NFLPA vs Owners - The Orange Mane

halfcreek · 03-01-2006, 04:22 PM

While many here are constantly casting aspersions on Upshaw and the NFLPA, there is another perspective on what the roadblock is from the NY Times:

Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said in a telephone interview yesterday that the stumbling block was that owners couldn't agree among themselves on revenue sharing. Owners are divided between high-revenue teams that want to keep more of the money they generate, and lower-revenue teams that want the money to be shared by all teams.

"We've said all along that there's a huge gap between the owners at the top, and those at the other end," Berthelsen said. "We feel our position is very fair, considering the league's revenues. It's just that some clubs do so much better than others. For those at the other end to be able to afford the deal, they need help."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/sp...pagewanted=all

chrisp · 03-01-2006, 04:40 PM

I've heard all of that, and whilst its an important issue, why the hell is it any of Upshaw's business how the owner's divvy their loot? His job is to argue for what proportion goes to the players, not what the owners do with the remainder.

Obviously this doesn't get news coverage over here so i rely on the internet, but it is the most baffling aspect of all of this. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Upshaw and Tags have struck a deal, becuase Tags wants to end that particular squabble and Upshaw wants to succeed Tags. I don't like that explanation as it seems overly cynical, however I've yet to hear any other explanation at all.....bizarre.

chrisp · 03-01-2006, 04:48 PM

That NY times article puts things is a clearer perspective - suggesting that the lower-revenue teams are blocking the agreement to 60 percent - but somehow I can't believe that would ruin any NFL team. Owning one of those franchises is just a licence to print money...

halfcreek · 03-01-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisp

I've heard all of that, and whilst its an important issue, why the hell is it any of Upshaw's business how the owner's divvy their loot? His job is to argue for what proportion goes to the players, not what the owners do with the remainder.

Obviously this doesn't get news coverage over here so i rely on the internet, but it is the most baffling aspect of all of this. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Upshaw and Tags have struck a deal, becuase Tags wants to end that particular squabble and Upshaw wants to succeed Tags. I don't like that explanation as it seems overly cynical, however I've yet to hear any other explanation at all.....bizarre.

It is not really Upshaw's business, but until the owners reach an agreement amongst themselves about revenue sharing, the question of the percentage can not really be addressed, because the difference of a percentage point is huge, and the low revenue franchises have to know how revenue is going to be shared before they agree to a fixed percentage figure.

halfcreek · 03-01-2006, 08:34 PM

A pretty good analysis of where things are at. Interesting that article says that revenue sharing is scheduled to be discussed at the owners' meeting.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349917

Mediator12 · 03-01-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfcreek

A pretty good analysis of where things are at. Interesting that article says that revenue sharing is scheduled to be discussed at the owners' meeting.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349917

It actually implies that it may come up in the overall discussion and never states it is scheduled. In fact, it states:

"The NFL said in a statement after talks broke off that revenue sharing won't be discussed at Thursday's meeting.

Still, it is bound to come up during a meeting that on the surface is considered a strategy session to determine the owners' next move. Labor negotiations often have a way of being moved forward by deadlines, and revenue sharing is considered a critical part of the formula."

halfcreek · 03-01-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediator12

It actually implies that it may come up in the overall discussion and never states it is scheduled. In fact, it states:

"The NFL said in a statement after talks broke off that revenue sharing won't be discussed at Thursday's meeting.

Still, it is bound to come up during a meeting that on the surface is considered a strategy session to determine the owners' next move. Labor negotiations often have a way of being moved forward by deadlines, and revenue sharing is considered a critical part of the formula."

Right Mediator,
I meant to write "not scheduled"

yavoon · 03-01-2006, 09:41 PM

heard an interesting perspective that the owners will always win these fights. right now football players are losing millions of dollars of income off their short careers because of gene upshaw. even if he is morally right that players deserve whatever %, players careers are simply too short to compete w/ owners.

while players lose their money owners can have an outlook that is in the decades instead of years.

SoCalBronco · 03-01-2006, 10:08 PM

POSTED 5:00 p.m. EST; UPDATED 5:12 p.m. EST, March 1, 2006

UPSHAW FACES UPRISING

With roughly eight hours of windshield time on Wednesday to work the phone lines, a clear theme is emerging from our discussions with league insiders.

The NFLPA has left the players in the dark regarding the status of the discussions regarding a CBA extension, and the players are getting pissed.

Very pissed.

We're told that there has been little or no communication from NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw and/or NFLPA president Troy Vincent to the rank-and-file regarding the status of the discussions. With rampant media reports of a looming massacre of veteran players (and the blood already is flowing), guys are getting nervous.

But yet the players are getting no information.

So while Upshaw is being praised by some in the media for digging in his heels against the NFL, many of his constituents would like to dig their toes into his ass.

With that said, we continue to believe that this whole exercise in high drama is a well-orchestrated act between Upshaw and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get a deal done at the eleventh hour.

If it isn't -- and if free agency launches without a new CBA in place -- we predict that there will be open calls at the annual meeting of player representatives for Upshaw to be fired.

Why? Because guys who are in line for decent money will end up, absent an extension, with low-money deals. Take Steelers running back Verron Haynes, for example. With a new CBA, he'd likely get a deal averaging $1.5 million or so a year. Without a new CBA, he's looking at the one-year minimum, at best.

But we shouldn't feel bad for him because he'll be a free agent in 2007, when there's no salary cap, right?

Wrong. Too many players and media types simply don't realize that, in the uncapped year, only guys with six years of credited service will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Guys with three to five years will be subject to the restricted free agency rules. So if Haynes rips it up in 2006, his reward will be one of the three levels of RFA tenders.

Bottom line -- Upshaw is taking a hell of a gamble. If a deal gets done, the players quickly will forgive and forget. If it doesn't, Upshaw might want to take out a lease on Saddam Hussein's spider hole.

www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Mediator12 · 03-01-2006, 10:36 PM

Socal, this sucks. I actually agree with something PFT said

Upshaw and the NFLPA stand to lose way more than the owners over time.

03-01-2006, 04:22 PM	#1
halfcreek Pro Bowler Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 571	NFLPA vs Owners While many here are constantly casting aspersions on Upshaw and the NFLPA, there is another perspective on what the roadblock is from the NY Times: Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said in a telephone interview yesterday that the stumbling block was that owners couldn't agree among themselves on revenue sharing. Owners are divided between high-revenue teams that want to keep more of the money they generate, and lower-revenue teams that want the money to be shared by all teams. "We've said all along that there's a huge gap between the owners at the top, and those at the other end," Berthelsen said. "We feel our position is very fair, considering the league's revenues. It's just that some clubs do so much better than others. For those at the other end to be able to afford the deal, they need help." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/sp...pagewanted=all

03-01-2006, 10:08 PM	#9
SoCalBronco Nixonite Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arcadia, CA Posts: 33,319 Adopt-a-Bronco: D.J. Williams	POSTED 5:00 p.m. EST; UPDATED 5:12 p.m. EST, March 1, 2006 UPSHAW FACES UPRISING With roughly eight hours of windshield time on Wednesday to work the phone lines, a clear theme is emerging from our discussions with league insiders. The NFLPA has left the players in the dark regarding the status of the discussions regarding a CBA extension, and the players are getting pissed. Very pissed. We're told that there has been little or no communication from NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw and/or NFLPA president Troy Vincent to the rank-and-file regarding the status of the discussions. With rampant media reports of a looming massacre of veteran players (and the blood already is flowing), guys are getting nervous. But yet the players are getting no information. So while Upshaw is being praised by some in the media for digging in his heels against the NFL, many of his constituents would like to dig their toes into his ass. With that said, we continue to believe that this whole exercise in high drama is a well-orchestrated act between Upshaw and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get a deal done at the eleventh hour. If it isn't -- and if free agency launches without a new CBA in place -- we predict that there will be open calls at the annual meeting of player representatives for Upshaw to be fired. Why? Because guys who are in line for decent money will end up, absent an extension, with low-money deals. Take Steelers running back Verron Haynes, for example. With a new CBA, he'd likely get a deal averaging $1.5 million or so a year. Without a new CBA, he's looking at the one-year minimum, at best. But we shouldn't feel bad for him because he'll be a free agent in 2007, when there's no salary cap, right? Wrong. Too many players and media types simply don't realize that, in the uncapped year, only guys with six years of credited service will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Guys with three to five years will be subject to the restricted free agency rules. So if Haynes rips it up in 2006, his reward will be one of the three levels of RFA tenders. Bottom line -- Upshaw is taking a hell of a gamble. If a deal gets done, the players quickly will forgive and forget. If it doesn't, Upshaw might want to take out a lease on Saddam Hussein's spider hole. www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm __________________ ITS A PLAYOFF HOCKEY NIGHT IN PITTSBURGH!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-01-2006, 04:40 PM	#2
chrisp Friend of the unsung Not into the football......yet Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 1,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Danny Trevathan	I've heard all of that, and whilst its an important issue, why the hell is it any of Upshaw's business how the owner's divvy their loot? His job is to argue for what proportion goes to the players, not what the owners do with the remainder. Obviously this doesn't get news coverage over here so i rely on the internet, but it is the most baffling aspect of all of this. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Upshaw and Tags have struck a deal, becuase Tags wants to end that particular squabble and Upshaw wants to succeed Tags. I don't like that explanation as it seems overly cynical, however I've yet to hear any other explanation at all.....bizarre.

03-01-2006, 04:48 PM	#3
chrisp Friend of the unsung Not into the football......yet Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 1,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Danny Trevathan	That NY times article puts things is a clearer perspective - suggesting that the lower-revenue teams are blocking the agreement to 60 percent - but somehow I can't believe that would ruin any NFL team. Owning one of those franchises is just a licence to print money...

03-01-2006, 08:34 PM	#5
halfcreek Pro Bowler Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 571	A pretty good analysis of where things are at. Interesting that article says that revenue sharing is scheduled to be discussed at the owners' meeting. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349917

03-01-2006, 09:41 PM	#8
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	heard an interesting perspective that the owners will always win these fights. right now football players are losing millions of dollars of income off their short careers because of gene upshaw. even if he is morally right that players deserve whatever %, players careers are simply too short to compete w/ owners. while players lose their money owners can have an outlook that is in the decades instead of years.

03-01-2006, 10:36 PM	#10
Mediator12 OM analyst REAL Front Seven Bandwagon !!! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: INDY Posts: 9,701 Adopt-a-Bronco: Malik Jackson	Socal, this sucks. I actually agree with something PFT said Upshaw and the NFLPA stand to lose way more than the owners over time.