Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Veterans Share Their Favorite Sports Memories

Looking ahead to a potential uncapped NFL year

With news that the NFL Players Association and the league have begun talks on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, it's important to note that while the current CBA does not end for another two seasons, there will be no salary cap in 2010 under the current deal.  There will still be football in 2010, but next off-season could look mighty different.  Here's what you need to know about the changes to the structure with a little help from SI.com's Peter King:

A 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010.  For example: a player with a $1,000,000 Salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $300,000 per year beginning in 2010.  Teams and players have not been allowed to sign contracts that exceeded the 30% rule past the current off-season.

• In capped seasons (2008 and 2009), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent if he has four or more accrued seasons. In the uncapped year (2010), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent only if he has six or more accrued seasons. What happens for those two other years, then?  In the first, you are an Exclusive Right Free Agent and the team only has to offer you the veteran minimum and you can't sign with another team.  The second year, you will be a Restricted Free Agent and the team can tender you at a specific rate.  If another team exceeds it, the current team has a right to match any offer.  Let's look at an example near and dear to our hearts - Trent Edwards.  Trent has two years left on his rookie deal, paying $460K and $550K.  Right now, Trent is set to become an unrestricted free agent after the 2010 season.  If the league goes to an uncapped system, Trent's big payday for hitting UFA status doesn't occur following 2010, because he will only have four accrued NFL seasons.  In 2011 he is a ERFA for Buffalo and they can offer him the veteran minimum - just like they did with Fred Jackson this year - and he is required to stay with the Bills.  The year after that, he would be a restricted free agent and the Bills could tender him a contract offer, like they did with Keith Ellison this year.  If another team signs Edwards to an offer, they are required to compensate Buffalo based on a few factors - the level of the tender and Edwards' draft status - and Buffalo still has the right to match that offer and keep Edwards.  Edwards wouldn't necessarily hit true UFA status until he was 29 years old - instead of 27 - and even then, he could be tagged as a Franchise or Transition player and remain on the team indefinitely.  Which brings me to...

• In capped years (2008 and 2009), a club may designate a Franchise Player or a Transition Player. In the uncapped year (2010), a club may designate one additional Transition Player. A Transition Player must be offered a minimum of the average of the Top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s position or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, whichever is greater. A Transition Player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match an offer sheet given a player by another club within seven days. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation.

During the uncapped year, the eight clubs that make the divisional playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign Unrestricted Free Agents from other clubs.  The limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. For the four clubs that lose in the Divisional playoffs, they may only have the ability to sign the same number of free agents that they lose to other clubs.  The other early language, which has not been finalized, says that in order to sign a player to a five year, $20M contract in free agency, a team that made the Divisional playoffs would have to lose a total of $20M worth of free agents.

• Last thing about an uncapped year.  With the salary cap, there also exists a salary floor or an amount teams are required to spend.  In 2009, that number is $111M.  The salary cap and floor are designed to keep teams on even levels and create more competitive games.  With the elimination of the salary cap, the salary floor goes away as well.  Teams could conceivably cut their entire squad and sign 53 guys (or less) for the veteran minimum resulting in less than $50M in player expenses.  This would keep the bottom line down, though I doubt it would generate much money.  Teams are not spending to the salary cap right now, and with the elimination of the floor, some teams might spend even less.  As of May 11, only five teams were within $5M of the salary cap (and they'll spend their remaining money up to the cap on their rookies). Seven teams had over $20M to spend.

***

Several people have said they see the uncapped year as a huge opportunity for the Daniel Snyders of the world to spend, spend, spend and become the Yankees of the NFL.  What people don't realize is that while some great, great players will get huge contracts, the lower-tier players will be making less because of the lack of roster mobility.  Those players are the majority in the union and should step up now to prevent the uncapped year from happening.  The ten owners who will be using a lot of money to sign players will be more than offset by the 22 owners who will cut player spending.  As Mike Florio wisely pointed out last week:

With no salary cap, there will be no salary floor.  And with far more teams currently well below the 2009 salary cap, what’s more likely to happen next year:  (1) a spending spree that drives multiple franchises toward bankruptcy; or (2) a reeling in of player expenses as the teams gird for a work stoppage in 2011?

Comment 114 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Exactly.

Not necessarily. Every team will respond differently but there are systems in place if they go uncapped and the lack of a contract drags on.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

If the salary cap goes permenantly then the players will win, the league will win, the fans will win. European Football Leagues have no salary cap and teams tend to spend to their income, those that dont quickley crash and burn (see the recent history of Leeds United), this has created huge differences in teams ability to spend because revenues differ so much and because many teams fear relegation from the league and the sharp drop in income this creates. Th NFL does not have these issues with shared revenue and no relegation.

Assuming that NFL owners want to win, they will spend big money on top stars, this will drag up the salaries of lesser players, the league remains competative, and the fans of each team can realistically dream of winning the superbowl within a couple of years.

Football. Bloody Hell!!

by gregeng on Jun 6, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure I'm following you

I understand that if the players’ salaries are higher, that’s good for them, but how is that good for the owners and fans? If revenues somehow go up by as much or more than the salaries, that’s good for the owners, but someone is left holding the bag.

by Gino Parilli on Jun 6, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

And some teams will fold

resulting in less player demand

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Firstly, the NFL will not allow a team to fold and even if it did it would just create an expansion team.

The issue with player salaries is that, compared to european football leagues, the NFL has a narrow income gap between teams. So, while Washington or Dallas has more money to spend than Buffalo or Cinncinatti, it is not so much more to destroy competition, which is good for the fans.

Having to be less creative with contracts so that they fit under the cap is of benefit to everyone.

Remember one of the reasons that the CBA is being allowed to end is because owners are saying that they cannot afford to hand over 60% of their income to the players, so why does everyone think that without a salary cap these owners will suddenly find loads of money under the sofa!

Football. Bloody Hell!!

by gregeng on Jun 6, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

You agree and disagree

Are new owners out there to replace the ones that will drop.
St. Louis is looking for a new ownership group now. How long and what will that look like? It seems that an CB agreement would be more in ownership interest than players.
But players on the margin will get a vote and they should vote to keep Jobs.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

St. Louis is looking for a new ownership group now. How long and what will that look like?

Thats a very simple answer. The owner of the St-Louis Blues has already begun the process of buying the Rams and has promissed that if his purchase of the team goes threw he will keep the team in St-Louis. That team is in no danger at all.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

As KC fan I have little love for St. Louis

Thanks for info Via Canada :)

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 7, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

No prob man. And thank TSN (Canada’s ESPN) because thats where I got my info. Great site BTW, just as good as ESPN.com, without haing any of the “insider” stuff.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I don’t think I refresh any website more than TSN on the NHL trade deadline. It’s incredible for hockey and covers the other north american sports as well as ESPN or anybody else too.

by kaisertown on Jun 7, 2009 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’d say it does a better job than TSN, mainly because it stay imparcial. And you’ll never see a days worth of articles on TO being turned down for a house on TSN. Heck they didn’t even deem it news worthy!

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Edwards's Age

Just a small detail – you said this:

Edwards wouldn’t necessarily hit true UFA status until he was 27 years old – instead of 25

Under the uncapped system requiring six seasons for unrestricted free agency, Edwards would be 29 instead of 27. Florio has pointed out that a lot of the top players from the 2005 draft class who signed 5 year rookie deals (Merriman, Ware) don’t seem to realize that they’ll be restricted free agents with an uncapped year. They are looking to strike it rich, but will have to wait at least a year to do so.

by karovda on Jun 6, 2009 1:23 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah that was a mistake.

I’ll fix it now.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

An uncapped year will be a disaster for the NFL

Several people have said they see the uncapped year as a huge opportunity for the Daniel Snyders of the world to spend, spend, spend and become the Yankees of the NFL. What people don’t realize is that while some great, great players will get huge contracts, the lower-tier players will be making less because of the lack of roster mobility.

So what? Lower-tier players will make less than the big name players that Dan Snyder will go and sign. Big market teams will sign all the top talent and small market teams will be little more than cannon fodder. Football will go the way of baseball.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions  

In some respects, yes.

But MLB doesn’t have the restrictions built into it like the NFL does. A team has the option to keep a player it drafted on the roster for 6 seasons under this policy so you would still be able to work up a sizable roster of guys you drafted without Dan Synder or anyone else being able to sign them away. In 2008 that was everyone on our roster Schobel, Stroud, Moorman and Lindell. Four players on our 53 man roster had over 6 accrued seasons. And all of them were signed to long term contracts anyways. It should be noted Lindell was a free agent when he came here which likely would not have happened in the uncapped system.

The gloom and doom you are referencing simply won’t happen unless there is a new CBA which would eliminate the problem anyways.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Okay, so Buffalo (or another small market team) drafts a WR. It takes him about 3 years for the light to go on after which Buffalo gets 3 seasons out of him before he signs a big deal with Dallas (or another big market team). Dallas then gets the WR through the cream of his career. Not only that, the handful of big market teams will constantly pillage players who stand out on small market teams meaning the large market teams will have a steady influx of proven players. Small market teams, meanwhile, can only be competitive if they hit on virtually every draft pick.

We haven’t even begun to address the inevitability of top college prospects flat out refusing to sign with small market teams. Skipping a year will certainly look like an attractive option to a Joe Thomas-type player who doesn’t want to spend 6 years being on a losing team while simultaneously not making the big bucks.

No salary cap is bad for the fans. It’s bad for all but a handful of players. It’s bad for all but a handful of teams—and even bad for that handful when fans go look for competitive sports, as opposed to watching big market teams beat the snot out of small market teams week in—week out. The league and the union need to get this worked out to ensure football’s continued dominance over every other sport in the US. It’s just good business from the perspective of both sides.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

A little different example

KC visiting here :) The Royals have had great talent drafted and brought to the Major Leagues.
Now they play for Mets, Chicago, Etc. because of no CBA and owners/teams with bigger revenue streams take advantage of those that don’t. The NFL had solved this problem and created parity between markets and a few years of No Cap will ruin it and both the Fans, the Players, and for some Owners it will be devastating. I see with no CBA that Buffalo and KC are soon to be in same boat.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Welcome KC

My brother lived there for a few years and went to a number of Chiefs’ games. He was very complimentary of the rabid Chiefs fans, who were very tolerant of a Bills fan in their midst.

by Gino Parilli on Jun 6, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

We are all fans and if treated well reciprocate

I remember a playoff game but us smaller markets need to stick together :)

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

You’ve evidently never worn a visitors jersey to a Philly game.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hell, I'm afraid to go to an Eggles game

or Oakland for that matter :) As a fan of either, I am Neither.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

But with the current systems in place...

the NFL has set up a different system than MLB so those players would play for half their careers before leaving.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

And it seems like everyone is forgetting that teams can give contract extentions to their star players. I mean there is no reason for a team not to give a 4 or 5 year big contract extention to their star players while they’re in the forth or fifth year of their contracts. Ppl seem to forget that the NFL is pretty much the last league that has any sort of player loyalty to the team that drafted them.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Without a salary cap, why would a great player sign an extension? They’re going to be pissed enough as it is that they’re stuck on a loser team for 6 years.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well....

It’s not like Buffalo is spending peanuts now. They could sign that WR to an extension before he hits free agency a la Lee Evans. It has been done.

I agree with you that an uncapped system is not good for anybody but a handful of players and owners. The majority of people will be hurt by it. I’m just saying the world won’t end and it won’t be Royals and Pirates vs. Yankees and Red Sox.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

The other thing about that is the free agency restrictions.

So Dan Snyder goes out and gets all the big names one year and they make the Conference Championship. Now he has severe limitations on the free agents he can sign from other squads. Guys like Snyder wouldn’t be able to reload with Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia every year because they would have to lose the same financial total of free agent to sign them.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not following you. Why would Snyder have ‘severe limitations’ on who he can sign after making the playoffs? He’s proven beyond any shadow of doubt that he’s willing to spend whatever he has to in order to buy a Super Bowl trophy.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Because of this entire paragraph, Ron:

During the uncapped year, the eight clubs that make the divisional playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign Unrestricted Free Agents from other clubs. The limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. For the four clubs that lose in the Divisional playoffs, they may only have the ability to sign the same number of free agents that they lose to other clubs. The other early language, which has not been finalized, says that in order to sign a player to a five year, $20M contract in free agency, a team that made the Divisional playoffs would have to lose a total of $20M worth of free agents.

Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more

by Brian Galliford on Jun 6, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Eh

If he wants to, he’ll find a way to get it done. But football is the ultimate team sport…there’s a reason the Dan Snyder approach hasn’t worked in recent years. You can’t buy an NFL team. This isn’t baseball where you can get a couple great pitchers and put yourself in a great position to win in 40% of your games.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 6, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whoops

“You can’t buy a Super Bowl caliber NFL team.”

by Joel Thorman on Jun 6, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jerry Jones has said it, too.

When the Cowboys won their first Super Bowl of the 90s (remember that game? ugh) they had the second-lowest payroll in the league since all the big time guys were still on their rookie contracts… except for maybe Irvin. Money doesn’t buy rings.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not under present conditions

But who knows under a new one…..

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

At least in football it doesn’t…baseball is another story (Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals maybe?)

~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

by Kurupt on Jun 7, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

If he wants to, he’ll find a way to get it done.

Actually he can’t… as long as he makes the playoffs anyways. If he makes the playoffs then he can only sign the amount of FA’s that he loses (cutting a player doesn’t count here). But what I am worried about is a team like the Redskins going 10-6 and missing the playoffs, then going out and spending 100M on 5-6 top notch FA’s in order to bring them over the top.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

You can get around it. You just let your crappy practice squad type players go untendered and every one who signs with another team is one more big name you could go after. There’s always a loophole.

by kaisertown on Jun 7, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

There are number and salary restrictions. That loophole won’t work although I am sure there is a loophole somewhere.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

"As long as he makes the playoffs"

I’m saying he’s not going to make the playoffs by buying players. It’s been shown that that’s not a way to assuredly get to the playoffs. My overall point is that baseball isn’t a good comparison because one player can’t make a team in football.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 7, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Your exactly right. And I’ll laugh at all the players that choose to sign with Washington and then fail miserably.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

The other early language, which has not been finalized,

I read the paragraph, Brian, but it doesn’t appear to be definitive.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well...

the language is not publicly definitive. But there are restrictions. We just don’t know specifics.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not exactly true, the top teams of the league wont be able to sign all the big FA’s because they’ll be limited in signing the same amount of players that have left their team via free agency. Cuts don’t count.

So lets say the Redskins made the playoffs, and in the off season they want to sign 6 top FA names, but only lost 2 players to free agency, then they would only be alloud to sign 2 players. And they would also not be aloud to spend more then 20M per year on these new players until they lost 20M in salery to players that have left via free agency. Keeping in mid that players that are cut do not count in this either.

The system is there. Teams will be able to sign players to huge amount, but it will not turn into the MLB.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 6, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would the Redskins only be allowed to sign the same number of free agents as they had leave in free agency? Why wouldn’t cuts count. Why would they have to limit their spending when there is no cap?

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

That was written into the CBA.

During the uncapped year, stipulations were written in. Read the King article I linked to. It says it all in there.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is an easy way...

There is an easy way for the Dan Snyders of the world to beat this… Sign your free agents to very lucrative one year contracts…. start working that around in your head and you realize that action would negate the same number of free agents deal and the monetary restrictions. The only problem is the one year deal part, but if the money is big enough I am sure there would be plenty of mercenaries out there. As a matter of fact it would reward the players and the owners to do BIG one year contracts to lessen the impacts of the next season… though this is only really applicable in year one or if a team does not make the playoffs (which I might add is most of the NFL).

Just something to think about… might be the beginning of the out of control spiral of NFL contracts.

by Adamjv on Jun 8, 2009 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's an interesting concept.

Players jumping teams every year because they sign one year contracts.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 8, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

The "lower tier players"

Make up the VAST majority of rosters. This isn’t baseball…one player (maybe save the QB) can’t make a team. Football is the ultimate team sport. An uncapped NFL season won’t make this baseball for that reason plus players have a much, much shorter shelf life.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 6, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree that a single uncapped season won’t kill the NFL. Make uncapped the norm and, yes, football will take a hit. It’s bad enough that the team we follow has been mediocre (or worse) for the past decade. Imgaine trying to get excited for the season when you know with certainty that the Bills are going to be stomped by all of the big boys en route to yet another 5-11 season.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Prime, good point here

One season won’t hurt BUT no CAP will kill us

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

No cap will kill us...

but the MLB system you are talking about would have to be bargained. As it stands now the uncapped year has these stipulations. If there is no bargaining it would continue this way until a deal was reached. Something would have to be agreed upon by both the players and coaches.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed that 6 years of servitude would exhaust most NFL players

and then the best would be tagged. Little movement of top talent and little fan interest in FA. Just destroying the Golden Goose a little at a time.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

The players don’t know how bad this would be for them in the long run.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Which is why if a new CBA isn’t reached I give it 4 seasons before the NFLPA is begging for the capped system to be braought back.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

+1

on all posts so far

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 7, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’m just hoping that sanity prevails and the league and union agree to a renewed cap. I’d really like to see:

1. An agreement without an artificial end date. Since either party can effectively back out of the deal anyway, why build in an arbitrary crisis?

2. An agreement in which the cap is tied to shared league revenue, like TV deals and merchandise. That would keep the cap from going up by absurd percentages every year. Giving the players almost all of the shared revenue (letting teams keep 100% of the money they generate in creative ways) would help with #1.

3. An agreement which only includes shared revenue and not things like stadium naming licenses, PSLs, parking fees and so on.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seems fair - Owners could make more

Maybe the Gvmt entity involved could share a piece if Stadium is tax-supported.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t know what you mean about the artificial end date part. There is always an end to a contract.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

No, not all contracts have artifical end dates. Marriage, for example, is an open ended committment. Yes, there are ways out of it (divorce, murder, flee to some 3rd world country, etc) but at no time are both parties obligated to sit down and decide how or whether to renew the contract.

To oversimplify things, the owners and union could agree that the salary cap would be based on, say, 90% of TV and merchandise revenue with the other 10% going to coaches and league housekeeping. The players would be getting the majority of the money generated by the NFL. The owners would get 100% of everything else—tickets (each team should keep 100% of the ticket sales in their stadium except for playoffs—the more a team can charge the more the team makes), parking, PSLs, naming rights to stadiums, concesions, and who knows what else Jones/Snyder would devise.

Under that sort of framework, why write into the contract that it will end in, say, 2020? Why set a time-bomb? Why not let the powerful force of inertia work for the league (players and union) instead of setting the stage for future unrest?

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

It’s great in theory but contracts come up because on pension plans, health care, etc. Things change which is why every so often they sit down and reexamine the CBA. It’s not a marriage where both parties supposedly are in it for something greater than themselves. The union is out for itself and the NFL is out for itself.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, they are each out for their own. That doesn’t mean they have to start from scratch every couple of years. After all, in every negotiation the players have wanted more. Sooner or later the owners (at least some of them) can’t afford to give it to them. Then what?

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Then you have the steel industry in the United States...

…the union keeps wages, benefits and job security high across the board, thus sacrificing the jobs offered by the weak link owners, “for the good of the majority of the members.” The weaker links go out of business or become uncompetitive shells of what they once were, and eventually the cost structure and consequent prices are so high that the customers are unwilling to pay and start looking for alternatives (I don’t mean to imply that the unions are solely responsible for the state of the US steel industry; there is plenty of blame to be spread around.) How it would shake out depends on what the customers are willing to pay for. I’d hate to see the NFL go the way of major league baseball. Pro sports fans’ brand loyalty is amazingly high, but many people are getting priced out of actually going to a game. Even the Yankees have found out how high “too high” is.

by Gino Parilli on Jun 7, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Won't continue
As it stands now the uncapped year has these stipulations. If there is no bargaining it would continue this way until a deal was reached. Something would have to be agreed upon by both the players and coaches.

If a deal isn’t reached, there will be no football in 2011. As it stands now, 2010 is the only year that will look like this.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 7, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not necessarily true.

The players would have to vote to strike or the league would have to lock them out. The other choice is to continue playing to the current contract indefinitely like teachers or municipal workers do when their contracts expire.

More than likely there would be a lockout if the CBA expired.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

While my (teaching) contract expires at the end of every year there isn’t any negotiation when it comes to the next contract. It’s one step up on the pay scale (not this year due to budget shortfalls) and that’s about it. None of the city workers I know have contracts at all. They just got hired at a certain rate that occasionally goes up.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

In NY we have a strong union.

And we bargain every few years. While my contract is technically a one year contract each year the collective contracts are bargained by the union and last a specific amount of time.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

$ $ $

The players and the league wouldn’t let that happen. The thing that makes the NFL so much more popular than any other American sport right now (and for the last 40+ years) is the parity. Every team, every team (save the Lions) have a shot to run the table.

I think comparing cap vs. no cap and football vs. baseball is comparing apples and oranges. Two different sports.

Besides, NFL players have very short careers. It’s not like baseball where you can comfortably sign a guy to a 6 or 7 year deal.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 6, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Lions have a shot. Granted, someone will have to wrest the team away from Ford’s cold, dead hands in order for them to turn things around.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Give it a year and Ford will be begging for someone to buy the team from them. They’ll need the 500M+ in order to keep th company from reaching bankrupsy like Chrysler and GM.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Nah

Ford hasn’t even bellied up to the taxpayer’s trough for their bailout billions yet.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

Which is why Ford is the only norath american company I have any respect for. I feel sorry for the workers that would be out of jobs, but IMO Chrysler and GM should have closed down their doors because of gross incompatence.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wouldn’t give Ford too much credit. Yes, they have improved quality over the past few years and their re-do of the Mustang was inspired. With that said, Ford continues to be outdone by Honda and Toyota. Ford just happened to be in slightly better financial shape when everything hit the fan for Chrysler and GM. Without government funding, Ford will be belly up by the end of 2009.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

plus players have a much, much shorter shelf life.

Your entirely right. ppl seem to forget that the average NFL career lasts a season and a half, which means that the amount of rookies that get cut after their first training camp or after their first year far outweighs the players that last 10+ seasons.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Great article Matt, Rec'd

I’ve been looking forward to this one for a while now, and I have to admit that you just made me change my stance on not having a cap. It wouldn’t be a bad thing for the Bills at all.

I was seeing the NFL turing into the MLB and losing all parity and competitiveness. This would not be the case at all. The fact that you can hold onto your players for much longer then teams can now is very encouraging as teams could basicly hold onto players throughout their Prime without having to pay them huge amounts of money. Although the chances of having more disgruntled players and holdouts is there as well. In the long run I see the uncapped system as being more beneficial to the teams as opposed to the players as most players will make less money.

The only remaining question is will this create a work stoppage from the players union? I’m thinking that all that depends on who the unions choses to support. If chose to support all their members, then we might see the threat of a work stoppage happening in order to regain the cap. But if they pull and NHLPA and only chose to support their stars, then we might see an uncapped system for a very long time. Either way, the Bills should be able to stay competitive in this sytem.

Thanks again for shedding some light on this Matt. Great article.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 6, 2009 5:21 PM EDT reply actions  

Work stoppage won't happen until 2011.

If it does at all.

I don’t think it would be beneficial for teams like the Bills. It just wouldn’t kill them. Teams like the Steelers who draft and develop their own talent would do very well. Under this system you would have to draft well.

Now these rules are what happens if we go into an uncapped year now. The players and owners could bargain something completely different that would not be as beneficial. Gene Upshaw said and DeMaurice Smith has agreed, that if the NFL goes uncapped the cap isn’t coming back. That could mean this sytem continues or it could mean MLB style free agency. We won’t know until it’s agreed upon by the union and league.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

if the NFL goes uncapped the cap isn’t coming back. That could mean this sytem continues or it could mean MLB style free agency. We won’t know until it’s agreed upon by the union and league.

God I hope that they don’t go the MLB way, that would destroy us (and half the league). I just can’t see the owners ever agreeing to an MLB-like system because they would know that only a handfull of teams would have a shot at championships. If MLB has shone us anything it’s that big spenders have a much larger shot of winning a championship then low spending Cinderella teams. I just can’t see the NFL walking down the same road.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

Under this system you would have to draft well.

And that’s why the Bills would likely struggle if this happens…..

~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

by Kurupt on Jun 7, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

While a team like the Steelers could continue to succeed.

You’re right Kurupt at least about the last 15 or so years.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Upshaw sometimes spoke up when he had absolutely no backing. Take the rookie pay scale for example. He babbled about how the union members didn’t want it. B.S. No one in the union has a vested interest in draftees (who aren’t union members) getting huge chunks of money that could be going into their pockets.

The salary cap is an issue that I think divides players, possibly as much as 80% (no name guys making minimum) for it and 20% (big name guys signing for crazy money) against. When it comes down to a vote I wouldn’t bet against the majority of the players undercutting Smith’s position on the salary cap.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with that 100%
The salary cap is an issue that I think divides players, possibly as much as 80% (no name guys making minimum) for it and 20% (big name guys signing for crazy money) against. When it comes down to a vote I wouldn’t bet against the majority of the players undercutting Smith’s position on the salary cap.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you draft very well and don't need to fill any holes

Just say you need a QB, the money restriction would be devastating if you could only sign for amt lost.

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 6, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah but didn’t you guys just trade for you “answer” at QB.

PS I’m not convinced of Cassel’s ability and think that he was just a product of an increadible system. In fact I think that you guys got screwed in that trade, even with adding Vrabel.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ha...

Cassel is a better prospect than Stafford or Sanchez because he’s actually proven it.

We’ll have given up a LOT less than what the Lions and Jets did for Stafford and at a reduced price (rumor now is that he’s got a deal in place or 6 years, with $36 million guaranteed….just a rumor for now). Find me a team in the league that wouldn’t give up a 2nd round pick for someone like Cassel who has played very well for one season.

Losing a 2nd round pick doesn’t make or break your team. Vrabel as a “throw in” isn’t bad either.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 7, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Strike that

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to get off topic :) I understand your point (and it could end up being valid) I just disagree.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 7, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Oh I agree with that 100%, and I do think that Cassel is a decent QB, I just don’t think that he’ll be the great QB that every thinks he’ll be.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you are assuming that these rules will stay in place after the uncapped 2010 season.

Once the agreement with the union is over, when players’ contracts expire these retention rules won’t be in place. Players will go to the highest bidder.

by Gino Parilli on Jun 6, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Until there is a new CBA...

these rules would stay in effect. That’s how union/management contracts work. They work from the last agreed-upon contract. These rules would be in place until a new agreement was made.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 6, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

At what point does the union whine to the Congress? Several dolts on the Hill (like Arlan “I don’t know what party I’m in but, man, I want to hear myself talk on TV” Specter) have already made noises about getting involved in the NFL’s business. Given the monopoly protection the league has been granted, Congress could meddle…and that just never goes well.

by Ron From NM on Jun 6, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please… Arlan Specter is a joke, no matter what party he’s in. And I’m a liberal!

And I think the US Congress gets way to involved in sports. I mean what the he** was that steroid investigation for? And why should congress be involved in that? Detracting attention from Iraq is the only reason I saw for that investigation. US politicians should pay attention to US policy, not sports. And I don’t say that as someone who doesn’t like how US politics are handled, I say that as a citizen of a world where what the US does is increadibly important whether we like it or not.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Congress has granted MLB and the NFL monopolies. It allows them to become involved. All Congress needs is some cover, and a whining union would give them that. From that point on literally anything could happen. The best bet is to try to predict the stupidest possible outcome and then take it another step or two. Good luck trying to go farther than the stupidest thing you can imagine….because the Congress (with either party in control) is always one step ahead.

Despair.com inadvertently came up with the perfect motto for Congress: None of us is as dumb as all of us.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Absolutly agree with you, 100%

And for the record, it’s not any better up here either.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

The union has a choice in the whole thing...

They agreed to the terms that will be governing them. That’s all the NFL should have to say.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Had a choice I should say.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Uh-huh

And people had the choice to sign the variable and/or high interest mortgages they couldn’t afford. How’s that working out for the banks as far as Congress is concerned?

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

touche.

Maybe I should have said they have no business getting involved and shouldn’t get involved but probably still will. :-)

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whine to Congress?

I expect this to happen, honestly. De Smith has some contacts up there so I wouldn’t be surprised if he A) threatens this or B) actually does it.

by Joel Thorman on Jun 7, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

It is normally true that the parties agree to work under the terms of the expired contract....

and it would be an unfair labor practice for the league and owners to simply do as they wish, as if there were no obligation to bargain. I was wrong to imply otherwise. There are 2 other things that could happen, though: the players could decertify the union, in which case it’s every man for himself (which seems unlikely since, as others have pointed out, total free agency would benefit a small minority of the players), or the league and the union could bargain to an impasse, at which time the league could implement the terms of their last contract offer unilaterally.

by Gino Parilli on Jun 7, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Just a thought

The further south you go the less support you have for Unions in general.
The NFLPA is probably right up there with a Doctors Union. Why would they need a Union?

Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying

by Steve_Chiefs on Jun 7, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Because, just like every other union, a worker’s rights need to be protected. I’m not a big supporter of unions myself, but they do serve their purpuse and I can’t understand for the life of me why someone would be deathly against them…. unless they’ve listened to too much Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

I interviewed for a job in one of the largest school districts in the US. Some of what I do with kids must to be done after hours, specifically after sunset. I asked in the interview if the district I’d be compensated for those hours—flex my time, overtime, etc. I was told in no uncertain terms that I wouldn’t be doing any work after school hours regardless of the fact that the administration knew and agreed that the kids needed it. You see, the union had, as part of their bargining, set school hours—and admin wasn’t going to get into trouble with the union over letting a teacher teach outside of those hours. Never mind what the kids need, it’s what the union needs that matters. Education is supposed to be about the kids, not unions or administrations. Now do you understand why some of us are ‘deathly against’ unions?

To push this into the realm of our discussion, we (the fans) are the ones to whom the union and league are accountable. They owe it to us to get this taken care of in a way that ensures competitive balance…..because unlike kids trapped in the situation described above we have the option of going elsewhere for our needs. In this case, the need is for entertainment and we can certainly choose to spend our cash elsewhere—nice vacations, UFC pay-per-views, strippers for someone’s (Sireric?) fantasy (in more ways than one) NFL draft party, etc.

by Ron From NM on Jun 7, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

And you’ll hear absolutly no argument out of me about any of that. I’m studying to become a teacher myself and would be part of the “Ontario Teacher’s Union,” which is quite literally the most powerful union in Canada, for better AND for worst. And I do think that it’s a bad thing when unions gain too much power, especially when all they think about is the bottom line (something that is quite apparent in your situation). Lukily the OTU has not let it’s power run to it’s head (too much) and is still thinking about the actual education of the kids. Proof in point is the 1997 Ontario teachers strike when 126 000 teachers all went on strike not to earn more money, but to get more funding for educational programs and new books, suplies, updated curriculums, etc. The strike lasted 2 weeks and the end result was not that the teachers earned more money, but that funding for educaional programms was greatly elevated in Ontario. On top of that, over 75% of Ontario schools stayed open two extra weeks that year with the teacher working free of charge in order to teach the full curriculum to the kids. I was in sixth grade that year, and my school year ended in July. And in 1999 a total reviewed curriculum was instituted in Ontario schools.

My point is that unions can be a good thing when they do their jobs right. That pertains well to the NFLPA’s situation where an uncapped system will hurt more players then it helps, and therefore the union should be fighting for the majority of it’s members and bring it back. Now we just have to wait and see exactly what kind of union the NFLPA is.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

The NFLPA was decertified in 1987

then reformed.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Great article Matt

Don’t have time to read all the comments, but great insight Matt. Good job!

John I.

by jri111 on Jun 7, 2009 1:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Thanks.

Now let’s hope they work it out and this post becomes useless.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Nice article, well done

Most of that stuff has been talked about quite a bit, but I was interested and relieved to read about the 30% rule.

My concern was never that the Redskins, Cowboys, etc. would be able to go out and nab all the free agents, but that they could just re-negotiate all the deals on their team. For the uncapped year. I don’t know Tony Romo’s contract status, but say he’s making 6 million a year for 4 years…you don’t think Jerry Jones would have liked to rip up that contract, and make it something like 18 million in the first (uncapped) year, then 2 million in each of the next 3 capped years?

That was my biggest concern- teams basically using base salaries as signing bonuses in 2010, and then having all kinds of cap room and good players under contract on the cheap moving forward when a cap was eventually re-instituted.

Seems like they can still do this with the 30% rule, but that it shouldn’t be quite as severe as I thought it would be.

by Make a play Whitner on Jun 7, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions  

And you my friend have just found the oh so important loophole.

by CanadianBillsFan on Jun 7, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

You can't do it with salary...

But you can do it with bonuses. Roster bonuses and incentives can be as high as you want.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 7, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please people...

Keep politics off this board… I hear this crap on TV way too much, I don’t need it from a SPORTS blog. I mean its fine to have a political opinion, but put it where it belongs and not anywhere near my Bills.

by Adamjv on Jun 8, 2009 9:23 AM EDT reply actions  

Was this supposed to be a reply to something else?

Because if it’s about the uncapped year stuff I don’t get the connection.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Jun 8, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Adam,

I generally am pretty vigilant about keeping this type of discussion off of our blog. I read every comment here – literally – and I didn’t say a word about what was discussed here because I found it relevant to the discussion at hand.

Please, folks – if you have an issue with anything you see in the comments section here, EMAIL ME PERSONALLY (my email is listed at the bottom of each page of the blog), rather than lecture folks. Please and thanks.

Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more

by Brian Galliford on Jun 8, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re-reading it all

I guess I over-reacted a little bit. All of the Union talk sort of rubbed me a little bit. Just wanted it to stay relevant to topic, and in a round about way it did. I guess I just got a little bit fixated. My apologies. Carry on then.

You are lucky I didn’t lecture.. it would have been VERY long winded and wordy. (I would have been booted for sure!)

by Adamjv on Jun 9, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SB Nation's home for all things Buffalo Bills.
Community Guidelines :: Essential BR

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Return of the Running Back(s): Revisiting the Road to the Super Bowl
Bills_small
An Exploration of Ryan Fitzpatrick's TDs and INTs
Small
Beyond the Perfect Offseason: Where Do We Go From Here?
Dsc00843_small
NFL Divisional Record And Playoff Berth Correlation, 2002-2011

Recent FanPosts

403895_2667037408094_1620832388_2463089_1631679275_a_small
Who would you cut?
Small
Who Will be the Number 2?
Spikes_small
Remaining Free Agents
04_buffalo_bills_football_coloring_at_coloring-pages-book-for-kids-boys_small
Mock 2012 Season
Small
Difference Between A "Franchise" QB and an "Elite" One
303857_872291743296_10504698_40499694_6362492_n_small
Be A Little Nicer Please, Bills Fans  :)
Cyclops1-12nd7cv_small
Current QB Wins
Small
The Count-Down to the Right Numbers
Bruuuuce_small
Ranking All 32 NFL Starting QB's : Who is ELITE?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Screen_shot_2012-03-07_at_6 Brian Galliford

100_2488_small MattRichWarren

Authors

Range_march_2011_small Ron From NM

Slide1_small Der Jaeger

Moderators

Sucks_small Kurupt

Mrsinister03_small sireric

Cordy_small poz