Owners: Cap not absolutely necessary

[oldschooler]

[quote][size=5][b]Owners: Cap not absolutely necessary[/b][/size]
Story By DANIEL KAPLAN & LIZ MULLEN
Staff writers

Published April 07, 2008 : Page 01

Could NFL owners be actually considering life without a salary cap?

Facing labor uncertainty and rising costs, league officials and owners claim for the first time in nearly two decades to be thinking about such a scenario.

Long the foundation for the NFL’s economic and popular growth, the salary cap is still the business system the league prefers, even if the union, as it maintains, does not. But while the cap was considered sacred in the past, now some owners, and even Commissioner Roger Goodell, are publicly leaving open the possibility of a future without a cap.

“Analysis that we are going through right now indicates that it is difficult for our clubs to stay up with what we have to pay the players,” Goodell told reporters last week at the league’s annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla. “There are a lot of owners that aren’t concerned about an uncapped season from that standpoint because the salary cap is so high right now.

“We will continue to look and make sure we can find a system that works, and my presumption is that there may be some kind of salary cap, there may not be,” he added. The league also has a salary floor that is at least 85 percent of the cap.

John York, the San Francisco 49ers owners, called a cap “not absolutely necessary,” though like Goodell, he prefaced his comment by saying he preferred one.

NFL general counselFear of an uncapped season, in part, drove the owners in 2006 to cut a new labor deal that they now say is not economically feasible. Under the collective-bargaining agreement, the last year of the deal is uncapped, which usually gives the owners a great urgency to renew well in advance of that final season. Seen in that light, Goodell’s remarks could be a negotiating strategy to convince the union the league is no longer afraid of a future without a cap.

NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw responded in an e-mail, “I never wanted a cap in the first place. And I never will try to sell the players on one again.”

Jeff Pash, the league’s general counsel who is handling labor talks, said, “If I were the union, I would say that, too. That is the right pressure point to try to urge. If the union said ‘no problem if we go to an uncapped year, we will agree to do a cap at some point,’ that would change the dynamic. … The union feels as if the uncapped year is a big pressure point. I don’t know if that is right or not.”

Talk about life without a cap emerges as the league’s labor arm, the Management Council Executive Committee, has been for several months mapping out various options for new labor arrangements, including one without a cap.

The league and union are sparring over the current collective-bargaining agreement, which owners have denounced as disproportionately favoring the players. The owners can opt out of the deal on or before Nov. 8, which means 2010 would become the last year and one without a cap.

For that reason, some industry experts view the NFL’s newfound public acceptance of a possibility of no salary cap as a labor stratagem rather than a change of heart.

“I think it is psychological warfare,” said Bill Gould, Stanford Law School professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. “The players obviously believe the uncapped year is their leverage and this is an attempt to convince the rank and file it is not their leverage. It’s as simple as that.”

Many teams remain ardently for a cap.

“I think it is still something that the vast majority of the owners believe we should have,” said Art Rooney II, the Pittsburgh Steelers president. “We still probably have more competitive balance than most sports leagues, particularly baseball.”

Financial markets have also lent to the league and its teams in part on the confidence that the cap would keep a lid on player costs.

The idea that the NFL might be better off without a salary cap runs counter to conventional wisdom. In fact, the longest work stoppage in sports, the 2004-05 NHL lockout, was waged over NHL players’ refusal to accept a salary cap.

Historically, the NFL’s salary cap has been envied by the managements of the other three major team sports leagues. But that changed with the 2006 extension, when the percentage of league revenue paid to NFL players rose from about 54 percent to about 59 percent.

“The value of [the cap] is it instills some level of discipline in the system,” said Houston Texans owner Bob McNair. “But then the way it is now everybody is spending too much, so it’s not having the positive impact we would have hoped.”



[size=3][b]NFL Salary Cap[/b][/size]
Season Amount
2009* $123 million
2008 $116 million
2007 $109 million
2006 $102 million
* The NFL has agreed to a 2009 cap of at least $123 million
Source: SportsBusiness Journal[/quote]



[url="http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58586"]http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58586[/url]

[Jamie_B]

The idea of no cap is a scarry one, we would never stand a chance.

[globetrotter]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='650167' date='Apr 8 2008, 01:04 PM']The idea of no cap is a scarry one, we would never stand a chance.[/quote]

Exactly. Without a cap we become the pittsburgh pirates or Kansas city royals. If the NFL goes uncapped I want the bengals to either move cities or shut down. I will be forced to root for a product that has no chance whatsoever.

[Inigo Montoya]

Memo to league owners:

BREAK THE FUCKING UNION

[turningpoint]

I wouldn't mind no capp as long as the draft stays in tact.

Teams can pay a shit ton for talent, but all teams can remain competive as long as they agree to still keep a draft every april.

I mean we wont be at the bottom of the barrel too long if we're drafting a top 10 pick every where, while the Dallas Yankee's are stuck with the 28th pick or worse.

[Jason]

If they are going to get rid of the cap, then they seriously need to restructure free agency.

[joshua]

Football is supposed to be about strategy. If this happens, it will stop being about that and be about who can spend the most money.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='joshua' post='650180' date='Apr 8 2008, 01:27 PM']Football is supposed to be about strategy. If this happens, it will stop being about that and be about who can spend the most money.[/quote]
yup

[|Tigers Johnson|]

Very Interesting.....
[b]
UPSHAW TARGETED FOR REMOVAL[/b]
Posted by Mike Florio on April 8, 2008, 1:09 p.m.

After years (actually, decades) of virtually unquestioned authority over the NFL Players Association, long-time Executive Director Gene Upshaw faces the first real threat to his position.

According to Chris Mortensen of ESPN, Ravens kicker Matt Stover outlined in a Monday e-mail to other team player reps a plan for having a new leader in place by March 2009.

In the message, Stover mentioned a Friday conference call involving several player reps. “I was on that conference call and I am not the only rep who listened and felt that it is time for a change,” Stover wrote.

The full text of the Stover e-mail is right here.

The effort possibly is in response to recent comments from Upshaw in which he stridently declared an intention to ignore the union’s mandatory retirement rule until the right person is found to replace him, while also refusing to hire a second-in-command who could be groomed to do just that.

“There is only one No. 1 and there will not be a No. 2,” Upshaw told SportsBusiness Journal for its March 31 issue. “Number 2 is always trying to become No. 1 and never wants to wait. They can always do it better. They are like backup [quarterbacks]. There is a reason they are backups.”

Upshaw was characteristically defiant in response to the Stover e-mail. “Matt Stover has no clue,” Upshaw told Mort. “Whoever is pulling his chain is doing a disservice to the union. I could understand the idea that they need to get rid of me if I wasn’t doing a good job but, shoot, the owners are mad because they think I’ve done too good of a job.”

The problem is that it really is a bad time for the players to finally (how do I put this delicately?) grow a pair. The union has been doing things for years that, in our opinion, aren’t in the best interests of the players at large. But yet no one has ever done anything about it. Now, with the owners chugging toward an early scuttling of the current labor contract and serious negotiations needed in order to get an extension in place before the teams have to suffer the headaches of the last year with a salary cap in place, there isn’t enough time to make a change and get an extension in place before partial hell begins to break loose when the 2009 league year launches.

Then again, having a new Executive Director in position by March 2009 would give the new guy two years to work something out before all-out Armageddon arrives with the expiration of the CBA.

To be fair, Upshaw has done a great job in getting the players the biggest possible piece of the pie. But he has be involved in plenty of controversial issues, many of which haven’t previously stuck to him.

For starters, he gets paid way too much money for what he does. The players could find a highly capable and motivated Executive Director who would do the job for far less money than what Upshaw receives. In other words, Upshaw’s compensation doesn’t reflect the forces of the open market.

Also, he is too emotional and abrasive when challenged. Saying that Matt Stover “has no clue” isn’t the mark of a man who is capable of controlling his feelings and making objective and reasoned judgments. Last year, Upshaw said that he would “break [the] damn neck” of Hall of Fame lineman Joe DeLamielleure regarding the still-smoldering issue of benefits for retired players.

This isn’t the first time a player has complained about Upshaw. Two years ago, Vikings center Matt Birk called Upshaw a piece of something other than pizza. “Too many guys in the league just accept whatever Gene says,” Birk said at the time. “I don’t know why no one has called this guy out.”

