No deal Sunday doesn't mean uncapped 2007 for sure

[AdamJT13]

Some people have assumed that if the CBA doesn't get extended by Sunday night's deadline, the NFLPA won't ever agree to extend the deal, and 2007 would for sure be uncapped. But Jim Quinn, an attorney for the NFLPA, said that's not necessarily the case. He told the New York Daily News, "I'm not jumping off a building here. It just means we didn't get it done in time for the league year. It doesn't mean it won't get done for next year."

 

[Ken]

That's true...good to know too.

Someone needs to tell Upshaw that though. He keeps reiterating that, if it doesn't get done, they will just go to the uncapped year.

I really don't expect it to get done tommorow. Whether it gets done at all is a completely different question.

 

[Nors]

Some people have assumed that if the CBA doesn't get extended by Sunday night's deadline, the NFLPA won't ever agree to extend the deal, and 2007 would for sure be uncapped. But Jim Quinn, an attorney for the NFLPA, said that's not necessarily the case. He told the New York Daily News, "I'm not jumping off a building here. It just means we didn't get it done in time for the league year. It doesn't mean it won't get done for next year."

Bingo - this is a soft deadline. There is a year for both parties to hammer this out. Now will there be blood tomorrow = Yes. But a CBA can still be agreed to down the line.


Thanks for the CBA/Cap update

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Some people have assumed that if the CBA doesn't get extended by Sunday night's deadline, the NFLPA won't ever agree to extend the deal, and 2007 would for sure be uncapped. But Jim Quinn, an attorney for the NFLPA, said that's not necessarily the case. He told the New York Daily News, "I'm not jumping off a building here. It just means we didn't get it done in time for the league year. It doesn't mean it won't get done for next year."

Eaxactly what I was thinking, saw that being reported and thought how bogus.

 

[theogt]

This goes even more for the "No 08 draft" meme.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I have been wondering why they have to get a deal done now instead of keep working on throughout the season.

 

[david_jackson]

Some people have assumed that if the CBA doesn't get extended by Sunday night's deadline, the NFLPA won't ever agree to extend the deal, and 2007 would for sure be uncapped. But Jim Quinn, an attorney for the NFLPA, said that's not necessarily the case. He told the New York Daily News, "I'm not jumping off a building here. It just means we didn't get it done in time for the league year. It doesn't mean it won't get done for next year."

The problem is the players have less leverage this year as without an extension things may get tight for player contracts. Once they have gone throught their hell this year the owner have their hell of no cap...I realize there are counter weights in that they need 6 year balance toobtain free agency but on balance after this year there is less presure on the players and more on the ownere. The time is right now as it is closer to balanced with the two year counter each other

 

[Yakuza Rich]

That's really what I've been saying all along. They won't reach an extension now and probably will a few months from now. It's really best for the players to wait out and try to get the best deal possible. Once there's a threatening of the union immediately de-certifying, that's when they need to start bargaining and getting a deal done.


Rich.........

 

[DragonCowboy]

Wouldn't it be great to hear those deadskins fans talk about "taking the hit" that is the 2006 Season for an uncapped paradise where Danny might as well just go ahead and buy the Lombardi, only to find that a new cap will be reinstated for the 2007 Season.

 

[AdamJT13]

The problem is the players have less leverage this year as without an extension things may get tight for player contracts. Once they have gone throught their hell this year the owner have their **** of no cap...I realize there are counter weights in that they need 6 year balance toobtain free agency but on balance after this year there is less presure on the players and more on the ownere. The time is right now as it is closer to balanced with the two year counter each other

If there's no cap next year, there also will be no minimum salary for teams, so all of the cheap owners and small-market owners will be able to spend a lot less money, if they want to. Even if four or five teams spend $20 million more than they otherwise would, the other 27 or 28 teams can more than cancel that out by dropping their payrolls by a few million dollars. The owners also won't be contributing to a lot of the player benefits (which cost about $14 million per team this season) and can pocket even more money. So instead of a guaranteed 64.5 percent of designated gross revenues (this year) or a guaranteed 56 to 58 percent percent of total revenues (proposed for next year by the owners), the players could end up with less than that in an uncapped year. The players have plenty of incentive to extend the CBA and avoid an uncapped 2007.

The owners, on the other hand, don't really have an incentive outside of their desire to keep competition balanced. Without the cap, any team can make a big profit by slashing its payroll. They'll still pocket their share of the TV money and everything else that's already shared among the teams.

 

[vicjagger]

Exactly. Let's get this off-season underway. I mean, come on, only a few teams (none of consequence) are gonna get crushed by the cap this year, and as for those that do...it's their own _______ fault.

