GRAPEVINE, Texas -- Labor peace was restored to the NFL when the owners agreed to the players' union proposal Wednesday, extending the collective bargaining agreement for six years.

 

There were no further details on the agreement, including whether it includes expanded revenue sharing.

 

The vote was 30-2, with Buffalo and Cincinnati, two low-revenue teams, voting against it.

 

"On behalf of the players, the NFLPA staff and the negotiating team, we are pleased that this process has finally concluded with an agreement," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement. "This agreement is not about one side winning or losing. Ultimately, it is about what is best for the players, the owners and the fans of the National Football League. As caretakers of the game we have acted in the manner the Founders intended. While they could not possibly have predicted the economic growth and revenue streams, they clearly saw the structure. Wellington Mara would be both proud and pleased today.

 

"Moving forward, this new agreement gives us the opportunity to continue our unprecedented success and growth."

 

Free agency, put off twice by the protracted negotiations between the owners and players, now will start at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

 

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

 

The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

 

ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

 

Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.

 

Had the owners been unable to reach an agreement, it would have put a number of veterans on the street and would have limited the amount of money available for teams to spend in free agency. By reaching a compromise, the league managed to avoid an uncapped year in 2007, which would have allowed some teams to spend almost at will and keep others from spending at all.

 

The crux of the debate over the last few days has centered on revenue sharing and the disparity between high- and low-income teams. Low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say that high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights.

 

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LINK

nice

one word:

 

AWESOME!

YES!!!! WOOOT finally!

Underline the best option.

 

This makes it MORE/LESS likely that the Dolphins will get Brees.

 

I'm asking cause I don't know.

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

That is the best news a fin fan could hear and the worst a Jet and Patsy fan could hear lol!!!

No surprise Ralph Wilson voted against it. Whatever, with the additional cap room the Bills can now keep Moulds if they choose and have around 10 mil in cap room or cut him and get to around 15 mil in cap room, which will be nice if they can sign some offensive linemen and defensive tackles.

No surprise Ralph Wilson voted against it. Whatever, with the additional cap room the Bills can now keep Moulds if they choose and have around 10 mil in cap room or cut him and get to around 15 mil in cap room, which will be nice if they can sign some offensive linemen and defensive tackles.

 

 

They showed him on ESPNews. He said he voted against it because he didn't understand it.

it is good for miami closer to getting Brees.

No surprise Ralph Wilson voted against it. Whatever, with the additional cap room the Bills can now keep Moulds if they choose and have around 10 mil in cap room or cut him and get to around 15 mil in cap room, which will be nice if they can sign some offensive linemen and defensive tackles.

 

 

They showed him on ESPNews. He said he voted against it because he didn't understand it.

Seriously? Wow, that's retarted. He must be more senile than he appears in press conferences when he says about 12 words per minute, half of which don't make much sense (though somehow he still is allowed to drive himself around Buffalo :plain ).

This definatly helps the Steelers maybe we can keep shea-town and chris hope now.

 

Good news

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

No surprise Ralph Wilson voted against it. Whatever, with the additional cap room the Bills can now keep Moulds if they choose and have around 10 mil in cap room or cut him and get to around 15 mil in cap room, which will be nice if they can sign some offensive linemen and defensive tackles.

 

 

They showed him on ESPNews. He said he voted against it because he didn't understand it.

 

 

I just saw that but did you see Al Davis?

 

Good god that man looks like death warmed over.

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

 

Dude, I am a Bengals fan and season ticket holder. It was still 30-2, the other small market teams had no issues with it. Well, besides the guy who didn't understand it. I frankly don't care that much because all it effects is the amount of money Mike Brown makes every year, its impossible to lose money in the NFL.

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

 

Dude, I am a Bengals fan and season ticket holder. It was still 30-2, the other small market teams had no issues with it. Well, besides the guy who didn't understand it. I frankly don't care that much because all it effects is the amount of money Mike Brown makes every year, its impossible to lose money in the NFL.

It's a simple principle to me: the team making 100 million per year should have to kick in more than the team making 10 million per year.

What is Miami considered? Low or High revenue team?

 

 

And anyways, this is great news and shows that there are atleast some American sports that don't need to go on a strike to resolve their financial issues. :thumbup

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

 

Dude, I am a Bengals fan and season ticket holder. It was still 30-2, the other small market teams had no issues with it. Well, besides the guy who didn't understand it. I frankly don't care that much because all it effects is the amount of money Mike Brown makes every year, its impossible to lose money in the NFL.

It's a simple principle to me: the team making 100 million per year should have to kick in more than the team making 10 million per year.

 

Well of course, but it's still not the same as baseball. That effects the on field product. Every NFL team in the league is easily profitable. This is merely owner profits, not on field product, thus it's pretty hard for me to get worked up about it.

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

 

Dude, I am a Bengals fan and season ticket holder. It was still 30-2, the other small market teams had no issues with it. Well, besides the guy who didn't understand it. I frankly don't care that much because all it effects is the amount of money Mike Brown makes every year, its impossible to lose money in the NFL.

It's a simple principle to me: the team making 100 million per year should have to kick in more than the team making 10 million per year.

 

Well of course, but it's still not the same as baseball. That effects the on field product. Every NFL team in the league is easily profitable. This is merely owner profits, not on field product, thus it's pretty hard for me to get worked up about it.

 

Exactly. Let's be honest, with the cap and the general profit all owners receive, no NFL team is hurting for cash. Everyone is making out pretty damn well.

:lol Bengals voted against it.

 

Anyway, we now have 15 million to spend in FA.

 

Would you laugh at the low-revenue Marlins for wanting fair sharing based on revenue? Didn't think so.

 

Dude, I am a Bengals fan and season ticket holder. It was still 30-2, the other small market teams had no issues with it. Well, besides the guy who didn't understand it. I frankly don't care that much because all it effects is the amount of money Mike Brown makes every year, its impossible to lose money in the NFL.

It's a simple principle to me: the team making 100 million per year should have to kick in more than the team making 10 million per year.

 

Well of course, but it's still not the same as baseball. That effects the on field product. Every NFL team in the league is easily profitable. This is merely owner profits, not on field product, thus it's pretty hard for me to get worked up about it.

It does make a much bigger deal in baseball. Still, it's not hard to see why an owner would vote against it. If Mike Brown has to put in 50% of his revenue and Jerry Jones only has to put in 10%, Mike Brown has a right to complain and not support (although he really doesn't have that right since he was such a motherf***er).

Somewhere, the MLB just yelled dammit!

What is Miami considered? Low or High revenue team?

 

 

And anyways, this is great news and shows that there are atleast some American sports that don't need to go on a strike to resolve their financial issues. :thumbup

 

 

 

they are more to the middle of the group honestly. I would say at the higher end of the middle but still in the middle. Wayne makes alot of money off of football and having the superbowl down here all the time.

Some new clauses in the CBA...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5042201154.html

 

Just to point out a few...

 

A provision in the new CBA makes it more difficult for clubs to repeatedly use the franchise tag on the same player.

A team can use its franchise tag on a player in consecutive years but to use it on a player for three straight years, the player would get a salary equaling the highest franchise figure for any position. Therefore, a club using the franchise tag on a kicker three years in a row may have to pay him like a quarterback.

 

A provision in the new CBA requires a player to be at least three years removed from high school to enter the NFL draft.

The NFL already had a rule in place like this but it wasn't explicitly stated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Maurice Clarett challenged the rule and initially won in court, making him draft-eligible in 2004. The ruling was later overturned, but now we know there won't be a debacle like that again.

 

A provision in the new CBA prevents teams making in-season player deactivations for disciplinary reasons.

The Eagles suspended Terrell Owens for four games last season for "conduct detrimental to the team," then deactivated him the final five weeks. Needless to say, the Players' Union liked this one.