1niksder wrote:The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.
This is GREAT news. It means that these two low-revenue teams are not happy with the revenue-sharing provisions among teams. This is good news for the Skins!
Can we get Lavar back then?
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
1niksder wrote:The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.
This is GREAT news. It means that these two low-revenue teams are not happy with the revenue-sharing provisions among teams. This is good news for the Skins!
Can we get Lavar back then?
No! He made a choice to not be a Redskin. That was good for him and good for us. We are a team that he did not really fit into the past couple of years and we are a more team focused organization now.
I think if there had not been an agreement that it would not have been as good a market for him but now he will be attractive to a number of teams.
I think he was a great part of our team but now he will hopefully be great for someone else. He is good for the NFL.
I predict we will still be a good team without him.
We are going to be a little better off as we can now keep some players we might have been forced to move.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
What top WR will we bring in. I hope everyone knows and remembers that the contracts that were restructered will revert back to their origional b/c they were all pending on if/when this was to be extended.
1niksder wrote:The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.
This is GREAT news. It means that these two low-revenue teams are not happy with the revenue-sharing provisions among teams. This is good news for the Skins!
Can we get Lavar back then?
The Skins would have been OK regardless of which way this went. I still won't call him by his name but "the Danny" IS a moneymaker and rules are only guidelines for him. I don't rea;;y care how he runs The Redskins as long as Joe Gibbs is running football operations.
As far as Lavar goes... sure why not, Almost the same deal (want big money, than make the Pro Bowl twice in the next 3 years). Give him back what he gave up ($4.4M deferred plus the $6.5M due in July) as a signing bonus and half a million per year in salary . He'd cost about $2.5 in cap space and we'd still come out ahead.
will never happen
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
Don't understand exactly?This post is old and I'm saying really old!!!!I want to be able to go to the hogs.net and find the best info on the nfl and stuff with out having to hit some ridiculous search button!!!The topic of this post was not able to find an agreement on the CBA.I'm sorry but there is a difference.I can understand if there is just post after post, but something big like this should be allowed to be up in "glowing lights".Come on guys!!!You let Lavar,Ramsey,T.O. thread after thread go, but something like this you want to lock!!!What the hell?
skinpride1 wrote::? Don't understand exactly?This post is old and I'm saying really old!!!!I want to be able to go to the hogs.net and find the best info on the nfl and stuff with out having to hit some ridiculous search button!!!The topic of this post was not able to find an agreement on the CBA.I'm sorry but there is a difference.I can understand if there is just post after post, but something big like this should be allowed to be up in "glowing lights".Come on guys!!!You let Lavar,Ramsey,T.O. thread after thread go, but something like this you want to lock!!!What the hell?
On the Front page of HogWash 7th thread down titled Owners and Union Agree would have pointed you right here.
You don't have to use search all of the time although it helps sometimes you just have to look
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
The new extension will add nearly $8 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it to $102 million, Mortensen reports. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million. The 2007 cap will be $109 million, according to Mortensen.
skinpride1 wrote::? Don't understand exactly?This post is old and I'm saying really old!!!!I want to be able to go to the hogs.net and find the best info on the nfl and stuff with out having to hit some ridiculous search button!!!The topic of this post was not able to find an agreement on the CBA.I'm sorry but there is a difference.I can understand if there is just post after post, but something big like this should be allowed to be up in "glowing lights".Come on guys!!!You let Lavar,Ramsey,T.O. thread after thread go, but something like this you want to lock!!!What the hell?
On the Front page of HogWash 7th thread down titled Owners and Union Agree would have pointed you right here.
You don't have to use search all of the time although it helps sometimes you just have to look
No kidding you are so smart!!! Thats where I looked to start with and there is a bid slash beside of it saying locked and another link in the post going back to this post!!!
skinpride1 wrote::? Don't understand exactly?This post is old and I'm saying really old!!!!I want to be able to go to the hogs.net and find the best info on the nfl and stuff with out having to hit some ridiculous search button!!!The topic of this post was not able to find an agreement on the CBA.I'm sorry but there is a difference.I can understand if there is just post after post, but something big like this should be allowed to be up in "glowing lights".Come on guys!!!You let Lavar,Ramsey,T.O. thread after thread go, but something like this you want to lock!!!What the hell?
On the Front page of HogWash 7th thread down titled Owners and Union Agree would have pointed you right here.
You don't have to use search all of the time although it helps sometimes you just have to look
No kidding you are so smart!!! Thats where I looked to start with and there is a bid slash beside of it saying locked and another link in the post going back to this post!!!
You found it...
Now add to it...
Other than "man it took awhile to get here"
Than again it did take them awile to get here didn't it
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
skinpride1 wrote:You guys are such a joke!!!The one thing I will say is,that I have become in tune to is the lack of people posting lately.I don't know why? Maybe it's the lack of respect and it's no big deal,there is always the other site that Redskins.com picked over you. I must say to get any info that is worthy lately that is where I have been going.It's just like a buisness you treat your customers good (good things happen)Treat them bad(bad things happen)and nothing good will come of it.So who has been owned?No disrespect to Boss Hogg he is the only one on this site that can keep it worth while.Just keep on slaming the good posters around here and see what happens.Seems to me it's all about trying to slam one around here and not just come on this site and read posts for the Redskins.
skinsRin wrote:I did you see the interview with AL Davis after the meeting Wednesday, holly crap he looked like hell! Those meeting really took a toll on him.
They took a toll on you too. You were just saying that an agreement would never happen. I guess you and Al Davis both need a drink now.
cvillehog wrote:Haha, there's a new sheriff in town (Hogster), and he's holding people's feet to the fire.
Haha...I had to do it...I had to do it.... I thought some of them would come out and say...."I was wrong...the sky wasn't falling", but since they didn't I've gotta give them a little smack.
Its all in good fun....its a lesson in life....don't panic...it aint over till it's over.
skinsRin wrote:I did you see the interview with AL Davis after the meeting Wednesday, holly crap he looked like hell! Those meeting really took a toll on him.
They took a toll on you too. You were just saying that an agreement would never happen. I guess you and Al Davis both need a drink now.
I had mentioned that I hope the owners would except this last deal, but I didn't think it would happen. After extension and extension, all the talk and no agreement and even Upshaw felt it wouldn't get done. was I supposed to be positive? 2 teams voted against it a few more and this deal wouldn't of happened, it wasn't unanimous. But, yes I am glad it happened, we can relax now for 6 years atleast.
CBA Talks: Owners Agree to New Deal By Gary Fitzgerald March 8, 2006
NFL owners agreed to a six-year extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement on Wednesday evening. The vote was 30-2. The decision is expected to increase the 2006 salary cap substantially.
Free agency will now start on Friday morning, March 10, at 12:01 a.m. ET, according to NFL.com.
The salary cap is expected to be $102 million, an increase from the $94.5 million that would have gone into effect without an extension.
The lower salary cap figure would have forced several teams, including the Redskins, to release some veteran players. It's possible that the Redskins will still need to release some players in the coming days, depending on the amount of the salary cap.
Head coach Joe Gibbs and team officials had worked diligently over the last few weeks to restructure contracts of veteran players, including quarterback Mark Brunell. It is expected that those contract restructurings will be voided now that a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) has been approved.
Gibbs has said that, with a CBA extension, he expected the team would be aggressive in free agency.
Team officials have identified wide receiver, defensive line and cornerback help as positions of need this offseason. Weak-side linebacker may also be a position to address due to the departure of LaVar Arrington.
"The way I look at it is that we are one of the aggressive teams in the league when it comes to signing free agents and doing the things we need to do," Gibbs said earlier this week. "Everybody has their own mode of operation, but for us we feel like being aggressive when we see players that we can add through free agency."
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
Approved deal brings more revenue sharing NFL.com wire reports
GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 8, 2006) -- NFL owners chose the certainty of a salary cap over the prospect of life without one, and they're paying for it.
The league agreed to the union's proposal, including a revenue-sharing component that will cost owners nearly a billion dollars over the next six years.
The deal will carry the NFL's 32 franchises through the 2011 season. Two low-revenue teams, Buffalo and Cincinnati, cast the only votes against.
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said $850 million to $900 million in players' salary will be added over the life of the deal because of the revenue-sharing component, which the union fought for throughout the on-again, off-again talks.
Jerry Jones wasn't completely pleased with what he got, but he still voted for the proposal.
Now the league's free agency period, put off twice by protracted negotiations, will start either March 10 or March 11 to give teams additional time to get under the newly elevated salary cap.
The spending limit for teams will be $102 million this year, $7.5 million more than it would have been without a deal. The salary cap for the 2005-2006 season was $85.5 million.
The cap will increase to $109 million in 2007, which would have been an uncapped year that would have widened the spending gap between teams even more.
"We want teams to get additional money to re-sign players, rather than cutting them," Tagliabue said.
The deal was put together by nine teams who began on different sides of the revenue debate, including such high-revenue teams as New England and Dallas.
"We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother."
Daniel Snyder of Washington, Jones' ally among the high-revenue teams, was more upbeat.
"It's really a win-win situation," he said.
Added Oakland's ailing Al Davis, a longtime maverick who was one of Tagliabue's leading supporters during this debate: "The whole idea was that no one was totally dissatisfied. We had to have labor peace. That's why I came all the way here. I don't make many of these trips anymore."
The agreement comes after a week of on-again, off-again negotiations, culminating in a two-day owners meeting. Tagliabue predicted it would come down to the 11th hour.
It did and perhaps went beyond: Tagliabue said an agreement was reached at 6:59 and 59 seconds CT, a second before the deadline to notify the union. League spokesman Greg Aiello originally announced the deal had taken place at 7:35 p.m. after league officials said earlier the 8 p.m. deadline didn't specify what time zone.
The union didn't seem to care.
"This agreement is not about one side winning or losing," Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association said in a statement. "Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League. As caretakers of the game we have acted in the manner the founders intended.
"Moving forward, this new agreement gives us the opportunity to continue our unprecedented success and growth."
The deal probably saved a lot of veteran players from being released for salary cap reasons. Even Brentson Buckner, a defensive tackle cut last week by Carolina, was upbeat.
"It's also good for the guys like me because now somebody has a little extra money and they can go after a veteran who might have gotten squeezed out in this," Buckner said. "I'm sure the veteran minimum is going to go up, so guys like me can go out and get a one-year somewhere and feel good about the situation they are going into."
The real debate was between the owners themselves on the important issue of expanded revenue sharing.
Low-income teams say high-revenue teams should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in nonfootball income from things such as advertising and local radio rights.
Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.
Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no."
"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."
That 45 minutes followed a series of daylong caucuses and finally came out of a fusion of plans that Tagliabue said was forged by nine teams.
One was proposed by the New York Jets and New England, a second by Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Then John Mara of the New York Giants, Pat Bowlen of Denver and Jerry Richardson of Carolina met with Tagliabue and put the ideas together.
Jones and Arthur Blank of Atlanta contributed a little more, and then Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney, whose brother Art helped on one of the plans, joined with Atlanta general manager Rich McKay for additional touches.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
Don't understand exactly?This post is old and I'm saying really old!!!!I want to be able to go to the hogs.net and find the best info on the nfl and stuff with out having to hit some ridiculous search button!!!The topic of this post was not able to find an agreement on the CBA.I'm sorry but there is a difference.I can understand if there is just post after post, but something big like this should be allowed to be up in "glowing lights".Come on guys!!!You let Lavar,Ramsey,T.O. thread after thread go, but something like this you want to lock!!!What the hell?
