Ramifications of an uncapped year.....
by shvd98z24 on Feb 5, 2010 7:18 PM EST
Email
PrintI finally got out of the house since the new baby was born (for a reason other than work).......so me and the boys were hanging out talking some sports. We started talking about next season and the possibility of an uncapped year with no new CBA in sight. I understand the chess match going on between the owners and players union.....but I think we have all missed something. My thought process took me to the fact.....if we have an uncapped year.....how are they ever going to get it back to a salary cap system? The owners and players have to agree in principle.....which is what everyone is hung up on. What about inside the separate groups?
Let's take the easier one for right now.....the players. It is easy to see why they would not want a cap.......but I think they would be willing to go back into a capped system to protect the sport....with concessions. I feel like the vets would want to move toward a rookie pay scale so the vets can get a few more nickels at the end of their careers. Obviously.....they want more NFL shared revenue flowing to them as well. I can also partially understand this.........the NFL is a multi-billion dollar entity and is only as strong as the guys playing on the field. That being said.....these guys get paid millions to play a game.....while the real people of the world bust their ass just as hard for chump change! On the other hand.....I would do it too if I could.
Here is where my real questions come up. We go uncapped for 2010.......their are small market teams that can cut out all the big contracts bc their is no minimum team salary....just as their is no maximum. I would think teams like Tampa Bay, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Cleveland, Carolina, etc may dump some big salaries to save some money for the upcoming year bc of the current economic mess we are in. But the big market teams....Dallas, Washington, New Yorks, Indianapolis, etc.....may exercise their right to spend big. The problem will be....the owners themselves have to come to agreement before they can ever even meet with the players. The Snyders and Jones are not going to want to go back to a capped system. It's one thing to get millionaires to come together (players).....but it is a whole other thing to get billionaires to meet in the middle. There is the potential.....this whole CBA makes the NFL more like baseball......with teams like the Yankees and Red Sox running the show simply bc nobody else can afford to keep up. This would be good for us.....the Washington Redskin's fans....as our owner has deep pockets and showed he doesn't care about money......but could also ruin competitive football as we know it today. Without the salary cap......the Saints and Cardinals could never get close to a Super Bowl. Those close games we are getting accustomed to are out the window.
All that being said......they need to come to some kind of agreement and avoid any kind of lockout. Baseball took years to recover from their lockout......and then got punched in the nuts with the steroid mess. I will always be a Skins fan.....will always be a football fan........but I don't want to see the greatest sport in the world be diminished and ruined any further by greed. Am I overthinking this?
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Shvd,
nice post man! I was thinking a lot about this over the last two days with all the posturing on both sides and all. My feeling is just that; it’s just posturing. Kind of like a big game of chicken. I still believe that there could be an agreement reached withinn the next month. Who knows, it may even come down to the last hour.
Thanks.....
I actually like the salary cap system……..feels like everyone is a little more level that way. It truly makes it “any given year”. I don’t want to lose that……don’t want to lose football. Plus…..what the hell are we going to talk about on here then????
Although ...
Baseball has had more different champions over the past few years than football has – football has been dominated by the Colts and Patriots more than the Yankees and the Red Sox have dominated baseball.
Certainly there is some correlation between market size and playoffs, but it’s not automatic the way everyone assumes it is (particularly when the Yankees win the WS)
You know whats funny,
for the longest time I hated free agency. I felt that parity ruled the game, and building a powerhouse, and having it last were all things of the past, but now I have been able to see what it did for the game, and I am in agreeance with you that I would hate to see it go back to an uncapped system, or even worse, like you said, no football at all.
Veterans' complaint
It does not make a lot of sense for an unproven rookie to receive a $50 million signing bonus.
I have been following this pretty closely.
I am very sure no agreement will be reached this year, so we go uncapped.
The owners have an idea of what the new agreement will be next year, so they won’t spend like crazy this year. Don’t forget, without the minimum threshold, the owners can sign players for $100K. Many teams will release high priced players, even before March 1, as bonuses are about to kick in. Some teams(Buf, Cin,Jax,St.L,) may purge their rosters to the bone.
The 2010 season plays out normally. March 1 of 2011 will be the official lockout. The owners have talked of moving the 2011 draft up to Feb to bypass any new CBA.
The lockout continues until one side breaks.
The owners have all the leverage, and any new CBA will favor them.
The owners want:
A hard cap at 40% of revenue (currently 53%)
A rookie salary cap with 3 year contracts ( players ok with this)
An extended season (18 games-2 preseason games)
Limited Free Agency (different way to tag player)
The union is content to renew the agreement as is, but it is the owners who are balking.
Both sides are close on the rookie cap and free agency, so that is easy. The longer season will probably win as the union will demand a larger percentage from the owners, and the owners will ‘give back’ from their 40% demands to allow the extra games. The big sticking point then is going from 53% to 40%, the extra games will bump it up, but to what 44%. That is where the fight is.
As a side note, the owners are also fighting amongst themselves. Big market vs small market teams. According to reports, up to 10 teams are bleeding red, and could fold without substantial help from the rest of the league.
Conclusion: It’s a big mess and a lockout next march looks like a cinch. As we get into June, July, panic will set in and real negotiations will start. The players will not give in on the revenue cuts, the owners have guaranteed money coming in from TV contracts so they won’t give much. The summer of 2011 looks like an UGLY time as bickering reaches a peak. Obama, politicians, and courts will get involved.
I believe they will reach an agreement similar to what they have now, but with an 18 game schedule and a rookie cap. Basically the players will play 2 extra games a year for free, but rookie cap money will be dispensed and assuage veteran players to appear as a victory for both sides. The 2011 season goes on as if nothing happened. Super Bowl on President’s weekend in 2012.
A note...
It’s a minimum total salary threshold that vanishes in the uncapped year; I believe that the minimum salary for an NFL player is unaffected.
The larger point is correct, though – some owners are going to go cheap (and call it “rebuilding”) and put $20 to $30 million directly in their pockets.
The NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell,
has made some conciliatory statements recently regarding the CBA. i.e., during the week before the Super Bowl. I realize that he does not speak for the owners exactly, but he is their representative.
One comment had to do with players salaries – http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=233411.
On the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Goodell said shutting down the league would not be good for owners, players, or fans.
He said the league is trying to structure a new deal to continue to grow revenues and increase player salaries, but also to allow owners to invest more into the league.
Goodell noted in the current contract, players have received 75-percent of, quote, “all incremental revenues since 2006.” He wants to see owners get more of the revenue money, but admits the players union is not yet on the same page.
by Jefferson1935 on Feb 7, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
The biggest problem for the owners is.....Revenue Sharing.
And how they define revenue. Now it is defined as all TV money, ticket, food, parking and merchandising, stadium rights, and any sales of any kind related to the NFL.
Big market teams and teams with high -revenue new stadiums make a boatload of money.
Easily more than $100M over smaller market teams with older stadiums.
This has caused major animosity amongst the owners as big time teams are completely subsidizing their smaller brothers.
Any new revenue sharing will almost certainly exclude: high profit luxury boxes, food and concession, a percentage of stadium naming and team merchandisizing profits.
Can’t really blame Snyder as he has to cut out a huge chunk of his profits to: Cin, Buf, Jax, Pit, KC, Min and TB each and every year.
With a new way to figure revenue, the cap drops substantially causing problems with the players union.
The players would be ok without a cap so the big boys will outspend each other, but the owners want a cap for competitive balance.
The fight is not really between the players and the owners. The big fight is between the owners, and nothing will get resolved until they decide how to share revenue.
Of course once that fight is resolved, then the players will be on deck for a few swings.
Actually I do.
It’s a big circle jerk over money, and we the fans are held hostage.
The owners and players reach agreement after a bunch of posturing,
and football plays on.
Everyone lives happily ever after.
Two things that the sides are demanding.
Owners want the players proportion to be reduced 20% from it’s approximate 60% of team’s revenue (which may not include TV revenues).
The player’s association wants the owners to open up their accounting records so that it can be established that some teams are losing money or marginally making money. The value of franchises has increased considerably under the CBA.
Yep, the revenue numbers vary on who's accounting they use.
The owners won’t open their books until the courts get involved.
Many owners are unhappy with their new stadiums, as far as rising taxes and unfavorable payment terms, luxury boxes not all selling, decreased advertising, and players salaries escalating faster then team revenues.
So the smart thing to do would be to curb expenses,
but more importantly preserve, protect and improve the product. Well…..maybe not. That’s why La Revolucion is still important and needs to spread throughout the NFL fan base. Fans need to be part of this equation – and not the afterthought which generally means we get shit upon again.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The league made close to 8 billion last year.
Divide that by 32 teams, and each team gets approximately 250 million.(revenue)
53% of that is aprox 132 million. (salary cap)
Owners are left with aprox 120 million.
Each team has their own bills, taxes, and other miscellaneous payments.(employee salaries, stadium expenses, etc)
Enough teams are pleading poverty that it is a major issue for owners.
Agreement
Johnnydee – Good post, and thanks. If you are right, they ought to be able to reach an agreement, rather than everybody lose multimillions. I blasted the unions (in another post), but I was more irritated by the over-the-top, nasty, negative rhetoric of the the union side, rather than the substantive issues.
i think its all a joke
I think this is one big publisidy stunt I bet all these guys already agreed on everything they just want to see what people are saying these owners and players loose to much money with a lockout the owners still have to pay leases and mortgages on stadiums even if there’s no games goin on y would they wanna do that they would really be in the red then with no money comming in and the players still have to pay their agents and lawyers and everything else they pay for this will all be settled b4 the start of the 2010 season so nobody looses a ton of money.
by notta_fan_of_sissies on Feb 7, 2010 8:02 AM EST via mobile reply actions
That's actually easy to asnwer......
Owners, Players, and even the stadium owners can buy insurance against a lockout or any other unforeseen event that would prevent games from happening. Like “rain insurance”……..say a concert is supposed to take place at FedEx and it rains…..the insurance company would come out…..meas the amount of rain fall and see if it qualifies for the insurance to kick in for money lost! Same situation…….players can buy insurance in case they get locked out….owners if a new CBA isn’t reached, and the stadium owners…for if there are no games played!
The owners also 5 Billion dollars in TV money guaranteed.
Of course the networks won’t be happy, and you can bet they will be doing a “little arm twisting” to make sure football is played.
O I didn’t kno that thanks for the info learned somthing new.
by notta_fan_of_sissies on Feb 7, 2010 7:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- From Cam to RGIII, and the weird psychology of draft analysis
- UCLA comes down with a case of Tebowmania
- Ellen tries to get Kate Upton to confirm Mark Sanchez is her boyfriend
- Sore loser Bully Ray spits beer in the face of Brandon Jacobs
- Anthony Shadid followed the Green Bay Packers, with love, from a distance
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
