Comments on: 20 questions about the uncapped year

By: fashiongoods5

fashiongoods5 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:40:51 +0000

50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,
lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for
sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
http://www.tnta.US/
free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!
Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder
Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients’ choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price
ugg45$ puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!
new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps
true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35,nfl jerseys$20
LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35
NIKE SHOX AIR MAX TL3 OZ NZ ONLY $35
UGG TIMBLAND LACOSTE SHOES ED HARDY SHOES$35
DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

By: capguy

capguy — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:08:05 +0000

In response to Brewster’s question, Total Revenue (TR) is defined under the 2006 CBA. Consistent with the previous CBA, TR includes broadcasting revenue, gate receipts revenue, revenue generated by NFL Ventures (which encompasses NFL Properties, NFL Enterprises, NFL Productions, etc.), and various other sources listed under Article XXIV, Section 1(a). The major difference between the previous CBA and the 2006 CBA was the inclusion of the following revenue streams under TR: concessions, parking, local advertising and sponsorship agreements, and stadium club and luxury box income.
Including the aforementioned revenue streams under TR, thus forcing owners to share the majority of available revenue opportunities, allowed owners to reduce the total percentage of revenue shared under the 2006 CBA. The reasoning behind including these revenue streams as shared revenue was to reduce the widening revenue gap between large market teams and small market teams that was threatening parity in the league. The advent of guaranteed money allowed the high-revenue teams to spend more in sigining bonuses, attracting big time players with a minimal cap effect due to the proration of signing bonuses over the term of a contract. With more revenue available, they could dedicate it towards attracting players with large guaranteed money committments. Thus, restructuring the amount of revenue shared was an attempt to prevent this imbalance from continuing.

By: SThausen

SThausen — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:59:28 +0000

Thanks for the FAQ PFT crew!
I’ll side with the greedy players until the greedy
owners open their books.
With D. Rooney in Ireland, are their any reasonable owners available to broker the new deal
in 2011?
-Go Stillers

By: jeremynt

jeremynt — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:46:33 +0000

I’m still not totally clear on the restricted free agents: If a player refuses to sign his tender, does he just sit out a year and become a free agent next season or does the team continue to hold his rights? Also, how long of a window do other teams have to negotiate with restricted free agents? Until training camp? Preseason? The start of the regular season? Would teams be able to wait until after the draft so they could give up next year’s picks for one of these players instead of a pick this year? A team like the Redskins would benefit because this year they have the 4th pick in the rounds and next year it may be a bit lower (one can dream, anyway) making after the draft much more attractive for getting a RFA…. Thanks for the great info already!

By: RFM

RFM — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:38:55 +0000

Florio, I want to know how this effects the 2011 draft. I understand the draft will occur before the lockout if it comes to that. If a rookie is drafted in the top 10 by a team he doesn’t want to be on and is going to get locked out and not paid anyway, what is the probability that he would hold out and re-enter the 2012 draft? You’ve said the biggest recruiting tool is cash. With no cash-incentive in 2011, why sign with a crappy team? Likewise, a crappy team with a high first rounder in 2011 risks losing that draft pick without compensation if the player decides to re-enter in 2012, right?

By: blacktoothgrin

blacktoothgrin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:22:17 +0000

Great article, there are so many rules but it is hard to understand what is going on.
Island, thats a great idea, it would be great if the owners had the sack to do it. If the Rams hold fast then the other owners would have to as well.

By: bub4lyfe

bub4lyfe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:43:08 +0000

bluestree says:
March 4, 2010 9:45 AM
Dude, google the word lockout. I am amazed by all the people on this site that cannot grasp the concept. The players are not going on strike. Imagine if your boss came to you and said next weeks paycheck will be less than what you’re currently getting and if you don’t like it, I’ll change the locks so your key won’t fit the door. Get it? Sheesh.
============================
A new labor agreement (or lack thereof) wont affect the amount of money players under contract get paid as long as they show up. An owner couldn’t tell a player under contract that their salary will be reduced and if they dont like it then they’ll be locked out. At least that’s my understanding of how a contract works. as long as the player is willing to show up and honor their end of the contract dont the owners have to fulfill their obligations to pay the man?

