All things Collective Bargaining Agreement related (Merged)

[Oldskool]

Edit: Thank you Mods for the sticky.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/10847836

Question: When does the CBA expire should there be no extension to the agreement?

Answer: After the 2010 NFL season.

Question: Will there be a college draft in 2011?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What is the “Final League Year” in the current agreement?

Answer: The “Final League Year” is the term used in the CBA to refer to the last year of the agreement. Without a further extension of the CBA, the “Final League Year” would be the 2010 League Year.

Question: What are the differences between the “Final League Year” and any other “League Year?”

Answer: The principal differences are that in the “Final League Year,” there is no salary cap and there are substantial additional restrictions on player free agency.

Question: Now that 2009 is the last capped year, are there rules that impact player contract negotiations and a club’s salary cap planning?

Answer: Yes. Here are the key differences:

* After the last game of the 2008 regular season, signing bonus proration is 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 capped years unless the entire 2009 salary is guaranteed.

* 50% of guaranteed salary in any League Year beyond 2012 is reallocated to capped years.

* 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.

Question: Are current player benefits affected in the uncapped year?

Answer: We expect player benefits to decline in the uncapped year. The union agreed that in the uncapped year, clubs would be relieved of their obligation to fund numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, severance pay, and tuition assistance. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, are expected to be in excess of $225 million, or more than $7 million per club.

Question: What are the categories of free agents?

Answer: Players are either “restricted” or “unrestricted” free agents. Within these categories there are also “transition” and “franchise” players.

Question: What determines an unrestricted free agent in the uncapped year?

Answer: In capped seasons (2008 and 2009), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent if he has four or more accrued seasons. In the uncapped year (2010), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent only if he has six or more accrued seasons. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any club with no compensation owed to his old club.

Question: What determines whether a player is a restricted free agent in the “Final League Year?”

Answer: In capped seasons (2008 and 2009), a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three accrued seasons. In the uncapped year (2010), a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three, four or five accrued seasons. The rights of restricted free agents remain unchanged in the uncapped year.

Question: What constitutes an “accrued season?”

Answer: Six or more regular-season games on a club’s active/inactive, reserved-injured or physically unable to perform lists.

Question: In addition to the right to designate a Franchise (or Transition) Player each capped year, can clubs designate additional players in the uncapped year?

Answer: Yes, one additional player can be tagged. In capped years (2008 and 2009), a club may designate a Franchise Player or a Transition Player. In the uncapped year (2010), a club may designate one additional Transition Player. A Transition Player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s position or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, whichever is greater. A Transition Player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation.

Question: What determines a Franchise Player?

Answer: A club can designate one franchise player in any given year. The type of franchise player depends on the amount of the old club’s offer. An “exclusive” franchise player – not free to sign with another club – must be offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player’s position for the current year as of a predetermined date (April 18, in 2008), or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, or the average of the top five salaries at his position as of the end of last season – whichever of the three is greatest. If the player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries of last season at his position, or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, he becomes a “non-exclusive” franchise player and can negotiate with other clubs. His old club can match a new club’s offer, or receive two first-round draft choices if it decides not to match the new club’s offer.

Question: What is the Final Eight Plan?

Answer: During the uncapped year, the eight clubs that make the divisional playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign Unrestricted Free Agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the Championship Games are limited in the number of free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. For the four clubs that lose in the Divisional playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign free agents based on the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters.

Question: Is there an Entering Player Pool in the uncapped year?

Answer: There may be. The CBA provides that the league has the unilateral right to make that determination in an uncapped year.

Question: Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the uncapped year?

Answer: There is no Minimum Team Salary in the uncapped year. The Minimum Team Salary in 2008 is $100,224,000, meaning each team is required to spend $100 million this year on player costs (not including benefits). The team salary cap in 2008 is $116 million.

Question: Are there individual player minimum salaries in the uncapped year?

Answer: Yes, but they rise at a rate somewhat slower than player minimum salaries rise in capped years.

[MattFancy]

Good find Oldskool. This should be stickied to answer eveyone's question about next year and beyond. It seems more and more like we'll have an uncapped year in 2010. A lot of reports are saying that if that happens, it'll be hard to bring a salary cap back.

[Veretax]

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.

[Oldskool]

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.

This is absolutely true. However, you have to assume that teams will simply not let front line O-lineman walk unless their impending cap hit for a 2011 year with a CBA is over the top and could not be reworked. Or, if the player simply isn't playing at a high level any longer and not worthy of keeping on the roster. There could be other exceptions, but these are the most logical.

[Est.1974]

I have read this article before- It is very informative.

I think this team would benefit from a new CBA in 2010. The ability to access significantly more UFA's far outweighs the chance to rid ourselves of a small number of back-loaded contracts in an uncapped year. And I don't support a FA spending spree, I just think it provides more options to our FO & could help narrow down our needs in a draft where we have only 5 picks & may go QB first up.

[GibbsFactor]

Bring Gibbs back for 2011! We'll win another Superbowl!!!

[GibbsFactor]

Did you guys see the e-mail sent out by Smith to the Players?

Rookie wage cap, blood testing, benefit cuts, a nearly 20 percent "giveback" and a work stoppage were prominent in a recent communication that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith sent to player representatives in describing a bleak labor negotiation picture.

In an e-mail obtained last week by ESPN, Smith wrote to player reps: "We proposed to address the rookie issue with a 'Proven Performance' plan that would redirect $200 million from rookie cost to veterans, cap rookies to three-year contracts so 'busts' were out of the league quickly, and provided incentives to lowest spending teams to remain competitive by forcing money back to the vets on those teams."

Union sources believe the likelihood of a rookie hard cap being in place by 2011 is remote because, as Smith inferred again, management is preparing for a lockout that season.

However, a management source said that owners are considering making a proposal that would make a rookie cap effective immediately, in April, as an addendum to the current labor agreement, even if the two sides fail to reach agreement on an extension. The source said management would like to discuss redistributing the $200 million in rookie savings in 2010 to endow a fund for NFL retired players.

The two sides are scheduled to have an eighth negotiating session on Tuesday.

Sources also said that the union has calculated that owners spent just 51 percent of revenues on player costs in 2009, in spite of the belief that they are mandated to spend almost 60 percent. One union source said the 60 percent player costs were a "best-case" assumption that teams would spend almost equally under the salary cap.

Consequently, the union believes a management proposal for an 18 percent "give-back" in the first year of a new agreement in the form of almost $2.5 billion credits is unnecessary.

On the blood testing issue, sources say it would pertain primarily to performance-enhancing drugs. A management source said that the league's position on blood testing -- via a "pin prick to the finger" -- would be pushed only if scientific labs create a successful test for human growth hormone. Currently, there is no such proven test.

In his e-mail to player reps, Smith said: "As you will see, we made two significant offers to the NFL to demonstrate a willingness to negotiate. First, as you know, we proposed that they provide detailed profit [or lack thereof] information justifying their request for nearly a 20 percent give-back by the players. We signed the financial confidentiality agreement and received a single sheet of paper. It contained no profit/loss, cash flow, profit margin, team valuation, team salary or breakdown of 'where the money goes.'

"In the absence of any supporting financial information, we also offered to discussing the extension of the current deal for six years. We noted that player costs have remained relatively stable."

Smith went on to say: "In addition to what I have shared with you earlier, the NFL wants to: eliminate the retirement plan for current players and replace it with a defined contribution plan, make current players pay for any deficiency in the retirement plan as it affects former players [and relieve them of this obligation], and include blood tests for players.

"The NFL responded that 'even if' they gave us profit information, they believed that we would not agree to their demands. They indicated that they were ready for an uncapped year and ready for any work stoppage. There has been no formal proposal for adding extra games.

"I will keep our scheduled next dates for CBA meetings. We will continue to negotiate. However, the message I first brought you nearly a year ago remains the same: This is not about CBA negotiation, it is about one side preparing for a lockout since late 2007."

Smith goes on to list the steps he thinks the league has been taking in anticipation of a lockout.

"1. Hiring hockey's lockout guru [bob Batterman] in 2008," his e-mail states. "2. Attempts to extinguish Judge Doty's jurisdiction [Vick Case]; 3. Securing guaranteed TV money [Direct TV, NBC and others] to fund the lockouts; 4. American Needle Case: a win [in U.S. Supreme Court] eliminates de-certification; 5. This proposal; Steps 6 and 7. Divide the players and lock them out."

He concludes the e-mail with "Thank you for being leaders -- De"

In reaction, a management executive said, "Rather than debate Mr Smith's description of our proposal, we will continue to work to achieve an agreement that will support future growth in the game and that is fair to current players, retired players and clubs. We will work as hard as possible to accomplish that goal."

Chris Mortensen is a senior NFL analyst for ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4793411

[GibbsFactor]

This is absolutely true. However, you have to assume that teams will simply not let front line O-lineman walk unless their impending cap hit for a 2011 year with a CBA is over the top and could not be reworked. Or, if the player simply isn't playing at a high level any longer and not worthy of keeping on the roster. There could be other exceptions, but these are the most logical.

For every Portis, Samuels, Thomas, Sellers, Moss we release, so will other teams is the point.

So there will be plenty of free agents next April.

[Est.1974]

For every Portis, Samuels, Thomas, Sellers, Moss we release, so will other teams is the point.

So there will be plenty of free agents next April.

But in this instance you may as well keep your own dead wood. Picking up younger FA's, who may well be restricted and off the market, would help this team more, imo.

[addicted]

For every Portis, Samuels, Thomas, Sellers, Moss we release, so will other teams is the point.

So there will be plenty of free agents next April.

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

[Veretax]

This is absolutely true. However, you have to assume that teams will simply not let front line O-lineman walk unless their impending cap hit for a 2011 year with a CBA is over the top and could not be reworked. Or, if the player simply isn't playing at a high level any longer and not worthy of keeping on the roster. There could be other exceptions, but these are the most logical.

We seem to have a philosophical difference, do I expect them to release a Hutchinson, a Samuels in their prime. No, I'm not looking at Free Agency as an ends to totally close our issues, I'm looking to fill wholes with people that can do for the short term until competent young blood can displace them. I'd be okay for bringing in an OT or OG for two or even three years, if we have too. Take time draft quality players to take their place in time. And then once you have your front line set, you can worry about depth.

[Oldskool]

For every Portis, Samuels, Thomas, Sellers, Moss we release, so will other teams is the point.

So there will be plenty of free agents next April.

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.

[Oldskool]

But in this instance you may as well keep your own dead wood. Picking up younger FA's' date=' who may well be restricted and off the market, would help this team more, imo.[/quote']

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

[Est.1974]

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

My apol's, I did not phrase that well.:doh:

I think we'd be better off with a CBA in place so that we can get hold of some of these younger FA's as UFA.... instead of them switching to RFA's in an uncapped year, where we will not have access to them without compensation. ( and I don't think we should trade any picks away ).

[Hitman#21]

Very nice, Easy to read, thanks for posting.

[Chris Worthy]

This needs to be a sticky. Thanks for the post.

[capefear caveman]

Thanks to the OP for the info. I have an additional question: What is the deadline for a new CBA before the 2010 Season becomes officially "uncapped"?

[GibbsFactor]

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.

You do if their contracts are too much for the team to keep. It's the same thing we are doing. Sure most will be old or washed up, but certainly not all.

[CommDownMan]

This needs to be a sticky. Thanks for the post.

Thanks for the sticky mods. This is very useful info.

[Oldskool]

You do if their contracts are too much for the team to keep. It's the same thing we are doing. Sure most will be old or washed up, but certainly not all.

It's an uncapped year and teams are taking the Redskins approach in backloading contracts to make them appear to be large but the large portions would have been reworked or paid well in the future when said OL would be over the hill.

And if we are going to be taking on other teams old, or washed up OL then we learned nothing and firing Vinny was a sham and a charade.

[flock53]

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.

Ahhh you forgot CBs they're held at a pretty high premium

[flock53]

My apol's' date=' I did not phrase that well.:doh:

I think we'd be better off with a CBA in place so that we can get hold of some of these younger FA's as UFA.... instead of them switching to RFA's in an uncapped year, where we will not have access to them without compensation. ( and I don't think we should trade any picks away ).[/quote']

But then we have a cap to contend with.

GO UNCAPPED so we can unload the dead weight and bring in others that the new staff may want.

[flock53]

It's an uncapped year and teams are taking the Redskins approach in backloading contracts to make them appear to be large but the large portions would have been reworked or paid well in the future when said OL would be over the hill.

And if we are going to be taking on other teams old, or washed up OL then we learned nothing and firing Vinny was a sham and a charade.

OL probably have the best longevity out of ANY position :doh: Washed up will be easy to see on tape.

[Oldskool]

But then we have a cap to contend with.

GO UNCAPPED so we can unload the dead weight and bring in others that the new staff may want.

Problem is, there needs to be a supply for your demand. There won't be.

[Veretax]

Now that's a bit of an exaggeration. Surely there will be some supply. There just may not be quite as much as you would expect in a normal capped year.