NFL may void CBA this Tuesday

[motife]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8146886/Sources:-NFL-owners-mull-opting-out-of-CBA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/sports/football/17nfl.html?_r=2&ref=football&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3399645

Should the owners in fact make the move next week, it would dramatically alter the NFL's landscape for the next few years. Such a significant move would make the 2009 campaign the last year in which the salary cap is in effect. 2010 would be uncapped. The NFL would also still have a draft in 2011, but beyond that everything else would be up in the air.

The owners have until November 8th to void the current agreement.

"I think deadlines are helpful in trying to get things resolved," commissioner Roger Goodell said at April's NFL owners meeting. "Any time a deadline can be established to force us into reaching an agreement on a particular issue, that's helpful to us."

While it appears likely that owners will opt out of the deal, several owners and executives indicated Friday that things could still change once everyone comes together at Tuesday's meeting. Still, there seems to be a general consensus that if the decision is going to be made to void the deal, it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later.

Calls for comment to both the commissioner's office and Upshaw on Friday have not yet been returned. However, Upshaw and upper NFLPA management are expected in Atlanta, which could lead to CBA dialogue.

The NFL and the players association have renewed the CBA five times, the most recent coming in March 2006. In that vote, the owners ratified the agreement by a 30-2 count, extending the labor deal through the 2011 season.

some more info :

One safeguard for teams like the Packers, however, is an agreement that if the salary cap disappears, players wouldn’t be allowed to become unrestricted free agents until after their 6th year. The current number is four.

The primary problem is the new stadiums are extremely expensive and teams can't pay the debt service and maintenance on the stadiums and pay 60% of revenues on player salaries.

[CaliforniaCheez]

As much as I love football, my love for it is not the same as it was before the 1982 strike.

Tagliabue screwed up it up as one of the principle attorneys for the NFL. That same jerk pushed through this last deal without much debate amongst the owners.

Frankly, the owners have the power to hammer the union. Two years without football would wreck the careers and lifetime earnings of many a player.

Ted Thompson has the Packers well set up financially on player salaries.

This is the trouble when you let Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder into the club. Al Davis is bad enough. Those greedy SOB's care only about themselves.

[red]

i haven't seen this anywhere yet. but does anyone know if they can impose a lockout now?

i think i read the earliest it would happen is 2010

but if the owners cancel the cba now, and the future turns to a greener shade of shit, couldn't they just lockout this season and try and force the union to rework the cba right now?

[red]

As much as I love football, my love for it is not the same as it was before the 1982 strike.

Tagliabue screwed up it up as one of the principle attorneys for the NFL. That same jerk pushed through this last deal without much debate amongst the owners.

Frankly, the owners have the power to hammer the union. Two years without football would wreck the careers and lifetime earnings of many a player.

Ted Thompson has the Packers well set up financially on player salaries.

This is the trouble when you let Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder into the club. Al Davis is bad enough. Those greedy SOB's care only about themselves.

it also looks as thought the head of the union (gene upshaw)( is willing to leave everything as a complete mess.

the players said they won't change union heads with the cba issue overhead. upshaw was suppose to already be up but has managed to keep his job because of the mess

its in upshaws best interest to cause complete chaos so he can keep raking in those fat checks for doing nothing

[Fosco33]

I think a lack of a salary cap would be terrible - think MLB...

I'm not a Nascar fan - but I know they have specs each car/owner must meet for the designated race. Imagine if a car/owner could spend nearly as much as they wanted... unfair advantage?

The owners would stand to lose a lot with a strike as well - no football/no revenue - and the damage to the team/player relations would be pretty bad. It has to get signed - and it should because resolving it helps both sides.

[Jimx29]

The great gains in audiences that the NFL has earned over the past 10 years or so will all be for naught. It will turn into another steinbrenner/hizenga (sp) league where people 'buy' the superbowl

[Patler]

This is really NOT a big deal.

By giving notice of termination, the only thing that happens is that the last two years of the current contract are voided. It will expire in 2010 instead of 2012. Either way, the last year is uncapped. By terminating, 2009 will be the last capped year. Without termination by the owners, 2011 will be the last capped year. Everything is the same, just moved up two years sooner.

All it means is that a new CBA will have to be negotiated now instead of a few years from now.

Of course Upshaw and the NFLPA have proclaimed that they will never agree to another salary cap if the owners opt out, but they have said that before too.

The only way this makes a difference is if you think the two sides would accomplish something in 4 years that they can't in the next two. Realistically, I think they would sit on their hands until 2010 or 2011 anyway, so this will just move everything up by two years.

[Tarlam!]

This is really NOT a big deal.


Call me crazy, but I am disagreeing with Patler. Only on the above statement, not the rest of the post.

I this this is a HUGE deal. The players union have postured that will never ever again agree to a salary cap if the current agreement is scrapped. And what is this talk about drafts only being guaranteed until 2010??

If the NFL loses its parity, I might as well watch European soccer. I don't watch it these days because billionaire Russions just buy titles. Money screwed the Sydney Rugby League as well, in the form that a billionaire started a rival league.

The NFL wheel is NOT broken! Why are they trying to repair it?

[Patler]

I this this is a HUGE deal. The players union have postured that will never ever again agree to a salary cap if the current agreement is scrapped. And what is this talk about drafts only being guaranteed until 2010??

If the NFL loses its parity, I might as well watch European soccer. I don't watch it these days because billionaire Russions just buy titles. Money screwed the Sydney Rugby League as well, in the form that a billionaire started a rival league.

The NFL wheel is NOT broken! Why are they trying to repair it?

The players union postured that they would not agree to a salary cap during the last negotiation. It's just that...posturing. Both sides know the importance of it. It will be in the new CBA.

If the owners do not "opt out" the draft is guaranteed only through 2012. It's tied to the end of the current CBA. All that opting out does is move that two years sooner. Both sides know the importance of the draft, and it will be in the new CBA.

Both sides know the importance of rules that level the playing field for deep pocket and shallow pocket owners. They will agree to terms that will maintain that whether negotiations for a new CBA begin now or two years from now.

The "opt out" provision was provided because the owners did not like the way the players' portion of increased income ramped up in the current CBA. These are the provisions that have caused the huge salary cap increases. They agreed to try it, but in return wanted the option to come back and renegotiate in four years rather than six years.

The owners aren't looking for a major overhaul of the NFL wheel, just routine preventative maintenance from their perspective. Right now they feel they are being shortchanged while accepting all the financial risk with salaries, new stadiums that communities are less and less willing to pay for, etc. Some of what they want should be good for players, too, especially veteran players. Changes to the rookie salary structure is high in the minds of some owners. Less for incoming rookies, with maybe shorter rookie contracts, will leave more for veterans. A lot of money has been given to rookies whose subsequent performances did not merit it. In some ways this has hurt parity. Bad teams draft high, have to pay huge contracts to the rookies they draft. Even if they succeed, it can hurt the team salary structure.

If the owners opt out, everything that you will hear about for 2008, 2009 and 2010 will be just as it will be for 2010, 2011 and 2012 if they do not opt out. It will just be two years sooner.

[Tarlam!]

I knew it was a mistake when I started typing. F--K it Patler, I try, but every time, I get Patlered!

[Patler]

I knew it was a mistake when I started typing. F--K it Patler, I try, but every time, I get Patlered!

Tar, this is a good and I think valuable discussion to have. The media tries to add drama to all things NFL-related. Fans are emotional about the NFL. Announcements like the owners "opting out" and the ramifications of it get blown way out of proportion because of that, and I think it is good to look at the real impact from and reasons for the owners doing it.

Of course, it is always possible that either the owners or the players will push negotiations to a point that hurts the NFL as we know it. However, I tend to think that rational heads will prevail. Both sides know they have already, and have had for many years, a structure that other professional sports envy and strive to copy. They may make some missteps along the way, but overall I think they will do mostly things that are good for their future.

[Tarlam!]

(...)I tend to think that rational heads will prevail.

I'll tell you what, Patler: I'd feel a shit load better if YOU were at those meetings representing us fans!

[pbmax]

This is true in abstract, but not in practical effect. Both sides know the importance, but the owners themselves don't agree on how level the field should be.

The owners were to have a system in place for sharing local revenue among teams during the last negotiations. They could not complete it before the multiple deadlines, and that was one reason for the opt out clause when the deal was signed.

Tagliabue formed a committee and they eventually passed a plan to share local revenue (non-TV revenue like local radio, stadium naming rights, stadium advertisements). But the plan fell far short of what lower revenue franchises had hoped for. Basically, the money involved did not cover the increases in player salaries guaranteed by raising the cap floor (minimum amount to spend on player salaries).

I think the plan created a three tier system, the top third of revenue earners paid into the system a percentage of their local revenue and the bottom third split the proceeds.

Buffalo and Cincinnati found the plan wanting. But Jones, Snyder, Kraft and I think Bowlen, were of a mind that the bottom tier had ample opportunity to increase their revenue if they committed to it (Cincinnati's stadium is named after his father, not Bank of America for instance).

Its a fascinating business debate. Prior to FA and the cap, there were football people who thought the sharing of national TV money was such a guaranteed money maker, that several teams went through the motions of trying to win and still pocketed extraordinary sums or increased the value of the franchise. I remember a time after each new TV contract that some teams had to go out of their way to promise fans that the new money would go right back to football operations, and that they were serious about winning.

Patler may very well be right, and that this is not the harbinger of doom, but just the beginning of very public negotiations. But I am concerned that the owners haven't solved the sharing of local revenues to the smaller markets satisfaction and that they plan to recover the difference from the players.


Both sides know the importance of rules that level the playing field for deep pocket and shallow pocket owners.

[Patler]

The owners will debate and may disagree about how to level the playing field and what constitutes the playing field (what things should be shared with other teams or even with the players). Some owners seem to think that by owning an NFL franchise you should be guaranteed profitability (through subsidies from wealthier teams), or even the same profit as the other owners (complete revenue sharing from all sources). Other owners seem to think that only the bare minimum of revenue sources should be shared with other teams and with the players through the use of those incomes in determining the amount of the salary cap.

I tend to think a compromise between both extremes is more in order. Share the national incomes, game incomes, etc. and gear the salary cap and other team expenses toward those incomes. However, if an owner buys a very valuable franchise and capitalizes more on its fan base through innovative marketing, I have no problem with that owner earning more profit than some other owner who doesn't actively market the product.

The playing field can be level competitively with salary caps, etc. even though one owner makes a lot more money than another owner. A better, more competent owner should make more money than a run of the mill owner, just like the better players make more money than the average player.

A lot of owners think too many revenue sources are now used in determining the salary cap, and the percentage given to the players is too high. Without knowing the finances of a number of teams, it is hard to form an opinion about that. However, some make a good point in that they have very high investments in their teams, and deserve to make a lot of money on that investment if they are successful, just as in any other business undertaking. An owner wanting to make money on the investment in the franchise is not necessarily a bad thing.

[falco]

The owners will debate and may disagree about how to level the playing field and what constitutes the playing field (what things should be shared with other teams or even with the players). Some owners seem to think that by owning an NFL franchise you should be guaranteed profitability (through subsidies from wealthier teams), or even the same profit as the other owners (complete revenue sharing from all sources). Other owners seem to think that only the bare minimum of revenue sources should be shared with other teams and with the players through the use of those incomes in determining the amount of the salary cap.

I tend to think a compromise between both extremes is more in order. Share the national incomes, game incomes, etc. and gear the salary cap and other team expenses toward those incomes. However, if an owner buys a very valuable franchise and capitalizes more on its fan base through innovative marketing, I have no problem with that owner earning more profit than some other owner who doesn't actively market the product.

The playing field can be level competitively with salary caps, etc. even though one owner makes a lot more money than another owner. A better, more competent owner should make more money than a run of the mill owner, just like the better players make more money than the average player.

A lot of owners think too many revenue sources are now used in determining the salary cap, and the percentage given to the players is too high. Without knowing the finances of a number of teams, it is hard to form an opinion about that. However, some make a good point in that they have very high investments in their teams, and deserve to make a lot of money on that investment if they are successful, just as in any other business undertaking. An owner wanting to make money on the investment in the franchise is not necessarily a bad thing.

agreed - you need some earnings to be separate, otherwise you'll have the free riding problem where individual franchises have no incentive to increase their profitability

[pbmax]

The free riding problem has been with the NFL for four decades and other that a few questionable franchises, it wasn't much of a problem. Remember Art Modell said the owners were 28 Republicans who vote Socialist.

