CBA agreement..good or bad for the Packers?

[steve823]

I'm not that knowledgeable when it comes to this CBA agreement and talk about no salary cap, games, etc.

What want to know is if would benefit the Packers. Since we have players like Jenkins and Hawk would it benefit us to have a year without a cap so we can throw money at them or would it hurt us because we aren't a big market team?

[Lurker64]

We just had a year without a cap. It's almost certain that the cap is coming back once a new CBA is put into place. I think the Player's Union has realized that after the debacle the "no-cap" year was for the players, they'd rather agree to a cap and get increased player mobility in return.

[Scott Campbell]

We just had a year without a cap. It's almost certain that the cap is coming back once a new CBA is put into place. I think the Player's Union has realized that after the debacle the "no-cap" year was for the players, they'd rather agree to a cap and get increased player mobility in return.

Agreed. They players got filthy rich with a cap, and they're about to get even richer once they take back some of the ridiculous amounts of money given to rookies.

[Fritz]

I wonder how much extra money could go to vets if a serious rookie cap is put in place.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder how much extra money could go to vets if a serious rookie cap is put in place.

To my mind, it doesn't matter; at least the money would be going to those who have actually earned it.

[Scott Campbell]

I wonder how much extra money could go to vets if a serious rookie cap is put in place.

I'm pretty sure all of it. I thought I read that both sides had figured that part out already.

[pbmax]

Agreed. They players got filthy rich with a cap, and they're about to get even richer once they take back some of the ridiculous amounts of money given to rookies.

Not necessarily. Teams have not been spending all their cap money (esp. since 2006 and the last CBA) and many already spend well above that cap number in actual cash outlays (cash over cap). That is one point of contention, how to be certain the savings are then spent on vets and not left unspent or eliminated if the percentage for the cap goes down.

If local revenue sharing goes away, there may be fewer teams with the cash to dole out.

[pbmax]

I'm pretty sure all of it. I thought I read that both sides had figured that part out already.

They have been negotiating that a specific portion of the savings be spent on retired player benefits and then the balance be allocated to veteran players in another manner outside the cap. But this was the player's idea and I am not sure the owners have bought in. I could have missed an update though.

[Scott Campbell]

If local revenue sharing goes away,....

Holy crap. Is that even on the table?

We'd end up like baseball.

[Guiness]

Holy crap. Is that even on the table?

We'd end up like baseball.

Jerry Jones has been championing this all along. Couple of other owners as well, I think, but he's the one who immediately comes to mind.

[MJZiggy]

Jerry Jones has been championing this all along. Couple of other owners as well, I think, but he's the one who immediately comes to mind.

I don't think it would fly. Too many other teams with too much to lose.

[pbmax]

Not necessarily. Teams have not been spending all their cap money (esp. since 2006 and the last CBA) and many already spend well above that cap number in actual cash outlays (cash over cap). That is one point of contention, how to be certain the savings are then spent on vets and not left unspent or eliminated if the percentage for the cap goes down.

If local revenue sharing goes away, there may be fewer teams with the cash to dole out.

Holy crap. Is that even on the table?

We'd end up like baseball.

Jerry Jones has been championing this all along. Couple of other owners as well, I think, but he's the one who immediately comes to mind.

Local revenue sharing is being debated, not national revenue sharing (which includes the TV contracts). It has become an increasing part of the owner's revenue stream with Snyder, Jones and Kraft leading the way. Its also of a piece with the rising costs of new stadium construction. TV contracts still increase, but not as fast as they used to. And like ticket revenue, when those revenues increase, you only get a portion (a 32nd) of the pie. Local revenue, including revenue from stadiums, provide a better ROI strictly in terms of percentage (not) shared with the rest of the league.

So owners who have sunk a lot of money into new stadiums are looking to get back what they gave up in local revenue under the sharing they agreed to after the 2006 CBA. They are also looking to reduce player costs. Its a messy picture because not every team has sunk the same amount of reserves into their stadium (and not all teams have new stadiums). The public still spends the lions share of the money. And the rhetoric is overblown. Jerry Jones started out by talking about how he was going to self finance his stadium (excepting road and infrastructure) and by the time the deal was done, his contribution had dwindled significantly.

But even if the dollars don't match the bluster, the team's and owners are spending more than they used to on stadiums and they are rebuilding them faster than ever. The economic downturn hurt and their interest rates increased in the last 3 years (though that is likely to subside near term, if not already).

But unlike 2006 when Upshaw and Tagliabue agreed that the owner's had to agree to local revenue sharing (beyond the gate receipts, it was unprecedented) before a CBA could be done, the owners have put that item on the back burner this time. Local revenue sharing split the clubs and made it harder to press the union. With revenue sharing in jeopardy but a secondary item on the to do list (and nothing said about it publicly by Goodell), they look unified behind the popular notion of reducing ridiculous rookie contracts.

[bobblehead]

I think if it gets silly like baseball we should pass a 1/4 point state sales tax (ballot initiative) to fund the packers. We are owned by the city after all. Then we buy every elite player until Jones screams "its not fair". Then we all giggle at the irony.