SDOGO

The NFL's labor negotiations started off well Saturday, with the sides meeting for five hours. But by the end of the day, neither faction had cause for optimism.

Sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the management negotiating team is not overly optimistic at this point. One source characterized it as having "less than a 50 percent chance of getting it done."

Both sides apparently have a lot of concern about the revenue-sharing model.

Union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, a lead negotiator for the NFLPA, said that the talks "are as dead as a doornail."

Kessler told ESPN that this is "a sad day for the NFL."

Kessler said there is no plan for resumption of talks, and that executive director of the NFL Players Association Gene Upshaw is on his way back to Washington, D.C.

The talks that took place today from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. concluded "because the NFL is unwilling to compromise," Kessler said.

Representatives from teams withheld comment, waiting to see if an agreement could be reached by midnight Sunday to avert what could be mass cuts of veterans to get under a salary cap that will be about $10 million less than anticipated.

Earlier in the week, negotiations broke off and the league set the salary cap for free agency at $94.5 million. Teams with a salary load far higher than that had anticipated an agreement that could have given them extra room to keep veterans.

A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

Upshaw said after the earlier talks broke off that the NFL was offering 56.2 percent of its total revenues to the players. Upshaw has said he will not go under 60 percent.

In Friday's negotiations, sources told Mortensen that the owners narrowed the gap on the percentage that players are demanding with a CBA extension. Management raised the ante by two points, offering players a 58.2 percent cut of the revenue pie. The union has been set at a 60.3 percentage, but could compromise depending on the revenue sharing model.

Upshaw denied that the owners had raised the percentage by two points. Upshaw said the offer was 56.5 percent.

"They want a bigger piece of the pie [than they had under the current deal], and I am heading back to Washington," Upshaw told Mortensen.

Asked for his thoughts on the NFL management negotiating team having a conference call with the owners' executive committee to discuss the situation, Upshaw said: "We see no need to continue because they are offering a lower deal than we had in the past."


As incentive to get the two sides to reach an agreement, the owners also offered the players a $10 million increase in this year's salary cap under an extension, from $94.5 million to about $105 million. That will require an adjustment in appropriations of TV revenues, but that is somewhat easily accomplished, a source told Mortensen. Without a reappropriation of those revenues, the salary cap is projected at about $100 million with an extension.

The bigger obstacles involve the revenue-sharing model among owners. Low-revenue clubs want a limit on how much actual cash clubs can spend each year on their payrolls that exceed the salary cap. This was being accomplished through the prorations of signing bonuses given to players, and the union is reluctant to change any of those rules.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did send a memo to owners on Friday, telling them to set aside Tuesday for possible ratification of a new CBA, although owners have granted their eight-member executive committee the authority to sign off on any agreement reached this weekend.

If an agreement is reached, it is possible the two sides could delay free agency again for a few days to allow negotiators to get a grasp on the economic model.

Several management sources have confirmed that despite the show of solidarity presented on Thursday morning following an owners' meeting, if there is no CBA extension, it will be because of disagreement among owners on the principles of revenue sharing.


Upshaw has always wanted that issue decided first among the owners in these last-minute talks, which began Friday after the deadline for free agency was extended three days from Friday at 12:01 a.m. ET until Monday at the same time.

The labor agreement, extended several times since it was agreed to in 1992, has another two years to run. But 2006 would be the last year with a salary cap.

There would be no cap next year, but also many changes in the rules, including some the players find unappealing -- six years for a player to get to free agency instead of four and no minimum amount that teams have to spend.

__________________

ingibbsitrust

even as a skins fan with an owner that would spend like mad with no cap, I see a no CBA and no cap NFL as something that would change whats so great about it.

the players are fools to not continue with a CBA.... there are already rules writen for the 2007 season, like 6 years to become a FA and 2 transition tags for teams, no more than a 30% raise, etc... and moving past 2007 the owners will make it more like pre 1992 than the free spending of no cap the players are dreaming of...

6 years to become a FA!!!.... What's the average career span of an NFL player anyway? Then he can only get a 30% raise... it's not going to be great for them... without a CBA or cap, the owners will agree to even more rules that hurt the players....

__________________

r1terrell23

I don't know why people still have hope. Once they said they were miles apart the first time it was common sense greediness would favor compromise. But I guess they'll move FA all the way back to June in hopes of getting something done.

GoGiants98

glad to see you take a stand against not having a cap, sick of seeing the new redskins fans and dwoodson talk about how great it would be for the NFL not to have a cap.

__________________

When Sean Avery was a child, he made his mother finish his vegetables.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brooklyn @ May 20th ) [snapback]2006104[/snapback]</div>

greylion

It ain't over till it's over.

__________________
If you can't break your nose at it, it ain't a sport.

komets10

From profootballtalk.com....


POSTED 10:19 p.m. EST, March 4, 2006



UNION IS "IN LINE," DEAL "READY TO GO"



A league source with knowledge of the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations tells us that all issues between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have been resolved, and that the only remaining sticking point is the dispute between owners regarding the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.



Said the source: "It is the rich Johnny-come-lately owners who can't figure out that they are making money because they own a team in a large market and not because they own a team."



Of course, the owners at the other end of the spectrum would argue that teams not in a large market should be required to try to earn as much money as possible before asking for revenues to be shared beyond their current extent, which represents 80 percent of all revenues.



Any proposal must attract the votes of at least a few of the 11-12 owners who are opposed to any changes to the current system of revenue sharing.



The disagreement arises from the growing disparity between unshared local revenues. Because the new CBA will determine the team-by-team salary cap based on a percentage of total football revenues, the teams making less of the money that isn't shared will see their player costs increases by revenues earned by the teams making more money in comparison.



One of the possibilities under consideration is a limitation on the amount of cash payments made in a given year above the salary cap. Such a measure will restrict the ability of the big-money teams to use their extra cash to lure free agents with signing bonus money.

imported_Return_Of_The_Hoggz

The cap is institutionalized socialism. Teams like the Redskins should be allowed to spend as much as they want while ****ty teams like the Vikings et al....can go hump each other.

I hate how these bull**** constraints are going to screw the Redskins BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

igman1832

GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

I think when the owners are offering well over half of the revenue to players it's stupid for Upshaw and the player reps to continue to jepordize their future. There aren't many businesses that guarantee to pay their employees over half of what they take in. The NFL is generating more income each year for the teams and their players. Even at the current level the players are well paid and they are putting all of that at risk by not negotiating a compromise. If the cap is gone all it is going to do is further seperate the stars from the average players. Teams are going to pay more for top tier players and less for everyone else on the roster. Smaller market teams are going to be squeezed out of free agency and I hope if that happens that teams will send them as many of these "team reps" as they possibly can. But ultimately it's all Upshaw's fault. His power trip is going to end up hurting alot of people.

__________________

tigersucs99

Evidently you are not old enough to remember the 82 and 87 player strikes/lockouts. It sucked to know that there was going to be no or reduced talent football for a while as both sides had their hissy fits. Jack Kent Cooke, Wellington Mara, Joe Robbie, and the Rooneys all worked together to make this model work. Now Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, Robert Kraft, and the other new money owners can't see past their own greed to do what is good for the league. If there is no CBA I hope the NFL collapses in on itself. I can just hear them cry now about how awful they have it because they lost all their monies.

__________________