The entire league (and fan base) shouldn't suffer because of the stupidity of one or more spoiled, greedy, obnoxious, arrogant, short individual(s) that happens to own a team.

 

[junk]

If I am not mistaken, I think the push to get it done by the start of FA was so that bonuses could be spread over 7 years instead of 4 years.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

So for those of us who have been a bit obsessive about how this will affect the Skins, this is great news. Essentially what I've been hoping for all along is about to happen--the Skins are forced to comply with rules that harm them more than other teams and, eventually, a new deal will get worked out that will maintain, if not significantly worsen, the Skins future cap problems.

 

[RiggoForever]

Some people have assumed that if the CBA doesn't get extended by Sunday night's deadline, the NFLPA won't ever agree to extend the deal, and 2007 would for sure be uncapped. But Jim Quinn, an attorney for the NFLPA, said that's not necessarily the case. He told the New York Daily News, "I'm not jumping off a building here. It just means we didn't get it done in time for the league year. It doesn't mean it won't get done for next year."

Adam, wouldn't that be impossible as a number of teams (including my Skins) would have to be creative and restructure a number of contracts to get under the cap...and those contracts are contingent on 2007 being an uncapped year?

 

[Smashmouth24]

Adam, wouldn't that be impossible as a number of teams (including my Skins) would have to be creative and restructure a number of contracts to get under the cap...and those contracts are contingent on 2007 being an uncapped year?

No, it would just suck for the Commanders (a little) because they had to pay out more guaranteed money than they needed and may miss out on free agents they wanted. The CBA can be extended any time between now and next season, it's just unlikely the sides will want to meet shortly after the season begins. Maybe after the draft?

 

[RiggoForever]

No, it would just suck for the Commanders (a little) because they had to pay out more guaranteed money than they needed and may miss out on free agents they wanted. The CBA can be extended any time between now and next season, it's just unlikely the sides will want to meet shortly after the season begins. Maybe after the draft?

Another problem I see is that if an uncapped year does arise, its going to be hard to get teams whos signed contracts to players in an uncapped year to agree to a new salary cap, as well as the players.

My biggest fear is that Snyders restructures assume no cap in 2007, our cap figure is like $130 million as a result, and with a new CBA that forbids "cash over cap" restructuring. That would really screw us badly.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Another problem I see is that if an uncapped year does arise, its going to be hard to get teams whos signed contracts to players in an uncapped year to agree to a new salary cap, as well as the players.

My biggest fear is that Snyders restructures assume no cap in 2007, our cap figure is like $130 million as a result, and with a new CBA that forbids "cash over cap" restructuring. That would really screw us badly.

As much as I would like to see that happen to the Skins, I doubt it would come to that. Anything already written in would get grandfathered. New contracts only would be subject to the ruling.

 

[Natedawg44]

Maybe adam can answer this why do the owners need the NFLPA can't the owners just vote amongst themselves for a self imposed cap in 2007 whether the union wants it or not.

 

[Cbz40]

One also must remember.....in an uncapped year a number of players will be able to make more money but before they can become a FA they will have to have had 6 years of NFL service instead of 4. This would limit the number of FA's availabe.

 

[Pokes28]

Maybe adam can answer this why do the owners need the NFLPA can't the owners just vote amongst themselves for a self imposed cap in 2007 whether the union wants it or not.

No, there is a signed CBA that specifies an uncapped 2007.

Also, the NFL without a CBA can't impose spending rules amongst its members. That is considered collusion and the NFL and the teams will lose badly in court.

Riggo, there are rules for 2006 contracts that state that a player can't make considerably more (on that contract) in 2007. It is the 30% rule. So what that means is that if the do in fact come up with a new CBA, teams should be in a good position to get under the cap for 2007. The only thing that would hurt the Skins is if they can no longer use Cash over the Cap as a means to differenciating themselves from other clubs.

Many on the Skins board seem to thing that going to a harder cap would actually mean less money for the players. This is most definitely not true. The way things are written right now, the cap values of teams are the gold standard. So if you have a team like the Cardinals that are bottom dwellers on the cap. They can actually give LTBE incentives one year that aren't met that will in all actuality allow that team to spend less than the minimum cap figure. They have done it in the past. The next year they will get cap credit for that money, but they can easily do similar things again. It is easier to push yourself below the cap continually than it is to constantly be above the cap. A lot less work. A harder cap means that the lower budget clubs will also have hard dollars they HAVE to spend. It also means that franchises will most likely be able to keep their own players more easily than they do currently. Teams like the Cowboys and Commanders will always be able to keep their top draft picks all the way through their careers if they so choose. But teams like the Cardinals know they are just renting the players until their first big contract.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh