PDA

View Full Version : 2009 Last capped year?


TitleTown088
10-15-2008, 10:23 AM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/15/last-capped-year-looking-more-and-more-likely/

Yeah, it's PFT but this is still a very important issue. IF 2009 is the last capped year the NFL is going to be a much different league, especially for teams like my beloved Packers. ;( . What would the implications be for the draft this year?

Jvig43
10-15-2008, 10:29 AM
God I Hope Not.

703SKINS202
10-15-2008, 10:54 AM
This would be disastorous. The salary cap structure of the NFL is what makes it King, parody stems from it which is why the NFL is beast. And I don't want Snyder to regress to his old days and go nuts over players.

UK_Cheesehead
10-15-2008, 11:44 AM
I'd seriously hope not, for me it's one of the main pulls of the NFL. Over here it's so unfair on the smaller teams in the Premiership compared to the likes of Man Utd etc. whereas in the NFL it's a level playing field, and wouldn't make it half as competitive IMO as it is now.

awfullyquiet
10-15-2008, 12:33 PM
I hope it happens and the NFL becomes a ruined empire.

Twiddler
10-15-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm a Packers fan so I'm obviously against this move. As for the actual question about the draft, from my general understanding it would seem that the draft would become loaded with talent this year, as more players would be trying to get in under the old CBA. But I very well could have it wrong, I haven't really read up on this stuff much.

Menardo75
10-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Yes take the cap away and bring my team back to the glory years!

619
10-15-2008, 01:39 PM
Al will just continue to throw away his money foolishly .

FloridaSkinzFan
10-15-2008, 01:54 PM
Dan Snyder would **** br1cks

Borat
10-15-2008, 02:13 PM
Yes take the cap away and bring my team back to the glory years!

We'd have to bring back Eddie DeBartolo as well since our current owner probably wouldn't be as willing to spend the cash like Eddie D did.

TitleTown088
10-15-2008, 02:30 PM
I hope it happens and the NFL becomes a ruined empire.

You're a member of an online forum about the NFL. Yet, you want to see it ruined?

ChezPower4
10-15-2008, 02:35 PM
This would make the NFL like MLB. The teams that have the most money would be the teams winning all the time. Smaller market teams like the Packers would have a lesser chance to compete for players. The contracts are already getting out of hand and there is a salary cap. No cap= madness

Gay Ork Wang
10-15-2008, 02:39 PM
You're a member of an online forum about the NFL. Yet, you want to see it ruined?
I thought its internet sarcasm

TheBuffaloBills
10-15-2008, 03:19 PM
PFT brought up a good point. If the they go just one season without a cap, it will be very very very tough to go back to a cap. I would hate to see this happen, well because of the Bills.

awfullyquiet
10-15-2008, 03:19 PM
You're a member of an online forum about the NFL. Yet, you want to see it ruined?

I love football. Hate the NFL as a business.

The Unseen
10-15-2008, 03:20 PM
It wouldn't be total choas as some predict...not even for small markets like Jacksonville. The wealth is much more spread out in the NFL than MLB anyways. And even in the MLB, small market teams have alot of success. So the NFL wouldn't be so much different, if not better.

That said, I don't want it to happen, and it shouldn't happen.

yo123
10-15-2008, 03:21 PM
It wouldn't be total choas as some predict...not even for small markets like Jacksonville. The wealth is much more spread out in the NFL than MLB anyways. And even in the MLB, small market teams have alot of success. So the NFL wouldn't be so much different, if not better.

That said, I don't want it to happen, and it shouldn't happen.

Small market MLB teams like the Twins and A's make the playoffs a lot, but it's hard for them to get over the hump and win it all. This would suck big time.

Bruce Banner
10-15-2008, 03:25 PM
You can't compare a capless NFL to the MLB.

awfullyquiet
10-15-2008, 03:40 PM
You can't compare a capless NFL to the MLB.

You can't. The redskins and cowboys have more money than god. And by god i mean the NL.

If you're pooling money together, there's a limit to the amount of talent and specialization of talent that does not translate from the MLB to NFL.

ChezPower4
10-15-2008, 03:48 PM
It wouldn't be total choas as some predict...not even for small markets like Jacksonville. The wealth is much more spread out in the NFL than MLB anyways. And even in the MLB, small market teams have alot of success. So the NFL wouldn't be so much different, if not better.

That said, I don't want it to happen, and it shouldn't happen.

