Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal

I don't like this part:
"require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap"

Doesn't that mean current cheap team would now be forced to spend more cash on players? Ultimately, that changes the supply of cash for a fixed number of players....basic economics means more competition for players and higher salaries.
That hurts big spenders like the Skins and means cheap teams fans will be happier with new significant talent....but after a few years, they will have to say good bye to their teams as they move to LA for more revenue.

I don't like forcing owners to spend their revenue if they don't want to.
Outspending the competition is our biggest advantage.
Having that advantage removed by legal mandate is just plain wrong.

I'd be pissed if I owned a low revenue team, not having a choice of how much I spent?....ridiculous

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World (http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/)

I'm sure you meant to say greedy corporations correct? If not, please provide some facts to back your "greedy American worker un-informed-statement"

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World (http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/)

I'm sure you meant to say greedy corporations correct? If not, please provide some facts to back your "greedy American worker un-informed-statement"

Funny thing is most of the "work" we do is sitting around the office. Usually people that are working more then 40 hours per week every week are procrastinating. Of course if you leave work early you look bad even if unlike your coworkers you actually finish your work when you're at work.

Then again there are people like doctors who are literally seeing patients all day and nurses who are pulling 12 hour shifts but I genuinely believe that a lot of the "work" we do is sitting in the office racking up hours.



I don't like forcing owners to spend their revenue if they don't want to.
Outspending the competition is our biggest advantage.
Having that advantage removed by legal mandate is just plain wrong.

I'd be pissed if I owned a low revenue team, not having a choice of how much I spent?....ridiculous

I understand what you're saying but when you have owners like Bill Bidwell who is charging players for meals and putting chain locks around Gatorade refrigerators, well safe to say in some cases its necessary. Fans don't deserve that.

Also with respect to the Bidwell family Michael Bidwell (the son) has completely turned around the culture of that organization from penny pincher to honest competitor.

Perhaps the owners are mostly happy with the currently discussed plan. Therefore perhaps we are reasonably close to a deal:

Report: Barely any owner opposition to proposed CBA - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-20110621_report_barely_any_owner_opposition_to_pro posed_cba)

Kinda off topic but I wonder why Cooke was so hard pressed for a new staduim? He knew he wasn't going to be around for many more years and he knew he wasn't leaving the team to his son John.

He wanted a big new stadium with his name on it because Joe Robbie - - then the owner in Miami - - had one.

He fully intended to leave the team to his son. However, he wrote his will in such an arcane way with the intention of avoiding as much estate tax as possible that it became impossible for John Kent Cooke to come up with the cash needed to buy the team from the estate and the trust that Jack Kent Cooke set up. In essence, Jack Kent Cooke was "too smart by half" when it came to his will...

Perhaps the owners are mostly happy with the currently discussed plan. Therefore perhaps we are reasonably close to a deal:

Report: Barely any owner opposition to proposed CBA - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-20110621_report_barely_any_owner_opposition_to_pro posed_cba)

Yes I think it may soon be time for a new thread

If its 9 bil, 1% is 9 mil dollars. (i hope, geez that BA in accounting was worth it)

If the league makes a profit of 18 bil (or was it 16 bil in the article?) in 2016, youre talking 18 mil per percent point.

Yeah 9 to 18 mil is alot in a vacuum of perspective, but consider the total dollar amounts, both parties have to lose alil to gain alil imo.

yeah no.

This is excellent news (from Schefter's FB Page):

"Adam Schefter
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents."Fascinating news. It would have been very significant if players with three years were granted unrestricted free agency. A number of names in the 2008 draft would have been set to hit. Anyway, biggest name now on the market would have to be Sidney Rice.

Fascinating news. It would have been very significant if players with three years were granted unrestricted free agency. A number of names in the 2008 draft would have been set to hit. Anyway, biggest name now on the market would have to be Sidney Rice.

I think the biggest name for the Redskins should be Paul Soliai, the NT from Miami. The guy is 27 years old, 6'4", 355 lbs and has played well in Miami. Here's the scouting report on him:

"He is a load at the point of attack. He is a short-area block gobbler at the nose tackle position. He is strictly a first- and second-down player in Miami's scheme. He has zero sacks in his first three NFL seasons. He is a player who is a load at the point of attack. He plays with good leverage. He shows first step explosiveness getting into blockers. He uses his hands well to discard and make plays in line. His limitations are rushing the passer and making plays outside the A gaps."

For big money, ultimately needs to answer the question "what will he do for me against the pass?" But Soliai can get it done on the interior as a complementary force.