Big Turk Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 With the whole uncapped year coming up, you keep hearing the bravado from the NFLPA about how once the salary cap is gone, they will never accept another one, etc etc etc... Quietly they should be VERY nervous about something noone ever seems to talk about. With the cap going away, teams are free to spend as much as they want on players. This means a few rich teams like the Cowboys and the Redskins can go wild on player spending and have no cap worries at all. What is never talked about, is how teams can also spend as little money as they want on players as well. Currently teams have to spend a certain percentage of the TV revenue they receive on players. With the TV revenues skyrocketing the past few years almost out of control, the cap has become so large that almost no team is anywhere near it. You simply cannot spend money as fast as the cap has risen, even when you are handing ridiculous contracts to backup players now. What the NFLPA is worried about is how many of the teams will decide to start spending LESS on players than they are currently required to. If 5 teams decide to spend more on players than the cap allows but 20 teams decide to spend less than required by the cap floor, they have in effect guaranteed themselves a huge pay cut for years to come. Since there are many more small market teams than there are big powerhouses, you can see what is likely to happen. Couple this in with the fact many owners feel screwed from the last CBA and you can see the potential for disaster for the NFLPA. The owners will continue to rake in the TV revenues, but will not be required to give a certain percentage of it to the players. Currently they are getting 60%, but without a cap in place they likely are headed for the low 50% range when you factor in all the teams. They are in a bad place right now and they know it, especially with what just happened in the economy over the past year and half. I would be willing to bet the NFLPA puts on a strong front, but secretly gives some pretty big concessions to ensure a deal gets done. Right now they don't have anything to gain by going to an uncapped year and a lot to potentially lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Many of the players that were looking to cash in on big FA contracts, will only be RFAs after this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted December 25, 2009 Author Share Posted December 25, 2009 Many of the players that were looking to cash in on big FA contracts, will only be RFAs after this season. True. The required tender on an RFA is much lower than a franchise tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 But teams can not spend what they want, there are still certain rules in place for 2010. teams can dump players for no cap hit and also there are rules for FA signings still in place to keep the top money teams from signing every free agent they want. But if the cap goes away for good in 2011 then no one knows what the new rules will be. In 2010 you have to have 6 years to become a FA versus 4 or 5. I think the top 4 teams can only sign a FA if they lose 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 From what I have read, if 2010 is played under the current CBA the rules heavily favor the owners. I expect more holdouts like there was in the '70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 With the whole uncapped year coming up, you keep hearing the bravado from the NFLPA about how once the salary cap is gone, they will never accept another one, etc etc etc... Quietly they should be VERY nervous about something noone ever seems to talk about. With the cap going away, teams are free to spend as much as they want on players. This means a few rich teams like the Cowboys and the Redskins can go wild on player spending and have no cap worries at all. What is never talked about, is how teams can also spend as little money as they want on players as well. Currently teams have to spend a certain percentage of the TV revenue they receive on players. With the TV revenues skyrocketing the past few years almost out of control, the cap has become so large that almost no team is anywhere near it. You simply cannot spend money as fast as the cap has risen, even when you are handing ridiculous contracts to backup players now. What the NFLPA is worried about is how many of the teams will decide to start spending LESS on players than they are currently required to. If 5 teams decide to spend more on players than the cap allows but 20 teams decide to spend less than required by the cap floor, they have in effect guaranteed themselves a huge pay cut for years to come. Since there are many more small market teams than there are big powerhouses, you can see what is likely to happen. Couple this in with the fact many owners feel screwed from the last CBA and you can see the potential for disaster for the NFLPA. The owners will continue to rake in the TV revenues, but will not be required to give a certain percentage of it to the players. Currently they are getting 60%, but without a cap in place they likely are headed for the low 50% range when you factor in all the teams. They are in a bad place right now and they know it, especially with what just happened in the economy over the past year and half. I would be willing to bet the NFLPA puts on a strong front, but secretly gives some pretty big concessions to ensure a deal gets done. Right now they don't have anything to gain by going to an uncapped year and a lot to potentially lose. Well, if all that happens, I'm sure that the NCAA will be rubbing their foreparts together, like a fly that just discovered a fresh, wet pile of dog doo to chomp on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Currently, if all teams are not spending fully to the cap, how are players getting 60% of revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I think the biggest immediate impact of the uncapped year on the Bills, is in the search for a new coach and GM. Any prospective GM or coach would DEMAND to know what the Bills' approach will be, knowing this will have a huge impact on their future success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 With the whole uncapped year coming up, you keep hearing the bravado from the NFLPA about how once the salary cap is gone, they will never accept another one, etc etc etc... Quietly they should be VERY nervous about something noone ever seems to talk about. With the cap going away, teams are free to spend as much as they want on players. This means a few rich teams like the Cowboys and the Redskins can go wild on player spending and have no cap worries at all. What is never talked about, is how teams can also spend as little money as they want on players as well. This was addressed a few months ago in some depth on inside the NFL. They had the head of the players union (Smith?) on and asked him many questions about it. He said that negotiations were ongoing but made it pretty clear that the players union does not want an uncapped year. probably for exactly that reason.A sticking point seemed to be a rookie cap, which he was not fundamentally opposed to. His problem with it was he wanted a guarantee that the money that obviously would no longer be spent on these rookie contracts would somehow go to the veteran players, not the owners pockets. A union is supposed to get the best deal for the majority of its members. It's pretty clear that an uncapped situation would benefit a small percentage of the players greatly, but would hurt the majority. Not every player can sign with the cowboys, redskins, and patriots. My guess is that the uncapped year doesn't happen due to an 11th hour agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted December 25, 2009 Author Share Posted December 25, 2009 This was addressed a few months ago in some depth on inside the NFL. They had the head of the players union (Smith?) on and asked him many questions about it. He said that negotiations were ongoing but made it pretty clear that the players union does not want an uncapped year. probably for exactly that reason.A sticking point seemed to be a rookie cap, which he was not fundamentally opposed to. His problem with it was he wanted a guarantee that the money that obviously would no longer be spent on these rookie contracts would somehow go to the veteran players, not the owners pockets. A union is supposed to get the best deal for the majority of its members. It's pretty clear that an uncapped situation would benefit a small percentage of the players greatly, but would hurt the majority. Not every player can sign with the cowboys, redskins, and patriots. My guess is that the uncapped year doesn't happen due to an 11th hour agreement. the whole rookie contract situation is a disaster that makes no sense at all. How do you reward a player who has never accomplished anything in the NFL with a contract higher than 99% of the veterans in the league for a player drafted in the top 5 or even top 10. It would be different if the majority of those players became stars in the league, but the majority never live up to their potentials. I would be furious if I was one of the established veterans in the league making barely over the league minimum while some kid in college is paid 70+ million with a big chunk guaranteed for accomplishing nothing in the NFL. Most other sports have a limit with rookie salaries and it is long past the point of the NFL getting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Yes, the rookie cap needs to be implemented. The current situation is not fair to the established vets, but also to the franchise. A miss on a high pick (a la Bills of the last decade) will set your franchise back for many years financially, which is detrimental to your onfield product. Free agency would have to be granted sooner, but this would be a minor problem compared to the current boom or bust scenario with draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners...apped-year.html Thoughts from Player agent Jack Bechta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners...apped-year.htmlThoughts from Player agent Jack Bechta Nice read, Hammer - thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 I would be furious if I was one of the established veterans in the league making barely over the league minimum while some kid in college is paid 70+ million with a big chunk guaranteed for accomplishing nothing in the NFL. Most other sports have a limit with rookie salaries and it is long past the point of the NFL getting one. That kind of happened in the Jason Peters negotiations when he compard himself to OT Jake Long of the fish. When Long signed, he immediately was the top paid tackle in the NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 This was addressed a few months ago in some depth on inside the NFL. They had the head of the players union (Smith?) on and asked him many questions about it. He said that negotiations were ongoing but made it pretty clear that the players union does not want an uncapped year. probably for exactly that reason.A sticking point seemed to be a rookie cap, which he was not fundamentally opposed to. His problem with it was he wanted a guarantee that the money that obviously would no longer be spent on these rookie contracts would somehow go to the veteran players, not the owners pockets. A union is supposed to get the best deal for the majority of its members. It's pretty clear that an uncapped situation would benefit a small percentage of the players greatly, but would hurt the majority. Not every player can sign with the cowboys, redskins, and patriots. My guess is that the uncapped year doesn't happen due to an 11th hour agreement. "Mr. Smith, welcome to Econ 101, where we will discuss how competition, supply and demand, and disposable income will naturally result in a stable, desirable equilibrium. Do you know a Barak Obama? He was supposed to be in this class too....." Prof. Johnson, Hoboken CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts