NFL Labor Negotiations

[skinsRin]

The real issue is between the owners not agreeing with each other not so much the players.

[SkinsJock]

..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.

THIS week is over, yes! I am just stretching a little as I still think something will get done sooner rather than later.

I also think that Upshaw is in a difficult situation with some of the players thinking he's too soft on the owners and others thinking he's not representing the majority of the players. I have nothing against him at all actually I think he's done a decent job. Hopefully he can stay on.


It's now Sunday and I just heard from Mark Maske (a TV interview) that last night, when the meetings were 'over' things were not looking good and this morning they are now hopeful that something will get done today or even shortly thereafter! It also sounds like both sides are still not happy about things but both sides also do not seem to want to be responsible for not getting something done.

Hopefully this will be done in the next day or so.

[Redskin in Canada]

Deadline extended as labor talks continue
NFL.com wire reports

NEW YORK (March 5, 2006) -- Talks continued Sunday between the NFL and its players union amid indications they were close to a deal that would avert the mass dumping of veterans.

The negotiations, which had broken off Saturday, resumed when Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, flew back to New York after returning home to Washington. Reports from inside the bargaining room pointed to progress being made a day after things seemed bleak.

One indication that a deal might be near was a decision by the league to move the deadline for trimming rosters and getting under the salary cap from 6 p.m. ET Sunday to 10 p.m.

If there was no deal, the cap was to be set at $94.5 million. But a deal could increase it significantly, allowing teams to keep players they otherwise would have been forced to cut.

Free agency is scheduled to begin at 12:01 a.m. Monday, but could be delayed if agreement is reached.

These negotiations were by far the most difficult since the NFL and the NFL Players Association first agreed to free agency and a salary cap in 1992, ending years of labor unrest that included player strikes in 1982 and 1987. The contract has been extended several times since then, most of the time with ease.

But this time, the players asked for a change in the system.

Until now, they got their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking to stadium naming rights.

That led to difficult negotiations, in part because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside money made by low-revenue and high-revenue teams. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences.

But in the end, they seemed ready to compromise, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin March 3 but was put off for three days so the sides could continue talking. In fact, the talks seemed to be at a standstill on March 2, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject the union's last offer.

But seven hours later, the sides reversed course, agreeing to extend the free-agent deadline for three days so they could continue bargaining. That came as teams who had planned for a larger salary cap were preparing to cut large numbers of veterans, including many aging Pro Bowlers.

"Many of those players would have been cut anyway," Upshaw said, noting that veterans are cut every year but find jobs with other teams. This year, however, the extra cuts could glut the market, causing players to get less money even if they find jobs.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9286106

It is quarter to midnight. The NFLPA blinked again on the revenue sharing provisions among -teams-. However, it all seems to be now about the percentage of revenue sharing between the NFL (owners) and the NFLPA (players).

I hognosticate a compromise within the next few hours.

[SkinsJock]

I agree RiC. Seems that the extension was because they think they are going to be able to have an agreement soon.

Every percent and fraction are huge amounts of dollars. I think the players are trying to get an agreement but seem to want the owners to come to an agreement first and that is just not happening too easily with guys like Bidwell acting like bottom-fish.

These owners need to get better quality guys in when these teams change hands.

I'm still holding out hope for an ageement. I think we are fortunate and will be okay with or without and agreement because we have a great coaching staff and a good business mind in Snyder but I just think it's going to be a lot better NFL with a CBA.

[Redskin in Canada]

Labor talks break off without new agreement
ESPN.com news services

Ongoing labor talks between NFL owners and the players' union have broken off without an agreement, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports.

The NFL had previously delayed the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap to 10 p.m. ET Sunday, Mortensen and ESPN.com's John Clayton reported.

Management wanted to extend the deadline to Wednesday, Mortensen reported, but the players' union would only agree to a four-hour delay from the original 6 p.m. ET deadline.

The owners and the players' union have until midnight Sunday to agree on an extension to the league's collective bargaining agreement, a scenario that now seems unlikely with talks breaking off. Free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET.

If no agreement is reached on an extension to the CBA, the projected salary cap for 2006 will be $94.5 million. On Saturday, it was believed that about 10 franchises still had cap overages. Also, if there is no agreement, 2007 will be an uncapped year.

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players' Association, told Mortensen that the two sides are meeting in New York again Sunday and that they communicated via e-mail on Saturday night after face-to-face talks broke down during the day. Sunday's talks reportedly began just before noon ET.

In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Upshaw said the two sides were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

This is in stark contrast to how the talks ended Saturday. 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.

Late Saturday night, Upshaw told Mortensen that the union did come down "a little" from the 60 percent cut of the revenue pie they were demanding. Earlier Upshaw denied that the owners had raised their ante by two points. Mortensen reports that the owners' last offer was 56.6 percent.

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?"

As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 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.

But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.

Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."

As 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, also 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.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

I do not believe this guy. This is either:

1) a move to put pressure on one side; or

2) a sensationalist piece to increase ratings; or

3) both.

Please note that they are not saying that an agreement was not reached on Sunday. ESPN and Mortensen are still playing with the timing by bringing yesterday's news to bare on today's events.

They are jumping the gun to "win" the announcement. It is a prediction, a bet if you like. I hope they lose.

[SkinsJock]

I think you're exactly right. I was looking at your post and reading the article and thinking - that there is nothing really "new" here!

Good observation.

[The Hogster]

I side with the players on this one. The owners are not only greedy when it comes to their overall revenue, they are greedy when it comes to sharing with each other.

It's just sad that the NFL is the most popular sport in America and generates billions basically from a blue collar-middle class constituency. In the end, a group of Frail, nerdy and greedy tools who own teams are ruining it for everyone.

The NFL is the most watched sport in the country and it's players are the most poorly compensated. That means that NFL owners are running the equivalent to a sweatshop and they are still reluctant to keep this thing going in peace.

People hate Jerry Jones and The Danny, just like they hate Mark Cuban, but the only reason that other owners hate them is because they are fans of the GAME and are willing to spend some of their money on their business and putting a good product on the field.

Other owners look at their team as a part of their extensive financial portfolio and are frugal to a fault.

Sad...sad...sad...just about every NFL player will have surgery at some point, will likely spend their waning years in pain, and are likely to die well before the average American. They give their lives and health to this game and don't even get guaranteed salaries, and how does the ownership repay them? By demanding to keep more of the pie, and deny funds that would be used on things like the league's pension plan and disability benefits.

Terrible and embarrassing. Blue collar people spend hundreds of dollars on tickets every year, and hundreds of dollars at stadiums everywhere and all we get is more corporate greed.

I side with owners like Danny and Jerry on the revenue sharing issues. If they are better businessmen than the other rich guys who own teams, then so be it. Why should Danny bankroll the Bengal's franchise when they don't even want to give up naming rights on their stadium? It's ridiculous.

[skinsRin]

Hogster, I feel your pain and I agree 100% How ever you look at it, the owners are doing well and players are also getting paid very well to play football. If I could just get the league minnimum at my job, I would be living large. But in return the average NFL ticket with a couple of drinks and a hotdog is $100. per person sad huh!

[The Hogster]

Hogster, I feel your pain and I agree 100% How ever you look at it, the owners are doing well and players are also getting paid very well to play football. If I could just get the league minnimum at my job, I would be living large. But in return the average NFL ticket with a couple of drinks and a hotdog is $100. per person sad huh!

Yep...at FedEx you have to pay 25 dollars just to park on the street and catch a crowded shuttle to the stadium. After all that you shell out your ticket price, and then pay 7 or 8 bucks on one beer (and you know that no one just drinks one). So after you buy 2 or 3 beers and a 9 dollar Chicken Tenders and Fries, you're in the hole a bunch of bucks.

And I love every minute of it, but the owners must wake up and realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They have the best sport in America and their laborers are the least paid. Think about that for a second.

You have guys in the NBA who average less than 5 points per game and are making over 5 million a year. The best player on an NFL team might make that much and he puts his life at a greater risk than does somebody like Penny Hardaway, who is making more money than Santana Moss.

It just makes no sense to me and it looks like the owners know that the players have the leverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00255.html

[skinsRin]

Back in the day pro athelets all had regular jobs in the off season, even the bigest name players. Because there slaries were not enough to keep'em going all year. Now days the league minnimums, in all sports are as much as VERY educated Dr. and big time executives are making. And don't forget thats for playing a sport 2/3rd of the year. Where are salaries gonna be in 30 years when my newborn is 30?

[The Hogster]

Back in the day pro athelets all had regular jobs in the off season, even the bigest name players. Because there slaries were not enough to keep'em going all year. Now days the league minnimums, in all sports are as much as VERY educated Dr. and big time executives are making. And don't forget thats for playing a sport 2/3rd of the year. Where are salaries gonna be in 30 years when my newborn is 30?

True, but the average length of an NFL career is also less than 5 years, while a doctor can generate several hundred thousands for 30 years or so. Not to mention, being a doctor probably doesn't lead to dying in your 50's.

The game is today a year round game so players are working on their bodies, rehab, weight lifting, studyinig playbooks pretty much year round.

Back in the day, the league was not genearating billions. Wellington Mara bought the Giants for 500 bucks. So while salaries are increasing, so are revenues....TV deals, merchandising, advertising...we're talking Billions. So while Mara may have made a couple hundred thousand and paid out less salary Daniel Snyder makes over 1 billion dollars yearly, and the players still make a tiny fraction of that.

Colleges sell jerseys with players numbers on them, get advertising and TV deals worth billions, and the owners do the same thing. They get pimped their whole careers. It's only right to split more of the revenue for the players.

[skinsRin]

The extension expired and they did not reach an agreement. So, now it's official there will be no cap in 2007 and maybe no football in 2008. WOW! The NFL is really turning into MLB, the experts feel that even if they eventually come to terms and there is football in 08 and beyond, there will never be a cap again after this year.

[SkinsFanInHawai'i]

Does anyone know what time and date we have to be under the cap?

[skinsRin]

Does anyone know what time and date we have to be under the cap?

Midnight Wednesday

[air_hog]

WAIT!!

Ther's still a wie bit of hope!

NFL, union agree to delay free agency 72 hours
Associated Press


NEW YORK -- NFL labor negotiations took yet another surprising turn late Sunday when the league and union agreed to postpone free agency another 72 hours, giving the sides more time to try to reach agreement on an extension to their contract.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the delay would give owners a chance to consider the union's latest proposal during a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

Talks broke off earlier in the day, leaving dozens of veterans in danger of becoming salary-cap casualties before midnight Monday, when free agency was supposed to begin.

The breakdown in talks, though surprising, was typical of the topsy-turvy negotiations, so far: Just when things seemed darkest, they got back on track; and when it appeared a deal could be struck, talks fell apart.

[Redskin in Canada]

NFL, union agree to delay free agency 72 hours
ESPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- NFL labor negotiations took yet another surprising turn late Sunday when the league and union agreed to postpone free agency another 72 hours, giving the sides more time to try to reach agreement on an extension to their contract.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the delay would give owners a chance to consider the union's latest proposal during a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

"The NFL negotiators called us tonight after our negotiations broke off to indicate that they will take our complete package to the owners for an approval vote on Tuesday," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said late Sunday night. "We have therefore agreed to extend the free agency deadline until midnight Wednesday in order to provide time for that vote to be accomplished. It was the NFL's previous rejection of our proposal earlier this evening that caused the talks to break down."

When talks broke off earlier in the day, it left dozens of veterans in danger of becoming salary-cap casualties before midnight Monday, when free agency was supposed to begin.

The breakdown in talks, though surprising, was typical of the topsy-turvy negotiations, so far: Just when things seemed darkest, they got back on track; and when it appeared a deal could be struck, talks fell apart.

The union broke off Sunday's session.

"The talks ended 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," Upshaw said. "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to 10 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."

But Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said the union rejected a proposal that would have added $577 million for players in 2006 compared to 2005 and $1.5 billion in the six years of the extension. "It's an unfortunate situation for the players, the fans and the league," Henderson said.

A mere four hours later, things were fluid again.

After a conference call between owners and league officials, including commissioner Paul Tagliabue, the league announced yet another extension -- the second 72-hour respite in free agency, which originally was to start Friday.

"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, Thursday, March 9 -- in order to allow the NFL clubs to meet in Dallas on Tuesday to consider the NFL Players Association's offer," the NFL said.

The deadline for teams to be below the salary cap was also pushed back, to 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Meanwhile, cuts had already started, but the extension to the deadline changed things.

Under the terms of the deal reached late Sunday night between the NFL and the players association, teams could opt to rescind any waiver cut made on Sunday if they so chose.

That could affect the Oakland Raiders, who thought they would be forced to let quarterback Kerry Collins go as a way of saving $9.2 million in cap space. The delay grants them a reprieve. Center Kevin Mawae was cut by the New York Jets, although he probably would have been gone anyway because he is 35 and missed the final 10 games of last season with a triceps injury.

Other big names also could go if teams try to squeeze under a salary cap of $94.5 million. If a deal is reached, the cap could go as much as $10 million higher -- in other words, allowing teams to keep some of the players.

Amid all the labor back-and-forth came news that running back Shaun Alexander was staying put: The league's MVP agreed to return to the NFC champion Seattle Seahawks for $62 million over eight years, with $15.1 guaranteed, according to his agent, Jim Steiner.

These negotiations were by far the most difficult since the NFL and the union first agreed to free agency and a salary cap in 1992, ending years of labor unrest that included player strikes in 1982 and 1987. The contract has been extended several times since then, most of the time with ease.

Even now, the contract doesn't expire until 2008, but this would be the last year of a salary cap -- 2007 would be uncapped, which could lead to wild spending by some teams and little by others, creating a haves/have not situation similar to the one in baseball.

