No Salary Cap After 2006

[SkinsJock]

The new agreement is not being held up by the players, YET! The owners are not able to agree about the revenue and how it is "shared". This new deal is not about anything to do with players' salaries directly, it's initially about some owners not wanting to share with everyone else. The players do not get involved with their demands (for more) until the owners get done with their squabling.
The players will be happy to have a new CBA deal with them getting even more than they do now. The players association looks out for all NFL players and their "deal" is about as good as they can get and it will just get better each time. Sure there are some inequities but that is what negotiations are about - neither side is completely happy, there is always some give and take but overall the NFL players and the NFL owners and most importantly the NFL networks are doing very well thank you!
Pay per view is not far away people and that will include local games.

The only problem for the near future is that everyone involved just wants 'more', but, that being said, the guys responsible for getting it "done", will not let this get to a lockout or anything that affects their pocketbooks and our viewing pleasure.
There is certainly reason for concern because you really do not know how contentious this is. Everything is "reported" and we know how reliable some of these people are. I just have to think that the owners will get their act together and then hopefully progress will be made with the players. At least that is everyone's best hope.

Winter's almost gone and summer's coming on - we are going to kick some butt this year.

[hkHog]

The new agreement is not being held up by the players, YET! The owners are not able to agree about the revenue and how it is "shared". This new deal is not about anything to do with players' salaries directly, it's initially about some owners not wanting to share with everyone else. The players do not get involved with their demands (for more) until the owners get done with their squabling.
The players will be happy to have a new CBA deal with them getting even more than they do now. The players association looks out for all NFL players and their "deal" is about as good as they can get and it will just get better each time. Sure there are some inequities but that is what negotiations are about - neither side is completely happy, there is always some give and take but overall the NFL players and the NFL owners and most importantly the NFL networks are doing very well thank you!
Pay per view is not far away people and that will include local games.

The only problem for the near future is that everyone involved just wants 'more', but, that being said, the guys responsible for getting it "done", will not let this get to a lockout or anything that affects their pocketbooks and our viewing pleasure. At least that is everyone's best hope.

Not if you listen to what tagliabue is saying. Sure, one of the stumbling blocks is getting the owners to agree on revenue sharing BUT in Tagliabue's latest comments he has made it clear that the PRIMARY problem is that the NFLPA and the owners aren't seeing eye-to-eye. The owner squabbles are certainly an important "contributing factor" to the problem but that is old news, the real problem are talks between the players and owners:

Tagliabue not expecting any breakthroughs


NFL.com wire reports

Video: Commissioner Tagliabue on the state of the league
DETROIT (Feb. 2, 2006) -- NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue is not expecting any sudden breakthroughs with the players' union on a contract extension.

"We're not making the kind of progress we need to be making," he said during his annual state-of-the-league address. "I don't think negotiations are going very well."

The collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2007 season. But under the current contract, there would be no salary cap in 2007, and NFL Players Association executive Gene Upshaw insists if the cap disappears then, it won't come back.

While avoiding the strong rhetoric uttered by Upshaw earlier this week, Tagliabue did not sound too optimistic about getting a deal done before the NFL meetings begin March 25 in Orlando, Fla.

"I do think there needs to be an outreach and more reality on both sides," Tagliabue said. "There needs to be a positive dose of reality on both sides of the table. To some degree, positions are hardening on both sides when they shouldn't be."

The league and the owners have been negotiating for more than a year on an extension to the contract first agreed upon in 1993. An added element to what usually have been relatively smooth talks: owners are split on how to divide revenues that will go to the players.

High-revenue teams who make more money from sources other than television and ticket sales are balking at contributing the same percentage of their income as low-revenue franchises.

Upshaw set March 9 to begin consulting players on legal action if no deal has been reached. Tagliabue doesn't have such an immediate sense of urgency, but he's not loafing on the issue, either.

"A lot of things get done at the 11th hour and 59th minute," Tagliabue said. "I don't know if we'll get something done by the league meetings."

Upshaw talked Thursday about potential legal action and even a decertification of the union. Tagliabue conceded those were possibilities, but "I don't think we'll be in litigation or decertification."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9206613

[SkinsJock]

Good point hkHog, but, the thing that is causing the confusion initially is that the owners have not decided how big the pie is that the players want an increased share in. Granted the players want a bigger share of the revenue and this is a problem for the owners but before we can get to that table the owners are balking at how much is going to be "on the table".
That is the first step - I do not see the players going ahead with anything until they know what the owners agree too.
Again, I think that the ramifications will force things along here it's just not going to be easy because of the huge egos and the amounts involved.
It's a very "sticky wicket" but I prefer to look on the bright side until we have to deal with a potential disaster. I do not believe either side will allow this to get that bad.

[1niksder]

"SMALL POSSIBILITY" OF FREE AGENCY DELAY"

Word is that a series of meetings between representatives of the NFL and the NFLPA has created progress toward an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. We're told that these talks have given rise to a "small possibility" that the free agency signing period will be delayed this year from March 3 until early April.

The mere talk of bumping back the opening of free agency confirms that the recent efforts to iron out the issues between management and labor are aimed at getting a new deal in place before the annual shopping spree commences. As it now stands, signing boni can be spread over only four years, and any incentives earned in 2006 automatically count against the salary cap in 2006. This will make it harder for teams to add new players and, in turn, less lucrative for the players.

A new deal also would undoubtedly increase the salary cap for 2006, giving teams more money to spend on their rosters. This is good news for teams like the Redskins and Jets, who reportedly are facing some tough salary-trimming decisions under the current '06 cap.

But even if the free agency period is pushed back by a month, there still will be some intrigue come March. For example, Terrell Owens' contract must be terminated by the Eagles on or before March 5. So if the free agency launch is bumped to April and no new CBA is in place before Owens is released, he'll have to decide whether to take any offers that might be on the table under the current CBA -- or whether to wait until a new deal is in place.

This could be very interesting

[1niksder]

The NFL will shut down before it plays a season without a cap.

The League plans to have a cap in place but if not there is a plan.

As far as all the speculation about player movement we should consider this...

The rules to become a free agent change in an uncapped year. To become free, a player will need six years of service instead of four years and his contract has to be expired.

A player with five years of experience who under capped season rules would have been free, will now be a restricted free agent if the club decides to designate him as restricted.

Quality players with five years of service will be restricted and not many teams will be willing to surrender high draft picks for them.

A player waiting for his big 'free agency' contract with a nice fat signing bonus will probably play for a one-year salary with no signing bonus and risk a career ending injury.

The same rules apply to players with four years of service to those players with five years

The group of potential free agents will be significantly reduced in 2007 because of the loss of four- and five-year players. This means the best players from the 2002 and 2003 draft classes will not be moving around too much in 2007.


If that isn't bad enough for the players hoping to hit the market, each club will also get an additional 'transition tag' to protect an older veteran.

As long as the club offers a player in this category a one-year contract for the average of the top 10 players at his position, the franchise retains his rights unless another club wants to give significant draft compensation.

Figure the top 32 veterans (one per club) who was supposed to hit free agency will now be tagged.