The Start Of Free Agency To Be Delayed? (CBA Extension Talk)

[PhillyPhreak54]

There are no negotiations [Monday]," Jeffrey Kessler, an NFLPA attorney and negotiator, said in an e-mail to ESPN. "We are just reviewing language on our proposal for submission to the owners for their approval vote. The deal goes to the owners [Tuesday] for approval up or down. If up, we have a deal. If down, we go to the uncapped year. Nothing in between and no more negotiation."


The deal that NFL owners will vote on guarantees that players will receive 59.5 percent of all football revenue over the six-year extension of the CBA, Mortensen reports. That 59.5 percent includes a "cash over cap" formula that addresses the concerns of low revenue clubs about how much teams actually spend on their payrolls in a given year.

The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.

Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said it was never discussed Sunday. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said

--from ESPN.com

[Wingspan]

can someone explain to me how the rams signed glover today

a cut player is not bound by the free agency rules

[Beermonkey]

I was trolling around the NFLPA site & found the March player's newsletter that explains the CBA situation in pretty basic language. Enjoy it slackers.

NFLPA March 2006 Player's Newsletter

[Feva]

It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.

Can this end up screwing with the way the Snyder works his cap?  Because his money "actually" spent on players ends up over the cap in one year... but under what the next year's anticipated cap will be right?  So say if he ends up spending say $10 million more than what the cap allows... that would mean the next year's cap he would be anticipating would drop by $10 million and cause him to purge his guys right?

I'm probably looking at this wrong but whatever....

[PhillyPhreak54]

It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap.

Can this end up screwing with the way the Snyder works his cap?  Because his money "actually" spent on players ends up over the cap in one year... but under what the next year's anticipated cap will be right?  So say if he ends up spending say $10 million more than what the cap allows... that would mean the next year's cap he would be anticipating would drop by $10 million and cause him to purge his guys right?

I'm probably looking at this wrong but whatever....

Sounds about right to me. It sounds like they want to set a limit for "cash over cap". Something like 2%, if I recall correctly. So 2% of the $94.5M cap this year would be $1.89M. I could be wrong but I haven't read too in-depth on it yet. I am waiting to see the fianl CBA to really look at it.

But the Eagles do this too. For instance here are the 2004 payroll numbers for each team. You'll see that the Eagles actually spent $104M (the Skins spent $117M).

That was the year we got Kearse ($16M signing bonus) and TO and Dhani Jones. The actual cap in 2004 was $80.5M. So they spent approx. $24M over that. That would be the cash over cap.

The small market (low revenue teams) see this as an unfair advantage. They say that the big money teams have an unfair advantage. This is another example of how the loser ass cheap teams are bitching about being poor. Like it is the other teams fault that they don't market their team as well. They already get revenue sharing and now they want to limit this.

Its crazy. And its stupid. The cash over cap and the revenue sharing are the two things the billionaires are bitching about. And I side with the teams like the Eagles, Cowboys, Pats, Skins and Texans. F the people like Bill Bidwell who are cheap fargs.

[PhillyPhreak54]

Lenny P

By agreeing to present the union's proposal to the 32-owner membership, commissioner Paul Tagliabue has taken NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw off the hook with his increasingly restless and angst-ridden player constituency. And, far less important but still somewhat significant, with whatever fans are casually interested in the tedious and drawn-out labor discussions.

In any battle pitting millionaires and billionaires, the public, comprised mostly of thousandaires, typically empathizes with no one, because it can relate to neither combatant. But by taking the union's proposal to the owners, a blueprint not terribly dissimilar to the one unanimously rejected by owners Thursday in a 57-minute meeting, Tagliabue and the NFL have unwittingly declared Upshaw and the NFLPA the winners in the public relations battle

Because the bottom line is this: Tagliabue has put the onus on the owners. If the deal falls apart now, it will be the owners -- who are still locked in an intramural battle over revenue sharing among themselves that could turn contentious Tuesday -- who bear the brunt of public criticism.

At this point there certainly is plenty of blame to dole out to two sides that may not have yet killed off the golden goose[/b](just for rjs), but who definitely plucked some feathers from it. But the owners will catch most of the flak if the deal falls through now

Remember, it takes 24 of 32 votes to pass the extension to the collective bargaining agreement. And as ESPN.com has reported several times in the past week, there remains a bloc of 9-10 low-revenue franchises that plan to oppose any extension to the CBA that doesn't adequately address their revenue sharing issues. ESPN.com has learned that representatives from several of those allied low-revenue teams huddled via telephone conference call on Monday to reaffirm their united stance.

But there are indications that it does not address the revenue-sharing component, certainly not to the satisfaction of the low-revenue franchises. There are some stipulations that would adjust the percentage of revenues shared with players, which the union has proposed as 59.5 percent, based on the amount of "cash over cap" in a given season.

The "cash over cap" issue -- the difference between a club's true payroll and its salary cap figure -- does tie into the widening disparity between the high- and low-revenue franchises. But officials from two low-revenue teams reiterated to ESPN.com Monday that the "cash over cap" adjustments recommended by the NFLPA proposal are inadequate as a substitute for reworked revenue sharing among the owners. And the high-revenue teams may not accept any CBA extension that penalizes them for spending too much cash over the cap.

It will not be surprising if the Tuesday meeting in Dallas deteriorates into a standoff that pits the revenue "haves" and "have-nots" in separate corners. One general manager from a low-revenue club even joked Monday that the site of the meeting was appropriate, because the session could become a "Texas cage match." Indeed, it might take the commissioner's bolting the doors to the meeting room and instructing the owners that they can't leave until they reach an accord.

"This is," said one general manager, "no slam dunk."

[PhillyPhreak54]

John Clayton

Owners are already getting word to prepare for a two-day discussion and vote that starts at 2 p.m. Tuesday. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, for the sake of league harmony and security, needs to make sure there are 24 votes to pass. There will be plenty of lobbying and plenty of heated words

But there will be arm twisting, and it starts with the high-revenue teams. Tagliabue has to break the block of five negative votes for revenue sharing: Jerry Jones in Dallas, Dan Snyder in Washington, Robert Kraft in New England, Jeff Lurie in Philadelphia and Bob McNair in Houston. Those five have garnered enough support among a handful of owners to block efforts to get a revenue-sharing plan into this deal

Tagliabue will need to break two or three of those votes in favor of this deal for it to pass. Snyder might be tough because he loves to spend and doesn't like restraints. Jones will be a tough sell because he's a maverick who isn't afraid of a non-capped NFL. He's also waiting for the union to sign off on more than $80 million of union- and NFL-approved loans for his new stadium construction.

Plus, it wouldn't be bad if an assurance of a Super Bowl in Dallas could be suggested to make things right. The Super Bowl in Houston was considered a success, and there isn't a reason why Dallas couldn't do the same.

Tagliabue will have to make sure everyone is aligned on the low-revenue side. Wayne Weaver of the Jacksonville Jaguars has been part of a lot of talks with high-revenue teams about sharing the wealth. The commissioner needs to make sure the low-revenue teams feel they aren't being too financially consumed by the proposal to increase the players' percentage of the revenue.

While the numbers will be moderately fixed, the commissioner has to make sure that those low-revenue teams can make a profit and not find themselves in a financial hole with this deal. Sometimes it's hard to count on the Brown family in Cincinnati and the Bidwell family in Arizona to support a system that is expensive.

Weaver has to make sure the votes of the low-revenue clubs are lined up. Plus, it would help to make sure Al Davis of the Raiders doesn't abstain. Unfortunately, the poor salesmanship of the city of Oakland for tickets has left the Raiders among the lower-revenue teams. Davis, who has a history of fighting the league, needs revenue sharing until the Raiders can work their season-ticket magic.

This is the first year since moving back to Oakland the Raiders can sell tickets. That had been the domain of a city-run marketing association that simply didn't do a good job. Davis loves to compete. He has pride in Raiders tradition. Tagliabue needs to make sure the Raiders' vote can be counted on.

[ice grillin you]

so can arrington be signed at anytime?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

so can arrington be signed at anytime?

Yes.

[SunMo]

yes.

[rjs246]

I thought they put him on waivers. Doesn't he have to clear first?

[ice grillin you]

these rules are all so gay....can they please just open this shtein up to everyone

[SunMo]

it's not really that complicated.  all these FA-to-be are still under contract until their contract runs out at the end of the league year.

anyone who is cut, is cut.  their contract is terminated so they can immediately sign with anybody.

[rjs246]

You didn't mantion anything about waivers, nerd.

[SunMo]

they don't exist.  it's a figment of your twisted imagination.