I’ve learned from people close to the negotiations that we may not see the massive cap casualties that we’ve expected. In fact, there may not be any penalties for teams who are over the $120 million dollar threshold. What that would allow teams to do is hang onto veterans, if they so choose, without penalty. What was less clear to me was whether or not we’ll actually even see a salary cap. It is my understanding that for the first few years of this deal, the “cap” on spending could be soft or even non-existent.
Now why would the owners agree to that? Isn’t that the baseball model that has created such a disparity between the haves and the have nots? Yes and no.
Many on the players side believe that this CBA has as much to do with the big market owners trying to find a way to force out the owners of small market teams as it does with finding a way to split up money between players and owners. There is big TV money on the way and both the players and owners know this. I promise you that if Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones were in charge of getting a deal done, they would have made the minimum spending $140 million or more and they would have agreed to a CBA a LONG TIME AGO. According to my sources, many owners view this CBA as their big opportunity to get rid of owners they don’t like.
Source: Lance Zierlein
"What if the $120 million proposed salary cap for a new collective bargaining agreement actually winds up operating as the salary cap floor?
And the source says don’t be shocked if the anticipated cap casualties doesn’t unfold and major spending spres take place.
Per the source, there wouldn’t necessarily be a hard cap for the first few years of the proposed new labor deal.
If that’s the case, NFL teams would be able to spend as they wish during the early portion of the agreement.”
All the agreement is saying is that teams can borrow 3 mill from next years cap and another 3 mill to keep a vet player. inorderto get under the cap.
just copied from the NFL forum