All things Collective Bargaining Agreement related (Merged)

[Est.1974]

In an uncapped year, there is no acceleration at all; neither into the current year nor into the current year and the next year. When a player is released or traded during an uncapped year, his bonus amortizations in future years remain intact.

That is a very interesting point. However, I'm not convinced that the Redskins have that many contracts that 'have' to be cleared from the books in an uncapped year. It may not be the ideal scenario of wiping out all future bonus allocations from the cap against certain players, but this is by no means a show stopper, imo.

[Rufus T Firefly]

That is a very interesting point. However' date=' I'm not convinced that the Redskins have that many contracts that 'have' to be cleared from the books in an uncapped year. It may not be the ideal scenario of wiping out all future bonus allocations from the cap against certain players, but this is by no means a show stopper, imo.[/quote']

There's "have to" and then there's "opportunity". The Redskins can stay under the cap just fine for the forseeable future. They don't "have to" dump players to accomplish that.

But, imagine the opportunity to build here. Dump several big contracts, guys who are most likely gonna be gone in a couple of years anyway. Now, trade a couple more, get extra draft picks, get the team way under the cap. Imagine a team that took a step back, drafted and developed a young core over the next couple of years. Now, imagine that young core being supplemented by a Redskin team so far under the cap that they could not only go sign any 3-4 players they want on the market, but also still had the room to add to that with a bunch of second/third tier FAs who could provide depth and role-playing ability.

That would be a chance to build something special in Washington. As opposed to debating whether we should hold onto Portis for another year or two and hoping he still has something left and won't divide the team with his attitude.

[Est.1974]

There's "have to" and then there's "opportunity". The Redskins can stay under the cap just fine for the forseeable future. They don't "have to" dump players to accomplish that.

But, imagine the opportunity to build here. Dump several big contracts, guys who are most likely gonna be gone in a couple of years anyway. Now, trade a couple more, get extra draft picks, get the team way under the cap. Imagine a team that took a step back, drafted and developed a young core over the next couple of years. Now, imagine that young core being supplemented by a Redskin team so far under the cap that they could not only go sign any 3-4 players they want on the market, but also still had the room to add to that with a bunch of second/third tier FAs who could provide depth and role-playing ability.

That would be a chance to build something special in Washington. As opposed to debating whether we should hold onto Portis for another year or two and hoping he still has something left and won't divide the team with his attitude.

I think that is still possible whether future cap bonus allocations are eliminated or not. Assuming 2010 is uncapped, you only need to assess the residual dead cap from 2011 onwards. That may be locked out / or we may see a new cap in place. If so, based on the previous extension, chances are that is significantly higher that the current level. Therefore, I'd see any residual 'dead-cap' as very manageable in the years 2011-2013.

As I said, it may not be ideal but I think it has a marginal impact based on the assumed current out year numbers I'm working off.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think that is still possible whether future cap bonus allocations are eliminated or not. Assuming 2010 is uncapped' date=' you only need to assess the residual dead cap from 2011 onwards. That may be locked out / or we may see a new cap in place.[b'] If so, based on the previous extension, chances are that is significantly higher that the current level.[/b] Therefore, I'd see any residual 'dead-cap' as very manageable in the years 2011-2013.

As I said, it may not be ideal but I think it has a marginal impact based on the assumed current out year numbers I'm working off.

On the bolded part, you're mistaken to assume that at all. This is the first CBA negotiation to be about how much the cap is going to go DOWN. The owners are insisting on it, and even throwing some crazy numbers like subtracting $1 billion per year from the pool the cap is determined by. This is the reason we're going into an uncapped year, and possibly a lockout. To assume we're going from that to a higher cap, and not only that but a "significantly" higher cap, seems like misplaced optimism.

And, again, you're talking about things like whether the hits are "manageable". Take Portis, for example. Keep him for a year and then cut him and you get a 5.444 mil release fee. Is that "managebale"? Sure. The redskins can work around that. But, what would the opportunity be to spend that money elsewhere? Isn't there a chance to do somehting, or several things, with that cap space? That's what I am talking about.

[MrJL]

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.

Are you sure about June 1? I thought it was April so the draft picks could be sorted out?

[GibbsFactor]

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.

Okay. :hysterical:

Then I was talking about the wrong thing.

[Oldskool]

Are you sure about June 1? I thought it was April so the draft picks could be sorted out?

As far as I know if a player doesn't sign his tender and no other team signs his offer sheet, he is TSOL.

[Oldskool]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/sports/football/20labor.html?ref=sports

Mara Cites A Lack Of Progress In Talks

By JUDY BATTISTA

Published: January 19, 2010

The Giants co-owner John Mara said Tuesday he was resigned to an uncapped season in 2010 and thought the union and owners might be moving further apart in talks toward a new labor agreement.

Mara was one of the owners who took part in the 11th negotiating session with union leaders in Washington on Tuesday. He is the first owner to speak extensively since negotiations began.

An uncapped year would have no salary limits or floors for teams and would begin in March. It would also start the clock ticking toward a lockout starting in March 2011.

Mara said he still had hope that a lockout could be averted.

“I don’t think we’re making any progress,” Mara said in a telephone interview. “We made a proposal in early November. I don’t think we’ve received a meaningful counterproposal. The point that we try to make to them is that the costs and risks are much greater than they ever have been. Especially in this economy. I don’t think there has been enough of a recognition on their part of that concept.”

Mara added, “They want a deal that is equal to or better than the existing one, and that is not acceptable to us.”

Mara’s comments represent a ratcheting up of rhetoric between the two sides and is particularly noteworthy. Until now, owners have avoided speaking publicly about negotiations at the behest of Commissioner Roger Goodell.

But in recent weeks, leaks have revealed some details. By allowing Mara, one of the league’s most respected owners, to speak about feelings privately shared by other owners, management is likely hoping to win over public opinion.

The crux of negotiations is how to divide a revenue pie of about $8.5 billion. The current collective bargaining agreement calls for players to receive nearly 60 percent of revenue, but union leaders are concerned that the $8.5 billion does not represent the true revenue pool available to players because of credits owners receive to pay for league costs like NFL Network.

The union views the real percentage players receive as closer to 51 percent, and union leaders think owners want a rollback of 18 percent, which would put the players’ share at about 33 percent. The union has insisted that owners provide financial information to prove their situation is dire enough to merit a rollback.

Owners have countered that the union already knows where the overwhelming majority of the money goes.

The owners’ position is that the 18 percent would come from additional credits against the revenue base. The effect on veteran players would be mitigated by, among other things, a proposed rookie salary cap that would make more money available to pay veteran players and a restructured season that, with additional regular-season games, would produce more revenue. Owners think they need the additional money to invest in things like new stadiums and that current players would not experience a decline in overall compensation.

Both sides seem to agree that a rookie cap is necessary to redirect money to current and retired players.

An e-mail message from the union leader DeMaurice Smith to player representatives obtained by ESPN this month said the union had proposed a plan that would redirect money that from rookies to veterans.

Owners would like a rookie wage scale to be implemented in time for the 2010 draft class, even if there is no new collective bargaining agreement. The savings from the first year, estimated at around $200 million, could then go to a fund for retired players.

“We’d rather have money going to retired players and veteran players as opposed to unproven rookies,” Mara said.

The need for a limit on rookie wages may be the only common ground players and management have.

“I’m frustrated,” Mara said. “March 1 is coming pretty quickly.”

[Est.1974]

On the bolded part, you're mistaken to assume that at all. This is the first CBA negotiation to be about how much the cap is going to go DOWN. The owners are insisting on it, and even throwing some crazy numbers like subtracting $1 billion per year from the pool the cap is determined by. This is the reason we're going into an uncapped year, and possibly a lockout. To assume we're going from that to a higher cap, and not only that but a "significantly" higher cap, seems like misplaced optimism.

Fair point. I was no fully aware of that.

And, again, you're talking about things like whether the hits are "manageable". Take Portis, for example. Keep him for a year and then cut him and you get a 5.444 mil release fee. Is that "managebale"? Sure. The redskins can work around that. But, what would the opportunity be to spend that money elsewhere? Isn't there a chance to do somehting, or several things, with that cap space? That's what I am talking about.

To be fair, your example is slightly different to what I was talking about. Its not about keeping players for a year first, it was about cutting them in 2010 and was directly linked to this earlier statement ;

In an uncapped year, there is no acceleration at all; neither into the current year nor into the current year and the next year. When a player is released or traded during an uncapped year, his bonus amortizations in future years remain intact.. For example, if Player X is released in 2010 (uncapped) and has $4M bonus amortizations in 2010, 2011, and 2012, those $4M cap hits would stay in each of those four (three ?) years and not accelerate.

So we can cut Portis in 2010 & take the relevant 2010 'charge' in the uncapped year. As we hit 2011, he does have $5.444mil still in the out years, but my interpretation based on the above is that it will not accelerate as a normal release fee implies. The amount would stay intact in 2011-2013 ($2.3m / $1.5m / $1.5m). Add in Samuels & Randy Thomas and it is still little more than $5m in total for 2011 on 3 major contracts.

So I do think it is "manageable". Ideal, not all at. But "manageable", yes.

General fan opinion is that we have serious issues to address on player contracts. I think that is exaggerated. Cutting numerous players and still having 90%+ of any future cap to work with in the short-medium term is not the worst situation in the world when trying to turn a team around. That is all I was trying to say whilst agreeing it is not the ideal scenario.

Out of interest, do you think players who retire will follow the same rules as above ? I assume they do & we may have two in Samuels & Thomas....

[Rufus T Firefly]

To be fair' date=' your example is slightly different to what I was talking about. Its not about keeping players for a year first, it was about cutting them in 2010 and was directly linked to this earlier statement ;

So we can cut Portis in 2010 & take the relevant 2010 'charge' in the uncapped year. As we hit 2011, he does have $5.444mil still in the out years, but my interpretation based on the above is that it will not accelerate as a normal release fee implies. The amount would stay intact in 2011-2013 ($2.3m / $1.5m / $1.5m). Add in Samuels & Randy Thomas and it is still little more than $5m in total for 2011 on 3 major contracts.

So I do think it is "manageable". Ideal, not all at. But "manageable", yes.

General fan opinion is that we have serious issues to address on player contracts. I think that is exaggerated. Cutting numerous players and still having 90%+ of any future cap to work with in the short-medium term is not the worst situation in the world when trying to turn a team around. That is all I was trying to say whilst agreeing it is not the ideal scenario.

Out of interest, do you think players who retire will follow the same rules as above ? I assume they do & we may have two in Samuels & Thomas....[/quote']

Yes, but what we're talking about is the difference between the "free pass" sceanrio of the uncapped year as we understood it and the scenario laid out by oldskool's link. If the link is correct, then there is no cap value to releasing players now. I used Portis being released in a year as an example. Portis, Samuels and Thomas together represent 21 mil in dead money starting next year. That, to me, is a big deal. Again, it's the difference between making a lot of available cap space to spent to upgrade the team with top-notch talent, or not. Not "unmanagebale" but an opportunity lost (again, assuming the above info was correct).

And, frankly, I find the idea of having a couple of those players counting smaller amounts for multiple year into the future even more unnappealing.

And yes, I would assume retired players would count the same as released players, but who knows?

[RedskinPryde]

After going through a bunch of the readings... it still makes me really concerned reading about how bad apparently the Collective Bargaining Agreement is going with the League and the players... I really cant understand what and why this is such a big issue that they are spreading word of no football in 2011!!!

The only real prevalent issue in my eyes really if theres any at all is seeing how much these players get paid during rough economic times. (100M Albert Haynesworth)

[Romberjo]

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

Page 122 of this document (page 106 of the CBA itself) seems to be the relevant section on acceleration (section (ii)(1) and (2)).

It's not clear to me whether acceleration occurs in an uncapped year. The (seemingly informed) poster Oldskool quotes suggests no, and that seems a plausible reading, b/c the uncapped year is not mentioned in the acceleration section, so one reading is that there's no acceleration, future cap hits remain.

But maybe the uncapped year is left out of the description of acceleration b/c salary cap simply becomes irrelevant in the event of an uncapped year, so acceleration also becomes irrelevant, and any and all current and future cap hits just become vapor (though they could theoretically be recaptured in the next CBA, so that may restrain teams).

Assuming the poster Oldskool quotes is correct, if a player were released in an uncapped year, the amortized amount of the bonus for that year would disappear as a salary cap hit (into the uncapped sinkhole), but presumably the cap hit remaining for future years that would have applied if the player had remained on the team would remain for those future years (assuming a salary cap were put back in place, and that it would capture those remaining amounts).

_____________

(From here down, my thoughts change from moderately informed speculation to pure conjecture.)

I don't know if there's any way to game the system (e.g., by exercising a termination clause) to artificially accelerate the cap hit.

Maybe the only part that helps out a rich team is that in an uncapped year, for players in the final year of their contract, whom normally you'd have to keep b/c cutting them would mean their remaining pro-rated cap hit would count against the cap and limit your ability to sign anyone else, so if you're taking the cap hit you might as well keep them around, such a player could be released w/ impunity and another player signed; there's no cap consequence. Actually, I suppose any team could do that, b/c the bonus has already been paid, so there's no extra cash outlay; but we may well have more lingering players past their prime w/ looming excessive cap hits, so may be selectively advantaged. And maybe, to a lesser extent, the same principle would also apply to those w/ only two years left, b/c half the cap hit would disappear.

[Darth Tater]

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

Actually, worst case scenario, it makes all cuts this year very similar to the old June 1 cuts.

[Darth Tater]

Romberjo,

I think I agree. The current CBA is done as of the end of the 2010 season so there is no real way to know how the new CBA will handle a cap. Using the example of $12M out with 3 years remaining. Is that going to be folded into the new spreadsheet? Just if the player is still on the roster? If he's no longer on the roster, do you have to take the whole outstanding hit or would it still be pro-rated? These questions can ONLY be answered in the new CBA.

[Est.1974]

Interesting read on the potential 2011 lockout scenario.........

http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2010/02/smith-says-lockout-looming-in-2011.html

FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla.--DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said here Thursday that the sport is on the verge of labor strife.

The league's franchise owners have taken a series of steps that make a lockout of the players in 2011 likely, Smith said, after next season is played without a salary cap.

"On a scale of 1 to 10," Smith said, "it's a 14."

Smith and Kevin Mawae, the Tennessee Titans center who is the president of the players' union, said that the owners have asked the players to accept a pay cut that would reduce the percentage of league revenues going to the players under the salary cap system from about 59 percent to 41 percent.

"I assume the reason we are not closer together [in negotiations] is because I have not said yes to 41 percent," Smith said. "I apologize."

Jeff Pash, the league's chief labor negotiator, denied the union's assertions, saying that the NFL's proposal to the union would not result in the players making less money.

"Our proposal should not result in the players having to take a reduction," Pash said.

The owners and players have had approximately a dozen bargaining sessions as they attempt to negotiate an extension of their collective bargaining agreement, which expires after the 2010 season. This season is the final one in the deal with a salary cap.

"I truly, honestly believe we'll get a deal done," Mawae said. "But there has to be give and take on both sides, not just taking from one side. It would be such a shame for us not to have this game in 2011 because we can't find common ground."

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said during a Sirius satellite radio interview Thursday that the owners are not aiming to lock out the players.

"You don't make money by shutting down your business," Goodell said, according to a written transcript of the interview provided by Sirius. "So the idea that the owners want to lock out and not play football is absolutely not the case. That's just not good for anybody. But when you're going into these negotiations... both sides are going to be prepared for all the alternatives.... What you have now is the owners' recognition, when they've opted out of this deal almost two years ago, that this deal doesn't work for them--it's clear--and that an uncapped year is preferable over the current labor agreement. So I think what we've got here is that the dynamics have changed so drastically that the owners would, rather than working under the same existing deal, move into the uncapped year and negotiate something that makes sense for us long term."

Under the last extension of the labor deal, approved in 2006, the players receive an average of 59.5 percent of league revenues under the salary cap. The owners have called that deal overly favorable to the players and voted to exercise a reopener clause in it, ending the agreement two years early.

Smith said the owners receive a $1 billion credit under the salary cap system for operating costs and want to receive an additional $1 billion credit in the next deal.

Pash said the union has acknowledged during the negotiations that the costs being cited by the owners are legitimate. Pash said the owners don't want to reduce the percentage of revenues going to the players, but do want to reduce the size of the revenue pool on which the salary cap is based. The additional costs for which the owners would be credited, Pash said, would be used for initiatives designed to increase the sport's revenues and that in turn would result in increased salaries for the players under the salary cap, Pash said.

But Smith again decried the owners' unwillingness to share complete financial information with the union. The union receives information on the teams' revenues under the salary cap system but doesn't know how profitable franchises are, Smith said.

"How do you justify, at the height of this game, a rollback to 41 percent when no one in this room knows what a team makes?" Smith said. "... We audit revenues. How many people here would make an investment decision based on knowing how much money goes into something without knowing how much comes out or what the profit margin is?... We do know revenues. But is there anyone in this room who can tell me what the average team has made over the last five years?... With respect to their comments about bleeding--okay, show me what bleeding is."

Smith said the owners' measures to prepare for a lockout include negotiating extensions of their television contracts with provisions that the league would receive payments even if games aren't played.

"Has any one of the prior deals included $5 billion not to play football?" Smith said. "... When you look at every step that has occurred since 2007, is it more of a preparation to play football or a preparation to not play football?"

Pash said he's "quite certain the networks will make sure they're whole and then some" if any games are missed.

Smith said he thinks "it's virtually impossible" to go back to a salary cap system if next season is played minus a salary cap. He also said he's sensitive to the plight of stadium workers and others in related industries if football isn't played in 2011.

"Our players get locked out, those 140,000 people get locked out, too," Smith said. "... It is not a matter just of our 1,900 players. I am totally concerned about the hurt to that culture."

Smith said the union has proposed in the negotiations that the league devote 2 percent of its profits to a "legacy fund" to benefit former players. Pash said the league has proposed such a fund to be shared by the league and the union, and the union has rejected that proposal.

Smith said the union must "make a change" in its dealings with retired players. One change, he said, will be the union no longer being advised on disability claims by the same law firm that represents the NFL's disability plan.

The Players Association also announced a partnership with the AARP to promote community involvement and volunteerism.

Goodell is to participate in a news conference here Friday