OT: NFL may come uncapped

Status
Not open for further replies.

Easton

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
3,698
0
I don't understand this. How can the NFL legitimize this move? How can this benefit the business of football? Well, as far as I, a non-football fan, know is that the sport is popular and successful just like baseball is. If that's the case then I assume they are confident enough to do this and survive. I guess, unlike baseball's teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, Cinncinnatti Reds, and the Kansas City Royals, every NFL team will continue to attract fans no matter what. Fine, but not that I really care, how does this increase revenues for the NFL because, after all, that is what they're all about. So it must somehow benefit the NFL, or are they taking a risk here?
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Easton said:
I don't understand this. How can the NFL legitimize this move? How can this benefit the business of football? Well, as far as I, a non-football fan, know is that the sport is popular and successful just like baseball is. If that's the case then I assume they are confident enough to do this and survive. I guess, unlike baseball's teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, Cinncinnatti Reds, and the Kansas City Royals, every NFL team will continue to attract fans no matter what. Fine, but not that I really care, how does this increase revenues for the NFL because, after all, that is what they're all about. So it must somehow benefit the NFL, or are they taking a risk here?

depends on who you're talking about.

the owners -- for the most part -- do not want this to happen at all... however, it's sitting there and may end up in their laps.

the players... obviously they would like for the salary cap to go away.

for those claiming that the NFL players have an "awful" deal. they get the largest % of any "capped" league... they're doing fine. the only raw deal they get is the non-guaranteed contracts, but part of the reason they get the largest cut of any of the players is due to the non-guaranteed contracts.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Jester said:
for those claiming that the NFL players have an "awful" deal. they get the largest % of any "capped" league...

They have twice as many players on their rosters as any "capped league".. doesn't equate.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Tawnos said:
They have twice as many players on their rosters as any "capped league".. doesn't equate.

that has NOTHING to do with it. there is X amount of cash coming into the league, they get the largest % of X cash.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Yeah, but X amount of cash times X% divided by X amount of players is what you're looking for to see whether a deal if more fair for the players or less. Granted, the average NFL salary is "only" 300k less than the average NHLers (1.1mil vs 1.4mil), but throw in the lack of guaranteed contracts and the deal is awful in comparison.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Tawnos said:
Yeah, but X amount of cash times X% divided by X amount of players is what you're looking for to see whether a deal if more fair for the players or less. Granted, the average NFL salary is "only" 300k less than the average NHLers (1.1mil vs 1.4mil), but throw in the lack of guaranteed contracts and the deal is awful in comparison.

bad argument man. if you're in a league that is a salary cap tied to the % of revenue coming into the league, and you have the BEST %, you're getting a pretty good deal in terms of financial return for the body of the players. it isn't the owners fault that the sport of Football involves large number of players, that's the way it is... and they're accepting the smallest cut of revenues of the capped major sports.

if the NFL suddenly started making a lot more cash (which is near impossible since they're rolling in cash) then the league avg. salary would grow accordingly... that's fair... that's very fair.

guaranteed v. non-guaranteed is a give-and-take issue. the players get 65ish% of league revenue at the price of not having guaranteed contracts... if they wanted guaranteed contracts they would have to give up some of that % of the revenue because the owners would then be assuming more risk in their monetary investments...

do non-guaranteed contracts suck in a sport like football where career ending injuries are common? yes. however, because of those contracts players enjoy a larger % of league revenue.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Jester said:
guaranteed v. non-guaranteed is a give-and-take issue. the players get 65ish% of league revenue at the price of not having guaranteed contracts... if they wanted guaranteed contracts they would have to give up some of that % of the revenue because the owners would then be assuming more risk in their monetary investments...

do non-guaranteed contracts suck in a sport like football where career ending injuries are common? yes. however, because of those contracts players enjoy a larger % of league revenue.
How would the owners be assuming more risk when the total player compensation is still capped at 65%? Guaranteed contracts determine which players receive the money, not how much the owners spend.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Weary said:
How would the owners be assuming more risk when the total player compensation is still capped at 65%? Guaranteed contracts determine which players receive the money, not how much the owners spend.

because then you have dead money... owners want to win and use their money to win. not pay a guy that is injured. Jeff Lurie spoke directly to this issue last summer.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Jester said:
because then you have dead money... owners want to win and use their money to win. not pay a guy that is injured. Jeff Lurie spoke directly to this issue last summer.
Yes, you have dead money. But the net cost of that dead money is zero. Lurie may have addressed it, but that doesn't me he addressed it honestly. Despite what Lurie said, the reason that the NFL players get a higher percentage is because the NFL has much higher revenues. It has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,604
15,489
South of Heaven
dpetri2000 said:
Eddie Debartolo and Jerry Jones before the cap...duh!
Jerry Jones didn't buy a ring. He traded for it when the Vikings bent over to make the worst trade in sports history: Herschel Walker for 3 Super Bowl Rings.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,860
8,113
mr gib said:
gene upshaw was on espn radio yesterday - the players and the owners are a half a billion apart over four years - he defended the signing bonus vs guaranteed contracts
Well, yeah. A player and his agent will take a $32 million, 6-year contract with a $16 million signing bonus now 99% of the time over a 6-year, $40 million contract with no signing bonus - if only for the simple fact that the player and the agent see $16 million now instead of having to wait 3 years.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
NFL Labor talks break off

""We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

The NFL acknowledged the talks had broken off and said no further discussions were scheduled. The league said it would not extend Friday's deadline for the start of free agency.

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

They differ, however, on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/02/28/bc.fbn.nfltalks.ap/index.html

Oh the memories....I dread the day when the NHL/PA has to revisit their CBA.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
The owners are having an emergency meeting tomorrow.

Players want 60% of revenue (and change)
Owner want to give the players 54% of revenue (and change)


And there is no deal and the next season is uncapped. Free agency starts at 6 years instead of 4 years. Teams will also have two franchise tags to use instead of just one. So there wont be as much of buying players as people think.
 

FoppaArGud

Registered User
Jan 18, 2006
395
0
PHILLY
The Players Need to Gut This Out

FOR ONCE they have leverage! The owners are systemically and actively tight-knit, the players have the worst arrangement of any of the four majors and yes that includes the NHL despite the recent shafting the NHLPA got.

I dont think they can finagle guaranteed contracts or anything too crazy but they can certainly get the shift to total revenue and the percentage they want.

An uncapped season means serious trouble and a strike would be totally disastrous.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,860
8,113
An uncapped league is Bill Bidwell's dream; spend as little as he can on players, still get the bazillion million dollars in TV revenue and make money hand over fist even if 9,500 show up for Cardinals games (or just slightly lower than what the franchise seems to have averaged the last several years). It's also a dream come true for Al Davis, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder - spend $175 million on a team or more to buy the Lombardi Trophy. It'll absolutely damage things in a Green Bay, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and maybe even Carolina and New Orleans - places that might not be able to stay competitive if the league was uncapped for any significant length of time.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
^
It could also be an advantage to the NHL (and every other sport out there) if they kill the golden goose. Just as people looked elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollars during the NHL lockout the same will hold true for the NFL and there is a nice overlap of seasons between the two.

It wouldn't be a significant windfall for the NHL but it would have an impact.

Also I would think if the NFL loses their cap that would not bode well for the NHL or other leagues looking for or have a cap. Like it or not, they are the league of standard right now.

The NFL is right in the middle of their hey-day - to suffer through labor problems now would be complete idiocy on both sides. They are practically printing their own money over there and to disprupt that...ah hell...they can figure it out at this point....I'm just glad the NHL's back and making a recovery.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,860
8,113
Top Shelf said:
^
It could also be an advantage to the NHL (and every other sport out there) if they kill the golden goose. Just as people looked elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollars during the NHL lockout the same will hold true for the NFL and there is a nice overlap of seasons between the two.

It wouldn't be a significant windfall for the NHL but it would have an impact.

Also I would think if the NFL loses their cap that would not bode well for the NHL or other leagues looking for or have a cap. Like it or not, they are the league of standard right now.
It depends. If the league goes uncapped for a few seasons and teams begin to struggle to survive (or worst-case scenario, someone folds), both sides may take it as a sign that going to a cap system of some sort is mutually beneficial for all the teams involved and thus guarantees the players union jobs as a result. If the NFL continues to thrive and is better than ever and teams like Green Bay continue to churn out profits, then it's a *very* bad sign for NBA and NHL owners in the next round of labor talks.
 

X8oD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,619
138
612 Warf Ave.
Not sure if anybody has said anything about this, but there are some serious consequences for going uncapped, as per the CBA.

they lose all Health Insurance coverage from the league, and the league no longer puts money into Pension and 401k. Each team is given a 2nd Franchise Tag. And with no Cap, there is no penalty in franchising a player over and over and over, as long as you are willing to pay him. Free Agency years climb from 4 to 6 years experience.

the big deal is, the league can Lock the players out after the Uncapped year. Meaning you can guarentee no owner is going to give any player guarenteed money beyond 2007.

so who ever says the players have ball in thier court, and finally can move things, they are sadly mistaken. hell, could you imagine trying to get health insurance in the NFL?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->