Hurry Up and Wait: Free Agency Pushed Back 72 Hours

Some of these free agent players must be feeling as anxious as they did on the day they were drafted. Too much uncertainty about where they are going to live, who their coach and teammates will be, etc.

Raf,

72 hours would put it at Wed at 11:01 pm. You put Thurs up there.

Mort just reported an agreement has been reached, but nothing signed or official. Also Lavar Arrington just PAID something like 4 mil to leave now instead of in June.

11:01 pm cowboys time is 12:01 eastern time. Raf is right, as usual.

Rams cut WR Issac Bruce

Jeff,

He said 11:01 CST on Thurs. That is 96 hours, 4 days. 72 hours is 3 days, which would be 11:01 Wed.

Sterling,

This extension is a must. There is $7-8 million dollars of cap space being lost if they do not find this middle ground. A hoard of teams need that space to field a roster, and the NFLPA would be throwing those potential earnings out the window.

I am starting to lean in favor of the owners on this. The revenue the NFLPA is trying to dip into should belong to the person who owns the team. A player can clearly promote himself and sell his name. They can commercialize themselves, and use their popularity to maximize their business potential. The owners should own the rights to sell the team name and profit from the team’s popularity. IMO what the NFLPA is asking for is partial ownership of the teams. I believe that the only reason why this is an issue is because you have lame owners who are also looking to “share revenues” or IMO share ownership of the profitable teams as well. … The guidelines were set to what revenue would be shared, and what revenue would not be shared. Owners should not be penalized for making shrewd business moves to create additional revenue. … Teams like Arizona can loose, loose, and loose some more and always have the big hitters (Dallas, Washington, etc.) to bail them out. But just like the big hitters (individual players) in any sport, including the NFL, profit from being better than the rest, so should the good owners.

IMHO, the NFLPA demanding that all of the NFL revenues be shared equally among owners is the same as the owners demanding each player make the same salary.

Altercall,

It is 11:01 Wednesday. Fixed it.

Sterling,

From what I’ve read the last few minutes it appears that it all came down to the players maintaining their slice. I have not found the percentage but somebody quoted Chris Mortensen on the last thread as saying that the union asked for 59.8 or 59.6% I saw Upshaw interviewed earlier tonight saying that was the percentage they currently get.

I don’t know if he’s correct about this, but that’s where we are now.

As it seems, though, the question now becomes whether there can be 2/3rds of ownership to ratify it.

We’ve heard all along that there are new owners, roughly eight of them and old guard who are strong. What we’ve never learned are the numerical splits among them.

We may find out Tuesday.

I expect the salary cap to stand at 94.5M after Wednesday.
I just can’t see one of the parts (high revenue teams) agreeing to share a big slice of their individual pies with the other part (low revenue teams).
The best thing owners could work out this offseason is to find ways of improving the revenues of the second party, they just have to work together and they’ll find ways of improving, perhaps slightly, the situation as a first step into all the work slated for the first months of next year.

this is redic. i can’t believe the one sport in this world…i thought would never be tampered with was football..during all the hockey drama…i said thankk God this isnt football…and everyone sed…this would NEVER happen to football…because the high demand for it…and look what money can do to the greating gift ever created for man….its ashame…this is really making the nfl look bad…and the fans and players are getting impatient..P.Tag. must feel like the world is on his shoulders..

poor billionare..lol

Rafael:

Upshaw is engaging in some very creative and somewhat misleading rhetoric, IMO. The exact quote from Upshaw is this:

“The talks ended after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years,”

Notice he said a “percentage of revenues” which would be “less than they received over the last 12 years”. I have worked most of my life in the world of percentage rates and basis points, so I know exactly what he is trying to do here. He is creating a false impression that the players are taking a hit because a “percentage of revenues” is less, but in reality that is only true if you structurally change the way revenue is calculated retroactively to the total revenue formula instead of defined, which is what the old CBA was based on. This is the same thing we have been talking about all along. Of course, Upshaw won’t say that because we are now nearing a point where public opinion will start to become an important part of the calculus in this labor dispute and he will have to start defining the owners in the most negative light possible.

