Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,724
    Rep Power
    57

    I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    Why are the two sides fighting over what appears to be a four percent difference? Neither one is going to cave in either way it seems, and it will ruin football, most likely leading to another strike season.

    The two sides should realise they are going to screw things up for everyone. Gene Upshaw thinks he is doing a good thing for the players by standing firm on his offer. But how about we talk to say, Sam Madison, Mike Anderson, Ted Washington, Shawn Barber, Sam Adams, Lawyer Milloy etc and ask them how they feel right now.

    His actions as the rep of the players union is costing people their jobs, and because of the limited cap space available because of no CBA, either they stay as free agents or sign for less then market value. So either way, Upshaw is costing the players money.


    I cant think for the life of me why the two sides cant just meet in the middle. The owners are offering 56 percent, NFLPA wants 60. Why the hell cant they just settle on 58 percent?

    These two sides are too concerned with money. The players are earning ridiculous amounts anyway, long snappers are earning $500,000 for playing 16 games in some cases. And I don't think Paul Allen or Dan Snyder are really going to miss that extra 1 or 2%.

    Sorry for a bit of a rant, and im sure someone will point out something ive said which is wrong, but its just pissing me off. The offseason is quite exciting to watch, as you watch your team get better through free agency or the draft. This year some teams are going to struggle to sign their rookies.


  2. #2
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    I think everybody on outside the negotiating room is probably thinking the same thing. The one thing I'd point out, though, is that the players being released right now aren't all Upshaw's fault. See, correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talk about the cap being increased to $105,000 that's assuming that the players get their way. Think about it: in order for more money to be devoted to player salaries, wouldn't that mean the cap would increase? The owners don't want to budge from the model that has been in place (aka the same figure we have now).

    If the NFLPA gave in right now, it would help the cap some because it would enable owners to use the usual cap tricks like backloading contracts and spreading bonuses over more years, but it probably wouldn't help all the most recent cap casualties. My guess is that many of the players that are getting cut right now would have been the June 1 victims otherwise. The difference is that each one cut helps the cap less, so maybe a few more players are being cut than would have otherwise. That said, I still don't see why they can't just split the difference at 58%. It seems like it's just a power struggle.

  3. #3
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,724
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    Well the thing is, if a team had the extra $10 mill or so in cap space, the contracts of these recent cap victims could have been renegotiated over the FA period. But because the cap was smaller then was once thought, teams have had to cut players they wouldnt have normally to get under the cap before FA starts.

    Yes its likely 1 or 2 of the big name players would have been cut, but not all of them would have.

  4. #4
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    Yeah, but the extra $10 million wouldn't be there unless the player's association got its way in the negotiations and the % of revenues went up to 60%. The $10 million is actually the money being negotiated right now. If they meet halfway, it's $5 million. If the owners get their way, the cap will not increase at all from the currently predicted $95 million or so. If Upshaw gave in, the $10 million wouldn't be available.

  5. #5
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,724
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece
    Yeah, but the extra $10 million wouldn't be there unless the player's association got its way in the negotiations and the % of revenues went up to 60%. The $10 million is actually the money being negotiated right now. If they meet halfway, it's $5 million. If the owners get their way, the cap will not increase at all from the currently predicted $95 million or so. If Upshaw gave in, the $10 million wouldn't be available.
    Ok i was sure i was missing something.

    However, wouldnt a bigger salary cap help the owners anyway?

  6. #6
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    In the short run it would let them field a more competitive team, but in the long run we're talking about huge amounts of money. This year we're talking about somewhere around $10 million per team per year(around $320 million for the league total), but each year the league rakes in more money. That's why the cap has been going up each year even though the percentage stayed the same.

    For the sake of example, let's assume the cap would increase by $10 million next year at 56.2% (about $17.8 million increase in average team's total revenue) but at 60, it would increase by $10.676 million. But this is a cumulative effect, so if the rate of increase was the same over a number of years the owners would be losing the $10 million from this year +$676,000 each additional year, per year. So based on that assumption:

    2006 $10 million less compared to 56.2%
    2007 $10.676 million
    2008 $11.352 million
    2009 $12.028 million
    2010 $12.704 million

    In five years time, that would amount to $56.76 million that each owner could have had that is instead going to the players. Collectively, the owners would stand to lose (and the players stand to gain) over $1.8 billion in that five year time frame.
    Last edited by Goldenfleece; -03-03-2006 at 06:18 AM.

  7. #7
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,724
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    But the teams don't have to fill the salary cap, so wouldnt it be on the owners discretion?

  8. #8
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: I don't get why they cannot sort this CBA thing out

    Sure. There are some that already don't always use up their cap space, like the Cardinals and Vikings, but there are also owners like Dan Snyder in bigger markets that spend frivolously. Then there are pressures if you're not spending enough, but the fans think you're cheap when they see others spending more. Technically I suppose they could agree to up the cap and then have a gentlemen's agreement to not spend.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •