All things Collective Bargaining Agreement related (Merged)

[Oldskool]

It throws everything we've been talking about here for a year into doubt. Where di you get this?

I found this on www.pewterreport.com's website. Sadly it doesn't have a link as to verification to what it states.

http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=266c5de6eaa8c9c97257c4cc84fe0719&topic=52816.0

However, http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/news.cfm?id=A58B619D-DBB7-60C9-EA882000BB6A4D15 does echo this statement:

# After the last game of the 2008 regular season, signing bonus proration was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of five years.

# In 2009, there is no June 1 rule for Signing Bonus acceleration. If a player is removed from the roster or his contract is assigned via waivers or trade at any time in the 2009 League Year, any unamortized signing bonus will be immediately included in Team Salary.

# There is no year-end netting of incentives in 2009. Not-likely-to-be-earned incentives are charged to team salary immediately when earned, and likely-to-be-earned incentives are deducted when they are no longer possible to earn.

# Guaranteed salary from 2010 and beyond is reallocated to 2009 unless the entire 2009 salary is guaranteed.

# 50% of guaranteed salary in any League Year beyond 2012 is reallocated to 2009.

# The 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: A player with a $500,000 salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

# A team can include only three veteran team incentives in a player contract covering 2009 and beyond. These incentives must also be coupled with a playtime requirement. Previously, clubs were limited to eight team incentives and no playtime requirement.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I found this on www.pewterreport.com's website. Sadly it doesn't have a link as to verification to what it states.

http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=266c5de6eaa8c9c97257c4cc84fe0719&topic=52816.0

However, http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/news.cfm?id=A58B619D-DBB7-60C9-EA882000BB6A4D15 does echo this statement:

# After the last game of the 2008 regular season, signing bonus proration was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of five years.

# In 2009, there is no June 1 rule for Signing Bonus acceleration. If a player is removed from the roster or his contract is assigned via waivers or trade at any time in the 2009 League Year, any unamortized signing bonus will be immediately included in Team Salary.

# There is no year-end netting of incentives in 2009. Not-likely-to-be-earned incentives are charged to team salary immediately when earned, and likely-to-be-earned incentives are deducted when they are no longer possible to earn.

# Guaranteed salary from 2010 and beyond is reallocated to 2009 unless the entire 2009 salary is guaranteed.

# 50% of guaranteed salary in any League Year beyond 2012 is reallocated to 2009.

# The 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: A player with a $500,000 salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

# A team can include only three veteran team incentives in a player contract covering 2009 and beyond. These incentives must also be coupled with a playtime requirement. Previously, clubs were limited to eight team incentives and no playtime requirement.

Hmm. Well, I assume it's correct. I just can't believe that's the first we've heard of it. Although most sites don't think fans want that kind of in-depth info, and would rather post "Is Favre a better human than Gandhi?" type of fluff articles.

[Rufus T Firefly]

LOL. Your edit got in between me reading your post and clicking "quote", I guess, because I didn't see the second link before answering.

But that's why I say I assume it's correct, because I know most of that stuff is true.

[Oldskool]

Hmm. Well, I assume it's correct. I just can't believe that's the first we've heard of it. Although most sites don't think fans want that kind of in-depth info, and would rather post "Is Favre a better human than Gandhi?" type of fluff articles.

I understand. Like I said I don't fully understand it and have to take it under blind faith that it's correct.

Another fun waste of time if you're interested, I actually found the entire CBA online.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23736412/Nfl-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-2006-2012

[Rufus T Firefly]

I understand. Like I said I don't fully understand it and have to take it under blind faith that it's correct.

Another fun waste of time if you're interested, I actually found the entire CBA online.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23736412/Nfl-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-2006-2012

Thanks. Not that I'll read much of that.

Although I did look down at the final league year section to see what I could find and there was almost nothing there, except for something that says players need 5 accrued seasons to be UFAs, where we know it's 6.

So, I'm as confused as ever.

[Oldskool]

Thanks. Not that I'll read much of that.

Although I did look down at the final league year section to see what I could find and there was almost nothing there, except for something that says players need 5 accrued seasons to be UFAs, where we know it's 6.

So, I'm as confused as ever.

I've always seen it as six or more accrued seasons as well.

As for being confused, join the club.

[texasthunder]

I believe the league year, as the above poster said, goes into effect Feb 28th/March 1. Free Agency, however I believe starts March 5, not Feb 27.

And I now believe you are correct.

Originally I got the Feb 27th date from here=

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp

But then I found on NFL.com a calender and it shows March 5th as the start date.

http://www.nfl.com/more/nflcalendar

[Rufus T Firefly]

I've always seen it as six or more accrued seasons as well.

As for being confused, join the club.

Nah, I misread that. That was in the year BEFORE the final league year (though I don't remember that happening). It's there as 6 years in the uncapped year.

The whole final league year section is on page 237. But, again, virtually no info there.

I guess we're both confused because neither of us speak "legal mumbo-jumbo".

[Rufus T Firefly]

And I now believe you are correct.

