Owners Opt out of Collective Bargaining Agreement

[NBT]

......However, there will still be peace for the next couple of years at least till the current contract expires. I guess the owners choked over giving 60% of the revenues to the players.

[kravix]

Yeah the 59.x% was more than the MLB, NBA, and NHL pay.

Here is a good article from NFL.com that explains some of the other things that will be in play if they fail to renegotiat on time.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessi...o&confirm=true

Personaly I think this is a good thing. It means that they can address some of the bigger money issues, like rookie salaries and benifits, sooner.

[papabear]

If I understand things correctly 2010 would be uncapped season....and Upshaw has said that if the cap goes away the players will not take it back. That's probably just a bargaining tactic but it does put pressure to get something done.

I can't believe that the owners and players are dumb enough to let this come to a work stoppage. Both sides are making money now, and they are without a doubt the number one sports league in the US. I think both sides are smart enough to get it worked out....at least that is what I have been telling myself....if there was a lockout/strike I would be seriously pissed.

Edit: just read the article and he makes it sound like an uncapped season wouldn't be a free for all....either way I hope they get this straightened out. The sooner the better.

[edo783]

Originally Posted by papabear

it does put pressure to get something done.

I think that is the real intent. It takes a long time to get something like this done and I suspect they wanted to get things moving. A couple of years sounds like a long time, but if you just keep twiddling your thumbs, time slips away and all of a sudden yor trying to cobble something together.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by edo783

I think that is the real intent. It takes a long time to get something like this done and I suspect they wanted to get things moving. A couple of years sounds like a long time, but if you just keep twiddling your thumbs, time slips away and all of a sudden yor trying to cobble something together.

The original deal they opted out of sounds like it was done with the intent of forcing both side to renegotiate early.

[kRocket]

It seems that the cap number combined with no structural cap on the rookie salaries really works against older, more experienced players. How many times do we see players cut and out of football because their salary takes too much cap room to allow the team to pay the rookies. Seems as if the players would be all for this.

[KJ3]

upshaw...what a lifeless threat. they "won't take back" the cap. yeah...and then watch as the nfl crumbles to the level of enthusiam that baseball has. really, really, unbelievably really strong in some cities and then embarrasingly present in others....

[NBT]

Houston, I guess, is not one of the "unbelievably strong Cities", because the Astros sure don't play like it. Well, then again they DO, and then again they DON'T, and that is the whole problem. Case in point, they finally get to the World Series after 40 years of mushing around. So what do they do, of course they revert to form, and lose 4 straight.

............But back to my original post. The owners are upset that the players are getting too much of the gravy. And the vets are upset that too much of that gravy is going to untested rookies! I hope the Vets and the owners win this tug of war and peace returns to my favorite sport.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by NBT

Houston, I guess, is not one of the "unbelievably strong Cities", because the Astros sure don't play like it. Well, then again they DO, and then again they DON'T, and that is the whole problem. Case in point, they finally get to the World Series after 40 years of mushing around. So what do they do, of course they revert to form, and lose 4 straight.

............But back to my original post. The owners are upset that the players are getting too much of the gravy. And the vets are upset that too much of that gravy is going to untested rookies! I hope the Vets and the owners win this tug of war and peace returns to my favorite sport.

no, and no the astros don't play like it. the astros play like they've been trading talented youth away for brand names to put butts in seats for about 15 years straight. one year they actually had enough brand names to make a team of it, and that was neat BUT it was a total farce as they have ultimately proven. i guess we are lucky enough to have an owner willing to spend more than a-rod's yearly rake on the team (i think the marlins still have like 3 mil to go to top a-rod's 26/27 mil) but we are also damned with this owner who spends just enough to keep the masses interested. everyone bends over for him and his $8.25 luke-cold, flat beer presented with an attitude because i only gave you a .75 cent tip because the beer was 8 f'n dollars and i only came with 10 but i quit following them this year....

anyway

i think the rookies do get overpaid. by a lot. but it's not like veteran guys (the typical non-superstar 6-10 year vet) are getting underpaid. i think they just don't like the ever widening gap between them and now matt ryan. if some dudes played 17 years they wouldn't see 34 mil. matt ryan has played exactly squat for 34 mil. steep.

EDIT: i also wanted to say guys like urlacher who signed a HUGE deal (i think 9 yrs, 54 mil?) and now want more because everyone else is getting more are totally bogus. greedy, greedy, greedy. if i were the bears i wouldn't be paying him an extra dime.

[kravix]

I heard this on Sirius NFL this morning and am going to give the jist. They were talking to K- Jay Feeley from Miami.

It was suggested that one of the other reason the owners opted out, besides salaries being 60% of total revenue, was the revenue sharing between the teams. I dont know a whole lot about that issue, but given the business mindset on the owners side it does sound reasonable.

Feeley also said that he believes 90% of the players are for a rookie salary cap.

Upshaw was quoted as saying that rookies are not part of the NFL Players Union until after their contract is signed and it makes it harder to impose caps on their salaries. Which is a big bag of crap to me, wonder why some people dont want him in that position any more.

I really think this is a good thing. What the players are going to have to come to term with is benefits. They cannot sit there and boo hoo about not getting paid enough millions a year and then bitch about the lack of retirement benefits. They will have to come to terms that 60% of total revenue for thier salaries is not going to cut it, and come to term with the fact that they will need to redistribute some of that money to benefits instead of pure salary.

[papabear]

I think the thing that scares about this the most is that there is a definite split between the owners. Houston has no shot at another Super Bowl because the small market teams are mad at McNair for voting against a revenue sharing plan that would have been more beneficial to the small market teams.

If the owners are united and the union is united then the negotiators sit down and work out a plan. If one group is split it makes it that much harder because you are in essence trying to get three sides to agree. It's tough enough making two sides happy.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by papabear

Houston has no shot at another Super Bowl because the small market teams are mad at McNair for voting against a revenue sharing plan that would have been more beneficial to the small market teams.

uuuhhh....

i'm almost sure that the small market teams' owners aren't sitting around holding grudges against a man who put 700 bajillion of his own dollars into buying, building, tearing down, and rebuilding a team. 700 bajillion. they realize that he is quite invested into this venture and while he may take into account all the options, he is most likely to pursue the ones that are more beneficial to him. i'd guess he would be a little ticked if anyone came up to him and questioned his decisions effecting his franchise. he's no al davis!!

[papabear]

Originally Posted by KJ3

uuuhhh....

i'm almost sure that the small market teams' owners aren't sitting around holding grudges against a man who put 700 bajillion of his own dollars into buying, building, tearing down, and rebuilding a team. 700 bajillion. they realize that he is quite invested into this venture and while he may take into account all the options, he is most likely to pursue the ones that are more beneficial to him. i'd guess he would be a little ticked if anyone came up to him and questioned his decisions effecting his franchise. he's no al davis!!

The rift between the large market and small market owners is pretty well documented....with McNair being mentioned in just about every report about it as being one of the "haves".

This is an article from 2006 where the talk about the rift.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

I have speculation from various reports that Politics among NFL owners have hurt our bids for another Super Bowl more than anything . It could all be completely untrue, but it has been mentioned many times from multiple sources. I don't know how much it really has to do with us losing out on the Super Bowl. I think the biggest factor is giving them to teams with new stadium....just like we got ours. The split among the owners however, appears to be real.

[NBT]

In any case McNair says he will be back in pursuit of another SB at some point in time.

The owners do seem to be at an impasse. I can see McNair's point of view that after putting out that $700M, which I would assume, was equally shared by the other league owners as a windfall profit. He has to amorttize that debt somehow, and the suite boxes at the stadiom are just one more way of doing so. If every team gets $85M/yr. as their share of the t.v. money, I can't see that any owner is that in need of "welfare"!

In the case of the huge rookie salaries, the union says rookies are not covered by the CBA until they sign their first contracts. If the owners try to control the huge bonuses, the agents howl colusion. The union needs to corral the agents I would say.

[cadams]

Originally Posted by NBT

In the case of the huge rookie salaries, the union says rookies are not covered by the CBA until they sign their first contracts. If the owners try to control the huge bonuses, the agents howl colusion. The union needs to corral the agents I would say.

well, there has to be some way to do it since the nba seems be able to.

[NBT]

Uhmmmmm............next to baseball salaries (which are absolutly ridiculous), Basketball salaries are second worst, so what was your point?

[papabear]

Originally Posted by NBT

Uhmmmmm............next to baseball salaries (which are absolutly ridiculous), Basketball salaries are second worst, so what was your point?

Here's the NBA's rookie salary scale. Only the first two years are guaranteed. After that it's a team option (although almost no one give up on a high pick after 2 years.)

http://www.mynbadraft.com/NBA-Rookie-Salary-Scale-2007


According to this the first pick from last year will make about 18 million over the first four seasons. Matt Ryan just got 34 million gauranteed. There's a list of NBA guys making 13 to 20 million, but These are vets who are given "max" deals as determined by a percentage of the salary cap....at least I think that is how they coe up with the max numbers.

Compared to the NFL the NBA does a much better job of slotting rookies, and making sure the veterans who have paid there dues....get paid.

[cadams]

Originally Posted by NBT

Uhmmmmm............next to baseball salaries (which are absolutly ridiculous), Basketball salaries are second worst, so what was your point?

not sure what your point is. mine was that rookie caps are used in the NBA, so there has to be a way to do it. also, as noted by papabear, while nba players get paid obscene money, the rookies don't get the crazy money initially.

[cadams]

Originally Posted by papabear

Here's the NBA's rookie salary scale. Only the first two years are guaranteed. After that it's a team option (although almost no one give up on a high pick after 2 years.)

http://www.mynbadraft.com/NBA-Rookie-Salary-Scale-2007


According to this the first pick from last year will make about 18 million over the first four seasons. Matt Ryan just got 34 million gauranteed. There's a list of NBA guys making 13 to 20 million, but These are vets who are given "max" deals as determined by a percentage of the salary cap....at least I think that is how they coe up with the max numbers.

Compared to the NFL the NBA does a much better job of slotting rookies, and making sure the veterans who have paid there dues....get paid.

i think paying the #1 pick 18 million for four years sounds a whole lot better than the 34 million guarenteed, plus the rest of the contract if you hold onto the guy. could just be me though. seems like the negative impact of a bust would be much lower that way.

[NBT]

Originally Posted by papabear

Here's the NBA's rookie salary scale. Only the first two years are guaranteed. After that it's a team option (although almost no one give up on a high pick after 2 years.)

http://www.mynbadraft.com/NBA-Rookie-Salary-Scale-2007


According to this the first pick from last year will make about 18 million over the first four seasons. Matt Ryan just got 34 million gauranteed. There's a list of NBA guys making 13 to 20 million, but These are vets who are given "max" deals as determined by a percentage of the salary cap....at least I think that is how they coe up with the max numbers.

Compared to the NFL the NBA does a much better job of slotting rookies, and making sure the veterans who have paid there dues....get paid.

OK, then I beg your pardon. I thought it was a lot higher than that. Thanks.