PDA

View Full Version : Absence of Agreement Could Be Big Deal


Kaiser Toro
03-02-2006, 09:19 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102216.html

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.

Double Barrel
03-02-2006, 10:06 AM
Holy cow. This is going to be a bloodbath, and teams we thought had a good chance of going into the 2006 season with some momentum will be stopped in their tracks. This could get really ugly before the dust settles.

infantrycak
03-02-2006, 10:10 AM
Well the NFL owners just unanimously voted to reject the players' proposal. Tags said there is time today but this isn't a one phone call kind of deal to solve. If this slips past today, there is no deadline to make them come together for a while.

There has also been a ruling of some sort (only caught the tail end) which is evidently disallowing the practice of converting roster bonuses into signing bonuses to let teams restructure contracts (ex. Portis' reported restructuring). This is a huge deal for teams trying to get under the cap. Indy is so strapped by the inability to pull this with Manning and Harrison that they are planning to go to a federal court to get a reversal of the ruling. Mort was saying they may only be able to carry 33 guys on their roster until this issue is resolved.

jacquescas
03-02-2006, 01:42 PM
think about this. We are not in bad cap shape, and should be able to get a decent number of free agents. lets say the draft comes and goes and our top pick gets alot less than people expect. Then an extension comes along, and we get a draft pick for a much lesser price.:drool:

Double Barrel
03-02-2006, 02:20 PM
Well the NFL owners just unanimously voted to reject the players' proposal. Tags said there is time today but this isn't a one phone call kind of deal to solve. If this slips past today, there is no deadline to make them come together for a while.

There has also been a ruling of some sort (only caught the tail end) which is evidently disallowing the practice of converting roster bonuses into signing bonuses to let teams restructure contracts (ex. Portis' reported restructuring). This is a huge deal for teams trying to get under the cap. Indy is so strapped by the inability to pull this with Manning and Harrison that they are planning to go to a federal court to get a reversal of the ruling. Mort was saying they may only be able to carry 33 guys on their roster until this issue is resolved.

I've also heard that if the deadline passes today, there will be little incentive for the players' union to come back to the table to work out a deal for a cap in the 2007 season.

In addition, Upshaw is supposed to request at next weeks players meeting that they de-certify the union, which apparently can have direct ramifications for the NFL with regards to anti-trust laws. I don't know all the ins & outs of this process, so any light that you could shed on the subject would be mighty helpful.

FILO_girl
03-02-2006, 02:34 PM
Wow, this is insane. In the sports world already, these athletes are paid crazy money and only the cap keeps it under some control. No cap is going to be hard on US, as WE will be paying the inflated player's salaries with our soon-to-be-skyrocketing season ticket prices. Now I see why they didn't specify what the monetary penalty is if you miss your 3/15 payment. :brickwall

I am sorry but I really think this sucks the big one.

MojoX
03-02-2006, 03:11 PM
I've also heard that if the deadline passes today, there will be little incentive for the players' union to come back to the table to work out a deal for a cap in the 2007 season.

In addition, Upshaw is supposed to request at next weeks players meeting that they de-certify the union, which apparently can have direct ramifications for the NFL with regards to anti-trust laws. I don't know all the ins & outs of this process, so any light that you could shed on the subject would be mighty helpful.

I posted this in another thread:

From what I gather, decertification means the owners can't lock out the players. It was done in 1987 to get the games to continue. NFL.com has a pretty good article on this:
Upshaw insisted the union is prepared for decertification, which involves disbanding and going to antitrust court to ask for a set of rules under which the NFL would operate. The union did that to end the monthlong 1987 strike and played without a contract until 1992, when the court ruled in its favor -- leading to the current deal negotiated with commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the owners. That deal included free agency for the first time, as well as the salary cap, which took effect in 1993.

"We've demonstrated we are not afraid to decertify," Upshaw said. "We understand the laws and what's available to us."

Upshaw warned if the dispute continues through 2007, then the salary cap is likely to be gone -- for good.

Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said if the decertification strategy is used, it could keep the owners from locking out the players and allowing games to continue. "If there is no union, the labor laws would not apply, so you wouldn't have a lockout," he said.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9204548

The rest of the article has pretty good info.

Double Barrel
03-02-2006, 05:03 PM
Thanks MojoX. :thumbup That definitely sheds some light on the subject.