NFL and union making progress on settlement

[faba]

By Sal Paolantonio

ESPN

Archive

The NFL labor talks are continuing for a second consecutive day in the Boston area, a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations told ESPN Thursday.

Owners' CBA Proposal in Perspective

Since 2006, the players have seen a steady decline in their percentage in all revenues, with 2010 equaling the lowest since 2000. In the owners' new proposal, they are asking the players to take 48 percent of all revenues, the lowest in the salary cap era.

Players' "all revenue" percentages,

last 5 years

2010 50.5

2009 50.6

2008 51.0

2007 51.8

2006 52.7

powered by

Another source said the talks on Wednesday were "very fruitful" and the expectation is that they will continue until a deal is reached.

"We are headed in the right direction," the source said. "There is a desire on both sides to reach an agreement sooner rather than later."

In the Boston-area meeting Wednesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and his negotiating team were able to share some of the feedback from Tuesday's Chicago owners' meetings with NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith and his team -- specifically the owners' response to the framework of a new deal presented by Goodell.

The owners spent five hours Tuesday listening to updates on various collective bargaining agreement issues. Afterward, the league's chief negotiator, Jeff Pash, said, "We're eager to accelerate the pace of the negotiations."

Sources told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the players' share in the proposed CBA would be 48 percent, but the expense credits -- about $1 billion last year -- that the league takes off the top would disappear.

Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadium construction, sources said.

A rookie wage scale will be part of the new deal but is still being "tweaked," and the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement.

NFL Labor Negotiations and Lockout

The NFL lockout began on March 11, with no obvious end in sight. ESPN.com Topics keeps you up to date on all of the latest on the labor situation. More »

Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanisms that require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.

For example, if the 2011 salary cap is determined to be $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to that amount. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.

If and when an agreement is reached, all players whose contracts have expired and have four or more years of experience are expected to be unrestricted free agents, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. Certain tags will be retained, but that still is being discussed.

Thursday is Day 100 of the lockout, which is the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 and the longest in league history.

[Bleedin Green]

Do they seem to be or are they?!? I don't understand!

Sorry.

[Bleedin Green]

For example, if the 2011 salary cap is determined to be $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to that amount. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.

This part makes no sense to me, it's impossible to mandate that a team has to spend almost the entirety of the salary cap in cash payroll in a given year unless you completely change the NFL's salary cap structure. Even if a team used every last cent of it's salary cap space, a decent chunk of it will always be based on various cap hits outside of their current payroll. Forcing that would basically eliminate any and all bonuses / guaranteed money written into contracts, and there's no way in hell that's what the players want. The only thing I can possibly see this meaning is to eliminate some of the tricks out there that generate artificial salary cap spending in a given year that doesn't really exist, like some of the LTBE expenses that are really never going to be achieved, but that would be incredibly difficult to regulate.

[jason423]

This part makes no sense to me, it's impossible to mandate that a team has to spend almost the entirety of the salary cap in cash payroll in a given year unless you completely change the NFL's salary cap structure. Even if a team used every last cent of it's salary cap space, a decent chunk of it will always be based on various cap hits outside of their current payroll. Forcing that would basically eliminate any and all bonuses / guaranteed money written into contracts, and there's no way in hell that's what the players want. The only thing I can possibly see this meaning is to eliminate some of the tricks out there that generate artificial salary cap spending in a given year that doesn't really exist, like some of the LTBE expenses that are really never going to be achieved, but that would be incredibly difficult to regulate.

Part of it Im sure is to eliminate those funky LTBE tricks, but I dont think it would be that difficult otherwise. The 90% would be on a leaguewide basis Im sure and in the past they have already been at that level at times. In 2008 they were around 97% of the cap in total cash spending and about 92% in 2007. In 2009 they were around 87% but that was because teams were not doing long term deals due to preparation for the lockout, plus there was essentially no free agency due to the RFA rules. While it might make teams a bit more conscious about the timing of bonuses for players (i.e. paying Stafford all that money in year 2 in both bonuses and salary) it wont really change much anything. All it will do is force the year after year bottom cash payroll teams to actually pay up on a more consistent basis.

[Bleedin Green]

Part of it Im sure is to eliminate those funky LTBE tricks, but I dont think it would be that difficult otherwise. The 90% would be on a leaguewide basis Im sure and in the past they have already been at that level at times. In 2008 they were around 97% of the cap in total cash spending and about 92% in 2007. In 2009 they were around 87% but that was because teams were not doing long term deals due to preparation for the lockout, plus there was essentially no free agency due to the RFA rules. While it might make teams a bit more conscious about the timing of bonuses for players (i.e. paying Stafford all that money in year 2 in both bonuses and salary) it wont really change much anything. All it will do is force the year after year bottom cash payroll teams to actually pay up on a more consistent basis.

In that case, is bonus amortization counted as "cash payroll"? And what about dead cap space? Those are the areas that I figured would be of the greatest concern in terms of hitting that number strictly on cash payroll.

[F.Chowds]

AdamSchefter Adam Schefter

Labor talks did not go real well today. But bad from today could be good later. Because the sides are now dealing with the critical issues.

[jason423]

In that case, is bonus amortization counted as "cash payroll"? And what about dead cap space? Those are the areas that I figured would be of the greatest concern in terms of hitting that number strictly on cash payroll.

Cash payroll is strictly cash paid out (or I believe deferred as long as it complies with the CBA definition of that). The reason it isnt hard to be in line with the cap is the full payment of bonus money ends up counting towards the "cash cap" rather than just the amortized portion. So last year cash charges for Sanchez would be 16.4 million despite a cap charge of only 8.9 million. The Ghost would have been 6.5 million or so rather than 5.4 million. Players like the idea of guaranteed cash spending because it probably will lead to higher base salaries or larger bonuses to take up cash room.

For it to work it would have to be leaguewide rather than on a team by team basis because of the dead money. On a leaguewide basis it should balance out (ie the Jets carry a dead cap hit of a few million for Chad Pennington, who goes on to get a bigger cash payout in Miami in 2008), but if its team by team then they would have to allocate dead cap space every year for a team to use. I cant see that happening. I dont think teams get into the cap issues that they were in in the past due to the rising cap so at most you only get only 2 or 3 teams a year whose cap is made up of those double digit counting cuts. So they will get covered by the teams that spend highly in the years they have to do that. In some ways the owners might even like such a system as it allows them a way to budget things better with the team and give them an upper hand of sorts in the timing of bonus payments with agents. Gone will be the days of a team having a cash payroll of 86 million in one year followed by a cash payroll of 150 million the next. It will be a much more steady flow.

[Bleedin Green]

Cash payroll is strictly cash paid out (or I believe deferred as long as it complies with the CBA definition of that). The reason it isnt hard to be in line with the cap is the full payment of bonus money ends up counting towards the "cash cap" rather than just the amortized portion. So last year cash charges for Sanchez would be 16.4 million despite a cap charge of only 8.9 million. The Ghost would have been 6.5 million or so rather than 5.4 million. Players like the idea of guaranteed cash spending because it probably will lead to higher base salaries or larger bonuses to take up cash room.

For it to work it would have to be leaguewide rather than on a team by team basis because of the dead money. On a leaguewide basis it should balance out (ie the Jets carry a dead cap hit of a few million for Chad Pennington, who goes on to get a bigger cash payout in Miami in 2008), but if its team by team then they would have to allocate dead cap space every year for a team to use. I cant see that happening. I dont think teams get into the cap issues that they were in in the past due to the rising cap so at most you only get only 2 or 3 teams a year whose cap is made up of those double digit counting cuts. So they will get covered by the teams that spend highly in the years they have to do that. In some ways the owners might even like such a system as it allows them a way to budget things better with the team and give them an upper hand of sorts in the timing of bonus payments with agents. Gone will be the days of a team having a cash payroll of 86 million in one year followed by a cash payroll of 150 million the next. It will be a much more steady flow.

Oh ok, that makes a little more sense. I didn't think about the bonuses counting fully in that year, which would balance out the amortized portion of the bonuses of other players, as in any given year while you'll have some players with bigger cap hits than cash payroll in that year, you'll also have big chunks of money going out that count towards that cash payroll number but not entirely against that year's cap. Also you make a good point about it being league-wide wouldm as that would address that other issue because as you said, it would seem impossible to manage with the issue of dead cap space. I'd imagine there will also have to be something on the owners side to help keep that balanced out, so that there is at least some requirement on a team by team basis, making sure each team is holding up their end of the bargain to hit that 90% number, and the low-income teams aren't trying to get by with a lower payroll that's made up for by other teams.