Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
naptownskinsfan

Salary Cap and Covid-19

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

If teams lose $80 million on the cap in a year, a lot of tough decisions on good players like Allen will need to be made across the league

The smart play is to trade him for another player at a position of need instead of outright releasing him, if the cap crunch dictates so.  If this cap issue comes into play, trades could be made in more volume than we've seen in the NFL, especially if teams have the depth at a position like we do on the DL. 

This could get very ugly should it get as bad as the owners will threaten to cut the salary cap by $75-80 million. Players have contracts, the owners signed on the dotted line and gave them those contracts. I would think they would strike if the owners are threatening to cut their salaries in half and I’ll be there on the picket line with them.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, turtle28 said:

This could get very ugly should it get as bad as the owners will cut the salary cap by $75-80 million. Players have contracts, the owners signed on the dotted line and gave them those contracts. I would think they would strike if the owners are threatening to cut their salaries in half and I’ll be there on the picket line with them.

The NFLPA also signed an agreement that the cap can increase or decrease based on revenue, and also guaranteed money vs non-guaranteed money in contracts. 

That is why their best bet is to negotiate with the "force majeure" reasoning to try and stave this off to allow further negotiations to happen to prepare for things a few years down the road.  

Losing $80 million in the cap would leave many teams unable to field competitive teams, while others with cap space would be signing great players for relative pennies on the dollar.  It would also lead to a lot of short-term deals as players would want to wait this period out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

The NFLPA also signed an agreement that the cap can increase or decrease based on revenue, and also guaranteed money vs non-guaranteed money in contracts. 

That is why their best bet is to negotiate with the "force majeure" reasoning to try and stave this off to allow further negotiations to happen to prepare for things a few years down the road.  

Losing $80 million in the cap would leave many teams unable to field competitive teams, while others with cap space would be signing great players for relative pennies on the dollar.  It would also lead to a lot of short-term deals as players would want to wait this period out.  

That sounds like those teams problems. I understand that that trickles down to the players as well, but as a labor representative myself I would not just easily give in to those demands and probably not at all with risk of losing future bargaining power and with the risk of losing faith that the players have in the NFLPA. 
 

At my job we are going through similar things right now and have been all decade with the downturn of the industry that the workers I represent work in and despite dozens of companies that represent our workers going through chapter 11 - including our largest employer right now - and soon to be a handful of other employers likely before the end of year we have been able to negotiate raises for our active workers all decade and while we have changed our HC benefits, it’s still a 90/10 plan and actually it will get better in the contract we just negotiated and the membership ratified a month ago.

The players have a lot of negotiating power here and the owners are far more wealthy then those in my industry who are also multi-millionaires. They players should use every negotiating piece that they have, including a strike as a last resort to maintain the teams current salary cap space and in turn their own salaries.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

That sounds like those teams problems. I understand that that trickles down to the players as well, but as a labor representative myself I would not just easily give in to those demands and probably not at all with risk of losing future bargaining power and with the risk of losing faith that the players have in the NFLPA. 

You can't throw out the word "partner" when it suits labor and then say "well, that sounds like YOUR problem" when it also suits your purposes. 

If it truly is the owners problem, then labor should not flinch the next time they are considered mere employees in the next CB negotiations.

The NFLPA signed the agreement that the cap can go up or down. To only assume it will always go up, is to assume no risk on the part of the players and only punt that risk to the owners. Which, if I'm an owner, I'm fine to assume. But in the next negotiation, since I'm assuming these types of risks by myself (despite the contract signed and agreed to by the players saying they agree to share that risk), the players shouldn't dare call themselves my "partners" in the future.

Look, I understand your broader point, but that also is why they need to start working with the PA now. Because those owners are not just gonna take those losses in the shorts. So some sort of agreement needs to be worked out ahead of time.

Trust me. I want labor peace so I can continue watching the game. Whatever the millionaires and billionaires need to figure out to ensure that? I'm good with it.

Here's one way to go --> Maybe they don't cut the cap at all, but the future rise of the cap in later years (for a period of years) will not be as large (it will still grow but - for example - instead of it growing by $10m one year, it only grows by $7m...and then that happens for a number of years so that the whole ting financially is basically a wash without the players actually losing money)?

