*******News From Mike and Mike******* (1 Viewer)

[BigTex]

I know there are other threads on this topic but with the new development I thought it deserves its own.

I was just listening to Mike and Mike and Mort broke in and said that the owners have opened up talks again (they're meeting this morning) and are optimistic that a deal may get done and they'll be working late to do it.

Mike and Mike believe that the owners tried to bluff the players but Upshaw didn't budge and now the owners are willing to get the deal done ASAP.

 

[Jason Wood]

A little more color on this...Chris Mortensen came onto the show and broke the story that the owners and NFLPA are meeting in NY today to hammer out a CBA extension. Optimism has increased markedly that a deal will get done, and the owners have brought a new deal to the table.

 

[B-Deep]

A little more color on this...Chris Mortensen came onto the show and broke the story that the owners and NFLPA are meeting in NY today to hammer out a CBA extension. Optimism has increased markedly that a deal will get done, and the owners have brought a new deal to the table.

I assume it has already been mentioned that the free agent period was moved back as well.

 

[Godsbrother]

Wake me when the CBA is really done.

 

[BigJim®]

No way, this has to be a joke. Things were so dire...



As I said when the impasse broke, nothing but both sides trying to grab at table scraps once they were within reach of a deal.

 

[cobalt_27]

Who knows anything about this "cash over cap" thing Mort was talking about. I was half-asleep when I heard him on M&M.

 

[Jason Wood]

Who knows anything about this "cash over cap" thing Mort was talking about. I was half-asleep when I heard him on M&M.

I don't think Mort knows much about it either...for the last few days he keeps telling people he doesn't want to get into the details because it will "confuse them" which, to me, means he "doth protest too much" and is personally unable to articulate the finer points."Cash over cap" as I understand it; really just refers to the actual cash outlays of an NFL team that goes to salaries. As we all know, many bonuses are paid out upfront BUT are amortized relative to the cap over a period of time.

Here is a brief discussion of the matter from the USA Today last year...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...alary-cap_x.htm

The Washington Redskins set a single-season spending record with a payroll of $118 million for the 2004 season. But how is that possible when the NFL salary cap was $80.5 million a team?

Cap computations include all salaries and applicable bonuses at full value each year, but a signing bonus gets a slightly different treatment that permits what the NFL calls "cash over cap."

Signing bonuses, while often paid immediately, count against the cap in equal portions for each year of a player's contract. A $5 million bonus on a five-year deal is amortized at $1 million a season. That math changes if the player is cut or traded before his contract expires.

Big bonuses usually are tied to lower base salaries in the early stages of a contract to give the club a favorable salary-cap number in what should be the player's most productive years. Example: A player signs a five-year contract worth $10 million and gets that $5 million signing bonus. His annual salaries are $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million and $2 million. His cap number starts at $1.5M ($1 million of prorated signing bonus plus base). It ends at $3M. The club paid the signing bonus long before it finished accounting for it. Hence, room for cash over cap.

The downside to wild bonus spending? Often it provides a short-term infusion of talent but inflicts long-term damage. A change of coaches can lead to roster purges and the immediate acceleration of the unamortized bonuses into the cap, resulting in hefty charges for absent players. The NFL calls this "dead money."

 

[Godsbrother]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended.

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true.

 

[B-Deep]

You know, I REALLY like Mort, he does a great job, but his whole "the salary cap is not needed and football is no good anymore" schtick struck such a bad chord with me that when he gets into cap issue details right now, I just tune him out.

 

[Jason Wood]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended.

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true.

Mort discussed this yesterday and he explicitly mentions this in his Wednesday chat, too.

 

[fatness]

While I do believe that this was reported by a front office person on another team, I do not believe it was correct. The Redskins said yesterday they would have been under the cap at the 10 pm deadline last night, when Cerrato was asked about it. I tend to believe that, as opposed to the "no mathematical way to get under cap" and "must release 20 players" stuff that's been bandied about.

Associated Press article

Although the Redskins were well above the $94.5 million cap at the start of the day, the team's biggest names were not in danger of being released. An official within the league, speaking on condition of anonymity because the cuts were not announced, said the cuts would not have been as severe as expected because the team had considered the possibility of a breakdown in the agreement when negotiating player contracts over the last two years.

As the day progressed, the Redskins were able to make savings by renegotiating existing deals with cornerback Shawn Springs, running back Clinton Portis and others, the official said, leaving valuable veterans such as offensive linemen Jon Jansen and Randy Thomas and defensive linemen Renaldo Wynn and Phillip Daniels safe from the chopping block.

"As a player, you're about the team," Springs said. "You do the best you can do to help out the team."

Those on the prospective cut list included quarterback Patrick Ramsey, safety Matt Bowen, center Cory Raymer, defensive tackle Brandon Noble and cornerback Walt Harris, but most of those players were expected to be released regardless of the outcome of the collective bargaining agreement talks.

"The Redskins have done an excellent job of restructuring a number of contracts in anticipation of a deal (on the agreement) not being consummated," said agent Leigh Steinberg, who reworked quarterback Mark Brunell's deal earlier in the week.

 

[B-Deep]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended.

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true.

Mort discussed this yesterday and he explicitly mentions this in his Wednesday chat, too.

It would almost be worth not having a CBA just to see how that was handled.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

You know, I REALLY like Mort, he does a great job, but his whole "the salary cap is not needed and football is no good anymore" schtick struck such a bad chord with me that when he gets into cap issue details right now, I just tune him out.

He's lost something with me, that's for sure. He was horrible on Herd yesterday. Too bad.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Once I heard the deadline got pushed back a few days I figured they would come to an agreement. Here's hoping we won't have to go through this again anytime soon.

 

[cobalt_27]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended.

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true.

Mort discussed this yesterday and he explicitly mentions this in his Wednesday chat, too.

I went through his Wed chat and didn't see anything about it. But, it sounds like, with the restructuring of contracts, the Skins are in the clear and that this isn't going to be as cataclysmic as some have discussed.

 

[joffer]

You know, I REALLY like Mort, he does a great job, but his whole "the salary cap is not needed and football is no good anymore" schtick struck such a bad chord with me that when he gets into cap issue details right now, I just tune him out.

He's lost something with me, that's for sure. He was horrible on Herd yesterday. Too bad.

i wouldn't say i tune him out, but i listen a little differently

 

[BlueOnion]

Mike and Mike believe that the owners tried to bluff the players but Upshaw didn't budge and now the owners are willing to get the deal done ASAP.

What a great card to play at this time. Upshaw is clearly posturing for additional respect; from players in regards to the others athlete unions in MLB. Now the owners come out and disclose:

We were trying to bluff Upshaw, but that man never blinked. He really has us by the throat now. We have decided to concede to his fortitude.

Owners, win, Upshaw wins and the NFL players feel better about their union and union leader.

 

[Jason Wood]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended. 

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true. 

Mort discussed this yesterday and he explicitly mentions this in his Wednesday chat, too.

I went through his Wed chat and didn't see anything about it. But, it sounds like, with the restructuring of contracts, the Skins are in the clear and that this isn't going to be as cataclysmic as some have discussed.

Hey cobalt...my apologies, it was an ESPN.com chat, but not Mort's regular Wednesday. I referenced it in another thread yesterday, it was the CBA Q&A chat...I'm sure it's still on the site somewhere. Here is the quote I had cut and pasted...Following up on earlier discussions in the thread...from the ESPN.com Q&A regarding the labor strife:

What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?

No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. However, teams have been fined in the past for attempts to circumvent the cap. ESPN.com contributor and former Miami Dolphins GM Rick Spielman says NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has wide latitude in fining teams -- and even individual team executives -- or stripping draft picks for failure to comply with the salary cap.

With some teams in dire cap shape, we could see sooner than later just how wide the commissioner's latitude is. The Washington Redskins are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs that have studied the Redskins' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.

 

[Aaronstory]

Wake me when the CBA is really done.

 

[cobalt_27]

I heard on a local sports talk radio station in Pittsburgh that it may have been mathematically impossible for the Redskins to get under the $94 million cap had the deadline had not been extended.

Seems unlikely to me but the talk show host seemed to think it was true.

Mort discussed this yesterday and he explicitly mentions this in his Wednesday chat, too.

I went through his Wed chat and didn't see anything about it. But, it sounds like, with the restructuring of contracts, the Skins are in the clear and that this isn't going to be as cataclysmic as some have discussed.

Hey cobalt...my apologies, it was an ESPN.com chat, but not Mort's regular Wednesday. I referenced it in another thread yesterday, it was the CBA Q&A chat...I'm sure it's still on the site somewhere. Here is the quote I had cut and pasted...Following up on earlier discussions in the thread...from the ESPN.com Q&A regarding the labor strife:

What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?

No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. However, teams have been fined in the past for attempts to circumvent the cap. ESPN.com contributor and former Miami Dolphins GM Rick Spielman says NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has wide latitude in fining teams -- and even individual team executives -- or stripping draft picks for failure to comply with the salary cap.

With some teams in dire cap shape, we could see sooner than later just how wide the commissioner's latitude is. The Washington Redskins are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs that have studied the Redskins' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.

Cool, thanks.

 

[Bizkiteer]

I forget who it was (Mort or Clayton) the other day was asked what is the worst-case scenario was and the response was something along the lines of we are in it now. I thought that was the most idiotic response that could be given. So, what is going on now is the worst case? Don't think so, lockout or strike is worse... The response made me pull away a bit because I realized that they were not looking at the situation objectively. IMO

 

[Jason Wood]

I forget who it was (Mort or Clayton) the other day was asked what is the worst-case scenario was and the response was something along the lines of we are in it now. I thought that was the most idiotic response that could be given. So, what is going on now is the worst case? Don't think so, lockout or strike is worse... The response made me pull away a bit because I realized that they were not looking at the situation objectively. IMO

True, but I think for these guys it's all posturing. Mort and Clayton were beat writers during the last NFL labor strife, they're rise to national prominence has come during the golden era [from a financial/labor standpoint] of the NFL. The baseball analysts and writers are old hat at dealing with labor negotiations and rhetoric, but the NFL guys are probably having trouble letting logic outweight the near-term b.s. flying around.

 

[Lowen1]

QUOTE

What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?

No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. However, teams have been fined in the past for attempts to circumvent the cap. ESPN.com contributor and former Miami Dolphins GM Rick Spielman says NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has wide latitude in fining teams -- and even individual team executives -- or stripping draft picks for failure to comply with the salary cap.

With some teams in dire cap shape, we could see sooner than later just how wide the commissioner's latitude is. The Washington Redskins are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs that have studied the Redskins' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.

I'd hate to be the owner or a fan of a team that thinks like that. I'd much rather have a creative capologist (ok - mad scientist) handling the cap than some jackoff who says it is imposible to get under the cap. Apparently all it takes is a coach (Joe Gibbs) that builds strong relationships with players, an owner (Snyder) with a fat wallet, and a cap guy (I think his name is Eric Schaeffer) to make things work.

 

[Spiderman]

I have researched this a little bit and heard a few independent former general counsel/agents associated with the NFL and NFL athletes speak on this and all have said the same thing.

1. The Players are being greedy. The NFL will have a ton of increased revenue with some of the recent very lucrative deals they have signed, meaning the players, via the expanded cap, will receive a huge raise in pay as it stands now. Also, the NFL has already agreed to include some additional forms of revenue, but at a lesser percentage. That would raise the players overall monetary gain via the salary cap even more, just the percentage goes down (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, but 55% of 150 is 82.5, so percentage down, but pie gets bigger). Upshaw is trying to increase the percentage, the revenue involved, and take advantage of the more lucrative streams of revenue (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, 62% of 150 is 93). Forget a double dip, he's trying to triple dip in one fell swoop.

2. Both the owners and the players will be hurt by this. The players will be hurt because many players would be released who shouldn't be, forcing them out of as stable a situation as the NFL has. Other players, like Alexander and James, are unlikely to see the kind of money that free agents from previous years have seen. Most free agents will be forced to take remarkably less money than in previous years. Rookies will have contracts half what those before them have received. With no incentives allowed in deals, it will be tough to restructure deals to accommodate these top prospects requests. Sucks to be Leinart if this doesn't get done. NFL minimum salary restrictions vanish, meaning that NFL teams no longer are required to give veterans $400K plus deals (the working man is devastated by this). NFL minimums could be as low as $60K, and you better believe a lot of small market teams will take advantage of that, especially with rookies. NFL teams will not be required to spend a minimum on players salaries, meaning teams like the Cardinals could strip their rosters to bare minimum and still profit from existing NFL shared revenue. They can't win in an uncapped year if Daniel Snyder just buys every free agent for 3 times their true market value, so why try. Also, Players will not become unrestricted free agents until their 6th year in the league, rather than their 4th (sucks to be Lance Briggs).

The owners are at risk of losing the salary cap forever, and that cap is what has kept this league heads and tails above every other sports market in the USA. Sure, the diehards like most of us, will still watch. But its the crowd that is on the fence that has been drawn to the most competitive sport in America that is at risk of going elsewhere, and that means that cap is the difference between multi-billion dollar TV contracts and MLB rights that are paltry in comparison. The owners stand to lose billions over the years by not ironing this out.

Bottom line is that nobody wins here. It is in everyone's best interest to work this out. But don't be fooled by Upshaw coming down from 64% to 61%. Just because I set the bar 20 points above where I should've started, doesn't mean that when I come down 10 points I'm meeting in the middle. To the fans, it would appear so, but to the people in the know, it's a bargaining ploy to show that Upshaw is willing to negotiate in the fans eyes. Upshaw needs to work out his greed issues and a fair deal should be struck around the 58-59% range, or risk the greatest sports cash cow blowing up right in all of their faces.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I have researched this a little bit and heard a few independent former general counsel/agents associated with the NFL and NFL athletes speak on this and all have said the same thing.

1. The Players are being greedy. The NFL will have a ton of increased revenue with some of the recent very lucrative deals they have signed, meaning the players, via the expanded cap, will receive a huge raise in pay as it stands now. Also, the NFL has already agreed to include some additional forms of revenue, but at a lesser percentage. That would raise the players overall monetary gain via the salary cap even more, just the percentage goes down (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, but 55% of 150 is 82.5, so percentage down, but pie gets bigger). Upshaw is trying to increase the percentage, the revenue involved, and take advantage of the more lucrative streams of revenue (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, 62% of 150 is 93). Forget a double dip, he's trying to triple dip in one fell swoop.

2. Both the owners and the players will be hurt by this. The players will be hurt because many players would be released who shouldn't be, forcing them out of as stable a situation as the NFL has. Other players, like Alexander and James, are unlikely to see the kind of money that free agents from previous years have seen. Most free agents will be forced to take remarkably less money than in previous years. Rookies will have contracts half what those before them have received. With no incentives allowed in deals, it will be tough to restructure deals to accommodate these top prospects requests. Sucks to be Leinart if this doesn't get done. NFL minimum salary restrictions vanish, meaning that NFL teams no longer are required to give veterans $400K plus deals (the working man is devastated by this). NFL minimums could be as low as $60K, and you better believe a lot of small market teams will take advantage of that, especially with rookies. NFL teams will not be required to spend a minimum on players salaries, meaning teams like the Cardinals could strip their rosters to bare minimum and still profit from existing NFL shared revenue. They can't win in an uncapped year if Daniel Snyder just buys every free agent for 3 times their true market value, so why try. Also, Players will not become unrestricted free agents until their 6th year in the league, rather than their 4th (sucks to be Lance Briggs).

The owners are at risk of losing the salary cap forever, and that cap is what has kept this league heads and tails above every other sports market in the USA. Sure, the diehards like most of us, will still watch. But its the crowd that is on the fence that has been drawn to the most competitive sport in America that is at risk of going elsewhere, and that means that cap is the difference between multi-billion dollar TV contracts and MLB rights that are paltry in comparison. The owners stand to lose billions over the years by not ironing this out.

Bottom line is that nobody wins here. It is in everyone's best interest to work this out. But don't be fooled by Upshaw coming down from 64% to 61%. Just because I set the bar 20 points above where I should've started, doesn't mean that when I come down 10 points I'm meeting in the middle. To the fans, it would appear so, but to the people in the know, it's a bargaining ploy to show that Upshaw is willing to negotiate in the fans eyes. Upshaw needs to work out his greed issues and a fair deal should be struck around the 58-59% range, or risk the greatest sports cash cow blowing up right in all of their faces.

^ 10

 

[Heatman]

I have researched this a little bit and heard a few independent former general counsel/agents associated with the NFL and NFL athletes speak on this and all have said the same thing.

