• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

NFL 'Bloody Thursday' Players released

I can see you leaving out the Arizona Cardinals, but who else are you dissing? :wink2:

It's up to 32 now? Damn the NFL is spreading like a virus. I guess that's what I get for playing NFL football 96 on my Sega too much. :p

If I have to name names I'll throw the Ravens in on that list. They don't deserve to be a team either.
 
Upvote 0
It's up to 32 now? Damn the NFL is spreading like a virus. I guess that's what I get for playing NFL football 96 on my Sega too much. :p

If I have to name names I'll throw the Ravens in on that list. They don't deserve to be a team either.

Ravens accepted. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
WHAT IF A TEAM IS OVER THE CAP?
A league insider raised an interesting point with us on Wednesday. If a team like the Redskins ends up over the salary cap on Friday, what's the worst that can happen?​
The league can't force the 'Skins to cut players. Instead, the league can impose fines and/or strip the team of draft picks. But if, as in Washington's case, the owner is raking in millions in local unshared revenue (and thus can pay any fine with his "walkin' around" money) and if, as in Washington's case, they won't have the cap room to sign the rookies they draft, what's the downside to writing an easily affordable check and/or giving up their entire 2006 draft class?​
From the Redskins' perspective, it becomes a basic business decision. Either they cut everyonethey need to cut to get under the salary cap -- or they keep one or two guys we want to keep and face the potential consequences from the league office.​
Given that Redskins owner Dan Snyder is one of the guys pushing hardest against expanded revenue sharing (thereby making it harder to extend the CBA), our guess is that the Commish would smack the team extra hard if 'Skins don't accept the cap consequences of a failure to strike a deal that can be blamed in part on the position that Snyder has taken regarding revenue sharing.​

What would happen to their draft pick if this happened, who receives it?
 
Upvote 0
does anyone else find it ridiculous that if I do a horrible job marketing my team, that I should get paid part of the revenue from Dallas' sponsorships at their stadium?

I hate the idea of no cap, but I think this equality thing is going a little too far. There is a salary cap which prevents the rich from outpricing the poor owners... the rest is just business and they should move to a new market or get better people to run their organization if generating tons of extra income is the goal as an owner.
 
Upvote 0
does anyone else find it ridiculous that if I do a horrible job marketing my team, that I should get paid part of the revenue from Dallas' sponsorships at their stadium?

I hate the idea of no cap, but I think this equality thing is going a little too far. There is a salary cap which prevents the rich from outpricing the poor owners... the rest is just business and they should move to a new market or get better people to run their organization if generating tons of extra income is the goal as an owner.

I don't mind some sharing. Say all teams throw in 25% of their revenue / by 32 and pass it back out. The tv revenue is more than enough for the salary cap. Some cities just can't compete revenue wise with other cities, just look at baseball.
 
Upvote 0
How does all of this affect the 2006 NFL draft?
Signing draft choices will be more difficult this year, because teams can prorate signing bonuses over only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That likely will lead to long holdouts by draft choices.

Why do I have a gut feeling that AJ won't hold out.
 
Upvote 0
Are you the owner of the Arizona Cardinals?
I hope not, tho I was a little out of it last night.
I don't mind some sharing. Say all teams throw in 25% of their revenue / by 32 and pass it back out. The tv revenue is more than enough for the salary cap. Some cities just can't compete revenue wise with other cities, just look at baseball.
I don't pretend to be an expert on such things, but are Dallas/Washington big markets simply b/c they are big? Or is it b/c of decades of putting an excellent product on the field and going deep into the playoffs? That's where I feel like this rule is creating a bit of NFL welfare for those who don't do a good job. If the discrepancy in wealth prevents them from hiring a good staff and having ample facilities, then I suppose some compensation is alright. I just shudder at the idea of Matt Millen raking in dough from Washington, Dallas and other big markets while he continues to make horrendous personnel decisions.

I'm not that familiar with baseball, except to understand that their are wealthy owners like the twins guy who feel no obligation to try and compete talent wise and pocket the money
 
Upvote 0
Check this out:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cnnsi-nflheadsforunch&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

NFL heads for uncharted territory
Peter King, SI.com

Peter King
SI.com

SI.com asked Peter King eight questions about the NFL's inability to complete the collective bargaining agreement as free agency rapidly approaches.

SI.com: Where do we stand on the NFL labor agreement as of right now?

KING: You got a glimpse of the future late Wednesday afternoon when Denver cut three players integral to its recent success: DL Trevor Pryce, RB Mike Anderson and TE Jeb Putzier. This is an obvious indication that the NFL isn't going to make a deal with the players because Denver had to trim significant money from its 2006 salary-cap figure. If the owners had been able to make a deal with the players, the cap number would have been about $10 million higher than it's going to be -- probably about $95 million. So Denver becomes first team to puts its cards on the table and show what the new reality in the NFL is going to be like without a collective-bargaining agreement.

SI.com: Why is there a potential $10 million difference in the 2006 salary-cap number?

KING: Because the players want approximately 60 percent of all football revenue. That includes luxury boxes, local TV and radio rights and heretofore other premium dollars that have not been shared. The league is offering about 56.2 percent of all football revenue. The $10 million difference is the approximate difference in what the NFL would be giving the players if the two sides could reach a new labor agreement.

SI.com: How did it get to this point?

KING: As the NFL had tremendous prosperity in the 1990s, the value of franchises rose dramatically. When Bob McNair paid approximately $800 million to field a new team and stadium in Houston, owners were giddy the value of franchises had skyrocketed that high. But the flip side of that bonanza is being felt now. When someone puts down $800 million to buy a team, he doesn't take it out of his wallet. he has to borrow a good deal of the money. So an owner like McNair, as well as several others who bought franchises recently, have had to work extremely hard to raise revenue aside from the ticket sales and television rights fees all teams share. McNair has to sell luxury suites and use that money to help pay his debt. So players see all this money coming into Houston and say we want a bigger piece of the pie. McNair says "Whoa, I have to pay this massive debt. We already share enough money with you." And that has been one of the big problems that just can't get solved: How much from the multi-millions for premium seating should players be able to get their hands on? The two sides just can't agree on a number.

SI.com: What do the next few days hold?

KING: You can expect the NFL to give its teams a 2006 salary-cap figure at some point late today or Thursday. There isn't a last-second deal with the players in place and I have little hope that there will be. I expect that figure to come in at around $95 million. Even though that will be a healthy increase over the 2005 of $85 million, it won't be enough to help teams who were counting on a significantly higher cap number for the year.

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

KING: That's a good question. The 2006 season will be like every season we've had since the salary cap began in 1994. But the 2007 season will be an uncapped year, which means all players will have a chance to make more money than they would in a normal year. But the one thing that not enough fans are focusing on right now -- and I don't believe players are focusing on it either -- is that in this uncapped year, players will have to have six years of NFL service to become a free agent rather than the current four. That will limit the number of free agents out there significantly. The uncapped year won't be the bonanza that players might think.

SI.com: So no matter what, there's going to be football?

KING: Yes. I heard one radio host breathlessly say Wednesday, "The NFL is on the verge of financial catastrophe." Silly rhetoric. Yes, the NFL has been the model sports league since adopting free agency with a cap 12 years ago. But if there's no cap, life will go on and football will be played.

SI.com: Are you saying that the NFL is not going to become like baseball, with tremendous difference in teams' ability to put competitive teams on the field?

KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.

SI.com: How will this affect free agency?

KING: Free agency kicks off at 12:01 a.m. EST on Friday. And if there isn't a new deal, it will severely limit the amount of money this year's free-agent crop can earn. Too many teams have to make drastic cuts simply to get to the cap number, never mind spending additional money on free agents. In other words, it's a very bad year for Shaun Alexander to be looking for a six-year, $50 million contract. As I wrote in Monday Morning QB this week, only four teams -- Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona and Green Bay -- have more than $20 million to spend in free agency this year. And so those teams could be shopping at Neiman Marcus and paying Target prices.
 
Upvote 0
does anyone else find it ridiculous that if I do a horrible job marketing my team, that I should get paid part of the revenue from Dallas' sponsorships at their stadium?

I hate the idea of no cap, but I think this equality thing is going a little too far. There is a salary cap which prevents the rich from outpricing the poor owners... the rest is just business and they should move to a new market or get better people to run their organization if generating tons of extra income is the goal as an owner.

Well, I like it as is. The results speak for themselves - parity, chance of success for teams year in and year out as long as they have good managers / owners.
The sport has grown in popularity just as other pro franchises have suffered through a lack of fiscal control. Teams have to spend a league minimum, and they cannot spend more than the cap without getting into problems down the road. With few exceptions (Cardinals) teams cycle through the cap and back again. By and large their fortunes wax and wane in concert with that spending (positive exception - Patriots).

The only cash the owners must share equally is the TV revenue monies. Funds from merchadising are not shared equally, they belong to the franchise as far as I know.. as long as that is the case it isn't an unfair system. Rather, you have an improved product overall, a rising tide for the big names and newcomers.
 
Upvote 0
that sounds reasonable, on 1460 it sounded like sponsorships (ie a reebok ad at the stadium) would fall under that category as well and that seemed over the top.
 
