Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2340178 Upshaw tells agents that CBA talks are in standstillBy John ClaytonESPN.com At an NFLPA advisory board meeting of 16 handpicked agents, NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw told them to hold off on signing new contracts or restructuring deals until March 2, the evening before the start of 2006 free agency. Upshaw told the agents there isn't any progress on a new collective bargaining agreement and he will not move back the start of free agency under any circumstance. Upshaw said Wednesday he would like to know by Friday when he holds an agents seminar whether there is a chance for a CBA extension. One of the holdups in extension talks is revenue sharing among the owners. The high revenue teams have yet to cut a deal with the low revenue teams. Once that deal is arranged, Upshaw and the owners can cut a deal for what percentage of total gross revenues will be given to the players. The players want a percentage of total gross revenues in the 60 percent or above range. Upshaw said he wants a number in the sixties. "I won't do it, though, without revenue sharing," Upshaw said. More in link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 It is interesting Upshaw is telling agents not to restructure contracts. How are teams way over the cap going to manage? Does Upshaw care? He should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 wow...this is not looking good for us...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 :laugh: just keep hoping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Merge And Upshaw should care or else a lot of his guys are going to get a lot less money this year, and be locked into contracts so they won't be able to cash in next year By the looks of it, it seems that Upshaw wants there to be no cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 What's interesting with this whole thing is that it's not really the owners vs. the players...it's the owners vs. the owners. Once the owners sort things out, a deal should be reached pretty quickly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Why isn't revenue sharing a non-issue? If 9 teams are solidly against it, that stops any 3/4 majority of approving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 What's interesting with this whole thing is that it's not really the owners vs. the players...it's the owners vs. the owners. Once the owners sort things out, a deal should be reached pretty quickly... The CBA cannot be approved until the owner vs owner thing is hashed out: NFL | CBA updateWed, 22 Feb 2006 22:33:40 -0800 Tom E. Curran, of the Providence Journal, reports one of the issues preventing a new collective bargaining agreement is determining the percentage of defined gross revenues (DGR) that goes to the players. The current DGR is at 64 and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw would like it to remain in the sixties. There are other fine-print aspects that need to get worked out, but there is optimism that something may break this week. Getting the players to agree to the new CBA is only the first step. The second step is getting the owners to sort out their own issues. It is believed that once the NFLPA agrees on the new CBA, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will tell the owners they must be in agreement on how they share revenues going forward before the new CBA is ratified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 What's interesting with this whole thing is that it's not really the owners vs. the players...it's the owners vs. the owners. Once the owners sort things out, a deal should be reached pretty quickly... That's the probelm.......Have you ever argued with your Grandmother?......Old people NEVER change their minds.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2340178More in link. 60% of the revenues? Greedy ****s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 That's the probelm.......Have you ever argued with your Grandmother?......Old people NEVER change their minds.... :laugh: :notworthy :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 60% of the revenues? Greedy ****s! seems fair to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 seems fair to me... Redskins had 300 million in revenues last year. 60% of that would be $180 million, nearly twice what the salary cap is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 seems fair to me... Would you please explain how it seems so fair to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2340178More in link. No CBA is going to happen now because of these mother ****ing small market crybabies, and that greedy **** Upshaw trying to take everything he can get. DAMN YOU UPSHAW!!! DAMN YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Redskins had 300 million in revenues last year. 60% of that would be $180 million, nearly twice what the salary cap is right now. They already get 64%, and I believe that $300 million is profit to Danny boy. I could be wrong, ask Westbrook, he seems to be all over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 NFL | CBA updateWed, 22 Feb 2006 22:33:40 -0800 Tom E. Curran, of the Providence Journal, reports one of the issues preventing a new collective bargaining agreement is determining the percentage of defined gross revenues (DGR) that goes to the players. The current DGR is at 64 and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw would like it to remain in the sixties. There are other fine-print aspects that need to get worked out, but there is optimism that something may break this week. Getting the players to agree to the new CBA is only the first step. The second step is getting the owners to sort out their own issues. It is believed that once the NFLPA agrees on the new CBA, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will tell the owners they must be in agreement on how they share revenues going forward before the new CBA is ratified. Atleast this sounds somewhat optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Why isn't revenue sharing a non-issue? If 9 teams are solidly against it, that stops any 3/4 majority of approving it. right, so how does a stalemate on the issue solve anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I thought Regan had moved up in the world at first glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Would you please explain how it seems so fair to you. Because the players are the biggest reason the team is successful? Because players are the reason people buy jerseys, etc.? I could keep going, but basically the players are the main reason for all the extra revenue anyway. Put a bunch of nobodies in like the strike year and see how many jerseys they sell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 right, so how does a stalemate on the issue solve anything? If there isn't a 3/4 majority, the issue should be closed, shouldn't it? It takes 3/4 approval to make a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Because the players are the biggest reason the team is successful? Because players are the reason people buy jerseys, etc.? I could keep going, but basically the players are the main reason for all the extra revenue anyway. Put a bunch of nobodies in like the strike year and see how many jerseys they sell... Disagree (though I agree to an extent in the short term). People root for the jerseys, not the players. I don't care who we trot out there. It's the franchise and the franchise alone that I have loyalty to. There would be a transition period, to be sure, and the quality of play would dimish substantially in the interim, but at the end of the day the NFL would maintain its popularity. While the players would be bagging groceries or have figurehead positions with their old college teams... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogskin1 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 If there isn't a 3/4 majority, the issue should be closed, shouldn't it? It takes 3/4 approval to make a change. If that's what they are going to do, then they could announce right NOW that there will be no new agreement. The players are not going to go for anything that does not enable them to get their greedy paws on all that extra cash from the 9 fatcats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Because the players are the biggest reason the team is successful? Because players are the reason people buy jerseys, etc.? I could keep going, but basically the players are the main reason for all the extra revenue anyway. Put a bunch of nobodies in like the strike year and see how many jerseys they sell... The fans are the reason the teams are successful. If you put "nobody" players in and left them in, they would evolve into "somebodies" by nature of the fan. But we are merely the people paying for the product and making all the others wealthy. Imagine if fans had a union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogskin1 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Disagree (though I agree to an extent in the short term). People root for the jerseys, not the players. I don't care who we trot out there. It's the franchise and the franchise alone that I have loyalty to. There would be a transition period, to be sure, and the quality of play would dimish substantially in the interim, but at the end of the day the NFL would maintain its popularity. While the players would be bagging groceries or have figurehead positions with their old college teams... :laugh: You apparently were not here during the strike year. Sure, the TEAM was still being rooted for. But the fans did not connect with 90% of the replacement players. Everything went back to normal when the real players returned. So the statement about real players selling the jerseys is right on the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.