Mojo20 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I just heard John Clayton talking about the NFL playing without a salary cap in 2007. In my opinion that would signal the end of the golden age of the NFL that exists now. It would turn the NFL into MLB with only the rich teams having any chance of winning. Anyone know how likely this may be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I just heard John Clayton talking about the NFL playing without a salary cap in 2007. In my opinion that would signal the end of the golden age of the NFL that exists now. It would turn the NFL into MLB with only the rich teams having any chance of winning. Anyone know how likely this may be? 1323512[/snapback] I don't think it is likely. The league sees what Major League Baseball has become, and will not allow this to happen in the NFL. If I am wrong, it would be one of the saddest things I would have ever seen in sports. There is the reason that the NFL is king right now, and that is that EVERY team has an equal opportunity EVERY year to bring home the Lombardi. The NFL's popularity is so high right now, that I can't see anyone allowing a major change to take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Currently the NFL has the salary cap go away in 2007 (unless changed) and then the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires in 2008. The currrent CBA is a product of what happened before. In 1987 (?), the CBA expired and the NFLPA went on strike. There was no resolution between the sides and so halfway or so into that season, the union decertified so that it would be thrown into court. The NFL played without a contract for several years until the courts structured the current system using a salary cap. Both sides want to see the cap remain but the problem is the cap. The players now also want a cut of all merchandise revenue and luxury boxes. There will be more about this as the year progresses but the two sides are pretty far apart at last I heard (ie. the NFLPA wants a big chunk while the owners want to give away nothing since luxury boxes are a way to make new stadiums profitable for them). Hopefully it will be resolved in time, but neither side wants a strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I just heard John Clayton talking about the NFL playing without a salary cap in 2007. In my opinion that would signal the end of the golden age of the NFL that exists now. It would turn the NFL into MLB with only the rich teams having any chance of winning. Anyone know how likely this may be? 1323512[/snapback] I doubt if it happens, but Pat Kirwin has a story on it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojo20 Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'm hoping you're right Menudo. I would hate for the NFL to turn into the Giants vs. the Pats every Monday Night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'm hoping you're right Menudo. I would hate for the NFL to turn into the Giants vs. the Pats every Monday Night. 1323533[/snapback] Paul Allen co Microsoft founder has some seious cash money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) You'd hate for a league to have 6 different champions in 6 years the way baseball does anyway. But I'm sure that's not what you meant. Edited February 14, 2006 by LegFuJohnson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordo Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I heard Clayton this morning (the usual Tuesday morning piece on Mike & Mike), and while he stated he was "optimistic" that things would be worked out, it was a very ominous picture he painted should a new CBA not be agreed to. Among other things, no NFL draft and a player strike for the 2008 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I heard Clayton this morning (the usual Tuesday morning piece on Mike & Mike), and while he stated he was "optimistic" that things would be worked out, it was a very ominous picture he painted should a new CBA not be agreed to. Among other things, no NFL draft and a player strike for the 2008 season. 1323792[/snapback] I'm not convinced at this point that a players' strike is likely. Seems the major power struggle is between high income and low income teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Wouldn't we be more likely to see an lockout for the 2007 season instead of an uncapped year? I don't think the owners want to step into that steaming pile of mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Paul Allen co Microsoft founder has some seious cash money! 1323541[/snapback] it's ok to be happy about that right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 it's ok to be happy about that right... 1323836[/snapback] Until the agreement is signed why not? I hope they get an agreement. The cap is what makes football as competetive as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soopanuts Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I hope they can work things out. This would suck hindquarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinersIn2006! Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 This scares the hell out of me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I hope they can work things out. This would suck hindquarter. 1323946[/snapback] The players union wants this resolved, too. It's really owners like Snyder and Jones vs. the old school owners. Newer owners are against rev sharing, which is the backbone of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Currently the NFL has the salary cap go away in 2007 (unless changed) and then the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires in 2008. The currrent CBA is a product of what happened before. In 1987 (?), the CBA expired and the NFLPA went on strike. There was no resolution between the sides and so halfway or so into that season, the union decertified so that it would be thrown into court. The NFL played without a contract for several years until the courts structured the current system using a salary cap. Both sides want to see the cap remain but the problem is the cap. The players now also want a cut of all merchandise revenue and luxury boxes. There will be more about this as the year progresses but the two sides are pretty far apart at last I heard (ie. the NFLPA wants a big chunk while the owners want to give away nothing since luxury boxes are a way to make new stadiums profitable for them). Hopefully it will be resolved in time, but neither side wants a strike. 1323528[/snapback] I would give the players a cut of the merchandise(since it is the names of these players being sold). And I would raise the cap about 5 mill, the 5 mill aint much but the revenues from the merchandise should be nice. I think that would be enough to keep the players happy without the owners losing out on much(of course they won't miss out on anything because the fans will end up paying at the gate no matter what.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The owners need to get on the same page, then they'll crush the players union like they always have. But if they can't get on the same page, then you could have trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 One of the big stumbling blocks now is that the owners can't agree on what money should go into the shared revenue pot. Some teams have built their own stadiums, others have paid to have the additional luxury boxes installed, and some stadiums are 100% publically funded. The teams that have had stadium improvements funded by local taxes, etc, want those teams that paid for the same improvements themselves to be treated equally. The teams with privately funded improvements want to give less of the additional revenues that improvements generate to pay for themselves, to pay off loans etc. They understandibly don't feel that their private investments in improvements should subsidize those teams that don't pay a penny towards improvements. The new Jets/Giants stadium is all privately funded. The extra revenue the new stadium will generate is supposed to help pay for itself. That is a 1 billion dollar investment, and why should those two teams get ankle chained into 100% revenue sharing? Until these issues get resolved, they can't even talk to the NFLPA. It's a mess, and I have seious doubts as to whether or not the owners will ever get together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 One of the big stumbling blocks now is that the owners can't agree on what money should go into the shared revenue pot. Some teams have built their own stadiums, others have paid to have the additional luxury boxes installed, and some stadiums are 100% publically funded. The teams that have had stadium improvements funded by local taxes, etc, want those teams that paid for the same improvements themselves to be treated equally. The teams with privately funded improvements want to give less of the additional revenues that improvements generate to pay for themselves, to pay off loans etc. They understandibly don't feel that their private investments in improvements should subsidize those teams that don't pay a penny towards improvements. The new Jets/Giants stadium is all privately funded. The extra revenue the new stadium will generate is supposed to help pay for itself. That is a 1 billion dollar investment, and why should those two teams get ankle chained into 100% revenue sharing? Until these issues get resolved, they can't even talk to the NFLPA. It's a mess, and I have seious doubts as to whether or not the owners will ever get together. 1324195[/snapback] ...the man's got a solid point here ! This does not sound good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) I read on PFW that there is a good chance that the start of FA will be held off from March 1st to April 1st Edited February 14, 2006 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinersIn2006! Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 One of the big stumbling blocks now is that the owners can't agree on what money should go into the shared revenue pot. Some teams have built their own stadiums, others have paid to have the additional luxury boxes installed, and some stadiums are 100% publically funded. The teams that have had stadium improvements funded by local taxes, etc, want those teams that paid for the same improvements themselves to be treated equally. The teams with privately funded improvements want to give less of the additional revenues that improvements generate to pay for themselves, to pay off loans etc. They understandibly don't feel that their private investments in improvements should subsidize those teams that don't pay a penny towards improvements. The new Jets/Giants stadium is all privately funded. The extra revenue the new stadium will generate is supposed to help pay for itself. That is a 1 billion dollar investment, and why should those two teams get ankle chained into 100% revenue sharing? Until these issues get resolved, they can't even talk to the NFLPA. It's a mess, and I have seious doubts as to whether or not the owners will ever get together. 1324195[/snapback] Wow...hadnt thought of that...good points all around! Good, but scary!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.