By: dabarber

dabarber — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:44:44 +0000

Really good article.
As much as I don’t want a strike it would be nice to see these rich owners and overpaid players take a hit in the pocketbook to bring them back to reality.

By: pony

pony — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:02:27 +0000

You guys know that the bulk of a player’s salary is paid per game, right? So, a guy with, say, an $8mil salary gets a check of around $500,000 a few days later.
Put yourself in those shoes and consider in your mind what you’d be thinking if your friends asked you to strike.
No more checks. Another birthday rolls around. Ferrari in the driveway needs pricey maintenance and you’re down to 5 figures in your bank account. Mortgages, payments and taxes start probing your conscience…
They won’t strike.

By: tjstyles

tjstyles — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:46:28 +0000

It was mentioned before that the Saints could not sign or trade for a player like Julius Peppers because he is an UFA and they are top-4. Is the only scenario for the Saints or one of the other top-4 players to be able to sign a UFA that another team signs one of their UFAs? I understand the idea of limiting the best teams from being able to just spend money to get the players they want, but the not being able to trade for the player seems excessive. The team would be giving up assets to acquire an asset, and it seems pretty silly to not allow it. How long are they unable to make trades for that player? A season? The length of the new contract?
Also, I think it is sad that the players get targeted in this as the bad guys. The players are content with the current arrangement. The players not NOT asking for more money, they simply do not want a pay cut. The owners are the ones that have decided that they should get a larger cut of the revenue. They are the ones that have terminated the contract early creating the uncapped season. They are the ones that are not willing to reestablish the CBA now. If a lockout occurs, it will be because of the owners. The players cannot lock themselves out.
The owners were well within their rights to terminate the CBA early. But, the players are well within their rights to reject a new CBA that they do not wish to get into. If my work came to me and said they wanted to cut my pay but refused to show me that the company was making less money, I would refuse, too. Chances are I would quit and find a new job. NFL players don’t have that option based on how the NFL forces contracts to be set up.

By: bluestree

bluestree — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:45:00 +0000

bub4lyfe says:
March 4, 2010 8:51 AM
players wont strike, makin way to much money at this point. its one thing to strike back in the eighties when salaries were much lower. you think the guys making the big bucks are gonna walk away from tens of millions of dollars
============================
Dude, google the word lockout. I am amazed by all the people on this site that cannot grasp the concept. The players are not going on strike. Imagine if your boss came to you and said next weeks paycheck will be less than what you’re currently getting and if you don’t like it, I’ll change the locks so your key won’t fit the door. Get it? Sheesh.

By: airsomers

airsomers — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:41:04 +0000

The NFL is falling apart! First it started with excessive commercials (nothing like a touchdown followed by commercials, only to have the kickoff and go right back to more commercials), then comes the lost right of even touching the Quarterback. I’m starting to think that the game would be improved if we remove pads; like Rugby. Then the refs won’t be able to call “protective gear” a “weapon”… what a joke! And now this!? I can’t believe I’m saying this, but GO Soccer! At least they run around like mad-men for 90 minutes with like 1 or 2 commercials max! Football’s gone soft.

By: -RoNiN-

-RoNiN- — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:40:32 +0000

An excellent, factual based article.. and yet some people STILL complain!! How miserable are your lives?! LOL

By: 8man

8man — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:30:45 +0000

Really, really good stuff. To be honest, I didn’t understand all of the details.
I have a much better grasp now. I would imagine that all union negotiations have similar complicated issues.
Thanks.

By: No-Neck

No-Neck — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:30:24 +0000

I believe the 59% paid to the Players is the major sticking point. Normally, I’d side with the millionaires over the billionaires. But if you got guys like Kraft and Bolen crying foul, then the economics of the current CBA must be out of whack. I don’t see why the two sides can’t come to an agreement on this. I liken the business of the NFL similar to Hollywood. You pay the big stars the lions share, then you pay the minor role players, directors, and crew their due. The only difference is that a movie can become a huge hit or a flop, so the revenues may be uncertain. In the NFL, there are a set number of seats and games, so the revenues should be known. Now go split it up accordingly and lets play football.

By: simone007

simone007 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:12:02 +0000

Great article. Very informative
I stand still at the owner’s side. The only pay increase needed by nfl players is the veteran minimum

By: bub4lyfe

bub4lyfe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:51:52 +0000

players wont strike, makin way to much money at this point. its one thing to strike back in the eighties when salaries were much lower. you think the guys making the big bucks are gonna walk away from tens of millions of dollars

By: shaunypoo

shaunypoo — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:56:49 +0000

I am not a Mike Brown fan, but he was one of the first, if not the first, to voice his concern about the CBA and want to back out.

By: Burnum

Burnum — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:45:27 +0000

Hey, this is a good article by Florio, for once…

By: thunderdog

thunderdog — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:48:09 +0000

Good work. You made it through over 1,000 words without once using the word “tampering”.
I would add that a very rational reason that free agent spending may end up being down is due to the 200 would-be UFA’s who will be RFA’s. In other words, the pool of available free agents, as a whole, sucks.

By: pftfanboy

pftfanboy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:33:28 +0000

awesome post.
just think, in only a few short hours we can hear how stupid this article is and why you should never be able to write on anything, especially football.
i can’t wait.

By: zllabnkcoc

zllabnkcoc — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:46:13 +0000

Probably the most informative article you’ve ever written. Well done, Florio.

By: Darth Vader

Darth Vader — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:43:50 +0000

What happens to Cheerleaders salaries in an uncapped year and can they be hired for less than the normal vet. minimum?

By: Route36West

Route36West — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:36:01 +0000

I bet whatever team wins the Superbowl this year the other 31 team’s fans will make excuses why it wasnt fair and say it was only because of the rules of the uncapped year. No matter how asinine the arguement is.

By: BwB

BwB — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:20:20 +0000

great read Florio, very explanatory and touches on a lot of good things

By: rkell21

rkell21 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:18:06 +0000

Finally, a one stop shop for all things cap related. Kudos Florio.

By: McWest

McWest — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:03:52 +0000

I know Kevin Mawae intends to continue playing. But for argument’s sake, let’s say he retires. What recourse do the Ravens have in signing a FA to replace Mawae?
I’m not sure if this is unique to the Ravens, or if there’s other teams who have FAs who might retire.

By: mashoaf

mashoaf — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:53:04 +0000

You forgot to answer the most important question Florio…. Will the Hampsters be ready?

By: tdwapollo

tdwapollo — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:27:58 +0000

Great article. Thanks for putting in the time on this.

By: Island

Island — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:24:07 +0000

Well, at least you were able to stay awake for 5 minutes in order to write this.
Quick question – It seems that everyone is on board for a rookie salary slotting system á la NBA. Even though there is nothing in place, couldn’t the Rams stuff down the throat of whever they select a heavily incentive laden, bare bottom of the barrel base salary type deal and break the outrageous lottery deals that the overall #1s have been getting? If they perform, good. The player gets the loot. If he doesn’t, then he gets the boot, but doesn’t leave the team cash strapped until the Styx freezes over.
Think about it – If they refuse, then the Rams can squat on their rights for a year; i.e. no money. Next year, only God (and the owners) know if there is going to be a lockout or not, but if there’s no football, so that turns into no money again. The year afterwards, it is very probable that there will be a salary slotting system in place and another two year’s worth of college players in the waiting, so that would translate into losing the overall #1 draft position and ending up with much less lolly than if they had taken the original Rams offer.
It seems to me that, if the Rams GM has the petticoat, er I mean the bollocks to do it, they’ll be able to pull a Scrooge and keep the lolly to themselves instead of handing out a ‘get rich quick, no effort required’ card (see Russell, JaWalrus and Reaf, Lyan).