NLFPA Sends Memo Preparing Agents for Uncapped Year

[SmootSmack]

Demaurice-Smith-Memo-To-All-Agents / News - NFLPlayers.com

[Dirtbag59]

Did you get the memo?

[tryfuhl]

lol dirtbag

[over the mountain]

good read and find.

[53Fan]

The chances on reaching an agreement look pretty slim right now. If you would have told me this a couple of years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Hopefully we can use this to our advantage.

[Lotus]

I like the parts where Smith indirectly hints at owner collusion. Maybe such verbiage will make the owners more willing to compromise down the road.

Speaking of such things, does anyone know any news from the American Needle case?

[SolidSnake84]

So what i wanna know, is does this mean that in 2011, there is no football season???

[SmootSmack]

No one knows yet if there will or won't be a 2011 NFL season

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

So what i wanna know, is does this mean that in 2011, there is no football season???

I think more than likely in 2011 there will be a significantly reduced offseason. The league year ends shortly after the Super Bowl so the 2010 league year will end somewhere around Feb. 28, 2011. If there is no agreement in place then we won't see free agency, OTA's, minicamps, etc. maybe even a shortened training camp. The league and the NFLPA are far too smart to allow an NHL type debacle where games or even a season gets cancelled.

Marcellus Wiley said last week that a majority of the players disagree with the union taking a hard line in negotiating because the current deal strongly favors the highest 5-10% paid players and any changes will impact those players more than the rank and file who just want to keep playing and earning great money to play a game.

[freddyg12]

[QUOTE=Paintrain;665691]I think more than likely in 2011 there will be a significantly reduced offseason. The league year ends shortly after the Super Bowl so the 2010 league year will end somewhere around Feb. 28, 2011. If there is no agreement in place then we won't see free agency, OTA's, minicamps, etc. maybe even a shortened training camp. The league and the NFLPA are far too smart to allow an NHL type debacle where games or even a season gets cancelled.

Marcellus Wiley said last week that a majority of the players disagree with the union taking a hard line in negotiating because the current deal strongly favors the highest 5-10% paid players and any changes will impact those players more than the rank and file who just want to keep playing and earning great money to play a game.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if he's right, of if this is just his opinion as a former player. In his job he should be talkling to a no. of players, so if that's the case he may have heard from a representative sample of sorts.

I hope he's right, but in the past the union, as all the other pro sports unions, has benefited those that are in position to get big paydays, sometimes at the expense of roster spots & decent salaries for the avg. players & journeymen. The MO of the unions seems to be negotiating a position that their members can achieve max. salaries. Yet when a cap is involved, that means less $ for everyone else on the roster.

I would think more of the union if they advocated for larger rosters while not increasing the cap too much, or if they advocated for greater cap flexibility to allow players to stay w/teams when otherwise they would be cut for cap purposes.

[CRedskinsRule]

I really believe the NFLPA is lining up on the wrong side of this upcoming dispute. Here are more comments from Smith about the uncapped spending, mainly focusing on the low end of the spectrum:
NFL News Feed: DeMaurice Smith says union will monitor NFL teams' spending in free agency with 'a very keen eye' - Mark Maske
Seems like they will argue collusion based on not spending as much, but I think the league could easily demonstrate via baseball, that low end teams salaries were artificially propped up by the salary floor, and that without it, low end teams are likely not to pay as much regardless of revenue sharing.

[over the mountain]

^^ doesnt the revenue sharing (high rev teams give $ to low rev teams) in place for this year have to be spent or accounted for in player salary. i.e. the bills cant accept rev sharing money then not use that money on player salary.

i also think the NFLPA are setting themselves up for disappointment. i dont think they will get any greater percent of the nfl revenue then they already get now.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

^^ doesnt the revenue sharing (high rev teams give $ to low rev teams) in place for this year have to be spent or accounted for in player salary. i.e. the bills cant accept rev sharing money then not use that money on player salary.

i also think the NFLPA are setting themselves up for disappointment. i dont think they will get any greater percent of the nfl revenue then they already get now.

I agree, and that 60% has been a tough pill for ownership to swallow since the deal was implemented. It soon became obvious that was a deal they didn't intend to continue supporting, and considering it's going to be a factor going forward a new deal is going to be stubborn to reach without concessions on both sides.

[CRedskinsRule]

If I understood Smith's argument, it is that the lower end teams are not using all the available supplemental funds and thus paying less total salary. Well that was what the salary floor was supposed to enforce, that every team met the minimums, not meet the minimum floor + use all available supplemental funds. Now that there is no floor, I don't quite understand the argument that the lower end teams have to spend all that is allocated, since theoretically the could sign each player to a vet minimum deal. Further, Smith said they were going to be watching the deals to see that player salaries didn't decline in an uncapped year, but again uncapped also means no floor, and I think more teams will take advantage of that fact rather than looking to break the bank on players, heck I don't really even expect us to break the bank, and that is not what the NFLPA expected at all.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

The chances on reaching an agreement look pretty slim right now. If you would have told me this a couple of years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Hopefully we can use this to our advantage.

I've been thinking about this myself for awhile now. What would be the advantages for the Skins in an uncapped year?

I'm of the mind that we could use the second year of the Shan-a-Allen regime to solidify for the future, and shed what's left of the Gibbs II, Vinny, and Zorn eras.