PDA

View Full Version : Goodell: NFL preparing for no salary cap next season


Taco John
09-03-2009, 10:28 PM
Goodell foresees no salary cap in NFL in 2010
By BARRY WILNER , 09.03.09, 08:53 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell foresees an uncapped 2010 season as the league and the players' union negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement.

Goodell said Thursday that owners are preparing for no salary cap next season, citing the lack of progress in talks with the NFLPA. Last year, owners opted out of the CBA that was reached in 2006. That agreement included no salary cap in its final year, which both sides believed would spark serious negotiations toward a new contract.

"Because of the timing, we recognize there's a strong reality there will be an uncapped year, and the owners have planned for it," Goodell said.

Goodell met with union chief DeMaurice Smith on Tuesday over lunch, but no negotiations took place.

"I told De, 'Let's start negotiating,'" Goodell said, "and that's our intent."

But there is no timetable for beginning significant talks.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/03/sports-fbn-goodell-nfl_6847660.html

Taco John
09-03-2009, 10:29 PM
This is a bad time to have a lot of instability in your franchise.

rastaman
09-03-2009, 11:44 PM
This is a bad time to have a lot of instability in your franchise.

Why do you say this?

Taco John
09-04-2009, 01:25 AM
Why do you say this?

Because the league is about to be turned on its head, and the teams that look like they're the closest to winning a championship are going to be the ones who are able to secure the best deals while everybody else is going to be in a bidding war against the Dan Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league.

cutthemdown
09-04-2009, 01:32 AM
Because the league is about to be turned on its head, and the teams that look like they're the closest to winning a championship are going to be the ones who are able to secure the best deals while everybody else is going to be in a bidding war against the Dan Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league.

I actually think the teams will use this to spend less money. Most teams leaving money unspent under the current cap.

Taco John
09-04-2009, 01:44 AM
I actually think the teams will use this to spend less money. Most teams leaving money unspent under the current cap.



The teams that have always been cheap will remain so. The teams that have the deep pockets will Yankee their way to a fat roster with no competitive ceiling to level the playing field. .

The last few drafts (and the one coming up) just got a hell of a lot more important.

eddie mac
09-04-2009, 02:14 AM
Because the league is about to be turned on its head, and the teams that look like they're the closest to winning a championship are going to be the ones who are able to secure the best deals while everybody else is going to be in a bidding war against the Dan Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league.

Well if any of those said teams do well this year technically they're at a disadvantage in 2010, because in an uncapped year Playoff teams from the season before do not have the same free agency rights as teams who did not qualify.

Besides the point, the restriction in actual numbers/quality of free agents because of the 6 year rule and the 3 tag rule, means everyone loses anyway because movement will be minimal. Some very average players may well get overpaid so let the high market teams do that, it will not improve their teams in the long-run.

Doggcow
09-04-2009, 02:18 AM
They will come to an agreement, book it.

bronco militia
09-04-2009, 06:56 AM
The teams that have always been cheap will remain so. The teams that have the deep pockets will Yankee their way to a fat roster with no competitive ceiling to level the playing field. .

The last few drafts (and the one coming up) just got a hell of a lot more important.

the uncapped years have rules set in place...they are more restrictive than the current CBA

Man-Goblin
09-04-2009, 06:59 AM
I still think the owners lock them out if there is no deal, with the start of free agency and the draft being delayed while they negotiate.

bronco militia
09-04-2009, 07:00 AM
The owners opted out of the labor deal at the best time possible
Posted: Tuesday May 20, 2008 2:35PM; Updated: Tuesday May 20, 2008 11:46PM

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html#ixzz0Q99D8ZQ3


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html#ixzz0Q98zqUZ3

The NFL owners' early opt out of their labor agreement with the players is one of the best things that could happen to the process. That isn't to say that this won't be a long and arduous fight between the players, who believe they deserve their rightful share of the pie, and the league, which has some legitimate financial concerns with small market franchises lagging behind the big boys, but timing was a key element here.

"This is actually fine," NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw told me Tuesday. "We knew [the opt out] was coming. You don't want it happening in November, in the middle of the football season. Now we're on the clock and hopefully this will help us get close to an agreement [before the contract expires in 2011]."

At the end of a short conversation late Tuesday morning, Upshaw sounded as optimistic as a welcome wagon hostess. "Don't worry," he said. "It'll get done." Likewise, the league said it would negotiate with the NFLPA "without threat of interruption [of games] for at least the next three seasons."

There is motivation for both sides to do a deal. From the owners' perspective, they don't want to be seen as the stewards of the game who killed the golden goose. From the players' side, they know that if they get to an uncapped year in 2010 without a new agreement -- the NFL is assured to have its salary cap intact for at least this season and next -- then the advantage shifts decidedly to the owners.

When the current CBA was put in place in 2006, the owners installed an onerous set of guidelines if either side were to opt out of the agreement: those guidelines would be in place for the 2010 season only. The highlights:

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

Upshaw told me that if the players have to play under those conditions in 2010, that would be the last year they would do so. He said in 2011 and beyond the players would be free agents whenever their contracts expired. That, obviously, is a scenario the owners would loathe.

There is no question that the key point, the deadline point that really means something, now comes in March 2010. In early March of every offseason, the NFL begins its new year and institutes a new salary cap number for teams to live by that season. If there is no deal between owners and players by then, an uncapped year would ensue. Some owners might start paying 30-year-old unsigned veterans silly money then, but most wouldn't. As Upshaw said Tuesday, the spring of 2010 is the point both sides need an agreement to be made by.

"What you have to look at in 2010 is, 'What is the alternative?' " Upshaw said, referring to March 2010 coming and going without a new labor agreement. "If we ever get beyond [the uncapped year], we're not going back [to a salary cap system.]."

Let the saber rattling begin. The NFL and the union have 22 months to be smart.

bronco militia
09-04-2009, 07:03 AM
When the current CBA was put in place in 2006, the owners installed an onerous set of guidelines if either side were to opt out of the agreement: those guidelines would be in place for the 2010 season only. The highlights

ok, it's only for one year

Rohirrim
09-04-2009, 07:03 AM
They've got to come up with something that includes a rookie cap. Paying Curry $34 mil is lunacy.

baja
09-04-2009, 07:10 AM
Because the league is about to be turned on its head, and the teams that look like they're the closest to winning a championship are going to be the ones who are able to secure the best deals while everybody else is going to be in a bidding war against the Dan Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league.

A few difference makers will get big money but in general the owners will use the uncapped season as leverage to force an agreement that caps rookie contracts and make profits sharing at a number that allows the league to survive as we know it.

cutthemdown
09-04-2009, 08:13 AM
The teams that have always been cheap will remain so. The teams that have the deep pockets will Yankee their way to a fat roster with no competitive ceiling to level the playing field. .

The last few drafts (and the one coming up) just got a hell of a lot more important.

I really don't think you will see many teams spend more then they did this yr. I could be wrong but I think owners up to something. They want to show teams cant afford to pay salaries like they have been, not the opposite.

In any even Broncos are among the league leaders in revenue. Bowlen went sort of cheap this yr and knows he saved a ton trading Cutler. Maybe we spend more next yr then you think.

Vince Wilfork anyone?

cutthemdown
09-04-2009, 08:14 AM
A few difference makers will get big money but in general the owners will use the uncapped season as leverage to force an agreement that caps rookie contracts and make profits sharing at a number that allows the league to survive as we know it.

we do agree a lot when it comes to football stuff!!!!

Garcia Bronco
09-04-2009, 08:14 AM
Yep...and this is why we dumped that first round pick

Garcia Bronco
09-04-2009, 08:16 AM
Well if any of those said teams do well this year technically they're at a disadvantage in 2010, because in an uncapped year Playoff teams from the season before do not have the same free agency rights as teams who did not qualify.

Besides the point, the restriction in actual numbers/quality of free agents because of the 6 year rule and the 3 tag rule, means everyone loses anyway because movement will be minimal. Some very average players may well get overpaid so let the high market teams do that, it will not improve their teams in the long-run.

This. and free agents with high price tags have a low success rate.

400HZ
09-04-2009, 10:39 AM
The consensus among most columnists is that there would be a lockout after the uncapped year. That is the only thing that concerns me. As for the bickering among owners and players, I don't want to hear it. Players make tons of money. Ownership makes tons of money. Don't screw the golden goose. The only measure that I would really care to see would be players agreeing to a slotted rookie system that pays rookies less while ownership concedes to higher vet and vet minimum salaries. Other than that, hearing millionaires argue about who deserves more money makes me want to hurl.

I don't even care that much about the salary cap. The big market teams already have a huge cash-on-hand advantage when it comes to marquee signings, and those blow up in their faces most of the time anyways. As long as league revenue sharing remains fair, the smaller teams will still be competitive.

Taco John
09-04-2009, 10:48 AM
I still think the owners lock them out if there is no deal, with the start of free agency and the draft being delayed while they negotiate.

I don't think they'd make that mistake and close the doors. That's such a huge black eye for a league to do.

frerottenextelway
09-04-2009, 10:54 AM
Good, the salaray cap is socialism.

cutthemdown
09-04-2009, 10:34 PM
The consensus among most columnists is that there would be a lockout after the uncapped year. That is the only thing that concerns me. As for the bickering among owners and players, I don't want to hear it. Players make tons of money. Ownership makes tons of money. Don't screw the golden goose. The only measure that I would really care to see would be players agreeing to a slotted rookie system that pays rookies less while ownership concedes to higher vet and vet minimum salaries. Other than that, hearing millionaires argue about who deserves more money makes me want to hurl.

I don't even care that much about the salary cap. The big market teams already have a huge cash-on-hand advantage when it comes to marquee signings, and those blow up in their faces most of the time anyways. As long as league revenue sharing remains fair, the smaller teams will still be competitive.

