CBA Issues

[TexanBacker93]

I've talked with lots of people and I'm pretty convinced that if the regular fans were able to get in on the negotiations it would be over quicker. To me some of the stuff is obvious and I'm hoping if any experts are out there they can correct my thoughts.

It looks like the Cash over Cap seems to be a big sticking point. The problem these "have-not" owners have is that the high revenue teams can put more money towards high signing bonuses that are paid up front, but can be spread out over the length of the contract for cap purposes. Why not change the rules so that you can make a guaranteed portion of the contract, but the money itself is spread out over the length of the contract? Is the player really going to need to start hocking stuff at the nearest pawn shop because the $10 million dollar signing bonus is now going to be given in $2 million dollar installments over the 5 years? This way it affects the salary cap in the same way as the owner's pockets. Since it's tied to the cap it won't hurt the lesser teams. If a player gets released before their contract is up, it works the same way as now. The only negative is the player not getting the entire thing in year 1, but as long as the money is guaranteed it shouldn't be a sticking pointg. This will get the teams with different levels of revenue on the same field.

As for those extra sources of revenue, I don't understand why the "haves" don't slap the others silly. Teams like Dallas, Washington, New England, Houston, Denver, etc... have more revenue that isn't in the socialist "share everything" kitty. They get this money from luxury boxes and stadium naming rights. Now, what stops Ralph Wilson from getting a corporate sponsor for his stadium? Why should Bob McNair share money he gets from Reliant with an ego laced owner that has to have his name on his stadium? Why should Pat Bowlen share money he gets because Denver has a new stadium with a lot of PSL and luxury box money with Wayne Weaver who can't sell out his stadium and doesn't have as many club seats or luxury boxes? Not that they can fill them anyways.

As for the percentage of what is going to the players, it's similar to the whole income tax problems in my mind. Those that have less money to start feel that the ones with more money should pay more. Well, they do. If every team gives 60% those teams that have more money give more. If team A has $300 million they would give $180 million to the player's association. If team B has $200 million, they would give $120 million to the player's association. $180 is more than $120, thus they are giving more. They have more left afterwards, but a team shouldn't be penalized for making more money. Maybe if Buffalo was set on putting a winning team on the field they would see their revenue increase. Right now the owners and the players are off by 4%. Split the difference to get this thing done.

[Kaiser Toro]

Someone has been doing some studying. Way to frame the situation TB. :thumbup

[SESupergenius]

As for those extra sources of revenue, I don't understand why the "haves" don't slap the others silly. Teams like Dallas, Washington, New England, Houston, Denver, etc... have more revenue that isn't in the socialist "share everything" kitty. They get this money from luxury boxes and stadium naming rights. Now, what stops Ralph Wilson from getting a corporate sponsor for his stadium? Why should Bob McNair share money he gets from Reliant with an ego laced owner that has to have his name on his stadium? Why should Pat Bowlen share money he gets because Denver has a new stadium with a lot of PSL and luxury box money with Wayne Weaver who can't sell out his stadium and doesn't have as many club seats or luxury boxes? Not that they can fill them anyways.
I'll tell you why. You are looking at this as if the individual teams are the products and that their competition is amongst themselves. That is dead wrong, the NFL as a whole is the product. When you ask why they have to share it's because there isn't just one team on the field playing itself, there happens to be another team there and that's the only way it works. All the teams make up the product and their comptetition is other sporting events and leagues. If there is no salary cap then the haves force the balance of the league out of proportion, and not everyone is on a equal playing field when it comes to bringing in talent. That is the thing I loved about the NFL. A pure capitalist society just doesn't work.

[TexanBacker93]

I'm not against some sharing because I think the NFL is stronger with teams on more equal footing. When the Bengals decide to name their new stadium after Paul Brown instead of taking corporate money Bob McNair and the Texans shouldn't have to give over more of their money to subsidize that choice. He's been on record saying some of the money coming in from local revenue should be shared. It's the percentage that's an issue. There is no reason it should be an even split. The money that goes to the Weavers and the Wilsons don't go back to the team. They go into those men's pockets. How exactly is that good for business?

[mexican_texan]

Fortunately, the talk has been that a new CBA will be signed by Monday.

I agree with Matt Birk, who said that these negotiations are billionaires arguing with millionaires over money. It seems that the more you get money, the more you want money. As the saying goes, "its easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven."

[mexican_texan]

I'm not against some sharing because I think the NFL is stronger with teams on more equal footing. When the Bengals decide to name their new stadium after Paul Brown instead of taking corporate money Bob McNair and the Texans shouldn't have to give over more of their money to subsidize that choice. He's been on record saying some of the money coming in from local revenue should be shared. It's the percentage that's an issue. There is no reason it should be an even split. The money that goes to the Weavers and the Wilsons don't go back to the team. They go into those men's pockets. How exactly is that good for business?
This reminds me of the guy that previously owned the Clippers. He had a bad product and instead of improving it, he used it to make money. Owners need to see the money as a way to give back to the fans and improve the fan experiences.

[TexanBacker93]

It's the same issue some of the baseball owners have had with full revenue sharing. The owners know that the product is better with more teams being equal. What the Steinbrenners and Jonses of the leagues don't want to see is the small market teams taking the money and not putting it to use on the field. Guys like Sterling and Bidwell (Arizona Cardinals) won't spend the money to improve their teams. Hopefully you are right and the new CBA is put into effect. It's about time for some things to happen rather than idle speculation and arguments about what to do with the draft pick.

[nunusguy]

For those of us that may have some accounting in our background, the
"cash over cap" issue is clearly a "cash basis vs accrual basis"
issue, i.e., its a bookkeeping issue regarding how the cash payments and cash
disbursements are measured. If they want to bring total transparency and simplicity to the issue, just go to a pure "cash basis".
But the method of measurement is not reallythe issue,the issue isbetween low
revenue and high revenue teams, IMO, is about the basis have or have nots.
For example, Atlanta is presently catagorized as a low-revenue, but it can become high rev like Dallas, Denver, Houston, etc. because it has a large,
affluent resident corporate population (like a bunch of Fortune 500 HDQs and
Division operations), while Buffalo can never be that unless it were to move its franchise to say, LA. Hence the Bills, as long as they stay in Buffalo, can never be competitive with a Houston in revenues and are in dire trouble if we
go uncapped next year.

[Kaiser Toro]

For those of us that may have some accounting in our background, the
"cash over cap" issue is clearly a "cash basis vs accrual basis"
issue, i.e., its a bookkeeping issue regarding how the cash payments and cash
disbursements are measured. If they want to bring total transparency and simplicity to the issue, just go to a pure "cash basis".
But the method of measurement is not reallythe issue,the issue isbetween low
revenue and high revenue teams, IMO, is about the basis have or have nots.
For example, Atlanta is presently catagorized as a low-revenue, but it can become high rev like Dallas, Denver, Houston, etc. because it has a large,
affluent resident corporate population (like a bunch of Fortune 500 HDQs and
Division operations), while Buffalo can never be that unless it were to move its franchise to say, LA. Hence the Bills, as long as they stay in Buffalo, can never be competitive with a Houston in revenues and are in dire trouble if we
go uncapped next year.

Good insight, thanks.

[cap1]

For those of us that may have some accounting in our background, the
"cash over cap" issue is clearly a "cash basis vs accrual basis"
issue, i.e., its a bookkeeping issue regarding how the cash payments and cash
disbursements are measured. If they want to bring total transparency and simplicity to the issue, just go to a pure "cash basis".
But the method of measurement is not reallythe issue,the issue isbetween low
revenue and high revenue teams, IMO, is about the basis have or have nots.
For example, Atlanta is presently catagorized as a low-revenue, but it can become high rev like Dallas, Denver, Houston, etc. because it has a large,
affluent resident corporate population (like a bunch of Fortune 500 HDQs and
Division operations), while Buffalo can never be that unless it were to move its franchise to say, LA. Hence the Bills, as long as they stay in Buffalo, can never be competitive with a Houston in revenues and are in dire trouble if we
go uncapped next year.


Good Post. What kind of Accounting background do you have?