mattresell
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 0
Can anyone explain why teams will have to cut so many players if there is no CBA in place for next year?
CBA??????????
- Thread starter mattresell
- Start date
CaliforniaCheez
Cheesehead
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.
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.
CaliforniaCheez said:
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.
all about da packers
Cheesehead
But no cap means no more Packers.
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.
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.
net
Cheesehead
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.
Remember the old fable about killing the golden goose.
GakkofNorway
Cheesehead
That won't happen.
JbShell
Cheesehead
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.
JbShell
Cheesehead
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
Buckeyepackfan
Cheesehead
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.
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.
Greg C.
Cheesehead
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.
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.
PackwillBEback
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 27
Note: Vikings number will go way down if they keep Culpepper (roster bonus).
CaliforniaCheez
Cheesehead
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.
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.
GakkofNorway
Cheesehead
thanks for clearing that up
