Urgent

What if the owners elect to go with the status quo?

We've had lots of discussion about lock-outs or new CBA's.
Why not just allow another year to work under the current rules?
Would the players strike?

The owners opted out of the CBA, as was their right, because they claimed that the system was not profitable or equitable. Before the uncapped season, there was a lot of speculation that salaries could rapidly escalate, driven by spending in Washington, Dallas, and a few other teams.

In fact, it seems that payrolls are down. The Patriots appear to be spending less -- especially if you ignore the $9mm 'cap charge' for Adalius Thomas, which is pure sunk cost from years ago and doesn't count against any cap. It's hard to point to teams that spent a lot more. The consistent trend has been conservatism.

Closer review of the rules showed that the double-edged sword of the uncapped year had one dull side. Yes, there is no salary cap. However, that works both ways, and teams did not race to exceed the prior limits. The constraints of six-year free agency, the Rule of Eight, and other rules limited player movement -- and large deals.

Could the owners really get a better deal this off-season with a new CBA?
Continuing in uncapped limbo would seem to be far more attractive than a lock-out -- stadiums would be full, television money would flow. From the owner's point of view, I don't see much reason to stop the games.

A second uncapped season, further, would send a strong message to the players that the owners' fall-back position is pretty attractive, and they have no reason to yield to a lopsided CBA.

In hindsight, a brilliant CBA clause. Ralph Wilson was right: it was a very complex proposal, and he didn't really understand it. Neither did the players' representatives. But there were some owners who crafted it who apparently understood it very very well.

__________________
"Your father was a truck driver, Ray?"
- Trombley

VinnyPatrollie

Interesting thought. But do the current rules apply for 2011? 2012? In perpetuity? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't think so. Otherwise, I can't see the owners truely wanting to enter a new agreement as they no longer have a salary floor, 30% rule, etc.

signbabybrady

I too do not know whether this years rules would push forward to next year but I think the point is mute as I recall there was language that prevented either a hold out and lock out this season when the owners opted out and I highly doubt that even if 2010 rules could push to 2011 that the players would have allowed a strike block to continue past 2010.

__________________

MoLewisrocks

I believe the union proposed this a while ago and it was rejected out of hand.

jmt57

There actually is verbiage for a second uncapped year, which many people do not realize could actually happen. The biggest difference is that in 2011 the amount of service time to become an unrestricted free agent is five years; it was six years in 2010, and had been four years prior to that. If I'm not mistaken everything else is the same as in this current uncapped year: three tags for restricted free agents rather than one, spending restrictions on the final eight and final four teams, no salary cap, no salary floor, etc.

SEPatsFan

But you have to ask the question, "Why are teams being conservative?" I would say in many cases, the Patriots included, the reason is not because of the rules in place, but the uncertainty of what next year will bring. True there is no cap this year, but without knowing if there will be a cap next year, or how salaries from this season would be calculated against the future cap, it makes it a dangerous game to be handing out large contracts right now. This has come up time and time again, especially in relation to Brady and Manning's deals. If hard rules were in place next year things would be different, but until that happens it is the smart play to be conservative so that you don't put the team in potential cap hell if it returns next year.

SSDD

Sean Pa Patriot

there was a post about this from David Cornwell.. There will be no lockout, there will be no cba.. the union will fight this in the courts, but games will not be lost... I think the OP is right, the owners will extend the season make more money..

__________________

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



We going to take it one game at a time

Triumph

The owners do want a new CBA. Particularly, some sort of cap on the contracts of top 10 draft picks. If 2011 is a repeat of 2010, youve got another year of Sam Bradford type contracts.

Locking the players out drives them back to the bargaining table. I dont believe the owners would threaten to lock out the players and then not follow through.

Triumph

Yup, and I recall the Owners shooting it down too.

Smith said the union's most recent proposal contains an offer to keep the current capped system for another year to allow both sides to continue negotiations.

"It is our view that obtaining an extension to the CBA prior to the uncapped year is in the best interest of both the players and the owners," Smith wrote. "However, the terms of any CBA extension must allow for players to get their fair share of NFL revenues while at the same time address the owner's issues in such a way as to allow them to continue to grow the game of football."

NFL.com news: NFLPA executive director Smith says 2010 season likely uncapped

Va_Pats_Fan

It was fairly easy for owners to restrain themselves this year. The issue arises over time, as owners get more used to no cap, and salaries eventually creep up. It will be hard to but the cap genie back in the bottle, but in a few years, with no cap, there will be no bottle.

Plus, even if the owners didn't lock out the players, the union would most likely decertify and sue the league under anti trust laws (their exemption is quite narrow, and does not extend to collective bargaining).

__________________
=======================================
ʞɔıɥɔılǝq llıq uo uıǝɥɔs ɯɐpɐ
˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ lɟu ʇou s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods uı sǝɥɔɐoɔ ʇsǝʇɐǝɹƃ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝuo sı ʞɔıɥɔılǝq ʞuıɥʇ ı