Deal done?????

[Scott Dierking]

PFT is reporting that the NFl was promising to issue new cap numbers today, and failed to do so.

Speculation is that teh CBA may have been agreed to, and that just revenue sharing may be left on the table.

their speculation is that a deal may be done by Wednesday.

Good news for Jets

Again PFT

http://www.profootballtalk.com

[Scott Dierking]

I can't find any other speculation of this news, so, if PFT gets this right, it is a major coup for them and their site will have gone up in my estimation.

If they miss on this one, it blows up in their face.

This is a major story.

[Bugg]

On ESPN over the weekend, apparently the fight is more between owners and owners, big and small market, about what revenues are included rather for sharing than owners and players. Kinda like baseball. Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder(and probably at some point Woody Johnson and John Mara, if quietly) made then point that they shouldn't be forced to share stadium-naming rights and local radio revenues with say, the Cinnicinati Bengals, who give a sweetheart radio deal to an old friend rather than put it up for bid and choose to name their stadium for Paul Brown rather than selling the naming rights. In essence why should the big owners be forced to share income that old timers like the Brown family don't bother to pick off the low-hanging fruit tree whil the big guys grab it with both hands?

Call me a capitalist. Jones and Snyder are 1st class scummers, but here their logic is compelling. Why should the big guys subsidize the small ones if they won't grab similar revenues for themselvesn that are there for the taking?

[Scott Dierking]

On ESPN over the weekend, apparently the fight is more between owners and owners, big and small market, about what revenues are included rather for sharing than owners and players. Kinda like baseball. Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder(and probably at some point Woody Johnson and John Mara, if quietly) made then point that they shouldn't be forced to share stadium-naming rights and local radio revenues with say, the Cinnicinati Bengals, who give a sweetheart radio deal to an old friend rather than put it up for bid and choose to name their stadium for Paul Brown rather than selling the naming rights. In essence why should the big owners be forced to share income that old timers like the Brown family don't bother to pick off the low-hanging fruit tree whil the big guys grab it with both hands?

Call me a capitalist. Jones and Snyder are 1st class scummers, but here their logic is compelling. Why should the big guys subsidize the small ones if they won't grab similar revenues for themselvesn that are there for the taking?

Bugg-That is how football has operated for years, and it is a good system. It is for the greater benefit of the whole, rather than the good of one.

A Pittsburgh and Green Bay can't have the marketing avenues that a New York and Chicago have. It creates an unlevel playing field, ala baseball-but not to that degree.

I am all for capitalism, but in sports, with a monopoly view, it just does not work best.

[Smizzy]

NFL | League moving closer to a labor deal?

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:29:18 -0800

Alex Marvez, of the Sun-Sentinel, reports the NFL appears on the verge of reaching agreement on a new labor pact with its players union. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Monday, Feb. 27, that progress has been made. An agreement reached this week would likely delay the start of the free-agent signing period, which is scheduled to begin Friday, March 3. Jones said negotiations between the league and the NFL Players Association could continue until Thursday, March 2.

.

[Scott Dierking]

.

Smizzy-You are the Reuters of Jetnation.

Thanks

[Scott Dierking]

A new CBA allows the jets to do something.

It will increase the cap fairly substantially, and allow the Jets room to breathe.

With an uncapped year, The Jets and other teams that would have been burdened by the cap, would have been hamstrung. These teams would have been at an unfail disadvantage as the teams with more room would have been able to be more create.

Hopefully, sanity will rule this.

[Sperm Edwards]

A new CBA allows the jets to do something.

It will increase the cap fairly substantially, and allow the Jets room to breathe.

With an uncapped year, The Jets and other teams that would have been burdened by the cap, would have been hamstrung. These teams would have been at an unfail disadvantage as the teams with more room would have been able to be more create.

Hopefully, sanity will rule this.

Worse still, without a new CBA we'd be scurrying around like rats trying to find the cuts to get us under the cap for this year only. Then next year, after a lot of talent has been purged out, there is no cap, those players are gone, and would-be FA's of other teams are exclusive-rights players until their 6th year.

Pray this is a deal.

[Smizzy]

Smizzy-You are the Reuters of Jetnation.

Thanks

Im a news whore.

[Bugg]

Bugg-That is how football has operated for years, and it is a good system. It is for the greater benefit of the whole, rather than the good of one.

A Pittsburgh and Green Bay can't have the marketing avenues that a New York and Chicago have. It creates an unlevel playing field, ala baseball-but not to that degree.

I am all for capitalism, but in sports, with a monopoly view, it just does not work best.

Scott-

You cannot have one franchise run like a mom&pop store and act all holy and mighty because the guy operating another franchise take no prisoners. The big market teams are only asking the small markets to grab the cash as fast as they do and then there's no problem making everyone throw it in the pot. Problem is you cannot ask Dallas Washington and the NY teams to share every cent they earn if the bengals, packer, jags, etc. don't maximize their own similar revenue streams. I can understand Jones and Snyder being annoyed that they are maxing out their cash streams while the Brown family looked down on them like brigands.And now the Bengals(among others) want a piece of that very stuff they won't do in their own market.Everybody has to get on the same plan as much as possible in revenue sharing works past this next CBA. You cannot have one set of franchises operating like it's 1952 and big ones that are in the here&now or at some point the big makets-including the Jets-will be at a disadvantage by subsidizing the weak sisters' own stupidity.

[ThunderbirdJet]

Bugg-That is how football has operated for years, and it is a good system. It is for the greater benefit of the whole, rather than the good of one.

A Pittsburgh and Green Bay can't have the marketing avenues that a New York and Chicago have. It creates an unlevel playing field, ala baseball-but not to that degree.

I am all for capitalism, but in sports, with a monopoly view, it just does not work best.

Let the "poor" teams sell the naming rights to their stadiums first, like GB and Cincy. Then, fine, put that money in the pool. But to refuse to do that, and demand money from the teams that do is beyond ridiculous, but that is an example of what the arguements are. These "poor" teams refuse to make investments to increase their own local revenues, but demand that same money from the "rich" teams. Bogus.

[raffyD]

Bugg-That is how football has operated for years, and it is a good system. It is for the greater benefit of the whole, rather than the good of one.

A Pittsburgh and Green Bay can't have the marketing avenues that a New York and Chicago have. It creates an unlevel playing field, ala baseball-but not to that degree.

I am all for capitalism, but in sports, with a monopoly view, it just does not work best.

How is it an unlevel playing field if you have a salary cap?

[raffyD]

Let the "poor" teams sell the naming rights to their stadiums first, like GB and Cincy. Then, fine, put that money in the pool. But to refuse to do that, and demand money from the teams that do is beyond ridiculous, but that is an example of what the arguements are. These "poor" teams refuse to make investments to increase their own local revenues, but demand that same money from the "rich" teams. Bogus.

[Scott Dierking]

How is it an unlevel playing field if you have a salary cap?

The cap does not mean all teams spend the same.

The name of thegame is to have cash on hand to be able to submit to signing bonus up-front cash. It allows you to invest in infrastructure of teh team.

A stronger league is one that admits they all need each other equally, rather than just allowing a few to prey on the weaklings.

Face it, If a Green Bay or a small market team gets a competitive disadvantage, it hurts the whole league.

I understand your arguments, but, for the sake of competitive balance, it is in everyone's interest to share revenues. It is the way they have become the #1 team sport, and it allows it to stay that way.

[raffyD]

The cap does not mean all teams spend the same.

The name of thegame is to have cash on hand to be able to submit to signing bonus up-front cash. It allows you to invest in infrastructure of teh team.

A stronger league is one that admits they all need each other equally, rather than just allowing a few to prey on the weaklings.

Face it, If a Green Bay or a small market team gets a competitive disadvantage, it hurts the whole league.

I understand your arguments, but, for the sake of competitive balance, it is in everyone's interest to share revenues. It is the way they have become the #1 team sport, and it allows it to stay that way.

Come on, I've watched Green Bay and Pitt. spend plenty in up front signing bonuses. I'm not buying that they need to share their individually owned revenues so that Cinci and Zona can pay just as big signing bonuses. Also, your argument isn't bad but it's flawed, there's just too many variables involved with the decision of guys going to teams to pin it on just the amount of signing bonuses (which they have paid in the past and will continue to do so). Basically the smaller market teams want to be paid like the bigger market teams but they don't want to have to pay in. Sounds like BS if I'm Snyder and I would tell them to go sell out there stadiums before worrying about

The one advantage I would say the bigger market teams might have is that they can spend more on coaches (which should be included in the cap anyway) becausae they take more cash in becuse THEY TRY AND TAKE MORE CASH IN whereas the smaller market teams don't want to have to do that.

[4HCrew]

It was reported tonight on NFL Total access that there appears to be a 4pm deadline on Wednesday to announce the cap numbers.

[Scott Dierking]

Come on, I've watched Green Bay and Pitt. spend plenty in up front signing bonuses. I'm not buying that they need to share their individually owned revenues so that Cinci and Zona can pay just as big signing bonuses. Also, your argument isn't bad but it's flawed, there's just too many variables involved with the decision of guys going to teams to pin it on just the amount of signing bonuses (which they have paid in the past and will continue to do so). Basically the smaller market teams want to be paid like the bigger market teams but they don't want to have to pay in. Sounds like BS if I'm Snyder and I would tell them to go sell out there stadiums before worrying about

The one advantage I would say the bigger market teams might have is that they can spend more on coaches (which should be included in the cap anyway) becausae they take more cash in becuse THEY TRY AND TAKE MORE CASH IN whereas the smaller market teams don't want to have to do that.

Should big market teams be able to have more money to spend on training facilities, upgrades and infrastructure?

Isn't that a competitive advantage?

It is not that the smaller market teams DON'T want to pay in, they do not have the wherewithall like the big markets do.

I am a capitalist as much as anybody, but it ruins sports. Teams should not have greater privilege and in turn a competitive advantage, just because of the area that they play.

Too many Yankee fans here.

[raffyD]

The cap does not mean all teams spend the same.

The name of thegame is to have cash on hand to be able to submit to signing bonus up-front cash. It allows you to invest in infrastructure of teh team.

A stronger league is one that admits they all need each other equally, rather than just allowing a few to prey on the weaklings.

Face it, If a Green Bay or a small market team gets a competitive disadvantage, it hurts the whole league.

I understand your arguments, but, for the sake of competitive balance, it is in everyone's interest to share revenues. It is the way they have become the #1 team sport, and it allows it to stay that way.

And btw, the cap IS what keeps the competitive balance in football and HELPS to make it the best sport. Sharing hard earned revenue with teams not putting in the same effort should have very little effect on the competitive advantages/disadvantages.

[Scott Dierking]

And btw, the cap IS what keeps the competitive balance in football and HELPS to make it the best sport. Sharing hard earned revenue with teams not putting in the same effort should have very little effect on the competitive advantages/disadvantages.

Raffy-It has les to do with EFFORT as it does with MARKET.

That is the crux

[raffyD]

Should big market teams be able to have more money to spend on training facilities, upgrades and infrastructure?

Isn't that a competitive advantage?

It is not that the smaller market teams DON'T want to pay in, they do not have the wherewithall like the big markets do.

I am a capitalist as much as anybody, but it ruins sports. Teams should not have greater privilege and in turn a competitive advantage, just because of the area that they play.

Too many Yankee fans here.

Firt of all, I'm a Mets fan and I don't really like baseball very much because of the ridiculous expenditures. Second, have you ever been to Hofstra??? And the Jets play in NY yet they don't have half the facilities as Minnesota. Why is that??? Because the Jets didn't spend the money to pay for the newer/better facilities and Minnesota did. Should Minnesota have to pay the Jets some portion of their revenue because they have a nicer facility? Of course not, because Minnesota invested the time and money to make that place what it is. Just like the big market teams have done, they have created a mark through hard work, analysis, budgeting, yada yada and they shouldn't have to share with those who do not put in the same work.

[raffyD]

Raffy-It has les to do with EFFORT as it does with MARKET.

That is the crux

Granted the bigger market teams have it easier to create their brands but don't tell me the cowboys and such teams didn't work to create something where there was not. And the teams in the smaller market spend less on probably EVERYTHING (food, supplies, electricity . . .) does this not give them an advantage? I'm sorry but I can't buy into sharing something with someone who doesn't put in the same amount or, at least, effort. Must be the nature of the business I'm in.

