2007 Collective Bargaining Agreement

MyrtleBeachRedskin · Post by **MyrtleBeachRedskin** » Sat May 28, 2005 12:45 pm

It is my understanding, that if the league owners do not agree to a collective bargaining agreement. That 2007 will be an uncapped year. What does everyone think of this prosepct? Will our mighty Redskins spend a truck load and buy a super bowl? I really hope that they build for a future no matter what happens.

If this was posted earlier sorry. Did not see it anywhere.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:02 pm

This was posted before and the thing is that if we spend all of Dan's money for the no cap year of 2007, what's going to happen in 2008 with a cap?

So no, we wouldnt do that... I hope.

batman2k5 · Post by **batman2k5** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 pm

2007 they wil be no cap. it wil lbe an uncap season

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:11 pm

Most of you know that I follow the cap pretty closely... and not just in football... it has become such a huge part of professional sports. Look at the state of the NHL at the moment... hard for a Canadian to not try learn all kinds of things about the cap, the CBA, the unions etc.

It's easy to look at 2007 and just see it as an uncapped year, but I have to tell you that in my completely unprofessional opinion, it will never happen. the owners would do just about anything to prevent it from happening... maybe even lock out the players to avoid having to play WITHOUT the protection that the cap brings to the owners.

You also have to remember that whatever happens... 2008 will be a capped year... the owners would never agree to any CBA that did not include a cap... and any abuse the year before would just result in having to then comply with the cap the following year and possible create huge problems for themselves.

My 2 cents

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat May 28, 2005 4:41 pm

That is worth a bunch more than "your 2 cents"! Totally agree on all counts - these guys will never let it get that far.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 · Post by **SKINZ_DOMIN8** » Sat May 28, 2005 6:06 pm

Salary Caps suck.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Sat May 28, 2005 6:08 pm

Yeah it really sucks that the league is financially responsible and profitable year after year.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Sun May 29, 2005 6:38 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=2069744

consider the source, but still...

"The fact is the NFL is finding it difficult to conduct meaningful business in several key areas. Until the owners resolve their internal problems, there likely will not be an extension to the collective bargaining agreement. The current deal expires after the 2007 campaign, and that season would be an uncapped year, minus an extension. Translation: There would be no spending limits at all. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, has cautioned if the salary cap genie ever escapes the bottle, there will be no jamming him back into the vessel."

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Sun May 29, 2005 6:42 am

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Salary Caps suck.

without a salary cap, the seahawks would be the yankees....

on the bright side, we'd be boston. although boston has only won it all once in the last 90 years or so...

Hog Heaven · Post by **Hog Heaven** » Mon May 30, 2005 1:02 am

forget that... we make the most revenue and Danny boy will do anything to win. We would be the Yankees. I think there are a few owners... Danny, J Jones, the Seahawks guy... who would do anything they could to avoid a cap

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon May 30, 2005 3:09 am

Hog Heaven wrote:forget that... we make the most revenue and Danny boy will do anything to win. We would be the Yankees. I think there are a few owners... Danny, J Jones, the Seahawks guy... who would do anything they could to avoid a cap

the seahawks guy is one of the richest men in the universe. I think they would be the yankees and we would be the bosox...

he could pay every one of his starters 10 mil a season and not go broke for 20 years, and that's not taking into consideration revenue increases that winning all the time would generate...

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon May 30, 2005 3:17 am

Isn't the guy that owns the Chiefs a billionare as well?

Clinton Portis · Post by **Clinton Portis** » Mon May 30, 2005 9:33 am

Their all billonaires.

I mean they own teams! :shock:

MyrtleBeachRedskin · Post by **MyrtleBeachRedskin** » Mon May 30, 2005 9:54 am

The seahawks should have nevered entered the conversation. Redskins are the number one valued franchise. If anyone is spending money it will definitely be Redskins, Giants, Cowpukes, and Oakland.

genuswine hoglover · Post by **genuswine hoglover** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:10 pm

BossHog wrote:You also have to remember that whatever happens... 2008 will be a capped year... the owners would never agree to any CBA that did not include a cap... and any abuse the year before would just result in having to then comply with the cap the following year and possible create huge problems for themselves.

I don't think the absence of a cap in 2007 will cause a bunch of huge new contracts, since only free agents will shopping themselves, just like every year. What I think will be more likely in an uncapped year is that you will have a huge "cleansing" year, where teams will be able to have as much dead cap money as they need to get out of some of the bad contracts they have signed in the previous years. It will be like a huge <CTRL><ALT><DELETE> for the salary cap.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:17 pm

If the is no agreement the NFLPA says it will de-certify itself, thus making all players "free agents" and forcing the owners to lock them out.

Heard this on the radio this morning .... :?:

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:12 pm

All The Danny would have to do is pay off all signing bonuses in 2007. This means that for anybody already under contract in future years, only their salary would count against the cap. We could sign guys to lifetime contracts and pay off the bonuses up front and be set for the next 10 years.

patjam77 · Post by **patjam77** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:24 pm

JSPB22 wrote:All The Danny would have to do is pay off all signing bonuses in 2007. This means that for anybody already under contract in future years, only their salary would count against the cap. We could sign guys to lifetime contracts and pay off the bonuses up front and be set for the next 10 years.

Honestly, that makes alot of sense.

Gibbs' Hog · Post by **Gibbs' Hog** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Remember the the thread that someone posted about "why does everyone hate the Redskins?"

If we go cap-less (is that an alternative to topless? :lol:

) in 2007, we will be the Yanks of football. Imagine what that will do for all the Skins haters! True, it could buy the Skins their next SB, but I'd have to agree that we could suffer in future years.

Also, look at what happens when the Yanks lose a couple games at the beginning of the season - the newspapers tear them apart, the owner basically slaps them in the face, and no one can figure out why such high-paid talent is not performing up to expectations.

I'm sorry, no salary cap means bad news for the Skins, and all of football, IMO. Additionally, I despise the fact that sports (mainly baseball, for the time being) can be so biased when teams don't have a level playing field (no pun intended

).

Now, I wouldn't complain if the Skins were to dominate in a cap-less era, but I also refuse to become a hypocrite - due to my annual complaining about the Yanks payroll.

BernieSki · Post by **BernieSki** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:34 pm

The owner of the Seahawks Paul Allen, Bill Gates partner and Microsoft cofounder, I heard his net worth is more then every other NFL owner combind. He was on Forbs list of the top 10 wealthiest men in the world. A guy like him, Schnider and a few others would load up their teams on huge one year saleries in 2007 and smaller saleries the next few years when the cap comes in to play.

MyrtleBeachRedskin · Post by **MyrtleBeachRedskin** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:53 pm

There is only one thing I hate about the cap. The fact that every single year I have to wonder who is holding out and whether it is even feasible to sign that player due to the cap. If the cap had been around back when I was growing up (which honestly was not that long ago) would I have all the same Redskin heroes I have today. I do not think I would have. Money is money in any era and all those players back then did not have to worry about playing for someone else because the skins could pay them, Now with re negotiations and rookie cap limits, will I be able to buy a jersey and continue wearing that number and name for an entire career? No, I will not. This is a team game I understand that. But individuals play this game and its who we relate too. I know a cap is the best thing for the sport. But not necessarily for the fan. Sorry for all the gramatical errors.