The Owners & The CBA Deal?

[xxAQUA JOSHUAxx]

ok well on nfl network they were talking about this and stuff about the owners opting out of some cba deal or something and after a uncapped year in 2011 or 10 that there will be a lockdown or some kind of strike. I definitly dont want this to happen because thats when our team is suppose to be fully turned around but i was just wondering do you guys know anything more to this subject than i do?

 

[Lenny]

A good write up about this issue is here
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/04/06/labor/index.html

 

[umpalu]

That is the year of no cap if it goes through. That is a terrible thing for a small market team like us. Revenue sharing keeps everything in check. With no cap teams like us would spend less because we wouldn't have the finances to support it whereas teams like NY would spend out the wazoo on short term contracts to buy a superbowl. If worse came to worse though I would assume they would negotiate an 'extra year' to the current CBA to give more time because all parties involved would realize it is a bad thing for the leage to have no cap.

 

[mia4ever]

small market ?Miami Dade..........I disagree Miami /Ft.Lauderdale area are in the top
15 in the country..

Now our Owner may watch his spending
not cheap but cautious

 

[Lenny]

That is the year of no cap if it goes through. That is a terrible thing for a small market team like us. Revenue sharing keeps everything in check. With no cap teams like us would spend less because we wouldn't have the finances to support it whereas teams like NY would spend out the wazoo on short term contracts to buy a superbowl. If worse came to worse though I would assume they would negotiate an 'extra year' to the current CBA to give more time because all parties involved would realize it is a bad thing for the leage to have no cap.

Just because there is no cap wouldn't mean no revenue sharing. The league has always shared the TV money (which is where the big money is) even before there was true free agency or a salary cap.

An uncapped year would be worse for the players. They wouldn't be eligible for unrestricted free agency until after their 6th season, so that would basically mean those first two years with no cap would have almost zero free agents available for teams to sign....and teams wouldn't be required to spend a certain percentage of revenue on salaries like they are now, so the Mike Brown's of the world could go back to being uber cheap again.

 

[umpalu]

small market ?Miami Dade..........I disagree Miami /Ft.Lauderdale area are in the top
15 in the country..

Now our Owner may watch his spending
not cheap but cautious

Check MLB spending if you want to learn what the market sizes are. That is pretty much what the NFL would be if we did that too. Marlins aren't quite at the top.

 

[umpalu]

Just because there is no cap wouldn't mean no revenue sharing. The league has always shared the TV money (which is where the big money is) even before there was true free agency or a salary cap.

An uncapped year would be worse for the players. They wouldn't be eligible for unrestricted free agency until after their 6th season, so that would basically mean those first two years with no cap would have almost zero free agents available for teams to sign....and teams wouldn't be required to spend a certain percentage of revenue on salaries like they are now, so the Mike Brown's of the world could go back to being uber cheap again.

I know the league has shared all its money and that is one of the greatest things I love about the league, but with no contract in place teams wouldn't have to share tv deals or anything else that goes into revenue sharing. That spells way to much trouble for it to go that way. Its actually all in the article you posted by the way. It will suck for players under 6 years of experiance and small market teams. We are a small market team in comparison.

 

[B.Sebo]

If these events should go unaltered, I see an empty chair, and a crutch without an owner . . .

Hey it worked for the Scrooge in the book. In all seriousness though, if the owners pull the plug on on this CBA early and force this to happen, I will just lose a lot of respect for the league. It is all about money, and that is sad since every single owner has made a profit with their investment with an NFL team, likely a large one.

The owners are money grubbing, and instead of focusing on something that should matter, like a better retirement package for disabled players, they are worried about their own fat pocketbooks.

Oh and if you are wondering if I have a man crush for Gene Upshaw . . . not quite, he has been on notice with me for quite a while now.

A work stoppage will kill the league. Period.

 

[Lenny]

I know the league has shared all its money and that is one of the greatest things I love about the league, but with no contract in place teams wouldn't have to share tv deals or anything else that goes into revenue sharing. That spells way to much trouble for it to go that way. Its actually all in the article you posted by the way. It will suck for players under 6 years of experiance and small market teams. We are a small market team in comparison.

Sharing the TV money is an agreement between the owners that has nothing to do with the players. It was done long before there was free agency or a salary cap.

In an uncapped year, or even the end of the salary cap era, revenue sharing among the teams would continue, period.

Miami is not a small market. The reason the Marlins do so poorly is because it's 90+ degrees in Miami and rains every other day during the summer.....so they need a stadium with a roof and air conditioning to draw big crowds. Plus the television and radio contracts are negotiated locally, which is much less lucrative than the NFL model.

If the salary cap era ends, the dolphins will not turn into the marlins. On the contrary, the Dolphins greatest years were before the salary cap era.

 

[umpalu]

Sharing the TV money is an agreement between the owners that has nothing to do with the players. It was done long before there was free agency or a salary cap.

In an uncapped year, or even the end of the salary cap era, revenue sharing among the teams would continue, period.

Miami is not a small market. The reason the Marlins do so poorly is because it's 90+ degrees in Miami and rains every other day during the summer.....so they need a stadium with a roof and air conditioning to draw big crowds. Plus the television and radio contracts are negotiated locally, which is much less lucrative than the NFL model.

If the salary cap era ends, the dolphins will not turn into the marlins. On the contrary, the Dolphins greatest years were before the salary cap era.

Revenue shows middle of the pack upon research so I will concede that. I don't, however, think that they will approach Marlins status. #1 it will be over way before that would even be an option and #2 that will be the year we start to break out and have a 'new' stadium up and running so revenue would increase. If for some reason it goes past that and some team decides to become the Yankees and overpay for free agents, look out for no salary cap ever coming back. As far as this topic is concerned however, after much research you are the man and I bow to you. You are right. :beer1: Have you ever considered VIP? Your discussion would be much appreciated there.

 

[DearbornDolfan]

I know the league has shared all its money and that is one of the greatest things I love about the league, but with no contract in place teams wouldn't have to share tv deals or anything else that goes into revenue sharing. That spells way to much trouble for it to go that way. Its actually all in the article you posted by the way. It will suck for players under 6 years of experiance and small market teams. We are a small market team in comparison.

That's because for the most part the Marlins suck and when they don't they're immediately torn apart afterwards. The Dolphins have a large fanbase, not only in Florida but across the country. Miami would actually benefit from such a situation because Huizinga could then use his money to buy a team.