MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417 Well we're hosed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 But...but....I thought the NFL was PERFECT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It'll still get done by the end of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money. There is the problem. You can't tell me that two sides that differ by 60-56.2% can't compromise, that can get done. But, if the Bills have to pay the same dollars into the fund as Dallas fergitaboutit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It won't get done by the end of the week. No progress made, no more talks scheduled and Gene Upshaw left NYC and went home this afternoon saying the sides are very, very, very far apart. If it's not done by Friday, 2007 becomes an uncapped year. They way I am hearing it, teams like the NY Jets, Oakland and Washington are so far over the cap for 2006, they will immediatley have to start cutting players to get under. No renegotiang, no restructuring, no spreading out of signing bonuses. Teams with lots of cap space will be able to spend like drunken sailors. Teams in the middle like the Bills should be OK. They won't have to shed tens of millions in cap room by decimating the roster and they should be able to sign some quality FA's. I have already heard that top flight UFA's like Shaun Alexander will be cheap to sign. Not getting a deal done could actually benefit the Bills in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Jones is an ass, but Kraft has a point. If they used the "total" number, they should account for stadium debt in some way. Significantly, Tagliabue has a meeting called for Thursday to work it out. I'll bet if the owners work it out amongst themselves, they'll give Upshaw the 60% and roll from there. Hopefully, they won't kill the golden goose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It won't get done by the end of the week. No progress made, no more talks scheduled and Gene Upshaw left NYC and went home this afternoon saying the sides are very, very, very far apart. If it's not done by Friday, 2007 becomes an uncapped year. They way I am hearing it, teams like the NY Jets, Oakland and Washington are so far over the cap for 2006, they will immediatley have to start cutting players to get under. No renegotiang, no restructuring, no spreading out of signing bonuses. Teams with lots of cap space will be able to spend like drunken sailors. Teams in the middle like the Bills should be OK. They won't have to shed tens of millions in cap room by decimating the roster and they should be able to sign some quality FA's. I have already heard that top flight UFA's like Shaun Alexander will be cheap to sign. Not getting a deal done could actually benefit the Bills in the short term. 614337[/snapback] Very true, with contracts only being able to be offered for 4 years with no CBA, NFL GMs can't do their traditional backloading of contracts. You guys interested in any Jets, Skins, or Raiders? Who else is way over the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417 Not good news here folks. Too bad! What does this mean for the Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=42325 It's about halfway down the page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=42325It's about halfway down the page 614441[/snapback] Oops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 And the cap THIS year is supposed to be $2M higher than originally thought. Nothing huge, but enough to get the RFA's and EFA's tendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something about Krafts stadium debt issue. To me it seems akin to if I'm rich and someone else is poor. I privately build my own home, while the poor person takes out a loan in order to build his home and then I turn around and complain about it. He put his own eggs in the basket he should be responsible for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something about Krafts stadium debt issue. To me it seems akin to if I'm rich and someone else is poor. I privately build my own home, while the poor person takes out a loan in order to build his home and then I turn around and complain about it. He put his own eggs in the basket he should be responsible for it. True. It didn't hit me until Dan replied that Kraft owns his stadium while no other owner does. There was never any guarantee that an owner would be able to own a team AND his stadium, thus there shouldn't necessarily be a provision for stadium debt. If Kraft has a problem with the stadium, he can sell it (I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 The Yankees have been using purported "stadium debt" to avoid the bulk of their luxury taxes for the last several years. IT IS A RUSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 IT IS A RUSE. 614479[/snapback] a cunning attempt to trick us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 a cunning attempt to trick us... 614492[/snapback] So if we were to destroy the crown jewel of George Steinbrenner's evil empire would we be directly responsible for the resultant deaths of any non-union roofers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Anyone who has done even a minute amount of negotiating in their lives knows this is probably all posturing. It makes sense for them to end up coming to the table and figuring things out. Upshaw is just leveraging for position. However, I could be wrong and the NFL could be fooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 It'll still get done by the end of the week. 614312[/snapback] Denial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 So if we were to destroy the crown jewel of George Steinbrenner's evil empire would we be directly responsible for the resultant deaths of any non-union roofers? 614509[/snapback] I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. 615121[/snapback] You're confusing rule w/ drool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts