Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Progress....get it done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I like the framework of the new deal, pending what exactly the rookie wage scale looks like. 4 years until UFA is nice, because that leaves RFAs in play. Looks like the players tucked their tails between their legs in accepting only 48%. I know the owners don't get the billion off the top, but 48% is less than what they were getting previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I like the framework of the new deal, pending what exactly the rookie wage scale looks like. 4 years until UFA is nice, because that leaves RFAs in play. Looks like the players tucked their tails between their legs in accepting only 48%. I know the owners don't get the billion off the top, but 48% is less than what they were getting previously. Really it's 2% they're giving up though isn't it Ramius for cap floor being raised and long-term health issues? In the long run, to me with that both sides win. If you can make more for your general body and not just the high flyers money wise and keep yourselves on the NFL Pension/Healthcare longer, that's a fair deal. Edited June 21, 2011 by LynchMob23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really it's 2% they're giving up though isn't it Ramius for cap floor being raised and long-term health issues? In the long run, to me with that both sides win. If you can make more for your general body and not just the high flyers money wise and keep yourselves on the NFL Pension/Healthcare longer, that's a fair deal. I agree that it seems both sides could benefit from this. The owners get some more dough for their stadiums and whatnot, and the players get a better guaranteed chunk (Since they'll always get at least 46%). Anything that funnels more money to retired players is ok in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 According to the article, Smith estimates players were really getting 53% of "all revenue" under the old deal, so dropping to 48% is significant. The players are accepting a simpler formula and banking on the league's growth potential. The more interesting discussions, in my opinion, are in the owners meetings. I envision the cliques of owners recruiting/persuading/strong-arming others to either sign on or fight the proposal. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 According to the article, Smith estimates players were really getting 53% of "all revenue" under the old deal, so dropping to 48% is significant. The players are accepting a simpler formula and banking on the league's growth potential. The more interesting discussions, in my opinion, are in the owners meetings. I envision the cliques of owners recruiting/persuading/strong-arming others to either sign on or fight the proposal. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those meetings. Basically anything that the two sides can agree to is going to be "fair" to both parties since in the big picture both the owners and the players are making money off this that they do deserve. Get er done and pronto so as not to disrupt the season at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I like that they're talking about a ten year contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 That seems like a pretty healthy concession on the player side. If a rookie cap is also a part of the deal, I wonder what the owners are giving up besides better health care benefits. Someone in another thread was mentioning how owners would be required to spend at least 90% of the cap on total salaries and was thinking about how that relates to a rookie salary cap. It seems that if rookie salaries are held in check and owners will be required to spend at least to 90% of the cap that veteran players would stand to benefit. Just speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 That seems like a pretty healthy concession on the player side. If a rookie cap is also a part of the deal, I wonder what the owners are giving up besides better health care benefits. Someone in another thread was mentioning how owners would be required to spend at least 90% of the cap on total salaries and was thinking about how that relates to a rookie salary cap. It seems that if rookie salaries are held in check and owners will be required to spend at least to 90% of the cap that veteran players would stand to benefit. Just speculating. Article says minimum 90-93% of the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I like the framework of the new deal, pending what exactly the rookie wage scale looks like. 4 years until UFA is nice, because that leaves RFAs in play. Looks like the players tucked their tails between their legs in accepting only 48%. I know the owners don't get the billion off the top, but 48% is less than what they were getting previously. i think the players are shaving a little off the top, but the Owners were asking for 2 billion off the top when this started. I don't see it as a tail between the legs at all.. the players held strong and got a solid deal.. The owners wanted more and got less then what they wanted as well.. SO both sides made adjustments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 That seems like a pretty healthy concession on the player side. If a rookie cap is also a part of the deal, I wonder what the owners are giving up besides better health care benefits. Someone in another thread was mentioning how owners would be required to spend at least 90% of the cap on total salaries and was thinking about how that relates to a rookie salary cap. It seems that if rookie salaries are held in check and owners will be required to spend at least to 90% of the cap that veteran players would stand to benefit. Just speculating. Agreed that the rookie salary cap idea is beneficial to both the team owners and the vets as money set aside for rookies is money that will not go to the vets. I think the NFLPA though sees rookie salaries as providing a basis for contracts overall to continually be bid up so setting a rookie cap may not benefit players in the long run. However, since other items are secured like raising the minimum which teams must spend this takes away a method teams might have used to never divy up the take with the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Agreed that the rookie salary cap idea is beneficial to both the team owners and the vets as money set aside for rookies is money that will not go to the vets. I think the NFLPA though sees rookie salaries as providing a basis for contracts overall to continually be bid up so setting a rookie cap may not benefit players in the long run. However, since other items are secured like raising the minimum which teams must spend this takes away a method teams might have used to never divy up the take with the players. Regarding a new rookie wage scale, none of the arguments in favor of maintaining something close to the status quo on rookie wage scales makes any sense. The last salary cap in 2009 was about $125 million. If the new CBA stipulates that the teams have to spend to 90% of the cap, that would establish a cap floor of $112.5 million. If every team has to spend at least $112.5 million, what difference does it make to the agents? As a group they'll get the same amount of money in commissions regardless of whether that money goes to rookies or to veterans. And as to Super Agent Tom Condon's comments about big rookie salaries setting the bar for veteran contracts… if they do go back to 4 years for free agency moving closer to true free agency… then the market for the top players at each position will be determined the way they should have been in the first place… by the free agent contracts given to veteran players. Am I wrong and if so, can someone explain to me what I'm missing because none of the arguments supporting the current absurdity in top rookie contracts makes any sense to me? Maybe Condon and the top agents are just trying to maintain their lucrative market of big-name rookie clients… because that's the niche market for some of these agents. But like I already said, the device that drives the top contracts shouldn't be rookie contracts but rather the contracts awarded to veterans in free agency. On a related subject, it will also be interesting to see what happens with the franchise tag and transition tag because it could be argued that these tags help suppress salaries. For instance, Logan Mankins was named the Patsies* franchise player so as a result, his contract will not increase the top pay at his position. Mankins would "only" be able to make the average of the top five players at his position… whereas if he were a true free agent, he'd possibly become the highest paid player at his position, thus also increasing the average pay at that position. Edited June 21, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 i think the players are shaving a little off the top, but the Owners were asking for 2 billion off the top when this started. I don't see it as a tail between the legs at all.. the players held strong and got a solid deal.. The owners wanted more and got less then what they wanted as well.. SO both sides made adjustments... Assuming 9.2 billion revenues last year, under the old CBA, players got (at most) 60% of 8.2 billion, or 4.92 billion. Under the new contract (assuming this report is accurate) they would have gotten 4.42 billion---a 1/2 billion less. Even if you say the players only got 53% under the old CBA, that's 4.35 billion. If the owners use the same accounting that turned 60% into 53% on the old CBA, in the new CBA they will likely knock 48% to 46% or 4.23 billion (102 million less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hate to interrupt this unbelievably interesting numbers discussion, but the thing that stuck out to me more than anything was the idea of a 16-game Thursday Night schedule starting in 2012. I dig it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hate to interrupt this unbelievably interesting numbers discussion, but the thing that stuck out to me more than anything was the idea of a 16-game Thursday Night schedule starting in 2012. I dig it. That stood out to me too. And San Jose Bills Fan, reading your last post made my head hurt. I think I'm to the point where I just don't care what they decide. I just want football, dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) That stood out to me too. And San Jose Bills Fan, reading your last post made my head hurt. I think I'm to the point where I just don't care what they decide. I just want football, dammit. Yeah, I know. Me too. I just don't understand why the agents supposedly think that the rookie contracts are so damn important. It doesn' make sense to me. I'm looking forward to football too… But first… FREE AGENCY!!! Edited June 21, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-No Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Get er done and pronto so as not to disrupt the season at all. I wouldn't cry if the pre-season games were lost....waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Surprised that nobody yet has commented on this paragraph from the article: "The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hate to interrupt this unbelievably interesting numbers discussion, but the thing that stuck out to me more than anything was the idea of a 16-game Thursday Night schedule starting in 2012. I dig it. Yeah that stood out to me as well. So they want to have a Thursday game every week of the season? If so that seems a bit much. Also, won't that cut into college football's weeknight games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts