PDA

View Full Version : CBA Agreed To?


Hines
07-14-2011, 09:02 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6768521/nfl-lockout-owners-players-moving-towards-cba-settlement-source-says?campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

Halsey
07-14-2011, 09:09 PM
Meh...Let me know when they make official announcements about when free agency and camps start.

Hines
07-14-2011, 09:11 PM
John Clayton reports the salary cap will be 120 million for each team.

killxswitch
07-14-2011, 09:28 PM
John Clayton reports the salary cap will be 120 million for each team.

That sucks. I was really hoping it would go up some. It is going to be a ***** to re-sign Peyton.

gpngc
07-14-2011, 09:43 PM
Free agency frenzy 7 days after this gets settled is going to be EPIC.

Pat Sims 90
07-14-2011, 09:43 PM
John Clayton reports the salary cap will be 120 million for each team.

I just hope they make the Owners spend all the Salary Cap so that Mike Brown can't be a cheap ass anymore. Can only hope this new deal will force him to sign a GM.

jrdrylie
07-14-2011, 09:43 PM
If they have agreed to a salary cap then that means they have likely agreed (or at least close to agreeing) how they are splitting up the revenue. I'm really happy they have agreed to a rookie wage scale. I expect this thing is worked out within the next week.

gpngc
07-14-2011, 09:46 PM
I just hope they make the Owners spend all the Salary Cap so that Mike Brown can't be a cheap ass anymore. Can only hope this new deal will force him to sign a GM.

That has been a point of contention. Not so much the salary cap but the salary floor. Owners like Brown thought the proposal was way too high (I think the proposal for the floor was 90% of the salary cap).

T-RICH49
07-14-2011, 10:41 PM
we're gonna have to spend a crapload just to get to the salary floor

gpngc
07-14-2011, 10:59 PM
John Clayton reports the salary cap will be 120 million for each team.

Apparently it will "feel like $130 million." Whatever that means...

Splat
07-14-2011, 11:06 PM
we're gonna have to spend a crapload just to get to the salary floor

Lockup Hali,Flowers and Bowe in that order.

SaintsFanForLife
07-15-2011, 09:12 AM
Im just ready for this to kick off. Aug will be a crazy month and im ready for it.

K Train
07-15-2011, 09:22 AM
rookie wage scale is agrred to in principle....and by the reported numbers if i was sam bradford or matt stafford id take my signing bonus and swim in it.

5th year is essentially a transition tag option, they have to get paid top 10 at the position if the team wants to keep them...i think thats a good way to do it

bearsfan_51
07-15-2011, 02:02 PM
Demaurice Smith just owned the owners. Telling them at the last minute that they had a $200,000 insurance policy per player in case of a lockout? Priceless.

If you're wondering why they've made such great progress over the last few days, that's why. The owners got p'wnd.

killxswitch
07-15-2011, 02:56 PM
Demaurice Smith just owned the owners. Telling them at the last minute that they had a $200,000 insurance policy per player in case of a lockout? Priceless.

If you're wondering why they've made such great progress over the last few days, that's why. The owners got p'wnd.

That is crazy. I'm surprised he didn't pull that one out earlier on. But it seems like it kicked the owners in the ass and fast-forwarded football getting back to us so... whatever.

DoughBoy
07-15-2011, 03:33 PM
I hate D. Smith... but I have to give him props for that bad ass maneuver.

K Train
07-15-2011, 03:35 PM
demaurice smith pulling out last second jew tactics....pretty hilarious

T-RICH49
07-15-2011, 05:25 PM
Lockup Hali,Flowers and Bowe in that order.

and Carr as well

falloutboy14
07-15-2011, 10:33 PM
Gotta say that insurance policy is a smart move. We all knew that a third of the players wouldn't plan ahead and would be their own downfall. Wonder what a $200k policy for 1700 players costs.

Dam8610
07-15-2011, 10:59 PM
Gotta say that insurance policy is a smart move. We all knew that a third of the players wouldn't plan ahead and would be their own downfall. Wonder what a $200k policy for 1700 players costs.

That depends entirely on the insurance company's assessment of the risk of payout. Considering it's a $340 million insurance policy, I'd imagine it cost at least $100 million.

boknows34
07-16-2011, 02:11 AM
Vikings punter Chris Kluwe posted this on his twitter account yesterday.

http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisWarcraft/status/91877269726969856

I_opRmBPPBk

Chris Harris replied:

http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisHarrisNFL/status/91889118744809472

:)

descendency
07-16-2011, 06:05 AM
The only remaining steps according to numerous sources (granted, none are "major") is to settle the two lawsuits (antitrust, tv contracts) and for the owners to approve the CBA.

descendency
07-16-2011, 06:06 AM
If they have agreed to a salary cap then that means they have likely agreed (or at least close to agreeing) how they are splitting up the revenue. I'm really happy they have agreed to a rookie wage scale. I expect this thing is worked out within the next week.

The salary cap agreement has supposedly been around the longest. There are a lot of little details (comparatively) that the owners and players were fighting over, such as rookie wages.

edit: From what I've read all but first round rookie wages have increased.

SolidGold
07-16-2011, 12:46 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/16/players-seek-reduction-in-training-camp-contact/#comments


give me a break...its football. Players look like douches on this one.

vidae
07-16-2011, 01:30 PM
Meh...Let me know when they make official announcements about when free agency and camps start.

Gotta agree here. Every week they're "close" and nothing. Call me when it's over.

cmarq83
07-16-2011, 05:43 PM
Demaurice Smith just owned the owners. Telling them at the last minute that they had a $200,000 insurance policy per player in case of a lockout? Priceless.

If you're wondering why they've made such great progress over the last few days, that's why. The owners got p'wnd.

I feel like the owners had to have known beforehand about this insurance policy. If players had an NFLPA insurance policy due to be paid when they were decertified I feel like that would have had to have been included in the injunction and anti-trust cases. An omission of that I feel would have been a huge case of withholding evidence. I'm certainly not a corporate lawyer, but to me it seems like if somebody is arguing that they're decertified as a union but are due to make $200,000 in an insurance policy from that defunct union, that is a hard argument to make that it is a valid decertification.

wicket
07-16-2011, 06:01 PM
That depends entirely on the insurance company's assessment of the risk of payout. Considering it's a $340 million insurance policy, I'd imagine it cost at least $100 million.

i honestly think the players will earn that back i the negotiations though

boknows34
07-16-2011, 07:19 PM
Lawyers will have language of the contract done by Tuesday. Owners vote will be next Thursday - 24 votes needed out of 32 for ratification.

Mort at ESPN expects the lockout to officially end Friday Jul 22nd at 00.01. Free agency will begin Monday Jul 25th at 00.01 EST after a 72-hour window where teams can exclusively negotiate with their own free agents. (This is instead of the 3 right-of-first-refusals on UFAs which the owners wanted but failed to get in negotiations).

The new CBA will be for 10 years so no more labor/strike/lockout issues until at least 2021.

49erNation85
07-16-2011, 08:01 PM
Thank god this horrible BS crap is almost over and done with.Teams can now get down to some serious practicing and mini camps.Along with singing some FA and lets get it on!

killxswitch
07-18-2011, 08:10 AM
Thank god this horrible BS crap is almost over and done with.Teams can now get down to some serious practicing and mini camps.Along with singing some FA and lets get it on!

No minicamps. The time for those has passed, it's about time for training camp.

Smooth Criminal
07-18-2011, 09:36 AM
And I'm gonna be on a submarine for free agency and the MLB trade deadline. ****.

killxswitch
07-18-2011, 10:33 PM
Packers have told their players to show up on Saturday for a meeting at the team facility.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/source-packers-are-telling-players-to-be-ready-to-show-up-on-saturday/

Soon I can take down my sig! Maybe.

boknows34
07-19-2011, 02:04 AM
Mort at ESPN expects the lockout to officially end Friday Jul 22nd at 00.01. Free agency will begin Monday Jul 25th at 00.01 EST after a 72-hour window where teams can exclusively negotiate with their own free agents. (This is instead of the 3 right-of-first-refusals on UFAs which the owners wanted but failed to get in negotiations).

Latest reports say that teams will be given 3 days to digest the new free agency and salary cap rules starting this Friday (July 22), followed by 3 days (from July 25) to sign undrafted rookies and exclusively negotiate with their own free agents. The free agency feeding frenzy should now start on July 28.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 01:38 PM
I am a little pissed. VJax, Mankins, and now supposedly Brees and Manning are all looking for a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag. I at least understand it from Jackson and Mankins since they're younger and even Brees might get another big contract. I don't like it but I get it. But I really don't understand why Manning would do this. He's already in-line to be the highest-paid football player ever. Irsay has already committed to this. Why does he need leverage? He has all the leverage in the world. If he leaves Indy, the team is in the toilet for several years at least. And this will be his last contract. He's 35. Why is he doing this?

bearsfan_51
07-19-2011, 01:42 PM
Because he's insane.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243726/

Sloopy
07-19-2011, 01:44 PM
I am a little pissed. VJax, Mankins, and now supposedly Brees and Manning are all looking for a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag. I at least understand it from Jackson and Mankins since they're younger and even Brees might get another big contract. I don't like it but I get it. But I really don't understand why Manning would do this. He's already in-line to be the highest-paid football player ever. Irsay has already committed to this. Why does he need leverage? He has all the leverage in the world. If he leaves Indy, the team is in the toilet for several years at least. And this will be his last contract. He's 35. Why is he doing this?

Really? Got a link?

I would hope this not to be true. I would however understand not wanting not to be franchise tagged this year as he would like to get the long term deal done and have security considering his neck injury and the possibility that we talked about with two rookie tackles protecting him and almost no time to get them ready for the season

MidwayMonster31
07-19-2011, 01:49 PM
I think having the franchise tag used only once is fine. 3 times is too many, especially when somebody doesn't want to be there, like VJax. I think they will cause a little delay, but not big enough to affect anything.

DoughBoy
07-19-2011, 01:59 PM
I almost wan't them to hold it up. Imagine if the NFL missed games because of 4 players? fans would ******* riot.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 02:10 PM
Really? Got a link?

I would hope this not to be true. I would however understand not wanting not to be franchise tagged this year as he would like to get the long term deal done and have security considering his neck injury and the possibility that we talked about with two rookie tackles protecting him and almost no time to get them ready for the season

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/peyton-manning-and-drew-brees-request-settlement-terms/

Sloopy
07-19-2011, 02:39 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/peyton-manning-and-drew-brees-request-settlement-terms/

:( was really hoping you didn't have one and that it was just a rumor (nothing against you, just didn't want it to be true)

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 03:00 PM
:( was really hoping you didn't have one and that it was just a rumor (nothing against you, just didn't want it to be true)

I calmed down and thought about it and talked to some other guys. I think it's just kind of a "let's see if they say yes" kind of thing. I don't think it is going to slow anything down and I really doubt Manning is interested in leaving or in hamstringing the Colts. More like when you buy a car and you ask for 5 free oil changes after you've already got the price you want. If you don't get it, who cares?

AntoinCD
07-19-2011, 03:06 PM
I calmed down and thought about it and talked to some other guys. I think it's just kind of a "let's see if they say yes" kind of thing. I don't think it is going to slow anything down and I really doubt Manning is interested in leaving or in hamstringing the Colts. More like when you buy a car and you ask for 5 free oil changes after you've already got the price you want. If you don't get it, who cares?

I think that's exactly what it is. You don't get without asking and if they say no then they say no. This wont delay anything IMO. Imagine the uproar if everything was agreed to but Drew Brees was demanding never to be franchised and stopped the whole process. How do you think that would sit with all the rank and file players? These are the players who's names are on the lawsuit so they are simply trying to milk it. I suppose there's no harm in trying but it does come across as greedy and selfish.

Smooth Criminal
07-19-2011, 04:02 PM
Can you imagine the response from the other players, fans, and owners if these guys hold up a deal? They become the most hated people in all of sports.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 04:12 PM
Can you imagine the response from the other players, fans, and owners if these guys hold up a deal? They become the most hated people in all of sports.

That's why I doubt it will actually slow anything. There are no reports that talks broke down today, and if anything we keep hearing more positive things. I think it'll be fine. Kind of greedy and annoying but I guess that's the business side of things.

Watchman
07-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Can you imagine the response from the other players, fans, and owners if these guys hold up a deal? They become the most hated people in all of sports.

I can't see how the owners could agree to an exemption for specific players. I could see something like the franchise tag can only be used on a player two times, or something like that. I don't think the CBA should be gummed up by making sure that a small group (what four) of players get a concession from the owners.

sbh15
07-19-2011, 04:47 PM
And I'm gonna be on a submarine for free agency and the MLB trade deadline. ****.

I would be ******* stoked to go on a submarine

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 10:34 PM
Looks like outside of Mankins none of the other players mentioned are owning up to the idea of wanting extras. Manning, Brees, and Jackson all have denounced the reports stating they'll hinder negotiations to get tag exemptions. Mankins is still an unknown.

DoughBoy
07-19-2011, 10:36 PM
If Mankins held up a deal he would make Lebron look like Tim Tebow.

phlysac
07-19-2011, 10:53 PM
Can you imagine the response from the other players, fans, and owners if these guys hold up a deal? They become the most hated people in all of sports.

I'm sure it would be similar to Viking's punter Chris Kluwe's response...

@ChrisWarcraft Chris Kluwe

Sigh, and once again greed is the operative by word. Congrats Brees, Manning, Mankins, and Jackson for being 'that guy'. #douchebags
http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisWarcraft

boknows34
07-20-2011, 12:11 AM
Can't believe all u read or see in media. I have made no demands, I wanna play ball like the rest of my peers! - Vincent Jackson on twitter at 9.45pm EST
http://twitter.com/#!/VincentTJackson/status/93496787926646785

All media claims about me wanting a personal reward for this deal are false. I hope you all know me better than that - Drew Brees on twitter at 8.57pm EST
http://twitter.com/#!/drewbrees/status/93484635920670721

From rotoworld.com
Tom Condon, the agent for Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, denies that the two quarterbacks have ever asked for any "individual" considerations under the antitrust settlement.
This comes just after Brees tweeted that "false media reports" are leading the public astray. The confusion comes from the mixed reports that the players were planning a last-minute power play and the desire of Manning and Brees for a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag. The NFLPA's request for a one-time only use of the franchise tag is not a new one, however. Neither player will stand in the way of a settlement.


The Boston Herald reports the NFLPA executive committee will not recommend any special considerations for the 10 plaintiffs in the Brady v. NFL antitrust settlement.
Realizing it would be too "cumbersome" to satisfy individual demands, the NFLPA's decision came with "far less wrangling and horse trading behind the scenes" than recent reports suggested. If this report is correct, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees will not be exempt from the franchise tag going forward. Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson will not be granted free agency, nor a $10 million payout.


A "virtually completed" CBA deal is expected to be presented to player representatives from all 32 teams on Wednesday.
On the heels of the Boston Herald report that the NFLPA executive committee will ask for no special considerations in the Brady v. NFL antitrust suit, it's a good bet that the players will approve the agreement. Though a couple of standout issues remain, they are expected to be ironed out Wednesday morning. If the players approve, the owners will then vote on the proposal on Thursday. The lockout will not be lifted until there is "an official, signed collective bargaining agreement."

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 07:45 AM
Even though this was categorically denied immediately after the false report was made by Ron Borges and PFT I am guessing I'll have to hear all about how "Pey Me a Ton" was going to hold up the new CBA so he could make more money. It sucks how some idiot can report a complete lie, then print a retraction, and still people will remember and believe it for years.

falloutboy14
07-20-2011, 11:26 AM
Can UDFAs be signed as soon as the CBA is signed? Going to have to go back and find the 4-5 I had my eye on. Whenever it happens, the first week after the CBA is going to be intense.

gpngc
07-20-2011, 11:30 AM
Can UDFAs be signed as soon as the CBA is signed? Going to have to go back and find the 4-5 I had my eye on. Whenever it happens, the first week after the CBA is going to be intense.

EDIT: nevermind what I said...

For now, the expectation is that an agreement will be done this Thursday. Teams will get three days to study the new labor rules, followed by three days to sign undrafted rookies and "keep their own." Free agency should start on the seventh day, now estimated at July 28 (not July 25). Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post describes free agency as "a fire drill. ... Packing four months of moves into about four days." The month of August will be jam-packed with NFL news.

T-RICH49
07-20-2011, 02:20 PM
NFLN is reporting the NFLPA may not vote of the new CBA today....UGHHH

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 02:49 PM
Seriously **** all these guys. I hate this.

Sloopy
07-20-2011, 08:12 PM
Even though this was categorically denied immediately after the false report was made by Ron Borges and PFT I am guessing I'll have to hear all about how "Pey Me a Ton" was going to hold up the new CBA so he could make more money. It sucks how some idiot can report a complete lie, then print a retraction, and still people will remember and believe it for years.

Don't let the uneducated masses get you down man

SolidGold
07-21-2011, 08:36 AM
It sounds like the players are stuck on that 320 Million dollars from last year w/ the uncapped year. If it was part of the previous CBA that they agreed to back in 2006 how can they make an issue of it now?

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 08:58 AM
It's because their asshole lawyer Jeffrey Kessler is pushing the issue. I still think the players will vote today, in favor of the deal.

SolidGold
07-21-2011, 09:49 AM
I really hate that Kessler prick. If they agreed to it in the last CBA it should be dropped. From any little bits of news I am hearing it seems the owners are ready to approve today. If they approve it before the NFLPA does it will make the players look bad IMO. Of course it will all be swept under the rug if the NFLPA does agree to the CBA soon there after.

wordofi
07-21-2011, 10:04 AM
I don't like the part of the CBA that requires teams to spend a minimum of 90% of the cap. There should be no minimum in my opinion. The Buccaneers are going to get screwed by this deal because they'll have to arbitrarily spend about $50 million.

Jughead10
07-21-2011, 11:50 AM
I don't like the part of the CBA that requires teams to spend a minimum of 90% of the cap. There should be no minimum in my opinion. The Buccaneers are going to get screwed by this deal because they'll have to arbitrarily spend about $50 million.

There definitely should be a minimum, but I think 90% is way too high. Should be 75-80%.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 12:51 PM
^WTF is the reasoning for this sentiment? The owners are making millions upon millions each year and as fans, you guys would rather have them keep the money in their pocket than try to improve the team you root for? WTF? Sometimes I think people just whine to whine...

Jughead10
07-21-2011, 01:03 PM
Sadly it is the owners team and they can do whatever they want with it. They can look at it as just another entity to turn a profit and that is there prerogative. There is a need to force them to field a competitive team as if there was no minimum some owners would spend very little (looking at you Carolina and Jacksonville), however by making the minimum 90% of the overall cap, I think it would do nothing but drive up the prices of average players across the league creating cap problems for everyone down the future.

If teams have to spend big bucks on average players just to fill a quota, it drives up value across the league for star players. At the very least if they eventually plan on having 90% the minimum, they need to allow teams to ease into it. Setting lower minimums this year and building up to 90% 2-3 years from now.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 01:14 PM
Sadly it is the owners team and they can do whatever they want with it. They can look at it as just another entity to turn a profit and that is there prerogative. There is a need to force them to field a competitive team as if there was no minimum some owners would spend very little (looking at you Carolina and Jacksonville), however by making the minimum 90% of the overall cap, I think it would do nothing but drive up the prices of average players across the league creating cap problems for everyone down the future.

If teams have to spend big bucks on average players just to fill a quota, it drives up value across the league for star players. At the very least if they eventually plan on having 90% the minimum, they need to allow teams to ease into it. Setting lower minimums this year and building up to 90% 2-3 years from now.

They don't have to overpay average players. There are a bunch of ways to reach the floor. You can sign your own key guys to long-term deals, sign GOOD players to deals they deserve, or sign a bunch of quality depth players to deals they deserve. Plus, the rule deals with the entire season which means you can extend guys in-season who play well enough to deserve new contracts, or somehow reach that 90% # by signing guys in-season (with injuries, teams always do this anyway).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this rule - the spirit of the rule is that it preserves parity. The only people who have objections are the greedy owners who don't care about winning and would rather have that money in their pockets. EVERY NFL team makes money, so they will get no sympathy with that stance.

As fans, I don't see how you could be against this rule unless you have 0 faith in your front office to make decisions.

Jughead10
07-21-2011, 01:24 PM
I disagree. Not much parity is going to be created by making owners spend 108 million instead of 90 million. It's just going to drive up spending, which will be passed onto us, the fan. You can field a playoff caliber team at 90 million. Teams who have been historically bad are bad because their historically inept, not because their cheap. They just need something to prevent a team spending 50 million.

ArkyRamsFan
07-21-2011, 02:10 PM
It sounds like the players are stuck on that 320 Million dollars from last year w/ the uncapped year. If it was part of the previous CBA that they agreed to back in 2006 how can they make an issue of it now?

Saw this coming several days ago when the news broke that the CBA was getting close to resolution except...for...a...few...minor...issues..like the $320 mill that the players alleged to have "lost" from 2010.

This is bullcrap and as anyone with a modicum of common sense can see it has greed written all over it.

Da union agreed to these terms and should have seen it coming when the owners opted out in '09. You cannot blame the owners for adhering to the terms of the CBA when all parties had agreed to it.

If the CBA is held up for a non-issue like this then a pox on the NFLPA and their greasy lawyers.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 02:13 PM
I disagree. Not much parity is going to be created by making owners spend 108 million instead of 90 million. It's just going to drive up spending, which will be passed onto us, the fan. You can field a playoff caliber team at 90 million. Teams who have been historically bad are bad because their historically inept, not because their cheap. They just need something to prevent a team spending 50 million.

It's $18 million more towards the football team rather than in the owner's pocket...

The reality is that prices are going to continue spike for us fans and a lower salary floor is not going to help us or even impact us in any way. Popularity and interest will continue to grow, so prices will rise as well. This is inevitable whether or not the floor is 90% or 75%. The owners will still be able to raise prices because the demand for their product will ALWAYS be there. The only difference is that with a 90% rule (rather than 75%), the owners won't have that extra $18ish million.

The rule ensures that each owner will have to distribute some of that revenue to improve the quality of their football team. How that can be seen as a negative by a fan I don't understand. It's to not allow any Pittsburgh Pirates situations where the owners make $, pocket $, and don't spend any of it on improving the team.

Prices for us will continue to spike regardless of where the salary floor is.

PoopSandwich
07-21-2011, 02:34 PM
Mid to high market teams won't really have to worry about it, teams that have trouble filling seats will get raped by this new rule.

Jughead10
07-21-2011, 02:44 PM
It's $18 million more towards the football team rather than in the owner's pocket...

The reality is that prices are going to continue spike for us fans and a lower salary floor is not going to help us or even impact us in any way. Popularity and interest will continue to grow, so prices will rise as well. This is inevitable whether or not the floor is 90% or 75%. The owners will still be able to raise prices because the demand for their product will ALWAYS be there. The only difference is that with a 90% rule (rather than 75%), the owners won't have that extra $18ish million.

The rule ensures that each owner will have to distribute some of that revenue to improve the quality of their football team. How that can be seen as a negative by a fan I don't understand. It's to not allow any Pittsburgh Pirates situations where the owners make $, pocket $, and don't spend any of it on improving the team.

Prices for us will continue to spike regardless of where the salary floor is.

The only problem is no one wants to play for the Pirates of the world anyway. You can make them spend all you want but in the immediate short term it will make them only overpay for mediocre talent. More money spent and not much result. I'd personally rather them hold onto their money and spend it when it makes sense. And again the analogy doesn't totally work because the Pirates and Yankees are a lot farther apart than 120 million and 90 million. That is more like 200 million and 45 I think. 75% would still prevent such a disparity.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
07-21-2011, 02:47 PM
i'll go a step further. having watched the Glass Family run the Royals like they do Wal-Mart. ticket prices, parking and concessions all have gone up since the new stadium was built for the Royals using Jackson County tax payers money. they opened the 2011 season with a $36.1M payroll. tell me where that money is going. i can guarantee that the Royals get more than $36M from revenue sharing, even in MLBs distorted version of it. so, David Glass has paid for his roster with out having to spend a dime of his own or sell a single ticket.

because baseball doesn't have the same kind of revenue sharing or rules in place that the NFL has, it would be impossible to expect the Royals to spend 90% of what the Yankees, Redsox or Phillies pay. however, looking at the NFL's system, stopping an owner from living fat on their money and keeping that team competitive are important to them. the money saved from the lack of a salary floor went right into the owners pocket. i don't have a problem with am owner taking advantage of the opportunity while it existed for the last 2 years, but i also would rather them have to spend the money. this whole lockout was about the "woe is me" owners not making enough money. Clark Hunt has been as cheap the last 2 years as possible, saving almost $100M. then had the balls to ask his employees that make $50K or less to take a 10% paycut during this lockout. now, in all fairness to him, if no games are missed, they get it back with back pay. but moves like that really show me what they are all about.

the NFL and the NFLPA are going to try and spin this new CBA like they got it done for the fans. ********!!! they all signed on the dotted line at the last possible moment before they started losing money. the players deserve criticism now, because they seem to be dragging their feet over this $320M that doesn't belong to them. and somehow they feel they are entitled to it, even though they agreed to the CBA that said the owners could do it.

Jughead10
07-21-2011, 02:53 PM
Again to the above post, the disparity between baseball and what I suggest is still night and day apart. Also KC will always have difficulty attracting top FAs because its KC. They are behind the ball already just because the city isn't nearly as desirable as many other one's with pro franchises.

DoughBoy
07-21-2011, 03:38 PM
haha Kessler is getting rammed up the ass by the players,owners and fans. I hope this **** he is trying to pull ruins his career.

SolidGold
07-21-2011, 05:08 PM
The players better re-certify the NFLPA and do it fast.

TitanHope
07-21-2011, 05:32 PM
i don't buy it. they'll raise prices every time they can raise prices. they'll *justify* the hike with the salary increases, but the raise is simply because y'all will still pay it.

And in actuality, I may be more willing to pay the increase if the product on the field is better and the team is competing.

Although, if every single team is doing the same thing, then I guess the increase in spending is kind of negated.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 05:41 PM
Mid to high market teams won't really have to worry about it, teams that have trouble filling seats will get raped by this new rule.

No. The Jaguars may not sell out every game but their owner is still making a **** ton of money. So they are not getting raped at all.

nepg
07-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Again to the above post, the disparity between baseball and what I suggest is still night and day apart. Also KC will always have difficulty attracting top FAs because its KC. They are behind the ball already just because the city isn't nearly as desirable as many other one's with pro franchises.
It's not really the city, it's the team. The Pirates and Royals don't have to overpay for players because they're Pittsburgh and Kansas City, they have to overpay because they're the Pirates and Royals. Big difference.

They have reputations of teams that have (RARE) short bursts of competitive runs followed by long overhaul periods. Those teams wouldn't have any problem getting players to play for them if they had more consistent reputations as organizations.

The Yankees and Red Sox can afford to make mistakes because of their revenue and because those mistakes often just end up being first round picks with the way the league operates these days.

For the NFL...I tend to believe that teams spend when they can and when it's smart to spend already. The 90% rule isn't going to change much. Teams will overpay 1-year contract guys to get up to the number and remain flexible.

proshoota25
07-21-2011, 06:07 PM
owners approved deal http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6791408/lockout-nfl-owners-approve-proposed-labor-agreement

gpngc
07-21-2011, 06:08 PM
The final tally was 31-0 with the Raiders abstaining.

Bahahahaha

proshoota25
07-21-2011, 06:11 PM
Bahahahaha

maddddd funny hahaha

DoughBoy
07-21-2011, 06:13 PM
I guess Al didn't know enough about the CBA's 40 time to vote.

/lame

RaiderNation
07-21-2011, 06:33 PM
Al Davis never disappoints.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 06:36 PM
Hall of Fame Game cancelled. Sucks for the inductees.

descendency
07-21-2011, 06:37 PM
Hall of Fame Game cancelled. Sucks for the inductees.

Wait... There was a game going to be played at the Hall of Fame???

/s

gpngc
07-21-2011, 06:39 PM
^Don't get it.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 06:43 PM
Al Davis never disappoints.

he does this for almost every nfl vote, al hates goodell and the other owners and really the whole league. oh and hes freaking crazy as hell, but its the best kind of crazy.

descendency
07-21-2011, 06:45 PM
^Don't get it.

The only people who watch the hall of fame game can be counted on both hands.

gpngc
07-21-2011, 06:46 PM
The only people who watch the hall of fame game can be counted on both hands.

First taste of NFL action since the previous year? I watch.

vidae
07-21-2011, 06:48 PM
It's about damn time.

And yeah I watch it too. It's football.

BlindSite
07-21-2011, 06:50 PM
http://nfllabor.com/2011/07/21/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement/

NFL clubs approve comprehensive agreement
NFL clubs approved today the terms of a comprehensive settlement of litigation and a new 10-year collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.
The vote was taken at a league meeting in Atlanta where the clubs were briefed on the terms of the agreement and the rules for the transition into the new League Year. The agreement must be ratified by the NFL Players Association in order for the league year to begin.

“We are pleased to announce that our clubs have approved the terms of a long-term negotiated agreement with the NFL players,” said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “It includes many positive changes that emerged from a spirit of compromise rooted in doing what is best for the game and players. DeMaurice Smith and his team, and the players and owners involved in the negotiations, deserve great credit for their skill and professionalism. If approved by the players, this agreement will allow the league and its players to continue to benefit from the NFL’s popularity and will afford a unique opportunity to deliver to fans an even better, safer, and more competitive game in the future.

“On behalf of the NFL, our teams and players, I want to express our deep appreciation to Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan. Judge Boylan was the court-appointed mediator, but his contributions far exceeded that role. His patience, determination, and commitment helped keep everyone focused on the goal, and helped lead us to today’s announcement.”
The NFL announced that players can begin voluntary workouts at club facilities on July 23 if the NFLPA Executive Board approves the settlement terms. Following the reconstitution of the NFLPA as a union and approval of the new CBA by the NFLPA membership, the League Year and free agency signings will start at 2:00 PM ET on July 27 and training camps for all teams will open on July 27. Day one activities will be limited to physicals, meetings, and conditioning. Players will practice without pads on days two and three.

As part of the transition rules for the 2011 League Year, the parties have agreed that the CBA’s specified deadlines for certain free agency contract tenders will be delayed to the dates indicated below. For example, the deadline for the CBA’s “June 1 Tender” to Unrestricted Free Agents will be changed from June 1 to August 12.


TIME LINE after jump

YAYareaRB
07-21-2011, 06:51 PM
al davis a **** *****

Basileus777
07-21-2011, 06:59 PM
99% cash minimum spend requirement in 2011-2012; 95% for rest of deal. Big "get" for Players.
Cap number of $120.375M would go into place Wednesday. Teams would have until then to release/restructure to get under the Cap.Drafted rookies will have 4-yr deals, with 5th yr option for 1st rounders. Undrafted rookies will have 3-yr deals. "Anti-holdout" rules.https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt (https://twitter.com/#%21/adbrandt)

I wonder how they are calculating signing bonuses and such in that cash minimum.

BlindSite
07-21-2011, 07:05 PM
https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt (https://twitter.com/#%21/adbrandt)

I wonder how they are calculating signing bonuses and such in that cash minimum.

This year will give us a blueprint, for a team like Tampa they'll probably give them high salaries and decent bonuses so it kicks their cap figure higher because they're so far under the ceiling, for a team like NO they'll probably want to give more bonus and lessen the hit.

My knowledge of capology extends to the previous deal so I have no idea how they're working the wage scale in regards to the former wage pool which was a "soft cap" anyway.

Vikes99ej
07-21-2011, 07:07 PM
Of course the Raiders are the only ones who didn't vote.

YAYareaRB
07-21-2011, 07:23 PM
DeMaurice Smith: "There is no agreement" uh oh?

Basileus777
07-21-2011, 07:24 PM
Looks like the owners are playing games.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-21-2011, 07:27 PM
Sounds like the players won't vote tonight. Cool.

BlindSite
07-21-2011, 07:28 PM
Looks like both sides are playing games. The owners have to have the union back together otherwise they face law suits from every which way, if the union certifies in time and they go back to the negotiating table and the negotiations fail they roll back to a deal the players don't like.

It's a ****** situation for both.

T-RICH49
07-21-2011, 07:38 PM
Screw The Nfl And Nflpa*

yodabear
07-21-2011, 07:39 PM
Yeah I LMAO'd at the Raiders thing. Al Davis, apparently some philosophical differences, Al, u funny, funny man. But all I get out of this is that the owners like their own solutions, well at least 31 of them. And the players seem mad.

ellsy82
07-21-2011, 07:40 PM
Of course the Raiders are the only ones who didn't vote.

Al Davis was still in his coffin. Its daylight outside.

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 07:44 PM
As if the players trying to add in last-minute BS wasn't bad enough, the owners send over a proposal with NEW, UN-NEGOTIATED ITEMS in it! WTF!!! Both sides are spoiled ******* brats that can't get out of their own way.

Jvig43
07-21-2011, 07:53 PM
As if the players trying to add in last-minute BS wasn't bad enough, the owners send over a proposal with NEW, UN-NEGOTIATED ITEMS in it! WTF!!! Both sides are spoiled ******* brats that can't get out of their own way.

Seriously this.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-21-2011, 08:02 PM
Settle this on the gridiron pros v.s. joes(owners). If the players do not win by more then 5 TD's owners get their way or a damn coin flip something. Do not want to miss fantasy football season.

ArkyRamsFan
07-21-2011, 08:23 PM
So Zombie Al has "philosophical differences" with the NFL?? Apparently Zombie Al wants all NFL games played at night in a cemetary near a biker's bar. That way he can have all home games and when the sun comes up he is all ready to be tucked in for his dirt nap.

As we all know all good Zombies are home before the sun rises.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-21-2011, 08:27 PM
Hmmm.

League official claims De Smith and leaders have had the documents.... this is strongly refuted by NFLPA

-Mort

But then there's this:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/nflpa-fears-lawsuit-from-vincent-jackson/


Makes you think V-Jax is possibly the issue right now...

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 08:29 PM
I thought Al didn't vote because of some conflict about him being owner and GM, I don't know. But I guess Jerry wouldn't have voted either. Just thought I read somewhere before that it was something stopping Al from voting, but he is crazy so who knows.


I'm just so sick of 1 report saying were hours away, next report says were miles apart. I think it's obvious we'll be in this lockout for alot longer. Not buying any crap about FA about to start. This this is going to draft into pre-season.


HOF game was cancelled, watch for the others to follow suit.

bucfan12
07-21-2011, 08:35 PM
NFLPA is a joke right now. The owners just made them look like fools. Seriously, they can't live off of 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries, they're nuts. 15% of the country is jobless, yet these fools can't come to terms on a deal with the NFL, which is worth $9 billion

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 08:40 PM
NFLPA is a joke right now. The owners just made them look like fools. Seriously, they can't live off of 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries, they're nuts. 15% of the country is jobless, yet these fools can't come to terms on a deal with the NFL, which is worth $9 billion

I hate when people look at it like this. Just because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they should act like idiots and take any deal thrown at them. There are some very important issues out there, like how retired players are taken care of who can barely walk the same.


Not to say both sides don't see dollar signs, but let's not just call them idiots because they are millionaires and should just take any deal that comes there way.

ellsy82
07-21-2011, 08:50 PM
I hate when people look at it like this. Just because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they should act like idiots and take any deal thrown at them. There are some very important issues out there, like how retired players are taken care of who can barely walk the same.


Not to say both sides don't see dollar signs, but let's not just call them idiots because they are millionaires and should just take any deal that comes there way.

+1 - this might take some time. The owners played a PR game...and it'll probably benefit them as soon as NFL fans like the aforementioned poster go up in arms about "greedy millionaires".

SolidGold
07-21-2011, 08:57 PM
meh im sick of it...both sides worked to craft a CBA together. I have no problems with the NFLPA reviewing it but there should be no last minute powerplays. They reached this point together. Owners look alot better than the players at this point.

bucfan12
07-21-2011, 08:57 PM
I hate when people look at it like this. Just because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they should act like idiots and take any deal thrown at them. There are some very important issues out there, like how retired players are taken care of who can barely walk the same.


Not to say both sides don't see dollar signs, but let's not just call them idiots because they are millionaires and should just take any deal that comes there way.

Listen, the fact that they make the money they make is part of the business. The NFL is a very successful business and I love football and sports all together. But honestly, they should see this as a blessing and not greed that they make this money. Not everyone has their talent and not everyone can make 10mil a year playing a sport.

Now I'm reading from rotoworld.com that Vincent Jackson might be the 'holdup' in this deal, as he doesn't want the franchise tag, that will pay him $10 million a year. Like seriously, how can you not find this greedy?

bucfan12
07-21-2011, 09:00 PM
meh im sick of it...both sides worked to craft a CBA together. I have no problems with the NFLPA reviewing it but there should be no last minute powerplays. They reached this point together. Owners look alot better than the players at this point.

They've looked a lot better throughout the whole process. The players had their chance to vote last night, but yet waited for the owners. Steve Mariucci said that he'd agree to the deal that the owners just passed a few hrs ago no problem. It's negotiations between two parties. Neither is going to get 100% exact what they want, but their has to be some agreement. The players wanted a shortened off-season, that was included in the deal. They wanted to be recertified as a union and that was included.

Seriously, the players are looking like idiots at this point.

bucfan12
07-21-2011, 09:03 PM
right? i mean, just think about the owners! they need that money *far* more than the players. i mean, they're only making more than the players right now. they need to be making far more. because all of that is completely relevant to the fact that joe guy doesn't have a job. i mean, assuming you completely blown past logic and just regurgitate the worst of the pft comments section.

So you're telling me that even though the owners make more money, that players that make 10 million a year is vastly underpaid? Whats next, players are going to want more money than the owners. Remember, the owners are the reason they have jobs.

DoughBoy
07-21-2011, 09:07 PM
I'm having an issue of seeing what the issue is... I think the players don't want to admit that their biggest problem is one of their own (aka Vjax). This last second "power play" by the owners is just stuff they put in that the players didn't seem to give two ***** about in the first place.

Hines
07-21-2011, 09:08 PM
Honestly, I could give a rat's ass about this anymore. To hell with it.

SolidGold
07-21-2011, 09:10 PM
Supposedly the last minute stuff is revenue sharing between the owners (big market teams and small market teams). It has nothing to do with players but it could all be hearsay

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 09:20 PM
Supposedly the last minute stuff is revenue sharing between the owners (big market teams and small market teams). It has nothing to do with players but it could all be hearsay

Per Mike Silver:

Issues in play include: Discipline-grievance process, drug testing/substance abuse, disability bens, pensions, work rules, health & safety

If the owners really added changes to all the above issues without consulting NFLPA reps they are a bunch of assholes.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 09:22 PM
So you're telling me that even though the owners make more money, that players that make 10 million a year is vastly underpaid? Whats next, players are going to want more money than the owners. Remember, the owners are the reason they have jobs.

incorrect, the owners are much more dependent on the players.

The employees dont need the boss, they need the money from the employment.

But the boss NEEDS his employees, or his business wont go.



In this case, the players are the product and the employees. If jerry or mara or crazy al or any of them leave the game, i wont blink. if brady or peyton isnt there it hurts the business.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 09:27 PM
Per Mike Silver:



If the owners really added changes to all the above issues without consulting NFLPA reps they are a bunch of assholes.

no, i think either way they are, they proved that long ago when the underhanded tv contract stuff came out.

theyre sneaky ****ers, if this stuff is really not what the players need and dsmith calls the owners on it and continues the lockout, i think we'll lose the preseason. and the longer it goes, the longer itll likely go as the antitrust stuff comes in and both sides go sour on each other again.

This power move by the owners to force a deal could backfire in a huge way if they got too greedy. which, based on their past actions, seems like a safe bet.



and the owners saying they thought they had a handshake done deal all set...yeah obviously thats a lie, no ones buying that.

DoughBoy
07-21-2011, 09:28 PM
"Issues in play include: Discipline-grievance process, drug testing/substance abuse, disability bens, pensions, work rules, health & safety"

makes a little more sense.... This thing feels rushed. it almost seems like they wanted to get this done so they wouldn't have to work a 2 day weekend. Still, is it worth losing the public's opinion of the players to get these issues worked out? If I was the players, I would give the owners this battle since they (nflpa) already won the war. The fact that they haven't decided to vote on it means that they're at least mulling over the positives and negatives.

Finz99
07-21-2011, 09:31 PM
i assume you'll remember this at your next job review, and turn down your raise. i mean, you clearly make enough already or you wouldn't be surviving. just think of all of the people who don't have jobs! you owe it to them to make nothing.

alternately, you could rejoin reality and realize that the players are negotiating their salary. the fact that it's a high profile negotiation in no way whatsoever changes the fact that they should fight tooth and nail for every dollar they can get. to do anything else would be idiotic, at the least.

then again, i'm guessing you're an idealistic junior high kid. let me know when you join the real world and stop repeating whatever self-confirming crap you read, or whatever your parents tell you.

I agree completely. The NFL is pretty much a monopoly and because of that, can discriminate or take advantage of the players when it comes to salaries. So the players have every right to fight for more money and get what they deserve.

descendency
07-21-2011, 09:31 PM
Per Mike Silver:

Oh, so it's none of that stuff.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 09:33 PM
"Issues in play include: Discipline-grievance process, drug testing/substance abuse, disability bens, pensions, work rules, health & safety"

makes a little more sense.... This thing feels rushed. it almost seems like they wanted to get this done so they wouldn't have to work a 2 day weekend. Still, is it worth losing the public's opinion of the players to get these issues worked out? If I was the players, I would give the owners this battle since they (nflpa) already won the war. The fact that they haven't decided to vote on it means that they're at least mulling over the positives and negatives.

if the owners wrote in a change in the discipline process but harder drug testing, better benefits with better working conditions the players might go for it. But they players have always been very down on the drug testing so idk

DoughBoy
07-21-2011, 09:44 PM
if the owners wrote in a change in the discipline process but harder drug testing, better benefits with better working conditions the players might go for it. But they players have always been very down on the drug testing so idk

IDK 75% of what they are reporting seems like a non-issue (drug testing/Discipline/work rules) and things the NFLPA has never been up in arms about in the first place. The other 25% (disability/health and safety) is something that the NFLPA cares about but something current players don't want to acknowledge, much lose game checks over.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-21-2011, 10:40 PM
I saw Roddy say on twitter that they still have court case things to settle coughvinecentjacksoncough, and that the owners need to back off the Tuesday deadline. Said the major stuff is agreed to, just some smaller stuff.

And Mort just said this:


Chris Mortensen

Good news. Players wrapped call, then leadership received final details. Reviewing. A vote can come tomorrow if they can satisfy a finishing detail or 2.

PackerLegend
07-21-2011, 10:46 PM
It would have been nice if they would have started getting serious a couple months ago... I dont know what happened for sure but it seems like they jerked eachother around for months wasting time. Now at the last second they act like theyve been working nonstop since the old CBA expired to reach a deal. Times running short and the whole start of the season is going to be a giant mess.

Its always "almost done" but then something else happens. It seems like we may never see anything get done. I guess they just dont understand that you cant always get every thing you want.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 10:52 PM
It would have been nice if they would have started getting serious a couple months ago... I dont know what happened for sure but it seems like they jerked eachother around for months wasting time. Now at the last second they act like theyve been working nonstop since the old CBA expired to reach a deal. Times running short and the whole start of the season is going to be a giant mess.

its the same thing as rookie contracts.

They have 3 months to do them, but guys still miss the start of camp because both sides posture for months hoping the other side will get nervous and agree to a deal leaning the way of the non-caving side. its very annoying, because it never works, it just wastes time.

Raiderz4Life
07-21-2011, 11:00 PM
Of course. I shouda seen it coming. Al would be the owner to vote nay lol

RaiderNation
07-22-2011, 02:40 AM
Possible explanation to why Al abstained...
kGWzcT7mn1E

Ness
07-22-2011, 06:03 AM
So bye bye Hall of Fame game.

SolidGold
07-22-2011, 08:06 AM
It would have been nice if they would have started getting serious a couple months ago... I dont know what happened for sure but it seems like they jerked eachother around for months wasting time. Now at the last second they act like theyve been working nonstop since the old CBA expired to reach a deal. Times running short and the whole start of the season is going to be a giant mess.

Its always "almost done" but then something else happens. It seems like we may never see anything get done. I guess they just dont understand that you cant always get every thing you want.


It reminds me of the scene in Shawshank Redemption when Andy escapes...all it takes is time and pressure.

I don't think its any surprise that it has bascially come down to the final hour to get to this point. Since the lockout started both sides have just been positioning, posturing and maneveuring in the hope that the other side would cave in. Only now with potential profits at stake and the pressure of the fans that just want football have the sides decided to work together.

SolidGold
07-22-2011, 08:37 AM
CNNSI has laid out alot of the key points to the CBA the owners approved:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/07/21/labor-deal-details.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t11_a6&eref=sihp

bearsfan_51
07-22-2011, 09:19 AM
Troof.

Despite the seemingly endless vacuum of false optimism and exaggerated pessimism gripping professional football in the weeks and months since the Draft, the NFL lockout will, in fact, end. It may even happen Friday.

NFL owners stand to lose $700 million if the lockout continues through the middle of next week, and NFL players stand to lose millions, themselves, should things spill over into the regular season. Both sides have ample motivation to make this work, and the professional legacies of the two men in charge (DeMaurice Smith and Roger Goodell) depend on getting a deal done. So, it'll happen.

But none of that changes what the NFL did on Thursday, and aside from the principals in charge, the legacy of the lockout itself will be the NFL's towering corporate hubris, finally rendered transparent. The men in charge of "America's Game" don't just think the players are stupid, they think America's stupid.

This was always obvious, of course. Whether the league is pandering to patriotism with a say, a casual pregame reading of the Declaration of the Independence (yep, that happened), or doling out massive fines the minute the public decides to be worried about concussions. Or, borrowing a page from the cigarette industry's playbook, quietly downplaying the effects of said concussions, pretending we can't connect the dots between John Mackey's 10-year football career and the 10-year battle with "frontal temporal dementia" that killed him earlier this month.

We're pretty much okay with all this, though. Because there's no such thing as too much patriotism, we don't really care if James Harrison gets fined $80,000, and we all know concussions are dangerous, but we still don't have a good solution, so it's tough to get sanctimonious. We love football too much to let these things ruin it for us.

Where the lockout's changed things is that there's no football to distract us from the NFL. Absent big plays, good games, and great stories--absent the players, basically--we're just left to watch this corporate mess unfold. We're left with days like Thursday, when the NFL owners called a press conference to announce they'd unanimously approved a collective bargaining agreement the players hadn't even seen.

"We will be prepared to open the training facilities beginning on Saturday, this Saturday." Roger Goodell told us with a smile. "Obviously you know that we're all under a time constraint. That's one of the reasons we worked to get this agreement completed tonight."

What he failed to mention was that the players hadn't seen the agreement the owners approved, and it included a number of parameters that the two sides had never discussed. As DeMaurice Smith clarified in an e-mail later in the day, "As you may have heard, [owners] apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions."

So what's the point of calling a press conference and approving a deal that hasn't been approved by the other side? Isn't that like announcing a marriage before the other person sees the ring?

The point, as outlined by CBS Sports' Mike Freeman:

What Goodell and the owners did was place a bull's eye square on the chest of the players. The owners basically said this to fans: We tried to get a deal done and the players didn't. Blame the greedy players. ... It's brilliant, in some ways. Perfect example: The owners are planning to open team facilities later this week. The owners hope to get players working out at the various complexes, get them excited about returning to football, and thus weaken union leadership.

What the owners did, quite bluntly, was pull a manipulative power play.

In other words, this is the NFL making one final bid to leverage the fans against the players, forcing them to make concessions they'd never agreed to. The specifics of what they snuck into the CBA don't even matter; in the end, we'll have football back a day or two later than expected. What's clear, though, is that the NFL assumed fans wouldn't understand what happened.

That's what I'll remember most from the 2011 lockout, when the richest professional sports league in the history of the world tried to convince fans they weren't making money, and expected us to believe it. The year they tried to make players look like lawyer-happy contrarians, even as the owners went to court to reinstate the lockout. Mostly, I'll remember Thursday--the day the lockout was supposed to end, when the NFL owners tried one more time to bulldoze the players into a corner, using the fans as leverage--because that pretty much epitomizes six months worth of news.

Thursday's great lesson is that Roger Goodell and the NFL owners think we're stupid. Or at least, stupid enough to fall for this clumsy, transparent PR trick. Stupid enough to be exploited and used against the players, forcing them into a panicked aggreement.

And let's be honest, the NFL's usually right. But if this lockout has taught us anything, it's that the NFL's games are a lot harder to tolerate when we don't have football around to distract us.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/7/22/2287259/nfl-lockout-2011-owners-players-agreement-cba

hockey619
07-22-2011, 09:45 AM
Troof.



http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/7/22/2287259/nfl-lockout-2011-owners-players-agreement-cba

why isnt espn talking more about this? i feel like theyre the ones that need to point out to the viewers and fans everywhere that 'hey, the owners are (again) trying to **** you and the players with dirty business tactics.' after this, and the tv contract and them claiming to have been losing money, I really ****ing hate the owners, theyre such greedy ***holes.

killxswitch
07-22-2011, 09:54 AM
IF the owners actually added new items, they are greedy bad-faith assholes. If the new items are all owner-internal and have nothing to do with the players (like, for example, revenue splitting among the owners themselves), then the players need to stop overreacting and call a vote.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-22-2011, 10:50 AM
And now the players want an opt out after 7 years.

bearsfan_51
07-22-2011, 12:13 PM
IF the owners actually added new items, they are greedy bad-faith assholes. If the new items are all owner-internal and have nothing to do with the players (like, for example, revenue splitting among the owners themselves), then the players need to stop overreacting and call a vote.
Sort of.

I agree that they should go ahead and vote if the document is essentially the same, but this was a bad-faith and extremely cynical move by the owners either way. They effectively lied when they came out after their vote as if everything was a done deal. It's an effective bargaining tactic, but they were unquestionably betting that the average NFL fan is either going to be too stupid or too disengaged to understand the actual sequence of events.

Jughead10
07-22-2011, 12:16 PM
And now the players want an opt out after 7 years.

I think that's fair. 10 years is a long time. I was shocked when I heard it was going to be that long. At lot of all of this is based on projection of revenue growth, I would think both sides would like an option to opt out if that growth doesn't go as projected.

bearsfan_51
07-22-2011, 12:17 PM
why isnt espn talking more about this? i feel like theyre the ones that need to point out to the viewers and fans everywhere that 'hey, the owners are (again) trying to **** you and the players with dirty business tactics.' after this, and the tv contract and them claiming to have been losing money, I really ****ing hate the owners, theyre such greedy ***holes.
Because ESPN is a personality-driven conglomerate. They have intelligent people on staff, but their programming is run by ex-athletes, most of whom are too stupid to say anything beyond superficial platitudes.

Which is probably to their financial benefit. I'd guess that most sports fan don't want to think when they watch sports anyway.

Saints-Tigers
07-22-2011, 03:25 PM
i assume you'll remember this at your next job review, and turn down your raise. i mean, you clearly make enough already or you wouldn't be surviving. just think of all of the people who don't have jobs! you owe it to them to make nothing.

alternately, you could rejoin reality and realize that the players are negotiating their salary. the fact that it's a high profile negotiation in no way whatsoever changes the fact that they should fight tooth and nail for every dollar they can get. to do anything else would be idiotic, at the least.

then again, i'm guessing you're an idealistic junior high kid. let me know when you join the real world and stop repeating whatever self-confirming crap you read, or whatever your parents tell you.


Pow, thank you.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-22-2011, 03:28 PM
While Patriots G Logan Mankins has withdrawn his demands, Vincent Jackson hasn't, despite denials that he wants $10 million or no tag.

-Schefter

Ness
07-22-2011, 04:35 PM
So another meeting next Monday? That sucks I thought we were finally going to get a deal on the 21st.

descendency
07-22-2011, 04:57 PM
While Patriots G Logan Mankins has withdrawn his demands, Vincent Jackson hasn't, despite denials that he wants $10 million or no tag.

-Schefter

Logan Mankins: I never made any demands.

killxswitch
07-23-2011, 08:03 AM
Per Schefter VJax is now not seeking money or freedom from the salary cap.

T-RICH49
07-23-2011, 04:33 PM
per Clayton and Mortensen NFLPA exec board could voteto propose deal to the player reps(or something like that)

boknows34
07-24-2011, 07:20 AM
ESPN reporting a deal to end the lockout has finally been reached.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6797238/2011-nfl-lockout-owners-players-come-deal-all-points-sources-say


The NFL's players association and owners groups have reached agreement on the remaining points needed in their 10-year labor deal, sources from both sides said.

Despite the fact the new deal will require a majority vote from the players, that part of the deal between the two sides is considered a formality, according to sources.

The NFLPA is making plans for a major press conference Monday. But first the player reps are scheduled to fly to Washington, D.C., on Sunday so they can vote Monday.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith knows his executive committee, his players reps and the rest of his constituents well enough to know how they will vote.

Plus, no CBA has ever been turned down by the players when approved by leadership.

LonghornsLegend
07-24-2011, 09:56 AM
Listen, the fact that they make the money they make is part of the business. The NFL is a very successful business and I love football and sports all together. But honestly, they should see this as a blessing and not greed that they make this money. Not everyone has their talent and not everyone can make 10mil a year playing a sport.

Now I'm reading from rotoworld.com that Vincent Jackson might be the 'holdup' in this deal, as he doesn't want the franchise tag, that will pay him $10 million a year. Like seriously, how can you not find this greedy?

You really don't know how things work what so ever. All you see is millions of dollars so to you everyone should just **** and take what they get. Nobody wants the franchise tag because if you break your leg then what? No matter if you work at Subway, or the NFL, your going to get what your worth and negotiate properly.


If you would fix your line of thinking into "well their millionaires just take it and be happy" you would understand what it's like to negotiate and just don't get a crappy ass deal well below market value because your already a millionaire anyway right?

TheBoyWonder22
07-24-2011, 11:04 AM
You really don't know how things work what so ever. All you see is millions of dollars so to you everyone should just **** and take what they get. Nobody wants the franchise tag because if you break your leg then what? No matter if you work at Subway, or the NFL, your going to get what your worth and negotiate properly.


If you would fix your line of thinking into "well their millionaires just take it and be happy" you would understand what it's like to negotiate and just don't get a crappy ass deal well below market value because your already a millionaire anyway right?
With that, how much more is VJax really worth. You're right in that the franchise tag really screws guys over, but the guy has been only really tearing it up for like two years. Isn't that kinda like paying Dwayne Bowe that much for how he played last year? I'm not questioning if he's doing the right thing, I'm questioning if he's really worth that much.

Zycho32
07-25-2011, 04:56 AM
I suspect today will be the longest day ever for the faithful.

Be honest here, how many of you asked off from work today, or are planning to sneak in some sort of media medium to said workplaces in order to get fresh updates around the clock?

Jvig43
07-25-2011, 06:35 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820f4814/article/players-owners-agree-on-new-labor-deal-pending-vote?module=HP11_breaking_news

stephenson86
07-25-2011, 06:57 AM
Got to say as much as I hate the fact this happened, I love how it is going to make FA horribly exciting.

killxswitch
07-25-2011, 08:16 AM
************* this **** could start TOMORROW!!!! Bring on Brandon Mebane, Aubrayo Franklin, or Barry Cofield to the Colts!!

ATLDirtyBirds
07-25-2011, 08:22 AM
Player reps should be voting at 11 AM today.

bucfan12
07-25-2011, 08:32 AM
About time this is done. Question: Does this mean that the game in London this year is moved back to Tampa, or was Aug. 1 the deadline for that?

killxswitch
07-25-2011, 08:33 AM
I don't think the London game has been cancelled.

SolidGold
07-25-2011, 08:43 AM
I was reading Peter King's MMQB and their were a few excerpts regarding how this CBA can change the game:

"The game as we know it. Most in the football establishment, like this well-respected GM, don't like the changes that have players on the field less. "We complain about tackling all the time,'' he said. "How are we gonna teach tackling without practicing tackling enough? I will not be surprised if you see the smashmouth game disappear.''

I heard it all this weekend -- that the game will turn into the college spread offense, that lack of fundamental work will make the game sloppy, that new coaches who used tough training camps to toughen their teams won't be able to do that anymore. Maybe. But the smartest football coaches in the world -- all of whom will be playing by the same set of restrictive rules -- will learn to adapt."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/24/labor/index.html#ixzz1T7lFCyu9

What do you guys think? I think the spread is already here to stay in the NFL but its the New England/Green Bay type spread, not the spread option so prevalent in college FB. The lack of fundamentals and tackling has been pretty bad in the league for awhile now so I doubt it will be that much worse. The speed of the NFL is also able to negate some of the advantages of the spread.

49erNation85
07-25-2011, 08:58 AM
I have to agree that tackling has been pretty crappy lately in the last five years or so that I can remember.

But with the spread trying to make a bigger come back in the NFL it won't be a true spread system like UF had or even OKA had more a pass heavy system then maybe use I formation or ace set to run the ball to mix it up.Teams with former spread QB should take full advantage of this like Denver and maybe St.Louis.Again the coaches will adapt I agree.I'm just glad that there will be football this year.Should be a fun season for us 49ers fan to see if we can actually make the post season.

boknows34
07-25-2011, 09:07 AM
@AdamSchefter
Filed to ESPN: Latest timeline for getting NFL back in business - subject to approval by the NFLPA. Here are the details...

@AdamSchefter
Teams can sign their free agents this afternoon. Teams can begin talking to UFAs this afternoon. Teams can sign UFAs tomorrow at noon.

@AdamSchefter
Teams can begin talking trades this afternoon. Any trade made would not become official until Saturday.

@AdamSchefter
Teams can begin signing UFAs tomorrow at noon. Those contracts would not take effect until Aug 2.

@AdamSchefter
Ten teams would report Weds, 10 Thurs, 10 Fri, with Jets and Texans reporting on Sunday. New league year would start Aug. 2 at 4 pm.



**@AdamSchefter
Teams can sign their free agents this afternoon. Teams can begin talking to UFAs this afternoon. Teams can sign UFAs tomorrow at noon.

However.....

@Jay_Glazer
Trades can be made and rookies signed starting tomorrow. Free agents cannot be signed until 6 pm Friday. All FA's on same time line, no exclusive window for own FA's

Albert Breer also reporting 6pm Friday for the start of all free agency signings.

SolidGold
07-25-2011, 09:14 AM
This is going to be a fun week.

killxswitch
07-25-2011, 09:18 AM
This is going to be a fun week.

Hell YES it is!!!

leroyisgod
07-25-2011, 09:24 AM
I cannot see the start of signing FA's until later this week.

ArkyRamsFan
07-25-2011, 10:53 AM
************* this **** could start TOMORROW!!!! Bring on Brandon Mebane, Aubrayo Franklin, or Barry Cofield to the Colts!!

Noooooooo!!...Barry Cofield is going to be wearing a Rams uniform so he can be reunited with Steve Spagnuolo in St. Louis!!

boknows34
07-25-2011, 10:55 AM
Teams starting Camp Wednesday: Broncos, Cardinals, Cowboys, Chargers, Eagles, Jaguars, Patriots, Raiders, Ravens, Seahawks.

Thu: 49ers, Bengals, Buccaneers, Chiefs, Dolphins, Falcons, Lions, Redskins, Saints, Steelers.

Friday: Bears, Bills, Browns, Colts, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Rams, Titans, Vikings.

Sunday: Jets & Texans.

falloutboy14
07-25-2011, 11:23 AM
NFLN is saying that you can't sign other teams' free agents until friday. Hope that's not the case as 4 days is a long wait. Not to mention some teams have camp opening on Wednesday.

Matthew Jones
07-25-2011, 11:26 AM
I cannot see the start of signing FA's until later this week.

Why not? The teams have probably already agreed with a number of players - tampering has not been even remotely enforced during the lockout.

falloutboy14
07-25-2011, 12:02 PM
Schedule per NFLN just now:
Tuesday 10am est
- Signing of drafted players & UDFAs
- Players can report to build
- Trades can happen
- Negotiating with ANY unrestricted free agent. Can't put pen to paper, but can lay groundwork of a deal.


Thursday 4pm est
-Waiver wire, players can be released

Friday 6pm est
- UFAs can be signed.

Didn't hear anything about teams being about to sign their own guys till Friday. Gonna be mayhem on Friday night & Saturday if true

killxswitch
07-25-2011, 12:38 PM
Here's the official timeline (per PFT):

On Tuesday, team facilities will open for voluntary training, conditioning, and classroom instruction.

On Tuesday, trades can begin.

At 10:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, teams may sign drafted rookies, undrafted rookies, and negotiate with (but not sign) their own unrestricted free agents, restricted free agents, exclusive-rights players, and franchise players.

Also, beginning at 10:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, teams may negotiate with, but not sign or give offer sheets to, other teamís unrestricted free agents, restricted free agents, and franchise players.

At 4:01 p.m. ET on Thursday, teams may waive or terminate player contracts.

At 6:00 p.m. ET on Friday, teams may renegotiate existing player contracts.

Also at 6:00 p.m. ET on Friday, teams sign their own unrestricted free agents, restricted free agents, exclusive-rights free agents, and franchise players.

Also at 6:00 p.m. ET on Friday, teams may sign unrestricted free agents from other teams, restricted free agents from other teams, and franchise players from other teams.

TheFinisher
07-25-2011, 12:53 PM
With the short pre-season it would have made more sense to allow all transactions to begin tomorrow IMO. I don't understand why they're letting training camps open 2 full days before you're even allowed to sign/re-sign FAs. The teams are going to be incomplete and the new additions after FA will be far behind.

I just don't see the reasoning for putting it off til this weekend.

Ness
07-25-2011, 01:28 PM
LOL at Foxworth's speech.

gpngc
07-25-2011, 01:29 PM
I don't know if anyone else is watching this press conference but it's actually good TV.

And apparently Dominique Foxworth saved football. And he cracked a joke.

Don Vito
07-25-2011, 01:29 PM
Jeff Saturday is the man

yodabear
07-25-2011, 01:38 PM
ITS OVER! Lets go streaking through the quad, into the gymnasium, and the when we go grab some KFC when we are done! ITS OVER, ITS OVER! LETS GO STREAKING. Time for the Rams to win the Super Bowl.

killxswitch
07-25-2011, 01:56 PM
Players as a whole still need to vote but it's almost guaranteed they will vote yes. Except James Harrison because he is just a grumpy mother****er.

_YL_
07-25-2011, 02:16 PM
Glad that it's finally over.

TitanHope
07-25-2011, 02:32 PM
Woah, woah, woah, wooaahhh.... Football's back?

I'VE NEVER BEEN MORE AROUSED!!!

DoughBoy
07-25-2011, 02:38 PM
Woah, woah, woah, wooaahhh.... Football's back?

I'VE NEVER BEEN MORE AROUSED!!!

want 2 dock?

PackerLegend
07-25-2011, 03:04 PM
Dhg2ic4JMn4

Brothgar
07-25-2011, 03:30 PM
_C9RPUQ1vwQ