League rejects union offer to keep cap in place

Once upon a time, the NFLPA couldn’t wait for the salary cap to go away.  Since then, however, the union apparently has become acquainted with some of the niceties of the labor deal regarding the consequences of the evaporation of the per-team spending limit.

For starters, no cap means no floor.  Then there’s the increase in years of service for unrestricted free agency from four to six, and that pesky “Final Eight Plan,” which makes it very hard for the last eight teams standing to participate in the market — and damn near impossible for the final four to sign unrestricted free agents.

So now the union is desperate to keep the cap.  Albert Breer of the Boston Globe reports that the union made one last pitch to extend the rules that have applied from 2006 through 2009 into 2010.  Per Breer, the league rejected the proposal on Thursday.

As a result, the first uncapped year since 1993 will begin next Friday at midnight.

It’s not known what the union offered in exchange for the continuation of the salary cap.  But it means that there’s still a chance — slim as it might be — that the two sides will get a deal done before the clock strikes twelve on March 5, since the union could decide to take the best deal that’s on the table in order to keep a cap — and a floor — in place.

17 responses to “League rejects union offer to keep cap in place

  1. Why would the Union offer another capped year? They must believe money is going to be tight this off season. Maybe I’m wrong?

  2. They have over 200 reasons to keep the cap in place. Ask all the RFAs what they think of the uncapped year.

  3. No way they could go back now. Teams made franchise tag decisions based on players being RFAs instead of UFAs.

  4. @Sasquatch
    Very few players will get “cap breaking money”. Most players will lose big money because there is no floor though.

  5. Didn’t you read the article. Its about money. They get a a floor so a team doesn’t spend less than the minimum. They will also have players that can’t sign with teams based on the final 8 rule.
    But I can’t see why the league doesn’t see its in there best interest to get a deal done either. Competitiveness (ok excluding the Lions), money, it works for the game as well.

  6. “Why would the Union offer another capped year?”
    Because after all the posturing, the union is finally showing that it’s a paper tiger and that in spite of recent comments and actions to the contrary, that it knows full well of the relationship that the nail has with the hammer.

  7. Maybe we should be giving some kudos to the guys who crafted these regulations in the cba.
    To me it seems the situation could have gotten much worse. The owners still can put a bit more pressure on the players by simply refusing to throw money at FAs, whether they have the money or not:)

  8. Mmmh, I posted a comment earlier which has apparently been censored (working with your Chinese friends, Florio?)
    The gist was: We ought to be giving some kudos to the people who crafted these regulations in the current cba. The situation could have gotten much worse.
    On the other hand, the owners could (and will, in my eyes) put additional pressure on the players by simply not spending much cash in the looming free agency period. Gentlemen’s agreement.

  9. More politics by Smith, make a last minute offer he knows the Owners almost have to reject, so he can then blame them for that as well.
    He’s simply trying to make it look like he’s the good guy, and the owners are being totally uncooperative.
    In reality, I don’t think there is anyone who wants a lock-out more than Smith. Who can then prance in front of the cameras and try all sorts of legalese to break the NFL/Owners.
    If the players wanted to keep the money rolling into their accounts, without going through lock-out, they picked the worst rep possible.

  10. Seems like the league called the NFLPA’s bluff, and now the NFLPA is scared shitless. This puts them in a weaker position and makes it easier for the owners to get what they want.

  11. De Smith is an idiot and is bad for the game of football. I think the players are starting to believe this too. He is just trying to make a name for himself instead of looking out for the interest of the players. I hope they get a deal worked out. Going on strike would be the worst thing that could happen to this great game and the players who play it!

  12. If the union were smart, they would reject any CBA that has the “franchise tag” on it because all it does is reduce player salaries.

  13. I gets the union should’ve been careful what they wished for.
    Right? They did want the uncapped year, now realize it sucks, and scrambled for something half assed.
    How the hell does Smith look good coming out of this?
    How terrible is this that this whole damn thing is the Owners vs Smith.

  14. Am I the only one thinking/hoping that Troy Vincent joining the NFL MIGHT be a good thing. He already knows what it’s like on the players side, now he’s going to see how it is on the owners side. Even though it’s not in his title, maybe he can be a liaison between the owners and players, telling the players: This is what you can get from the owners, this is what you aren’t going to get from the owners and this is what you might be able to negotiate from the owners. The players might listen to him more than DeMaurice Smith.

  15. The “league” owns the NFLPA. It’s a nothing union that will eventually take whatever is on the table!

  16. Im kinda happy to see this going on with the Union and the NFL. Maybe we will see these damn ticket prices drop now that Owners are not willing to fork over big contracts and make “US” the fans pay a stupid premium to help pay for them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!