Birk did, and now Stover is spearheading an effort to transform the effort into something more than periodic words.

But Stover might want to be careful. It’s a lot easier to break the neck of a kicker.


www.profootballtalk.com

[quote name='Jason' post='650177' date='Apr 8 2008, 12:22 PM']If they are going to get rid of the cap, then they seriously need to restructure free agency.[/quote]

That and ALL revenues need to be shared.....

...every team needs to have the exact same amount to spend each season.

[scharm]

Players need to think about how a non-capped NFL effects their signing bonuses. Today those are largely driven to avoid 1 year cap hits which alot of teams were forced to do initially because other teams started doing it.

If contracts are still not going to be gauranteed it would be interesting how this would play out.

Could be a big deal if all of sudden a 5 year 25 million deal actually was 5 mil a year pay as you go. instead of 18 over two years and maybe you get the rest in 3 years. Big change in thinking and could steal some job security from players that get lazy after they sign a deal knowing the upfront money and cap hit protects them from getting moved.

[globetrotter]

[quote name='turningpoint' post='650172' date='Apr 8 2008, 12:17 PM']I wouldn't mind no capp as long as the draft stays in tact.

Teams can pay a shit ton for talent, but all teams can remain competive as long as they agree to still keep a draft every april.

I mean we wont be at the bottom of the barrel too long if we're drafting a top 10 pick every where, while the Dallas Yankee's are stuck with the 28th pick or worse.[/quote]

That doesnt make much sense. if we are not at the bottom for long then we wont be getting a top ten pick. Plus every player we draft will only sign a 3-4 year deal with us and then go elsewhere. We will be exactly like the minor league Pirates.

Unless you changed the draft to make the order not based off your record but rather how much you pay in terms of salary.

[Cricket]

[quote name='turningpoint' post='650172' date='Apr 8 2008, 12:17 PM']...I mean we wont be at the bottom of the barrel too long if we're drafting a top 10 pick every where, while the Dallas Yankee's are stuck with the 28th pick or worse.[/quote]


...well, if the Dallas Yankees would pay their 28th pick more than you can afford to pay your top ten pick, then you just might have more than little trouble getting the contract signed.



...also, could teams then throw cash into trade offers? Dallas to Cincy: We'll trade you our 28th pick and $15 million for your 8th pick...

[Jason]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='650183' date='Apr 8 2008, 01:33 PM'][b]That and ALL revenues need to be shared.....[/b]

...every team needs to have the exact same amount to spend each season.[/quote]

Agreed. But that would NEVER happen. There are enough rich owners in the NFL that it wouldn't get the 24 votes required to pass.

If the cap ever goes away, all I can say is thank God for Ohio State football.

[Inigo Montoya]

[quote name='scharm' post='650184' date='Apr 8 2008, 01:33 PM']Players need to think about how a non-capped NFL effects their signing bonuses. Today those are largely driven to avoid 1 year cap hits which alot of teams were forced to do initially because other teams started doing it.

If contracts are still not going to be gauranteed it would be interesting how this would play out.

Could be a big deal if all of sudden a 5 year 25 million deal actually was 5 mil a year pay as you go. instead of 18 over two years and maybe you get the rest in 3 years. Big change in thinking and could steal some job security from players that get lazy after they sign a deal knowing the upfront money and cap hit protects them from getting moved.[/quote]


That's really the only upside I see to an uncapped year. Players need to realize that that upfront money gives them financial security and prohibitive cap hits give them job security. No cap takes both of those away.

The player's union will never get guaranteed contracts and the cap, with its emphasis on bonus money, is the closest they'll ever get.

[sparky151]

As long as revenue sharing and the draft are in place, the Bengals could survive the abolition of the cap. Most teams don't spend to the cap anyway, there is a lot of cap space around the league currently. Lerner or Bisciotti's teams could go on a free agent spending spree but results are mixed for teams that get high profile free agents.

[ThurmanMunster]

w/o a cap this would be worse than baseball. having only 25 players in MLB makes it a little easier but by having 53 players in the NFL it would be impossible for a small market team to EVER compete.

