Owners just broke off the talks.

There should be a ton of quality players cut today.

I heard "Killer" on "It Is What It Is" today and he shared some very interesting details.

First - don't be surprised if some 1st round picks sit out all year this year. They're expecting rookies will be the big winners next year however the cap shakes out and if guys in the draft know that (believe me, their agents will make sure they do) they may wait until then to sign their deal.

Second - the players have been looking forward to 2007 expecting tons of money. Killer says they were looking forward to false promises. He doesn't expect any kind of huge money to come their way. If it does, like he said, it will be rookies who benefit the most.

Third - the Lions are sitting pretty right now. So many big names are going to be out there that the teams under the cap will benefit greatly. It won't be a bidding war because it doesn't have to be. If a big name guy gets a big deal, there goes all that limited money on one guy, which means less money for the rest of the guys. He claims it is very realistic to think the Lions might be able to cut Harrington and get BOTH Brees and Griese for the price of Harrington. He also said things could look good with guys like Runyan, Derrick Brooks, Simeon Rice, a number of big names as potential additions in Detroit. In the past just one of these guys would have eaten up all the cap room, but with a tiny, finite amount of money in the market, these guys will have to take way less. He also said the Lions will likely make the minimum offers to their 4 RFA's, and probably get away with it due to the lack of spending money around the league.

The NFL really has the players by the balls. The average NFL career is so short that 80% of the league can't afford to sit out too long and will likely approve a lesser deal just to ensure they don't lose too many of their earning years. They'll make all the right comments beforehand about how they have to make things right for the next generations and how they'll stand strong, but if it ever comes to the point that they're about to stop getting paychecks, they'll sign.

I'm sure that I am looking at this too simplistically, but if the cap is going to come in about $13m lower than they expected, if you multiply that by 32 teams, that's $416 million in salaries that will be missing from the marketplace.

Long but interesting read. I bolded the high points if you want to skim those:


Killer WDFN Notes:

Dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria
So what is going down with the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement? Tom Kowalski breaks it down, point-by-point, with Sean Baligian on Sports Radio 1130 Detroit. The players could lose money hand-over-fist if a deal isn't reached by 10 p.m., and the Lions are one of the few teams that will actually benefit since they are way under the salary cap. (In his blog, Kowalski says the players are out of their gourds if they don't come to an agreement.)

"It's a bad day for football fans."

Players don't even understand the magnitude of this deal. Players think money will flow like water in 2007's uncapped year, but there are number of poison pills that will hurt them in this deal. The Lions will offer four restricted free agents the minimum deals, whereas in recent years they would've gotten a quality offer. The Lions know there's no money in the league, that not only will no one go after unrestricted free agents -- no one is going to touch RFAs. "The money's just getting squeezed now, and I don't think the players understand that."

"I'm telling you, it's going to be a lot like the NHL where after they realize how close they were to making a lot of money, and now they're getting way less, they're going to be really upset," Killer says.

Baligian says in the NHL everyone knew the owners had to do something, they had no money. In the NFL there's money pouring in. Tom says the owners are not just going to give it away. In the past the players got 65 percent of "Designated Gross Revenues," that doesn't include some stadium income like suites and naming rights. Players now want "Total Football Revenue." They want 60 percent of that, and the NFL wants them to get 56.2 percent of that. What players don't understand is that owners like Ford put $300 million of his own money into the stadium. He makes the investment, and they had nothing to do with it. Players didn't put anything into it, but they want something out of it.

The difference between 56 and 60 is a LOT of money. If they players stay firm on wanting 60 percent, Tom believes that in 2008 there'll be a work stoppage. "There's no way the NFL's going to continue without a salary cap." There would be guys like Dan Snyder who will spend $250 million on a roster and destroy the league. The NFL's popularity is now built upon parity. There'll be a work stoppage because of this fight. If they don't get the deal done tonight, we're headed down uncharted waters and it'll be a mess.

Baligian asks if parity is such a bad thing? Kowalski says it's not just parity, it's financial balance where everyone can make money. The NFL players are not paid on the same level as NBA and MLB guys, but you'll never have guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Not in a sport where you lose so many players to injury. "Everybody will go bankrupt if they do that." What you want is free agency, and it's worked by-and-large.

When they go into 2007 uncapped, many think players will be making all this money. The only players making the money are the free agents, and there won't really be many of those because of a trigger that changes when a player can become a free agent. Now it's after their fourth year, the "new" rules would be a sixth year. Guys like Roy Williams will have to wait two more years. Not only that, but teams get two franchise or transition tags they can use to limit movement, as opposed to only one now. And many teams now choose not to use a tag because they can't fit the new salary under the cap. With no cap, why would anyone not use those tags? Every team will retain their two best free agents automatically.

Kowalski expands on the new free agency rules. If you have to wait six years to be eligible for free agency, instead of four, there will be a lot of rookies who sit out the year and wait until next year. The only good thing about an uncapped year is that rookies will make all the money. There are no restrictions on them. They have got to make their money when they can because they can't go to free agency for another six years. Why would Vince Young and Matt Leinart take a lousy four year deal, when next year they can take all the money they want?

Sean asks if this means the Raiders, Dolphins, Chiefs, Titans, Redskins, Broncos, Panthers, Falcons, and more teams that will be over the cap in some capacity to just to start slashing and burning their rosters to get under? Tom says yes. But, they extended the deadline from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Expect teams to wait until the last possible second, hoping that a deal gets done. The NFL doesn't want teams cutting players at 8 p.m. and a deal gets done by 9:30. The real hard drastic trimming of big stars won't happen until the very last second. They'll try to put it off as long as possible, hoping something will get done.

Tom says the cap would go from $94.5 million now to $105-108 million immediately if they took the deal on the table. Most of those guys would not only not be cut, they could rework their deals for more money and years because of the four-year free agency rules.

After the NHL debacle, you see the art of negotiation is to get all that you can, when you can't squeeze anymore you take what you can and run with it. "I hope the players union is smart enough (to do that)." Tom believes if the owners are presented with 57 or 58 percent they may take it. They have a lot to lose, too. They don't want to see this deal die. The union has to come off that 60 percent number.

Baligian says this whole deal should bode well for teams under the salary cap the Vikings, Cardinals, Browns, and even the Lions. Kowalski says yes, it does. The Lions operated under a budget thinking that the cap would be $92 or $93 million. So the Lions are $12-13 million under right now. If there's no CBA extension, the Lions should be one of the teams that goes after Drew Brees really hard. First, there aren't many teams that can bid on him. Second, because of the restricted competition his asking price should come down.

Tom ponders -- if you could bring in Drew Brees and Brian Griese under the same price as Joey Harrington? Would you do it in this scenario? The Lions may have to make that decision. Also, do you continue to tender Jeff Backus if a Jon Runyan is out there? There will be high profile guys available. Do you make a run at Simeon Rice and Derrick Brooks even if they're here for one year? They have some great years left in them, and they already know Marinelli's system. These are not the old rules! The Lions may think this is time to make some moves.

Matt Dery asks if Simeon Rice will come to Detroit because he's in love with Marinelli? Tom plugs the transcript and video of Rice's interview on the NFL Network. He's an interesting guy, and he has some baggage, but these guys will come for less money anyway. There won't be much money out there available. Even if you can pay it, you dont' have to because there isn't much competition for these guys. "These salaries are going to come way down, and I think the players better to be braced for it."

Sean says he expects Tom to report tomorrow the Lions sign Randy Moss, Sam Madison, Priest Holmes, Steve McNair, and Clinton Portis. Tom says don't forget Drew Brees, Will Shields, Derrick Brooks, Simeon Rice, and Adam Viniteri.

March 2, MLive.com: Because the Lions have operating room under the cap, they're expected to make a run at a couple of high-profile free agents. And San Diego Chargers quarterback Drew Brees could be among them.

The Lions are in a unique position to go after a player like Brees because some of the teams they'd be bidding against aren't in position to compete. The Miami Dolphins, for instance, were $21 million over the cap on Wednesday night and were scrambling to get under the cap.

The report that the Lions are fine is welcome news to Lions fans, but there are more questions that loom. Killer hit the forum to answer your questions. Here's this morning's Q&A with Kowalski.

electriclion: Do you think we are headed for a similar situation the NHL had, in that when all is said and done the players are going to be angery at their leadership for not taking one of the deals that was already on the table?
TomKowalski: I think we're headed in that ... direction ... but i'm still hoping they come to their senses ... upshaw standing firm at 60 is stupid ... if they're only going to give 57 or 58, you take what you can ... once the union does that, i believe the owners will get together and settle their issues ... that's my hope ...

kevinjones1: Cap violations explained So...what happens if a team goes over the Salary Cap? Here's the answer, from Al Lackner of the site "Ask the Commish."

Answer: The short answer is simply that NO team CAN go over the Salary Cap. Note that every contract must go through the NFL League Office before the deal can be made official. Presumably, one of the things the league must do at this time is determine whether or not the contract would violate the NFL's Salary Cap. If the deal does violate the cap, then the NFL will reject it.

There have been instances in which a team has managed to sneak a cap evading contract by the league. Upon further review, the violations were caught by the league and the respective teams were penalized. Penalties include fines and/or forfeiture of draft picks. In recent history both the Pittsburgh Steelers and San Francisco 49ers have been penalized draft picks, while the 49ers' front office personnel (Carmen Policy and Dwight Clark) were also fined.

TomKowalski: More specifically ... in the event that a team is over the cap on march 3 (they didn't have to be under before then), the penalties are severe ... first, any team over the cap cannot sign ANY player or participate in the draft ... if the team lingers in staying over the cap and then finally gets under it, they could have ALL of their draft picks taken away ... and, on top of that, there are major-league fines that can be levied ...

Bayern: Is there any talk that the Lions will take the franchise tag off of Backus if more top flight offensive linemen become available?
TomKowalski: Not yet, but ... i will refer you to a recent quote by matt millen, who wasn't talking about any player in particular -- "we will do whatever it takes to make this team better.'' ... if there's a slew of high quality players coming available, and the price is right, all bets are off ... that's why the lions suddenly find themselves in the drew brees chase ...

Pudgethefish: TOM: You said teams are likely to move slowly because of all this CBA stuff. Does that mean teams won't even invite free agents in to visit? It seems to me that regardless of the monetary issues, showing real interest in a player early on is still a good way to start negotiations. Am I way off on this train of thought or will there be no activity at all???
TomKowalski: No, you're right ... i suspect there will still be a lot of visits, but i don't see much going on beyond that ...

rickguy45: Tom: safe to assume... that Harrington will not be restructuring his contract if the CBA isn't extended, or a new one signed?
TomKowalski: Here's the thing ... it's not harrington that doesn't want to renegotiate, it's the lions ... they've been pretty good about not pushing money into future years when they don't have to ... and the current cba situation really doesn't affect harrington because he only has two years left ...

Millennoclue: Tom-How will this affect the draft? If a CBA is not reached, will this have any effect on the draft? Underclassmen wait untill next year?
TomKowalski: There could be a lot of players who sit out ... so, if the cba doesn't get extended today, don't get too hyped about hawk, huff or anybody else ...

Zoboa: Tom: Sal Cap room Is the 10-12 million in salary cap room over and above what it will take to tender the RFAs and the money that will go toward the rookie pool? Or will the approx $3 million for RFAs and $4 million for Rookie pool still have to come off that?
TomKowalski: My guess ... is that the cap will be down to about $10 million after the lions tender their restricted free agents today ...

Questions and answers about the NFL labor talks

The sudden change in the climate of labor negotiations between the NFL and the players' association, and the sudden flurry of player cuts, has left many fans with questions. Fortunately, ESPN.com has answers.

What is the primary issue?
The deadline to extend the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had been scheduled to expire at 12:01 a.m. Friday, March 3. However, the league and the players' union mutually agreed late Thursday to extend that deadline by 72 hours, to Monday, March 6, at 12:01 a.m. This is merely the negotiating period to extend the CBA. The CBA itself does not expire until after the 2007 season.

Why is that deadline important?
That deadline represents the beginning of the new NFL fiscal year. Teams had been working under a deadline of 10 p.m. ET Thursday to come into compliance with the salary cap, a six-hour reprieve from the original 4 p.m. ET deadline. However, Thursday's delay in the start of the new league year also pushed back the deadline for teams to release players and clear their salaries from the books. Teams now have until 6 p.m. ET Sunday to get under the 2006 cap limit.

Could the negotiating deadline be extended again?
Once thought unlikely, a further delay in the start of the new fiscal year is certainly possible given Thursday's developments. Pushing back the start of free agency gives the league and the union more time to work on an extension, and in the event an extension still can't be reached, gives teams more time to come into compliance with the 2006 cap.

If the sides are unable to agree on an extension, though, some teams will have to release some very significant players in order to clear cap room. The 2005 cap was $85.5 million, and teams were anticipating a 2006 cap of around $102 million with an extension to the CBA. However, the actual 2006 cap is going to be $94.5 million, which has some teams scrambling to comply.

If an extension is reached, what happens to players already released for cap purposes?
A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?
No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. However, teams have been fined in the past for attempts to circumvent the cap. ESPN.com contributor and former Miami Dolphins GM Rick Spielman says NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has wide latitude in fining teams -- and even individual team executives -- or stripping draft picks for failure to comply with the salary cap.

With some teams in dire cap shape, we could see sooner than later just how wide the commissioner's latitude is. The Washington Redskins are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs that have studied the Redskins' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.

Will any of this affect 2006 free agency?
Aside from the player pool growing rapidly as teams cut players to comply with the cap, the biggest change in the free-agency landscape a lack of an extension will bring is that teams only will be able to prorate signing bonuses over four years, rather than seven, meaning players seeking large bonuses could be disappointed. And since base salaries can increase by a maximum of only 30 percent per year, the huge contracts we've seen recently (Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, for example) are likely a thing of the past. In short, it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to meet players' financial expectations.

Will any of this affect the 2006 season?
Only to the extent that some teams could look remarkably different heading into training camp than they did at the end of the 2005 season. But the current CBA actually has two more years to run (2006 and 2007), so if there is going to be a work stoppage at all, it's not likely to happen until 2008.

What happens if there is no extension to the current CBA?
Without an extension, the final season of the current CBA (2007) will be an uncapped season, meaning teams would have no limit on the amount of money they could spend on players.

Given the potential absence of a salary cap in 2007, some 2006 free agents might be unwilling to sign long-term contracts, figuring they could earn even more in the uncapped 2007. And NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has said once the salary cap goes away, the players aren't going to accept its return. Also, while unlikely, the potential exists that the owners could lock the players out in 2008. That is one reason the NFLPA will consider decertifying.

How will free agency be different in 2007?
Currently, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years. Without an extension to the CBA, players won't be eligible for unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers from their current teams.

Does an uncapped season also mean there's no salary minimum?
Yes. Currently, there is a salary minimum, as well as a salary cap. Every team must allocate a certain minimum amount to player salaries. However, when the salary cap goes away, so does the salary floor. Teams could choose not to spend a dime.

What happens to players' benefits (401k plans, health coverage, etc.)?
In an uncapped 2007, owners no longer will be responsible for their annual payments of about $13 million apiece to 401k plans, health coverage, life insurance and other programs under the umbrella of benefits. The NFL matches each player's 401k investments 2-for-1.

How does all of this affect the 2006 NFL draft?
Signing draft choices will be more difficult this year, because teams can prorate signing bonuses over only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That likely will lead to long holdouts by draft choices.

What are the long-term ramifications for the league?
Barring a new CBA, the players either will be on strike or the owners will lock out the players in 2008. The union likely will decertify, and antitrust rules will apply. Also, the NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted into the current CBA. Players coming out of college could be free agents, with no salary restrictions. Open negotiations, including those for rookies coming out of college, will leave it to the players to get what they can get.

What are the long-term ramifications for the players?
If the union does decertify, it will cause a lot of uncertainty for the players. Teams could change the benefits package players receive, and there would be no organization to protect players' interests. Teams could offer salaries well below the currently established minimums.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2351462

Thread title changed to reflect recent developments.

This is getting really interesting.

The players seem united, they all want more money.

The owners, on the other hand, seem to each have their own agendas here (haves v. have nots). If you listen to guys like Jerry Jones, they sound like they'd almost prefer that no settlement be reached so they can get to that cap free season next year.

I haven't said anything in this thread, but I'm definately following it. Keep up the good work fellas.

Thread title changed to reflect recent developments.

This is getting really interesting.

The players seem united, they all want more money.

The owners, on the other hand, seem to each have their own agendas here (haves v. have nots). If you listen to guys like Jerry Jones, they sound like they'd almost prefer that no settlement be reached so they can get to that cap free season next year.
Jerry Jones would build the next super bowl dynasty cowboys along with the niners being ressurected if that happens.

While this makes it interesting, it also makes it more frustrating for those of us waiting for speculation on who the Lions will be courting. Not like they'll finish better than 5-11, but I've gotta have my fix!

Imagine if all the first rounders hold out this year. That would be rediculous.

Talks between NFL, union resume in silence

Talks between the NFL and its players union resumed Friday afternoon, minus the rhetoric that has characterized earlier discussions.

That was perhaps a sign that the sides take seriously the ramifications of beginning free agency without a new deal - something that was seven hours away from happening before the league and the union agreed Thursday to extend by three days the start of the NFL's new calendar year.

It now begins at 12:01 a.m. EST on Monday.

The two sides were not talking publicly Friday and wouldn't even reveal the location of the talks - but they were believed to be in New York, where they broke off Tuesday after three days. Owners were under the threat of fines for talking to the media and Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and other union officials were equally silent.

But silence sometimes signals hope in labor negotiations. And the best sign may be the decision to resume talks, which came a day after commissioner Paul Tagliabue suggested the picture for any agreement was grim.

Another good sign was that Dan Rooney of Pittsburgh and Jerry Richardson of Carolina - two owners who are considered moderates - stayed in New York after Thursday's league meeting to help with the talks. Rooney has helped settle labor disputes before and is one of the owners Upshaw trusts.

The contract between the players and the league doesn't expire for another two seasons.

But this would be the final year of the salary cap, which will be about $94.5 million this year if there is no labor agreement. That would leave many teams well over the cap, which could be $10 million more if there is a contract extension, forcing them to cut many veterans.

If there is no deal and the cap doesn't increase, it would leave a glut of players on the free-agent market and many teams without much money to sign them. Next year, the final season of the contract, would be without a cap - and that would contain limitations that could hurt the players, such as raising the number of years of eligibility for free agency from four to six.

Both sides appear to have reached the brink of that situation, and then realized it was better to try again to reach agreement than to face it.

In fact, there were reports that a number of players called the union urging officials to reconsider their position to avoid a scenario that would most likely have its biggest impact on high-salaried veterans - players such as New York Jets center Kevin Mawae, Kansas City guard Will Shields and Tampa Bay linebacker Derrick Brooks, all multi-time Pro Bowlers in danger of being cut.

On the other hand, those players are often in danger of being cut. Dallas, for example, announced Friday it has released La'Roi Glover, who is second in career sacks among defensive tackles behind Warren Sapp.

On the surface, the dispute is over percentage points - the union says it wants 60-plus percent of league revenues earmarked for the players; the owners are offering 56.2 percent. That amounts to approximately $10 million per team per year.

Some team officials think there are other issues, including how signing bonuses are prorated for the salary cap and how much salaries can increase yearly.

"The rules are going to have a bigger impact than the dollar amount," said Tom Lewand, chief operating officer of the Detroit Lions.

Still, there are indications there is some agreement on how to deal with those issues.

More important is a dispute among the owners - a continuing debate between high-revenue teams and low-revenue teams. The low-revenue teams contend that they would pay a far higher percentage of their non-football revenue into the player salary pool than those with higher incomes and want it balanced.

Upshaw has contended that solving that dispute could be the key to getting a new labor contract.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5378744

PS I split the draft and FA portions of this thread to keep the focus on the CBA.

On the surface, the dispute is over percentage points -- the union says it wants 60-plus percent of league revenues earmarked for the players; the owners are offering 56.2 percent. That amounts to approximately $10 million per team per year.

Wow. I hadn't realized that a 4 percentage point difference is worth THAT much.

I'm hoping they make a deal, and the cap is lower that they are talking (ie 90-100 mil instead of 105-110 mil). That way there will still be some cuts.

20 minutes until the cap compliance deadline and 10 teams are still over the cap

NFL extends waiver deadline to Sunday, 10 p.m. ET

The NFL delayed the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap to 10 p.m. ET Sunday, ESPN's Chris Mortensen and John Clayton reported.

The owners and the players' union have until midnight Sunday to agree on an extension to the league's collective bargaining agreement. Free agency will begin on Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET.

If no agreement is reached on an extension to the CBA, the projected salary cap for 2006 will be $94.5 million. On Saturday, it was believed that about 10 franchises still had cap overages. Also, if there is no agreement, 2007 will be an uncapped year.

Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players' Association, told Mortensen that the two sides are meeting in New York again Sunday and that they communicated via e-mail on Saturday night after face-to-face talks broke down during the day. Sunday's talks reportedly began just before noon ET.

In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Upshaw said the two sides were "now in the area where we will get a deal. I think it may be there. It comes down to a few final points."

This is in stark contrast to how the talks ended Saturday. Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, one of the lead negotiators for the NFLPA and part of a small group that huddled with league representatives, termed the negotiations "as dead as a doornail."

Identifying a cause of death, given the veil of secrecy under which the negotiations were conducted for a total of 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday, might be difficult. But the inability to bridge the differences over two key issues -- the internal revenue sharing among the league's 32 teams and the so-called "cash over cap" problem -- were almost certainly among the components which forced the end to negotiations.

One prominent owner strongly suggested to ESPN.com that those two issues, which he lumped under the umbrella category of "revenue sharing-related things," indeed led to the collapse of discussions.

It was difficult, however, in the immediate wake of Saturday afternoon's events, to even get the two sides to agree on what had transpired during two days at the bargaining table.

For example, two league sources told ESPN and ESPN.com on Saturday that the NFL had increased its offer on how much revenue would be split with players from 56.2 percent to between 58.2 and 58.5 percent. If true, that would have represented a predictable middle-ground compromise, given that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been seeking 60.3 percent. An NFLPA source insisted, though, that the league's best offer never got to the 58-percent range.

Late Saturday night, Upshaw told Mortensen that the union did come down "a little" from the 60 percent cut of the revenue pie they were demanding. Earlier Upshaw denied that the owners had raised their ante by two points. Mortensen reports that the owners' last offer was 56.6 percent.

When informed late Saturday afternoon of the breakdown in talks, one frustrated owner resonded: "When we can't even agree on what the disagreements are on some issues, well, that just shows you how [messed] up the situation really is, right?"

As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years.

But the low-revenue franchises aren't the only clubs currently opposed to a deal. The owner of one high-revenue franchise told ESPN.com on Saturday night that, counting teams at both ends of the spectrum, he projected that half of the 32 clubs would not endorse an extension to the collective bargaining agreement without further addressing revenue-sharing issues.

Asked if resuming negotiations on Sunday might break the impasse, that owner, who is actually in favor of moving ahead without a deal and seeing how the resultant system functions, said: "At this point, the gap is so wide, we could meet for a month of Sundays and not get anything done."

As Mortensen reported on Friday, the cash over cap component, which in many ways ties into the disparity between the league's "haves" and "have-nots" in terms of how money is calculated, also continues to divide NFL owners. Of course, the issue of cash over cap has always been a hot-button item for low-revenue franchises.

To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Redskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means.

Sources said Saturday that, as part of the weekend discussions, the NFL proposed limiting the amount of cash over cap, per team, to 2 percent. While Upshaw has expressed concern in the past about cash over cap, he likely viewed the 2 percent limit as too low, and as potentially taking money away from players.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

The extension that never ends. I bet it gets extended until tomorrow.

Changes in CBA if no deal is reached

Here are some of the highlights of how the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the players' union would change in 2006 and 2007 if the two sides are unable to reach an agreement on an extension to the current contract.

2005

• Salary cap: 65.5% of designated gross revenues
• Unrestricted free agents: Must have four or more accrued seasons
• Restricted free agents: Must have three accrued seasons
• Franchise players: Each club may designate one
• Transition players: Each club may designate one in lieu of a franchise player
• Salary bonus proration: Maximum of five years
• Unrestricted free agent signing restrictions: None
• Benefits: Second career savings plan, supplemental disability, player annuity program, severance pay plan, tuition assistance plan
• Minimum salaries: In effect


2006

• Salary cap: 64.5% of designated gross revenues
• Unrestricted free agents: Must have four or more accrued seasons
• Restricted free agents: Must have three accrued seasons
• Franchise players: Each club may designate one
• Transition players: Each club may designate one in lieu of a franchise player
• Salary bonus proration: Maximum of four years
• Unrestricted free agent signing restrictions: None
• Benefits: Second career savings plan, supplemental disability, player annuity program, severance pay plan, tuition assistance plan
• Minimum salaries: In effect with increase of $5,000 over 2005

2007

• Salary cap: None
• Unrestricted free agents: Must have six or more accrued seasons
• Restricted free agents: Must have three, four or five accrued seasons
• Franchise players: Each club may designate one
• Transition players: Each club may designate one in addition to a franchise player
• Salary bonus proration: None
• Unrestricted free agent signing restrictions: Final eight teams from 2006 have restricted ability to sign unrestricted free agents
• Benefits: None (teams no longer contribute to second career savings plan, supplemental disability, player annuity program, severance pay plan, tuition assistance plan)
• Minimum salaries: In effect; same as 2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2353065

The deadline has been extended......again to 11:30 PM ET. [smilie=shrug smile:

I told you.

NFL network says free agency delayed until Thursday.

Ah, nothing like an ever changing target date. Isn't it possible that these types of negotiations could have started just a little earlier, to the point that it wouldn't have been necessary to keep extending deadlines whether or not an agreement was reached?

"The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours -- until 12:01 a.m., ET, Thursday, March 9 -- in order to allow the NFL clubs to meet in Dallas on Tuesday to consider the NFL Players Association's offer," the NFL said.

The deadline for teams to be below the salary cap was also pushed back, to 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.

This is beyond ridiculous. If the league keeps extending the deadline, it's obvious the commish wants something to happen. Neither side seems to be moving so what is he waiting for? There are some serious dispute resolution issues here and a bunch of people that aren't willing to give an take. Calling them negotiations is a joke because it doesn't seem like there is much negotiating at all. It's like a staring contest where they're waiting for the other side to blink.

Tagliabue (sp) is retiring in a couple years I think. He doesn't want the legacy of ruining the NFL. He's trying everything he can to get them to hammer out the deal. Eventually you have to stop changing deadlines though.

Tagliabue's impassioned plea gives owners pause

For the first three hours of Tuesday's crucial NFL owners meeting here, everything was informational. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and others detailed the six-year proposal from the NFL Players' Association that commanded 59.5 percent of team revenues. Like patients receiving medicine, the owners took the bad news dose by dose.

Labor costs were much higher than expected. Provisions in the deal irritated owners and front-office people alike. Few liked what they heard.

The tone of the meeting changed when the subject turned to revenue sharing, a problem within the league that has been getting worse for the past two years. In response to a question, Tagliabue stood up and delivered what some considered to be the best speech in his term as commissioner.

Remember, Tagliabue isn't taking a position -- publicly or privately -- on whether owners should accept or reject the players' proposal. His agreement with NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw was to present the union's final proposal to the full body of owners, even though he knows the costs it carries are probably more than the owners are willing to accept.

Yet, during Tagliabue's answer that turned into a speech, he emphasized the importance of walking out of this meeting Wednesday with some kind of a deal. He knows Upshaw is done negotiating. The union granted the owners a three-day reprieve for the start of free agency in order for them to decide if this deal was acceptable.

But Tagliabue's words hit home.

"I think he has made it very clear to me and the other owners that the future of labor relations, player relations, union relations are going to be decided in 24 hours," Giants co-owner Steve Tisch said. "I never heard Paul more opinionated and more animated and committed and passionate as he was tonight. I'm extremely impressed with his positioning, his leadership and his passion, which really came up in the afternoon sessions."

Owners wouldn't repeat Tagliabue's words, but they were apparent. Negotiations with the union are done. The players were willing to reject the NFL's last proposal and start free agency Sunday night. The league was heading toward an uncapped 2007 and a possible lockout in 2008 had someone not done something.

Though Tagliabue didn't want to take the union's proposal to the owners, it was the only way to salvage the salary cap and labor peace. He got all the owners to Dallas and into the same room on Tuesday. On Wednesday, either the NFL will come up with a revenue-sharing plan to make the union's proposal work, or free agency will start at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and the labor problems will escalate.

Tagliabue made it clear that at this point there is no more negotiating with the union. If the owners accept the proposal before 8 p.m. ET Wednesday, free agency will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday. If there is no acceptance, free agency will start Thursday as scheduled and 2006 will be perhaps the last year in the NFL's history with a salary cap.

Once Tagliabue made his speech, the lobbying began. Votes need to be sold. High-revenue teams have to sign off on a revenue-sharing plan that will cost them money. Low-revenue teams have to be convinced that the plan will keep their franchises financially solvent.

Tagliabue summed up history and the future with one long, well-narrated answer. Half the owners in the room are new to the league since the 1980s. They didn't go through the labor problems of the NFL of the 1970s and '80s. They didn't own teams when the NFL and NFLPA forged a salary cap agreement from years of lawsuits and one painful settlement. The NFL almost lost a season like hockey in the 1980s.

Upshaw and Tagliabue get along well and can negotiate deals together, but they aren't going to be around forever. Tagliabue's contract is running out, and he might retire before long. Upshaw has two years remaining on his deal.

If the NFL lets the salary cap disappear, it might be impossible to bring it back, because Upshaw and Tagliabue might not be there to fix it.

These are 24 of the most critical hours in the league's history.

"Paul as been a tremendous communicator," Tisch said. "He has really given Gene's benefits of the deal to the owners. I'm sure afterward, a number of owners will have an opinion. You know, like any other negotiation, when the clock gets to 11:59, I think things get pretty close."

Some owners were getting optimistic vibes from the room that something could pass before Wednesday night. Others like Bob McNair of the Houston Texans were pessimistic. "There's a lot of work to do," he said.

"I'm sold we negotiated the best we can under the circumstances," Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said earlier Tuesday. "So I think we ought to take a look at this thing at its face value."

Here are a few other provisions of the deal.

• Teams will be able to use their franchise tag on a player more than once, but if they franchise a player for a third time, they will have to do it at a salary equivalent to that of a top-five quarterback, the highest-paid position in football.

• Contracts for players selected in rounds two through seven of the collegiate draft will be limited to four years in length. More and more teams have been trying to lock second-day draft choices into five-year contracts that prevent the player from hitting restricted free agency after year three and unrestricted free agency after year four.

• Bonuses in contracts will be pro-rated over five years this year and over six years in 2007, but in 2008 the pro-ration reverts to five years.

The Tuesday meeting ended at 10:15 p.m. ET, completing more than eight hours of talks. No vote was taken, and most of the evening was spent discussing at least three different revenue sharing plans, plans that have been discussed for years.

Raiders owner Al Davis joked that a lot of people were in the room "giving money away." While the discussion was good, no revenue sharing deal was close to settled. "Whenever you discuss revenue sharing, it's like Groundhog Day," Colts owner Jim Irsay said.

Steelers owner Dan Rooney was asked if there was any progress as the meeting ended. "Nothing worth talking about," he said.

Talks will resume at 9 a.m. ET Wednesday, giving the owners 11 hours to get word back to the NFLPA about whether they accept the proposal or not.

One thing is clear: There will be no extensions past Wednesday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2358857

Owners make little progess as deadline nears

NFL owners got off to a slow start Wednesday in trying to beat a deadline and decide on accepting the union's proposal to extend the labor agreement.

"We're not even close to a consensus yet," said Jim Irsay, owner of the Indianapolis Colts.

That assessment came a day after commissioner Paul Tagliabue tried to build consensus with a speech to the owners, reminding them of the labor strife that culminated in strikes in 1982 and 1987.

But the good feeling that engendered seemed to wane as the owners discussed expanded revenue sharing. Irsay suggested they needed a consensus builder like the late Wellington Mara of the New York Giants, the last of the NFL's founding generation, who died last October.

"We need the ghost of St. Wellington to appear with some of the forefathers," he said.

The owners were operating under an 8 p.m. EST deadline to get a deal done before the start of free agency. Free agency, twice delayed, is scheduled to begin Thursday if owners turn down the union's offer. If they approve it, free agency will start Friday.

As the meeting broke up, most of the participants acknowledged there was a long way to go.

"I love my country and I love my league," said Oakland's Al Davis, the NFL's most consistent maverick for decades but now, according to those in the meeting, a strong Tagliabue supporter. "People who have been through this in the past want something good to come of it. What's good is another question."

The real debate is on the important issue of expanded revenue sharing, which has divided teams into "haves" and "have-nots." 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.

There are three plans on the table and each has different supporters and opponents. To get it done, 24 of the 32 teams will have to back one of them.

It is anything but certain that the owners will agree by the deadline to the union's proposal. There was doubt among many owners that any of the plans could get the three-quarters support to pass, according to those in the meetings.

If there is no agreement, it doesn't mean there will be a work stoppage -- at least not for the next two years.

But it would keep the salary cap at $94.5 million rather than as much as $10 million more. It would put a number of veterans on the street and it would also limit the amount available for other free agents. And it would lead to an uncapped year in 2007, which would allow some teams to spend almost at will and keep others from spending at all.

The revenue debate 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 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.

It's difficult to anticipate how the vote may go, especially with the negotiations that have had daily twists and turns. But Jerry Jones, one of the leaders of the high-revenue teams, indicated even before the meeting that his viewpoint might lose.

"We want to play football," Jones said. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.

"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."

Later, Jones said: "We've had a good dialogue. Very productive."

Beyond that, some of the higher-revenue teams that entered the meeting undecided have owners who have traditionally been those who regularly sacrifice for the good of the league.

They include the Denver Broncos, owned by Pat Bowlen, and the New York Giants, run by John Mara, son of the late Wellington Mara, who more than 40 years ago was one of three major-market owners who agreed to share television money. The senior Mara was elected to the Hall of Fame in part because of that decision.

Another fence-sitter is the New York Jets. Traditionally, the Jets have followed the Giants' lead, although that happened more often when Leon Hess, a close friend of Wellington Mara's, owned the team. The current Jets owner is Woody Johnson.

In any event, Tuesday's meeting appeared amicable.

"We haven't punched anyone yet," Rooney said.
http://nfl.com/news/story/9292474

15 minutes until the deadline and still no word on the owner's decision.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9293254

Two more hours....


Labor deadline pushed back two hours


NFL.com wire reports

GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 8, 2006) -- The NFL delayed another deadline.

A little more than two hours before the latest deadline to accept or turn down the NFL Players Association's offer to extend the labor agreement, the owners pushed it back again. This time they extended the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap by two hours, from 9 p.m. ET until 11 p.m.

With that, the owners kept talking as they tried to resolve the sticky issue of expanded revenue sharing that has tied them up for two years. The additional money it would generate is considered the best way the owners can accede to the union's request for slightly less than 60 percent of the league's total revenues.

NFL spokesman Joe Browne, in announcing the deadline change, said it was made to give additional time to reach agreement on the complicated plans on which they are working. The 8 p.m. ET deadline for informing the union whether the owners accept or reject their proposal stands, although there was some question whether the league might be switching time zones -- Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the players union was in Hawaii, where 8 p.m. would be 1 a.m. ET.

The owners' marathon meeting started March 7 and ended with labor peace nowhere in sight.

Earlier today, there was still clearly no consensus.

Jerry Jones of Dallas, the leader of the group opposing revenue sharing, said he was dismayed by developments. Indianapolis' Jim Irsay, one of the spokesmen for the low-revenue teams that want help from the richer teams suggested the league needed a consensus builder like the late Wellington Mara of the New York Giants, the last of the NFL's founding generation, who died last October.

"We need the ghost of St. Wellington to appear with some of the forefathers," Irsay said.

Despite the latest delay, free agency, twice delayed, is still scheduled to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on March 9 if owners turn down the union's offer. If they approve it, free agency will start March 10.

Meanwhile, there was as much lobbying going on as discussion.

At the lunch break, Mara's son John, along with Jerry Richardson of Carolina and Pat Bowlen of Denver met with commissioner Paul Tagliabue in an attempt to find a way to build a consensus. All three are considered "league" men, owners who will do what they think is best for the league, something Tagliabue urged during the March 7 session.

They seemed to be aligned, somewhat surprisingly, with Oakland's Al Davis, a maverick with a long history of court fights with the league. "I love my country and I love my league," Davis said repeatedly.


AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2006, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

This is getting ridiculous. How many times are they going to delay the deadline?

It's not like they are still negotiating. The Union presented their last proposal and the Owners just have to make a decision as to whether they accept it or not. [smilie=banghead.gi:

It's really sad. Over/under on how many more hours this drags on for?

This better mean that the owners are close to an agreement and need just a few more votes.

If they weren't close, why would they push it back just 2 hours?

PS I changed the title to reflect latest developments.

That's really the only logical solution for a delay of 2 hours. I'll be glad when it's all over and we can get on with the offseason.

NFL Network is reporting that the league's owners have agreed on a six-year extension of the CBA.

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension

NFL owners have approved a six-year extension of the collective bargaining agreement by a vote of 30-2 Wednesday night.

Buffalo and Cincinnati were the two teams to vote against the proposal, according to ESPN's Chris Mortensen.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Edit: The salary cap goes up by $10 Million to $105 Million.

It's official...

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension

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 agreement, 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 concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.

Had the owners been unable to reach an agreement, it would have put a number of veterans on the street and would have limited the amount of money available for teams to spend in free agency. By reaching a compromise, the league managed to avoid an uncapped year in 2007, which would have allowed some teams to spend almost at will and keep others from spending at all.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Mortensen says the cap will be set at $102m, not $104m or $105m, as previously reported.

Mortensen says the cap will be set at $102m, not $104m or $105m, as previously reported.

2 things come out of this

1) The lions have even more cap space now (I assume)
2) The raiders wont cut Collins now --> FUCK! [smilie=angryfire.g:

If you haven't seen the ESPN interviews of the owners coming out of the meeting, you really have to check them out.

Ralph Wilson looks like an old fool. "I voted no because I just didn't understand it".

Al Davis looks like an undead zombie.

Mortensen says the cap will be set at $102m, not $104m or $105m, as previously reported.

2 things come out of this

1) The lions have even more cap space now (I assume)
2) The raiders wont cut Collins now --> FUCK! [smilie=angryfire.g:

They'll need him for when VYoung implodes and Moss rags on his ass.

Mortensen says the cap will be set at $102m, not $104m or $105m, as previously reported.

2 things come out of this

1) The lions have even more cap space now (I assume)
2) The raiders wont cut Collins now --> FUCK! [smilie=angryfire.g:

They'll need him for when VYoung implodes and Moss rags on his ass.
actually we could still cut him. Collins is still in talks over restructuring with us and i heard the two aides are pretty far apart still. plus the possibility of getting cullpepper may give al davis a reprieve on negotiating with collins. he said if theres nothing out there then he'll keep collins. but that can still change.

I don't like this deal at all.

The $102 Million salary cap is bigger than expected and it will result in fewer FA's on the market than previously thought. And the available FAs will command more money because there are more teams with money to spend and fewer FAs on the market.

Here is a rundown of the changes in the new CBA:

League minimum increases, change to transition tag

Here are 10 things NFL teams learned Thursday about the six-year collective bargaining extension.

1. NFL minimums increased $40,000 across the board from what was scheduled in 2006. The minimum salary for rookie or first-year players is $275,000; second year is $350,000; third year is $425,000; fourth year is $500,000; fifth-year through seventh year is $585,000; eighth year through 10th year is $710,000; and 11th year and longer is $810,000. For some teams, that eats up a considerable amount of the $7.5 million cap increase from $94.5 million to $102 million.

2. There have been two changes in the minimum-veteran contracts that provide teams cap relief on one-year deals. The old rule enabled a team to sign a vested veteran with four or more years experience for the minimum salary plus a $25,000 signing bonus and it would count only $460,000 against a team's cap. Now, a team can give such a veteran player a maximum bonus of $40,000 along with the minimum salary and it will count $425,000 against the cap.

3. The maximum length of contracts for a rookie drafted in the first 16 selections in the first round is six years. The maximum contract for a rookie selected in picks 17 to 32 is five years. Players taken in rounds two through seven can't be given a contract longer than four years. Teams have tried to force rookies taken in the second day of the draft to sign five-year deals.

4. Before the start of the league year, a team can designate two players who will be destined for June 1 releases to spread out remaining signing bonus acceleration into the next year. To do this, teams must carry those players' cap numbers until June 1, but release them before March so they can hit free agency. After June 1, the team gets to remove the salary and take the remaining cap hit in the following year. For example, if a player has $4 million of remaining signing bonus and four years left on his contract, he can be released before March and be a free agent. After June, the team would have only the $1 million of proration on its cap that year and let $3 million be applied to the following year's cap.

5. There is significant change in the transition tag. First, if a player signs the transition tag, his one-year contract is guaranteed. In the previous agreement, that wasn't the case -- unlike with the franchise designation, transition tenders weren't guaranteed.

6. Teams will be given an entire offseason to sign a franchise or transition player without losing the ability to tag future players. The current rules give a team that tags a player until March 17 to reach a long-term deal without losing the ability to give a franchise or transition designation for the length of that long-term deal. Under the new rules, the Seahawks, for example, have the ability to negotiate a long-term deal with transition guard Steve Hutchinson until July 15. If he signs a long-term deal before then, the Seahawks can get the tag for the next year. After July 15, the team can keep the franchise or transition tag only if the player signs a one-year deal.

7. The CBA can be voided after four years by the union or the owners if it isn't working well, but that isn't expected to happen. The NFL owners paid a high price for labor peace, and they aren't about to give it up.

8. There is a little change for rookies. A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated in the first two years. Any renegotiation of a rookie contract has to be done in the third year or beyond.

9. The five-year proration of contracts in 2006 -- it was four years without a CBA extension -- will allow rookies selected at the top of the draft to continue to make big money. Signing bonuses or guarantees have increased as much as $24 million for a top pick, particularly for quarterbacks. With four-year proration, the biggest signing bonus a top draft pick such as Reggie Bushwould have received would be about $15 million. Now, he or Matt Leinart can go for the $20-plus million gold with five-year proration in 2006. There will be six-year proration in 2007.

10. The salary cap will be $109 million in 2007.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2361392

Al Davis looks like an undead zombie.
The man spends his weekends in the cryogenic chamber spa to stay ahead of the other aging owners. [smilie=2thumbsup.g:

Below is the amount of money each team is under or over the $102 million salary cap as of March 10.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/728/salarycap5iy.jpg
http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

LOL@Oakland.

Bills owner Wilson questions NFL's new-guard owners

Bills owner Ralph Wilson is questioning whether the NFL's high-revenue owners have the best interest of the league at heart, stepping up concerns that small-market franchises like his face an uncertain future under the new labor agreement.

"I just don't think they're as interested in the game as the old owners, I really don't," Wilson said Friday.

Singling out Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, Daniel Snyder of the Washington Redskins and Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots, Wilson said: "They, to me, and this is just my opinion, don't have the same values about the league as the old guard did."

The Bills' sole owner since founding the team in 1960, Wilson also suggested the league's wealthier owners played too big a role when the league extended its collective bargaining agreement last month. The Bills and the Cincinnati Bengals cast the only votes against the agreement.

Wilson spoke after meeting with Erie County executive Joel Giambra, who implored Bills fans "to get active, to get angry" and write to Tagliabue, the league and elected officials on the team's behalf.

He first raised his concerns earlier this week in a meeting with New York Gov. George Pataki. Wilson told Pataki that he's committed to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but, "the long-term viability of our franchise may be in serious doubt."

The series of meetings were an attempt by Wilson to explain his concerns and generate political pressure on the NFL to ensure the viability of small-market teams.

Wilson, long one of the NFL's most outspoken owners, believes the new labor deal establishes an unequal playing field between large- and small-market teams because it produces an equal allocation of player costs with an unequal allocation of revenues.

While reiterating he has no intention to move or sell the team, Wilson said he's not sure how long the Bills can survive under the new deal.

"How long can it stay here? I don't know," Wilson said. "But I can tell you we're going to fight very, very hard to keep the team here to try to be competitive with the rest of the league."

Under the new deal, Wilson said it wouldn't make much difference whether the Bills built a new stadium because the team would unlikely be able to generate much more revenue in an economically troubled region such as western New York.

Wilson's concerns have been noted by the league, which is still determining how the newly expanded portion of revenue sharing will work.

"That has not been fleshed out yet," Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian told The Associated Press while visiting Buffalo this week. "The future is uncharted at this point, but having said that, we've always found a way to make it work and hopefully we will in the future."

Polian is a former Bills executive and member of the NFL's competition committee.

Bills cornerback Troy Vincent, president of the NFL Players Association, shares Wilson's concerns, but noted it's up to the owners to make revenue-sharing work.

"There has to be something in place," Vincent said. "But what we may think is enough or not enough, likewise the men and women running those organizations may say it's enough or not enough. ... Where's that happy balance?"

Any question of the Bills future sparks significant concerns in Buffalo and western New York, a rust-belt region with a fragile economy. Losing the Bills would be a major blow to the region's economy and psyche.

"The Bills are a very integral part of this community's fabric, socially, emotionally and economically," Giambra said.

Giambra added he was rooting for Roger Goodell, the NFL's chief operating officer and a western New York native, to succeed commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"He is a person who understands football and he understands the importance of football to small markets like Buffalo and western New York," Giambra said.

In 1999, the Buffalo Niagara Partnership estimated the team's annual net economic impact to the region at $33 million.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2401015

SALARY FLOOR MOVES UP

One of the most overlooked issues during the recent negotiations regarding the money that will be used to fund the salary cap under the new CBA was the salary floor -- i.e., the minimum money that each team must spend on player salaries in a given year.

In 2006, the minimum is 84 percent of the maximum. Based on a salary cap of $102 million, this means that every team must spend at least $85.68 million in 2006.

Coincidentally, the maximum per-team expenditure in 2005 was $85 million.

Come 2006, the minimum bumps up to 90 percent. With the salary cap expected to be at least $109 million, the floor moves to a whopping $98.1 million.

This reality sheds further light, in our opinion, on the Magooish attacks launched by Bills owner Ralph Wilson against the new deal. Wilson argues that a salary formula based on total football revenues earned by all teams increases the player costs of small-market teams, since the big money earned by high-revenue clubs is pushing the numbers higher for the franchises that earn less money.

And it also helps us understand Wilson's boasts that he's not afraid of the uncapped year. With no salary cap, there's also no salary floor, allowing the low-revenue teams to pay as little as they want.

Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue added five teams to a committee that will help determine how a new revenue-sharing plan -- important to small-market franchises' economic stability -- will work under the league's new labor deal.

Tagliabue appointed Houston, Green Bay, Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis to the committee in a memo issued around the NFL on Monday, league spokesman Greg Aiello said Tuesday. Aiello said two more teams, representing the league's lower-revenue franchises, will be added soon to complete the eight-member committee.

Buffalo was the first team appointed last week after Bills owner Ralph Wilson complained the new collective bargaining agreement reached last month, which added a new revenue-sharing model, threatens the financial viability of his and other small-market teams.

Wilson's concerns prompted Sen. Charles Schumer (D, N.Y.) to meet last week with Tagliabue, who expressed reassurances that the new labor deal would not hurt or force small-market teams to relocate.

Schumer was pleased with the additional teams selected to the committee.

"It appears that the overall makeup of the committee will be sympathetic to small markets," Schumer said in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press. "This is another big step in our crusade to keep the Bills in Buffalo."

The committee will be split evenly among the league's higher- and lower-revenue teams. Houston, Green Bay, Cleveland and Detroit each had revenue above the league average over the last few seasons. Buffalo and St. Louis represent the bottom fourth revenue-generating franchises.

The committee will recommend how supplemental revenue-sharing money will be distributed. The recommendations must be passed by at least 24 of the league's 32 owners. If not approved by owners, the commissioner has the authority to make the final determination.

"There is so much this committee can accomplish," Wilson said. "The Bills will continue to work diligently in other areas of league economics to protect the viability of this franchise."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2421584