ShareThis Page
Steelers

Steelers, rest of NFL on hold again

| Monday, March 6, 2006

The Steelers, like the rest of the NFL, found themselves in a holding pattern Sunday.

That's because the league pushed back the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

Then, finally, the league moved the deadline back to 9 p.m. Wednesday.

"I wish my mortgage company was so flexible," agent Joe Linta of Freedom said last night.

The start of free agency was also moved back 72 hours, from 12:01 a.m. today until 12:01 a.m. Thursday, giving hope that an extension to the collective bargaining agreement will be reached. Free agency was initially set for 12:01 a.m. last Friday.

The NFL players' association and league owners met yesterday in hopes of coming to an agreement on an extension of the collective bargaining agreement, but talks broke off early in the day.

A snag in talks between the players and owners is revenue sharing. The players want 60 percent; the owners aren't willing to give up that much -- at least that was the case as of late last night.

The owners reportedly offered between 56 and 58 percent of total revenue.

With the 72-hour reprieve, the Steelers continue to set up a restructuring of the contract to Pro Bowl center Jeff Hartings, who was scheduled to count $8.1 million against the salary cap. They already have a restructured deal for running back Duce Staley.

Linta's client, center Chukky Okobi, who is set to make $2 million, also has a restructured plan in place.

"We have our ducks in a row," Linta said. "It just depends if a deal takes place Wednesday ... or Sunday ... or Wednesday again. But we have a contingency plan based on all this."

With a CBA extension, the salary cap will expand from $94.5 million to $105 million, creating room for teams to keep some of their higher-priced players. Without the CBA extension, veteran players with big salaries will be released.

Also, without a CBA, there will be an uncapped year in 2007, changing the dynamic of the league for good.

"The talks ended today after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years," Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said in a statement last night. "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to ten this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year.

"I continue to believe that the problem lies with the high revenue clubs and the revenue sharing issue. Their refusal to share more revenues is making it worse for everybody -- players, owners, and fans."

Some teams made changes yesterday due to the uncertainty of the CBA. The Jets cut center Kevin Mawae, and the Oakland Raiders released quarterback Kerry Collins.

Additional Information:

Oscar coverage

Click here for complete
coverage of the 78th
Annual Academy Awards

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me