NIGHT STALKER Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 NFL owners vote to break off talks with NFLPAAssociated Press NEW YORK -- NFL owners voted unanimously Thursday to break off talks with the players' union on a contract extension, leaving the current salary cap in place with the start of free agency looming and possibly forcing the mass dumping of veterans. The owners, who met for 57 minutes Thursday morning, endorsed a recommendation by their management council executive committee to reject the union's latest proposal. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue said the financial demands made by the players were unacceptable. "We are indeed deadlocked," Tagliabue said. The breakdown of talks left intact, for now, a salary cap of $94.5 million. The two sides had hoped to add $10 million to $15 million to the 2006 salary cap. Without the additional room, some teams could be forced into wholesale cuts to get beneath the cap by midnight. Free agency starts Friday. "Without an agreement with the union on an extension, the league year will begin as scheduled at midnight Thursday under the current terms of the CBA," the league said Wednesday in a statement. Owners did not seem inclined to cut into the difference of 4 percentage points between the sides. New England owner Robert Kraft had suggested that the meeting Thursday morning might be short, just enough time to rubber stamp the executive committee's decision. One reason was that revenue sharing, a point of contention among the owners, was not on the agenda, at least not at the start. The union insists that is needed for agreement and some owners agree. Asked if there could be a deal without it, Buffalo's Ralph Wilson simply said no. Three days of talks between the league and the NFL Players Association to extend the agreement that runs out in 2008 ended Tuesday with the sides far apart on the percentage of league revenues earmarked for players. Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director, said the league is offering 56.2 percent of its total revenue for the players, almost four points lower than the union's idea. "Our number has to start with a six," Upshaw said. But beyond the numbers is an issue that has divided the owners for two years: revenue sharing among the teams. Under the current system, some teams make far more than others in ancillary income, ranging from local radio rights to stadium naming rights and advertising. The lower-revenue teams say that forces them to commit as much as 70 percent of that money to the players while teams with more outside money contribute far less, giving the high-revenue teams more available cash for upfront bonuses to free agents. Under the current agreement, 2006 is scheduled to be the last year with a salary cap. An uncapped year in 2007 means new rules that will force teams and agents to change their plans this year and could keep a lot of teams out of the free-agent market entirely. "It might mean that no rookies get signed because no one is sure of the long-term ramifications," said Tom Condon, the agent for a number of the game's top players. Even more urgent are salary-cap ramifications for many teams, which anticipated a labor agreement and planned for a much bigger ceiling. Washington, for example, could be as much as $25 million over the salary cap after signings over the past few years that anticipated a salary cap figure well over $100 million. The ramifications of a lower than anticipated cap were evident Wednesday, when some high-priced veterans were cut. Among them were defensive end Trevor Pryce and running back Mike Anderson of Denver, the team's leading rusher last season. Denver also cut tight end Jeb Putzier. Buffalo, meanwhile, released defensive tackle Sam Adams, and Carolina released three veterans: running back Stephen Davis, defensive tackle Brentson Buckner and kicker returner Rod Smart, "He Hate Me" of old XFL days. Miami cut left tackle Damion McIntosh, saving $3.8 million against the cap, and former Pro Bowl cornerback Sam Madison. The Dolphins are a prime example of a team that needs a new labor agreement: They are estimated to be about $9 million over a $95 million cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 This may mean a whole new football world as we know it. If the union is serious with its "we will never again have a cap" mantra, the landscape will change. The cap accomplished 2 things: -It prevented teams from "overspending" -It also prevented teams from going "cheap", by having a minimum spent on salary as well. Some owners may decide that their investment is just that, a money mking venture where they can glom (I love that word on this site) off teh successes of the rest of the league and make money, and not spend it. You may begin to see a division of powers again. I would be interested in other's views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 To be honest, I think if Woody falls into the catagory of "deep pockets", we may have a better shot of winning the damn thing sooner than later. On the other hand, if he turns out to be a owner like they have say, in Kansas City (baseball), we will be lost at sea forever or until a new owner comes in with the mentality that spending moola will bring home the Lombardi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j e t s Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 To be honest, I think if Woody falls into the catagory of "deep pockets", we may have a better shot of winning the damn thing sooner than later. On the other hand, if he turns out to be a owner like they have say, in Kansas City (baseball), we will be lost at sea forever or until a new owner comes in with the mentality that spending moola will bring home the Lombardi. Trust me, He Does not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Personally I would hate to see a pure no cap system- football will go the way with baseball where certain teams will never win because of either financial limits or owners that are cheap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 To be honest, I think if Woody falls into the catagory of "deep pockets", we may have a better shot of winning the damn thing sooner than later. On the other hand, if he turns out to be a owner like they have say, in Kansas City (baseball), we will be lost at sea forever or until a new owner comes in with the mentality that spending moola will bring home the Lombardi. Leon Hess always had one of the highest paid teams in the league. It never mattered. You need to be spend smart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinnys025 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 However Faba, the Jets are in a big market system and would flourish. I dont mind it, being the Yankee fan that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Personally I would hate to see a pure no cap system- football will go the way with baseball where certain teams will never win because of either financial limits or owners that are cheap What like the Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks and Chicago White Sox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What like the Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks and Chicago White Sox? Yeah, but the way they do it is like saving up for a vacation to go gambling in Vegas for the year. Live like paupers to save up enough to spend like crazy one year. Then go back to being paupers. Wash, rinse, repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 IMO free agency would effect football much different than baseball. Football is a game where the team concept wins period. A baseball team can win without good chemistry and team work where a football team can not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 IMO free agency would effect football much different than baseball. Football is a game where the team concept wins period. A baseball team can win without good chemistry and team work where a football team can not. Whenever you spend so much of a year with your teammates, chemistry comes into play. Baseball is no exception. The guys are together for up to 8 months. Chemistry counts to an extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What like the Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks and Chicago White Sox? Good point. The Mets sure are getting a lot of bang for their buck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Whenever you spend so much of a year with your teammates, chemistry comes into play. Baseball is no exception. The guys are together for up to 8 months. Chemistry counts to an extent. If you break it down it will all still come down to coaching. When I'm refering to "chemistry" I'm refering to more than just getting along. All aspect of football come down to team work. The run blocking, pass blocking all the special packages. A great coached team will still beat a team with great players in football. IMO the same can not be said for baseball. Now teams who spend a lot on coaches AND players AND the front office. Those teams will be hard to stop. It will be more of a top heavy league than it is now I think but still it will not reflect that of baseball. Too many other factors such as injury too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Good point. The Mets sure are getting a lot of bang for their buck! Yes The Marlins and Arizona shedding their rosters are great examples we want to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.