ESPN: Q&A on CBA Negotiations & ESPN Article on complications it could cause

[sableholic]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

"With no extension, what problems would exist for the '06 season?

Because 2006 could be a transition year to no cap in 2007, rules change slightly and they take a lot of money out of the free agency pool. Teams will lose between $2.5 million and $5 million of cap room because of the transition. Because there is no cap in 2007, players who are released from multi-year contracts will have the cap hits on the 2006 cap. With no salary cap in 2007, there will be no June 1 adjustment date to release players with high cap numbers and delay the cap hits. With no cap in 2007, all incentives will count immediately.

Normally, incentives have to be earned during the season and are posted on the next year's cap. Teams have to leave room for the extra charges and that will take anywhere between $100 million and $150 million of cap room out of the free agent pool. With less room, fewer free agents will get big dollars, and fewer free agents will be signed. Another problem is the 30-percent rule for base salaries. Any contract that extends into an uncapped year limits the increase of a player's base salary to 30 percent a year. That kills the teams over the cap because they can't negotiate simple replacement deals in which they replace base salary with signing bonuses. The base salaries can increase only 30 percent a year so teams would have to negotiate two or three years of reductions. It will be harder for teams to free up money under the cap because of that.

Signing draft choices will be more difficult because teams can prorate signing bonuses for only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That leads to long holdouts by draft choices."

And the second article on complications

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2332924

""It's going to be a very difficult circumstance for people to operate systematically and have the kind of money to be actively involved in free agency," Miami Dolphins coach Nick Saban told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "It changes some of the rules relative to the system in how you can calculate a guy's salary."

It changes, indeed, a lot of things on both sides.

For instance, players now will need six accrued seasons, not four, to qualify for unrestricted free agent status. So a standout young player such as Chicago Bears three-year veteran linebacker Lance Briggs, who is coming off a Pro Bowl season and whose contract expires after the 2006 season, would have to wait two additional seasons before being unrestricted. The league also would, in an uncapped year, quit funding 401(k) plans and most other fringe benefits, meaning that players would be responsible for those things.

And there would be difficulties, even for the most innovative teams and creative player agents, in meeting financial expectations on most contracts.

The more well-known sticking points: Without an extension to the CBA, teams will be able to amortize signing bonuses over just four seasons, instead of the maximum seven years. Because of the 30-percent rule, which essentially stipulates that a player's basic compensation (his base salary plus the prorated share of his signing bonus for 2006) cannot be increased by more than 30 percent, teams can't make up the difference in smaller signing bonus with fatter base salaries.

But perhaps the biggest problem is that so-called "not likely to be earned incentives" (NLTBE) will count immediately against the cap. In normal circumstances, NLTBE incentives count on the following year's spending limit. So NLTBE's earned in 2005, for instance, count against a team's 2006 cap. But with an uncapped year looming in 2007, such incentives and bonuses that are triggered in 2006 immediately would apply."

Both articles are good reads and I recommend all read them. Oh and if you are just going to say "Oh it will never harm us" "they say this every year", etc. just please read the article. This year is different from the rest of the years.

[gmac79d]

If the salary cap is not extended, and artificially puts us in "salary cap hell", I say we cut all but the most important Skins in '06, get the #1 pick for '07, and buy every free agent we want in '07 and every year thereafter. Championship after championship baby. :laugh:

[sableholic]

If the salary cap is not extended, and artificially puts us in "salary cap hell", I say we cut all but the most important Skins in '06, get the #1 pick for '07, and buy every free agent we want in '07 and every year thereafter. Championship after championship baby. :laugh:

... read the Q&A article, won't work like that.

[Rogers22]

This cap stuff is way too complicated for me to follow.

[TheLongshot]

If the salary cap is not extended, and artificially puts us in "salary cap hell", I say we cut all but the most important Skins in '06, get the #1 pick for '07, and buy every free agent we want in '07 and every year thereafter. Championship after championship baby. :laugh:

You are forgetting this part:

For instance, players now will need six accrued seasons, not four, to qualify for unrestricted free agent status.

That will really cut down on the amount of good players available in an uncapped year. It isn't nearly as good of a deal as you'd might think.

Jason

[Goaldeje]

That will really cut down on the amount of good players available in an uncapped year. It isn't nearly as good of a deal as you'd might think.

Jason

I think this alone will be enough for the two sides to get together on a deal and get the CBA extended. The players may think they want an uncapped year and all the money rolling in, but they have to realize the realities of everything as well. Once they figure out that they will be locked in to lower-paying contracts for 6 years instead of four, they should be much more amenable to discussing things.

[TheLongshot]

Yeah, the idea that you become a free agent when you are 28-29 is not going to be attractive to players.

Jason

[Warhead36]

It isn't like this is only going to affect 3 or 4 teams. Not having an extended CBA will affect all 32 teams, the owners, AND the players.

I don't see why it's taking so long to get a deal done.

[wahoos911]

This cap stuff is way too complicated for me to follow.

i know, right:drool: :drool: :drool:

[SkinsHokieFan]

It isn't like this is only going to affect 3 or 4 teams. Not having an extended CBA will affect all 32 teams, the owners, AND the players.

I don't see why it's taking so long to get a deal done.

Money money money

The players and owners will agree to a new CBA in 2.2 seconds once the owners figure out how to divide local revenues

THAT is the biggest issue, its an owner vs owner thing, not a player v owner thing

[AdamJT13]

The players and owners will agree to a new CBA in 2.2 seconds once the owners figure out how to divide local revenues

THAT is the biggest issue, its an owner vs owner thing, not a player v owner thing

According to all of the recent reports, the owners won't settle their internal issues until after an agreement is reached with the players (which would set the cap levels, so the owners will have a better idea of how much money they'll need to share in order to keep the playing field somewhat level). So all of the negotiations going on right now are between the players and owners -- and it's been a lot longer than 2.2 seconds.

[HOF44]

So 2008 would be the first real uncapped year with true free agency??

[SkinsHokieFan]

According to all of the recent reports, the owners won't settle their internal issues until after an agreement is reached with the players (which would set the cap levels, so the owners will have a better idea of how much money they'll need to share in order to keep the playing field somewhat level). So all of the negotiations going on right now are between the players and owners -- and it's been a lot longer than 2.2 seconds.

Interesting, I had not heard anything from that angle.

It makes a lot of sense, but I would imagine it is not easy to determine the cap levels if you cannot determine the amount of shared revenues

[sableholic]

Interesting, I had not heard anything from that angle.

It makes a lot of sense, but I would imagine it is not easy to determine the cap levels if you cannot determine the amount of shared revenues

I had only heard the angle that you mentioned SkinsHokieFan. Never heard this one either. I believe Troy Vincent, head of the NFLPA?, said that it was all about the owners and that they had no problems with players and owners just the revenue sharing discussions. Too lazy to find the quote.

[AdamJT13]

Interesting, I had not heard anything from that angle.

It makes a lot of sense, but I would imagine it is not easy to determine the cap levels if you cannot determine the amount of shared revenues

Well they know how much money is in the total pot, and once they know how much of it will go to the players, then they'll know how much of the pot each team will need in order to cover their 1/32nd of the players' portion.

If they did it the other way around, whatever the owners agreed upon still might not be enough for every team to cover what the players want, so they'd either be unable to meet the players' demands or they'd have to renegotiate among themselves all over again.