But they often win championships. Small market basball teams have and can win but it doesn't happen very often.

awfullyquiet
10-15-2008, 03:50 PM
when will everyone learn, parity doesn't sell and isn't in the best interest of the league?

DMWSackMachine
10-15-2008, 03:55 PM
This would be disastorous. The salary cap structure of the NFL is what makes it King, parody stems from it which is why the NFL is beast. And I don't want Snyder to regress to his old days and go nuts over players.

Parody....yes, parody is very important.

619
10-15-2008, 04:40 PM
"On Any Given Sunday" theme is still in effect .

bantx
10-15-2008, 04:42 PM
Jerry Jones will make it rain.

Bruce Banner
10-15-2008, 05:08 PM
"On Any Given Sunday" theme is still in effect .

Confusion here. Are you saying that the "Any Given Sunday" upsets aren't really upsets, league will still be around? Because it most certainly will not if there isn't a cap.

Then again, maybe you are referring to the movie or something..

BlindSite
10-15-2008, 05:23 PM
The loss of a cap won't be as bad as people expect, I'll dig out my last write up on the financial issues in the NFL and I'll post what I had about if there isn't a cap what we can expect.

Brent
10-15-2008, 05:25 PM
In the event that there is no cap, the owners will probably be like, "no cap, no games." As much as we'd probably all like to think that some of the owners will just throw money at players, they're not idiots. Why would they want to drop upwards of 200 million in salaries each year? These guys are buisness men, not owners solely concerned with winning regardless of costs.

Bruce Banner
10-15-2008, 05:26 PM
In the event that there is no cap, the owners will probably be like, "no cap, no games." As much as we'd probably all like to think that some of the owners will just throw money at players, they're not idiots. Why would they want to drop upwards of 200 million in salaries each year? These guys are buisness men, not owners solely concerned with winning regardless of costs.

Lockout for sure. I would ******* endorse it too.

Xonraider
10-15-2008, 05:45 PM
You can't compare a capless NFL to the MLB.

Yup. NFL caliber talent is found in the US only. About 1% of the players in the NFL aren't born in the US. for baseball you can find it anywhere in the world.

Brent
10-15-2008, 05:58 PM
Lockout for sure. I would ******* endorse it too.
As would I, I find the current model to be awesome.

PACKmanN
10-15-2008, 06:15 PM
It won't happen(because the big thing going on.) It will kill small team markets then slowly take away from the NFL, by that i mean their profits.

aNYtitan
10-15-2008, 06:35 PM
It would suck for my Tennessee Titans because we don't have the financial muscle of large market teams. I am happy to say that the majority of the core players we have though are currently under contract. Teams like Dallas and Washington and Oakland would go nuts on spending though, and for that one season, the NFL system, which makes the NFL the best league in the world, save NFL rookie contracts, would be in shambles. I really hope a collective bargaining agreement gets done beforehand

Shane P. Hallam
10-15-2008, 06:44 PM
So, the NFC East would be the best division in football, and there would be a few teams that simply couldn't compete. Sounds like this year!

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-15-2008, 06:45 PM
The owners would, I assume, need a majority to pass a CBA with no cap. Sorry, but Jerruh only counts as one. It's in no one's interest except Mr. Jones, Mr. Snyder, and maybe the NY owners. Anyone who even has enough money to spend well over the cap, won't have the type of money available to the huge market guys. There will be no capless NFL.

BackwoodsBoy
10-15-2008, 07:17 PM
What teams would dominate without a cap? Seattle, Dallas, Washington, Cleveland, New YorkG, New YorkJ, Chicago, New England.

I think the team hardest hit by a no cap would be Philadelphia. Having to play against huge spenders like Jones and Snyder as well as big market New YorkG...they'd never win a divisional crown.

OzTitan
10-15-2008, 09:07 PM
As far as I see it, no cap means no CBA, which would mean no games anyway because without a CBA, a lockout is almost assured if not guaranteed. Then a new CBA will need to be made, and unless I'm mistaken, every owner needs to agree on a new CBA, and I still think the majority of owners want a cap.

The cap isn't going anywhere as long as there's a CBA IMO. The NFLPA say they will never agree to a cap again if it goes but that's just a threat to get a new CBA done quickly. It would simply be used as a bargaining chip.

illmatic74
10-15-2008, 09:16 PM
It wont affect anything this is not the NBA where a championship team can be built in one year (Celtics)

Xonraider
10-15-2008, 09:55 PM
It would suck for my Tennessee Titans because we don't have the financial muscle of large market teams. I am happy to say that the majority of the core players we have though are currently under contract. Teams like Dallas and Washington and Oakland would go nuts on spending though, and for that one season, the NFL system, which makes the NFL the best league in the world, save NFL rookie contracts, would be in shambles. I really hope a collective bargaining agreement gets done beforehand

What makes you think Oakland has much money? We already threw it in Javon Walker's trash can and Jamarcus Russell's 100 inch flat screen TV

BlindSite
10-15-2008, 10:00 PM
The issue wouldn't necessarily be what you think.

