How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

Heres my question..[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2317906[/url]

After reading that article, it seems the possibility of a CBA being reached is not 100% definte. So if things dont go through and a CBA is NOT reached, just how much trouble are we in? I was wondering if some of the cap Guru's could help me out with this?

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

we get screwed in our ability to restructure contracts and will be forced to release a lot of players.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

There is no need to release players. You simply have to lose a free agent to sign a free agent. Of course you can't give the free agent you sign more money than the free agent you lost received from another team.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=saden1]There is no need to release players. You simply have to lose a free agent to sign a free agent. Of course you can't give the free agent you sign more money than the free agent you lost received from another team.[/QUOTE]
thats for 2007....for 2006 we won't be able to restructure any contracts, so we would have to cut a lot of people

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

I was under the impression that no CBA meant no cap.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=saden1]There is no need to release players. You simply have to lose a free agent to sign a free agent. Of course you can't give the free agent you sign more money than the free agent you lost received from another team.[/QUOTE]

that's only in 2007 and possibly beyond and only applies to playoff teams. in 2006 you get screwed on the 30% rule that kills restructuring.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I was under the impression that no CBA meant no cap.[/QUOTE]

in 2007, there's LOTS of rules about how the financials work the year before an uncapped season though.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

I posted this in another thread:

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=10638&page=5&pp=10[/url]

I calculate that without a new CBA, we'd be able to get our cap number down to about $98.5M. With the expected number to be $95M, we'd still have to shave off a few million. This would mean cutting a couple core players and would prevent us from signing any free agents or extensions for our current players. So I think we could survive without a new CBA but it might not be pretty.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

cant restructure contracts? wtf?

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Big C]cant restructure contracts? wtf?[/QUOTE]

you can, but you become limited in what you can do.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

As I have said over and over again, Snyder has been signing these currrent contracts with the uncapped year in mind. The Redskins will be the one team that is in great position if there is no cap. WATCH.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

uncapped would suck, it would turn into baseball and rich teams would just buy all the plaers. i understand we are the richest team, but just would make the league so unexciting

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

The NFL did not have a lack of excitement before the cap (1995). Although you were 9 years old in 1995 so you might not know this, no disrespect intended.
The level of play of the elite teams in the NFL went down drasticly when the cap first came in. Teams like the Redskins, 49ers and Cowboys were screwed by the cap. The weakest teams got better because it set a minimum they had to spend. But the level of play of the top teams went down considerably.
While I do not like it when Snyder goes out and buys a ton of players, I do not like the cap. It forces teams to cut veteran players they want to keep. Could imagine in the 80's if we had to cut Riggo, Russ Grimm or Art Monk because of salary cap. I don't like it. Keep the cap but it should not count when resigning older veterans.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

Snyder will purchase the NFL for 40 billion dollars and announce the Redskins must win SB every year or teams will get fired!!!!....Why is this a discussion at this point?....TOO many senerios possible.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:[/QUOTE]
HAAAAHAAAAA

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]I posted this in another thread:

[url="http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=10638&page=5&pp=10"]http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=10638&page=5&pp=10[/url]

I calculate that without a new CBA, we'd be able to get our cap number down to about $98.5M. With the expected number to be $95M, we'd still have to shave off a few million. This would mean cutting a couple core players and would prevent us from signing any free agents or extensions for our current players. So I think we could survive without a new CBA but it might not be pretty.[/QUOTE]

I'm figuring pretty similar numbers. Ramifications would be:

- We'd be forced to live with Lavar, whether GW wants to or not.
- We'd surely lose Ryan Clark and Robert Royal to free agency.
- The $98 million means we have to cut $3 million just to get under cap. But we'd still have to get down low enough to sign our draft picks.

I think we're already sure to jettison Ramsey, Noble, Bowen, and Raymer.
If this CBA doomsday scenario came to fruition, I think you can say goodbye to John Hall as well. Thrash and Sellers become cut possibilities as well.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I'm figuring pretty similar numbers. Ramifications would be:

- We'd be forced to live with Lavar, whether GW wants to or not.
- We'd surely lose Ryan Clark and Robert Royal to free agency.
- The $98 million means we have to cut $3 million just to get under cap. But we'd still have to get down low enough to sign our draft picks.

I think we're already sure to jettison Ramsey, Noble, Bowen, and Raymer.
If this CBA doomsday scenario came to fruition, I think you can say goodbye to John Hall as well. Thrash and Sellers become cut possibilities as well.[/QUOTE]
Depends on when CBA is reached for Lavar.....B4 his bonus deadline(I think its June 20th or so) we will keep him and spread it over next couple years. If not, better to release him. All that you mentioned are gone anyway i think. We will do fine in either case. Just add Harris to that list as well.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:[/QUOTE]
STILL FUNNY TAF.......HAHAHAHA(sorry...laughing out loud)

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

too much wouldve, couldve ,shouldve, for this discussion.a wait to the deadline until continuing this seems appropriate

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Big C]uncapped would suck, it would turn into baseball and rich teams would just buy all the plaers. i understand we are the richest team, but just would make the league so unexciting[/QUOTE]

It was plenty exciting for us back in the 80's!

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

At this point any speculation form the league or the players is sabre rattling. The clock is ticking, though. TAFKAS funny with the BOC thing, HAW HAW!

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:[/QUOTE]


hey, i put my pants on just like you do, one leg at a time. the only difference is, i make gold records.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

It has got me wondering what teams are holding the agreement back . Is it the likes of the rich clubs holding on to thier money, which is the general perception, and Dan Synders thought to be the top of that list because since her took over the skins have been able to generate the highest revenue of the NFL despite having one of the highest levels of club debt because we paid for our own stadium etc .

Or are the teams holding it back the likes of Bidwells who dont give two hoot about the team and see owning a football team as a get rich scheme . The owners who are continually gripping about the big clubs and treatening to move at the drop of a hat squeezing their communities and fans for more $. Are they the ones holding the bigger clubs to ransom. They have the least to loose a lock out/strike will hurt the big teams the most, especially the skins, and they will always be able to blame the bigger teams because the big earners are always seen as "evil"

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

I know people say the "NFL will suck" if its uncapped, but I dont think it will. First of all, I want a new CBA. I love the team we have now, and dont want to see it "blown up". We have too many core players to have to get rid of guys, and the team chemistry we have right now is somthing we havent seen in years. That being said, just on the state of the NFL as a whole if its Uncapped....


....The NFL Playoffs are god-awful when you put in all this parity. The playoffs this year were horrible overall (the skins were the only reason it was exciting for me. If they dont make it, its really boring cause the games sucked). When you look at baseball, yeah, theres a ton of teams that are basically written off cause they have shitty owners, but how freaking awsome are the baseball playoffs? They are some of the best in sports because of the lack of cap. The rivalries are made IN the playoffs, and thats what makes it so exciting. The Redskins would be one of the teams in the playoffs year in and year out because we have a good owner who is willing to make us competitive. The NFL playoffs as a whole have been shitty since the cap was instituted, and every year its a new team doing their thing, theres all new playoff teams, and its just not as fun. I'd rather see the playoffs year in and year out being alot of the same teams, buliding those awsome rivalries and close games. Like I said, I want the CBA to get signed, because were already in great shape to make a run, and I'd like to see a cap, but I'm just saying...things wont be all bad if it goes uncapped and turns into somthing like baseball. You'll see those great teams start to rise again, things will be much more competitive at the top of the league...it wont be a league of mediocrity and then just one or two great teams. Anyone understand what I'm saying?

In addition, If I'm Dan Snyder I am pissed off about revenue sharing. Why should a team who chooses to keep their stadium called "Ralph Wilson Stadium" for example, get money from a team who essencially sold out ( and I wish our stadium was still called Jack Kent Cooke), and took the money. That is the teams decision, so why should another team who dosent make the same decision have to share revenue? Just my take on the subject. :headbange

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

I have a question about what happens if you're over the cap. If we are indeed headed for an uncapped 2007 and beyond, what's the penalty for violating the league cap rules in 2006? We lose draft picks? Snyder pays fines worth a couple of million to the league? Snyder could afford this.

So what? Screw one year's draft, pay the fines, and sign all the free agents you want in the uncapped year. Just asking...is this even possible?

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I
In addition, If I'm Dan Snyder I am pissed off about revenue sharing. Why should a team who chooses to keep their stadium called "Ralph Wilson Stadium" for example, get money from a team who essencially sold out ( and I wish our stadium was still called Jack Kent Cooke), and took the money. That is the teams decision, so why should another team who dosent make the same decision have to share revenue? Just my take on the subject. :headbange[/QUOTE]


That's what I'm thinking as well. Why should the bigger market teams be penalized for their finanical success? I think it's just an excuse to say the smaller market teams have no chance at success because they're in a smaller market.

I don't want to see our team stripped this year, but I enjoyed how things were in the 80's without a salary cap. The Redskins core group was always there - and any changes to personnel was gradual. A coach generally had plenty of time to work with his players, because there wasn't a fear of having somebody and losing them in a couple of years.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

For one there will be a salary cap because there is really no going back. NFLPA President Gene Upshaw has stated publicly, and I quote "If a new CBA or a CBA extension is not agreed upon which would force the 2007 season to be an uncapped year, there will be a players lockout and strike". Just ask the NHL had that worked out for them.

But according to the press the sticking point with the CBA right now is NOT the salary cap. All teams are in favor of the cap. The sticking point is the handling of team revenues.

There was even a proposal on the board call the "Jacksonville-Pittsburgh Plan". Created by the owners of the Jags and Steelers, it calls for all NFL teams to share 12% of their revenues into one big "pot", then the NFL will distribute 3% of that TOTAL pot back amongst the 32 NFL franchises. After all would be said and done a teams "net" contribution to the league would be 5%. That plan is supposed to help these other teams in smaller markets compete finacially with teams like the Redskins etc... like when a team needs a new stadium, some of these funds would help with that.

But the real sticking point right now is revenues and how those revenues are going to be shared with the players. Owners are reluctant to share thier considerable revenues with thier team AND the league. It only makes sense that these revenues be shared with the players.

If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]When you look at baseball, yeah, theres a ton of teams that are basically written off cause they have shitty owners, but how freaking awsome are the baseball playoffs?
[/QUOTE]


um, how about totally not awesome. outside of sox-yanks they're not even worth turning on at all. I'd prefer NOT to emulate that.

Re: How much trouble COULD we be in?
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack]
If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins[/QUOTE]


That seems weird and anti-competitive, i thought the players wanted more, but the plan was to justs extended revenue sharing into other areas like naming rights and take that money to divide among 32 teams (including ones that refuse to sell naming rights :P) and all the players would benefit from a larger % of the newly increased yearly revenue.