View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 23rd, 2014, 7:24 am



Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Uncapped Year or New CBA for next season? 
Author Message
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7482
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post 
slybri19 wrote:
Since the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years, how many of them do you think are going to want to sit out an entire season? If they try to play hardball, they will lose out on an entire year of making big bucks that they will never get back. That will weigh heavily on their decision, but I'm afraid that the NFLPA is gearing up for a court fight instead. If that happens, you may want to kiss football goodbye for even longer than a year. Hopefully, both sides won't be that stupid.


Well, the Players hired a Trial Lawyer to do their bidding. Does anyone really think he will get a deal done without a work stoppage? I don't.


March 2nd, 2010, 2:17 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
I've heard rumblings about this for awhile now:
National Football Post wrote:
What if there is no lockout? Owners may have one more weapon in their arsenal. Robert Boland

There’s an alternative to the NFL locking out the players after the 2010 season, and it’s one that hasn’t been discussed much. Except, that is, by noted sports attorney David Cornwell, who let the cat out of the bag in a story in USA Today on Wednesday.

You recall that Cornwell was a finalist for the NFL Players Association executive director position that went to DeMaurice Smith. Cornwell suggested that the owners have still another weapon in their arsenal that isn’t quite the nuclear option that’s a lockout but is still a strong conventional weapon – that’s to bargain to impasse and impose new work rules after an impasse is declared. The courts have consistently supported the rights of sports leagues doing just that, provided the new terms “are reasonably comprehended within the employer’s pre-impasse proposals” -- typically the last rejected proposal. So that proposed 18-percent salary cut the owners suggested takes on new significance in this context.

NFL owners won in court on exactly this subject in Brown v. Pro Football in 1996 with regard to developmental squads, saying that the non-statutory labor exemption protected impasse rule imposition.

Don’t give up your market share just to be right

It certainly wouldn’t be ideal to impose work rules, absent a collective bargaining agreement, but if you’re the NFL, you also have to be thinking of effective ways to avoid a lockout. A big factor in the league’s dominance in sports money in the U.S. is that it has gone a generation without a work stoppage. Only people in their late 30s and 40s remember the 1987 strike, replacement players and a one-game lockout.

Most of us only vaguely recall a time when the NFL didn’t have a salary cap and labor peace. So if you’re someone working on strategy in the NFL offices at 280 Park Ave. in New York, you also deep down want to avoid the problems the NHL, NBA and MLB have had losing parts of seasons and championships to lockouts or strikes and having to struggle to recover. The NFL doesn’t want to cede control of the American sports scene to any other sport just to fight a long, ugly battle over money with its players. It doesn’t want college football, soccer or motorcycles on ice filling their time on the air and in the public consciousness. Football also isn’t in as strong a position culturally in 2010 as it’s been in other times in its history. Sure, record numbers of people watch football, but fewer and fewer are playing it. It was structurally stronger in 1972 and 1987, but not now -- with globalization, much more competition from other media, head injuries, dogfighting and a lower of percentage of American kids growing up playing the game today -- that position isn’t quite as stable. And unlike the NHL and NBA, where more than half the teams lose money, or MLB, where teams don’t lose money but spend so little they have no chance to win, virtually every NFL team makes some money and there’s competitive balance. If you don’t believe the latter, just say the words, “World Champion New Orleans Saints.”

Appearing to welcome the fight

Nobody in the league office is probably ready to admit it, but the NFL doesn’t want a lockout. Yet the greatest leverage in any adversarial relationship is gained when the other side believes its opponent not only doesn’t fear a knock-down, drag-out fight, it in fact welcomes one. The league is giving every sign it’s ready to go to the mattress on this, including hiring the lawyer, Bob Batterman of Proskauer, Rose, who orchestrated the NHL’s 2004-05 lockout. But the thought that there’s another way – one that can both save money since those work rules will have a cut in player compensation and keep making it by playing -- must seem pretty appealing. The owners will probably publicly shoot this idea down soon, claiming that it will only spark an attempt by the union to decertify and sue in antitrust, especially if the American Needle case doesn’t turn out completely in the league’s favor.

But denying something doesn’t make it untrue, and as this yearlong game of brinksmanship goes on, expect to hear more about the possibility of bargaining to impasse and imposing new work rules as an option to avoiding a work stoppage.

To borrow a metaphor from another sport, it would put the ball squarely in the union’s court, forcing it to have to consider striking if it thinks the owners’ proposal is too small.

If the owners lockout the players, they would be perceived as the bad guy. If the owners impose new work rules and the union takes them to court, then the players would be perceived as the bad guy. I actually like this idea and it could succeed as long as the owners offer a fair proposal to the players first.

_________________
Image


March 4th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3235
Location: Maryland
Post 
Quote:
Salary cap report, if there were a salary cap
Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2010 1:39 PM ET
[Editor's note: Here are the team-by-team salary cap figures, if there were a salary cap in place this year. The numbers are current, but some contracts from the past couple of days are not yet reflected.]

AFC East

Buffalo Bills: $98 million.

Miami Dolphins: $112 million.

New England Patriots: $112 million.

New York Jets: $120 million.

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens: $117 million.

Cincinnati Bengals: $85 million.

Cleveland Browns: $101 million.

Pittsburgh Steelers: $116 million.