1. The Players are being greedy. The NFL will have a ton of increased revenue with some of the recent very lucrative deals they have signed, meaning the players, via the expanded cap, will receive a huge raise in pay as it stands now. Also, the NFL has already agreed to include some additional forms of revenue, but at a lesser percentage. That would raise the players overall monetary gain via the salary cap even more, just the percentage goes down (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, but 55% of 150 is 82.5, so percentage down, but pie gets bigger). Upshaw is trying to increase the percentage, the revenue involved, and take advantage of the more lucrative streams of revenue (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, 62% of 150 is 93). Forget a double dip, he's trying to triple dip in one fell swoop.

2. Both the owners and the players will be hurt by this. The players will be hurt because many players would be released who shouldn't be, forcing them out of as stable a situation as the NFL has. Other players, like Alexander and James, are unlikely to see the kind of money that free agents from previous years have seen. Most free agents will be forced to take remarkably less money than in previous years. Rookies will have contracts half what those before them have received. With no incentives allowed in deals, it will be tough to restructure deals to accommodate these top prospects requests. Sucks to be Leinart if this doesn't get done. NFL minimum salary restrictions vanish, meaning that NFL teams no longer are required to give veterans $400K plus deals (the working man is devastated by this). NFL minimums could be as low as $60K, and you better believe a lot of small market teams will take advantage of that, especially with rookies. NFL teams will not be required to spend a minimum on players salaries, meaning teams like the Cardinals could strip their rosters to bare minimum and still profit from existing NFL shared revenue. They can't win in an uncapped year if Daniel Snyder just buys every free agent for 3 times their true market value, so why try. Also, Players will not become unrestricted free agents until their 6th year in the league, rather than their 4th (sucks to be Lance Briggs).

The owners are at risk of losing the salary cap forever, and that cap is what has kept this league heads and tails above every other sports market in the USA. Sure, the diehards like most of us, will still watch. But its the crowd that is on the fence that has been drawn to the most competitive sport in America that is at risk of going elsewhere, and that means that cap is the difference between multi-billion dollar TV contracts and MLB rights that are paltry in comparison. The owners stand to lose billions over the years by not ironing this out.

Bottom line is that nobody wins here. It is in everyone's best interest to work this out. But don't be fooled by Upshaw coming down from 64% to 61%. Just because I set the bar 20 points above where I should've started, doesn't mean that when I come down 10 points I'm meeting in the middle. To the fans, it would appear so, but to the people in the know, it's a bargaining ploy to show that Upshaw is willing to negotiate in the fans eyes. Upshaw needs to work out his greed issues and a fair deal should be struck around the 58-59% range, or risk the greatest sports cash cow blowing up right in all of their faces.

Excellent post. I've done my fair share of research on the CBA as well and you've hit the nail on the head.The NFLPA is not negotiating at all. They have basically said give us what we want or we'll let the NFL as we know it be destroyed. So far the owners have given everything and the players have given nothing. Believe this, if a deal is not in place by the deadline this time it will be the fault of the NFLPA. Upshaw will in the end be held responsible by the players and be replaced. He's got the players thinking they hold all the marbles, but the owners don't own these teams because the won the lottery. They own them becasue they own and run large corporations. They know how business works and they know when they are being pushed into a corner, which in this case Upshaw is trying to do. If Upshaw continues to hold his stance, the owners will be forced to let him fall on his face, which unfortunately will hurt everyone involved.

 

[BlueOnion]

The NFLPA is definitely the side that should be expected to make more concessions at this point. I suspect much of this can be contributed to Gene Upshaw doing some grand-standing to save some credibility as a union rep.

 

[roadkill1292]

The NFLPA is definitely the side that should be expected to make more concessions at this point. I suspect much of this can be contributed to Gene Upshaw doing some grand-standing to save some credibility as a union rep.

Agreed. And this stance can be attributed to the incredibly lucrative deals signed by the baseball and basketball unions which are great for the players and bad for the fans. Upshaw would rather the players profit (which I understand is his job) than for the league to continue in peace and prosperity. I fear he is missing the bigger picture here.

 

[BlueOnion]

The NFLPA is definitely the side that should be expected to make more concessions at this point.  I suspect much of this can be contributed to Gene Upshaw doing some grand-standing to save some credibility as a union rep.

Agreed. And this stance can be attributed to the incredibly lucrative deals signed by the baseball and basketball unions which are great for the players and bad for the fans. Upshaw would rather the players profit (which I understand is his job) than for the league to continue in peace and prosperity. I fear he is missing the bigger picture here.

Actually the NBA deal was not so good for the players. Players like Kevin Garnett and Shaq had to take paycuts when they signed their new deals I believe.

 

[roadkill1292]

The NFLPA is definitely the side that should be expected to make more concessions at this point.  I suspect much of this can be contributed to Gene Upshaw doing some grand-standing to save some credibility as a union rep.

Agreed. And this stance can be attributed to the incredibly lucrative deals signed by the baseball and basketball unions which are great for the players and bad for the fans. Upshaw would rather the players profit (which I understand is his job) than for the league to continue in peace and prosperity. I fear he is missing the bigger picture here.

Actually the NBA deal was not so good for the players. Players like Kevin Garnett and Shaq had to take paycuts when they signed their new deals I believe.

True dat but average salaries in both those leagues dwarf those in the NFL.

 

[davearm]

I have researched this a little bit and heard a few independent former general counsel/agents associated with the NFL and NFL athletes speak on this and all have said the same thing.

1. The Players are being greedy.  The NFL will have a ton of increased revenue with some of the recent very lucrative deals they have signed, meaning the players, via the expanded cap, will receive a huge raise in pay as it stands now.  Also, the NFL has already agreed to include some additional forms of revenue, but at a lesser percentage.  That would raise the players overall monetary gain via the salary cap even more, just the percentage goes down (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, but 55% of 150 is 82.5, so percentage down, but pie gets bigger).  Upshaw is trying to increase the percentage, the revenue involved, and take advantage of the more lucrative streams of revenue (i.e., 60% of 100 is 60, 62% of 150 is 93).  Forget a double dip, he's trying to triple dip in one fell swoop. 

2. Both the owners and the players will be hurt by this.  The players will be hurt because many players would be released who shouldn't be, forcing them out of as stable a situation as the NFL has.  Other players, like Alexander and James, are unlikely to see the kind of money that free agents from previous years have seen.  Most free agents will be forced to take remarkably less money than in previous years.  Rookies will have contracts half what those before them have received.  With no incentives allowed in deals, it will be tough to restructure deals to accommodate these top prospects requests.  Sucks to be Leinart if this doesn't get done.  NFL minimum salary restrictions vanish, meaning that NFL teams no longer are required to give veterans $400K plus deals (the working man is devastated by this).  NFL minimums could be as low as $60K, and you better believe a lot of small market teams will take advantage of that, especially with rookies.  NFL teams will not be required to spend a minimum on players salaries, meaning teams like the Cardinals could strip their rosters to bare minimum and still profit from existing NFL shared revenue.  They can't win in an uncapped year if Daniel Snyder just buys every free agent for 3 times their true market value, so why try.  Also, Players will not become unrestricted free agents until their 6th year in the league, rather than their 4th (sucks to be Lance Briggs). 

The owners are at risk of losing the salary cap forever, and that cap is what has kept this league heads and tails above every other sports market in the USA.  Sure, the diehards like most of us, will still watch.  But its the crowd that is on the fence that has been drawn to the most competitive sport in America that is at risk of going elsewhere, and that means that cap is the difference between multi-billion dollar TV contracts and MLB rights that are paltry in comparison.  The owners stand to lose billions over the years by not ironing this out. 

Bottom line is that nobody wins here.  It is in everyone's best interest to work this out.  But don't be fooled by Upshaw coming down from 64% to 61%.  Just because I set the bar 20 points above where I should've started, doesn't mean that when I come down 10 points I'm meeting in the middle.  To the fans, it would appear so, but to the people in the know, it's a bargaining ploy to show that Upshaw is willing to negotiate in the fans eyes.  Upshaw needs to work out his greed issues and a fair deal should be struck around the 58-59% range, or risk the greatest sports cash cow blowing up right in all of their faces.

Excellent post. I've done my fair share of research on the CBA as well and you've hit the nail on the head.The NFLPA is not negotiating at all. They have basically said give us what we want or we'll let the NFL as we know it be destroyed. So far the owners have given everything and the players have given nothing. Believe this, if a deal is not in place by the deadline this time it will be the fault of the NFLPA. Upshaw will in the end be held responsible by the players and be replaced. He's got the players thinking they hold all the marbles, but the owners don't own these teams because the won the lottery. They own them becasue they own and run large corporations. They know how business works and they know when they are being pushed into a corner, which in this case Upshaw is trying to do. If Upshaw continues to hold his stance, the owners will be forced to let him fall on his face, which unfortunately will hurt everyone involved.

Let me say right off the top that I don't know this stuff nearly as well as most of you do.But it seems to me that the NFLPA was basically handed a loaded gun by the Owners by virtue of the clause in the current CBA that calls for an uncapped 2007.

Now, the NFLPA is, predicably, pointing that gun directly at the owners' heads.

That clause seems to give the players an enormous amount of leverage, and is what is allowing them to be greedy/not negotiate/etc. Everyone knows that the owners don't want to go to an uncapped system. So the burden is 100% on them to concede everything, essentially, to make the players happy enough to forego the uncapped year.

Seems to me that this outcome was completely forseeable.

 

[jgb95]

oh

i feel so bad for shaq and kg.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

oh

i feel so bad for shaq and kg.

sure they make a lot of money....but they spend a lot of money too

 

[BlueOnion]

Let me say right off the top that I don't know this stuff nearly as well as most of you do.

But it seems to me that the NFLPA was basically handed a loaded gun by the Owners by virtue of the clause in the current CBA that calls for an uncapped 2007.

Now, the NFLPA is, predicably, pointing that gun directly at the owners' heads.

That clause seems to give the players an enormous amount of leverage, and is what is allowing them to be greedy/not negotiate/etc. Everyone knows that the owners don't want to go to an uncapped system. So the burden is 100% on them to concede everything, essentially, to make the players happy enough to forego the uncapped year.

Seems to me that this outcome was completely forseeable.

Fair question, one I will try to answer. However, I don't have a link.1) If 2007 is uncapped, 2006 is the last capped year. So most unamortized signing bonus will be accelerated to this year (in not so many words), thus limiting teams cap number for 2006. In addition, with no new CBA the expected cap will be much lower than expected from about 100 million back down to 95 million. Both these items mean there could be minimal free agency signing this year because of the accelerated cap hit for teams.

2) As with issue 1 (little spending by owners this year), continually pushing for an uncapped year could mean a lockout by the owners. For the players to hold out for an uncapped year, they may have to suck it up for 2, maybe 3 years which is a long time for an NFL player.

3) The expiration of the CBA means players do not hit unrestricted free agency until 6 years of service, instead of the current 4. This is critical because the average NFL career is something like 2 or 3 years.

 

[John 14:6]

oh

i feel so bad for shaq and kg.

sure they make a lot of money....but they spend a lot of money too

And like Patrick Ewing said, they can't play in the NBA for the rest of their lives

 

[David Yudkin]

Does anyone know if there are contingencies for players to effectively "undo" last second reworking of contracts that they may have consented to in the past day or so?

I know players that were cut could be reinstated, but if there is a new cap number can players get out of any renegotiated contracts that they signed to stick with a team?

 

[AnonymousBob]

Does anyone know if there are contingencies for players to effectively "undo" last second reworking of contracts that they may have consented to in the past day or so?

I know players that were cut could be reinstated, but if there is a new cap number can players get out of any renegotiated contracts that they signed to stick with a team?

Good questions. Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone? Guys released the day before are still SOL?

 

[BlueOnion]

Good questions. Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone? Guys released the day before are still SOL?

 

[David Yudkin]

Does anyone know if there are contingencies for players to effectively "undo" last second reworking of contracts that they may have consented to in the past day or so?

I know players that were cut could be reinstated, but if there is a new cap number can players get out of any renegotiated contracts that they signed to stick with a team?

Good questions. Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone? Guys released the day before are still SOL?

I'm not sure there has been a definite answer as to who could be reinstated or not. IIRC, Mortensen was the one who reported that guys from earlier in the week were SOL, but the statement that I saw was that teams could reinstate players cut during the "period of transition" (or something like that). That statement did not spell out a timeframe or date stamp for transactions.

 

[cstu]

The NFLPA is definitely the side that should be expected to make more concessions at this point. I suspect much of this can be contributed to Gene Upshaw doing some grand-standing to save some credibility as a union rep.

Agreed. And this stance can be attributed to the incredibly lucrative deals signed by the baseball and basketball unions which are great for the players and bad for the fans. Upshaw would rather the players profit (which I understand is his job) than for the league to continue in peace and prosperity. I fear he is missing the bigger picture here.

Actually the NBA deal was not so good for the players. Players like Kevin Garnett and Shaq had to take paycuts when they signed their new deals I believe.

True dat but average salaries in both those leagues dwarf those in the NFL.

Average salaries are higher because there are fewer players on a team - 12 vs. 55 on the roster and 5 vs. 22 starters.When you think about what NBA players are paid keep in mind how much money they generate and how few players are in the league compared to the NFL.

 

[David Yudkin]

Good questions.  Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone?  Guys released the day before are still SOL?

ESPN is saying . . .

A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

 

[BlueOnion]

Good questions.  Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone?  Guys released the day before are still SOL?

ESPN is saying . . .

A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

I guess it depends on what is defined as 'period of transition'. Is it from January to next Monday, all last week or Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

I have a question regarding the WASH situation. We know what Tags can do in penalizing a team for circumventing the cap. Its fines and loss of draft pick(s).

Whats to stop some owner, even in capped times, from forfeiting his entire draft and shelling out fines to the league office, in order to buy a Super Bowl....I am thinking someone like a Dan SNyder who could spend 200 million for one SB win. I know its not guaranteed that we would get it, but I donts ee whats stopping that from happening.

 

[thayman]

I have a question regarding the WASH situation. We know what Tags can do in penalizing a team for circumventing the cap. Its fines and loss of draft pick(s).

Whats to stop some owner, even in capped times, from forfeiting his entire draft and shelling out fines to the league office, in order to buy a Super Bowl....I am thinking someone like a Dan SNyder who could spend 200 million for one SB win. I know its not guaranteed that we would get it, but I donts ee whats stopping that from happening.

I'm not sure what you mean....are you saying what is to prevent an owner from just going out and saying "screw the cap I dont care" and spending $200 million on a roster? I don't know what Tags has at his disposal, but I'm sure he can do alot more then just take draft picks away. I know he is allowed to suspend and fine indivdual execs. with a franchise.Of course this is not to mention that this is incredibly bad business, and no owner in their right mind would go out and do this. Try to rememeber the owners LIKE the cap

 

[roadkill1292]

oh

i feel so bad for shaq and kg.

sure they make a lot of money....but they spend a lot of money too

"It's expensive being me." Anna Nicole Smith.

 

[Topes]

You know, I REALLY like Mort, he does a great job, but his whole "the salary cap is not needed and football is no good anymore" schtick struck such a bad chord with me that when he gets into cap issue details right now, I just tune him out.

He's lost something with me, that's for sure. He was horrible on Herd yesterday. Too bad.

It's the Salisbury Effect. One need not work directly (Clayton) with him for his immental magneticity to havinate a deleterious effectage. His preposterating and obnobification have a negativizing impactivication on the collectivized football acumen of the entire ESPN establishmentarianate. He's a turd.

 

[TheLaw]

I have a question regarding the WASH situation. We know what Tags can do in penalizing a team for circumventing the cap. Its fines and loss of draft pick(s).

Whats to stop some owner, even in capped times, from forfeiting his entire draft and shelling out fines to the league office, in order to buy a Super Bowl....I am thinking someone like a Dan SNyder who could spend 200 million for one SB win. I know its not guaranteed that we would get it, but I donts ee whats stopping that from happening.

I think Tags would use his broad commish powers and deem games forfeits if there was blatant disregard for the cap, the CBA, and the NFL.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I have a question regarding the WASH situation. We know what Tags can do in penalizing a team for circumventing the cap. Its fines and loss of draft pick(s).

Whats to stop some owner, even in capped times, from forfeiting his entire draft and shelling out fines to the league office, in order to buy a Super Bowl....I am thinking someone like a Dan SNyder who could spend 200 million for one SB win. I know its not guaranteed that we would get it, but I donts ee whats stopping that from happening.

I think Tags would use his broad commish powers and deem games forfeits if there was blatant disregard for the cap, the CBA, and the NFL.

I thought I read a quote/link that someone posted here about this, but I can't remember where exactly I saw it. IIRC, Tags/"the NFL" can start cutting players from a team's roster, starting with lowest salaried player, until that team is under the cap.I could be making this all up, though.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Good questions.  Also, I'm correct that only players who were cut on the last day can be undone?  Guys released the day before are still SOL?

ESPN is saying . . .

A high-level source with one NFL team told ESPN.com the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

I think nearly all of the guys who have been released so far were going to be released with or without the new CBA. I don't think it's a big deal.