Cowboys Cut LaRoi Glover, Prepare for New League Season

na na na na…na na na na…heeey heeeey heeeey…good bye glover….and
HELLO alot of JETS…haha

Since a fair number of teams are going to have to cut players they don’t want to cut, and since these players want to play isn’t it possible we could sign back Glover for less or would the Boys be better served getting a little bit bigger body for the middle? I like Glover and would like to see him back for less.

I know O line takes time to develop but I think LA is getting to much for the effort he shows (ex. Sapp pushing LA around during Raiders game). Yes he went to the Pro bowl but I think it is on his name as much as his ability. If he does not redo his contract what about cutting him? I think there is going to be a number of players looking for work.

The NFL will delay the start of free agency by 3 days.

FA delayed 3 days, per ESPN radio. Souinds like a new CBA.

we’re probably going to see high priced players cut, then all pro quality players sighned for big money and everyone else low bucks. like kissing goodbye to the middle class. Am I right guys?

All that extra 72 hours does is give teams and players one final chance to restructure deals this weekend to avoid a flood of players getting pink slips all at once. Ideally, this should have already been done, but since a lot of parties were assuming a CBA extension was the most likely outcome of the negotiations…it only makes sense to give everyone one final opportunity to iron out their contract terms to avoid as big of a meltdown.

Ironically, it will be a lot of the players that the NFLPA claims to represent and advocate for that will be getting hit in the wallet this offseason. The guys who are willing to take a pay cut or restructure terms will stay. The rest will find themselves without a job, and with very little cap room league wide to negotiate a deal even close to what they would have got has they renegotiated with their current team.

This is where the owners will exert some tremendous leverage over the players and the NFLPA. I wonder how many team reps will call Upshaw this weekend and urge him to go back to the table and accept a compromise before this gets any worse for them? The players may benefit more next year, but how many are willing to forfeit millions this year on the hope that next year they get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? How much bigger of a contract will they have to get next year to even compensate for the reduction in salary/bonuses fro this season? Players careers are an asset that depreciates each year, they are also easily replaced by younger talent every April. They are fighting the clock and the calender. The owners can afford to take a knee and run the clock out…the players can’t. Upshaw should take what he can NOW, that was likely the best deal he’ll ever get.

As I understand the progressions up to today’s 04:00 cutoff, on the CBA…by contract, the Cowboys had talked to Larry Allen about renegotiating his contract. Since he has a roster bonus in April…that story is not over just yet. What the Cowboys do with Andres Gurode and possibly, LeCharles Bentley, will tell a lot as to what is going on on the offensive line interior. I also, am very interested to find out whether or not Ferguson and Rivera signed a renegotiated contract with the Cowboys…This appears to be the year when the Cowboy’s offensive line gets a long term look to it, and at the minimum, a realistic economic look to the group…

Me thinks the NFLPA just blinked….

Sterling is dead right. Owners vs Jocks – who do you think will win?

I knew a guy who had a relative working for an NFL team’s front office. he said it was VERY common for players to have to come by in the off season to get advances on their salary. they were out of cash.

Jerry & Co. have plenty of padding to sit on. do you think most NFL players do? HA! they’re calling Upshaw right now and telling him to get this thing done so the gravy train will keep rolling.

my prediction: new CBA over the weekend, and the NFL will continue its long history of high profits and labor peace.

Evidently, any player cut today will not be cut because of the deadline for FA changing. I doubt if that materially changes Glover’s situation, but he is still a Cowboys player for at least the next 78 hours.

The owners of the Steelers and Panthers made contact with Upshaw on their own to try to salvage the CBA negotiations. That makes some sense, being as both are teams that feel like they are capable of being in the Super Bowl the next few years and would probably regress in the mayhem of 2007 being uncapped. If I’m another owner (JJ) I don’t think I’d appreciate them consumating their own side negotiations on my behalf with the NFLPA without my consent.

Down with NFLPA.. Lets face it unions at some point in time had their place and did well.. But recent history has shown otherwise. Case and point Hockey union which cost its members one precious year of their career not mention the fact that they yielded for less $ and rights. This upshow idiot is just that “an idiot” who has already cost his members some job and money.. If I am player, Iâ€â"¢ll fire his @ss ASAP.

You’re taking a short term view of this one, Toast. Upshaw might be overplaying his hand, but consider this:

— When the NFLPA first went out on strike in ’75, they wanted 55% of league revenues. They were called greedy and crushed.

