bubba9497 Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/rgosselin/stories/022610dnspogosselingcol.306a694.html click link for entire article NFL enters an era of no salary cap Thursday, February 25, 2010 Column by RICK GOSSELIN / The Dallas Morning News | rgosselin@dallasnews.com INDIANAPOLIS – The late Gene Upshaw cautioned the NFL owners that if they ever fumbled away the salary cap, they would never get it back. DeMaurice Smith, who replaced Upshaw as head of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), repeated that warning this winter. Starting today – for the first time since 1994 – there is no salary cap. The NFL owners and the NFLPA have failed to negotiate an extension of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). So the deal heads into its final season in 2010, and there will be no salary cap as the free-agency signing period opens next Friday. That means NFL teams can spend as much as they want on players. Last year, there was a salary cap of $123 million. Without a cap, there's nothing to prevent the high-revenue teams such as the New England Patriots and Washington Redskins from spending $200 million if they so choose – like the New York Yankees do in baseball. But in addition to no ceiling, there is no floor. Last season NFL teams were required to spend a minimum of $107 million on players. Now there's nothing to prevent a financially ailing team such as the Jacksonville Jaguars from spending $70 million if it so chooses. The Yankees spent twice as much money on their payroll in 2009 as did the Seattle Mariners and more than three times as much as the Washington Nationals. The Yankees won the World Series, the Mariners failed to qualify for the playoffs and the Nationals won a baseball-low 59 games. But the owners and players have already taken steps to prevent such a competitive imbalance in football in an uncapped season. In the salary cap era, players became eligible for free agency after four seasons. In the uncapped year, players must accrue six seasons before they can be eligible for free agency. That takes more than 200 players from the draft classes of 2005-06 out of the marketplace this winter. Instead of unrestricted free agents, they become restricted, which means it could cost potential suitors draft picks as compensation for any signings. Pro Bowl wide receiver Miles Austin of the Cowboys is one of those players affected by the new landscape. Also, the rich won't necessarily get richer thanks to a Final Eight Plan. That restricts the activity of the eight teams that advanced to the conference semifinal round. That group includes the Cowboys. The four teams that played in the conference championship games – Indianapolis, Minnesota, New Orleans and the New York Jets – can sign a player only to replace one lost in free agency. And the size of the contracts must be comparable. The four conference semifinalists – Arizona, Baltimore, San Diego and the Cowboys – are allowed to sign players to replace those they lose in free agency. In addition, they are allowed to sign one more free agent with a first-year salary of $5.5 million or more. But they also can sign any number of free agents for less than $3.7 million apiece. The uncapped year will impact the players in other negative ways. The clubs will not bankroll health care, pension, 401k or severance for the players in 2010. Also, there will no longer be any performance-based pay. Negotiations will continue between the two sides for an extension of the CBA. The players received almost 60 percent of the total revenues in 2009. With the increased stadium debt – there have been 21 new stadiums built since the original CBA was negotiated in 1993 – the owners want a more equitable split of that revenue. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, a lockout looms in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 This is bad for competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiingspadee Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Coming in 2010 = Peppers, LT, Westbrook, and any other player than can play Championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XEL Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 This only means one thing. The Redskins will be buying their way to the Superbowl, not playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 This only means one thing. The Redskins will be buying their way to the Superbowl, not playing. Does it matter if you get the Lombardi at the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 The ironic thing is that the last time we had a cap free season (1993) the Redskins ended up getting screwed. Lost out on Reggie White. Somehow lost Wilbur Marshall despite franchising him and not getting even a single 1st rounder for him. Let Gary Clark walk. We signed bargain replacements Al Noga for White, Carl Banks for Wilbur and Tim McGee for Gary. Hopefully the Skins are better prepared this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I honestly don't think it will make that much of a difference in terms of winning teams. We have always been big spenders and what has that gotten us? Nothing. The teams that draft well and manage their resources wisely will continue to win. Anyone who thinks we'll suddenly be the Yankees of the NFL is kidding themselves. The NFL does not work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I honestly don't think it will make that much of a difference in terms of winning teams. We have always been big spenders and what has that gotten us? Nothing. The teams that draft well and manage their resources wisely will continue to win. Anyone who thinks we'll suddenly be the Yankees of the NFL is kidding themselves. The NFL does not work that way. The reason why the NFL doesn't work that way is because of the cap. Look at baseball and the European soccer. The teams who spend the most are typically the most consistent and best teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 The reason why the NFL doesn't work that way is because of the cap. Look at baseball and the European soccer. The teams who spend the most are typically the most consistent and best teams. Which then brings in more money, which leads to more spending...it's a vicious circle, but one that works in sports anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 The reason why the NFL doesn't work that way is because of the cap. Look at baseball and the European soccer. The teams who spend the most are typically the most consistent and best teams. We have always spent more than anyone else in the Snyder Era and the only form of consistency we've achieved is consistently mediocre. Hey I ain't turnin down Lombardis even if we have to "buy" them, I just think people who assume we'll be the Yankees of the NFL are delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskindan07 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Lets start with buying a new complete offensive line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenRiggins Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Does it matter if you get the Lombardi at the end? Wouldn't matter to me if it actually worked for us for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HapHaszard Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I can't see how this will effect Dallas, since they already are projected to go to the superbowl again this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 no way this is the end of the salary cap there will be no football in 2011 and 2012 before that happens, and if there is no football for 2 years, the players will fold and smith will be fired/removed from his position. There are 32 owners, each one a billionaire, they can hold out a lot longer than the thousands of NFL players, some of who won't make it more than half a season before they're selling their cars and struggling with their mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 wost case scenario for the owners is if a deal is reached just prior to the start of free agency in 2011, they may agree to bring the cap back, following the season and allow 4th year players to become free agents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm not convinced that no cap would make that much of a difference. The NFL's biggest source of revenue is the TV contract, not gate draw like baseball and hockey. That pretty much has to be shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 wost case scenario for the owners is if a deal is reached just prior to the start of free agency in 2011, they may agree to bring the cap back, following the season and allow 4th year players to become free agents Why is that a worst case scenario for owners? It seems to me that by definition, reaching an agreement means it is not the worst case scenario for owners. Or do you just mean for owners who decide to try to buy their way to success by outspending everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Lets start with buying a new complete offensive line Supply and demand are at work here; Skins have the demand but unless the team is willing to part with draft picks there will be very little supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Why is that a worst case scenario for owners? It seems to me that by definition, reaching an agreement means it is not the worst case scenario for owners.Or do you just mean for owners who decide to try to buy their way to success by outspending everyone else? I meant worst case scenario reguarding the exisitence of a cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Does no CBA mean you can have as many players as you want on your roster?\ If so, then there will be many more players employed, and better for competition IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Does no CBA mean you can have as many players as you want on your roster?\If so, then there will be many more players employed, and better for competition IMO. I don't think the cap has any impact on the roster limits of a team. I would expect teams would still be required to only carry a certain number of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I don't think the cap has any impact on the roster limits of a team. I would expect teams would still be required to only carry a certain number of players. But the cap would come with a new CBA, and any new CBA will certainly address roster size, especially if the league expands to 18 games. The 18-game schedule, which the owners want, and the expanded roster size and corresponding 12 percent salary increase (to go with the 12 percent increase in games played), which the players want, will become as much of a focal point of the negotiation as the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.