Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Everyone knows that the owners have already backed out of extending the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the players (NFLPA). As it stands, 2009 will be "normal". There will be no salary cap (or bottom) in 2010 [there are new restrictions on the definition of free agency- more years of service for players to qualify - restrictions on how many FAs the playoff teams can sign away from others, etc]. By 2011, there would be no CBA extant, and the owners might likely lockout the players to break the NFLPA. The owners want the bigger slice of the revenue pie, not the smaller piece they get now. Who knows the details? Who cares to speculate on the outcome(s)? Which teams suffer most in a lockout? Teams paying off rich new stadiums, small market teams? In other words where does it go after it hits the fan? If this has already been picked apart, please excuse me. I'm a newbie here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Everyone knows that the owners have already backed out of extending the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the players (NFLPA). As it stands, 2009 will be "normal". There will be no salary cap (or bottom) in 2010 [there are new restrictions on the definition of free agency- more years of service for players to qualify - restrictions on how many FAs the playoff teams can sign away from others, etc]. By 2011, there would be no CBA extant, and the owners might likely lockout the players to break the NFLPA. The owners want the bigger slice of the revenue pie, not the smaller piece they get now. Who knows the details? Who cares to speculate on the outcome(s)? Which teams suffer most in a lockout? Teams paying off rich new stadiums, small market teams? In other words where does it go after it hits the fan? If this has already been picked apart, please excuse me. I'm a newbie here... I think if there is no agreement before next year, there will be a lockout and no season in 2010. I think the restrictions you mention are very favorable to the owners and not so much to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think if there is no agreement before next year, there will be a lockout and no season in 2010. I think the restrictions you mention are very favorable to the owners and not so much to the players. Teams with expensive new stadiums will almost have to give in to the NFLPA because they cant afford to not make money to pay off their Billion dollar stadiums. Unfortunately the Jerry Jones of the world IMO are horrible for football. Its big business now and small teams like the Bills, Jags, Bengals all hurt from it. Lets just hope the majority doesnt give into the big money demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 Teams with expensive new stadiums will almost have to give in to the NFLPA because they cant afford to not make money to pay off their Billion dollar stadiums. Unfortunately the Jerry Jones of the world IMO are horrible for football. Its big business now and small teams like the Bills, Jags, Bengals all hurt from it. Lets just hope the majority doesnt give into the big money demands. I know that the owners got a long term deal with DirectTV that provides $4 billion whether there's a NFLPA lockout in 2011, or not. That gives them a nice lever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Teams with expensive new stadiums will almost have to give in to the NFLPA because they cant afford to not make money to pay off their Billion dollar stadiums. Unfortunately the Jerry Jones of the world IMO are horrible for football. Its big business now and small teams like the Bills, Jags, Bengals all hurt from it. Lets just hope the majority doesnt give into the big money demands. not to sound like a jerk, but this is often referred to as capitalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 not to sound like a jerk, but... Translation: "I'm a jerk, and here's what I think..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 Here's all 361 pages of the current CBA: cba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 not to sound like a jerk, but this is often referred to as capitalism It's only logical as capitalism if Jerry Jones' goal is to drive the smaller market teams out of business. Which would only make sense if the extinction of half the league would lead to twice as many games played at the new Texas Stadium and an according share of the TV revenues going his way. This is just a badly managed corporation - and the NFL has 'franchises' but it really operates more like one company. Imagine if this was GE instead of the NFL - Jerry Jones is the head of NBC who just took out a billion dollar loan when the company is facing a general strike, and is now insisting that the rest of the company give in to all demands, thus driving Universal and the manufacturing divisions out of business. That wouldn't be good for GE, and Jones isn't good for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 Good article on how the owners have a strategy in place, and what the deal is on free agent signings in an uncapped 2010: owners' strategy & free agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 The upcoming possibility of a lock out reminds me of the NBA and NHL lock outs. In both leagues the owners wanted a salary cap with max salaries. In basketball the owners knew that they couldn't control their own spending because one guy could have so much impact on one team. So they put in a soft cap with a luxury tax and max salaries. The owners didn't care about losing a season they knew the league couldn't continue in its current form. The result was a lockout that cost two thirds of a season and the owners got what they wanted in the form of controlling their own spending. In the NHL they wanted a hard cap so bad. Than they demanded a 18% roll back in salaries (The players thought if they offered that there would be no cap) and they demanded a max contract system on top of that. The NHL lost a season but they got a system that made the league more profitable. In the NHL they went from a league that had 14 to 17 teams losing money to now only having 4-6 teams taking a loss each year. In the NBA they temporarily solved their fiscal woes (Although now a lot of NBA teams are losing money big time). In the NFL you have owners who want more of the pie (As well as a war between the owners over revenue sharing) as well as to keep the capped league and a NFL draft slotting system. You have players who see the basketball and baseball players getting huge deals in drastically less popular leagues and they want more. The players want more benefits and guarantees. The players also want to get rid of the cap as well due to the upcoming uncapped year. The players get 60% of the revenue the owners think that is too much. The NFL players hate the cap and hate the ungauarenteed money. Both have war chests designed to out last each other. The players continue to add to a 210 million dollar fund designed for the upcoming strike. The owner have a Billion Dollar TV contract with direct TV that gives them money even if they don't play. The owners also have provisions in their other TV contracts that give them some money in a lock out. But here is the million dollar question. Will the players cross the line if the NFL owners go to replacement players? And will the fans watch the replacements (Not the campy movie)? Both of those things can give each side the leverage they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 The upcoming possibility of a lock out reminds me of the NBA and NHL lock outs. In both leagues the owners wanted a salary cap with max salaries. In basketball the owners knew that they couldn't control their own spending because one guy could have so much impact on one team. So they put in a soft cap with a luxury tax and max salaries. The owners didn't care about losing a season they knew the league couldn't continue in its current form. The result was a lockout that cost two thirds of a season and the owners got what they wanted in the form of controlling their own spending. In the NHL they wanted a hard cap so bad. Than they demanded a 18% roll back in salaries (The players thought if they offered that there would be no cap) and they demanded a max contract system on top of that. The NHL lost a season but they got a system that made the league more profitable. In the NHL they went from a league that had 14 to 17 teams losing money to now only having 4-6 teams taking a loss each year. In the NBA they temporarily solved their fiscal woes (Although now a lot of NBA teams are losing money big time). In the NFL you have owners who want more of the pie (As well as a war between the owners over revenue sharing) as well as to keep the capped league and a NFL draft slotting system. You have players who see the basketball and baseball players getting huge deals in drastically less popular leagues and they want more. The players want more benefits and guarantees. The players also want to get rid of the cap as well due to the upcoming uncapped year. The players get 60% of the revenue the owners think that is too much. The NFL players hate the cap and hate the ungauarenteed money. Both have war chests designed to out last each other. The players continue to add to a 210 million dollar fund designed for the upcoming strike. The owner have a Billion Dollar TV contract with direct TV that gives them money even if they don't play. The owners also have provisions in their other TV contracts that give them some money in a lock out. But here is the million dollar question. Will the players cross the line if the NFL owners go to replacement players? And will the fans watch the replacements (Not the campy movie)? Both of those things can give each side the leverage they need. Good analysis. I remember that I didn't actually watch any replacement player games, the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 not to sound like a jerk, but this is often referred to as capitalism The NFL is more like a partnership with each team's owner as a partner. The same NFL that provides the small market teams with revenue protections also protects the Jerry Joneses and Bobby Crafts of the world from worrying about competing NFL teams in the same city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Billistic, you might be interested in this thread: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=91145 Plenty of good, reasoned discussion on various aspects of the CBA therein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 Billistic, you might be interested in this thread: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=91145 Plenty of good, reasoned discussion on various aspects of the CBA therein. Thanks so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts