CBA first talk not going well

[Pats726]

ProFootballTalk.com - First CBA Skirmish Not Going Well
FROM PFT....I know it is way early BUT starting off at an impasse never good at all. Th eleague wants the percentage to be reduced TAKING SOMETHING...the players want the books open to see why. AND it seems the league just says nyet. Hmmm I am glad they started now.

 

[Tunescribe]

ProFootballTalk.com - First CBA Skirmish Not Going Well
FROM PFT....I know it is way early BUT starting off at an impasse never good at all. Th eleague wants the percentage to be reduced TAKING SOMETHING...the players want the books open to see why. AND it seems the league just says nyet. Hmmm I am glad they started now.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will end in Goodell's demise.

 

[Pats726]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will end in Goodell's demise.

I wonder...and at times if one of the side issues is that Goodell is gone..MAYBE a year without football would be worth it. Unfortunately, the owners are really pushing a LOT of this...and acting foolishly at least at this point.
"Hey can you give me some money? "Can I see your wallet first"" "No Way"...."Sorry"....SO far that is what has happened...the teams are crying poor and the players called their bluff.

 

[Tunescribe]

I wonder...and at times if one of the side issues is that Goodell is gone..MAYBE a year without football would be worth it.

Interesting point. I would almost be willing to go a year without football if it gets rid of Goodell and all his tinkering with the game. The whole league -- players AND owners -- needs a reality check.

 

[efin98]

I wonder...and at times if one of the side issues is that Goodell is gone..MAYBE a year without football would be worth it. Unfortunately, the owners are really pushing a LOT of this...and acting foolishly at least at this point.
"Hey can you give me some money? "Can I see your wallet first"" "No Way"...."Sorry"....SO far that is what has happened...the teams are crying poor and the players called their bluff.

A year without football for who?

Goodell won't get fired short of getting sent to jail or defrauding the league and the owners will field a team of rejects, retirees, and guys off the street if the players walk.

 

[Pujo]

A year without football for who?

Goodell won't get fired short of getting sent to jail or defrauding the league and the owners will field a team of rejects, retirees, and guys off the street if the players walk.

I doubt the players would walk. The real risk is the same as it was in the 90's, the NFLPA can vote to decertify itself and then with no union, the players can launch an anti-trust suit against the league.

And Goodell isn't going anywhere, like you said, short of getting arrested.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I doubt the players would walk. The real risk is the same as it was in the 90's, the NFLPA can vote to decertify itself and then with no union, the players can launch an anti-trust suit against the league.

And Goodell isn't going anywhere, like you said, short of getting arrested.

Nobody's walking, people need money. I'm glad the talks aren't going well. Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year. In fact, this is the best chance of re-signing guys like Wilfork, Mankins and whoever else I'm forgetting. The point is, money won't be an issue if next season is uncapped (at least for the Patriots).

 

[Pujo]

Nobody's walking, people need money. I'm glad the talks aren't going well. Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year. In fact, this is the best chance of re-signing guys like Wilfork, Mankins and whoever else I'm forgetting. The point is, money won't be an issue if next season is uncapped (at least for the Patriots).

It'd be good for the Pats, but it would be bad for the league in the long-term, which means it would be bad for the Pats in the long term. Just not as bad as it would be for Buffalo.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

It'd be good for the Pats, but it would be bad for the league in the long-term, which means it would be bad for the Pats in the long term. Just not as bad as it would be for Buffalo.

I understand what your saying, but an uncapped year will only be temporary. There will be a new CBA in place, I'm not worried about that. However, this would be a perfect time for the Pats to go uncapped because they have a lot of key players set to hit free agency. If a new CBA is in place by 2010, you can probably kiss majority of the Pats key players good bye.

 

[Pats726]

Firstly what is MORE possible is that the league will lock out the players...I am not sure of why really they would do that OR if they did that could they bring in OTHER players. ALl in all ANY scenario such as that is bad for the NFL...economic times are not good and NOT like in other times. Few fans of the NFL now remember the labor pains that occured in the past..I do not wish to see replacement players play...sorry..I can watch a flag football game with MORE interest. Maybe I'll watch the UFL if that is around OR watch moe college football.
I do not know WHERE Kraft said anything about wanting an uncapped year..THAT was taken out of context as he never said "he wanted" an uncapped year. Show me the link to that please.. If anything I believe he said he could live with it or something like that NOT that he was in favor of that.

 

[mgteich]

Do we all understand that there is an agreement in place for the 2010 season, with rules that address such issues as the cap and the 2010 draft? I don't see why we would be speculated about a strike or walkout for the 2010 season, both of which ar specifically prohibited by the agreement that will be in place. I find this speculation extremely premature, especially since there has not yet been even one meeting between the parties.

Personally, if the owners want the players to take less because they are not doing well, I think the owners will need to demonstrate their financial condition. Of course, the players want the same percentage or more, or the same percentage to be applied to more types of revenue. There is revenue excluded when the owners discuss revenue.

 

[blackglass3]

So, I have a question. Let's say this all goes down and in 2010 the NFL has no cap. We resign Brady, Wilfork, Moss, ect. If the cap gets reinstated, can thier contracts put us over the cap limit, or is there some sort of grandfather clause that would prevent that?

 

[jmt57]

So, I have a question. Let's say this all goes down and in 2010 the NFL has no cap. We resign Brady, Wilfork, Moss, ect. If the cap gets reinstated, can their contracts put us over the cap limit, or is there some sort of grandfather clause that would prevent that?

That's a great question; it would have to be dealt with as part of those cba negotiations. Although it would hurt from a cash flow perspective, if there was one uncapped year I would imagine some teams may opt for the strategy of paying some players (a) a disproportionate amount of the contract in 2010 when there is no cap, and (b) shift money typically spent as a signing bonus to part of a year one (2010) salary.

However the downside to that strategy from the owner's perspective is that they may not want to spend a large amount of actual (not cap) dollars in 2010 in case negotiations continue to go nowhere and there is a lockout in 2011.

 

[Pats726]

So, I have a question. Let's say this all goes down and in 2010 the NFL has no cap. We resign Brady, Wilfork, Moss, ect. If the cap gets reinstated, can thier contracts put us over the cap limit, or is there some sort of grandfather clause that would prevent that?

It would I THINK depend on the new CBA...so..maybe yes..maybe no. There are many who think if there is an uncapped year there will never be a cap again..NOT SURE about that but many think that. It's like getting the toothpaste back in after it is out...hardly easy.
I really doubt ANY would be grandfathered in..but who knows.
I think all know that there will be no walk out or lock out for 10...but for 11, ot's clear that it very well could be in jeopardy.
As for those who were not paying attention THIS bit from PFT WAS about the first negotiations with the two parties. (Not speculation)
I do agree that it seems that the owners some are crying poor and the players wish that to be verified BEFORE even thinking about redusing their large percentage. To me that is quite reasonable especially fiven the fact the owners opted out. Whether this bceomes a situation like this a stalemate, will depend on the two parties..both rookies. I am glad they started early.

 

[Pujo]

Do we all understand that there is an agreement in place for the 2010 season, with rules that address such issues as the cap and the 2010 draft? I don't see why we would be speculated about a strike or walkout for the 2010 season, both of which ar specifically prohibited by the agreement that will be in place. I find this speculation extremely premature, especially since there has not yet been even one meeting between the parties.

Personally, if the owners want the players to take less because they are not doing well, I think the owners will need to demonstrate their financial condition. Of course, the players want the same percentage or more, or the same percentage to be applied to more types of revenue. There is revenue excluded when the owners discuss revenue.

mgteich,
I should have said, but didn't, that my prediction was for when the CBA ran out, not for the CBA-provided uncapped year.

blackglass3,
Nobody's going to be able to answer that for sure since that's one of those things that would have to be negotiated in the new CBA. My guess is that if there was a new cap, teams would have to get into compliance.

For those saying that it would just be one uncapped year, the players are saying once there's no cap they're not going back to one. Obviously that may just be a ploy, but who knows how the players really feel now that union leadership has put the idea in their heads.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It'd be good for the Pats, but it would be bad for the league in the long-term, which means it would be bad for the Pats in the long term. Just not as bad as it would be for Buffalo.

Bingo...

It amazes me that people don't get it. It was the draw of labor stability, pooled resources and fixed labor costs as part of a collective enterprise that drew a smart businessman like Kraft into ownership in the league.

Sure we've become a top 5 revenue team, but we could slip out of that group as the next couple of massive state of the art stadiums taxpayers footed the bill for come on line. And if all vestages of parity disappear and teams fold Kraft's net worth will plumet as part of that collective. Most of the teams in this league derive the lions share of their estimated franchise "paper" value from association with the league.

Besides which, he's not going to spend like a drunken sailor, never has. Signed some pretty silly looking deals in hindsight (now that the system is in place) but at the end of the day none of them was particularly inescapable, either. Drew's $100M deal was smoke and mirrors PR stuff - since the SB was only $10M we took a $6M dead cap hit when we traded him only 2 years into it. Bob Kraft is not going to hand out multiple $20-30M bonus checks like candy ever, let alone to strangers, or on the eve of a work stoppage... He has a limited football revenue stream, larger than Buffalo's but smaller than Snyder or Jones and more stadium debt than most of his peers.

 

[mgteich]

There is no cash flow effect of treating a $20M bonus as current salary.

That's a great question; it would have to be dealt with as part of those cba negotiations. Although it would hurt from a cash flow perspective, if there was one uncapped year I would imagine some teams may opt for the strategy of paying some players (a) a disproportionate amount of the contract in 2010 when there is no cap, and (b) shift money typically spent as a signing bonus to part of a year one (2010) salary.

However the downside to that strategy from the owner's perspective is that they may not want to spend a large amount of actual (not cap) dollars in 2010 in case negotiations continue to go nowhere and there is a lockout in 2011.

 

[spacecrime]

I do not know WHERE Kraft said anything about wanting an uncapped year..THAT was taken out of context as he never said "he wanted" an uncapped year. Show me the link to that please.. If anything I believe he said he could live with it or something like that NOT that he was in favor of that.

No, it sounded like he was definitely in favor of it. The context of his statement was that an uncapped year might be necessary for the long-term health of the NFL.

"It's not scary at all to us,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft said of the possibility of playing without a salary cap next year. "There are a lot of pluses to it. It's definitely not a doomsday scenario, and it might have to happen to get things right. I hope it's the vehicle to get us a deal. I hope it's the ultimate hammer.''

The NFL now has the very real threat of a work stoppage in 2011. - Don Banks - SI.com

NFL teams bearing down for major changes for '10 and '11 seasons

and elsewhere.

It took me 15 seconds to find this with Google. I'm sure the rest of his statement is online somewhere.

 

[spacecrime]

Sure we've become a top 5 revenue team, but we could slip out of that group as the next couple of massive state of the art stadiums taxpayers footed the bill for come on line.

I don't think it works this way. When taxpapers pay for a stadium, the owners don't get to keep all the income generated by the stadium.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will end in Goodell's demise.

I don't give a flying hoot about Goodell and/or his demise. I do care that the formula that has created the contemporary NFL somehow remains intact and, more selfishly, I really care that Tom Brady, having already lost one season of his "prime" to injury doesn't lose another to a strike. Those things I care about.