NFLPA Wins Ruling against ending Revenue Sharing

[Pinkerton Security]

The NFL Players Association won a decision Monday from Special Master Stephen Burbank that will prevent league owners from dismantling the supplemental revenue sharing (SRS) pool in 2010, as management had planned. The pool was valued at $210 million in 2009 and $220 million for 2010.


Burbank rejected an interpretation from the NFL Management Council that an owners resolution in March 2006 determined the supplemental revenue sharing pool was only required during years in which the NFL was operating under a salary cap.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

[Pinkerton Security]

this seems good for Buffalo, but is it going to hinder the CBA negotiations at all?

[Ickybaluky]

this seems good for Buffalo, but is it going to hinder the CBA negotiations at all?

No, it just effects this year. The supplemental revenue sharing isn't really a very big issue. Most of the issues regarding the CBA can be easily resolved, with one exception: How much money goes to players. The owners want less money to go to players, citing increased stadium and operating costs. The players, obviously, don't wish to take a paycut.

The most interesting thing about this offseason will be to see how much owners will spend. Many are talking about socking away money for a potential lockout, and there is uncertainty about how much cap space there will be if there is a new CBA (if the owners have their way, the cap will be going down and some teams will struggle to fit under).

One thing nobody is talking about is that there being no salary cap effects things in two directions. It is true there is no cap ceiling, but there is also no cap floor. In prior years, teams need to account for money on the cap for at least 90% of the cap number. Now teams can spend as little as they want.

Many seem under the impression that the salary cap going away will actually increase bidding for players. The opposite might be true, because there are several factors which might keep teams from spending big money:

1) There are restrictions on FAs the top-8 teams can sign.

2) There could be a lockout in 2011, so teams may want to avoid paying big bonus money to players in advance of that lockout. If there is signing bonus money in contracts this year, teams will wish to make it tiered so some is paid out in 2011. If there is a lockout, they don't pay that money.

3) Without a cap floor, teams may look to spend as little as possible this year so they have money available to pay the bills (debt pmts, stadium costs) if there are no games.

4) Nobody knows what the cap will be if a new CBA is agreed to. The owners feel they got screwed last time, and they want less revenue to go towards players. That would mean the cap would actually go down, and if teams go nuts signing guys in an uncapped environment they may be in trouble if the cap goes down.

All these factors will limit money spent. It could be, guys are going to find much less money out there they they think, and it will spark accusations of collusion. With all the uncertainty surrounding this year, there are going to be some odd things going on.

[Goobylal]

With Dan Snyder around, I don't think there will be a whole lot of limiting spending. I see him going hog wild this off-season. Jones can't sign any players until he loses one. Do you see Kraft going after big names?

[ddaryl]

4) Nobody knows what the cap will be if a new CBA is agreed to. The owners feel they got screwed last time, and they want less revenue to go towards players. That would mean the cap would actually go down, and if teams go nuts signing guys in an uncapped environment they may be in trouble if the cap goes down.



This one kills me... All of these smart savy business men couldn't see that when they signed the damn thing...

Ralph being the annoying old fart that he is simply made a comment that he didn't quite understand it all and voted against it because it was a rushed vote... and he was crucified for it.

Now in hindsight we sure don't hear anyone bringing up the fact that 2 owners voted no on the contract that the majority of owners felt they got screwed on.

I don't know wether to laugh my ass off at the follies of the supposed wealthy business savy owners , or just cry because these same bozos are the ones that will decimate this game to the point where many fans will walk away eventually by not being capable of understanding what the hell they are even signing..

[bflojohn]

To sum it up, billionaires and millionaires killing the goose that laid the GOLDEN EGG!! Somehow, I am believing that they come to their collective senses and pony up a deal and keep labor peace?! Yeah, pie in the sky optimism, but what else is there to hope for in this mess? I can see a day where competitive balance comes to gigantic screeching halt! I really hate the new guard owners because it is ALL about them and not the National Football League. just an unsolicited editorial comment.... Thank you!!!!

[Dicknoze69]

One thing nobody is talking about is that there being no salary cap effects things in two directions. It is true there is no cap ceiling, but there is also no cap floor. In prior years, teams need to account for money on the cap for at least 90% of the cap number. Now teams can spend as little as they want.



I think the removal of the salary cap floor is being highly underestimated and may turn into free agency's biggest issue. I can definitely see a number of teams (the Bills being included) slashing payroll in order to make more money, either out of general greed or the desire to stockpile cash in case of a lockout.

[Ickybaluky]

With Dan Snyder around, I don't think there will be a whole lot of limiting spending. I see him going hog wild this off-season. Jones can't sign any players until he loses one. Do you see Kraft going after big names?

Bob Kraft, thus far, won't even pay his own guys. The Pats have been very leery of doing long-term deals the last year for big money, because of the CBA uncertainty and the potential lockout.

I'm not sure how to read what that means in terms of this coming FA season, but the Pats haven't done a long-term deal in a while. They have some key players at or near the end of their contracts (Wilfork, Mankins, Brady, Gostkowski) who will require a big investment to extend. Thus far, they haven't extended any of them.

[Ickybaluky]

I think the removal of the salary cap floor is being highly underestimated and may turn into free agency's biggest issue. I can definitely see a number of teams (the Bills being included) slashing payroll in order to make more money, either out of general greed or the desire to stockpile cash in case of a lockout.

I think so as well, especially for teams carrying a lot of debt.

I would expect to see the union being pretty active with accusations of collusion as well, which could end up up court.

[Goobylal]

Bob Kraft, thus far, won't even pay his own guys. The Pats have been very leery of doing long-term deals the last year for big money, because of the CBA uncertainty and the potential lockout.

I'm not sure how to read what that means in terms of this coming FA season, but the Pats haven't done a long-term deal in a while. They have some key players at or near the end of their contracts (Wilfork, Mankins, Brady, Gostkowski) who will require a big investment to extend. Thus far, they haven't extended any of them.
I wouldn't extend any player who's signed at least through 2010, because of the lockout. That makes sense. But what about a 1-year deal for a guy like Peppers?

[Ebenezer]

I think the removal of the salary cap floor is being highly underestimated and may turn into free agency's biggest issue. I can definitely see a number of teams (the Bills being included) slashing payroll in order to make more money, either out of general greed or the desire to stockpile cash in case of a lockout.


several of us have made that post regarding RW...it will be telling if Schobel retired and there is no effort to replace him other than with Maybin...

[superbills]

Bob Kraft, thus far, won't even pay his own guys. The Pats have been very leery of doing long-term deals the last year for big money, because of the CBA uncertainty and the potential lockout.

I'm not sure how to read what that means in terms of this coming FA season, but the Pats haven't done a long-term deal in a while. They have some key players at or near the end of their contracts (Wilfork, Mankins, Brady, Gostkowski) who will require a big investment to extend. Thus far, they haven't extended any of them.

Here's the thing... It's owners like Bob Kraft that are always successful. Why? Because they realize that management is the key to success, not expensive free agents. Kraft has put a mangement team in place that can find players to fit their budge, and they are quality players being fought by quality coaches. On the flip side you have Dan Snyder who instead finds a budget to fit the players he covets. When you approach team building strictly from a big name poin of view like Snyder does you rarely get what you pay for, and thus you get sucked into an endless spending cycle to try covering for past mistakes.

[Ickybaluky]

I wouldn't extend any player who's signed at least through 2010, because of the lockout. That makes sense. But what about a 1-year deal for a guy like Peppers?

I do think teams will be looking at shorter-term solutions to fill the gaps until they know what the rules are going to be with a new CBA. Barring a new CBA, I think teams will be hesitant.

I think if players are willing to take short-term deals like that then teams will line up to sign him. I'm not sure if a guy like Peppers, who is 30 years old, is going to be looking for a 1-year deal, though. He has been playing on 1-year increments for several years and probably would want more security.

[Ickybaluky]

With Dan Snyder around, I don't think there will be a whole lot of limiting spending.

I missed this the first time, but it would be hard for Snyder to do unless he wants to be doing 1-year deals. Just because there isn't a salary cap doesn't mean that salaries aren't accounted for, and when a new CBA was agreed to (and even if there is a lockout, eventually they are going to play football again) that team would be hosed.

For instance, lets say Dan Snyder goes nuts signing guys in 2010, then a new CBA is agreed to all that money would hit the new cap, which may be much lower, and he would have to blow up his whole team. In the last several years the cap has gone up at an unprecedented rate, which has kept guys like Snyder from getting in trouble. However, if the cap were to go down, and the owners want to reduce it by 18%, teams would find themselves in "cap jail" again.

You can't get away with front-loading the contracts either, because there are rules in place to limit ability to do that. If the 2nd year salary is 50% lower than the first year, then the difference is treated as signing bonus.

For instance, if Dan Snyder signs a guy like Peppers to a 4-year/$60M deal and pays him $30M in salary up front with $10M salaries each year after, then that would violate the rule. The $20M difference between the first year and 2nd year would be treated as signing bonus and spread at $5M per year over the life of the contract. Thus, Snyder would still be in trouble when a new CBA was agreed to and the cap took effect again.

If teams have loads of cap room they should be OK, but if they are unsure how much the cap will go down, then they are less likely to just spend, spend, spend.

[jamze132]

I vote for scabs. I just wanna watch some football. And it might be the best way for Buffalo to make the playoffs! :rofl: How sad...

[eee1776]

To sum it up, billionaires and millionaires killing the goose that laid the GOLDEN EGG!! Somehow, I am believing that they come to their collective senses and pony up a deal and keep labor peace?! Yeah, pie in the sky optimism, but what else is there to hope for in this mess? I can see a day where competitive balance comes to gigantic screeching halt! I really hate the new guard owners because it is ALL about them and not the National Football League. just an unsolicited editorial comment.... Thank you!!!!

Nascar had to learn there lesson the hard way..over pricing tickets to the point that they excluded the fans that made there sport to begin with..those good old boys.

[YardRat]

Should've listened to Ralph....

[Cntrygal]

To sum it up, billionaires and millionaires killing the goose that laid the GOLDEN EGG!! Somehow, I am believing that they come to their collective senses and pony up a deal and keep labor peace?! Yeah, pie in the sky optimism, but what else is there to hope for in this mess? I can see a day where competitive balance comes to gigantic screeching halt! I really hate the new guard owners because it is ALL about them and not the National Football League. just an unsolicited editorial comment.... Thank you!!!!

:up:

[YoungEz]

Well I guess this is somewhat good news for Buffalo and the NFL. The more the NFL can keep parody/a level playing field for all teams the more it will continue to thrive.

Going to a MLB type system would destroy the NFL, I know I for one would give up the NFL completely if it became the MLB

[trapezeus]

the argument from jones and synder is that less teams makes them more profitable. why have all these underperforming teams and share profits?

I don't agree with that, but for all our Obama is a socialist posters, i'd love to hear why they think profit-sharing is a good idea.


I'm of the opinion that the league needs the teams they have. the history, the fan base, the tv ratings. if you start pissing off the teams like buffalo, greenbay, minny and let them move to new towns like san antonio and LA, they forget that people who live there are actually born a fan of another team. i don't a san antonio resident who was a bills fan is going to be pschyed for the san antonion bulls or some nonsense.

I hope the NFL, if they are going to screw this up, screw it up so royally that a real lesson is learned.