No salary cap in 2011??

[Brady_to_Moss]

the deal runs out then....football would be horrible if there was no salary cap...is there any way they will work something out??

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, that will only happen if the owners vote to opt out of the CBA. I still think it is more of a lot of tough talk by the owners to force the NFLPA back to bargaining table to revise the CBA since 2012 would likely have a lock out.

Many of the owners have said publically that they would rather have no salary cap than the current CBA because it is too in favor of the players. Although no cap would favor the Pats from a free agent standpoint, I am against it. I don't want a system like MLB where a large portion of the league (Tampa Bay for example) who are eliminated from the playoffs before the season even starts. That is why MLB nationally is a declining sport.

 

[Fixit]

Look out for the Yankees!

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Im hoping cooler heads will prevail.. But maybee the Mike Browns and Ralph Wilsons of the world should learn how to market thier teams..

 

[Ratoath]

explain s to me like i'm an idiot......how does the salary cap favour players over owners?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Actually, that will only happen if the owners vote to opt out of the CBA. I still think it is more of a lot of tough talk by the owners to force the NFLPA back to bargaining table to revise the CBA since 2012 would likely have a lock out.

Many of the owners have said publically that they would rather have no salary cap than the current CBA because it is too in favor of the players. Although no cap would favor the Pats from a free agent standpoint, I am against it. I don't want a system like MLB where a large portion of the league (Tampa Bay for example) who are eliminated from the playoffs before the season even starts. That is why MLB nationally is a declining sport.

I could be wrong but I think the only way negotiations are re-opened is IF the owners vote to opt out of the CBA.

They can't have their cake and eat it too - i.e. renegotiating early while the current deal stands in place, and the uncapped year is intended to serve as an incentive to the owners to get a renegotiation done if indeed they do opt out.

The problem with even one uncapped year is once that genie is out of the bottle it is unlikely to go back in - and if that happens the NFL as we know it changes - and of course the owners wind up seeing more of their money going to salaries as well

 

[DaBruinz]

explain s to me like i'm an idiot......how does the salary cap favour players over owners?

Because the players are getting like 60% of the cut. The owners 40%. Is it really that hard to do the math?

 

[spacecrime]

explain s to me like i'm an idiot......how does the salary cap favour players over owners?

Not the cap, the CBA. The CBA is much more than the cap.

Players get a large chunk of revenue (67% or something like that) and owners must spend a certain amount or be fined. Baseball has no cap, and I doubt that 66% of baseball revenues go to the players.

Without the CBA there would be no revenue sharing, and some cash-poor teams would load up on UDFAs to keep costs down.

No way to tell for sure until it happens, if it does.

With so few games per year (compared to baseball and basketball) there is a lot less money available for salaries. Relative roster sizes of football to baseball and basketball means even less money available.

Personally, I think that a capless NFL would result is a lot of Pats-Boys superbowls. Those are the two teams with both the money AND the smarts. THe Redskins have the money but not the smarts, and there a few teams with the smarts, but not deep enough pockets.

It doesn't matter now. People will go beserk over this for the next few years, and it will turn out that they worried about the wrong thing. That's what usually happens.

 

[Ratoath]

Because the players are getting like 60% of the cut. The owners 40%. Is it really that hard to do the math?

i didnt know this

 

[Ratoath]

Not the cap, the CBA. The CBA is much more than the cap.

Players get a large chunk of revenue (67% or something like that) and owners must spend a certain amount or be fined. Baseball has no cap, and I doubt that 66% of baseball revenues go to the players.

Without the CBA there would be no revenue sharing, and some cash-poor teams would load up on UDFAs to keep costs down.

No way to tell for sure until it happens, if it does.

With so few games per year (compared to baseball and basketball) there is a lot less money available for salaries. Relative roster sizes of football to baseball and basketball means even less money available.

Personally, I think that a capless NFL would result is a lot of Pats-Boys superbowls. Those are the two teams with both the money AND the smarts. THe Redskins have the money but not the smarts, and there a few teams with the smarts, but not deep enough pockets.

It doesn't matter now. People will go beserk over this for the next few years, and it will turn out that they worried about the wrong thing. That's what usually happens.

got ya, thanks

 

[spacecrime]

got ya, thanks

Yeah, it's so complicated it is really impossible to tell who is getting the better of whom, and which side will make out better without a CBA. Right now, it seems that both labor AND management are doing pretty well.

The only thing for sure is that without a CBA the small market owners won't get revenue sharing money and this will really hurt them. Odd thing is, they are the ones who are poking a stick in the spokes of the CBA bicyle by holding out for more money from high-revenue teams, all while refusing to market themselves to make more money.

It is pretty bizarre, really.

The funny thing (to me) is that teh CBA was in trouble before, and Kraft stepped in and unruffled feathers all around and brokered a deal to keep it alive. I'm not sure how interested Kraft is anymore in helping out friend Goodell.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Bad for football? Only if you're a fan in Arizona, Nashville Buffalo etc.

If you like the Cowboys and Pats, you're in high clover (as another poster mentioned).

Mostly this is just a stick to poke the player's union with, and a stick for Kraft to poke Goodell with.

 

[Disco Volante]

I would love this.

We'd be at the top of the league every year in terms of money to spend, it would be great.

I could care less about other teams being hurt by this, I'm a Pats fan first, NFL fan second.

Also, we will forever be known as the greatest team of the salary cap era after it's gone.

 

[upstater1]

explain s to me like i'm an idiot......how does the salary cap favour players over owners?

The last time around they bumped up the % going to the players from the 50s to the mid 60s.

If you do the math, 6X% of $200 million is a salary cap approximately of what we have now.

The problem is, some teams have almost maxed out their revenue, like Cincy, Buffalo, St Lou, Minn and Jax. This means that, even if Buffalo were to sale naming rights to the stadium, etc., they would still only get $202 million a year instead of $200 million. Now that they are maxed out, their cap is at $120 mill for players. If the salary cap rises much above that you're going to have a baseball situation regardless.

Now, if the % going to the players drops, then teams like Buffalo and Cincy stand a better shot of competing.

Personally I just think this is all bull because the % increase in the player's share just diminished the value of the bills because they now have a smaller margin to work with, and that's why Wilson is mad.

If someone is spending $140 million and you're only spending $120 million, that's not a HUGE difference.

 

[upstater1]

Bad for football? Only if you're a fan in Arizona, Nashville Buffalo etc.

If you like the Cowboys and Pats, you're in high clover (as another poster mentioned).

Mostly this is just a stick to poke the player's union with, and a stick for Kraft to poke Goodell with.

It is bad for football. Growing up I was a big baseball fan. That '86 World Series killed me precisely because everyone was real about it. The entire team was homegrown.

This time around I thought of Schilling as a mercenary, pried awaw from some sad major league "farm" club. Quite frankly, I just don't much care anymore.

My interest in football would diminish as well. It's great to know that your team is outperforming 31 others. In the future, we'll be stomping on the hapless as we await big games against New York, Chicago, and uh, uh, er?

 

[alamo]

2010!

There's a major problem with the original question that no one has spotted.

If the owners opt out of the current CBA in November, then the first uncapped year will be 2010.

Again: the first uncapped year will be 2010, NOT 2011.

And 2009 will operate under special cap rules as the last capped year, special restrictions to prevent teams from simply pushing large cap charges forward into the uncapped year.

2010 will also have special free agency rules, preventing the final eight teams (i.e. all teams who played in divisional and championship playoff games) from signing high-level free agents except to replace a free agent lost.

So the effects could be felt in only a year, unless a new agreement is reached (which seems unlikely if the owners opt out of the current agreement).

 

[JoeSixPat]

Bad for football? Only if you're a fan in Arizona, Nashville Buffalo etc.

If you like the Cowboys and Pats, you're in high clover (as another poster mentioned).

Mostly this is just a stick to poke the player's union with, and a stick for Kraft to poke Goodell with.

I would love this.

We'd be at the top of the league every year in terms of money to spend, it would be great.

I could care less about other teams being hurt by this, I'm a Pats fan first, NFL fan second.

Also, we will forever be known as the greatest team of the salary cap era after it's gone.

You might want to take a trip with the Ghost of Chirstmas Future before you wish too hard for an uncapped year.

Given a football system where every team has equal money to spend (or at least as much as the Cap constrains it) BB & Pioli's ability to maximize the value and talent on their team compared to the rest of the NFL is what has made them the dynasty they are.

Why are you so eager to see that end?

Meanwhile a team like the 49ers or Raiders who continuously finish near last place with high draft picks, and devote large chunks of their salary cap to those players, only to have them flop year after year, would finally be able to get out from under their dead cap space with the stroke of an owners checkbook once the salary cap is no more.

Why would you want to see that happen?

With an evening playing field I expect BB is consistently going to have the best team on the field.

Once the cap is gone any team that makes any costly personnel mistake can erase it with an owners credit card instead of having to live with the cap consequences.

You think this is good for the Patriots, why?

 

[Miguel]

http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

may be of some interest.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

The best thing about football, its not baseball..


I mean seriously, when in your lifetime see a Pittsburgh vs KC Royals World Series..

Maybee in 79 but that is it..


And who says Kraft will pay big money in a uncapped world.. , I dont think he could compete with Jerry Jones and Snyder.. Teams will fold ,before the leauge grows.. Get r Done guys..

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm still interested in hearing why the lack of a salary cap benefits the Patriots.

We all know that the Patrios consistently get the best players for the least amount of money, allowing them to stretch their salary cap dollars further than most other teams.

How does eliminating this advantage benefit the Patriots? How does giving the owner of a bad team the opportunity to "buy" a championship help the Patriots?

Currently bad personnell decisions can place a team in "Cap Hell" keeping them bad for many years. When bad teams no longer have Cap consequences for stupid signing and drafting (which can cost a team a ransom in cap space for a player with no NFL experience) how does that benefit the Patriots?