus owners, and the most advertised match, players versus owners.

From the little information made available to date, I HOGNOSTICATE that an agreement will not be in place this coming week. It is too early to tell whether there might be an agreement at all.

Make your HOGNOSTICATION! Bring it on Texas Hog and all posters!

[Redskin in Canada]

ALL teams have plans A and B in case a CBA is reached or not. In our case:

Gibbs, Redskins In Holding Pattern For Now
By Gary Fitzgerald
Redskins.com
February 25, 2006

The Redskins have mapped out several off-season strategies depending on the outcome of the ongoing Collective Bargaining Agreement talks, head coach Joe Gibbs said on Saturday.

Gibbs also said he hoped that the league and the players' union could work out an extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Moving forward into the offseason without an extension "would not be good" for NFL teams or the players, particularly free agents, Gibbs added.

Gibbs spoke with the media on Saturday afternoon from the NFL Scouting Combine at the RCA Dome in Indianapolis. Later, Gibbs sat down for a 10-minute interview with Rich Eisen and Jim Mora on the NFL Network.

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.

"Certainly we've been one of the more aggressive teams [in free agency]. I think where we are today is we have a game plan for the worst case, and we know exactly what we're going to do there. And then we have steps down from there, all the way to [a scenario in which] the Collective Bargaining Agreement gets done."

The NFL and the players' union have been negotiating on an extension of the CBA for several months, but with little progress. The current CBA is set to expire after the 2007 season, but if there is no extension, the cap on player salaries would end after the 2006 season. That means the 2007 season would be played without a salary cap.

Teams have been waiting to see how the CBA negotiations play out before implementing off-season plans.

According to vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato, if there is no CBA extension, the Redskins may be less aggressive in free agency and instead put an emphasis on the NFL Draft.

Said Gibbs: "We've talked to agents, we've talked to the players, and in most cases even met with the players. You better have a game plan for all the scenarios and we've tried to do that. Hopefully the better part of wisdom is going to win out and a CBA will get done. That's our hope."

In order to ensure the Redskins are under the league-mandated salary cap by March 3, Gibbs said that the team may seek to restructure contracts of some of the team's highest-paid players.

Gibbs said the team still hopes to retain its unrestricted free agents. The group includes safety Ryan Clark and tight end Robert Royal, both starters from last season. Running back Rock Cartwright, linebacker Khary Campbell and defensive end Demetric Evans are also unrestricted free agents this offseason.

"With our free agents, we think we have the best place for them," Gibbs said. "It's a tough situation because I think what happens with your free agents is that many times you think they fit in at a certain salary level. Obviously, they may have other ideas and sometimes you get forced into letting them look [at other teams]. Hopefully in our case, they want to be with us."

Gibbs said he hoped the team's free agents would give the Redskins a chance to match any offers they receive this offseason.

[Redskin in Canada]

Talking about negotiation tactics:

Speaking Saturday at the NFL Scouting Combine, Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay said that Wednesday is considered the "drop-dead" date for a CBA deal to get done. Some teams will remain in a holding pattern with roster moves until that deadline, which could trigger a flurry of last-minute cuts and contract restructures.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl- ... -headlines

Interestingly, some players would make a ton of money this year if a CBA is reached but others would make the same and more if in 2007 if there is no CBA at all.

An extension of this weeks deadline is the most sensible interim solution to this problem but BOTH sides now are playing the "deadline" card. We will find out soon if any side is or both sides are bluffing.

[skinsRin]

No way it gets dome in time, this might drag on for a while.

[Redskin in Canada]

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18351

It appears that a revenue-sharing deal and the CBA will be decoupled, which would be a negotiating concession by Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA to the owners. Interesting.

I will post a copy of the release of the press conference held by the owners later here in Washington at 2 pm.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I think the extension showed that both sides no the consequences of having no cap. They realize how in the long run this league would no longer be #1 without one. They want to get it done and it will get done but I dont know when.

[SkinsJock]

I am one of the 4 (as of Tuesday) that thinks this will get done. I really think that there is just too much at stake for them not to figure out something.

However, it has been interesting to see some of the amazing scenarios that have been espoused here, and how little many of us know, about the CBA, Gibbs' way of running our team, the Redskins FO, and the unbelievable trade rumors. I admire the restraint of the staff at THN.

Everyone involved with the NFL will be better off with a new CBA. The uncertainties that go with it not being in place will force some sort of agreement.

[skinsRin]

They reported today it's not looking good at all. They are in deadlock! No way a deal gets made in time. Crap is gonna hit the fan in 2007

[Redskin in Canada]

Deadline for free agency extended

NFL.com wire reports

NEW YORK (March 2, 2006) -- A few hours after NFL owners voted to continue their standoff with the players union, the league extended its deadline for free agency by three days, putting off what threatened to become a mass purge of high-priced players from rosters.

League vice president Joe Browne announced the delay Thursday afternoon, seven hours before the midnight deadline.

The owners' vote after a 57-minute meeting earlier in the day had seemed to end 13 years of labor peace between the league and its union.

Browne did not elaborate on the deadline delay, which gives the union 72 more hours to negotiate a contract extension to the labor agreement that could add about $10 million to the current salary cap of $94.5 million. Many teams spent the day scrambling to get under that figure, and a number of big-name players were expected to be cut.

Free agency will now start at 12:01 a.m. EST Monday instead of Friday.

That move puts off free agency for a class led by two running backs: NFL MVP Shaun Alexander of Seattle and Edgerrin James of Indianapolis. If other players were to be cut because of the salary cap and hit the market, free agents would find fewer buyers and less money available.

The extension came seven hours after commissioner Paul Tagliabue had announced "the situation is as dire as dire can be." There was a pall around the league as general managers struggled to find cap room and agents tried to figure out how to sell clients in a market with less money and a potential glut of players.

In fact, the owners' meeting was so short that a lot of people who expected a 12-hour session arrived after most of the owners had departed the New York hotel where they met, braving a mix of ice and snow to try to get home quickly. It was thought at the time to be a strange rubber stamp by owners who had flown to New York from around the country.

The extension rekindled hope amid the rhetoric.

"I won't come down," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, said when hearing of the owners' morning action. "The players know that. Only the owners can make a proposal."

Upshaw and the union are asking for 60 percent of league revenue for players, four percentage points more than the owners are offering.

There are two years left on the labor agreement first signed in 1993 and extended continually before the deadline.

But unless there is an agreement, there will be no salary cap in 2007, which could create big-spending "haves" and low-revenue "have-nots," a situation that has prevailed in other sports such as baseball. That also has traps for teams and players: a player would be eligible for free agency only after six years instead of the current four; there would be no salary minimum, and annual raises would be limited to 30 percent.

That is complicated by an internal dispute over revenue sharing between big- and small-money teams, a battle that has accelerated as outside revenue has increased from sources from stadium naming rights to local radio. That money is expected to be included in the new labor contract for the first time.

Upshaw contends that internal dispute should be settled before the labor agreement is reached, but the owners didn't even discuss it Thursday.

"Sure we should discuss it," said Buffalo owner Ralph Wilson, one of the have-nots. "But we didn't."

The ramifications for this year go beyond free agency. Cap problems will make it hard for teams to sign their draft picks, especially the high ones.

"We can always find creative ways to do things," said Leigh Steinberg, the agent for Southern California quarterback Matt Leinart, expected to be chosen no later than third in the draft.

"But I hope by draft time we will be beyond that. As teams peer into the abyss, as they peer into the apocalypse, sanity will return. When the NFLPA and management truly recognize the nature of no agreement, their intelligence and rationality will force them into making a deal."

Leinart wouldn't be the only one to wait. So will many free agents.

In addition to Alexander, James and Baltimore running back Jamal Lewis, among the most desirable players on the market include San Francisco linebackers Julian Peterson and Andre Carter; wide receivers Antwaan Randle El of Pittsburgh and David Givens of New England; cornerbacks Charles Woodson of Oakland and Ty Law, a Pro Bowler with the Jets last season, and linebacker Will Witherspoon of Carolina.

Then there is quarterback Drew Brees of San Diego, although his value went down when he injured his throwing shoulder in the final game of 2005.

One star was guaranteed free agency in 2007 when Tennessee paid $1 million to quarterback Steve McNair, voiding the final three years of a contract that would have kept him with the Titans until 2009. McNair will still count for a whopping $23.5 million against the salary cap due to previous bonuses in his contract.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9279009

The TWO sides had played the "deadline" card as a negotiation ace in their sleeves. None worked. Nowm they are serious.

[SkinsJock]

thanks RiC!
I still think that something gets "resolved" here primarily because as you indicated earlier the owners & the NFL are in a slightly stronger situation. I really think that the Players Association is trying to force the owners and have both overestimated their own position and the resolve of the owners. The Players will "blink"!
And trying to say that if the cap goes away it will never come back was a stupid threat. The NFL will always have a cap and even the players really understand that. A cap has a top and a bottom level. The players do not want that bottom (minimum salary) to go away.
Even though the owners cannot seem to resolve their own issues they seem very together about not going over 60%.

[thaiphoon]

i agree that the players will ultimately blink here.

This is why...

a player would be eligible for free agency only after six years instead of the current four; there would be no salary minimum, and annual raises would be limited to 30 percent.

[1niksder]

i agree that the players will ultimately blink here.

This is why...

a player would be eligible for free agency only after six years instead of the current four; there would be no salary minimum, and annual raises would be limited to 30 percent.

They have already blinked...

Matt Burk has thrown the NFLPA head under the bus. He said Upshaw only cares about RBs and QBs, he said the players aren't being informed.

And today there is a Owners and NFLPA meeting to try and resolve this. Today for the first time there will be NFL players attending the meetings. This gets done before Sunday

[Redskin in Canada]

It is now OFFICIAL:

Those who hognosticated that there would be NO CBA this week got it right.

Here's is my modest take on the current scenario:

Upshaw is having problems with the pressure coming to him from MANY players that might be cut and may either be unemployed or under paid this season (particularly some veteran players).

He has a much smaller constituency of highly paid players (particularly young players) who want NO CAP and NO CBA. The key issue now seems to be whether the magic number raises from 56% to 60%.

Apparently, the Union has moved from DESIGNATED REVENUE to TOTAL REVENUE as a "concession" by the Union but they are still sticking to 60%. I do not think the percentage will get there even for TOTAL REVENUE. We are talking about A LOT of money right there.

If Upshaw overplays his hand, it might cost him his job. In a confrontational situation like this one, you better make sure to measure your strength before you declare an open (and losing) war.

The real negotiation, postponed by both sides over several weeks as a tactic, is really taking place right now. Upshaw needs a percentage that allows him to save face (not necessarily 60%) as long as he has something else to show the players.

Interestingly, many teams have quite a bit to lose in the absence of a CBA. All in all, if a CBA agreement is reached over the weekend, it would be the BEST of news to the Redskins and other rich franchises. The HIGHER the cap value, the BETTER for us. The fact that this CBA was delinked from any revenue-sharing parallel agreement among teams makes it more feasible for the likes of the Danny and Jerry to simply oppose any expansion to revenue sharing that might hurt their rich teams.

Another Hognostication:

An agreement WILL be reached next week. It will not contain a 60% TOTAL REVENUE sharing with the players but it will contain other goodies to make it possible for Upshaw to come back to the players with some other benefits.

[Redskin in Canada]

If you wish to have a sense of the pressure on the NFLPA, please hear what Kevin Carter, Dolphins Union representative, had to say about the need to have a CBA. The NFL has a stronger leverage without a doubt. But they have something to lose as well. The owners can not overplay their hand either.

[Redskin in Canada]

League Extends Free Agency Deadline
By Gary Fitzgerald
Redskins.com
March 2, 2006

The NFL has extended the deadline for the start of free agency by three days, the league announced on Thursday. Free agency is now scheduled to start at 12:01 a.m. ET on Monday morning.

The league issued the following statement on Thursday afternoon:

"The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours--until 12:01 a.m. ET, Monday, March 6--in order to provide time to resume negotiations. The league year had been set to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Friday, March 3."

Earlier on Thursday, NFL owners had voted to break off negotiations for an extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Even though the CBA does not expire until after the 2007 season, talks for an extension have been going on for more than a year.

With no extension in place, the salary cap for 2006 would be $94.5 million. That figure likely would force some teams, including the Redskins, to release some veteran players to get under the salary cap.

Also, with no extension, 2007 would be an uncapped year.

Now the NFL and the NFL Players Association have three full days to iron out differences. The two sides are apart on issues related to sharing of revenues amongst the NFL and players.

During the last week, the Redskins have worked diligently to restructure existing contracts to clear space under the salary cap. Quarterback Mark Brunell agreed to terms on a restructured contract earlier this week.

The Redskins do not normally announce contract restructurings, but the team decided to announce that Brunell had restructured after a newspaper report suggested he had been reluctant to do so.

It is expected that any restructured contract is pending the NFL's negotiations for a new CBA.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=6162

We are still at war with the Washington Post/Times.

[Redskin in Canada]

Labor talks between NFL, players union resume
NFL.com wire reports

NEW YORK (March 3, 2006) --Talks between the NFL and its players union resumed the afternoon of arch 3, minus the rhetoric that has characterized earlier discussions.

That was perhaps a sign that the sides take seriously the ramifications of beginning free agency without a new deal -- something that was seven hours away from happening before the league and the union agreed March 2 to extend by three days the start of the NFL's new calendar year.

It now begins at 12:01 a.m. EST on March 6.

The two sides were not talking publicly and wouldn't even reveal the location of the talks -- but they were believed to be in New York, where they broke off earlier in the week after three days. Owners were under the threat of fines for talking to the media and Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and other union officials were equally silent.

But silence sometimes signals hope in labor negotiations. And the best sign may be the decision to resume talks, which came a day after commissioner Paul Tagliabue suggested the picture for any agreement was grim.

Another good sign was that Dan Rooney of Pittsburgh and Jerry Richardson of Carolina -- two owners who are considered moderates -- stayed in New York after March 2's league meeting to help with the talks. Rooney has helped settle labor disputes before and is one of the owners Upshaw trusts.

The contract between the players and the league doesn't expire for another two seasons.

But this would be the final year of the salary cap, which will be about $94.5 million this year if there is no labor agreement. That would leave many teams well over the cap, which could be $10 million more if there is a contract extension, forcing them to cut many veterans.

If there is no deal and the cap doesn't increase, it would leave a glut of players on the free-agent market and many teams without much money to sign them. Next year, the final season of the contract, would be without a cap -- and that would contain limitations that could hurt the players, such as raising the number of years of eligibility for free agency from four to six.

Both sides appear to have reached the brink of that situation, and then realized it was better to try again to reach agreement than to face it.

In fact, there were reports that a number of players called the union urging officials to reconsider their position to avoid a scenario that would most likely have its biggest impact on high-salaried veterans -- players such as New York Jets center Kevin Mawae, Kansas City guard Will Shields and Tampa Bay linebacker Derrick Brooks, all multi-time Pro Bowlers in danger of being cut.

On the other hand, those players are often in danger of being cut. Dallas, for example, announced it has released La'Roi Glover, who is second in career sacks among defensive tackles behind Warren Sapp.

On the surface, the dispute is over percentage points -- the union says it wants 60-plus percent of league revenues earmarked for the players; the owners are offering 56.2 percent. That amounts to approximately $10 million per team per year.

Some team officials think there are other issues, including how signing bonuses are prorated for the salary cap and how much salaries can increase yearly.

"The rules are going to have a bigger impact than the dollar amount," said Tom Lewand, chief operating officer of the Detroit Lions.

Still, there are indications there is some agreement on how to deal with those issues.

More important is a dispute among the owners -- a continuing debate between high-revenue teams and low-revenue teams. The low-revenue teams contend that they would pay a far higher percentage of their non-football revenue into the player salary pool than those with higher incomes and want it balanced.

Upshaw has contended that solving that dispute could be the key to getting a new labor contract.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9281613

[Redskin in Canada]

By the way, those who are quasi-serious about informing themselves what is at stake, please read the
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NFL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AND THE NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION

Beware of the fact that you REALLY need to be interested to put up with a lot of the complexities in it.

[SkinsJock]

It is now OFFICIAL:

Those who hognosticated that there would be NO CBA this week got it right.

To a certain extent - maybe!

I still think that the owners will prevail here before the you know what really hits the fan! Despite what the players seem to think the owners IMO are in the better position - the majority of the veteran players will not benefit without a new CBA and most will not even be here 5 years down the road when the owners are 5 years more wealthy.

This thing will still get done IMHO and unfortunately we may be seeing the last of the current head of the Players Assoc.

[SkinzCanes]

From ESPN....

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.

And 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, 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.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

[Redskin in Canada]

It is now OFFICIAL:

Those who hognosticated that there would be NO CBA this week got it right.

To a certain extent - maybe!

THIS week is over. Why would it be unfortunate to have somebody else in Upshaw's position? Not that I am against him. I just ask why would it be "unfortunate"?

Tagliabue is not in an easy position either.

[EA7649]

yesss! Dan Snyder push all those expensive salaries to 2007!

[Redskin in Canada]

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.

Talk about a "concern" that is coming back to bite you in the tail NFLPA!

Bad negotiation move when you contradict yourself.

[Redskin in Canada]

This is the guy who advices the NFLPA:

Practice Description

Jeffrey Kessler is Co-Chairman of the Firm’s Litigation department and a member of its Executive Committee. He has extensive experience in all aspects of antitrust law, sports law, intellectual property and other complex litigation. He has been lead counsel in some of the most complex antitrust, sports law and IP law cases in the country including major jury trials and has represented a number of U.S. and international companies in criminal and civil investigations in the antitrust and trade areas. He successfully defended *sh$t* and JVC against claims of a worldwide conspiracy in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Zenith v. *sh$t* and is regarded as a leading expert in international antitrust law. He has also been the lead counsel in numerous intellectual property cases involving frontier issues of IP law.

Mr. Kessler is one of the most prominent sports lawyers in the country. He has litigated some of the most famous sports-antitrust cases in history, including McNeil v. the NFL, the landmark antitrust jury trial which led to the establishment of free agency in the National Football League. Some of Mr. Kessler’s clients in the sports law area have included the National Football League Players Association, the National Basketball Players Association, the Arena Football League Players Association, the National Hockey League Players Association, the Major League Baseball Players Association, the National Invitation Tournament, SFX Sports, the NFL Coaches Association, Players, Inc. and Adidas. Mr. Kessler has also represented various classes of NBA, NFL, AFL and MLS players, the North American Soccer League, the United States Football League, and the Cities of San Diego and Oakland, as well as Alameda County, in various sports law disputes. Mr. Kessler negotiated the current free agency/salary cap systems in the NFL, NBA and AFL and successfully represented Latrell Sprewell in his controversial suspension arbitration.

Mr. Kessler is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia Law School where he teaches a course on complex litigation. He has written and lectured extensively on a wide variety of antitrust, sports law and related topics. He is the co-author of International Trade and U.S. Antitrust Law and was coeditor- in-chief of State Antitrust Practice and Statutes. He was a member of the Council, and was formerly Co-chairman of the Publications Committee, and Chairman of the International Antitrust Law Committee, of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association (ABA). He was also a member of the ABA's NAFTA Tri-National Committee and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Fordham Law School. He was a founding member of the Board of Advisors of the Georgetown University Study of Private Antitrust Litigation.

Mr. Kessler has been recognized by numerous publications as one of the leading litigators in the country, including Chambers USA - America’s Leading Lawyers for Business and Best Lawyers in America. He is also regarded as a leading international antitrust lawyer by the Guide to the World’s Leading Antitrust Lawyers and Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers and is recognized in Best Lawyers in America 2006 as a leader in the field of Antitrust Law.

http://www.deweyballantine.com/attorney ... ey_id=1533

He is not only a professional NEGOTIATOR. He is a professional LITIGATOR (a very expensive one).

Not a good sign for a CBA.

[Redskin in Canada]

No progress, but talks might resume March 5
NFL.com wire reports

NEW YORK (March 4, 2006) -- Talks between the NFL and its players union broke off with no progress, and while the league said the sides would meet again March 5, the union said it wasn't sure.

The stalemate increased the possibility that many high-priced free agents would become available on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. ET on March 5. Free agency would begin six hours later.

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

The league had no further comment.

Troy Vincent of the Buffalo Bills, the president of the NFL Players Association, concurred that there had been little movement. And Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director, flew home to Washington and said he was unaware of any meeting scheduled for March 5, the day of the deadline for free agency.

"I guess we can meet if they want to," Upshaw said after arriving home. "All I know is that they got up and said they had to have a conference and that the meeting was ended."

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 $5 million to $10 million more with a new deal.

If not, it's likely several 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 contended that most of those players would have been cut anyway and said the deal on the table would actually provide less than players currently get because the league wants to abolish a policy called "cash over cap," a complicated formula in which teams can spend more on bonuses and other items as long as it is under the cap at the start of free agency each year.

Upshaw has said the NFL was offering 56.2 percent of its total revenues to the players. He also has said he will not go under 60 percent. Vincent said he had been told the league had increased its percentage offer.

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

"I don't know how we can do a deal without revenue sharing," Vincent said.

Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners, but that isn't likely to happen in these last-minute talks, which began March 3 after the start of free agency was extended three days from March 3 at 12:01 a.m. ET until March 6 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.

If the issue highlighted above is not delinked from the CBA, there will be no CBA. I thought this had been agreed in principle for negotiations over the weekend. Apparently not.

[1niksder]

If the issue highlighted above is not delinked from the CBA, there will be no CBA. I thought this had been agreed in principle for negotiations over the weekend. Apparently not.

The issue of small market verus big market is the sticking point between the owners, the NFLPA looks at this and says if they can't agree with each other than the won't come to a agreement with the union.