The cap is probably going to drop. now what?

[Redball Express]

me either man.

currently, the salary floor is 89% of the cap, so teams have to pay that much (apparently) each year.

So, if a team is in financial difficulty in paying players, then the premise is this: instead of lowering the cap (which could mean player salaries would have to be reduced, which is a sticky mess), a reduction of the floor could be done instead, in order to allow teams to pay only say 70% of the cap instead of 89.

Those teams that already are bound to amounts higher due to existing contracts in place could stay at those contracted amounts so existing contracts with players are not affected, but those teams that haven't yet committed that minimum would no longer have to put out contracts to get to the 89%, only to the 70% figure.

 

[Blackspider214]

IMO if the cap takes a serious hit then I could see the owners implementing a no cap season like they did a few years ago.

I would love a no cap indefinitely.

 

[Chuck 54]

As we still have more cap room than most NFL teams, I’m not worried.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I am not going to make this a Dak thread, but the Cowboys have to be aware as they plan for the future that the uncertainty of sports going forward is an unknown.

I'll make it a Dak thread. In times of high risk, you want to lock in money *now*.

For the league, they should have always been writing contracts as a percentage of cap to automatically adjust to ups and downs.

 

[buybuydandavis]

https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/12/section/1/(a)(xii)/

For purposes of this Article, and anywhere else stated in this Agreement, revenues shall be accounted for in the manner set forth below.

(a)(xii)
Cancelled Games. If one or more weeks of any NFL season are cancelled or AR for any League Year substantially decreases, in either case due to a terrorist or military action, natural disaster, or similar event, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to adjust the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the projection of AR and the Salary Cap for the following League Year so that AR for the following League Year is projected in a fair manner consistent with the changed revenue projection caused by such action.

https://overthecap.com/what-could-happen-to-the-salary-cap-in-2021/

Long but good read

Is there a provision to adjust *existing contracts*, and not just the cap?

 

[vnick]

There's an article on the Athletic where Lombardi addresses the cap could drop as much as 30 million. If those projections held, there would be some teams who would start 2021 over the cap by that much or more. In fact Lombardi speculates that's why some guys like Griffen are still on the market. Teams are looking toward next year. But Teams nor the players union would want a 30 million or more drop to happen as it would decimate the free agent market, cause teams to jettison contracts to even productive players, among other things.

There are a couple of solutions. One that has been floated is having players agree to a reduced salary structure this year. Taking the hit now would prevent some of the doomsday down the road. Another option would be an agreement to spread the loss in revenue over a number of future seasons to create a more stable cap. This would affect how teams have projected the big increase after the TV deal.

I would assume one of those. However, I am still in the camp that believes by the time the regular season starts, we will have fans in the stands. We may have to wear masks, but I think we will be there.

 

[dogberry]

My worst case guess for 21 cap is $120 million.

Would like to see other projections.

Mine is probably too high.

 

[charron]

The league will have to work with the players union on this. Doubt players accept a cut in salaries but maybe. Or maybe they agree to keep the cap flat for a few years. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

 

[Redball Express]

I'll make it a Dak thread. In times of high risk, you want to lock in money *now*.

For the league, they should have always been writing contracts as a percentage of cap to automatically adjust to ups and downs.

Can they do that..?

Would players, agents and ownership allow the entire sport be done like that?

I mean I worked in an attorney office for over 5 years.

Trying to get 2 sides to lockstep like that is just almost impossible to do.

As they say..

"Easier said than done".

Saying it in chatroom sounds so logical.

Good luck with that.

Really. Nothing personal aimed at you.

Just saying.

 

[Adreme]

It is true that if there were games without fans and nothing changed than the cap would likely drop to around 140M. However, the cap is not going to drop. There is a provision in the CBA specifically to account for issues such as this and it calls for a negotiation between the owners and the players to ensure that normal order can function.. What will almost certainly happen is that they will borrow against future cap increases in order to keep the cap where it is. What this means is that the cap over the next 3-4 years will have smaller increases than expected, or none depending on how long it takes to return to normal.

 

[gimmesix]

It is being reported lately that if the season has issues with crowds not being present, ticket sales descending and revenue for the owners and players dropping..

that this is going to interfere with player salaries.

How does this affect everything?

There is a new TV contract coming up. Is it going to just increase revenue or role things back further.?

I am not going to make this a Dak thread, but the Cowboys have to be aware as they plan for the future that the uncertainty of sports going forward is an unknown.

Making huge contracts to players could decimate your franchise if it all goes wrong.

How do you guys suggest it should be done.

No attacks, one line slurs are just not useful here.

What do you really feel?

Over to you.

The NFL will adjust to whatever drops in revenue it sees. I'm very doubtful that it will cut the cap down to where teams have to cut their top players. That would be counterproductive. New contracts after it sees a drop may be affected, but not deals signed before there is a drop.

Plus, with the wiggle room created in contracts these days, teams could always activate automatic restructures to open up space to absorb a hit. That's not the way anyone would want to do it, though, and I'm doubtful they would have to.

 

[Redball Express]

The NFL will adjust to whatever drops in revenue it sees. I'm very doubtful that it will cut the cap down to where teams have to cut their top players. That would be counterproductive. New contracts after it sees a drop may be affected, but not deals signed before there is a drop.

Plus, with the wiggle room created in contracts these days, teams could always activate automatic restructures to open up space to absorb a hit. That's not the way anyone would want to do it, though, and I'm doubtful they would have to.

I have no idea.

People say stuff that this will happen or could or should happen.

We are all in a vacuum about this.

We have never seen anything like this.

I asked the question because I heard this from sports reporters.

Not because I want to appear to know anything.

Just a lonely sport bystander waiting for the storm to move out.

 

[DanA]

Can’t see the NFL owners paying more money than agreed to players however I could see an agreement with the NFLPA allowing them to smooth the effect of coronavirus over several years.

 

[AlienBoy]

How do we know this virus won't come back again and again, I say cap flexability is very important right now.

If a couple of weeks after all this rioting/protesting doesn’t increase covid #’s, then this pandemic is over and this country should go into “full speed ahead” mode.

 

[Verdict]

Personally, I think that a restrictor, of sorts, should be adopted in order to limit what positions can be paid. If a team wants to include incentives based on performance levels met, then allow that but that should be something that is charged back to the team, should it exceed adopted payment levels for any given player or position. That money can then be distributed back to the league through additional cap resources, to be used equally among all other teams. I don't think you can continue to just allow for unchecked escalation around specific players or positions. This idea of escalation just because you are the next player up is a bad model. Any model that artaficially inflates salary, with no emphasize on actual performance is a mistake.

That's my view anyhow.

I agree with your point of view, but it’s not the league’s fault. It is the individual team’s fault for falling into that trap. That is how New England has stayed on top for so long. They operate dispassionately regarding the cap. Would Jerry have ever let Tom Brady wall of he was a Cowboy? Probably not.

The Cowboys have had an opportunity to dig in on players (Tank) and didnt. They relented and paid them. They did the same thing with Dez Bryant. That seldom works out well.

The problem at QB is that it’s hard to replace them if you go with the “NFL Formula” of trying time find a pure passer.

We could have drafted Hurts and let Dak walk for a fraction of what Dak was making. Was it wise to not do that? IDK.

All I am saying is all teams are playing by the same rules. The smart teams don’t overpay on a regular basis.

I would not have paid Tank. He was a greedy selfish player who won’t change the win total at all by himself. You don’t overpay for that.

 

[gjkoeppen]

It is being reported lately that if the season has issues with crowds not being present, ticket sales descending and revenue for the owners and players dropping..

that this is going to interfere with player salaries.

How does this affect everything?

There is a new TV contract coming up. Is it going to just increase revenue or role things back further.?

I am not going to make this a Dak thread, but the Cowboys have to be aware as they plan for the future that the uncertainty of sports going forward is an unknown.

Making huge contracts to players could decimate your franchise if it all goes wrong.

How do you guys suggest it should be done.

No attacks, one line slurs are just not useful here.

What do you really feel?

Over to you.

You are well know to be against Prescott so you tried to be sneaky and name this thread one thing but you made sure that you brought up Prescott in your first comments to make this yet another thread of the zillion Prescott threads.

Now as far as where the cap ends up next season here's a couple of thoughts. The reason why the actual cap amount isn't announced until just before free agency starts is because part of what goes into the cap isn't determined until the end of the previous league year. The total sale of NFL merchandise for the previous league year is figured into the following year's cap amounts. Another part of figuring cap amounts is is revenue from live gate sales the previous season. If fans are not allowed in games or fans are allowed but the number of fans allowed in is reduced that will affect cap amounts.and this will affect the 20212 cap.

This is just a guess and that's it but I think next year the league will adopt a temporary system for 2021 that sets the 2021 cap at the 2020 cap amount and the league will allow teams to resign their own players but if they sign players from other teams there will be a tax assessed for the amounts over the cap amounts for every team that does this and then this tax amount will be used to add to the next years cap to help out if live gate sales are still down.in 2021. In other words a soft cap. Every team will have the chance to sign who they want but if they sign other teams players it will cost them money. The league will also tell all teams that if you do this and when things go back to normal they may have to make some big decisions on their rosters that could put large amounts of dead money in future caps years.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

If a couple of weeks after all this rioting/protesting doesn’t increase covid #’s, then this pandemic is over and this country should go into “full speed ahead” mode.

Here's a thought about your idea. It's the young that have been for the most part been able to weather this pandemic better than the older people but a large percentage of NFL live gates is older people, people 40 years old and older and with the number of people that have been unemployed for several months, things like the high costs of attending NFL games might be more than what those younger people can afford this season. The larger section of older people may chose not to risk going to a stadium packed with people who could be carriers but showing no symptoms. To equate no cost protests numbers with the high costs of NFL tickets is bad at best.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I"ve lost you? Please go back and read the previous posts.


What if I said that owners should not be responsible for paying players guaranteed portions of contracts if they are injured? What would you think of that? The reasoning I might give is that it's the risk every player takes. If I said that this is what being a player is?

Would you be OK with that?

Technically, I think, I could be wrong, but when a player does go to IR their salary is reduced somewhat. But the nagging injuries that last only a game or two or three is an interesting approach that the owners should on the next CBA if that hasn't been discussed before. Depending on what happens this season and things like live gate and if that is gone or greatly reduced, the owners may or could renegotiate that for this CBA. There have been changes to CBA's in past years after they were originally signed.
.

 

[McKDaddy]

Can they do that..?

Would players, agents and ownership allow the entire sport be done like that?

I mean I worked in an attorney office for over 5 years.

Trying to get 2 sides to lockstep like that is just almost impossible to do.

As they say..

"Easier said than done".

Saying it in chatroom sounds so logical.

Good luck with that.

Really. Nothing personal aimed at you.

Just saying.

I don't understand any issue with % based agreements. It happens all the time. Its really the only fair way to split up a pie that isn't the same size from day to day. The league revenue calculations are well known & transparent so the Players Union & outside parties can all see the impact on revenue & the corresponding decrease in players pay. Everyone likes this when the pie is always increasing. Only fair to share in the pain. Having an immediate adjustment only affects current players which is also fair. Anything that delays or spreads out the hit affects players who aren't even in the league now.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with your point of view, but it’s not the league’s fault. It is the individual team’s fault for falling into that trap. That is how New England has stayed on top for so long. They operate dispassionately regarding the cap. Would Jerry have ever let Tom Brady wall of he was a Cowboy? Probably not.

The Cowboys have had an opportunity to dig in on players (Tank) and didnt. They relented and paid them. They did the same thing with Dez Bryant. That seldom works out well.

The problem at QB is that it’s hard to replace them if you go with the “NFL Formula” of trying time find a pure passer.

We could have drafted Hurts and let Dak walk for a fraction of what Dak was making. Was it wise to not do that? IDK.

All I am saying is all teams are playing by the same rules. The smart teams don’t overpay on a regular basis.

I would not have paid Tank. He was a greedy selfish player who won’t change the win total at all by himself. You don’t overpay for that.

I don't disagree, but it is still what I think would be best.