The NFL players union would have to strike straight away because now, teams can offer them any kind of insane clauses they like and they won't be able to negotiate their way away from them. While top tier players for example like Tom Brady wouldn't be affected a lot of the fringe players and STers would be. Pretty much the 50% + of the league that isn't a golden boy would be angry.

The owners would then lockout the union effectively saying, if you're a member of this union you can't work.

The union then disbands and you have all of your players representing themselves in their labor agreements.

The next problem you have is that your older oft' injured veterans won't find work. The NFL Teams will now have no possible protection from players getting injured in the game and they'll be open to lawsuits. These injury settlements will then be settled in the legal system, costing the NFL millions.

These factors will also see the loss of revenue sharing, so you'll get two or three big teams spending up big on very few players, that would leave a lot of guys looking for that juicy contract out in the cold. Teams that would've been able to give it to them like for example Greenbay, simply won't have the money to do so.

The breakdown of these agreements and the aforementioned strikes will lead to another issue what is known as anti trust law suits. This will likely see proceedings for the league shut down for a year which if it continues, means there won't be a draft at all... This means then that you've got players no longer eligible to play in the NCAA either going north, or waiting out to get an FA contract. It would take the league four or five years to get back to the balance it has today...

These are of course worst case scenarios and what I think will happen is that belt tightening economically will force owners back to the negotiating table quicker than they thought. This might sound harsh but, Gene Upshaw dying will actually be helpful to the negotiation process, as a new union leader won't want to be responsible for the uncapped period and destruction of the NFL as we know it. He'll therefore likely be more flexible than Upshaw was and help to bend to the owners will a little more and get an agreement, which can be worked on in place.

BlindSite
10-15-2008, 10:21 PM
http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22933&highlight=labor+understanding

That there is something I did a while ago (can be read in the spoiler) with all the info you'll need to understand whats going on. Tere's an update to go with it at the end in the second spoiler.

In recent weeks reading through discussions and articles it has become clear that a lot of people don't have any idea whatsoever on how the business side of the NFL works. This is why I decided to put together this guide.

As a precursor let me outline a couple of things, this isn't exactly light reading and second, it won't be the easiest thing in the world to understand, though I'll do my best to make it as easy as possible.

First I'll be outlining exactly who is involved in thelabor talks and how decisions are made. Secondly I'll be explaining a few items involved with the salary cap and tactics some owners used to exploit its loopholes. Then I'll go through the most recent finance sharing agreement set down at the very, very last minute (after several deadlines had passed) before the beginning of the '06 season. Finally I'll go through the major issues currently preventing labor peace in the NFL and what possible outcomes we as fans can expect if a labor agreement is or isn't met.



The Main Players:
NFL Team owners
NFL Players Association
NFL Players union
Gene Upshaw (formerly) NFLPA leader replaced by: Dick Berthlesen (interim)
Kevin Mawae / Troy Vincent union leaders, past and present
NFL Commissioner
Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Al Davis, - Vocal Team owners
Roger Goodell Commissioner
Paul Tagliabue – Past Commissioner
Michael Vick
Judge Doty


Salary Cap:
The NFL uses what’s known as a “hard cap”
There are stringent guidelines for a maximum and minimum payroll which no team can violate
Established in 1994 after long standing issues
The salary cap changes from year to year based on NFL revenue & last year’s cap figures (known as triggers)
The salary cap has increased every year to date
Guaranteed money in contracts are prorated (proportioned) over the term of the contract e.g. $30 million dollar bonus will cost a team 5 million per year against the cap over 6 years.
If a player is cut, traded or retires before June 1st the team's cap suffers under the previous year’s cap. If they're cut, traded or retire after that date next year’s cap absorbs the hit.
E.g. A bonus was signed for 20 million in bonus money for a 4 year deal. 5 million contributes to the cap each year. IF in the second year of the contract that player is cut before June first 05 for example. That means that bonus remaining over the final two years (10 million in total), plus that year's assigned (5 million) cap hit contributes to the 04/05 cap year, the cap hit for example is 15million. If they're cut June 2 05, then the 05/06 season's cap takes a 10 million dollar hit and the 04/05 year only suffers a 5 mill hit.
This is why some teams cut players early, some later, to work the system to open up money.
If a player is cut before the start of a season their entire base salary disappears from the cap.
This is why you can at times see players who're a risk signing low guaranteed bonuses with high salaries and vice versa for dependable vets who sign at the minimum salary with better bonus.
Bonus money based on performance is classified in one of two ways. Likely To Be Earned and (LTBE) and Unlikely To Be Earned (UTBE). LTBE bonuses are counted toward the cap, whether they're reached or not and UTBE are not counted against the cap whether they're reached or not. However to stop this being exploited if a LTBE bonus is not reached in the 04/05 season but counts against the cap, the cap will be wound up slightly in 05/06 and the reverse is the same for UTBE
Due to the above conditions many fan-favorite veterans were being cut for cheaper, younger (not necessarily more productive) players. To alter this veterans with no bonus money in contract will count approx 50% of their base salary against the cap.
The cap has meant that financial growth has been controllable. It also means that the league remains competitive (for the most part).Side Note: There is a rookie pool within the NFL’s salary cap which is established based on where a team picks in the draft. In the 2008 draft Kansas City with two picks in the top sixteen had easily the highest rookie pool while Cleveland who traded most of their picks had eight million less. Though this would seem like a measure to limit rookie salaries the escalator clauses placed in the contracts get around the stringent pool numbers. To put it simply, though the rookie pool exists, its completely useless.

For those capologists out there and people who just read my cap explanation this is the anorexic model. I could've written out a fleshed out sized explanation about 2000 words but a small basic knowledge is enough to understand thelabor issue. If you really want me to explain the cap I've got a write up somewhere I can post.



Revenue Sharing
Unshared Money
Old stadiums were more or less built for the people, new stadiums are built for making money
New stadiums lease corporate boxes to big business for big bucks
More corporate seats, more $$$$
Creation of “team only” merchandise and stadium leasing creates money
Stadiums have been leased for concerts, weddings, conventions etc
Some sell hotdogs, dog collars, plates, toothbrushes with their logo on it etc

Shared Money:
Two thirds of the money in the NFL comes from TV deals
All teams receive an equal share of the TV money.
Licensed merchandise such as jerseys also provide money
“Gate” money is essentially ticket sales. This is split 60/40 between home and visiting teams
This means teams love having games against teams popular across the country, playing against someone like Peyton Manning or Steve Smith is good for the home team financially.
Some teams try to package these tickets, if you want to see Peyton Manning against your home team, you've got to buy a ticket to see Jon Kitna as well
This helps to drive up revenue

Key Points:
TV contracts and now video game contracts have escalation clauses so from year to year e.g. ESPN has to pay more money to continue to show the Monday night games than the year previous.

Of all this money a predefined % becomes the salary cap.


Slightly More Advanced Revenue Sharing

Revenue sharing between the owners and the players involves a certain percentage of money made by NFL teams being placed into the salary cap to pay players wages. Essentially the division of the money made by a team will decide how much money they can afford to pay the players.

As the Collective Bargaining Agreements have altered the salary cap amounts so have they altered where the money goes. These agreements are generally accepted by the ownership of some teams and disliked by others, there’s almost never a consensus. Rich owners are happy they can afford to buy better players using money that would otherwise be spent elsewhere. Owners like Dan Snyder for example were happy with the increase in the monetary percentage going into the cap in the 2006 agreement, Due to the fact that the Redskins are almost never below the cap and strongly believe in building through Free Agency rather than the draft. In effect, he's now allowed to give money to players he's already wanting to give them but hasn't previously been allowed to.

The second portion of revenue sharing involves the sharing of money between teams. Right now the highest earning 15 clubs essentially subsidize the less financially successful bottom 13. This format also requires the highest earning team to pay more than the 13th highest. These forms of agreement are designed to keep the league competitive. Arguing essentially that the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make X amount of dollars every year if people didn't want to see them fight against other teams (or in recent times, trample). The league needs to be a 15 round, drag out, Rocky Balboa esque fight, not a 2nd round knockout, if it is to continue making money and expanding. What should be noted however is that not all owners feel this way. Jerry Jones for example advocating cutting non-performing owners like you would an underachieving player.



The previous agreement:
2006 was the last year in which labor strife seemed imminent. Essentially the NFLPA and their leader Gene Upshaw were demanding 60% of total revenue be given to the players. An increase from what was previously 55.5%. To put that into monetary terms from the year 2005 to 2009 the cap will have seen an increase in 43% (approx), from 85.5 to 123 million dollars.

It was at this time that the most recent revenue sharing agreement between clubs was also agreed to. Some of this was difficult for owners to swallow. Not only were a lot of owners now having to give more money to players they did or didn't want to pay (remember the minimum salary cap exists as well), they were also having to pay other clubs their money. Understandably, though the deal went through, in large part due to dramatic impassioned speeches from Paul Tagliabue and Al Davis, there wasn't realistically a cohesive agreement. It was more of a “oh if it has to be that way” than a “yes” from most owners. This didn't exactly lay a good frame work for future negotiations.



Current issues of contention
Issue 1:
Recently Judge Doty (a major contributor the last era of labour peace), working out of Minnesota ruled in the favor of Michael Vick and the Players Association in regards to bonus money Vick had earned whilst playing for the Atlanta falcons. The Falcons and the league were attempting to re-coup some of the bonus money paid to Vick during his time with the Falcons. Due to the fact that Vick had been paid the money before any legal issues had arisen the general legal consensus was that Vick should be allowed to keep the money. As I understand it, the counter argument was that Vick's illegal activities were ongoing whilst he was receiving this bonus money.

Irrespective of this case in point it essentially sets down through the legal principle of tort law that just because a player breaks the law or breaches a code of conduct does not mean that a team will be able to recoup money spent or invested in that player. A ruling which expectedly frustrated some front offices (especially those in Cincinnati LOLOLOL).



Issue 2:
Many of the owners claim that as of the new revenue sharing agreement between themselves and the players their profits have fallen significantly from as much as 10% down to as little as 4%. Which for those of you without calculators can be in the vicinity of 40-45 million dollars per annum. The owners essentially want to back out of this agreement signed in 2006 which some owners think they were pressured into by the impossible time line they faced to get a deal done. In order to back out of thecurrent agreement it would literally have to be torn up and re-started from scratch.

As a side note, it’s not as if Owners want this money to build a mound of and roll around on. This is generally put into marketing so that an organization can make more non-shared revenue. Some of the money goes into facilities and a large portion of it goes into coaching staff salaries (not counted toward the cap). Money outside of the salary cap plays a huge part in how much money goes into the salaries of players and goes into the success of teams as a business. Now instead of being able to build luxury boxes, higher that new scout and coach, team’s might only be able to build that box, so their team in turn suffers. These are simple examples, but they make my point.



Issue 3:
The NFL Owners recently decreased the power of NFL teams to borrow funds for any reason from a debt limit of $150million down to $120million. This means that $960 million dollars formerly available to the NFL owners is no longer there. Ipso facto that means less numerical value for that increase in shared revenue from 55.5 to 60%. i.e. 60% of 0 is still zero. If a team used to use that extra 30 million in player salary and now decides it simply can't divert funds from elsewhere despite increasing in % the numerical value of the cap may not change at all, or may even decrease. Remember 30million might put them to 100 millions, 55% = 55 millions, 60% of 70 million for example is 42 million.

This issue basically stems from any money the owners decide they don't want to have or the NFL decides they can't have is money that potentially won't end up in players pockets. This upsets the players. They believe this is a form of collusion and have filed legal complaints detailing that this agreement to limit borrowing also limits the players bonus money and salary. Essentially the players are saying the owners have self imposed a financial cap within the salary cap circumventing the agreement in place.

Furthermore, should there be an uncapped year (currently this is the status) in 2011 this cap on borrowing money will limit the money free agents can make. Sure there might not be a restriction on the amount of money a team can spend, there simply won't be money there to spend. This could be a move designed to force players to accept an agreement they don't want.

What the owners see is that as a result of the previous agreement they've lost around 40 million dollars they can use to expand their brand and make more money as a whole. Instead this is going into players salaries. While the players see 2011 as a potential bonanza they don't realize that by that point the ownership of teams won't be able to shell out the money they'll be wanting. What they fail to realize is that the 1993 increase (final uncapped year) of salaries taking 69% of total money is going to be next to impossible to reach this time around.



Problem 4:
The owners don't like the way they're sharing money between the NFL teams. High earning franchise owners are unhappy that their ability to make money within a market is then to the benefit of dysfunctional organizations. On a personality level, most of the newer breed of owners are former cut-throat businessmen who've never heard the word “share” when it came to their profits, let alone with their direct competitors. The low earning organizations are plain and simply unhappy as any money they are receiving is making it hard for them to expand due to the new salary cap and players demands.

Getting a consensus vote for half the voters to lose a piece of their pie isn't going to happen any time soon either. So they find a place to agree on where to find more money, take it back from the salaries.



Problem 5:
Every year rookies sign contracts larger than their counterparts the year before. Contracts like Jake Long signed at the beginning of the year to make him the highest paid lineman in the NFL is ridiculous. Recently the rookie salaries were highlighted as a major issue within the players union as its money that prevents veterans from being resigned or receiving larger contracts.

A bigger issue is that if a rookie is receiving money as a franchise player when they won't contribute as franchise pillars for at least 2 seasons it’s difficult to justify such a large part of the cap going to waste.

The establishment of a rookie cap to prevent over spending in this area has been proposed.



Possible Outcomes:

All Hell Breaks Loose:
The worst of the worst happens. The NFL Owners tear up thecurrent agreement and lockout the players union in a pay dispute. The players union is dismantled and the lockout becomes ineffective. The older often injured vets, someone like Joe Horn for example would become virtually unsignable. remember there's now no provisions for injury cover, so most of this would be settled out of the NFL's agreements costing a lot teams millions of dollars.

Players who were looking for that monster contract will be surprised to find that there isn't one out there for them as most front offices simply won't have the finances to break the bank on a few guys.

The Players will likely strike at the end of the 2010 season and the owners will refuse to give into their demands in a show of strength and solidarity. Anti-trust law suits will be filed and there will be no NFL in the 2011-2012 season. Placing the draft in jeopardy. Financially the league may find this very difficult to recover from and we'd see a downturn in the quality of football for at least 3 or more seasons.



Best case scenario
The players and owners realize they only stand to lose by walking away hard-headed from the negotiating table. The NFL establishes a rookie salary cap, thereby removing a lot of the financial stress being placed on the salary cap. The players agree to stalling the expansion of the cap % for a few years to allow teams to clear some debt, make some profit and expand the organization, this will be done under the provision that the owners show good faith and remove their imposed restrictions on borrowing money.

Keep in mind this will mean the numerical amount of the cap will continue to increase, though not too quickly so that it places stress on the owners as it has done now.

Everything else is kept as it was. This will still keep some owners unhappy as to the fact that they cannot recoup some lost money, but it will essentially open up more money in numerical terms to the veteran players, currently unhappy with the salary cap as it is. The rookie cap will free up more money still to go to veterans and will allow a period of peace and an increase in player salary whilst the owners prepare for the cap to continue to increase.

Essentially this is a proposition that will prevent owners from having to spend more of their profit % on player salaries while they continue to make a profit numerically. The players after more $ will see it as a result of the rookie cap being put in place and the owners making more money through expansion. It will also free up time for negotiation so that issues such as recouping money from players who violate the law, inter club revenue sharing and other smaller issues can be discussed.

In simple terms the dollar value of the percentage received by the players increases through the aforementioned maneuvers for a few years. Players and owners will see more benefit than in an uncapped year and labor strife. Everybody wins in the short term which will allow time to negotiate for a better deal for both sides over the long term. The benefit of this agreement would be that technically the negotiations could continue at infinitum without either the owners or the players losing financially.



An Update on the Situation

The owners association recently made the decision to tear up the labor agreement mentioned above. This in effect could lead to a cap less year in 2010. While the crux of the above information is still accurate when understanding the issue, there are a few updates to keep in mind:

Gene Upshaw’s death means that Berthlesen is really just a care taker of the NFLPA and eventually there will need to be a new leader found. The process of which is currently being undertaken by a private firm and overseen by members of the Owners Committee and the Players union. The issue is that it will likely take until mid 2009 to find the new leader, and once this is done another month or two for this new leader to feel out his counter parts and be brought up to speed on his tasks. While normally this wouldn’t present much of an issue, the fact is that if there isn’t a labor agreement reached by the deadline of March 2009 all bets are off.

This is impacting the landscape of the NFL right now because as Joe Banner president of the Eagles pointed out, it’s difficult to set up long term deals without knowing what the future will be. Chances are player’s agents are exploiting the same agenda. For a player like Chris Gamble, who’s currently playing at a probowl level, why sign a deal before the 09 season, rather than the franchise tag when 2010 could net you a massive deal?

The other issue in place is that without the agreement in place and with Television deals just around the corner too, teams literally have no idea what their cap space will be either as a percentage or as a numerical figure come 2010,11,12 and beyond.