CBA Term Sheet

[Hostile]

Pash said it was a firm deal. No opt outs.

I haven't seen an article from Pash, so there is no way I'd know this.

 

[Hostile]

I apologize for being an idiot on this subject but what is the difference between the 2 and how does that help us?

For me it just means that there is no chance of a lockout for 10 years. The last CBA had an opt out clause that the owners unfortunately exercised. This new deal doesn't.

 

[cowboyjoe]

I just wanted to point out this new aspect. Under the old system, teams had no incentive to create new revenue streams that didn't have a profit margin of more than 50 percent, because they would have lost money. They still need a 40 percent profit margin now, which still seems high, but it is a lot better than 50 percent. And the players will actually get a HIGHER percentage of the TV money than before.

You go Adam!

 

[peplaw06]

I haven't seen an article from Pash, so there is no way I'd know this.

It wasn't an article... he said it in the presser.

 

[gimmesix]

Don't know if any of this is different than what Adam posted, but here's the AP's version:

Key terms of NFL-approved tentative agreement
By The Associated Press
If approved by the players, the NFL’s new deal would cover the 2011-2020 seasons and the 2021 draft. It would include the following key terms as released by the NFL:
ECONOMICS:
— Salary cap plus benefits of $142.4 million per club in 2011 ($120.375 million for salary and bonus) and at least that amount in 2012 and 2013.
— Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of “all revenue,” a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue and 40 percent of local club revenue.
— Also beginning in 2012, annual “true up” to reflect revenue increases or decreases versus projections.
— Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.
— Player share must average at least 47 percent for the 10-year term of the agreement.
— Leaguewide commitment to cash spending of 99 percent of the cap in 2011 and 2012.
— For the 2013-2016 seasons, and again for the 2017-2020 seasons, the clubs collectively will commit to cash spending of at least 95 percent of the cap.
— Each club will be committed to cash spending of 89 percent of the cap from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020.
— Increases to minimum salaries of 10 percent in Year 1 with continuing increases each year of the agreement.
PLAYER AND HEALTH SAFETY:
— Reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing organized team activities from 14 to 10;
— Limiting on-field practice time and contact;
— Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season;
— Increasing number of days off for players.
— Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.
— An enhanced injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury.
— No change to the 16-game regular-season/4-game preseason format until at least 2013; any subsequent increase in the number of regular-season games must be made by agreement with the NFL Players Association.
— $50 million per year joint fund for medical research, healthcare programs and NFL Charities, including NFLPA-related charities.
RETIRED PLAYER BENEFITS:
— Over the next 10 years, there will be additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new “Legacy Fund,” which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.
— Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.
DRAFT AND FREE AGENCY SYSTEM:
— An annual draft of seven rounds, plus compensatory picks for teams which lose free agents.
— Unrestricted free agency for players after four accrued seasons; restricted free agency for players with three accrued seasons.
— Free agency exceptions for franchise and transition players.
ENTRY LEVEL COMPENSATION SYSTEM:
— All drafted players sign four-year contracts.
— Undrafted free agents sign three-year contracts.
— Maximum total compensation per draft class.
— Limited contract terms.
— Strong anti-holdout rules.
— Clubs have option to extend the contract of a first-round draftee for a fifth year, based on agreed-upon tender amounts.
— Creation of new fund to redistribute, beginning in 2012, savings from new rookie pay system to current and retired player benefits and a veteran player performance pool.
2011-2012 TRANSITION RULES:
— Special transition rules to protect veteran players in 2011. All teams will have approximately $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries.
— Each club may “borrow” up to $3 million in cap room from a future year, which may be used to support veteran player costs.
— In 2012, each club may “borrow” up to $1.5 million in cap room from a future year. Both these amounts would be repaid in future years.
OTHER:
— No judicial oversight of the agreement. Neutral arbitrators jointly appointed by the NFL and NFLPA will resolve disputes as appropriate.
— Settlement of all pending litigation.

 

[adbutcher]

Thank YOU!

 

[Bizwah]

So, does this still mean the owners will let the players in starting Sat? I mean, if the players continue to dig in their heels?

At least JJ could get some restructuring done, and the coaches can talk to the players.

 

[junk]

I just wanted to point out this new aspect. Under the old system, teams had no incentive to create new revenue streams that didn't have a profit margin of more than 50 percent, because they would have lost money. They still need a 40 percent profit margin now, which still seems high, but it is a lot better than 50 percent. And the players will actually get a HIGHER percentage of the TV money than before.

I don't think you really need a 40% profit margin to make money.

However, I agree there are still issues with this. Teams with low local revenue streams are going to continue to have fund players costs based upon revenue generated by other clubs (which was, supposedly, one of the issues with the previous CBA)

Say Jerry Jones sells a local advertising deal with Papa Johns for $10 million per year. He doesn't automatically fork over $4 million to the players. That $10 million gets thrown into the pool of local revenue money from which the players share is calculated.

So, that $10 million allocates 40% to the players, but the amount paid to players is split among 32 teams. So, each team is responsible for an additional $125,000 in player costs.

Although Jerry is pulling in $10 million per year, he only pays an additional $125K in player benefits from making that deal. That's a pretty high profit margin.

 

[Hostile]

It wasn't an article... he said it in the presser.

Yeah, clearly I wasn't watching his press conference. Thus there is no way I'd know he said that. I know you take issue with almost everything I say on this stuff, but damn man.

 

[Hoofbite]

Adam, your abundance of cap knowledge and knowledge in general is often times scary.

Much appreciated but scary.

 

[Bizwah]

Another question....I still can't figure out the deal on the salary cap.

It said something about $142 million....but also $120 million. Which is it?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Another question....I still can't figure out the deal on the salary cap.

It said something about $142 million....but also $120 million. Which is it?

120 million dollar salary cap 22 million or so spent in player benefits.

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't think you really need a 40% profit margin to make money.

However, I agree there are still issues with this. Teams with low local revenue streams are going to continue to have fund players costs based upon revenue generated by other clubs (which was, supposedly, one of the issues with the previous CBA)

Say Jerry Jones sells a local advertising deal with Papa Johns for $10 million per year. He doesn't automatically fork over $4 million to the players. That $10 million gets thrown into the pool of local revenue money from which the players share is calculated.

So, that $10 million allocates 40% to the players, but the amount paid to players is split among 32 teams. So, each team is responsible for an additional $125,000 in player costs.

Although Jerry is pulling in $10 million per year, he only pays an additional $125K in player benefits from making that deal. That's a pretty high profit margin.

The specifics for the team would depend on the revenue sharing agreement. But collectively, the owners would lose money if the venture doesn't have a 40 percent profit margin. Say that Jerry's venture brings in $10 million at a cost of $7 million. He makes $3 million and shares however much with the rest of the teams that is required. The owners as a whole, however, end up paying $4 million to the players.

Come to think of it, though, it's very possible that Jerry could make money off the deal and end up costing other owners money because of it -- which might not be so bad for Jerry.

 

[junk]

The specifics for the team would depend on the revenue sharing agreement. But collectively, the owners would lose money if the venture doesn't have a 40 percent profit margin. Say that Jerry's venture brings in $10 million at a cost of $7 million. He makes $3 million and shares however much with the rest of the teams that is required. The owners as a whole, however, end up paying $4 million to the players.

Sure, I'm certainly interested in any revenue sharing details as they come out. I know Jerry wanted to get rid of it.

However, not all local revenues streamed are going to have that much overhead. A local advertising deal, for example, is going to have very little overhead. Stadium naming rights have little overhead.

Come to think of it, though, it's very possible that Jerry could make money off the deal and end up costing other owners money because of it -- which might not be so bad for Jerry.

Right. That was my point. These teams with large local revenue streams are going to drive up the costs of the smaller market teams.

I've always felt that was one of the main issues under the previous CBA. Although they decreased the percentage in this deal, it is still an issue.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, clearly I wasn't watching his press conference. Thus there is no way I'd know he said that. I know you take issue with almost everything I say on this stuff, but damn man.

What the hell are you talking about? Is it that time of the month already? I thought you just had that a couple weeks ago.

I never took issue with anything you said. Grow up.

 

[Hostile]

What the hell are you talking about? Is it that time of the month already? I thought you just had that a couple weeks ago.

I never took issue with anything you said. Grow up.

Good job insulting women.

It sure seems like you took issue with what I asked Adam.

 

[gimmesix]

It sure seems like you took issue with what I asked Adam.

Reading back over it, it looks to me like he was just providing answers. I see no evidence that he "took issue."

Just offering an objective opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[UnoDallas]

For me it just means that there is no chance of a lockout for 10 years. The last CBA had an opt out clause that the owners unfortunately exercised. This new deal doesn't.

well I hope I can make another ten years

:laugh2:

thanks Adamn great info

for us challenged with this

 

[BHendri5]

Whoa! I gotta tell you, that excites me if this gets accepted.

Hos, explain your excitement from this if it gets accepted. I'm asking because I do not understand what that means

 

[peplaw06]

Good job insulting women.

It's an insult to women to compare you to them?? :laugh2:

I didn't say that, you did.

It sure seems like you took issue with what I asked Adam.

You asked a question about the opt outs. Adam stated that based on the outline of the offer he didn't see an opt out term in there. I saw the press conference where Pash and Goodell both indicated that there was no opt out clause. I provided the information. How you get that I took issue with it is beyond me.

Apparently when I provided the information, you took issue to it when you said there's no way you would know that because you hadn't seen an article. I merely informed you that he said it in his press conference, and you got all in a huff again saying you "clearly hadn't watched the presser." Then you claimed I was taking issue with everything you said on the topic, which is bull.

I actually thought you were being obtuse, but I suppose you were just being hyper-sensitive, as usual.