Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

I'd like to point out that the team's advantageous position for the coming year was not by accident. Allen and company set the team up for success this offseason by structuring bonus money the way they did last year. They also anticipated that this would be a large free agent class.

All that said, it doesn't mean they'll go on an indiscriminate spending spree, but it does mean they'll have a lot of players to choose from and will have the means to get the ones they do want.

I'd also like to point out that there are real significant cap implications to releasing or trading Haynesworth. I think that makes it a real possibility that we sit on him for at least another season.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Schneed10;808610]I'd like to point out that the team's advantageous position for the coming year was not by accident. Allen and company set the team up for success this offseason by structuring bonus money the way they did last year. They also anticipated that this would be a large free agent class.

All that said, it doesn't mean they'll go on an indiscriminate spending spree, but it does mean they'll have a lot of players to choose from and will have the means to get the ones they do want.

I'd also like to point out that there are real significant cap implications to releasing or trading Haynesworth. I think that makes it a real possibility that we sit on him for at least another season.[/quote]
I thought that we gave haynesworth most of his guaranteed money already?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;808599]I don't think Rogers stays but Moss does. Brown is 50/50 probably. Buchanon likely stays with Rogers gone. But the guy I really don't know about is Rocky Mac. He might actually stay.

As I heard it this weekend FA Target #1 is Aubrayo Franklin. So that should be interesting[/quote]

Interesting. figured it was not good w/Rogers at this point. I would be surprised if Mcintosh stays, I think like most of us, he would be gone to play in a 4-3. ILB is a pretty thin position for us after Fletcher, so in terms of competition I could see him keeping that job over Riley & LA.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=skinster;808617]I thought that we gave haynesworth most of his guaranteed money already?[/quote]

We did. He has no more guaranteed money left from what I gather. Some of his guaranteed money was forfeited once he decided to skip OTAs and mandatory camp.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;808599]I don't think Rogers stays but Moss does. Brown is 50/50 probably. Buchanon likely stays with Rogers gone. But the guy I really don't know about is Rocky Mac. He might actually stay.

[B]As I heard it this weekend FA Target #1 is Aubrayo Franklin. So that should be interesting[/B][/quote]

Finally glad to hear NT is a concern, because it needs to be. SS, whats the plan if Los goes? Please dont tell me Buchanon starts outside of Hall, thats horrible.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

I have no idea. I think Barnes and Buch would get more playing time. Not sure either would start.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=skinster;808617]I thought that we gave haynesworth most of his guaranteed money already?[/quote]

We did. If he is cut or traded, then, instead of being pro-rated over the contract, the remainder of the bonus (that which has not been used on a pro-rated basis, not the unpaid portion) is escalated into this year's cap.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=NC_Skins;808620]We did. He has no more guaranteed money left from what I gather. Some of his guaranteed money was forfeited once he decided to skip OTAs and mandatory camp.[/quote]

None left to be paid, but lots left to be allocated on the salary cap books.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Clayton's salary cap estimate seems low. I wish he had shown his work. $120 million would be really tight, both compared to recent history, and compared to what reported estimates of the revenue pie suggest.

I worked off the reported $9 billion total revenue figure and got a salary cap of $135 million. It's possible the $9 billion figure is just made up, but Clayton appears to be using an $8 billion revenue figure. Which could be accurate, but I don't think that information is publicly available.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;808599]As I heard it this weekend FA Target #1 is Aubrayo Franklin. So that should be interesting[/quote]Not at all surprised if that was the case. Franklin would be a very [I]Redskins[/I] signing. They need a nose tackle, and so they'll go get a player for $25 million in first three years money, even though the player is kind of useless if the other team is passing, and is turning 31 next month.

Good player, but you could say that about most Redskin FA signings right down through Archuleta. Basically nothing has changed in the last four to twelve years.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Monkeydad;808517]Yeah, that will solve our issues. :doh:

We need a starting CB, some offensive linemen, a NT, maybe some more LB depth, and you want to sign UDFAs to fill all of these key needs?

Trying to get Andrew Luck?[/quote]I agree. It's 7-9 or bust this year!

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

If Aubrayo's going to be that expensive, he'll walk.

I really think it's that simple. They'll attempt to sign him to a deal that's fair to both parties, but if he balks and one money, the Redskins will let him walk and move into the secondary market. I think the signing of O.J Atogwe proved that we're going to be taking a different approach and not setting the market for players.

Then again it seems like it's just a stupid rumor because everyone knows we need a nose tackle. Mike plays his cards so close to his chest I don't think anyone actually has any clue who he's targeting in free agency.

I mean people have said they "heard" we were looking at signing Jamarcus Russell after that one off "favor for a friend" workout last year. We'll look at Franklin, but we're not going to set the market for him until the front office sees what everyone else is offering for him.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=skinsfan69;808542]This team isn't going ANYWHERE next year. Our QB's are REX GROSSMAN AND JOHN BECK w/ rumors of VINCE YOUNG coming in to compete. EEEEWWWW!!!!!!

I want every guy that's in year 1, 2 and 3 to play and play as much as possibe. Let's see if this rookie NT from WV can play. Let's see if Barnes can play CB and start or be a 3rd corner. What about Capers and Cook? We know Rocky can't play inside in a 3-4 so get Riley in there. Kerrigan should walk in and start day one cause Alexander can't rush the passer. Hankerson starts day one. You get my point? Right now this team doesn't need any 29 or 30 year old free agents. It needs to get younger and let some of these guys learn and grow together.[/quote]

I like your idea, but please remember the only way some of these rookies are going to learn is they need to watch the vets at least under 30 vets. Coach's can coach you but there's nothing like seeing it first hand.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Mattyk;808572][B]I'd take Rex over Dilfer.[/B] There's probably been a few others worse than Rex to make a SB.

Regardless of how or why, he started for a SB team. Not a ton of guys can say that.[/quote]


Agree 110%.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=NLC1054;808635]If Aubrayo's going to be that expensive, he'll walk.

I really think it's that simple. They'll attempt to sign him to a deal that's fair to both parties, but if he balks and one money, the Redskins will let him walk and move into the secondary market. I think the signing of O.J Atogwe proved that we're going to be taking a different approach and not setting the market for players.

Then again it seems like it's just a stupid rumor because everyone knows we need a nose tackle. Mike plays his cards so close to his chest I don't think anyone actually has any clue who he's targeting in free agency.

I mean people have said they "heard" we were looking at signing Jamarcus Russell after that one off "favor for a friend" workout last year. We'll look at Franklin, but we're not going to set the market for him until the front office sees what everyone else is offering for him.[/quote]He's going to have plenty of offers though. I dunno, if things are really different this time around, you might see us make a fair offer to the one starting-caliber nose on the FA market, but lose out to another team who overpays. I haven't ruled out the possibility of that happening. But the historical M.O. of the Redskins is that they'll actually get Franklin and be worse off for it.

And I think if they do get Franklin, they'll be worse off. It doesn't HAVE to be like that. There may be no market for his services. But that's not what I'm expecting.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808630]Clayton's salary cap estimate seems low. I wish he had shown his work. $120 million would be really tight, both compared to recent history, and compared to what reported estimates of the revenue pie suggest.

[B]I worked off the reported $9 billion total revenue figure and got a salary cap of $135 million.[/B] It's possible the $9 billion figure is just made up, but Clayton appears to be using an $8 billion revenue figure. Which could be accurate, but I don't think that information is publicly available.[/quote]

I read the same new cap possibly $135 mil.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Why the hate for Franklin? Does he have a reputation as being a lazy player?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808630]Clayton's salary cap estimate seems low. I wish he had shown his work. $120 million would be really tight, both compared to recent history, and compared to what reported estimates of the revenue pie suggest.

I worked off the reported $9 billion total revenue figure and got a salary cap of $135 million. It's possible the $9 billion figure is just made up, but Clayton appears to be using an $8 billion revenue figure. Which could be accurate, but I don't think that information is publicly available.[/quote]

I agree, $120M is probably on the low side.

But the $135 assumes a couple things:

- The NFL's revenue pie is $9 billion on the nose. In reality they may be rounding it up from $8.6 billion, or something like that.

- That the players will end up with 48% of the pie. A little more or a little less on either side would really affect the cap calculation.

It's probably somewhere in between Clayton's $120 and your $135.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Scouts Inc has him ranked as the 10th best DT in the league tied with Casey Hampton. If thats the case I would love to have him.
[QUOTE]Grade: 83 | Key

Comment: Franklin spent his first four years with the Baltimore Ravens as a backup who saw limited action but then found success after signing with the 49ers prior to the 2007 season. He has become a very effective run stopper in the middle as he plugs up the middle. He plays with excellent leverage and does a good job of using his hands to control and shed blockers. He lacks great lateral range and makes most of his lays in the box. He lacks the upfield speed and acceleration to pressure the pocket as a pass-rusher but can cave in the pocket with an effective bull rush at times.[/QUOTE]

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Schneed10;808645]I agree, $120M is probably on the low side.

But the $135 assumes a couple things:

- The NFL's revenue pie is $9 billion on the nose. In reality they may be rounding it up from $8.6 billion, or something like that.

- That the players will end up with 48% of the pie. A little more or a little less on either side would really affect the cap calculation.

It's probably somewhere in between Clayton's $120 and your $135.[/quote]Agreed.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;808643]Why the hate for Franklin? Does he have a reputation as being a lazy player?[/quote]Haven't heard if he's lazy. But you compare him to Shaun Rogers, a player that numerous people were skeptical about before he signed with New Orleans after visiting here, and there's no question that 1)Rogers is going to age better than Franklin and 2)Rogers is worth more money than Franklin.

Rogers signed for one-year, $4 million. Franklin could reasonably expect to get 3/25 or something bigger. Point is, one player is going to get the kind of deal that the Redskins have always been guilty of giving out (one that can't be outperformed), and the other is almost certainly going to offer surplus value.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808630]Clayton's salary cap estimate seems low. I wish he had shown his work. $120 million would be really tight, both compared to recent history, and compared to what reported estimates of the revenue pie suggest.

I worked off the reported $9 billion total revenue figure and got a salary cap of $135 million. It's possible the $9 billion figure is just made up, but Clayton appears to be using an $8 billion revenue figure. Which could be accurate, but I don't think that information is publicly available.[/quote]

Player benefits must be included. Once player benefits are factored in, then salaries likely will be around $120 mil., so the salary cap will be around $120 mil.

I can't guarantee that is how things will shake out, of course. Just sayin' that Clayton's numbers likely include a benefits deduction.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Lotus;808664]Player benefits must be included. Once player benefits are factored in, then salaries likely will be around $120 mil., so the salary cap will be around $120 mil.

I can't guarantee that is how things will shake out, of course. Just sayin' that Clayton's numbers likely include a benefits deduction.[/quote]

This, plus the new retirement benefits they agreed to for the retired players. That's probably a part of the 48% going to the players.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808630]Clayton's salary cap estimate seems low. I wish he had shown his work. $120 million would be really tight, both compared to recent history, and compared to what reported estimates of the revenue pie suggest.

I worked off the reported $9 billion total revenue figure and got a salary cap of $135 million. It's possible the $9 billion figure is just made up, but Clayton appears to be using an $8 billion revenue figure. Which could be accurate, but I don't think that information is publicly available.[/quote]

After doing some reading about the negotiations going on, I can't find the article I read to save my life, it appears that from my recollection that under the old CBA the 9 billion came from a billion in breaks and kickbacks the owners received. If the new negotiations continue in the way they are headed, the owners would not get that billion in kickbacks but would instead have the revenue sharing formula simplified and somehow adjusted in their favor in place of not receiving the kickbacks. That would put Clayton at his estimation of 8 billion.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808649]Haven't heard if he's lazy. But you compare him to Shaun Rogers, a player that numerous people were skeptical about before he signed with New Orleans after visiting here, and there's no question that 1)Rogers is going to age better than Franklin and 2)Rogers is worth more money than Franklin.

Rogers signed for one-year, $4 million. Franklin could reasonably expect to get 3/25 or something bigger. Point is, one player is going to get the kind of deal that the Redskins have always been guilty of giving out (one that can't be outperformed), and the other is almost certainly going to offer surplus value.[/quote]

I was pleasantly surprised w/Anthony Bryant last year & was hoping the coaches felt he could start & then the rook from WV might back him up. The D played a couple of its best games w/bryant in there.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808649]Haven't heard if he's lazy. But you compare him to Shaun Rogers, a player that numerous people were skeptical about before he signed with New Orleans after visiting here, and there's no question that 1)Rogers is going to age better than Franklin and 2)Rogers is worth more money than Franklin.

Rogers signed for one-year, $4 million. Franklin could reasonably expect to get 3/25 or something bigger. Point is, one player is going to get the kind of deal that the Redskins have always been guilty of giving out (one that can't be outperformed), and the other is almost certainly going to offer surplus value.[/quote]

wasn't aware that rogers got 4 mil from new orleans. pretty surprising.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=freddyg12;808682]I was pleasantly surprised w/Anthony Bryant last year & was hoping the coaches felt he could start & then the rook from WV might back him up. The D played a couple of its best games w/bryant in there.[/quote]

agreed!

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;808649]Haven't heard if he's lazy. But you compare him to Shaun Rogers, a player that numerous people were skeptical about before he signed with New Orleans after visiting here, and there's no question that 1)Rogers is going to age better than Franklin and 2)Rogers is worth more money than Franklin.

Rogers signed for one-year, $4 million. Franklin could reasonably expect to get 3/25 or something bigger. Point is, one player is going to get the kind of deal that the Redskins have always been guilty of giving out (one that can't be outperformed), and the other is almost certainly going to offer surplus value.[/quote]

I thought that there were some health questions regarding Rogers. I know he was okay last season, but missed some time in 2009. Also, I wonder if Rogers wanted to be more of a 4-3 DT (hence the move to NO), since Cleveland moved him to a 3-4 DE last season.

I do believe Franklin will be expensive. I think at this point I'd rather have a veteran 3-4 NT that won't be too expensive and see how Bryant and the rookies we picked up develop. I guess Kris Jenkins is still out there, but he is even more of a question mark than Rogers is...so who knows. On the other hand, I would hate to go into this season with a patchwork NT, especially when we seem to have good DEs and two young/talented OLBs.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Schneed10;808625]None left to be paid, but lots left to be allocated on the salary cap books.[/quote]

Not much left on the cap books because when AH didn't show for OTAs last season he voided the last $5.4M that was guaranteed in 2011.


[quote=J.I. Halsell]In his infamous $100 million contract of 2009, Haynesworth had a $21 million option bonus. As part of the deal, the Redskins reserved the right to convert that option bonus to signing bonus, and that’s exactly what they did according to league sources. However, they did this conversion with a slight twist. Not only did they convert the option bonus to a $21 million signing bonus, but they also added a voidable provision by which if Haynesworth pays back $16.8 million of the signing bonus, then the 2011 – 2014 contract years void away. From a team salary accounting standpoint, because the voidable is solely in the player’s control, the proration of the signing bonus does not go into 2011 – 2014, meaning all of the $21 million signing bonus counts in the uncapped year of 2010. As a result, Haynesworth’s team salary number in 2010 went from $8.8 million to a whopping $25.6 million. His subsequent team salary numbers are $6.4 million, $8.2 million, $10 million, $10.8 million, and $12.8 million respectively. With this new voidable provision, if Haynesworth decides he's unhappy with his role in the Redskins' new 3-4 defense and he can come to an agreement in principle with a new team that would guarantee him the $16.8 million he'd have to pay back to the Redskins, then in theory 2010 could Haynesworth's last year in Washington[/quote]

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=1niksder;808912]Not much left on the cap books because when AH didn't show for OTAs last season he voided the last $5.4M that was guaranteed in 2011.[/quote]

[url=http://insidethecap.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html]INSIDE THE CAP with J.I. Halsell: March 2010[/url]

Was limited by post count so I couldn't include a link above.

Letting AH go should be around $1M in dead cap

D Hall's contract was re-worked the same way

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

I still dont want Albert in the locker room if were trying for a culture change. Thats what the Kerrigan pick was and the whole draft for that matter. We almost exclusively went for guys who were hard workers and come to play. Trade him for a 4 or 5 round pick. it would make me so happy. Same with McNabb for that matter.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

According to PFT CB Ike Taylor is high on the Eagles Radar, and Stephen Tullouch could be an option for us.

Also does anyone know if Nnamdi would fit our defense/why he really hasn't been linked to us?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;808997]According to PFT CB Ike Taylor is high on the Eagles Radar, and Stephen Tullouch could be an option for us.

Also does anyone know if Nnamdi would fit our defense/why he really hasn't been linked to us?[/quote]

Kind of answered my question here

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15281267/ten-freeagent-deals-that-make-too-much-sense]Ten free-agent deals that make too much sense - NFL - CBSSports.com Football[/url]

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=NC_Skins;808486][url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6699864]NFL: Teams most hurt, helped by salary-cap proposal - ESPN[/url]

Positive news indeed this potential off-season. Danny boy gets to blow some cash!!



Can't wait till the new CBA is finished so we can get to filling in some of our holes currently.


As a bonus, Dallas is getting screwed.[/quote]

Columbo is history regardless of salary cap adjustments. Marion Barber will probably get his release as well. Thats why they drafted Tyron Smith and DeMarco Murray. And with the rookie salary pool all but a certainty, the dollars saved could be spread elsewhere.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;809011]Columbo is history regardless of salary cap adjustments. [B]Marion Barber will probably get his release as well[/B]. Thats why they drafted Tyron Smith and DeMarco Murray. And with the rookie salary pool all but a certainty, the dollars saved could be spread elsewhere.[/quote]

That's sad. Barber is a cowboy, but I always liked his tenacious style. Will miss seeing him w/dallas. I was hoping Landry would at least get to tacklie him by grabbing his dreads one good time!

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Can someone explain this quote form the article:
"Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would [B]give them only around $10 million of cap room[/B]. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder [B]would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor [/B]requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend."

Do we have $10M to spend or $45M?
Sorry I did not go back and read 5 full pages of this thread to see if this was already discussed.
Brilliant on the part of Allen to free up space during an uncapped year (2010) so we can have extra spending money in 2011. This was the kind of planning we did not have under the rudderless Snyderatto FO....and yes I add Snyder to the equation in our former Cerratto/Snyder FO failure.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Question,....does the cap room in question also include the "rookie salery cap" or is that a seperate amount of money?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Defensewins;809018]Can someone explain this quote form the article:
"Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would [B]give them only around $10 million of cap room[/B]. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder [B]would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor [/B]requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend."

Do we have $10M to spend or $45M?
Sorry I did not go back and read 5 full pages of this thread to see if this was already discussed.
Brilliant on the part of Allen to free up space during an uncapped year (2010) so we can have extra spending money in 2011. This was the kind of planning we did not have under the rudderless Snyderatto FO....and yes I add Snyder to the equation in our former Cerratto/Snyder FO failure.[/quote]I think that Clayton is suggesting that there may be a cash requirement re: the salary floor that won't be satisfied by the $35 million of deadcap the Redskins will have. After accounting for 53 players on the roster and all of that deadcap, the Redskins probably have 10ish million to spend on a $120 million cap.

But to put it in perspective, the Redskins entire 2006 shopping spree: Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle El, Andre Carter, Christian Fauria, and Todd Collins took up about $10 million of cap room in 2006. But the Redskins SPENT a lot more than $10 million on those players in the fiscal year 2006. They spent at least $40 million on those six players.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Now the owners are messing things up.
[QUOTE]Player sources reaffirmed a setback in talks occurred when owners last week went "retro" on the formula that will divide the estimated $9.3 billion in annual revenue. The players believed the two sides had reached an understanding on a simplified formula in which they would receive 48 percent of revenue, sources say owners reintroduced their previous formula by asking for $400 million to $500 million in expenses as credit off the top.

Mike and Mike in the Morning

Detroit Lions DT Ndamukong Suh says he hears that lockout negotiations are going well. Suh says it's on each player individually to be ready to play when the lockout ends.

More Podcasts »
Players calculate that under the owners' proposal, it would leave them with approximately with a 45 percent take on revenue, an "unacceptable" amount that one player source said "sets us back to March 11 ... before the lockout."[/QUOTE]

Greedy bastards. 45%? When the NHL pays 53% with guranteed contracts? They're lucky they got 48%. And whats the chance that concession prices and ticket prices continue to increase with this 45% share? Screw the owners.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;809139]Now the owners are messing things up.


Greedy bastards. 45%? When the NHL pays 53% with guranteed contracts? They're lucky they got 48%. And whats the chance that concession prices and ticket prices continue to increase with this 45% share? Screw the owners.[/quote]


...but..but...that can't be true. It's those greedy players responsible for all this! Ask SB!!



[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6721798]Sources: Optimism waning, latest NFL talks trending 'backwards' - ESPN[/url]


[quote]Player sources said owners have reneged on a simplified formula that would have given players 48 percent of all revenue.[/quote]

These assholes sound like politicians.

[quote]A management source said the owners have not reneged on any revenue split, claiming "it's a negotiation, which is always subject to change"[/quote]