Summary of CBA as approved by owners

[ctpatsfan77]

NFL.com news: NFL clubs approve comprehensive agreement

FWIW, the vote was 31-0, with only Crazy Al abstaining.

In terms of what we've been arguing about the last few weeks, ALL drafted rookies will be limited to four-year terms; there will be team options for a fifth year for first-rounders.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Umm...yeah.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/775838-cba-approval-status-page7.html

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

thanks d smith for being no much of a leader than a buger king shift manger.....

 

[PATSNUTme]

So at what point does a lockout become a strike? Or does anyone care what it's called?

Just get this thing over with!!!!!!

 

[BlueThunder]

Let them get some sleep and read everything...voting on it tommorrow would be fine......but not sure the owners are going to let them into facilities until they get a yes vote....

What is it they don't understand? Everyone else has a copy but the NFLPA ?
Even Mariucci and Eisen.....

Get a copy machine...look at your emails players.....get on board....

Lombardi on NFL is really confused as to what the problem is...everyone agreed to ratifying what they had and now the players are saying NO?

 

[PATSNUTme]

NFL.com news: NFL clubs approve comprehensive agreement

FWIW, the vote was 31-0, with only Crazy Al abstaining.

In terms of what we've been arguing about the last few weeks, ALL drafted rookies will be limited to four-year terms; there will be team options for a fifth year for first-rounders.

I didn't see anything about Franchise/Transition tags. I read it twice- did I miss something?

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

no football next wed, dont plan on seeing it till oct

 

[Deus Irae]

Let them get some sleep and read everything...voting on it tommorrow would be fine......but not sure the owners are going to let them into facilities until they get a yes vote....

What is it they don't understand? Everyone else has a copy but the NFLPA ?
Even Mariucci and Eisen.....

Get a copy machine...look at your emails players.....get on board....

Lombardi on NFL is really confused as to what the problem is...everyone agreed to ratifying what they had and now the players are saying NO?

You can't imagine why player reps, who haven't been in all the negotiations, would be hesitant to sign on to a deal that, at first blush, is bad for the players compared to the previous deal and doesn't seem to require the owners to settle their intra group issues re: revenue sharing?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I didn't see anything about Franchise/Transition tags. I read it twice- did I miss something?

It's not prominent, but it's there.

 

[BlueThunder]

You can't imagine why player reps, who haven't been in all the negotiations, would be hesitant to sign on to a deal that, at first blush, is bad for the players compared to the previous deal and doesn't seem to require the owners to settle their intra group issues re: revenue sharing?

Again....all these issues were supposedly agreed to by the NFLPA reps and owners previously....

The revenue sharing is still something that should be of no concern to the players as it comes out of the owners share of the pie.....plz explain why players should be concerned about the revenue sharing between teams?

 

[Rob0729]

Again....all these issues were supposedly agreed to by the NFLPA reps and owners previously....

The revenue sharing is still something that should be of no concern to the players as it comes out of the owners share of the pie.....plz explain why players should be concerned about the revenue sharing between teams?

They care because they need to wage a PR war because they want the owners to conceed to more things like the $320 million in "lost" benefits from last season that really weren't lost since the players agreed to the uncapped year format including giving up those benefits. By delaying the vote, they will look like the bad guys and feel public pressure to give in losing all bargaining rights. By making it look like the owners are sneaking things into the CBA, they are trying to turn the PR back on the owners.

This is a total PR move.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I didn't see anything about Franchise/Transition tags. I read it twice- did I miss something?

These are bullitt points. I posted in the other thread some other details that were discussed in the press conference. Franchise tags remain and can still be employed in up to three consecutive seasons. However, the method for calculating them will change and be based on some % of salary cap (was what Pash said). I assume in not mentioning transition tags they remain as well. Much of the new deal will be the same as the old deal. He did say that the way the salary cap operates remains essentially the same (so there is still amortization and dead cap and N/LTBE's and the like...). Minimum salaries will increase. Not sure if there will still be veteran exemptions or if the $3.5M per team and the ability to borrow from future cap ($3M this year, $1.5M in 2012) replaces that. Beginning in 2012 half of the money from the rookie cap savings will begin to be funneled to veterans but I have no idea how...

 

[italia44]

They care because they need to wage a PR war because they want the owners to conceed to more things like the $320 million in "lost" benefits from last season that really weren't lost since the players agreed to the uncapped year format including giving up those benefits. By delaying the vote, they will look like the bad guys and feel public pressure to give in losing all bargaining rights. By making it look like the owners are sneaking things into the CBA, they are trying to turn the PR back on the owners.

This is a total PR move.

Spot-on,my friend:rocker:

 

[Deus Irae]

Again....all these issues were supposedly agreed to by the NFLPA reps and owners previously....

The revenue sharing is still something that should be of no concern to the players as it comes out of the owners share of the pie.....plz explain why players should be concerned about the revenue sharing between teams?

It's been explained ad nauseum, and it's explained in the other thread.

 

[Ring 6]

You can't imagine why player reps, who haven't been in all the negotiations, would be hesitant to sign on to a deal that, at first blush, is bad for the players compared to the previous deal and doesn't seem to require the owners to settle their intra group issues re: revenue sharing?

Revenue sharing among owners has never been a point of negotiation through the entire process. Why would that have anything to do with ratifying? Are you seriously suggesting that the players should insert a new topic to the discussion at this point?
Revenue sharing among owners is not collectively bargained, it is none of the players business.

 

[Ring 6]

It's been explained ad nauseum, and it's explained in the other thread.

Just because people on this messge board want to mae it an issue doesnt mean it is one.
The best possible argument you could make is that more revenue sharing would make the poor teams more willing to agree to a higher cap (but the the rich teams would not) but that has all been worked out in the cap, the individual team cash minimum as well as league wide cash minimum.
If you get agreement to a league wide cash payroll minimum how would revenue sharig among owners mean anything?

 

[Jared]

Unlike democrats and republicans, fans don't vote for players. The players have no reason to care about PR moves.

 

[Ring 6]

Again....all these issues were supposedly agreed to by the NFLPA reps and owners previously....

The revenue sharing is still something that should be of no concern to the players as it comes out of the owners share of the pie.....plz explain why players should be concerned about the revenue sharing between teams?

There is no reason, but the poster has argued, as he himslef says ad nauseum about it trying to make it his cause celebre. It never was an issue but once he said it was he must keep trying to find a way to convince people he was right.
The revenue split, the cap, and cash minimum make revenue sharing moot to the players.
Revenue sharing being the issue was a way to make it seem like the owners were being disingenuous and to say that the owners wanted to take money from the players to prop up the poorer teams rather than the richer teams giving them welfare. It was never accurate and couldn't be further from what the issue is at this juncture.

 

[Rob0729]

Unlike democrats and republicans, fans don't vote for players. The players have no reason to care about PR moves.

You vote for players with your wallet. Advertisers pay millions in endorsement deals because they think people will buy there products if their favorite athletes are buying them. If the players come off greedy and delay the season because they are trying to get more things into the CBA, people could be turned off on all NFL players which means endorsements will go down.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

when nov comes.. then we can say are u ready for some football??? then when we will care