[bigboydan]

This is going to get ugly this time around, because Upshaw is starting to feel the heat from the players association big time. In fact I can see a lockout happening after this contract expires.

Owners may opt out of labor deal next week

By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer

NEW YORK (AP)—NFL owners could opt out of their agreement with the players union next week, leaving open the possibility of a 2010 season without a salary cap.

The labor agreement is on the agenda for the league meetings in Atlanta on Tuesday.

“If they don’t do it next week then it will be soon after that,” Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said Friday. “They want to opt out and we don’t.”

In the agreement signed in March of 2006, both sides were given the right to get out of the deal by Nov. 8, 2008. League officials noted that doesn’t mean that a decision could not be made earlier.

That contract was due to expire at the end of the 2013 season. If the owners nullify it, a move that has seemed inevitable for a while, it would end after the 2011 season with 2010 being uncapped.

The end of the agreement does not necessarily mean that there will be a work stoppage, although Upshaw has predicted that the owners could lock out the players in 2011. But the early opt out also could lead to earlier talks on a new deal, which the owners feel has leaned too far toward the players—Upshaw already has had several preliminary meetings, including one recently with Jerry Richardson of Carolina and Pat Bowlen of Denver, two of the owners expected to be involved in the negotiations.

And despite predictions that owners with more cash would corner the market on star players in an uncapped year, there are safeguards against that, notably a provision in the contract, first signed in 1993, that extends the period needed from free agency from four years to six if that happens.

The early termination of the labor contract has been expected for at least the last six months.

Several owners have complained that the current deal, which gives 60 percent of the revenues to the players, has been too one-sided. It was done at the last moment and was the last major act of former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who managed to put together a coalition of high-revenue, middle-revenue and low-revenue teams to ratify the contract.

Only two low revenue teams, Cincinnati and Buffalo, voted against it.

Since then, however, high-revenue owners, such as New England’s Robert Kraft, have also supported negotiating for a new deal. And if a vote is taken, 24 of the 32 teams would have to vote to extend it, something that is highly unlikely to happen.

One problem, league officials note, are rising and unpredictable bond rates, which leave teams like Dallas and the New York Giants and Jets, who are building new stadiums, with rising costs and rising debt on their bonds. The Cowboys’ Stadium is scheduled to open next season and host the 2011 Super Bowl and the new facility for the New York teams is scheduled to open in 2010.

[McBa1n]

I'm not TOO worried about this. There were several parts of the deal that were intended to spur on negotiation. The players DID get a huge chunk of the pie last time around, and I think is the highest % amongst top tier pro sports.

Frankly, the players have it very very good in a lot of ways - and in a very fair method. While most contracts are NOT guarenteed (I don't think they should be, in any sport) - low tier players get compensated far beyond their contract from the system they created to reward minimum deal player that participate in several plays. I think this is amongst the strongest program in sports... And also creates quality competition amongst players... Something you don't see in say... MLB.

The owners want a larget piece of the pie, and that's fair - they should. However, the overall health of the league requires competition. As much as people say they 'miss the dynasty era', the league has never been more popular nor generated as much revenue as they are right now. Heck, the league almost sells out EVERY game at EVERY stadium, save a few crappy franchises, like Buffalo and Arizona, but I think Zona sold out every game in their new stadium.

The bottom line is, both sides should move to get something done fast. The NFL's system for compensating players and owners has made every team competitive for the most part, and all are making money - BIG money. I can see some things being tweaked like the b.s. rookie cap that is in place now that simply does NOT work, as well as more incentives for veteran players that are not stars (which as it stands is incredible versus the other major league sports). Also, I could see a team's rights to a player being held another year or 2 beyond the 4 years currently. 4 is just not enough in the NFL... 6 would be a good number.

If the NFL goes uncapped, though... Buffalo, Green Bay and a couple of other teams are likely gone. Actually, if Favre hadn't come along, GB likely would already be gone.

[thegreatdiatchi]

I'm not scared about this at all.

[bigboydan]

I would be now sir.

I think this is a very bad move by the owners, because I feel the players Union will come out even better than what they have right now. I'm thinking guaranteed contracts for players will be part of the deal.

NFL owners opt out of labor agreement

ATLANTA (AP)—NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to end their labor agreement with the players’ union in 2011. The league and union, however, insisted the next three seasons won’t be interrupted by a contract dispute and both sides are working toward a new deal.

“We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football,” commissioner Roger Goodell said after the owners used the opt-out clause built into the agreement signed more than two years ago. “We are not in dire straits. We’ve never said that. But the agreement isn’t working, and we’re looking to get a more fair an equitable deal.”

The decision by the owners was anticipated, although not this early. The 2006 agreement allowed either side to negate the contract by Nov. 8. Godell said the owners acted early “to get talks rolling.”

“I don’t think it was a shock to anyone,” said Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association.

Upshaw said he learned of the move by e-mail from Goodell. The union head said his response was: “Thanks, what a surprise.”

“All this means is that we will have football now until 2010 and not until 2012,” Upshaw added during a conference call. “We will move ahead. This just starts the clock ticking. If we can’t reach agreement by 2010, then we go to no man’s land, which is 2011.”

The agreement signed two years ago was to last until 2013 with the option to terminate in 2011, which is what the owners did Tuesday. League officials and owners, including several who helped push through the last deal, have been saying for almost a year that while the previous contract may have been too beneficial to the owners, the current one had swung too far toward the players.

The owners noted that they are paying $4.5 billion to players this year, just under 60 percent of their total revenues as specified in the 2006 agreement. League revenues are estimated at about $8.5 billion, although none of the teams except the publicly owned Green Bay Packers discloses figures.

The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans.

For example, offensive tackle Jake Long, taken first in the NFL draft last month, got a $30 million guaranteed before playing an NFL game. David Diehl, a fifth-round pick in 2003 who has started every game of his career and played left tackle for the New York Giants in their Super Bowl victory, signed a six-year $31 million extension with less than half of that guaranteed.

Upshaw made his argument in a half-hour conference call that ended a few minutes before Goodell made his in a news conference.

The debate will continue in negotiations and through the media over a course of months and years. Both conceded there might be no agreement until the deadline, which Upshaw suggested might not happen until the winter of 2010. That would be a year without a salary cap under terms of the deal.

“We’d like to get things done,” Goodell said. “But often it’s not until you have a deadline that people realize the consequences of not reaching a deal.”

Upshaw added: “March of 2010—that’s what we see as the realistic deadline. I’m not going to sell the players on a cap again. Once we go through the cap, why should we agree to it again?”