Will the next CBA make or break the Bills?

[billsfan89]

Next year will be an uncapped season if the Players Union doesn't come to a new deal with the owners. Now if next year goes uncapped will the players once they get a taste of the uncapped season not want to go back to a capped system? If the next CBA removes a hard cap in place of no cap or a soft cap that is a big problem for the Bills.

 

If you think the Bills have a hard time competing with the big boys now than what happens once you remove the spending limit on the owners. Under the current system If the Bills drafted well and find a few diamonds in the ruff via free agency than they get good and become a team that can attract free agents. If you take away the cap it makes the Bills less likely to keep their talent let alone get talent.

 

Another big issue that needs to get resolved by the next CBA is the rookie salary system. If the NFL can do a slotting system were there is some sort of regulation among the first round choices than that makes the draft much more of an equalizer. Right now top five choices aren't that appealing to teams because of the big money you have to give up to get them. If you have a set number for the top picks than you keep rookies from holding out and give more money for teams to keep veteran talent.

 

Another issue with the next CBA is revenue sharing. Big owners want a slanted system that gives the bigger teams who produce more money have to give up less to the smaller market teams. If that goes through than the Bills get less money and become less fiscally viable

 

If the owners can keep the current system and cap rookie salaries than the Bills have a great chance of staying in Buffalo but if they go uncapped and share less money than the Bills are in trouble.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Next year will be an uncapped season if the Players Union doesn't come to a new deal with the owners. Now if next year goes uncapped will the players once they get a taste of the uncapped season not want to go back to a capped system? If the next CBA removes a hard cap in place of no cap or a soft cap that is a big problem for the Bills.

 

If you think the Bills have a hard time competing with the big boys now than what happens once you remove the spending limit on the owners. Under the current system If the Bills drafted well and find a few diamonds in the ruff via free agency than they get good and become a team that can attract free agents. If you take away the cap it makes the Bills less likely to keep their talent let alone get talent.

 

Another big issue that needs to get resolved by the next CBA is the rookie salary system. If the NFL can do a slotting system were there is some sort of regulation among the first round choices than that makes the draft much more of an equalizer. Right now top five choices aren't that appealing to teams because of the big money you have to give up to get them. If you have a set number for the top picks than you keep rookies from holding out and give more money for teams to keep veteran talent.

 

Another issue with the next CBA is revenue sharing. Big owners want a slanted system that gives the bigger teams who produce more money have to give up less to the smaller market teams. If that goes through than the Bills get less money and become less fiscally viable

 

If the owners can keep the current system and cap rookie salaries than the Bills have a great chance of staying in Buffalo but if they go uncapped and share less money than the Bills are in trouble.

While next year is uncapped as far as the maximum, it is also uncapped as far as the MINIMUM. Teams have a minimum they must spend with the cap. Without a cap a CHEAP owner could elect to spend VERY LITTLE. I have been hearing that the players are leery of this & will want to have a cap with a minimum teams must spend in the new CBA.

[billsfan89]

While next year is uncapped as far as the maximum, it is also uncapped as far as the MINIMUM. Teams have a minimum they must spend with the cap. Without a cap a CHEAP owner could elect to spend VERY LITTLE. I have been hearing that the players are leery of this & will want to have a cap with a minimum teams must spend in the new CBA.

 

Well Owners are more likely to take advantage of lack of a maximum than a minimum (as seen in hockey and baseballs stupid spending when there was no cap or luxury tax in either sport). If there was no minimum than the revenue sharing would likely be changed to as well to reflect that.

[VOR]

Well Owners are more likely to take advantage of lack of a maximum than a minimum

Doubtful. The owners will want to teach the players a lesson. As much as it will pain Jones, Snyder, and Davis, they'll be forced by the other owners to spend as little as they can.

[billsfan89]

Doubtful. The owners will want to teach the players a lesson. As much as it will pain Jones, Snyder, and Davis, they'll be forced by the other owners to spend as little as they can.

 

All it takes is one dumb owner that really wants to win to screw it up. As far as collusion goes I doubt it, if they get found to be colluding that will cost them a ton of money (as seen in the case of baseball collusion). Some owners want to win they often don't see the big picture of the league.

[VOR]

All it takes is one dumb owner that really wants to win to screw it up. As far as collusion goes I doubt it, if they get found to be colluding that will cost them a ton of money (as seen in the case of baseball collusion). Some owners want to win they often don't see the big picture of the league.

For starters, I don't think that collusion applies here. Second of all, while it would seem obvious, it would be hard to prove.

[nucci]

If there is an uncapped year, which I doubt as I think owners will lock players out if there is no agreement, players have to have 6 years before they become UFA. Expect to see more holdouts as movement will be restricted and teams have control of their players longer.

[DIE HARD 1967]

I think the rookies should play for free.

 

Stay out of trouble and we will pay you minimum wage after one year

 

$12,500 per year, but we will give you free health care

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

There's also a whole lot of rules about who can sign FA etc, It's not as good as you think it would look for the players. Only teams that lose FA can sign one or something like that. Top rated teams can't sign as many players as lower ranked teams, Whole bunch of rules, so doubt players would be too in favor of this either.

[billsfan89]

If there is an uncapped year, which I doubt as I think owners will lock players out if there is no agreement, players have to have 6 years before they become UFA. Expect to see more holdouts as movement will be restricted and teams have control of their players longer.

 

Well the real reason for players to love it is because it would raise salaries all across the board. For example if player X is a free agent and gets more money than he should because of an uncapped year than when player Y is a free agent a year from now he can ask for more because his stats are better than player X. If salaries go up because of no cap the going rate for future free agents is likely to go up.

 

If the players didn't want it why did they lobby for the 2010 season to be uncapped in the last CBA? The players want the uncapped year to go through. As for collusion being hard to prove its not as hard as you think because the baseball players proved it back in the 1980's and got something to the tune of 280 million dollars in compensation during the early 1990's.

 

I am not saying an uncapped year would spell doom for the Bills but it could be a step towards pricing the Bills out of Buffalo.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Well the real reason for players to love it is because it would raise salaries all across the board. For example if player X is a free agent and gets more money than he should because of an uncapped year than when player Y is a free agent a year from now he can ask for more because his stats are better than player X. If salaries go up because of no cap the going rate for future free agents is likely to go up.

 

If the players didn't want it why did they lobby for the 2010 season to be uncapped in the last CBA? The players want the uncapped year to go through. As for collusion being hard to prove its not as hard as you think because the baseball players proved it back in the 1980's and got something to the tune of 280 million dollars in compensation during the early 1990's.

 

I am not saying an uncapped year would spell doom for the Bills but it could be a step towards pricing the Bills out of Buffalo.

There will be no collusion. Jerry & Danny will SPEND to buy a championship in the uncapped year. The problem for the players is the other 29 owners. If no one else spends only a FEW players will get RICH & the rest of the players will be like the rest of us facing a down economy. They will struggle to maintain their current income. If there is no new CBA before the uncapped year there will be soon after.................................& it will have a Rookie Cap & a General Cap with both a Maximum & Minimum.

[GripnRip]

There's also a whole lot of rules about who can sign FA etc, It's not as good as you think it would look for the players. Only teams that lose FA can sign one or something like that. Top rated teams can't sign as many players as lower ranked teams, Whole bunch of rules, so doubt players would be too in favor of this either.

 

Very important. There are tons of stipulations and rules that are in place to prevent a complete breakdown of team balancing. I remember hearing them laid out in detail a while ago and thinking to myself a strike is much more probable than an uncapped year.

[DazedandConfused]

I think the key thing to remember here is that it ain't the NFL of your Grandma's day anymore where the owners pretended it was a free market system and team ownership was a test of individuals with the best man (or Georgia Frontiere if she inherited from a dead husband) won.

 

The key was the mid-80 when the owners used the lockout of the players to kick the butt of the unionistas led by Ed Garvery who demanded 52% of the total gross receipts. This would have not only made the deal between the NFL and NFL a partnership but lay the ground for calling the players the majority partners.

 

They kicked the players butts so badly that in fact the player leadership which was a college educated crew (a side-effect of the MFL owners fostering a situation where unlike most of the other major sports leagues they got the NCAA buttressed by your tax dollars paying for state colleges like most of the Big Ten, University of Texas, U Nebraska, etc to pay for training their potential players. The badly weakened NFLPA still colluded with the owners to run a player draft which eliminated the rights of adults to sell their services to any team they wanted) listened and bought into the schemes of a bunch of smart NYC lawyers.

 

The NFLPA threatened after the mid 80s spanking to simply dissolve their union and to thus force the individual team owners to actually live in a free market where they simply competed financially to buy the best players they could buy.

 

The rule for running the league would simply have been the Golden Rule- He who has the gold and is willing to spend it willie-nillie on football rules.

 

The irony here is that in the face of a choice between sticking to free market principles and creating a race between lack of competitive balance and the uncertainty of producing a sustainable product that labor disputes brings with it as to which would kill the NFL first, instead the owners opted for a CBA which even with the fig leaf of the designated gross was now a partnership between the owners and players.

 

Even this fig leaf was ripped away when with the newest CBA, Upshaw and the NFLPA insisted that now the cap would cover the entire gross and they dictated that the % of the total gross allocated to the players needed to start with a 6.

 

The final deal was for 60.5% as the old guard embodied by Ralph took every penny that the players deemed to give them. In the end only Ralph and the silly Bengals were unwilling to scream thank you sir can I have another as the NFLPA and Tagliabue bent them over the table and dictated the outline of the final deal.

 

In the end, what ruled the day was the dollar. Even with only 39.5% of the total receipts the owners could not get paid big bucks by the networks that they ever saw with the old deal where they had their pride but in the end $ ruled the day. This is particularly true with a significant number of teams mortgaged out the eyeballs so that they could not withstand long at all the loss of revenue if the networks refused to pay them the big bucks because they did not deliver football games that the networks sell commercials around.

 

My guess is that in the end the team owners fold like trailer in a tornado as there are simply too many bucks to be made from settling for a CBA which gives them 39.5% if a lot rather than having 60%+ of nothing,

[GripnRip]

^^^baked, no doubt about it.

 

edit 2:43am: me too dude

[Mr. WEO]

Doubtful. The owners will want to teach the players a lesson. As much as it will pain Jones, Snyder, and Davis, they'll be forced by the other owners to spend as little as they can.

 

Can you see Earth from your planet?

[nucci]

Well the real reason for players to love it is because it would raise salaries all across the board. For example if player X is a free agent and gets more money than he should because of an uncapped year than when player Y is a free agent a year from now he can ask for more because his stats are better than player X. If salaries go up because of no cap the going rate for future free agents is likely to go up.

 

If the players didn't want it why did they lobby for the 2010 season to be uncapped in the last CBA? The players want the uncapped year to go through. As for collusion being hard to prove its not as hard as you think because the baseball players proved it back in the 1980's and got something to the tune of 280 million dollars in compensation during the early 1990's.

 

I am not saying an uncapped year would spell doom for the Bills but it could be a step towards pricing the Bills out of Buffalo.

You will see less UFA because of the 6 year rule so salaries will not go up as many think. Teams get an extra franchise tag also. There will be less player movement and only a select few will get to be UFA.

[VOR]

Can you see Earth from your planet?

After that embarrassment of a CBA Jones, Snyder, and Kraft assured everyone was so great, only to see it killed just 2 years later, putting them in this predicament, yeah, the last owners to go on a spending spree will be these three jokers.

[Ramius]

Well the real reason for players to love it is because it would raise salaries all across the board. For example if player X is a free agent and gets more money than he should because of an uncapped year than when player Y is a free agent a year from now he can ask for more because his stats are better than player X. If salaries go up because of no cap the going rate for future free agents is likely to go up.

 

If the players didn't want it why did they lobby for the 2010 season to be uncapped in the last CBA? The players want the uncapped year to go through. As for collusion being hard to prove its not as hard as you think because the baseball players proved it back in the 1980's and got something to the tune of 280 million dollars in compensation during the early 1990's.

 

I am not saying an uncapped year would spell doom for the Bills but it could be a step towards pricing the Bills out of Buffalo.

 

Salaries will NOT go up across the board. With the cap gone, you'll most likely see the top few percent of players getting crazy contracts, while the rest of the players will be getting a lot less. With no minimum cap, theres nothing to prevent a team like cincy from fielding a florida-marlins like team with 50 million in payroll for 53 players.

 

Think about it. If Danny Snyder decides to spend an extra 100 million in payroll, is he going to give huge contracts to mediocre guys? No. He'll give astronomical deals to the top FAs. Meanwhile, the remainder of the FAs will get much less. Chances are he'll spend that 100 mil by giving 4 guys 25 million more, not by giving 25 guys 4 million more.

[billsfan89]

Salaries will NOT go up across the board. With the cap gone, you'll most likely see the top few percent of players getting crazy contracts, while the rest of the players will be getting a lot less. With no minimum cap, theres nothing to prevent a team like cincy from fielding a florida-marlins like team with 50 million in payroll for 53 players.

 

Think about it. If Danny Snyder decides to spend an extra 100 million in payroll, is he going to give huge contracts to mediocre guys? No. He'll give astronomical deals to the top FAs. Meanwhile, the remainder of the FAs will get much less. Chances are he'll spend that 100 mil by giving 4 guys 25 million more, not by giving 25 guys 4 million more.

 

Danny Snyder is not the only owner who would spend more to get the players he wants. Other guys like Jerry Jones, Aurthur Blank, Woody Johnson, Robert Kraft, The Mara and Tish families that own the Giants and the new owner of the Dolphins Steve Ross are all going to want to spend money. Once player X gets big money, player Y on the St.Louis Rams is going to hold out to get money. The excuse of the cap goes out the window and it only becomes about the money.

 

Once the top ten owners throw out big money on good not great players than the good and great players will hold out to get the big money that those players got. It becomes a domino effect it happens in all sports why is the NFL immune from stupid owners? Hockey and Basketball all had uncapped systems in which the owners went nuts and overinflated the salary structure which in turn resulted in holdouts that resulted in a capped system. Even Baseball which has no cap added the luxury tax and more revenue sharing to further balance the league.

 

Football is able to fall into the same trap that other sports fell into and as a Bills fan that worries me.

[SF Bills Fan]

I'm not too scared of an uncapped year. I think the system will maintain itself. Jerry Jones has lots of money, but he is struggling to pay for his stadium in a bad economy. He can't go nuts and steal every player. Most owners are sane and know that rocking the boat would be a bad for the league. The NFL would not exist if there were 5 teams that beat all the other teams by 35 points every time they played. Now if it stayed uncapped, over time a system of haves and have nots would emerge and it would be more subtle, but it would make a difference. And we would deinitely have not.