|
|
KLHJ2 07-26-2007, 04:34 AM That sounds about right.
I just had no idea how much they changed in the new CBA.
I was shocked at the teams that opposed it. Indy was one of them and at the time they needed more CAP relief than anyone. Maybe they were hoping that 07 would be an uncapped year who knows.
jsarno 07-26-2007, 04:46 AM I was shocked at the teams that opposed it. Indy was one of them and at the time they needed more CAP relief than anyone. Maybe they were hoping that 07 would be an uncapped year who knows.
Yeah, you're probably right...but as you can see there were MANY things changed with the new CBA, so there was obviously something they didn't like.
KLHJ2 07-26-2007, 04:50 AM I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.
Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course (http://vikings.scout.com/2/500826.html)
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and
jsarno 07-26-2007, 04:53 AM I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.
Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course (http://vikings.scout.com/2/500826.html)
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and
good post and link!
Monksdown 07-26-2007, 10:58 AM I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.
Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course (http://vikings.scout.com/2/500826.html)
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and
haha, the entire nfc east.
Monksdown 07-26-2007, 11:00 AM i wish they cut rogers. that guy makes me think gwill is a retard sometimes. hopefully he will play better this year because if he doesnt his ass will be gone next year. watch out for lemar marshall getting cut if rocky is as advertised......i still dont think rocky is good, he never stood out in college and so far he hasnt made any plays that make me think he will be good.......GOD I PRAY OUR D IS BADASS like the two years prior to last.
cut rogers and lemar? share what you're smoking. haha, do you hate depth and talent?
|