NFL CBA Extended 6 Years

[CrabMan]

Only two teams voted against the proposal, Buffalo and.............yep, Cincinnati.


SI.com

Peace at last
Owners approve labor deal; CBA extended six years
Posted: Wednesday March 8, 2006 11:48AM; Updated: Wednesday March 8, 2006 9:23PM


Paul Tagliabue can now turn his attention to other league matters after recent marathon negotiation sessions.
AP


GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) -- Labor peace was restored to the NFL when the owners agreed to the players' union proposal Wednesday, extending the collective bargaining agreement for six years.

There were no further details on the accord, including whether it includes expanded revenue sharing.

The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.

Free agency, put off twice by the protracted negotiations between the owners and players, now will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

"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 comes after a week of on-again, off-again negotiations, culminating in a two-day owners meeting.

No work stoppage was imminent -- at least for the next two years -- but no agreement would have sent teams scrambling to get under a lower salary cap, at $94.5 million. That would have put a number of veterans on the street and limited the amount of money available for other free agents.

Some were already let go, such as Brentson Buckner, a 13-year veteran who was cut by the Carolina Panthers last week to clear about $1.5 million of cap space.

"It was eventually going to happen, they had to get it done," he said. "But it's good because now it gives guys who put in the time to become a big-time free agent, the guys like Edgerrin James, the chance to go out and get what they've earned."

No CBA deal would've led to an uncapped year in 2007.

Now, the salary limit is expected to go up by as much as $10 million with an extension in place.

"It's also good for the guys like me because now somebody has a little extra money and they can go after a veteran who might have gotten squeezed out in this," Buckner said. "I'm sure the veteran minimum is going to go up, so guys like me can go out and get a one-year somewhere and feel good about the situation they are going into."

The real debate was between the owners themselves on the important issue of expanded revenue sharing.

The issue involves low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis who say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in nonfootball income from things such as advertising and local radio rights.

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Snyder said. "This is really a win-win."

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, has insisted throughout more than a year of negotiations that this division must be resolved before agreement can be reached on a contract extension.

"This agreement is not about one side winning or losing," Upshaw said in a statement. "Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League. As caretakers of the game we have acted in the manner the founders intended.

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

 

[sandgk]

Interesting that the Bills and Bengals voted against the new CBA, yet the Colts finally voted in favor, though expressed the same desire for expanded (proportionate) revenue sharing.

As jwins asked in the original thread covering the negotiations - is it fair that Dan Snyder be asked to pony up that much more in total dollars, just because he has a better marketed / more marketable product?

(Or as Mike Brown asks, is it fair that the Bengals give 50% of their outside income, when Danny boy only antes a 10 spot from his pool?)

 

[jwinslow]

hats off to both sides for saving the day!

 

[tibor75]

Shocking! soP votes against it! I can't wait till he's gone - that will be a great day for Cincinnati.

 

[BuckeyeTillIDie]

Thank God, the 'Skins have been saved.

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

I am glad they were able to come to an agreement. I think its better for the league down the road......

 

[exhawg]

From the vote it is obvious that the revenue sharing deal still favors the big money teams. My only question is are Cincy and the Bills really the 2 lowest revenue teams or just the biggest bitches? I'm surprised that Indy is mentioned as having a low revenue. I figured that having a good team would help with the revenue. That being said wouldn't the Cardinals have the lowest revenue? Where do small market large fan base teams like the Packers and Browns fit in the whole revenue thing?

 

[exhawg]

Never mind about my above post. One of the no votes came from this guy-

"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."

Followed by a "dee dee dee".

and the other came from the above mentioned "soP". If Arizona voted yes this was obviously a good deal for everyone.

 

[BB73]

I give Upshaw credit for taking a tough stance to get the most he could for the players. That's his job.

Tagliabue had to get a deal done to cement his legacy. Everybody says he'll be gone within 2 years.

I'm also happy we won't to hear about this crap for 5 or 6 years.

 

[BuckBackHome]

From the vote it is obvious that the revenue sharing deal still favors the big money teams. My only question is are Cincy and the Bills really the 2 lowest revenue teams or just the biggest bitches? I'm surprised that Indy is mentioned as having a low revenue. I figured that having a good team would help with the revenue. That being said wouldn't the Cardinals have the lowest revenue? Where do small market large fan base teams like the Packers and Browns fit in the whole revenue thing?

I haven't seen an article breaking down the whole agreement, and maybe there isn't one yet, but there was some comment a few days ago that Green Bay was one of the high revenue teams. I found that to be surprising. It provided no more information.

 

[sandgk]

From the vote it is obvious that the revenue sharing deal still favors the big money teams. My only question is are Cincy and the Bills really the 2 lowest revenue teams or just the biggest bitches? I'm surprised that Indy is mentioned as having a low revenue. I figured that having a good team would help with the revenue. That being said wouldn't the Cardinals have the lowest revenue? Where do small market large fan base teams like the Packers and Browns fit in the whole revenue thing?

I took their votes more on the lines of well hell, no-one else in the small market group will register our dismay, so we will do it for them -- as there were clearly more than the 24 votes needed in favor of this deal.

As for the Bill's Boys in AZ, don't they buy their players with other monies (like Green Book stamps and the same)?

FWIW this a list Forbes put together of richest franchises (from 2003).
For the most part, value of franshise reflexts its money generating capacity. Someexceptions such as the relatively new and expensive expansion franchise (Houston Texans).

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 width=300 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left colSpan=3>Team Values</TD></TR><TR><TD>1.</TD><TD>Washington Redskins</TD><TD>$952 (mil)</TD></TR><TR><TD>2.</TD><TD>Dallas Cowboys</TD><TD>$851</TD></TR><TR><TD>3.</TD><TD>Houston Texans</TD><TD>$791</TD></TR><TR><TD>4.</TD><TD>New England Patriots</TD><TD>$756</TD></TR><TR><TD>5.</TD><TD>Cleveland Browns</TD><TD>$695</TD></TR><TR><TD>6.</TD><TD>Denver Broncos</TD><TD>$683</TD></TR><TR><TD>7.</TD><TD>Tampa Bay Buccaneers</TD><TD>$671</TD></TR><TR><TD>8.</TD><TD>Baltimore Ravens</TD><TD>$649</TD></TR><TR><TD>9.</TD><TD>Carolina Panthers</TD><TD>$642</TD></TR><TR><TD>10.</TD><TD>Miami Dolphins</TD><TD>$683</TD></TR><TR><TD>11.</TD><TD>Detroit Lions</TD><TD>$635</TD></TR><TR><TD>12.</TD><TD>Chicago Bears</TD><TD>$621</TD></TR><TR><TD>13.</TD><TD>Tennessee Titans</TD><TD>$620</TD></TR><TR><TD>14.</TD><TD>Philadelphia Eagles</TD><TD>$617</TD></TR><TR><TD>15.</TD><TD>Seattle Seahawks</TD><TD>$610</TD></TR><TR><TD>16.</TD><TD>Green Bay Packers</TD><TD>$609</TD></TR><TR><TD>17.</TD><TD>Pittsburgh Steelers</TD><TD>$608</TD></TR><TR><TD>18.</TD><TD>St. Louis Rams</TD><TD>$602</TD></TR><TR><TD>19.</TD><TD>Kansas City Chiefs</TD><TD>$601</TD></TR><TR><TD>20.</TD><TD>New Orleans Saints</TD><TD>$585</TD></TR><TR><TD>21.</TD><TD>Oakland Raiders</TD><TD>$576</TD></TR><TR><TD>22.</TD><TD>New York Giants</TD><TD>$573</TD></TR><TR><TD>23.</TD><TD>Jacksonville Jaguars</TD><TD>$569</TD></TR><TR><TD>24.</TD><TD>San Francisco 49ers</TD><TD>$568</TD></TR><TR><TD>25.</TD><TD>New York Jets</TD><TD>$567</TD></TR><TR><TD>26.</TD><TD>Buffalo Bills</TD><TD>$564</TD></TR><TR><TD>27.</TD><TD>Cincinnati Bengals</TD><TD>$562</TD></TR><TR><TD>28.</TD><TD>San Diego Chargers</TD><TD>$561</TD></TR><TR><TD>29.</TD><TD>Indianapolis Colts</TD><TD>$547</TD></TR><TR><TD>30.</TD><TD>Minnesota Vikings</TD><TD>$542</TD></TR><TR><TD>31.</TD><TD>Atlanta Falcons</TD><TD>$534</TD></TR><TR><TD>32.</TD><TD>Arizona Cardinals</TD><TD>$505</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[stxbuck]

I guess merchandising/national appeal is key for the Skins/Cowboys. I never would have expected that the Jets, Giants, and Raiders would be in the same ballpark value-wise as the Bengals.