New CBA Deal as reported by Espin - The Orange Mane

Kaylore · 03-08-2006, 10:29 PM

I know there is a thread on this but the thread didn't have any official news and I needed a thread for the front page since I'm the only editor who has posted there for four months.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- NFL owners chose the certainty of a salary cap over the prospect of life without one, and they're paying for it.

The league agreed Wednesday to the union's proposal, including a revenue-sharing component that will cost owners nearly a billion dollars over the next six years.

The deal will carry the NFL's 32 franchises through the 2011 season. Two low-revenue teams, Buffalo and Cincinnati, cast the only votes against.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said $850 million to $900 million in players' salary will be added over the life of the deal because of the revenue-sharing component, which the union fought for throughout the on-again, off-again talks. The money will come from the teams that make the most in revenue beyond the television money that is already shared. Only the top 15 revenue teams in each year will be required to pay into that part of the salary pool.

"On behalf of the players, the NFLPA staff and the negotiating team, we are pleased that this process has finally concluded with an agreement," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement. "This agreement is not about one side winning or losing. Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League.

"Moving forward, this new agreement gives us the opportunity to continue our unprecedented success and growth."

After announcing the agreement, the NFL asked the players' union to push back the start of free agency from 12:01 a.m. ET Friday to 12:01 a.m. ET Saturday.

Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that since the NFL has approved the labor proposal, he will grant the NFL's request to push back free agency. Upshaw told Mortensen that while he has not yet actually granted the delay, he planned to do so.

The formal announcement of the extension will likely come on Thursday.

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension will add $7.5 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it to $102 million, Mortensen reports. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million. The 2007 cap will be $109 million.

"We want teams to get additional money to re-sign players, rather than cutting them," Tagliabue said.

Teams had until 11 p.m. ET Wednesday to be cap compliant, a deadline that was pushed back early Wednesday from the original 9 p.m. ET cutoff.

"The union is delighted," NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. "The new CBA is a big leap forward for the players and means a fairer system for all. It also means seven more years of labor peace. Fans can now forget about the lawyers and owners and enjoy football."

The deal was put together by nine teams who began on different sides of the revenue-sharing debate, including such high-revenue teams as New England and Dallas.

"We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother."

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no."

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

WABronco · 03-08-2006, 10:55 PM

Lol, Wilson voted against it because he didn't understand it? Why didn't he say something? Ask one of his sensible assistants to vote for him?

Imagine if he would've been the swing vote in a 23 to 8 situation...

Kaylore · 03-08-2006, 11:00 PM

I know you have to feel bad if senile old tools like Al Davis get something and you don't. Anyway, that's more like one abstaining and one no vote. Pretty close to unanimous which is impressive given its a bunch of old, rich dudes.

WABronco · 03-08-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I know you have to feel bad if senile old tools like Al Davis get something and you don't. Anyway, that's more like one abstaining and one no vote. Pretty close to unanimous which is impressive given its a bunch of old, rich dudes.

Al Davis looked hideous (I know...more than usual).

03-08-2006, 10:29 PM	#1
Kaylore 6-37, Raider fans. Yummy birds and snow! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ceti Alpha V Posts: 41,074 Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke	New CBA Deal as reported by Espin I know there is a thread on this but the thread didn't have any official news and I needed a thread for the front page since I'm the only editor who has posted there for four months. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258 GRAPEVINE, Texas -- NFL owners chose the certainty of a salary cap over the prospect of life without one, and they're paying for it. The league agreed Wednesday to the union's proposal, including a revenue-sharing component that will cost owners nearly a billion dollars over the next six years. The deal will carry the NFL's 32 franchises through the 2011 season. Two low-revenue teams, Buffalo and Cincinnati, cast the only votes against. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said $850 million to $900 million in players' salary will be added over the life of the deal because of the revenue-sharing component, which the union fought for throughout the on-again, off-again talks. The money will come from the teams that make the most in revenue beyond the television money that is already shared. Only the top 15 revenue teams in each year will be required to pay into that part of the salary pool. "On behalf of the players, the NFLPA staff and the negotiating team, we are pleased that this process has finally concluded with an agreement," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement. "This agreement is not about one side winning or losing. Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League. "Moving forward, this new agreement gives us the opportunity to continue our unprecedented success and growth." After announcing the agreement, the NFL asked the players' union to push back the start of free agency from 12:01 a.m. ET Friday to 12:01 a.m. ET Saturday. Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that since the NFL has approved the labor proposal, he will grant the NFL's request to push back free agency. Upshaw told Mortensen that while he has not yet actually granted the delay, he planned to do so. The formal announcement of the extension will likely come on Thursday. "It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote." The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension will add $7.5 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it to $102 million, Mortensen reports. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million. The 2007 cap will be $109 million. "We want teams to get additional money to re-sign players, rather than cutting them," Tagliabue said. Teams had until 11 p.m. ET Wednesday to be cap compliant, a deadline that was pushed back early Wednesday from the original 9 p.m. ET cutoff. "The union is delighted," NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. "The new CBA is a big leap forward for the players and means a fairer system for all. It also means seven more years of labor peace. Fans can now forget about the lawyers and owners and enjoy football." The deal was put together by nine teams who began on different sides of the revenue-sharing debate, including such high-revenue teams as New England and Dallas. "We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother." Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them. Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no." "I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

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

03-08-2006, 10:55 PM	#2
WABronco WE SUCK AGAIN All dat force Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Denver Posts: 4,976	Lol, Wilson voted against it because he didn't understand it? Why didn't he say something? Ask one of his sensible assistants to vote for him? Imagine if he would've been the swing vote in a 23 to 8 situation...

03-08-2006, 11:00 PM	#3
Kaylore 6-37, Raider fans. Yummy birds and snow! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ceti Alpha V Posts: 41,074 Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke	I know you have to feel bad if senile old tools like Al Davis get something and you don't. Anyway, that's more like one abstaining and one no vote. Pretty close to unanimous which is impressive given its a bunch of old, rich dudes.