Peregrine Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233 Upshaw denied that the owners had raised the percentage by two points. Upshaw said the offer was 56.5 percent. "They want a bigger piece of the pie [than they had under the current deal], and I am heading back to Washington," Upshaw told Mortensen. Asked for his thoughts on the NFL management negotiating team having a conference call with the owners' executive committee to discuss the situation, Upshaw said: "We see no need to continue because they are offering a lower deal than we had in the past." ------------------------------------------------------------ Lower deal? Considering the player are getting almost 10% more revenue then they had in any previous season? I think he may be off his rocker... if these quotes are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn_skin_fan_21 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 its all a big mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Upshaw has already made this move before - going back a day early. It's all posturing. The deal was never going to get done before Sunday, and likely in the 11th hour at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 He sure is paying a lot of gas money with all his NYC-DC commutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard saunders Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354233 Upshaw denied that the owners had raised the percentage by two points. Upshaw said the offer was 56.5 percent. Lower deal? Considering the player are getting almost 10% more revenue then they had in any previous season? I think he may be off his rocker... if these quotes are correct. Peregrine, His denial was from the "earlier" talks breaking off I believe. I don't think there's quotes of him denying the latest, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Yeah Upshaw is playing some strongarm tactics. I wonder how players feel about this, and I also wonder if most players realize that they could be most hurt be the outcome of this if there is no agreement. Talk will probably start up again, and we'll see what happens tomorrow night. Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Someone needs to remind Upshaw of 1987 when he thought he could take the owners down. Does he really think he can almost 20 years later when so many of these guys are concerned about their paychecks even more now than they were almost 20 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Who else here is sick of the "I'm going back to Washington" threat? Upshaw's a joke....My opinion is he's sick of being criticized for being too cozy with the league and is trying to prove something here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thr0xx Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Who else here is sick of the "I'm going back to Washington" threat? Upshaw's a joke....My opinion is he's sick of being criticized for being too cozy with the league and is trying to prove something here.... upshaw has always said that he approves of owners like dan snyder.....who pay their players the money they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieskin Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I am going to tell my boss that I want an equal share of 60% of his yearly earnings! hang if I do that I will get the sack, as I think will a lot of NFL Players becasue of this Upshaw person, I dont know he is trying to get approval from but it wont be the cut players. And a smaller % of a much larger pie usually means more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 Richard, that wasnt the case in the article. Taken at ANY time Upshaws quotes make no sense. Players would get far more now then they have ever gotten before, he says it was the lowest deal they had ever been offered. But those quotes according to ESPN were taken before he left for DC, he denies the NFL raised its offer. Yet in an AP article(by Goldberg) Vincent, the president of the union, is quoted as saying he was told, had to be by a union rep actually at the talks, that the NFL DID up its offer. So it really looks like Upshaw is just lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SackMachine Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 It's pretty illogical not to get a deal done, let's say they dont accept the 58% and hold out. Fans will feel betrayed and lose interest in the sport. Revenue goes down. Less money for the players. NFLPA feels like a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Yeah Upshaw is playing some strongarm tactics. I wonder how players feel about this, and I also wonder if most players realize that they could be most hurt be the outcome of this if there is no agreement.Talk will probably start up again, and we'll see what happens tomorrow night. Should be interesting. The minnesota center is strongly against him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 If I'm not mistaken the players get over 60 percent by the terms of the last CBA. I thought it was 64 percent or something. The owners want to lower it to 56.5 percent, but, that is WHILE changing how revenue is defined to include MORE of it. Upshaw is, absolutely, lying, but, his nugget of truth is simple. They had a higher percentage of the money before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 If I'm not mistaken the players get over 60 percent by the terms of the last CBA. I thought it was 64 percent or something. The owners want to lower it to 56.5 percent, but, that is WHILE changing how revenue is defined to include MORE of it. Upshaw is, absolutely, lying, but, his nugget of truth is simple. They had a higher percentage of the money before. The other thing is the cash over cap issue If there is a true "hard" cap, the players will in the aggregate recieve less, because Dan Snyder cannot spend 130 million in a season where the cap is at 105 million I think that is more to what Upshaw is talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 If I'm not mistaken the players get over 60 percent by the terms of the last CBA. I thought it was 64 percent or something. The owners want to lower it to 56.5 percent, but, that is WHILE changing how revenue is defined to include MORE of it. Upshaw is, absolutely, lying, but, his nugget of truth is simple. They had a higher percentage of the money before. Assuming this is right -- I have not the slightest idea -- it also makes another of Upshaw's demands appear much more reasonable. He's been asking that owners resolve the DGR (i.e., $ that go into the communal owner pot) definition before the leage and NFLPA arrive at a percentage split. If the owners want to lower the percentage of the DGR pool in the CBA before deciding how much to expand the DGR pool, no wonder Upshaw is upset. That's very different from a scenario in which the player's share of the pool would go up a bit -- with the amount by which the size of the pool would be increased left till later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 The minnesota center is strongly against him Actually I read where Matt Birk (Minn - Center) has apologized for his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 No, there isnt any discussion over the percentage. The percentage to be used for player salaries is locked period. It was already decided long ago that the definition would be changed. Its not a matter of defintion for the owners, its a matter of how much of the REST of the TGR do the small market owners get shared. As for Upshaw, lying is lying, even if there is a small nugget of truth to it. Yes players got 65.5% of DGR last year, and 64.5% they year before. But that equates to I believe around 47-48% of TGR, which is the new defintion. Whereas the owners are proposing 58.5% of TGR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 No, there isnt any discussion over the percentage. The percentage to be used for player salaries is locked period. It was already decided long ago that the definition would be changed. Its not a matter of defintion for the owners, its a matter of how much of the REST of the TGR do the small market owners get shared. As for Upshaw, lying is lying, even if there is a small nugget of truth to it. Yes players got 65.5% of DGR last year, and 64.5% they year before. But that equates to I believe around 47-48% of TGR, which is the new defintion. Whereas the owners are proposing 58.5% of TGR. Maybe I'm not understanding your math on this one. How does 64% or 65% of 87% of revenues equal 47-48%. I came up with a figure of ~56%. That is, .645 * $87(out of every $100) = $56(of every $100) or 56% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgun88 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Dude is a goof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loxley Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I hope it gets sorted as id rather not see this whole thing end up the same way as some other uncapped sports ive read about recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Maybe I'm not understanding your math on this one. How does 64% or 65% of 87% of revenues equal 47-48%. I came up with a figure of ~56%. That is, .645 * $87(out of every $100) = $56(of every $100) or 56% You're right Yusuf. The owners' proposal has been to keep the actual compensation of the players static (or even have it go down). Limiting 'cash over cap' would actually lower player revenue. Many teams, like us, spend over the cap and prorate the bonuses. It is the basis of the whole cash solves cap thing. Lower revenue clubs want to eliminate it and make the cap truly a hard cap. I honestly don't understand all the vitriol against the players on this board. The owners are at least as much to blame. The new reports coming out have been that the players were willing to come down fromt he 60% figure (which started at 65) but the owners haven't been willing to go above 56.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.