Happy Days Lois & Clark Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2018691
Fezmid Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Is it really so much to ask for people to include a link instead of cutting and pasting the whole damn article? Legal issues aside, it's basic etiqutte, both for the board and for the person who actually wrote the article. CW
UConn James Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 KAPALUA, Hawaii – Normally, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue is upbeat when he addresses owners to open the annual spring meeting. On Monday, he was down, saying negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement have "exhausted themselves" and are "at a dead end." Tagliabue also predicted that so much time would be spent trying to find a solution and coming to consensus that not a lot of time would be spent in the Maui sun this week. The clock is ticking. The collective bargaining agreement expires in 2008. There is an uncapped year in 2007. Long-term deals are becoming more difficult to do because signing bonuses can only be prorated for five years, and that term drops to four in 2006. It's probably at a standstill b/c half the teams in the league have been counting on 2007 being the end of the cap. They've mismanaged their contracts so badly, that just before it comes time to pay the piper, they have the piper killed. Deadskins, Raiders, Lions, Colts, Felons, 69ers.... that's just off the top of the head. Once the cap is gone, it doesn't come back. The above owners and the NFLPA will make damn sure of that. ----- And yeah, besides the having to scroll down so much, there's copyright issues. Select the pertinent info and put a link.
Like A Mofo Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 KAPALUA, Hawaii – Normally, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue is upbeat when he addresses owners to open the annual spring meeting. On Monday, he was down, saying negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement have "exhausted themselves" and are "at a dead end." Wait, I thought the NFL CBA was a "Holy Grail" and baseball and hockey are complete garbage and yet the NFL might yet strike AGAIN? Hmmmm
PromoTheRobot Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 It's ironic how Red Sox fans cry foul about the spending advantage the Yankees enjoy. Yet they have no problem with the Patriots enjoing a similar advantage. Hypocrites! PTR
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Wait, I thought the NFL CBA was a "Holy Grail" and baseball and hockey are complete garbage and yet the NFL might yet strike AGAIN? Hmmmm 284010[/snapback] This is a sign of a societal problem that for some reason folks allow discussions to get boiled down to debates about how bad the other guy is, and living on the implication that because they (like you) oppose the stupid things the other guy is for they must be perfect. I'm sorry, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend Nand just because the other guy is evil it doesn't mean you are good. Baseball and hockey are in fact pretty close to garbage in their economic systems (in fact the NHL model is garbage) however the events show that while the NFL system is much better than these two models, it has way to go before it becomes a Holy Grail oe perfect. The question is how do you roll up your sleeves and improve things instead of simply living in a world of slogans (like Mission Accomplished when it isn't). Its tough, but I think the NFL example shows the power of partnership over dueling if your goal is to improve the product. The key to the 10+ years of labor peace and unprecedented profit for the owners and players in the NFL was that the owners beat the players so badly in the "replacement player" fight of the mid 80s that Gene Upshaw and the players were left with no alternative (after Ed Garvey and his 52% of the revenues demand was demolished) but to threaten decertification and after a bit of struggling and twisting, a deal was cut by the owners for a partnership which now sees the players actually gettin 64% of the designated gross, but with the labor peace bringing stability that makes even the lower pool of designating the gross far exceed the gross when the sides fought yo the death. The problem here is that though the owners/players seem to get it that they must fight for the joint profit rather fight each other to the death, the ownets don't seem to get it themselves. The large revenus owners are simply in the best position to cave for the most part and though they will definitely beat more of a hit than their fellow owners, they will all make out like bandits in the end. The large revenue folks will need to do a very unbusiness like (and even Un-American thing)and look hard at themselves and with the other large revenue teams and figure out how much of a hit they can take and do it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 If the cap goes, you can damn well bet the Bills are outta WNY. no way they can compete in a no-cap environment.
Corp000085 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 i don't see this as a problem yet. The nfl and pa agree in principal on the major points, its just a matter of hammering out the details and percentage points. One article that i read said that the deal won't get done THIS WEEK. They still have 1.5 offseasons and 2 full regular seasons to figure this out before there's no cap. It will not get to that point. that "no cap" year is just a contingency put in to assure both parties that a deal will be done before the old deal expires.
CosmicBills Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 It's also important to remember that Tags is not Selig.
plenzmd1 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 The large revenues owners are simply in the best position to cave for the most part and though they will definitely beat more of a hit than their fellow owners, they will all make out like bandits in the end. The large revenue folks will need to do a very unbusiness like (and even Un-American thing)and look hard at themselves and with the other large revenue teams and figure out how much of a hit they can take and do it. 284130[/snapback] I am not so sure I understand this. I get the JJ and Snyders of the world not wanting to give parts of revenues that they feel they have earned by out hustling and out thinking other owners. Like McNair from Houston said, hes got some mighty big debt service on that club, while Ralph has basically nada. On the other hand, his club is worth a boatload more. I know if I was Snyder or McNair and you changed the game midstream on me, when all of my financial planning has been based on keeping those non designated funds, I would be a little leary as well. I mean, do not think Dannys purchase of the Skins did not include 5, 10, and even 15 projections of revenues, and how those revenues would allow him to service his debt. On the other hand, we all feel competitive balance is what makes the NFL so special. So if it does deteriote to the haves vs have nots, who nows. Just hope the NFL and its owners realize that at one time baseball, and not footballl, was the national pastime. Passions can and will change if the league becomes as predictable as baseball
nobody Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Everyone involved with the NFL is making good money. Why does greed always have to show up?
Like A Mofo Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Everyone involved with the NFL is making good money. Why does greed always have to show up? 284412[/snapback] It just does. And it always will, I do not care how "perfect" a system appears to be.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 I am not so sure I understand this. I get the JJ and Snyders of the world not wanting to give parts of revenues that they feel they have earned by out hustling and out thinking other owners. Like McNair from Houston said, hes got some mighty big debt service on that club, while Ralph has basically nada. On the other hand, his club is worth a boatload more. I know if I was Snyder or McNair and you changed the game midstream on me, when all of my financial planning has been based on keeping those non designated funds, I would be a little leary as well. I mean, do not think Dannys purchase of the Skins did not include 5, 10, and even 15 projections of revenues, and how those revenues would allow him to service his debt. On the other hand, we all feel competitive balance is what makes the NFL so special. So if it does deteriote to the haves vs have nots, who nows. Just hope the NFL and its owners realize that at one time baseball, and not footballl, was the national pastime. Passions can and will change if the league becomes as predictable as baseball 284196[/snapback] A smart businessperson (and even most stupid ones) make plans not based on one possible reality of the marketplace, but have various plan Bs in place for situations changing. The end ofthe CBa and the possibility of having an uncapped year is something that even a stupid owner would have in mind, and even if it does not happen (which I doubt it will) it was clear that in the normal course business the league and its team were going to flirt with the potential outcome as by design it is there to force everyone to make a deal and get focused. Thia possibility strikes me as one of the 5. 9. pr 15 projections of revenues that a Mcnair or Snyder had to make rather than a change from leftfield or midstream correction no one could see coming, The Haves are trying to get the best deal they can from their fellow owners. If they get the worst deal on their projections they will simply have to suck it up or sell the team (there should be plenty of takers and a nice profit to make as the value of sports franchises has continued to climb.
SilverNRed Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 I thought they always left the last year of the CBA without a cap to provide incentive to get an extension done well in advance. Oh well, if anything happens to the cap, the NFL can look forward to watching its popularity plummet.
Like A Mofo Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 I thought they always left the last year of the CBA without a cap to provide incentive to get an extension done well in advance. Oh well, if anything happens to the cap, the NFL can look forward to watching its popularity plummet. 284470[/snapback] Take away gambling and watch it REALLY plummet...NFL would still be popular, but Id be pi$$ed if the 'cap' was removed, I doubt that will ever happen
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Everyone involved with the NFL is making good money. Why does greed always have to show up? 284412[/snapback] Like Gordan Gecko said in a movie iconic presentation Greed is Good. Greed always shows up because in a significant way, ots the American (western) way.
Recommended Posts