Tags presser in 2 minutes!

So, which players take the biggest beating?

the players that get cut?

The big tickets free agents?

The 2006 rookie class?

the players who thougt they'd be UFA next year?

 

what's funny, is all of these big name players are being cut but hardly any teams have cap room to sign them.

 

Hell, a lockout might be fun. And I wonder how much the owneres would really lose? They'd have about a $5 million total salary with CFL players. So that saves them $90 million right there.

I'm pro union - but I never feel bad for them when they overestimate their value. It's a business. I think it'd kick ass to see the owners lock them out and get Scrubs to play. It'd be interesting to see how much, bottom line, it would cost the owners.

What's the ramifications of TV revenue on a lockout?

 

what's really funny is that there's at least 10 teams with at least 10 million in cap space. There's gonna be suitors for the good veterans...even if for lower salaries.

 

Doubt it. It takes 3/4 to approve. There are several 9 vote blocks who are unified within themselves. The low revenue guys are unified that they aren't going to go over 56% of all revenue (the union wants 60%), without more revenue sharing.

The high revenue guys are unified that they aren't going to pool the revenue from stadiums, since the payments for the stadiums aren't pooled. The high revenue teams usually own their own stadiums. That revenue is needed to pay for the stadium. The low revenue teams don't have those payments.

There are legit points both ways. Hopefully they will reach a compromise, but it won't happen now.

There have also been hints some teams would rather not extend the CBA now, and let the teams who have been abusing the CBA loopholes, in their opinion, finally hit the wall.

All paraphrased from articles in last couple of days.

The key point is that it takes 3/4 of the owners to cave. The disunity works against that, IMHO.

 

The union is talking about decertifying so they can't be locked out. They're the only union who's had the courage to do this. They did it to sue over antitrust in the early 90s.

So the owners could play without a contract, or a draft. I suspect that won't be good for the players either. No retirement. No benefits. No minimum salaries. Most of the players are not stars. They're minimum type guys.

 

pretty sure that was in the 80's

 

Does this mean Upshaw is doing this on his own?

NFL | Upshaw comments on stalemate
Thu, 2 Mar 2006 1048 -0800

Jay Glazer, of FOXSports.com, reports NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw said they are too far apart in negotiations with the NFL owners. "There won't be an extension. They are unanimous so there's nothing to talk about. We'll go to the uncapped year," Upshaw said. Several players have called FOXSports.com to voice their concern over not having enough information in regards to the stalemate. While the players agree with Upshaw's stance, several have claimed they are not being kept in the loop, including several player representatives. Upshaw's executive committee, however, has been kept in the fold with regards to the dealings. The player reps and Upshaw are not scheduled to meet on the status of negotiations until next week.

 

It sure as hell is. 60% of revenues, plus seven-figure salaries for most players, plus endorsements? When is it going to be enough?

I don't give a crap that Jerry Richardson is a billionaire. He put up his own money, not only to buy into the league, but also to make the stadium happen, and also to keep the Carolina Panthers running as one of the top franchises in the league. That's a damn sight tougher and more important job than Delhomme's, Brady's, or Manning's. So what if he makes $30 million off his team? THAT'S WHAT HE'S IN BUSINESS FOR! :banginghe

The players need a freaking reality check here. Personally, I applaud the owner's solidarity in this. The players have a lot more to lose by being stubborn than they do, but they're too stupid and proud to realize it.

 

This is huge. And not just for owners who have stadiums to pay off (like the Houston owner who keeps crying about his debt load). It also comes into play when an owner can hold out their hand and get as much free money as possible from local jurisdictions.

See Baltimore. We - the state of MD - bascially gave them a stadium and paid off all Modell's debt to get that team. So if you are an owner looking at that deal, you are going to say "Where can I get that?" If you can get it? Great. If not? Tough shit. Anyone want to tell me that this "gimme a new stadium so I can compete bullshit" wouldn't happen over and over again as teams shop for better stadium deals and play cities against each other? Hell, it already happens now and certainly would not get better.