Pasquarelli: Things are so bleak, many feel Thursday's meeting is pointless...

[wilbur58z]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2350858

The league's Management Council Executive Committee, comprised of eight owners and high-ranking team officials, on Wednesday voted unanimously in New York to reject the NFL Players Association's latest proposal on an extension to the CBA. As a precursor to the Thursday meeting, which is expected to be attended by virtually every owner, the Wednesday move by the executive committee of the league's labor arm likely will be representative of the sentiments of the general membership.

Barring an upset of monumental proportions, and a dramatic shift in stances, there will be no deal. The new league year, and the free agency period, will begin as scheduled Friday at 12:01 a.m., and both sides will proceed, at least for now, as if the 2007 season will be a so-called "uncapped" year.

ESPN.com confirmed the league is still offering players 56.2 percent of its revenues. The NFLPA is seeking 60.3 percent. That's a difference of approximately $320 million per year over the course of the proposed extension, which would take the league through the 2013 season.

"I wouldn't expect any miracles at this point," said one owner who participated in the Wednesday meeting of the executive committee. "It is what it is. And what it is, I'd say, is a mess. There doesn't seem to be any way out of it. The people who think all of the [rhetoric] of the last few days is just brinksmanship, and that something big is going to happen [on Thursday] to bail us all out … well, unless I fell asleep during the [Wednesday] discussions, it simply isn't going to happen."

Further down in the article it says a lot of team's officials are wondering why they are even going to New York for Thursday's meeting...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Hmm...seems like we always have Joe Gibbs as coach when the league's going through its troubles...lol

[Titaw]

Well, if Pastabelly says "no deal" there still is hope!!!

[inmate running the asylum]

The league's Management Council Executive Committee, comprised of eight owners and high-ranking team officials, on Wednesday voted unanimously in New York to reject the NFL Players Association's latest proposal on an extension to the CBA. .......

The irony is that it is now a group of steadfast owners from lower-revenue franchises who would block any attempt to extend the CBA without a revenue sharing plan that accommodates their needs.

According to several sources, nine to 10 owners from some of the league's lowest revenue-producing franchises are adamant that any CBA extension must be accompanied by an amenable revenue-sharing plan, one that addresses their concerns about the ever-increasing disparity between the NFL "haves" and "have nots." It takes only nine votes to veto most important league proposals, and the contingent of low-revenue teams has sufficient votes to shoot down a CBA extension.

So now the truth finally comes out after the media has unfairly continued to bash Dan Snyder as the main instigator holding up the agreement.

NOW WE SEE IT'S THE LOW-REVENUE TEAMS THAT ARE BLOCKING THE EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT! :cuss:

:finger: Well I say screw those low revenue teams now and lets bring on uncapped season football, because the low revenue teams have made their own bed.

I'm now willing to suffer through the possibility of a poor 2006 season like I bet many Redskin fans are, if uncapped seasons pay off for the Redskins in future years. And then maybe 5 years down the road, after they see Jerry Jones and Dan Synder buy up the big-name players, maybe the low revenue teams will have wished that they hadn't created this crises.

Are you guys with me? I say bring it on!

[FedUpField]

I don't know why everyone is so convinced (and excited over the prospect of) Snyder is going to buy up all the good players and convert the Skins to the Yankees of the NFL.... Anyway, there are 20 other big spenders out there (who aren't apparently holding up the show) who will get big names and compete and then, they all have to play too. Some of the people here have totally shortsighted viewpoint, proving I guess that fans can be just as greedy and shallow as the owners and players.

To those of you who welcome this situation, enjoy your new brand of moneyball -- can't wait til you see how bad it sucks...maybe around 2 years from now when there's a lockout? Yeah, see you then.

- FUF

PS -- I'm still operating under the assumption that there's going to be an 11th hour and 59th second deal but with 19 1/2 hours to go, who the fvck knows anymore.....sigh....

[TLusby]

The people that will suffer:

1.) This year's FA

2.) This year's draftees

3.) Upshaw (he will be fired by the players and doesn't even realize it)

4.) Next years players that thought they would be FA (5 yr and less)

5.) The fans!!!!!!!

[REDSKINSQ]

yeah upshaw is madd gay`

[Larry Gude]

So now the truth finally comes out after the media has unfairly continued to bash Dan Snyder as the main instigator holding up the agreement.

NOW WE SEE IT'S THE LOW-REVENUE TEAMS THAT ARE BLOCKING THE EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT! :cuss:

:finger: Well I say screw those low revenue teams now and lets bring on uncapped season football, because the low revenue teams have made their own bed.

I'm now willing to suffer through the possibility of a poor 2006 season like I bet many Redskin fans are, if uncapped seasons pay off for the Redskins in future years. And then maybe 5 years down the road, after they see Jerry Jones and Dan Synder buy up the big-name players, maybe the low revenue teams will have wished that they hadn't created this crises.

Are you guys with me? I say bring it on!

I'd say your screen name is appropriate.

There's an old saying in business "Would you rather get mad or make a deposit?"

You'd rather get mad and go to war. So, in your view, Snyder just buys all the pro bowl players next year and we never lose another game.

And how long will this be worth watching?

I'd rather make a deposit. Snyder and company (high end guys) need to make a deal to get the low end teams on board for a bigger cap. Then, the day after that happens, Snyder will still out hustle them, still be in a bigger market, still come out on top revenue wise and still have a successful league that helps him do his thing with his team.

Another old business saying: You can get what you want by helping other people get what they want.

Or, we can become baseball.

[inmate running the asylum]

You'd rather get mad and go to war. So, in your view, Snyder just buys all the pro bowl players next year and we never lose another game.

And how long will this be worth watching? Or, we can become baseball.

You damn right. I can remember BEFORE the salary cap started in 1993 and the Skins used to sign free agents such as John Riggins among others, and it was damn nice with Gibbs winning most of the time. I also remember George Allen signing all the free agents he could and trading away most of our draft picks, and that was damn nice too as long as we were winning. :doh:

If you dont remember that or consider it worth watching the Redskins win again, go play miniature golf on Sundays.

[Goaldeje]

I'd rather make a deposit. Snyder and company (high end guys) need to make a deal to get the low end teams on board for a bigger cap. Then, the day after that happens, Snyder will still out hustle them, still be in a bigger market, still come out on top revenue wise and still have a successful league that helps him do his thing with his team.

I think Inmate's right. Seems like a win-win to me. Either a CBA gets extended, and we get a higher cap, which benefits us right now, and in the future, or there is no extension, and we have unprecedented flexibility in 2007 since Snyder bought the team. Obviously, Snyder is ready to spend money, and will do so to make his team better. But he has stopped the pattern of fantasy football rosters, and his moves, under Gibbs, have been astonishingly good. Why would we think it will be different in 2007 and beyond? So long as Gibbs is running things, he will continue to plug holes that we have; this will also give us much more time to develop draft picks and younger players instead of playing them right away. It also motivates the player, or it should, because if they aren't giving their all, Gibbs will find a replacement for them right away, and can cut them without the salary cap ramifications.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Inmate. Bring it on. The lower revenue teams are killing their future for a quick, meaningless fix. Screw 'em.

[Monte51Coleman]

yeah upshaw is madd gay`

He's what? Way to 'bring it'.

The biggest group that is going to be hurt are the highly paid vets at the end of their careers. Can anyone say veterans minimum?

[frommd]

Are we sure he's referring to the NFL, and not his diet intervention group?

[skinstzar]

The players need to look at what Gene Upshaw is doing to them. 60% of the revenue. That is just retarded. I can't believe the owners are willing to give up 50%.

[Larry Gude]

I think Inmate's right. Seems like a win-win to me. Either a CBA gets extended, and we get a higher cap, which benefits us right now, and in the future, or there is no extension, and we have unprecedented flexibility in 2007 since Snyder bought the team. Obviously, Snyder is ready to spend money, and will do so to make his team better. But he has stopped the pattern of fantasy football rosters, and his moves, under Gibbs, have been astonishingly good. Why would we think it will be different in 2007 and beyond? So long as Gibbs is running things, he will continue to plug holes that we have; this will also give us much more time to develop draft picks and younger players instead of playing them right away. It also motivates the player, or it should, because if they aren't giving their all, Gibbs will find a replacement for them right away, and can cut them without the salary cap ramifications.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Inmate. Bring it on. The lower revenue teams are killing their future for a quick, meaningless fix. Screw 'em.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe we'd be better off with a have and have not league. Maybe it would be better to win or be in the Superbowl every year because we have 53 pro bowlers on the team.

Won't that be exciting?

[dockeryfan]

So now the truth finally comes out after the media has unfairly continued to bash Dan Snyder as the main instigator holding up the agreement.

NOW WE SEE IT'S THE LOW-REVENUE TEAMS THAT ARE BLOCKING THE EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT! :cuss:

I must have been glossing over the references to Synder being the one to hold up a deal.

It's been reported that the owners of small clubs are demanding more revenue sharing. Corporate welfare blows.

ANyway, why would Upshaw be the bad guy in the players' minds?

One of the goals on the labor side is to operate in a cap free environment.

Granted, there are other goals such as minimum spending limits, but allowing the market to determine price is exactly what Upshaw wants.

More players will make money. For instance, you can have a practice squad of 60 players and all will get paid. NFLEurope will get hosed if there is no CBA.

[Art]

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe we'd be better off with a have and have not league. Maybe it would be better to win or be in the Superbowl every year because we have 53 pro bowlers on the team.

Won't that be exciting?

It won't be a true have/have not situation because the NFL makes money everywhere. There will be 25 teams spending enough to be competitive all the time with the rest hoping to land the right combination of players to be successful here and there.

It is nothing but a good thing to be able to retain your own players and attach a sense of team back into the sport lost by cap rules that force that to die away. Ideally, the situation becomes a non-capped league, where the players are smart enough to say there ARE NO PROTECTIONS for teams keeping players from going into free agency. There's no limit of time. There's no tags. If a player isn't under contract, he's a free agent. Period.

Always.

Only.

This will assure people unhappy with their situation can hit the market allowing teams to improve through free agency, while at the same time allowing teams to identify their key group of guys, retain them, and start having teams identified again with players on the team.

I don't hate the cap, but, realize the downside of it has become greater than the downside of a non-capped league at this point.

[Larry Gude]

You damn right. I can remember BEFORE the salary cap started in 1993 and the Skins used to sign free agents such as John Riggins among others, and it was damn nice with Gibbs winning most of the time. I also remember George Allen signing all the free agents he could and trading away most of our draft picks, and that was damn nice too as long as we were winning. :doh:

If you dont remember that or consider it worth watching the Redskins win again, go play miniature golf on Sundays.

Maybe you don't remember? Back in the Riggo days, a move like that was pretty rare. Most teams were built through the draft or as you say, trading picks for players, not free agency. You got to know your team over time. We're in a whole new world now where it takes 1/2 a season to know all the new faces.

The Redskins right now are becoming the Redskins of old; playing hard and coaching hard. How much of a challenge, or excitement, is there going to be if we have the best player in the league at every position?

If the Redskins become the Yankees, I'd rather play miniature golf. The value of a prize is in what you put into it to earn it.

Buying it doesn't thrill me.

[Larry Gude]

Hi Art, How's goin' today?

It won't be a true have/have not situation because the NFL makes money everywhere. There will be 25 teams spending enough to be competitive all the time with the rest hoping to land the right combination of players to be successful here and there.

Care to elaborate?

According to the commish web site, 1/2 the league is about $10 million UNDER the cap AND 7 of them are playoff or recent playoff teams.

With no cap, wouldn't the top teams sign guys to huge one or two year contracts and just re-load the next year? Resign guys who had good years, ditch guys who had not so good ones?

With no cap I would think better players on low end teams would only sign short term contracts in order to be available the next year to the rich guys.

What does this do to the low end teams? If 1/2 the leauge is operating low end now, how does that jive with 25 spending 'enough'?

The league as a whole?

It is nothing but a good thing to be able to retain your own players and attach a sense of team back into the sport lost by cap rules that force that to die away

I'm not seeing stability with no cap.

In the past, the owners controlled salaries through what amounted to collusion, right?

Your thoughts, kind sir...

[FedUpField]

One more note to chime in on -- the Yankees comparison is a scary one -- haven't they had the highest payroll for the last 10 years running and they've won how many Series in the last five years? Having a roster stacked high with probowlers is only good if they're A) winning (and you might as well admit to yourself now that if they don't win EVERY SINGLE GAME your rage at the team will increase exponentially....) a cohesive loyal unit (yeah right....pro bowl = ego -- try putting 53 egos on one field with the expectations that they'll play as a team. dream on, folks)

Not to mention the previous comment that the loyalty and long tenures we so admired in the pre-FA years aren't going to automatically re-manifest themselves in the amazingly greedy environment the league has created since then.

It's obvious the cap creates a lot of problems, as Art noted -- but so many people here are thinking me me me, as in how "great" a CBA-less league will be for the Skins. But the Skins are one team in a league of 31 and if competition among the teams DECREASES, how sucky is that for watching, enjoying, discussing?

There's a huge double standard here at play. Players want it all, they want to be able to get their contract, pick their team AND recoup the ridiculous amounts of money they think they deserve when they underperform. The owners have been complicit in this arrangement since they're making money hand over fist and not instilling any confidence in their players by signing them to contracts with no guaranteed salaries, etc. Everyone's tiptoeing around the problem. If these problems can be amended, if we go back to sign on the dotted line, play and get paid, be loyal and you'll be rewarded and it takes abandoning the CBA to do it, well then, go for it. But I have a hard time believing any ideal situation can come of this. As broken as the system is, breaking it more to try to fix it, with so many questions and unknowns on the horizon, just highlights the underlying motives behind the whole situation in the first place. Just be aware of that when you're waxing nostalgic and thinking the outcome will usher in a new era of old school football.

Ain't gonna happen.

- FUF

[inmate running the asylum]

Maybe you don't remember? Back in the Riggo days, a move like that was pretty rare. Most teams were built through the draft or as you say, trading picks for players, not free agency. You got to know your team over time. We're in a whole new world now where it takes 1/2 a season to know all the new faces.

The Redskins right now are becoming the Redskins of old; playing hard and coaching hard. How much of a challenge, or excitement, is there going to be if we have the best player in the league at every position?

If the Redskins become the Yankees, I'd rather play miniature golf. The value of a prize is in what you put into it to earn it.

Buying it doesn't thrill me.

Maybe you dont remember. George Allen signed many free agents and Joe Gibbs first Super Bowl team was made up of over 50% free agents. Many low-priced free agents, but nevertheless free agents.

And I dont remember the Redskins winning the Super Bowl every year with Allen and Gibbs, in that there was plenty of competition from the Cowboys and others. But it was nice to have a playoff contending team you could count on every year.

I'll take that every time. It doesn't bother me in the least.

P.S. George Allen's team weren't built through no damn draft! He traded away just about all our top draft picks for players, he couldn't sign as free agents.

But I enjoyed those years immensely. He had colorful teams and you could count on a playoff contending team just about every year.

I dont where you come off with this idea that we would have "32 pro bowl players on the team" and "win the Super Bowl every year." There are a lot of other competitive rich team owners out there besides the friggin Arizona Cardinals and New Orleans Saints. :doh:

[Larry Gude]

One more note to chime in on -- the Yankees comparison is a scary one -- haven't they had the highest payroll for the last 10 years running and they've won how many Series in the last five years? Having a roster stacked high with probowlers is only good if they're A) winning (and you might as well admit to yourself now that if they don't win EVERY SINGLE GAME your rage at the team will increase exponentially....) a cohesive loyal unit (yeah right....pro bowl = ego -- try putting 53 egos on one field with the expectations that they'll play as a team. dream on, folks)

Not to mention the previous comment that the loyalty and long tenures we so admired in the pre-FA years aren't going to automatically re-manifest themselves in the amazingly greedy environment the league has created since then.

It's obvious the cap creates a lot of problems, as Art noted -- but so many people here are thinking me me me, as in how "great" a CBA-less league will be for the Skins. But the Skins are one team in a league of 31 and if competition among the teams DECREASES, how sucky is that for watching, enjoying, discussing?

There's a huge double standard here at play. Players want it all, they want to be able to get their contract, pick their team AND recoup the ridiculous amounts of money they think they deserve when they underperform. The owners have been complicit in this arrangement since they're making money hand over fist and not instilling any confidence in their players by signing them to contracts with no guaranteed salaries, etc. Everyone's tiptoeing around the problem. If these problems can be amended, if we go back to sign on the dotted line, play and get paid, be loyal and you'll be rewarded and it takes abandoning the CBA to do it, well then, go for it. But I have a hard time believing any ideal situation can come of this. As broken as the system is, breaking it more to try to fix it, with so many questions and unknowns on the horizon, just highlights the underlying motives behind the whole situation in the first place. Just be aware of that when you're waxing nostalgic and thinking the outcome will usher in a new era of old school football.

Ain't gonna happen.

- FUF

FUF, How's things on 6th street? LOVE that town! stayed at the Driskill last summer.

Good post. This is gonna be a strange new world if they don't extend the CBA. Gonna be maybe some good and liekly some unintended bad consequences.

I'm more sympathetic to the players thought; They got an average of four years to get their nut. The owners are for life or, in the case of the Bidwells, until hell freezes over.

Good take.

[Larry Gude]

Maybe you dont remember. George Allen signed many free agents and Joe Gibbs first Super Bowl team was made up of over 50% free agents. Many low-priced free agents, but nevertheless free agents.

And I dont remember the Redskins winning the Super Bowl every year with Allen and Gibbs, in that there was plenty of competition from the Cowboys and others. But it was nice to have a playoff contending team you could count on every year.

I'll take that every time. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Maybe I don't remember. I thought most of those guys were picked up for draft picks and were over the hill cuts from other teams.

We're on the way as it is to a contending team we can count on.

I think we can agree, however, neither Allen or Gibbs were getting the top players in the league year after year. Allen wasn't around to long. Gibbs coached 'em to greatness. Yes?

With no cap, man, I don't knw what that's gonna look like but I fear it will be like baseball only worse.

How you gonna feel, as a season ticket holder, if there are four or five home games that are virtually guaranteed wins? Where's the excitment to go to a game if it's a blow out?

[BiGdiCeBuDdHa]

One more note to chime in on -- the Yankees comparison is a scary one -- haven't they had the highest payroll for the last 10 years running and they've won how many Series in the last five years? Having a roster stacked high with probowlers is only good if they're A) winning (and you might as well admit to yourself now that if they don't win EVERY SINGLE GAME your rage at the team will increase exponentially....) a cohesive loyal unit (yeah right....pro bowl = ego -- try putting 53 egos on one field with the expectations that they'll play as a team. dream on, folks)

Not to mention the previous comment that the loyalty and long tenures we so admired in the pre-FA years aren't going to automatically re-manifest themselves in the amazingly greedy environment the league has created since then.

It's obvious the cap creates a lot of problems, as Art noted -- but so many people here are thinking me me me, as in how "great" a CBA-less league will be for the Skins. But the Skins are one team in a league of 31 and if competition among the teams DECREASES, how sucky is that for watching, enjoying, discussing?

There's a huge double standard here at play. Players want it all, they want to be able to get their contract, pick their team AND recoup the ridiculous amounts of money they think they deserve when they underperform. The owners have been complicit in this arrangement since they're making money hand over fist and not instilling any confidence in their players by signing them to contracts with no guaranteed salaries, etc. Everyone's tiptoeing around the problem. If these problems can be amended, if we go back to sign on the dotted line, play and get paid, be loyal and you'll be rewarded and it takes abandoning the CBA to do it, well then, go for it. But I have a hard time believing any ideal situation can come of this. As broken as the system is, breaking it more to try to fix it, with so many questions and unknowns on the horizon, just highlights the underlying motives behind the whole situation in the first place. Just be aware of that when you're waxing nostalgic and thinking the outcome will usher in a new era of old school football.

Ain't gonna happen.

- FUF

Holy crap, a post that makes some sense. Guy, you are out of place on this board, let me tell ya'... Your first post on this thread was right on, you know it was because nobody cared to respond to it. Nice job.

[Spartacus87]

I'm too young to remember the "glory days" of the NFL without salary cap, so I can't really comment either way. But I think what some people are trying to argue here is that the Redskins WON'T be the "Yankees" of football (a phrase I think is being thrown around a little too liberally anyway), as Snyder now is understanding how to run a franchise by not just hiring big name after big name but rather letting Gibbs and his staff run the show. I think instead of a Redskins team of Pro-Bowlers, it would just be mainly the guys you see now but locked into real, long contracts, and maybe it would be the same throughout the league; if you're a real Redskin, you're a Redskin for life, if you're a real Cowboy, you're a Cowboy for life, etc. Just because the Redskins make a lot of money doesn't mean they spend it on top-rated starters, just use it to keep core guys and add solid depth everywhere. It's not like the Redskins are far and away the richest team either, I'm sure other teams could be able to field competitive rosters on their own. Also, maybe having no cap would push the low-market teams to actually work for more money and make themselves competitive in the face of folding. Again, I'm not sure how it would all work out, just that I can see how some people are defending against the point that we would just buy superstars and win Superbowl after Superbowl.

[inmate running the asylum]

How you gonna feel, as a season ticket holder, if there are four or five home games that are virtually guaranteed wins? Where's the excitment to go to a game if it's a blow out?

There is no such thing as a guaranteed win in the NFL. There never was in the old days and there never will be either. Any team can always beat any team on a given Sunday.

I guess we are just different. I love blowouts when the Redskins win 44-0 and a player scores 3 or 4 touchdowns. :laugh: I loved it when the Redskins beat Dallas 35-7. And the 14-13 game was exciting too. :laugh: