Its official ..Its panic time

[hkHog]

This is downright silly. The revenue sharing program has made the NFL what it is. The playing ground is level and all teams are able to compete. If rich teams like us, Dallas and New England are able to gobble up a lot of the best talent (even with resrtictions, we'll still have a large advantage), fans wont be as interested in teams like The Vikings once their free agents leave to rich teams that missed the playoffs.

Also, why would you want to risk losing labor peace? I may not be an expert but it just doesn't make sense to me. The NFL is in the height of it's popularity. Smart buisness men know not to mess with seccess. Personally, I like watching teams go from 11-5 one year, to 7-9 the next, to 11-5 the next (like Carolina). It keeps you on your toes. Cincinnati just became an exciting team for the first since I've been watching the sport.

Keep the playing field even, keep the fans frothing at the mouths, share the revenue extend the CBA.

The problem with the revenue sharing agreement is that it allows smaller market teams to collect large sums of money and do whatever they want with it. There are too many owners that simply pocket the money that comes in through revenue sharing and don't use it to make improvements to their franchise. This same thing happens in baseball. So I'm not surprised that owners such as Jerry Jones and Snyder are unwilling to keep the current system. If I was an owner of a team like the Skins I would not want a system in place where I have to pay money because I do a better job of running my team to an owner who doesn't care about his team and just takes the money and does whatever he wants with it. I think that along with some type of cap (i prefer a soft cap over the NFL's hard cap) they should implement a spending minimu which would force all the owners so spend atleast a certain amount on their team.

Yeah, it's pretty kushy being a small market team. You don't have to go out there and do anything because of the huge safety net in place in the modern NFL. You don't even have to TRY to make money because it just gets given to you.

[old-timer]

Yeah, it's pretty kushy being a small market team. You don't have to go out there and do anything because of the huge safety net in place in the modern NFL. You don't even have to TRY to make money because it just gets given to you.

Did you say 'Arizona Cardinals', the all time worst team in professional sports? How about the way the Cards rape their fans, not to mention the taxpayers of Arizona, who paid for their stadium? And the same thing is happening in DC with the baseball team, in spades. Enough of this madness.

[gay4pacman]

we really need them to extend the agreement inthe next few days....dan need to lobby this thing like a mo

[Scottskins]

I've got a question for someone like BH. If the signing bonuses and stuff accelerate to next seasons cap, we will be far over the cap. How does cutting players with huge signing bonuses get us under the cap? That money would still count against the cap wouldn't it?

Am I looking at this wrong, and we actually have to release a lot of players with the bigger base salaries with not much bonus left?

I just don't understand how we can get under the cap by cutting players. That usually adds to your cap doesn't it?...

[MEZZSKIN]

vasfines I realize most of the starters will stay...Football is about attrition ..We vwill have alot untested players in key back up and some cases srtarting roles.........I love strides we made last year.....We are on the verge...everyone on this sites knows that....But dont wory about my tickets I was there when they one they won their last one and I will be there when we win our next one.Just because im worried because I think wre fcked doesnt make me any less of a fan than a person who doesnt.

[COZ]

Since it's been announced that there is likely no CBA (talks called off Wed morning) most writers are stating we may have to cut deep and play as many as 20 rookies this year.

Well why don't the Skins simply tell the players we need to redo your contracts this year. Can't pay you much this year but next year the sky's the limit. Hey Lavar, play for 2 million this year but we have a 10 million bonus waiting for you next year guarenteed. I know we eat some cap dollars on established contacts but wouldn't this work to get us over the hump this year?

Am I missing something here? Seems to me we are always mortgaging the future anyway but now we can make good on future promises.

[hkHog]

Since it's been announced that there is likely no CBA (talks called off Wed morning) most writers are stating we may have to cut deep and play as many as 20 rookies this year.

Well why don't the Skins simply tell the players we need to redo your contracts this year. Can't pay you much this year but next year the sky's the limit. Hey Lavar, play for 2 million this year but we have a 10 million bonus waiting for you next year guarenteed. I know we eat some cap dollars on established contacts but wouldn't this work to get us over the hump this year?

Am I missing something here? Seems to me we are always mortgaging the future anyway but now we can make good on future promises.

It depends on whether or not the players trust the front office. They have no guarantee that way. What if they get a career ending injury? Then again, guys who get cut this year aren't going to get paid anything in FA. They are much more likely to get a fat contract next year. So maybe if the Redskins talk to their players and agents and convince them that being a FA this offseason is a disasterous idea (which it is, in all of this the players are going to get screwed the most) and the players trust the team to follow through on their promises then we could do this.

[SkinsJock]

I've got a question for someone like BH. If the signing bonuses and stuff accelerate to next seasons cap, we will be far over the cap. How does cutting players with huge signing bonuses get us under the cap? That money would still count against the cap wouldn't it?
Am I looking at this wrong, and we actually have to release a lot of players with the bigger base salaries with not much bonus left?....

I'm not as knowledgeable as BH and a lot of others here but the problem as I see it is twofold.

As far as the NFL is concerned this will be a huge change in the long run for the lower revenue generating teams.

As far as the Redskins are concerned the immediate problem is we are still handcuffed by what we did in basically overpaying for players and their contracts. We are doing a better job recently but we needed another year IMO to get in a more comfortable situation.
to support part of your theory above - for example - we cannot cut (or trade) Brunell to "save cap space" because he would cost us more than if we had to pay him! I only use him as an example.
We and a lot of teams are going to have to fit into a scenario that many team managers thought would/could not happen.
There are going to have to be some major changes for our team but it will not be all that easy for teams that are way under the cap either because they have the room BUT they also do not have the cap to play with. So for those teams like the Eagles and the Arizona Cardinals the good news is they are under the cap and the bad news is that there are no more years of playing with the cap rules!!!
We and a number of teams are going to have an interesting time in the near future putting together teams without a CBA. It really looks like this will not be able to happen now as not having an agreement in place today means that a lot of very bad scenarios will kick in in the next 2 days as we have to be at a certain position, cap wise by Friday.

I am a little surprised that it got this far but I surmise that the owners (OR some of them) feel that they will not be as bad off as the players and are holding fast to that $300 - $350 million difference.

This is a business and in the near future the fans are going pay even more for their NFL enjoyment.

[Mursilis]

Since it's been announced that there is likely no CBA (talks called off Wed morning) most writers are stating we may have to cut deep and play as many as 20 rookies this year.

Well why don't the Skins simply tell the players we need to redo your contracts this year. Can't pay you much this year but next year the sky's the limit. Hey Lavar, play for 2 million this year but we have a 10 million bonus waiting for you next year guarenteed. I know we eat some cap dollars on established contacts but wouldn't this work to get us over the hump this year?

Am I missing something here? Seems to me we are always mortgaging the future anyway but now we can make good on future promises.

Don't forget the 30% rule in the current CBA, which is still binding until the end of the 2007 season. Any player's '07 salary can't be more than 30% greater than his '06 salary, essentially. So we can't offer small salaries this year and significantly larger salaries in '07. Besides, any smart player and/or agent is going to want all the big money in a guaranteed signing bonus or something similar, not in an unguaranteed salary 1 season down the road.

[fleetus]

There might be an exception or two, like the Cardinals, who don't spend the money properly. However, you still end up with 28-30 teams that are EXTREMELY competitive. That's three times more teams than are competetive in baseball. Plus, because the system is pretty equal in the NFL, we all give the Cardinals owner grief about it. He can't hide! He's been under fire for the past few years and hence went out and got Denny Green.

Anyway, the point is, there is no doubt that the cap is the reason the NFL is great. I don't want the Redskins and Snyder to become the next Yankees/Steinbrenner. That is a hard team to root for unless you live in New York.

[SkinsFanInHawai'i]

This article says we are 17mil over the cap right now.

CLICK HERE

[hkHog]

This article says we are 17mil over the cap right now.

CLICK HERE

Keep in mind that that assumes a $92 mil cap. The cap without a new CBA will probably be $95 mil. Therefore, we're probably about $14 mil over.

[SkinzCanes]

Yea but if you read the article it says that these numbers dont take into account Restricted Free Agents and also it ignores the money needed to sign our draft picks. So in reality we are more likely around $19-20 million over.

[skins81]

Still time to get a deal done, or at least delay the start of FA.
Once FA starts, it is the point of no return.
2006 will be determined, 2007 and beyond will be uncapped. Certain rules, but uncapped nonetheless.
Upshaw won't need to agrue about revenue sharing or anything. He wants an uncapped NFL. It will be difficult to get the union to agree to any CBA once this happens.
And if the owners threaten a lockout, well the union can just disband like Upshaw is threatening to do. Then the stoppage is 100% on the owners.

Owners do not want this to happen.
That's why I think an 11th hour agreement will be reached, or at least the start of FA will be delayed. They basically have until tomorrow morning.

[1niksder]

Yea but if you read the article it says that these numbers dont take into account Restricted Free Agents and also it ignores the money needed to sign our draft picks. So in reality we are more likely around $19-20 million over.

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.
Money needed to sign rookies won't be needed until we have rookies so why would any money needed be included in the amount over the cap?

[SkinsFanInHawai'i]

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.

I thought Dock was a RFA too?

[SkinzCanes]

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.
Money needed to sign rookies won't be needed until we have rookies so why would any money needed be included in the amount over the cap?

It wouldn't be included in the cap but you have to take that amount into consideration when looking at how much space we will need to clear to be able to sign our draft picks.

[Scottskins]

if there is no new cba, then ALL signing bonuses that were previously prorated out past 2006 will become due on the 2006 cap. That is how I understand our current problem. Wild guess on my part, but if ALL bonuses accelerate and count on the 2006 cap for us, that adds like 80 million to our cap.

If this is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, then my question is, how do we get rid of that 80 million and get under the cap of 95 or so million?

Won't we have to cut players who are only counting as salary and have none or small hits on the cap from their bonuses? I don't see how we can get under the cap figure if this is true.

Last question...

If we don't get under the cap figure. what happens?

[Scottskins]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2350331

this article says we'd only have to shave 20 million if there is no new CBA. I don't understand how that could be true.

does anyone here really understand what's going to happen, or do we just have to wait and see in pure agony?

I think my head may explode soon...

[1niksder]

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.

I thought Dock was a RFA too?

Under contract thru 2006 $586,000.00 Cap Hit ($460K salary)

if there is no new cba, then ALL signing bonuses that were previously prorated out past 2006 will become due on the 2006 cap. That is how I understand our current problem. Wild guess on my part, but if ALL bonuses accelerate and count on the 2006 cap for us, that adds like 80 million to our cap.

If this is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, then my question is, how do we get rid of that 80 million and get under the cap of 95 or so million?

Won't we have to cut players who are only counting as salary and have none or small hits on the cap from their bonuses? I don't see how we can get under the cap figure if this is true.

Last question...

If we don't get under the cap figure. what happens?

Contracts with pro-rated bonuses are unchanged. Whatever is to count this year will count this year. There is no change in contracts that have been signed.

What has changed is - How new contracts are drawn up and what happens to prorations of cut players. In the past you had Jun 1 to count on to save you cap space, you just had to hold on to the player a little longer to get the savings. June 1st doesn't matter with no CBA. The full pro-rated amount becomes due. Also without a CBA all "likely to be earned" bonuses in a 2006 contract year would count against the 2007 cap if the incentives are met, well those dollars will count this year.

In the past you could write a contract like this... 7 years $50 million with a $11 million SB and roster bonuses of $3 million each of the first 3 years of the deal and LTBE bonuses of $1.5 million in years 1 and 2. The salary would be $750,000 in year 1, $1.5M in yr 2, $3.25M in yr 3, $4.5 in yr 4 and $5.6 each of the last three years. This contract would cost a team $4.08M the first year.

With no CBA that contract wouldn't be aproved because the salary jump TOO much from year to year. But if it were allowed other rule that take affect due to no extention would make the cap hit close to $9 million

[1niksder]

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.
Money needed to sign rookies won't be needed until we have rookies so why would any money needed be included in the amount over the cap?

It wouldn't be included in the cap but you have to take that amount into consideration when looking at how much space we will need to clear to be able to sign our draft picks.

Not before this week's deadline.

[Scottskins]

RFA on the roster are DT Cedric Killings and CB Ade Jimoh.

I thought Dock was a RFA too?

Under contract thru 2006 $586,000.00 Cap Hit ($460K salary)

if there is no new cba, then ALL signing bonuses that were previously prorated out past 2006 will become due on the 2006 cap. That is how I understand our current problem. Wild guess on my part, but if ALL bonuses accelerate and count on the 2006 cap for us, that adds like 80 million to our cap.

If this is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, then my question is, how do we get rid of that 80 million and get under the cap of 95 or so million?

Won't we have to cut players who are only counting as salary and have none or small hits on the cap from their bonuses? I don't see how we can get under the cap figure if this is true.

Last question...

If we don't get under the cap figure. what happens?

Contracts with pro-rated bonuses are unchanged. Whatever is to count this year will count this year. There is no change in contracts that have been signed.

What has changed is - How new contracts are drawn up and what happens to prorations of cut players. In the past you had Jun 1 to count on to save you cap space, you just had to hold on to the player a little longer to get the savings. June 1st doesn't matter with no CBA. The full pro-rated amount becomes due. Also without a CBA all "likely to be earned" bonuses in a 2006 contract year would count against the 2007 cap if the incentives are met, well those dollars will count this year.

In the past you could write a contract like this... 7 years $50 million with a $11 million SB and roster bonuses of $3 million each of the first 3 years of the deal and LTBE bonuses of $1.5 million in years 1 and 2. The salary would be $750,000 in year 1, $1.5M in yr 2, $3.25M in yr 3, $4.5 in yr 4 and $5.6 each of the last three years. This contract would cost a team $4.08M the first year.

With no CBA that contract wouldn't be aproved because the salary jump TOO much from year to year. But if it were allowed other rule that take affect due to no extention would make the cap hit close to $9 million

Thanks 1nik. That eases my mind a lot. That basically means players with bonuses will not get cut. So we won't be losing any of our core players. We will lose many of our Ryan Clark type guys though. Could be ugly with so many new faces on the team...

Much better than I was anticipating though

[1niksder]

I think we'll bring Clark back.

[gay4pacman]

I just heard some positive stuff about the negotiations. Sportcenter just reported that they could be closer to a deal than everyone thinks and that the cap could be raised as much as 15 million.


There is definetly still hope....lets keep it alive.

i still ave dreams of randle el and abraham dancing in my head!

[SkinzCanes]

Absence of Agreement Could Be Big Deal

By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Page E03

If there is no last-minute breakthrough in talks between the NFL and the NFL Players Association on an extension of the collective bargaining agreement, there will be pain and inconvenience, both short-term and long-term, for practically everyone in the league.

NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue summoned the 32 team owners to New York for a meeting this morning, and union chief Gene Upshaw conceivably could be persuaded to agree to a deal if the right offer is put in front of him before free agent players are eligible to begin signing with teams at midnight tonight. But Upshaw's motivation to strike a deal decreases greatly once the free agent market opens and players are that much closer to reaching a season without a salary cap in 2007.
While the league and the union are divided over how much revenue they should share, the dispute probably will not result in a work stoppage. The current collective bargaining agreement runs through the 2007 season and expires in the spring of 2008. There is a no-strike, no-lockout clause in the deal. And the players' strategy is to keep the games being played while they consider challenging the owners in court.

There still would be problems, however. In the short term, many teams would face severe salary cap crunches. Without a deal to extend the collective bargaining agreement, the salary cap this year will be set at about $94.5 million per team, about $10 million less than the per-team ceiling on player compensation that would have been established with an extension.

Without a deal, the Washington Redskins will have to trim a salary cap overage of about $20 million by the end of business today. The Oakland Raiders are close to $30 million over the projected cap. The Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos each are about $25 million over, and the New York Jets were about $25 million over before making some salary trims last week. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Titans and Atlanta Falcons each are at least $13 million over.

Teams started releasing players yesterday in what could be a roster purge unlike the NFL has ever seen. Dozens of players could be released by the end of business today as teams scramble to get under the cap. In addition, clubs scurrying to get beneath the cap will be in no position to do much -- or any -- buying when the free agent market opens. That could make for a market far less robust than free agents such as tailbacks Shaun Alexander of the Seattle Seahawks and Edgerrin James of the Indianapolis Colts would have hoped.

In the short term, the competitive advantage will go to teams who enter this offseason with abundant salary cap space. The Arizona Cardinals, Minnesota Vikings, Green Bay Packers and Cleveland Browns each are more than $20 million below the projected cap. The Seahawks, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, Baltimore Ravens, Jacksonville Jaguars, Cincinnati Bengals, St. Louis Rams and New Orleans Saints are more than $10 million under. They will be, if they choose, the major buyers in free agency while usual big spenders such as the Redskins and Broncos probably will be forced to the sideline.

"Certainly this is a tough situation," Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs said last weekend, "because I don't think there was anybody, really, who was sitting out here a year ago that would have said they were going to base their player acquisitions and their cap numbers and everything on not having a collective bargaining agreement."

But the Redskins and Broncos eventually would get their no-labor-deal revenge in 2007. If Redskins owner Daniel Snyder wanted to give Gibbs an all-star lineup with a $150-million player payroll, he could.

In the long term, the NFL without a labor extension could be headed the way of baseball, with a growing gulf between high- and low-revenue franchises. The most contentious debate isn't between owners and players; it's between owners of high-revenue and low-revenue franchises. Owners like Snyder have tapped into revenue streams -- from sources such as stadium naming rights, local sponsorships and luxury suites -- that aren't subject to the revenue-sharing system. The Redskins' annual revenues of about $300 million have doubled those of the Cardinals and Vikings, who are at about $150 million per year each.

The lower-revenue clubs have been seeking to overhaul the owners' revenue-sharing system to have more of those locally generated revenues shared among the teams. They argue that the competitive balance of the league could be destroyed if owners like Snyder, the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones, the New England Patriots' Robert Kraft and the Houston Texans' Robert McNair can afford to outspend their rivals for coaches and players by a wide margin. But the high-revenue franchises have resisted changes, arguing that they have spent money to make money and shouldn't be forced to further subsidize clubs that might be, in some cases, mismanaged.

Some owners say there could be a labor settlement without a revenue-sharing accord. But Upshaw says the two must come simultaneously or the less-wealthy franchises could not afford the salary commitment they would be making to players in the labor deal. Upshaw is seeking to expand the revenue pool from which players are paid, and he wants them to receive 60 percent of a new revenue pool known as total football revenues. The owners have offered 56.2 percent.

Upshaw and many agents believe that a season without a salary cap in 2007 would be a financial bonanza for players. Some on the management side think players are overestimating the windfall. They think player compensation would be restrained by a few changes that would be made to the system, such as players needing six seasons of NFL experience (instead of the current four) to be eligible for unrestricted free agency. There also no longer would be a payroll minimum for clubs.

That's when football could begin to resemble baseball, with some teams making and spending big money and others earning and spending far less. It could become a sport of have and have-not clubs, and the competitive advantage could swing decidedly to the eight franchises generally acknowledged as having separated themselves from the revenue-generating field -- the Redskins, Patriots, Texans, Broncos, Cowboys, Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears and Browns.