One reason these talks were more difficult is that the players asked for a change in the system.

Until now, they received their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking fees to stadium naming rights.

That led to difficult negotiations, in part, because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside income made by low-revenue teams like Buffalo and Indianapolis and high-revenue teams like Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences.

Both sides seemed ready to compromise on Sunday, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin last Friday. However, it was put off for three days so the sides could keep talking.

Negotiations appeared to be at a standstill last Thursday, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject the union's last offer. But seven hours later, the sides reversed course and started talking again.

Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. 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," Upshaw said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355861

I hognosticated an agreement. There will be one.

[skinsRin]

They could move it to next month, it's not gonna make a difference. They are not going to agree.

[SkinsJock]

..I hognosticated an agreement. There will be one.

I agree and hope for both sides sake and the fans that we get a new system in place as IMO this will be better for everybody in the long run.
Actually the current situation is technically in place until the end of 2007 but that is a situation nobody really wants to go to.

I disagree with the (reported) guesstimation of the players & Upshaw that a no cap deal would be better. I think part of the problem is they are looking at other sports and unfortunately a lot of those situations do not apply. There are too many bad sides for the players as a whole to not have a new agreement.
The owners have the leverage and primarily because the players have only a relatively short time to make their money in the NFL and any time spent holding out or whatever is going to hurt the player not the owner.

Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement

Seems that they cannot even agree with what they discussed. I kind of hope that there is no agreement so that the players will find out they got screwed, but I really think it is in every one's best interest to get a new deal done.



I also found that the AP report that one of the reasons why Arrington was released (or allowed to leave) was because we were in the worst shape (cap wise) of the whole NFL!!! These reporters just love our Skins!

[Redskin in Canada]

They could move it to next month, it's not gonna make a difference. They are not going to agree.

Nope. While some deadlines are artificial. The uncertainty in the cap makes it impossible to carry on with the Draft and Free Agency. They will define this situation THIS week one way or another.

The fallout is too troublesome on both sides not to reach an agreement. There will be one unless one of the sides has decided to overpower the other. Both sides need one another and are adviced by VERY smart people to attempt anything like that.

Believe me, more than one suggestion is being worked out 24 hours a day by more than one professional negotiator giving options and ideas (in substance and tactic) to different sides in this equation (sometimes not even the main negotiators).

[SkinsJock]

For now, I will continue here about the CBA!

I understand from the recent posts that they now have something for the owners to vote on rather than the 2 sides trying to agree. This should be a good sign as I think the owners will most likely okay the deal but then comes the presumably more difficult "deal" between the owners themselves.

I think this will also include the increased cap space that we all need to begin the NFL season and get on with free agency. I think the Redskins are going to be "OK" with either situation but the increased cap will allow Gibbs and Williams to proceed with a little more flexibility.

I also agree with RiC's point about the fact that Gibbs is still cleaning up the mess he inherited but I look for a much more responsible team as far as the "deals" are concerned in the future. Even with Cerrato and Snyder, Gibbs will be the one steering this team for the next few years and maybe even beyond.

[The Hogster]

They could move it to next month, it's not gonna make a difference. They are not going to agree.

[skinsRin]

They could move it to next month, it's not gonna make a difference. They are not going to agree.

Nope. While some deadlines are artificial. The uncertainty in the cap makes it impossible to carry on with the Draft and Free Agency. They will define this situation THIS week one way or another.

The fallout is too troublesome on both sides not to reach an agreement. There will be one unless one of the sides has decided to overpower the other. Both sides need one another and are adviced by VERY smart people to attempt anything like that.

Believe me, more than one suggestion is being worked out 24 hours a day by more than one professional negotiator giving options and ideas (in substance and tactic) to different sides in this equation (sometimes not even the main negotiators).

I'm glad your donfident that it will get done, because I'm not. Even Gene Upshaw said last night in a interview "the more we talk the further we get".

[SkinsJock]

Mostly what we hear is "reported" and those guys just have no clue!

What we have now is a deal for the owners to vote on! This is not about the revenue sharing - that is another hurdle that the owners will have a bun fight about!

I'm with RiC on this and believe we will have a new agreement and an increased cap by Thursday.

[skinsRin]

Mostly what we hear is "reported" and those guys just have no clue!

What we have now is a deal for the owners to vote on! This is not about the revenue sharing - that is another hurdle that the owners will have a bun fight about!

I'm with RiC on this and believe we will have a new agreement and an increased cap by Thursday.

I do hope your right but I have no confidence that it's gonna get done. I guess we'll see in 2 days.

[The Hogster]

Okay thanks, you've gone on record that you are pessimistic about the outlook.

Duly noted. Some of us hold optimism about the deal.