— Under the system Upshaw helped work out several years ago, that % has slowly but surely risen to 65%. I’ve seen an analyst say that had the owners rolled over and given the player everything they initially wanted they would have been tens if not hundreds of millions better off in the long run.

Even if he splits the difference with the owners at 58%, with the pie growing so much, the players get a bunch of new cash.

They have not lost a thing yet. Every player cut can be recalled, so any team that wanted to rework one right now can.

Now, if we head towards a nuclear winter, yeah, then maybe you can call him names and think of doing bad things. But if Sterling’s point that two owners tried to negotiate with him solo is true, this sounds a lot like a guy with the whip hand.

Until he undoes the good he’s done for the NFLPA over the years, he’s not going anywhere.

Toast:

He is a complete idiot. There’s no other word to describe him. Look at the 1987 strike that he led. That was one of the most unsuccessful labor actions in modern history. It got him and the NFLPA nowhere. I think he’s dumb enough to do that again is the really sad part.

He was a great player. As a leader and a negotiator…he is an abject failure.

Sterling,

In 1987, yes, it was a flop. But Gene seems to have Mr. Magooed himself into a nice place. Because be decertifying they won in court what they couldn’t do as a union and what they wanted all along — free agency. The owners got a cap in exchange but again, what the players are getting now is much better than what they originally asked for under Ed Garvey in the ’70s.

He may be an idiot, but he’s been an awfully fortunate one.

Rafael:

The thing about Rooney and the Panther’s owner calling Upshaw on their own was reported by Mortensen on SportsCenter about a half hour ago. I wouldn’t call it giving Upshaw the whip hand, more like treachery within the ranks of the owners, one in which I am sure will not go unnoticed with the other owners. The fact that it was only two owners who have a LOT on the line in the immediate future of their franchises tells me that they must not have a whole lot of support with other owners. You would imagine that if more than two owners felt the same way about dealing with Upshaw that they would have come forward to. It will take more than two owners to forge a compromise on this deal.

As far as Upshaw’s negotiations with the current CBA working out well for the players in the end, I would call that more luck than superior collective bargaining acumen. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Plus, he had to take whatever he could then because he had less credibility after the botched up job he did in 1987. Luckily for him and the players it all worked out in spite of him.

Right, hence Upshaw = Mr. Magoo.

On the CBA front, which is worse, news that the owners are not unified, or that some player reps feel they’ve not been fully informed. At that point, it makes the owners look weaker and more disorganized. I don’t put much predictive value on this, but it does seem that Upshaw has scared them back to the table.

Will anything good come of it? We’ll see.

Yes, he is definitely a fortunate idiot. What he is doing now is proving that more each passing day.

My guess he’ll cave in under pressure from the agents and the high salary vets who have the most to lose out this year. Maybe not this weeekend since he wants to save face, but soon. He doesn’t want to have a repeat of 1987 in 2008, which seems to be where this will inevitably lead. Once he compromises on a new CBA he can announce his retirement and bow out (somewhat) gracefully to fade into oblivion. He’s been in the HOF long enough now, he’s got little else to do with the league.

One more thing I didn’t see before — Rooney is one of the two.

Rooney has a lot of support from the old liners, guys like Ralph Wilson. If he’s making calls, he’s representing more than himself.

To me this suggests some nasty divisions among the owners.

Raf,
I think players make pretty good money these days. They come into a pretty good established league, a league that has been established by owners who risked their capital to build it. What are the risk players and their union put forth? The greed is unconscionable! I am not a billionaire and am not taking side of one.. I do believe these guys earned it and have no problem seeing them make more. The issue is players act like children and want more and more (have kids and can relate). However to be so arrogant and bite the hands that feeds them is uncalled for and unacceptable.

Since we cut Glover what do you guys feel about replacing him with a cheaper, bigger, former pro bowler, space eating NT, recently cut Sam Adams. Yes he is getting old but so was Glover. If we were contemplating keeping Glover with his age then Sam Adams should be just fine. He and Ferguson would tire out the opposing offensive lines and they would both be able to stay fresh throughout the game. Just a thought.

I am a member of the AFL-CIO, which is what this all is supposed to fall under!!!! Yea, close comparison hugh…not only do the players get to share in the proceeds of over half the pie…(if only)…but they want more of that pie???

They take zero of the financial gamble, have no part in providing revenues for transportation, uniforms, team travel expenses, the extreme financing of a new stadium…the home complex expenses, complete management staffs, and coaching staffs…all they really have to do is attend training sessions, work out during the off season, be on time, and if smart…not talk much to the media, and in return, they get a great health protection plan, even if they don’t make the club…guaranteed wages that far exceed the private sectors…opportunities to make advertisement dollars on many levels. Public acclaim as well as opportunities to receive special ‘rewards’ for social activities in the community in which they play. There are physical problems that are a risk for players, but many sectors in the private community has these also…
I don’t know a single tanker who spent more than ten years on tanks, that DOESN’T have bad knees.
Not to mention the constant and daily perils that occur in the construction industry…

I think that Upshaw is doing the role of a negotiator for the union to a tee…he’s not giving up anything and asking for the world to be dropped in his lap, the whole time, fighting both the process and those negotiating….yep, a union guy!

Players are so well off, they don’t even want to revert to the pre 1993 days when there were NO guarantees for playing in the NFL, AND, contracts could go on ‘for-ever’….mix that with the retirement and medical benefits…they are THE STUPID ones…

What do the players have to put on the line…to show up and work…what a concept!!

Sterling,

I think he’ll agree to “compromise” and laugh all the way to the bank. Consider:

65% of 3.2 Billion = 2.1 B
58% of 5.2 Billion = 3.0 B

Even if he “caves” he’s making a fortune.

If he gets the owners to split the difference between 56 and 60% I’m sure he’ll be able to stand every last piece of abuse he’s gotten.
Shoot, he wins if he gets 56%.

I don’t know if he’s trying to force the owners to deal revenue sharing but you’re exactly right, the will push hard to get this done.

So long as Upshaw gets any kind of deal, he wins, because he’s tapping into total revenues now.

Let’s see if he’s simply playing hardball or if he really wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

True, those two owners definitely put a chink in the owners’ armor. That’s why the other owners will probably be rightly displeased with their actions, even if they do result in some good coming of them. I can’t imagine anyone being happy about someone going behind their back and trying to negotiate with being given authority.

I hadn’t read your Mr. Magoo post when I wrote mine. My fault, I should refresh my screen more frequently. Mr. Magoo is exactly what he is!!

Man, I should proofread. That should read the agents will push hard to get this done.

Side Note:

If you listen to the latest numbers, the Cowboys are $1 mill under the cap. Add in $1.8 mill from Dat retiring and $6 mill from LaRoi getting cut and we’re at $9 mill.

Now, for those of you wanting to sign guys, $9 mill ain’t much. We have 2 or 3 UFAs that we have talked about resigning. That should take at least $3 mill of that from my best guess. Gurode should count $1.5 to $2 mill himself. Then we have to sign a kicker, at somewhere between $1-2.5 mill. I’ll put the number at $1.5 mill. That leaves us with $4.5 mill to sign draft picks and any other FAs. As much as JJ and BP love having money going into the season, I wouldn’t expect anyone above the min to be signed.

Even if we renegotiate with LA, that would only give us a couple mill more. I don’t really see anyone else that could be cut or would seriously renegotiate.

The owners will move a little on the %- probably go to 57. And then they will wait and see if the Players move any. If they do the talks continue- if they don’t, that is it.
There is no way the owners let it get to 60- that lets the players win and that will not happen. I could see it getting to near 59- no farther.

Ferguson and RIvera have some pretty much impossible to make encentives in their contracts- they can be taken out and that would add 4-6 million more.

CCBOY,
You gave me a great idea.. If the players want 60% of the profit… then get their fat rich behind and work for the team.. not just play, actual work! in the office, community work, what ever it takes to run an organization… Thanks CCBOY, you are a genius my friend. Lets see how long this overgrown folks can handle the real work and appreciate their bosses and FANS who without them they will be making minimum wage, since most of them can’t even read and score 6 out of 50 question! example, hiring upshaw to represent them.

Rafael:

I agree, even if Upshaw compromises the NFLPA still gets a crazy amount of money out of it. The only way they lose is by not doing a deal of any kind. I hope Upshaw is bluffing with this tactic. If he isn’t…and he truly thinks the players will do better in an uncapped world…then he is going to ruin a lot more veteran careers in the short term than he will likely be able to save in the long run. If he doesn’t get some kind of deal, and this thing leads to a labor action in 2008, I predict that will be the end of the NFLPA. If you think the owners are divided now, wait until veterans have the prospect of their careers ending because of a strike.

There’s too little left to gain by Upshaw not compromising at this point, and he has EVERYTHING to lose.

For what it’s worth Chris Mortensen of ESPN and Adam Sheffler on NFN network have bothreported that, due to the three-day extension to the deadline for getting under the 2006 salary cap, the NFL has undone any cuts that were made by teams on Thursday

Rafael,

The logical solution is to find that middle ground. Somewhere in between the $3.0 bil and the $2.1. But where? … My idea is to have veteran players with X amount of years with the same team only count 50% of their salaries towards the cap. If they can get 25% of the players in the league falling under this salary cap exception, it would result in a 12.5% total raise, thus getting that number to $2.5 billion. But it will also allow teams who draft well to reap the rewards of signing their own draftees, instead of letting them go for “salary cap reasons”. The NFLPA should know that teams like the Redskins will almost always get the most out of this new “cap bubble”, and the teams who are winning or competative will also use this salary cap exception to their benifits. The owners should like it for the reason of drafting well will be rewarded and it will allow teams to manover more to stay under the cap.

He’s old as Moses, but if the Cowboys want to get a true space-eater at NT to play backup to Ferguson, then Ted Washington got cut today too. He looks to stay cut no matter what happens with the CBA.

I’m all for drafting a NT in the later rounds this year. But with so many gigantic veterans being cut this offseason, it may not be such a bad idea to get one of them for a very inexpensive backup. It is good to have depth to rotate into games on the DL, and the veteran leadership they can provide to this young defense might help too.

Uh, Toast,

The players are the game. Maybe many of them can’t score high on a Wonderlick, but they have skills we’ve decided are worth billions.

If they take their balls and go home will Bill Parcells have anything to do? He can work 100 hour weeks but nobody will care to watch his product if he’s coaching scrubs.

And could Jerry raise a dollar of marketing money if he doesn’t have an Emmitt Smith or a Roy Williams to sell?

These guys can do what only dozens can do. We can say we would do it for free, but the fact is, we can’t. And nobody would care to watch us if we did in fact play for free.

Why, after all, did we just pay so much attention to the Combine and every players 40 times?

Scab football flopped for a reason. Because they were not pro football.

Does that make the NFLPA right? No. Does that make Gene Upshaw’s demands reasonable? No.

But the players are the game. Period.

Raf,
I know… I’m just abit pi$$ed. Non-the-less, one hand washes the other… no NFL without the plyers or owners.. I am just emphesizing who is the one who taking the most risk… its not the players or their union.. its the owners, IMO.

Just for sake of lavity.. here is for your reading enjoyment.. about the great state of TEXAS…

 Only in Texas
  
A Highway Patrolman pulled a car over and told the driver that because he had been wearing his seat belt, he had just won $5,000 in the statewide safety competition.
  
“What are you going to do with the money?” asked the Officer
  
“Well, I guess I’m going to get a driver license,” he answered.
  
“Oh, don’t listen to him,” yelled a woman in the passenger seat.
“He’s a smart aleck when he’s drunk.”
  
This woke up the guy in the back-seat, who took one look at the cop and moaned,“I knew we wouldn’t get far in a stolen car.”
  
At that moment, there was a knock from the trunk and a voice said, in Spanish, “Are we over the border yet?”

And it seems some owners are taking more risks than others, or working harder than others, which is why I think we’re in this pickle in the first place. That WaPo article I linked this morning from early 2005 put the figure at about $2B in unshared revenue.

Here’s what we don’t know, but what I suspect is the crux of all this mess: how much of that $2B is generated by those 8 teams suspected to be head and shoulders above the rest in earning power — the Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Broncos, Browns, Texans, Bears and Patriots?

That would tell us everything.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Whether we go cap, no draft, whatever, there needs to be stability.

And I’m saying that for purely selfish reasons. If there’s no free agency and no draft, my traffic goes kaput.

I’m piggybacking on the current system, so even though I’ve said some bad things about it, it benefits me.

Maybe I’m trying to read too far between the lines but I suspect that if 3.8% was truly all that seperated the owners and NFLPA the meetings wouldn’t have been called off and some sort of compromise would have been reached. I yet to hear anyone suggest that either side is completely unwilling to come off their numbers of 60 and 56.2 respectively. I suspect that the real issue at hand is what constitutes Total league revenue and how it’s shared amongst the owners. I think it’s the Bill Bidwells of the league who know that if they keep their payroll at the league minimum they will still generate a profit due to revenue sharing regardless of their local revenue streams and the product they put on the field. I suspect it’s those owners who are who are looking at their financial statments and realizing that if the cap is based on total football revenues they are in danger of actually having to get off their a**es and working to remain profitable unless can find a way get their welfare I mean revenue sharing based on “TOTAL” league revenue as well that’s keeping this from getting done. I suspect that their inability to get the cap percentage negotiated is nothing more than a PR stunt aimed at keeping media attention away from the real culprit and that’s that the owners still cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves on how league revenues should be shared.

To stop the paycap settlement did JJ, or anyone else, try to back door the negotiations to save his, as Shanahan said, potentially five time SB winning team?

I know this. I liked the NFL far more before free agency and the paycap. I felt much closer to the team and players because players could be relied upon to stick around for a while. I know the players would rather have money than my support. The quality of the game has suffered, however, while revenues skyrocketed. This years SB teams would not have had a chickens chance against the dynastic teams of GB, Steelers, Cowboys and Niners. More money for a lesser product. We fans be damned. Both the owners and players must be very proud of their success.

Ranchreport.com is reporting the Cowboys released 3 more players..anyone know who they were? It wasnt anybody serious but I was interested.

I’ve heard Willie Blade’s name thrown around in that context a couple of times today.

lou c
it’s DT Willie Blade, K Brett Visintainer, and S Derek Pagel.

JUST STUPID!!!

I hear a lot of questions about why Upshaw would want to involve the NFLPA in the ‘total revenue’ vs. ‘designated revenue’ debate between the smaller and larger market teams. To me, this is not too difficult to understand, it is completely about NFLPA self-interest and makes complete sense. The NFLPA’s goal is not just to have salaries uncapped, or unleash the big spenders to drive up salaries in free agency. That would only help out the top 6-8 QB’s, RB’s, LT’s, etc. to get gigantic deals, basically the top players at their position. The other 75% of players would be left to languish with far lower salaries at a smaller market team with an owner that either can’t afford to pay the big money, or is too cheap to do so.

It all gets down to the NFLPA wanting every team in the league to have the most resources it possibly can to bid up the price of free agents leaguewide. Think of it like an eBay auction. If you put one item up for auction once in a great while, you may not care if you get a lot of people bidding on it, as long as at least 2 or more people bid against each other and drive the price up as high as possible you’ll probably be satisfied. Now, consider if you are someone that puts many items up for auction every day, or every week. Now you are not only going to want, but you will actually need many bidders to maximize the final price of each of your items. A few prominent bidders will not be enough because you have too many items for auction, you have to have a much deeper market that is not only willing, but also able to buy. By forcing the bigger market, better run franchises to in effect subsidize the lesser teams, the NFLPA increases the resources available by the other 24-26 teams to bid up the price of more of their players.

Personally, I think this is not only bad business, but incredibly hypocritical. If the NFLPA was worried about a half dozen players making top dollar and the rest of their players getting bottom basement salaries then there is nothing to stop them from instituting their own form of income redistribution based on salary. If they would rather smooth out the disparities between Peyton Manning and a guy making the league minimum, then charge higher union dues to the guys like Peyton Manning and cut the lesser players a check just because they are still in the league. Obviously they could never get away with this in practice. Yet the NFLPA expects Jerry Jones to give up millions upon millions of dollars that his business savvy (not unlike the reason Peyton Manning receives more money than Trent Dilfer), has helped him by generating more revenue from his NFL franchise to a guy like Bidwell who doesn’t even try. If JJ has found a new way of making money from his team, let Bidwell and the others copy him and pocket what they will. If they are unable to, that is their problem. If they refuse to even try, then they have no right whatsoever to ask for a penny from him.

Upshaw is acting out of greed for all the players, not just the star players who can command the big money. This all makes sense. What he should be doing though, is encouraging the small market teams to figure out how to stand on their own and generate their own revenue, rather than asking for them to be subsidized by their more successful peers. If they refuse to try, then the NFLPA should target their labor disputes at those owners and franchises who refuse to spend and make their franchise better instead of the ones who do and will continue to do so. Otherwise, he is a hypocrite, and expecting owners like Jerry Jones to do something that the players he represents would never agree to do.

