What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles.

He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.

 
He might be right about the work remaining but I think they will get it done and soon. Why?- the staggering amount of money that would be lost by all in just the next 2-3 months.

 
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
 
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just don't think they will get a deal done in time to avoid cancelling pre-season games. They are only meeting twice a week and they have way to many issues that still need to be solved.

This is really starting to piss me off to the point were I could care less if they even play again.

 
The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again,
I wish the court would just rule already so no one misunderstands how much leverage they really have. September 11th is 80 days away.
It's actually the uncertainty that is allowing these talks to proceed. If the court announced that the players would have to wait 6 months before their attempt to decertify became valid, the players may decide that since they're almost there they can afford to hold out for a better deal.If the court announced that the players would have to wait a full year, the owners may decide that the players will never hold together that long and they can afford to hold out for a better deal.This is a very short window to negotiate, and, since they have competent legal representation, both sides recognize that fact.
 
The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way
what a dumb thing to even ask for. Someones right to court should not be messed with
 
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
 
'GregR said:
'Orange Crush said:
'markb said:
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
Next time you buy anything, take a look at the fine print on the back. It will likely say that by making this purchase you agree to bring any disputes to binding arbitration, with the arbitrator picked by the company. And the Supreme Court has upheld such clauses as perfectly valid, even if the clause is only made available to the customer after the purchase has been finalized (like with an airline or cruise ticket).
 
'GregR said:
'Orange Crush said:
'markb said:
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
Next time you buy anything, take a look at the fine print on the back. It will likely say that by making this purchase you agree to bring any disputes to binding arbitration, with the arbitrator picked by the company. And the Supreme Court has upheld such clauses as perfectly valid, even if the clause is only made available to the customer after the purchase has been finalized (like with an airline or cruise ticket).
So, you think its unsconscionable on its face, yet you know it's withstood judicial review?
 
'GregR said:
'Orange Crush said:
'markb said:
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
Next time you buy anything, take a look at the fine print on the back. It will likely say that by making this purchase you agree to bring any disputes to binding arbitration, with the arbitrator picked by the company. And the Supreme Court has upheld such clauses as perfectly valid, even if the clause is only made available to the customer after the purchase has been finalized (like with an airline or cruise ticket).
So, you think its unsconscionable on its face, yet you know it's withstood judicial review?
It was spin. I thought the Supreme Court decision I mentioned was unconscionable (and so did my favorite law school professor, though he used the term 'outrageous.')
 
'GregR said:
'Orange Crush said:
'markb said:
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles.

He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link.

Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
Next time you buy anything, take a look at the fine print on the back. It will likely say that by making this purchase you agree to bring any disputes to binding arbitration, with the arbitrator picked by the company. And the Supreme Court has upheld such clauses as perfectly valid, even if the clause is only made available to the customer after the purchase has been finalized (like with an airline or cruise ticket).
:shock: :thumbdown:

 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.

 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Are you suggesting that they've never tried for an anti-trust exemption before? I'm almost positive they have. It's not like Congress gives that away like candy.
 
'GregR said:
'Orange Crush said:
'markb said:
Anyone else hear Chris Mortensen's take on things on ESPN radio this morning? He was not optimistic at all, listing several issues that had yet to be resolved, including some that appeared dealbreakers. He said not only was the economic model not formalized yet, but neither was the rookie cap structure, and perhaps most importantly, the jurisdiction of future labor disputes. The owners appear to be taking a hard line that they don't ever want the players to go to court again, and there's no way the players will agree to limit themselves in that way. He went on to say that the players appear, to him, to still be strongly unified and will not cave on core principles. He really bummed me out regarding the prospects of getting a deal done in time for the start of the season.
I have never been optimistic of a full season starting on time. The owners have a deal. I think its fair. If the players don't want it, that's their right. They will have to live off the lockout fund and then split a much smaller pie when they come begging for money in November. An antitrust lawsuit tied up in court is not currency. Dee Smith sent out a memo to the players that a deal was not close at this time. I can't remember the link. Players will not stay unified. That is a fact.
I think a condition to never avail yourself of the U.S. judicial system to settle any disputes with your employer is unconscionably unfair on its face.However, I admit I may be biased (see the first sentence of my sig).
I don't even think such an agreement is legal is it, as that is a Constitutional right that can't be denied you.Of course, they could agree to terms where going to the courts wouldn't help them much because they'd lose. But they'd still have the option of doing so.
Next time you buy anything, take a look at the fine print on the back. It will likely say that by making this purchase you agree to bring any disputes to binding arbitration, with the arbitrator picked by the company. And the Supreme Court has upheld such clauses as perfectly valid, even if the clause is only made available to the customer after the purchase has been finalized (like with an airline or cruise ticket).
So, you think its unsconscionable on its face, yet you know it's withstood judicial review?
It was spin. I thought the Supreme Court decision I mentioned was unconscionable (and so did my favorite law school professor, though he used the term 'outrageous.')
so what you talking about, a clause that says something like, not repsonsible for injury or loss of personal property right? Dont all sporting events tickets say the same thing on the back? doesnt mean you cant sue if you get a line drive in the face, or fall down the stairs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
The owners have been trying for such an exemption for decades. Its not going to happen. Easy compromise seems to be to make the provision that the union can't decertify for 6 months after the expiration of the CBA also prohit decertification for 6 months prior to the expiration of the CBA.
 
League sources said Thursday that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith has earned the owners' trust and respect in a very big way over the last month. In fact, that part of the equation, coinciding with the legal aspects of the dispute slowing and the lawyers taking much smaller roles, has been integral in getting the owners to move off hard-line stances and listen to players' demands.
Albert Breer
 
I believe the legal issue the owners are fighting is not eliminating the NFLPAs ability to sue, but to put restrictions on it. I have heard (don't know the accuracy but these make sense) 6 months before and after the CBA expires to decertify, labor relations board rulings have to occur prior to anti-trust litigation, etc. The whole focus from the owners is to get the new CBA out of Doty's hands, and I feel the owners will be pretty adamant about that. I know they feel they are not getting a balanced judgement from him (which may or may not be true - but that is their and their legal counsels beliefs). How can they get there? Not allow any filing to the Minnesota Federal District Court (or whatever it is exactly called)? I am not sure and some of the lawyers on here may be able to come up with a legal and proper way of doing this.

Everything I have heard for the last two years indicates the owners desire to get the next CBA out of Doty's hands (that was one of the reasons they wanted to do a lockout after the CBA expired - Doty would have no jurisdiction then), but the NFLPA beat them to the punch and decertified.

 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Jeez David, you're brutal in this thread. The owners are incompetent because they can't get an anti-trust exemption from Congress? Really??
 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Jeez David, you're brutal in this thread. The owners are incompetent because they can't get an anti-trust exemption from Congress? Really??
Baseball has one, why dont all the other sports? Or is it just for TV contracts?
 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Jeez David, you're brutal in this thread. The owners are incompetent because they can't get an anti-trust exemption from Congress? Really??
Baseball has one, why dont all the other sports? Or is it just for TV contracts?
I may be wrong, but i believe baseball in its current form pre-dated the anti-trust legislation and received an exemption. What we know as the NFL, NBA etc came after the legislation. I think that is basically it. Need our lawyers to verify this.
 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Jeez David, you're brutal in this thread. The owners are incompetent because they can't get an anti-trust exemption from Congress? Really??
Baseball has one, why dont all the other sports? Or is it just for TV contracts?
MLB got one from a rather dubious decision from the Supreme Court. The NFL has a limited exception that allows the league to set up TV deals and divide the money accordingly.
 
From Wikipedia article on the reserve clause that talks about the anti-trust exemption...

The reserve clause is a term formerly employed in North American professional sports contracts. The reserve clause, contained in all standard player contracts, stated that, upon the contract's expiration the rights to the player were to be retained by the team to which he had been signed. Practically, this meant that although both the player's obligation to play for the team as well as the team's obligation to pay the player were terminated, the player was not free to enter into another contract with another team.

...

Under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, two or more non-affiliated companies in any other interstate business, were prohibited from colluding with each other to fix prices or establish schedules or rates. Enforcement of the Act reached its apotheosis in 1910 when the Supreme Court affirmed the government's order to dissolve the Standard Oil conglomerate. Yet it was argued that to keep the national pastime prosperous, the only large-scale professional sport in America during the 1920s of any significance, granting it immunity from the Sherman Act was in the best interests of the game and the nation.

Thus, the United States Supreme Court had held in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League (259 U.S. 200) that baseball was an "amusement", and that organizing a schedule of games between independently owned and operated clubs operating in various states, and engaging in activities incidental thereto, did not constitute "interstate commerce" and that therefore antitrust laws did not apply to such activity, a ruling that, as of 2011, has never been overturned.

This pass on "trust-busting" essentially codified the reserve clause for many years, and gave what came to be known as Major League Baseball unprecedented power over both players and the independent organizations of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (NAPBL). MLB could dictate not only how and where professional players could move between major league clubs, but, as they took the opportunity of the Great Depression to establish systems of farm teams of players wholly owned by the parent clubs placed on 'independent' teams from the NA leagues around the country, they developed a way of expanding control of contracts of virtually the entire pool of professional baseball players.

When other team sports, particularly ice hockey, football, and basketball developed professional leagues, their owners essentially emulated baseball's reserve clause. This system stood almost unchallenged, other than by the occasional holdout, for many years.
From another source.
This exemption remained unchallenged – as did MLB’s monopoly – until 1972. As you know from reading Free Agency, Part II, Curt Flood sued baseball after being traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. Flood’s case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, who let the old decision stand, criticizing it but saying that it was up to Congress, not them, to fix the “anomaly.” Although Flood lost his case, he paved the way for salary arbitration, and, soonafter, free agency. Today, free agency exists, but the antitrust exemption remains law as well.
 
The owners will cave on that point. The players can definitely sue. If the owners want protection from anti-trust issues, get a congressional exemption. It's been reported that the players want to sign a 10 year deal. Are the owners so incompetent that they can't get a congressional anti-trust exemption in those 10 years? Just more posturing from a situation that should have been resolved a long time ago.
Jeez David, you're brutal in this thread. The owners are incompetent because they can't get an anti-trust exemption from Congress? Really??
Baseball has one, why dont all the other sports? Or is it just for TV contracts?
MLB got one from a rather dubious decision from the Supreme Court. The NFL has a limited exception that allows the league to set up TV deals and divide the money accordingly.
Right. So the NFL Owners are incompetent because they can't get the Supreme Court to make another dubious decision?
 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap and there's a couple of things I don't understand.

Quoting Clayton:

"Hoping to get a deal, owners in the past few weeks upgraded a proposal that changed the formula. On March 11, owners were willing to set the floor at 90 percent of the salary cap in cash. Now, they are willing to make the floor close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

Thus, if the salary cap is around $120 million this year, teams would have to put close to that amount of money in cash to meet the minimum payroll requirements."

How can the floor and the ceiling be almost the same?

Second, he mentions that the Redskins would have tons of money to spend under the new cap despite paying huge bonuses to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last year. Are none of the 2010 bonuses prorated going forward, like they used to be? That's probably a simple question that I should already know, so feel free to denigrate me for not. :thumbup:

 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap and there's a couple of things I don't understand.

Quoting Clayton:

"Hoping to get a deal, owners in the past few weeks upgraded a proposal that changed the formula. On March 11, owners were willing to set the floor at 90 percent of the salary cap in cash. Now, they are willing to make the floor close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

Thus, if the salary cap is around $120 million this year, teams would have to put close to that amount of money in cash to meet the minimum payroll requirements."

How can the floor and the ceiling be almost the same?
It just would be. If they make the rule say "You have to spend exactly $120 million this year" then the team would have to arrange their contracts so that they spent that to the dollar. I'm sure they'll have more of a range than that, since teams need to keep a little bit of space for mid-season signings as people go on IR.
Second, he mentions that the Redskins would have tons of money to spend under the new cap despite paying huge bonuses to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last year. Are none of the 2010 bonuses prorated going forward, like they used to be? That's probably a simple question that I should already know, so feel free to denigrate me for not. :thumbup:
Correct, the old system was your cap number for this year was actual salary and roster bonuses you paid this year, plus a prorated portion of any signing bonus, plus dead money from players you cut/traded who had prorated portions that hadn't hit the cap yet.The new system is more along the lines of "how many dollars in checks did you write to players this year". No prorating. It's a simple how much cash actually went into the pockets of the players. This is a concession the owners made to the players, as they can assure that teams are actually spending to the cap floor. Before teams could write bonuses that would count for cap purposes but that were unlikely to actually be paid... allowing them to meet the minimum cap number for the year, but not actually pay out the minimum cap number.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap and there's a couple of things I don't understand.

Quoting Clayton:

"Hoping to get a deal, owners in the past few weeks upgraded a proposal that changed the formula. On March 11, owners were willing to set the floor at 90 percent of the salary cap in cash. Now, they are willing to make the floor close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

Thus, if the salary cap is around $120 million this year, teams would have to put close to that amount of money in cash to meet the minimum payroll requirements."

How can the floor and the ceiling be almost the same?
It just would be. If they make the rule say "You have to spend exactly $120 million this year" then the team would have to arrange their contracts so that they spent that to the dollar. I'm sure they'll have more of a range than that, since teams need to keep a little bit of space for mid-season signings as people go on IR.
Second, he mentions that the Redskins would have tons of money to spend under the new cap despite paying huge bonuses to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last year. Are none of the 2010 bonuses prorated going forward, like they used to be? That's probably a simple question that I should already know, so feel free to denigrate me for not. :thumbup:
Correct, the old system was your cap number for this year was actual salary and roster bonuses you paid this year, plus a prorated portion of any signing bonus, plus dead money from players you cut/traded who had prorated portions that hadn't hit the cap yet.The new system is more along the lines of "how many dollars in checks did you write to players this year". No prorating. It's a simple how much cash actually went into the pockets of the players. This is a concession the owners made to the players, as they can assure that teams are actually spending to the cap floor. Before teams could write bonuses that would count for cap purposes but that were unlikely to actually be paid... allowing them to meet the minimum cap number for the year, but not actually pay out the minimum cap number.
Thanks for those answers, Greg. What about the bonuses paid in 2010, like to Haynesworth? How do they count, if at all? Was it just a throwaway year?While I'll be happy if the teams can't count bonuses that they never actually end up paying, it seems to me that the proration of bonus money that actually was paid was something that worked pretty well for all parties.

 
To the best of my understanding, the Redskins renegotiated quite a few contracts last year (which was uncapped) to make the big bonuses all count then, not in future years.

 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap and there's a couple of things I don't understand.

Quoting Clayton:

"Hoping to get a deal, owners in the past few weeks upgraded a proposal that changed the formula. On March 11, owners were willing to set the floor at 90 percent of the salary cap in cash. Now, they are willing to make the floor close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

Thus, if the salary cap is around $120 million this year, teams would have to put close to that amount of money in cash to meet the minimum payroll requirements."

How can the floor and the ceiling be almost the same?
It just would be. If they make the rule say "You have to spend exactly $120 million this year" then the team would have to arrange their contracts so that they spent that to the dollar. I'm sure they'll have more of a range than that, since teams need to keep a little bit of space for mid-season signings as people go on IR.
Second, he mentions that the Redskins would have tons of money to spend under the new cap despite paying huge bonuses to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last year. Are none of the 2010 bonuses prorated going forward, like they used to be? That's probably a simple question that I should already know, so feel free to denigrate me for not. :thumbup:
Correct, the old system was your cap number for this year was actual salary and roster bonuses you paid this year, plus a prorated portion of any signing bonus, plus dead money from players you cut/traded who had prorated portions that hadn't hit the cap yet.The new system is more along the lines of "how many dollars in checks did you write to players this year". No prorating. It's a simple how much cash actually went into the pockets of the players. This is a concession the owners made to the players, as they can assure that teams are actually spending to the cap floor. Before teams could write bonuses that would count for cap purposes but that were unlikely to actually be paid... allowing them to meet the minimum cap number for the year, but not actually pay out the minimum cap number.
Thanks for those answers, Greg. What about the bonuses paid in 2010, like to Haynesworth? How do they count, if at all? Was it just a throwaway year?While I'll be happy if the teams can't count bonuses that they never actually end up paying, it seems to me that the proration of bonus money that actually was paid was something that worked pretty well for all parties.
Of course it'll depend on what the final CBA looks like. But I think it's maybe likely that they won't do anything about past season numbers including 2010. If they don't prorate anymore, then the Redskins would just have to pay out in actual cash in 2011 whatever the salary floor is, on top of players who are playing in 2011 for money already paid them in 2010.
 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Management has done a great job of handling its cap and building a good, young team that won 10 games last season. With youth comes low salaries, though, and ownership would have to dole out some huge amounts of cash to comply with the possible change in the floor. The Bucs' payroll is a league-low $63.8 million. They have $52.9 million of cap room. Many of their good, young players are too young to lock into long-term contract extensions. The Bucs would be forced to dabble in the free-agent market more than they probably would like. :thumbup:

 
Hope on the horizon?

A reliable source within the City of Pittsburgh Police Dept. just shared with me that the Steelers front office has submitted a request to the p.d. for manpower hours for games starting 8/18/11. That date happens to coincide with the Steelers hosting the Eagles for a Thursday evening pre-season game. You would think the order would not be placed if the Rooneys did not know better, right?

http://www.steelers.com/news/article-1/Steelers-2011-Regular-Season-Schedule/2f9d9012-150b-43f9-b33c-02ebdb33c53f

 
Hope on the horizon?A reliable source within the City of Pittsburgh Police Dept. just shared with me that the Steelers front office has submitted a request to the p.d. for manpower hours for games starting 8/18/11. That date happens to coincide with the Steelers hosting the Eagles for a Thursday evening pre-season game. You would think the order would not be placed if the Rooneys did not know better, right?http://www.steelers.com/news/article-1/Steelers-2011-Regular-Season-Schedule/2f9d9012-150b-43f9-b33c-02ebdb33c53f
Hmmm, I wonder what all goes into the request. If they can just cancel it, or if it becomes more costly to wait it might not mean anything. On the other hand....
 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Management has done a great job of handling its cap and building a good, young team that won 10 games last season. With youth comes low salaries, though, and ownership would have to dole out some huge amounts of cash to comply with the possible change in the floor. The Bucs' payroll is a league-low $63.8 million. They have $52.9 million of cap room. Many of their good, young players are too young to lock into long-term contract extensions. The Bucs would be forced to dabble in the free-agent market more than they probably would like. :thumbup:
Interesting, there is some weird stuff going on in hockey where there is a salary floor too.Good teams in NHL are pawning off their bad contracts on bad team who are way under the floor. Wonder if the NFL will soon have similar things happening

 
Hope on the horizon?A reliable source within the City of Pittsburgh Police Dept. just shared with me that the Steelers front office has submitted a request to the p.d. for manpower hours for games starting 8/18/11. That date happens to coincide with the Steelers hosting the Eagles for a Thursday evening pre-season game. You would think the order would not be placed if the Rooneys did not know better, right?http://www.steelers.com/news/article-1/Steelers-2011-Regular-Season-Schedule/2f9d9012-150b-43f9-b33c-02ebdb33c53f
This means nothing. They have to prepare as if the gams are going to happen as scheduled until they know the games are not happening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meetings resume in minnesota per pft.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6711660Sources: Sides begin 4 days of talksESPN.com news servicesRepresentatives of the negotiating teams of the NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to four consecutive days of talks in the Minneapolis area starting Tuesday through Friday, sources told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen.This is the fifth consecutive week of talks between the sides, but this is the longest commitment to talks (four days) in those five weeks.The talks will continue under the supervision of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who has been assigned to run court-ordered mediation. Boylan lives in the Minneapolis area.
 
Meetings resume in minnesota per pft.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6711660Sources: Sides begin 4 days of talksESPN.com news servicesRepresentatives of the negotiating teams of the NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to four consecutive days of talks in the Minneapolis area starting Tuesday through Friday, sources told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen.This is the fifth consecutive week of talks between the sides, but this is the longest commitment to talks (four days) in those five weeks.The talks will continue under the supervision of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who has been assigned to run court-ordered mediation. Boylan lives in the Minneapolis area.
Breer says its just goodell, smith, and their staffs...which contradicts reports that there are some playees and owners there. Breer says there just being goodell and.smith is "part of the process."Any thoughts on if this is good or bad?
 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Management has done a great job of handling its cap and building a good, young team that won 10 games last season. With youth comes low salaries, though, and ownership would have to dole out some huge amounts of cash to comply with the possible change in the floor. The Bucs' payroll is a league-low $63.8 million. They have $52.9 million of cap room. Many of their good, young players are too young to lock into long-term contract extensions. The Bucs would be forced to dabble in the free-agent market more than they probably would like. :thumbup:
Interesting, there is some weird stuff going on in hockey where there is a salary floor too.Good teams in NHL are pawning off their bad contracts on bad team who are way under the floor. Wonder if the NFL will soon have similar things happening
I think it's doubtful. The NHL has to trade the contract to get rid of it because their contracts are guaranteed. In the NFL they could just cut the player to get rid of the contract.Actually things brings up a potential consequence of the cap being dollars spent that year. By which I'm assuming the signing bonus hits the contract that year and there is no prorating. If that's the case, there is less reason to not cut an underperforming player. Currently, the cap hit can make it not worth it to get rid of the player yet sometimes.

The other change is that we might stop seeing such large signing bonuses, and might see more of the money pushed further back into the contract to avoid that huge hit in the first year. We could also see teams do the exact opposite and take advantage of a lot of cap room in a given year by writing most of a player's salary into a signing bonus in that first year, which would have the effect of immediately freeing that cap money back up again next year. At the risk that you paid the player for years he might be ineffective or that you might cut him.

It's still too early to say of course, they could have any number of additional rules that could affect this kind of thing.

 
I think it's doubtful. The NHL has to trade the contract to get rid of it because their contracts are guaranteed. In the NFL they could just cut the player to get rid of the contract.Actually things brings up a potential consequence of the cap being dollars spent that year. By which I'm assuming the signing bonus hits the contract that year and there is no prorating. If that's the case, there is less reason to not cut an underperforming player. Currently, the cap hit can make it not worth it to get rid of the player yet sometimes.The other change is that we might stop seeing such large signing bonuses, and might see more of the money pushed further back into the contract to avoid that huge hit in the first year. We could also see teams do the exact opposite and take advantage of a lot of cap room in a given year by writing most of a player's salary into a signing bonus in that first year, which would have the effect of immediately freeing that cap money back up again next year. At the risk that you paid the player for years he might be ineffective or that you might cut him.It's still too early to say of course, they could have any number of additional rules that could affect this kind of thing.
Some creative thinking going on here. :thumbup: If the team signed a player to a back-end loaded bonus, I wonder if they'd be on the hook for the part designated "bonus" even if they cut the player in the interim. Unlike the annual salary part of the contract, which could be accounted for separately.
 
I just looked over John Clayton's story here about where some teams are in relation to the new proposed salary cap
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The Bucs' payroll is a league-low $63.8 million. They have $52.9 million of cap room. Many of their good, young players are too young to lock into long-term contract extensions.
The other change is that we might stop seeing such large signing bonuses, and might see more of the money pushed further back into the contract to avoid that huge hit in the first year. We could also see teams do the exact opposite and take advantage of a lot of cap room in a given year by writing most of a player's salary into a signing bonus in that first year, which would have the effect of immediately freeing that cap money back up again next year. At the risk that you paid the player for years he might be ineffective or that you might cut him.
So in the Bucs case regarding Clayton's quote that I cut out above....seems like they could pursue one of the options you describe with a guy like Freeman....sign him to a big extension, either front-bonus-loaded or back-salary-loaded (although Freeman will want a friendly long-term deal).That would seem a lot better than spending money on FA's that they don't need.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinking about this a little more, it seems like the chief difference in this new proposal - of only counting what you actually spend -- is that some money paid in ensuing years will have to be guaranteed.

Say you're the Glazers and actually need to increase payroll to meet the new floor. Well, giving Freeman a big bonus, payable all right now, is one way to get there.

But if you're Jerry Jones and up against the cap ceiling, you might want to cajole Miles Austin or whoever into collecting his bonus over a period of two or three years, which will have to be guaranteed to make Austin go for it. That's kinda new territory, isn't it?

 
Thinking about this a little more, it seems like the chief difference in this new proposal - of only counting what you actually spend -- is that some money paid in ensuing years will have to be guaranteed.

Say you're the Glazers and actually need to increase payroll to meet the new floor. Well, giving Freeman a big bonus, payable all right now, is one way to get there.

But if you're Jerry Jones and up against the cap ceiling, you might want to cajole Miles Austin or whoever into collecting his bonus over a period of two or three years, which will have to be guaranteed to make Austin go for it. That's kinda new territory, isn't it?
Very possible. We could end up seeing guaranteed bonuses in each year take place of the signing bonus. The check is cut in each year it comes due, but if the player is cut they have to cut the check for any remaining bonuses then and there so it hits the cap immediately.
 
Thinking about this a little more, it seems like the chief difference in this new proposal - of only counting what you actually spend -- is that some money paid in ensuing years will have to be guaranteed.

Say you're the Glazers and actually need to increase payroll to meet the new floor. Well, giving Freeman a big bonus, payable all right now, is one way to get there.

But if you're Jerry Jones and up against the cap ceiling, you might want to cajole Miles Austin or whoever into collecting his bonus over a period of two or three years, which will have to be guaranteed to make Austin go for it. That's kinda new territory, isn't it?
Very possible. We could end up seeing guaranteed bonuses in each year take place of the signing bonus. The check is cut in each year it comes due, but if the player is cut they have to cut the check for any remaining bonuses then and there so it hits the cap immediately.
I could see that part of it being a point of negotiation. They might (or might have to) pay the remaining balance of bonus due once the player is cut, or they could pay it as scheduled, which would result, I guess, in a form of "dead money" similar to baseball's. Sometimes one way could work out better for the team and sometimes the other, depending on its cap situation in that particular year.
 
sounds like the retirees are still belly aching. They better not hold up this process.
I caught a radio show that one of the announcers was a retired Packer, though they never said his name while I was listening. He was talking about the retiree's role in the situation (which he'd been a part of), and in a nutshell.... the player's union had been representing the retired players interests in the negotiations. When the union then disbanded, it left the retired players with no voice in the negotiations. Which was what prompted them filing their own suit.It's hard to say if their issues are being addressed or not, or even hard to say if they know the state of the negotiations and especially in regards to themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-demaurice-smith-agreement-not-close-062911

Glazier has not once posted anything about the Labor issues and stated he wouldn't until a deal was reached. So I am thinking this is pretty legit.

They still may not miss regular season games, but the idiots don't realize that the reason the NFL profits and ratings blew up is because of fantasy football and how easy it is for the causal fan to play.

The later this gets solved the harder it will be for people to hold drafts at the last minute, turning away the fans even if they don't miss regular season games.

 
http://msn.foxsports...ot-close-062911

Glazier has not once posted anything about the Labor issues and stated he wouldn't until a deal was reached. So I am thinking this is pretty legit.

They still may not miss regular season games, but the idiots don't realize that the reason the NFL profits and ratings blew up is because of fantasy football and how easy it is for the causal fan to play.

The later this gets solved the harder it will be for people to hold drafts at the last minute, turning away the fans even if they don't miss regular season games.
Ugh. Yet another thing to let the wind out of our sails.What I want to know is if the two sides haven't yet agreed to most of the biggest issues, just what the hell have they been talking about this whole time?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top