Or --> make that year uncapped. But with teams who would normally be under the cap if the cap was dropped, those teams get an extra draft pick or more cap space for a few years after the cap returns to normal. So let's say if a team was $80m under the cap and the cap dropped $60m (leaving them only $20m under) that team would get an extra $60m to play around with over a period of 5 years after the cap returns to normal. The other teams that were over the cap if it dropped could continue to pay their players' salaries as they wanted, but could not sign anyone in FA (including their own UFAs). 

These are just two options I would consider as an owner that do not lower salaries for players and will hopefully keep goodwill in the league.

And I literally just thought them up. So they CAN both work together to craft something that is feasible.

 

Quote

The players have a lot of negotiating power here and the owners are far more wealthy then those in my industry who are also multi-millionaires. They players should use every negotiating piece that they have, including a strike as a last resort to maintain the teams current salary cap space and in turn their own salaries..

I disagree. They signed on the dotted line, a contract, that states the cap can go up or down (if triggers are met or not met). As for a strike? The players threatening one will just embolden the owners. The owners know the players cannot last through a long strike. As you mentioned, the owners are pretty wealthy. They have resources (stadiums can be used for other things, etc...), and access to capital, to weather a long strike. The players don't have that same resolve/resources. Which is why Dee Smith has to keep yelling at the players to save their $$ (which most never do).

 

Back to football. I doubt it gets lowered but if it does, I doubt the cap will be lowered that much, as it will cause a great deal of pain for a lot of owners when trying to field a team. The NFLPA is a secondary thought here in that regard (and not for some nefarious reason, just that the owners will think "no way am I gutting my team for this").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Thaiphoon The only thing I’m going to comment on is the second to last  paragraph, bc your proposals seem workable to me.

I would just say that while NFL players can only go so long w/o getting paid, they do have other ways to get income and let’s not forget that while the owners are some of the richest people in the USA and yes, they have the $ to hold out longer should there be a strike but, the owners are some of the greediest people in the entire world. We should all know this, they may be willing to give a little in order to get a lot more bc for them that’s better in the long run which has been proven for decades. Yes, players salaries have gone up 100x since the last players strike, but the revenue of the league has gone up more.

I mean God-dell earns over $40 million a year himself. I did see that he’s volunteered to forgo his salary this year which is nice, but the league is looking to furlough people and give pay cuts to those making over $100,000 a year. The good thing is that at this time they are not looking to cut the salaries of their employees who make less than $100,000.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

@Thaiphoon The only thing I’m going to comment on is the second to last  paragraph, bc your proposals seem workable to me.

I would just say that while NFL players can only go so long w/o getting paid, they do have other ways to get income and let’s not forget that while the owners are some of the richest people in the USA and yes, they have the $ to hold out longer should there be a strike but, the owners are some of the greediest people in the entire world. We should all know this, they may be willing to give a little in order to get a lot more bc for them that’s better in the long run which has been proven for decades. Yes, players salaries have gone up 100x since the last players strike, but the revenue of the league has gone up more.

I mean God-dell earns over $40 million a year himself. I did see that he’s willing to forgo his salary which is nice, but the league is looking to furlough and lay off people.

What other ways to get income?  If there is a prolonged strike, Panini isn't paying them to sign autographed cards.  They won't have nearly as much need for other memorabilia appearances.  They won't be making any residuals off jersey sales, and probably less off of other merchandise and endorsements.  The top 1% players with name recognition around the country will be fine with some of their other endorsements non-football related, but as a strike would go on, the fans will turn against the players and the NFL.  Just look at some of the other things that have happened over the past few years that aren't football related for an example.  

There is something I just heard about called Cameo, where celebrities can make Zoom call appearances, and someone quoted Roman Reigns as making $1,000 a day potentially.  But that's still likely 20% of what Roman makes with his WWE contract, and not even the minimum salary for a guy who makes the 53 man roster.  

