I keep reading about it on this site, but I'm not hearing anything about it from the media and when I search google about it, I'm coming up with nothing. Can anyone point me to a source or say where they are hearing this?
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter BuckWrestler141
- Start date
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
I think it could be that the "salary cap" may be eliminated in 2007. Apparently the CBA goes to March 2008, but doesn't include a salary cap in 2007. Here are a couple of articles:
CBA impasse raises new issues
Salary-cap, free-agency rules could change beginning in March
By Jeff Reynolds
Dec. 4, 2005
Nearly three weeks ago, representatives from all 32 teams and the NFL Players Association met in Kansas City to advance discussions geared toward reaching an extension of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The existing CBA runs through the 2007 league year, which begins March 1, 2007, through February ’08. Under the terms of that pact, ’07 could play out more like a free-for-all than the NFL system we know. That’s because several rules, including the existing universal hard salary cap, would either change or disappear at the conclusion of the 2006 league year.
Troy Vincent, president of the players’ union, believes the threat of entering an “uncapped” year without a new agreement might be enough to close the current gap between the owners and players.
Further stalled negotiations could have wide-ranging implications on business starting in March, when free-agency bidding opens.
“(Players) understand the pros and cons of going to an uncapped year,” Vincent said, adding that revenue sharing was the greatest obstacle between the two sides coming together on a new deal. “We don’t want the sport to do that because we know what that creates. You’ll get some (team) with a payroll (of) $200 million like we saw the Yankees have, and you get (at the other extreme) the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.”
That’s the big-picture perspective, that those in a position of power will only gain power by losing a collectively bargained deal that sanctions how each club operates on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, the ’07 season might be the black cloud on the horizon. Yet, the inability to extend the CBA has more immediate effects.
The final “capped” league year begins next March, when free agents are eligible to sign with other teams. As spelled out in the current CBA, a few new hurdles could exist:
Amortization. Currently, signing-bonus money and salary money can be spread over the length of a contract. A $15 million signing bonus on a five-year contract would create a cap charge of $3 million per year. Beginning in March, amortized bonuses can be spread across no more than four years. That same $15 million signing bonus spread over only four years results in an annual $3.75 million cap charge. Amortization is critical in signing first-round draft picks, especially players in the top 10 who traditionally earn double-digit signing bonuses.
Signing bonuses are certain to decrease, and teams in the best salary-cap shape would be at a huge advantage by using high salaries early in the contract or roster bonuses to lure top talent. Teams who play cap roulette each year — Denver and Oakland project to be more than $28 million over the ’06 salary cap — won’t be in good shape.
Limited salary increases. Unable to divide a signing bonus into as many portions, teams could — see Redskins, Washington — choose to “backload” player contracts. Naturally, a club could propose a contract with little signing bonus but write in a $20 million base salary in 2007, the uncapped year. In anticipation of just that, the NFL closed that loophole. With no CBA in place, a salary cannot increase by more than 30 percent over what it was in 2006. Were the contract signed next March, Bills WR Eric Moulds’ deal wouldn’t fly. Moulds makes $1.5 million in base salary this year. He’s due $6.089 million in 2006, an annual salary increase of 306 percent. Under the parameters outlined by the CBA for March, Moulds could earn a maximum of $1.95 million.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2005/cba2019.htm
Labor daze: It's about the money in the NFL
Dec. 9, 2005 (KRT News delivered by Newstex) -- DALLAS -- There is a force in the NFL these days more powerful than the Indianapolis Colts. It's called greed.
The NFL and NFL Players Association are at a stalemate in negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The owners and players both want more than their fair share of the revenue. A failure to compromise could alter the competitive balance of the NFL.
Currently, the players receive 64 percent of 87 percent of the NFL's gross revenues. The players want 64 percent of 97 percent of the revenues.
Currently, stadium revenue is not included in the financial pie -- suites, premium seating, signage, naming rights, parking. All that goes into the pockets of the owners. The players want some of that in their pockets, too, which makes up the largest chunk of that 10 percent difference in these negotiations.
The current CBA expires in March 2008. Failure to extend the agreement means the final year of the CBA would be an uncapped year. In 2006, each team is expected to operate under a $95 million salary cap.
No salary cap in 2007 would allow the big-market teams, such as Chicago, Dallas, New York and Washington to spend whatever their owners deem necessary to compete for a championship.
But there are a couple of caveats. If the NFL reaches the uncapped year, players would not become free agents until they play in the NFL for six seasons. Under the current CBA, they can become free agents after four years. So there would be a smaller, older pool of players to sign in 2007.
Also, there'd be no minimum salaries. Every rookie in the NFL this season is entitled to a minimum salary of $230,000. Every veteran of four years is entitled to a minimum salary of $540,000. In an uncapped year, a team can pay rookies and veterans alike $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 . . . whatever the player and team can agree upon as fair compensation.
There also wouldn't be a minimum a team must spend on player costs. Under the salary cap, it's roughly $50 million per club. In an uncapped year, a small-market team could opt to field a roster with a $30 million payroll.
Also, the NFL would no longer fund the insurance for the players. Nor would it fund pensions or 401k plans. Each side would be on its own in terms of job benefits. There also would be no provision for an NFL draft beyond 2008.
It's hard to believe the two sides can't reach an agreement. There certainly is enough money to go around.
In the first year of the salary cap (1994), each of the 28 teams was required to spend $34.6 million. In the last 11 years, four more teams have been added, creating 212 more player jobs -- and the salary cap has increased by $50.9 million per team.
In 1994, the average player salary was $628,000. In 2006, it projects to be $1.79 million. And the two sides can't reach a compromise? Dial 1-800-COMMONSENSE before it's too late.
http://news.pajamasmedia.com/united_states/2005/12/11/6634525_Labor_daze_Its_a.shtml
CBA impasse raises new issues
Salary-cap, free-agency rules could change beginning in March
By Jeff Reynolds
Dec. 4, 2005
Nearly three weeks ago, representatives from all 32 teams and the NFL Players Association met in Kansas City to advance discussions geared toward reaching an extension of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The existing CBA runs through the 2007 league year, which begins March 1, 2007, through February ’08. Under the terms of that pact, ’07 could play out more like a free-for-all than the NFL system we know. That’s because several rules, including the existing universal hard salary cap, would either change or disappear at the conclusion of the 2006 league year.
Troy Vincent, president of the players’ union, believes the threat of entering an “uncapped” year without a new agreement might be enough to close the current gap between the owners and players.
Further stalled negotiations could have wide-ranging implications on business starting in March, when free-agency bidding opens.
“(Players) understand the pros and cons of going to an uncapped year,” Vincent said, adding that revenue sharing was the greatest obstacle between the two sides coming together on a new deal. “We don’t want the sport to do that because we know what that creates. You’ll get some (team) with a payroll (of) $200 million like we saw the Yankees have, and you get (at the other extreme) the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.”
That’s the big-picture perspective, that those in a position of power will only gain power by losing a collectively bargained deal that sanctions how each club operates on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, the ’07 season might be the black cloud on the horizon. Yet, the inability to extend the CBA has more immediate effects.
The final “capped” league year begins next March, when free agents are eligible to sign with other teams. As spelled out in the current CBA, a few new hurdles could exist:
Signing bonuses are certain to decrease, and teams in the best salary-cap shape would be at a huge advantage by using high salaries early in the contract or roster bonuses to lure top talent. Teams who play cap roulette each year — Denver and Oakland project to be more than $28 million over the ’06 salary cap — won’t be in good shape.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2005/cba2019.htm
Labor daze: It's about the money in the NFL
Dec. 9, 2005 (KRT News delivered by Newstex) -- DALLAS -- There is a force in the NFL these days more powerful than the Indianapolis Colts. It's called greed.
The NFL and NFL Players Association are at a stalemate in negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The owners and players both want more than their fair share of the revenue. A failure to compromise could alter the competitive balance of the NFL.
Currently, the players receive 64 percent of 87 percent of the NFL's gross revenues. The players want 64 percent of 97 percent of the revenues.
Currently, stadium revenue is not included in the financial pie -- suites, premium seating, signage, naming rights, parking. All that goes into the pockets of the owners. The players want some of that in their pockets, too, which makes up the largest chunk of that 10 percent difference in these negotiations.
The current CBA expires in March 2008. Failure to extend the agreement means the final year of the CBA would be an uncapped year. In 2006, each team is expected to operate under a $95 million salary cap.
No salary cap in 2007 would allow the big-market teams, such as Chicago, Dallas, New York and Washington to spend whatever their owners deem necessary to compete for a championship.
But there are a couple of caveats. If the NFL reaches the uncapped year, players would not become free agents until they play in the NFL for six seasons. Under the current CBA, they can become free agents after four years. So there would be a smaller, older pool of players to sign in 2007.
Also, there'd be no minimum salaries. Every rookie in the NFL this season is entitled to a minimum salary of $230,000. Every veteran of four years is entitled to a minimum salary of $540,000. In an uncapped year, a team can pay rookies and veterans alike $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 . . . whatever the player and team can agree upon as fair compensation.
There also wouldn't be a minimum a team must spend on player costs. Under the salary cap, it's roughly $50 million per club. In an uncapped year, a small-market team could opt to field a roster with a $30 million payroll.
Also, the NFL would no longer fund the insurance for the players. Nor would it fund pensions or 401k plans. Each side would be on its own in terms of job benefits. There also would be no provision for an NFL draft beyond 2008.
It's hard to believe the two sides can't reach an agreement. There certainly is enough money to go around.
In the first year of the salary cap (1994), each of the 28 teams was required to spend $34.6 million. In the last 11 years, four more teams have been added, creating 212 more player jobs -- and the salary cap has increased by $50.9 million per team.
In 1994, the average player salary was $628,000. In 2006, it projects to be $1.79 million. And the two sides can't reach a compromise? Dial 1-800-COMMONSENSE before it's too late.
http://news.pajamasmedia.com/united_states/2005/12/11/6634525_Labor_daze_Its_a.shtml
Upvote
0
