The Quebecer Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 NFLPA & the NFL owners are meeting face-to-face today in New York, and it seems that we may see an agreement on a new labor deal... (Mort said : fairly optimistic...)
Like A Mofo Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Good. If this league cannot come to quick agreements with the amount of money they make and with their perfect TV deals primarily because of favorable schedules (once a week) the NFL and NFLPA should be shot.
ACor58 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Good. If this league cannot come to quick agreements with the amount of money they make and with their perfect TV deals primarily because of favorable schedules (once a week) the NFL and NFLPA should be shot. 617125[/snapback] I was thinking drawn and quartered on the grounds of stupidity...but shooting them is cool too.
BuffaloWings Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 It seemed evident to me that a deal might be done soon when they moved the start of free agency. If I understand correctly that the "getting under the cap" deadline was also moved, I think they're close to a deal. Wasn't it about a year ago that the NFL looked like the most competent organization on the planet?
2003Contenders Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Hopefully the expansion was becasue they feel that they can still reach an agreement. However, a less optimistic view is that the extension was to help the teams in SERIOUS cap trouble to give them a couple extra days to work out contract extensions and the like -- to help avoid a bigger mass exodus of players than we'd have likely seen otherwise. Remember that the teams didn't even know for sure what the cap would be until Wednesday night. A CBA extension likely would have meant a cap more in the $105 M range than the $94.5 M it was set at. Of course, teh teams that are in trouble knew fully well that there may not have been a CBA extension, and I don't see where it is fair to the teams that have done a good job of managing their cap to give teams like the Redskins, Jets, and Raiders a stay of execution.
Like A Mofo Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I was thinking drawn and quartered on the grounds of stupidity...but shooting them is cool too. 617131[/snapback] Shooting would increase ratings
RJsackedagain Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 NFLPA & the NFL owners are meeting face-to-face today in New York, and it seems that we may see an agreement on a new labor deal... (Mort said : fairly optimistic...) 617112[/snapback] Did Mort report there's a 50/50 chance they get a deal done this weekend???
buffaloboyinATL Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 So if an agreement is reached, does that mean the start of Free Agency will be delayed again to allow teams time to adjust?
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Ummm...what about the teams that already cut a bunch of guys?
buffaloboyinATL Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Ummm...what about the teams that already cut a bunch of guys? 617621[/snapback] you get to say, just kidding, pretend that never happened.... My guess is teams are cutting players that they would cut whether a new agreement is reached or not.
BB27 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Ummm...what about the teams that already cut a bunch of guys? 617621[/snapback] At least for Buffalo, I think the guys that got cut are good for Buffalo.
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Will Shields of KC comes to mind as a guy who probably would not have been cut.
Beerball Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 you get to say, just kidding, pretend that never happened.... My guess is teams are cutting players that they would cut whether a new agreement is reached or not. 617632[/snapback] He did say that the cuts don't take effect until Monday, still, how could a team go back to a player and say "just kiddin we really want you to be a part of our team."
Adam Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Personally, I'm hoping for a lock out...it'd do the league some good
Lori Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Will Shields of KC comes to mind as a guy who probably would not have been cut. 617647[/snapback] According to this story in today's Kansas City Star, he hasn't been cut.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Personally, I'm hoping for a lock out...it'd do the league some good 617697[/snapback] how do you figure?
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 how do you figure? 617704[/snapback] It might well be a good thing for producing a better product depending upon what is developed as an alternative. The operating direction right now is that the big impact of the last work stoppage in the NFL was that the team owners beat the Ed Garvey run NHLPA so bad that he got canned and the best and brightest of the athletes like Upshaw were able to hire some very bright lawyers who understood the fiscal make-up of the NFL. Upshaw took the advice of advisors that the NFL team owners were actually deathly afraid of good ol American competition in the marketplace. When the NFLPA threatened to decertify itself and thus remove the player draft as a mechanism for restraining trade, the team owners stumbled all over themselves in a rush to negotiate the CBA. he draft and the CBA essentially restrains trade by limiting the rights of the best football players in college to negotiate with only one team for a period of up to five years. In exchange for agreeing to restrain trade the NFLPA extorted from team owners a CBA which essentially makes them full partners with the team owners. A lock-out could do a lot to simplify the operations of the NFL by being a vehicle for essentially removing the team owners from the process. Team owners were essential in the early days of the league because folks like George Halas played a ton of roles from GM, to HC, to the prinmary role of provision of capital to accumulate players, get a stadium, agree to rules for consistent operation and presentation. However, over time these on the field and business roles have been outsourced to other individuals and the team owner plays the role of oversight because they provide capital. However, it has become the nature of the U.S. (and international) economy that there are actually lots of sources of capital in this society. A lock-out may be the final blow if there is careful planning by the NFLPA, to replace the owners with other mechanisms like the bond market for generating the necessary capital. The hard part would be that someone would need to be in charge to run the team and its on field operations. I can se a better MFL producing a better product if they just cut out the owner as a middle man and instead run the team as the Green Bay Packers are run. In essence it is members of the community like you and me who own shares of the team. By limiting amount of ownership so no one person or force would have total control, board can be elected by the bondholders who manage the team on a day to day and year to year basis. Generally, the NFL owners like the Rooneys have been pretty good, but I would love a system that got rid of large capital holding idiots like Dan Smyder and Art Modell or Bob Kraft. A lock-out could be the next step in putting a nail in the coffin of not only football owners as public figures but even spread to other sports to get rid of the George Steinbrenners and Marge Schotts.
EC-Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Did Mort report there's a 50/50 chance they get a deal done this weekend??? 617605[/snapback] Yes, with only a 10 percent chance of it actually happening.
Recommended Posts