Originally I got the Feb 27th date from here=

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp

But then I found on NFL.com a calender and it shows March 5th as the start date.

http://www.nfl.com/more/nflcalendar

Yeah, I saw that in my recent searching. Feb 27 was last year's start date.

[Oldskool]

UFA free agency starts march 1st.

RFA free agency (AKA tendering players that are RFA's), starts "in mid-February" and ends March 4. On March 5th is when teams can submit offer sheets to RFA's that have been tendered.

[Rufus T Firefly]

UFA free agency starts march 1st.

RFA free agency (AKA tendering players that are RFA's), starts "in mid-February" and ends March 4. On March 5th is when teams can submit offer sheets to RFA's that have been tendered.

texasthunder's link says March 5th. And that's the date I had heard, but I don't remember where or have a link (obviously). The 5th is a friday, which is the day it started on last year, for what that's worth.

[Oldskool]

texasthunder's link says March 5th. And that's the date I had heard, but I don't remember where or have a link (obviously). The 5th is a friday, which is the day it started on last year, for what that's worth.

His info is last years dates. The website that he linked, http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp, was "Updated on January 15, 2009".

[Rufus T Firefly]

His info is last years dates. The website that he linked, http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp, was "Updated on January 15, 2009".

That was the link he was correcting himself on, which says Feb 27. This one says March 5:

http://www.nfl.com/more/nflcalendar

[Rufus T Firefly]

Also these:

http://profootball.scout.com/2/871937.html

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-01-02/nfl-calendar

[Oldskool]

Also these:

http://profootball.scout.com/2/871937.html

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-01-02/nfl-calendar

I think that the problem with those is that they don't make a distinction between RFA and UFA free agency and are written as if the CBA was still in effect.

Personally I don't think that we will get an accurate answer from the league until the end of the league year, so that these changes are official.

[Veretax]

So I'm confused now is this data saying that signing bonuses on cut players doesn't accelerate into the uncapped year if they are cut then? That would seem to lend creedence that THomas and Portis both would be back if you ask me.

[MrJL]

I think most of us already were aware of this. The only part of the changes that is really hard to get your mind around is the double transition tags. that a lot of guys who would be Unrestricted FA will be treated as Restricted FA has been known for a while, but in order for a player to be restrictex means they have to be tagged. That means they offer them a tender contract depending on what kind of value they put on them in terms of draft picks and their position etc. (lots of math there so that's a summary). However, just because a player can be tendered, doesn't mean teams will. Some of these guys teams won't want ot retain, however, it should go without saying that those not tagged may have marks against them, age, injuries, attitude or behavioral issues, bad character guys maybe.

That won't be the case with everyone who is not tendered, some teams will let guys go because they don't want to pay them. (note that I do understand that tender cost and franchise tag cost are 2 different things), but just because 200 guys are tenderable doesn't mean there will be 200 Tenders. However, what this does do is effectively thin and make the cost of acquiring free agents, particularly restricted guys that much higher, so the draft is much more important than normal probably.

That's how I understand it.

I think you can withdraw a tender though, so I think if a team has someone they don't want but they could still get a pick for I can see them withdrawing the tender the day before the RFA period begins. THere's also the fact you can sign a guy for one year then cut them with no salary consequences

[MrJL]

No way

O.skool said there won't be any free agent offensive linemen that could help us out so that must not be true. He also said we should spend every draft pick this year on Offensive linemen because that is the only way to improve the line this year so that must make it so. I say we do as Oldskool says and hide our head in the sand and just wait for the draft this year

there should be offensive linemen who could help for a year or two, but that's it really.

[heliKCx17]

And would also cost the team draft pick(s). Something to remember.

The new CBA (or lack thereof) is not that big of a deal. it simply means that if we want somebody, we have to give an offer and the team that has that player under contract has a chance to match the offer. Many of the guys out there that will become restricted are not wanted by their teams. So, teams may tender them, but in all likelyhood will not because of the volume of restricted free agents on the roster. If you tender many of them, and none of them are signed, then you have to meet whatever tender you puton with cap. Not going to happen very often.

[heliKCx17]

You miss the point completely. OL and DL are like gold and only 2nd to QB's in the eyes of teams.

You don't cut a front line, starting lineman unless something extraordinary happens.

Not true. Heavy contracts will absolutely be dropped even if it is an above average player if teams think they have someone they can develope into a capable starter for much less. Teams and coaches are arrogant and will drop high-priced players because of their over-faith in their scouting and coaching abilities.

[Geoff_K]

I hope they do set up a rookie cap for the next CBA. I am ever so worried when we pick high that we will toss a boatload of money on someone who is not up to snuff in the NFL.

Since our owner has shown he is willing to toss boatloads of money at people and uncapped year sounds pretty good to me. If our owner was a tightwad I would be worried that we'd have terrible teams. ;- )

[GibbsFactor]

That was the link he was correcting himself on, which says Feb 27. This one says March 5:

http://www.nfl.com/more/nflcalendar

You guys are talking about the wrong thing.