AFC South

Houston Texans: $114 million.

Indianapolis Colts: $124 million.

Jacksonville Jaguars: $81 million.

Tennessee Titans: $115 million.

AFC West

Denver Broncos: $105 million.

Kansas City Chiefs: $79 million.

Oakland Raiders: $132 million.

San Diego Chargers: $104 million.

NFC East

Dallas Cowboys: $153 million.

New York Giants: $118 million.

Philadelphia Eagles: $124 million.

Washington Redskins: $134 million.

NFC North

Chicago Bears: $132 million.

Detroit Lions: $106 million.

Green Bay Packers: $126 million.

Minnesota Vikings: $134 million.

NFC South

Atlanta Falcons: $117 million.

Carolina Panthers: $104 million.

New Orleans Saints: $135 million.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: $79 million.

NFC West

Arizona Cardinals: $91 million.

St. Louis Rams: $92 million.

San Francisco 49ers: $109 million.

Seattle Seahawks: $122 million.


Here are the numbers if there was a cap this year. Many teams are under the salary floor from last year ($107M) and several are over the cap from last year ($123M).


March 14th, 2010, 2:18 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12202
Post 
I find it interesting that the Lions have the lowest in the NFC North, I thought Minni was supposed to have tons of space left???


Quote:
NFC North

Chicago Bears: $132 million.

Detroit Lions: $106 million.

Green Bay Packers: $126 million.

Minnesota Vikings: $134 million.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 15th, 2010, 9:59 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
I know which NFLPA report that PFT got those numbers from and they would be very misleading this year. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it, but I have seen it before. Without a cap in place, none of it matters. If anything, it shows which teams are taking advantage of the situation and which ones are not. Over a year ago, I posted somewhere that the Cowboys would be looking forward to the uncapped year since they had so much money committed to this season. Now, they can pay out the $153M without having to restructure or cut anyone. It's a win for them and other teams like the Redskins, Vikings, Bears, Raiders, and Saints.

Those numbers don't show it, but it also benefits the Lions. They had NLTBE incentives (log bonuses) for Stafford, Pettigrew, and Delmas of approximately $12M which would have been a negative cap adjustment if there was a cap in place. Now, it doesn't matter. They also did something tricky with bonuses for CJ of $4M last year and $6M this season. They were supposed to be prorated at $3M per year over the remainder of his contract, but now they won't.

_________________
Image


March 15th, 2010, 10:47 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7482
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post 
Any bets on the Lions redoing the contracts of Stafford and CJ and some others next February?

They can get around the 10% by ripping up the existing contract and doing a whole new deal.

By doing so, they can advance a big part of the new contract to this league year, since it is un-capped, and make the remainder of the new contracts extremely cap friendly.


March 16th, 2010, 10:30 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
Billy, any contracts renegotiated or extended during the uncapped year must adhere to the 30% rule. Therefore, I can't see them doing anything major with CJ's or Stafford's contract at this time. As I said earlier, they did tweak a couple things to take advantage of the situation, but there isn't much more that they can do.

_________________
Image


March 16th, 2010, 12:29 pm
Profile
Post 
I really don't think that teams trying to take advantage of the uncapped year will do themselves any great favors... Why? Because the top teams, the teams that the NFL has an interest in protecting, don't seem to be doing it... There will just be a clause in the CBA that a percentage of the penalty will be included, making the gain in the salary cap marginal at best, and probably not worth the offset... Don't forget, when you pay someone too much upfront for services to be rendered later, you do effect their motivation to do a good job. People want to pretend that these guys aren't human, but they are... Not to mention the fact that even though they're getting paid now, they can still hold out later for more money...


March 16th, 2010, 1:38 pm
1st Round Pick
User avatar

Joined: January 1st, 2008, 8:03 pm
Posts: 1213
Post 
Bill Ford Jr. attends NFL meetings, perhaps for labor expertise
By NICHOLAS J. COTSONIKA FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER

Share this:Buzz up!
•Post a Comment
•Recommend

ORLANDO – Lions vice chairman Bill Ford Jr. is attending the NFL owners’ meetings for the first time since 2008, which is interesting because the league is in the midst of a labor showdown.


Ford’s first priority is the Ford Motor Co., and he isn’t on any league committees. But the labor situation was the main reason he was in Palm Beach, Fla., two years ago.


“There are a lot of issues now facing the NFL where I think I can weigh in, particularly labor issues where I’ve had a lot of experience over the years,” Ford said then. “I think most of the owners here have not. The commissioner’s asked me. He’s called me and said, ‘Please come and please weigh in on labor issues because we really need your expertise.’ And so I’m glad to.”


Ford hasn’t given any interviews this year – at least not yet. (We're working on it.)


Asked if Ford was here for labor reasons, Lions president Tom Lewand, who is on a labor committee, said: “It’s because he can be, and he’s been here when he can. I’m thrilled to have him here. It’s great. He brings a great perspective to a lot of the different issues because of everything he’s gone through at Ford. … He wanted to be here. I think that’s great – great for us.”


Lions owner William Clay Ford Sr. generally does not attend the NFL annual meeting.


March 22nd, 2010, 12:34 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Uncapped Year or New CBA for next season?
Not looking any better...

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/NFL?vid= ... /headlines

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 4th, 2010, 5:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.