Jerry Jones mentioned today that the big revenue teams are sick of sharing with the small revenue teams. The problem is just like welfare. You give someone something for nothing it destroys there motivation to work hard to get it on there own. Small market teams not trying hard enough to make more money, why should they? they can just share in the big teams revenue.

Revenue sharing is something that could really be a problem among the owners.

Hercules Rockefeller
09-04-2009, 10:37 PM
They've got to come up with something that includes a rookie cap. Paying Curry $34 mil is lunacy.

I wonder what would happen if they didn't have a rookie cap already?

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 10:57 PM
They will come to an agreement, book it.

This.

Owners are posturing and trying to make the players fearful of a situation where they don't get paid premium and have to spend more years waiting for their FA pay-day. Players WILL for it, but new union boss will do a solid job as well.

End of the day, this gets resolved and the end result is less 2% of revenue.

ZONA
09-05-2009, 01:39 AM
Jerry Jones mentioned today that the big revenue teams are sick of sharing with the small revenue teams. The problem is just like welfare. You give someone something for nothing it destroys there motivation to work hard to get it on there own. Small market teams not trying hard enough to make more money, why should they? they can just share in the big teams revenue.

Revenue sharing is something that could really be a problem among the owners.

Yeah, he's complaining because he's the onwer of the Cowboy's. What if he was the owner of the Bengals, he wouldn't be opening his big mouth. Furthermore, if there wasn't revenue sharing, I honestly believe many of the smaller market teams would fail and then you start to lose franchises, and a huge number of fans to go along with them, and then in turn, all those profits from those fans. Next thing you know we will have teams in cities on foreign soil just because they could turn a higher profit then a small city like Tampa Bay. Oh yeah, the Tokyo Buccaneers sounds great. Revenue sharing isn't hurting the NFL at all. It's as popular and as profitable as it's ever been. This is a football league. If Jones wants more profits, maybe he should go work at AIG and ask for a government handout............hahahaha.

cutthemdown
09-05-2009, 02:13 AM
Yeah, he's complaining because he's the onwer of the Cowboy's. What if he was the owner of the Bengals, he wouldn't be opening his big mouth. Furthermore, if there wasn't revenue sharing, I honestly believe many of the smaller market teams would fail and then you start to lose franchises, and a huge number of fans to go along with them, and then in turn, all those profits from those fans. Next thing you know we will have teams in cities on foreign soil just because they could turn a higher profit then a small city like Tampa Bay. Oh yeah, the Tokyo Buccaneers sounds great. Revenue sharing isn't hurting the NFL at all. It's as popular and as profitable as it's ever been. This is a football league. If Jones wants more profits, maybe he should go work at AIG and ask for a government handout............hahahaha.

Well part of Jerry Jones point is owners of teams like the Bengals, The Jaguars, don't do a lot of marketing to help out with revenue. Like selling the naming rights of the stadium etc. For instance cincy still Paul Brown stadium instead of say Inveseco field etc etc. Also a lot of the owners just cheap and don't really try to win and fill stadiums. They only want to invest as little as possible in teams then reap the rewards of the profitable NFL.

Try and look at it from Jerry Jones position. He invests so much in cowboys he could make a lot more investing in some other industry.

ZONA
09-05-2009, 02:59 AM
Well part of Jerry Jones point is owners of teams like the Bengals, The Jaguars, don't do a lot of marketing to help out with revenue. Like selling the naming rights of the stadium etc. For instance cincy still Paul Brown stadium instead of say Inveseco field etc etc. Also a lot of the owners just cheap and don't really try to win and fill stadiums. They only want to invest as little as possible in teams then reap the rewards of the profitable NFL.

Try and look at it from Jerry Jones position. He invests so much in cowboys he could make a lot more investing in some other industry.

Well, I honestly don't like the idea of having to put advertising every last thing just for the sake of more money. The NFL was doing just fine before having to rename all of their fields. To me, it takes something away from the game. And not just the NFL either. What if there was no more Fenway Park? Instead, it was Home Depot field at Fenway Park. Eh, no thanks. Next thing you know players will be sporting more then a Nike logo, their jerseys will be billboards for advertisers and resemble something from a NASCAR.

Jone's isn't investing and losing money, he's marketing and selling off his team in little chunks and doesn't even know it. Before long the names of teams will also be for sale. No more Dallas Cowboys. It will be The Allstate Dallas Cowboys.

If they could find a different way to make the money, such as TV deals and what not, I'm cool with that. But I'm not cool with the selling of the special names that made the league what it is today.

cutthemdown
09-05-2009, 11:21 AM
You may not like it but for some team who has not done it, to hold hand out to the teams who have and say share your revenue with us I would think you could see the problem.

Also owners like Jones are always trying to make team a winner, some owners don't try very hard. Why should Jerry Jones help them with revenue?

The problem is some owners not doing enough, and they need to sort it out.

As far as your wonderous plan to increase revenue through the tv deal I doubt they can. They already get a great deal to show the games on TV. I mean massive amount of money goes to the NFL for the rights to show the games. That turnip squeezed out.

They are looking for other sources outside of TV.