I saw Mort talking about the 59.6, although I thought I heard him say 59.5, I could have heard that wrong though. The point is, I can’t imagine why the owners would take that deal when Upshaw has only compromised 40 basis points to the owners essentially giving away 340 basis points, and billions of dollars in the process. If 59.6% is good enough, it makes you wonder why they went through all this drama and posturing for what amounts to only millions of dollars difference. These guys fight over billions in collective bargaining, not millions. I think the problem still lies in the revenue calculation, what qualifies and what doesn’t.

That said, if the owners vote to agree to the 59.6% and total revenue instead of defined revenue, they will unquestionably be the losers in this CBA. If Upshaw gets that CBA through, I take back what I said about him being an idiot. He would then have to be considered one of the greatest labor negotiators since Samuel Gompers. Talk about a lop-sided compromise!!

NFLPA is communist organization! It is promoting revenue sharing between haves (who make 700M-1B) and have nots (who make merely 100M-300M). It gives no motivation to have nots to try to invest more to get better and win which equates to more revenue! (kind of like some folks, not all, who are in welfare and rather to suck the life of the people who work for living and support the free loaders) They have no right to ask revenue sharing of owners who have risked their own money to build their portfolio… now you got this idiot upshow, who has to take his shoes off so he can count to 20, wants everything.. In the mean time many players will be waived and lose tons of money. I’ll say forget about the union and start over again.. Union is the reason for our dawn fall in sport and in our country. I hope to see players to revolt against this idiot … since they got it good! And they know it.

I see your point and it’s crafty of Upshaw to use his TV forum when the owners are under a gag order.

That said, I wonder how much of what’s going on here has to do with dodgy reporting. I tried to listen to ESPN radio folks and they could not get their minds around it, which is not surprising.

This issue should be covered by somebody with some business experience. It reminded me of the baseball strikes, where Murray Chass of the NY Times was the only reporter worth reading because was the only person who understood the negotiations. I keep getting the feeling we’re only getting a fraction of the story and that it’s not altogether by design.

But union membership has dropped precipitously over the last 50 years, Toast. How can a movement with diminishing power be responsible for the downfall of society? Wow, they must be really powerful. But if they’re so powerful….

Toast:

The reason the league agreed originally to revenue sharing in the early days of the NFL is because Pete Rozelle and others realized it is better for all the teams of the league to have competitive games every Sunday. Otherwise you end up with situations like the Harlem Globetrotters and Washington Generals. Have you ever been to a major league baseball game in late August or September after the teams playing have been eliminated from the post-season? I have, I saw the Rangers and Indians in Arlington back in the early 90’s in mid-September, and I felt like I was watching a minor league game…because I was, most of the players were call-ups from the minors because the Rangers were out of the race. We don’t want that kind of non-competitiveness in the NFL.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I am not opposed to the owners sharing TV and regular ticket revenue if it means the difference between watching competitive and entertaining football instead of one-sided blowouts with empty stadiums and lower TV ratings as the net result. The additional revenue owners like Jerry Jones have skillfully earned by monetizing and leveraging the value of their “asset”, the team, should rightfully be theirs to do with what they will. It certainly does not belong to the NFLPA or Bidwells of the league to divide up amongst themselves.

okay, I haven’t really analyzed the numbers, but you can’t compare revenue sharing in sports to other businesses! What, are the “rich” teams going to let the Arizonas and New Orleans of the world lose money and suffer while they take in more and more? Do we want the equivalents of the Expos, Indians, Brewers, etc. in the NFL? I’m a Cowboys fan and love to see my team have a monetary advantage, but in sports you need to have other teams to play against! Now, I don’t know if the small-market “poor” teams are gonna be going broke, but it’s in everyone’s interest to have healthy franchises everywhere. In sports, your competitors are also part of your monopoly, and usual business models don’t hold. I’m not saying Jerry Jones has to give up everything, but it might benefit him and the D Snyders of the League in the long run to share some %

SterlingYou and I twere typing like the same thing at the same time, dude-trippy…
Raf-is Upshaw negotiating well, or benefiting from the pslit among the owners? But if he sees that dissension and takes advantage of it, I guess he’s smart enough..

Question for anyone. I noticed they say some of these ‘cuts’, such as Collins with Oakland, can be rescinded due to the FA extension.

Does this mean Glover’s can as well or is he officially gone? Can the Cowboys keep him then trade him for anything at all or was the discussions about Glover’s worth…some saying as high as an early 2nd…merely a pipe dream?

Another delay!

ARRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!

OK! I’m better now. … Really!

Sterling,

What Upshaw is doing is called deception. It is very close to lying.

He can’t be serious with his argument. Does he really think that people won’t realize that the players would actually get more money with a new deal, and that this percentage crap is a ‘red herring’?

If he were honest, he would say that the owners have offered more money, but we want even more. Too bad honesty is not an option in most management-labor negotiations.

Mr. Bill,

Eugene…formerly known as Tuck, here where he played college ball, is that hypocrite that we all see. I am a member of the union in the Post Office, and with some notable differences, most of the union ‘influencials’ are a bunch of self serving and self justifying members…who end up back dooring real, and timely help to the individual member who is NOT priviledged….after there is a little money flowing, they stand back and say….lookie there at what WE have done.

After sleeping on this issue for the night, I have a bit different take on this CBA thing than I did yesterday evening.

Instead of waking up today looking forward to the FA signings to begin like a kid on Christmas morning, we have to wait…again. And for what? I think it is a foregone conclusion that the owners are going to vote down this union offer tomorrow in Dallas. They’ve come too far in these negotiations to accept only half a percentage point from the union’s starting number. This thing is turning into the public relations stage. Upshaw putting this forward and the league agreeing to take it before the owners to vote on is simple gamesmanship on both sides. Neither can afford to look like they are turning their backs on a compromise and walking away from the issue, but apparently neither one is willing to give in much in their demands if you look at this reported 59.6% as any indication of how much the NFLPA has budged off their 60%.

All this is telling me now, after a night and over an hour this morning to reflect on it, is that neither side wants a deal bad enough to meet somewhere in the middle. There is no spirit of compromise at this point in the negotiations. It is all about getting the fans to think their side is being victimized by the greed of the other side. The war is shifting to the PR battlefield. Don’t be surprised if there is another delay too. The next one could include a counter-offer agreement coming from the owner’s meeting in Dallas and given to the league to present to the NFLPA. I wouldn’t be surprised to read the words “Last, Best, and Final Offer” somewhere in the press release. That way, if…er, when the NFLPA rejects it, the owners can claim to have made one last good faith attempt at forging a compromise. Funny, since I don’t believe either side is truly willing to compromise at all at this point.

I think there are also some that believe this whole non-salary-cap-NFL world could be their best shot at a windfall payday or being the owner of the next sports dynasty. My guess is they will get the opportunity to put that to the test.

One of the sticking points among the owners and revenue sharing is that some owners have really leveraged up their teams and need every dollar of income to get by. An option that I heard that makes some sense is to give these high revenue teams deductions for their expense levels. Make it more of a net revenue figure, not a gross revenue figure. Now, there would be a lot of details to work out on making it reasonable, but the concept seems workable to me.

Toast,

I think you are right on the money. (no pun intended) It is like welfare, and the hard working people busting their butts to get ahead, and then told that they have to share equally everything they make. … It takes away any motivation to produce. Upshaw’s stance is a comunist one! If the owners countered with a deal that all the high salaried players will have to make up for the “non producing” players, and share their salaries with them, then the players would walk out. So why should the highly productive owners share ALL of their revenues with the “non producers”? .. The NFLPA wants its cake and eat it too!!

Trust me too when I say this, the MLBPA thought the fans would always be there. This year NASCAR had higher ratings than the World Series!! The NBA, MLB, and NHL are begging their fans to come back. They have already shown their hands, and they didn’t give a crap about the image of the sport they represnt. Surely they showed that they didn’t give a crap about the fans who support them. Now they are all considered secondary sports to football. The NFL has cashed in, and so do the players if they simply keep the same % of the NFL’s revenues. … It has been a proven fact that as these sport orginizations have turned their backs on their fans, the fans have left that sport in favor of other sports. I know I have turned in my NY Mets season tickets, and the TV ratings don’t lie. Hockey struggles mightily to fill the seats. Today a host of Americans look at the NBA as a sport filled with thugs and hoodlems.

Let Upshaw maintain his shrewd business stance, and he may get a bigger piece of the pie. Let them forget about the fans and that pie will be much smaller. …..

In the past, the mistake the sports orginizations have made is thinking that the fans will always be there. In large numbers the fans have walked away from the sports, the players, the owners that were so puffed up with themselves that they didn’t consider the fan. .. The guy who works an entire week to take his son to a game. .. They are millionaires fighting for even more money!! Let them forget the fans and I will rejoice when its the Super Bowl getting lower ratings then NASCAR (just like I do when I hear about the WS). No way!! … That’s what baseball players thought a few years ago too!!

How much More? The problem with the union is.. they keep raising the stake throughout the years.. as if they are the one who built the sport! the fact is if guys like Jones didn’t invest heavily and promoted the sport skillfully, these guys would not have made nearly as much as they do now. Eric R, I am afraid if upshaw and his lawyers continue down this path.. NFL will join the rank of the NHL, Basketball, and baseball… and that would be a shame.

Toast,

The motto of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” need apply. Revenue sharing defined by the current CBA worked. Period! End of discusion! … The players stand to loose! They will loose $7-8 million per team this year. With the drastic cuts expectected they stand to loose over $200 million in “potential salary”. Will they make that up next year with an uncapped amount? I doubt that if the unstableness of the league’s future doesn’t improve. … Then in 2008, the owners can rightfully make their own rules and then its onto anti-trust law suits. With the NFLPA trying to dip into owners’ revenues, and teams’ revenues, I think its a fight they will loose. They are tapped into the money that I believe a court will acknowledge they are prevy to. .. Remember 65% of $5.0 billion is more than 65% of $4.2 billion. So the players are already getting a significant raise by keeping status quoe. If they were demanding a 1-5% increase within that defined revenue then I wouldn’t have such a problem, but they are “over-reaching” here. … Even if Upshaw wanted to tap into the undefined revenue, there would be a better way to go about it. He should take the 65% of the defined revenue and an amount (not a percent) from each team’s “other” revenue. Therefore he is putting more emphasis on unproductive owners to become more productive. If the NFLPA were asking for the 65% plus lets say $10 million per team from “other” revenues, then I think the numbers start to fall into place better. .. But trying to force owners to share all revenues and tap into that amount, isn’t right. Some owners deserve a bigger piece of the pie than others just like some players deserve more money than others. Competative balance is best across the board!! … With a demand like the 65% of shared revenues plus $10 million per team the NFLPA would earn the players a parallel increase in shared revenues, which standing alone is a significant raise, plus over $300 million per year in actual salaries. .. To put it into perspective a deal like that would, in a single year, raise the NFLPA total projected salaries from $2.8 billion (last year) to $3.5. Under the current CBA, the players were due to see an already significant $400 million raise in salaries due to TV contracts. So if I were the owners I would add in that “other” revenue gradually, maybe starting off at $5 million. Hence giving the players an immediate half billion dollar raise and it would give subpar owners a chance to find ways to spur up revenue.

Well said ER.

Toast,

http://www.vertgame.com/sal_cap.html

Check this link out and scroll down a bit to the salary cap numbers chart. In 1994, the cap was $35 million per team. The proposed cap figure this year would be close to $105 million. A 300% raise in 12 years isn’t too shabby. I think the NFLPA is too worried about how much owners are making, otherwise that is significant improvement that they can hang their hats on. … If no CBA is reached and players are cut in masses, they will have their representation to blame.

ER,
It is all greed my friend! 300% increase.. that is incredible. In a way I hope owners just tell the union to go pack sand! If they don’t like it.. tough. I love what President Reagan did with air traffic controllers years ago, when their tried to push him around.. not very smart.. he hired all new crew and screwed the union. I think we should do the same.. I know it will take some time for it to work… but it will and would be much better. I mm tired of all these premadanas.

Eric R,

You are close to a solution I have been pondering, only I was thinking of percentages.

Take the unshared revenue streams from the previous year, and set a percentage of that figure (say 80, just for grins). That 80 now becomes completely shared, and goes into the revenue calculations for the players. If any team makes more than the shared level, it gets to keep every penny of the surplus. That way, low-revenue teams are still helped, if not as much, players get a bigger pie to share, if not as large, and the high-revenue teams get to keep some of the results of their labors, although not all. I used percentages, because that is the easiest way to adjust the level from year to year, as revenues rise and fall.

They could even use a different percentage for each type of revenue stream, if it was thought to be appropriate.