Sterling:

Please stop with the common sense and rational approach to this immediately! ;-)

everyone knows this is about the “working man” and trying to help the players just "take care of their families!

it’s GREED CITY. watch how fast Upshaw capitulates now that some of the greediest fat cats saw their own income endangered!

Buckeye Mark:

LMAO!! I know…successful hardball negotiating seldom uses such underhanded tricks as common sense and rationality. It’s all about intimidation and what me and my friends are going to do to ruin yuor life if you don’t do what we want you to. LOL!! ;)

Seriously though, the level of hypocrisy displayed by NFLPA is staggering to behold. I think the owners would be well within their rights to force the NFLPA to include the revenue from the licensing deals the NFLPA has struck with video game companies and others in the ‘Total Revenue’ pot. After all, if a team didn’t draft that player and let them play with their team logo, the NFLPA would have a hard time selling those rights for such money.

Hahahahahaha! I just wondered what T.O. must be thinking right about now! Where’s your value now bud!? First Washington and Denver and now T.O. My life just keeps getting better!

To further Sterling’s point and to clarify Rafael’s assertions:

The NFLPA, during 1987 season basically won free agency, but lost forever their ability to credibly strike again.

The Owners, at that time, had a pretty nice offer on the table, but refused FA. The players won a court case and blew out their chest because they were recognized as the only preventative to a monopoly fight.

The owners said…Oh yea? We don’t need you. We’ll start over with scrubs. And the players folded.

But Rafael is right…they won FA…but had to accept a cap. Who really won?

The owners.

And they will on this round as well, or the “nuclear winter” will do nothing but show the players that they really have no bargaining position. A lockout will prevented at all costs. The NFLPA saw what happened with the NHL.

In all reality, the owners have the power and it will be under their conditions. That $2B is the owners to decide whether or not they wish to share among themselves. Like JJ said, it’s none of the players business. As far as players’ cut?…that will be up for negotiation and the owners will go as far as they’ll go…and the players will accept.

Brinkmanship makes for great copy, but in the end, the golden rule applies.

Fighter 15,

I don’t know that anybody has to lose — unless Upshaw wants a meltdown. You can term it a loss, but by my math (which may be faulty I admit) the players will gain approximately 40 to 50% in total revenue, if the numbers in that WaPo article are correct.

I’d be happy to lose like that anytime.

That’s where I differ with you.

What JJ intimated, and the CBA offer by the Owners states directly, is that the total revenue formula is not up for debate. The players added it into their proposal and that was summarily rejected…called out of bounds.

Upshaw was playing to the Rooney’s and Bidwell’s point and “offered” a solution.

The owners do not operate as a democracy. No matter that a majority of owners are willing to “share” more, it’s what the totality of the owners are willing to agree by consensus.

JJ showed the way for big markets to make more money. Most followed. None are gonna force them to give that money away. They can wish, but in the end, the CBA agreed by the owners is where that discussion ends…at least publicly.

The not-so-publicized agreement is that the big money teams will offer a safety net. Any more, will never get ink and will never be included in the formula.

THAT WAS A DUMB MOVE. I REALY DONT CARE HOW ANYONE LOOKS AT THIS BUT THE COWBOYS ARE GONNA BE HURTING ON DEFENSE THIS NEXT SEASON. WITH NGUYEN CONTEMPLATING RETIREMENT AND NOT THAT MANY PLAYERS STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE. I JUST THINK THE BOYS MADE A BAD MOVE. WITH NOT SO GOOD DRAFT PICKS, AND A FREE AGENCY THAT IS JUST ALL TO WEIRD. I DONT KNOW THE FATE OF THE LEAGUE NEXT YEAR. THEY STILL MY TEAM I JUST THINK IT WAS A BAD MOVE!!!

DA CHALLENGER

I can understand the argument that sources of revenue related to market size should be shared. After all, none of these owners did anything significant to increase the populations of the communities in which they happen to own teams. [I haven’t seen Jerry Jones run any ‘Move to Dallas’ campaigns.] However, there are sources of revenue that are due to hard work, and ingenuity. I see no earthly reason why those sources should be shared.

Even with the revenue streams that are tied to market size there could be abuses, though. I could see this happening: Bill Bidwill fires his entire merchandise-marketing staff (his brother-in-law), and says, ‘Hah! I just saved $20,000. Let Jerry Jones earn my marketing millions for me. It’s good to be an NFL owner!’

It is never good to stifle initiative, which is what total revenue sharing could accomplish.

So you’re saying that the owners are forcing a 10% cut down the union’s throat? I don’t believe that, because the union would be terming it that and screaming bloody murder about it. They’ve never used that language.

And I don’t think there is unanimity on the owners side about what total revenue is. In fact that I know that’s true because I read Ralph Wilson say today that they owners should have discussed this a long time ago but have not.

I’m well aware the owners don’t operate as a democracy, but Jerry’s in the minority — a vast minority. A 3/4 vote can force him to cough up money he doesn’t want to. He’s in a gang of eight. He needs one more to get his way.

But the information we’ve been getting is so cloudy it’s hard to say what the real internal issues are. And for once, I’m ready to wave off a deal and move on. Upshaw inspires no love from me and I’m not ready to blindly follow Jerry on this one either, because I don’t know what the real internal issues are. We know a lot of his side because he talks to the press more than any other owner, but they’re all taking my joy away. I’m ready for some horse trading. If that makes me sound petulant, well I’ve got plenty of company.

I with ya bro. Let the games begin.

But I’m not suggesting that the players would have to take a cut. Remember, the 64% was actual and the 56.8% is minimum (doesn’t include “dead” money and signing bonuses). The new number is actually a raise from the 55% that the current CBA requires.

Fighter15:

I’m impressed!! Good points.

The bottom line is the NFLPA is reaching too far on this one. As Rafael has pointed out, they are going to clean up no matter what percentage is agreed to…so long as there is an agreement. They would do better to drop the total revenue argument and either seek a higher percentage of defined revenue or take their incessant boohooing to some other place of worship. Starting and ending with the so-called small market owners who they have inadvertantly cast their lot with. The Phoenix metro area is not a ‘small market’, by the way. I’d be willing to wager that the population in that region far exceeds that of Seattle, Denver, Oakland, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh…just to name a few. The fact that the only time the stadium there is filled to capacity is when the Cowboys or Redskins come to town has more to do with the marketing genius of Tex Schramm, George Preston Marshall, Jack Kent Cooke, Daniel Snyder, and Jerry Jones. To penalize innovation and reward the league’s misers is a formula for stagnation and malaise in the NFL.

Upshaw and the NFLPA should be concerned with either reforming or driving out owners like Bidwell & Co. That is where they should focus their ire, not the guys who are paying them and their family’s meal ticket for them. Instead, they are doing just the exact opposite by trying to dip into the successful teams’ bank accounts. The NFLPA is going about this in the totally wrong way, IMO.

The greed of the Union and small markets exposed…

Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:43:10 -0800Rick Gosselin, of the Dallas Morning News, reports the NFL owners and the NFLPA are not that far apart on the labor negotiations. Under the old CBA, the players received 64.5 percent of the designated gross revenue. The new CBA would give them a percentage of all football revenues. The designated gross revenue accounts for 87 percent of the NFL’s gross revenues, generated primarily from network television contracts and ticket sales. Excluded from the financial pot was local revenue generated by teams from suites, parking, concessions, merchandising, signage and stadium naming-rights fees. The players wanted all football revenues included in the pot and then take a percentage of that gross. The owners maintain if the size of the pie increases, the player share of the pie should decrease. So instead of 64 percent of the designated gross, the owners offered 56.2 percent of the gross revenue, and that’s where the stalemate currently exists. NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said he wants the player’s share to be at least 60 percent. …………………………………………………………………..Re: Per KFFL and DMN…Sides not far apart…So they already get 64.5% of 87. That means they currently get 56.1 of the full 100. The owners are offering 56.2, or basically status quo, percentage-wise. But if the money from “suites, parking, concessions, merchandising, signage and stadium naming-rights fees” continues to grow like it has, this will bump everyone’s take up proportionally…………………………………………………………………….I’m scratching my head on this one …. it really just seems like greed on the players’ part. The new offering from the owners appears to be, on the whole, better than what is already in existence….. ………………………………………………………………….. Re: Per KFFL and DMN…Sides not far apart…The owners are offering the same money, but from the whole pie (including the part they weren’t sharing before which is growing substantialy) ………………………………………………………………….GO COWBOYS!
taken off a couple boards…Â