In a statement posted on the NFL Players Association’s web site, NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw talks about Tuesday’s vote to pull the plug prematurely on the CBA.
“Today, the NFL Owners voted to terminate the Collective Bargaining Agreement two years early,” Upshaw said. “This comes as no surprise to the players. The next two seasons will be played as usual, with a salary cap that was established in our recent 2006 extension. The deal gives the players 60 percent of the revenue. It was the owner’s choice to opt out of the agreement because they feel the current labor agreement does not recognize the cost of building stadiums, a rookie wage scale and players who breech [sic] their contract. All of these issues have been addressed and continue to be addressed.”
Fortunately, Upshaw’s statement contains no rhetoric. With less than ten months to work out an extension before the start of the last capped year, no one benefits from talk that creates a bigger wedge between the parties.
As we see it, the challenge that everyone is ignoring (so far) is the issue of revenue sharing. The supplemental revenue system that was created in conjunction with the 2006 CBA extension felt like a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, and we think that the owners need to some up with a comprehensive solution to the problem, in a manner aimed at ensuring that the NFL doesn’t experience the competitive imbalance that has plagued major league baseball for longer than we care to remember.
_2.gif)






May 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Here’s a comprehensive solution. Force the two or three owners that refuse to explore ways to generate alternative revenue but insist that they deserve a cut from those that work hard to make extra cash to sell their teams. They’re nothing but anchors that are slowing everybody else down. If Ralph Wilson needs more money to survive, maybe he should have thought about that before he so graciously NAMED HIS STADIUM AFTER HIMSELF. He could still get a naming rights deal but you know he won’t even try.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
May 21st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Vox I agree with your point on the owner revenue sharing and you said it perfectly.
Now for the rest of it. Who doesn’t think Chad Johnsions antics would be none if the Bengals were able to do what the Eagles did to T.O.?
They could bench him and send him home and not pay him. The CBA gave Chad Johnson the free ticket he needed to be as loud as he wants and say whatever he wants about his ream mates and coaches. This is another one of the issues that needs to be addressed.
As for Upshaw, he’s just trying to ride it out for as long he can because he gets paid regardless of what happens. I would like to see the players oust him and bring in some one that wants to get down to what is best for Football not what is best for the owners and whats best for the players.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
Haha, funny stuff Vox
I also find it hilarious that the same 8 teams are designed to go to the MLB post-season and act like what they did was some sort of an accomplishment. The system is designed for the Yankees or Sox to win every year, and it amazes me that people actually bother celebrating when they do. Face it, if a team who out-spends their competition 5-1 can’t win, something is fundamentally wrong (as seems to be the case with the Yankees this year and manager Joe Torre). There’s no sportsmanship in spending your way to a championship, period.
I’ll cry if the NFL turns
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am
Vox,
Wayne Weaver is doing what he can in Jacksonville and has a “low-revenue” team. He doesn’t own his stadium either - which means it’s not entirely his fault the naming rights haven’t been sold.
But teams like Jacksonville are NEVER going to come close to generating the revenue that teams like Dallas and Washington take in, but are forced to spend more and more because of those teams. IMO, the cap should be based on designated revenues or else there needs to be more revenue sharing.
Imagine if YOUR income tax went up based on the top 10 net wealths in the country. Should you be criticized for complaining that you haven’t become the next Bill Gates, while being forced to shell out more money because the insanely rich got richer?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)