[Scott Dierking]

Granted the bigger market teams have it easier to create their brands but don't tell me the cowboys and such teams didn't work to create something where there was not. And the teams in the smaller market spend less on probably EVERYTHING (food, supplies, electricity . . .) does this not give them an advantage? I'm sorry but I can't buy into sharing something with someone who doesn't put in the same amount or, at least, effort. Must be the nature of the business I'm in.

What proof do you have of "effort". In order to make money, many times you have to spend it.

Raffy-Maybe you haven't heard, but teh Jets are moving out of Hofstra. They are building a whole new training facility.

Trust me. it is not food and electricity savings that are driving the small markets.

Should a big market team be able to build more of a scouting and developmental infrastructure, strictly based on there geographic location?

Not entirely

[raffyD]

What proof do you have of "effort". In order to make money, many times you have to spend it.

Raffy-Maybe you haven't heard, but teh Jets are moving out of Hofstra. They are building a whole new training facility.

Trust me. it is not food and electricity savings that are driving the small markets.

Should a big market team be able to build more of a scouting and developmental infrastructure, strictly based on there geographic location?

Not entirely

You're grasping at straws with the scouting department reference. Group A made money, Group B made money and wants some of A's also but doesn't provide the same equal share in any form. We call our teams a business all the time, if it is then it should be run properly.

[124]

I sure as hell hope so that a deal gets done. The NFL without a cap would not be good. Snyder and Jones would control 90% of the FA market. We need the cap in the NFL to keep it a great league.

BTW, I read this morning that the cap number would rise from $95 million to $102 mill? If this is true then the Chad restructing on the Jets side wouldn't be so tight.

[Bugg]

Scott-

I think you're going far afield to make your argument. It's about why should the bigger teams kick in things they did that other team could easily do but choose not to do. And I can understand the big boys' point. The Bengals and Packers act all high&mighty, while the simple fact is they could sell the stadium naming rights and still keep Lambeau and Paul Brown's names in them.You cannot have it both ways-looking down your nose at the new rich guys and then demand they share those newfound revenues while you don't pick that fruit off your own tree out of soem sense of outdated decorum.

Lambeau, by the way, was such a nasty sort of a man that Vince Lombardi wanted nothing to do with him when he got to GB. Now they act like the stadium name is St. Lambeau Basilicia. If you stick around long enough, even old whores and ugly buildings get respect, which has become the case with Lambeau.

[raffyD]

Scott-

I think you're going far afield to make your argument. It's about why should the bigger teams kick in things they did that other team could easily do but choose not to do. And I can understand the big boys' point. The Bengals and Packers act all high&mighty, while the simple fact is they could sell the stadium naming rights and still keep Lambeau and Paul Brown's names in them.You cannot have it both ways-looking down your nose at the new rich guys and then demand they share those newfound revenues while you don't pick that fruit off your own tree out of soem sense of outdated decorum.

Lambeau, by the way, was such a nasty sort of a man that Vince Lombardi wanted nothing to do with him when he got to GB. Now they act like the stadium name is St. Lambeau Basilicia. If you stick around long enough, even old whores and ugly buildings get respect, which has become the case with Lambeau.

Was Komisky a prick too?

[Scott Dierking]

Scott-

I think you're going far afield to make your argument. It's about why should the bigger teams kick in things they did that other team could easily do but choose not to do. And I can understand the big boys' point. The Bengals and Packers act all high&mighty, while the simple fact is they could sell the stadium naming rights and still keep Lambeau and Paul Brown's names in them.You cannot have it both ways-looking down your nose at the new rich guys and then demand they share those newfound revenues while you don't pick that fruit off your own tree out of soem sense of outdated decorum.

Lambeau, by the way, was such a nasty sort of a man that Vince Lombardi wanted nothing to do with him when he got to GB. Now they act like the stadium name is St. Lambeau Basilicia. If you stick around long enough, even old whores and ugly buildings get respect, which has become the case with Lambeau.

Bugg-All I am doing is presenting the other side of teh coin. I have no vested interest.

The NFL has thrived and mde themselves different than other sports by be equal partners. By realizing that in order for one to be successful, they all must be succesful.

Some teams have better stadium deals. Some teams have better luxury boxes. Some of it is tied into local politics, while other has been on greased sleds.

The markets are not equal.

There are many arguments on the other side, I agree. And very valid ones. But to discount, in total the succes the league has had under equal sharing is miopic.

It ain't broke right now. Doe it need to be fixed? I don't have the total answer. But I do fear a baseball existence, even though it should not come close to that.

The league is better and unique because an Indy, a Green Bay can compete evenly. It is not a bad system

[Bugg]

The cap has made the NFL uniquely successful.

Each of these franschises while partners do act as individuals as well. There's some psychology here too. Jones and Snyder are relative upstarts. But know that one day soon-when the Jets and Giants stadium makes them big boys above everyone else-the Jets will be in the same shoes. And while it's quaint and nice to have these relic oldtime franchises, those franchises either have to move their businesses into the 21st century as much as they can or forego sharing in revenue streams that are low-hanging fruit simply because they think it's somehow beneath them. That really and rightly sticks in the craw of Jones and Snyder-badmouth their roughhouse business practices of getting every dollar on one hand and sticking out the other hand for a piece. There's no reason it canno tbe Lambeau Field by the Wisconsin Dairy Consortium or Paul Brown Stadium by ExxonMobil. And if these old dogs got on the ball there's no real issue. Heck, if selling naming rights to the Jets stadium makes tickets and PSLs more reasonable, name it what ever the hell you want.

[Scott Dierking]

Heck, if selling naming rights to the Jets stadium makes tickets and PSLs more reasonable, name it what ever the hell you want.

Now that is funny.

[MiamiJet]

Bugg-All I am doing is presenting the other side of teh coin. I have no vested interest.

The NFL has thrived and mde themselves different than other sports by be equal partners. By realizing that in order for one to be successful, they all must be succesful.

Some teams have better stadium deals. Some teams have better luxury boxes. Some of it is tied into local politics, while other has been on greased sleds.

The markets are not equal.

There are many arguments on the other side, I agree. And very valid ones. But to discount, in total the succes the league has had under equal sharing is miopic.

It ain't broke right now. Doe it need to be fixed? I don't have the total answer. But I do fear a baseball existence, even though it should not come close to that.

The league is better and unique because an Indy, a Green Bay can compete evenly. It is not a bad system

It does need to be fixed, because Jerry Jones and his ilk are tired of supporting the smaller markets. The old guard, the Maras, etc are no longer around to fend off these types of owners.

The system is not bad, but flawed. Baseball has a similar problem in that smaller market teams are living off the luxury tax that bigger market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are garnering. If I were Jerry Jones, I'd be pissed that I've invested so much into my team, and been creative enough to seek out my own soft drink deal with Pepsi, while teams like Cincinnati live off of my production.

Push will come to shove and eventually, these men will get their wish. How you convince them to continue to take a hit to their wallet, while other teams pocket it while failing to reinvest, is beyond me. It's a tough sell.

[BaumerJet]

It's not really a done deal - at least not yet:

Teams up against the wall, collectively

By Adam Schefter

Special to NFL.com

INDIANAPOLIS (Feb. 27, 2006) -- Forget the Houston Texans. The National Football League and the NFL Players Association are now on the clock.

NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has advised all 32 teams that they will know by 4 p.m. ET on March 1 whether or not there is an extension to the collective bargaining agreement. That is also the day that each team will be informed of what this year's salary cap is going to be.

If there is no agreement by the deadline, then the NFL will witness the bloodiest 24-hour period in its history, with a mass of teams cutting an even larger mass of players. It will be the NFL's version of bedlam.

If there is an agreement by March 1's deadline, chances are that the start of the league year and free agency would be deferred for a few days while both sides attempt to get the appropriate votes. Then free agency would kick off later next week, with teams having more of the breathing room that they all desire.

Of course, both sides would have to ratify any agreement, but that shouldn't be much of a problem. The union's executive committee is scheduled to meet next week in Hawaii, while NFL owners are scheduled to meet March 9 in Dallas. There they would get the votes that each side needs to approve the deal.

But the key day is March 1. It will determine whether there is labor peace or total chaos.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9271811