Is the franchise tag going to put the labor peace in the NFL in jeopardy

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Is the labor peace that is between NFL owners and players in trouble because of the franchise tag? It seems like that is one of the problems that the players have with their CBA and I am sure they want to get rid of that. Anyone else think this will be an issue?

[Ickybaluky]

Is the labor peace that is between NFL owners and players in trouble because of the franchise tag? It seems like that is one of the problems that the players have with their CBA and I am sure they want to get rid of that. Anyone else think this will be an issue?

No. The owners aren't real happy with the current way the franchise tag works either because the one-year deal generally takes such a large % of the current year cap, and the player is generally not happy with being tagged. It leads to more acrimony in negotiations and players missing minicamps and training camp.

The big holdup regarding the CBA is revenue. Up until now the cap was set based on a % of DGR (Designated Gross Revenues). There are two problems the NFLPA has with that:

1) They want DGR to include streams of revenue previously excluded from the calculation. DGR does not include revenue from the sale of luxury suites, preseason games, parking and some local marketing deals. Those are very lucrative revenue streams for the owners and they don't want them included in the cap calculation.

2) The NFLPA would like a larger % of DGR to set the cap. Last year, the cap was 64.75% of DGR, this year it is 65.5% and in 2006 it is 64.5% (since the CBS does not go beyond that, 2007 is an uncapped year). The minimum level of the cap is 56% of DGR.

#2 is very resolvable, and is the part of negotiations they normally work the hardest on. However, #1 is something the NFLPA is trying to get changed, and the owners do not want to give in on this point. That is the real sticking point in the negotiations for the new CBA.

[Ickybaluky]

BTW, excluded revenues are causing some problems between teams as well. Some teams make a lot of money in excluded revenues, which are not shared among the teams (unlike designated revenues, which are shared). Because of this, a great gap has been created between teams like Washington and Buffalo. Washington is so flush in cash from their excluded revenues, it puts them in a favorable position. They can afford to pay out big signing bonuses and play games with the cap by re-structuring deals. Buffalo does not make enough local cash to play those games.

There was a article today in the Providence Journal (http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/projo_20050320_20beat.2134028.html) on just this subject. Though the article does not go into great detail, it explains the basics.

[G. Host]

I think the players do not realize the costs of generating outside revenue and just want the gravy and do not want to pay for the cost of ingredients.