[BengalsOwn]

I don't see how it would be possible to compete if there was no salary cap. It is so hard to find a franchise QB, and once you do you have to pay them a lot of money. It'd be impossible without a cap.

Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder could look at Carson Palmer, and decide that he's worth a $60 million signing bonus. The Bengals couldn't match that. And Carson would be foolish to sign with the Bengals if they couldn't come up with $60 million.

There would need to be a minor leagues for football prospects.

It'd be a disaster.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Jason' post='650194' date='Apr 8 2008, 12:47 PM']Agreed. But that would NEVER happen. There are enough rich owners in the NFL that it wouldn't get the 24 votes required to pass.

If the cap ever goes away, all I can say is thank God for Ohio State football.[/quote]

I don't understand...If the NFL is less competitive, you will fall back on a team that has an unfair advantage in college football?

BZ

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='650421' date='Apr 9 2008, 01:46 AM']I don't understand...If the NFL is less competitive, you will fall back on a team that has an unfair advantage in college football?

BZ[/quote]


what is their unfair advantage?

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Bengals1181' post='650451' date='Apr 9 2008, 10:43 PM']what is their unfair advantage?[/quote]
TBDBITL!

[oldschooler]

[quote][size=5][b]Labor crisis clearly looming for NFL[/b][/size]
by John Czarnecki
Updated: April 8, 2008, 6:03 PM EST


Sometimes financial well-being simply doesn't compute. In a resort hotel where coffee costs over $6, many an NFL owner was kind of crying last week about money. Basically, they don't like the current disbursement of league revenue, which amounts to around 60 percent of everything to the players.

To a seasoned listener of this league, it is a foregone conclusion that this November these owners will opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement, one they approved 30-2 just before former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue retired. The vote to disapprove the current deal may be the same!

Granted, there is plenty of time to fix labor relations with the NFL Players Association. We're talking about the most popular sport in America, a virtual money-making machine lately. Yes, the salary cap, which is currently $116 million, may rise to $123 million next year, but there seems to be some concerns among many owners, especially those who own and control their own stadiums, that the individual club profit margin has slipped precipitously.

Let's give you a few examples. The St. Louis Rams may be worth $750 million based on the current Forbes structure, but they only cleared $10 million last season. That's really not a lot of money for such a big business franchise. I mean, some quarterbacks make more than that — and there is the rub. Some of these owners are earning less than their best player.

Obviously, there are a few rich teams like the Tampa Bay Bucs that remain $30 million under the salary cap while also producing a hefty profit of over $35 million last season. But teams like the Bucs are an exception, plus they won the South last season.

Markets like Jacksonville, Buffalo, Carolina, New Orleans, San Diego and San Francisco are being squeezed. Through the years, we have heard that Pat Bowlen, owner the Broncos, has never been good with money and now his new stadium and other expenses are pushing him into the red. Bowlen actually laid off employees last month to save a few dollars.

Nobody is opening their books, but little of this makes sense to the ticket-buying public. Invesco Field is sold out every game and the Broncos are very popular. How can the sky be falling?

Well, everything is going up, including player costs and coaching salaries. Wayne Weaver may want to sell his Jacksonville franchise, but he recently gave Jack Del Rio, his head coach, a raise to $5 million. Weaver felt compelled to keep Del Rio and pay him the going rate while his profit margin dwindles. It's called keeping up with the Joneses.

By opting out of the current deal, union boss Gene Upshaw believes the owners will go on a spending spree should the players reach the uncapped season of 2010. When you see very average offensive linemen earning $6 million a season, it is easy to accept Upshaw's point of view. But there are mechanisms in the deal — free agency goes from four to six years in an uncapped season, plus the franchise tag still exists and the top eight teams will be limited in what they can spend. Fans think Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who is currently charging $150,000 simply to have the right to purchase tickets in his new stadium, will buy players like the Yankees and Red Sox do in baseball.

Jones says he won't do it because history says the biggest payroll doesn't always win. Football is a team sport that relies on locker-room chemistry and solid coaching. After all, the Patriots won three titles with some bargain-basement performers and Tom Brady.


Could Jerry Jones turn the Cowboys into the Red Sox or Yankees in terms of spending? (Brian Bahr / Getty Images)

Also, the mechanism for 2010 is clear that the top eight teams record-wise from the 2009 season will be limited in their pursuit of free agents. In order to offer a player a $10 million contract, they must lose a player or players of equal value. Typically, though, in free agency the non-playoff teams spend the most money on free agents like the Jets, Raiders, Eagles, Vikings and 49ers have done this off-season. This is what Upshaw and the players are hoping for in 2010; that the weak teams will go shopping with unlimited checkbooks.

At the recent meetings in Palm Beach, I spoke with two owners of non-playoff teams who claim to have cleared $10 million or less this past season. They both said that they would use the 2010 season to clean up their economic mess.

"If I spend $40 or $50 million less on player salaries that year, I can start to get a handle on my franchise debt," one NFC owner said. "I think many of us who are in the middle of the economic ladder will curtail player spending and try to get our own houses in order. I guess a lot of us were either naive or didn't see the future very well when we agreed to this deal."

Who knows how serious the owners are about curtailing player payrolls? This is the same group that has gambled on the NFL Network and has collectively decided to stay the course there despite revenues well below what the eight-game package would have been worth had it been sold to Comcast or a national network.

But for the first time I actually heard an owner talking about a lockout for the 2011 season if there is no new deal with the players or if the federal court system doesn't impose a rational formula for labor peace. I was around for the 1987 season when three regular-season games were played by scabs off the street. I also witnessed the 1982 season that lost seven games to a strike.

"We're prepared to do that all again," the other owner told me. "I'm confident that the fans will come back even if they miss four to eight games that year. We have to get our finances under control."

With the Giants and Jets embarking on a $1.6 billion stadium in New Jersey and Jones building another billion-dollar park in Arlington, it doesn't make sense to have a dark cloud over the NFL's future. But we all know that people don't settle unless it makes sense to both sides. Right now, the current CBA doesn't make any sense to the owners and they sound ready for a serious fight.[/quote]







[url="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8000372/Labor-crisis-clearly-looming-for-NFL"]http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8000372...looming-for-NFL[/url]

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote]Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who is currently charging $150,000 simply to have the right to purchase tickets in his new stadium[/quote]



holy crap.

Please tell me that is either a typo, or a price for a suite?

to think I was less than excited about my $750 COA for my seats in peanut heaven @ PBS.

[ueberj]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='650467' date='Apr 9 2008, 09:13 AM']

holy crap.

Please tell me that is either a typo, or a price for a suite?

to think I was less than excited about my $750 COA for my seats in peanut heaven @ PBS.[/quote]

I just had an image of Jerry Jones, dressed in a toga and surrounded by various servants, yelling "MONEY BATH!"

[scharm]

So if the owners are successful in getting their house in order by reducing the amounts paid to players, what does that mean for fans?

From my memory of the NFL, players have always made a nice living. Since the start of unrestricted FA and new TV deals (early/mid 90s) they've made generation changing money. Meaning if handled right top to mid players could make enough money to take care of themselves immediate family and their kid's kids in a very short period of time.

I've got tickets with $23.50, $25.00, $28.00, $35.00 from the 1990s. I know my first replica jersey was about $35 and my first authentic was about $180.

I doubt the fans sees any turn back in prices.

In a related topic: This doom and gloom could be adding the craziness of Chad Johnson. Some players may feel that this is the last big go around before things change.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='650467' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:13 AM']

holy crap.

Please tell me that is either a typo, or a price for a suite?

to think I was less than excited about my $750 COA for my seats in peanut heaven @ PBS.[/quote]
I've read that in two other places...

granted I think that type of outlay is for the right to purchase seats... in a suite. But, that still isn't going to include the actual costs of said seats and suite.


And, there is no way anybody here could honestly think that an uncapped NFL would be anywhere close to as competitive as it is now. It would be like MLB, only worse. As someone pointed out - NFL rosters are twice as big which means the high revenue clubs in the big cities would be able to gobble up any and all talent that they'd like and stash it away. That would leave the crumbs to the lower revenue teams.

I'd lose interest extremely quickly as I have with baseball.