From the 2006 NFL.Com free agency page -
http://www.nfl.com/freeagency
"If a franchise player signs a multiyear contract with his current club between February 23 and July 15, the club retains its franchise player designation for the following league year. After July 15, any contract signed by a franchise player can only be for one year.
[/b]
From Pro Football Talk.Com
http://profootballtalk.com/7-1-06through7-15-06.htm
"We've obtained more information regarding the NFL's interpretation of the new rule regarding the signing of franchise players to long-term deals. As it turns out, our previous analysis of the rule was partially wrong (but also partially right).
Under the prior CBA, a multi-year deal signed by the franchise player and his team prior to July 15 resulted in the loss of the franchise tag for the full duration of the contract (barring circumstances such as retirement or career-ending injury). After July 15, a multi-year deal could be executed between the franchise player and the team, without consequence.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us the procedure has changed in light of the revised CBA: "Under the new agreement, a club has until 4:00 p.m. (New York time) on July 15 to sign its designated Franchise Player to a multi-year contract or extension. After the deadline, the player may sign only a one-year contract with his prior club, and that contract may only be extended after the club's last regular season game." (Aiello also advised us that, because July 15 fell on a Saturday, the actual deadline this year would have been Monday, July 17 at 4:00 p.m. EDT.)
For now, the controlling language is the "Term Sheet" negotiated by the NFL and the NFL Players Association in March. Per the exact language of the Term Sheet, "FP signed to multi-year contract before 7/15 results in loss of designation for only one year; any contract signed after that date through the end of the season can be only for one year."
The NFL's position regarding this provision, then, is that a long-term deal signed prior to July 15 now restores the franchise tag for the following season. But we (and possibly many others in and around the league) interpreted the phrase "loss of designation for only one year" to mean that the team would forfeit the ability to use the tag in the following season.
Here's why. First, we considered the new rule in light of the old one. Previously, signing a multi-year deal before July 15 forfeited the tag for the life of the contract. Now, it's lost "for only one year."
Second, the phrase "loss of designation for only one year" is meaningless if it refers to the current league year, because the CBA plainly states at Article XX, Section 1 that "each Club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this Agreement." (Emphasis added.) Thus, it's impossible for a team to: (1) designate a franchise player; (2) sign the franchise player to a multi-year term deal; and (3) use the franchise tag on another player. Common sense suggests that, since there's no designation to be lost in the current year since the designation can't be re-used, the key phrase in the Term Sheet applies to the next league year.
In this regard, it's important to keep in mind the fact that Aiello has provided us with only the Management Council's interpretation of the rule. At this point, it's not clear whether the NFLPA agrees. Though we're attempting to obtain more information regarding the union's position, it's possible that the union will contend that the Detroit Lions have lost the ability to use the franchise tag in 2007 by signing Jeff Backus to a long-term deal.
The issue, however, most likely won't become relevant unless and until the Lions attempt to use the franchise tag in 2007. Then, the union could file a grievance in the name of the player whom the Lions are attempting to restrict via the franchise tag, arguing that the Lions have no tag to use.
Before then, however, the NFL and the NFLPA surely will be revisiting this provision during the process of incorporating the Term Sheet into the CBA. If, however, the two sides had finished the job before July 15, the Lions would likely have had a greater level of certainty as to whether a long-term deal with Jeff Backus triggered the loss of the tag for 2007, or not at all.
Regardless of whether the tag is lost for a year or not at all for deals signed before July 15, the fact remains that no multi-year contract could have been signed by the Lions and their 2006 franchise player after July 15.
Thus, contrary to other reports regarding the issue, the Lions would not have lost their franchise tag for the duration of the Backus contract if a long-term contract had been signed after July 15. Instead, as Aiello advised us, a multi-year deal after July 15 could not have been executed or approved.
So under the NFL's interpretation of the new July 15 rule, the Lions at no time were in danger of losing their franchise tag for 2007 or beyond. As Aiello said, "[T]here is no longer any scenario under which a club would lose its tag for future years. They either do a multi-year deal before the deadline (and keep the tag), or they do a one-year deal after the deadline (and keep the tag)."
In fairness to the league, the NFL's position isn't something that was developed within the past few days. In an NFL.com item dated March 11, the league explained that the franchise player could be signed to a long-term deal before July 15 without losing the ability to use the tag in the future.
Stay tuned, possibly, for the union's position on this".
Well, my take is based on the CBA as posted on the union's website.
