Rookie Salary Cap? Help?

[Ravage!!!]

It seems to be that most believe the rookie salary cap is a necessity. But the question remains, how would that work? So I'm hoping someone here can explain to me how they think a cap could/should work, and how it will benefits both sides, as I have a lot of questions.


Since rookies are only rookies for one season, then what kind of contract do they sign after being drafted?? We can't expect them to sign long-term deals (4-5-6-7) if their pay is being restricted from day one. So how long is their initial contract, 1-2 years?

Lets say its a 2 year contract that they sign. Then what? These players are then graded by their individual team and given a contract extension offer? Under what 'designation' does the team own them after the 2-year contract is up? Do they have to reach certain incentives to be designated differently? If a player hasn't "lived" up to his drafted position (which again, is arbitrary) in 2 years, can he be traded, can he be hired by another team, is he a UFA, or will the team that drafted him basically have the opportunity to screw him by having the ability to not let him go and not offer him a higher amount?

If its placing a tender on the player, what kind of compensation is the player guaranteed if you put a 1st or second rounder on him? Since EVERY rookie in the NFL will now have a 2 year contract, how many tenders is each team allowed to have, one for each drafted rookie?

If its a salary imposed cap... can teams renegotiate after just ONE year of the contract, or is that not allowed? If that's not allowed, then every team will have ALL their 2-year-old rookies available...each and every year. If it IS allowed, isn't that basically circling around the rookie cap?

Lets use Sam Bradford as an example. He has a 2 year contract under the new rules of the CBA rookie salary cap. After two years of playing, is he available for other teams to pick up? Must the Rams put a high tender on him, and if so, what team doesn't offer up the 1 or 2 first rounders for him?

Does he have to stay with the team that drafted him? If so, why? If not, then doesn't this again take AWAY from the value of having a top pick in the draft, knowing they could leave after two years? Does a team have to use the Franchise Tag on him in order to keep him (but then again, wouldn't teams offer up the 2 first round picks that is needed to trade for a 2nd-year franchise tagged player)? If thats the case, can they put the Franchise Tag on him for more than one year? If not, then a team has the ability to only keep their #1 overall pick QB for 3 whole years.


What about a guy like Aaron Rodgers? A guy you take in the first round, but sit behind a veteran QB for 3. If his 2nd contract is based off of incentives and living up to his draft position (still unsure as to how that will be defined, but I'm sure incentive laden), then whats the incentive of owner's/GMs/coaches playing their rookies their first season? Wouldn't it be an incentive NOT to play them since its the 2nd contract that will matter anyway? What kind of recourse does a player like Rodgers have, if he's drafted and forced to sit? If he's not reaching incentives to get a bigger contract, he can't go UFA, and doesn't have the chance to play.... he just gets screwed despite being a first round pick?

Perhaps Im making things more difficult than they are?? Can someone explain how THEY believe things will work themselves out to be?

[underrated29]

I thought it would be like hockey a pre negotiated pay scale.

1-3 picks make xmillion lets say 10 just for fun

4-10 picks make x million lets say max of 8 for run

11-20 makes x mill, lets say 5 etc etc etc.



however, med from the OM said it would Never ever be that way. So I have no clue either.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Not sure if this article helps explain it or not.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/01/06/the-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-is-ridiculous-could-open-door-for-rival-league/

[BroncoJoe]

I've worked in sales nearly my whole life. Pay for performance. Get a solid base, plus what you "earn".

Pretty simple, IMO.

[Juriga72]

From what I have heard and seen about this... The NFLPA wants NOTHING to do with anything that restricts the earnings of any of its members.

They would much rather have 1-2 rookies making all that money ( Bradfords 40 mill) versus 10-15 vets making 800-1 mill/year....

Smarts... I thinkers. Because no vet has been cut due to the fact he's making money he's earned.

[SR]

The NHL has a rookie salary cap and it works. I don't see why it wouldn't work in the NFL.

[BigSarge87]

Why wouldn't the NFLPA be for it? Vets aren't getting the contracts they feel they deserve because all the money is going to secure draft picks and owners don't want to drop that much coin on an unproven commodity. They too would rather save that money to spend on veterans who have proven themselves. Rightly so.

That's why the Rookie Pay scale is mostly referred to as a slam dunk for the new CBA. I thought just working out the details (as the OP is suggesting) is the problem.

[Ravage!!!]

So no one has any answers as to how it will work, just the attempt to compare commissions to NFL salaries (its not the same thing, we can't compare it at all).

The article that Carol offered was interesting. One that makes a lot of sense. Although, doesn't really tackle the questions that would absolutely need to be dealt with if they were to have a rookie salary cap.



Here is my prediction. I don't think the owners really care about the rookie hits. I think thats something they lay their hat on, to get the public in on their side. As the article (that carol provided) points out, if owners really didn't want to pay those top salaries, they could either 1) refuse to pick, which is their right or 2) trade to lower positions without demanding such high compensation...which is their right as well. NEITHER has happened.

I think the owners are using this as a chip they will eventually "give in" on, and give the players association closer to what THEY want, so that the owners can then gain leverage on GETTING something the owners truly DO want. We've seen teams have a LOT of left over salary cap money, and it doesn't go to the vets. So I dont think reducing the salaries to rookies is going to give more money to the veterans, I think it gives more money to the owners. So yes, they will try to get it, but if they can "give in" to this and gain a higher percentage of soemthing else.... they will.

I think there are just too many difficulties with the rookie salary cap, and I don't see it happening. Now, I can be totally off my rocker and completely wrong. This is my guess on whats going to happen. But there are a lot of questions, and difficulties, in creating a rookie salary cap. Not even mentioning the thought that it could open the door for other football leagues to come in, and offer more money to the rookies... and not ask them to take an 80% cut in what they are getting now.

[BroncoJoe]

So no one has any answers as to how it will work, just the attempt to compare commissions to NFL salaries (its not the same thing, we can't compare it at all).

Nice condescending post. Let me know when your OPINION matters in NFL circles.

And, you're wrong (IMO). They should be paid BASED ON PERFORMANCE!

Much like a sales person's commissions.

[dogfish]

Not sure if this article helps explain it or not.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/01/06/the-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-is-ridiculous-could-open-door-for-rival-league/

no offense to you of course, carol, but that's one of the dumbest things i've ever skimmed. . . a rookie cap is going to fuel the rise of competitive leagues?

not ****ing likely!

what, are the montreal allouettes or the florida tuskers going to come up with tens of millions of dollars to steal top college stars from the NFL?

give me a break. . .

[Ravage!!!]

Nice condescending post. Let me know when your OPINION matters in NFL circles.

And, you're wrong (IMO). They should be paid BASED ON PERFORMANCE!

Much like a sales person's commissions.

I didn't mean it to be condescending, Joe. But we can't compare NFL salaries to commissioned sales staff. The players bring in BILLIONS of dollars in revenue. That won't be, nor shouldn't be, compensated purely on a good season or bad season. Sales people don't put their future health at risk. Thats why the NFL CIRCLES have contracts and players want guaranteed money instead of the "performance laden" deals. They are completely different, and not even in the same galaxy as being the same.

You pay an actor upfront money to make a picture because of the audiences he brings based on his name. You don't pay him based on how "well" he acted in the picture. These guys are entertainers and HUGE HUGE revenue collectors.

[Ravage!!!]

no offense to you of course, carol, but that's one of the dumbest things i've ever skimmed. . . a rookie cap is going to fuel the rise of competitive leagues?

not ****ing likely!

what, are the montreal allouettes or the florida tuskers going to come up with tens of millions of dollars to steal top college stars from the NFL?

give me a break. . .

There was a league that stole certain players such as Jim Kelly, Hershell Walker, Reggie White, Doug Flutie, and Steve Young,as well as many others from the NFL at one time. There was talk of another football league just two years ago which had the backing of many big money names.

you never know what might open the door to some of these college kids taking a look at other leagues. Money talks.

True, none will compete with the NFL, but if they can snag

[BroncoJoe]

I didn't mean it to be condescending, Joe. But we can't compare NFL salaries to commissioned sales staff. The players bring in BILLIONS of dollars in revenue. That won't be, nor shouldn't be, compensated purely on a good season or bad season. Sales people don't put their future health at risk. Thats why the NFL CIRCLES have contracts and players want guaranteed money instead of the "performance laden" deals. They are completely different, and not even in the same galaxy as being the same.

You pay an actor upfront money to make a picture because of the audiences he brings based on his name. You don't pay him based on how "well" he acted in the picture. These guys are entertainers and HUGE HUGE revenue collectors.

You've probably never been in a sales position. I've brought in millions of dollars of revenue to companies I worked for, yet didn't demand 1/2 or more of their revenues.

Is it the GAME or the player/participant? I'd venture a guess the NFL would survive without all the highly paid / "entertainers".

In your scenario, people serving our country should be the highest paid people in the world. They ACTUALLY put their lives/health on the line.

It's just a game dude. They should be paid for their contribution to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Ravage!!!]

You've probably never been in a sales position. I've brought in millions of dollars of revenue to companies I worked for, yet didn't demand 1/2 or more of their revenues.

Is it the GAME or the player/participant? I'd venture a guess the NFL would survive without all the highly paid / "entertainers".

In your scenario, people serving our country should be the highest paid people in the world. They ACTUALLY put their lives/health on the line.

It's just a game dude. They should be paid for their contribution to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its just a game that they play, but that GAME is the very crack of this nation. We are addicted to it. Nothing.. NOTHING..... compares to the revenue that NFL brings on an entertainment bases.

Why is it that we are so ok with the owners making mega millions, but bawk at the very people that are actually doing the entertaining are getting paid??

The owners would LOVE to have salary based purely on performance. They would get TONS more money, and absolutely not deal with ANY risk whatsoever. They would be the first one to sign up for that deal. Each year, new contracts, based on last year's performance.

So I'm confused as to what you are arguing about.... that there should be a rookie salary cap (which I certainly NEVER said there shouldn't be)...or that players should purely be paid on what they "sell" for the year. Because commissioned sales isn't their business.

Their "contribution" is putting butts in the seats. Simply hiring a kid out of college, can make the owner MILLIONS without that person even playing a single down. But because he was drafted, they are selling more tickets, more boxes, more jerseys... and making more money. THAT is a contribution.

[MadMax]

I posted this earlier in a thread about the CBA work stoppage but thought it would be good food for thought here:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/10/numbers-show-nfls-economic-realities-for-lockout-unwarranted/


Have rookie wages grown?

Actually, the amount of rookie share of the salary cap has decreased since 1994:

* 1994 (first capped year) – 6.86%
* 1999 – 5.41%
* 2003 – 4.94%
* 2009 (last capped year) – 3.71%.


I didn't run the numbers, there may be another factor affecting this, but it sure makes it seem like the NFL is taking advantage of the media harping on the salary the 1st overall pick gets, to paint the picture that rookies are overpaid. When in fact, the other rookies are getting less(proportionally) then they were before.

I'm with you, I don't know how they do a pay scale that's fair to everyone. I do want one, because it sucks not getting rookies into camp until halfway through. But the NFL could really take advantage of these guys with a rookie pay scale which allows multi-year contracts in addition to franchise tags.

I think the NFL is a different beast than the NHL, there are guys who turn into legends from year one, who could get severely taken advantage of. Then there are guys that look like a sure thing that turn in to busts, nobody should get paid for doing nothing, but a large rookie contract is essentially the only thing they will ever earn for everything they've done up through college.

[Ravage!!!]

I posted this earlier in a thread about the CBA work stoppage but thought it would be good food for thought here:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/10/numbers-show-nfls-economic-realities-for-lockout-unwarranted/



I didn't run the numbers, there may be another factor affecting this, but it sure makes it seem like the NFL is taking advantage of the media harping on the salary the 1st overall pick gets, to paint the picture that rookies are overpaid. When in fact, the other rookies are getting less(proportionally) then they were before.

I'm with you, I don't know how they do a pay scale that's fair to everyone. I do want one, because it sucks not getting rookies into camp until halfway through. But the NFL could really take advantage of these guys with a rookie pay scale which allows multi-year contracts in addition to franchise tags.

I think the NFL is a different beast than the NHL, there are guys who turn into legends from year one, who could get severely taken advantage of. Then there are guys that look like a sure thing that turn in to busts, nobody should get paid for doing nothing, but a large rookie contract is essentially the only thing they will ever earn for everything they've done up through college.

Interesting.

Really, I was hoping someone had heard/read or knew of some kind of plan that was proposed as to how it would be handled. Seems there is a LOT to the equation, and although the 'rookie salary cap' has been talked about for MANY years now, I just don't think its really a BIG deal for the owners. I think the owners are using the economic times to get the public in on their sides on this, but this was NEVER a big deal to the owners for many many years.

But really. Im just truly interested, to learn what might be the ins-and-outs of how it would work if one is installed.

[BroncoJoe]

I'm guessing Ravage!!! is a Democrat.

[MadMax]

I'm guessing Ravage!!! is a Democrat.

I guessing I couldn't care less, this being a sports forum and all.

[The Glue Factory]

When I read the OP my reaction was that it will work however the NFLPA and NFL agree it will work. Lots of options to be explored by both parties and seeing as a new CBA is a long ways off it doesn't make a lot of sense (to me at least) to get my undies in a bunch about it.

[SR]

So no one has any answers as to how it will work, just the attempt to compare commissions to NFL salaries (its not the same thing, we can't compare it at all).

