1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

CBA??????????

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by mattresell, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. mattresell

    mattresell Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    424
    Ratings:
    +0
    Can anyone explain why teams will have to cut so many players if there is no CBA in place for next year?
     
  2. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    Mark Lawrence over at Packer Chatters does a nice job with the following:
     
  3. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    The CBA really doesn't expire until the end of 2007.

    The last year of the current CBA(2007) has no salary cap.

    The end of the cap is not the end of the CBA.

    If there is a strike or lock out it will be 2008.
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    It still impacts this years Free Agency and CAP #s dramatically. If there is no CBA the expanded CAP that has been proposed for this year disappears. It will have dramatic impact starting as early as tommorow.
     
  5. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    But no cap means no more Packers.
     
  6. ravage

    ravage Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Ratings:
    +0
    Some things that would change.

    Unlikely to be earned bonuses will be added to this year's cap. The price of Transition and Franchise players will change. So every team's cap will get slightly worse. Even those under the cap will have to be careful of how much the spend in free agency so as not be very bad situation later.
     
  7. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +86
    No salary cap means a slow, steady slide into baseballization, or Steinbrennerization, where the Jets, Giants, Dallas, and the glam spots have all the money and players and teams like Green Bay and Cleveland slide slowly into a position like the Kansas City Royals in baseball. The Royals will have a team this year, but no one thinks they will win the pennant, much less the World Series. You get locked into a permanent have and have-not situation.

    Remember the old fable about killing the golden goose.
     
  8. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    That won't happen.
     
  9. JbShell

    JbShell Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Ratings:
    +0
    YOu sure Gakk do you think players will want to go back to a salary cap after the 2007 season. The cap was in place to benefit the teams so they could manage their debt and for the health of the league to maintain balance. No CBA No revenue sharing no NFL.
     
  10. JbShell

    JbShell Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Ratings:
    +0
    Also the Pack was the poster child for the CBA do you really think GB would have enjoyed 13 years of success if it had not happened
     
  11. gopackgo4

    gopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +0
    WIth no cap the NFL would pretty much suck I mean i would still like it but itd be so stupid liek new york dominating year in and year out
     
  12. Buckeyepackfan

    Buckeyepackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    The blood letting is already beginning.
    This from NFL.com

    ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- With the start of the new league year looming on Friday, the Broncos waived three of their key contributors from 2005, parting ways with running back Mike Anderson, defensive end Trevor Pryce and tight end Jeb Putzier.

    With no new CBA the Broncos are forced to make these moves and they are still over the cap!!!

    Look for this to happen with many teams in the next two days.

    There is going to be plenty of talent to choose from, if no agreement is made, we might as well take advantage and enjoy this next year.

    My big worry now is that Brett will be released to get that extra 10 mil. to spend this year.

    Hopefully the owners and players come to their senses real soon.
     
  13. gopackgo4

    gopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +0
    They wouldnt dare release Favre they know there would be an uprising and we would kill all who made him leave
     
  14. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    As of yet, nobody has answered the original question. I'm not the best person to explain this, but I will try my best:

    If a new CBA is negotiated, it will cover several more years and WILL CONTAIN AN INCREASE IN THE 2006 SALARY CAP. This will allow teams that are over the cap right now to slide by without having to cut a bunch of players. But if there is no new CBA, the 2006 salary cap remains the same, in which case many teams will need to make massive cuts.

    The reason this could happen is that teams often determine their salary structure under the assumption that there will be an increase in the cap in the near future. Usually they are right. But in this case, they may be wrong.

    This could be a good thing for the Packers in the short run, because they are already $20 million under the cap and they could pick up some of these players that have been cut by other teams. But in the long run, this could be a very bad thing for the Packers, as the lack of a salary cap will favor the big market teams.

    I hope that at least partially answers your question, Matt.
     
  15. PackwillBEback

    PackwillBEback Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +40
    Note: Vikings number will go way down if they keep Culpepper (roster bonus).
     
  16. gopackgo4

    gopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +0
    yeh they are keeping him so thats real good
     
  17. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    The CBA had what is referred to as poison pills in order to encourage both sides into negotiating a new agreement. An uncapped year is one of them.

    Upshaw says there will be never be a cap once it is gone. That is his position.

    All the threats, ominous warnings etc. while possible can all be negotiated away. In 2008 everything will be on the table. Right now everyone has checked their hole card and waiting for the final bet.

    The owners have to make a team bet and there is not enough agreement. It is not a majority vote by the owners to make a decision but a 75% majority. 8 owners can block the will of the majority.

    The cap genie can be put back in the bottle. 32 cap limits can be set. Luxury taxes and other items can be used to formulate the defined revenues that will be shared. There really is one year to get a new deal.

    "The players are totally out of bounds," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones.
     
  18. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    thanks for clearing that up
     

Share This Page