A pretty good summary of where the CBA is at and what remains from Brandt

[MoLewisrocks]

We're still a little light on details like just how some of the cap and cash calculating will work, but this is a pretty good summation of what the issues were and how they were resolved and what the remaining anscillary issues - some of which may ultimately simply go away on the road to settlement. The target date for getting it all wrapped up remains Tuesday so that the courts involved can be notified and/or sign off, so the players can vote to recertify and then ratify the new CBA and owners can vote to ratify it on Thursday. Leaving the weekend for players and agents and FO personnel to get brought up to speed on the new rules and over the course of next week the league year can begin with 3 days of teams allowed to talk to their own FA and UDFA's and rookies and UFA beginning and camps opening by the 28th...

A knucklehead or two could still temporarily derail the process or schedule, but it's not likely they can derail the deal as outside pressure will mount to get it done. Boylan is back on the beat today which may help mitigate some of the hardline last minute jockeying for an edge footdragging.

Getting to Yes | National Football Post

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Breer just tweeted that the NFLPA Executive Committee will meet today and tomorrow in DC and all 32 player reps will join them on Wednesday. The idea being to educate them on the deal so they can filter details down to the rank and file before a vote to recertify and ratify is taken...

 

[Mike the Brit]

Very interesting article. Thanks. This caught my eye:

'Teams now have a “guaranteed spend” in cash of 99% of the Cap on a league-wide basis, meaning they must collectively spend approximately $3.8 billion (higher in future years) with hard cash.'

Two points. First, it's on a league-wide basis, so it doesn't give a spending floor to Tampa/Bengals etc. How will the teams deal with that among themselves? Secondly, if the guarantee is 99% of the cap, then that seems very, very high.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Very interesting article. Thanks. This caught my eye: 'Teams now have a “guaranteed spend” in cash of 99% of the Cap on a league-wide basis, meaning they must collectively spend approximately $3.8 billion (higher in future years) with hard cash.' Two points. First, it's on a league-wide basis, so it doesn't give a spending floor to Tampa/Bengals etc. How will the teams deal with that among themselves? Secondly, if the guarantee is 99% of the cap, then that seems very, very high.

As long as the haves spend plenty of cash over cap it's not unrealistic to have the league as a whole spending just south of $120M on average. And if they used the league figure to mitigate the per team floor requirements of 89-90% then in a way it's a form of subsidizing the floor requirements among owners. Now the team that overspends may still appear to have a competitive advantage in that they can, but we haven't seen that to be the case in the past. Eventually the haves who spend unlimited cap over cash may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as they are forced to regroup because they can't fit it all under the salary cap which has been rolled back to really beyond 2009 (because it was adjusted to $128M that year and not the $123 it was projected to be) and won't be rising as dramatically at least until after the effect of the new TV deals begin to kick in in 2014. And the whole picture may be subject to review based on 3 year windows of spending...

So maybe that is how Roger is selling this deal to ownership. We certainly haven't heard any squawking from the have not champions as yet... And Roger did say last week that the issue of owner revenue sharing had already been discussed and assurances made and would be handled seperately from the CBA (as they should be).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Some interesting tweets from Schefter and Breer...

1 minute ago>>
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Can confirm the NFL has sent a memo out to clubs. A labor seminar is set for Friday for up to 4 execs per team if a deal is ratified Thu.


11 minutes ago »
AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
NFL sent a memo to all 32 teams today, instructing key executives to attend Thursday's owners meetings in Atlanta. More on ESPN.

19 minutes ago »
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
My understanding is the players' pursuit of $320 million in lost 2010 benefits has emerged as biggest remaining issue here.

36 minutes ago »
AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
NFLPA/NFL aiming for Global Settlement of CBA, Doty TV case, collusion suit, Brady case, retired players lawsuit. Want all settled, dropped.

Vrabel now thinks the NFLPA would have a hard time with any disciplining of James Harrison. Maybe they should swap the $320M they lost in 2010 benefits under a CBA clause they agreed to in 2006 for lockout amnesty...

 

[Mike the Brit]

As long as the haves spend plenty of cash over cap it's not unrealistic to have the league as a whole spending just south of $120M on average. And if they used the league figure to mitigate the per team floor requirements of 89-90% then in a way it's a form of subsidizing the floor requirements among owners. Now the team that overspends may still appear to have a competitive advantage in that they can, but we haven't seen that to be the case in the past. Eventually the haves who spend unlimited cap over cash may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as they are forced to regroup because they can't fit it all under the salary cap which has been rolled back to really beyond 2009 (because it was adjusted to $128M that year and not the $123 it was projected to be) and won't be rising as dramatically at least until after the effect of the new TV deals begin to kick in in 2014. And the whole picture may be subject to review based on 3 year windows of spending...

So maybe that is how Roger is selling this deal to ownership. We certainly haven't heard any squawking from the have not champions as yet... And Roger did say last week that the issue of owner revenue sharing had already been discussed and assurances made and would be handled seperately from the CBA (as they should be).

Well, yes, but cap over cash spending is like credit card debt. Sooner or later ... And then, when those teams that have spent over cap have to cut back their cash spending to get under the cap, other teams will have to spend cash over the cap to reach that 99% figure. Doesn't sound much like the Glazers or Mike Brown to me.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, yes, but cap over cash spending is like credit card debt. Sooner or later ... And then, when those teams that have spent over cap have to cut back their cash spending to get under the cap, other teams will have to spend cash over the cap to reach that 99% figure. Doesn't sound much like the Glazers or Mike Brown to me.

Those things have a way of balancing out over time though in a 32 team league. A lot of fans are assuming teams will have to spend like maniacs on FA to meet the floor when in the case of a team like Tampa it may be that by the end of this season they decide to invest in a long term deal for the QB, and end up using up $25-30M in cash in the process... And again if they are tallking about a rolling window of spending assessment like a 3 year period, it will really just come down to sound cap management. The Patriots have always approached cash and cap that way. Which is why Brandt opined weeks ago that the teams who pay as they go should be fine under the new system.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Mmm, yes. I'm sure that the Patriots will be fine. They're good at planning and prepared to be ruthless if they have to be to get down to the spending limits.

But, so far as I can get it, some teams have consistently spent under the cap by quite a margin -- the business plan being to have expenses under the average but share revenue equally. If the article is accurate (and I've not misunderstood it) that can't continue.

Anyway, thanks for the information.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Mmm, yes. I'm sure that the Patriots will be fine. They're good at planning and prepared to be ruthless if they have to be to get down to the spending limits. But, so far as I can get it, some teams have consistently spent under the cap by quite a margin -- the business plan being to have expenses under the average but share revenue equally. If the article is accurate (and I've not misunderstood it) that can't continue. Anyway, thanks for the information.

It can't continue for teams who did that to pocket cash perpetually. But if they spend to the cap going forward by funding it with the cap they will be fine. SD has had to do that for a while now because they lack the revenue to fund big cash over cap signing bonuses or mitigate mistakes by cutting them with impunity and just spending more cash over cap to correct them as Snyder has been able to attempt to do... SD basically used their salary cap to pay for their players. That required drafting well because you were not going to be able to be competitive in resigning your own top tier FA let alone seeking out those others couldn't afford.

 

[ralmat55]

The accounting nerd in me is very interested in how the proposed cash floor is going to change things. To me, it's going to make it awfully hard for the Redskins of the world to borrow from the future. How are teams going to get their way out of cap jail if the CBA says they must pay 90% of the cap in cash every year? Under the old rules, teams would just go through a season or two where they'd pay half the cap in cash and the rest would be amortized bonus money to clear their books. Not sure how all this will work out but will be interested to find out.

 

[Fencer]

The accounting nerd in me is very interested in how the proposed cash floor is going to change things. To me, it's going to make it awfully hard for the Redskins of the world to borrow from the future. How are teams going to get their way out of cap jail if the CBA says they must pay 90% of the cap in cash every year? Under the old rules, teams would just go through a season or two where they'd pay half the cap in cash and the rest would be amortized bonus money to clear their books. Not sure how all this will work out but will be interested to find out.

I've been wondering something similar.

The simplest answer would be that things are being slightly misreported, and as long as your historical, cumulative cash:cap ratio is 1:1 or higher, it's all good.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

We will probably start getting more details soon since things seem to be moving along.

They have settled the matter of benefits for retirees. The league had been funding the Legacy ("88") fund to the tune of $380M over the last couple of seasons to provide enhanced benefits for pre 1993 retirees. Now that fund will gradually rise over the ten year term of this CBA to $1B in funding with increased contributions of $620M to be shared by the players (via the cap - I assume a deduction from their share of revenue before the cap is set) and teams. Teams will be still be paying a larger share but at least now there is a split. Chris Mortenson said both Goodell and Smith had promised this would happen and in fact revealed that Smith told the players before he was hired that he felt there was a moral obligation for them to contribute and if they didn't think so he was not the man for the job. So good for De.

 

[Mike the Brit]

We will probably start getting more details soon since things seem to be moving along.

They have settled the matter of benefits for retirees. The league had been funding the Legacy ("88") fund to the tune of $380M over the last couple of seasons to provide enhanced benefits for pre 1993 retirees. Now that fund will gradually rise over the ten year term of this CBA to $1B in funding with increased contributions of $620M to be shared by the players (via the cap - I assume a deduction from their share of revenue before the cap is set) and teams. Teams will be still be paying a larger share but at least now there is a split. Chris Mortenson said both Goodell and Smith had promised this would happen and in fact revealed that Smith told the players before he was hired that he felt there was a moral obligation for them to contribute and if they didn't think so he was not the man for the job. So good for De.

:agree:

If a union's not about showing some kind of solidarity to protect the interests of the weak, what's the point?

 

[Gumby]

There is an interesting twist to this year’s revenue split, with the Player share, or team Cap, expected to be about $120 million. [bold]Teams can take one player on their roster and apply a $3 million “exception” to reduce his Cap charge by that amount. And in 2012, they apply a $1.5 million “exception” to reduce one player’s Cap charge by that amount. [/bold]These were concessions made by Owners to give Players a $4.5 million per team gift to close the deal, although the guaranteed spend (below) is predicated on the $120 million number.

hmmmmmm. Sounds like the Dolts got a little candy here. How to make sure your past salary cap transgressions can continue unabated w/out repercussions. They already got help due to the uncapped year. Now they get another way to shave off their salary cap mismanagement.

I guess I should just take the BB attitude and watch our own team. We will get some help on TB's contract with this rule too. But it just frustrates me that a Dolt franchise that blew out the cap on Manning; didn't paying the piper for the excessive cap spending and collapse into a cellar dwellar.

Meanwhile the Pats practice cap discipline and thereby get unfairly accused of being cheap etc etc.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

hmmmmmm. Sounds like the Dolts got a little candy here. How to make sure your past salary cap transgressions can continue unabated w/out repercussions. They already got help due to the uncapped year. Now they get another way to shave off their salary cap mismanagement.

I guess I should just take the BB attitude and watch our own team. We will get some help on TB's contract with this rule too. But it just frustrates me that a Dolt franchise that blew out the cap on Manning; didn't paying the piper for the excessive cap spending and collapse into a cellar dwellar.

Meanwhile the Pats practice cap discipline and thereby get unfairly accused of being cheap etc etc.

I don't think this was a transgression forgiver. It was a way to make the cap seem no less than the $123M scheduled cap in 2009 (that ultimately got adjusted upwards to $128M because of the impending uncapped season).

A transgression forgiver would be dead cap amnesty and we haven't heard so much as a whisper of that ever even being discussed (except by the guy at JETSCAP...). A proposal that was discussed that would have helped several teams currently up against it was to allow credits on unused cap space from 2009 to the tune of $163M. The Colts had $7M+ left unspent in 2009. We had $2M. But that proposal was scrapped per Clayton.

The Colts are going to be in a bit of a tight spot heading into this new CBA. They are close to the cap before factoring in Manning's tag or cap hit from a new deal and may be looking at multiple cuts and the inability to re-sign most of their own FA let alone anyone elses. Polian may have to break his existing 2007 record for fielding untested NFL talent. They have paid a price. Two trips to the SB and 1 ring they sort of lucked into in over a decade long career for their GOAT candidate. A record they may be hard pressed to improve upon under this new CBA over the remaining 4-5 years of Manning's career.

 

[jmt57]

Hopefully this won't detract from the current CBA negotiations and can be dealt with separately.

75 NFL retirees file lawsuit against league, helmet maker over concussions - The Washington Post

Seventy-five former players are suing the National Football League, claiming the league concealed information about the danger of concussions for decades.

The negligence and liability suit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court lists Raymond Clayborn, Ottis Anderson and Mark Duper as plaintiffs, among others. Most players listed their wives as co-plaintiffs.

Helmet maker Riddell also is a defendant.

The suit alleges the NFL knew as early as the 1920s of the harmful effects of concussions and claims that information was concealed from coaches, trainers, players and the public until June 2010.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league hasn’t seen the suit but would “vigorously” contest any claims of that kind.