MattM

I was thinking the same thing myself tonight. Bonus points if he can bring Bo Scaife with him.....

Intersting that Jordan was still on the board with an 8.49 (better than Solder's 8.48) also at a position of need (DE) for them--although they may be going OLB instead to get their pass rush....

I agree (that is if those bastiges don't trade down again and snag yet another 1st rounder next year).....

I'm assuming you mean NYC (especially if you're here for the Draft). There is a chain called "Patsy's" that is very good. There's one I think up around 74th and Columbus (call first, as it's been a while since I lived in the 'hood). Another school day favorite of mine up near the Columbia area on about 110th and Amsterdam is V&T's--good, old style Italian restaurant. Hope this helps and enjoy your time here.....

I think you're wrong about that--in fact, the statement you made right before that about Jones not wanting to share revenue undercuts your own statement. Personally, I believe that there are a decent number of owners (again, what I think of as the "large market owners") who would like to get rid of revenue sharing to the largest extent possible (look at the fight over things like luxury suite revenue) and/or create an uncapped system that will upend the relatively level playing field that this sport has enjoyed and which has led to its incredible popularity. For ex., creating such a high cap, without a concomitant decently leveled floor, that most teams don't spend anywhere near it, allowing those teams who do a great advantage, at least in terms of chasing FAs. I think Kraft, Snyder, Jones, et al. would love that system, whether they'll publicly say that or not. In terms of your cheap shot at Ralph, it's just so easy in a market like Buffalo to sell luxury suites (which is where the money is made these days) to all of the Fortune 500 companies in the WNY area, isnt' it? While I typically don't agree with you, I figured you as smart enough to understand that different teams in different cities will have far different opporunities to make money in terms of what the local market (individual and corporate) will bear. Your comment reminds me of my arguments with my cousin, who, for the life of him, can't seem to understand why the KC Royals can't invest in their team like the Yankees do and spend the same kind of money to build a winner.....

I think you're wrong on that--I recall Jerruh making noises several times about decreasing the amount of revenue sharing in the League--and it's also been reported that the so-called "large market owners," which group includes Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Lurie and McNair among others, favor less revenue sharing than has traditionally been the norm. In fact, that's been a big internal NFL battle over the last several years at the owners level and figured into the last CBA negotiations, IIRC. Your talk in absolutes and need to be contrary all the time is really getting old....

Many thanks.

And as a I noted in another thread, that may be part of the large market owners' master plan--let the union dismantle the parity system that the League has thrived on so that they can turn the NFL into an MLB-style sport, where the big market/popular teams (Pittsburgh, for ex., is not a large market, but the Steelers have a huge following) could dominate and teams like our Bills, the Bengals, Lions, etc. (about 2/3rds of the League) serve as an eternal version of the Washington Generals. These guys are supposed to be super business geniuses, but haven't at all acted like it so far in terms of results of how this has played out, unless of course this was their plan all along. Perhaps they looked at it this way--either we succeed and the League beats back the union and all of the owners are better off, or, if we fail, perhaps the union will do our dirty work for us and we (the large market owners) will be better off. Either that or they were just arrogant idiots used to being "yessed" all their lives so that they can't see when they're pushing a loser case. I'd give it a 50/50 either way, personally.....

I'd like to watch the draft on my train commute home tonight--anyone know if NFLN or ESPN is planning to stream the draft live tonight?

I'm starting to get worried that this is all some grand master plan by the large market owners to knock the parity board over and go to an MLB-style free-for-all without being blamed directly for doing so ("wasn't us, it was the evil union that broke the revenue sharing system"). I mean, they couldn't have been this dumb, could they? It's either that or they're morons for so badly misreading the situation and their chances.....

I noticed that as well--what was up with that? Interestingly (to me at least) the comments were running about 3 to 1 against Goodell and the owners--in the WSJ no less--that's saying something and it ain't pretty for the League...

Could be wrong, but I believe that the prior floor was in the 85% range, so a move to 90% would help teams like the Bills. I care about how the final deal is structured in terms of its impact on league balance and parity for the sake of small market teams teams like the Bills and absolutely do not trust the big market "brain trust" of Snyder, Jones, Kraft, et al. to do right by teams like ours; those same owners were the ones who negotiated the last CBA and are the ones leading the charge to pull out of the last deal as I understand it. The owners picked this path when they pulled out of the last CBA and, like other posters here, I think it was a foolish move of theirs to let it get this far. That, plus things like the "lockout fund" they negotiated in their last TV contracts despite having a duty to players to maximize shared revenue (as found by a Reagan-appointed judge) and the fact that they're crying poverty as the reason to scuttle the last deal, but won't open their books to prove said poverty, leads me to cast an even more jaundiced eye their way, but that may just be me.....

The best hope for the Bills out of all of this is that the players demand a salary floor. I thought I'd read that the last CBA terms they owners and players were discussing contained a 90% salary floor. Can anyone confirm this? It would make sense from a union perspective to protect the guys lower down on the totem pole (who are the vast majority of the League, numbers-wise, and those are the folks who need to vote on a deal to get it approved, not just Manning, Brees, Brady, etc.).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084 Link

...with respect to the lockout. Surely to be appealed by the League..... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084 Link

Is it really deep at OL? I thought that there were very few tackles who projected as top picks, unlike prior years when you normally have 2-3 OT going in the top 10. Do you guys mean Rd 2-3 type prospects?

??? Not sure where you're getting the highlighted information--she's the judge assigned to the case on the lockout, after two others recused themselves due to conflicts. She will have a huge impact on how all of this plays out since she's the trial judge hearing the case as to whether the NFL has the power to lock the players out. BTW, doesn't look good for the owners, as she's an Obama appointee and thus probably more likely to be pro-union/employee, but apparently also has a reputation for general fairness (probably also not good for the owners). Remember, though, that Judge Doty, a Reagan appointee, found for the players on most matters, including that the "lockout fund" they'd negotiated for themselves in the latest TV deals was a breach of duty the owners had to the players. You toss around "bad faith" about the players move to decertify, but seem to forget that a judge (a conservative one at that) actually found the owners to be guilty of bad faith and breach of duty--based on the facts I've read, probably one of the easiest decisions he ever had to make. Remember that the next time you toss "bad faith" allegations around about the players union. Personally, I hope that whatever she does gets the sides closer together to reach an acceptable agreement, one that includes both a salary cap and a salary floor fairly close to that cap. The last thing fans of teams like the Bills need is a cap set high enough that it creates a de facto competitive disadvantage to us, a la the NHL, for ex......

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Apb9iqSr9FIM8Xw7XAa81OVDubYF?slug=nfp-20110325_will_the_players_agree_to_hgh_testing Found this interesting article on a Pats' fans message board no less--of all the teams in the League, those guys should be the ones fearing this the most, having a history of guys like Rodney "I'm so dumb I used my own name and address and that's the only way you can get caught for this now" Harrison and where aging vets go and "miraculously" play 5 years younger and all.....

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point. "The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth. "That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative. Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/13/nfl-owners-to-blame-for-the-lockout Interesting perspective from someone close both to the game and running his own business (which figures into his article)....

I agree with your first statement. Folks need to get it through their heads that since the deal they had was a revenue share deal with certain expenses of the team's coming out ahead of the players' cut, this arrangement is very much more like a players' equity stake than a traditional employer-employee relationship. As such, it's incredibly reasonable for the players to ask to see all of the books of the owners. As for your last statement, never said it did. What I pointed to was a factual situation in which the owners very clearly showed their bad faith, as found by a Reagan appointee to the bench, Judge Doty. Combine that with the large amount of greed as previously evidenced by the owners, including the three I named (the guy who built "Jerrah World", the guy who started charging to attend practices and the guy who seems to want the large market teams to be allowed to become the NFL's version of the Yankees) and voila. Draw your own conclusions from those facts. I have....

Not quite, but how about "the owners pulled a scummy move by negotiating a war chest for themselves (at the expense of getting more shared player revenue since in negotiations one always gives up one thing for another) in the TV deals in breach of their duty to negotiate in good faith to expand the pie the players share so the owners have already shown that they may not be trustworthy"? That's what I've got my money on. If I were the players darn right I'd want to see their books, especially if they're crying poverty and my arrangement with them is a kind of revenue share with certain expenses netted out before I get my slice. Seeing this as a pure "employer-employee" relationship is wrong, as some have noted above. Through the revenue share deals it's more like the players have an odd kind of equity or other actual stake in the business. Any equity owner or debt holder is going to want to see the books, particularly if there are things above them in any payment waterfall that comes out before they're paid. Perfectly reasonable request by the players. Personally, I suspect that the owners are scared sh*tless that the players will see all kinds of shenanigans in those books and may end up hopping mad. Do the Jones's, Snyder's and Kraft's of the world strike you as honest, upstanding businessmen? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.... My personal fear in all of this is that what results is bad for small market teams. You've got the players who want to increase the ability of wealthy owners to spend over a cap and you've got those same owners who'd love to be able to do the same thing. Our only hope for small market teams is the fear that removing a cap will remove a floor as well, which will scare the players (or at least it should).....

For those claiming that this was no big deal, go find the NYT article that quotes several unnamed members of the NFL Competition Committee who said that there was really only one team that they got complaints about shady dealings on over and over again--any guess as to which team it was? Folks have suspected them of a lot more than Spygate, and Spygate itself proves that they were certainly willing to push that ethical envelope. Personally, for reasons discussed on this board ad nauseum over the years, I suspect that they were guilty of far more than just Spygate, but perhaps that's just me....

Plus one. Funny thing is, it was the "supergeniuses" Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones who brought us the last CBA that the owners just blew up. Part of me wouldn't mind seeing a lock out/work stoppage and missed games just to see how guys like that cover the debt service on their new stadia without that TV contract cash flow Doty just took away from them in what was probably the easiest judicial decision the guy ever had to make. Come on, if you have a good faith duty to maximize revenue for the players and you write in a clause giving you a refund-free war chest for yourself in the event of a work stoppage (and presumably had to give up some up front player-shared cash to do so, since nothing is for free in negotiations), how in the heck can you argue that was good faith with a straight face?? People wonder why the owners seem to lose every major joust in the courts, but look no further than moves like that to show who is or is not acting in good faith and bear that in mind in choosing your sides here....