CBA vs 2006 salary cap

[broncobill]

Can someone please explain the cap ramifications if a new cba is signed vs the current one with the uncapped year.
I keep reading the cap numbers and how tight we are, but I was under the impression we can't prorate bonus past 2007 without a new agreement which is pushing everyone up towards the cap. If a new agreement is made the bonus could be spread over many more years resulting in a rash ov renegotiations and large increase in cap space league wide.
I also heard the cap would be around 90mil, but a new cba is expected to jump that up to over 100mil. This in cunjunction with the longer contracts should put us in Great cap shape.
If there is no cba then there is an uncapped year in 2007, indicating a need to agree on one this year, but how does that factor into our situation if there is no new agreement? Maybe a lot of affordable one year deals this year so the player can cash in in 2007?
Thank you for your time, I see these cap and freeagent discussions but noone seems to talk about this and I would love to understand this from someone who knows.

[Taco John]

All hell will break loose if there is an uncapped year. We'd be in a good position to benefit from it, because of the visionary Pat Bowlen and his ability to get the new stadium deal done. For everyone who hates the new stadium (for whatever reason) and laments the loss of Old Mile High, the business decision Pat Bowlen made there was excellent. Currently, the cap sits at $85 million, though that's bound to go up, and the last figure I had heard that was being tossed about was a $15 million increase... or at least that's the direction talks were going. That's an extra $480 million for free agents to battle for each season.

The bottom line is, however is that right now the NFL owners and the Players union aren't talking and are reportedly pretty far apart on the CBA. An uncapped year would give small market teams virtually no shot at big name free agents.

[broncobill]

Thanks for the reply. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the projected cap increase for next year is under this cba. I agree about the uncapped year which leads me to feel fairly certain a new cba will be reached and a huge push by the small market teams to be done by march 15 so they can plan for free agency.

What I have seen is that if a new cba is reached the expected cap would go to around 120 mil and teams could project salaries beyond 2007. Wouldn't this be more than adequate to keep evryone we want and maybe get a few vets?

I could be misunderstanding this but to assume we will be in a pinch is only one of three scenarios possible. Am I missing it here?

[OrangeShadow]

120 million cap would be more than enough^

[Taco John]

John Czarnecki (God I love Czeck names... I come from the Vajgrt clan, try pronouncing that one!) wrote a piece on this not but a week or so ago...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5158466


The NFL is preparing its member clubs for the possibility that a new collective bargaining agreement won't be finalized prior to March 3, thus impacting the signing of free-agents and complicating every team's salary cap structure in 2006.


If a new deal isn't in place, next April's first-round draft picks could end up receiving less of an overall signing bonus because that bonus money could be pro-rated over only four seasons. Last year, the money was spread out over six seasons for many top picks.


Every team attended a mid-week meeting in Dallas to be advised on contract structure and to hear from an NHL executive, who explained the league's financial failures and their lost season.
With so much wealth, the NFL is too smart to allow a hockey-like lockout to occur, isn't it? For example, the salary cap will jump to $92.5 million in 2006 from $85 million this season.


Considerable debate within the NFL persists. Some teams, like the Washington Redskins, would like to dump their salary-cap accelerations into the potentially uncapped 2007 season.

An uncapped season could serve as a poison pill for both sides. There is the fear that several rich teams would spend wildly in free agency, while the players could lose between $5-6 million annually toward their pensions, 401K funds, annuities and performance-pay bonuses if there was an uncapped season. Health care payments could also be slashed; plus, players would be required to be in the league for six seasons before being eligible for free agency.

"In many cases, that could reduce the times a player could be up for a new contract from three times to two," said one general manager. "That's one for our side and one less chance for an agent to make a new deal."
The risk for the middle-class players could be great because many teams may elect not to compete for every single player. Some teams could actually slash spending on players, preferring to keep the television revenue for themselves.

There have been no serious negotiations on a CBA extension in two months. The players continue to ask for as much as 64 percent of the league's total gross revenues, while management's last offer was 57 percent. No one believes the league will ever surrender as much as 60 percent of its total revenues.

The league continues to hold the option of an eight-game Thursday-Saturday package as negotiating leverage. This new package of games could be awarded to a cable outlet and generate as much as $300 million or more a season. Or, the league could simply put it on the NFL Network and earn a lot less, meaning a lot less in the player's salary pie as well. There is even talk among a few owners of selling the eight-game package on a Pay-Per-View basis.

[Rascal]

120 million cap? Good Lord.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

If a new deal isn't in place, next April's first-round draft picks could end up receiving less of an overall signing bonus because that bonus money could be pro-rated over only four seasons. Last year, the money was spread out over six seasons for many top picks.


He's correct that bonuses will only be able to be prorated out over 4 years this upcoming offseason, but he's wrong that it could be spread over 6 this season. In '04 deals could be spread out over 6 years, this season it dropped to 5 years, and next year it will only be allowed over 4.

Also, June 1 doesn't apply this year since there will be no '07 cap to shift the remaining unamortized bonus money to.

[Borks147]

John Czarnecki (God I love Czeck names... I come from the Vajgrt clan, try pronouncing that one!) wrote a piece on this not but a week or so ago...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5158466





Czarnecki is Polish.

But back on topic, you are right, even if all hell breaks loose we're going to be sitting pretty even though denver isn't a huge market like the new york teams or d.c.. Bring it on Snyder, you're too retarded to beat us anyways....

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Czarnecki is Polish.

But back on topic, you are right, even if all hell breaks loose we're going to be sitting pretty even though denver isn't a huge market like the new york teams or d.c.. Bring it on Snyder, you're too retarded to beat us anyways....

Bowlen can hang if he wants. Denver is always Top 10 in revenue and I believe closer to #5 than it is to #10.

[eddie mac]

He's correct that bonuses will only be able to be prorated out over 4 years this upcoming offseason, but he's wrong that it could be spread over 6 this season. In '04 deals could be spread out over 6 years, this season it dropped to 5 years, and next year it will only be allowed over 4.

Also, June 1 doesn't apply this year since there will be no '07 cap to shift the remaining unamortized bonus money to.

Herc does that mean that players we may trade this offseason(i.e Pryce) or ones that may retire (i.e Nalen) we'll get the full hit of outstanding signing bonuses? If that's the case then we may well be a miniscule player in FA this offseason. Does this affect restructuring of any deals?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Trades accelerate the remaining bonus in full to that year's cap regardless of the day the trade occurs. So the significance of June 1 does not apply to trades.

Denver's going to get the full hit for Nalen since his deal will void before March 1. A better example would be someone like Rod, just as an example of an older player with a larger contract.

This will have no bearing on free agency for Denver. June 1 isn't a huge cut down date anymore, and every team knew this was coming. It's not like Sundquist was out there saying Denver would be in better cap shape compared to years past without knowing what was going to happen because of the uncapped '07 season.

[Taco John]

The Czarnecki I knew claimed Czech... *shrug*

[watermock]

The NFLPA has always been cooperative....

I mean...look at that crap our second rounder D-Will has to drive...IT'S AN OUTRAGE....The fact he only has a 10,000 watt amp is totally unacceptable..If the speaker won't fit, you must aquit...

http://www.nbc56.com/artman/uploads/cochran.jpg

Judge Ito...I'm a little stoned today...OJ gave some of his good stuff...

[GreatBronco16]

Seriously, I think they should lower the cap. Stop paying people like Vick, Culpepper, Manning etc......100 million contracts they don't deserve.

[GreatBronco16]

On second thought, I think the XFL had one thing better than the NFL, and that was the way the players got paid. You got paid per game. If you win, you get more than the loser. Those guys in the XFL were twice as competitive than the NFL.

[missingnumber7]

You can pay to bring in all the players you want, you can sign all the studs you want. They still have to stay healthy and they still have to be productive in certain systems. It opens up the door for guys to say that certain systems are the only ones for them and not change. But the thing that salaries will get ridiculous with is with rookies. Its bad enough as it is, but it will get worse. An uncapped year will be ridiculous. Teams who can't afford it would be better off trading their early draft picks for multiple late ones than trying to afford a first rounder. I think that the CBA needs to limit rookie salaries more.

[Kaylore]

I think players should get a bigger piece of the pie this time around. For as much as they get hurt, and how many injuries can be season and even career ending, I think that the people getting banged around in the highest revenue sport in history should be getting a larger chunk of the pie for as much as they are asked to do.

I would also like to see them do something to curb the rookie contract inflation. Some of these top picks could be boom or bust, but most get more than a solid, but less than knock out veteran (even if the vet's a known commodity)

Just my $0.02.

[Atlas]

Seriously, I think they should lower the cap. Stop paying people like Vick, Culpepper, Manning etc......100 million contracts they don't deserve.

I like it when other teams over spend.

[GreatBronco16]

I think players should get a bigger piece of the pie this time around. For as much as they get hurt, and how many injuries can be season and even career ending, I think that the people getting banged around in the highest revenue sport in history should be getting a larger chunk of the pie for as much as they are asked to do.




I can't agree with that. I'm sorry, but this is still afterall a sport. I don't feel sorry for any of the players that can't live off a couple million dollars. Perhaps they should take that degree they earned in college and put it to some good use if they can't play ball anymore. They shouldn't be overpaid just to make sure they are taken care of incase of injury. There is no reason why they should get all the special treatmeant in the work force just because they play a sport. Sorry, but even I could live for years and years from 2 million dollars. If these players aren't smart enough to manage their money, then giving even more isn't going to help them if they have to stop playing.

Just my 3 cents.

[Taco John]

I personally think that 60% is fair. Hell, I think 57% is fair too. I think 65% is pretty high. Of course, they know it, and that's why they're asking for it. I think they'd be happy with 60%. If I were the owners, I wouldn't want to toss out that 60% just yet. I'd go as high as 58% and wait until the next CBA expires and give them another percent then... and then another percent the next time around... Then probably wouldn't budge from 60% after that. But that's so far into the future it's not worth really talking about except to say that if I were the owners, I wouldn't trade in all of my collateral for future bargaining...

[watermock]

I think players should get a bigger piece of the pie this time around. For as much as they get hurt, and how many injuries can be season and even career ending, I think that the people getting banged around in the highest revenue sport in history should be getting a larger chunk of the pie for as much as they are asked to do.

I would also like to see them do something to curb the rookie contract inflation. Some of these top picks could be boom or bust, but most get more than a solid, but less than knock out veteran (even if the vet's a known commodity)

Just my $0.02.

I don't agree...I think marginal players need to be payed better, the stars are overpaid...I also think that retired vets that might be in need have to be looked after...hell, it's a damn cash cow...they can throw 100M out, but can't throw 40K to help an old man? WTF is that?

[Mediator12]

I did this in the offseason, but this warrants further discussion in light of the current lack of progress. Please remember, this is a theoretical brainstorming session with no bad ideas.

I couldn't sleep the other night and just started picking apart the CBA that is currently under so much scrutiny by the board, the NFL, and the Players association. I tried to address both sides without any bias and take care of the most pressing issues of both sides. I wanted to take away the adversarial nature of negotiations that continues to plague the NFL and begets the holdouts. This is a brainstorming session people, so lets try to be neutral and just present your opinion without being adversarial yourselves. I look forward to the input and hopefully we will actually produce something of value by the beginning of camp.


Article I: Player Maximum Salary Contracts @ 5% of the current salary cap.

The teams would deal with %'s and not dollars here as the future value should be tied to the success of the league. The better the league does the higher the GDR (Grosss defined Revenue) and therefore each player makes more. IMHO the current system only having a cap on the teams and not players promotes salary as the utmost one-upmanship with players AND agents. Agents use this to illegally recruit players and also make players think more of themselves than their teams.

This does not include Signing bonuses which will be addressed in a later Article.

Article II: Player minimum Salary Contracts @ 0.75% of the current cap.

In my estimation, the players that suffer the most in the league do all of the dirty work for the guys making the most money. Being a team sport and having my own player contracts in the past weighted this way, I think the grunts deserve a minimum pay raise. This would currently reflect the 85.5 Million cap and be $641,250. The current league minimum is weighted upon veteran status in order to try and give veterans a chance to remain in the league at a lower value than actually paid. That amount is given to 7-9 year veterans with rookies getting a paltry 230,000. IMHO, article I maximum salaries would change the need for weighting the veterans contracts by leaving more salary cap room available. This would also encourage teams to keep the best player available instead of giving veterans preference.

Article III: Signing bonus's paid 50% in year one and then the remainder amortized and paid annually for the life of the contract.

This is my Rosenhaus anti-holdout clause. If a player decides to holdout, then he forfeit's that year's signing bonus payment and all future payments until he reports to the team or signs a new deal. If a new deal is reached the remaining signing bonus is rolled into the current signing bonus so the player does not get paid twice for renegotiating.

Article IV: Players receive guaranteed contracts after the first regular season game is played under their new deal.

The only exception is injuries which would be paid under the Workman's compensation percentage designation of their particular state (They are not covered by workman's comp, but the teams would pay the % that other injured workers receive.) The value of their contract would be lowered for salary cap purposes for that year. In case of a career ending injury, the player would still receive the remaining signing bonus payments annually but the salaries would not be guaranteed after year two. This gives the players two full years to recover from injury, more than enough time in today's aggressive rehabilitation techniques.

Article V: Drafted players receive the same base salaries per round for four years. Contracts may run longer, but the salary is the same for three years.

First round: 1.05% of the cap, Second round: 1%, third round 0.95% etc.

Personally, I think drafted players need time to develop more than they are given currently. I also think the draft has proven to be very risky especially at the top with the large signing bonuses and salaries for unproven talent. This structure gives more to the lower end draftees and less to the higher ones. I also think it is way more fair overall to the teams and ALL the players.

Article VI: The team Minimum cap is abolished and the teams will pay penalties for not using the whole cap each year.

The scale is inverted so that the farther away from the cap a team is, the higher the percentage paid in penaties. The penalties go to programs administered and under the direction of the Players Association for the benefit of current and former players. The Hercules Rockefeller clause states that it is still advantageous to owners not to pay the whole cap price since the penalties would not equal the actaul savings. However, the money would benefit the former players immensely.

Article VII: The Designations of franchise and transition players are abolished. Restricted Free agency is also abolished.

The new salary structure should allow the teams to keep more of their developed players and create less salary cap Hell with backloaded contracts virtually non existent. Therefore the usefulness of these designations is finished.

Article VIII: All current contracts will be honored until the 2007 season. Then all contracts must be redone to fit the new regulations.


Now, lets get started!

[Pat Bowlen]

Bowlen can hang if he wants. Denver is always Top 10 in revenue and I believe closer to #5 than it is to #10.
And that's only what I report.

My latest hobby has been collecting paperweights, doorstops an coins. Check it out:

http://www.coinfacts.com/pioneer_gold/assay_bars/Bars.jpg

[GreatBronco16]

My God, you're still on that old, tired act? One would of though you would have grown up by now.

[Pat Bowlen]

My God, you're still on that old, tired act? One would of though you would have grown up by now.
You're never too old to collect doorstops.

[GreatBronco16]

I guess you're never too old to be a dreamer also. I bet you would collect Bowlens poo just to be able to call it your own.

[Jason in LA]

An uncapped year would save a lot of team's salary cap if they can work it a certain way. Take all the players who have back loaded contracts, and re-work their contracts so they get a huge payment during that uncapped year. Pryce is one example. His base salary is huge, hurting the cap. Well, during that uncapped year just give him a huge part of the remainder of his contract. That way the coming years won't hurt the cap so much because he'd have a very low base salary.

Sounds like a good idea in theory.

[Borks147]

An uncapped year would save a lot of team's salary cap if they can work it a certain way. Take all the players who have back loaded contracts, and re-work their contracts so they get a huge payment during that uncapped year. Pryce is one example. His base salary is huge, hurting the cap. Well, during that uncapped year just give him a huge part of the remainder of his contract. That way the coming years won't hurt the cap so much because he'd have a very low base salary.

Sounds like a good idea in theory.

the colts would be the ones who take advantage of that theory because their team in going to blow up next year because of the cap. They could pay Manning a large portion of his monster contract in bonus money and then try to resign alot of their other free agents with the cap room.