Well this can't be good...

by Fooch on May 20, 2008 11:39 AM PDT in News Comment 5 comments

I was checking the world wide leader today and almost overlooked this article. The NFL owners voted to opt out of the current labor deal, which could lead to no salary cap in 2010, and even worse, a lockout in 2011. First and foremost, I'm amazed this wasn't thrown up on the front page of ESPN.com. Lance Berkman's having a great year, but I think that it would be important info for at least one day.

The NFL's official comment on the matter stated that:

The league, however, emphasized that it will keep negotiating with the NFL Players Association and said games will be played "without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons."

"A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides," the NFL said Tuesday morning. "If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal."

As important an issue as this is, it is not coming completely out of left field. Everyone seemed to expect the owners would opt out and in fact, Gene Upshaw already had specific reasons why the owners opted out: 1) High labor costs, 2) problems with the rookie pool and the 3) league's inability, through the interpretation of the courts, to recoup bonuses of players who subsequently breach their contract or refuse to perform. In the wake of the Michael Vick contract problems, among many other issues, I can see how that last reason would be an important part of future negotiations.

The NFL feels that:

"The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the cost of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest shares; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country."

So, I thought I'd open this up for everyone's thoughts on this issue. If a team was willing to spend whatever money was necessary to win, a cap-less year would certainly be interesting. At the same time, the cap would be returning so I can only imagine the chaos it would create in the meantime. And of course a lockout is the last thing anybody wants. I would imagine the league and the NFLPA can work this out because they would absolutely insane to kill the proverbial golden goose with this kind of situation.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Why would this mean no salary cap?

Why would the owners want to pay the players more? I don’t see the NFL working the way MLB does, there isn’t that huge discrepancy between small market and big market teams in the NFL that you see in MLB. Also, rookies are definitely overpaid but since injuries are so prevalent it complicates the situation, maybe rookies should sign incentive laden deals much like proven veterans who are coming off injuries. Either way there’s no way rookies should be making more than Pro Bowlers. I also, don’t think this is going to the catastrophic impact that some people think it will.

"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva

by methodrampage on May 20, 2008 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

wow

this is big.

MURS for President!!!!!!!

by jtoj on May 20, 2008 11:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That's what she said!

And then she said, “too big, take it back.”

She said this to somebody, anyway. Don’t know who. I heard it from a friend. True story.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 21, 2008 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok so

I haven’t read enough about this yet to really comment but…

I always kind of roll my eyes at these situations because the NFL is doing so well right now, that I have a hard time believing that the “difficult economic climate” in our country is preventing NFL teams from making boatloads of money. Yes, their profits have probably dropped due to increased costs, but I can’t feel sorry for them. And the players are all rich so I can’t feel sorry for them either.

I do think there are problems with the way the league works. For one, the rookies are paid way too much. They haven’t proven shit and the new CBA should limit the amount given to draft picks, with a scale based on where you were picked, and a small increase across the board each season. This will allow teams to pay veterans more, allowing them to have more balanced contracts that don’t force them to cut guys solely for salary reasons as often. Now I don’t know if the owners will ever give the players guaranteed contracts, but you have to think the players either want that or to remove the salary cap. Sadly, those are both things that are in the owners’ favor already, and would only INCREASE costs if they were changed. The players already get a little bit of a raw deal, but it’s the owners that have a problem with the CBA.

I think it makes sense to change the rules so that at least a certain percentage of a players signing bonus can be recouped if the player goes to jail or is suspended or whatever else prevents them from performing. Each type of situation can be assigned a different percentage of the signing bonus.

I think that they have a lot of time to work out a new CBA so I’m not too worried about it.

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on May 21, 2008 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rookie Pool

Isn’t that what the rookie pool is for? The problem with the CBA isn’t that there isn’t a limitation on how much rookies are paid. The problem is that there are just too many loopholes in it (for rookies and veterans, alike). Right now, instead of giving a rookie a traditional signing bonus, as that would prevent them from signing their first rounders if they plan on signing the remaining draft picks, they spread the bonuses out into various other things. Roster bonuses. “Buyout” clauses. A good example of this is Alex Smith and Eli Manning. The money they received with their “options” were picked up, had it been included in the original signing bonus, would have made their year-to-year salary cap figures (especially early on) ridiculous for a rookie.

When a team can make up unattainable bonuses that are deemed “attainable” so that they could push extra salary cap space from this year into the next, there is seriously something wrong. There shouldn’t be “rollover cap space.”

by sfgfan on May 21, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs