aabtec

I have a sinking feeling that the NFLPA is over playing its hand. The fact of the matter is that there 5-6 teams that are very smart and undertsand how to run a business. The rest of teams don't have that ability to maximize revenues. These teams will depend heavily on the draft to stock their teams with players. There willbe about 200 players on winning teams..Of those players atleast half of them will be tied to rookie contracts. So how many players will hit the big payday. There will be a few big splashed but not alot. Too many teams will spend to their minimum.

JoeSixPat

I think its anyone's guess what could and would happen with no CBA

Clearly no CBA means no cap, but it also means no revenue sharing agreement with the players.

You'd see the haves and the have nots among the teams and among the players

Some teams and players would do better, others (most) would do worse.

Top tier players might still get guaranteed salaries or bonuses, but most would not.

The game of chicken is over the additional revenue that teams get - and the players want a piece of that pie. But there's no simple answer on how to divide that up among the team owners, let alone the players.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

shatch62

According to Upshaw, if a new CBA is not agreed upon they will dissolve the union. The logic being no union and the owners will not have the legal right to have a lock out. Right now, the NFL avoids an anti trust lawsuit because the owners and union agree on the work conditions. If there is not Union and league owners threaten a lock-out, the players could sue the league for imposing unfair work rules.

Two things that will hurt the players if there is no salary cap:

1) League will become like baseball. While it true that some teams will spend a lot to win a championship, there will also be no minimum-spending limit. Teams could go out and be the Marlins of the NFL. 45 guys making league minimum. Redskins could be the Yankees of the league and Jacksonville (for example) could say “screw it. Why spend $65 million on salaries to lose when I can spend $30 million, still lose and keep the extra $35 million.”
It would take longer to be a free-agent. Under the CBA, a player with 3 years of service becomes a restricted-free-agent. A player with 4 years is unrestricted free agent. If the current CBA is not extended, a player will need 5 seasons to reach restricted free agency and 6 to be unrestricted. So a player like Givens would be “hurt” by the no CBA.

aabtec

This is when coaching will be key..some teams like the Redskins will try to buy every last player on the market..a team of allstars..but every other team will have a budget...

Pats726

There are poison pills for both sides on this..no ceiling and also no floor...restriction of signing of free agents for top teams..and years of servive to UFA increasing..many other things as well, so both sides are hurt. If the union wishes to break the golden egg of what they have, they will only lose..same with the owners..it is good for neither..they will lsoe big time if they do not get the CBA done.

spacecrime

Not sure how the teams will lose on this. FOr instance, what will happen that will hurt Kraft and the Patriots if there is no CBA?

Pats726

Top teams are resticted in signing UFAs...as well as signing bonus money going out being not extended as far...There have been discussion of this in the past...last summer I believe...

spacecrime

I don't think restricted signings of free agents is limited to top teams. I think the rules will apply equally to all teams. (Otherwise, you are right, that would hurt Kraft and the pats.)

Besides, there are two sides to the story. If we can't sign other teams FAs, they can't sign ours, either. We get to keep Givens.

The signing bonus question you refer to is for one year only, the first year. And that will not hurt teams much. All teams will be in the same boat, unable to spend money that year. That will hurt the players, not the owners. If the owners can't pay, the players don't get paid.

After 2006, extending signing bonuses will not be an issue, the problem won't exist under a league with no cap.

Teams will be free to sign playes for as much or as little as they want.

The only thing that will hurt owners coming out of this that I can see will be if there is a strike. Other than that, owners will be in control of their revenues.

The players uniion is nuts if they think holding out for guaranteed salaries will make the players more money. They seem to think the owners will give out the same sixed contracts as they do now, and that is totally stupid. The contaracts will be smaller. They will have to be to protect the owners against players not performing and being dead money. They see baseball contracts and want that size, but baeball plays 162 games in a season, vice 16, and the money income for the owners to spend jsut isn't there.

No, no CBA means that owners can pay what they want. There will be a couple guys (Jones, Snyder) who will think they can buy a Lombari, and there will be a few teams that will have a $30 million dollar payroll. And there will be a few teams that will do like they are now, manipulating the system for what works best (Pats and Steelers come to mind.)

PatsFanSince74

We're at the stage where we're all entitled to our opinion, since none of us know what will happen if the cap is rolled back, especially since the "Law of Unintended Consequences" will probably come into play. Four things I think I know, but could be way wrong:

A few players will get way rich. The rest will be no better off than they were before.

A few teams will do real well, but many will become uncompetitive. The Pats should do very well as Boston is already the fifth rated Nielsen market in the country. If you add in Providence and a percentage of the Hartford/New Haven Markets, they look even better. Franchises like Indianapolis (25 largest Market--boo hoo) will have a much more difficult time.

I agree with the Poster who said that Coaching will be even more important, as the HC's will have to carefully manage the rosters that get packed with Pro Bowlers and make it work for rosters with a lot of journeymen. As the Yankees have proven these past several years, simply stocking up on All Stars doesn't mean success.

I find it hard to imagine that Kraft/Pioli/Belichick don't already have a "Plan B" for what happens if the CBA collapses and the Cap is history.

Murphys95

Personally I think it could be bad. Revenue sharing has to be be agreed upon, otherwise small markets, like Buffalo, could fold.

Frankly I think the NFL is already heading down the wrong path, with the NFL Network (the hype network), flex-scheduling, and football on 4 days a week - it's watering itself down. Couple that with no CBA (hypothetically), and some teams may never see the light of day again.

Imagine the league televising games 4 days a week, and due to flex-scheduling the national audience always see the same 8 winning teams. Always.