The final league year begins at midnight on the 1st of March. This has nothing to do with free agency or anything else.

All league years begin on March 1st and end the day before within the parameters of the current agreement.

So if there is no CBA in place by midnight of March 1st, 2010 is an uncapped league year with no league schedule beyond 2010. That's why there is talk of a lockout in 2011.

[texasthunder]

You guys are talking about the wrong thing.

The final league year begins at midnight on the 1st of March. This has nothing to do with free agency or anything else.

All league years begin on March 1st and end the day before within the parameters of the current agreement.

So if there is no CBA in place by midnight of March 1st, 2010 is an uncapped league year with no league schedule beyond 2010. That's why there is talk of a lockout in 2011.

While you may be correct in when the leagues year ends, we were discussing when the free agency period actually begins.

Last year it was Feb 27th, and this year it appears to be March 5th, according to the NFL.com site.

[Oldskool]

The new CBA (or lack thereof) is not that big of a deal. it simply means that if we want somebody, we have to give an offer and the team that has that player under contract has a chance to match the offer. Many of the guys out there that will become restricted are not wanted by their teams. So, teams may tender them, but in all likelyhood will not because of the volume of restricted free agents on the roster. If you tender many of them, and none of them are signed, then you have to meet whatever tender you puton with cap. Not going to happen very often.

Correct to a point, but you are completely missing the big picture.

Teams can tender and will use them on every one of their RFA's. Unless the player is on his last leg, teams have no reason not to tender a RFA. All tenders except for the lowest one will cost the team a draft pick.

Right of First Refusal Only: $1,100,000 (4th/5th year: $1,176,000)

Original Draft Pick Compensation: $1,100,000 (4th/5th year: $1,176,000)

Second Round Draft Pick Compensation: $1,684,000 (4th/5th year: $1,759,000)

First Round Draft Pick Compensation: $2,396,000 (4th/5th year: $2,521,000)

First and Third Round Draft Pick Compensation: $3,043,000 (4th/5th year: $3,168,000)

Players that are core players, starters and those that they do not want to let go will use their draft pick tenders or one of their 3 tags (one franchise and 2 transition). Starters that fall within the 4/5th year envelope will not get a 1st refusal tag at all.

If the player doesn’t sign his qualifying tender by June 1, the team can either choose to continue to offer their tender, or withdraw it. If they continue to extend their tender, the player cannot sign with any other team past June 1.

I hope you understand now why FA sucked before the CBA in 1995 and why it will be no picnic this year.

[Oldskool]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2564413/what_no_cba_means_to_nfl_free_agency.html?cat=14

What No CBA Means to NFL Free Agency in the 2010 Offseason

January 07, 2010 by Robert Headley

I'm sure that when word started going around about the 2010 NFL offseason being uncapped many fans got excited about the idea. Fans of the teams like the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins or Oakland Raiders that are known for spending money probably figured they could finally get something to their advantage and outbid the other teams in the league. Well as we will discuss here today a 2010 NFL offseason without a CBA in place will actually limit player movement in terms of free agency.

So everyone reading this at home is wondering what exactly is gonna limit free agency with no salary cap in place due to the absence of a CBA? Well the 2010 NFL offseason is gonna be limited due to several factors. You see the owners were very smart when they made up the contracts because they are actually more like poison pills to get the players to sign a new CBA once this one ran out.

The first thing that will limit free agency during the 2010 NFL offseason is the fact that teams will have an extra franchise or transition tag to use on players. The franchise tag usually keeps any big names from changing teams and this year it can be used twice.

Another thing that will keep teams like the Dallas Cowboys or Washington Redskins from spending like crazy in free agency is simply that most players won't even become free agents in the 2010 NFL offseason. With no CBA in place the only players that can become unrestricted free agents are ones that have been in the league at least 6 years. Any other players will be restricted free agents and usually those guys end up staying on the same team.

For those reading at home that don't know the difference an unrestricted free agent is a player that can sign wherever they wish at their own free will. But when a player is a restricted free agent his original club offers him a contract and has the right to either match any deal he receives from another team in free agency or receive a draft pick from that organization in return as compensation.

One of the more interesting things about the state of the 2010 NFL offseason in terms of free agency and the CBA involves playoff teams. There is a stipulation where the top 4 teams from each conference can only sign the same amount of players that they lost in free agency. So let's say that the New Orleans Saints had $40 million in salary cap space and lost 5 players from their roster. Even though they have all that cap space they could only sign 5 players in the 2010 offseason.

The only good thing that I can think of for some clubs the absence of cap hits for releasing players. That could be the key that winds up playing a big role for free agency during the 2010 NFL offseason. In the past if a player was signed to a big contract with bonus money and released early the team usually had cap penalties. That isn't gonna be the case this offseason so teams like the Oakland Raiders could cut ties with dead weight like Jamarcus Russell and clear up a good chunk of cap space. The only downside here is that most of these guys are gonna be old, overpaid or not productive so teams should keep that in mind.