PFT: CBA rules update

[DefenseRules]

ProFootballTalk.com - 14 PLAYERS ASSIGNED FRANCHISE TAG; CBA RULES UPDATE

Meanwhile, the NFL released some information regarding the rules governing the collective bargaining agreement.

Among the facts referenced by the league:

Barring an extension to the CBA, it’s set to expire in March of 2011. The league still plans to hold a college draft in 2011.

2010 would be an uncapped year.

Starting this year, there won’t be a June 1 rule for signing-bonus acceleration. So, if a player is cut or traded any remaining proration of his signing bonus would be counted against the salary cap immediately.

In 2009, not-likely-to-be-earned incentives are counted immediately against the salary cap and likely-to-be-earned incentives are deducted right away when there’s no chance they can be earned.

IUnder the league’s 30-percent increase rule, a player with a $500,000 salary this year would only be able to go up by $150,000 annually starting in 2010.

Plus, only three veteran team incentives can be written into any contract that includes 2009 and subsequent years and have to be tied to a playing-time requirement.

In the past, teams could draw up deals with eight team incentives and weren’t required to connect it to playing time.

In an apparent cost-cutting move, teams are no longer required to finance various player benefit programs, which includes 401K, player annuities, severances, performance-based pay and tuition assistance.

Defining who is eligible to become an unrestricted free agent will change in 2010. Now, a player isn’t eligible unless they have six seasons under their belt.

In an uncapped year, teams will have an additional transition tag as well as their normal allotment of one franchise and one transition tag.

Meanwhile, the league noted once again that there will be no minimum team salary for the final league year.

For instance, in 2009, teams are required to spend at least $107.748 million in player costs, a figure that doesn’t include benefits with a salary cap limit of $123 million.

If the NFL doesn’t have a salary cap ceiling, it also won’t have a salary cap basement.

Finally, there will be designated minimum salaries for players in the final league year. However, they’ll go up less than they did during years where the league had a salary cap.

Some interesting rules. Things are definately changing in the NFL.

 

[alamo]

That's a nice list of the changes, but it's worth pointing out that absolutely none of it is "news", every point on the list has been reported before and most have been mentioned on patsfans.

It also a strange combination of "last capped year" (2009) and "uncapped year" (2010) rules, and leaves out some of the 2010 rules on free agency. Most notably the "Final Eight" stuff and the fact that 4th and 5th year players won't be unrestricted FAs, but will be RFAs (not Exclusive Rights FAs as are 2nd and 3rd year players) so the change might be as widespread as it looks.

 

[Pats726]

I know a lot of the uncapped years and the possible non CBA situation has been discussed...a few things to ME of note that I do NOT believe were ever mentioned....The first is about vet team incentives that only 3 could be in a contract and HAD to be tied to playing time..I don't know how many contracts are tied to these sorts of things OR how this could impact future contracts...BUT I found that interesting...maybe mentioned before...but if it was it was quietly not discussed much..IS THAT important going forward??? (Thought I would point that one out...) Also...was that a LOT of benefits would not be mandatory....I wonder when this kicks in?? And really 1---how much these programs really cost teams...(are we talking a few million a year...or???) and 2--that they are not mandatory meaning some teams could have their own benefits so that players COULD shop around for better benes....again..the richer teams could offer better ones.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Good post.

Doesn't this really look bad for the up-and-coming NFL players? Why the heck on god's green earth are salary increases limited?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Good post.

Doesn't this really look bad for the up-and-coming NFL players? Why the heck on god's green earth are salary increases limited?

It's an incentive to force the NFLPA back to the negotiating table.

 

[xmarkd400x]

It's an incentive to force the NFLPA back to the negotiating table.

Good point. That whole deal appears to work out exceedingly well for owners.

Imagine the draftees of round 2 and lower (32 teams * 6 rounds = the majority of your NFL players).

They could all be signed to 5 year non-guaranteed (like they are now) contracts. Assuming they even got the maximum 30% raises and a 750k starting salary, their schedule would look like this:

Year 1: 750k
Year 2: 975k
Year 3: 1.27M
Year 4: 1.65M
Year 5: 2.14M
Year 6: RFA

The goal of the players union is to compensate the players as much as possible. The owners have a very good power play here, and they will probably make good use of it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I know a lot of the uncapped years and the possible non CBA situation has been discussed...a few things to ME of note that I do NOT believe were ever mentioned....The first is about vet team incentives that only 3 could be in a contract and HAD to be tied to playing time..I don't know how many contracts are tied to these sorts of things OR how this could impact future contracts...BUT I found that interesting...maybe mentioned before...but if it was it was quietly not discussed much..IS THAT important going forward??? (Thought I would point that one out...)

Actually, I think Florio is misinterpreting the relevant rule:

In any Player Contract signed by a player other than a Rookie, if more than three different team performance categories are included as incentives, covering the Final Capped Year or thereafter, all but the three incentives with the lowest dollar value automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned.” In addition, any team performance bonus for a player other than a Rookie covering the Final Capped Year or thereafter automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned” unless coupled with a playtime requirement equal to or greater than the player’s actual playtime during the year prior to the execution of the new Player Contract.

Also, (A) each team only has two tags available for 2010 (i.e., two transition OR one transition and one franchise), and (B) NLTBE incentives count against the cap as soon as they are earned, not immediately.

 

[Pats726]

Actually, I think Florio is misinterpreting the relevant rule:



Also, (A) each team only has two tags available for 2010 (i.e., two transition OR one transition and one franchise), and (B) NLTBE incentives count against the cap as soon as they are earned, not immediately.

Thanks for that clarification..I wonder what impact THAT CHANGE would have?? Not knowing the details of many contracts or even the use of that..I am just curious about that?? It may just be a rule they stuck in..which might have little impact...OR maybe the other way arouns.
What about madatory benefits for players?? That makes sense that without a CBA..no agreement teams would NOT HAVE to have any...but how much would they save?? I wonder again about teams having their own benefits and how players might be attracted to teams that had them..over others?? (Where as now..it's league behefits across the board.)
It does seem to work BETTER for the owners...with no cap an dno base..pulling salaries down a team could make larger profuts...no??? Are there any real pluses for players in all of this?? It seems more on details that..players will have less.

 

[Pats726]

While this is more specific in nature...I wonder what in Billy Yates's contract needed to be changed because of the possibility of the uncapped year?? Just a curiosity as to detail possibilties...I think the fact that the Pats have not extended many is because of this possibility.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

While this is more specific in nature...I wonder what in Billy Yates's contract needed to be changed because of the possibility of the uncapped year?? Just a curiosity as to detail possibilties...I think the fact that the Pats have not extended many is because of this possibility.

I believe Reiss said it had something to do with incentives. . . .

 

[Miguel]

My guess is that Yates had reached some escalators in his contract that would have increased his 2009 salary that the Pats did not find acceptable so they had to release Yates. Otherwise, they could have simply redid his existing contract by removing the incentives.

 

[PatsFan37]

My guess is that Yates had reached some escalators in his contract that would have increased his 2009 salary that the Pats did not find acceptable so they had to release Yates. Otherwise, they could have simply redid his existing contract by removing the incentives.

I'm pretty sure I read that opinion somewhere else, as well. Maybe Reiss' blog or his mailbag. Makes sense.