Cobra Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The owners blinked first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 By pushing the beginning of free agency back 3 days? That was probably done to give the teams more time to figure out their salary cap situations than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 They tried to play hard ball, but ran scared when the deadline approached. Just this morning they claimed it was over and no deal was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 If anything, the NFLPA blinked. Upshaw was saying that if something wasn't done by midnight tonight, the deal was off the table, PERIOD. Instead he gave the NFL 3 more days to start releasing players. That means Upshaw wants to continue to deal and is probably getting desperate. The only people who will get hurt (at least for the next 2 years, maybe more if there's a lockout in 2008) by not getting a new CBA done are the players. The owners will still be raking in the dough and may see their profits INCREASE in 2007 as only players with 6 or more years in the NFL are UFA's. I say stand firm on the 56.2% of DGR point and look to lockout players in 2008, a la the NHL 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 They tried to play hard ball, but ran scared when the deadline approached. Just this morning they claimed it was over and no deal was possible. 616936[/snapback] Read BGiM again. The other way you can look at the extension is that they arrogantly thought that it would get done so they refused to deal with "Plan B" (the $94.5 million cap) until it was too late to try to get things done before tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 They tried to play hard ball, but ran scared when the deadline approached. Just this morning they claimed it was over and no deal was possible. 616936[/snapback] Actually, the NFLPA blinked. I seem to remember a few days ago that Upshaw said "Free agency will nto be delayed" Sounds like he's submitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Actually, the NFLPA blinked. I seem to remember a few days ago that Upshaw said "Free agency will nto be delayed" Sounds like he's submitting. 616978[/snapback] Does the NFLPA have any say in when the 2006 season and FA starts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Does the NFLPA have any say in when the 2006 season and FA starts? Yes. As Ramius said, and I wish I had remembered and included in my post, Upshaw said that if a deal wasn't reached by midnight tonight, FA wouldn't be delayed and the CBA was dead. And getting back to my post, players benefit from being in the NFL, with endorsement deals. Should owners demand that any money from deals be subtracted from what the owners have to pay them? Should the owners get a cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Yes. As Ramius said, and I wish I had remembered and included in my post, Upshaw said that if a deal wasn't reached by midnight tonight, FA wouldn't be delayed and the CBA was dead. And getting back to my post, players benefit from being in the NFL, with endorsement deals. Should owners demand that any money from deals be subtracted from what the owners have to pay them? Should the owners get a cut? 616991[/snapback] Lenny P.'s thoughts on the 3 day delay of FA: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2351849 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Quite frankly assessing this as to who "blinked" first strikes me as a completely wrong wau to look at this. As the former asst. counsel to the NFL said in an interview on NFL Network this is really a partnership between the NFL and NFLPA. Both sides realize that the worst case for both parties is no deal made at all. When they do not play both sides lose more of your money and mine and in the end they will do what is necessary to make a deal. He pointed out that if anything the NFL has already agreed to a major concession because they have agreed that the player share of the pie will increase. They are simply negotiating now about how much that increase will be. There really are three parties at work here. The owners made the big concession that they will increase the NFLPA slice of the pie because the owners are not united as they are divided about 2/3-1/3 with the smaller group being the richest owners. As best I can tell Upshaw and the NFLPA has played tthe conflicting interests of these two sides off against each other to the NFLPA's advantage quite well by demanding that their be revenue sharing as part of any deal. My guess is that the revenue sharing discussion will get put off and it is in exchange for this "concesssion" that the NFLPA has already achieved a major win in that their slice of the pool will get larger. A view which describes the NFL and NFLPA primarily as warring parties went out the window when the owners kicked the players butt so badly in the mid-80s lockout. Yhe NFLPA threatened to decertify itself and because the owners knew they could not survive in a free-market system where they all bid against each other for player services the current partnership reflected in the CBA was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts