No lock-out, no CBA scenario

[Urgent]

What if the owners elect to go with the status quo?

We've had lots of discussion about lock-outs or new CBA's.
Why not just allow another year to work under the current rules?
Would the players strike?

The owners opted out of the CBA, as was their right, because they claimed that the system was not profitable or equitable. Before the uncapped season, there was a lot of speculation that salaries could rapidly escalate, driven by spending in Washington, Dallas, and a few other teams.

In fact, it seems that payrolls are down. The Patriots appear to be spending less -- especially if you ignore the $9mm 'cap charge' for Adalius Thomas, which is pure sunk cost from years ago and doesn't count against any cap. It's hard to point to teams that spent a lot more. The consistent trend has been conservatism.

Closer review of the rules showed that the double-edged sword of the uncapped year had one dull side. Yes, there is no salary cap. However, that works both ways, and teams did not race to exceed the prior limits. The constraints of six-year free agency, the Rule of Eight, and other rules limited player movement -- and large deals.

Could the owners really get a better deal this off-season with a new CBA?
Continuing in uncapped limbo would seem to be far more attractive than a lock-out -- stadiums would be full, television money would flow. From the owner's point of view, I don't see much reason to stop the games.

A second uncapped season, further, would send a strong message to the players that the owners' fall-back position is pretty attractive, and they have no reason to yield to a lopsided CBA.

In hindsight, a brilliant CBA clause. Ralph Wilson was right: it was a very complex proposal, and he didn't really understand it. Neither did the players' representatives. But there were some owners who crafted it who apparently understood it very very well.

 

[VinnyPatrollie]

Interesting thought. But do the current rules apply for 2011? 2012? In perpetuity? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't think so. Otherwise, I can't see the owners truely wanting to enter a new agreement as they no longer have a salary floor, 30% rule, etc.

 

[signbabybrady]

Interesting thought. But do the current rules apply for 2011? 2012? In perpetuity? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't think so. Otherwise, I can't see the owners truely wanting to enter a new agreement as they no longer have a salary floor, 30% rule, etc.

I too do not know whether this years rules would push forward to next year but I think the point is mute as I recall there was language that prevented either a hold out and lock out this season when the owners opted out and I highly doubt that even if 2010 rules could push to 2011 that the players would have allowed a strike block to continue past 2010.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I believe the union proposed this a while ago and it was rejected out of hand.

 

[jmt57]

There actually is verbiage for a second uncapped year, which many people do not realize could actually happen. The biggest difference is that in 2011 the amount of service time to become an unrestricted free agent is five years; it was six years in 2010, and had been four years prior to that. If I'm not mistaken everything else is the same as in this current uncapped year: three tags for restricted free agents rather than one, spending restrictions on the final eight and final four teams, no salary cap, no salary floor, etc.

 

[Headcase]

The Patriots appear to be spending less -- especially if you ignore the $9mm 'cap charge' for Adalius Thomas, which is pure sunk cost from years ago and doesn't count against any cap. It's hard to point to teams that spent a lot more. The consistent trend has been conservatism.

.

But you have to ask the question, "Why are teams being conservative?" I would say in many cases, the Patriots included, the reason is not because of the rules in place, but the uncertainty of what next year will bring. True there is no cap this year, but without knowing if there will be a cap next year, or how salaries from this season would be calculated against the future cap, it makes it a dangerous game to be handing out large contracts right now. This has come up time and time again, especially in relation to Brady and Manning's deals. If hard rules were in place next year things would be different, but until that happens it is the smart play to be conservative so that you don't put the team in potential cap hell if it returns next year.

SSDD

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

there was a post about this from David Cornwell.. There will be no lockout, there will be no cba.. the union will fight this in the courts, but games will not be lost... I think the OP is right, the owners will extend the season make more money..

 

[Triumph]

The owners do want a new CBA. Particularly, some sort of cap on the contracts of top 10 draft picks. If 2011 is a repeat of 2010, youve got another year of Sam Bradford type contracts.

Locking the players out drives them back to the bargaining table. I dont believe the owners would threaten to lock out the players and then not follow through.

 

[Triumph]

I believe the union proposed this a while ago and it was rejected out of hand.

Yup, and I recall the Owners shooting it down too.

Smith said the union's most recent proposal contains an offer to keep the current capped system for another year to allow both sides to continue negotiations.

"It is our view that obtaining an extension to the CBA prior to the uncapped year is in the best interest of both the players and the owners," Smith wrote. "However, the terms of any CBA extension must allow for players to get their fair share of NFL revenues while at the same time address the owner's issues in such a way as to allow them to continue to grow the game of football."

NFL.com news: NFLPA executive director Smith says 2010 season likely uncapped

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

In fact, it seems that payrolls are down. The Patriots appear to be spending less -- especially if you ignore the $9mm 'cap charge' for Adalius Thomas, which is pure sunk cost from years ago and doesn't count against any cap. It's hard to point to teams that spent a lot more. The consistent trend has been conservatism.

Closer review of the rules showed that the double-edged sword of the uncapped year had one dull side. Yes, there is no salary cap. However, that works both ways, and teams did not race to exceed the prior limits. The constraints of six-year free agency, the Rule of Eight, and other rules limited player movement -- and large deals.

It was fairly easy for owners to restrain themselves this year. The issue arises over time, as owners get more used to no cap, and salaries eventually creep up. It will be hard to but the cap genie back in the bottle, but in a few years, with no cap, there will be no bottle.

Plus, even if the owners didn't lock out the players, the union would most likely decertify and sue the league under anti trust laws (their exemption is quite narrow, and does not extend to collective bargaining).

 

[Urgent]

But you have to ask the question, "Why are teams being conservative?" I would say in many cases, the Patriots included, the reason is not because of the rules in place, but the uncertainty of what next year will bring. True there is no cap this year, but without knowing if there will be a cap next year, or how salaries from this season would be calculated against the future cap, it makes it a dangerous game to be handing out large contracts right now. This has come up time and time again, especially in relation to Brady and Manning's deals. If hard rules were in place next year things would be different, but until that happens it is the smart play to be conservative so that you don't put the team in potential cap hell if it returns next year.

SSDD

Interesting take.
But note that the owners acted totally different 10 years ago - they signed multiple players to large escalating deals under a previous system, creating that same uncertainty on how they would manage the cap in the future. This led to the term 'cap hell' for the situation many teams found themselves in, forcing player cuts.
The Patriots themselves basically had to release Lawyer Milloy due to cap constraints (we can argue whether that was the only issue, but the fact is that the team was over the cap and had identified him as the player that was not worth his individual cap figure). During expansion, several teams struck deals with the new teams, allowing valuable players to leave to avoid the cap hit.

In that era, teams made deals not under uncertainty, but with certainty that there would be problems. Now, not only are many owners acting more conservatively, all of them are acting more conservatively. So we can argue that it's uncertainty, but certainly interesting that no single owner has taken advantage to 'defect.'

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Again, the owners don't have to lock the players out to get what they want. The league can play on with rules dictated by ownership which will certainly include a rookie contract cap and a return to a salary cap and floor as well as a number of other changes that achieve much of the 18% give back they proposed as necessary for franchises to continue to operate soundly and grow the proverbial pie. Most players will only care that their checks continue. Some will resent the fact that the cap won't grow exponentially as it has in the last 4 years, but as long as it still grows most will be OK with that as an alternative to a work stoppage.

That is the functional no lock out no CBA scenario. It won't be another year under the existing CBA because that arrangement simply doesn't do enough for owners and as players have witnessed it doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for them, either. The sea change the union demanded and got in 2006 pretty much eliminating designated revenue calculations in favor of total revenue hasn't worked for the have nots any better than the old system did because even with increased revenue sharing from the haves they can't keep pace with exploding salaries and caps. And eventually even the haves will struggle to.

This league like most sports leagues is something of a house of cards. The eye popping franchise values that have driven investment over the last decade are largely fueled by perception. Valuations are based largely on the financial sectors view of the league as a whole being profitable and stable. All it would take is for a handful of struggling teams to go under or a handful of recent owners to go upside down under the burden of increasing debt load and decreasing or disappearing profit margins and operating costs outstripping operating revenue and the collective value of the league, which represents the lions share of perceived value for all 32 franchises, begins to drop. Stable growth has been the little engine that has driven this leagues increasing popularity and profitability for the last couple of decades.

 

[Wolfpack]

What if the owners elect to go with the status quo?

The owners don't want the status quo; they are the ones unhappy with the current deal. The players have stated they would be happy to extend the CBA and continue things as they currently are.

We've had lots of discussion about lock-outs or new CBA's.
Why not just allow another year to work under the current rules?
Would the players strike?

The players would love nothing more than maintaining the current system, so no they wouldn't strike if the owners offered to do just that.

I suppose it is theoretically possible to play on without a CBA under another year like this year but I really don't consider that scenario in the realm of reality.

 

[Urgent]

The owners don't want the status quo; they are the ones unhappy with the current deal. The players have stated they would be happy to extend the CBA and continue things as they currently are.
The players would love nothing more than maintaining the current system, so no they wouldn't strike if the owners offered to do just that.

I suppose it is theoretically possible to play on without a CBA under another year like this year but I really don't consider that scenario in the realm of reality.

By "current system" and "status quo" we mean the current current system, not the previous CBA that the owners opted out of. This discussion has speculated about whether the owners can and would want to play another year under the current no-salary-cap/player movement constraint system of 2010, not whether they would return to the 2009 CBA.

 

[IllegalContact]

I believe the league would lose its anti-trust exemption if it continued to operate without a CBA and a union decertification

the lack of a CBA for one year is one thing. over the long haul, small market teams would not last.

 

[RussFrancis]

I just watched Roger Goodell basically LIE THRU HIS TEETH question after question at the owner's meeting PC. These men just voted to expand the NFL schedule to 18 games, basicallyw WITHOUT the players' consent. Im really disgusted with this guy. There's a lockout on the way. Ive never been more sure of it at this point.

 

[Wolfpack]

I just watched Roger Goodell basically LIE THRU HIS TEETH question after question at the owner's meeting PC. These men just voted to expand the NFL schedule to 18 games, basicallyw WITHOUT the players' consent.

It's not something they can implement unilaterally. We all knew they wanted an 18 games season, and now they're formally voting on it. But the vote itself is not really that big of a deal.

Im really disgusted with this guy. There's a lockout on the way. Ive never been more sure of it at this point.

AFAIC there are 2 types of potential lockouts: (A) A lockout that impacts the offseason prior to the point where it would disrupt regular season games, and (B) A lockout that extends into the regular season. I have no doubt we're getting (A). IMHO, the question of whether or not it extends to (B) is still up in the air.

 

[RussFrancis]

Agreed. The early lockout is definitely on the way. But one leaking into the regular season, or much deeper into the summer, seems so very likely, imo. Im telling you, Goodell was just pissing me off question after question. He couldnt care less about those players. Doesnt give a you-know-what.

 

[JoeSixPat]

When the owners opted to end the CBA early they were essentially saying that the state of the economy and the football buisness required a change in the CBA in their favor.

I tend to think that things are worse, not better, in the current economy now.

Unfortunately for the players they've got little leverage. They can't up and start a new league without the infrastructure and organization of the current NFL.

The NFL on the other hand can always bring in replacement players to sustaiin themselves, even if it's not as lucrative as the NFL. I would tend to think that players out of college would be inclined to play as replacements as well.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

When the owners opted to end the CBA early they were essentially saying that the state of the economy and the football buisness required a change in the CBA in their favor.

I tend to think that things are worse, not better, in the current economy now.

Unfortunately for the players they've got little leverage. They can't up and start a new league without the infrastructure and organization of the current NFL.

The NFL on the other hand can always bring in replacement players to sustaiin themselves, even if it's not as lucrative as the NFL. I would tend to think that players out of college would be inclined to play as replacements as well.

that last scenario is not going to happen. It's a different NFL and different world. Fans aren't gonna pay NFL ticket prices and advertisers are not going to pay the TV minute fees for amateur night.