@Thaiphoon has two realistic proposals and all parties win.  What we are seeing in MLB right now is that one party wants to win, and not make concessions.  Ultimately as fans, we want to see sports, but the millionaires and billionaires, most of whom will see more money in their career than anyone on this forum gets in a lifetime, need to work this out.  And I'm not going to take sides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

What other ways to get income?  If there is a prolonged strike, Panini isn't paying them to sign autographed cards.  They won't have nearly as much need for other memorabilia appearances.  They won't be making any residuals off jersey sales, and probably less off of other merchandise and endorsements.  The top 1% players with name recognition around the country will be fine with some of their other endorsements non-football related, but as a strike would go on, the fans will turn against the players and the NFL.  Just look at some of the other things that have happened over the past few years that aren't football related for an example.  

There is something I just heard about called Cameo, where celebrities can make Zoom call appearances, and someone quoted Roman Reigns as making $1,000 a day potentially.  But that's still likely 20% of what Roman makes with his WWE contract, and not even the minimum salary for a guy who makes the 53 man roster.  

@Thaiphoon has two realistic proposals and all parties win.  What we are seeing in MLB right now is that one party wants to win, and not make concessions.  Ultimately as fans, we want to see sports, but the millionaires and billionaires, most of whom will see more money in their career than anyone on this forum gets in a lifetime, need to work this out.  And I'm not going to take sides.  

AMEN. Especially the two bolded sections. I definitely make more than 50% of what a 7th rounder makes in salary. And, even though I don't throw money away (at times I do if you ask my wife), I couldn't afford to go on a years-long strike in my profession. And I know I take care of my money better than most of the players in the NFL. 

My point was just this...

Both sides have incentive to ensure this gets done. They both can't just point to the other side and say "that's your problem" given that they both signed on the line and the contract states what it states. But if I were taking bets as to who could come out better in a work stoppage (strike), I'd bet the owners would. For the reasons that I mentioned (owners have more $$ saved up and access to capital/financing and an ability to use the stadiums to make money). That's just stating my opinion and not me taking sides here. Because at the end of the day you are correct. Both sides will see more money than most people will see in a lifetime. And they can easily work something out to ensure that everyone comes out okay without resorting to "I'm gonna 100% keep things the way they are and you'll have to bend over because it's YOUR problem". Because in THAT scenario, everyone loses (including us)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

What other ways to get income?  If there is a prolonged strike, Panini isn't paying them to sign autographed cards.  They won't have nearly as much need for other memorabilia appearances.  They won't be making any residuals off jersey sales, and probably less off of other merchandise and endorsements.  The top 1% players with name recognition around the country will be fine with some of their other endorsements non-football related, but as a strike would go on, the fans will turn against the players and the NFL.  Just look at some of the other things that have happened over the past few years that aren't football related for an example.  

There is something I just heard about called Cameo, where celebrities can make Zoom call appearances, and someone quoted Roman Reigns as making $1,000 a day potentially.  But that's still likely 20% of what Roman makes with his WWE contract, and not even the minimum salary for a guy who makes the 53 man roster.  

@Thaiphoon has two realistic proposals and all parties win.  What we are seeing in MLB right now is that one party wants to win, and not make concessions.  Ultimately as fans, we want to see sports, but the millionaires and billionaires, most of whom will see more money in their career than anyone on this forum gets in a lifetime, need to work this out.  And I'm not going to take sides.  

Yeah, I mean things like that, I didn’t mean they could supplement their entire salary and they can get unemployment plus the union may have a Strike Fund, my union has about $125 million in a strike fund should our workers have to go on strike. We started that Fund in the 80s and active workers contribute into it every month.

Well I’ve always taken workers sides, it isn’t changing. I was born to a union representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

AMEN. Especially the two bolded sections. I definitely make more than 50% of what a 7th rounder makes in salary. And, even though I don't throw money away (at times I do if you ask my wife), I couldn't afford to go on a years-long strike in my profession. And I know I take care of my money better than most of the players in the NFL. 

My point was just this...

Both sides have incentive to ensure this gets done. They both can't just point to the other side and say "that's your problem" given that they both signed on the line and the contract states what it states. But if I were taking bets as to who could come out better in a work stoppage (strike), I'd bet the owners would. For the reasons that I mentioned (owners have more $$ saved up and access to capital/financing and an ability to use the stadiums to make money). That's just stating my opinion and not me taking sides here. Because at the end of the day you are correct. Both sides will see more money than most people will see in a lifetime. And they can easily work something out to ensure that everyone comes out okay without resorting to "I'm gonna 100% keep things the way they are and you'll have to bend over because it's YOUR problem". Because in THAT scenario, everyone loses (including us)

While the owners definitely have the financial funds to last longer, you can’t have a league w/o the players. It’s the same w/ every job in the world, business owners can’t operate what they want to do and make $ - unless it’s a really small business - w/o their workforce.

They both have some incentive to get this done but, I’m just saying the players shouldn’t give away the farm just to play games, like they do in college football where they make all the $ for the program but don’t get paid in return.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

They both have some incentive to get this done but, I’m just saying the players shouldn’t give away the farm just to play games, like they do in college football where they make all the $ for the program but don’t get paid in return.

Oh, I don't expect them to like it. But if the contract states that the cap can go down and IF the owners correctly follow the provisions of the CBA in reducing it, there's not much the players can do.

Take them to court? The judge just points to the language in the contract and kicks the case out.

Strike? We know how that will go for the players. And while the CBA just got agreed to, the players will ensure that the owners don't forget this when the next CBA gets negotiated.

Both of the above are net negatives for the players. 

So if I were advising them, I'd be strongly towards reaching out to the owners now and seeing what they can work out. Because sitting there and saying "it's the owners' problem" is quickly gonna make it the players' problem in the end.

Quote

you can’t have a league w/o the players. It’s the same w/ every job in the world, business owners can’t operate what they want to do and make $ - unless it’s a really small business - w/o their workforce.

Yes and no. Business owners need labor. That is true (unless it's completely automated and even then they need labor to keep the machines working, etc...). But what businesses don't HAVE to do is to keep THAT labor. If the players strike, the owners can just field a scab team like they did before. And with COVID keeping everyone in their homes and no sports, I guarantee you that millions would watch a new version of "The Replacements". 

Remember, if the CBA states the cap can go down and the owners follow the provisions in the CBA to reduce the cap, there's nothing the players can do about it short of immolating themselves (metaphorically speaking) in which they still will be back at the same position on this time they have now pissed off the owners (who again are only following the CBA).

Still, it is in the interest of the owners to try to come to terms with the players to ensure that they have peace for the next 9 years and get through this short term issue. 

Lastly:

Quote

While the owners definitely have the financial funds to last longer,

Stop.

Full Stop.

This is why I said that the players' bargaining position is not on stable ground. The owners have watched the players (who most are a hair's breadth away from living paycheck to paycheck) buckle time and again when it comes to work stoppages. The last time was the lockout and the players eventually gave up and rolled over. The result was a huge win (relatively speaking) for the owners at the table. This recent CBA was pretty even down the middle because neither side got too entrenched and both were willing to talk to each other and get a deal done. I like it when that happens. A good deal to me is when both sides walk away both happy with what they got and a little disappointed they didn't get everything they wanted.

 

So back to football. My official position is much like yours and @naptownskinsfan. They BOTH need to get an agreement done soon in order to prevent either side from "getting their backs up" and making stupid, emotionally based, decisions that entrench both camps into a WW1 type of trench warfare (again - metaphorically speaking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap only shrinks if the players' salaries shrinks. The players union and the owners arent going to let one decrease without a correlating move with the other.

If the season is only 12 games and the salary cap is reduced by 25%, then players' salaries cap hits will be reduced by 25% (and likely their actual salaries).

This whole concept is .... dumb. More than likely the owners will have some sort agreement to not manipulate the cap, and anyone who does will be penalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Slateman said:

The cap only shrinks if the players' salaries shrinks. The players union and the owners arent going to let one decrease without a correlating move with the other.

If the season is only 12 games and the salary cap is reduced by 25%, then players' salaries cap hits will be reduced by 25% (and likely their actual salaries).

This whole concept is .... dumb. More than likely the owners will have some sort agreement to not manipulate the cap, and anyone who does will be penalized. 

Mara is getting ready to target the Redskins and Cowboys again 

John Mara Walking into the Giants Locker Room at Halftime to ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another reason why the cap could fall.  MLB revenue is 40% at the gate to put this into another perspective, and why they are still fighting over contracts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×