OFFICIAL CBA Q & A THREAD (Cap Status Link)...Please post all CBA/CAP questions here!

[david_jackson]

They couldn't sign a kicker....and they cut theirs so I guess the scheme to accept the penalties (by the Commanders) is totally unworkable

 

[peplaw06]

OK, Mort is spinning this as "they have an agreement in principle, pending owner ratification." The final Union proposal is being taken to the owners for a vote.

 

[peplaw06]

And I have a stupid question that may have been answered already, but indulge me please. The sticking point in negotiations is team revenues and how much the players union will receive, right. Mort is saying this last proposal is for players to receive 59.5% of league revenues. Is this really serious. The players, in addition to their salaries, are getting a cut off the back end of revenues... Not even "a cut," they're getting more than half of the revenues. Has this always been the case, players receiving a % of revenues?? Sounds out of whack to me.

 

[wileedog]

The players, in addition to their salaries, are getting a cut off the back end of revenues... Not even "a cut," they're getting more than half of the revenues. Has this always been the case, players receiving a % of revenues?? Sounds out of whack to me.

I'm no cap expert, but I believe they use that % of revenues to determine the salary cap number. In other words, the more money that goes into that 'pool', the higher the cap is for teams to spend.

It doesn't necessarily mean every dime of it will end up in a player's pocket.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

OK, Mort is spinning this as "they have an agreement in principle, pending owner ratification." The final Union proposal is being taken to the owners for a vote.

Key phrase being "pending owner approval". So key low v. high market issues unsolved and unlikely to be. That's my pessimistic read.

 

[Nors]

Tags is bringing back the same offer the owners already voted down????

They bought 3 days to restart talks. Sounds like deadline will be moved again Thursday.

I'm touting this as an issue amongst the Owners, Not all players versus owners. There will eventually be a deal agreed to - soft deadline.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Lots of various outlets are reporting a done deal.

 

[DBoys]

Lots of various outlets are reporting a done deal.

Any reports yet Stanley?

 

[TheEnigma]

When the numbers were reported last year on the signings of Ferguson and Rivera, were the 9.5 million in "bogus" incentives known by us on the board? And are there anymore of these in either one of their contracts?

So, when we sign players, how much of it is usually money we are planning on giving them? And how much of it are these "bogus" items to get around various cap rules?

 

[peplaw06]

And I have a stupid question that may have been answered already, but indulge me please. The sticking point in negotiations is team revenues and how much the players union will receive, right. Mort is saying this last proposal is for players to receive 59.5% of league revenues. Is this really serious. The players, in addition to their salaries, are getting a cut off the back end of revenues... Not even "a cut," they're getting more than half of the revenues. Has this always been the case, players receiving a % of revenues?? Sounds out of whack to me.

OK, think I figured it out, but I still have some questions. The players want the owners to spend 59.5% of their revenues on player salaries.

But with the salary cap, why is this necessary? I realize it's like a minimum cap, but are there really teams that don't spend (ala the Kansas City Royals in baseball, etc.) to put a quality product on the field. You could say the Cardinals, but they have some good WRs, and paid for Emmitt and Kurt Warner.

My issue is with teams that get more revenues. What if say the Cowboys make so much in revenues that 59.5% is actually more than the cap allows? The revenue sharing among teams doesn't put everyone at a level playing field... it makes it closer, but it's not equal is it?

 

[TheEnigma]

OK, think I figured it out, but I still have some questions. The players want the owners to spend 59.5% of their revenues on player salaries.

But with the salary cap, why is this necessary? I realize it's like a minimum cap, but are there really teams that don't spend (ala the Kansas City Royals in baseball, etc.) to put a quality product on the field. You could say the Cardinals, but they have some good WRs, and paid for Emmitt and Kurt Warner.

My issue is with teams that get more revenues. What if say the Cowboys make so much in revenues that 59.5% is actually more than the cap allows? The revenue sharing among teams doesn't put everyone at a level playing field... it makes it closer, but it's not equal is it?

I think your viewing it almost as if the 59.5% is based off of each team individually. The 59.5% is of the total of all revenues shared. All of the shared revenues that the Cowboys make would be lumped in with all of the shared revenues that Pittsburg makes. So it could wind up that 59.5% of the total revenues would only be 49.5% of what Dallas yields in revenue, but 69.5% of what another team yields in revenue.

The problem among the owners is what should be shared.

 

[Nors]

Lots of various outlets are reporting a done deal.

Yes - links

Tags is meeting with owners tomorrow afternoon in Dallas to vote. They will need 24 votes to ratify. Mort today is propping an agreement in principal - sounds like Owners just caved late last night or Tags bought a 3 day extension. I think it was the latter.


Please post links - I'd like to see the done deal, details and free agency start date official. Getting tired of all these soft deadlines.

 

[cowboyfan4life_mark]

So lets see if I have this straight. Union has made a proposal, owners will meet tomorrow to vote, and we still don't know when FA starts.

 

[burmafrd]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2356568

 

[ravidubey]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2356568

"As for Tagliabue, he has shepherded the NFL through some tough times. He was the prime catalyst for hammering out landmark television packages. His vision for where teams had to get to in terms of local revenues fueled a generation of spectacular new stadiums. And he has exhibited, during his 17-season tenure, more social conscience than did Pete Rozelle."

Uhh the same Tags that freaked out when Jerry Jones announced his Texas Stadium/Nike deal and then sued said owner for $700 million? You mean that tool?

 

[BigWillie]

This whole revenue sharing among teams is ridiculous.

They may as well tell Microsoft to split its funds with Mac to even the playing field there as well.

 

[Wimbo]

So, I have gotten lost with all the extension and delays... Is there a deadline tonight? Is if just for a CBA approval, or also to be under the cap? When will FA officially start?

Sorry, I know all of these answers are in these MB's somewhere, but I am appealing to someone's charity to sum it up for me. :

 

[Echo9]

This whole revenue sharing among teams is ridiculous.

They may as well tell Microsoft to split its funds with Mac to even the playing field there as well.

ummm... errrr...actually, they sorta did.

Microsoft gave an absolute ton of cash to Apple a while back.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-842879.html

 

[BigWillie]

Yes, when it benefited Gates pocket book.

Point being?

While you were too busy trying to be a smart ---, you seemingly failed to understand what I was trying to say. You don't give money just to give money. A football team is just like a business, you operate your business to get the most money you can, not to just get by. These larger market teams do this off of their fan base, and why should they take the money they earn and give it to others for nothing?

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

httr...........