What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** Collective Bargaining Agreement *** (1 Viewer)

Dolfan

Footballguy
Did a quick search and couldn't find anything. Looked over at CBSSportsline thinking there would have to be an article on it somewhere and found nothing (not on their front NFL page anyways)

March 3rd is quickly approaching... Are we going to have FA start then, or is it going to get pucshed back?

 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.

 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.
Cool, thanks.So is the general consensus that this means that talks are going well?

 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.
Cool, thanks.So is the general consensus that this means that talks are going well?
Nope. Read yesterday also that there hasn't been any progress.
 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.
Cool, thanks.So is the general consensus that this means that talks are going well?
Nope. Read yesterday also that there hasn't been any progress.
:( Guess it's going to be an awfully quiet free agency period then...

 
I get the feeling the owners are still deciding/debating the revenue sharing stuff and not ready to go to the table with the NFLPA. They can't get this thing truly started without having a unified decision. The option of an uncapped year and decertified union seems to be what happens if they don't come to a decision.

 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.
Cool, thanks.So is the general consensus that this means that talks are going well?
Nope. Read yesterday also that there hasn't been any progress.
:( Guess it's going to be an awfully quiet free agency period then...
This situation shouldn't affect the free agency market in two weeks.
 
Updated: Feb. 24, 2006, 11:09 AM ET

Upshaw tells agents to prepare for uncapped '07By John Clayton

ESPN.com

NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw told a seminar of agents Friday morning to prepare for a 2006 season without a collective bargaining extension, setting up an uncapped year in 2007.

"March 3 will be the beginning of a new league year and we are just not there yet," Upshaw said. "I'm taking the position now that it won't get done."

No negotiating sessions are scheduled although Upshaw said he is willing to talk. He told agents the issues are so far apart that there is virtually no way a deal could be set before next Thursday, the eve of the start of free agency. Under no circumstance, Upshaw said, will the union agree to delay the start of free agency to accommodate a deal.

“ March 3 will be the beginning of a new league year and we are just not there yet. I'm taking the position now that it won't get done. ”

— NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw

Three major issues were cited by Upshaw as the reason for no collective bargaining agreement extension.

• Neither side can agree on the percentage of total revenues that will go to the players. Upshaw wouldn't elaborate on where the numbers were in the negotiations, but he has publicly said he wants a percentage number in the sixties. Reportedly, the sides are four percent apart but that number wasn't discussed by Upshaw.

"We want to have a higher percentage," Upshaw said. "We want more dollars to come into the system."

How significant is the percentage differential?

Upshaw said each percentage point is worth $2 million of cap room per team early in any CBA agreement, $2.5 million in the middle and $2.9 million in the end.

• The NFLPA won't agree to any type of CBA extension that doesn't have a new revenue sharing plan in the future. The differences between the high and lower revenue sharing teams have grown as much as $100 million dollars. The league owners aren't close on any revenue sharing deal among themselves, and Upshaw considers that something the union would never accept in a new deal without revised revenue sharing.

• Upshaw's third difference is the league's "G-3" program in which money is loaned to teams by the league to finance new stadium construction. The union has to sign off on any "G-3" plan because it comes out of the gross revenue pool. Upshaw is asking for a "flip tax" in which the union gets a return on the investment. The NFLPA hasn't signed off on new stadium "G-3" deals for the Cowboys, Colts and Giants.

With nothing on the horizon that gives him optimism of any breakthroughs, Upshaw set a soft deadline of Friday for getting a CBA extension. According to him, the sides are so far apart that a six-year extension would be hard to settle before the hard deadline of March 3.

To give agents guidance, Upshaw told the room that the 2006 cap should be between $92 million and $95 million but he thinks the realistic number will be $96 million. That number should be settled within in the next day or so. He said the benefits package paid by teams is $13.8 million.

Though he will be available by phone, Upshaw planned to leave Indianapolis on Friday afternoon and return to Washington, D.C.

John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

Edit: found the full article....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will quit watching and following the NFL if there is no salary cap, and I'm not even kidding.

Maybe they don't care, but they will when they couldn't agree on a minimal percentage of revenues that ends up costing them a majority percentage of revenues.

 
My only question is, IF their isn't a cap and a team signs a lot of big names and their payroll is upto 135mil. Then they sign a new CBA with a cap of 120mil, then does that team have to drop players to be able to get under the cap? Even though they signed the players before there was a new CBA???

Kind of confusing so i hope you get the idea...

 
I read yesterday that upshaw said the opening of free agency will not be pushed back. It will start on March 3rd as planned.
Cool, thanks.So is the general consensus that this means that talks are going well?
Nope. Read yesterday also that there hasn't been any progress.
:( Guess it's going to be an awfully quiet free agency period then...
This situation shouldn't affect the free agency market in two weeks.
Sure it will. If the deal doesn't get done then it limits the options that teams have to make cap room. Less cap room, means less FA opportunities.
 
upshaw is expected to say this

(we have two or three threads going on this subject now)

This is him all but saying to the owners "get your sh together and get to the bargaining table" and also a way for him to puff out his chest which is sadly necessary before negotiating with billions of dollars across the table from you.

 
2006 is a capped year and they can't have more than 30(I think) percent raise from year to year. It should only affect 2006 mildly

 
My only question is, IF their isn't a cap and a team signs a lot of big names and their payroll is upto 135mil. Then they sign a new CBA with a cap of 120mil, then does that team have to drop players to be able to get under the cap? Even though they signed the players before there was a new CBA???

Kind of confusing so i hope you get the idea...
Probably unlikely to happen, but if it did I would bet on there being a "grandfather" type clause for this type of situation.
 
My only question is, IF their isn't a cap and a team signs a lot of big names and their payroll is upto 135mil. Then they sign a new CBA with a cap of 120mil, then does that team have to drop players to be able to get under the cap? Even though they signed the players before there was a new CBA???

Kind of confusing so i hope you get the idea...
Once the NFL goes uncapped, it will likely never be capped again. Your scenario won't happen.
 
upshaw is expected to say this

(we have two or three threads going on this subject now)

This is him all but saying to the owners "get your sh together and get to the bargaining table" and also a way for him to puff out his chest which is sadly necessary before negotiating with billions of dollars across the table from you.
exactly
 
No. It will impact this year significantly in several major ways ...

1) Teams cutting a player cannot wait until June 1st to spread the cap hit out over two seasons. All cap hits will accelerate into this season. That limits the amount of money that teams can spend this year.

2) Teams can only have signing bonuses prorated over 4 years. If a CBA is in place, then the signing bonus can be prorated over 6 (maybe more) years. So if a player gets a $12M signing bonus, that's an extra $1M cap hit against the cap this year, thus limiting the cap money that teams can spend this year.

3) Free agents are going to be less willing to sign a multi-year deal unless there are major salary hikes starting in 2007. Instead, they'd rather sign a 1-year deal and become a free agent again when there is no cap. Meanwhile teams are going to be unwilling to sign deals with exploding salaries later on because they are going to hope that a new CBA deal gets signed. So there will be very few signings early on in free agency.

 
I keep hearing about an uncapped "year" but I have also heard from Upshaw himself, and from several players, that if there's an uncapped year, that's it. The NFLPA will NOT accept a return to a salary cap once they remove it, period.

:eek:

 
Little action has taken place in negotiations with the NFLPA because the owners are still squabbling amongst themselves.

But Upshaw demanding an even higher % of the total revenues is insane. He's got the goose that lays the golden egg and he is going to kill it. How much has the salary cap gone up since the free agent era started? These guys are printing their own money. Why would you dare try to mess with it?!?

 
No. It will impact this year significantly in several major ways ...

1) Teams cutting a player cannot wait until June 1st to spread the cap hit out over two seasons. All cap hits will accelerate into this season. That limits the amount of money that teams can spend this year.

2) Teams can only have signing bonuses prorated over 4 years. If a CBA is in place, then the signing bonus can be prorated over 6 (maybe more) years. So if a player gets a $12M signing bonus, that's an extra $1M cap hit against the cap this year, thus limiting the cap money that teams can spend this year.

3) Free agents are going to be less willing to sign a multi-year deal unless there are major salary hikes starting in 2007. Instead, they'd rather sign a 1-year deal and become a free agent again when there is no cap. Meanwhile teams are going to be unwilling to sign deals with exploding salaries later on because they are going to hope that a new CBA deal gets signed. So there will be very few signings early on in free agency.
I would not disagree with these statements, but I would disagree on the magnitude of their impact.
 
My thoughts, in case anyone is interested.

• Neither side can agree on the percentage of total revenues that will go to the players. Upshaw wouldn't elaborate on where the numbers were in the negotiations, but he has publicly said he wants a percentage number in the sixties. Reportedly, the sides are four percent apart but that number wasn't discussed by Upshaw.

"We want to have a higher percentage," Upshaw said. "We want more dollars to come into the system."

How significant is the percentage differential?

Upshaw said each percentage point is worth $2 million of cap room per team early in any CBA agreement, $2.5 million in the middle and $2.9 million in the end.
The issue earlier in the month was the players' wanted a cut of the local revenue and the owners were not opposed to this, but there issue was 'if we give the players a cut of local revenue, then we have to pull all local revenue give the players their cut and then share the rest equally among all owhers.' The above statement makes me believe the owners have decided not to share local revenue, but instead increase the players cut of the nationally shared revenue. Basically the players have a dollar amount they want (from projecting national and local revenues) and they want it regardless if local revenues are shared amoung owners or not. I anticipated this to be resolution and it could make things more difficult for the smaller owners. Basically the salary cap number goes up, but the pooled revenue (which is shared) goes down.

• The NFLPA won't agree to any type of CBA extension that doesn't have a new revenue sharing plan in the future. The differences between the high and lower revenue sharing teams have grown as much as $100 million dollars. The league owners aren't close on any revenue sharing deal among themselves, and Upshaw considers that something the union would never accept in a new deal without revised revenue sharing.
Old news; rich owners want to share revenue and responsibility, small owners just want to share revenue.Old news; NFLPA holding out for the removal of the cap is simply a pawn in this game of chess; or maybe I should say rook instead of pawn - it is a powerful piece of leverage for the players whether they want to do away with it or not.

• Upshaw's third difference is the league's "G-3" program in which money is loaned to teams by the league to finance new stadium construction. The union has to sign off on any "G-3" plan because it comes out of the gross revenue pool. Upshaw is asking for a "flip tax" in which the union gets a return on the investment. The NFLPA hasn't signed off on new stadium "G-3" deals for the Cowboys, Colts and Giants.
Well this makes sense, though it is news to me.Lets say the players get a cut of the total shared revenue, we'll say it is 3.2 billion. However, the G-4 program says the league can take X dollars off the top (lets say 300 million), so the players only get a cut of (3.2 billion - 300 million). And since that 300 million loan goes to build a new stadium and the players get a very small cut of revenue from a new stadium, it only makes sense that the players get some sort of return on the money they did not receive (though were entitled to receive).

 
Whooooaaaa Nelllliiie, is he talking a $120 Mil cap?

If .01 of total revenues is equal to 2 Mil, then total revenues = ~ 200 Mil.

If players cap equals 60 percent of total revenues, then new cap is (.60 * 200 Mil = 120 Mil).

 
Whooooaaaa Nelllliiie, is he talking a $120 Mil cap?

If .01 of total revenues is equal to 2 Mil, then total revenues = ~ 200 Mil.

If players cap equals 60 percent of total revenues, then new cap is (.60 * 200 Mil = 120 Mil).
:thumbup: Nice catch and I think your math is legit (for a rough estimate).

Keep in mind, revenue sharing would stay status quo, so teams would still get about 100 million (per team) in shared revenue.

 
I think Orange Crush is right. I think the casual football fan is WAAAAY underestimating the effect no CBA is going to have on this offseason.

We shall see though..

 
• Upshaw's third difference is the league's "G-3" program in which money is loaned to teams by the league to finance new stadium construction. The union has to sign off on any "G-3" plan because it comes out of the gross revenue pool. Upshaw is asking for a "flip tax" in which the union gets a return on the investment. The NFLPA hasn't signed off on new stadium "G-3" deals for the Cowboys, Colts and Giants.
Well this makes sense, though it is news to me.Lets say the players get a cut of the total shared revenue, we'll say it is 3.2 billion. However, the G-4 program says the league can take X dollars off the top (lets say 300 million), so the players only get a cut of (3.2 billion - 300 million). And since that 300 million loan goes to build a new stadium and the players get a very small cut of revenue from a new stadium, it only makes sense that the players get some sort of return on the money they did not receive (though were entitled to receive).
Yes, this does make a lot of sense. And over the last couple years the NFLPA has done a much better job of tracking all the different revenues the NFL is generating and making sure that they get the cut they are entitled to in the CBA. So revenues from online programs, computer software rights, marketing promotions, etc. I have no problem with the NFLPA doing this. The NFL agreed to give them a % of all shared revenue and the NFLPA is making sure that this continues. My big problem right now is that league revenue has been going up every year. This increases the salary cap every year. 15 years ago, the first cap was somewhere around $25M IIRC. Now its approaching $100M. Everyone's getting rich. And the reason everyone's getting rich is because the NFL has had labor peace and a consistent framework in place to guide their actions. Why would you even risk screwing that up to try to increase the % of revenue you are getting? If overall revenue drops, then it doesn't matter if your % of revenue has gone up 4% cause you're still going to get less money.

 
Whooooaaaa Nelllliiie, is he talking a $120 Mil cap?

If .01 of total revenues is equal to 2 Mil, then total revenues = ~ 200 Mil.

If players cap equals 60 percent of total revenues, then new cap is (.60 * 200 Mil = 120 Mil).
:thumbup: Nice catch and I think your math is legit (for a rough estimate).

Keep in mind, revenue sharing would stay status quo, so teams would still get about 100 million (per team) in shared revenue.
Team contributions to benefits also has to be accounted for in there. So $120M would be each team's revenues to players. Take ~ $20M out for benefits, and you get a $100M cap for salaries.
 
The big effect for this year is the uncertainty. No one knows whether the CBA will be extended, so no one knows what a contract offer is a good or bad deal.

I wonder if teams can offer players a sort of double contract -- one contract under the current CBA rules, and a second contract that kicks in if the CBA is extended with a new salary cap.

 
I keep hearing about an uncapped "year" but I have also heard from Upshaw himself, and from several players, that if there's an uncapped year, that's it. The NFLPA will NOT accept a return to a salary cap once they remove it, period.

:eek:
I don't think the players want the owners breaking out the scabs again ...Truth to be told, with no competing league, the owners hold all the labor cards ...

Think about this: What if the NFLPA decertified?

 
Yes, this does make a lot of sense. And over the last couple years the NFLPA has done a much better job of tracking all the different revenues the NFL is generating and making sure that they get the cut they are entitled to in the CBA. So revenues from online programs, computer software rights, marketing promotions, etc. I have no problem with the NFLPA doing this. The NFL agreed to give them a % of all shared revenue and the NFLPA is making sure that this continues.

My big problem right now is that league revenue has been going up every year. This increases the salary cap every year. 15 years ago, the first cap was somewhere around $25M IIRC. Now its approaching $100M. Everyone's getting rich. And the reason everyone's getting rich is because the NFL has had labor peace and a consistent framework in place to guide their actions. Why would you even risk screwing that up to try to increase the % of revenue you are getting? If overall revenue drops, then it doesn't matter if your % of revenue has gone up 4% cause you're still going to get less money.
We are eye-to-eye on this, and being outsider asking 'why the risk' seems legit. However, I bolded the part above because that is what I want to comment on. The owners came back and said, "We tried to share local revenue between us owners and we could not find a resolution." I interpret the players reponse as saying we want a bigger percentage cut as the same thing as saying, "Not our problem."
 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own? Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?

 
My only question is, IF their isn't a cap and a team signs a lot of big names and their payroll is upto 135mil. Then they sign a new CBA with a cap of 120mil, then does that team have to drop players to be able to get under the cap? Even though they signed the players before there was a new CBA???

Kind of confusing so i hope you get the idea...
Once the NFL goes uncapped, it will likely never be capped again. Your scenario won't happen.
I have been saying this too - I think a lot of people have missed it. I keep hearing "uncapped year" but the NFLPA has said once the cap is gone, it STAYS gone. It'd be more like an uncapped league.If the NFL turns into MLB, the success they've been having is finished.

 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own? Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?
Collusion and trust. It only takes one (Snyder or Jones) to push the 'agreed upon cap'.
 
If the NFL turns into MLB, the success they've been having is finished.
Two critical elements seperate MLB and the NFL.1) Revenue Sharing

2) Salary Cap

and in that order. Whether there is a cap or not, the Steelers, Packers, Redskins and Cowboys still get revenue sharing (about a 100 million last year). The only difference is local revenue, which at most is reported to be 50 million.

 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own?  Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?
Collusion and trust. It only takes one (Snyder or Jones) to push the 'agreed upon cap'.
So "budgeting" = "collusion"? All companies have budgets . . . why can't teams?
 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own?  Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?
Collusion and trust. It only takes one (Snyder or Jones) to push the 'agreed upon cap'.
So "budgeting" = "collusion"? All companies have budgets . . . why can't teams?
Ok, so each team says it will budget 93 million on salaries. What happens if somebody goes over that 93 million? Is there a contract in place? And if a contract is in place, were the players made aware of it?
 
If the NFL turns into MLB, the success they've been having is finished.
Two critical elements seperate MLB and the NFL.1) Revenue Sharing

2) Salary Cap

and in that order. Whether there is a cap or not, the Steelers, Packers, Redskins and Cowboys still get revenue sharing (about a 100 million last year). The only difference is local revenue, which at most is reported to be 50 million.
The difference is that the relative wealth and willingness to spend of the ownsers suddenly comes into play, whereas with a salary cap, it's moot. The Snyders, Joneses and Allens of the NFL will have a distinct competitive advantage over, say, the publicly owned Packers.
 
The difference is that the relative wealth and willingness to spend of the ownsers suddenly comes into play, whereas with a salary cap, it's moot. The Snyders, Joneses and Allens of the NFL will have a distinct competitive advantage over, say, the publicly owned Packers.
Not sure where you get the bolded from. Even George Steinbrenner doesn't take money out of his own pocket and throw it away on salaries.But sure, those owners who have more money and elect to reinvest it back into their own team will have an advantage, but I don't think it would be all that significant.

MLB, the Yankees have a 200 million payroll and the small market Pirates have about a 35 million payroll. That is almost a 6:1 advantage.

NFL, if the cap went away, you could expect at the most the Redskins to have a 200 million payroll and the Packers to have a 100 to 110 million dollar payroll. Slightly less than 2:1.

Don't get me wrong, I want a cap in the worse way, but this is how I see the numbers breaking out.

 
The difference is that the relative wealth and willingness to spend of the ownsers suddenly comes into play, whereas with a salary cap, it's moot. The Snyders, Joneses and Allens of the NFL will have a distinct competitive advantage over, say, the publicly owned Packers.
I don't think you completely understand the negogiations going on with the CBA. What if the cap goes up to 130 million and the Steelers and Packers only have 95 milion to spend payroll? Isn't that the same thing as not having a cap?
 
NFL, if the cap went away, you could expect at the most the Redskins to have a 200 million payroll and the Packers to have a 100 to 110 million dollar payroll. Slightly less than 2:1.
This doesn't give the Redskins, Cowboys, etc... a huge competitive edge? The large market teams would never have to cut anyone for salary cap reasons, ever. That talent wouldn't get re-distributed, and we'd be right back to the days of having 1 or 2 dominant teams and a bunch of doormats. The parity that makes the NFL so great right now would be all but destroyed. That scares the hell out of me.
 
NFL, if the cap went away, you could expect at the most the Redskins to have a 200 million payroll and the Packers to have a 100 to 110 million dollar payroll.  Slightly less than 2:1.
This doesn't give the Redskins, Cowboys, etc... a huge competitive edge? The large market teams would never have to cut anyone for salary cap reasons, ever. That talent wouldn't get re-distributed, and we'd be right back to the days of having 1 or 2 dominant teams and a bunch of doormats. The parity that makes the NFL so great right now would be all but destroyed. That scares the hell out of me.
I agree with you. I guess I was disagreeing with the comment that the NFL would turn into MLB (which may or may not have been your original statement).
 
The difference is that the relative wealth and willingness to spend of the ownsers suddenly comes into play, whereas with a salary cap, it's moot.  The Snyders, Joneses and Allens of the NFL will have a distinct competitive advantage over, say, the publicly owned Packers.
I don't think you completely understand the negogiations going on with the CBA. What if the cap goes up to 130 million and the Steelers and Packers only have 95 milion to spend payroll? Isn't that the same thing as not having a cap?
I'm sure I don't, but I'm pretty sure that all the teams in the NFL can manage to afford to pay in salaries what the cap allows them to. I haven't heard of any teams struggling to sign enough players, but scads of players are cut every year in order for teams to get under the cap. If the cap were raised to some absurd level like $180 million, it would essentially be the same as having no cap. When I say that having a cap makes it moot, it's with the assumption that it's a cap as currently set, with moderate increases each year relative to revenue.
 
NFL, if the cap went away, you could expect at the most the Redskins to have a 200 million payroll and the Packers to have a 100 to 110 million dollar payroll.  Slightly less than 2:1.
This doesn't give the Redskins, Cowboys, etc... a huge competitive edge? The large market teams would never have to cut anyone for salary cap reasons, ever. That talent wouldn't get re-distributed, and we'd be right back to the days of having 1 or 2 dominant teams and a bunch of doormats. The parity that makes the NFL so great right now would be all but destroyed. That scares the hell out of me.
I agree with you. I guess I was disagreeing with the comment that the NFL would turn into MLB (which may or may not have been your original statement).
When I said that, I didn't necessarily mean that there'd be a $200 million difference in payroll between Washington and Arizona, I meant that the landscape of competitiveness would be shaped mainly by money rather than by shrewd decision making, as it frequently is in baseball.
 
I'm sure I don't, but I'm pretty sure that all the teams in the NFL can manage to afford to pay in salaries what the cap allows them to. I haven't heard of any teams struggling to sign enough players, but scads of players are cut every year in order for teams to get under the cap. If the cap were raised to some absurd level like $180 million, it would essentially be the same as having no cap. When I say that having a cap makes it moot, it's with the assumption that it's a cap as currently set, with moderate increases each year relative to revenue.
This is what is threatening the current CBA. Here is what I got for a summary:1) The NFLPA wants a cut of local revenues, which vary from team to team and has a maximum seperation (from richest to poorest) of 100 million.

2) The owners must share this revenue to put it in the CBA and share it with the players, it appears they are not going to do this.

3) The counter-request by the NFLPA is to get a bigger cut of the shared revenue, currently somewhere in the 5X.X% area and Gene Upshaw is asking for at least 60%.

If the NFLPA gets what they want, than your poorer franchises will get a 3X.X% of the shared revenue, but must spend 6X.X% on salaries.

For example: if the number comes out to 65% and the each teams shared revenue cut is 200 million. Of this 200 million, 130 million would have to be spent on the salary cap.

Not sure if that helps. I could probably go further if I knew a particular teams' financial details. But in jest, the NFLPA want to raise each teams' payroll expense and reduce each team's portion of shared revenue.

Two disclaimers:

1) I do not work for the NFL, the NFLPA or any NFL franchise.

2) I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 
I'm sure I don't, but I'm pretty sure that all the teams in the NFL can manage to afford to pay in salaries what the cap allows them to.  I haven't heard of any teams struggling to sign enough players, but scads of players are cut every year in order for teams to get under the cap.  If the cap were raised to some absurd level like $180 million, it would essentially be the same as having no cap.  When I say that having a cap makes it moot, it's with the assumption that it's a cap as currently set, with moderate increases each year relative to revenue.
This is what is threatening the current CBA. Here is what I got for a summary:1) The NFLPA wants a cut of local revenues, which vary from team to team and has a maximum seperation (from richest to poorest) of 100 million.

2) The owners must share this revenue to put it in the CBA and share it with the players, it appears they are not going to do this.

3) The counter-request by the NFLPA is to get a bigger cut of the shared revenue, currently somewhere in the 5X.X% area and Gene Upshaw is asking for at least 60%.

If the NFLPA gets what they want, than your poorer franchises will get a 3X.X% of the shared revenue, but must spend 6X.X% on salaries.

For example: if the number comes out to 65% and the each teams shared revenue cut is 200 million. Of this 200 million, 130 million would have to be spent on the salary cap.

Not sure if that helps. I could probably go further if I knew a particular teams' financial details. But in jest, the NFLPA want to raise each teams' payroll expense and reduce each team's portion of shared revenue.

Two disclaimers:

1) I do not work for the NFL, the NFLPA or any NFL franchise.

2) I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
I got you. Thanks for further explaining. Even if that number comes out to $130 million, as long it's based on a percentage of the revenue cut, I don't see teams struggling to meet that requirement on salaries. No cap, however, threatens the competitive balance of the league, and that's what we both would hate to see.
 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own? Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?
The threat is that if there is no CBA, the union will decertify itself. The problem with that is that without the "special" agreement between the league and the union, the league becomes subject to all sorts of monopoly/anti-trust laws that it is NOT now subject to.I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess having a salary cap without the protection of the union/CBA would violate one or more anti-trust laws.

 
If there is no CBA and things became uncapped, what's to stop the owners from instituting a salary cap on their own?  Couldn't they leave things alone and set the bar at $95 million in salary per team and leave the players union out of it?
Collusion and trust. It only takes one (Snyder or Jones) to push the 'agreed upon cap'.
So "budgeting" = "collusion"? All companies have budgets . . . why can't teams?
Ok, so each team says it will budget 93 million on salaries. What happens if somebody goes over that 93 million? Is there a contract in place? And if a contract is in place, were the players made aware of it?
exactly. an agreement without enforcement would never last, and it would never survive the collusion and anti-trust claims that would follow.
 
Does anyone remember the pre-salary cap NFL? Could teams cut players at any point of a contract, or were all contracts effectively guaranteed like baseball? If there is no salary cap and the CBA went away, could players still be cut and released at the team's discretion?

 
Does anyone remember the pre-salary cap NFL? Could teams cut players at any point of a contract, or were all contracts effectively guaranteed like baseball? If there is no salary cap and the CBA went away, could players still be cut and released at the team's discretion?
The pre-salary cap era was also a no-free agency era. So many things were different. They had something called [nostalgia] Plan B Free Agency[/nostalgia]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top