Schefter reveals the framework of the new deal

[Ring 6]

Overall I think it's a good, smart deal. I like that the split is based on "all revenue," a common-sense figure, with protections for both sides based on triggers instead of built into the unnecessarily complicated formulation of "Total Revenue."

What I don't see in this deal, however, is anything that really addresses the concerns of the low-revenue franchises that prompted the opt-out in the first place. In fact, with the narrowing of the gap between the salary cap and floor, I think this deal could very quickly prove to be harder on them.

If the 10-year length of the new CBA that I've heard floated is accurate, and there's no adjustment to the revenue sharing agreement coming out of this owners' meeting, I think we'll a lot of franchises up for sale as soon as the terms of the next TV deal become clear.

I think the 48.5% addresses the low revenue teams. That is 4-5% lower than the last CBA. And that is 4-5% less of REVENUE, which is more like a 10% reduction in payroll expenses.
I think that the lower revenue franchise, who were at least minimally profitable under the new deal would be very happy to cut payroll 10%.
If I remeber correctly annuals revenues were conservatively somewhere in the 250,000,000 range per team. Those lower revenue teams will have increased their bottom line profit somewhere along the lines of 8,000,0000- 10,000,000 per year, which is a substantial increase.

 

[Shelterdog]

Sure. There are lots of them. Just the Giants alone, for example, have players like

DE Mathias Kiwanuka
WR Steve Smith
RB Ahmad Bradshaw
DT Barry Cofield
TE Kevin Boss
OL Kevin Boothe
DE Dave Tollefson.


Whether anyone thinks such players are worth the tag is obviously open to question, but I'm just curious as to whether any agreement would give teams another chance to do it because of the big change in RFA/UFA rules.

I doubt you see anyone new get tagged). Teams appeared to understand that 4th-6th year guys wouldn't end up being RFAs and applied the franchise tag to their number one prospective free agents regardless of whether the players might be RFAs (I'm thinking of Woodley, Hali, Harris, Greenaway, Wimberly, Kalil).

I think it'll be a non issue but we shall see.

 

[RussFrancis]

I think the 48.5% addresses the low revenue teams. That is 4-5% lower than the last CBA. And that is 4-5% less of REVENUE, which is more like a 10% reduction in payroll expenses.
I think that the lower revenue franchise, who were at least minimally profitable under the new deal would be very happy to cut payroll 10%.
If I remeber correctly annuals revenues were conservatively somewhere in the 250,000,000 range per team. Those lower revenue teams will have increased their bottom line profit somewhere along the lines of 8,000,0000- 10,000,000 per year, which is a substantial increase.

I think each team's bottom line is still up in the air, specifically contingent on what the new floor is set to be. To this point, details released are suggesting it may be close to 100% of the actual cap. If that's the case, Im not sure how positively those lower revenue teams' bottom line is actually gonna be impacted. Dont like the floor being anywhere near 100%, personally. I wouldnt hope for it to be any higher than 85-90%. Imagine if a 3-13 bottom feeder, or god forbid a winless team, is actually required to spend the same amount of money on their team as the Superbowl champs. Just doesnt make much sense.

 

[RayClay]

A weekly Thursday night game is nice, though terrible for preparation. Advantage BB, since he's an overpreparer.

Significant increases in pensions and health benefits for retired players if revenues continue as expected through 2016

That is so classy if true. Take care of those who built the league with their blood and sweat for very little compensation.

Although i hate the Omissioner with all my being, I do believe in rehabilitation, and this agreement, if a reasonable camp and season occurs, is a feather in his cap.

I do think the Franchise tag will be changed or eliminated someday, though.

If the commish stops being such a douche, I guess i could live with an 18 game season, since all it will mean is changing the description on the tickets of the last two exhibition games.

Two preseason games will be an adjustment teams will make, though it's no improvement. Again, probably advantage BB.

 

[captain insano]

i wonder if the thursday night games will be nfl network only like it is now. i have comcast and refuse to pay extra.

 

[Tunescribe]

" ... the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement."

So, what the hell does this mean? I hope it means that Goodell's 18-game pipe dream is toast.

 

[Patspsycho]

" ... the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement."

So, what the hell does this mean? I hope it means that Goodell's 18-game pipe dream is toast.

In chess-speak this would be the classic bishop sacrifice.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

i wonder if the thursday night games will be nfl network only like it is now. i have comcast and refuse to pay extra.

they'll probably go to the bid that yields the highest net profit to the NFL.

 

[Rob0729]

i wonder if the thursday night games will be nfl network only like it is now. i have comcast and refuse to pay extra.

No they are selling it to another network be one of the big four or a cable network (TBS, TNT, USA. etc.).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

" ... the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement."

So, what the hell does this mean? I hope it means that Goodell's 18-game pipe dream is toast.

It means they can revisit it but it's up to the players. Technically the old CBA didn't require their approval, owners were free to schedule up to 20 games including pre seasons...

Thursday seems to be the tradeoff for now. It creates one more weekly broadcast opportunity (to be sold to grow the TV portion of the pie) without increasing the schedule. Not sure what this will mean for NFLN. Maybe they will just become what they used to be, 24/7 news and features. I assume though it means that the pre season remains at 4 games and season ticket holders will have to pay full price for those...

 

[Ring 6]

I think each team's bottom line is still up in the air, specifically contingent on what the new floor is set to be. To this point, details released are suggesting it may be close to 100% of the actual cap. If that's the case, Im not sure how positively those lower revenue teams' bottom line is actually gonna be impacted. Dont like the floor being anywhere near 100%, personally. I wouldnt hope for it to be any higher than 85-90%. Imagine if a 3-13 bottom feeder, or god forbid a winless team, is actually required to spend the same amount of money on their team as the Superbowl champs. Just doesnt make much sense.

There is a tremendous difference between cap spending and cash spending.
Here is an example.
The Pats sing Tom Brady to a 5 yr 100 mill deal with a 30 mill signing bonus.
The cap is 120mill
Bradys cap number is 20 mill
Bradys cash cost is 40 mill (assuming a 10 mill salary for year 1)

To simplify the example, the Patriots hit the 120mill cash cost by paying the other 52 players a combined 80 mill, all salary.

Their cap number is only 100 mill.

They spend less at 100% cash to cap than at a 110 mill cap floor.

Clearly this is a simplistic example on purpose, but there is no guarantee at all that a cash minimum will be more costly that a cap floor.

 

[Tunescribe]

It means they can revisit it but it's up to the players. Technically the old CBA didn't require their approval, owners were free to schedule up to 20 games including pre seasons...

Thursday seems to be the tradeoff for now. It creates one more weekly broadcast opportunity (to be sold to grow the TV portion of the pie) without increasing the schedule. Not sure what this will mean for NFLN. Maybe they will just become what they used to be, 24/7 news and features. I assume though it means that the pre season remains at 4 games and season ticket holders will have to pay full price for those...

Just underscores how phony Goodell's "argument" was on the fans' behalf for the 18-game season. He hammered away on the fact that season ticket holders hate paying full price for two preseason games, so one should be made to count. Owners create an alternative cash cow in the Thursday night package and suddenly, no pressing "need" to go to 18 games. But, hey Roger! Weren't you fighting for the interests of the fans? ROGER???!!!

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

I think the 48.5% addresses the low revenue teams. That is 4-5% lower than the last CBA. And that is 4-5% less of REVENUE, which is more like a 10% reduction in payroll expenses.
I think that the lower revenue franchise, who were at least minimally profitable under the new deal would be very happy to cut payroll 10%.
If I remeber correctly annuals revenues were conservatively somewhere in the 250,000,000 range per team. Those lower revenue teams will have increased their bottom line profit somewhere along the lines of 8,000,0000- 10,000,000 per year, which is a substantial increase.

The 48% applies to league total revenues. Team salary caps are the same for high revenue or low-revenue teams. the minimum 46.5% also applies to total revenues.

What is different (in the new CBA) is that effectively there are mechanisms or formulations that will require low revenue teams to spend close to their cap, eliminating the common practice of 7 to 9 clubs being 10 to 25 million under the cap the past few years because there has not been a required floor. What this does is put the onus on the owners to come to a revenue-sharing agreement that is equitable and fair. This is a problem that has been cleverly kept quiet among the owners but one that could potentially be divisive if not resolved.

 

[captain insano]

No they are selling it to another network be one of the big four or a cable network (TBS, TNT, USA. etc.).

i like the sound of that thank you.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What is different (in the new CBA) is that effectively there are mechanisms or formulations that will require low revenue teams to spend close to their cap, eliminating the common practice of 7 to 9 clubs being 10 to 25 million under the cap the past few years because there has not been a required floor. What this does is put the onus on the owners to come to a revenue-sharing agreement that is equitable and fair. This is a problem that has been cleverly kept quiet among the owners but one that could potentially be divisive if not resolved.

Actually, the last CBA did have a salary floor, it's just that it was low enough that teams could be $20M under the cap and get away with it (that said, just as the cap went up year-to-year, the deal also raised the salary floor percentage from something like 84% of the cap to 90% of the cap).

 

[jcdavey]

3 very good and 1 potentially very good WRs there.

Would love Malcom Floyd in New England.

malcom floyd would be awesome for you guys

with what you got out of reche caldwell, this guy is ALOT better than him

 

[Miguel]

There is a tremendous difference between cap spending and cash spending.
Here is an example.
The Pats sing Tom Brady to a 5 yr 100 mill deal with a 30 mill signing bonus.
The cap is 120mill
Bradys cap number is 20 mill
Bradys cash cost is 40 mill (assuming a 10 mill salary for year 1)

How do you figure Brady's cap number as 20 million?

 

[Miguel]

Actually, the last CBA did have a salary floor, it's just that it was low enough that teams could be $20M under the cap and get away with it (that said, just as the cap went up year-to-year, the deal also raised the salary floor percentage from something like 84% of the cap to 90% of the cap).

It was a cap floor so dead money counted against the cap.

 

[Miguel]

The 48% applies to league total revenues. Team salary caps are the same for high revenue or low-revenue teams. the minimum 46.5% also applies to total revenues.

What is different (in the new CBA) is that effectively there are mechanisms or formulations that will require low revenue teams to spend close to their cap, eliminating the common practice of 7 to 9 clubs being 10 to 25 million under the cap the past few years because there has not been a required floor. What this does is put the onus on the owners to come to a revenue-sharing agreement that is equitable and fair. This is a problem that has been cleverly kept quiet among the owners but one that could potentially be divisive if not resolved.

Bingo. The problem was not between the owners and the players. It was between the owners.

 

[Miguel]

Clearly this is a simplistic example on purpose, but there is no guarantee at all that a cash minimum will be more costly that a cap floor.

I think that it will be.
Dead money counted against a cap floor.
The use of the in-season LTBE incentive counted against a cap floor. Remember Vince Redd having $3 million plus cap number in 2008 because of a LTBE incentive or Kyle Eckel having a $6 million cap number in 2007 for the same reason.