The article that Carol offered was interesting. One that makes a lot of sense. Although, doesn't really tackle the questions that would absolutely need to be dealt with if they were to have a rookie salary cap.



Here is my prediction. I don't think the owners really care about the rookie hits. I think thats something they lay their hat on, to get the public in on their side. As the article (that carol provided) points out, if owners really didn't want to pay those top salaries, they could either 1) refuse to pick, which is their right or 2) trade to lower positions without demanding such high compensation...which is their right as well. NEITHER has happened.

I think the owners are using this as a chip they will eventually "give in" on, and give the players association closer to what THEY want, so that the owners can then gain leverage on GETTING something the owners truly DO want. We've seen teams have a LOT of left over salary cap money, and it doesn't go to the vets. So I dont think reducing the salaries to rookies is going to give more money to the veterans, I think it gives more money to the owners. So yes, they will try to get it, but if they can "give in" to this and gain a higher percentage of soemthing else.... they will.

I think there are just too many difficulties with the rookie salary cap, and I don't see it happening. Now, I can be totally off my rocker and completely wrong. This is my guess on whats going to happen. But there are a lot of questions, and difficulties, in creating a rookie salary cap. Not even mentioning the thought that it could open the door for other football leagues to come in, and offer more money to the rookies... and not ask them to take an 80% cut in what they are getting now.

All you have to do is google the NHL rookie contract salary limitations. It's pretty simple. A rookie contract for x-amount of dollars will allow for a max pay of x during their first year, a max pay of x for their second year, etc. Not a hard concept.

[SR]

In your scenario, people serving our country should be the highest paid people in the world. They ACTUALLY put their lives/health on the line.


I'd be absolutely okay with that.

[horsepig]

You've probably never been in a sales position. I've brought in millions of dollars of revenue to companies I worked for, yet didn't demand 1/2 or more of their revenues.

Is it the GAME or the player/participant? I'd venture a guess the NFL would survive without all the highly paid / "entertainers".

In your scenario, people serving our country should be the highest paid people in the world. They ACTUALLY put their lives/health on the line.

It's just a game dude. They should be paid for their contribution to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem Joe, is that these are not "regular joes", so to speak. They are the absolute elite in a short lived profession that involves considerable physical risk to immediate money earning ability.

These guys are not the guy next door, they have, for the most part, proven themselves to be worthy of performing on perhaps the biggest stage in the U.S.

I do not see problems that are unsurmountable, i.e., Rodgers; pay him his #1 pay scale until he flourishes and becomes WORTH more, not jusr to you, but to other teams also. Then let the bidding begin, but in the mean time nobody, not even the crypt keeper has to pay a slug like JaFatty zillions for nothing.

[horsepig]

Also, it should be structured so that a team cannot lockup a player like Rodgers without him being available to bidding wars. If the crypt keeper wants to pay him a zillion, you'll have to match it or lose him.

[rcsodak]

Like anybody here would know, but my guess, is that their guarantees wouldn't be $50million before they even take a snap.

Maybe they'll get smart and start instilling some drive into rookies by basing their contracts on incentives.

Gee....what a thought.


:coffee:

[Nomad]

I agree with Joe's, SR's, and RC's posts.....nothing more to add!!

[Lonestar]

Like anybody here would know, but my guess, is that their guarantees wouldn't be $50million before they even take a snap.
Maybe they'll get smart and start instilling some drive into rookies by basing their contracts on incentives.
Gee....what a thought
:coffee:

Good post.
The way I see it as the top rounds will get less and the bottom rounds will get more in guaranteed money.
This morons should not get guaranteed money. Other than a one year base nothing else
Then have to produce for anything above that. Just like I'm the real world.

Now the nflpa might not like it. The veterans are going to throw the rookies under the bus on this one, ansld since rookies do not vote on approving a contract there wil be a rookie scale of some sort. In this upcoming CBA.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Ravage!!!]

All you have to do is google the NHL rookie contract salary limitations. It's pretty simple. A rookie contract for x-amount of dollars will allow for a max pay of x during their first year, a max pay of x for their second year, etc. Not a hard concept.

It's not that easy. As I've asked in the OP.. you can't expect them to play out their "only so much of a raise" contracts their entire career, thats not a "rookie" salary cap. Thats extending into veteran play.

So how long does this "x max pay" go? Can't keep paying a veteran under "rookie salary cap" rules. They aren't a rookie after their first year, technically, and we know the vets aren't going to agree to the NFL sanctioning they "max" amount of money they can get paid for their time in grade based on a rookie salary cap.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

[BroncoJoe]

Compare JaMarcus Russell to Tom Brady.

End of story.

Pay for performance. Doesn't require a rocket scientist or a "smart poster" to figure that one out.

[SR]

It's not that easy. As I've asked in the OP.. you can't expect them to play out their "only so much of a raise" contracts their entire career, thats not a "rookie" salary cap. Thats extending into veteran play.

So how long does this "x max pay" go? Can't keep paying a veteran under "rookie salary cap" rules. They aren't a rookie after their first year, technically, and we know the vets aren't going to agree to the NFL sanctioning they "max" amount of money they can get paid for their time in grade based on a rookie salary cap.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

They may not be a rookie after their first year, but they're still playing out their rookie (as in first) contract. If guys like Sidney Crosby, who is one of the best hockey players ever, can do it without bitching and while paving his way and making a name for himself, I'm sure these primadonna NFL rookies can do it.

It's a culture change, and not likely one people will like, but if they want to play in the NFL, it's a change they'd have to make. That way team owners aren't throwing so much money away on guys like Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell.

[dogfish]

It's not that easy. As I've asked in the OP.. you can't expect them to play out their "only so much of a raise" contracts their entire career, thats not a "rookie" salary cap. Thats extending into veteran play.

So how long does this "x max pay" go? Can't keep paying a veteran under "rookie salary cap" rules. They aren't a rookie after their first year, technically, and we know the vets aren't going to agree to the NFL sanctioning they "max" amount of money they can get paid for their time in grade based on a rookie salary cap.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

don't quote me on this, but my understanding was that under some of the initial proposed structures rookie deals might be three years, possibly with the provision of restricted free agency in the fourth year still in place-- or not. . .

if you want to see a "hard" proposal you're asking the wrong people, though-- unless you think someone here is intimately involved in the negotiations, no point asking us for the details. . .

a rookie wage scale works in both the NHL and NBA-- no reason to think it wouldn't work in the NFL in some form. . .

[rcsodak]

It's not that easy. As I've asked in the OP.. you can't expect them to play out their "only so much of a raise" contracts their entire career, thats not a "rookie" salary cap. Thats extending into veteran play.

So how long does this "x max pay" go? Can't keep paying a veteran under "rookie salary cap" rules. They aren't a rookie after their first year, technically, and we know the vets aren't going to agree to the NFL sanctioning they "max" amount of money they can get paid for their time in grade based on a rookie salary cap.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.
Seems to me most players realize their 2nd contract and beyond is where they make their money.

Rooks will prolly be maxed out at 3-4yrs, so they can get into the big bucks quicker than now. That is where the NFLPA will draw their line in the sand, imo.

[Cugel]

Interesting.

I think the owners are using the economic times to get the public in on their sides on this, but this was NEVER a big deal to the owners for many many years.

But really. Im just truly interested, to learn what might be the ins-and-outs of how it would work if one is installed.

There's not much "ins and outs" to it Rav. The owners simply want to impose an overall cap percentage on the amount that can be paid to rookies in order to drive down the cost they have to pay draft picks.

They are willing to negotiate the percentage, but they want a hard number.

They might even be able to cut BACK on their overall salary cap if they did that or at least more teams would NOT spend all the money available to them under the cap.

It will NOT result in more team or league "competitiveness" but it WILL result in more revenues flowing to the Owners -- which is the main point. :coffee:

If the rookies get more under a total cap, that means your average veteran gets less. The NFL wage scale is highly tilted towards a few key performers and away from paying a LOT of players something closer to the average salary.

That income inequality is reflected throughout society today, and it is NOT (surprisingly) based solely, or even exclusively, on performance.

For instance, S's make much less money that starting DL or CBs. Why is that? Well, S is a less important position.

So, they get paid a lot less. What a player will get in a salary depends a LOT on:

1. what position he plays.
2. WHEN in his career he becomes a FA. If he's still relatively young, then it's a BIG pay-day.
3. If he has to wait until he's 32 and on the declining side of his career, that's going to affect his FA contract.

So, the owners really want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to put all the burden and risk onto the player "Pay for play."

If the player plays well, then the team can franchise him and force him to play rather than becoming a FA. And during his franchise year, he bears all the risk of injury -- which will destroy his value in FA.

If the player is injured or gets old and plays poorly, then he gets cut and there's no guaranteed money.

If the player simply is declining in performance, the team will often demand that the player "renegotiate". If the player suddenly blossoms and does BETTER than expected and the team is getting a STEAL compared to what they'd have to pay him as a FA, they will NOT "renegotiate" his contract.

They WILL expect him to play out his contract at the old low rate. The ONLY time they will renegotiate is if the player is close to the end of his contract, and the team realizes that he'll walk unless they sign him to a new extended contract.

In that case, they offer him a deal that is a LOT LESS than he'd get in FA, but MORE than he's getting now. If they do this before his final season the player will often take the deal so he doesn't bear the entire risk of injury.

If you remember the Clinton Portis situation, Portis and the team had a conflict because Shanahan insisted they just had "a policy" against re-negotiating rookie contracts (except downward).

[Ravage!!!]

don't quote me on this, but my understanding was that under some of the initial proposed structures rookie deals might be three years, possibly with the provision of restricted free agency in the fourth year still in place-- or not. . .

if you want to see a "hard" proposal you're asking the wrong people, though-- unless you think someone here is intimately involved in the negotiations, no point asking us for the details. . .

a rookie wage scale works in both the NHL and NBA-- no reason to think it wouldn't work in the NFL in some form. . .

Wasn't looking or anything definite, dog. Not at all, but I was wanting to get some ideas as to what MIGHT happen from people that understsand.

The simple "pay them for performance" isn't realistic. Expecting them not to get money up-front, isn't realistic. Thinking the NFLPA, or the vets, are simply going to allow players to come in out of college, be picked in the first round and play purely on incentive contracts, isn't realistic. Its just NOT going to happen.

So knowing that, and knowing there are other rookie caps out there, how do those systems deal with the questions of which I asked? I don't know, and was honestly asking for something insightful as to a "possibility" as how they might be handled. Obviously, a question like this wasn't looking for 'hard' answers or definits.. but something more than the " how hard is it, you pay less for lower round picks." We already have that in the current system.

I don't know why its being argued with me as though I'm trying to pick a fight. I'm honestly looking for some intelligent input as to POSSIBLE answers as to how it would work. The "lets not worry about it" isn't really that educational.

[SR]

I don't know why its being argued with me as though I'm trying to pick a fight

Because some of your comments are coming across as arrogant and some people don't take kindly to comments like those...mainly your "smart people" comment.

[Ravage!!!]

Because some of your comments are coming across as arrogant and some people don't take kindly to comments like those...mainly your "smart people" comment.

Wait.

I said I ws looking for the smart people of this message board. Not saying those that responded weren't some of them. I'm saying there are SMART people on this message board of which I was looking to ask about this, hence the point of the thread to begin with. I'm asking the SMART PEOPLE of the message board to give me some answers to the questions of which I'm not smart enough to know.


So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

THIS is the comment of which you are referring. The comment after of which you told ME " its not a hard concept to understand" (pretty condescending). Its so easy, yet you haven't answered anything that fits the NFL.

[Cugel]

Since Ravage wanted the details, here they are:

URL --->The Real Story Behind the Rookie Wage Scale (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-real-story-behind-the-rookie-wage-scale?urn=nfl-260642): The league wanted to reduce the amount paid under rookie contracts. The NFLPA came back and offered all rookies get 3 year contracts. That saves the league $200 million that it spends on year 4 and longer contracts (shorter contracts = less money committed to rookies). But, the NFLPA proposed that rookies become UFAs after their 3 year contracts expire. The NFL said "no way."

I'm not sure what the league is screeching about. Normally, when a player's contract expires, he's an UFA -- unless the team franchises him in which case he gets the average of the top 10 players at his position. If he refuses to sign the deal then he becomes an UFA at the end of the season.

The league has now dropped any further negotiations around this issue and came back with the proposed 18 game season. You can bet that if they declare an "impasse" that a revised rookie wage scale will be part of the "last best deal" they impose unilaterally on the players.

Analysis of how the rookie cap works under the current CBA:

Purpose:

Each year, as mandated by the CBA, the league-wide salary cap rises in accordance with increases in league revenues (http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/nfl-rookie-cap-empirical-analysis-one-nfls-most-closely-guarded-secrets). The Rookie Cap rises in tandem, keeping rookie salaries from rising more quickly than their veteran peers. Created by the NFL Management Council, the formula of exactly how each team's Rookie Cap number is determined is unknown. However, it is based on the number and round of each franchise's draft selections. Article XVII of the amended 2006 CBA states: "The list of each Formula Allotment attributed to each draft selection shall be agreed to by the NFL and the NFLPA, and shall not be disclosed to Clubs, Players, Player Agents or the public."

It's ALL ABOUT MONEY. The owners think they are paying the players too much revenue and want a bigger piece of the overall pie.


Lockouts and CBA Negotiations: (http://www.bucsnation.com/2011/1/16/1933138/lockouts-and-cba-negotiations)

In essence, this is a fight about money. The owners think the players are getting too big a share of the money, which is set in stone in the CBA in the form of a salary floor and cap. The fact that the economy collapsed and servicing debt became a lot more expensive means that the NFL is less profitable for the owners now than they expected it to be when they signed the agreement. So the owners want the players to accept a lower salary cap and floor to lower their own costs, and obviously the players don't want to do that. You'll hear about a rookie salary cap, pensions for veterands, medical coverage for retired players and several other measures that are trumped up as 'key issues'. But in my opinion, none of those are key issues: they're side-issues invented to create ways for the NFL and NFLPA to compromise.

The most likely scenario is the owners declaring an impasse and then unilaterally instituting their last best offer, including a revised rookie wage cap:


If a new agreement isn’t reached by March 4, the owners aren’t required to lock out the players. . . .at some point, the league can declare an impasse in the talks — and implement its last, best offer as the new set of rules, pending a formal agreement.

The union then would have to decide whether to work under those rules, or whether to strike. . . . By implementing the last, best offer, however, the league would be getting what it wants, at least in the short term.

Likewise, the league would be able to claim the moral high ground in the event of a work stoppage. No longer would the owners be locking out the players; if football goes away for all or part of the 2011 season, the players would be the ones to make that happen.

Still, the players could strike at any time. . . .

[Ravage!!!]

Interesting Cugal, I havent' seen this article when looking.

But does the last "best offer" include this "rookie salary cap" that has the headlines? Do you know?

[KCL]

Ravage..you dumb ass..quit being a smart ass..:coffee:

sorry I had to do it...:lol:

[Cugel]

Interesting Cugal, I havent' seen this article when looking.

But does the last "best offer" include this "rookie salary cap" that has the headlines? Do you know?

This "best offer" stuff is only declared when the League declares an impasse so nobody can saw for sure what's going to be IN the offer.

But, you can bet that when the NFL declares an impasse, they will then unilaterally reinstate the old CBA with certain refinements -- an 18 game season, a reduced salary cap, a reduced rookie salary cap, an entire smorgusboard of everything they want. :coffee:

Then it will be "game on." Unfortunately not a FOOTBALL game, the only game in town will be the legal maneuvering between the NFLPA and the league. :coffee:

THat will continue to August at least and possibly longer unless the players fold. The owners are counting on the players to fold just as they did in the 80's when the league started using scabs ("replacement players") for about 4 or 6 games.

Basically in neither baseball or football have the players ever WON any negotiations, rather they have won in court because the owners keep acting in collusive bargaining in violation of federal labor laws.

Most recently the league got spanked again by the Supreme Court which rejected their claim for a wide-spread anti-trust exemption.

THose ******** ought to have their entire anti-trust exemption revoked and be forced to compete just like any other industry. Let them eat THAT cake! :coffee:

P.S. That's NOT "an article" that's THREE separate articles on various topics about the labor dispute. Click on ALL THREE LINKS for differing perspectives.

[rcsodak]

Since Ravage wanted the details, here they are:

URL --->The Real Story Behind the Rookie Wage Scale (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-real-story-behind-the-rookie-wage-scale?urn=nfl-260642): The league wanted to reduce the amount paid under rookie contracts. The NFLPA came back and offered all rookies get 3 year contracts. That saves the league $200 million that it spends on year 4 and longer contracts (shorter contracts = less money committed to rookies). But, the NFLPA proposed that rookies become UFAs after their 3 year contracts expire. The NFL said "no way."

I'm not sure what the league is screeching about. Normally, when a player's contract expires, he's an UFA -- unless the team franchises him in which case he gets the average of the top 10 players at his position. If he refuses to sign the deal then he becomes an UFA at the end of the season.

The league has now dropped any further negotiations around this issue and came back with the proposed 18 game season. You can bet that if they declare an "impasse" that a revised rookie wage scale will be part of the "last best deal" they impose unilaterally on the players.

Analysis of how the rookie cap works under the current CBA:

Purpose:


It's ALL ABOUT MONEY. The owners think they are paying the players too much revenue and want a bigger piece of the overall pie.



The most likely scenario is the owners declaring an impasse and then unilaterally instituting their last best offer, including a revised rookie wage cap:

Well.... bloggers' opinions, I guess.


There is also another possibility, though highly unlikely.

The league could decide to play 2011 under the old CBA.

Just throwin' that factoid out there as fodder....

[Cugel]

Well.... bloggers' opinions, I guess.

There is also another possibility, though highly unlikely.

The league could decide to play 2011 under the old CBA.

Just throwin' that factoid out there as fodder....

Look. If they wanted to do that they could simply have had a 2 minute negotiation with the players LAST year.

Somehwere in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, the Bizarro Roger Goodell has a blinding revelation:

Goodell: "Hey! Here's a thought! What do you say instead of us declaring an impasse, then imposing a wage roll-back and triggering a bitter strike, we just agree to reinstate the existing CBA?"

NFLPA: "What? You're serious?"

Goodell: "Yup! I just had a conversion on the road to Tarsus, and suddenly it occurred to me, 'why do we need to screw all the fans and endanger the season just in order to get more money? After all, we owners are all billionaires, we can afford a little loss in revenues without having to give up any of our chauffeur-driven Rolls Royces.'"

NFLPA: "Where do we sign?"

Goodell: "Wow! That really went quick! It just took us about 2 minutes to reach agreement! Now we won't have to go into 2011 with no CBA and piss-off all the fans!"

NFLPA: "Sounds good to us Roger." :rolleyes:

[Lonestar]

I think we all know that the owners are going to get what they want.

They get paid by the networks whether they play or not.

the players get NADA and most are morons anyway because they spend it almost as fast as they bring it in.

They will get it afte missing the 3rd pay check.. then they will figure out they will never get those paychecks back, because they are going to be making less than they did before.. like 98% of all strikers..

[rcsodak]

Look. If they wanted to do that they could simply have had a 2 minute negotiation with the players LAST year.

Somehwere in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, the Bizarro Roger Goodell has a blinding revelation:

Goodell: "Hey! Here's a thought! What do you say instead of us declaring an impasse, then imposing a wage roll-back and triggering a bitter strike, we just agree to reinstate the existing CBA?"

NFLPA: "What? You're serious?"

Goodell: "Yup! I just had a conversion on the road to Tarsus, and suddenly it occurred to me, 'why do we need to screw all the fans and endanger the season just in order to get more money? After all, we owners are all billionaires, we can afford a little loss in revenues without having to give up any of our chauffeur-driven Rolls Royces.'"

NFLPA: "Where do we sign?"

Goodell: "Wow! That really went quick! It just took us about 2 minutes to reach agreement! Now we won't have to go into 2011 with no CBA and piss-off all the fans!"

NFLPA: "Sounds good to us Roger." :rolleyes:

Where's Tarsus? :rolleyes:

[SR]

I'm not one of the "smart people" on this board that Ravage was looking for answers from, so I'll refrain from answering the question about Tarsus.

[rcsodak]

I'm not one of the "smart people" on this board that Ravage was looking for answers from, so I'll refrain from answering the question about Tarsus.

....sigh...we're simply mortals....

[Nomad]

I think we all know that the owners are going to get what they want.

They get paid by the networks whether they play or not.

the players get NADA and most are morons anyway because they spend it almost as fast as they bring it in.

They will get it afte missing the 3rd pay check.. then they will figure out they will never get those paychecks back, because they are going to be making less than they did before.. like 98% of all strikers..

Cromartie has already given in and I agree many more will follow suit!! I know what's it like to be in a union and speaking for myself....my family and myself come first before the union!!


I'm not one of the "smart people" on this board that Ravage was looking for answers from, so I'll refrain from answering the question about Tarsus.

What constitutes one being 'smart' around here!! I guess I'm not because I don't even know who/what/where a Tarsus is!:confused:

[SR]

Cromartie has already given in and I agree many more will follow suit!! I know what's it like to be in a union and speaking for myself....my family and myself come first before the union!!



What constitutes one being 'smart' around here!! I guess I'm not because I don't even know who/what/where a Tarsus is!:confused:

Tarsus is a city in Turkey on the Mediterranean coast. It's a pretty historically significant city.

But I don't know that. I'm not smart.

[Lonestar]

Cromartie has already given in and I agree many more will follow suit!! I know what's it like to be in a union and speaking for myself....my family and myself come first before the union!!

What constitutes one being 'smart' around here!! I guess I'm not because I don't even know who/what/where a Tarsus is!:confused:


The NFLpa is fighting a losing battle because the represent for the most part rich mOrons. MillionAres that will be broke a couple of years after the final cut. How do they stand chance against 32 for the most part self made billionaires. Guys that will still have Tv revenue even if thre are no games.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[BigSarge87]

"In a possible sign of progress in labor negotiations, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith met today in New York, and they agreed to meet again on Saturday in Dallas"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/31/nfl-union-plan-saturday-bargaining-session/

Sounds like they are just making meetings to make more meetings that they will later cancel, but at least they are doing SOMETHING. It's gotta start somewhere. Fingers crossed they make some progress. March is creeping up fast!

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see that Carol had started a new thread on this before I posted it.