Questions about 2011 and beyond

[Klecko73isGod]

Why does every sportswriter seem to assume there will be a cap that works just like the old one when a new CBA is agreed upon? If the players get their way, there won't be. If there is one, I would expect radically different rules moving forward so assuming anything based on the old system beyond this offseason is ridiculous.

Am I the only one who would love to see the NFL adopt the "Larry Bird Rule" if the NFL continues to have a salary cap in the new CBA? For those who don't follow the NBA, the rule basically gives teams a cap exemption to re-sign their own players, making it easier to keep guys in the same uniform for their entire careers. I am sure RJF and others who follow the NBA can explain it in better detail than me.

Why are some NFL owners insisting on ending revenue sharing? Why do some seem hellbent upon killing the goose that laid the golden egg? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Jetsfan1015]

Why does every sportswriter seem to assume there will be a cap that works just like the old one when a new CBA is agreed upon? If the players get their way, there won't be. If there is one, I would expect radically different rules moving forward so assuming anything based on the old system beyond this offseason is ridiculous.

Am I the only one who would love to see the NFL adopt the "Larry Bird Rule" if the NFL continues to have a salary cap in the new CBA? For those who don't follow the NBA, the rule basically gives teams a cap exemption to re-sign their own players, making it easier to keep guys in the same uniform for their entire careers. I am sure RJF and others who follow the NBA can explain it in better detail than me.

Why are some NFL owners insisting on ending revenue sharing? Why do some seem hellbent upon killing the goose that laid the golden egg? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

hmmmmmmmmmm....... Greed?

[flgreen]

hmmmmmmmmmm....... Greed?

By Jove I think you

[PatriotReign37]

The owners do not want to end revenue sharing. Thats false.

The owners gave up too much on the last cba extension with Gene Upshaw and now have opted out of that current agreement to negotiate a lower % of gross revenue dispersed amongst the players/teams.

If the economy had remained strong it might not have been an issue.

[Jetsfan1015]

The owners do not want to end revenue sharing. Thats false.

The owners gave up too much on the last cba extension with Gene Upshaw and now have opted out of that current agreement to negotiate a lower % of gross revenue dispersed amongst the players/teams.

If the economy had remained strong it might not have been an issue.

I guess this judges ruling was for nothing then

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

Ruling bars owners from ending pool

Comment Email Print Share

By Chris Mortensen

ESPN

Archive

The NFL Players Association won a decision Monday from Special Master Stephen Burbank that will prevent league owners from dismantling the supplemental revenue sharing (SRS) pool in 2010, as management had planned. The pool was valued at $210 million in 2009 and $220 million for 2010.

Burbank rejected an interpretation from the NFL Management Council that an owners resolution in March 2006 determined the supplemental revenue sharing pool was required only during years in which the NFL was operating under a salary cap.

A ruling on Monday prevents the NFL from getting rid of a supplemental revenue sharing pool that would pay teams approximately $220 million in 2010. It's another omen pointing to potential league labor strife. Document

The league notified its member clubs and the NFLPA in December that the supplemental program which funded approximately eight to 12 lower-revenue clubs would no longer be in effect in 2010, the final and uncapped year of the labor agreement that was reached between owners and players in 2006.

"We find no explicit distinction between capped and uncapped years or between capped years and The Final League Year," Burbank wrote in his ruling, which ESPN acquired Monday night.

Burbank agreed that the labor agreement required the union's approval of any changes made to the supplemental revenue sharing pool.

"The Special Master basically rejected every single argument that management made and regardless of how the league characterizes the decision, this is a victory for players, for low-revenue clubs and the fans," said Jeffrey Kessler, the lead counsel for the union in the case.

The league said it would appeal Burbank's decision to presiding U.S. District Court Judge David Doty.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, "Today's decision involves a small sliver of the NFL's overall commitment to revenue sharing. The NFL for decades has shared more than 80 percent of league and club revenues. In the 2006 collective bargaining agreement that expires in 2011, the NFL clubs also agreed to a small percentage of additional revenue sharing because of the new CBA's significantly increased salary cap. The agreement calls for no salary cap in 2010 and that additional piece of revenue sharing to which the clubs had agreed in 2006 is therefore no longer required in our view. Although the Special Master disagreed with our interpretation on that issue, we are hopeful that Judge Doty, who will look at the issue anew, will see it differently."

Kessler said that the ruling, if upheld, should motivate low-revenue clubs to participate in spending on their own players and potential free agents, regardless of whether those free agents are restricted by any means allowed in an uncapped year.

"These clubs can now budget for beyond 2010," said Kessler. "The union was concerned about their incentive to spend with an uncapped year and a looming lockout by the owners in 2011. [Management] can try to diminish the value of the supplemental pool but it represents a significant dollar amount for those affected clubs.

This means a more vibrant outlook for players, teams and fans and now we'll monitor how the market behaves."

The New York Times reported that another negotiating session between management and the union is scheduled to be held this week in an effort to reach a new labor agreement. However, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell conceded in an interview Sunday with the NFL Network that he expects the league to operate in 2010 with an uncapped year.

Asked if the ruling would only further exacerbate the union's dealings with management, Kessler replied, "I think my view and the view of the union is we hope the parties can come together on a new CBA. If this ruling helps, that's great. If not, we hopefully can find something else that is agreeable. Everyone wants to make a deal. We just have to figure out how to get there."

[Klecko73isGod]

I guess this judges ruling was for nothing then

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

So PR37 was wrong?

Yeah, there's a friggin' shocker.

[PatriotReign37]

I guess this judges ruling was for nothing then

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

You may want to read what you posted.

Asked if the ruling would only further exacerbate the union's dealings with management, Kessler replied, "I think my view and the view of the union is we hope the parties can come together on a new CBA. If this ruling helps, that's great. If not, we hopefully can find something else that is agreeable. Everyone wants to make a deal. We just have to figure out how to get there."

The owners have been negotiating on a NEW cba because they deemed the last cba unfair in their eyes.

[Klecko73isGod]

You may want to read what you posted.

Asked if the ruling would only further exacerbate the union's dealings with management, Kessler replied, "I think my view and the view of the union is we hope the parties can come together on a new CBA. If this ruling helps, that's great. If not, we hopefully can find something else that is agreeable. Everyone wants to make a deal. We just have to figure out how to get there."

The owners have been negotiating on a NEW cba because they deemed the last cba unfair in their eyes.

What does that have to do with you being wrong about some owners wanting to end revenue sharing?

[PatriotReign37]

So PR37 was wrong?

Yeah, there's a friggin' shocker.

Players preferred not to think about a work stoppage. Upshaw has said the union won't strike but owners could lock out players if there is no agreement by then.

Agreement = New CBA

The owners want a new CBA/cap just like I said. A cursory google search would do you wonders. Then again, not likely

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

[Klecko73isGod]

Players preferred not to think about a work stoppage. Upshaw has said the union won't strike but owners could lock out players if there is no agreement by then.

Agreement = New CBA

The owners want a new CBA/cap just like I said. A cursory google search would do you wonders. Then again, not likely

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

Now you are arguing a point nobody made in an attempt to cover for the fact that you were wrong.

[PatriotReign37]

Now you are arguing a point nobody made in an attempt to cover for the fact that you were wrong.

Why are some NFL owners insisting on ending revenue sharing? Why do some seem hellbent upon killing the goose that laid the golden egg? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Klecko73isGod]

Wow, you really are this stupid.

See if you can follow me now.

Why are some NFL owners insisting on ending revenue sharing?

That was post #1.

The owners do not want to end revenue sharing. Thats false.

Thats was post #4.

I guess this judges ruling was for nothing then

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

This was in response to your post about the owners not wanting to end revenue sharing. The article goes in depth about a judge's ruling to prevent the owners from doing just that.

How did you respond?

The owners have been negotiating on a NEW cba because they deemed the last cba unfair in their eyes.

We all understand this. This is the reason this year is uncapped and there is danger of a lockout in 2011. It does not, however, address the FACT that there is a group of owners who want to end or severely limit revenue sharing.

So you responded to a post about revenue sharing by saying something completely unrelated to this specific point.

This begs the question at hand: CAN YOU ****ING READ?

[SMC]

Why does every sportswriter seem to assume there will be a cap that works just like the old one when a new CBA is agreed upon? If the players get their way, there won't be. If there is one, I would expect radically different rules moving forward so assuming anything based on the old system beyond this offseason is ridiculous.

Am I the only one who would love to see the NFL adopt the "Larry Bird Rule" if the NFL continues to have a salary cap in the new CBA? For those who don't follow the NBA, the rule basically gives teams a cap exemption to re-sign their own players, making it easier to keep guys in the same uniform for their entire careers. I am sure RJF and others who follow the NBA can explain it in better detail than me.

Why are some NFL owners insisting on ending revenue sharing? Why do some seem hellbent upon killing the goose that laid the golden egg? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm strongly against a "Larry Bird Rule" (LBR) for the NFL

The NBA's cap system is illogical. How can you have a salary cap, but allow teams to be over it because of the LBRs? It makes no sense. In fact, that dooms teams to continued mediocricy or suckitude because by being constantly over the cap the team can't improve itself.

Plus, the LBR might work for a 12 man roster and 5 starters; it can't work for a 53 man roster with 24 starters.

The NBA has the worst cap in sports. The NFL cap system works best because it requires teams to be under the cap and doesn't have guaranteed contracts.

Further, the NFL doesn't need the LBR. Players can stay for the life of their contract now. The players don't because the team no longer wants to pay them rather than being forced to get rid of them.

For example, Tomlinson could have spent his whole career with the Chargers. The Chargers had the money to keep him for a long time, but they simply didn't want to pay him.

[Klecko73isGod]

I'm strongly against a "Larry Bird Rule" (LBR) for the NFL

The NBA's cap system is illogical. How can you have a salary cap, but allow teams to be over it because of the LBRs? It makes no sense. In fact, that dooms teams to continued mediocricy or suckitude because by being constantly over the cap the team can't improve itself.

Plus, the LBR might work for a 12 man roster and 5 starters; it can't work for a 53 man roster with 24 starters.

The NBA has the worst cap in sports. The NFL cap system works best because it requires teams to be under the cap and doesn't have guaranteed contracts.

Further, the NFL doesn't need the LBR. Players can stay for the life of their contract now. The players don't because the team no longer wants to pay them rather than being forced to get rid of them.

For example, Tomlinson could have spent his whole career with the Chargers. The Chargers had the money to keep him for a long time, but they simply didn't want to pay him.

I see what you're saying but the franchise tag essentially serves a similar purpose in the NFL as the LBR. The main difference, as I see it, is that the franchise tag creates animosity between the team and the player while the LBR gives the player the option of testing the free agency waters while still allowing his original team to have an advantage in re-signing him. There is a mutual benefit that doesn't exist with the franchise tag.

And thank you for providing a well-informed, adult reply to my thread.

[PatriotReign37]

Wow, you really are this stupid.

See if you can follow me now.

That was post #1.

Thats was post #4.

This was in response to your post about the owners not wanting to end revenue sharing. The article goes in depth about a judge's ruling to prevent the owners from doing just that.

How did you respond?

We all understand this. This is the reason this year is uncapped and there is danger of a lockout in 2011. It does not, however, address the FACT that there is a group of owners who want to end or severely limit revenue sharing.

So you responded to a post about revenue sharing by saying something completely unrelated to this specific point.

This begs the question at hand: CAN YOU ****ING READ?

You are dense.

The owners voted 32 - 0 to opt out of the last CBA. Only 24 votes were needed.

The owners will lock the players out in 2011 if there is no new CBA.

The owners - all 32 - want a CBA despite your stupid claims that "some owners want to end revenue sharing."

Who are the owners that want to end revenue sharing? Tell us.

[Klecko73isGod]

You are dense.

The owners voted 32 - 0 to opt out of the last CBA. Only 24 votes were needed.

The owners will lock the players out in 2011 if there is no new CBA.

The owners - all 32 - want a CBA despite your stupid claims that "some owners want to end revenue sharing."

Who are the owners that want to end revenue sharing? Tell us.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/04/ominous-words-on-revenue-sharing-from-jerry-jones/

You're a ****ing idiot.

[slats]

The owners aren't looking to end revenue sharing, they were just looking to close one small pool of shared revenue in the final year of the CBA to put additional pressure on the players' union. Roughly 80% of the league's revenue sharing is TV money, and nothing was going to change there.

Jerry Jones doesn't speak for all owners. He's the owner of a wealthy team in a wealthy division. The Jets and Pats helping to subsidize the Bills is good business. They probably understand that. Jones is a guy who's always looking for another angle to make a buck. Unlike most owners, his team is now his primary business.

The league, by and large, understands that the cap is a good thing. Teams that can afford to spend more are "forced by the cap," to limit their spending - thus increasing their bottom line - all while giving the appearance to their fans that they're spending everything they can to improve the talent on the team. It's a win-win situation.

[PatriotReign37]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/04/ominous-words-on-revenue-sharing-from-jerry-jones/

You're a ****ing idiot.

Youre dumber than Florio

Jones was in Minnesota on behalf of Wolf to put pressure on the locals to build a new stadium. The Metrodome only seats 64,000 in a city of 3.5 million. http://www.msfc.com/about.cfm

Jones has a point. You dont.

[Klecko73isGod]

The owners aren't looking to end revenue sharing, they were just looking to close one small pool of shared revenue in the final year of the CBA to put additional pressure on the players' union. Roughly 80% of the league's revenue sharing is TV money, and nothing was going to change there.

Jerry Jones doesn't speak for all owners. He's the owner of a wealthy team in a wealthy division. The Jets and Pats helping to subsidize the Bills is good business. They probably understand that. Jones is a guy who's always looking for another angle to make a buck. Unlike most owners, his team is now his primary business.

The league, by and large, understands that the cap is a good thing. Teams that can afford to spend more are "forced by the cap," to limit their spending - thus increasing their bottom line - all while giving the appearance to their fans that they're spending everything they can to improve the talent on the team. It's a win-win situation.

Thank you for the human response slats. The closing off of that "one small pool of revenue" is very signficant if you live in a city like Jacksonville and hear your friends cry everyday about how they are thisclose to losing their team. There are no prospects for a new stadium and quite frankly, the stadium is not the issue here. The issue is the apathetic fanbase and a lousy economy, which I know is maddening for the small but rabid group of Jaguars diehards. That "small pool" of revenue helps keep a team like the Jags from moving in lean times.

I agree that the owners understand and want a cap. The other good thing the cap does is require teams to spend a minimum percentage of the cap every year so you don't wind up with teams dumping salary to boost profits like you do in basebal, creating a complete lack of competitive balance.

However, now that they let it get to this point, the union has a President that seems hellbent on eliminating the salary cap for good. The player's attitude is, "oh there's no cap this year? Well, good luck getting it back."

I think there will be a salary cap moving forward. I just think it may be radically different in the new CBA. For example, I can see them doing away with the franchise tag as we all know the players can't stand it. I can also seem them building in expemptions for teams to sign their own free agents and a tight rookie cap which would limit the cap hit you take when you miss on a draft pick and allow older players to stay in the league a bit longer.

I just find it funny that reporters act like once there is a new CBA, all the rules will be the same. Based on the acrimony in these negotiations, that is an awfully naive assumption.

[slats]

However, now that they let it get to this point, the union has a President that seems hellbent on eliminating the salary cap for good. The player's attitude is, "oh there's no cap this year? Well, good luck getting it back."

I think there will be a salary cap moving forward. I just think it may be radically different in the new CBA. For example, I can see them doing away with the franchise tag as we all know the players can't stand it. I can also seem them building in expemptions for teams to sign their own free agents and a tight rookie cap which would limit the cap hit you take when you miss on a draft pick and allow older players to stay in the league a bit longer.

There will defintely continue to be a cap. The players' union was all excited about the lack of a cap a year ago, but as it gets closer they seem to be starting to realize that the lack of a salary floor is going to hurt them a lot more than the lack of a salary ceiling helps them. That's why the owners want to close that small portion of pool money this year, to put more pressure on the players' union. It was a one time measure - that failed.

I think the next CBA will be very similar to this one. I do not expect any "Larry Bird" type rules in the NFL's cap. The league wants a hard cap. If they're able to give Peyton Manning $100M a year outside of the cap, the rest of the players on the team will want the Colts to spend up to the cap for the rest of them. That hurts teams. They'll complain publicly about the cap hurting their ability to sign players, but they quietly love that.

I do think that some sort of rookie cap makes a lot of sense, and I think one is expected. That's why you have such a great junior class in this year's draft. They all want to get paid before the rookie cap is in place. Same reason all the teams in the top 5 want out - they don't want to be the last teams paying exorbitant prices for unknown rookie quantities. Seems to me that both sides know a rookie cap is coming. I think you could see it tied to shorter rookie deals, and a different RFA model, but no NBA style soft cap rules.

[Klecko73isGod]

There will defintely continue to be a cap. The players' union was all excited about the lack of a cap a year ago, but as it gets closer they seem to be starting to realize that the lack of a salary floor is going to hurt them a lot more than the lack of a salary ceiling helps them. That's why the owners want to close that small portion of pool money this year, to put more pressure on the players' union. It was a one time measure - that failed.

I think the next CBA will be very similar to this one. I do not expect any "Larry Bird" type rules in the NFL's cap. The league wants a hard cap. If they're able to give Peyton Manning $100M a year outside of the cap, the rest of the players on the team will want the Colts to spend up to the cap for the rest of them. That hurts teams. They'll complain publicly about the cap hurting their ability to sign players, but they quietly love that.

I do think that some sort of rookie cap makes a lot of sense, and I think one is expected. That's why you have such a great junior class in this year's draft. They all want to get paid before the rookie cap is in place. Same reason all the teams in the top 5 want out - they don't want to be the last teams paying exorbitant prices for unknown rookie quantities. Seems to me that both sides know a rookie cap is coming. I think you could see it tied to shorter rookie deals, and a different RFA model, but no NBA style soft cap rules.

What do you think about the franchise tag going away?

[slats]

What do you think about the franchise tag going away?

I'm sure there'll be some discussion, but ultimately it will stick. You have to remember, the owners hold virtually all the cards. They'll give just enough so that play continues thru 2011. Nothing more. Players won't strike over the franchise tag.

[Klecko73isGod]

I'm sure there'll be some discussion, but ultimately it will stick. You have to remember, the owners hold virtually all the cards. They'll give just enough so that play continues thru 2011. Nothing more. Players won't strike over the franchise tag.

I disgaree. You basically have everything staying the same with the exception of a rookie cap being added. The players want that as much as the owners because they are sick of older players getting cut and not being able to find jobs.

If that was the only sticking point, they would have signed a new deal months ago. There's a lot more to this than that.

The players want a bigger piece of the total revenue and the owners want to cut the percentage the players are currently getting. Plus you've got a new union boss who is determined not to be viewed as the commissioner's puppet like his predecessor was.

I think the new NFL reality of 2011 and beyond is going to be much different from what we are used to.

The players hold the single biggest card - no body pays to see the owners. The replacement games in 87 are widely considered a complete joke. No players = no league.

[slats]

I disgaree. You basically have everything staying the same with the exception of a rookie cap being added. The players want that as much as the owners because they are sick of older players getting cut and not being able to find jobs.

If that was the only sticking point, they would have signed a new deal months ago. There's a lot more to this than that.

That's actually not true. For reasons I don't understand, the players have been adamantly against a rookie cap. There are rules in place to help older vets latch onto teams for league minimum deals.

The players want a bigger piece of the total revenue and the owners want to cut the percentage the players are currently getting. Plus you've got a new union boss who is determined not to be viewed as the commissioner's puppet like his predecessor was.

I think the new NFL reality of 2011 and beyond is going to be much different from what we are used to.

The players hold the single biggest card - no body pays to see the owners. The replacement games in 87 are widely considered a complete joke. No players = no league.

The owners hold the cards because the owners hold the money. Virtually all of them make their primary income from sources other than football. If there's no football, they'll be fine. The players who are multi-millionaires should also be okay during a strike or a lock-out. But the vast majority of players -while making a better living than me- get by on contracts closer to the league minimum and will start to feel the pinch long before the owners do - and they will crack. Those league minimum guys will not authorize a strike over the franchise tag issue. Just not happening.

No one wants to kill the golden egg laying goose, which is why the league will give just enough to keep the operation running.

The new union boss is the wildcard. Personally, I think he's running his mouth too much, and leaning too heavily on distortion of the facts for the players' and public's consumption. That could easily backfire on him.

Any changes to the new CBA will stem from the changes implemented to install a rookie salary cap. If those include shorter rookie deals (which I think makes sense), you'll see an adjustment made to RFA as well. That could mean a difference in the way the franchise and transition tag work, but there's no way I see it going away. If the players get shorter rookie deals to go with the rookie cap, look for the league to not only keep the franchise tag, but to add some teeth (in the form of compensation) to the transition tag as well.

[Klecko73isGod]

That's actually not true. For reasons I don't understand, the players have been adamantly against a rookie cap. There are rules in place to help older vets latch onto teams for league minimum deals.

The owners hold the cards because the owners hold the money. Virtually all of them make their primary income from sources other than football. If there's no football, they'll be fine. The players who are multi-millionaires should also be okay during a strike or a lock-out. But the vast majority of players -while making a better living than me- get by on contracts closer to the league minimum and will start to feel the pinch long before the owners do - and they will crack. Those league minimum guys will not authorize a strike over the franchise tag issue. Just not happening.

No one wants to kill the golden egg laying goose, which is why the league will give just enough to keep the operation running.

The new union boss is the wildcard. Personally, I think he's running his mouth too much, and leaning too heavily on distortion of the facts for the players' and public's consumption. That could easily backfire on him.

Any changes to the new CBA will stem from the changes implemented to install a rookie salary cap. If those include shorter rookie deals (which I think makes sense), you'll see an adjustment made to RFA as well. That could mean a difference in the way the franchise and transition tag work, but there's no way I see it going away. If the players get shorter rookie deals to go with the rookie cap, look for the league to not only keep the franchise tag, but to add some teeth (in the form of compensation) to the transition tag as well.

I wish I shared your optimism.