now the negotiations begin. ^^^^^
You didn't link the quote or cite the source. Tsk, tsk. No matter. We have our own brains.
Given the example I presented above, I don't see taking even the bulk of the cap hit in 2021 as plausible. From a business standpoint that would be attractive to teams but most football operations people would be pretty unhappy, having to cut guys willy nilly where cap savings can be found. By the way, that would not be Rodgers.
I suppose a few teams with a current hoard of cap space might savor the opportunity to pick up players on the cheap but I doubt you could get a 2/3 vote from the owners favoring trashing their rosters. You can be sure the NFLPA
would not agree. The owners might make an opening position bluff to bring the players in from spreading the loss over the 10 years of the CBA which the owners certainly would not like for reasons that have nothing to do with resetting the market.
The following statement which you quoted is peculiar. I resist saying it's outright wrong though that's what I should say:
"What the league may decide is that by taking the bulk of the salary cap hit in 2021, they can protect their owners, while also bringing ever-rising player contracts back down and
resetting the market at a lower rate."
The players share of revenue is set per the CBA. Once the losses are burned off with what I would surmise will be flat caps over several years, the full cap will be restored. Any resetting of the market would be temporary and at the margins. Regardless of how they spread the loss, over the long haul the players 48-49% of revenue is what goes into the cap no matter what. There are
only two ways to reset the player market:
1) Renegotiate the CBA with a reduced % of revenue going to the players. That ain't gonna happen.
2) Clubs colluding to all spend under the cap. That would be illegal. Even if it wasn't that's the kind of cat herding that would never happen.
It's worth noting the old CBA required teams to spend 89% of their cap over a four year period. Few hugged that line, only the poor teams trying not to lose money, Oakland for example. Many spent every cap $ they could get their hands on. The Packers underspent the cap by an average of about $1 mil per year.
The new minimum is 90% cap spend over 3, 3, and 4 year periods. Don't like the market? Just spend 90% of your cap and let the other guys spend $20 mil more per year on vet contracts. Yeah, right.
So, what happens if you front load the losses into 2021? Again, lots of starters and stars get cut wherever teams can find cap savings. Those players would hit the market with most teams having nothing to spend, lots of players chasing few cap $'s. Those players will either sit out the year or sign one year deals at low money, more the former than the latter I would expect. By 2022, the full cap is restored, those players hit the market, and the player costs go right back up near the full cap just as before.
Again, no matter what, cap is cap, it gets spent, so it doesn't matter much over what years it will be spent. The financial issue for owners is simple...the time value of money. That is balanced with the desire to win.
There's one caveat: the estimated losses from empty stadiums is being grossly understated or not all games get played resulting in even larger losses. A couple of teams might be on the brink of insolvency as a result. That becomes a different picture entirely.