What has changed is the source of revenue growth. It used to be all in the national TV contract. But teams with a high debt load (and if you recall, the debt rules for teams was the opening salvo in this round o' CBA jawing) like the Redskins and Cowboys, needed to increase revenue to service that debt and that meant maximizing local revenues. More revenue is a good thing except....

Smaller market teams do not have the same growth potential (see MLB and NBA) on that front. And they don't share that revenue as evenly as the TV contacts. Still not a problem except....

Players are a large part of the reason that revenue is available. To me, it stands to reason that that revenue is not special or protected, it is generated partly because of the efforts of the players. And their pay should be reflective of that revenue. Argue all you wish to about what percentage.

So now you have a problem. Unequal, unequally shared revenue is now flowing to players. That does affect the bottom line of the smaller teams. If the owners cannot amend the sharing of the local revenue and seek to recover it from the players, it will be a more difficult negotiations than last time.

Just remember, when large corporations tell you they lost money last year, they are often referring to profits being lower this year than they were last year. Few NFL franchises likely operated in the red, and likely all increased in overall value.

[Patler]

The Packers throw a very interesting variable into this debate. A very successful franchise and a very popular one among all NFL fans. But their local fan base is not a wealthy one, and they are the smallest of small market franchises. To top it all off, they want to be profitable, but their is no owner interested in maximizing profit from operations or value for an eventual sale.

Some argue that GB should be the model for all NFL franchises, others argue that it should be virtually ignored in the analysis because it is truly unique in all of pro sports.

[pbmax]

I tend to think a compromise between both extremes is more in order. Share the national incomes, game incomes, etc. and gear the salary cap and other team expenses toward those incomes. However, if an owner buys a very valuable franchise and capitalizes more on its fan base through innovative marketing, I have no problem with that owner earning more profit than some other owner who doesn't actively market the product.

The Redskins are an example of a fly in the ointment. If you exclude local revenues from salaries to reward innovative teams, then the Redskins can continue to spend well above other teams in cash over the cap. That gives larger revenue teams an advantage.

This is not entirely a bad thing, as less efficient teams should have some incentive to improve and put a better product on the field. But as the Redskins have also proven, spending money poorly doesn't translate to wins. But it does raise the cost of players and creates additional obstacles for smaller revenue teams.

I would like a model that rewards wins, not just market size. But that is unlikely to be forthcoming. I am less interested in marketing than I am in better football teams.

[Patler]

There is a problem also with the changing nature of NFL franchises. Local communities are realizing that while a pro franchise in their area is a nice thing to have, it is not essential. Owners paying more and more for stadiums and other improvements have to compete with others who haven't yet had to make those investments. It is easy to understand why some teams see the need to maximize local incomes.

For a long time owning an NFL team was almost a hobby-like undertaking. It is becoming more and more of a pure business adventure. Even the Packers are branching out in acquiring land for future use. It will be very interesting to see what they have in mind for it.

[pbmax]

Agreed, the Packers and to a lesser degree the Steelers, have proven that market size is not determinative. As a model, the Packers ownership structure is probably not something that could be duplicated. But the success locally in Green Bay and Pittsburgh could probably be.

As long as the CBA enables smart teams to be successful without access to top dollars, then the NFL will be OK.


The Packers throw a very interesting variable into this debate. A very successful franchise and a very popular one among all NFL fans. But their local fan base is not a wealthy one, and they are the smallest of small market franchises. To top it all off, they want to be profitable, but their is no owner interested in maximizing profit from operations or value for an eventual sale.

Some argue that GB should be the model for all NFL franchises, others argue that it should be virtually ignored in the analysis because it is truly unique in all of pro sports.

[pbmax]

I know we have covered this before, but who has shelled out large team dollars for their new stadiums? How much has been public recently for Seattle, Dallas and Washington?

Much of the current debt being serviced though, is debt acquired when they bought the team. Most recent franchise purchases have been heavily leveraged


There is a problem also with the changing nature of NFL franchises. Local communities are realizing that while a pro franchise in their area is a nice thing to have, it is not essential. Owners paying more and more for stadiums and other improvements have to compete with others who haven't yet had to make those investments. It is easy to understand why some teams see the need to maximize local incomes.

For a long time owning an NFL team was almost a hobby-like undertaking. It is becoming more and more of a pure business adventure. Even the Packers are branching out in acquiring land for future use. It will be very interesting to see what they have in mind for it.

[Patler]

The Redskins are an example of a fly in the ointment. If you exclude local revenues from salaries to reward innovative teams, then the Redskins can continue to spend well above other teams in cash over the cap. That gives larger revenue teams an advantage.


If you have a relatively stable salary cap, with only moderate increases, the extra cash some teams have won't matter as much. The 'Skins have been bailed out by the huge cap increases in recent years, as have a few other teams. Eventually that won't be the case and the extra cash spent on deferred player compensations like signing bonuses will catch up to them in later seasons.

[Patler]

I know we have covered this before, but who has shelled out large team dollars for their new stadiums? How much has been public recently for Seattle, Dallas and Washington?


I really hadn't looked at it in great detail, but it was my impression that the Cowboys were paying a very large portion of their new stadium. I just looked it up, and a report in February listed the city's investment at $475 million and Jones investment at $725 million.

The best I can tell, Seattle seems to have gone this way, Allen bought the team for $200 million and contributed $160 million of his own cash toward the new stadium. Something like $300 million for the stadium was financed by a combination of ticket holder "seat licenses", income from ongoing operations and local government contributions.

[bobblehead]

I would just like to point out that the NFL "broke" the union once before only to have the courts step in later. Being that all the information is on the table now (unlike the past) I think they will come to a fair and reasonable solution. If there is NO cap and NO rules the packers could simply sign 54 idiots to 5k a year salaries for sundays only and ruin the league. I don't think the players or owners really want that.

The owners understand the value to everyone of having every team have a shot at being competitive even if the TO's and Moss's of the world aren't smart enough to see past the next check. (Ok, most of the owners).

If the players aren't reasonable I see the union being "broken" again and this time they may never get back what they lost.

[Patler]

I would just like to point out that the NFL "broke" the union once before only to have the courts step in later. Being that all the information is on the table now (unlike the past) I think they will come to a fair and reasonable solution. If there is NO cap and NO rules the packers could simply sign 54 idiots to 5k a year salaries for sundays only and ruin the league. I don't think the players or owners really want that.

The owners understand the value to everyone of having every team have a shot at being competitive even if the TO's and Moss's of the world aren't smart enough to see past the next check. (Ok, most of the owners).

If the players aren't reasonable I see the union being "broken" again and this time they may never get back what they lost.

I don't see this as an attempt to break the union at all. Nor do I think that will ever happen.

This is just some owners pushing the other owners to exercise a clause in the agreement that allows them to force early renegotiation.

[BF4MVP]

PLEASE keep the salary cap...

The lack of a salary cap is what really pisses me off about baseball..

Not being allowed to be a free agent until you've had 6 years of experience sounds a lot like baseball too..

[GBRulz]

Even the Packers are branching out in acquiring land for future use. It will be very interesting to see what they have in mind for it.

one word. parking.

[MJZiggy]

Wonderful thread.

[Patler]

Even the Packers are branching out in acquiring land for future use. It will be very interesting to see what they have in mind for it.

one word. parking.

Short term, but don't you think they also have some other schemes in mind??

[Patler]

Wonderful thread.

Maybe we should be the "Packernerds" instead of the "Packerrats"? :lol:

[The Leaper]

They were relatively quick about it...sounds like the vote was pretty much the first thing on the agenda, and all 32 teams voted to opt out.

Heading toward an uncapped 2010 season.

[Patler]

They were relatively quick about it...sounds like the vote was pretty much the first thing on the agenda, and all 32 teams voted to opt out.

Heading toward an uncapped 2010 season.

Obviously they decided to present a united front. In the discussions leading up to it there were some teams that seemed completely opposed to it. They must have had an informal vote, determined it would pass, and had a formal publicized vote with everyone going with the majority.

I will be surprised if 2010 is uncapped. They now have 2 years to negotiate a new CBA. Nothing will happen for the next year or so, just a lot of threats and posturing. When push comes to shove, the owners and players all know they have to reach a resolution.