Upvote 0
Bloody Thursday becomes Bloody Sunday.

NFL owners delay free agency three days

<!-- end pagetitle --> <!-- begin bylinebox --> ESPN.com news services

<!-- begin presby2 -->

<!-- end presby2 -->
<!-- end bylinebox -->
<!-- begin text11 div --><!-- begin leftcol --> <!-- template inline --> NEW YORK -- A few hours after NFL owners voted to continue their standoff with the players' union, the league extended its deadline for free agency by three days and resumed talks.
The breakthrough came with a mutual agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association Thursday afternoon.
Things had looked bleak Thursday morning when owners rejected the union's latest proposal. No new talks were scheduled. While the owners were willing to give the players 56.2 percent of total revenues, the players were asking for 60 percent along with a revenue sharing formula among owners.
Now, there is a little breathing room to try to do a deal.
The owners' vote to reject a union proposal after a 57-minute meeting earlier in the day had seemed to end 13 years of labor peace. The action left the salary cap at $94.5 million for the start of free agency, which had been scheduled to begin Friday.
Without a new deal, teams that expected a cap about $10 million higher would have to cut players to become cap compliant, casting more players onto the market, but leaving little cap space to sign them. That deadline has been pushed back until 6 p.m. ET Sunday.
That could also have an impact on the best players in the free-agent class, led by two running backs: NFL MVP Shaun Alexander of Seattle and Edgerrin James of Indianapolis. They will certainly find fewer buyers and less money available, although two of the teams with a lot of cap room are Minnesota and Arizona, who could certainly use the two backs or Baltimore's Jamal Lewis, another running back.
The quick action by the owners, who affirmed their management council's rejection of the union's last offer, cast a pall around the league as general managers struggled to find cap room and agents tried to figure out how to sell clients in a market with less money and a potential glut of players.
"The situation is about as dire as dire can be," commissioner Paul Tagliabue said after a meeting so short that a lot of people who expected a 12-hour session arrived after most of the owners had departed the New York hotel where they met, braving a mix of ice and snow to try to get home quickly.
Agents and even some league officials held out hope for a last-minute agreement or an extension of the free-agent deadline, and the three-day delay may be a sign that something is in the works.
"I won't come down," said Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, who is asking for 60 percent of league revenue for players, four percentage points more than the owners are offering. "The players know that. Only the owners can make a proposal."
That the situation seems so dire is unusual in that there are two years left on the labor agreement first signed in 1993 and extended continually before the deadline.
Unless there is an agreement, there will be no salary cap in 2007, which could create big-spending "haves" and low-revenue "have-nots," a situation that has prevailed in other sports such as baseball. That also has traps for teams and players: A player would be eligible for free agency only after six years instead of the current four, there would be no salary minimum, and annual raises would be limited to 30 percent.
That is complicated by an internal dispute over revenue sharing between big- and small-money teams, a battle that has accelerated as outside revenue has increased from sources from stadium naming rights to local radio. That money is expected to be included in the new labor contract for the first time.
Upshaw contends that internal dispute should be settled before the labor agreement is reached, but the owners didn't even discuss it Thursday.
"Sure we should discuss it," said Buffalo owner Ralph Wilson, one of the have-nots. "But we didn't."
The ramifications for this year go beyond free agency. Cap problems will make it hard for teams to sign their draft picks, especially the high ones.
"We can always find creative ways to do things," said Leigh Steinberg, the agent for Southern California quarterback Matt Leinart, who is expected to be chosen no later than third in the draft.
"But I hope by draft time we will be beyond that. As teams peer into the abyss, as they peer into the apocalypse, sanity will return. When the NFLPA and management truly recognize the nature of no agreement, their intelligence and rationality will force them into making a deal."
Leinart won't be the only one to wait. So will many free agents.
In addition to Alexander, James and Lewis, among the most desirable players on the market include San Francisco linebackers Julian Peterson and Andre Carter; wide receivers Antwaan Randle El of Pittsburgh and David Givens of New England; cornerbacks Charles Woodson of Oakland and Ty Law, a Pro Bowler with the Jets last season; and linebacker Will Witherspoon of Carolina.
Then there is quarterback Drew Brees of San Diego, although his value went down when he injured his throwing shoulder in the final game of 2005.
Senior NFL writer John Clayton and ESPN's Chris Mortensen contributed to this report.
 
Upvote 0
Abraham to Broncos for 1st round pick
A.J. Vaynerchuck of JetsTV.com reports that the New York Jets have struck a deal to ship defensive end John Abraham to the Broncos in exchange for a first-round pick.

This also will affect the BP Mock Draft
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top