PDA

View Full Version : S'up with the capless 2007???


SBTexans08
02-09-2006, 01:52 PM
What's up with that? What made the league decide on this? What's the perks of doing it?

I do know one thing.....that without a cap....many teams will purge guys off their roster, even if it costs money....but that extra cap space...or lack of...makes it almost not hurt any team to drop a guy that's getting paid big dough and isn't producing as well.

What's the word on this? Explain this for me, will ya......thanks!

tulexan
02-09-2006, 01:58 PM
I believe that the capless '07 will result if the CBA is not renewed. I doubt that will be the case because owners and the league do not want to have a capless season. That will destroy the parity that has made the NFL so successful in recent history.

LBC_Justin
02-09-2006, 02:07 PM
I believe that the capless '07 will result if the CBA is not renewed. I doubt that will be the case because owners and the league do not want to have a capless season. That will destroy the parity that has made the NFL so successful in recent history.
I am pretty sure that Bob McNair is one of the main proponents of not having a cap.

From what I understand he isn't happy with the revenue sharing situation.

AustinJB
02-09-2006, 02:40 PM
I believe that the capless '07 will result if the CBA is not renewed. I doubt that will be the case because owners and the league do not want to have a capless season. That will destroy the parity that has made the NFL so successful in recent history.

I agree that the LEAGUE does not want a capless season....and maybe SOME of the owners.

However, I believe that a lot of the owners would love a capless season....mostly the rich owners (like Bob McNair & Jerry Jones.) This would allow them to purge their roster of high-priced players that aren't living up to expectations and also add many other good players that they normally would not be able to add under the salary cap. Can you imagine what the draft would be like...get as many high-round picks as you can and you wouldn't have to worry about the rookie pool or anything else....as long as you have enough money.

Meloy
02-09-2006, 03:12 PM
AJ who is writes as a fan to Texans web site as Alan Burge answered my question on this issue. He says McNair, Jerry Jones and some others have creative deals that give them income resources that other team owners don't share. McNair & others do not want to be penalized for good marketing. McNair has a Texan's related debt of apprx $1 billion. These guys want cap but one that does not cause them to share these "extra" revenues. I think the players Association is drooling at the thought of no cap.

BigBull17
02-10-2006, 10:56 AM
And then it becomes lackluster like MLB. You would have 4-6- great teams and the rest would be hog wash. The mercinaries who jump ship every 2 years for more money and whine that they dont make more.

MorKnolle
02-10-2006, 11:04 AM
If the CBA somehow is not renewed, the Redskins will become the Yankees of the NFL. Look how much money they spend on their coaching staff, if they don't have a limit to what they spend on players they will go crazy and have a team of superstars and twice the payroll of any other ream, like the Yankees.

The CBA will get signed. The owners don't want a no-cap situation because they will end up having to pay much more money to players. They were discussing it on the radio a week or two ago and said there were also definite downsides to the players as well, I don't remember exactly but I think it had something with free agency (like there would be no more free agency so their rights are stuck to a team until they trade it or let them out of their commitment to them) and/or they would have a lot less guaranteed money in their contracts so they could be cut without getting paid anything.

One of the main differences in opinion is actually just between the owners and relates to profit sharing. Currently revenues from sales of general tickets, most merchandise, and other things are shared among the teams of the league rather than just kept to the individual teams that generate that money, while luxury box ticket revenues and a few things like that stay with the individual teams. Teams from larger markets and that generate more revenue (Redskins, Texans, I think the Cowboys are up there, etc.) want less profit sharing since their teams make more money and have to send some of it to the lesser teams, while those lesser teams want a bigger share of the overall profits of the league since they don't generate as much money, and a few of those teams probably actually need all the money they can get to keep their team going (the Saints could have problems the next year or two without it). The players union is always wanting a bigger piece of the shared revenues (i.e. a larger salary cap) that they have to argue with the owners on, and I'm sure there are other smaller issues in there too.

I don't remember exactly what the specifics of not having a new CBA are, there are likely many articles on it that I can try to find, but either way it's basically a lose-lose situation for both sides if a new CBA isn't made.