The Cap.

[packers11]

Does anyone know the current state on how the CBA / cap situation is going? I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all considering they buy every good FA out there. If Roger Goodell wants to keep the NFL the most prized sport in America he will have to figure out a solution to this ASAP...

[mraynrand]

I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all.

?

[packers11]

I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all.

?

I was referring to how baseball has no cap and how the Yankees buy a pro-bowl team every year to compete.

[Waldo]

Does anyone know the current state on how the CBA / cap situation is going? I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all considering they buy every good FA out there. If Roger Goodell wants to keep the NFL the most prized sport in America he will have to figure out a solution to this ASAP...

I think that we are seeing the first signs of Union capitulation.

Ownership has been very united. There are a huge number of players that would be eligible to be UFA's, to have their services bid on or get big extensions, but instead the uncapped rules make them RFA's.

The Union all along has operated under the assumption that ownership can't save themselves from themselves.

They might be wrong. Very few players are being resigned that are RFA eligible. And the players are getting antsy.

Rumors of a potential player revolt have surfaced.

Some players are starting to get frustrated and angry. (Guys like Collins, Colledge, and Spitz, who are hurt by the uncapped year big time).

Union leadership offered to sit down with ownership, lock themselves in, and settle on a new CBA prior to the uncapped year, and ownership rejected it.

This is a complete reversal for the Union, who big time wanted the uncapped year prior to this year. Teams are cutting costs and getting ready to dump a lot of contracts, and get a cheap year, they have no interest in a cap next season.

Factions within the union (led by Stover) wanted Upshaw out for being a bull headed idiot on this matter, and nearly revolted 2 years ago. Upshaw (RIP) then De Smith both carried the same tune, keep the rookie system, welcome uncapped football with open arms. Factions within the union want an overhauled rookie system and a cap, big time.

Problem for the union, players aren't all smart, some are dumb as rocks, they are typically very emotional, and always have cameras and microphones in their face with reporters looking for scandals and big stories. When they get screwed in FA, the union could disintegrate from within and lose a ton of power.

I think that chances are good there is a new CBA next year. The union already offered to surrender and ownership said no. They can continue to ratchet up the pressure, as the drop dead date approaches, they will come into the bargaining room with a vastly superior position and get what they want.

[mraynrand]

I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all.

?

I was referring to how baseball has no cap and how the Yankees buy a pro-bowl team every year to compete.

All you needed to know about major league baseball was on display in game one of the Series: Two Cleveland Indian pitchers facing off. There are somewhere around ten Major league teams and the rest are farm clubs. There are a number of owners and players who want the same thing for the NFL.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I was watching the Yankees last night and had NO interest at all.

?

I was referring to how baseball has no cap and how the Yankees buy a pro-bowl team every year to compete.

All you needed to know about major league baseball was on display in game one of the Series: Two Cleveland Indian pitchers facing off. There are somewhere around ten Major league teams and the rest are farm clubs. There are a number of owners and players who want the same thing for the NFL.

We call this the Jerry Jones Power Grab

[Fritz]

What does the ownership want?

I suspect what Jerry Jones wants may not be what Packer ownership or Pittsburgh ownersip wants.

Are they united? If so, what do they want?

[g4orce]

If it goes uncapped and is like baseball, they will lose a lotta fans including me.

[Waldo]

What does the ownership want?

I suspect what Jerry Jones wants may not be what Packer ownership or Pittsburgh ownersip wants.

Are they united? If so, what do they want?

A lower % of revenue pegged to the cap and a rookie wage system that doesn't penalize teams for being in the top 10.

Crabtree, Raji, Monroe, and Smith really helped ownership's position. Namely, if ownership doesn't cower to the demands of the agents to follow the "system", that their rookies won't show up.

[packers11]

If it goes uncapped and is like baseball, they will lose a lotta fans including me.

+1

[channtheman]

If it goes uncapped and is like baseball, they will lose a lotta fans including me.

+1

+1 as well.

[Guiness]

What does the ownership want?

I suspect what Jerry Jones wants may not be what Packer ownership or Pittsburgh ownersip wants.

Are they united? If so, what do they want?

A lower % of revenue pegged to the cap and a rookie wage system that doesn't penalize teams for being in the top 10.

Crabtree, Raji, Monroe, and Smith really helped ownership's position. Namely, if ownership doesn't cower to the demands of the agents to follow the "system", that their rookies won't show up.

Crabtree? Really? I got the impression his deal was pretty club friendly.

Agreed on the others though. Doesn't seem like Raji was that bad, but certainly it took a while to get done, for no particular reason. Monroe's was the same of course.

[Waldo]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

[red]

the big thing that waldo mentioned without actually mentioning it, is that the cap floor will now be gone

everyone knows about that cap, the most amount of money that you can spend, but not everyone knows about the fllor. teams are required to spend a certain amount every year

theres gonna be a handfull of teams that might spend more, but most will spend a lot less

players are gonna lose a lot of money

also, teams are gonna be able to dump overpriced players at will without any penalties.

in years past a guy could almost get locked into a team because that cap penalty would be too great for a team to swallow, thus the player would make a ton of money that season because the team couldn't get rid of them

without the cap, there would be no accelerated cap hit. it will be a free for all to dump all you shitty players. and those players, in turn, will not be getting the same kind of money they were going to get.

look at the kgb situation from a few years ago. he wasn't worth the money, but he stuck around for a few years making huge bucks because we couldn't take that kind of a cap penalty. and he didn't get squat after he left.

[pbmax]

The union already offered to surrender and ownership said no.
Source for this? Reads like a Management Council press release.

The players do not want a salary cap. They want a salary floor. The cap is one price to pay for the floor. There will be a windfall for some players, but it will be for six year vets and above. Many younger players will be in worse situations. Much depends on whose voice carries. Several franchises will go shoestring, but the guys with money will spend it. The real question is without fifth year players eligible for UFA, is there any mechanism to translate the higher top end salaries down to the lower tiers.

Baseball simply needs one guy at each position to break the previous high. Arbitration takes care of the rest.

[pbmax]

look at the kgb situation from a few years ago. he wasn't worth the money, but he stuck around for a few years making huge bucks because we couldn't take that kind of a cap penalty. and he didn't get squat after he left.
KGB could have been cut any of his last three years with marginal cap hit. The time he was too expensive to cut was under Sherman and not T2.

[pbmax]

What does the ownership want?

I suspect what Jerry Jones wants may not be what Packer ownership or Pittsburgh ownersip wants.

Are they united? If so, what do they want?

A lower % of revenue pegged to the cap and a rookie wage system that doesn't penalize teams for being in the top 10.

Crabtree, Raji, Monroe, and Smith really helped ownership's position. Namely, if ownership doesn't cower to the demands of the agents to follow the "system", that their rookies won't show up.
Darius Heyward Bey helped ownership, those four players took their cues after that. And its not unusual for Al Davis to cause fellow owners problems.

And I would bet that a rookie wage system is not in their top five. Eliminating local revenue sharing would replace it.

[pbmax]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.
This is nothing new, but 8 isn't the problem, it will be #7 for a couple of years. Teams have become used to the QB premium and that premium does not translate to other positions directly. Braylon Edwards cause the last logjam like that in the number 3 slot.

Heyward Bey inflated the number seven slot to a ridiculous level this year. That number coupled with Jacksonville's financial approach made 8's holdout inevitable. Then Crabtree wanted to pull the windfall down from 7 to 10. That kept 11 and 12 out of camp.

Before Heyward Bey, the windfall was restricted to the top 5. Its at seven now. But I have little sympathy for the rookie slotting system as a way to be more fair. No team is up against the cap this year, so this rookie money is not being kept from other deserving players dollar for dollar. Its still up to the individual team's decisions. They have the space.

A rigorous slotting system for contracts would end most holdouts though. That I agree with.

[mraynrand]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

It looks like the solution for owners is to pick a shitty QB at #8. Cleveland would like to help, but they would have to win a few games to get to #8.

[Waldo]

The union already offered to surrender and ownership said no.
Source for this? Reads like a Management Council press release.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/27/de-smith-wants-a-new-deal-by-the-start-of-the-uncapped-year/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/02/league-rejects-lock-in-bargaining-proposal/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/03/rumors-fly-of-a-postseason-strike/

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/27/de-smith-wants-a-new-deal-by-the-start-of-the-uncapped-year/

My read at the time was that they are preparing to sue for bad-faith negotiations if the owners do not want to seriously negotiate BEFORE a lockout could be implemented. The goal would be to keep the money flowing in during negotiations. To do this, they will need to demonstrate an unwillingness to negotiate with the union. Florio mentions that tipping their hand would be a bad strategy this early if they truly expect to finish the CBA on this deadline.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/03/rumors-fly-of-a-postseason-strike/
I normally would be happy to speculate on the rumor. But the existence of this rumor from one source with ties to the Union, players, agents and clubs means the person spreading the report could have any number of agendas. If its a club source, what validity would it have? And if it was discussed by the Union and rejected, why would this portend a folding of the tents?

[Waldo]

I think what you are seeing is a reversal of what was thought to be the case a couple years ago.

The union wants no part of uncapped football

The owners are welcoming uncapped football

Upshaw was all about dumping the cap for good. He always said, once the cap was gone, it wasn't coming back.

Now it is the union that wants a deal before the new league year. Ownership is cool with dumping contracts, skipping a year of high pay and tagging a bunch of guys as RFA's, basically cutting costs and playing below the floor.

The union had never really taken that possibility seriously IMO, they postured and put up a face that was exactly what ownership wanted.

I think that it is the rank and file in the union that has discontent, as much, if not more, with the union than they do with ownership. .5% of revenue, a rookie slotting system and expanded vet benefits doesn't matter a whole lot to a guy poised to have to play a year under a RFA tag that was going to hit the jackpot as a UFA. That is money that they will never get back. Or all the older declining vets that hit the jackpot, or bust rookies, that are only on a roster because the team can't afford the cap acceleration of their bonus. Buh bye.

Internal discontent is the worst enemy of the union, and the possibility of that happening, with the extension deadline for 2009 money drawing near and tons of guys that are to be tagged as RFA's next year getting skipped for extensions this year, this si the time discontent will grow.

And a lot of stupid people will have cameras in their face and twitter on their computer.

[Scott Campbell]

Great thread fellas. Thanks for the read.

[pbmax]

.5% of revenue
Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

[Fritz]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

It looks like the solution for owners is to pick a shitty QB at #8. Cleveland would like to help, but they would have to win a few games to get to #8.

Good point. Cleveland is uniquely qualified to do so, having desperately moved up to take Brady Quinn and having chosen also Derek Anderson.

[Waldo]

.5% of revenue
Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

Exaggerated to show a point.

It has no effect on the guy that stands to lose 10M next year while playing a year on a RFA tag with the real potential for injury. He doesn't care about that couple percent.

[pbmax]

.5% of revenue
Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

Exaggerated to show a point.

It has no effect on the guy that stands to lose 10M next year while playing a year on a RFA tag with the real potential for injury. He doesn't care about that couple percent.
I would say that should be an easy argument to make but...

Hunter Smith and his agent apparently didn't understand it. :lol: