At the time, we didn’t appreciate the significance of three big-money deals being struck within a tight time frame earlier this afternoon. With a chance to reflect on the situation, the light bulb began to flicker.
And so we ask: Does the fact that the owners voted unanimously to cancel the Collective Bargaining Agreement two years early mesh with the decision of the Cowboys and Falcons to hand out contracts worth $167 million to three players?
In our view, it doesn’t.
Looking at the situation more deeply, it’s almost as if Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Falcons owner Arthur Blank opted to voice subtle dissent to the notion that the system that pays 59-cents-on-the-dollar to players needs to change.
Really, why did the three deals that pay so much money to the players have to be done on the same day that owners pulled the plug on the CBA based on the notion that its paying the players so much money?
Coincidentally (or not), two of the three players involved are represented by CAA, the same firm that represents NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw, who surely will be making hay with the fact that two of the 32 owners who voted to kill the current deal proceeded to shell out more than $167 million between them later that same day.
_2.gif)





May 20th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“why did the three deals that pay so much money to the players have to be done on the same day that owners pulled the plug on the CBA based on the notion that its paying the players so much money?”
Because there was a 3pm deadline to get the deals done or else they would be subject to a different set of post-opt-out rules, which would have barred pro-rating the signing bonuses past 5 seasons.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
And don’t forget about the 30% rule kicking in for 2010 instead of 2012.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Sorry Mike, not buying that one. Go back to the tea leaves.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The timing on these deals were for accounting reasons. If Jones and Blank wanted to voice subtle dissent they would have simply voted to extend the current CBA (duh). Clearly a UNANIMOUS vote says we are ALL in agreement on this issue. It is very rare ALL owners agree, clearly this is an issue where there is NO dissent among ownership! They are coming to regain control of league, the inmates (players and the union that represents them) have been running the asylum and I believe the owners are in agreement that it is time they take control back.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
marv, I thought the same thing until I saw Florio’s latest post that says it isn’t so. Weird that the pro ration didn’t change this time.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 21st, 2008 at 5:11 am
What are the chances its the PLAYERS who got twitchy and pushed for big deals, Florio? Maybe they know of an angle not yet touched upon here? It takes two to tango and if it weren’t in a players best interests to sign, surely they would recognize this and willingly play on lame-duck contracts sure in the knowledge that they’d get better deals later.
All this talk may just amount to a buncha smoke, but its fun watching things unfold…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated