turftoe Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well, now that the cap will be around $104M, get ready for the skins to spend like drunken sailors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd love to know why Ralph voted against it. Was it becuase it caved in to the rich owners, or was Ralph just holding on to unrealistic terms? PTR 621740[/snapback] He's eighty friggin years old and he's a crotchity old fart who doesn't think the new breed of owners have smelled enough dung yet, so he farted in their general direction. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 He likes voting "No" and beign the lone no. He was the only one to vote against the Celveland move as I recall. I've done alot of volunteer work over the years with exec councils for the various groups. There would always be one person, regardless of the issue who'd vote no just to get into the meeting notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Its ratified, and we'll finally have some football action going on. Who knows why ralph decided to vote against it. Maybe he didnt like the deal, or maybe that was his way of giving the 1 fingered slaute to the high revenue owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJsackedagain Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd love to know why Ralph voted against it. Was it becuase it caved in to the rich owners, or was Ralph just holding on to unrealistic terms? PTR 621740[/snapback] If we want to know the real reason behind Ralph's vote we need to check with Soprano and his "sources deep within" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Did he actually vote NO or did he and Cinci abstain from the vote? I thought I heard them say we didn't vote. Not much of a difference, but might lend credence to a "principled" stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 This is such a great news, even if Ralph doesn't know yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 A few notes gleaned from NFL Network coverage: - No team will have to spend more than 65% of its total revenue on player salaries. - Revenue-sharing: $850-900 million total over the life of the new CBA. Teams above median revenue will pay proportionately more, but low-revenue teams will have to hit a certain figure between the salary cap and the "cash over cap" limit before they become eligible to draw from the fund. -From a phone conversation with Troy Vincent: he thought RCW might have voted against it because "it wasn't enough". -As noted elsewhere, FA period *tentatively* begins Friday at 12:01 AM, but there's a chance it could be pushed back a further 24-48 hours. UPDATE on this, per ESPN: FA will probably now begin at 12:01 AM Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Did he actually vote NO or did he and Cinci abstain from the vote? I thought I heard them say we didn't vote. Not much of a difference, but might lend credence to a "principled" stance. 621786[/snapback] Saw part of a quick interview with Ralph on Channel 10 in Rachacha. He babbled something that I didn't catch and then said he voted no because the owners didn't have enough time to look at and fully understand the proposal they were voting on. So it sounded like he might have voted yes if he had had time to have someone look over all the fine print for him. EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see the "Ralph didn't understand proposal" thread when I posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 NFL | Some teams will not contribute to player pool Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:37:38 -0800 Dave Goldberg, of the Associated Press, reports the 17 lowest revenue teams will not contribute to the player pool, as part of the new collective bargaining agreement. The pool will be funded by the top five teams in revenue contributing the most, the second five contributing less, and the third five teams contributing less than the top 10. Low-income teams claimed high-revenue franchises should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn more income through advertising and local radio rights. and ESPN.com reports after announcing the new NFL labor agreement, the NFL asked the players' union to push back the start of free agency from 12:01 a.m. ET Friday, March 10, to 12:01 a.m. ET Saturday, March 11. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that since the NFL has approved the labor proposal, he will grant the NFL's request to push back free agency. Upshaw told Mortensen that while he has not yet actually granted the delay, he planned to do so. The formal announcement of the extension will likely come Thursday, March 9. Deleted my thread and thought this should go in this thread instead. So Yeah I think with the 17 lower revenue teams not having to pitch in to the player teams should even out the total revenue accquired between the highest and lowest revenue teams. At least it should in theory. However lower revenue teams such as the bills are gonna have to find a way to come up with new ways of making money if they wish to stay on an evening playing field, so this great sport never turns into mlb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Cincy was the other no vote. 621716[/snapback] No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts