The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Redskin in Canada wrote:..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.

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.

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.

skinsRin wrote: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!

skinsRin wrote: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?

SkinsFanInHawai'i wrote:Does anyone know what time and date we have to be under the cap?

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.

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.

Redskin in Canada wrote:..I hognosticated an agreement. There will be one.

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

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

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

Redskin in Canada wrote:

skinsRin wrote: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 wrote: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.