Welcome to PatsFans.com

How bad will the no CBA be for the union..

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by aabtec, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. aabtec

    aabtec Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have a sinking feeling that the NFLPA is over playing its hand. The fact of the matter is that there 5-6 teams that are very smart and undertsand how to run a business. The rest of teams don't have that ability to maximize revenues. These teams will depend heavily on the draft to stock their teams with players. There willbe about 200 players on winning teams..Of those players atleast half of them will be tied to rookie contracts. So how many players will hit the big payday. There will be a few big splashed but not alot. Too many teams will spend to their minimum.
  2. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +46 / 2 / -0

    I think its anyone's guess what could and would happen with no CBA

    Clearly no CBA means no cap, but it also means no revenue sharing agreement with the players.

    You'd see the haves and the have nots among the teams and among the players

    Some teams and players would do better, others (most) would do worse.

    Top tier players might still get guaranteed salaries or bonuses, but most would not.

    The game of chicken is over the additional revenue that teams get - and the players want a piece of that pie. But there's no simple answer on how to divide that up among the team owners, let alone the players.
  3. shatch62

    shatch62 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No Union

    According to Upshaw, if a new CBA is not agreed upon they will dissolve the union. The logic being no union and the owners will not have the legal right to have a lock out. Right now, the NFL avoids an anti trust lawsuit because the owners and union agree on the work conditions. If there is not Union and league owners threaten a lock-out, the players could sue the league for imposing unfair work rules.

    Two things that will hurt the players if there is no salary cap:

    1) League will become like baseball. While it true that some teams will spend a lot to win a championship, there will also be no minimum-spending limit. Teams could go out and be the Marlins of the NFL. 45 guys making league minimum. Redskins could be the Yankees of the league and Jacksonville (for example) could say “screw it. Why spend $65 million on salaries to lose when I can spend $30 million, still lose and keep the extra $35 million.â€
    It would take longer to be a free-agent. Under the CBA, a player with 3 years of service becomes a restricted-free-agent. A player with 4 years is unrestricted free agent. If the current CBA is not extended, a player will need 5 seasons to reach restricted free agency and 6 to be unrestricted. So a player like Givens would be “hurt†by the no CBA.
  4. aabtec

    aabtec Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is when coaching will be key..some teams like the Redskins will try to buy every last player on the market..a team of allstars..but every other team will have a budget...
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    There are poison pills for both sides on this..no ceiling and also no floor...restriction of signing of free agents for top teams..and years of servive to UFA increasing..many other things as well, so both sides are hurt. If the union wishes to break the golden egg of what they have, they will only lose..same with the owners..it is good for neither..they will lsoe big time if they do not get the CBA done.
  6. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Not sure how the teams will lose on this. FOr instance, what will happen that will hurt Kraft and the Patriots if there is no CBA?
  7. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Top teams are resticted in signing UFAs...as well as signing bonus money going out being not extended as far...There have been discussion of this in the past...last summer I believe...
  8. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I don't think restricted signings of free agents is limited to top teams. I think the rules will apply equally to all teams. (Otherwise, you are right, that would hurt Kraft and the pats.)

    Besides, there are two sides to the story. If we can't sign other teams FAs, they can't sign ours, either. We get to keep Givens.

    The signing bonus question you refer to is for one year only, the first year. And that will not hurt teams much. All teams will be in the same boat, unable to spend money that year. That will hurt the players, not the owners. If the owners can't pay, the players don't get paid.

    After 2006, extending signing bonuses will not be an issue, the problem won't exist under a league with no cap.

    Teams will be free to sign playes for as much or as little as they want.

    The only thing that will hurt owners coming out of this that I can see will be if there is a strike. Other than that, owners will be in control of their revenues.

    The players uniion is nuts if they think holding out for guaranteed salaries will make the players more money. They seem to think the owners will give out the same sixed contracts as they do now, and that is totally stupid. The contaracts will be smaller. They will have to be to protect the owners against players not performing and being dead money. They see baseball contracts and want that size, but baeball plays 162 games in a season, vice 16, and the money income for the owners to spend jsut isn't there.

    No, no CBA means that owners can pay what they want. There will be a couple guys (Jones, Snyder) who will think they can buy a Lombari, and there will be a few teams that will have a $30 million dollar payroll. And there will be a few teams that will do like they are now, manipulating the system for what works best (Pats and Steelers come to mind.)
  9. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,889
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -1

    We're at the stage where we're all entitled to our opinion, since none of us know what will happen if the cap is rolled back, especially since the "Law of Unintended Consequences" will probably come into play. Four things I think I know, but could be way wrong:

    A few players will get way rich. The rest will be no better off than they were before.

    A few teams will do real well, but many will become uncompetitive. The Pats should do very well as Boston is already the fifth rated Nielsen market in the country. If you add in Providence and a percentage of the Hartford/New Haven Markets, they look even better. Franchises like Indianapolis (25 largest Market--boo hoo) will have a much more difficult time.

    I agree with the Poster who said that Coaching will be even more important, as the HC's will have to carefully manage the rosters that get packed with Pro Bowlers and make it work for rosters with a lot of journeymen. As the Yankees have proven these past several years, simply stocking up on All Stars doesn't mean success.

    I find it hard to imagine that Kraft/Pioli/Belichick don't already have a "Plan B" for what happens if the CBA collapses and the Cap is history.
  10. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Personally I think it could be bad. Revenue sharing has to be be agreed upon, otherwise small markets, like Buffalo, could fold.

    Frankly I think the NFL is already heading down the wrong path, with the NFL Network (the hype network), flex-scheduling, and football on 4 days a week - it's watering itself down. Couple that with no CBA (hypothetically), and some teams may never see the light of day again.

    Imagine the league televising games 4 days a week, and due to flex-scheduling the national audience always see the same 8 winning teams. Always.
  11. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Actually the top 4 teams ARE more restricted...from CBA

    Section 2. Top Four Teams: Each of the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship
    games the Prior League Year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a
    Player Contract, except: (a) any Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL
    waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the
    last League Year of the player’s most recent Player Contract; and (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed
    pursuant to Section 4 below.
    Section 3. Next Four Teams: Each of the four playoff Clubs that lost in the immediately preceding playoff
    games to the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship games the Prior League Year
    shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player contract, except: (a) any
    Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted
    Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the last League Year of the player’s most
    recent Player contract; (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed pursuant to Section 4 below; and (d) any
    Unrestricted Free Agent as follows:
    (i) One such player for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of $1,500,000 or more; and
    (ii) Any number of such players for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of no more than $1,000,000
    and an annual increase in any future contract years of no more than 30% of the first contract year Salary, not
    including any amount attributed to any signing bonus. In addition, each such Club and each such player
    entering into a Player Contract pursuant to this subsection may not renegotiate to increase the amount of
    Salary to be paid during the term of the Player Contract for a period of one year after the signing date of such
    contract.
    Section 4. Replacement of Free Agents Signed by Other Club: Each of the eight Clubs subject to the
    provisions of this Article shall be permitted to negotiate and sign one Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player
    Contract (“New Playerâ€) for each Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last
    date of the prior League Year, who has signed with another Club (“Previous Playerâ€), so long as the Player
    Contract for the New Player shall have a first year Salary of no more than the first year Salary of the Player
    Contract signed by the Previous Player with the New (continued page 81) Club, and an annual increase in any
    any future contract years of no more than 30% of the first contract year Salary, excluding any amounts
    attributable to any signing bonus. In addition, each such Club and each such player entering into a Player
    Contract pursuant to this subsection may not renegotiate to increase the amount of Salary to be paid during
    the term of the Player Contract for a period of one year after the signing date of such contract.
  12. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, I see what you are saying, but this is the exact OPPOSITE of what you said. You said that without a CBA the top teams would be restircted from signing FAs. The opposite is true - top teams are restricted WITH the CBA. Without a CBA, they can sign any damn player they want.

  13. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    If this were just the player's asscociation and the owner's group I think it would get done fairly easily. But the owners aren't a solidified group as far as revenue sharing goes. You got Jerry Jones saying he doesn't think not having a salary cap is a bad thing and he isn't big on sharing any local revenue he gets with other owners. I doubt he's alone amoungst the big revenue teams. Then you have teams that make money but don't spend what they could and would rather just pocket it. And teams that just don't/can't or even try, to make extra revenue. Some just want a share of some other teams money
    I have no idea of what the NFL will be like with no CBA.
  14. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,405
    Likes Received:
    110
    Ratings:
    +180 / 4 / -5

    I believe that the CBA quote refers to what happens after the CBA expires. The poison pill is that the top teams are restricted in signing FAs, while everyone else can do "whatever they want."
  15. MagicMarker

    MagicMarker Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm no attorney, but the quote above is the system in place for the last year of the current CBA, which is an uncapped year. If there is no CBA, and there is no union, EVERYTHING agreed upon in a CBA could be out. That could include:

    -- No draft
    -- No minimum salary
    -- No pension, 401K
    -- Free agency at ANY number of years
    -- Active roster size set at anything the league agrees to

    Any rules the NFL imposes could be challenged on anti-trust law. There is a lot of posturing going on, but both sides lose the benefit of their bargain in a CBA. But, you'd have to think the advantage would go to owners since they would implement their own plan and the players would have to sue them -- and the owners wouldn't be collecting their union dues for them anymore.
  16. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    It reminds me of the strike of 1987 and the use of scab/replacement players. Some teams (the good ones it seemed) planned ahead and had players lined up to sign for the three weeks while others, lacking foresight played it by the seat of their pants and got burned. IIRC, some of the teams had players cross the picket line but it was more of a wink wink nod nod "they're playing but they're not scabs" type thing.
    And yeah, I think there is a plan B, C and even D .... Wouldn't you expect that from this organization?
    Just my $0.02,

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>