No Patriot Veteran Extensions Because of the CBA?

[DaBruinz]

If the owners lock out the players in 2010, the union will sue and win big $$$$ because it would be a violation of their CBA.

Unless the owners prove that the Players are failing to negotiate in good faith..

 

[Miguel]

Unless the owners prove that the Players are failing to negotiate in good faith..

Where does it say that in Article IV - No Strike/Lockout/Suit of the CBA??

Section 1 . Except as otherwise provided in Article V (Union Security), Section 6, neither
the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim by the Management Council that the NFLPA has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the Management Council will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts.

 

[Miguel]

How many of those were signed before the 2009 league year began? Quick checking shows that, at the least, Aaron Rodgers's and Luis Castillo's were, and the 30% rule didn't go into effect until then.

The more I thought about that, the 30% rule went into effect when the owners opted out. Once the owners opted out, that made 2009 the Final Capped Year.

From the CBA:

"No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year and extending into the Final League Year or beyond may provide for an annual increase in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section 7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary provided for in the Final Capped Year, per year, either in the Final League Year or in any subsequent League Year covered by the Player Contract."

 

[Joker]

Try to find a better member of ANY NFL fan board anywhere than our own Miguel.

Here's a tip...they don't exist

Most of the time I have NO IDEA what the hell the argument is, but when I muddle through all the numbers detritus it always comes out the same...Miguel is one of a kind and he's OUR one of a kind.
The best thing in life is a moron like me opening my big mouth when it comes to issues like these with other fans of other teams AND coming out of it looking like a genius.

Without him we would NEVER have a chance to understand the intricasies of all this arcane NFL business jargon.

Another season is upon us...and I salute Miguel...and the rest of Patsfans dot com for the unyielding and dedicated efforts put forth year after year that further educate and edify even the most obtuse of Patriots fans...like ol' Unca Joker

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Try to find a better member of ANY NFL fan board anywhere than our own Miguel.

Here's a tip...they don't exist

Most of the time I have NO IDEA what the hell the argument is, but when I muddle through all the numbers detritus it always comes out the same...Miguel is one of a kind and he's OUR one of a kind.
The best thing in life is a moron like me opening my big mouth when it comes to issues like these with other fans of other teams AND coming out of it looking like a genius.

Without him we would NEVER have a chance to understand the intricasies of all this arcane NFL business jargon.

Another season is upon us...and I salute Miguel...and the rest of Patsfans dot com for the unyielding and dedicated efforts put forth year after year that further educate and edify even the most obtuse of Patriots fans...like ol' Unca Joker

You ain't stealing my job as the mostest, densest, confused footyball observer on this forum (except for the troll children on my ignore list, but that's another issue). :snob:

Ol' Miguel is pretty good though.

 

[spacecrime]

If the owners lock out the players in 2010, the union will sue and win big $$$$ because it would be a violation of their CBA.

The only lockout discussion I read (and I'm sorry, but I forget where) was that a possible Union stategy would be do dissolve (I think that is the word they used) the Union, and if so, the owners would have to lock the players out to prevent something or other, I forget what. (As you can see, I'm really on top of this )

But that is where I heard the lockout talk, as an owner response to the Union decertifying (if that is the word) itself.

Does any of this make sense?

 

[spacecrime]

Where does it say that in Article IV - No Strike/Lockout/Suit of the CBA??

Section 1 . Except as otherwise provided in Article V (Union Security), Section 6, neither
the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim by the Management Council that the NFLPA has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the Management Council will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts.

Hmmm. Does this mean my last post was totally wrong? About a lockout after a Union decertification?

 

[Miguel]

The only lockout discussion I read (and I'm sorry, but I forget where) was that a possible Union stategy would be do dissolve (I think that is the word they used) the Union, and if so, the owners would have to lock the players out to prevent something or other, I forget what. (As you can see, I'm really on top of this )

But that is where I heard the lockout talk, as an owner response to the Union decertifying (if that is the word) itself.

Does any of this make sense?

Yes, it does. But that would happen in 2011. If I understood DaBruinz's post correctly (His words - "I think that the teams that HAVE extended players since the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008 are ones that believe that the owners will lock the players out before they allow an uncapped year. I think that the Patriots want to do right by the players and pay them accordingly.. And they can't do that without really knowing what is happening in 2010." he was referring to 2010 which will be uncapped if the CBA is not extended.

 

[Miguel]

The difference is that with a cap, the signing bonus is pro-rated (for cap accounting purposes) for the length of the contract. With no cap, there is no accounting process for cap purposes.

The money is paid, end of story.

I am pretty sure that this is accounting for cap purposes. The CBA says "The total amount of any signing bonus shall be prorated over the term of the Player Contract (on a straight-line basis, unless subject to acceleration or some other treatment as provided in this Agreement), with a maximum proration of six years, in determining Team and Player Salary, except that:
(1) Maximum proration shall be five years (a) for contracts entered into during the period after the last regular season game of the 2005 League Year through the last regular season game of the 2006 League Year
and (b) for contracts entered into during the period after the last regular season game of the League Year preceding the Final Capped Year through the end of the Final Capped Year. For purposes of this Subsection
7(b)(i)(1) only, a renegotiation or extension of a Player Contract shall be treated as a new Player Contract.

Example - AdamJT13: Matthew Stafford's contract

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Since when did money expediture = improving ones chances to win the SB? If that were the case, then Dan Snyder would have won 3 or 4 by now..

The salary cap was put in place to help bring parity to the league. Also, to limit the amount of money that the players earned as free agents. But also to force the owners to spend a certain amount as well.

I don't object to anything you said except the Dan Snyder remark. While Dan has the perception of being a big spender, he still must conform to the salary cap, so in truth, he isn't spending anymore than any other team that spends to the cap... it just sometimes seems like he spends more.

With an uncapped year, an owner could spend more than other owners, thereby giving them an advantage.

However, this touches upon the other other Dan Snyder issue. He overspends for big name players that usually aren't worth the money. If such an owner spends more than anyone else, he doesn't necessarily gain an advantage since he spends his money poorly.

With the Patriots, I don't think that is an issue.

 

[Synovia]

I don't object to anything you said except the Dan Snyder remark. While Dan has the perception of being a big spender, he still must conform to the salary cap, so in truth, he isn't spending anymore than any other team that spends to the cap... it just sometimes seems like he spends more.

Thats untrue though. The Redskins spend more FUTURE cap money than anyone else in the league. Teams like the Patriots and Eagles do everything they can to pull cap space forward (LTBE bonuses and such) and not impact future flexibility. The Redskins, on the other hand, count on the cap expanding every year. Because of this, the Redskins have terrible depth.